Check The Source?

Hey, just had a peculiar incident today. I was having a conversation with a friend when the subject came to a story about a riot or something of the like. My friend said that he knows how exactly the event happened because of a family member that was there. However, his version of the story did not match up with the police report that he told me was written out. To sum it up, the police report did not match the family member's report, and most likely, the report was written by the police was written by an office clerk or something. My friend later said that the only reason no one takes his version of the story seriously, is because he heard it from someone related to him.

My question is: Does being related to a witness who passes the story to you make the story less plausible than someone who wrote it from an authority figure, like a police officer? People generally tend to disbelieve something that someone heard from a family member because the familial relation might have skewed the truth, or so I have heard.

Look at This!

This is just for fun. I found this picture when I was surfing the web and it reminded me of the summer reading. It shows just how much newspapers and magazines are becoming obsolete and how technology is taking over our lives and is affecting young children just as well! Okay, that's it.

Two Pieces of Interest

Sorry.   I'm an addict I guess because I'm back.  Reading the Sunday papers often sends me back to the computer to check something out or to share with my peeps.

One of my favorite sections of the Sunday New York Times is "The Week in Review" -- as you might expect, it's an analysis of the news that has unfolded over the past week. It's like the Sunday morning news shows, but without the bluster, puffery and blow-hardiness, carried with commercial messages about pain relief, medications for depression, and the mid-range hotel chains that dot the nation.  Free continental breakfast! Anyway.

The cover story today opens with a reference to a Wired magazine story last week that proclaimed that The Web is Dead, and then, within the next 100 words, mentions both McLuhan and Postman.  You KNOW my intellectual tail started wagging.  A cup of coffee, and open window, beautiful music, AND a smart story about the evolution of technology?  Please.  Here's the link to the story, if you're interested.  I found it a good read. 

I Know I Said We Were Going Quiet

You don't have to say anything...but I just listened to this story this morning as I am cleaning house and doing laundry, and of course I thought of you.

Also, Kevin C., last night my friend Carlos told me that the guy who leaked the information to the Wikileaks guy is in jail, and the Wikileaks guy himself is missing, or hiding -- whereabouts unknown.  I have not confirmed this information yet, so this is strictly anecdotal.  All I can say is that Carlos pays close attention to the news and is usually a reliable source of interesting tidbits, but his also occasionally full of baloney, so if the story matters, I do check for more traditional journalistic sources...(see, Jimmy D?  You can cite a friend, but you have to offer qualifications, if any.  Mine doesn't have many, so I had to disclose that.)

Signing Off for Summer

AP Juniors, thank you for the 327 threads and countless comments -- I've enjoyed reading and writing with you this summer.

I want you to really think about what we've done:  all of us, working with the same texts, have created a living document that is unique among all previous classes and all classes to come.  You have put your own stamp on the texts through your insights, questions and ruminations, doing the necessary work that makes your education your own.  I'm proud of this summer blog! 

I also want you to appreciate how much better we know each other after having gone through this together.

We are closing up shop out here for now; I'll be removing people from the blog who did not post or turn in notebooks.  The blog is changing its identity from a summer homework free-for-all to a classroom blog. So, let it go quiet for now.  Focus on enjoying your last days of summer; get some sun, get some rest, read the paper, read a novel, finish your other homework...and to the extent that you are able, get off of the computer and go for a walk somewhere beautiful.

I'm starting a ritual this Sunday of an early morning beach walk, and I've made a promise to myself to continue this ritual throughout the school year, clear or cloudy, hot or cold.  (Rain -- meh.  We'll see.  I don't much like getting wet if it's also cold.)  It's my happiness appointment, and I vow to keep it.

The word childhood has acquired a new meaning

It seems like I may be the only person who believes and thinks the young children of today's society act or at least intend to behave as adults. It is possible you may agree with my points of view too. As the older sister that I am, I notice these things among my siblings and their friends. At a young age, the majority of the young population has already obtained a knowledge concerning adult life situations, which should not pertain to them. By this I mean, the once innocent children we knew are learning things associated with sex, drugs, and alcohol. Notice I am not saying everyone is. Remember, my only intention is to share my thoughts and opinions with my classmates. Years ago when I was in sixth grade, no one thought of creating myspace and other public accounts, well of course, most. Everything now is just so different and changed. Means of media and communication convey these unreal thoughts through the television, magazines, and radio. We are at fault for referring to these ideas as definitions of reality, just like Postman states in Media as Epistemology. Now it is much easier for a child to learn a variety of facts not suitable for his or her age group just by simply turning the channel with the remote control. In my opinion, I ask myself: what are young boys and girls doing wearing clothes "in style", which are better presented on older people. Young girls out there, where are your floral print dresses? A childhood in one's life only exists once. The television portrays a certain image of beauty; it is normal being human, to pursue that realization and make it true.

New Politics

I find the road that current politics have taken in our country quite astounding. The transformation that was made came with little time. With recent years the quick sure change of politics into show business came. Politics in the U.S. has become of more a beauty pageant if anything than a race concerning the interest of the population these public officials are running to represent. Campaigns in recent years have now been focused on how the Official looks in the publics eye rather than there standings on actual political issues. The most shocking par is that if any issue is brought up it is most always brought by a superficial backing. These "issues" often have to do with how the public will perceive this persons image not there standing on political issues.

