Democrats and Republicans treat us like pets!

Democrats treat us like pets in cages. As long as we stay in our cages, run on our exercise wheels, and don't make too much noise, they'll feed us and give us shots as we need them ⁽¹⁾. To me, that's pretty depressing.

Republicans will let us out of our cages and give us a chance to succeed, but they'll have cats out, too, ready to pounce on us in our ignorance and naivete ⁽²⁾, and that's just evil.

If the federal government will get the heck out of education and let schools teach 12 years of economics and finance, maybe we won't be so vulnerable if the Republicans let us out of our "cages"

I want to vote Republican, but I can't until public schools teach economics and finance. Until then, Americans are being set up to succeed at work 8 hours a day but fail financially 24 hours a day.

(1) For example, Democrat entitlement policies stifle individual innovation, encourage non-advancing worker-bee jobs, and force people to work for established corporations to get health care.
(2) For example, if Republicans privatize social security, 99% will be given a chance to beat the market, but none of them will have the training to do so. They will immediately lose their savings to the 1% that are adequately trained.

Quotes from Fahrenheit 451

If you've ever read Fahrenheit 451, then this list of quotes, in order, makes a pretty good summary of Ray Bradbury's novel:

p 5 ...the dark eyes were so fixed to the world that no move escaped them. Her dress was white and it whispered.

p 7 ...face bright as snow in the moonlight,...

p 7 ...two shining drops of bright water...two miraculous bits of violet amber that might capture and hold him intact...fragile milk crystal...strangely comfortable and rare and gently flattering light of the candle...

p 7 ...space lost its vast dimensions and drew comfortably around them.

p 9 My uncle drove slowly on a highway once. He drove forty miles an hour and they jailed him for two days.

p 9-10 My uncle was arrested another time--did I tell you?--for being a pedestrian.

p 17 ...their laughter was relaxed and hearty and not forced in any way...

p 17 How are you supposed to root for the home team when you don't even have a program or know the names?

p 18 I don't know anything any more.

p 18 She was an expert at lip reading from ten years of apprenticeship at Seashell ear thimbles.

p 20 What's the play about? I just told you. There are these people named Rob and Ruth and Helen.

p 27 Why? You got a guilty conscience about something?

p 29 It's just I haven't had time--

p 29 But I don't think it's social to get a bunch of people together and then not let them talk, do you?

p 29 more sports

p 30 They run us so ragged by the end of the day we can't do anything but go to bed or head for a Fun Park and bully people around...

p 31 People don't talk about anything ...  They name a lot of cars or clothes or swimming pools mostly and nobody says anything different from anyone else ... the same jokes most of the time...

p 33 Any man's insane who thinks he can fool the government...

p 36 ...swinging silver hatchets at doors that were, after all, unlocked...

p 36 You weren't hurting anyone, you were hurting only things.

p 39 ...her quietness a condemnation...

p 40 You've gone right by the corner where we turn for the firehouse.

p 43 Funny, how funny, not to remember where or when you met your husband'r wife.

p 44 ...a silly empty man, near a silly empty woman, ... How do you get so empty?

p 44 ...said nothing, nothing, nothing and said it loud, loud, loud.

p 49 What was on? Programs. What programs? Some of the best ever. Who? Oh, you know, the bunch.

p 49 We burnt an old woman with her books ... It's a good thing the rug's washable.

p 51 There must be something in books, things we can't imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house...She was simple-minded.

p 56 The zipper replaces the button and a man lacks just that much time to to think while dressing at dawn, a philosophical hour, and thus a melancholy hour.

p 57 More sports for everyone, group spirit, fun, and you don't have to think, eh? Organize and organize and superorganize super-super sports. More cartoons in books. More pictures. The mind drinks less and less. Impatience. Highways full of crowds going somewhere, somewhere, somewhere, nowhere.

p 57 Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs,...

p 57 The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy...

p 58 It didn't come from the Government down...

p 58 ...you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals.

p 58 With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be.

p 58 ...then all are happy...

p 58-59 ...[firemen] were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mind...official censors, judges, and executors.

p 59 People want to be happy

p 60 The home environment can undo a lot you try to do at school. That's why we've lowered the kindergarten age year after year until now we're almost snatching them from the cradle.

p 61 If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.

p 61 If the government is inefficient, topheavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that let people worry over it.

p 61 Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely 'brilliant' with information ... Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy.

p 63 ...there used to be front porches. And people sat there sometimes at night, talking when they wanted to talk, rocking, and not talking when they didn't want to talk.

p 63 The real reason, hidden underneath, might be they didn't want people sitting like that, doing nothing, rocking, talking; that was the wrong kind of social life. People talked too much. And they had time to think.

p 65 Happiness is important. Fun is everything. And yet...I'm not happy.

p 66 We've got to start somewhere here, figuring out why we're in such a mess, you and the medicine nights, and the car, and me and my work. We're heading right for the cliff, Millie, God, I don't want to go over.

p 67 And men like Beatty are afraid of her. I can't understand it.

p 71 ...the cold November rain fell...

p 73 Is it because we're having so much fun at home we've forgotten the world? Is it because we're so rich and the rest of the world's so poor and we just don't care if they are?

p 74 Is it true, the world works hard and we play? Is that why we're hated so much?

