Book Review: Ghost Train to the Eastern Star

Ghost Train to the Eastern Star, by Paul Theroux. Mariner Press. 2008. Paperback. $16

My next door neighbors left for a two-week trip at the beginning of the summer. Their 40-ish daughter wanted to revisit the place of her birth. One can only imagine the thoughts crossing through one's mind causing someone to want to return to the scene of the crime. Their grumblings indicated a slight reticence to indulge their daughter but nonetheless the couple, who are in their late 70s by the way, loaded up their trailer and headed off to South Dakota. Plans were to visit the university where my neighbor first taught. Then, they would all tour the hospital where the daughter was born.

"And, this is the room where the doctors were screaming at your mother to push. They discarded your placenta into a dish located right about here..."

I should not poke fun. I have parallel sentiments. My family is from Kansas and Nebraska, and I spent many a summer playing in the sand along the shoulder of the street my father's parents house was located. A tiny little town in nowhere Kansas, which has become a den of meth and drug addicts today. Main Street was a 20-minute walk along a sidewalk. Along Main Street, you could visit the grocer selling out-of-date soups and canned food. The drugstore sold comic books with the covers missing. As a child, I was irritated by missing comic book covers. Later, I would understand, Frank, the druggist had cut the covers off to get credit for the unsold comics, yet then turn around and sell the comics to me, or some other kid.

As we get older and reminisce about our "Good Ol' Days" the thought of visiting our roots crosses the minds of people. The exploits of our youth, friends and adventures, appeal to us.

In the 70s a married Paul Theroux embarked upon a journey across Asia by train. Alone, with few belongings, a bag with paper, pens, and some clothes, Theroux set out to discover. Simply that: discover. He left behind a wife and the comfortable existence of life in the U.S. and western Europe for the unknown rigors of life in Asia. Along the way he met hundreds of people, friendly, cautious, yet warm and compassionate to an American stranger traveling alone.

In 2006, Paul retraced his steps. To a large extent he was successful, able to traverse a near precise path to the path forged 30+ years earlier. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan were avoided; too dangerous for a sole American to travel through, or overtly unfriendly to Americans. I suspect had appropriate travel plans been made, Paul may have been allowed to travel in Iran. Rick Steves traveled Iran in 2007 with a government-provided companion and a set of rules to abide by. In fact, Rick's travel video of Iran is available, in full-length, via YouTube (video).

Reading Paul is like reading someone's diary. That Paul reveals so much about himself and his surroundings makes his prose touching, intimate, and powerful. Paul is not writing to communicate the skim coat of life, the veneer of lovely places. As we all know, life is not like that.

An autobiography of sorts, too; Paul shares the demise of his first marriage, making no excuses, and asking for no forgiveness. Traveling as a young man, he perhaps made some poor choices; and his wife herself made some equally poor choices. Anyone who chooses to retrace his or her own personal history may attempt to deflect the memories of the past. Why? Is not the journey itself part of coming to terms with history? Paul essentially asks and addresses his own complicated past while engaging us in the discovery of the past, present, and future of the people along his rail journey.

Theroux is a journalist, an investigative reporter, an essayist, yet he doesn't simply report, he allows us to see his thoughts and feelings, not merely the visuals of his environment, not the droll tidbits of conversation one might have with an interview. His journeys are not the ones you will find in Lonely Planet nor Fodors.

Theroux wants to see people and cultures as they are, not as they want tourist to see them. Theroux endeavors to strip away the lovely bits of society to understand the real issues and concerns of people. When traveling through Cambodia, a state he had to bypass on his first journey, Paul writes

"It gave me the creeps to read all this while I was staying in Phnom Penh. Some of the worst killing had occurred while I was taking my Railway Bazaar trip, and then writing it, complaining that it had been impossible for me to visit Cambodia. Little did I know what was happening here - but not many people on the outside knew much, or cared."

During his Railway Bazaar trip, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were turning schools into prisons, executing fellow Cambodians with farm implements, or bashing children against trees. Water torture, not unlike that condoned by Dick Cheney was used to extract "confessions" from innocent people who were eventually murdered and buried in mass graves. Today, open air museums allow visitors to witness the staging areas, what are today known as "killing fields."

I've thought highly of Singaporean society until reading Paul's account. While Singaporean society is fanatically clean, ordered, and disciplined, Paul paints a picture of inordinate structure and intolerance and little appreciation for humor. People are not polite and lack any incentive to be polite. Strange when contrasted with Cambodians and Vietnamese, against who major atrocities were committed yet have remained spiritual and compassionate. I've entertained notions of visiting Singapore, an Asian Tiger and a society whose technological achievements are equal or superior to the United States, Canada, and parts of Europe. However, Paul makes a convincing argument to visit Cambodia or Vietnam first and learn from people who are some of the most humble people one will ever meet.

As an American abroad, Paul ran across people who felt compelled to share their unique insight into the US involvement in Iraq, and Afghanistan. People by and large sided against the US and especially George Bush. In a few cases, the US had a few allies, places which were draconian, such as Turkmenistan. The affinity of Turkmens with Bush does not bode well; the president of Turkmenistan was a megomaniac who renamed the months of the year after family members, renamed the days of the week after family, and commissioned giant golden statues of himself.