WITWC2. (What Is The World Coming To?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nIUcRJX9-o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psj2gQ6KaZk&feature=related

A few years ago when these two commercials were popular I found myself laughing. However, after completing my summer homework, I realized that these commercials present a visual of what our society could eventually become. Postman talked about how technology, specifically television, has impacted our methods of communication. He mentioned how technology has brainwashed us and that ideas change as methods of communications change. Even though Postman does not specifically talk about cell phones, wouldn’t you agree that out of all the means of communication we have today, cell phones have impacted us the most? I know that this is a topic that has already been mentioned on the blog, but I believe that it is appropriate to bring up in a different way. In these two commercials, we see how different generations have been influenced by text messaging. Although the producers of the commercials are trying to make the viewers laugh, I personally find it a bit extreme. I often find myself talking to people who say things like “omg”, “idk”, “fyi”, and “btw” in the middle of a conversation. Do you think our formal language could be forgotten about or completely changed because of texting?

"Why wont you date me? Are you sick?" "No, I just don't like you."

After reading Brave New World, all of its startling subjects began to roll around in my head. The fact that people, instead of being born, are created in labratories. The way drugs and casual sex are just seen as natural as breathing. The method in which the society is broken up into classes, before they are even able to think for themselves. All of these things that seem so unorthodix and astonishing compared to today's society are not in fact that far off point. Science is making new strides, drugs and casual sex is something very common among people, we've been put in social classes for years.

A passage from Huxley's book caught my eye and seemed almost humorous to me. It is a scene in which Henry Foster is trying to get Lenina to go out with him. He invites her to see a feely with him, but she declines, still hung up over John.

"'You're not feeling ill are you?' he asked, a trifle anxiously, afraid that she might be suffering from one of the few remaining infectious diseases."(186)

I found it comical how in that society, declining any invitation of sorts meant only one thing: Illness. Whereas today, a female could say no for several reasons. Just one of the few dividing lines between our world and Huxley's world.

Why can’t we just talk facebook to facebook?

Many would agree that facebook is a source of amusement or pleasure. Facebook has all kinds of amusing games and features like chat, messages, and the ability to post links to music, videos, and pictures. Facebook, in a sense, is a break through in entertainment and media, in what can be called an internet social network. Like every media, Facebook has its drawbacks. These drawbacks arise because Facebook is a nastily concocted mixture of entertainment, advertisement, and communication. Firstly, many people use facebook mainly as a tool to stay connected with important people in their lives. They come to facebook in order to chat with their friends, but then they end up being sucked up in the entertainment aspects of facebook, like its games and music. Through this manner people become addicted to both the entertainment and social aspects of facebook. As a result, many people use Facebook as a substitute to reality and do things that they can do in real life, but prefer to do on facebook, such as engage in conversations and manage a farm. But these are not real conversations, but are a string of short choppy text-message style messages which prevent the Facebook user from discussing anything real. Therefore, Facebook usually promotes shallow conversations or random comments. Facebook also promotes the public displaying of one’s information so people can feel that they are getting to know someone, when in reality, many people who talk to their “friends” are talking to a complete stranger. Facebook also displays advertisements along its borders, which are catered to the “interests”, further distracting the user and putting them in the sight of scams. Facebook has solutions to concerns that users might have, such as privacy and the overuse of facebook, but one thing it does not have is a motivator for people to return back to reality. With facebook becoming a dominant media (even over the television), it is becoming very likely that people will eventually talk facebook to facebook instead of face to face.
What would Huxley or Postman say to facebook?

Television Makes Us Cry and the News Brings Us Closure

As I was watching the news, I discovered that entertainment's focus is to engage the audience and to give them the feeling that they are being informed, just as Postman predicted. One show, however, caught my attention more than any of the others. Nancy Grace is a television show in which a bigoted woman devotes her time to issues that she believes "the public deserves to hear the truth about." Now, as this is a common slogan to any television news network, you would expect to hear world issues, right? Wrong. Not only does she report exclusively on the murder of young people, but she builds a foundation for her stories by covering them for months at a time. Flip to her show, and there it is: new evidence about where the body may be found, pleas from the family of the victim, and trials that are being taken to find the killer. So, Ms. Grace, how is this relevant to anything? We "demand to know the truth" of what, the brutal murder that you have so happily presented before us? This is a case closed, and I can make no action whatsoever to change that. However, the show always brings a disturbing amount of emotions to the viewer.

Through this, has Postman failed to predict that the discourse of news itself will no longer have to do with irrelevant information, but rather provoking an emotion? More and more television shows have stopped reporting information all together, and instead they act as a soap opera, with a cast that changes week to week as in Nancy Grace, to entertain the viewers. Is this beneficial, that the separation of information and media has become more evident? Or is this, in contrast, a deeper threat to society, that the media will report for the sake of evoking pure emotion? I believe that a society ran by the communications of emotion is highly more dangerous than one that is ran on the communications of irrelevant information, because what we cannot do with irrelevant information, we can put into effect through emotion.

What do you think?

The Giver

I found a few strange coincidences between The Giver and Brave New World.

First off, both societies lack any animals; even pets. Second, in both societies a certain job is presented to an individual to perform for the rest of his/her life. i think the disappearance of pets has to do with cleanliness, while to give someone an important job means you're off the hook for telling them they should have a greater purpose in life. The jobs give the individual a sense of purpose that the rulers can disguise as that 'true greater purpose'.

