Sex Sells

Sex has become more and more commonplace in our society. It's seen and advertised everywhere in the media, in movies, in television, in magazines, on the news, and anywhere else one can think of. In the beginning of chapter three of Brave New World, Huxley shows us a society where even children as young as seven participate in "erotic" activities. Looking at our society we see people getting involved in such activities at younger and younger ages. Even in our school you can see how such topics are laughable and arent odd or awkward to bring up in disscussions. The question I am posing is how far do you think our society will go towards the one depicted in Huxley's novel? Will we choose pleasure over longstanding morals, or will choose to hold to the ideals taught to us by our parents and religions? As my friends said, will we think with our balls or our brains?

The Philosophy of Clocks

Within the first few chapters of Amusing Ourselves to Death, my entire perception of today's communication and methods of expression has changed. We don't realize that it's not just about what we choose to express, but how we choose to express it. How much emotion could a heartfelt moment illustrate if expressed through text message or e-mail?

In the introduction, Andrew Postman wisely chooses to shortly discuss the content of the book, most likely knowing that the youth of today live different lives with new technologies, different from those of the youth of the 1980's. Although so much time has passed between then and now, modifying the world and what people are used to, I feel that the message remains the same. Man has made living about entertainment, fast paces, busy schedules, and hours behind computer screens.

One of the small topics addressed in this book so far that caught my attention was the dissection of clocks and their purpose. When I, or anyone for that matter, glances at a clock, they never dwell on more than the time, how much time they have left, or how much time it's taking to accomplish something. As Neil Postman says,"moment to moment, as it turns out, is not God's conception, or nature's", which I agree with. It once was, but humans have become so engulfed in seconds, minutes, and hours that even stopping to consider this thought might "waste valuable time". It's gotten so bad that a majority of people don't have the standard old clock anymore. Everything is digital, everything saves time, everything is created for instant gratification.

World of Clones

Very recently, I finished Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, and I must honestly say that this book made me think a little differently about society. It began to scare me when I saw that a lot of Huxley’s ideas were making sense. However, when I was reading, I was stuck on the fact that these people do not have any sense of individuality; no thoughts that are really theirs. In the book, the children are raised by the community and are fed the rules and morals that they want them to live by through their sleep. Because of this, nothing is really passed down, and there is really no uniqueness. Bernard thinks that Lenina thinks of herself as a piece of meat and that there is really no other reason for her being there. She has no real individuality, and really, no one does. There is no art in the world or pure emotion. This seems completely odd to me because in our modern world, one of the things we all strive to get is individualism. What I wonder is did they give up individuality for constant happiness, or did they not even realize what they were sacrificing? And most importantly, how do they expect to have any progress, if they raised everyone the same way, with the very same thought processes? It takes different people with different thoughts and ideas to improve different things, so how did they have any progress at all in the society if they had complete lack of individualism? Mustapha Mond said, “Science is dangerous. We have to keep it most carefully chained and muzzled.” (pg.225) He is meaning that progress is dangerous in his perfect society. In my opinion, I believe he is setting his people up for failure. What I mean is things are always changing, even if you don’t want them to. If some natural disaster occurs or a new disease plagues the population, then who will come up with the solution? They purposely create dozens of twins, all who think the same thing, so that industry can continue steadily. If one of them can’t figure it out, then really none of them can. It’s a world of clones. My question is do you think individuality is necessary for a society to survive?

Too much advertisement?

The other day I went to McDonalds and while I was eating my meal on the tray I noticed an advertisement in the middle of it. They are advertising in their own fast food restaurant, I mean come on we already bought food from there, it does not mean we are about to buy some more just because we saw the advertisement on the tray and something hanging from the ceiling. I understand commericals but even after someone buys their food they still want us to buy more, the society we live in has become way too selfish, don't you think? One buys the food, eats it, and then they see another advertisement to buy more? I noticed a girl with her family and as they were leaving she happened to see the sign dangling from the ceiling that advertised an Iced Coffee so she begged her mom to buy her one. Meaning, this type of advertising works. I believe society depends too much upon advertising and advertises way too much than what they're supposed to, am I right?

Is Progress Necessary in Current Times?

Have you ever noticed that after every decade or change of the status quo we develop a tendency to look back on the the past with distaste? We find ourselves constantly making the current political state, philosophies, and level of intellectual genius superior to those before it. I have to ask though: Who are we to judge if the state of the nation, or of the world even, has progressed to a point where the past is now only applicable to the past? I strongly believe that along the way, we as a human race have made a fatal mistake. In Brave New World Mustapha Mond states that "There was a choice between World Control and destruction. Between stability and... (p. 48)," referencing that there was a critical decision that would either lead to the continuation of life or the absolute end of all of humanity. This seems absolutely absurd in text, but it is a habit that we tend to do in reality, not only in novels. For example, as I took AP World History last year, I found that we look at the Romans and other such successful empires of the past and we say that they were "destined to fail" or that "progress was inevitable." I came to the conclusion, however, that I believe that this progress we are determined to keep on pursuing will only eventually destroy us. Not as moral beings, not as religious beings, but as physical human beings, as creatures that will no longer roam this Earth. Did the Romans really need progress? Because as I studied, they were very contempt in the life they were living. I think, then, that somewhere along the way of the time span of human cultural and technological advancement that we became obsessed with the great chase of progress, not for political reasons as in Brave New World, but as a selfish marker so we may feel superior to a time before ours. What do you think? Is progress now necessary for the community and politics, or have we passed this point and have made it purely for selfish pleasure?

Huxley... A Psychic? Or Simply a Genius.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with just genius. I mean, I'm just amazed on how this guy just wrote in his book about how the future would be like; soma a pill that makes everyone feel happy and no other emotion, and babies being made in a test tube, and children being taught at such a young age how to discriminate between social class in the society. This book just had me simply amazed on how much he predicted in the future and how much of it is similar to today's world compared to Huxley's' Brave New World.

Let's start off this the first example; Soma, like I explained before, it was a pill that the characters in the book took when they were having problems, or wanted to change their mood status to happy. This pill soma reminded me of today's antidepressant. Doctors usually prescribe the medicine to people who suffer from depression, having problems with their life and can't handle them any other way causing them to become depressed, many adults, and teenagers take this pill (the antidepressants) to make them feel better so they can handle stress better than they were handling them before. Sure they might work for awhile, just like soma did, but of course they all returned to their lives the way they left them before taking the pills. Huxley must have been simply a genius to predict that the pill soma would become an actual reality pill in today's society.

Second example given; babies being made in test tubes. Even though in today's world not all babies made in a tube, it is now possible and can be an opinion to make your baby in a tube and not the "old fashion way". In the book, the babies under go step by step to to become "perfect", with no defects, and nothing wrong, they all think the same about their own and each others social class. We don't follow the same way the babies are made in today's world, but we can make the baby the way we want them to be. Perfect. With whatever color hair, eyes, or even skin we want our children to have. It's true that we don't make them think the way we want them to think; but who knows, maybe in the next century or two science will discover a way to control the way our children's behavior or thoughts or even attitudes can be.

And finally the last example; children learning at such young ages to discriminate between race, or social class. In the book, after the babies developed into children they start to learn about their class and each others class without noticing because they are learning in their sleep. Okay, this may be the only thing that we don;t follow completely; however, I do notice now a days more than it was when I was smaller, young children discriminating. For example, my own cousin age eight, doesn't like to play with a little girl her age because, her words "she lives with her grandma and she don't got daddy". My own little cousin discriminated another little girl just because the little girl wasn't like my cousin who had a mom and dad and lived with them. How my cousin found out? Really I have no clue. I just remember being completely shocked that a little girl like her would discriminate someone else who wasn't like her. I don't remember discriminated at such a young age... But then again times have changed. And maybe Huxley saw all this things would happen.

It just amazes me to read of the world Huxley made up and compare it to the world we live in now. Then I stumble with an odd question. Could we possibly be the Brave New World? ...

A Vision of Students Today

Who was Marshall McLuhan? Anybody remember without jumping into Wikipedia?