Theroux reunited with people he had met from his first journey and with educators he had been contemporaries with at teaching institutions. Through these conversations, we learn about the cultural changes over the 30 years. In many ways, few substantive changes had rippled through the societies. Extreme cases, such as the removal of Pol Pot had altered Cambodian society but the new government had its own repressive policies. On the other hand, Afghanistan could not be traversed and Pakistan Paul deemed as being unsafe. Daniel Pearl had recently been take hostage and Westerners were being targeted.

The more some things change, the more they remain the same.

In Sri Lanka, Paul was granted an audience with Sir Arthur C Clarke. Sir Clarke, a British expat living on the island, is credited with inventing GPS, or at least setting forth the idea of a network of satellites which would help define location. Clarke is also reknown for his story, The Sentinel, from which his later novel, "2001: A Space Odyssey," grew. A later book, "Rendezvous with Rama," maybe produced into a movie. A sad meeting, though, as Sir Clarke was in his twilight, capable of speaking, yet incapable of really having a coherent conversation. Sir Clarke would pass away not much longer after their meeting.

The lives of people outside North America are so different from what U.S. citizens experience as to almost be alien. In fact, I would argue, their experiences are not alien, ours are. We are the odd ones out, not they. Few US citizens have to subsist on $1 a day, or have to hang out lamps to attract bugs to eat, or find alternate sources of protein and carbohydrates. The vast majority of the world operates under such conditions. A bowl of rice, or a bowl of rice noodles, portioned with some form of meat, chicken, pork, or vegetables. We can avoid witnessing poverty. We don't have to push past poor people, poor children, poor elderly who sit on sidewalks, or run up to us asking for money. Not that places in North America do not exist but back alleys where one could have sex with a child may be merely one block from the main tourist street. This is the strength of Paul's writing; he says what he thinks and communicates what he sees, and pulls no punches. He is persona non grata in Singapore due to his criticism of the government.

Ghost Train to the Eastern Star is not a pretty book; not a "Walking Tour of Britain." Chances are, you will find something offensive, but offensive in a positive way, such as those Western men who travel to Asia to avail themselves to desperate situations and people.

Ghost Train to the Eastern Star was my first Paul Theroux book. I've another cued up to read, Dark Star Safari, an account of his travels across Africa, from Cairo to Capetown. I can't wait to read.

Pax

Movie Review: Prometheus

[Spoiler Alert]

Do not read this review if you have not seen the movie.

If you have seen the movie you still may not want to read my review. I found the movie trite, ridiculous at times, insulting, superficial, poorly written, and a good example of using media to promote an interesting idea albeit in a very ham-fisted and incompetently designed way.

[End of Alert]

My favorite part of Prometheus was the opening sequence. The panoramic vistas were reminiscent of many of the IMAX shows I have seen. Having never been to the Isle of Skye the terrain might be of the island. I also thought of the many images of northern Pakistan, the Karakoram Mountains, and the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan. The upland meadows of the Lake Baykal region in eastern Russia. Very nice opening cinematography, maybe award-winning.

And then the movie turns in a stinking "pile of crap" as one posted on GetGlue.

Prometheus has so many problems I don't know where to begin. I guess I'll start near the beginning. After the opening sequence, the action moves us to the year 2089. A small group of archaeologists are examining a site on the Isle of Skye. Archaeologist Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) discovers cave art dating to 30,000 years ago. The art seems to suggest a race of giant people from a distant star system influenced the local cultures. Later, we learn the cave art was merely one clue in a series of ancient art which all describe the same star system. The star system is so distant as to be unviewable with the human eye, thus the knowledge of the star system must have been communicated by some other means. Enter the idea of Prometheus, a giant from Greek mythology who tried to elevate humans to be equal to the gods.

With very little exposition, or research, or analysis, the idea humans were "engineered" by space aliens is thrust upon us. I didn't appreciate the rapidity of the notion of humans being "engineered" being established so soon without any real conversation, facts, or evidence being established. Later, the audience is treated to a brief soliloquy by the scientific team on paintings and carvings found around the world, and somehow we are supposed to glean from the art humans were not only engineered but also these artifacts are in essence an invitation to come for a visit.

Because a character tells me some detail is important does not make it so. In what should initially be a scientific detective story, the uncovering of facts and substantive evidence based on research and study and analysis and interpretation, we are forced down the path of "this is important because I feel this is important" illustrated in tiresome fashion throughout the movie by Dr. Shaw. She often fondles her pendant cross as she pleads for her boyfriend, another archaeologist, Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) to understand her "faith."

Having known several archaeologists and anthropologists over the last 15 years or so, I have to say neither Holloway and Shaw are representative of archaeologists. Archaeologists are far more studious, skeptical, and discerning than either Holloway or Shaw conveyed. The media may sensationalize archaeological finds and embellish comments by scientists. In my experience archaeologists don't assert their personal faith as a hypothesis in the explanation of archaeological finds. Utterly ridiculous and shameful for the writers to even connote such a travesty.