p 76-77 ...all the silly things the words mean, all the false promises, all the second-hand notions and time-worn philosophies.

p 79 Denham's Dentifrice, Denham's Dandy Dental Detergent, Denham's Dentifrice Dentifrice Dentifrice,...

p 82 ...you are looking at a coward. I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I'm one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the 'guilty',...

p 82 Nobody listens any more. I can't talk to the walls because they're yelling at me. I can't talk to my wife; she listens to the walls.

p 82 We have everything we need to be happy, but we aren't happy. Something's missing.

p 82 It's not books you need, it's some of the things that once were in the books. The same things could be in the 'parlor families' today.

p 83 The magic is only in what the books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us.

p 84 Leisure. Oh, but we have plenty of off-hours. Off-hours, yes. But time to think?

p 84 The televisor is 'real'...It tells me what to think and blasts it in. It must be right. It seems so right. It rushes you on so quickly to its own conclusions your mind hasn't time to protest...It becomes and is the truth.

p 84-85 Number one...: quality of information. Number two: leisure to digest it. And number three: the right to carry out actions based on what we learn from the interaction of the first two.

p 86 ...when we had all the books we needed, we still insisted on finding the highest cliff to jump off.

p 87 Remember, the firemen are rarely necessary. The public itself stopped reading of its own accord.

p 89 I remember the newspapers dying like huge moths. No one wanted them back.

p 89 Those who don't build must burn.

p 92 I don't want to change sides and just be told what to do. There's no reason to change if I do that. ... You're wise already.

p 96-97 Let's talk politics ... President Noble. I think he's one of the nicest-looking men ever became president. Oh, but the man they ran against him! ... small and homely and he didn't shave too close or comb his hair very well ... little short man like that ... mumbled ... Fat ... No wonder the landslide was for Winston Noble.

p 99 Dover Beach

p 101 I've always said poetry and tears, poetry and suicide and crying and awful feelings, poetry and sickness; all that mush!

p 101 Silly words, silly words, silly awful hurting words ... Why do people want to hurt people?

p 101 Let's laugh and be happy now, stop crying, we'll have a party!

p 103 ... you were so recently of them yourself. They are so confident that they will run on forever. But they won't run on.

p 107 What traitors books can be! You think they're backing you up, and they turn on you.

p 108 ... the most dangerous enemy to truth and freedom, the solid unmoving cattle of the majority.

p 109 Here we go to keep the world happy ...

p 113 Old Montag wanted to fly near the sun and now that he's burnt his wings, he wonders why.

p 114 She didn't do anything to anyone. She just left them alone.

p 114 Alone, hell! She chewed around you, didn't she? One of those damn do-gooders with their shocked, holier-than-thou silences, their one talent making others feel guilty.

p 115 What is fire? ... Its real beauty is that it destroys responsibilities and consequences.

p 115 Now, Montag, you're a burden.

p 116 ... he had lived here in this empty house with a strange woman who would forget him tomorrow, who had gone and quite forgotten him already, listening to her Seashell Radio ...

p 118 Give a man a few lines of verse and he thinks he's the Lord of all Creation.

p 121 ... don't face a problem, burn it.

p 122 Beatty wanted to die.

p 123 ... burn them or they'll burn you, ...

p 124 [the highway at night] seemed like a boatless river frozen there in the raw light of the high white arc lamps;

p 124 [a gas station at night] a great chunk of porcelain snow shining there, ...

p 125 The police helicopters were rising so far away that it seemed someone had blown the gray head off a dry dandelion flower.

p 125 "War has been declared."

p 128 A carful of children ... had seen a man, a very extraordinary sight, a man strolling, a rarity, and simply said, "Let's get him," ...

p 128 For no reason at all in the world they would have killed me.

p 132 Even though practically everything's airborne these days and most of the tracks are abandoned, the rails are still there, rusting.

p 133 Tonight, this network is proud to have the opportunity to follow the Hound by camera helicopter as it starts on its way to the target--

p 139 ...thousands of faces peering into yards, into alleys, and into the sky, faces hid by curtains, pale, night-frightened faces, like gray animals peering from electric caves, faces with gray colorless eyes, gray tongues, and gray thoughts looking out through the numb flesh of the face.

p 140 He was moving from an unreality that was frightening into a reality that was unreal because it was new.

p 141 The sun burnt every day. It burnt Time.

p 142 ... a strange fire because it meant something different to him. It was not burning. It was warming.

p 143 He had never thought in his life that it could give as well as take.

p 148 Don't think the police don't know the habits of queer ducks like that, ... the police have had him charted for months, years. Never know when that sort of information might be handy.

p 152 Right now we have a horrible job; we're waiting for the war to begin and, as quickly, end. It's not pleasant, but then we're not in control, we're the odd minority crying in the wilderness.

p 153 But you can't make people listen. They have to come 'round in their own time...

p 153 The most important single thing we had to pound into ourselves is that we were not important, we mustn't be pendants; we were no to feel superior to anyone else in the world.

p 154 ... until another Dark Age.

p 154 But that's the wonderful thing about man; he never gets so discouraged or disgusted that he gives up doing it all over again, because he knows very well it is important and worth the doing.

p 158 And the war began and ended in that instant.

p 158 ...yet the heart is suddenly shattered, the body falls in separate motions, and the blood is astonished to be freed on the air; the brain squanders it few precious memories and, puzzled, dies.

p 163 There was a silly damn bird called a phoenix back before Christ, every few hundred years he built a pyre and burnt himself up. He must have been first cousin to Man.

p 165 To everything there is a season. [Ecclesiastes 3:1] Yes. A time to break down, and a time to build up. Yes. A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.