Who Knew Circles Could Have Such Risks?

At what expense will young girls take for the sake of being beautiful and in style? This question formed in my mind as I was watching ABC News. A story appeared about the current trend of circle contacts due to Lady Gaga's anime-inspired eyes in her music video "Bad Romance". Sure, these contacts bring a larger and cartoonish affect, but they contain many risks. First off, circle contacts are not even FDA approved, which means they are illegal. The only way to buy these contacts are online. Because circle contacts are illegal, a buyer does not know if the contacts were "made is safe and clean conditions", and because "people's cornea sizes are different, it is impossible to know if they are the right fit." Although circle contacts have the same risks as all contacts, Dr. Assumpta Madu of the Montefiore Medical Center states that circle contacts have the "potential for somebody to lose their vision within twenty-four hours". Even with all of these risks, young American girls still buy these illegal contacts for the sake of being fashionable, but is it really worth it?

Don't Be Scared of What You Don't Know...

So I just finished reading a book called Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev and the story line deals with a lot of atheism, liberalism and nihilism. The novel ignites some controversy, it shows the generation gap between the "Fathers" and the "Sons" which seemingly symbolizes the current political debate between the older reactionaries and the younger radicals. One character of the book claims himself to be a "Nihilist" which I am mystified by.

A Nihilist is one who believes in nothing (which often Atheists are mistaken to be) whereas Atheists don't believe in "Gods" but they do believe in something else, Nihilist just don't believe in ANY truth, they believe life has no meaning or purpose. My intention is not to disrespect anyone's religion but to better understand these views, and like Quang's post on "Religion", it got me thinking... What are Atheists and Nihilists views on morality and about the origins of the universe?

Could any of you clear this up for me?

Cobwebs?

Have you ever had the weird sensation that you cannot understand ANYTHING? for example, if you have to re-read the same paragraph over and over and STILL cannot BEGIN to comprehend it? I've heard this sensation called "cobwebs in your brain" or something like that. But that title for it sure sound spooky. Its REALLY annoying and i thing it comes from a bit too much stress or reading something very complicated for a long period of time. What do you think "cobwebs" come from and how do you make them GO AWAY?

Is Technology Really At Fault?

In the introduction of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman's son, Andrew, insists that "far fewer people join clubs that meet regularly, fewer families eat dinner together, and people don't have friends over..." (pg. xiv), and he states that these occurrences are all attributed to technology. I, however, hold a completely different perspective. After much deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that life ITSELF is moving faster, and technology is merely a variable of life that had to keep up.
To elaborate, consider this example: my friend is taking summer school, participating in the band, and attending drivers ed this summer; furthermore, she is working on completing her summer homework through trips to the library and is trying to find time to hang out with her friends. Her affairs keep her occupied from morning to late at night, yet no form of technology (not her TV or computer) is actually responsible. These undertakings are merely necessities of life in order to earn a drivers license and go to college. If technology (mainly in reference to her cellphone) is guilty of anything, it would be the crime of keeping her connected with her friends and family, thus facilitating stronger relationships.
Postman (senior, that is) does point out an implication that is particularly crucial in this instance. On page 27, he proclaims that "medium changes demand a certain kind of content", and this is where technology acts as the antagonist within society. Though technology keeps us in constant contact with our friends, it can also corrupt us. How often are we forced to "dumb down" a statement because we are sending it via text message? It's absurd to believe that a person is willing to insert into a text message the same amount of eloquence that would go into a normal face-to-face conversation. So is technology, thus, helping to impair the English language? But perhaps this is only a consequence of a fast-paced life. So who is to blame here- technology or society?

Hey Raul!

The governor signed a bill today that declares February 6 as Ronald Reagan Day in California.

And I'm delighted to note that we have established a commission to plan Ronald Reagan Centenniel events. Whew. Just when I thought the state was in a budget crisis, is forcing state workers to take 3 days off a month without pay, is getting ready to issue I-O-Us instead of actually paying bills, and has just laid off thousands of teachers, shoving more students into every classroom (did you know Kindergarten classes are now 30-1? Thirty. Tiny. Children. One. Teacher.). Whew. It is a relief to see we have our attention and our money focused on something this vital.

Brave New World Essays Question #2

Hi, Mrs. Fletcher! I was just wondering if we are allowed to use "I", "we", "us", etc. on our essays or is it strictly formal and written in third person? I've used the third person point of view in the majority of my essays but some of the sentences required me to use "us" such as when I wrote that "Huxley is trying to warn us against creating a scientific utopian society."

Thank you!

Great speech

Hey guys, I just wanted to share a very powerful speech that was emailed to me. I hope you find it as powerful as I did.

Medical Marvels Going Too Overboard?

As I was reading A Brave New World, I found the advanced medical technology fascinating. I do not think that anyone can say that it is not amazing that doctors are able to pick and choose the outcomes of the physical characteristics for their baby or that doctors can keep the old young until the age of sixty (found in Chapter 7).
The more I thought about it, the more it made me realize how close we are to achieving such tasks in the world we live in today. If doctors today can produce the amount of skin necessary for a skin draft from a small amount of skin cells, create a functioning organ from stem cells, and even fully clone a sheep, then there is no telling what they will be able to do in a few more years or decades. This idea terrified me and intrigued me at the same time. If the technological advances from A Brave New World were to be achieved in reality, there is no doubt that many will be alleviated from the pain caused by old age and many other burdens, but at what price? Will we give up the things that make us human like actually being born or old age just for pleasure? Although I aspire to be a doctor, I do have to say that because of the possibility that such medical achievements can make us less human that there should be a limit to how far these achievements can go. What is your opinion on this? Can there a such a thing as too medically advanced?

Are we the naive ones?

It is taking me a while to grasp all the different concepts presented in Brave New World. It is so strange to see them gasp at the prospect of families and homes and monogamy. I thought well it must be because they do not know any better. They are naïve and that is how they were raised or taught. But who is to say that we know better? They are obviously having a more successful society than us. Maybe not putting so much into relationships and not getting attached to anyone is the way to go. That is obviously one of the factors that got them where they are. Even today, compare Japan to the United States, Japan is having more success than we are, and incidentally they put less focus on marriage and families. Is that the only way a society will prosper? Although we scoff at how their society functions and believe the way we live today is correct, maybe we are the naïve ones.

Sister Salad: Yo Comments are Wack!

*sigh* Their English teachers must be so proud. Although, I think I would have spelled "whack" with the H. I dunno. What does "wack" derive from? It means "lame" or "weak." I'll see what I can find out.

*One minute later...*
1. To be of low or dubious quality. Origin: comes from 'whacky', which evolved to 'whacked' or 'whacked out'. Eventually shortened to 'wack'. The 'h' is usually dropped to differentiate the meaning from 'whack', which is to hit something hard or, kill (old wise guy terminology).

Dear Bloggers:

I just graded every thread through July 26; have not graded the comments yet.   Things I've noticed:

1. Despite my reminders, there are a couple of people who are posting under their first names.  I know it might sound grouchy to complain about this, but you slow me down because I have to look at every single name on my list, and guess if you are the person who is posting.   I do HOURS OF GRADING every week.  If you do anything to make that part of my job MORE difficult, you will be hearing from me.  If I ask you to do something, I really do expect you to comply.  If you don't comply, I can only conclude two things:  you don't listen, or you don't care enough to do it.  It irritates me, and in the summer, I make a note of it.  During the school year, I kick it back at you, and it then counts as late work.
2. There are 80 people on the blog, but 33 have not started threads yet.  Some of these silent souls have commented on threads.
3. Some threads that have been started inspired absolutely no commentary from anyone.  As a writer, I would look at that and wonder why.  Am I not being clear? Am I repeating the obvious? Am I writing a summary that requires no comment?  Have I chosen a topic that is so off that no one knows what to say?
4. All of you who read the blog have noticed that there is a range of response.  There are some very deep thinkers out here, and I appreciate your struggle and your work.  Some seem as if they are just trying to get the assignment done and are just saying stuff and hoping it will fly.  There is a difference.  This is not a credit/no credit kind of assignment.
5. There are still only two sections of AP on the board during 2nd and 4th period.  We will not add another section, so your work matters.  Only one student has officially dropped the class so far.

