Brad Emery

     I was treated to lunch with the family (and I mean the whole family) at my grandparents on Sunday, which was wonderful - we all rolled away from the table because walking when you've consumed that much food simply isn't practical, or even possible for that matter. I believe it has something to do with your center of gravity, normally located in the relative center of your body ironically, which helps with the issue of balance - when we finished the feast laid before us (and by finished I don't mean there weren't leftovers - I mean we couldn't take another bite without combusting) our center of gravity shifted somewhere closer to our feet to account for the extra weight; unfortunately this is not conducive to one's balance causing us to, quite literally, roll away from the table (and you thought it was a figure of speech - goes to show you haven't met the Emery's!). Scientific explanations aside, we were rolling toward the living room - Grandma and Grandpa Emery planned for the inability to walk like human beings after a meal and conveniently sloped the floor so everyone ends up in the living room after lunch (just like normal families! I think. . . ) - and I was admiring Grandma's flowers from the unique perspective of the bottom (of the flowers of course) and the thought crossed my mind to take some pictures. See you thought the name of this post was just a hook to make you read my odd attempts of humor - proved you wrong didn't I?!
     So, in all seriousness (or at least the closest I get to it) I present to you the photos of Grandma's beautiful flowers.

     I've found out that my musical tastes are changing and growing broader as I get older; it's now easier to list what I don't like than what I do. Recently I discovered country music (through a local radio station that I happened on) and I'm hooked, now I carry a portable FM radio to work so I can listen to the country hits as I work. I've also found some jazz on iTunes through their free single of the week that I liked enough to buy the CD when it was on sale (which is exactly what they want I'm sure - you're welcome Apple!), and now I'm eagerly awaiting new music from them. And finally the album I've been waiting for over a month was released - Tear the World Down by We Are the Fallen - a band formed of former Evanescence members (my favorite band of all time) and former American Idol contestant Carly Smithson (who I thought should have won - now I'm happy she didn't), I pre-ordered the album the moment I could and now having listened to it, I'll do the same for their next CD in a heartbeat.
      Some people to check out if you're interested in my newfound artists are: Diane Birch (I bought her CD Bible Belt and I can't wait for her next), Nikki Yanofsky (iTunes just released her CD - Nikki -  last week and I had to buy it - worth every cent), and Eric Hutchinson (I haven't bought any of his albums yet but I'm sure it won't be long). Some not-so-newly-discovered-artists I can't help but recommend (because they've about been played out on my iPod) are: Colbie Caillat, Bethany Dillon, Epica, Francesca Battistelli, the aforementioned Evanescence, Mariah Carey (although I don't care for her new work as much), Natalie Grant, Nicole C. Mullen, Rachael Lampa, Selah, and LeeAnn Rimes.
     To all who I bored with my musical montage - I apologize, but if you've read this far and got bored then I'd have to say it's your own fault for not stopping earlier. For everyone else - check out some of these artists, I was pleasently surprised by many of them and it's possible that you will be too. Happy listening!

     We finally finished the full scale trebuchet (which is what kept me from this blog) and here are the pictures to prove it.

     My other (and last) Comp II paper was an analysis on The Great Gatsby and I recommend reading the novel before reading my analysis because it will make more sense (that's a nice logical line of thought now isn't it?). This doesn't mean you can't read my analysis without reading The Great Gatsby it means I don't recommend it. By the way I want to note that I didn't recommend reading The Great Gatsby I recommended reading it if you choose to read my analysis; I felt the need to clarify this because I wasn't impressed with the novel (it was darn near depressing and had a terrible ending) and wouldn't recommend the novel for any other reason. Now that that's cleared up here is my analysis; please enjoy.


