The Diamond as big as the Ritz, revisited

So, if I remember correctly, we don't actually have to write a blog over break, so this is totally not a serious "for points" blog (if we do actually have to write a blog over break then yes this totally my blog this week). Instead, I'm going to write down some thoughts that I regret not actually writing down because they are actually quite interesting. Keep in mind that this is just me making some questionable but interesting connections, and as much as I regret not actually writing this, I know I would never do so for fear of writing down something so implausible that it would be laughed at.

Remember "The Diamond as big as the Ritz"? I wrote about how finding a literal diamond of that sort could have no good results. However, that was under the assumption that the diamond was indeed a literal diamond. Now, I would like to suggest that, though it existed, it did so in a different form. The diamond existed in the form of slaves. In fact, the whole story is a crack at slavery.

Most of the comforts the whole family enjoys exist because of the endless labor of many, many slaves. And to the South, the slaves represented the manpower needed to pull their agricultural profits. Basically, the money (or rather potential) in the slaves that the South exploited is equivalent to a cubic mile's worth of diamond.

Think about it this way. The whole diamond is underground in a mine that is certainly not visible from an airplane. However, the family's mansion (a symbol of their opulence courtesy of the slaves) is. To protect their source of wealth, the family shoots down every plane in sight. In short, the family destroys even the slightest threat of a threat. The practice of suppressing or attacking abolitionists (the people capable of shedding light on the South's cruel practices and thus the equivalent of the airplane pilots) was certainly a popular one down in the South. In fact, in 1856, a certain representative Preston Brooks attacked senator Charles Sumner with a cane. For this, he received widespread acclaim in the South.

"We consider the act good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences. These vulgar abolitionists in the Senate must be lashed into submission."
-The Richmond Enquirer

Take what you will of this idea, but I always felt like it was a good one. Anyway, now I finally let it out.

Dreams

Heads up, this may or may not have spoilers in it. Before you read this, ask yourself the following question: "Did I read A Raisin in the Sun (Acts I and II) yet?" If the answer to that question is no, stop reading this. If yes, then continue.

This post is going to be an analysis of what I see as the important dreams in A Raisin in the Sun. It will gauge the plausibility and content of said dreams.

Obviously, the most in your face of these dreams has to be Walter's. He simply won't keep quiet about his dream to own a liquor store and get rich. Even when he loses that dream, the first thing he does is cry about it (Can I go ahead and say that we all knew his plan was an impending train wreck when we saw it?). But was it even a possibility to start with?

Well, not really. See, the thing that made Walter so enthusiastic about it was the fact that he was promised that it was more or less within reach. Given he could come up with X amount of cash (I say X because it was all $10,000 to start with, but as we find out he managed to push ahead with only $6,500) he could get his store and... lead his family to the promised land? Walter never thought out the details of his whole get rich quick scheme (such as the real benefits of success and the time and emotional costs involved) and he kept his eyes only on the fact that it would get him rich (he even promises to give Travis the world). I guess the fact that he didn't think out his plan made sense. Walter is the kind of person who appears to have only two things that he wants in life. Those would be alcohol and money, and unfortunately as his life stands the acquisition of one means either the denial or loss of the other. The store represents his dream of getting the best of both worlds and essentially getting money to be drunk (I mean, let's be honest. Given half a chance, Walter would happily drink all of the alcohol in a store that he owns). His dream is unreasonable from the outset, and though he is perfectly fine with lashing out at Mama and accusing her of crushing  his dreams, he is also fine with simultaneously crushing Beneatha's dream of being a doctor.

Beneatha's dream of being a doctor happens to be one the other important dreams in the book. She is the only person in the family who is in college (or at least in a position to get a medical degree). She's also facing a bit of an identity crisis (she doesn't know what she likes so she tries everything and doesn't know really know anything about her heritage and so compensates by being the most annoyingly un-assimilated person in the novel).

