Die Pflicht: Fortschritte machen Nationalismus

Die Ideen von der deutscher Novelle ist Pflicht. Pflicht zum Selbst, der Familie, oder zum Stadt. Aber gibt es eine Reaktion zum Staat, die ist die Pflicht zum Gott. Heinrich von Kleist schrieb über Pflicht zum Selbst. Die Verlobung in St. Domingo ist eine Novelle über Willensfreiheit, und so Pflicht zum Selbst. Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck ist auch ein Novelle von Pflicht zum Selbst. Aber Der blonde Eckbert ist, auch Die Judenbuche von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, über Pflicht zu der Familie. Der Schlimmelreiter von Theodor Storm ist über Pflicht zum Staat. Es ist die Novelle über Nationalismus. Und die Reaktion gegen Nationalimus ist Der Tod in Venedig von Thomas Mann. Thomas Mann schrieb über eine Pflicht zu der Übermenschlich, z.ß Dionysus, Gott, oder die Teufel. Es gibt ein Fortschritt in die deutschen Novellen, die ist eine Fortschritt zu Nationalismus.

Erst werde ich über Pflicht zum Selbst, ich werde über Die Verlobung in St. Domingo von Heinrich von Kleist und Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck schreiben. Zweite werde ich über Pflicht zu der Familie. Ich werde ein Bisschen über Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck schreiben, aber werde ich über Die Judenbuche von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff auch schreiben. Dann werde ich über Pflicht zum Staat, werde ich über dem Schlimmelreiter von Theodor Storm.schreiben. Am Ende werde ich über Pflicht zum Gott, werde ich über dem Tod in Venedig von Thomas Mann schreiben.

Am Anfang gibt es ein Pflicht zu Selbst. Heinreich Kleist schrieb über Pflicht zum Selbst in Die Verlobung in St. Domingo. Gustav ist die Hauptfigur in Die Verlobung in St. Domingo. Er ist ein Soldat und ist er weiß. Gustav liebt Toni, aber Toni ist eine Mulattin. Der Kampf zwischen Gustav und Toni ist den Kampf zwischen Weiß und Mulattin. In Frankreich gibt es ein Revolution. In St. Domingo gibt es ein Revolution von der Sklaven. Gustav und Toni hat ein Kampf mit ihren Familien. Toni hilf Congo und ihre Mutter, die ermordete vielen weißen Soldaten. Aber mussen Gustav und Toni sich Entschlusskraften machen. Sie haben Willensfreiheit, sie haben ein Pflicht zu sich. Kleist schrieb über Willensfreiheit. Man mußt sich Entschlusskraften machen, nicht seinem Familie oder Staat oder Gott. Gustav und Toni symbolizierten diese Idee von Kleist. Am Ende Gustav mußt Selbstmord machen, und mußt er Toni schlossen. Das ist eine Thema von die deutschen Novellen. Pflicht zum Selbe, die Familie, zum Stadt oder Gott enden mit Tod. Aber Toni und Gustav machen der Entschlusskraf sich.

Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck ist auch über Pflicht zum Selbe. Tieck schrieb über Schicksal und nicht Willensfreiheit, aber hat er über Pflicht zum Selbe. Am Ende eine alte Frau sprachte zu Eckbert, „Und Bertha war deine Schwester.“[1] Eckbert hat ein Pflicht zum sich. Aber er hat auch ein Pflicht zu seinem Familie. Auch Bertha hat ein Pflicht zu sich. Sie mußt der Freund ihres Mannes die Wahrheit sagen. Sie könnte nicht alle Zeit lügen. Sie hat ein Pflicht zum sich. Sie mußt es sagen, weil die Lüge Bertha ermorden. Tieck schrieb:

Es gibt Stunden, in denen es den Menschen ängstigt, wenn er vor seinem Freunde ein Geheimnis haben soll, was er bis dahin oft mit vieler Sorgfalt verborgen hat, die Seele fühlt dann einen unwiderstehlichen Trieb, sich ganz mitzuteilen, dem Freunde auch das Innerste aufzuschließen, damit er umso mehr unser Freund werde. In diesen Augenblicken geben sich die zarten Seelen einander zu erkennen, und zuweilen geschieht es wohl auch, dass einer vor der Bekanntschaft des andern zurückschreckt.[2]

Die Pflicht zum Selbst ist nicht dieselbe als Die Verlobung in St. Domingo. Tieck schrieb über Schicksal nicht Willensfreiheit. Aber auch schrieb Tieck nicht total über Pflicht zum Selbst. Seine Novelle ist ein Gemengie zwischen Pflicht zum Selbst und der Familie. Bertha’s Pflicht ist zum Selbst. Aber Eckbert’s Pflicht ist zu der Familie. Aber Eckbert starb als Gustav. Die Pflicht ermordete Eckbert und Bertha. Bevor Eckbert starb, die Frau sagte, „Weil du in früher Jugend deinen Vater einst davon erzählen hörtest; er durfte seiner Frau wegen diese Tochter nicht bei sich erziehn lassen, denn sie war von einem andern Weibe.“ Eckbert’s Vater wusste seinem Pflicht zu der Familie. Eckbert vergaß seinem Pflicht zu der Familie. Weil Eckbert vergaß, mußt er sterben.

Seine Familie machst du. Das ist die Idee von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff. Sie schrieb Die Judenbuche, eine Novelle von die Idee Pflicht zu der Familie. Friedrich werde seinem Vater und Onkel werden. Es gibt kein Willensfreiheit in Die Judenbuche, es ist nur Schicksal. Friedrich und die anderen Dorfbewohner leben ausserhalb des Staates. Sie haben ein Pflicht zu der Familie und nicht Selbst. Annette von Droste-Hülshoff schrieb:

Unter höchst einfachen und häufig unzulänglichen Gesetzen waren die Begriffe der Einwohner von Recht und Unrecht einigermaßen in Verwirrung geraten, oder vielmher, es hatte sich neben dem gesetzlichen ein zweites Recht gebildet, ein Recht der öffentlichen Meinung, der Gewohnheit und der durch Vernachlässingung entstandenen Verjährung. [3]

Es gibt kein Stadt in diese Novelle. Friedrich mussen seinem Onkel helfen. Er hat ein Pflicht zu seinem Onkel und Familie. Aber am Ende ist der Stadt notwendig. Die einfältige Dorfbewohner brauchen ein Stadt. Annette von Droste-Hülshoff schrieb eine Warnung am Anfang, die ist ein Warnung zu die einfältige Dorfbewohner:

Wo ist die Hand so zart, dass ohne Irren

Sie sondern mag beschränkten Hirnes Wirren,

So fest, dass ohne Zittern sie den Stein

Mag schleudern auf ein arm verkümmert Sein?

Wer wagt es, eitlen Blutes Drang zu messen,

Zu wägen jedes Wort, das unvergessen

In junge Brust die zähen Wurzeln trieb,

Des Vorurteils geheimen Seelendieb?

Du Glücklicher, geboren und gehegt

Im lichten Raum, von frommer Hand gepflegt,

Leg hin die Waagschal’, nimmer dir erlaubt!

Lass ruhn den Stein – er trifft dein eignes Haupt![4]

Pflicht zu Familie ist ok aber sehr schädlich. Der Recht ist was die Familie machen. Man kann nicht die andere Dorfbewohner urteilen.