OK, now I'm done kvetching.  Overall, the blog looks good, and I like what you're doing.  There are several of you who are finished with the requirements, but still continue to post, which impresses me.  Some of you have rewritten posts that I've kicked off the blog -- there have been a few times when I've had to delete posts.  Each time, I've written an email of explanation, and each time, the student has come back with more content that is thoughtful and interesting.  Many of you go out of your way to comment on threads to keep the conversation going and I appreciate that as well. 

Be sure to check out all of the links to the side of the page.  And now, before I head into work (my classroom looks like a hurricane blew through), I am going to post a video that I hope you enjoy.

Leading Intellectual

During my reading of chapter 3 in Amusing Ourselves to Death I began to wonder who the leading intellectuals are in today's world. Postman mentions authors such as Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Greeley, Louis Agassiz and Ralph Waldo Emerson and explains how men (and even woman such as Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of Uncle Tom's Cabin) could be successful if they could write efficiently. He goes to say that when Charles Dickens visited America he received the same welcome that quarterbacks or Michael Jackson would have received in 1985.

But Michael Jackson was not a leading intellectual and most quarterbacks surely do not meet this title either. When Postman mentions Thomas Paine published a very popular book he states that "the only communication event that could produce such collective attention in today's America is the Superbowl,”

These facts make me disappointed in "today's America". Who are our leading intellectuals? In the nineteenth century it was the authors. And surely the twentieth centuries "Albert Einstein" would qualify as a "leading intellectual". In today’s world even fans of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series don't scream "Team Stephenie". It's "Edward" or "Jacob". Authors don't receive the same respect as they used to. And so many inventions and discoveries occur each year that it's hard to pinpoint a leading intellectual. Is this good or bad?

Eugenics

When I began reading Brave New World, I couldn't help but notice that the way the workers in the factory treat the humans being produced is the same way they treat animals. I don't mean that they look down on them or anything like that, but I mean that it seems very similar to selective breeding. The rulers of their society try to endow humans from certain castes with appealing attributes, however, they also try to stunt the development of lower castes as well. In selective breeding, the whole purpose is to improve the qualities of a group to make them more productive. In Brave New World, though, the purpose is to create a hierarchy system that allows their society to function. There is a difference between the two though. During selective breeding, the way that the animals (or humans) attain their favorable attributes is by breeding two animals (or humans) with traits that would be useful. They use genetics to try and produce a productive animal (or human) In Brave New World, though, the different castes are the way they are because of their environment and the different things they are exposed to. For example Epsilons have alcohol put into their bloodstream therefore making them disfigured. The point of selective breeding in the book is to keep a stratified society, therefore creating a society that functions.

Have Soma Control

In Brave New World the characters take bunches of soma everyday. They use it as a getaway from their problems, much like how us Americans use food, alcohol, or drugs to escape from ours.

Nowadays, the increase of the intake of food is apparent on the overall health of America. In some cases, such as my own at times, people consume food to eat away their everyday issues. The more the problems, the more the food, and the fatter the stomachs.

As we see in movies and media, some adults use alcohol as their form of coping. Some tend to think they would find the solutions to their problems in the bottom of a beer can. Either way, no one ever deals with their problems head on.

It is the same instance with drugs. Adults, and sometimes even teenagers, take advantage of the euphoric effects that drugs produce in order to eschew their odeals.

The characters in Huxley's world and the real people of ours, are finding excuses and other means of dealing and coping with problems, when in fact they should be taking control of them straight away. They hide behind their booze and their Cheetos and their soma, when they should be confronting and healing in totally different means.

What is the Fairest One of All?

Throughout the course of Neil Postman's interesting novel, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Postman stresses the importance of traditional speech and the English Language. He validates the fact that because of different advances in technology, people have abandoned speech and now use other mediums to get their point across. He doesn't completely knock down technology, however.

-"Speech, of course, is the primal and indispensable medium. It made us human, keeps us human, and in fact defines what human means. This is not to say that if there were no other means of communication all humans would find it equally convenient to speak about the same things in the same way." (9)

People all over the globe use different methods of communication- Postman stated so himself. Through Postman's eyes, however, despite all of our 'latest and greatest' devices and technological equipment, there is one that's stands above them all... good old speech. People nowadays use computers and cell phones to instant message or text their friends. Whatever happened to talking to each other; using our mouths. They are there for a reason. When we become addicted to technology, we tend to forget about speech and formal language, and use what is convenient. Despite the fact that Postman believes speech is the best method to get our point across, he does notify that some advances in technology have become beneficial:

-"The information, the content, or, if you will, the 'stuff' that makes up what is called 'the news of the day' did not exist- could not exist- in a world that lacked the media to give it expression. I do not mean that things like fires, wars, murders, and love affairs did not, ever and always, happen in places all over the world. I mean that lacking a technology to advertise them, people could not attend to them, could not include them in their daily business." (9)

So what it comes down to is that we need technology, but at the same time, we also need to hold onto the rules and traditions that govern our language and speech. I personally agree with Postman. We, as humans, need technology to be aware of worldly affairs. We need to know what is going on in the world we live in. But, I simultaneously believe that traditional speech is more important than technology because it keeps us in a stable state of mind. It makes us more intelligent, and it "keeps us human."

Try to imagine a world without traditional speech. Just envision it. What would our world be like? Would we be considered intelligent? Now, picture a world without technology. How would the world as we know it be different? How would we communicate in the event of an emergency to someone who is a few miles away? Now that you have imagined these two different worlds, which type of world would you rather dwell in? Would you rather live without technology, or speech? I personally would rather live in a world of traditional speech instead of technology. I am interested in hearing what you guys think.

The Eye in the Sky

Things are moving, right now, at exponential levels. 10 years ago we had a cellphone that made calls had black and white screen, now it can do almost everything except wash the dishes for you (we have the washing machine for that!). We can clone plants and animals and create medicines that extend the lives of the population. We have the internet that can give us instant laughter, sadness, and every type of entertaining emotion we can imagine. With all this technology and new knowledge, are we pushing the eye in the sky away? Does God have any space in this culture?

Religion is a touchy and sensitive subject, so I'm going to try and be as sensitive as I can. I'm personally an atheist and reading chapter 17 of Brave New World had me thinking of religion and society. Mustopha Mond says, "God isn't compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness." Part of me believes that's true. Globalization and the growth of the trade has created a threatening world for religion. Religious violence has increased all over the world especially in the Middle East and full scale wars are being fought over it. Is this just an example of how religion can't function in this ever changing world?

Here at home people are starting to notice too. Religulous (a mixture of the words religion and ridiculous) is a documentary by pundit Bill Maher who talks about and spreads his beliefs (or lack of) in God. It talks about the many hypocrisies in many popular religions and how he believes religion is holding back society from growing into something better. I personally believe religion DOES hold society back and is credited for thousands of years of violence and persecution which has still not ended. I'm not saying a world without religion is a perfect one nor the abolition of religion will create world peace (because it surely won't), but it will bring a world where people are free to speak their ideas (ideas like, I don't know, gay marriage or women's rights or control of one's own body) without fear of persecution by those who think its against the will of some all knowing entity. Of course this is my opinion and I'd like to hear others.

Fame, do you really want fifteen minutes of it?

I found it astounding how Bernard’s way of thinking got turned around so rapidly and extremely as soon as he got swallowed up by fame. He began doing things he’d never done before, for example asking out girls left and right. At the beginning of the book he was furious at Henry Foster and some of the guys in his locker room for treating Lenina like meat. For treating her as if she had no feeling and existed purely for their pleasure. And Bernard turned around and did the exact same thing as soon as fame reached his fingertips. Helmholtz was ashamed of Bernard’s new personality after all they had been discussing. This book gives an excellent example of how sudden fame and fortune can diminish unique ideas and create sadness and loneliness. Bernard was left alone that night for trying to force John to help him win fame. He was using John, also, as meat. How has fame changed other’s lives? Think about Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, and Michael Jackson, They all became famous as children. Susan Boyle was completely unknown until she auditioned for Britain’s Got Talent. She became famous overnight, and eventually had a nervous breakdown.