Reference
Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451. 50th Anniversary Edition. 1953,1979,1981,1982. Del Rey.
Ted Bogart, "Fahrenheit 451 and 1984", Book Block, 2012, web.

Has Contemporary Liberalism Lost its Way?

I think so, and here's why:

• In the Middle Ages, classical liberalism was a movement to liberate the fledgling merchant class from the authoritarian rule of monarchs and aristocrats.
• To do so, classical liberalism sought to reduce the power of the government.
• Over time, the aristocrats and monarchs lost power but powerful industrialists emerged from the merchant class.
• So in the Industrial Age, modern liberalism became a movement to liberate workers from the domination of industrialists.
• To do so, modern liberals enlisted the aid of democratic governments and expanded their power.
• Once again another power shift has occurred. The industrialists have gone overseas.
• Power appears to be in the hands of those who control information and knowledge. 
• Contemporary liberals, however, are still focused on industrialists, government regulations, and labor. It's time to move on. 

Modern education teaches people to believe what they hear rather than teach them to think for themselves:

• Why do people believe what they see on TV?
• Why do people buy houses they can't afford?
• Why does anyone lease a personal car?
• Who does the math to see if refinancing really saves money over the long term?
• Why do people believe they own their homes when banks hold their titles?
• Why do people believe health care has been reformed?
• How were people persuaded to invade Iraq?
• Why are people convinced that trickle-down economics benefits them?
• How were people persuaded to pay for Wall Street bailouts?
• How were people convinced of "too big to fail"
• Why do people believe you can cut taxes and increase spending indefinitely?
• Why do people with no education in economics or finance think they can beat the stock market if the government privatizes Social Security?

It's time to liberate people again from a new domineering class, but I don't know who they are. They're apparently in control of education. Amazingly Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 foretold how this could happen. The book contains action and adventure, but the real story takes place between the action and adventure.

We share our country with lots of people, so we can't do anything until more people realize what the problem is.

Please read Fahrenheit 451, make your own observations and conclusions, and decide for yourself. If I'm right, tell your friends.

References
Ted Bogart, "History of Liberalism", Book Blog, 2012, web.
"Liberalism", Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1975, vol. 10, pp. 846-851.
Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451. 50th Anniversary Edition. 1953,1979,1981,1982. Del Rey.

The 21st Century Economy by Randy Epping

This is an excellent survey of all the economics topics everyone needs to know right now. Every topic is introduced, briefly discussed, and related to current events and politics. While there's more to each topic than one book can cover, this one presents everything that everybody needs to know right now. Not only that, it has all the key words and names you need for further searching and reading on any individual topics of interest.

Unlike many books on popular economics, this one, while slightly left-leaning, is mostly even-sided and objective. Many others are conspiracy theories or one-sided political diatribes. (I do find the conspiracy theories kind of fun though) This book includes everything, including things like the United Nations and environmentalism. Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, though, these topics have an economic impact on current events, and that's what this book is about. Any survey omitting them would be incomplete.

The 21st Century Economy should be required reading for all high school seniors, college students, and voters. I doubt all the politicians making major economic decisions understand these topics. Voters need to realize this!!!

My own little diatribe:
American public education prepares students to become workers for 8 hours a day but completely ignores economics, which affects us 24 hours a day. Everyone needs to understand this so we can get an economics curriculum in schools where it's needed. What else explains why so many otherwise smart people make so many bad financial decisions? This book can help us fix that.

Reference:
Randy Charles Epping. The 21st Century Economy: A Beginner's Guide. Vintage Books. 2009.

The Turn of the Screw - Movies

Henry James The Turn of the Screw has been adapted into several movies. Part of the mystery is whether or not the governess is sane and whether or not the ghosts are real.The book ends ambiguously, which has left readers debating it since it was published 1898. The movies tend to take a position. Here are some I watched via NetFlix:

Spoiler Alert - Don't read if you plan to watch any of these!

The Innocents (1961)

IMDb Rating: 7.9. This adaptation, which stars Deborah Kerr as the governess, favors the governess as sane and ghosts as real. The governess starts out a little lacking in confidence but she's sane, the ghosts are really trying to get the children, Quint actually succeeds with Miles, and the governess is traumatized by the ordeal. It's notable that Mrs. Grose is more assertive than in the book and at times even argumentative. It's a very well done adaptation. Without having read the book, my wife picked up on some of the more subtle things, like the governess' love for the uncle. For me the "scary" climax was kind of silly--mostly 60's style of flashing lights and weird noises, but the rest of the acting, music, lighting, and script are excellent

The Turn of the Screw (1974)

IMDb Rating: 6.5 This is a 2-hour made-for-TV movie. The middle hour is quite slow but the ending is quite chilling. It also favors the governess being sane and the ghosts being real. Lynn Redgrade stars as the governess. (Incidentally her father was the uncle in The Innocents) She narrates much of the story, which she does very well, as if she's talking directly to you. Her sentences are long, too, like Henry James', though not quite as convoluted, but are a nice touch for readers of the book. You can see in her face a transition from naive delight playing with the children to suspicion and fear as she uncovers their conspiracy with the supernatural. There are moments where her sanity is questioned, but as viewers, we clearly see the ghosts, they're evil, and the children are collaborating with them. The house, the grounds, and the setting are well done. The acting, too, is well done, though the children are kind of creepy. If you slow yourself down, set aside a cozy 2 hours free from distractions, and give the children some slack, it will be worth it to watch it to the end.