So sprachen wir über Pflicht zum Selbst und der Familie. Jetzt werden wir über Pflicht zum Staat. Nationalismus braucht Pflicht zum Staat, oder es kann nicht sein. Theodor Storm schrieb Der Schimmelreiter. Am Kern der Idee ist ein Kampf zwischen Willensfreiheit und Schicksal, oder Pflicht zum Selbst und Pflicht zum Staat. Der Staat beschließt, was man wird. Die Hauptfigur der Novelle ist Hauke, Hauke will mehr als das Shicksal des Staates. Die Frage der Idee ist der Staat besser als das Individuum? Der Schimmelreiter ist eine Geschichte über den Begehren des Mensches gegen die Pflicht zum Stadt, der Familie oder zum Gott. Hauke ist individualistisch. Er denkt, wenn etwas für sich gut ist, dann auch für den Staat. Hauke begehrt mehr als das einfache Leben. Aber am Ende ist Hauke tot und er wäre für seinen Staat gestorben. Hauke sah ein, daß das Individuum nicht ohne den Stadt sein kam. Die Pflicht zu der Familie, zum Selbst sind nicht wichtiger als die Pflicht zum Selbst. Man mußt wollen was den Staat würden. Die Ideen von John F. Kennedy „Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. “[5]

Nicht aller Autoren mögen die Idee von Nationalimus. In Der Tod in Venedig von Thomas Mann gibt es Pflichter zum Gott, oder der Übermenschlich. Gustav Aschenbach ist die Hauptfigur in Der Tod in Venedig. Am Anfang gibt es einem man, vielleicht der Teufel oder Dionysus?[6] Dann geht er nach Venedig. Aber hat Gustav Willensfreiheit, oder Shicksal? Wenn er Schicksal haben, dann gibt es Pflicht zum Gott. Wenn er Willensfreiheit gibt es kein Pflicht zum Gott, aber es ist Pflicht zum Selbst. In Venedig sah Gustav ein Jung, der heißt Tadzio. Gustav ist von dem Jung faziniert. Tadzio ist ein religiös figur für Gustav. Tadzio ist „David“ von Michelanglo. Nach diese Zeit gibt es einer Massenvermehrung der Cholera. Gustav könnte nach München flugen. Warum hat er nicht? Er will Tadzio sehen, er will Gott sehen. Er liebt Tadzio, aber ist es ein unmoralischen Liebe? Wenn er Willensfreiheit hat, ja es ist! Aber ich denke, daß er kein Willensfreiheit hat. Am Ende ist Gustav zu den Strand. Gustav ist krank, aber will er Tadzio einmal Zeit sehen. Gustav hat die Cholera, und er will sterben. Er müßt Tadzio sehen. Tadzio symbolizert Gott, Religion, Moral. Der Tod in Venedig ist eine Warnung, daß Gott ist Tot[7] und Pflicht zum Staat ist überalles. Gustav sah Tadzio „fallen“, er sah Gott fallen.[8] Die Cholera ist Pflicht zum Staat, die ermordete alles. Pflicht zum Gott ist die nure Idee, das kann mit Pflicht zum Staat kampfen. Wir mussen an Gott glauben, oder an unmenschliche etwas. Der Staat ist nicht alles. Gott ist über dem Staat.

Die deutschen Novellen hat ein Fortrschritt zu Nationalismus. Erst ist Pflicht zum Selbst, dann zu der Familie. Heinrich von Kleist, Ludwig Tieck und Annette von Droste-Hülshoff schrieben eine Warnung: Der Selbst und die Familie sind nicht ohne den Staat. Theodor Storm schrieb über die Idee von Pflicht zum Staat. Aber Thomas Mann schrieb eine Warnung: der Staat wird Gott ermorden. Nationalismus ist Shicksal, es gibt kein Willensfreiheit. Man kann nicht ein Individuum in Nationalimus werden. Der Staat macht der Individuum. Nationalimus sagt, „Alles für den Vaterland.“ Es ist die Idee hinter Nationalsozialistlichen Arbeiters Partei, und die Sowjetunion.

---

[1] Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck pg 24

[2] Der blonde Eckbert von Ludwig Tieck 3-4

[3] Die Judenbuche von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff pg. 3-4

[4] Die Judenbuche von Annette von Droste-Hülshoff pg. 3

[5] President John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Speech on January 20^th 1961.

[6] „Freilich trug er dazu den landesüblichen Rucksack um die Schultern geschnallt, eine gelblichen Gurtanzug aus Lodenstoff, wie es schien, einen grauen Wetterkragen über dem linken Unterarm, den er in die Weiche gestützt kielt, und in der Rechten einen mit eiserner Spitze versehenen Stock, welchen er shräg gegen den Boden stemmte und auf dessen Krück er, bei gekreutzen Füßen, die Hüfte lehnte.“ Der Tod in Venedig pg. 12

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche Die fröhliche Wissenschaft

[8] „Und plötzlich, wie unter einer Erinnerung, einem Impuls, wandte er den Oberkörper, eine Hand in der Hüfte, in schooner Drehung aus seiner Grundpositur und blickte über die Schulter zum Ufer. Der Schauende dort saß, wie er einst gesessen, als zuerst, von jener Schwelle zurückgesandt, dieser dämmergraue Blick dem seinen begegnet war. Sein Haupt war an der Lehne des draußen Schreitenden gefolgt: nun hob es sich, gleichsam dem Blicke entgegen, und sank auf die Brust, so daß seine Augen von unten sahen, indes sein Antlitz den schlaffen, innig versunkenen Ausdruck tiefen Schlummers ziegte..“pg. 139 Der Tod in Venedig

And Those Who Have Fallen Away From the Lord

In our modern world when we hear the word vampire people have a tendency to laugh it off as mere legend, myth. Yet for centuries Europeans feared vampires as though they were real. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church developed an interest in demonic possession and witch craft resulting in the publication of Malleus Maleficarum by Heinrich Kramer & Jacob Sprenger. In the 18^th Century Europe was once again brought under the thrall of the Vampire as stories once again circulated throughout Europe. This cumulated when Dom Augustin Calmet, O.S.B. wrote Traitéi sur les apparitions des esprits et sur les vampires. This treatise comes closest of acknowledging the existence of vampires, though Dom Calmet does not explicitly accept nor deny their existence. Anne Rice molds both European mythology and Catholic theology on vampires and demonic possession to explore Catholic themes such as salvation, redemption, free and grace into Interview with the Vampire.

Interview with the Vampire is composed of four parts which span from 1791 to present-day (circa 1970’s.) The novel, originally written as a story, explores the concepts of salvation, redemption, free will and grace through the person of a Vampire named Louis. Louis is a Frenchman living in New Orleans, Louisiana when he is turned by the vampire Lestat. The novel was completed by Anne Rice after the death of her first born daughter, an event that sent Rice into a spiral of self doubt and questioning God. To completely grasp Interview with the Vampire an exploration of its themes should be done by events. Only then can there be an understanding of how Catholic themes play into the novel.

There are certain events in Part I of Interview with the Vampire which are pertinent to exploring the conception of grace and salvation. Chief among these events concern Louis’ brother Paul and his preternatural brother Lestat. Louis comes to French America and settles in New Orleans on a plantation called Ponte du Lac. His love for his family is undoubted, specifically for his younger brother Paul. Paul is a devout Catholic and Louis agrees to build him an Oratory on plantation grounds. Yet, when Paul comes to Louis and reveals that he has been receiving apparitions from the Blessed Virgin that he should sell all of his possessions Louis doubts his brother. As a result Paul flees his brother’s room, only to be killed falling down a set of stairs. The circumstances of this are unclear, Louis reports that his brother was lifted from the ground as he fell to his death. As his brother’s death eats away at Louis, no one is aware of the conversation Paul and he had moments before Paul’s death. While on his own death bed, a result of fever and being bitten by Lestat, Louis confesses to a Priest what his brother told him before falling to his death. The Priest refuses to believe Paul was visited by the Blessed Virgin, instead claiming Paul was possessed by demons and visited by the Devil. This infuriates Louis to no end, yet it serves as a precursor to his life as a vampire.

Lestat makes Louis into a vampire, yet Louis struggles with his new found immortal life. For four years Louis refuses to feed on humans and instead chooses to feed on animals. However, this changes with the assistance from Lestat, Louis kills a five year old girl named Claudia and Lestat turns her into a vampire. Claudia’s death and rebirth as a vampire is an important event for Louis. Claudia becomes a daughter to both Louis and Lestat and ultimately becomes a pseudo lover for Louis. And it is with Claudia that Louis will begin to truly question his nature and will repeatedly attempt to answer the question of whether or not he is damned. Louis constantly refers to Lestat and Claudia as different from himself. Louis, while he feeds on those whom he comes across, still seeks to understand his own nature while never fully letting go of his human nature. Claudia’s birth as a vampire serves as a key moment in Louis’ existence; he has partaken in the act of making a human into a vampire. Louis has killed his own child like innocence; there is no turning back at this point for him. If Louis is to receive grace and be redeemed, he must do it as an adult and as a killer.

