Guaranteed Work

by Trudy A. Martinez

"I am here," a young woman announced as she tapped lightly on the counter to gain my attention. Then she leaned over the counter, smiled, and whispered, "You can tell everyone else to go home--the job is mine."

"Do you have an appointment?" I asked abruptly while pretending to have not heard her last remark.

"Most definitely," she answered smiling in anticipation my next question. She began to introduce herself: "My name is Margo--." Before she could finish speaking her finger was on my clipboard, pointing to her name. "There's my name right at the top of your list--," she hesitated and then added, "--where it belongs."

I thought to myself, "This young lady is certainly self-confident, a main requirement for the position of New Accounts clerk I am interviewing for. But, she appears almost too sure of herself." I called her into the conference room, requested that she have a seat, and then asked her point blank, "Why do you think you are the best choice for the open position here at the bank?"

She smiled and quickly exclaimed, "I guarantee my work!"

"You what?"

"I guarantee my work," she repeated.

I could hardly believe my ears she had said she guaranteed her work. I sat in silence, not knowing what to say next. Never had I been at a loss for words before that was usually a fault of the interviewee. I had only asked her one question; but yet from the very moment she made her presence known to me, she began to demonstrate all the qualities I was looking for. "Margo, you have my curiosity stirred. What do you mean by your statement: ' I guarantee my work?'"

"Curiosity killed the cat," she replied. "But you need not be curious, my work is accurate; I don't make errors. But if you find one and prove me wrong, I guarantee I will fix it."

I hired her. But because she was so confident that her work was errorless, I began to scrutinize it, looking for that one fatal error. A year passed; no errors ever surfaced. I became lax and stopped looking. "Perhaps it is possible for someone to do their work errorless," I thought. I felt confident that Margo could be trusted and relied on to follow procedures without me looking over her shoulders.

Then I was called out of the bank for a few days on business. When I returned, the vault teller requested that I enter the vault with her to prepare and fill an order of cash for a merchant. I did. While I was in the vault, I noticed that there was a stack of $100 dollar bills segregated from the other bills. I asked, "Why are these bills segregated from the other bills?"

The vault teller replied, "Margo asked that they be placed in the vault, separate from the other bills, until you returned. She said, ' They are counterfeit.'"

I asked, "Does she know who passed them?"

"Oh yes, a new account customer opened a time certificate with them."

I inspected the bills. They were definitely counterfeit. But since an employee of the bank had accepted them as legal tender, I feared we were now going to be faced with an operating loss. Never had I taken an operating loss for accepting counterfeit bills. I thought to myself, "When Margo makes an error, she does it good. Why didn't she notify the police or the F.B.I.?" Only Margo could answer my questions. She knew procedures. Ignorance was definitely not the reason. "Why didn't she follow procedures?" This whole thing didn't make sense. I approached Margo and asked, "Why?" "Why?" "Why?"

"The manager told me to wait until you returned."

"How did the manager get involved with it to begin with?"

"He brought the customer to my desk. I thought he knew him."

I excused myself saying, "I have to make a few calls before 5:00 P.M., I'll get back to you later concerning this matter." Immediately, I called the "Feds," explained what had happened, begged their forgiveness, and made plans to entrap this mystery man if by chance he attempted to do it again. Margo had shared with me his statement that he would be back to open another account when his certificate at another bank matured. The F.B.I. gave me instructions. I had to fill Margo in. But because of the frantic hassle and the circumstances, precious time had slipped away and so had Margo--she had left the bank for the day. "Oh well," I told myself, "Tomorrow is another day."

The next morning disaster hit. A family emergency occurred delaying my arrival at the bank. When I did arrive, Margo met me at the door. "It's fixed," she said.

"What's fixed?" I inquired.

"My error," she stammered with excitement, "I told you: ' I guarantee my work.'"

What had she done? My mind could not conceive how she could correct such an error. "Margo," I said in a calm, reassuring voice, "Face it, your error is not fixable. It cannot be erased as if it were chalk on a chalkboard."

"But it has," she replied, "In just that way too--like chalk on a chalkboard." "You see," she continued, "The man who gave me the counterfeit came back. He said he had an emergency and he needed his money back. So, I gave him--I gave him his counterfeit bills."

"Oh no," I exclaimed, "Now the error is mine!"