The Turn of the Screw (1999)

 IMDb Rating: 5.9 This is a Masterpiece Theater production starring Jodhi May as the governess. The IMDb rating seems a bit low to me. It's very much like the book, ambiguous throughout, and ends like the book, with Miles dying in the governess' embrace. Whereas the ghosts seem pretty real in the other adaptations, they're less so here and the governess' sanity is more questionable. You can see it in her face throughout but there's still just enough clues to show that the ghosts might be real anyway. Maybe it's both: she's already insane and the the ghosts are real! Mrs. Grose is more like in the book, too, loving but simple and subservient. The production isn't quite as suspenseful (or maybe I've seen too many of these), but for readers of the book, it's fun seeing what you've read. Almost every scene, minus the wordiness, is straight from the book with very few deviations. 

References:
Henry James. The Turn of the Screw. [Kindle Edition]. 1898.
The Innocents. Dir. Jack Clayton. Perf Deborah Kerr, Michael Redgrave. 1961. Movie.
The Turn of the Screw. Dir. Dan Curtis. Perf. Lynn Redgrave. 1974. Movie.
The Turn of the Screw. Dir. Ben Bolt. Perf. Jodhi May. 1999. Movie.

The Lair of the White Worm

Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in 1897 and The Lair of the White Worm 14 years later (1911). Dracula is a masterpiece. The Lair of the White Worm is decent--but not a masterpiece.

Page by page Stoker's style is unmistakable:

• A small group of people are faced with a supernatural problem
• An older, knowledgeable gentleman leads the investigation
• They conduct a series of quiet meetings to review the facts, make inferences, and decide on actions
• Geography, history, society, and biology are discussed and well described
• They can't take their problem to the authorities because no one will believe them

The approach is well thought out--like an engineering problem. If such a thing were to really happen, anybody with a scientific or engineering-oriented mind would handle it the same way. Bram Stoker strikes me as an early version of Tom Clancy. Both put a lot of research and logic into their work.

There are a number of strange and imaginative things going on simultaneously throughout the book. Unlike Dracula, however, they don't relate to each other very well, but they do make the book unique and interesting and give it a mysterious schizophrenic atmosphere. Among other things:

• A Roman goes mad in the top of a castle
• A giant hawk-shaped kite flies over the countryside
• Massive flocks of pigeons come and go
• Psychic battles take place during tea
• A giant snake prowls around at night and takes the form of a woman during the day

The book's shortcoming is its top level lack of organization--which is surprising given its logic at the detailed level. Dracula, by comparison, is so well organized, so cleverly continuous through its epistolary format, and so logically sequenced, it looks as if Lair was a crude predecessor that Stoker must have refined for years to make Dracula. The fact though is that Dracula came first! Perhaps Lair was more of a crude rehash written for a few bucks later in life. I don't know.

Because of the disorganization, The Lair of the White Worm proceeds like a Grade-B horror movie:

• People meet and struggle, separate, and meet again as if nothing happened
• Main characters disappear for no reason for several chapters at a time
• Time passes randomly--things that should take months might take just hours and vice versa
• People get murdered and no one reacts or follows up with the authorities
• Many strange but unrelated things are going on simultaneously

You shouldn't be surprised that it was actually made into a Grade-B horror movie, though you might be surprised that it starred a young Hugh Grant! 

Despite its shortcomings, I still liked the book. It was fun to read. I liked its logic and its unmistakable Stoker feel. I'm used to discontinuities from watching Grade-B movies. It certainly helps that it has all those strange and  imaginative things going on. 

References:
Bram Stoker. The Lair of the White Worm [Kindle Edition]. 1911.
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.
Tom Clancy. The Hunt for Red October. Berkley Books. 1984.
The Lair of the White Worm. Dir. Ken Russel. Perf. Amy Donohoe, Hugh Grant. 1988. Movie.

The Turn of the Screw - Additional Points

Spoiler Alert: Please do NOT read this if you have NOT read the book!!!
 

Henry James' The Turn of the Screw (1898) is an interesting story. The sentence structure makes it difficult to read, but the mystery keeps you going. While Cliff Notes and Spark Notes already provide extensive analyses--with Spark Notes inferring more sexuality--here are a few points I would add... 

Were both ghosts real or imagined?

We can't tell for sure if the governess is sane and if the ghosts are real or imagined, but what if 1 ghost, Quint, was real and the other, Miss Jessel, was imagined? The governess described Quint in sufficient detail before she knew who he was, so he may have been real. In contrast, she said she knew who Miss Jessel was, knew what she was thinking, and knew what she wanted without any evidence, so Miss Jessel, may have been hallucinated. Miss Jessel may even have been a reflection of the governess herself.