It's fairly safe to say, though, that her dream of becoming a doctor is realistic. Mama tells Walter to set aside $3,000 for her education, which is affordable given the whole $10,000 budget. Also, her job as a doctor would be fairly stable and she'd be able to support the family (and her identity eccentricities). In fact, had Walter been able to think objectively about the situation, he'd be able to tell that if he could only get past his whole obsession with alcohol and masculinity and being the breadwinner and let Beneatha take over, he would be much happier. But, of course, that isn't the case.

The last dream that matters is Mama's. Unfortunately, we don't really know much about this one, despite it being a very important dream. It's certainly sustainable, with a down payment of $3,500 and it would heavily benefit the family. It would also be highly practical, because as it stands the family can't expand. However, we really don't know a lot about how it will impact that family, other than the fact that the new neighbors will be jerks (maybe we'll work out what happens about this dream in act III?)

Diamonds are forever (inducing headaches)

So, what would you do if you got a hold of a more or less infinite supply of one of the earth's most precious materials? Would you sell it and live the life of a rich person? Would you release it into the market and make that material lose its rarity? Would you sell it for the sake of assisting the poor and downtrodden? How you answer this question says a lot about who you are.

You see, in the story "the diamond as big as the Ritz," a man comes across a diamond that is literally a cubic mile across. That much diamond entering circulation could instantly ruin the entire diamond market. However, slowly introducing it into the market would make the person in question rich beyond belief. So let's look at the options.

The most obvious (and most self beneficial) choice is to simply keep the diamond hidden and sell it slowly into the market for a huge profit. This is what the Washingtons (the family in the story) choose to do with the diamond. However, while this is certainly a good choice in terms of self benefit, it doesn't help anyone else.

Another option would be to use money from diamond sales to help other people. This would result in a Robin Hood style taking of money from the rich in order to help the poor or whoever. It might make a difference in some areas because of sheer scale (the Washingtons are described as being so rich that the official richest men on Earth are small fry), but ultimately it runs the risk that either the people receiving the help or the people handing it out will abuse it.

A third option entails simply releasing the diamond into the market all at once. This would make a huge impact on diamond prices, because with all this extra diamond in the market it could easily make diamond have very little market value. However, because diamond is vital in industrial processes, an abundance of diamond would allow diamond based tools to become much cheaper, benefiting society as a whole (but completely destroying diamond's worth in jewelry and ruining diamond marketers).

All in all, there really aren't any "correct choices" on how to utilize that much diamond. No matter what you chose to do, some party or another will suffer. That's why it's really hard to criticize the Washingtons effectively. Aside from the ridiculous amount of trouble they went through protecting the diamond, the choice they made (self benefit) is arguably the least damaging one; no one loses from it. Yes, the people they sold the diamonds to paid full market value for them, but the other option is just horrifyingly bad for the gem economy.

For lack of a better graphic, here's a hastily done scumbag diamond.

Bad drivers, Great Gatsby Style

The Great Gatsby is an amazing story of love, money, and the American Dream. It's also an interesting indicator of American ideals at the time, and to a certain extent of American ideals today.

Towards the beginning of the story, Jordan Baker tells Nick that she is a good driver because everyone else is a good driver, and it takes two bad drivers to have an accident. As she drives, she simply hopes that she will never meet another bad driver. That is a very interesting statement, because in a sense the first part is true. A good driver would simply avoid being next to a bad driver, and allow him to drive himself to ruin. Thus technically a single bad driver on the road would be perfectly fine. Unfortunately, when the entirety of the American people collectively decided to live with that mentality, things became dangerous. It only took the economy a slight economic downturn (the threat of a bad driver) to crash itself.

It's also interesting how throughout the entire story, alcohol in general is regarded as a thing of the elite, as only Tom, Gatsby, and a few other select individuals can really get access to it. Gatsby, of course, shares his with the populace in his parties (how he manages to not get arrested despite his ties to the police commissioner due to the fact that no doubt large portions of the police force come to his house every Saturday is beyond me). Also, it's funny how due to his alcohol, many have the courage to belittle him (such as the "gentleman" Nick contacts about Gatsby's funeral).