America's Self-esteem

As a young girl the words Anorexia and Bulimia were rarely ever heard of. Not too long ago I was still questioning myself whether this was because I was young and unaware of serious issues or for other reasons. Now I have come to realize that, that was not the case. As our culture transformed itself from a word-centered culture to image-centered culture, image has become a greater part of our lives and the media has created a certain image of beauty. This has made people believe that there is only a certain image the can be considered beautiful. The problem is that not everyone fits this image that the media has created and because of this people have developed low self-esteems. This does not only affect teenage girls, it affects both males and females of all ages. These people claim to be ugly because they do not look like the models on television or magazines. The results are eating disorders like Anorexia and Bulimia. Seeing people suffer from eating disorders like these are honestly heartbreaking and in my opinion the media is to blame for.

Do we need to be controlled.

I'm on chapter thirteen and I find it most interesting that Huxley made a future against monogamy and mothers. Helmholtz literally laughs out loud at the mention of mothers and fathers in Romeo and Juliet. Why did he choose this future for the world? How did all those Hollywood romantic dramas and romantic books get so completely turned around? Huxley's reason is simple; the leaders do not want any individual attached to any other individual. The "Controllers" want the population's loyalty to reside only with the government controllers. They want society to be thought of as a whole and not as individuals, no friendship or love above respect for society government. How did this future come about? Was humankind too out of control and needed to be controlled? Why does Huxley feel that the government will have the need to enslave its people through technology and brain-washing? What was 1932 like?

I wonder what you think of Ronald Reagan, Mrs. Fletcher

A president who played the media as he played the infant cameras of Hollywood.
A President who took unprecedented steps to protect his image as portrayed by the media. A President whose public appearance was often a choreographed event complete with props.

Did you know that to avoid having Reagan give unrehearsed answers his advisers would ingeniously place the media at a distance and rev a helicopter engine so the president could not hear the reporter's questions. Masterful! Simply and purely masterful.

Perhaps there will never be a president as concerned with their media image as The Great Communicator, but for a senator or president to ignore the power of the media would be perilous.

I do wonder what you think. Or what Postman thought in his time.

You said yourself, " political life has adopted the tools of social/entertainment life".

Reagan was the master at that. Joking and making a crowd laugh was his speacilty. And his storytelling ability is legendary.

These abilities helped keep his popularity high. Even when problems loomed on the horizon. In fact, some of his own aids have said that were it not for his humor, he would have been an incompetent old man to the ruthless lens of the media.

But I will resort back to the old phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words" to demonstrate my point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i2IwpEnxXc


Reagan was a president who used the media to its full potential. And that is probably what he is remembered for most. We can use him as an example of how powerful the media has become, even back then.

Towards the end of chapter two in "Brave New World" the directer tells the childern about hyponpedia. So instead of continuing with electric shocks and alarms to basically brain wash the childern, the World State aknowledged that these methods were too crude and began using hypnopaedia. While the childern sleep a voice wispers to them to teach the all different forms of prejudice to each caste. The voice explains that the beta cast must be proud and filled with happiness and do not have to work as hard as the Alphas. But also explains to each child that the Alphas are still smarter that the remaining caste systems. These recordings are repeated to the childern over and over again to insure the learn and understand that this is the way of there world.

I sleep with my ipod in my ears so that i fall asleep to music and not the silence of my dark room. The nusic on my ipod varies from christian to hardcore hip hop. The music i listen to while i sleep feeds my brain is positive and negative ways. So usally when i listen to softer music i wake up in a happier mood but if i was listening to more esplcited music i sometimes wake in more of a bad mood and still feeling tired.

The point of what i am tring to make is do you think after listening and associating with certain music and people do you began to refect the things you allow to enter your mind or who you really are as a person?

Are Asians not Good Enough to Play Themselves?

(Notice how the casting called is aimed at "Caucasian and any other ethnicity.")

I have been an avid fan of the television show, Avatar: The Last Airbender. since 2005. My preteen days would be incomplete without this TV series. Something inside me triggered my immediate bond with this television show. Although being a cartoon series, there were finally characters on television that looked like me: brown characters of Eastern descent. (I refer to Sokka and Katara).

Fast forward five years in the future to the live-action interpretation of the series. Or should I refer to it as a parody? The acting was terrible and several aspects of the movie are changed completely.

Exhibit A:

M. Night Shyamalan, a director of color himself, should be ashamed. He white-washed the cast. The above casting call was issued by him. How can an Eastern Asian-inspired world be portrayed almost completely by Caucasians as the main characters, while ancillary and villain roles are issued to actors of color? Shyamalan claims that "only the best actors were casted." His statement implies that only the Caucasian actors were fit to play these roles, while all the Asian-Americans that auditioned for the roles were just not good enough. There is plenty of talent out there, in all ethnicities.

Asian-Americans have gradually started finding their way into the media. They have started to shoot up to fame on Youtube and win America's Best Dance Crew. Despite being held down by "nerdy" stereotypes, they have gained success by using these nondiscriminatory mediums to fame. Seeing The Last Airbender cast Asian roles to Caucasians is YELLOWFACE.

Definition of Yellowface from Wikipedia- "Yellowface is the practice in American cinema, American theatre, and American television where East Asian characters are portrayed by predominantly white actors, often while artificially changing their looks with makeup in order to approximate East Asia facial characteristics; it also describes situations in which non-Asian people control what it means to be Asian on stage and screen." That movie is a slap in the face to all Asian-Americans who are looking to equality on the big screen.

Anticipating these remarks, Paramount Pictures replaced the role of Prince Zuko (who was casted as Jesse McCartney) and gave it to Dev Patel... and while Shyamalan was at it, he made the entire Fire Nation South Asian! In the series, the Fire Nation was a depiction of Industrial Japan. This was a drastic change from the series. This only shows Shyamalan's bias toward Caucasian and South Asian actors. He completely neglected the show's Eastern Asian and Inuit roots and failed to cast them past "extra" roles, as well.

Here is the casting call for EXTRAS:

Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern, Asian, Mediterranean & Latino Ethnic Groups….

Where is the call for Caucasians as extras?!

For those of you who say, "Race shouldn't matter," let me give you an example. Pretend there is a mystical world in which everyone speaks an African language, eat traditional African foods, wear African clothes, and write in African writing... yet everyone is Hispanic. Is this not ridiculous? Would you not question WHY the producers didn't cast Black actors? The day that anyone steps out of their home without being judged by their appearance is the day that race shouldn't matter. Unfortunately, that day is still to come. So now i ask... WHY cast Asian roles to Caucasians in the ALREADY underrepresented Asian-American community? Does Hollywood believe that nobody will watch a film that has Asian leads?

Towards the end of chapter five in Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman states that the world that we perceive through the television is natural and no longer bizarre. The "media-world" we are perceiving is predominately Caucasian. 82% of Hollywood roles are casted to Caucasians. It's so common, that we don't even realize the lack of minorities in Hollywood. Honestly, it's sad how producers of films such as The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia think they can get away with ignorant casting. It takes something so drastic to cast Caucasians as Asians in The Last Airbender for us to realize this. Well for me, at least.

The Roaring Twenties and Brave New World.

As a bit of a history buff, I cannot believe it took me this long to realize this. I've been reading this book since April and it just barely dawned on me. I'm sure Kevin Cabusora has thought about this.

The Roaring Twenties and their impact on Brave New World. I'll try to keep this as short as simple, but even then this might be rather long.

Also, this is based purely on my knowledge of History. I'll try to analyze what effect the 20s had on Huxley's novel.