Was the sentence complexity a sign of insanity?

The writing, which is in first person, is so convoluted and so complicated, I thought for sure only an insane person would write like that--as if James intended that. If that was James' style, Daisy Miller wasn't so convoluted or if that was the style of the time, Dracula and Sherlock Holmes weren't so convoluted either. So maybe it really was supposed to be the language of an insane person. An added effect, perhaps also intentional, is that the complexity creates ambiguity which enhances the mystery.

How dumb was Mrs. Grose?

Mrs. Grose could neither read nor write, so she was obviously uneducated and apparently very naive. She seemed to believe everything the governess told her, but can you imagine what it would be like to be put under a supervisor who turns out to be insane? Eventually most people would figure it out, right? Mrs. Grose didn't seem to notice. So I think she was totally sane but either really simple-minded or just so used to being a servant that she couldn't think for herself. Maybe that's the way servants are supposed to be!

How did Miles die?

I believe the governess unwittingly murdered Miles. An autopsy would explain how it really happened. If it were a heart attack, then maybe it was the ghost. Otherwise, she must have suffocated him with her insane embrace. And if that were the case, his last words implicating the ghost may have been another hallucination. At any rate, this episode did not prevent her from continuing on as a governess for another family.  She apparently didn't go to prison. There must have been some kind of inquest and she must have been cleared. And she apparently regained her sanity, perhaps after leaving that environment and/or overcoming any sexual repressions. Otherwise Douglas, the reader, would have never met her.

On a  related note, I've often wondered what happens the day after a movie ends in one of those life or death struggles. The audience knows the protagonist is the good guy, but how will the cops know? Especially in one of those movies where the antagonist was some kind of supernatural serial killer, how would the good guy prove it was self defense???


References:
Henry James. The Turn of the Screw. [Kindle Edition]. 1898.
Henry James. Daisy Miller. 1878. Ed. Geoffrey Moore. Penguin Books. 1986.
Ted Bogart. "Daisy Miller by Henry James (1878)". Book Blog. 2011.
SparkNotes Editors. "SparkNotes: The Turn of the Screw". SparkNotes LLC. 2012. Web 2012.
Roberts, James L.. "The CliffNotes on The Turn of the Screw". John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2000-2012. Web 2012.

Favorite Quotes from the Man of Law's Tale

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the "Man of Law's Tale" from Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. I chose them mainly because they say something about human nature, or something as true back then as it is today, or something just plain funny. 

Note:  The words are from Burton Raffel's 2008 translation, which I found to be easier to read than the more common translations that preceded it. With what little comparisons I did, mainly using the "Miller's Tale", I'm fairly sure Raffel's translation tells just about the same story.

From the Introduction:
Time's like some stream that never turns again ...'property lost can be recovered, but time Once gone will surely ruin us'	22
Without a doubt, it never comes again, Just like a wayward woman's virginity	28
With telling stories in English, as he's able, Borrowing from our ancient languages and fables?	46
It hardly matters, these days, that Chaucer stands As the head of the field, for I speak prose, and rhymes Are his professional business, not at all mine.	92
From the Prologue:
Oh horrible state, to be living in poverty! By thirst, by cold, by hunger torn apart! Asking for help shames you, wounds your heart, But asking no one doubles tears and grief:	1
You gripe at your neighbor, angry and sinfully, Declare you have too little, he has too much.	10
Your brother despises the poor, despises you, And whatever friends you had will run at your sight!	22
Oh wealthy merchants, living in delight, You're never haunted by dark and dreamless nights, Remembering chances fumbled, business lost, At Christmas time you're merry, whatever the cost!	25
From the Tale:
Kindness and courtesy like a workman's tools;	33
The counselors discussed this situation, Wrangling this way and that, some taking one view, Some taking another, with complex explanations,	71
Husbands, of course, can be good, have been so before. Wives know that.	132
We women are born to servitude and penance, Alway's ruled by some man's governance.	146
O careless Emperor of Rome, alas! Were there no astronomers in your city?	169
The necessary calculations are known, But humankind is too dull, or else too slow.	174
...cold water won't be painful!	121
However his wife has been christened, white As snow, how can she wash away the red, No matter what barrels of Christian water she has?	215
For spoiling a Christian marriage your rod And tool will once again be a sinful woman! Lying and deceit by women fulfill your plan.	229
O sudden disaster, which always follows after Worldly bliss, sprouted by bitterness!	282
Whenever you're bright and gay, always remember The unknown sorrow, waiting to make you surrender.	287
As over him, devil's destruction, you once Extended your arms in shelter, O cross, give me That same protection, lend me the strength to go on.	322
There once was a man, Daniel... Who saved him? God, and God alone, saved Daniel.	333
One of them was blind, unable to see With his eyes, but even so he could see with his mind, As some men can, when their sight is gone, and they're blind.	412
Came walking down the path that led to the sea, Intending to find whatever there was to see,	417
He used a young knight, living there in that town, Heated him up with love of a nature quite foul And turned him absolutely so upside down The Knight was convinced he'd either have her or die.	447
Those who'd thought she was truly guilty shook With fear, filled with repentance, for she had been close To death, falsely accused, but innocent.	541
...even the holiest of wives Must marry patiently, and know that at night Such things must happen as mankind always delights in, ...putting holiness aside For a while, for that is marriage's plan and design.	569
...drunk to the top of your head, Your breath is stronger by far than your arms or legs, And secrets stay as safe with you as eggs in a cuckoo's nest. Your brains are scrambled,... Nothing's secret, when drunkards take their place.	632
The letter's handwriting, too, was identified, And all the venom behind this cursed deed,	750
O, licentious lust, foul and often Fatal! You weaken the minds of men, but soften Their muscles, too, the easier to destroy them.	785
No one, I warn you, can dream Of keeping worldly happiness for more Than a very short time, for joy in this world can't last, Changing back and forth as days go past.	984
And now I pray Jesus Christ to send us Joy after woe	1013