     F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby stands testament to an age past and a dream that seems to have died long ago, but the eternal significance of the novel lies in the analysis of time that it presents. Within its pages lie a host of contrasts: old money vs. new money, Gatsby and Nick vs. the world, and James Gatz vs. Jay Gatsby, but the principle conflict unites everyone against the eternity of the time. This conflict resounds throughout the ages and is present in the works of many modern authors and poets. Fitzgerald’s characters fight against the present in different ways: Daisy looks toward the future and Gatsby treasures the past, but none have the capacity to grasp the here and now. Only through the impartial eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg may the reader observe time as it passes, past, future, and the supreme present.
     The past is an intriguing theme that is deceptively simple to become trapped in; Gatsby fell into its alluring arms and was never able to escape. Robert Frost wrote about the past’s deadly embrace in his poem “Ghost House.” He tells of a man who “dwell[s] in a lonely house I know that vanished many a summer ago” (Frost). The ghost house of Frost’s poem parallels Gatsby’s dream and mirrors the results of living for the dream alone. Gatsby has created an image of Daisy that is based purely in the past and from this image he has built an ethereal house that cannot truly live in the present. Frost’s protagonist “dwell[s] with a strangely aching heart” whereas Gatsby built his house upon his “aching heart” (Frost). Sadly an “aching heart” does not lend itself as a firm foundation when laid in the present; Gatsby dooms himself to complete failure by placing the cornerstone of his dreams directly on his “aching heart” of the past. Gatsby has created a world that effectively welds the past with the present and future to produce a fantastic and predestined dream fated for disaster that survives through him alone (Mizener 121). This is immediately clear from his response to Nick’s warning that the past cannot be repeated: “‘Can’t repeat the past?’ he cried incredulously. ‘Why, of course you can!’” (Fitzgerald 110). Gatsby’s dream of living in the past is eventually fulfilled completely. He enters the past in the only way one can, the same way the man lives in Frost’s ghost house; Gatsby is transported swiftly into the past by a single bullet. In his death Gatsby’s dream is fulfilled in a way it never could be in life, as he becomes an eternal part of the past that he once held so dear. The past provides company to Gatsby, a group of “tireless folk . . . slow and sad . . . with none among them that ever sings . . . as sweet companions as might be had” (Frost). Perhaps his companions open Gatsby’s eyes in a way they never could be opened in life and reveal to him where the past dwells, deep within the dominion of Dr. Eckleburg, living as nothing more than ashes.
       As with the past, the future is a tempting frame in which to live, but hidden within its depths are only death and destruction for any who choose to dwell in it. The opposite of Gatsby, Daisy chooses to live wholly in the future, forever looking ahead so that she misses the present. A discerning reader could compare Daisy’s obsession with the future with Shel Silverstein’s poem “Where the Sidewalk Ends” whose protagonist could be interpreted as one moving toward the future and always seeking “the place where the sidewalk ends” past the dark time of the present “where the smoke blows black and the dark street winds and bends” (Silverstein). In the same way, Daisy is searching for the place where her sidewalk ends and “grass grows soft and white, and . . . the sun burns crimson bright” (Silverstein). She is so focused on the future that she completely overlooks its transition to the present, as shown by her conversation with Tom, Jordan, and Nick when she admits to diligently waiting for the longest day of the year only to miss it when it arrives (Fitzgerald 11). Daisy reaches for the ethereal future and is shocked when she realizes that it slips through her fingers as easily as smoke. Fitzgerald hints at Daisy’s flaw when she attends Gatsby’s party; the only person she likes other than Gatsby is the actress who is little more than a ghost herself, a human who only exists on the silver screen, much like the future Daisy values so highly (Mizener 133). Daisy is unable to grasp that she must enter the future in the same way as everyone else with “a walk that is measured and slow” (Silverstein). Eventually she is awakened to the harsh present when she ruthlessly runs down Tom’s mistress, but her stay in the present does not last long and she soon flees back into the dark comforting arms of the future. She “retreated back into . . . [her] vast carelessness,” never once considering the consequences of her actions in the present (Fitzgerald 179). The Buchanans leave a trail of destruction, looking forward but never back, leaving only Dr. Eckleburg to watch their fires burn down into ashes.
     Gatsby clings desperately to his past and Daisy reaches wistfully for her future while Dr. Eckleburg holds silent vigil over the only frame of time one can touch, the omnipotent present. Tragically none of the characters in The Great Gatsby seem to grasp the reality of the present; each dance around it in different ways, Gatsby with his past and Daisy with her future while Nick dapples in both. Nick, however, comes closest to grasping the present, understanding that “the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us . . . elude[s] us,” but he chooses to “run faster, [and] stretch out [his] arms farther” hoping to touch the ever elusive dream in the future rather than to dwell in the frame of the present (Fitzgerald 180). By living in the future or the past, one will quickly lose perspective, forgetting the future is not locked in place but in flux; one may change the future by changing the present. Richard Bach claims “you’re always free to change your mind and choose a different future, or a different past” (Bach 63). Any of Fitzgerald’s characters would have done well to take Bach’s advice; had Gatsby altered his view of the past, an entirely new dream could have come into place; likewise, had Daisy set her mind to change the future, her time in the present would have gained enormous significance. The past and the future are mere vapors next to the reality of the present; they are smoke, untouchable and temporary. Bach describes the times to come and times passed as “a dream[,] [but t]he beauty is real” (Bach 126). The reality of the “beauty” lies in the present and the ability to alter time through one’s choices in the present. In the novel the valley of ashes represent reality, a promise of hopelessness for those who live in outside the current time frame. The only reality is the present, and Dr. Eckleburg watches carefully over this reality, tracking time only as it passes; he alone sees with clarity the dead fires of the past and future that become ashes of the waste land in The Great Gatsby.
     Through the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg, Fitzgerald provides an excellent point of focus for his novel, an anchor for the reader as the characters chase times gone and yet to come; Dr. Eckleburg “sees everything” while watching over his domain of the present (Fitzgerald 160). Throughout The Great Gatsby, the reader encounters a trepidation of the present; T.S. Eliot describes this phenomena in his masterpiece “The Waste Land,” warning “[y]our shadow at morning striding behind you or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; I will show you fear in a handful of dust.” Fear in The Great Gatsby manifests itself, not in a handful of dust, but in mountains of ash, harsh and blatant reminders of the present deep within the kingdom of Dr. Eckleburg. The discerning reader discovers that it is as pointless to reach for the past or future as attempting to return the ashes to their original forms.