An Analysis of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle,

By Trudy A. Martinez

In the year 1865, a drastic, calculated, change took place in America. The pre-destined change was domed to affect nearly every aspect of individuality for generations to come. It was learned from the past, ready to control the future and the destiny of millions. A special secret (their symbol) the Red, White, and Blue, which was guarded since the birth of their religion, had the purpose of joining the common man together, thus strengthening its falsified image, allowing them to go forward toward progressism. The force with such OVER-WHELMING strength would condition the minds of the common people to accept and withstand the cry of agony, hunger, death, while tilting the scales of justice in favor of social injustice. This was the Main Impersonal Force which would cause to replace or alter the common man’s value system so as to conform to its purpose of a new religion. It would create a New Article of Faith, undermined by Radicalism, fueled by greed, and chosen as an alternative to prevent revolution of the masses. It was a double standard, one for the individuals, and one for progressism; one for the rich and one for the poor. From the origin of the Main Impersonal Force would come the birth of a Myth (The American Dream) to strengthen the Red, the White, and the Blue, and give a continuing influx of internal Hope for a better tomorrow. Using revolution as an example and allowing progress through industrialization, it would produce or introduce a family of new Hope, allowing subordination-ism, of the Impersonal Forces, dependent and reliant on the existence of the Main Impersonal Force, to guide both the rich and the poor to their destiny.

For the rich it would introduce: Capitalism, and Conservatism, earned through the mastery of Behaviorism, justified through the practice of Darwinism, gained through application of Economic Expansionism, insured through Journalism, and ultimately reaffirmed through Freudanism. For the rich it would produce: Humanism as restitution for quilt, Sexism as symbol of superiority over maternal-ism.

For the poor it would introduce: Patriotism gained through citizenship,(membership) and reinforced by the Main Impersonal Force; to replace the uniqueness of man, gained through a falsified freedom and restricting common man’s free will and choice which was falsely guaranteed through their bible, the constitution; Optimism established by desire and reassured by achievements, and ultimately Consumerism (propaganda) as a reward for progressism and Materialism as a symbol of acceptance of the religion; it would produce Populism as a voice of hope for the common man’s despair, Narcissism as an explanation to common man’s dilemma, Socialism as an alternative to struggle, Marxism as an artificial retaliation to Capitalism, Alcoholism as an escape from reality; Sexism as a means of gain through despair for submission. The Main Impersonal Force produces a force with no end, infinite. It began with Nationalism but will come to be known as Natal-ism their heritage and future (from the cradle to grave). It will lead the poor through hope and achievements to their ultimate destiny, Capitalism (the temple of the rich). It will lead the rich through expansionism into Imperialism, to convert the world to their religion through propaganda of consumerism. Our destiny has been pre-ordained, that is if we try, if we struggle, if we work hard, but only, if we conform.

In Western Europe, Industrialization was a revolution, created by the rich, the chosen, the rising upper-middle class, the bourgeoisie; it was unplanned, uncalculated. The American Industrialization, on the other hand, differed from the European counterparts, in that, the creators of this Industrialization learned from the mistakes of both the English and the French counterparts. The French Revolution was the out-come of the first attempts of this new religion to conform and convert the masses. The reign of terror that resulted was the consumption of its own creation. The resulting corruption was still fresh in minds of greedy, social elite and the entrepreneurs in the western world. To prevent the slightest threat of repetition of the French example, the American industrialization had to be calculated, predetermined, and thought-out and most of all Controlled. Before the era of Industrialization could be entered, the slaves had to be freed, given hope and token justice. Education for the masses had to be forced, thus, allowing for conditioning of The American Dream through the mandatory school systems and Behaviorism. When Industrialization hit America, the common people had been prepared; they had hope for a better tomorrow; they were willing to work hard to get ahead, to build a better future, if not for themselves, their children.

A laissez-faire Conservatism predominated. Economic Expansion of railroads made it possible. Factories and industries sprung up almost overnight; people moved to the cities. Journalism capitalized with propaganda. Immigrants swarmed into America, seeking The American Dream giving the factories a steady over-abundant supply of fresh cheap-labor, paving the way for what was to still to come. The cities became The Jungle where the name of the game was survival, survival of the fittest, Social Darwinism.

The Impersonal Forces were guided by the rich, the social elite, as they sat back in their easy-chairs, read The Wall Street Journal and made decisions on investment risks, i.e., which common man protecting his materialism with a corporate image appeared most profitable and would gather more souls to be converted.