Reference:
Geoffrey Chaucer. The Canterbury Tales. ca. 1390. Trans. Burton Raffel. Modern Library. 2008.

History of Liberalism

I bought a fantastic 1975 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica a few months ago. The articles on anarchy, conservatism, fascism, and liberalism are excellent. I learned more on these topics here than I have anywhere else in my 55 years. Here are some interesting notes on liberalism:

• Classical liberalism sought to shrink government power and responsibility.
• Modern liberalism seeks to expand government power and responsibility.
• Both are hostile to the concentration of power that threatens individual freedom and prevents individuals from reaching their potential.
• Liberalism promotes liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   

• Conservatives avoid change - presumably to preserve their privileged status.
• Radicals seek rapid change - presumably because they're desperate for a change.
• Liberals encourage useful change but try to avoid irrational change.

• Classical liberalism began in the Middle Ages.
• It was a movement to liberate the rising middle class from the authoritarian rule of aristocracies and monarchies.
• The middle class developed from merchants and craftsmen in cities--not from peasants working in agriculture under feudal lordship.
• The Industrial Age grew from the merchant class.
• Classical liberalism promoted Adam Smith economics.
• Over time industrialists grew into a new authoritarian class.
• Modern liberalism shifted focus towards liberating individuals from domineering industrialists.
• Liberals enlisted the aid of democratic governments to get the upper hand.
• They fought industrialists with trade unions and government regulations.
• Modern liberals promote Keynesian economics.

If you ever get a chance to buy an old set of Britannica, I highly recommended it. Sometimes there's nothing like reading a real book. And if you get an old edition, all the history and most of the biographies and sociology will still be up to date. Look on craigslist!

Reference:
"Liberalism", Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1975, vol. 10, pp. 846-851.

Striking Observations from the Wife of Bath's Tale

From Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:

• The Wife of Bath shows us that women of the Middle Ages could actually be a force to be reckoned with--not just a pretty face, a passive housewife, or a damsel in distress.

• I've actually met women in my own life just like the wife of Bath. They were confident, self-centered, and talkative, yet interesting and alluring.

Once again, The Canterbury Tales shows us that history changes the world but human nature stays the same. In the 21st century we still have the same jealousies, sympathies, personalities, and social ordering. The setting is different of course. Now we have the Internet, air conditioning, and auto-tune, for example, but human nature is the same.

Reference:
Geoffrey Chaucer. The Canterbury Tales. ca. 1390. Trans. Burton Raffel. Modern Library. 2008.

The Man of Law's Tale & Social Security

Geoffrey Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales  600 years ago, and some of his sources were already centuries old, but what makes Chaucer's tales so amazing today is how relevant they are to life as we know it. "The Man of Law's Tale" is just another amazing example.

This tale begins by describing rich merchants and how they can afford to make mistakes and lose money. Unlike the rest of us, when the rich lose money, they're still rich.

But the main theme of this tale seems to be that God will take care of those who persevere and keep their faith. What I don't get is why some random person, like Constance in this case, has to go through such horrendous testing to prove it. Jesus refused to be tested by the devil, but God put lots of people through tests throughout the Old Testament. People and loved ones were killed, exiled, or tortured, but in the end someone or another was saved because of his or her faith. I imagine Judaism and Islam, sharing roots with Christianity, have similar stories (maybe even the same stories).

The Greeks had similar stories, too. Their gods toyed with mortals, giving them certain gifts or besetting them with various challenges. It was a kind of game to them as they worked through various alliances and rivalries among themselves, but it was a lot of suffering and hardship for the mortals caught up in their games.

In the same way, rich people and nobles play with common people. In this tale, Constance was sent off to marry the Sultan of Syria, irregardless of her own feelings, but mainly to improve political ties for Rome and the Vatican. 

Note: You'd think Constance, the Emperor's daughter, would be a noble, too, but as in the "Knight's Tale", women here are given lower status, so she was more like a subject than a noble.

The powers that be might win or lose in their games, but in the end they're hardly affected. Their subjects, however, go through all kinds of hardships and suffering--often unbeknownst to the superiors that put them through it all.

I'm reminded of the movie Trading Places--all the troubles and life-changing events the characters went through were caused by just a simple bet between a couple of old rich guys for their amusement.

