Monthly Archives: February 2015

The Space Race Paradigm Shift

by

It’s easy to search engine pictures of the 1969 moon landing and still feel a spark of nationalistic pride. America has always been a country to build great big buildings, fight great big battles, and take great big steps… or giant leaps. However the lingering feelings of patriotism over what is still commonly considered a solely technological advancement is proof of the American government’s ability to put a military supremacy contest in a nonviolent, harmless light. Because of the positive political and social implications of America in accordance to the Space Race, this country was able to enter a figurative technological war with the USSR and other countries, without terrifying the American people.

The scientists at NASA were nothing short of tactical when it came to sending a message of scientific advancement and America’s excellence. Luckily, we didn’t destroy ourselves in the process of trying to flex our military muscles while convincing the rest of the country we were just working out. American culture patriotically shifted upon seeing our advancements respective to those of our competing allies and enemies. We proved to ourselves that our horse was definitely bigger than theirs, even though initial motives may have been clouded over in the course of events.

The USSR was the first to roll a sleeve up and point to the moon with veins popping out of its arm. The display was impressive, and it was no secret why. Rocket scientist Wernher von Braun assisted Russia during their initial scientific efforts to prove superiority. Von Braun is widely considered to be the most brilliant rocket scientist to date, and America was fully aware of his abilities. Despite his war crimes against America in affiliation with the USSR, we managed to “forgive” him and in doing so, persuade him to switch sides and join our “cause.” The biggest, initial coin toss of the Space Race was Sputnik. While America had put a small, 31 pound satellite into orbit, Russia sent Sputnik I (184.3 pounds) and Sputnik II (1,121 pounds) into space and around the Earth, displaying unparalleled technological strength.

Senator Norman Grant asked his team head to draft a message to Eisenhower. It included the statement, “We are far behind, Mr. President. We are in military peril and we had better catch up.” America would not hear a whisper of this message until the publishing of the novel “Space” by James Michener.

On April 12th, 1961, Russian Yuri Gargarin became the first man to orbit the earth. A little over a month later, the newly elected president, John F. Kennedy, made an address to congress.

 

“Now it is time to take longer strides. Time for a great, new American enterprise. Time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement. I believe we possess all the resources necessary and talents necessary.”

 

He later went on the make the all too inspiration comment, “Therefore, as we set sail, we ask God’s blessing.”

The president and every other public speaking figure used this tactic—employing ethos in their diction to provide the listeners a since of adventure, courage, and even supremacy. Words like “great, new, enterprise, and achievement,” shown above were used in every public statement on the matter, even those bearing bad news such as the New York Times Report of the event.

 

“The fire broke out at 6:31 P. M. while the three men were taking part in a full-scale simulation of the scheduled Feb. 21 launching that was to take them into the heavens for 14 days of orbiting the earth.”

 

The only difference between the citizenry and the politicians pulling the strings behind the operation was the target of this supremacy. The American people believed it to be in the name of advancement and science. But the puppeteers knew it to be a race for military control and a statement directed at Russia.

The culture during this time period was far and away the most receptive to new steps toward a better society. America was fighting in Vietnam and people are outspokenly displeased, the civil rights as well as women’s rights movements were expanding, and society was heading toward a drastically more accepting society. Activists and protestors were the loudest voices, so good news that reflected positively on the country was often pushed to the forestage in order to boost morale. In 1968, Kennedy was assassinated, and the country “needed” to “win the race” more than ever.

The biggest shift in culture was America’s view of our own power, earth, science, and God. We felt grand, profound, and proud. It wasn’t until after the 1969 moon landing that the space program put its emphasis on what it initially claimed to. It became less of a military funded tech race and more so a nationwide science project. We’d proved ourselves, and there was less ground to cover.

The government has been known to pull the wool over America’s time and time again, but I believe this is by far the greatest misinformed “advancement” to occur in this country. Quite frankly, a war was occurring, and 95% of the country was oblivious to it. This was only a result of clever politicians putting their money in the right places and public figures saying the right words. Similar to our current president, Barack Obama, they knew exactly what to say while saying nothing at all, as long as it got people aboard the bandwagon of “America is awesome!”

The Ambiguity of Young Goodman Brown

by

“I Could Have Sworn It Was Real”

A commentary on the Ambiguity of Young Goodman Brown

Sarah Lemon

            It’s a universal experience and we all recognize it. We’ve all felt that collective sense of dread and doubt; the entrapment of a darker power, at one time or another. The story of “Young Goodman Brown” is a gothic tale that reflects on personal, inner evil and the evil within those around us. Hawthorne allows the characters as well as the reader to draw their own conclusions, leaving room for generalizations in his story, and to let the ideas fester. Hawthorne’s use of ambiguity in dialogue and description serves to keep the protagonist and the reader open and unsure, forcing them to think outside their comfort zone to draw their own foreboding conclusions. By examining Hawthorne’s diction, we will analyze how Goodman Brown, the supporting characters, and the reader feel in response to the uncertain and haunting situations they find themselves in. Some of the ambiguity comes from the thoughts of Brown himself, which the author uses to bewilder the reader, as well as the supporting characters, on the Devil’s presence, or the validity of the evil around him. Some of it comes from his surroundings, mainly to confuse and terrify Goodman Brown, but also to add a sense of terror for the reader by taking advantage of fear-induced empathy.