Let's begin with the flapper. The flapper was a term used in the 20's to refer to young women who challenged the morals of the Victorian Age. They wore short skirts, cut their hair, listened to jazz, wore excessive makeup, but most importantly treated sex in a casual manner. This was the most shocking part of it all to their elders. Sex outside of marriage was unacceptable. Women also began using contraceptives, which were being popularized by Margaret Sanger, the American leader of the birth-control movement. In short, they rejected the values of the 19th century.

These scandalous sexual behaviors must have shocked Huxley, a member of a well established family with its members in fields such medicine, art, and science. And of course, he wasted no time in incorporating these preposterous behaviors into his novel.

In the 20s, Americans started to question the Bible as a source for answer to fundamental questions and severed affiliation with the Church. they began distancing themselves form God. Huxley eliminated God in his book altogether.


Another big part was that Scientists began to experiment with embryos. They believed they could manipulate the fetus thereby influencing its behaviors and development. Huxley amplified this in his novel to the point where they can can spawn 96 children from one egg.

Another fad in the 20s was sleep teaching. What better way to teach yourself while sleeping? While it was later proved that it isn't very effective, it was very popular at the time. Again, Huxley saw yet another ingredient for his novel.

In the 1920s, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin came into power in Italy and Russia respectively. These were totalitarian governments, similar to the ones in Brave New World.

One of the most pervasive themes in Brave New World is consumerism. With goods flooding the market like waves on a beach, advertising agencies ceased merely informing the public about prices and products. They hired psychologists to study how to best appeal to people. Slogans like "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet" lured Americans away for candy and towards cigarettes (Lucky was a brand of cigarettes). Luxury items were portrayed as necessities. These slogans are seen in Brave New World. "A gramme is better than a damn." Often, they seem to rhyme. The slogans of the 20s rhymed as well, so as to catch the people's attention.

Another aspect of this was mass producing. Goods were intentionally designed so that they would be rendered obsolete by newer models within a few months. This forced consumers to buy the newer goods. The cycle repeated itself across all manner of products. This is seen in the command economy of the world state. To make sure everyone is employed, they must keep production of goods at a steady rate. To do this, the condition their citizen's with the phrase "Ending is better than mending." Thereby keeping the Command Economy of the world state functioning.

I will refrain form going on any further. I think this is enough. If anyone spots any error in the accuracy of what I have said, please point them out. Everything here was pulled from my own knowledge so there is a good chance I might have made a mistake.

Kevin Cabusora

Kevin Cabusora turned in his notebook early because he has a commitment for the remainder of summer.  The notebook looks really good.  I haven't read it yet, but the notebook gives an excellent first impression.  It's neat, complete and he's followed directions in every detail.  I'm looking forward to reading some of it tonight.  In an email earlier today, I mildly scolded him for confusing me (he's using Kevin Christian as his blog name; Kevin Cabusora is his school name), but I take it all back. 

How We Think

I was thinking about chapter 1 of Amusing Ourselves to Death and thought about why Neil Postman thinks what he thinks. What decides how we think? Is it the way we are raised, our personalities, or the generation we are from? Is it a little bit of all of that?

Postman mentions Marshall McLuhan and how he tries to stay true to McLuhan's teaching. But is it just people he has met or does he think the way he does because of inventions he has seen as well? I looked it up, and Postman was born in 1931. That means he saw the end of WWII, the first man on the moon, and tons of other amazing events that changed the course of history. The first chapter discusses inventions as "tools" and how for every tool we create an "idea is embedded that goes beyond the function of the thing itself". Does he believe television will be the next "medium" because of the inventions he's seen, the people he's met, or something else?

Personally, I believe it is a little of everything. The people we meet and how we are raised definitely affect our whole lives. A bad home can change our outlook on the world dramatically, just as much as being spoiled can. I also think that the things we have seen can change our outlook- not just physically, but events that have taken place. Certainly a veteran of a war would have a changed outlook on life, but his family would too. Though some might say they aren’t comparable as tragedies, perhaps our 9/11 attack will be similar to Neil Postman's holocaust. Both took place in our childhoods and have affected the world around us dramatically.

Drugs and Soma

Although Aldous Huxley's world may seem too far into the future, I believe that he did a great job of foreseeing. The fact that he believed that humanity would become so dependent on an anti-depressant or drug like soma seems to be accurate. As time progresses drugs become a greater part o people's lives. They are frequently used as an escape from problems or troubles. Over the years drug abuse has increased. In 1979 31.3% of people of all ages abused drugs and in the year 2001 the percentage has increased to 41.7%. One could only imagine how dependent people will grow on drugs in the future. In Aldous Huxley's world soma is distributed regularly and is a part of everyone's daily life. This may seem like an exaggeration compared to how often our society consumes drugs or how large of a role they play in our daily lives but it is not difficult to imagine. Our current society can quickly become dependent to an anti-depressant or drug, like the people in Aldous Huxley's novel are dependent on soma. In my opinion Aldous Huxley's vision of soma is not just possible but accurate.

Brave NEW World??

While I was reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, I really wasn't into the book as much as I should've been, but reading Brave New World, I am really interested in Aldous Huxley's plot. While I'm reading, I am thinking to myself, will life ever be like that in the future? Will we be disgusted when we see the people we are today, in the future? It's kind of scary just thinking if that'll ever happen. Is the NEW world really BRAVE? I don't think so. Because when Bernard and Lenina went and visited Malpais, where people like us are living. They may be more filthy than us and maybe more cruel, but they have a family like us, and have enemies like us. When Lenina saw them, she was scared and disgusted. Lenina so accustomed to the "new world", I wouldn't call it Brave. New? Yes. Brave? Not one bit. The only brave one is Bernard, but he is the one who is "lonely" in the New World. Imagine life like that? I think it will be horrible.

Communist Metaphor of Brave New World

As I continue to read Brave New World, I continue to believe that the author was using an extended metaphor that dealt with the fear and rise of Socialism and Communism during the 1930s. For example, Huxley portrays the dystopian society in a negative fashion by describing the lack of religious diversity and the lack of creative expression that accompanies it. Another example would be the overwhelming control of the government over the people that accompanied Socialist regimes in Russia, Italy, and Germany.

However,there are also positives mentioned such as the social stability that the lack of creative expression brought. Another societal positive would be the advancements made in technology especially in the field of transportation.

I am conflicted as to the message of the book because Huxley offers a somewhat fair representation of the pros and cons of a totalitarian society. Is Huxley condemning and warning of the dangers of Socialism and Communism or is there an altogether different message of the book?

Another question I would like to discuss is the significance of the names. If the book's message is indeed a warning against Socialism and Communism, then why would the protagonist's name be Bernard Marx?

How does the portrayal of Marx compare with the ideals of Karl Marx and how does this affect the novel?

Jury Duty

Yee hee!  I was in a jury pool today, and did not get called to serve, so I'm free for a year!

I believe in trial by jury.  I think it is an important right.  I was prepared to serve on a jury, but honestly, I did not want to spend the last few weeks of summer driving back and forth to a courthouse.   People who go to court are generally not happy to be there; with all the security, criminals, lawyers, police officers, and broken looking people, a courthouse can be a little depressing.

I've been on two juries; one was a criminal case, and the second one was a civil case.  In both cases, we ended up deliberating and rendering a verdict.  It was a good experience, although the civil case was annoying; I learned quite a bit about the right kind of grease to use when doing the maintenance on a Ferrari.  The rich guy was going after a mechanic for making a mistake and messing up his fancy car.  It's my natural inclination to say to the rich guy, "Oh for crying out loud.  Go get a real problem," but as a member of the jury, you have to set that aside and just listen to what happened.  And the Ferrari guy was right.  The guy did screw up his car.

I'm nosey, I guess.  I like to hear the facts of the case and try to figure out what's right.  I like to listen to the attorneys make their arguments, and watch how they use their bodies, their postures and attitudes, and their voices to help shape their position.    The whole process is interesting, and I think it's my responsibility as a citizen to take the process seriously, and to not weasel my way out of service. I hate it when people say, "You know who sits on juries?  People who are not smart enough to figure out how to get out of serving."  That's really not true.  There's lots of people like me who think it's important.  Even so, I did not want to give up August.

