Space Exploration

I realize that we wrote about this a while ago, by I wanted to put my thoughts out there about space exploration. The essay really got me thinking about things I'd never really considered before. While I didn't really take a position in the paper because I didn't realize we were supposed to, I thought about it afterwards and discussed it with a few people. These are my thoughts on the subject so far:

I think that instead of spending time, money, and resources in order to find a place to go after we use up our planet, we should be using those assets to find a way to keep our planet healthy enough so that it can still support life. Why try to change another planet in order to make it habitable when we have a perfectly designed planet right here? Our globe has everything we need, if we could figure out how to responsibly handle those things. We have already identified several problems that need to be dealt with, so even though some are still under debate, we could be fixing others right now.

Another part of this is the funding behind it. While it looked like a miniscule amount on the pie chart, after billions of dolars spent, it adds up. There are so many other things we could be spending our money on. I'm not saying we shouldn't spend money on space travel, but I am saying that if we do, we need to have a reason better than that it inspires wonder in people. Wonder is well and good, but it means nothing to people who are sick or who don't even have anything to eat. Wonder won't fill stomach or clean up disasters. It can help people feel good, but that won't mean anything if the basics are not taken care of.

I guess my point, in the end, is that space travel (and money spent on it) isn't necessarily all bad. However, it shouldn't be our first priority. In a nation and a world where we have many pressing issues, it's hard to give our time to everything that needs it. So it's ok to spend time on this, but only after the more serious things have been taken care of. That's my two cents worth anyway.

The Scarlet Letter

For anyone who doesn't know (I guess that would just be the 2nd blockers) I chose to read The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne for my choice novel. The strange part of this occurrence is that I'm not entirely sure why I picked that book. It seems that on Saturday, a week ago, I told my mom I needed a book for AP Comp and we headed to Barnes and Noble. For whatever reason, I decided I wanted to read a classic (maybe inspired by The Great Gatsby?) In any event, I ended up buying The Scarlet letter, possibly because I thought it sounded interesting. Although the back was very vague, so I'm not sure why I thought that (if I thought that at all). On the other hand, it could have been the title that intrigued me. I had heard the phrase several times, especially in music, but I never really understood it. I still don't, actually, but I'm hoping I will. One thing I do know, it was not the cover that garnered my interest. It is a nasty shade of brown accompanied with a big section of black with a dark red letter on it (how creative). Not that I'm saying they should have put anything else on there besides the letter, but I would like to at least be able to read what the letter is. An 'A' maybe? But it could also be an 'H'. There's even a part of the illustration that resembles an 'S.' So I guess my point is, after much rambling, that I am still unsure how exactly I ended up with this book, but I'm 100 pages in and there's no turning back now.

That is not to say, however, that I am not enjoying the book, because I really am. That said, I'm not sure why that is either. I figured I might have trouble staying interested and focused, but that hasn't happened yet. The plot, so far is interesting enough, I suppose. There hasn't been a whole lot that has happened, but there have been many things that the author has started talking about, but has left the reader hanging. I like that, though, because it makes me want to keep reading. I could also be enjoying the book because of the descriptions. Hawthorne has a different descriptive style from Fitzgerald, but I like them both for their separate reasons. Hawthorne uses decidedly less color, but he does use some. The predominant color, I've noticed, is red, the same color as (obviously) the scarlet letter. He's very visual in his explanations and he makes a lot of comparisons, which is really helpful in gaining a mental image.

So far, this book would definitely be something I would recommend. I hope all of you have been having good experiences with your choice novels as well!

I Hear America Listening

I hear America listening, the silence crowded with voices
Some are the speakers, some are the silent listeners
The teen listening to Lady Gaga,
The grandmother listening to her husband play the piano,
The single mom, listening to the screaming of her infant son,
The businessman, listening to the screaching of tires and honking of horns on a busy New York avenue,
The young boy, listening to the rain outside his window, and waiting for the sun,
The doctor, listening to the incessant beeps, the stressed voices, and the cries of human pain,
The teacher, listening to the whining voices of her students,
The waitress, listening to orders and the sizzling of grease on a frying pan,
The day that which belongs to the day- at night the sounds of silence
and people listening, with patient ears, to the melodies of life.

"Are they my poor?"

No, Mr. Emerson, they are not. But it does lead to an interesting question, don't you think? If not yours, then whose? Your guess is as good as mine, but seeing as how you're dead, I think I'll take a stab at it. The poor belong to themselves, just as you and I belong to ourselves. People don't really own other people anymore, and I'm sure that would make you happy, seeing as you were an abolitionist. So, it's true, it's not your obligation or your responsibility to help those people. You are quite free to leave those people to their depressing lives and go on your merry way. No worries Ralph, someone else has it covered. Your "wicked dollar" can get spent on something else so that it becomes a good dollar. However, just to play the devil's advocate, I'll ask another question: what if no one else is taking care of them? Does that bother you? I'm guessing not, having read that paragraph, but I kind of think it should. If you have "wicked dollars" to spare, why not help someone else out? I know, I know, you regret every dollar you've ever given becuase most of them end in not really mattering, or at least not doing what you wanted, but I'm thinking that you can't really go wrong by simply reaching down a hand to pull up your neighbors. To you, it may feel like a waste, but to that person, it could be all the difference. Don't want to give them money? Fine, maybe you could at least be nice to them or offer them something else. A blanket? Some stale bread? I'm sure you've got something you don't need. Maybe I took your statemtent the wrong way, and if so, I apologize profusely. But if it is, in fact, how I understood it to be, I'd like to close with one remark: while they may not be your poor, they are people and you should do what you can to help them.