Also strange is how in The Giver, there is no sex at all, while in Brave New World, it flourishes. But both societies run like dystopias ruled by a secret force that keeps its citizens in the dark. I just like to ponder how the two different societies manage to control their inhabitants, whether by conditioning or other strange truth-telling rituals. My question is, which society did a better job of controlling/keeping order?

Can cell phones, internet, television, etc. be like an addictive drug to us? Whenever I am using the internet on my computer for homework I can't help but be sidetracked by YouTube and watch a video of something that doesn't have anything to do with the homework; or when I hear the television on, I can't concentrate on my homework because I get this urge to watch the television and I eventually fall into the temptation. Is Postman right when he says that our soma is the technology that entertains us like television and the internet? I for one think so because I think I am an addicted to these things. I also can say without a doubt that some of you guys are addicted to these things to because I know a lot people who always have a cell phone on their hands or have a Facebook, MySpace, and a Twitter page, some of them also admit that they cannot live without their cell phones. What do you think?

Children growing up too fast?

In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley's vision of a futuristic Utopian world controls the future traits of children and become exposed to inappropriate content of what you shouldn't be knowing until you reach a certain age. Well, attending a school mixed with both middle and high school students, you basically have a general idea of how middle schoolers and high schoolers interact with each other and their peers.

I began to take note of how it seems as if every generation, a child's mind slowly evolves subconsciously therefore, becoming more aware of "erotic play" at an early age. Now I don't know about you, but some of the people I interacted with in my middle school days didn't take part in dialouge of such vulgarity (maybe sometimes) but the dirty jokes and the "stories" coming from 12 year olds just throwing the F bomb and uses sexual content left and right is something that keeps reoccurring. Middle schoolers tend to have that immature mindset but some of their conversations are even things I don't know about. I don't mean all but only some with no intentions of generalization. You can learn a lot just by walking within the same hallways as them.

What you rhyme will strike back in due time

In general, slogans are only helpful ways of remembering facts or details. However, when applied to the show business they turn into something manipulative. In the latter half of chapter four of Amusing Ourselves To Death, Postman states how the 20th century slogans made up a majority of the advertisements and how these slogans were “one part depth psychology and one part aesthetic theory” (page 61). As the television evolved into place, slogans began to walk hand in hand with television commercials to convince the viewer to purchase a product. These slogans do not provide product details (similar to the commercials) and cover-up their lack of importance with their catchiness. Slogans are, in themselves, a very basic type of entertainment. Now if the current use of slogans is extrapolated a few hundred years, we would get a result similar to that in Brave New World. The slogans of Brave New World have seeped in to the everyday lives of due to their catchiness and brainwashing. Many aspects of life, such as birth control, drug usage, and consumerism can be controlled by these catchy phrases. The people of the World State do not realize their peril because they are too caught up in the aesthetic portion of the slogan. The real question is this. Are slogans controlling our life decisions in today’s world?

Is John really Aldous Huxley?

Ever since I finished Brave New World, there’s still a few things that I wonder about. I would like to discuss one of these wonders, but instead of discussing the story, I would like to talk about Aldous Huxley. My reason why is that I had to wonder this: often authors put their own views, opinions, and personality in a certain character, one that is most based after themselves, which character do you think Aldous Huxley reflected himself most in? Personally, I would have to say John, simply because John argued the views of our world, such as books and God, and it seems to me John was not only arguing the views with Mustapha or whatever character, but he was also trying to convince us, the readers, to see his view on these subjects as well. Aldous Huxley was trying to argue the importance of literature, art, God, and morals through his character John, and might I say, argued them very well. Not only that, but John also feared this new world, and I believe Huxley fears that in the future it is quite possible for our world to become like the Brave New World world. So was Huxley most represented in John? What do you think?

"With Television, I Can´t Even Rememer What Happened 8 Minutes Ago"...

So yesterday i was watching The Simpsons, it´s not really my cup of tea, but my cousin was watching it so i tuned in as well. While watching it, something caught my attention. Homer had asked Bart if he remembered something that had happened eight years earlier. Bart looked at Homer and said, "Dad, with television, I can´t even remember what happened eight minutes ago." Right then his whole family started laughing histerically. I laughed and thought how reasonable it sounded. The people that watch television all day must feel a bit weary and out of it and of coarse will not remember things easily. Just something I wanted to share.

Decline of Television, the Rise of Internet

How would Niel Postman feel if he saw that the television is decreasing and the internet is rising? Postman said that the telegraph made communication more faster and easier that it started turning our form discussion meaningless and then television came to picture that made important discussions like politics and religion into stage show. But now there is the internet that combines the two together where we can communicate even more faster with websites like Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter which ,like the telegraph, is turning our discussions pointless like Twitting what you are eating or that you are bored today. Also it can show videos like Youtube which, unlike television, anybody have the power to make a video and have audience to watch it. He says that each new medium defines our culture, so how would the internet define ours? In the future is possible that there might be something even more "better" than the internet and television that it will destroy our culture further?

8 minutes later...

I have a poster in my room of Bart Simpson in front of a television. He looks disoriented and has drool coming from his mouth. There is a speech bubble with the sentence, "Thanks to television, I can't remember what happened 8 minutes ago." That is not true, of course. Or, at least, it seems too far fetched to be. However, it has the potential to become a fact if one were to watch enough television and not do enough things to stimulate their brain. If we become too dependent and reliant on television, it could very well destroy our brain.

I sometimes stop watching television after taking a glance at the poster. This is what Postman meant in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death. Television is a form of corruption of the mind, and too much may cause permanent brain damage. I hate to sound all medical and all, but it is a possibilty.