Bach, Richard. Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. New York: Dell, 1977. Print.

Eliot, T.S. “The Waste Land.” Eliot’s Waste Land. Tripod, n.d. Web. 30 April 2010.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. Print.

Frost, Robert. “Ghost House.” Internal. Unknown, n.d. Web. 30 April 2010.

Mizener, Arthur, ed. F. Scott Fitzgerald: A Collection of Critical Essays. “The Great Gatsby: Thirty-Six Years After.” Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Print.

Silverstein, Shel. “Where the Sidewalk Ends.” Famous Poets and Poems. FamousPoetsandPoems.com, May 2010. Web. 1 May 2010.

     I warned you that it might be awhile before I was able to update this and here is the proof - my first post in a month (but I'll make up for my time off tonight). I have had requests to post my other two Composition II papers, so here is my research paper (I hope you enjoy it):

     The Game of Life has been a successful board game for over one hundred years in which players simulate life by attending college, acquiring jobs, marrying, having children, and eventually retiring. It is possible that Life has survived so long because it provides a very general and simple picture for kids and families of what most people want to achieve, as well as allowing the players some control of their “life” without the sacrifices required in reality. American culture would do well to glean some advice from the Game of Life. Its focus is very direct and simple, a focus on living. Players do not need to learn formulas, memorize vocabulary, or be a star athlete to succeed. Generally, the same could be said about real life. Unfortunately, American culture emphasizes athleticism and academics as the most important parts of education and, in doing so, society neglects to teach basic life skills. America is in need of a change, a shift from current teachings to some that recommend limiting the use of technology and include important life skills such as money management and communication.
     Money is essential. Everyone understands that simple truth; even small children carry around play money, but Americans run into trouble when they start spending money. A Gallup poll found that from January to July of 2009 twenty-seven percent of Americans had increased their debt (Jacobe 1). Twenty-seven percent may not sound like much, which may be why America hears little on how to handle debt, but twenty-seven percent of the American population is roughly 84,000,000 people. That is a large number that represents a very large problem. Future generations are not being taught how to handle their finances; they are taught the math; but rarely progress beyond concepts. Consequently, when entering the real world students do not know how to budget money or pay off the debts they accumulate. A debt of up to $15,000 has been reported by twenty percent of graduate students while credit card holders in their twenties and thirties admit to paying rent with credit and applying school loans to credit card bills (Williams 2). A fifteen thousand dollar debt is a large responsibility for anyone, especially for someone who is just entering the work force, and America’s upcoming generation does not know how to handle such a large debt. Experts understand the importance of creating a budget and warn that, as marketing targets younger groups, students never get a chance to establish a budget which results in a lack of understanding about what they can afford (Williams 4). This lack of understanding leads to more buying which creates more and more debt. What makes the situation worse is that Americans will not, or cannot, pay off their debts; a poll in 2005 found that “two-thirds of Americans are maintaining or increasing their total debt exposure” (Arora 1). To solve the problem of debt, one must first find the root of the problem, only then can a solution be found.
     America’s debt problem is primarily one that has been learned; our society is part of a culture that demands instant gratification and the example that we present is not one of careful spending and budgeting. Mr. Robert Manning, author of Credit Card Nation, sums up the American view quite well, “We're looking at a generation that's been told that immediate gratification, the `just do it' consumption culture is the real new school.” He further adds, that “[d]ebt is an accepted and inevitable feature to enhance one's lifestyle[, a]nd after all, you deserve it; why not go ahead and do it?” (Williams 3). Society is not the only financial example Americans should avoid; perhaps the worst financial example for upcoming generations is our government. The Congressional Budget Office has released the predicted federal debt by 2020 according to President Obama’s 2011 budget and the numbers are staggering; cumulative budget deficits are expected to rise by ten trillion dollars (that’s $10,000,000,000,000) over the course of the next ten years, which means the federal debt will equal ninety percent of America’s economic output (“US Debt” 1). By now the source of Americans debt problem should be fairly obvious; the solution, on the other hand, is not so clear.
     If upcoming generations cannot look to our government or society for finical solutions, they will be forced turn to another source. However, if society will take the initiative and work through its debt, it will have an excellent opportunity to teach the younger generation to handle finances correctly. Some programs already work to teach students financial success, but more will be needed in order to fully educate the younger generations. For example, a Life Skills event had high school students simulate adult life by assigning them a job and salary which they applied to a number of various expenses including taxes, housing, child care, transportation, insurance, utilities and many other expenses that people juggle throughout their lives; they were tasked with managing the budget so that they would come out ahead and were awarded with candy and important life lessons (Wells 2). Programs such as those put on by Life Skills are exactly what our upcoming citizens need, but ultimately they will have to turn to themselves, learning from their mistakes and making an effort to learn from those who are financially secure. If our upcoming generation will make an effort; they have the possibility to change America’s dire financial situation.