So I must have good jury karma.  Today, I did what they asked me to do -- I sat in the jury pool and patiently read my book.  I went on a long walk during the lunch break and found a Salvadorian restaurant, and had pupusas for lunch.  Then I gave the lunch that I packed at home to a homeless guy.   I bought a tablet for writing at an old-school news stand and talked to the guy about his business.  I returned to the jury room after lunch, and was excused for the rest of the year.  Not a bad day.

Caste system in equal society?

I’m on chapter ten of Brave New World. In creating a new world of technology and control, the world has become an unfeeling, cold, mass-producing monster. Things are being mass produced left and right, to the point in which PEOPLE are being mass produced. Lower caste people are purposefully being retarded in the embryo, just because of the caste. Technology has created the caste system, as well as perfected it. It seems to me that the government is attempting to make a society in which there is a universal equality among its citizens. The government, however, has instituted a caste system which separates people into groups in which some are superior to others. Control and mass production seem to be the most important things in the society. And one of the most important things to the people is soma, created by the government to help keep out any type of negative thought toward the Controllers. The caste system seems to be a key element to control. Why does Huxley feel the necessity to create a caste system within this world?

If They Build It, You Will Buy It

After visiting the Apple store a few days ago, I heard the words of Jared Diamond resounding through my mind. The particular quote I was recalling involved his theory that invention has always been the mother of necessity, which holds a stark contrast with the common perception that necessity is the mother of invention. Immediately after finishing the book, I found myself agreeing whole-heartedly with his viewpoint, but now that the information has had time to settle in my brain, discrepancies have arisen between my theory and his. For example, I believe that in archaic society, necessity fathered invention. After all, did the caveman not develop fire to meet his need for cooked meat and warmth? This pattern of needs being met by technology continued throughout history for many a century. I believe that the system changed only after the Industrial Revolution, when mass-production was born. This is, I believe, the period when basic human needs went from being met, to being surpassed. As I walked among the countless rows of Ipods, I was reminded that in this day and age, every new invention is made only with the anticipation that people will come to want and need it. Having all of my favorite songs at the tips of my fingers isn't necessary for my survival, but after hearing of the creation of the Ipod, I simply had to have it. This proves that if they build it, you will buy it.

Neil Postman vs. Jared Diamond

In chapter one Neil Postman makes a reference to the invention of the clock. He writes, “Beginning in the fourteenth century, the clock made us into time-keepers, and then time savers, and now time-servers.” So we didn’t observe the time before the fourteenth century? Or maybe we didn’t find it absolutely necessary to be somewhere at exactly 10:05. The clock has shaped us into people who have become dependent on the clock. Postman’s idea reminded me of an idea from Jared Diamond’s book Guns, Germs and Steel. One of Diamond’s points is that invention is the mother of necessity. So that we invented something, maybe to make some small household task easier and it became a necessity rather than a luxury.

This idea definitely plays an active role in today’s society. Ten years ago we didn’t have internet in cell phones, but now having easily accessible internet is almost mandatory for anyone involved in the business world. A couple of years ago we didn’t have these massive social networking sites, and we still remained in contact with people, but now it seems almost impossible to get a hold of people who are not members of MySpace or Facebook. These advances in technology have created a mindset that is constantly asking the question “How did we survive before fill in with the name of an unnecessary luxury we take for granted today?”

Remember the Naciremas?

Those of you who had Mrs. Smith for Honors English/World History in 7th grade would remember this very unusual, yet veracious article. If you have not seen this article before or have forgotten about it, click this link and read the article before you continue reading my post.

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~thompsoc/Body.html

Many of us have argued the existence of a similar type of society as in Brave New World in our our world right now. In Brave New World, Huxley mentioned the existence of helicopters, soma, contraceptives, and bottle babies, which, do in fact, like Kevin Cabusora has mentioned in his recent post, exist in our society today. I agree with Kevin that the society Huxley has presented in his book is not far from our grasp. Some may disagree in that our society is moving towards the Huxleyan world, but we are still far from it. I am not surprised of the dissidence that the book has created amongst us since Aldous Huxley meant to do this in his book: to provoke different opinions about the book and analyze how we apply these opinions towards our own society.

Back to the article, what did you think of it? Were you astounded by the unusual and horrifying culture of the Naciremas? The torture and the oddities that these people practiced?

Spell N-A-C-I-R-E-M-A backwards...what do you think now? I know you could not be more aghast.

When I read the article about the Naciremas for the first time, I was horrified at how their society ran. After the realization that Nacirema actually stood for American, the shrines were bathrooms, and the holy mouth men were simply dentists, my conception of the article completely changed. My point is that Aldous Huxley and Horace Miner (author of the "The Body Rituals Among the Naciremas") have intentionally used a unique style of writing as not to confuse the readers per se but to elicit critical analyses and mixed interpretations of the written work. The author's style of writing, whether it be the use of anagrams (as in the article of the Naciremas) and horrifying imagery or sophisticated language and ambiguity (as in Brave New World), influences our opinions of the written work.

Where Would We Be Without Technology?

As I was playing my video games and watching my television shows, I got to thinking where would we be today without technology? Just think about it, without are technological advances in the last few centuries like cell phones, computers, vehicles, etc. where would we be? We would not be so advanced in the medical field like we are now, able to detect the health of people and catch diseases early, we would not be able to communicate with loved ones like we do now with the click of a button. And even transportation, it would take a lot longer to get to our destinations if we had no cars, or plains instead we had to walk every where. There are also many more things that are effected by technology. But this is just my opinion, what do you think?

Society Without Lies?

I just finished watching The Invention of Lying, this movie is based on a society that can not lie and lying is literally not in their vocabulary. Everyone trusted eachother and believed everything they read and heard, because that is how their world was. In the movie there was an advertisement for Coke, the spokesperson said, "Hello, I work for Coke and I want you to buy more Coke even though it is brown sugar water. It is full of calories and will most likely cause obesity, it is bad for you and you should not drink it. But I want you to buy Coke, so buy it." Imagine this as our advertisements! How would now's society be, if lying weren't invented? Lying seems to be the cause for false advertising, which is what Postman states continuously in Amusing Ourselves to Death, the movie gave me a bit of a different persepective. Also, the so called movies they have in this "truthtelling" society is just a person speaking about the past centuries, and they have awards for these movies. What do you think of living in this type of society?

Are We Really Amusing Ourselves to Death?

While reading chapter four of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman brought up the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and says that the Americans back then would watch the debate for up to seven hours. “But who were these people who could so cheerfully accommodate themselves to seven hours of oratory?”… “These were people who regarded such events as essential to their social lives, and who were quite accustomed to extend oratorical performances.” Postman then states that Americans now won’t even last three hours at a debate conference. This got me to think, if Americans then watched those debates for up to seven hours, why can’t we? Americans can watch television for practically the whole day, but why don’t we have the initiative to be part of such event? I doubt that we have any more debates that last that long, but if we did, would many people show up? Do Americans these days have decent political education, if not any?

Why Do People Go 'Gaga' Over Lady Gaga?

Earlier today, while I was listening to the radio I heard the radio host talking about how tea companies are paying Lady Gaga over millions of dollars to be their sponsor. The reason for paying Lady Gaga so much money is because they feel she will bring back drinking tea and this made me think about, how does she has the authority to make a society bring a trend back. Why is it that society tends to follow the famous and popular people? I know I would not listen to Lady Gaga for me to drink tea, personally I do not even care for it but because she drinks it, it would not make a difference. Although, there are others in the world who would all of a sudden drink tea just because of this woman. Another thought I had was, how is it possible that they pay some singer a large amount of money when others are homeless and would be happy with ten dollars, yet these companies can't even help others, is it because society has become this selfish?

What would it take to change our priorities?