"Thanks to television, I can't remember what happened 8 minutes ago." Sounds scary, if you ask me.

A Huxelyean World

The further I got into the book Amusing Ourselves to Death the more I realized how close our world is to becoming a Huxelyean world. I thought to myself about all the similarities between the novel Brave New World and our society, and honestly the similarities are frightening. It devastates me to imagine how naive and incoherent humanity will become. The worst part is that it seems like once we reach this point there is not turning back. The society in Brave New World is a perfect example of this. Once they reached the point where everyone was satisfied no changes were ever made to their culture. Their moral values and ethics would never change because everyone is satisfied, naive, engineered to think a certain way and if anyone does think differently they are exiled. My point is that once our culture reaches a state like the one found in Brave New World all hopes of a culture with intellect is lost. What does the possibility that our world may become a Huxelyean world mean to you?

This One Time, In Band Camp...

"What we do here isn't P.E. You get P.E. credits, yes, but what we do in band is mentally and physically exhausting. This isn't an easy "A". Ladies and gentleman, this is the Mayfair Monsoon Marching Corps." -Mr. Thomas Philips

There is one thing that Mr. Philips always tells me when I talk about music, and that is the importance of motivation. It seems like such an easy concept. For the musicians in band, that means practice your music, learn your drill, follow directions, and run to where you're supposed to be. Mr. Philips made me think; in the "real" world, what is one motivated to do?

In Huxley's "Brave New World", the people of all castes worked for their payment in soma. After work, they would form a line to receive their ration of soma. Postman says that people spend most of their time trying to entertain themselves, or being influenced by entertainment media. The connection lies in work. Humans perform jobs that allow them to get paid. Most humans spend a large portion of their pay for entertainment in some form. Do we already live in a "Brave New World"?

People work to get pay, only to spend it on necessities and entertainment. The caste members of Huxley's book work to get paid, but in rations of soma, or pure entertainment. I believe that there are less and less amounts of motivation to achieve anything other than entertainment. It seems like the primary goal of any working person. Find a high paying job to buy numerous amounts of leisure items. Huxley's world might have become a reality. What do you think?

A Monster or A Hero?

As you know, in the book Brave New World (Chapter 2) some babies are conditioned to fear flowers and books. Mond reasons that the conditioning process is allowed because it regulates and separates the citizens into their social class. However, what kind of mind would initially perceive this idea as humane, and go through with creating a process that classifies a child at birth by fear? Or what kind of person would intentionally stunt a child's brain to help the world be organized? Would you call this person a monster or a hero?

I choose to believe the first person to create such a process believes he is a hero, but is ultimately a "monster." I think it is wrong to make changes to a human without consent, even if it is for the greater good, whatever that is.

Mindless Drones March On

In Brave New World the idea of happiness revolves around stabilty and peace, but is that really true happiness? In my opinion happiness is something that comes from struggle and hardship because if everything is given to a person on a silver platter they are not happy they are simply blind to everything else. Sure the utopian society that exists in this novel is appealing, but seeing how ignorant and drugged up the inhabitants are it is clear to see why they are so blissfully ignorant- they have no mind at all. with no mind or thoughts for that matter they really are not even people, they are just mindless drones. Truly bloggers how happy could anyone possibly be when they do the same thing every single day? Where is the excitement? The danger?
Now, of course, the world was uncivilized before the utopian rule arised and considered miserable, but in what way is the mindless society any better- it is just another type of misery, only they do not know they are miserable. Then again what is misery?

Beauty???

Does anyone have the right to determine what they believe is beauty? Everyone is different and everyone has different opinions on what they believe is beauty. Beauty can be found in any and everything, from people to they way people feel about themselves. Beauty from oneself comes from the beauty within ones self. In the novel Brave New World the world state determines the way the residents of the society see the beauty in other and themselves. They are unfortunately unable to develop their own opinion on anything. The world state forces everyone to feel the same way about something or a certain caste. No one is able to have a mind of their own in this society. in the world state each caste is lower than the one before it so those above it make those beneath it feel inferior to them because that is the way it is there. I personally feel it is not right. Everyone holds their own beauty within them and no one should be allowed to dictate what someone else's beauty or worth is. Everyone should be able to feel love, care, and self worth. If you do not love yourself you can expect the love you deserve from anyone else.

Teaching and Entertaining Isn't Dangerous

I disagree with Postman on chapter ten, "Teaching as an Amusing Activity" because I don't think that it is dangerous that programs like "Sesame Street" or "The Electric Company"combine learning with entertainment because it helps people to learn and understand the subject unlike Postman who thinks it just teaches people how to love the television. It is true that televise education is incomparable to print education because print education is more detailed and it analyzes the information, but it is less intersting to learn from a book than on a television screen. In some cases it is even better to learn from something that is entertaining; for example, "Your Baby Can Read" is a program which teach young children how to read at an early age by combining learning with entertainment. How can you teach a child how to read by print if the child is just ten months old? Certainly not by giving the child a book to learn from because the child will not be interested. Everyone knows the alphabet but who can say the whole alphabet without singing it. Televise education are very helpful and I don't think it will replace print education but help understand it.

Steering some of you back on track

There's been a lot of talk on the blog about illegal drug use as it relates to Brave New World.  There is no illegal drug use in Brave New World.  Soma is legal, and sanctioned by the World State. 