Buying and selling stock in his religion was his trade now, not slaves, but converters. Giving the magic ingredient, hope to the middle-class was their glory towards converting the common man. The ruthlessness employed in the struggle upward by the rising upper-middle class insured a quick return on their investments.

With Carnegie’s contribution of The Gospel of Wealth, and Spencer’s contribution of the social economic application of Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution, Social Darwinism, what more could the chosen ask. The off-spring of Calvinism, a step child of the Catholic Church, the chosen ones, the rich, the social elite, need only to keep control. With an influx of the magic ingredient (Hope), the Impersonal Forces, would divert, divide, conquer, and convert the struggling common man; he would deny his own values to survive the Hell of his existence. Proficiency in psychology was the key to manipulation (a natural inherent quality in woman, maternal-ism); the hidden secrets in history are the clue to the existence and goals of Paternalism.

The founders effectively changed the values of man from Oneness using capitalistic theology as basic knowledge and replacing it with Sameness, A concept of Partnership, in marriage, in work, in all endeavors giving man, Materialism, Narcissism, Alcoholism, Sexism, Darwinism, justifying the Paternalism“ of the Gospel of Wealth, the form of slavery that is so nice to society and murderous to the common man in The Jungle in the process. The Psychological knowledge of Behaviorism has helped the founders of Capitalism to shape Nationalism as their Idol through worship of a false religion. The fruit of the labor and the blood, sweat, and tears and suffering of the common man allowed the capitalistic society to flourish. The Jewish German, Sigmund (Sex) Freud, based his concept of psychology on Capitalism, called Freudanism; it so conveniently complimented Capitalism that it would become a temporary substitute for the Love of Man and parol evidence, to the Love of Man.

A Comparison of Sylvia Plath’s Original Work Versus the Film Version of The Bell Jar: If I am an Arrow

by Trudy A. Martinez

In the film, The Bell Jar, the prelude imitates a young girl’s position within society; this allusion is created through cinematic techniques and the girl’s symbolic actions that respond to a confining realm. As a result, restriction is implied and meaning is derived from the culminating points made by way of the lighting, the music, and the movement.

The culminating points correspond with the story line of Plath’s original work. For instance, as a monotone piano tone ushers in the figure of a young girl turning slowly in a circular motion, slight glimmers of light encase her form with the darkness of the set. As her hands extend outwardly and then upwardly, a strum of a harp is heard. The outward extension of her hands represent her striving for educational achievement, while the upward movement demonstrates she is not satisfied with education alone and wants to extend beyond those limits toward the American Dream. The arrangement of light denotes she has been enlightened to the American Dream; whereas, the darkness of the set signifies the dream is not possible for her. Consequently, because of the desire for upward movement, society’s restrictions are announced by way of the strum.

The strum recommends that the hands stay within allowable boundaries. After a few attempts are made to extend beyond the imaginary confines, the hands are placed within the pockets of the skirt and the defining light dims. Movement of the hands into a forward protrusion under the skirt renders the shape of a pregnant woman. Immediately, Gerald Fried’s music converts to a lullaby as the girl is seen swaying back and forth to the regular succession of sounds, chanting a villanelle, a “Mad Girl’s Love Song”:

I shut my eyes and all the world drops dead;

I lift my lids and all is born again.

(I think I made you up inside my head.) . . .

I dreamed that you bewitched me into bed

And snug me moon-struck, kissed me quite insane.

(I think I made you up inside my head.) . . .

(I think I made you up inside my head.) . . .

(I think I made you up inside my head.)

Before the framework of the opening sequence is complete, and underlying theme suggests that societal restraints force the girl to succumb to limitations and that the fear of pregnancy is the reason for her ultimate mental instability.

Under the direction of Larry Peerce, actress Marilyn Hassett, a Barbie doll double, introduces herself as Ester Greenwood. “I 'm an all American girl,” she says, “A girl wonder, a scholarship student.” And then she utters, “I think I made her up inside my head.” Consequently, she questions her status: “Me a poet? Are you kidding?” In this manner, an inferiority complex than wane her accomplishment is established, requiring her to justify her actions in order to bring herself back within the acceptable norms of society: “I am a very proper New England girl. I attend a very proper New England college where I win prizes.”

