Adolescent Wisdom

If a person has the good fortune to live till they are eighty years old, in their lives they would have experienced 2,522,800,000 seconds on this earth. Each moment completely unique and particular. Some happy, others sad and a great number of which are indescribable. All of them, fit together like a massive puzzle to paint a unique and unparalleled existence. With all the possible movements is it feasible to pick a favorite moment, one that encapsulates who you are and what you bring to this Earth? A difficult if not impossible task to say the least. As I set in the floor of my living room with my mother going over long forgotten memories, she selects a picture and says "ah ha! I found it". Two minutes with an old shoe box and my whole metaphor inlaid with profound musings of the expansiveness of the human existence is shot. Thanks mom it’s like the sixth sense all over again.


To save you the thirty minute sweet to the point you teeth hurt recollection from my mother I will I summarize


You are about four years old and you had decided that you were going to go through your closet. We were sitting in the family room talking about trivial things and here you come walking out three hours past your bed time. We asked you what exactly you thought you were doing, and you replied as a matter-a-factly as you could, "it is time for something new". Your dad grabbed the camera and we took this picture. I had completely forgotten about this photo fits doesn't it chul" (chul is an one of my nicknames, Rachele sounds like chul when said by an adorable two year old).

"fits doesn't it", what was she talking about? That little girl in that photograph saw an element in her life that she found boring, inadequate, and insufficient. So she changed it without a regard for practicality. She was innovative and molded the world around her as she saw best.

Now I examine my eighteen year old self. Much has changed since that photograph was taken. I no longer live in that house, I don't think I could get away with a pink Belle sweatshirt but I find myself wonder has that attitude changed?

I used to be a person who dived into what I believed in one hundred percent. If I found something that bothered me, interested me, confused me, I would become immersed until I had reached some type of solution or understanding. Over the past few years that spirit has dwindled, other matters for one reason or another have taken priority. I attribute it to the fact that in times of uncertainty (uncertain future looming, in respect to college) we have a tendency to choose complacency. At times like these I think sometimes we just need something to wake us up and remind us who were are supposed to be. This one snap shot of a little girl completely reminded me of who I hope to be and bring to this world. That fire, that passion has lied dormant for quiet sometime. I frankly for one would like to see its reappearance, like that little girl said some thirteen years ago "it is time for something new", and I couldn’t agree more.

"All right, you caught me. Speaking the plain truth is getting pretty damn dull around here"

“What did you expect?”Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.”


Blazing Saddles begins with a story telling of a stereotypical western movie. A small white conservative town during the old American West serves as the initial backdrop, until an African American (Bart) answers their plea for a sheriff. Through the comedic genius Mel Brookes and Gene Wilder a satire on racism was born. Although there are countless blue, off color, some might even say childish gag jokes in this movie; my experience satire yields a point that has various broader contextualizations. What I take away from my own experience with satire is that it can be very effective in pointing out the idoicity of certain elements of the human condition (in this case prejudice). As a result, I conclude that Blazing Saddles although a typical Mel Brookes comedy (as if that was a bad thing!) has broader positive social implications.


For those who have never seen this movie I have posted a link of one of the most famous scenes in this film. This scene is the reception that Bart receives when entering the town. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZ9ku_wInw&feature=related. This film is by no means "politically correct" nor does it have the intention of appearing so. The N word is said seventeen times throughout this entire movie, all seventeen of which are said by white town’s people describing the sheriff. As I rewatch this movie for the hundredth time I find my liberal guilt cringing at the blatant use of the N word by the various characters. However this is Brooke’s main intent, the audience is supposed to be shocked by the vulgarity of the townspeople. Exaggeration is a main component of satire.



Brookes brilliantly associates the stupidity of the townspeople with their racist ways, he paints them to be them to be as backwards as they truly are. Additionally Brookes’ characterization of Bart is absolutely brilliant and only adds to drive the point home further. Bart is intelligent, forward thinking and well spoken. Although he obviously knows what is best for the town, the townspeople still continue to treat him like a second class citizen. It takes his collaboration with Jim (a has-been shooting legend played by the great Gene Wilder) to start turning people around. It isn’t until he saves the town from destruction by an evil railroad server that he wins over their hearts.


Much of the criticism centered around this movie has to do with its crude humor and its use of off color language. “Political correctness” is a hot button issue here in America. Is it possible to say something offensive to merely point out that it is offensive? As one critic put it “As a little kid, I loved this movie. All the cartoonish candygram for Mongo schtick and the farting cowboys. As an adult I watched it, found it boring and was offended by all the questionable race humor.” It is my own view that it is perhaps easiest to point out human stupidity by a gross exaggeration of that very offensive behavior. Though I concede that the use of the N word is offensive, I still maintain if used in the right context the shock value generated by its utterance can serve a greater purpose. For example, in the opening scene that was shown above the audience is shocked by the use of the word, but the audience understands Brookes’ intention. The audience receives a greater understanding of the nature of racism in the town. As far as the cartoonish candygram for Mongo schtick and the farting cowboys, I add only that the presence of those factors make a Mel Brookes movie what it is. The mere fact that the audience is able to take away the central theme amongst the “childish” humor merely attests to Brookes undeniable genus.