And so after some seventy years after Claudia’s transformation, she vows to kill Lestat after a period of angst over Lestat’s refusal to speak of their origins. Further, Claudia and Louis conclude that they will travel to Europe in an attempt to find more of their kind and for Louis, an attempt to discover his nature and whether he is damned. However, on the night before they are set to sail for the Old World, Louis finds himself at the same Cathedral where his brother’s funeral took place so many years prior. He enters on a Saturday night and people are at the Cathedral for confession. Louis finds himself seated in one of the pews when he is hit with a vision. In his vision, Louis sees the Church falling apart around him; he admits that he is the only preternatural being in there. This admonition by Louis demonstrates the first time Louis openly denies the existence of God. Like all created beings, Louis has sunken to utter loneliness and denies his creator. The statues for Louis are nothing more than art work. He reaches out to grab the hand of the statue for the Blessed Virgin and it crumbles as he touches. Those who reach out to the Blessed Virgin for help are never turned away, yet Louis finds himself in the situation of being denied help.

Next, Louis sees a vision of a funeral procession coming into the Church and among the mourners is Claudia. Claudia begins to read a passage from the Bible aimed at Louis, the passage is that of Cain. Like Cain, Louis has betrayed his flesh and blood. First he betrayed his brother Paul for refusing to believe he had visions and then he betrays his preternatural brother Lestat by allowing for his execution. His vampirism is a mark upon himself, such as God gave to Cain. No one will come near Louis, nor will anyone attempt to kill him out of fear. Louis has received his judgment, or so he thinks, he is damned. Claudia at this point is not a vampire, but a child and from this child comes the pure truth that Louis is in fact damned for the destruction of his family. This vision is what Louis has desired to hear since his earliest day as a vampire. Louis is unable to accept himself; he believes he must be condemned for his nature.

Yet, Louis’ ultimate defiance of God comes moments after his vision ends. The Priest who had been hearing confessions comes to Louis and asks if he wishes to confess his sins. At first Louis is hesitant but ultimately agrees and follows the Priest to the confessional. Louis confessions the murders of thousands of persons over nearly a century and ultimately confesses that he is a vampire. Disbelieving Louis, the Priest leaves the confessional and Louis grabs him and ultimate takes the Priest’s life. Louis has gone from doubting God, to struggling over his own nature to ultimately rejecting grace and salvation by killing an agent of God. Twice has Louis confessed to a Priest, and twice has a Priest doubted Louis. These are important symbols as the represent Louis’ exploration of grace and salvation. He has to find the answer for himself whether he is damned or saved. If by his nature, Louis is damned then what does it say for free will and predestination. This difficulty that Louis is presented with eats away at him, causing him to bemoan his immortal existence. Grace is out of Louis’ reach; he has been denied by the Mother of God and has destroyed a most Holy Priest of the Lord.

Leaving America for Europe gives Louis a chance to contemplate further his nature and existence. Europe stands as Louis’ exploration of his vampire nature, in hopes of understanding his nature as a vampire he can understand if he can be saved or not. After spending time in Eastern Europe and coming across an Old World vampire, Louis and Claudia head for Paris. While in Eastern Europe, Louis and Claudia have an encounter with their first vampire. This vampire defies their expectations, as he is animalistic such as in the stories of Bram Stoker. This perplexes Louis and Claudia, and makes Louis feel more alone and that he will never be able to find answers to his questions. Louis and Claudia resolve to leave Eastern Europe and make their way to Paris. One night while walking the streets of Paris, Louis encounters a new vampire who mocks his every move. After this encounter a third vampire appears and leaves a business card telling Louis to bring himself and Claudia to the Theatere des Vampires the following night. The following night Louis and Claudia encounter vampires like themselves for the first time since leaving America, though these vampires are similar to Louis and Claudia they will prove to be completely different creatures. For nearly a century Louis has lived under a cloud of suspicion as to the whereabouts of other vampires. Now in France, the place of his origin as a human, he finds his origin as a vampire.

Among these vampires is one named Armand, a 400 year old vampire who Louis comes to seek the knowledge he is certain Lestat had with held from him. Armand cannot provide him with the answers he seeks; he is only able to provide Louis with what he wants to hear. Louis is unable to accept that God still loves him despite his depraved nature. Louis struggles with his place in the world; he thinks his nature to be the same as the Devil. Yet, Armand questions whether or not this can be true because if God created all, including the Devil, then all must receive their power from God. Louis cannot himself; he believes that by being a vampire he must be damned. Yet Armand inquires, “And how is this evil achieved?”[1] This evil is an irredeemable evil that damns one for all eternity. Is evil without gradation, and if it is the as Armand says; “only one sin is needed…”[2] But this only matters if God exists, but if God does not exist, “Then no sin matters…”[3] Louis cannot accept this, even though he himself cannot say if God exists. Armand is only able to say he knows one thing, and that is he is the oldest living vampire in the world. He has found no proof that there is a God or a Devil; this directly contradicts Louis’ admission to the reporter earlier when he admits that even those who deny God’s existence believe in the Devil.[4]

With the end of their brief discussion, Louis is still at a loss as to whether or not his nature is that of pure evil. Louis inquires to Armand of the nature of their power, whether it is of Satan or not. Armand inquires to Louis whether he believes Satan made the world, and Louis says it was God. Armand uses this to explain that their nature is that of God, not of Satan because Satan is a created being while God is not. This alludes to the story of Job, as Satan was an agent of God. Likewise, all living things are agents of God as we were all created by God. Whether we choose to accept God or not is where salvation and damnation differ. Louis once again takes the opportunity to bemoan his preternatural existence while back at his hotel when he says, “To be mortal, and trivial and safe.”[5] Like any person, Louis is caught between belief and disbelief in God and yet he wishes to be human, where he did not have to worry if he was damned or saved because he believes his nature then was not that of the Devil. This is where Louis falls apart, even humans are depraved irredeemable creatures who do not deserve salvation and yet are offered it anyways.

Louis’s ultimate fall from grace comes when, at the urging of Claudia, Louis does what he has sworn he would never do; transform an innocent into a vampire. Louis feels a deep responsibility that prevents him from wanting to turn someone into a vampire; Louis explains, “What has died in this room tonight is the last vestige in me of what was human.”[6] By condemning Madeleine Louis has also condemned all of her victims to death. In Louis’s mind he has just become the greatest mass murderer of all time. Yet Louis confesses to Armand, “I don’t know if the child possesses the power to release the parent.” This is a direct reflection on Claudia and Louis, but it is also a reflection on Louis’s relationship with God; and as a result man’s relationship with God. Is it man who leaves God? Or God who leaves man? God does not give up on man and so ultimately it is the child who has the power to leave the parent. Louis has turned his back on God.

Interview with the Vampire is a personal tale, as well as a universal tale. The novel is a contemplation of salvation and grace and how it applies to those who do not deserve either. Catholicism plays an important role in Interview, namely through the aspect of Louis’ human religion. His childhood formation in the Catholic faith informs his understanding of salvation and grace. Ultimately he is a demon, but what does it mean for him and his chances of salvation. Like Adam and Eve he has be persuaded by Satan instead of adhering to God. Ultimately Louis’s tale, Interview with the Vampire, is a cautionary tale. Anne Rice wants her reader to think of these things, because we are all children of Adam and Eve and are all guilty of Adam’s sin. None of us deserve redemption, yet God has extended to us the possibility of grace, it is for ourselves to choose whether we wish to accept that gift or reject it.