The main prize Ester wins is a trip to Ladies Day magazine. This prize erects the American Dream in others, announcing and enhancing the status of being an American citizen:

Look what can happen in this country, they’d say. A girl lives in

some out-of-the-way town for nineteen years, so poor she can’t afford

a magazine, and then she gets a scholarship to college and wins a

prize here and a prize there and ends up steering New York like her

own private car (2).

The film intensifies the American Dream aspect when the showering of gifts is announced at a meeting at the magazine’s headquarters. Then when company officials announce that they will even supply men, the camera switches to a view of excitement glowing on the young participants’ faces. But when the film attempts to dramatize Ester’s attraction to “a whole life of marvelous, elaborate decadence” of luxurious fashions that Doreen symbolizes for her (4), it adds a dimension that suggests the attraction to Doreen is magnified by a hidden lesbian tendency.

This hidden lesbian tendency dimension contradicts the initial underlying theme produced by way of the prelude. The lesbian inclination is inferred through Esther’s countenance in the sequence where she sits in the bar with Lenny (Robert Klien), Doreen, and Frankie. Her indifference to Frankie is highlighted when he asks her to dance and she replies with a firm “No.” The camera focuses on Doreen’s exhibitions that keep Lenny in awe, and then switches back to Ester, giving the impression that her apathy towards Frankie is a reflection of a more than a casual interest in Doreen. The film does not convey Plath’s intention that: “The thought of dancing with that little runt . . . made [Ester] laugh” (9). Later at Lenny’s apartment, the similitude is enhanced as Doreen and Ester is seen dancing together. Just outside their immediate circle, Lenny is seen in the background dancing by his self. Subsequently, all three of them are seen dancing wildly together. And then the camera switches to all of them tumbling on the bed. Ester is seen caressing Doreen, reinforcing the lesbian concept. Consequently, Ester runs away when she realizes the magnitude of her drunken deteriorating action.

The film frames the lesbian notion around Ester’s deteriorating life and makes it seem as if she is “. . . coming apart at the seams,” as she said in the introductory sequence, because she had not accepted the affinity. In order for the film version to communicate openly what is suppose to be Ester’s secret thoughts, Joan’s part in Ester’s life is expanded from a mere acquaintance who Ester only knew from “a cool distance” (160) to her best friend. Joan’s overly emphasized reaction to Ester’s every word and move as they both discuss the different modes of suicide suggests she has sexual designs on Ester. In a much later scene Joan learns after she makes an advance and requests sexual favors that Ester loathes this unnatural attraction. The film implies that Ester drives Joan to suicide and that Ester has to face her own lesbian desires to be free of her own suicidal drive.

In the original work, Ester’s suicidal drive is not stimulated by lesbian desires. Instead, her suicidal drive is stimulated by a feeling of inadequacy. She feels stupid for buying “all those uncomfortable, expensive clothes” (1). She feels stupid because she had been attached to Buddy Willard who went to Yale after she learned that Doreen thought “Yalies” were “so stoo-pet!”(6). She feels stupid because she “felt very low” after Jay Cee brought to the surface “all the uncomfortable suspicions” of inadequacy she has (24).

On the other hand, the film portrays Jay Cee (Barbara Barrie) as vindictive toward Ester. Her command, “We are looking to you for a certain kind of intellectual elevation,” followed by a snicker of laughter implies her vindictive intention. In a much later scene, Jay Cee makes Ester feel extremely inadequate when she says her views are “poison.” Jay Cee tells Ester that she needs to identify with other college students who never heard of Joyce. Ester is seen playing with her pencil in a manner that conveys she is unable to deal with the criticism. Jay Cee then asks her: “Did you think this was one of your cinch courses that you will get an “A?”

Ester isn’t getting “A’s” in her personal life either. Instead, indecisiveness takes over. She has difficulty making decisions of what she should or shouldn’t do, making her feel even more inadequate and sad (23-25). She feels Doreen serves as a “concrete testimony to [her] own dirty nature” (19). The bell jar symbolizes her fear of sex and pregnancy which has her imprisoned in a world of double standards: She had said, “I couldn’t stand the idea of a woman having to have a single pure life and a man being able to have a double life, one pure and one not” (66). She “. . . knew . . . what [Buddy] secretly wanted was for her to flatten out underneath his feel like Mrs. Willard’s kitchen mat” (69). The film obscures these concerns and completely ignores Ester’s sexual fears: She told Dr. Nolan, “What I really hate is the thought of being under a man’s thumb . . . A man doesn’t have a worry in the world, while I’ve got a baby hanging over my head like a big stick, to keep me in line” (181). The bell jar is an extremely significant symbol in Plath’s original work; whereas in the film, the bell jar only serves instrumentally to frame the ending.