     One thing America is not lacking is technology; we are a connected nation that can reach another person with a phone call, text, or even the click of a mouse. This massive network enables people to speak with nearly anyone in the world with little to no effort, but it is rapidly draining away meaningful communication. Consumers are now more connected than ever before; it is estimated that upwards of seventy percent of Americans now own a cell phone; that adds up to 216,000,000 American citizens who are walking around with a device that allows nearly instant communication to all corners of the world (Koetters 1). Recently “smart phone” sales have rocketed, up to forty-five percent in 2008 with higher predicted sales during 2009 and 2010 (Gallagher 1). These “smart phones” allow for more data to flow much faster across 3G networks, making it just as easy to send a message as it is to actually call someone.
     These high speed networks and myriad of applications allow consumers to easily access all areas of their online life on the go, which lets many people dispense with the archaic idea of actually speaking to another person over a distance. Cell phones are far from the only way to reach someone; in today’s fast-passed world, connected computers open up a realm of communication options through email, instant-messaging, social networks (such as Facebook), blogs and micro-blogging sites (like Twitter), and free video conferencing software such as Skype. These online connections often confine communication with other people to a small virtual window that leaves little room for the personal side of communication. An article from 1999 in the Dallas Morning News reported that AOL was working to hook the consumer with advertisements and the possibility of increased communication with the intent to increase time spent online, which translated into larger profits (Goldstein 1). Modern companies are following the same philosophy, but it is not proclaimed as openly as AOL did in 1999; studies that have revealed adverse effects from too much time spent online guarantee discretion on the part of current service providers.
     Multiple studies alongside a few extreme cases of the virtual world gone wrong should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that technology is not always beneficial, but many Americans are still in the dark about the dangers of the virtual world. A recent study conducted by Dr. Rose Richards of New Zealand revealed a correlation of poor relations between teenagers and their parents that increased with the amount of time they spent watching television (“Teens” 1). South Korea has a number of cases in which virtual reality was taken to an extreme; for example, after playing a computer game for fifty consecutive hours, a man fell over dead after forgetting to eat or drink (Phillips 2). Another couple residing in South Korea chose to raise a virtual child instead of their real daughter, and the three month old child died of dehydration after they frequently left her at home for up to twelve hours a day to live their virtual lives at an internet café (Phillips 1). In Australia, the Vourlis family recently lost a son and brother in a fatal car crash, and they heard the news not from an officer on their doorstep but through “rest in peace” and remembrance messages on Facebook (Heussner 1). The stories are everywhere; the virtual world can be addicting enough to cause individuals and families to suffer both physiologically and psychologically. As the world becomes more connected, we will continue to see stories of information that appears on the internet before it ever should and studies that show the degradation of communication and relationships in relation to time spent online or watching TV. The pressing question is how to nip the problems in the bud.
     As with the problem of debt, the source of the virtual problem must be unearthed before a solution can be reached. Jaron Lanier suggests that our acceptance of the internet and the interactive technologies teach us, in a small niche of our brain, to humanize the internet and computers while dehumanizing the “person” by asking us “to accept . . . that you might also be conceived of as a program” (4). Such a shift in thinking would not usually be visible, which would make it hard to measure, but the example of the South Korean couple who chose to raise a virtual child should provide plenty of evidence in support of Lanier’s theory. Each step our society takes toward technology and the virtual world is a step we take away from our humanity as we embrace a new reality. Studies have shown that, of the time spent on the computer, upwards of sixty percent is spent unaccompanied (Calvert 15). Time spent alone only increases the temptation to immerse oneself in a virtual reality, which is detrimental in excess.
     The future may look dim, but there is a chance if America avoids the dangers technology presents in a two stage process of knowledge and action. Society first has to educate itself against the dangers of technology; we need to understand the consequences of humanizing technology and be proactive to erect barriers and limitations on new technologies. We certainly should not eliminate technology altogether! Technology itself is not the problem; societies’ tendency to assign it to a higher position than it deserves creates the problems that we encounter. The limitation of technology could open doors to older methods of communication that strengthen relationships such as speaking face to face or on the phone, or even the occasional letter. Limiting time spent viewing electronic screens has been thought to strengthen relationships also as Dr. Richards explains: “[O]ur findings give some reassurance that it is fine to limit TV viewing. In fact, it may result in stronger relationships between young people, their friends and their parents” (“Teens” 1). Dr. Gerald Goodman, who holds a Ph.D. in psychology, believes that to enrich personal relationships, one simply has to develop one method of communication (xiii). It is truly quite simple, improve communication and strengthen relationships by turning the electronics off for a while; relationships are well worth the sacrifice of technology.
     America is an amazing country; we have survived for over 200 years by shifting and changing to fit the times, and it has come time for some new changes to fit our new problems. Teach life skills such as real communication by turning off the technology for a while in order to build relationships and money management so future generations will know how to handle debt. Knowledge may be power, but it does no good if action is missing to channel the power that knowledge provides. No one would succeed at the Game of Life if they did not know the rules, yet the next generation of Americans are asked to do just that; the necessary life skills are missing to fully succeed; they do not fully understand the rules. Now is the time to make a change; now is the time to educate the new generation because soon America will be shaped by their hands.