            Hawthorne begins the narration of the plotline instantly, with no definite introduction or background information. This forces the reader to immediately attempt to fully understand the situation at hand, perhaps subconsciously overcompensating for their initial and abrupt confusion. To begin the piece, Goodman Brown leaves his wife for a trip or errand of some sort. The ambiguity presents itself in the dialogue with his wife as she asks him not to leave. “Of all nights in the year, this one night must I tarry away from thee. My journey, as thou callest it, forth and back again, must needs be done ‘twixt now and sunrise.’” (pg. 111) As Brown leaves, he gives no indication to what he is actually leaving to accomplish. When he refers to his “journey, as thou callest it,” he chooses his words very carefully, placing the emphasis on his young, innocent wife’s perception of the trip for one or more of three reasons. He could be implying that she is too naïve to comprehend what is really happening, he is trying to confuse her with his subtle condescension, or that he has no idea about what he is actually doing and depends on his wife’s judgment beside his own. By adding this vague description to the conversation, Brown might be opening up an opportunity for Faith to make sense of something neither of them understands, in hopes that she’ll say something that puts his mind at ease. In any case, this allows room for Brown’s uncertainty of his journey, and for his wife to be left questioning more than she was, prior to his departure. The dialogue immediately hooks the reader to learn what this journey entails, and feels a sense of anxiety for what he/she is about to learn of it. Not only do we not know what to think, but a main character lacks this same certainty. This anxiety comes from the vague implication that Faith could ultimately be left without her husband, as well as the fear inside us of “the unknown.”

            Later in the story, Goodman Brown grows increasingly unsure of his surroundings, mental stability, and willpower. The ambiguity in this case comes from the dialogue with those around him. While he is attempting to put all the pieces together, so is the reader. Brown is sitting in the woods, hiding from a woman whom he learns to be a witch, and the devil. He reflects upon his childhood, remembering her as the woman who taught him all his virtues as she speaks to the Devil as if he were royalty. He hears her say to him, “I made my mind to foot it; for they tell me there is a nice young man to be taken into communion to-night.” (pg. 115) The woman speaks this vaguely twice, first, when she says, “they tell me.” This compels Brown and the reader to ask, who are they? It implies there are at least several others with the same ideas and intentions as this deceiving woman who keeps company with the devil. While we ask who, we are also inclined to ask what their motive as a unit is. Moreover, she refers to a “nice young man,” being brought forth for communion. Hawthorne’s diction here is clever, relating her description to Goodman Brown’s name; “nice young man,” to “good young man,” and finally “young good man.” The common, descriptive phrase she uses is undeniably reflective of Brown’s name. He does not seem to notice it however, which conveys his scrambling and busy mind, too preoccupied to make any rationality of the situation. Hawthorne blatantly uses the word “communion” in order to confuse Brown and the reader on all accounts. This is primarily because in this setting, communion is most often used to describe the eating of the blood and flesh of Christ in a Puritan Church. The combination of something that is so holy and the evil practices which seem to ensue implies a turn of events that Goodman Brown is ill-prepared for.

            The ending, above all, is the most ambiguous piece of the aspect of the entire narration. He concludes with Goodman Brown’s death, declaring that “his dying hour was gloom.” He lives and dies overcome with dread, and neither he nor the reader receives any closure. Hawthorne gives neither confirmation nor denial of the presence of the devil within the hearts of Brown or his company. Goodman Brown dies not knowing the truth, and perhaps a piece of the reader’s hope dies along with him.

            In the end, everyone is virtually clueless due to Hawthorne’s indefinite diction to keep the sense of uncertainty alive. By being so vague in his descriptions, specifically in dialogue, he forces Brown and the reader to think more deeply and search for a meaning themselves. For Brown, this results in severe paranoia for the remainder of his life. As for the reader, it results in a placement of oneself into the story, and vicariously experiencing Brown’s skepticism. Hawthorne’s ambiguous style keeps the mind of the reader and Young Goodman Brown open to and responsible of claiming the story and conclusions for themselves, as well as contemplate on the darkness that lives inside them.

Help Received:

  • Thesaurus phone application

X__Sarah E. Lemon

The Problem with Feminists

by

Feminism in the United States is quickly gaining support from young women who feel they’re being oppressed, while searching for a cause to help define their character. Feminism is a legitimate movement that has not yet reached its full potential; due to lack of acknowledgement of certain “sexist” educational techniques, as well as feminists themselves forcing the issue underneath a bad spotlight. Feminism itself is a movement for equal opportunities as men, and an eradication of the teaching of passive nature in young girls. The issue gets a bad rep from women who are angry at men for one reason or another and believe it to be the solution. The squeaky wheel gets the grease; meaning, in this case, that the outspoken and radically upset activists will be presented to the public more than the average supporter. The anger that fuels these activists turn feminism into a man-hunt convention. It generalizes men as a whole in a bad light, which is extremely hypocritical of feminists since that is exactly what they’re fighting against, only the opposite gender. While this is the main problem, I believe, there are still problems with the argument as a whole. The statistic that women make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes is several decades old, and generally just false. Studies show that when factoring in maternity leave, women are actually the higher payed gender overall.

In the link below is a commercial that uses strong pathos and visual representation that argues a feminist case without offense, very effectively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs

http://humanevents.com/2014/09/24/heforshe-and-the-problem-with-modern-feminism/