The symbolization of the bell jar entraps Ester in the stereotypical domesticity of the roles of mother and housewife. Society’s expectation of woman’s domesticity is a condition which indirectly bears responsibility for Ester’s inferiority complex. Fear is the controlling factor. Even though Ester may want to experiment with sex, she feels she is not free to do so because of the fear of pregnancy. Individual female education goals and desires are secondary to society’s framework. This is apparent when her mothers (Julie Harris) stresses that women must be practical and learn shorthand. In other words, woman must be ready to heed what a society of man dictates. Learning shorthand serves as a message to Ester of her place within society. As a result, she feels inferior because even with all her education she does not have the knowledge needed to survive in the world:

“Not knowing shorthand meant not getting a good job after college. My mother kept telling me nobody wanted a plain English major. But an English major who knew shorthand was something else again. Everybody would want her. She would be in demand among all the up-and-coming young men, and she would transcribe letter after thrilling letter. The trouble was, I hated the idea of serving men in any way. I wanted to dictate my own thrilling letters”(61-62).

Plath suggests Ester’s inferiority complex is an extension of a societal norm, a norm that does not accept women as equal to men in any way. Regardless of a woman’s educational accomplishments, she can only hope to please a man by doing his bidding or serving him. The double standard extends not only to the workplace but also to personal choice, limiting a woman’s sexual freedom through fear by trapping her in the stereotypical role of mother and housewife. The introductory framework of the film also gives the allusion of entrapment. However, when the film introduces the abnormality of a lesbian sexuality into the story, it changes the original theme of fear and entrapment by serving lesbianism up as an avenue of escape from the bell jar hanging over head. The film is not brought back into perspective with the original work until after the death of Joan with Ester’s exclamation: “I am. I am. I am.” Then the film immediately diverges again, framing the beginning with the end by addressing the person in the bell jar: “To the person in the bell jar blank and stopped as a dead baby, the world itself is a bad dream” (193). Ester recounts, “I asked [Dr. Nolan] if I would survive. She said, yes. She at once freed me and condemned me back to life”. Then as if an after thought she says, ”If am the arrow, I cannot fly through darkness.” In other words, all the change and excitement she wants is null and void because she can’t “. . . shoot off in all directions [herself], like the colored arrows from a Fourth of July rocket”(68).

Bibliography:

Plath, Sylvia. The Bell Jar. Bantam Books (published by arrangement

with Harper & Row). 1972.

Kellog, Marjorie, The Bell Jar. Directed by Larry Peerce, Based on

The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath.

The Three Basic Ideas in Thoreau's Walden

The three basic ideas (Experience, Self-reliance, and Worship) in Thoreau's Walden deals specifically with one theme: "Simplicity". To Thoreau, simplicity in experience, simplicity in self-reliance, and simplicity in worship bred the finer things in life. In contrast, Thoreau saw complexity breeding only dissatisfaction. For example, a farmer might "get his shoestrings" [by speculating] in herds of cattle. But in the process the farmer does not "solve the problem of [his] livelihood", he just makes his life more complicated than need be. As a result, complexity becomes a complicated man's tomb.

Simplicity in experience to Thoreau meant learning to live without complication. To accomplish this, he suggested "[reducing]...things in proportion". In other words, he suggested getting rid of details so that your accounts could be "[kept on] ...your thumb-nail". Thoreau had said: "An honest man...[needs only]...to count...his ten fingers, or in extreme cases...his toes". By operating in such a manner, a man remains in control of his own life and "life [is driven] into a corner". Consequently, disparity is removed from life. Life becomes an experiment. The result of experimentation brings experience. And as a direct result of simplicity in one's experience, one learns what life has to teach.

In order to learn what life has to teach, Thoreau suggests one must learn to be self-reliant. To Thoreau simplicity was a major factor in this aspect too. Through the development of his self-reliance, he gained "the seeds of [his] virtues. This can be seen by "the results of [his] experience in raising beans". He did not rely on "horses or cattle, or hired men or boys" as the gentlemen farmer's did. Instead, he loved his rows of beans; they brought him closer to nature; they helped him to achieve his self-reliance through simplicity. "Daily the beans saw [him coming] to their rescue armed with a hoe . . . “. Consequently, he was rewarded for his endeavors. And as a result, the expense of his endeavors was slight in contrast to the "gentlemen farmers". In addition to earning enough to meet his necessary expenditures through the growth of his self-reliance, he attained character: truth, simplicity, and faith.