In the book Brave New world everyone's priorities are comfort and happiness, where as, in our world comfort and happiness are more like luxuries not priorities. We have been programmed to think that knowledge, truth, and beauty are great priorities and of great value. When the Controller discusses with the Savage about truth, knowledge, and beauty in chapter 16 he also talks about the Nine Years War. The Controller says to the Savage "People still went on talking about truth and beauty as though they were the sovereign goods. Right up to the time of the Nine Years War. That made them change their tune all right. What's the point of truth or beauty or knowledge when the anthrax bombs are popping all around you ?" War has always been feared and dreaded by everyone because of all the suffering, lose, and destruction that it brings. Yet, is it really possible that a war could be so traumatic to the human race to the point where everyone changes their priorities of knowledge, truth, and beauty to comfort and happiness because they are in such a desperate need of peace ?

Teachers V.S. Celebrities

"Actors didn't use to be celebrities. A hundred years ago, they put the theaters next to the brothels. Actors were poor. Celebrities used to be kings and queens. Then the United States abolished monarchy, and now there's this coming together of show business and celebrity. I don't think it's healthy. I don't want to sound self-important, but all these celebrity shows and magazines - it comes from us, from Hollywood, from our country. We're the ones creating it. And I think it works in close step with a lot of other bad things that are happening in the world. It promotes greed, it promotes being selfish and it promotes this ladder, where you're a better person if you have more money. It's not at all about the work itself. Don't get me wrong. I love movies. But this myth of celebrity has nothing to do with movies."-Joseph Gordon Levitt. (Actor)

I agree with Joseph's quote, and although I am guilty of leaving my T.V. on the Disney Channel, being known to obsess over Kristen Stewart and owning an unhealthy amount of Independent Films, I get confused on what is truly important. Celebrities such as Miranda Cosgrove and Dylan & Cole Sprouse make roughly around $250,000 per episode while our High School teachers may make $54,348 yearly and variously. I couldn't really understand this when I heard about it, I just kept thinking "This can't be true, can it?" Teachers earn kudos for teaching future doctors and our future lawyers but Celebs are getting paid far more for standing in front of a few cameras and flaunting their acting skills. Teacher are much more amazing than actors; teachers are true heroes and should be appreciated for what they do to support our success. Actors are fairly highlighted; I like actors just as much as the next gal but teachers seem under appreciated and actors seem highly overrated. But I guess if you are a teacher, it isn't much about the money, whereas many rookie actors do it for the money, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. I just sometimes think how much you pay a person depends on how much you value them. Figuratively, are celebrities of more value of teachers these days?-- but what are your opinions and thoughts? I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Brave New World..... the movie, dun dun DUUUNN!

Sorry for the dramatics.... I couldn't help myself.

Anyways, as I was surfing through youtube, amusing myself to death as Mr. Postman would say, I decided to type in "Brave New World" to check out the trailer. Instead I came across the actual movie (pssht! Hey youtube!! I thought you guys were cracking down on copyright violations. Well, guess what? You missed one.).

If I was a movie critic, I would have had walked out before the first five minutes were up. Now, I know that most films based on novels are nothing like the actual book but this one really hit the ball out of the park in the aspect of "worst attempt to follow the book". In my opinion it focused too much on the love affairs going on and didn't even hint at the sections that Mr. Huxley went on and on about, and they were the most important. In the book, John talked for more than half of chapter 8 about his and Linda's life in Malpais, yet the movie completely ignored it. At that point I thought it was kind of ironic to make a movie based on a eye-opening book if the producers weren't even going to try and send out the same message.

And that would be were Amusing Ourselves to Death pops in; Andrew Postman, Neil Postman's son, compares Huxley and and Orwell in the introduction. Postman explains that no matter which point of view you associate with, it will still be the same thing. In Huxley's eyes, this movie is just another method to appease the masses; like the Bread and Circus the Roman Emperors would have held in the coliseum just to maintain their subjects happy and clapping their hands like dazed three-year-olds. But on the other side of the spectrum, Orwell would have had a fit and declare that this movie is another way of brainwashing us into firmly placing those rose tinted glasses over our eyes; he would have seen this as an easy manipulator since most people in this day and age would rather watch television than read a book.

So are we all doomed?

Seems like it, if you're a pessimist. But an optimist would just be cheering for the soma.

But I want your opinion on this; due to our current society's love for all things electronic, do you think that it will all eventually turn us into mindless zombies, sans all the blood and gore? If so, is it to be feared like Orwell states or to be embraced and taken with a gram of soma?

P.S.
Heres the link to the first part of the movie on youtube since embedding it was disabled by the person:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuiaT0nX9ls&feature=channel

No Name Posts

Dear Bloggers:

In the assignment, I specifically asked for clear identifying information: "You must sign each post with your real name. I cannot grade or respond to crzysrferchick88, flatworlder3876 or any such moniker." A single first name will only work if you are Napoleon, Madonna, Cher or Prince.  I have plenty to do without searching for your identity when I have asked you to provide it.

If you did not use your last name in your blog identity, then please sign your posts. Unidentified posts go in the "No Name" basket -- also known as the slag heap.

That was then and now its today...

While watching the television I noticed a certain commercial, and dont we love those. Well it got me thinking about Brave New World. The Your Baby Can Read commercial was almost exactly what was mentioned on Page 24 except that the children do not sleep. The idea that children are being taught things when their babies helps them remember when they are older. This form of sleep-teaching is also used in Brave New World though the effects are not the same. In the story the children know what they learned but they do not know that they have learned it. In todays technologically advanced world the children that are being "taught" how to read at such young ages might be suffering from the same trauma. I suppose the idea of learning anything while you sleep would teach you the ideals and morals of society. We as a media obsessed culture tend to dream and think about those things that we watch on television. The babies in this modern era are soon to be learning advanced educational ideas at even younger ages. Perhaps even negating the need for school all together.

"Snookered"

Are you kids following the Shirley Sherrod controversy as it is unfolding?  Here is a good example of how the world is our textbook, and the way media works is one of our units of study for the summer. This is an issue of fairness and ethics in journalism. 

Fox
NAACP
Media Matters
Big Government Blog
CNN

Keep your eye on this one.

Even foods makes fun of now.

I was eating a hot pocket, and I noticed the "pocket" had some words written on them:

"Might as well have a free hand to text while you're eating."

Are we so addicted to texting we can't put it down even while we eat?

Huxley and Postman would have a heart attack if they saw what we've become.

Happy Worlds

As I was reading the book Brave New World I couldn't help but think about Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and how they are both alike. Besides being both future utopian worlds, they both share similiar characteristics of the people and their ideas of happiness. The characters in both books want to stay happy all the time and avoid any type of suffering or unpleasant feelings; in Brave New World, they mostly escape these unhappy feelings by using a drug called soma as said by Mustapha Mond "[if] anything unpleasant should happen, why there is always soma to give you a holiday"(237). In Fahrenheit 451, they escape unhappy feelings by watching wall size televisions, talking on the phone, and hearing the radio. The goal of trying to keep everyone happy is a recurring theme in both books; Mustapha Mond and Captain Beatty (Fahrenheit 451) explain that it was necessary to get rid of things such as art and books because they carried messages of pain and suffering that they could not allow to show to maintain their happiness.

Advertising, has it gone to far?

We can all agree advertising has taken many steps since it has first started, first it was a modest add in a newspaper, then it began going farther and farther. I believe it is on a metaphorical line, how can we take television seriously if we are watching the news and we see an important story such as a murderer lose in our neighborhood but stay tuned while we show you these important commercial messages.

How can they be considered important if our saftey may be at risk?

But advertising may have taken an even further step definatly crossing the line. If they can indanger our safety what is to say they aren't using subliminal messages on us?

Subliminal Stimuli- are any sensory stimili below an individuals threshold for consious perception- wikipedia

Subliminal messages are messages which you can't pick up but brainwash you into wanting or thinking about something. Have you ever been watching a commercial then suddenly want the product really really badly? There could be subliminal messages.

I dont think there are subliminal messages in commercials yet, but who is to say in the future or even now the people who run television aren't to say well, they'll never know and put subliminal messages into our programing.

Just a thought.