Humbly Yours,
Elise

P.S. While I may share different views from you on some subjects, I did enjoy reading your essay and thought you made some wise points and obsevations. Just try to be a little more understanding, okay?

The Eyes

OK, I just have to blog about the eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg. I must admit, they simply fascinate me. I can't stop thinking about them. They pop up in the most unpredictable places and they could symbolize so many things. I think that's one of the reasons I like them so much, they aren't confined to one thing, they could be anything (almost).

On the cover (of most of the books), his eyes appear as the dominant feature. It's the first thing you see, even before the title. I didn't pay much attention to that before I cracked the book open, but now I think it's pretty important. In the picture, the eyes are shown above a bunch of bright colors (symbolism in themselves), but in this image, the colors seem to be depicting a cityscape. There is a blue line right where the cheek would be, and it almost seems like it could be another light from the city, but then when you notice where it is located, you realize it's more like a tear. I like this picture because I think it really gets at the symbolism behind the eyes themselves.

This symbolism being that his eyes see EVERYTHING. And yes, I mean this literally. Every time something big happens, Fitzgerald talks about T.J. Eckleburg's eyes. This is especially true whenever Myrtle is involved. Each time someone slips up (and this happens often) those eyes are watching. Even when Fitzgerald doesn't mention them, you know they're there. The eyes are a constant in the book, never leaving, never moving, never blinking, never blind. It doesn't matter where you go, you can't hide from them. It's important, because with all the selfish people in this story making crazy choices, it's important to note that those mistakes do not go unnoticed. It would be all to easy to think that these people are in their own world, unreachable by the outside, but Fitzgerald wants to make sure we know that's not the case.

Another thing I noticed is that Dr. Eckleburg himself never makes an appearance. Has he since died? Or is he better left as a symbol, not a character? I, personally, was a little disappointed. I would have loved to see him described in Fitzgerald's vivid imagery. He could have been a person to intervene in these peoples' lives, instead of just looking on. Maybe it wouldn't have worked, though. He might not have been able to make a difference. He was only an oculist, after all. In any case, he is left as he is, seeing all, knowing all, the silent watchman.

The Declaration

I'm sure there are plenty of you out there who were bored out of your minds while reading the Declaration, but I, for one, was mesmerized. I loved the way the words flowed like poetry and how, even though they're talking about some pretty heavy stuff, it's beautiful. It's so logical and well thought out, not just a lame grade-school tirade about how unfair Britain is.

I also think it's really cool to actually be able to read something like this that has had such a huge impact on us. I've seen the actual document in DC and we've learned about it so many times in History class, but I've never read it all the way through and analyzed it. I think everybody should read it at least once in their lifetime, simply becuase it is so influential and so well written.

It's interesting, too, to think about the writers of this amazing document. I wouldn't even know where to start if I had to write something this important. I have trouble just figuring out what to say for simple school assignments, and I have no idea what I would do if the thing I was writing would change the course of our nation, even the world, forever. How would I even begin? Somehow, the writers of the Declaration must have figured it out, but I'm at a loss how they did it. Not only did they convey their intentions with absolute clarity, but they accompanied them with grace and eloquence. There are few in this world today, if any, who could do what they did.

I hold these writers in the utmost respect. I wish people still wrote like that today, but there is still much to be said for our writers. The styles have changed immensely over the years, but at least this remains the same: People continue to write to revolutionize and to change our world. They write to improve things and to inform and to make a difference. Our causes are still noble (at least, many are) just as they were back in 1776. My hope is that our causes stay noble for as long as we continue to write about them.

Of Monsters and Maps

I loved looking at all the maps last week. It was totally fascinating to see a new representation of places that are so familiar to us. It was also hilarious to see the various things they included. There was a map with the Loch Ness Monster, one with a bunch of pelicans labeled, even one with a random sketch of a colony of beavers. I found all the little details to be quite humorous. It also made me wonder, what was the point? Why did we need to see Nessie or a rock full of pelicans? Then I decided that the little drawings are what make the maps relatable. By adding a myth or a familiar sight, the artist made could make his map feel like home. These small images would have made the maps seem a little less foreign, and a little more like normal.

I also liked their close attention to detail, from each small hill to the illustrations lining the edges. Our maps today are detailed, down to the last highway and side road, but when it comes to marking geographic landmarks or just making quirky little side pictures, we are certainly lacking. I think we’ve lost something valuable over the years. I, personality, would enjoy seeing a little mouse peering up at me, or perhaps a fish swimming in the middle of Lake Michigan. Maps today are for function, not fun.

My point, I suppose, is simply just that it is important to pay attention to the small things because they can go a long way. However cliché it may sound, it is still true. Today, people think that maps are just for finding your way (at least, if you happen to be using a map and not a GPS). We don’t really care if the maps we use make us smile or make us feel at home. All we want is to get from point A to point B without getting hopelessly lost. Maybe if there was a beaver on our maps, we’d be a little less stressed while driving and we’d be more likely to find our way.