Through truth, simplicity, and faith Thoreau worshiped the flourishing life of the wilderness. He worshiped by responding to nature and nature's miracles. For instance, Thoreau saw "Walden [as] a perfect forest mirror". The lake served as the "earth's eye". In the earth's eye the refection of both "heaven and earth" could be seen through the colors of both blue and green. He saw spring as the season of the year where rebirth occurred. It was as if the creator was playing around with both variety and unity. The exposed banks of the railroad cut sported this concept. "The whole bank . . . [was] overlaid with a mass of foliage or sandy rupture . . . the [product] of one spring day." As a result responding to the rapture of nature, Thoreau was affected by the scenes he saw. The scenes caused him to feel "as if . . . [he was standing] in the laboratory of the Artist who made the world and [him] . . . " It was as if he "--had come to where [the creator] was still at work, sporting on [the] bank, and with excess of energy strewing his fresh designs about."

Consequently, it becomes understandable why Thoreau relied on "simplicity, simplicity, simplicity" in all his endeavors. Simplicity was the means he used to experience life. Simplicity was the method by which he gained self-reliance. And simplicity supplied the clarity of his response to the beauty he worshiped in nature and with nature. As a result, he bred oneness with nature and saw the beauty of his own experiments.

The following article was published in the “Inyokern News Review” as a letter to the editor in October 1990. The letter was written in response to the unnecessary death of a young girl. The question then was whose life is valued more an endangered species or human life?

The underlying importance of this issue highlights another question: Are we going to allow the loss of the rights guaranteed through the Constitution for all Americans as a remedy?

Even though the article was written in 1990, the issues surrounding it still exist today and will continue until the people’s voice is loud and clear that they will not stand for remedies which result in the taking of properties. The Fifth Amendment of United States Constitution clearly prohibits the taking of properties for public use without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment does not say that “We the People” [the property owner] must do the compensating. Nevertheless across America, property owners are told they must compensate in order to improve their property when their property is said to be in the habitat of an endangered species.

Supreme Decisions

By Trudy A. Martinez

Tom Turner, author of “Courting Disaster in the Nation’s Capital”, (Mother Earth News, March-April ’88 p44 (2)) says, “The Supreme Court can go for long periods without rendering decisions in environmental disputes.” Some recent decisions have ruled in favor of property holders.”

“ . . . The Firth Amendment prohibits: “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The courts have ruled in favor of the property holder’s right to develop their lands and against environmentalist who wish to prohibit such undertakings.

The Mohave Ground Squirrel has posed some problems for our area residence. Property holders are being robbed of property, money, and peace of mind in regards to this issue. Inconsistency, extortion, blackmail, and plain highway robbery appear to be the tactics incorporated by the so called public agency.

A recent death of a young girl in our area reveals that the Mohave Ground Squirrel’s life is considered of more value than human life. The most dangerous intersection in Ridgecrest goes without a traffic signal because of the prohibiting of development.

Enough is enough! Agencies such as The Nature Conservancy should be forced to have their day in court against the people of California and other states in the Union, if applicable. Joint and/or single court action should be ensued. True, court action may take years; but with the press, public records, documentation, and foresight, the people can again be victorious.

George Reiger author of “Unnatural Developments” says, “Although TNC uses millions of nonprofit dollars annually, it offers little accountability to the public underwriting its schemes.”

The Nature Conservancy’s record is not lily white. They want a monopoly with no competition. If the people stand in their way, they move them, cheat them, and abridge the people’s rights.

A “Supreme Decision” is not just for the courts but also for the individuals and/or groups of individuals who are affected by mismanaged corrupt governmental concerns. America is still a government of the people. It is the responsibility of Americans to remind the agencies that tend to hinder personal rights guaranteed through the Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” to seek restitution. Not always is the mere joining of special interest groups enough. The way to pursue action if you want results is to challenge them. “A squeaky wheel gets attention; a well oiled wheel is left alone.” The more media coverage there is the better. The more cases tried, the more examples set. To question, to challenge, and to fight for the justice and rights that seem to be forever fading is a responsibility of every American. The oppressive methods of “Special Interest Hip Pocket Agencies” who pursue personal gain by engaging the concerns of corporate, affluent Americans may only be stopped by the judiciary system. Ignoring the interest of the people is only smart if the people allow their freedom to be abridged. An agency like the TNC may shine on the outside, but they stink on the inside, polluting the future of America.