To protect and serve....themselves liquor

Chilly ages and atoms on Hiroshima

So, students in school are fed legitimate history, right? It's not just whitewashed nonsense, right?

Well, obviously we aren't taught as poorly as the students of a certain history teacher are (*coughcoughBillyCollins'snotquitepoem*), but it cannot be denied that all people experience bias in some way, shape or form. This includes people who write history books (and more importantly includes the people who teach history using said history books). History is written by the winners, so we do not really get the full picture from history.

A fairly good example of this is the whole deal with the colonization of America. If you think about it, American history is more or less made upon the mass grave of a population of Native Americans that, according to some estimates, was comparable in size to that of Europe. But we don't exactly remember that very well.We learn that European settlers came to America and wrecked shop with smallpox and gunpowder weapon wielding troops but we don't remember the sheer destruction that Europe caused upon the natives as well as we should. In fact, history skates over many facets of the colonization of America. For example, remember the idea of Manifest Destiny? Of course you do. It was great for Americans. But do you remember what Manifest Destiny meant for Natives? It meant that Americans believed they were entitled to ancestral land that the natives had used for centuries.

It didn't help that they were....oct-icimated.

Technical terms, thanks to Crash Course US History

So yeah.

At least we know that the history we learn wasn't ultra far off right? I mean, we remember the Roaring Twenties as an ultra lavish time period in American History, and the Great Gatsby seems to confirm that (Since it was written in 1925 it is technically a primary source). Ahh well.

How the debate could have gone

Ok, so I'm pretty sure that 80% or so of the blog posts this week are going to be typed up versions of our synthesis paragraphs if only because it's easier to do so. So I figured I'd just be a trailblazer and write one of the first blog posts (or I assume I'll be one of the first because most of us are probably just going to do it at like 8pm on Sunday). Unfortunately, I believe that my potential material is pretty limited because pretty much all the stuff discussed this week was pretty much punctuation or grammar; ergo, I am forced to write about punctuation anyway. But I promise it won't be a typed up synthesis paragraph! I don't even HAVE my synthesis paragraph to cheat off of anyway. Most likely this is going to an analysis of what I perceive are the strongest points on both sides and potential rebuttals (And perhaps rebuttals of rebuttals). This is going to be a very long post, so don't read this unless you truly want to hear what I have to say.

So let's start with a look at the argument of the most effective debaters of "the most effective debaters" (the pro-punctuation side of 2nd hour). As far as I can tell, their premise mostly revolves around the idea that punctuation exists to prevent miscommunications. This, of course, makes sense in theory. After all, no one wants to have "Let's eat, Grandma!" become "Let's eat Grandma!"

Cannibalism on a T-shirt. Brought to you by Punctuation and Google Images.

When I was thinking of rebuttals to this idea (and I did think of a lot of them, they just weren't used. As a result, I will be reiterating them here), two particular ideas came to mind. The first is more obvious; it simply goes along the lines of "No self respecting human being with a sense of context would be confused by this!" and most of the time, you'd be right. But the point of punctuation is that you are ALWAYS right. After all (God forbid), what if the narrator of this sentence was a cannibal? Then context would not be so useful. Is he inviting his grandmother to the table so as to enjoy a meal? Or is he really interested in eating his grandma? Punctuation would clear that particular situation fairly easily. So this particular rebuttal isn't infallible.

