Teachers

Education is an issue that requires all the assistance possible to repair it, but the "status" of teachers is completely irrelevant. This country used to be a leader in education, and is now thirteenth (approx.) in rank. The United States is laughed at and hated around the world - improvements in education would help our reputation. The reputations of teachers does not matter when addressing educational issues. The problem lies within the students and the teachers' abilities to reach them, interest them, teach them - not the social standing of teachers. Workers in any occupation will complain about their job; a lineman who decides he is not appreciated enough will refuse to work, equating to darkness, while an under-appreciated teacher will refuse to teach, leaving students ignorant, but still able to make a living, doing the various low-level jobs that need to be done (which would not be such a bad thing, especially since college acceptance rates are dropping). http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/27/how-to-raise-the-status-of-teachers/let-us-teach I agree with Williams that education would greatly improve if teachers were left to their own devices, able to decide what and how to teach, instead of relying on administrators who have never known anything about the position teachers are in to tell them how high to jump. Teacher A: begins teaching from Chapter 1, going through all the information, terms, questions, unit tests - continues this all year Teacher B: uses the textbook as one resource, calling on other sources to educate their students. Teacher B is clearly the more effective educator, as Teacher A is not a teacher at all - A's method of teaching could be undertaken by the students themselves. B's method of teaching actually requires the teacher's prescence for the students to receive an education.

Gatsby Analysis

Fitzgerald comments on the American way of life, reminiscing about events he couldn't possibly have been present at, evaluating the course humanity has collectively chosen to pursue (by living in and indulging on what this country has to offer). The intentionally evasive way he writes leaves his over-all purpose open to debate. We have left our humanity "somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night." His speaking of the all-natural, beautiful land-mass, landed on and corrupted by the invaders ("the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors' eyes..."), leads readers to believe that with the de-naturalization we wreak upon this "new world," converting it into a "great country," such as "Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house..." the moon refuses to illuminate us. Our natural satellite, a natural occurence, cannot, will not, brighten the fields of this nation; once teeming with earth-born life -- now devastated by the manipulations man conducts. This, especially, because mankind has learned how to create artificial light (thus, the absence of the moon)(and how to make our own food ("the dark fields" (containing nothing but ourselves))). "A fresh, green breast of the new world" is an opportunity to be profited from in the conniving hands of man. "The inessential houses began to melt away," until the realization that we have indeed corrupted what was once pure becomes clear; inessential because nature is the natural safe haven. "For a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the prescence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder." The transition man underwent when he arrived to this place was from the classical world of minor crimes to the modern world of death, destruction, pollution -- advanced technology, with which we enslave the world itself. The aesthetic contemplation He (mankind) felt was a wondering of all the changes we could force upon our new home to accomodate for our evolving needs (ridding ourselves of what is no longer required (things natural)). This, long ago, was the last time man will ever be able stare in awe at beauty and possibilities; beauty to be harvested, ripped from whence it came, and possibilities we can create and force upon the ground we stand. We arrived at this country to make a new home, but the advances we have made as a race have blinded us to our true cause (lost long ago because of rapid modernization), leading us to soil the natural beauty, to waste our lives worrying about the trivial. The American Dream is like courting a whore, who was once a marvelous maiden, but has become our sultry harlot, able to suck the life from the tyrants (United Statesians) that made her Her. We fight futilely against what we have created, complaining all the time, never knowing anything -- or why.

"My Wood" Response

disagree with Forster's claim that consumerism corrupts humanity.
the notion that obtaining property causes greed to fester is absurd;
people don't buy things to stay current and ahead of their
"competition" anymore - petty rivalries over what is owned are
hardly prevalent anymore (although it is admittedly present
somewhat what with newer versions of technology being released
every week (and war)), especially with the economy the way it is.
things are bought for survival, comfort and practicality (entertainment,
safety, and so on (GENERALLY genuinely significant reasons)), not to
show up the neighbors. supporting the economy will not turn the majority
into greed driven zombies, bent only on increasing their wealth. money is
indeed what makes the world go round, the mechanism which turns it
being consumerism, the fuel (wealth), the incentive for thinking of and
creating new and better things, improving the lives (of those who can afford it (a "downfall" of the supposed snake in the garden)); currency is exchanged for these innovations, allowing for even more. wielded correctly, consumerism may very well be viewed as a catalyst for true humanity (since we are a (generally) ponderous people); back in Forster's time, though (revolutions in culture, technology, etc.) this tool of mankind quite possibly could have been wielded and swung unjustly, for petty human reasons.

3rd Quarter Reading List

I read two books, the equivalent of six books.

"The Catcher In The Rye" 200 pages (counted as three books)

"DMT: The Spirit Molecule" 358 pages (counted as three books)

"DMT" is about a doctor's attempt at dissecting the unknown parts of life,
DMT acting as a catalyst for these events, the human body
usually the location. Though his book is about ethereal
things, it affects secular things on earth. His experiments the first
DEA approved since the '60's, his revolutionary ideas can be viewed
as either pure conjecture or enlightening. Either way, his theory
on metaphysical, spiritual and bodily matters are quite interesting,
especially those that involve the pineal gland. According to his
thoughts, the pineal gland is indeed the seat of the soul; where
the soul enters and leaves the body, where DMT is manufactured
in the human body, is surrounded by mystery (the origin, its actual
purpose, why it has moved throughout evolution, etc.).