The Nature Conservancy needs to be given a copy of the “Fifth Amendment”; better yet perhaps someone needs to read it to them: the blind are sometimes able to see with the aid of words. (A box of Q-tips may be needed to clear their ears so they can hear what is being said.) I interpret the Fifth Amendment to say that if we the people are kept from our land through the taking of the land that we the people are supposed to be compensated.

No where in the Fifth Amendment does it say “we the people” must do the compensating!

The Significance of Nature in George Eliot's Adam Bede

By Trudy A. Martinez

In Adam Bede nature is set against itself; this first becomes apparent on "the Green".  Here two roads fork off into two directions:  One up and one down.  The road upward depicts a gloomy picture while the one downward presents a bright picture.  For instance, the road that goes up is "overlooked by its barren hills" and described as a “a bleak treeless region" (28).   In contrast, the one that goes down is "under the shelter of woods" and is described as having "long meadow-grass and thick corn" (28).

The effect of nature leaves the reader wondering what is good and what is bad.  For instance, Mr. Irwine is described as harmonizing "extremely well with that peaceful landscape" (76-77).  What is peaceful about his landscape?  The church is on the upward road and the only brightness described in that landscape is the "dark-red" of the bricks on the church.  And then again, just as "the red sunlight shone on the brass nails" of a coffin, the color signifies a different sort of peacefulness, that of death (60).  The sun was shining on Hetty wearing a red cloak but she hardly knew it; she had lost hope (348).  With "two roads before her," she chose the downward path, the "one . . . which will take her into . . . shrouded pastures" (348).

On the downward path, nature is a non-benevolent force where day and night are at odds.  Gyp announces the non-benevolent nature when he gives out "a loud howl."  In response, Adam goes outside in the dark to investigate; he sees "nothing except a rat; but what he hears calls “up the image of the willow wand striking the door" and foretelling death (58).  However, instead of death being discovered in the dark of night, it is discovered only after "daylight quenches the candles and the birds begin to sing"(60).  And just as the birds sing, Gyp begins "to bark uneasily" after Seth asks, "What's that sticking against the willow?"  Then Adam and Seth discover the "watery death" of their father (61).  Instead of water being a symbol of life, water becomes a symbol of death.  Eliot reverses the symbols just as she reverses nature.

Mr. Irwine communicates the opposing force of nature when he says, "Nature is cleaver enough to cheat even you, mother."  His mother, however, disagrees and replies, "Nonsense, child!  Nature never makes a ferret in the shape of mastiff" (72).  In other words, she can tell by the outward appearance.  Nevertheless, the outward appearance of nature is different.  Instead of the rain pouring down drops and producing mud, "the sun.  .  . Is pouring down his beams . . . and turning . . . muddy water . . . into a mirror" (79).  And then again, a birthday feast is held at the time of year that is "Not the best time of year to be born in."  Instead, it is held at the time of year where "Nature seems to make a hot pause"(241).

Nature also foretells the depth of emotions.  For instance, when Hetty is in the wilderness wandering and looking for a pool of water, she finds it "black under the darkening sky:  no motion, no sound near . . .  The pool was at its wintry depth now" and so is Hetty for she is thinking of drowning herself in it (367).  "She had reached the boarders of a new wilderness . . . (360).  Her sky is no longer bright with sunshine.  For example, the sky is "gray" and "clear" on the morning when Hetty and Dinah are riding in the cart and nearing the fatal spot.  Suddenly, Arthur appears, "carrying in his hand a hard-won release from death (438).  Consequently, nature gives a hint of what is to come.

The consequence of nature keeps the reader reading and unknowingly questioning:  if the sunshine is representative of death, why is Dinah pictured sewing in the sunshine outside the house? (70-71). is this because she has not a hope of life as a single woman?  Later after Dinah marries Adam, she avoids the sunshine.  For instance, she shades "her eyes with her hands" and "turns away from the sunlight" (504).  In addition, she changes the color of her bonnet from grieving black to an innocent white.