Another attack on this premise is that tighter punctuation rules means more rules, each of which have certain applications. As it goes, more rules = more chances to mess up = more miscommunications. I actually thought of this idea as a way to point out that less punctuation does not necessarily mean more errors. And clearly people mess up our current punctuation rules; that is why Grammar Nazis exists. The obvious response to this particular rebuttal is a trap; yes, it is true that Grammar Nazis nitpick on unimportant things and that the errors they point out are unlikely to cause miscommunications, but the context miscommunications above are equally unlikely. Thus, as the anti-punctuation side would have it, less punctuation and more punctuation cause equal amounts of miscommunications. And since less punctuation is so much simpler to type, there is no reason to keep the current amount of punctuation. There is a second response to this rebuttal, but I don't wish to bore you with the explanation. Long story short, it ends in a stalemate with a slight advantage on the side of anti-punctuation team as well.

But enough about the rebuttals of the pro punctuation argument. I have to attack the anti punctuation side as well to be fair. So first things first, let's look at the premise. As far as I can tell, the best premise available to the anti punctuation side is that the evolution of the English language is that English, like every other non dead language (coughLatincough) changes over time. However, it has also gained a lot of rather ineffective punctuation rules over time that have come and gone. Thus, it needs to be trimmed.

Well, because I lack the insight of the pro-punctuation group on what they would respond with, I can only come up with one rebuttal right now. I assume the most logical response is that our current punctuation system is a result of the evolution that I pointed out earlier and that if it changes, it will do so imperceptibly and thus there is no need to push it in a direction which history may regret. Of course, I doubt this is the route the pro punctuation group would push because it is too....moderate. What I just came up with seems to be a compromise of sorts. But you get the general idea.

Dimmesdale is not Jean Valjean

First off, today's post is going to be another spoiler post. If you didn't read last week's post because of that and you STILL haven't read The Scarlet Letter, then that bucket goes back on your head, buster.

So today, I have decided to condense all of the anger I have collected reading all of the misfortunes in the book into an attack on the pitiful excuse for a human being named Dimmesdale. That means that this kind of also qualifies as a hate post. So if you're against that, better join the person with the bucket. Maybe there's space for two.

"But Nick," you say in surprise, "no one hates Dimmesdale. In the end, he was redee--"

NO. That is not redemption. Which is depressing, but more on that later.

Anyway, we all remember Dimmesdale's whole scene where he admits his adultery and shows everyone his A before he dies, but consider what I have to say.

Dimmesdale once has a conversation with Chillingsworth in which they discuss a dark looking plant that grew upon a poor soul's tombstone. Dimmesdale thinks about what could possibly be so dark as to cause this to happen. He also wonders whether or not grass will ultimately grow upon his grave (and he also has a guilt attack in the process, leading the reader to think that he believes it will not). This conversation, I believe, is ultimately the true reason he admits anything at all. The simple act of grass not growing on a grave signifies a lot to Dimmesdale. I mean, think. We know nothing about the man from whose gravestone grew Chillingsworth's test subject. We only know that he probably did something bad. Think of that from Dimmesdale's perspective. Though he stands to lose his whole reputation with the entirety of Salem at the time, doing so is much better than being remembered as a bad person by all of the people of future generations. He wins by confessing his guilt.

And though he loses the respect of almost everyone, he does it at the time when losing said respect means the least to him. Literally at the moment of death when future shame means nothing, he loses the guilt which so threatens his getting into Heaven. Plus he gets to spite Chillingsworth as a bonus.

To reiterate, he stands to gain so much by confessing that it isn't an unnatural thing that he drags out of himself. It was the logical choice. Yes, it may have sucked, confessing to everyone he acted like a paragon towards, but in the end it was the logical choice.

You tell me what's the better option.

I drew up a decision matrix on MS Paint to represent his choice. Higher possible numbers represent relative weight values of benefits or losses. And yes, I may have overexaggerated a bit, but you get the idea.

Earlier in this post I mentioned that this was depressing. Why? Because Dimmesdale represents us. Hawthorne shows that humans, as a selfish species, will wait to the last second to do things because the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages of doing so. Of course, no one likes that, but it's the truth.

We want the most for the least.