Arora, Raksha. "Consumers Anticipate Less Debt: But so far few Americans have been successful at reducing balances." (2005): TOPICsearch. EBSCO. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.

Calvert, Sandra, Amy Jordan, and Rodney Cocking, eds. Children in the Digital Age: Influences of Electronic Media on Development. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2002. Print.

Gallagher, Kathleen. "Sales soaring for 3G products: Smart phones are making cell phones look kinda dumb." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 31 May 2009. EBSCO. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.

Goldstein, Alan. "America Online Expands beyond Computers as It Aims to Build Global Medium." The Dallas Morning News (n.d.). EBSCO. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.

Goodman, Gerald and Glenn Esterly. The Talk Book: The Intimate Science of Communicating in Close Relationships. Emmaus: Emmaus, 1988. Print.

Heussner, Ki Mae. “Twins Learn of Brother's Fatal Car Crash on Facebook: Australian Teenagers Die in Car Accident, Some Family Members Learn of Crash Online.” ABC News. ABC News, 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 4 April 2010.

Jacobe, Dennis. "More American Consumers Added Debt in July." (2009): TOPICsearch. EBSCO. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.

Koetters, Michelle. "Pay phones vanishing with rise of cell phones." The Pantagraph. (Bloomington, IL) (2007). EBSCO. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.

Lanier, Jaron. You Are Not a Gadget. New York: Random, 2010. Print.

Phillips, Rhodri. “Couple's Baby Dies While They Raise Virtual Daughter Online.” Fox News. FOX News Network, 4 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 April 2010.

“Teens and Screens Under Microscope.” Dunedin School of Medicine. University of Otago, 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 4 April 2010.

"US Debt will rise to 90% of GDP." Arabia 2000 (2010). EBSCO. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.

Wells, Valerie. "Life Skills event gives students a taste of the real world." Herald & Review (Decatur, IL) 18 Feb. 2010. EBSCO. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.

Williams, Juan. "Analysis: America's rising credit card debt and how consumers are targeted even in college to acquire credit cards." Talk of the Nation (n.d.). EBSCO. Web. 1 Apr. 2010.