---

[1] Pg. 236

[2] Pg. 236

[3] Pg. 236

[4] “People who cease to believe in God or goodness altogether still believe in the devil.” Pg. 13 This is also mirrored on page 236, “That’s not true. Because if God doesn’t exist we are the creatures of highest consciousness in the universe.” Thus, true evil still exists even if God does not.

[5] Pg. 259

[6] Ibid, 273

The University of Dallas, Catholicism and Liberal Arts

Let us begin by looking at the University of Dallas’ slogan: A Catholic University for Independent Thinkers. What can this possibly mean? The University of Dallas was founded in 1956, set on the verge of the sexual revolution and the rejection tradition values; the University set itself up as a beacon to all those individuals who wanted the tools to push back this new onslaught. Today we are still in the grips of these two radical revolutions and the need for solders to return us to a better time are needed more than ever. The University of Dallas still proclaims herself to be “A Catholic University for Independent Thinkers”.

Why is UD so important? Some may say that the University has an archaic way of thinking. Others might argue that the University is closed minded for not succumbing to the popular culture. The University of Dallas provides the world with a way to remember where it came from and where it ought to return. The University has set itself up to re-institute the notion that there is morality and that it is universal; that there are wrong opinions and that there is truth. In today’s world you can have any opinion you want, as long as it is not conservative, nor religious. If one can find morality in today’s world it is relativistic, not universal. People who don’t fall into this hideous trap must have a place of refuge; one where they can study the tradition that has been handed down for more than 5,000 years.

What good is a liberal education? The liberal arts are intended to teach someone how to think, what truth is and how it is applicable to one’s own life. The modern university system has created a world where people are trained like monkeys to perform a specific task and nothing else. UD has realized the importance of a true liberal arts education and maintained it for a half century. Liberal education isn’t for the greedy, who only want to get an education so they can go to med school or law school and make hundreds of thousands of dollars. No, liberal education is for those who want to genuinely help those around them.

In the end the University of Dallas provides Catholic persons with a working knowledge of the western tradition. People who think that the western tradition is wrong, or think that morality doesn’t exist or that truth is whatever one makes of it need not apply. By Catholic methinks the University doesn’t entirely mean one who proscribes to the Catholic faith. Catholic means universal, and by that contrast of today’s relativism we can find that even Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can come here and thrive. Catholicism is the hallmark of western religious thought. The Catholic Church has kept the western tradition alive for nearly two-thousand years. The University of Dallas has survived for fifty years trying to instill in each student the knowledge of the western tradition. It truly is a Catholic school for Independent Thinkers. There is proof in the University that the western tradition still matters and that there are people still interested in learning it.

Locke’s First Treatise Chapter II: Paternal and Regal Power

Quotes taken from John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government edited by Peter Laslett.

Help from Ashok

Having completed his introduction of Sir Robert Filmer’s work Patriarcha, Locke endeavors to explore the arguments made by Filmer. The first argument made is that of Paternal and Regal power. The argument for absolute monarchy according to Locke is far above anything man can think of, so high in fact “that Promises and Oaths, which tye the infinite Deity, cannot confine it.” This is a curious way of describing the idea behind absolute monarchy but upon further inspection one might find that even God cannot be described as an absolute Monarch in the manner in which Filmer uses the words. But if Locke is able to demonstrate that the logic used for absolute monarchy is faulty, then man can start a new with government by consent; Locke ends with “using their Reason to unite together into Society.”

The first instance of Absolute Monarchy is that of the parent over the child, which means that the child is not free and that the parents possess a regal authority over that child. At first glance one might think this is an argument against Filmer, but instead is actually against Aristotle who in the Politics argues that the relationship between a father and his child is that of kingly rule. Exactly what that fatherly authority is Locke and Filmer neglect to tell, instead Locke lays out three basic foundations in the beginning of the Patriarcha:

1. En Passant, Made his Obeysance to the Arcana Imperii.

2. Made his Compliment to the Rights and Liberties of this, or any other Nation which he is going presently to null and destroy.

3. Made his Leg to those Learned Men, who did not see so far into the Matter as himself.

In sum, Locke argues that Filmer’s use of absolute monarchy thumbs its nose at the idea of rule by consent of the majority. The basis for his argument of Fatherly authority stems from the Bible: Adam was the first human, our father who possessed absolute authority over the world; Noah and his sons reestablished the monarchy of Adam until the captivity of the Israelites; God re-established the line of king over Israel. And finally Filmer uses the commandment of Honor thy Father as proof of absolute fatherly authority. Locke immediately points out that this is only a half quote from the Ten Commandments and that the full commandment reads Honor thy Father and thy Mother. The problem of stating both Locke points out is that it would be a mixed monarchy, which ultimately leads to anarchy. It is for this reason that Filmer leaves out the latter part of the quote, which Locke calls Filmer “a wary Physician,… when he would have his Patient swallow some harsh or Corrosive Liquor…” for having done. Here Locke compares Filmer to the physician, who is representative of the legislative authority within philosophic thought.

It is then that Locke goes on to say “Without this, What Good could our A——do, or pretend to do, by erecting such an unlimited Power, but flatter the Natural Vanity and Ambition of Men, too apt of if it self to grow and encrease with the Possession of any Power?” The discussion of Absolute Monarchy, by extension of this argument, is the same as talking of anarchy. Locke finishes, “And by perswading those, who, by the consent of their Fellow-Men, are advanced to great, but limited degrees of it, that by that part which is given them, they have a Right to all, that was not so; and therefore may do what they please, because they have Authority to do more then others, and so tempt them to do what is neither for their own, nor the good of those under their Care, whereby great Mischiefs cannot but follow.” Everyone has a right to security and therefore they have the power to ensure their freedom, creating an anarchical state. Further, consent exists in the wrong system creating multiple centers of power as a result of Filmer’s argument.

From this Locke argues for three points for the argument of fatherly regal authority: Sovereignty of Adam, Absolute Power of Adam, and Adam’s Royal Authority. The first concerns with Adam’s authority over his own family, for Filmer argues that Adam had absolute power over his family including the power over life. In this the paternal powers becomes the regal power, and by extension calls into question maybe the polis and family. If Adam was not king by virtue of his title of father, then is the fatherly authority political, for if it is not then family is not by nature political which is contrary to the teachings of Aristotle. As for the second, Absolute Power of Adam, this is based on the authority of Adams over his posterity; this dominion then makes men nothing more than herds. Locke calls for Proofs and Reasons as to how Adam has gained this absolute authority, which creates two types of rule: reasonable and unreasonable. Filmer’s argument of Adam’s absolute power is an example of the unreasonable, because there lacks any proof or reason for such an assertion. Finally there is Adam’s Royal Authority, which is to say Adam’s paternal authority: Adam is king because he is father. While Filmer continues to argue for Adam’s Royal Authority, Locke points he fails to provide a proof. Analogously, the royal authority of Adam or the rule of absolute monarchy is the power of opinion or the power over the passions.

Locke’s argument against Paternal and Regal Authority is summed in that Filmer provides no proof of Adam’s authority as both father and king other than the half quote “Honor thy father.” Which itself is purposely cut short because the introduction of “honor thy mother” would imply a mixed monarchy and thus destroying any hopes of an absolute monarch. The argument for absolute monarchy does not exist within the realm of proofs or reason but rather in the power over opinion; which makes the argument far stronger because men are inclined to follower their passions. The Sovereignty of Adam, his absolute power, and is royal authority combine to make Adam a tyrant. He contains the power over life of his own family, he rules over his posterity like they are a herd and rules by appealing to human passions. This is juxtaposed to the idea the Law of Nature, social contract, and rule by reason. The first makes man a slave while the second provides for his security and safety.

Love and Hate in ABC Family’s Greek

Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Season 1 & 2 of the ABC Family Show: Greek. The Author is not responsible for anyone who reads this and learns things they don’t already know about the show.

The relationships which form after those of family and friends are those of sexual and enemies. They are the most difficult relationships to understand and to deal with though they are just as vital to who we are as humans as the others. Greek provides us with ample examples of both of the latter relationships just as it does the former. The relationships which form between males and females within the show on a sexual level are interconnected to those of the friendship and familial levels. For better or worse these relationship help to spur human passions and life to a level that the familial and friendship based relationships cannot.