Chillingsworth for whatever he's worth

First off, this blog post is on The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne. If you haven't read at least part of it, stop reading. If someone is reading this to you, put a bucket on your head and smack it with a spoon or something if you don't want any spoilers. Still reading? Then I shall assume you have enough understanding of the book to at least know who all the characters are.

Okay, we all get that Chillingsworth is a creep, and this is even reflected in his appearance. But is he purely evil, or is he rather a disillusioned old man with a perverted sense of good?

Let's all remember that Chillingsworth is Hester's actual husband. However, when he meets her again for the first time since she came to the New World in prison, Chillingsworth feels remorse for his part in her public shaming. As a result, he promises not to seek revenge on Hester or her baby, though he does not feel the same way for the person who Hester committed adultery with. Hester notices this, and forces him to promise that he will not seek physical revenge on Dimmesdale (who she does not name even though Chillingsworth makes it abundantly clear that he will find out).

Chillingsworth is also a physician, and a good one at that. This is interesting because physicians have a connotation of good people who work to make better lives for everyone. However, Chillingsworth uses his skills in a perverted manner and attempts to hurt Dimmesdale with his knowledge of healing herbs.

All in all, though Chillingsworth is certainly a rather dark character, he probably had good intentions to start, which were bent to into what they are shown as in the novel.

"Trust me! I'm a doctor!"
(Let's be honest. When we imagine Chillingsworth, we imagine someone with the skeletal structure of the Hunchback of Notre Dame)

The power given to words

Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, as far as I can tell, is an interesting read and provides some valuable insights into the Puritan settlers who first colonized America. It also happens to remind me of a few things that I've heard before.

The scarlet letter referenced in the book title no doubt has a negative connotation, but it and pretty much every other word in existence only really has as much power and meaning as we decide to give it. I mean, think about the idea of a scarlet letter if it was not referenced with a book. It would be a red colored...letter. It would be like hearing a word from another language. Without some knowledge or context to work out what the word in question means, the only real thought possible in such a situation is simply, "What does that signify"?

The thing is, the scarlet letter only has meaning when we have an idea or know what it means. Reading the first chapter of the book is enough to give you enough context that the letter is probably bad. Looking at the covers of the books we were given and seeing the rather sullen face of the woman with the letter is also context. We learn that the book is going nowhere good and the woman is probably not doing so well (Also if you DO know what the letter means note that the woman is holding a baby).

We made language by assigning values or definitions to arbitrarily picked sounds (this is probably why we have different languages -- everyone just assigned the values to different sounds). This is also why some languages happen to have words for certain things while others suffer from such lexical gaps (see below).

This is also a scarlet letter, and though it is also not good news, it most certainly is NOT the same as Hawthorne's scarlet letter

Lexical Gaps (as explained by Hank Green)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LpHfPOM6GQ

Give me liberty or give me death...or both!

Allow me to start off by pointing out that Patrick Henry is dead. He has been dead for a long time. But before he died he became one of the most influential founding fathers of the greatest nation in history, a nation founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But also remember that the US was created in a revolution. And a revolution, as pointed out by the video below, means a 360 degree turn. So it's worth asking the following question: did we actually change at all?

Even Patrick Henry himself, despite his calls for liberty, strongly opposed the US Constitution on the grounds that it created a president that could easily turn into a new king. Yet despite his protests, the Constitution was ratified and the office of President created. So if our initial idea of governing head was based on the British model, did we really change? Or did we simply change leaders?

Remember that on the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers listed grievances towards Britain in terms of things that the King did. They protested HIS rule and subsequently fired up rebellion. But considering the fact that the initial issue with Britain that started the whole thing was "taxation without representation,"they were OK with the taxation and representation in Parliament meant something.

Eventually we ended up with the US and its Congress (based on Parliament) and its President (Loosely based on the king). They just were filled with different guys.

"Look at all those stairs we climbed! We must have made such progress!"