Antidepressants are the most prescribed drug in the United States.  Feeling a little sad?  A little uneasy?  Anyone can easily find a doctor who will prescribe something for that.

Deadline Day

The front office officially closes today at 3:00.  I will be in my classroom working all afternoon -- I plan on arriving by 1:00 and will leave at 5:00.   I can be reached by telephone in my classroom at 562/925-9981 extension 2508, and I will be checking the blog and my email about every half hour.  Incomplete work is not acceptable. 

Utopia? Definitely

After reading through and finishing Brave New World I was shocked during and after as I thought about the way they went about doing things in their society. Torturing the children at young ages. Their dependency on drugs. They worship a car for Ford's sake. All of that makes a utopia, surprisingly.

Even if the methods they used to create stability and such in their society seemed some times gruesome, the shocking answer that I have concluded is that Brave New World is a utopia. No misery, no hunger, no over crowding, no rampant diseases. Unless you count the reservation, but other than that the rest of the world is virtually a utopia. Sure they are dependent on soma drugs, they do electrical shock the babies to teach them what they can not like, but that all makes their society. It may not be the utopia we may have imagined in our heads, but it certainly is one.

Ground Zero Mosque? threat or not

I was watching the news tonight and saw an arguement about the a mosque being built close to the 9/11 ground zero. Apparently many Americans are against this; however, I suspect that, like Postman wrote in his book, they aren't so much angry about it as they see that the media is against it, and if the media is against it so are they. Despite the fact that if the government tells them that they cannot build the mosque, it will be a complete violation of our freedom of religion. The suspicion that certain news personalities are exhibiting is creating a monkey see monkey do effect thats making America afraid that this mosque could end up being a center of another terrorist attack. I see that this is an ignorant idea seeing that this is merely a place of worship not every mosque and every Muslim is an extremist. They are also saying that the people funding the building of the mosque MAY have ties to terrorist groups. But how can they be certain? Do you think it should be built or not?

Why Dirty Books...?

This is both a question and a post.

While reading Brave New World I realized that, to me, this did not seem like it was appropriate for high schoolers to be reading. My grandmother also agreed.
Yes, we realize it is a college class...but does that mean that the books have to involve drugs and promiscuous sex?..and not to mention...making those things sound good!?
My grandma had a great point when explaining to me why she didnt like BNW...
When students who read books like Brave New World, and believe that since everything they talk about in the book is okay to do and everyone is always happy, the students want to live in that world and they want a life like that. They try to do so by raiding their parents medicine cabinet looking for perscription drugs to try to get the same feeling as if there was nothing bad in their life. They also go out and have sex between the ages of 14-16 and young girls end up getting pregnant accidently then that's also what causes over-population in our state.
But kids think it is okay and they think they want a so called 'perfect' life like the people in the book...But that is not reality.

Reality is,....kids should not be taking drugs that they aren't supposed to and they shouldn't be getting pregnant if they can't raise and support a child properly.

So why are teachers assigning these type of books to high-schoolers who can possibly ruin their lives just because they see it's okay in another world so it must be okay in ours....???

Where oh where as our current events gone?

After I finished reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, I began to think about Postman’s statement that all the news and information that we receive through media consists of fragmented pieces of information (Chapter 7 near the beginning). Near the end of Chapter 7, Postman also goes to say that our current society, newspapers, radio, and magazines change the way that current information is present to mirror how it is presented on television in order to appeal to the general public. These statements made me question the information that we are presented with everyday. If Postman’s statements are applicable to today’s society, which they are, then that would mean that all we have as our source of current information is a big heap of fragmented information. This made me question where we can get information that is not fragmented like the ones that we are constantly presented with on a day- to –day basis. I think that the only source for un-fragmented information that we can get is from our studies. But this, however is redundant because by the time the information actually comes out of the printing press and onto the student’s desk, then the current information would not be so current anymore. Do you agree?

What is religion's purpose?

After reading both books, a common theme was the involvement of religion and technology. Postman claims that religious content will be replaced by entertainment and theatricality (Chapter 8). Huxley shows that even in a technologically sophisticated society, there is still a need for a god of some kind and that god was referred to as Ford or Freud.

Although, I am a practicing Catholic, I have never been a stout believer in the need for an organized religion with defined rules made up by man rather than God. My real question is, what is the purpose of religion today?

I believe that religion is used to comfort people about their lives and their "after life". In our modern age of enlightened scientific knowledge and thought, the use of God and religion is to provide a sort of backup plan. This backup plan is used whenever there is no clearly defined reason or explanation for any kind of phenomenon. Although we won't know the real purpose for why there is a religion in Brave New World, we can infer that it is another form of control to help maintain stability. This is a commonality between our societies. Although, in our society, people are separated into different houses of faith not unlike a cage at a zoo.

I am not saying religion is bad, but I am merely questioning what purpose it may serve today.

Something I Noticed, Here In Mexico...

Reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, got me to see how fond we are to television. In America, who doesn´t own a television. Right now I´m in Mexico and its a lot different here. In the big cities, everyone owns a television. Mostly everone has a show they watch daily such as "novelas" or shows brought over from the US like the Disney Channel shows. On the other hand, in the poor dirt road cities, not everone owns a television. Of coarse its obvious you would get that result but poeple are much poor here and the minimum wage here is 50 pesos a day which is a bit less than five dollars. But that doesn´t mean everyone here earns so little. Although, my cousin told me that in the Mc Donald´s here you get around 8 pesos an hour which is less than a dollar an hour. People in smaller cities don´t have enough money to make television a priority. That doesn´t stop the children from having fun though, they play outside for practically the whole day and sometimes make small weaponds to throw beans at each other. It´s really interesting watching them play. You don´t see that a lot here -in the US- but that´s because people in America earn more money and in Mexico there are alot of uncivilized cities that are bearly starting to grow. Isn´t it funny how in different countries you see different things that catch your attention?

what is beauty?