And yet finally we come upon the actual sexual relationships within the show, Evan and Casey, Cappie and Rebecca, Cappie and Casey, and Rusty and Jen K. All of these relationships are an example of what makes Ashleigh and Calvin’s relationship so difficult, at least for Ashleigh. Cappie and Casey are the original Greek couple, hooking up in their freshman year only to end because of Cappie’s on going desire to be in a constant party. While the glimpses we are shown of their relationship demonstrate that they were truly in love, and both characters acknowledge this at different points in the first season, their relationship is ultimately doomed to fail. Cappie is too much about himself and unwilling to focus any attention on others, which is possibly attributed to his age at the time. They break up because Cappie can’t be trusted anymore and Casey leaves him for his former friend and roommate Evan. Evan and Casey seem to be the perfect couple, with the exception that Evan cheats on Casey and Casey in turn cheats on Evan at the beginning of the show. While we are unsure of exactly how Casey feels about Evan, there are examples that she truly loves him but that comes after they break up and in season one we are only left with the impression she wants to use him. When things get rough between Casey and Evan she immediately turns to Cappie, either because she knows it will hurt Evan or because she has never lost her true feelings for him. Evan assumes, based on misinformed information from Frannie, that Casey is only using him to get what she wants, which is the ZBZ presidency.

The two youngest relationships on the show are between Cappie and Rebecca and Rusty and Jen K. Rusty and Jen K. seem to be a great couple; they are very much alike and get along famously. Rusty is inexperienced in relationships while Jen K. appears to have more practice. On the outside looking in Rusty seems to only want a girlfriend because everyone else is dating and feels left out. Jen K. appears to be truly attracted to Rusty, most probably for his social awkwardness which she can relate to no doubt. Jen K. ultimately betrays Rusty and the rest of the Greek system by publishing her expose on the system and airing out all the problems of the first season, which oddly enough all go back to either Rusty or Casey. Initially Rusty wants to take her back but is pressured by his Greek brothers and sisters to break it off because of the article. The relationship between Rebecca and Cappie seems to be of the same kind as Rusty and Jen K. in a lot of ways. They first meet while Cappie is attempting to earn money to pay Casey back for bailing him and his KT brothers (including Rusty) out of a $250 bill at the local strip club. He volunteers for a pysch field test which is proctored by Rebecca. There are hints that Rebecca wants to get with Cappie because she can sense Casey is still in love with Cappie. Nevertheless, after almost sharing a moment during the test the two finally are seen laying in bed together at the end of season one and we find out throughout season two that they are a couple. Rebecca might only be with Cappie to get at Casey, while Cappie seems to have truly moved on and wants to be with her..though it might just because she is extremely attractive.

These relationships appear to be based around the few feuds within the show between Frannie and Casey, Casey and Rebecca, Cappie and Evan, and Rusty and Evan. Frannie and Casey begin out as sisters in the ZBZ house but by the end of season one that friendship is broken by the lies produced by Frannie. Casey, while naive, wants to do what is truly best for herself and those around her which leads her to sell Frannie down the river to the ZBZ National Rep at the end of season one. But initially, from flashbacks in season two, Frannie always wanted what was best for Casey. At the beginning of season one things might be a little different in the present-day as it was Frannie who encouraged Casey to take Evan back after he cheated on her. Their relationship is further strained by Frannie’s desire to use and befriend Rebecca, whom Casey hates. Casey and Rebecca have their main contention in that Rebecca slept with Evan and Casey just doesn’t seem to rub off well on Rebecca. From their first, pre-cheat, meeting Rebecca has no interest in Casey and Casey goes through hell to get Rebecca to pledge ZBZ. When she finds out that she slept with Evan, Casey is furious and is out for revenge against Rebecca. In a similar way is the relationship between Evan and Cappie, though it began on much better terms. Friends from summer camp, Evan and Cappie room together freshman year. It was Evan who got Cappie into the Greek system to begin with and it was Cappie who helped get Evan into the Kappa Taus. Evan eventually leaves KT to pledge Omega Chi after being nick named “Bing” because he was only in the KTs because of Cappie. This drives a wedge between the two friends as they exist in separate houses; this wedge is only further driven deeper as Casey and Cappie hook up. Eventually Casey turns to Evan when Cappie fails be a good boyfriend for Casey. When this finally happens at the Greek Ball their freshman year we see Cappie and Evan finally turn into complete enemies.

Enemies and lovers, war and peace, they both go so well together and describe each other so much. The writers of ABC Family’s Greek do a great job showing us the complex relationships within human life on all levels, family, friends, lovers and enemies. We can see so much within these relationships that reflect on each and every one of the viewers. While at times these relationships are over simplified and dramatized to the max they are great reflections we should all take the time to understand.

Further Examination of ABC Family’s Greek: Relationships Part 1

Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Season 1 & 2 of the ABC Family Show: Greek. The Author is not responsible for anyone who reads this and learns things they don’t already know about the show.

Relationships, human nature is based on the desire for relationships with our fellow humans whether they be sexual, familial, brotherly, platonic or other. Humans are by nature social political animals which means we crave to be with others of our kind. The one aspect of ABC Family’s hit television show Greek that is best representative of real life is the desire for relationship. There are multiple relationships within the TV show including: Casey and Rusty, Evan and Casey, Evan and Rusty, Rusty and Cappie, Cappie and Rebecca, Rebecca and Casey, Rebecca and Evan, Frannie and Casey, Frannie and Rebecca, Rusty and Jen K, Rusty and Calvin, Evan and Calvin, Ashleigh and Calvin, Cappie and Evan, and Casey and Ashleigh.

The first of these relationships is a familial relationship between brother and sister, though these two couldn’t be any more different if they tried. Rusty is a science geek while Casey is the social butterfly of the Greek system. From the feel of the show we can inquire that Rusty is probably the child every parent would want while Casey has a rebellious side to her. At the beginning of the series Casey ignores her brother’s call when he is trying to find his dorm. When Rusty finally goes to the ZBZ house to find Casey she tells him that she will set up a monthly brunch, a nice way of telling him to go away. While rushing Rusty meets Evan and Cappie; only Evan knows of Rusty but its clear from the show that it has only been a recent discovery while Cappie is astonished to know that his former girlfriend has a brother. In season two we discover that when asked if she has siblings Casey dodges the question. The two have to build a relationship now that they both matriculate at Cyprus-Rhodes and Casey has to learn to become the older sister she never was. Without mommy and daddy around to guide and watch over him, Rusty has to receive guidance from someone and who better than his own sister to help. Rusty feels a sense of honor towards his sister, which is what leads him to tell her of Evan’s indiscretion against her and ultimately to engage in a fight with Evan over Casey’s “honor.” Typically for a brother and sister that are at most 2 1/2 years apart in age this is quite strange that they are so distant from each other. It is clear that they do not understand each other and come from different circles. The most interesting relationship to watch is that of Rusty and Casey because they are brother and sister and it is the one relationship that they can never ignore.