A revolution is a 360 degree turn plus some background info on the American Revolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EiSymRrKI4

Hysteria

People who live today can easily claim to be extremely different compared to, for example, the Europeans that colonized America. But is that really true? Changes between generations of living beings tend to be minute at best -- for example, there was no point at which a wolf became a dog, or, as minutephysics will point out in the video at the end, no point at which a proto-chicken became a chicken. There was no generation during which a colonial-era human gave birth to a modern-day human. So how do we know that we have changed? Well, maybe we haven't. In fact, in terms of actual behavioral change, we probably haven't changed much from our distant cave men ancestors. For example, we tend to feel adrenaline rushes while presenting to an audience. As a result, we are jumpy and speak quickly. So if the adrenaline doesn't help us, why do we have it? Probably because such mechanisms were useful in prehistoric eras when humans had to respond to unforeseen dangers quickly. But why am I discussing long term changes anyway?

Because we have made almost none. We still react the same way to the same stimuli as before; we just have more sophisticated titles for things that scare us. Witches and Communists are both equally unlikely to take over America, but we have responded with the same fear and finger waggling to both. It simply takes a target that many people hate combined with some over-zealous investigators as well as some high intensity accusation matches to cause the mass hysteria that engulfs and damages society.

Even now, we are still freaking out over entirely useless things. Things like the Illuminati. Or the shadow bankers of the Knights Templar. Or Majestic Twelve.

Or this guy.

Minutephysics discusses change/evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a8pI65emDE

Democracy may not always be the best idea

No doubt we all remember the Salem Witch Trials as a horrific event filled with wild accusations, brutal trials and executions, and mass hysteria and mob mentality. But the Salem Witch Trials were certainly not the norm or else we would not remember them as well. So what made the Salem Witch Trials possible?

To start, the government in Salem at the time takes some of the blame. The theocracy in charge of Salem and indeed the region made witchcraft a crime that is both heavily punished and yet easy to pin on others. This makes it possible for vengeance to be extracted fairly easily through legal means. Social standards also are a little at fault as the lack of privacy advocated in the community certainly made it easy to feed on the resulting paranoia and convert it to mass hysteria

The most important factor in the creation of the Salem Witch Trials, though, has to be the mob mentality.

As pointed out by John Proctor in Arthur Miller's The Crucible, the accusing party in the Witch Trials is never at fault and is often seen as completing a holy task. Thus, there is a huge incentive to be part of the accusing party -- accusations against you will not be taken seriously. As the mob grew larger and larger the power it wielded grew until the courts began to act like democracies; you won if more people screamed with you. And with the charges more often than not leveled on a single person, it's rather hard for the accused to win such a battle.

This effect can be shown in a segment in the following video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygEEL57AcZs
Start at about 6 minutes in and end at 7 for the specific segment about a democracy vs a republic.

The powers of democracy and mob mentality made it so that the powerful elite at the head of the mob could charge who they liked of Witchcraft and get many of them to die or lose their reputations. Thus, the Trials could commence in of their grisly glory (or lack of glory thereof).

Why are we alive?

No this is not going to be a self-pitying rant about "Why am I specifically alive?" or "Why are we all here," but rather a question on the intentions of God and other religious deities.

As a christian, I'm not even going to pretend to know what God wants. Historically, this "we can never know the will of God" thing has been very convenient for religious leaders, as they can spout all kinds of nonsense and just say that they could not understand the powers that be when people point out that they are wrong. However, I am going to make a case against one religious leader, Jonathan Edwards.

In his rather famously brutal speech "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God," Edwards makes some very emotionally compelling arguments (Apparently he had people weeping and contemplating suicide due to his speech), but the logical side of his arguments certainly needs some shoring up. For starts, Edwards constantly describes all the endless horrors that God has ready for unconverted men, and that he could at any time kill them, whether it be by withholding miracles or opening the earth beneath them or just shooting them with invisible divine bow and arrows. But why hasn't he?