And just because it is ridiculous here is that famous farting cowboys scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6dm9rN6oTs

The Green Revolution: Indifference and Ignorance is Not an Option

I would like to consider myself well-read but in my eighteen years on this planet, and the availability hundreds of years of printed work; I think I will settle for adventurous reader. I have read countless books from science fiction to magical realism. As I begin to examine my role the world around me less as an observer and more as a participant I am finding the quest for understanding. This is by no stretch of the imagination easy to understand or even comprehend. I think at times the smartest thing I can do sometimes is ignore what I have been taught, stop, listen, observe, formulate and learn. The world we live in is a complex, multifaceted, and astounding as so should my grasp of it. For the time being I have dropped much of my favorite literature in search of material that will help me appreciate and recognize the world for what it really is.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate this point is through example. Throughout my academic career I have heard the term globalization thrown around. The word itself sounds stuffy and academic. After discussions in high school, I can tell you that globalization is good, globalization means progress. My understanding of the word itself is paradoxal in nature, it is simultaneously concrete and intangible. I was watching the Daily Show and I saw Milton Freedman speech. He seemed to have substantial idea of globalization. I went out that afternoon and bought his Hot Flat and Crowded.
Friedman writes in such a clear, practical and applicable way that it was an amazing book to start expanding my knowledge of globalization. He speaks at length of the growing trends of overpopulation, over speculation, and the energy crisis. He is quite clear on the fact that the world is forever changed. We need to stop contextualizing everything as what it used to be, and move forward it what it could become. He is able to do so in a way that is not at all pessimistic and strangely practical. He is able to pull off a coherent argument without sounding like he has a particular agenda. After the first chapter, I was sold.
Out of his book I pulled out two major themes, or more precisely two attitude changes that are required for America to secure its place in the future global economy. First we need to change our ideas about what green means. The phrase green revolution has adopted this negative connotation. Green revolution is reserved for those crazy lofty idealists at Berkeley, who skip finals to live in a tree. In this way we have specifically trivialized the need for renewable energy. We need to get as serious about the green revolution as this country did over communism. We are due for a complete overhaul of ideas from the personal to the intuitional level. Other countries are on the way; soon we will be left in the dust.
The second major theme is the change in the anti-intellectualism in this country. When times are hard, it can be difficult to explain the need to spend billions on science. When people are losing their jobs, schools are closing, towns are dying everywhere, the last thing people want to here is three billion dollars to fruit fly research (as was evident in Sarah Palin’s dense gotcha points in the 08 election season). There is massive distrust in the country of intellectuals; their work is seen as trivial and impractical. At times it almost seems like class warfare. However without spending money on science and development how can we ever help to grow and expand in this country? Even more daunting, in the age of development how do we expect to maintain without spending money on science? Friedman proposes a “nationalization” of green think tanks. “Throwing crazy dollars at every idea, in every garage, that we have 100,000 people trying 100,000 things, five of which might work, and two of which might be the next google” (Friedman 87). In my attempt to understand his meaning, I have likened it to the Manhattan Project. The government took initiative, hired the greatest minds, and more importantly new minds to get the job done. The government took responsibility for intellectual growth.
I evaluated other reviews of this book after writing my thoughts above. I found in general most people agreed with me (some even used similar quotations). The major criticism of people was that Friedman charged the government with the bill for these massive changes and not private industry. I disagree with these criticisms completely. I believe Friedman does an excellent job in outlining how private industry has failed. When the electric car first hit the market, it was little more than a golf cart, but it had potential. Big car companies bought up the patent killed the project and build bigger. Private industry had not incentive to go green (and look where it got them, building bigger cars while gas prices soared, amazingly poor planning GM and Ford). Friedman pointed out in his argument about the need for collaboration of government and private industry, that incentives would be the key to insure a healthy and mutually beneficial merge between the two. Massive technological revolutions (highways, stem engines) require a massive collaborative (public and private spheres) undertaking.
Essentially what I got out of this book, is America can do it. We have some of the greatest minds, and as history has proven to us when we work towards something cohesively we can accomplish great things. If we adopt these two major attitude changes Friedman proposes, combine cooperation and good old fashion American ingenuity we can not only reduce and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, we can also corner the energy market and secure our place on the zenith of the 21st, 22nd century economies.
So what does this mean to the average 18 year old college student? It means we are living in an amazing, dynamic, and changing time. We are the generation to fix this problem. We are going to the new scientist, the new politicians, and more importantly the new voters. It is our job to stay informed, knowledgeable and critical. We must use our civic powers to make sure that our government is doing everything they can to get on to the green. The future is ours, take control of that responsibility and act accordingly. Indifference and ignorance is not an option.