With that we leave behind the familial relationship to enter into the platonic friendly relationships specifically between Rusty and Calvin, Cappie and Rusty, Ashleigh and Casey and Ashleigh and Casey. Rusty and Calvin’s relationship is tricky; Rusty has a lot to learn from Calvin and Calvin has a lot to learn from Rusty. Their relationship from the beginning is built around the idea of a friendship of necessity; both know that they have something the other needs and are willing to give what they can. This is most evident by Calvin’s willingness to assist Rusty in the rushing process. As the show progresses so does their relationship as Rusty becomes the one person Calvin is comfortable telling his secret (he is gay) to. The closest relationship outside these two that resembles it the most is Cappie and Rusty. Cappie, the “big brother” of Rusty within the KT fraternity could be seen as only trying to get to Casey’s heart through little brother. Of course this doesn’t make too much sense seeing that Rusty and Casey are still attempting to define their relationship. Ultimately Cappie sees a little of himself in Rusty and wants to try and help Rusty break out of his shell. Their relationship borders on that of a true fraternal, brotherly, relationship because Cappie does look out for Rusty as a brother would. Likewise, Casey and Ashleigh have a sister-like friendship. Casey and Ashleigh have been friends since freshman year and pledge ZBZ together and are now roommates in the ZBZ house. They are able to go to each other for anything and can always rely on the other but when when disrupts that balance and attempts to make it all about them the relationship begins to shake. Ashleigh and Calvin appear to be of the same type of friendship as what might happen in those circumstances with Ashleigh and Casey. Calvin is a pledge with Omega Chi and offers to assist in the shopping process for the first mixer of the year. Unknown to Ashleigh, Calvin is gay and he feels he is forced to conceal his homosexuality from her. He selfishly, wanting to escape the constant girl loving frat bothers, to assist Ashleigh and in turn she uses him whenever she is in most need of help; specifically in regards to her boyfriend. When Ashleigh discovers the truth of Calvin’s homosexuality she freaks namely due to the one problem that exists between guys and girls, it is difficult to be friends.The most blatant friend of necessity and pleasure in the show is that between Rebecca and Frannie. Frannie is attracted to the idea of adding a Senator’s daughter to the list of members of ZBZ. Rebecca recognizes that she can use her status to influence Frannie in her on going battles with Casey. This relationship has no true merits and is doomed to fail from the beginning because it is only founded upon the idea of mutual assistance.

These first two relationships are the most basic relationships within the show and help to precipitate the events regarding the other relationships. For the most part they are the relationships we strive for day in and day out with those whom we are related to and those whom we aren’t. Greek does a great job of demonstrating the difficulties within life in attempting to build these everlasting ties that make us human. Without familial and friendly relationships we would be hallow shells of what we are suppose to be; these two relationships are by nature. Ultimately they are stronger than the sexual relationships we form between the sexes, but there is a cautionary tale at the end of the road that demonstrates the frailty of these relationships.

A look at Book I of John Locke’s First Treatise of Government

Quotes taken from Two Treatises of Government edited by Peter Laslett published by the Cambridge Texts in History and Political Thought.

I would like to think Ashok for reading through the First Treatise with me.

John Locke begins the first chapter, “Slavery is so vile and miserable an Estate of Man, and so directly opposite to the generous Temper and Courage of our Nation; that tis hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a Gentleman, should plead for’t.” Locke starts his treatise with the theme of slavery, which according to him goes against the “temper and courage” of England. He claims astonishment that an English Lord (Englishman…much less a Gentleman) would write such a work. This individual that Locke is arguing against is Sir Robert Filmer, the writer of the work Patriarcha or The Natural Power of Kings. Locke uses Filmer’s work to refute the belief in Divine Right Monarchy. He calls Filmer’s work a “Rope of Sand” and a “Chain for all Mankind” whose business it is to “raise a Dust” that would “blind the People” but cannot bind those “who have their eyes open.” This is a very interesting argument against the work, Locke has set out on the stance that Divine Right Monarchy really means slavery and that Filmer’s treatise is only meant to blind the people into bondage.

Locke makes reference that Filmer’s work was long before his own First Treatise, and the editor notes that the Patriarcha was written in 1637-8 but not published until 1680. Filmer is called the “Champion of absolute Power” and anyone who reads his treatise cannot but think himself no longer a freeman. When published, Locke argues that Filmer’s treatise removed all liberty from the world. Furthermore, it intended to make itself the model of all politics for the future. However, Locke argues that the treatise by Filmer can be summed in two lines:

1. That all Government is absolute Monarchy

2. That no Man is born Free

These are two very dangerous beliefs for Locke, the champion of consent of the governed.

Authors of the generation in which Locke is writing, and the previous generations are said by him to have “flatter[ed] princes with an Opinion” this opinion being that despite the laws which constituted their authority, and are to govern under, they have absolute power under the title of Divine Right. They are not restrained by “Oaths and Promises” because their authority does not come from those, whom they govern, or from the laws but rather from God Himself. By making such an argument, these authors have stripped man of his natural rights and freedoms and made them subject to tyranny and oppression. Even more, Locke argues that they have “unsettled the Titles and shaken the Thrones of Princes.” Why is this? Because if there is such a thing as Divine Right monarchy, than all except them monarch are slaves to the monarch. Further, as Locke will argue, if Adam was made the first monarch then only one Prince in the world living has claim to that title passed down from Adam. All persons with the exception of that single heir have been made slaves and all government has been destroyed because of these Divine Right authors. If all are slaves then there cannot be politics and if there cannot be politics there cannot be government.

Yet, Locke argues that if we have to accept this argument, that we are all born Slaves, then it does not end. “Life and Thraldom” continue together until the former ends and we are released from the latter. But this notion of Divine Right monarchy, Locke claims, is a new idea. “Scripture or Reason I am sure doe not any where say so notwithstanding the noise of divine right, as if Divine Authority hath subjected us to the unlimited Will of another.” The notion that we are all slaves to a single human, a fallible person, is not present in our own human reason or in the Divine Scripture, where one would expect to find Divine Right authority promulgated first. Natural freedom and equality are the older opinions of mankind, not absolute Authority of a single man. Locke even argues that Filmer assents to this belief, that his opinion is the junior.

At this Locke leaves the argument of the age of this argument for historians to debate, but wishes to argue the point against Filmer who he believes was allowed to carry the opinion the furthest.

Reflections on Greek Season 1

Warning: The following post contains spoilers for Season 1 of the ABC Family Show: Greek. The Author is not responsible for anyone who reads this and learns things they don’t already know about the show.

A brief overview of major characters:

Rusty: Rusty is the lead character on the; the series follows mainly his development since the beginning of Freshman year of college at Cyprus-Rhodes, located in Ohio. Rusty is a nerdy science major who decides to pledge a frat.

Cappie: Cappie is the president of the Kappa Tau frat, which is similar to the frat shown in Animal House. He dated Casey, Rusty’s older sister in his freshman year: he is currently a junior.

Evan: Evan is the president of the Omega Chi frat, which is primarily made up of preps. Evan is also Casey’s current boyfriend and the heir to a million dollar corporation run by his father.

Casey: Casey is Rusty’s older sister who is, at the beginning of season one, Rush Chair for her Sorority Zeta Beta Zeta. Casey is the girlfriend of Evan.

Dale: Dale is Rusty’s roommate and comes from an ultra-conservative Southern Baptist southern family. He is also a science major and the “moral” influence in the show.

Ashleigh: Ashleigh is friends with Casey, her partner in crime so to speak. She is an airhead who merely cares about her appearance. She is dating a guy at Brown University at the beginning of Season 1. She is also a member of ZBZ.

Rebecca: Rebecca is a pledge of ZBZ and sleeps with Casey’s boyfriend Evan in the Pilot episode. She is the daughter of a successful and prominent Senator.

Calvin: Calvin meets Rusty on Rush night when potential pledges visit each house so that the frat or sorority can decide who they wish to pledge their house: Calvin pledges Omega Chi. He is also gay.

Jen K.: Jen K. is Rusty’s girlfriend and also a pledge for ZBZ. She is a legacy for the sorority and so is automatically accepted. She is a journalism major.

Frannie: Frannie is a minor major character who is President of Zeta Beta Zeta at the beginning of Season 1. She and Casey are friends at the beginning as it was Frannie who recruited and molded Casey into what she is at the beginning of the show.

At the beginning of the Pilot we see Rusty who is your typical nerd, scrawny armed 18 year old male. His older sister Casey is your topic hot chick who seems to only care about her hair, and her clothes in the beginning. Dale is introduced next and the first thing noticeable with Dale is he asks Rusty “Where are you from?” and when Rusty replies “Chicago” Dale says, “Ah, a Yankee.” Dale is the stereotypical deep southern. He has a crucifix on his wall and promptly displays the Confederate Battle Flag for the whole world to see. It is clear from the beginning that we have three character types who are each going to influence each other in some major way over the course of the season.