Yesterday I heard my mom talking about how she was getting so fat, I then told her she was not fat and she looks fine. This made me a little mad though. Why was being thin so serious to her? Because the media is constantly pounding the image of beauty into our minds. Apparently beauty is a half starved woman without glasses and fizzy hair is absolutely not allowed. We see it on t.v., in movies, and in magazines. Then people end up on diet pills and ridiculous diets and buying silly work out machines( like the shake weight) and being totally insecure. So my point here is that the media is pressing these images on us and telling us that if we dont look like that we are ugly, obese, and a loser, but we do not need to conform to thinking this, you can be beautiful with a crooked tooth or glasses. You can be beautiful with what would be considered to be a couple extra pounds or frizzy hair. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and perfection isn't always best.

Thoughts on Homework and Books

As I review my AP homework for Brave New World, I remember flipping constantly through the end and finding it cruel of how all of the reporters constantly antagonize John. The ending was pretty sad. It really bothered me that his whole experience with civilization drove him to suicide.
I figured it was a sad book, though, hasn't anyone noticed that nearly all of the books we are assigned to read are depressing?
Things Fall Apart, Lord of the Flies, Shakespeare tragedies, The Outsiders, A Separate Peace, Alicia: My Story, and more? Why is that? Let's read something happy for once!
Continuing from my original starting point, Huxley makes a good argument about his opinions of the future, enough so that Postman constantly referred to his work in Amusing Ourselves to Death and even titled a whole chapter with his name in it. I also heard that Brave New World is on a banned book list because of Huxley's free speech, has anyone else heard that? Or am I getting some wrong information?
Anyway, it was a good read, I enjoyed it.

Distracting Excitment!

I'm sorry Mrs. Fletcher if this doesn't have that much to do with the summer reading but I will try my best to relate it at the end.

I am at my grandma's house right now finishing up my summer homework on the computer while my mom is in the kitchen looking out of the front window and all of a sudden she says that there are some cop cars that pull up across the street at this drug house. So of course I had to get up and go to the window to see what was going on...
There were a total of 5 police cars and there was a lot of screaming and yelling. One of the cops gets a big pair of cutters and goes over and cuts the lock off the garage because the cops wanted in but the people there were claiming they didnt have a key. Well then my grandma decides to call the station to see if she can get information on what's going on. They told her it was a matter of trespassing because that house is suppose to be vacant.
After my grandmother hangs up we are trying to listen to what they are yelling about and one of the guys was a diabetic and was screaming for his insulin but they could not find it so an ambulance showed up. Then some guy in a car pulls up and gets out and starts talking to the cop and the cop yells at him to get in his car and leave because he isn't supposed to be there anyway. Well that guy ends up getting arrested. Then like 7-8 minutes later there are 2 fire trucks that pull up....The cops didnt find any drugs in the house though so either the people staying there sold all the drugs or someone already came and picked them up.

I think this kind of relates to Brave New World because everyone in that society was always doped up on soma and nowadays...there are more and more people getting addicted to multiple different types of drugs. For example, marijuana, cocaine, speed, etc.
And just like the citizens in Brave New World, taking soma out in public and not having to hide it, teens and adults in our society taking these illegal drugs, are being somewhat more open about it and doing it out in the open sometimes.

What do you think about this situation with more and more people becoming addicted to drugs and being out in the open with it?

Brave New World appropriately ended or not?

After successfully writting and finishing my prompt four essay I became intrigued with whether you guys also feeled as though Brave New world was appropriately concluded. I feel as though the novel is appropriately concluded although some what depressing and tragic.The novel is appropriately ended because all of the characters get exactly what the wanted just not on the best of terms. John no longer has to live in a society that he hates because he is dead, Bernard and doesnt have to worry about feeling inadequiet because of his stature and Helmholtz is free to write and think to his content although they are both in exile.Do any of you guys feel the same about the conclusion of Brave New World? If not what dont you like about the conclusion to the novel? Do you feel as though all the characters get exactly what they wanted? Also if so do you feel as though it ends on apositive of negative note because of this? I am really curious ofyour opinions on Huxley's novel because i really enjoyed reading thisone compared to Amusing Ourselves to Death.

Help Me Please!!!!!

So far I have been getting through the summer work pretty easily but I have become stuck on prompt seven. If anyone could further explain the prompt to me that would be very helpful seeing as how I am not sure how to start off this essay off or even fully understand it.

Mrs. Fletcher, have you heard of Wikileaks?

I just wanted to put something into the ongoing blog conversation, and found this relevant with discussion of the news in Postman's book.

Apparently, a website called Wikileaks.com is making headlines for its leaks of various government, military, and high-security secrets. They are a professional team of hackers and couriers who cracked the U.S. computer servers. What is REALLY making controversy are its leaks of information of U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Here's an example you may have heard of. A video was leaked on a website called collateralmurder.com on behalf of Wikileaks that showed footage from an Apache attack helicopter shooting civilians in Iraq sometime between 2003 and 2004. Audio is also available, and the radio chatter is very disturbing. Especially with this twist: the so-called terrorists with rocket-propelled grenade launchers were actually cameramen for the news organization Reuters. (The footage is very violent and explicit, though affecting, but be advised.)