PS. I am going to be on vacation so I cant reply to your post for a few days.

Entertainment For a Better Cause?

Well, after reading Postmans book we can all agree television shows have become to much about entertainment correct?

Every genere of television from sports to relegion to even yes, serious discussions have become about entertainment.

But it might not be all bad, the most popular show in the world (although not in america) uses its power of entertainment for a good cause, it comes every four years and it is the most watched show in the world. Infact it was held in south Africa this year, many of you may have watched it, yes I am speaking of the World Cup.

Before every game they show a banner which reads Say No To Racisim. A powerful message isn't it? Not only is it a powerful message but its read over and over by millions of people making the effect of this message even more powerful. It always promote friendship between nations. Holding it in africa this year gave a big boost to the african nations because many people came and spent there money over there which helped many nations which were in poverty. Also they are constantly playing commercials (which I had a post early about them bombarding us etc.) about donating to charities.

So yes entertainment has overcame all of our shows but sometimes it can be put to good use. Im sure there are other popular shows which do the same thing which i have failed to mention if so, and you think there is a very important one please post it in the comments and say why you think it has a postive effect.

Contradictions

Brave New World is quite the interesting book. However, I have noticed it has a few contradictions, and I am certain that I am not the only one to point them out.

In Huxley’s society, history is compared to dust, a meaningless, useless thing of dust. However, the Alphas, the Betas, the Gammas, the Deltas, and the Epsilons are from the Greek language, a part of history.

This "new" world that Huxley has created is some form of a utopian society. Most of the time, these utopias are not involved with religion, which is the exact case of Huxley's world. Instead, the characters in the novel believe in Ford. The characters live in the A.F. era, which I believe stands for After Ford. We live in the A.D. era, and that means after the death of Jesus Christ. It seems as though Huxley is comparing Ford to God and religion, even though the characters aren't allowed to have a religion.

Also, some of the characters, especially Bernard Marx, keep saying the phrase: "Oh, Ford!" Just like how we say: "Oh, God!" or "Jesus!" If I am not mistaken, it's as if a God does exist in this society, only in place of the Lord, they named theirs Ford, after the Ford T-model.

Appearance and Attractiveness first?

Today I was watching a repeated episode on Tyra, when suddenly I realized how important attractiveness is to our society, most importantly women. Young girls starting from the age of 9 said that they could not stand in front of the mirror without thinking they are ugly. To me that is very heartbreaking. You should always love yourself no matter what. Beauty that counts comes from the heart. And as years go by, this situation gets worse. With a lot of reasoning you can say that the media is to blame. Sadly, we fall for all this nonsense. Also there were dark-skinned women that believed that society prefers to portray images of light-skinned women. Now my question to you is, do you think or believe this is true? Also, for all you young ladies out there, would you prefer to be beautiful or intelligent, why or why not? In my opinion, I think I would prefer to be intelligent. Being smart and knowing how to use your brains takes you on a long journey full of success, but it all depends on you. Everyone in this world is appealing in his or her own way. Some of us possess interesting talents we have not yet discovered. I thank God for having created me the way I am and no one or anything will every make me feel worthless. Just let me know your thoughts on the two questions I have for you.

Dubious Distinction

Wow, California has 5 of the 11 least educated cities in the United States.

I missed the boat

I wish I were a punk caberet diva. That sounds like the best job description in the world.

Annotation, defined

Have you accessed the link "Help with Annotation" over there on the left? I like this post, although I think I might like anything written by a guy named Mortimer.

I will ask you to annotate all year long; por ejemplo, you need to annotate George Orwell's essay.

And have you seen the Annotated Webography post?

To "annotate" means to furnish critical commentary and notes. When I ask you to annotate an article or essay, you need to write in the margins, underline things, ask the text questions, circle unfamiliar vocabulary, argue with the writer. It assures a more active and engaged reading. All academic reading should be participatory in nature.

When you are writing an annotated bibiography or webography, you are creating notes about the source you are looking at.

They use the same word, and mean the same thing. The two assignments LOOK different. That's all.

Grade Anxiety/Grading Philosophy

What does a grade mean?

All AP teachers are familiar with grade anxiety. Our students tend to be highly concerned with their grades, and will sometimes badger a teacher over a percentage point or two. They will worry when their grade is 92% because that is too close to the edge for them to feel safe from the dreaded "B."

Of course, I understand this. For many of you, your goal is the highest GPA possible so that you are a competitive candidate in October 2011, when you are filling out your college applications. Test scores matter; grades matter; extra-curricular activities matter. All of the UCs will be looking at a mountain of applicants with 4.0 or better, varsity sports, club memberships and community service.

My daughter, Madeline Fletcher, was the class valedictorian at Mayfair in 2006. She had Mr. Nguyen, Mrs. Garvin, Mrs. Swieck, Mr. Baptista, Mr. Falk...and me. I know exactly what you kids are doing, what you face every day, and what you are up against.

I say this only as a prelude to what I really need to say, and that is, it is MORE important to LEARN something about the subject you are studying than to WORRY about how to get a grade from a particular teacher. Sometimes, kids are more interested in how I grade than in what I have to say about their writing. They are more interested in the score on their essay than they are in learning what it is they've done right, and where they have missed the boat.

The summer homework is important, and it is your ticket into the class. If the class ends up being too large for two sections, I will have to make cuts based on performance of summer homework. I will not admit anyone who turns in incomplete or incomprehensible work.

But the summer homework is just a blip on the big screen.

Let's do a worst case scenario. Let's say you write terrible essays — they are disorganized, inane, and difficult to follow -- and you get a D on that part of the assignment. Well, OK; your blog work, your Postman work, your vocab, your webography -- all that can help take the sting out of those lousy essays, and maybe with the extra credit for the early blog work, you can pull a C or even a B- out of the bag. That's mathematically possible.

So you start the class with a C or a B. OK. Hundreds of people have survived this fate and have gone on to live happy and successful lives. Try to keep some perspective. I know it's hard because you're young, but honestly, you will go on to do amazing, remarkable things, even with a C or a B on your summer homework.

You won't get a grade that actually shows up on your transcript or impacts your GPA until January 27, 2011 -- the end of first semester. You will have many, many assignments and opportunities between now and then to bring your overall grade up to a B or even an A. It's what you do September to January that will matter the most.

So instead of worrying about one grade, focus instead about responding to the prompts in the most intelligent, organized and insightful way you can. Show me what you know how to do. That's what I want to see. If I look at it, and it's terrible, I will know more about you, and exactly how I can help you get your skills in shape for May 2011.

Also, you need to know this about me: I think a B is a good grade. It's an A in a regular classroom. A "B" is a 4.0 in an AP class.

The A is reserved for the truly remarkable performance. There are always a few excellent thinkers who manage to communicate their thoughts in a way that is cogent and strong. These writers are surprising, and they make my scalp tingle a little bit. I get excited when I read what they have to say. But those writers are FEW -- a handful out of a class of 65.

When you receive a B, that means I think you are BETTER THAN AVERAGE, and a GOOD writer. It's a good grade.

When you get a C, that means I think you are right in there with most of your peers. You think and write like an average high school student. And the D is reserved for those who don't try, turn in sloppy last minute work, or who really can't put together 4-5 sentences in a row to create a paragraph that discusses one particular something.

The A has to mean something, and that is especially true in an AP class.

My message here is try not to lose sleep about the grade. Do the best that you can, and then accept my assessment of your work. I don't mean that this acceptance is blind. Learn (I will teach you) how I judge your work; if you think I've got it wrong based on the criteria, you can talk to me, always. Nothing is ever set in stone, and I am a human being (translation: fallible). But once the grade is settled, accept it, and figure out what you need to do next to improve.

Finally, I do not consider myself a slave to the math. Converting English prose into a number is tricky and I keep that in mind. A very hard worker with 89% may get an A on their report card; a slacker who gives me grief with a 90% may see a B+. Everything you do matters. It ALL matters.

Best advice: give it your best, and then release the outcome. You have done what you can do, and you need to feel proud of that.