When we meet Casey we also meet Ashleigh and Frannie, both of whom seem to only be concerned with their clothes, makeup, and hair. It is unclear why Casey later on remains friends with either of these characters. Casey’s boyfriend Evan meets Rusty and it is clear that Casey has never before mentioned that she has a brother. Rusty’s decision to pledge a fraternity comes down to one simple fact; he wants a real college experience. Casey rightly points out that he isn’t fraternity material using his major as the prime example of how he will be laughed out of the system. Nevertheless Rusty swears he will become a pledge for a fraternity. On the night of the house visits one might think that Rusty will pledge with Omega Chi, namely because his sister’s boyfriend is the president. Yet then he visits the Kappa Tau house and we meet the very drunk Cappie for the first time. Cappie is astonished to find out that Casey, whom he dated freshman year, has a little brother and we find out immediately that Cappie knows Casey in the “biblical” sense. Rusty acquires his nickname while visiting the Kappa Tau house when he performs his first body shot with a very beautiful young woman. Rusty who has never had tequila before spits the liquor back into the girl’s face only to face the wrath of her boyfriend. Rusty wittingly inquires of the man, “you’re upset that I spit in her face but licking her stomach is ok?” This is Rusty’s first taste of the moral ambiguity that the show possess. What makes it ok in the mind of this boyfriend for random men to lick salt from his girlfriend’s body but he gets upset when Rusty spits the tequila back in her face? It is from this incident that Rusty acquires the nickname “Spitter.”

Leaving the Kappa Tau house Rusty returns to the Omega Chi house to engage in some partying. He finds Evan upstairs in his room getting ready to have sex with a beautiful woman we later learn to be Rebecca Logan, the daughter of one Senator Logan. Rusty is perplexed for the remainder of the episode as what to do about his sister’s boyfriend’s infidelity. Evan attempts to silence Rusty by offering him a bid to pledge Omega Chi, which it seems Rusty accepts. Ultimately Rusty visits his sister to inform her of what he saw the previous night, devastating Casey. Casey, whose immediate reaction to break up with Evan is calmed down by her friend and sorority President Frannie. Frannie’s reasoning is that how is it fair for Casey to give up her dreams based on one indiscretion by her boyfriend. Frannie waves the Presidency of the sorority in front of Casey arguing the only reason she would get it is by dating Evan. Ultimately Frannie tells Casey to “do what will make it right in your own mind.” Subsequently Casey decides to sleep with her ex-boyfriend Cappie for “revenge” on Evan. This is an interesting logic that is brought on by Frannie, and not by Casey. Frannie is the one who manipulates Casey into not breaking up with Evan because Frannie loves the fact Evan is a millionaire. Casey’s biggest flaw is agreeing with Frannie that it is unfair for Casey’s dreams to suffer for what Evan’s mistake. She is later called out on it by her brother as she picks him up from the police station.

Following the events of the day Rusty decides to go to the local bar “Dobbler’s” where the Omega Chi will do the pledge ceremony. He confronts Evan by telling him that he informed his sister of what he saw, only to get into a fight with Evan. Rusty ultimately finishes the fight by hitting Evan in the face with one of the pledge paddles: Evan orders Rusty be taken to jail. Rusty is amazed to hear that Casey will stay with Evan after what he has done and she becomes defensive. Using the same logic used on her earlier from Frannie, Casey justifies staying with Evan. She tells her brother that college isn’t black and white like high school, from here on out it is shades of gray. Certainly this might be true, college is more complex than high school is and if you treat high school and college the same then Casey says you’ll become a “social piranha.” This becomes a central theme to the show, whether or not one can still maintain a moral code that there are no shades of gray or if there are indeed situations that are.

Season one continues with Rusty acquiring a girlfriend named Jen K. and finding out that Calvin is gay. Meanwhile he fights with Dale over his situation with Jen K, whom he wants to have sex with by Dale will not tolerate happening in the room. Ultimately Rusty has to accept he and Dale are good friends and he has to appreciate him. Dale appears to be the only character who does not wish to accept that there are shades of gray, maintaining his belief in the black and white. Rusty walks the moral tight rope, trying to discover whether or not he can adhere to his sister’s assertion or whether Dale is right. Rusty ends up cheating for his Physics midterm because he is unable to teach himself the five chapters assigned for the test. This leads him to the conclude that college isn’t about learning, it’s about getting by and that college was suppose to be for him the last bastion of knowledge. But it is clear based on his physics class and professor that the school doesn’t care if they learn anything, or at least doesn’t care to teach him anything and that if he wants to find knowledge he has to seek it out for himself.

By being involved in Greek life on campus, Rusty is able to test his beliefs and acquire knowledge not found in the classroom. He is able to put what he has learned in the classroom to use in real life. Ultimately Rusty is faced with an article about the Greek life written by his girlfriend Jen K. He struggles with whether or not to break up with her as a result of her misleading him throughout their relationship. Everyone urges him to break up with her because she has betrayed the Greek system. Rusty does decide to end his relationship with Jen K. because he doesn’t know if she can be trusted. In a similar fashion, Evan breaks up with Casey because he thinks she is only dating him to get ahead in life. Frannie, who is ousted as President of Zeta Beta Zeta for allowing the problems that come up through the season to happen. Frannie, drunk, informs Evan that she was the reason Casey was still with him because she reminded Casey that Evan was her key to success. Evan, disillusioned by what Frannie has told him goes to Casey and breaks up with her.

All the events of Season 1 bring up an interesting question, Rusty wants to change who he is and it is not clear whether or not college is the place to do it. Casey wants to be successful within the Greek system; she is concerned with her public image. At the end of Season 1 Rusty doesn’t appear to have changed that much and Casey, after being appointed interim President doesn’t appear to only care about her public image. In fact, she goes to the National representative sent to investigate the article to tell her everything in it is true (90% of the “deeds” mentioned in the article involve Casey.) Fully expecting that she will be kicked out, or so she says, she is stunned when the representative names her President. It is unclear if the house will truly be able better with Casey in command come season 2. Rusty, who loved Jen K. has to deal with losing her over her misleading. Rusty and Casey are left at the end in a state of limbo. We are still left with whether or not one can change in college, and whether or not one can learn only by book learning or only by experience. Dale is the only example we have in the show who takes book learning over experience. Rusty, whether he is right or wrong believes he can learn a lot from experience but struggles with maintaining a balance between the two. Casey, Evan, Ashleigh, and Cappie are all convinced that Greek life is the best thing they can have. By the end of season 1 Casey has achieved her goal of becoming President of ZBZ and Cappie appears to be leaning towards the belief that there is more to life than sex and drinking. Evan is still struggling with becoming more than just the son of a millionaire and Ashleigh is trying to discovering who she really is and not simply defining herself with who she associates with.At this point it appears that for Rusty neither Dale nor Casey are right, there are certain things which are black and white but there are also things that are shades of gray. Ultimately the ends don’t justify the means all the time for Rusty. He does end up having sex, but not with a hot slut who wants to take his virginity but rather with his girlfriend whom he thinks he loves. He does steal a property of the Department of Defense to help fuel a model volcano, with the help of Dale nonetheless. At this point in the season it appears that Rusty only chooses Dale’s method when it affects him, but chooses Casey’s for all other situations.

American involvment in revolutions in regards to the present problem in Mexico

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-Declaration of Independence

These words, which some might suggest are the most important words in the Declaration of Independence suggest that when a people are being overtly oppressed and placed “under absolute Despotism” that they ought to throw off that government and institute a new one. Whether or not these lines apply simply to the American people or to the people of the world is a difficult question to answer. However, history has shown that Americans have applied these passages to various other countries as a means of world empire. Even today we justify our reasons for going to war on account that the opposing regime is despotic and that the people should be freed to choose their own regime. Yet there is one example in which modern America has yet to take this stance, arguably the most important place for us to attempt such a coup on behalf of the people: Mexico. With the large amounts of illegal and legal immigrants crossing our borders daily it would seem prudent to suggest that the Mexican government has become despotic and that the people have chosen to leave their homeland in search of a security and safety.