The Effect of Illusion on the Reality of Emma's Life in Flaubert's Madame Bovary

by Trudy A. Martinez

Technorati Tags: analysis

Emma attempts to make the fiction she reads become her reality.  Real life bores her.  When she lives in the country, she dreams of living in a town.  As she walks and talks with Charles, reality and illusion merge.  Her voice is "suddenly laden with languor" one minute and the next "merry . . . Her eyes" open "wide and innocent, then half" close, submerge "in boredom, thoughts wandering" (36).

Emma's wandering thoughts surface when she attempts to mingle the plans for their wedding with fantasy.  For example, She wants "a midnight wedding with torches"(38), but her father will not hear of it.  But nevertheless, touches of fantasy make it through the planning stage:  "A little cupid" adorns the wedding cake (42).  And Emma's dress is out of place:  it is too long for a country wedding.  Consequently, the dress drags on the ground, picking up "course grasses and thistle burrs"(40) and bits of reality.

Reality strikes home when Emma sees her husband's first wife's bouquet.  The sight of him removing it starts her to "wondering what would happen to (her own bouquet) if she were to die" (45).  Eventually, she disposes of the bouquet herself:  She throws it in a fire and sits watching it burn and the shriveled paper petals (hover) like black butterflies" in the fireplace and "finally (vanish) up the chimney" (81).

When her life lapses into routine, she tries to liven it up.  She does this by reciting poetry to Charles in the moonlight or singing to him "slow melancholy songs," thinking that this will make him more loving and passionate (56).  When nothing works, she begins to question her reasons for marrying (57).  Her ideas of love affect her vision:  "Was not love like an Indian plant," She thought, "requiring a prepared soil, a special temperature?  Sighs in the moonlight, long embraces, and hands at parting bathed with tears, all the fevers of the flesh and the languid tenderness of love.  .  . “And luxury (72).  The effect of such thoughts causes her to dress and train her maid as a lady's maid.  And she, herself, dresses luxuriously and flaunts herself at the window (72-73).  Her day dreams of the ball and the Marquis.  Even though he is ugly, his lifestyle fascinates her.  Excitement fills his life, and he "was said to have been the lover of Marie Antoinette" (60-61).

Such daydreaming leaves her depressed.  For example, "She lets the house look after itself" and she grows "hard to please" and thinks only of her own wants and emotions.  What effect she had on others was of no consequence to her (79).  She said, "I hate commonplace heroes and moderate feeling such as are to be found in life" (96).

Having a girl child is commonplace to her.  "The thought of having a male child afforded her revenge for her past life of helplessness" (101).  With Emma there is no compromising:  either nothing is good enough for her or she is too good for everything.  Her daughter didn't really matter to her.  If she had, why did she place her in a nursemaid's home where she feels compelled to wipe "her feet at the door as she [goes] out" (106).

Emma thought she could love her husband Charles if he was famous, "but Charles had no ambition"(74).  Before her wedding she believes she is in love, but to Emma love means excitement, a continuous passion, and most of all luxury.  When Rodolphe comes into her life, she fails to recognize that his words: "I've stayed with you, because I couldn't tear myself away, though I've tried a hundred times" are just as the chairman exclaims to the crowd: "Manure!" (161).

A life with Rodolphe sums up her dreams of fantasy:  "I love you so much! . . . So much, I can't live without you!  I long for you . . . I am your slave, your concubine.  You are my king, my idol --you are good, handsome, intelligent, and strong!" (203). But she did live without him and even replaces him with her own molded model of a lover, Leon.   To uphold her life of fantasy, she needs money and luxury.  The reality of the debt she accumulates crushes her illusion and leaves her wishing "she could fly away like a bird and grow young again somewhere far out in the stainless purity of space" (303).  When she tries to regain some dignity, and seek help from her lost love, Rodolphe, the reality of her life becomes too much for her as she angrily  tells him of his faults and her own at the same time:  "You love yourself too much:  you live well . . . "(323).  She takes her own life to avoid facing reality (325).  "In a clear voice she asked for her mirror, and remained bowed over it for sometime, until big tears began to trickle out of her eyes" (336) for she must leave her fantasy behind.   However, a song rebukes her and she cries out, "The blind man!"  His song leaves her "laughing, a ghastly, frantic, desperate laugh, fancying she could see the hideous face of the beggar rising up like a nightmare amid the eternal darkness" (337).  Consequently, she dies as she lived in a fantasy world of illusion.