TAKS short answer: Diary of Adam

In his short story, “The Diary of Adam,” Mark Twain characterizes Adam as an ambiguous character who first dislikes Eve, but then comes to adore her.  Adam originally addresses Eve as the “new creature” and complains that “it” is always “a good deal in the way.”  Adam writes that he “[doesn’t] like this” when first describing his new companion and “wish[es] it would stay with the other animals.”  However, after Adam eats the forbidden fruit, he finds Eve “a good deal of a companion” and believes he would be “lonesome and depressed without her.”  Twain’s juxtaposition of Adam’s opposing beliefs shows how Adam first detested Eve but then was fond of her. 

 

TAKS Short Answer

The Los Angeles Times Article and the New York Times Article are similar in that they both criticize Seth MacFarlane as the 2013 Oscar’s host.  According to the Los Angeles Times Article, MacFarlane was “occasionally crude,” “offensive,” and “wasn’t very funny.”  The New York Times article describes the “crude shots” MacFarlane took at “Jews in Hollywood, women and even the Lincoln assassination.”  In addition, Macfarlane “pushed a few buttons” with humor and jokes over the nominated films. It seems almost contradictory that the host of the oscars would criticize its winners.  The Los Angeles Times goes so far as to suggest “sock puppets” as an alternative host to next years’ Oscars.  Both articles clearly convey their disapproval of Seth MacLarane as the 2013 Oscar’s host.

TAKS Essay: Milkshakes and Flat Tires

“Where to now?”

     “Milkshakes!” I answered as a grin blossomed on my rosy cheeks slightly shining from the heat of summer. It was our daddy-daughter day.

     We navigated through the sea of cars that swam through the parking lot like quick colorful fish, all buzzing in the caffeinated lunch-time rush. My dad held my hand as we made our way from the car, across the street, and through the door into Steak and Shake. The smell of hamburgers permeated the air, with that sticky sweet oil that only comes from the fattest and baddest and greatest of foods. Seated at two black old-fashioned diner stools, we got our menus and quickly ordered: hamburgers, french fries, and milkshakes. My feet swayed softly as I took in the innocence and loveliness of the moment, not fully grasped until I was much older.

    As we sat waiting for our meal, a woman walked in to the diner with a look of pure anxiety—creating such a juxtaposition between the viscous giddy atmosphere of the restaurant and herself.  She ran over to the hostess and pleaded with him to help her change her flat tire–  she was on a road trip and had several hours remaining in her journey.  But he couldn’t; he was working.  My dad, being the amazing selfless person that he is, immediately offered his condolences and agreed to help her.  Being seven, I merely wanted to eat, but I retired that this was the right thing to do; Dad always knew best.  Once again we stepped outside into the scorching Texas heat, but this time it didn’t seem nearly as bothersome.

    Daddy got down on his hands and knees, dirtying his clothes and his fingers in the process of changing the woman’s flat tire.  A woman that he didn’t know, a complete stranger.  Yet he had offered his help without question.  I stood by taking in the scene, snapping a photograph in my memory that I would have for a lifetime.

     It’s the little things.  That day, my dad and I helped a woman in need; we gave her our time and fixed her tire, and she was very grateful.  With that beautiful contentment aura that comes with helping others, we returned to the diner to finish our meal. 

      That milkshake had never tasted so good

 

Game Over

300,000 innocent civilians killed in the Raping of Nanking. One event, one war; 300,000 lives, but so many more breaths, heartbeats. Children lay dead on the streets, many lives lost before they had begun. Murky dust sifts through the air as an unwarranted stillness permeates the atmosphere. No eyes left to see, no ears to hear, the disgusting calm of death. How could the Japanese justify this completely immoral war tactic and its excruciating effects? Is the torture and murder of ingenuous civilians reasonable in war? Although some might argue that the targeting of civilian populations would be the most efficient way to end a war, this execrable aspect is not justifiable based on the principals of morality.

As proponents of the manslaughter of innocent citizens argue that this war tactic is the most effective in ending the war– and saving lives– one must concede that this is true. Such is the case in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War Two. Near the end of the war, the United States, along with the United Kingdom and Republic of China, urged Japan to surrender or face, “prompt and utter destruction.” When Japan did not concede to the Allies, the United States dropped two nuclear bombs, killing more than 200,000 people. 200,000 innocent lives lost forever. However, the bombs prompted the surrender of the Japanese only six days later. Therefore, one can acknowledge that targeting innocent civilians can effectively terminate a war, yet the positive aspects do not make this war tactic justifiable. The sacrificing of hundreds of thousands of innocent breaths in order to emerge victorious in a war is immoral and not justifiable under any grounds.

Combating the quantitative measures of targeting civilian populations, one can further seek to undermine its immorality. “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”(Ernest Hemingway) Although some seek to warrant accessible the mass murder of innocent bystanders based on the fact that it might save more lives, war is always a crime. War is fought like a video game controlled by the political powers of each nation; the pawns the army men, the goal: domination. Only a select few of the army have faces, whereas the masses are just a blur: an obsolete obstacle that needs to be destroyed and removed. Faceless corpses are reduced to ash while the game resumes, presumably nothing important has been lost. But one player is closer to winning, one closer to defeat. Unfortunately to the human race, the war is not over until one of the players, safe within their bullet proof walls, surrenders. Fire wages on as the players smile to the camera; should we kill thousands of faceless creatures to arise victorious? Sure, it is all a part of the game.

But the murder of a mother, a daughter, a father, a son, is not a game. These “power players” are not justified in their actions of targeting innocent civilian populations due to the sheer amount of deaths that occur as a result. The death of hundreds of thousands of people is not just the elimination of an obstacle or a mass, but it is the torture and agony of murder multiplied by the generations. Like an eternal ghost, the effects of the atomic bomb in Japan continue to haunt the history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; lives lost that could have been saved by the “power player” pressing pause. There is more than one way to end the game without demolishing the innocent bystanders. Why should hundreds of thousands of human beings lose their lives over an issue in which they are impartial to; when the real issue could be resolved between the “power players?”

War is not a game. The faceless mirage of nativist clones are individuals; each with a beating heart, an imagination, and a future. War strips these things away from the innocent. To target civilians in war tactics is not justifiable, even if others argue the contrary. It is not moral to murder an innocent human being, even under war circumstances.

Slaughterhouse Five short answer

How does the author de-glorify war?

In Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut de-glorifies war by depicting the true atrocities faced by the soldiers– and their effects– through the medium Billy Pilgrim. The reader is cascaded through chaotic scenes of Billy’s past which make up his mind; “timetravel” he claims. The doctors of the veterans’ hospital “agreed: he(Billy Pilgrim) was going crazy.” Billy often found himself “traveling in time” to different points of his life and a place known as “Tralfamadorian.” His mind had been adulterated by the haunting event of the war, effecting him mentally in ways that can conjure no solution. How can one glorify war when “heroes” become crazy and are lost to reality? These soldiers might have come home alive, but their mental state was anything but. Furthermore, even the parts of war in which there was no fighting were gruesome. For example, Weary’s feet were “transformed into blood puddings,” because he did not have adequate footwear and as a small group of men were walking they saw, “dragon’s teeth, killing machines, corpses with bare feet that were blue and ivory.” These depictions effect the soldiers in unimaginable ways spiritually and mentally. Therefore Vonnegut de-glorifies war when he illustrates the harmful aftermath that continues to haunt the soldiers even after the war has terminated.