Our views towards Mexico have remained the same since the Mexican-American War yet since then we have helped countless countries over throw their regimes in hopes of finding successful allies. To begin the Civil War is not counted among these wars as we never officially recognized the government of the Confederate States of America and the C.S.A. had no right to secede from the Union per the arguments in the Declaration sited above. Instead, the first example comes in the Spanish-American War when the United States, under an agreement with the Spanish colony of Cuba, agreed to help overthrow Spanish rule in Cuba and give the Cubans their unconditional freedom: some will argue that this was the dumbest mistake the United States has ever made. Among other countries we helped to free from under Spanish tyranny include the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Of these only Puerto Rico and Guam remain under U.S. control as commonwealths, while the Philippines is an independent country with close ties to the United States.

The Spanish American War was partially influenced by Progressive ideas that every country should be given the opportunity to self-determination, which ultimately meant a parliamentary style democracy. This is most blatantly seen in America’s causes for going to war with Germany in World War I. Rather than going to protect American interests in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson decided we should only go to war to help throw off the reigns of Totalitarianism. We helped to create an unstable Democratic German state under the Wiemar Republic, which we all know eventually lead to the rise of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. World War II for France and Great Britain came under the flag of granting Polish freedom (which wouldn’t be attained until the 1990’s.) For the U.S. states World War II was not necessarily a war to free a people from under despotism, but rather to defend America’s freedom from the Japanese and later the Germans. Ultimately, however, we helped to overthrow a regime that had existed for millennia in Japan and helped to create a free and democratic West Germany.

Less than five years after war ended with Germany and Japan the United States began engagements in two separate nations: Korea and Vietnam. The Korean War was fought by the U.N. with large amounts of U.S. troops. The entire purpose of going to war in Korea was to maintain South Korean independence and democracy from the invading North Koreans, Soviet Union and Chinese. Of the two wars fought in South-East Asia the Korean War is the only one where we succeeded in our goal of creating a stable democracy. To this day the South Korean regime is a model democracy in Far-East Asia. In the late 1940’s then U.S. President Harry S. Truman sent American advisers to Vietnam to advise the French on their efforts. By the 1960’s the French had left Vietnam leaving the United States as the last hope for South Vietnam to maintain a democratic regime. With the assassination of the Diem Brothers by President John F. Kennedy, our efforts to maintain the democratic south was slipping. By 1972 the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam under the condition that if the North attempted to attack the South again we would intervene; the South Vietnamese are still awaiting our help.

Of course the most well-known U.S. sponsored coup in our history happened with Cuba. Following Communist revolutionary, Fidel Castro’s victory in Cuba the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency helped sponsor a group of Cuban Nationals invade the tiny island and overthrow Castro’s new Communist regime. Ultimately the coup failed as the U.S. failed to supply sufficient support for the Cuban Nationals allowing the oppressive and despotic regime of Fidel Castro to rule Cuba until 2008.

This brings us to the 1980s with a little known revolution that took place in a Middle Eastern nation called Afghanistan. The Afghanistan revolt revolved around two parties, one backed by the Soviet Union and the other backed by the United States via Representative Charlie Wilson (D-TX). Our support of freedom fighters called Mujahideen is one of the greatest blunders in our history. The U.S. CIA helped defeat the Soviet Union lead opposition by supplying weapons to the Mujahideen. When the Soviet Union pulled out in 1989 so did the U.S., leaving a devastated Afghanistan and the Taliban with an Anti-American flavor in their mouths.

In the 1990’s the U.S. once again attempted to help overthrow despotic regimes. The U.S. lead invasion of Iraq, in an attempt to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait would have ended with the U.S. lead overthrow of Saddam Hussein but instead the U.N. forced troops to leave having completed their mission. We would eventually return to Iraq only to complete our overthrow of Saddam and his regime. Along the way though President Bill Clinton got the U.S. involved in a number of wars including Kosovo and Bosnia. Kosovo is the only direct evidence of this theme of American involvement in overthrowing regimes. Yet we lead efforts at least three times in the 1990’s to attempt to establish democracies throughout the Middle East and former Soviet Bloc.

By the year 2000 the U.S. was primed to go to war on behalf of other nations once again, this time under President George W. Bush. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while continuations of efforts made in the late 80’s and early 90’s, were also fought under the old Progressive banner of self-determination. To this day the American military has maintained a presence in both nations despite popular American support against the wars. Meanwhile, the U.S. has refused to take similar actions in nations on our own continent including Mexico, and Venezuela (who happens to be the largest U.S. oil supplier in the world.) A simple observation of the Mexican regime makes it clear that it is beyond despotic and that the Mexican people need to overthrow such a regime. But Mexico has a long history of revolution followed by revolution and thus it would be prudent if the U.S. were to engage supporting a new revolution. Or maybe the long history of American involvement in revolutions is a clear indicator that it was only proper for America to revolt back in 1776. We have largely failed in our efforts to provide democratic regimes to the world. This does not mean that the U.S. should back down from securing it’s own boarders against various enemy regimes.

Mexico is a hopeless cause that we should only engage in helping if Mexico becomes a threat to the United States; which it has already become. The United States has just cause for going to war with a country that has been invading it for decades.

Clinton challenges Obama to Lincoln-Douglass style Debate

I must say that when I first heard this I was in awe of Senator Clinton. I don’t agree with either candidate on almost all the issues but to challenge one to a Lincoln-Douglass style debate takes a lot of nerve. For those who don’t know what a Lincoln-Douglass debate is exactly let me tell you briefly. In the 19th century debates were much different than they are today. Typically these debates lasted for hours, not the one to two hours they last today but three to five hours. Debaters would take the stage and give a speech lasting about an hour or two followed by their opponent giving an equally long speech. After the second speech the first debater would take the stand again thus ending the debate.

What Senator Clinton has challenged Senator Obama to isn’t necessarily a Lincoln-Douglass debate because Clinton wants a chance for the two Senators to ask each other questions without a moderator. Clinton has to have a lot of guts to do this because such a debate could come to bite her in the rear. What is more, such a debate could end up hurting the Democratic party in the long run. Typical debates done today are safe, they offer the candidates a chance to offer sound bytes for the media to play over and over again. This style debate would not offer such a chance because either candidate could ask the other whatever they wish with little or no preparation in advance. With Indiana and North Carolina holding their primaries in just nine days such a debate could turn the tables against Obama or Clinton based on what the other asks.

However, this might not actually be a true challenge but rather an attempt by Senator Clinton to win support knowing that Obama will not accept the challenge. Obama would be stupid to accept the challenge, but at the same time he has threated his chances to win support by backing out. This is a terrific power play by Senator Clinton because she knows that either move that Obama makes could destroy his presidential hopes. Clinton, a seasoned politician in comparison to Obama knows how to call another’s bluff. At the same time both Senators are trained lawyers and know how to win a case easily and this is exactly the type of move one should expect from either candidate. The debate would be epic if Senator Obama decided to accept the challenge.

Senator Clinton is desperate to end Senator Obama’s chance at the White House, with her victory in Pennsylvania just a few days ago she is still alive. The longer the nomination process goes until the Democratic Convention the worse off the party could be come November. Senator Clinton is well aware of this and knows she has to present a winning blow against Obama. As the month of May approaches quickly the title of presumptive Nominee is all the more important for both Senators so that they can focus on their efforts of winning the White House. History has shown that a Lincoln-Douglass debate would help force the issue to the forefront. But this also presents a chance for Senator Clinton to place Obama between a rock and a hard place. In order to win the Democrat nominee title Clinton knows that she must force Obama to make a mistake.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates are the most epic debates in American history and to challenge another to such a debate in this day in age is a masterful move. Neither candidate is prepared for such a debate as they are use to the sound byte debate. One must wonder whether Clinton is just bluffing, expecting Obama to back down and appear cowardly or if she truly wants to enter an epic debate where there is no moderator and all questions are game.