A more recent example that is even more controversial is the so-called "Afghan War Diary", which is a thorough list of top-secret documents about U.S. involvement in the war. The most controversial aspects of it, by far, are the accounts of civilian fire, the actual loss in the war, and foreign involvement with the Taliban. Governments across the world are in outcry.

I do not really want this to be a political debate. (I'm neutral, to throw it out there.) I am just curious what you, and maybe the bloggers, think about this new, censorless, borderless kind of news that eliminates government secrecy. And, based on Postman's ideas, will people care? Will it stop the war? Should Wikileaks be stopped? Just think this is a very interesting topic.

Postman totally disses religious people

I was once again, for the last time, got offended at Amusing Ourselves to Death, when Postman wrote about the television preaching in chapter eight. Personally, my family or I never watch the sermons or praises on television, because we go to church every Sunday and other days. Yet the way Postman wrote about HOW the viewers are watching these shows was very mocking as a Christian. A person does not watch the t.v. preaching and praises for fun, he or she actually watches those shows to be religious; if there are so much other "junk" shows on t.v., why would someone watch the religious channel for entertainments? Postman did say people can praise anywhere, and yes, that is true, of where a person decides to worship does not matter, because the church, or where people worship, refers to the actual body of the person as it was said in the New Testaments of the Bible.
Also in the same chapter, Postman stated, "The screen is so saturated with our memories of profane events, so deeply associated with the commercial and entertainment worlds that it is difficult for it to be recreated as a frame for sacred events." What the author says contradicts another thing he says about people who watch televisions, in chapter ten. Statistics of people's ability to remember what they have watched previously were recorded in low percentage, and also example of how Americans have short concentration time span is written in chapter one, but in chapter eight, Postman says people will remember other shows that will become distractions from CONCENTRATING on God. MUY contradictory.
That is all. Off to doctors appointment...

Socializing: in person or behind a computer?

MTV Shows

First off, the video above took me forever to find online, so I hope you really enjoy it. While watching MTV, about a week ago, I stumbled across this commercial and immediately thought of the novels we've been reading all summer, especially Amusing Ourselves to Death. In the video, the girl says she wishes that there were more teens interacting with each other, fighting for a cause, and getting out and enjoying the world. I think it's a nice representation of Postman's book.

My question to you is: do you think that sites like Facebook and Youtube have eliminated our need to socialize in person with other people, or do you think that they allow us to have more networking options to enhance our socializing?

Don't Take it Personally

Late Posters,  don't feel badly if people are not commenting on what you say...I think everyone is probably working on getting their notebooks ready to turn in, so there just aren't that many comments.  Some kids are done with English and are probably now focused on their other AP work. 

I think the blog is getting ready to go quiet.  I've been trying to comment here and there so you don't feel lonely, but I think I'm about ready to turn my attention elsewhere for a while.

Aldous Huxley: A drug addict?

While discussing Brave New World and various prompts with one of my good friends he suddenly told me, "By the way, Huxley was a drug addict." For a moment I was dumbfounded, but quickly became interested in Aldous Huxley. My friend then stated that Huxley had used LSD, or acid, and probably more drugs. I quickly became curious and inquired how Huxley had died. As stated by my friend, "He was laying on his deathbed and took LSD." I did find one source that had said he died from cancer, but he could have had cancer while in his deathbed and took the LSD. The mention of Huxley taking drugs on his deathbed reminded me of Brave New World when people that were probably going to die loaded on soma. I read that Huxley also experimented and searched for enlightenment with drugs. I found this rather interesting, and do hope some of you will also.

Human Genetic Engineering Already Here?

I was thrown into a pool of nostalgia when I first started Brave New World when began with artificially fertilizing eggs to create babies. I had watched the movie GATTACA a couple years back and noticed similarities between the two.

For once, the humans are created and the ones who weren't born in a lab were disrespected and had been frowned upon. They were created to be perfect, beautiful, and without a flaw. Anyone who was "defective" or had any other malfunction with their genes or health were outcasts. Another similarity (which is pretty much a cliche) is that there are characters who realize something is wrong with their society and wonder why and try to solve the problem.

As it turns out, human genetic engineering is already being used. It is on a small scale presently, used to allow infirtile women with defective mitochondria to have children. The genetic information come from two mothers and one father (so there are the parent's genes in it), then are changed around known as gremline engineering. Scientists hope to also use this method to help with diseases and increase strength, kind of like a superhuman.

There has been lots of controversy on the subject on whether this is a good idea. Critics say it's unethical. What do you think?

Legalized Marijuana and it's Brave New World

The use of soma in Brave New World is key to the stability of society. Although there are obvious side effects of drugs like dependency and eventually death, this use of control is quite ingenious. Why can't steps be taken to utilize this kind of drug control today?

Marijuana is a plant whose parts were used extensively in the production of items like hemp cloth, fuel and even plastic (http://brainz.org/420-milestones-history-marijuana/). However, prohibition leader Harry J. Anslinger spearheaded a campaign that would radically alter the view on marijuana. He became the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

The opposition to marijuana and its legalization for not only medicinal purposes is widely debated. However, what implications could its legalization and support have on control? Giving someone what they've yearned for will increase and compound the joy they feel upon receiving it. This is a kind of Christmas present concept. So what if we apply the Christmas present concept to marijuana and other psychedelic drugs?