And I'm reminded of George W. Bush arguing to privatize Social Security. Part of his argument was that people need to be allowed to make risks in their investments so they can outperform Social Security. One problem, though, is that most people can't afford risks! When a rich person makes a bad investment, he can still be rich. But when a poor person makes a bad investment, he can lose everything.

Another problem, of course, is the mathematical impossibility of everybody outperforming everybody else!

When people lose their money, it's not as if it vanished. Someone else got it. Public schools don't teach economics--so the public is set up to fail. We cannot allow privatization of Social Security until public schools teach 12 years of economics and finance. Otherwise an influential minority (the rich) is going to outperform the under-educated majority (the public) and take all the money for themselves.

So what's so amazing about The Canterbury Tales is, even though they rode horses back then and didn't have electricity or the printing press or just about everything we depend upon everyday, they still faced the same human issues we face today. People still endure hardships and manipulation ... and life still goes on. "The Man of Law's Tale" is just as relevant today as it was 600 years ago.

References:
Geoffrey Chaucer. The Canterbury Tales. ca. 1390. Trans. Burton Raffel. Modern Library. 2008.
Trading Places. Dir. John Landis. Perf. Dan Ackroyd, Eddie Murphy, and Jamie Lee Curtis. Paramount, 1983. Film.

Fahrenheit 451 and 1984

The frightening thing about George Orwell's 1984 is how extreme it is, but the frightening thing about Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is how possible it is!

In 1984, the party forcefully took control of the population and forcefully kept it. Orwell apparently had Russia in mind when he wrote the book, but today, North Korea is the only example of such a dystopia. The rest have moved away from communist totalitarianism and I don't know how much longer North Korea will last.
  
In contrast, the people of 451 were not forced into dystopia. The did it to themselves. Over time they gave up literature, critical thinking, and everything else that might cause complicated or unhappy thoughts. To mindlessly occupy themselves they turned towards mass culture, spectator sports, superficial dramas, and thrill seeking. Once they gave up thinking for themselves they allowed themselves to be manipulated by their government. Schools began teaching kids at successively earlier ages to fall in line with everybody else, filling their heads with useless facts to occupy their brains, and promoting sports and thrill seeking to keep them too busy and too tired for original thinking. Anyone who was different was quickly ostracized--killed if necessary. People's minds became so shallow that life as we know it became meaningless, and it was only in rare, undistracted moments, that someone might notice how empty their lives were.

The first time I read 451 it was just an adventure story with some scattered boring parts. It was about a guy trying to escape a corrupt system. It could have been Harrison Ford in The Fugitive or Will Smith in Enemy of the State or any number of Hollywood escape/action/adventure stories.

The second time I read it, however, I noticed the "boring" parts actually contained some interesting commentary, very relevant to today, which was rather prophetic of Ray Bradbury, who wrote it back in 1950.

By the 3rd time I read it, I finally realized I had it all backwards. The "boring" parts were the meaningful and cerebral parts of the real story, and they were occasionally interrupted by action sequences!

In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury predicted political correctness, a dominating sports culture, our obsession with TV dramas and so-called reality shows, and constantly listening to music through ear-buds. He predicted these things will occupy our minds with superficial thoughts and move us, as a population, away from reading and critical thinking. These are very realistic things that are happening today! We're not all the way there yet, but we do seem to be going in that direction. Let's add to these our recent trends of federalizing education, promoting test scores over substance, and so-called social media, viral videos, and video games, which are all done in isolation without real interpersonal contact.

The book also includes an interesting interview at the end where Bradbury says he believes we're not really headed into dystopia ourselves, which is reassuring--but only as long as our schools continue to teach reading and writing at an early age. As long as people can read and write, they can think for themselves, and we're safe from Fahrenheit 451.

But what if some day we do let this happen? We'll enter a new Dark Age, and some day, maybe 2 or 3 centuries later, we'll come out of it. And that won't be the first time, will it?

References
Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451. 50th Anniversary Edition. 1953,1979,1981,1982. Del Rey.
George Orwell. 1984: a novel. Signet. 1949,1990.

Did Dracula Save Jonathan Harker?

In Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897), it seems to me that Dracula treated Jonathan Harker special... He did not victimize him, he protected him from harm, and then let him get away. In the end, of course, it was Harker that destroyed him.

Obviously Dracula clung to his undeadness (is there a better word for that?), but as he was destroyed, he showed an expression of relief as his soul was finally freed from the vampire's curse. (Only Mina noticed it) It's kind of like death in general. If the afterlife is so wonderful, why do we cling to the present life?

I doubt Dracula planned ahead so that Harker could be the one to free him. Dracula was a selfish exploiter. While undead he needed Harker to help him buy property in London and learn how to fit in with the English population. Dracula obviously intended to fit in unnoticed and exploit victims from the unsuspecting population.

But why did he let Harker go when he was finished with him? Was he in a hurry to get to London? Was he so selfish that he didn't care to provide for the 3 sister vampires (or brides or whoever they were--the book wasn't clear on that)?

The short story Dracula's Guest was supposedly the deleted first chapter of the book. In it Dracula protects Harker from wolves and other evils after he gets lost in the woods on his way to the castle. Obviously Dracula needed Harker to arrive and bring the deed and teach him about life in England, but again, why did he let Harker get away? Especially after he hit him with a shovel?