In his speech, Edwards fails to mention any reason that God has not done so, other than the fact that no one knows what He is thinking. If God truly had no reason to hold off all this imminent death, then surely everyone who is reading this blog should not exist, as he would not have held off this death and thus our ancestors (and thus us) should never have existed to start with. Then why DO we exist?

Perhaps we exist because God is indeed not that angry at us. According to the Bible, God sent his only son in the form of Jesus Christ to pay for our sins because he loved us. It is also said that Jesus paid for every sin in the past, present, and future. To make such a claim, God would have to know the future, meaning that he would know about the people of Edward's time well before they were alive.

Admittedly, that argument (and any other argument made on this topic) is flimsy at best, because really we don't know much about our divine entities, probably because this mysteriousness is part of their attractiveness. Again, we do not know the will of God. But surely anyone with the time and sense to think through Edward's speech can tell that what he says does not reflect the will of God. Or maybe you think otherwise. Anyway, let me know in the comments. And please do not go crazy with about religion and all.

"Asian Education"

Sherman Alexie, in an excerpt from his book The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, describes his unorthodox upbringing at the hands of alcohol and racism. The result is what he labels "Indian Education." Yet every ethnicity's quirks can result in a different type of education, right?

It's no secret that Asian children have recently been developing a reputation for substantial success in America's education system. The modern (partly correct) stereotype of always overachieving and getting top notch grades no matter the price tends to put Asians among the creme de la creme in terms of achievement focused students. But why is this the case? Here's my take on it (or at least my take on Chinese students, as I'm not qualified to really examine another ethnicity).

One factor in this success could be the heritage of modern Chinese students. It was only recently that Chinese people were really allowed to leave the country, and those that did were the intellectual elite of the Cultural Revolution era. Whether they were allowed to leave because they posed the greatest threat to Chairman Mao's rule or because they would China look good to the international community I do not know. Perhaps, though, as they had children, they passed down their affinity for education.

The people who could leave also passed down their habits and views. No doubt in order to succeed, they put insane amounts of effort into their work. It would not be much of a stretch to assume that they taught their children to do whatever it takes to reach their goals. Also, as a result of the crippling poverty that marked the cultural revolution, modern Chinese parents probably place more importance on money than most other things. This is probably why many Chinese students are aiming to become doctors, lawyers, or engineers, three of the top-paying jobs on the market.

No doubt there are other factors in the modern phenomenon of high achieving Asian students, but it would seem like a ridiculous coincidence that the smartest people from Asia came to breed some of the smartest children in the rest of the world if indeed heritage does not play a role in Asian success. In whatever the case, I look forward to what you think. Any thoughts? Comment below.

Is the truth worth sacrificing for the sake of the "truth"?

Stories are meant to convey information, whether it be sensory information or emotional information. Yet, when the information is of an emotional nature, story writers have had problems conveying the emotions themselves as opposed to descriptions of the emotions. Thus, the following question arises: "What are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of the truth?"

Obviously, since this is a rather personal question, different people have had different answers. For example, Tim O'Brien, in his book The Things they Carried, successfully maintained verisimilitude. Yet he admits that most of the story was fake. Why?

Clearly, for Tim, the gut emotions of his war experiences amounted to more than the experiences themselves. Thus, for him, for the sake of the "truth," (his emotions) he sacrificed the truth (what actually happened). For example, in the chapter "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong," the entire incident including Mary Anne was highly unlikely, as no girl would be allowed into an American base in Vietnam. Yet, the core truth -- that war changes people and forces them back to their feral roots -- is enhanced by the deception.

This truth is seen in the real world, too. As areas formerly peaceful have become shaken by war, common civilians have both taken arms and used their skills to help others. For example, some civilians in war-torn Syria have created a homemade tank. It can be seen by following the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1BDrFzFY0

Still, back to the point, Tim O'Brien was willing to sacrifice a lot for his "truth." His decision reflects on him as a writer and as a person. What would you sacrifice for the truth? Is information gathered by the senses worth more than information gleaned from experience? Let me know.