I believe that the recreational and legal use of marijuana and drugs could be used to not only control, but also consolidate the hold of drugs on future generations. Psychedelic drugs could become as normal as vitamins someday and this could be used to spread control. This concept is similar to the ones used by the British on the Chinese during the Opium Wars. Although the idea that we could become hopelessly addicted to drugs is frightening, Brave New World has reintroduced the concept of weaponized happiness

Mob Mentality! Well. No. Not Really. More Like News Mentality.

As I was reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, one of the points the Postman made really struck me. In the middle of Chapter 7, Postman states that people do not really form their opinions on any given incident they see on the news, but, instead, they form emotions. I find this completely true. I mean just think back. How many times have you or a family member yelled at the T.V. saying "THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!" but no nothing more than what the news anchor presented? I know I have. If this has happened before, then you or your family member were able to react to the news, but only through emotions and not opinions.

A better, yet tragic example of this would be the public's reactions to the disaster of 9/11. The news presented the public with the facts that these terrorists were Arabic and part of a group called Al-Qaeda. Perhaps the reporters failed to emphasize that these terrorists were just extremists and do not reflect all Arabic people. But ultimately, the images of the 9/11 terrorists were immediately stamped onto the foreheads of millions of Arabic-American citizens living in the U.S. resulting in violent or discriminating hate-crimes.

Will we ever be able to zoom out and look at a situation as a whole and develop OPINIONS rather than just emotions? I fear not because as Postman says, T.V. only presents fragmented pieces of information. Something from which we cannot for a real opinion from because we will always see just one side to the story. I would like to hear more opinions on this matter. Do you agree or is there a way for the public to develop opinions rather than just emotions?

The Weather Lady Who Failed To Report The Weather

Today, while I was going over sentences for where I found the word for my definitions in Amusing Ourselves to Death, I had to stop and look over these sentences again: “For television is at its most trivial and, therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important cultural conversations. The irony here is that this is what intellectuals and critics are constantly urging television to do. The trouble with such people is that they do not take television seriously enough.” (pg. 16-17) When I saw this, I decided to see exactly what Postman was talking about, so I turned to the news. As I sat there and watched, and waited for the weather woman to say the weather - not exactly the most exciting thing to wait for - I was quite surprised that she never actually got to it. Instead, she spoke only of the lifestyles and fashion of some rap star’s wife. I was quite shocked, and I wondered why she was not fired. However, it was just the opposite, this weather girl is the most popular one on the show, and she didn’t even say the weather! I’m sure this has been discussed before me, but I am still stunned by it. Why is it so hard to go over the weather without getting distracted by the starlets and entertainers? I’ve lost hope in our media, and, frankly, our attention spans. Save it for TMZ, weather lady.

What's All the Fuss About Y'all? (high pitched family guy voice)

I have finished Brave New World a few days ago and now feel very enlightened by Mustafa Monds philosophy. However as I go back and read posts about the book, I see that many people do not like the idea. When I first read the it I was thoroughly frightened by the prospect, but after I read Mond's explanation I realized that the World State has found the perfect society. Or at least the closest to perfect that the human race will ever reach. They did not have war, or violence of any kind, they were completely happy, and well nourished. The majority of the population did not feel alone, they were not sick, and their existence was easy. We can all agree that for those millions of poor, malnourished, uneducated, sickly people who have hard lives, this would be the most amazing world to live in. Only for the privileged would that world be a bore because of its shallow empty happiness. So the question is why are we so hellbent against living in a society like that? Wouldn't we as society be better off like that? I would gladly join their world even though its a shallow happiness, its the perception of happiness not the truth of whether your happy or not or if you have a reason to be.

Quotes

I really enjoyed Brave New World and dog-eared several pages as well as underlined several quotes. I want to post them here and show the ones that stood out the most to me. What were some quotes from the two books that you thought stood out or meant something more?

"'They never learn,' said the green-uniformed pilot, pointing down at the skeletons on the ground below them.’And they never will learn,' he added and laughed as though he had somehow scored a personal triumph over the electrocuted animals." (105)
When I read about the electric fence that surrounds the reservation and he said "they never learn" I thought about how even though he was referring to the animals, how the savages on the reservation could also "never learn" in his opinion. I thought it was funny how the animals were constantly trying to get free however. Metaphorically, could it mean that the spirit that makes us want to be free will never die out?

"'Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand.'" (221)
When I read this I figured Huxley had made a good point: that perpetual happiness is never as good as the transition from bad times to better.

"Christianity without tears--that's what soma is." (238) This stood out to me because friends have told me before that religion is just used to control the public in to doing what they want and that it is meant to restrain and satisfy public needs. This is exactly the same thing soma does, and as John shows it does not lack tears.

"'All right then,' said the Savage defiantly, 'I'm claiming the right to be unhappy.'" (240) Claiming the right to be unhappy is something you would never expect to hear. But claiming the right to be happy, if someone was not allowing you to, seems logical. Does claiming the right to be unhappy make just as much sense? If you were in a place where you were perpetually happy, would you claim the right to be unhappy?

"Pain was a fascinating horror." (258) We all seem to stop and stare whenever a crash occurs on the freeway and listen extra closely when a terrible event on the news occurs. Huxley points out the interest in other peoples pain in the very end of Brave New World. Are any of you "fascinated" or do you think it is horrible that people are so interested?