I guess Dracula was just in a hurry to get to England and assumed Harker would just die in the wilderness. (Villians always assume that of the heroes, don't they?) But Harker got away, joined Van Helsing, and eventually destroyed Dracula.


Reference:
Bram Stoker. Dracula [Kindle Edition]. 1897.

This Side of Paradise (1920)

This Side of Paradise (1920) was Fitzgerald's first novel. He took the title from "Tiare Tahiti", a romantic poem by Rupert Brooke. I had never heard of him before, but apparently he was an influential poet at the time. He's mentioned several times throughout the book and apparently helped pave the way towards the sexual liberation of the Roaring Twenties.

Note: "Tiare Tahiti" is about a romantic encounter Brooke had with a native girl in Tahiti. He later left her but found fame writing about sexual liberation. As a father of 2 daughters, it seems to me sexual liberation excites women more than men but also leaves them with more of the consequences!

Anyway, This Side of Paradise concerns the initiation of a young Amory Blaine into adulthood. The first 8 chapters cover his growth from a teenager through college. His background is so much like Fitzgerald's that it's obvious the novel is mostly autobiographical--which makes it very real. The things that Amory goes through are much the same as Fitzgerald went through and very much the same as every young man--and many young women, too, I'm sure--go though in their lives. Most people keep those things private, but Fitzgerald found the courage to share them with the world. And that brought him his first commercial success.

So what did Amory go through? Well compared to Fitzgerald's other novels and short stories, This Side of Paradise, except for some of the romantic parts, seems a bit abstract and tends to ramble. Towards the end, you realize this is very lifelike, because all those abstract and rambling sections are what's going on in Amory's mind. He's trying to figure out his status relative to his peers, which groups or clubs to join, who to be seen with, who he can use, etc. Friends, acquaintances, and lovers come and go. Some people turn out to be the opposite he expected. For a while he joins sports just to get the hero worship he sees athletes enjoying.

Amory eventually reaches a conclusion about himself. The final chapter begins with the climax, ironically at the lowest point in his life. He's on a bank of the Hudson River, friendless, moneyless, godless, and wondering what he's doing with his life, when suddenly he starts walking across New Jersey! During that walk he has flashbacks, meets an old friend's father, gathers his thoughts and emotions, and finally realizes he knows himself.

This story is so much like the stories from the 70's, my teen years, where people set off to find themselves. They're basically the same story.

I have to admit, though, as a literal-minded type, I never quite understood what they meant by finding themselves. Thinking about it now, I suppose it's finding a purpose in life, finding a role or a niche wherein one feels they can do something meaningful and constructive. Amory didn't know he was looking for himself in the first 8 chapters, but that's what he found at the end.

This Side of Paradise comes to an abrupt but hopeful end. Frankly that was a relief since so many stories end tragically, but this is an initiation story. They're supposed to end hopeful, right?

References:
F. Scott Fitzgerald. This Side of Paradise. Scribner's. 1920.
Rupert Brooke. "Tiare Tahiti". 1914. "Tiare Tahiti by Rupert Brooke". About.com European History. web 2012.
"Rupert Brooke". Wikipedia. web 2012.

Fitzgerald Novels (1920-1925)

This Side of Paradise (1920) was Fitzgerald's first novel. For him it was both a commercial success and a personal achievement: Not only did it give him recognition as an author, but it was enough to get Zelda to believe in him and marry him. To me, however, much of the story is rambling and abstract and the plot is mostly devoid of action. Assuming it's autobiographical though, it is remarkable that he had so many of the same experiences and private thoughts I had growing up. While I didn't share my thoughts with the rest of the world, but if he and I had so much in common 50 years apart, maybe a lot of other people do, too, and that's what makes this book so interesting.

The Beautiful and the Damned (1922) is much longer and rambles more, but the plot has more action and the rambling sections are very descriptive of the 1920's lifestyle. In fact I got so involved with the lifestyle, that, at times, I forgot I was reading a story. What's striking about the lifestyle and the characters are that human nature then was the same as it is today! History changes the world, but our lifestyles only change on the surface. Human nature remains the same. It's notable that Twain, Chaucer, Boccaccio, and even the Bible all show us the same thing: human nature is timeless.

The Great Gatsby (1925) is renowned as Fitzgerald's greatest novel and may in fact be the Great American Novel. It is incredibly succinct. Every sentence is meaningful, descriptive, and actively contributes to the plot. It's obvious he consciously incorporated symbols and metaphors throughout and he addresses many subjects Americans can relate to: dreams, ambition, success, failure, and disillusionment. It packs a lot of substance into a small space, it's easy to read and understand, and, as a bonus, is also very descriptive of the lifestyle of the Roaring Twenties.

Tender is the Night (1934) Many people say this is actually Fitzgerald's greatest novel. I haven't read it yet, but it's on my list.

References:
F. Scott Fitzgerald. This Side of Paradise. Scribner's. 1920.
F. Scott Fitzgerald. The Beautiful and the Damned. Scribner. 1922.
F. Scott Fitzgerald. The Great Gatsby. Scribner. 1925.
F. Scott Fitzgerald. Tender is the Night. Charles Scribner's Sons. 1934.