Prometheus offers no gradual reveal of information, no suspenseful build-up to the disclosure of a human-Engineer connection. In contrast, Blade Runner was a fascinating exploration of what makes a human, human. As Deckard questions Rachael we are left to wonder if an artificial lifeform indistinguishable from a human is then human. One of the greatest scenes in all of science fiction cinema is the conversation between Roy Batty and Deckard as Roy sees his life waning.

None of those moments even exist in Prometheus. Not one whit. Prometheus lacks intelligence. The burden of the movie's lack of wit falls upon the writers. Hollywood writers must believe the U.S. population collectively dropped out of school about the 7th grade, 8th tops.

Don't expect any interesting discussions such as those found in Blade Runner or Contact, nor any of the philosophical thoughtfulness of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The later is lambasted by people born in the decades beyond the 1980's. No laser beams, explosions in space, no aliens - sort of. One man versus an IBM mainframe in space, ending in some fantastic dreamlike sequence which results in the rebirth of Man.

Blade Runner, Contact, and 2001: A Space Odyssey all have a single commonality. Each movie was based on phenomenal literature. Philip K Dick, Carl Sagan, and Arthur C Clarke were inspirational writers of science fiction, and in the case of Sagan, a well-respected scientist in his own right. The writers of Prometheus were  lazy, uninspired, and guilty of following their own hubris. The anemic story alone proves my point but I have some other points which support my criticisms.

The spacecraft, Prometheus, decelerates on approach to a moon suspected of being home to the Engineers. We are treated to some information, unfortunately. The moon, LV-223, is 2.67 x 10^14 km away from Earth. No reason to tell the audience the distance because first, the knowledge does not advance the story, and second, people like me will take the information and do something with it, like figure out how far away the moon is.

2.67 x 10^14 km is a little over 28 light-years away.

In the movie, we are told the stars are too far away to be seen with the human eye. My vision sucks but even I can see the stars on Orion's Belt, in the constellation of Orion. The closest of these three stars is a little over 730 light years away. 28 light-years is so close as to be next door, in cosmological terms.

[caption id="attachment_1095" align="alignleft" width="300"] The Constellation Orion.[/caption]

Whoever wrote the screenplay must think the audience is stupid. I can almost hear the inner voice, "No one knows how to read scientific notation. I'll just throw some numbers together and no one will really be paying attention."

In today's age, such laziness is inexcusable. Writers must have access to even a local community college in order to ask questions. Even James Cameron, who helped produce this fiasco, could have been a source of information. The writers made no attempt to bring any kind of cosmological spatial sense to the story.

How long did the Prometheus journey to LV-223? Two years, according the story. Two years to travel 28 light-years? In other words,

the Prometheus traveled at 14x's the speed-of-light.

The spaceship arrives at LV-223 in the year 2093. 2093 is only 71 years in the future. I'm expected to believe the human race has achieved either faster-than-light (FTL) travel methods or some other type of conveyance inside the next 7 decades?

Deceleration in space is also tricky business. If one builds up considerable velocity over distance, when one reaches the destination, the velocity has to be shed. The Prometheus slowed so fast I'm pretty sure even the android would have been converted to mush.

[caption id="attachment_1094" align="alignleft" width="300"] The ship is cool but is more suitable for an orbital craft, not an lander. I found the double-duty implausible, even in the Alien milieu.[/caption]

The spaceship is too small. I liked the spaceship design. I liked the Prometheus as a science fiction ship. But, the ship is far too small for interstellar travel. I saw no evidence of any source of fuel or propulsion energy. Ion Engines were mentioned. Ion engines are very efficient. Ion engines take a really long time to achieve any type of decent velocity.

In the first movie, Alien, the Nostromo was the parent ship. The crew picked up a distress signal and opted to journey down to the planet's surface to investigate. Their dispatch ship was not the most aerodynamic of craft but I could buy its flight and descent. The Prometheus cannot be both an interstellar spacecraft and an atmospheric craft, not in 2093. To have enough fuel mass to reach LV-223, Prometheus would have be prohibitively heavy to dive into and navigate an atmosphere. Prometheus should have stayed in orbit, the crew descending in a more suitable landing craft.

Also, by 2093, that pesky force known commonly as "gravity" must be completely understood. None of the characters seemed to be bothered by weightlessness.

After the android, David (Michael Fassbender) activates a sort of holographic projection system, the exploratory team finds decapitated body of an Engineer. Exploring further, a door is opened and the head is found. Upon initial observation, the alien form appears to be exoskeleton. Almost immediately, Shaw states, "oh, this is a helmet." Again, I would have preferred a more close-up scrutiny of her analysis, rather than a group shot with her crouching and proclaiming "oh, its a helmet! Let's take it off." Lame.

Her cavalier approach to "science" is then aped by the other scientists on her team.

If the science team of archaeologists, biologist, and geologist are as incompetent in the real future as Prometheus makes them out to be in the movie, the human race is literally doomed.

The team's biologist and geologist become separated from the main group during exploration of the underground alien installation. The geologist is literally freaking out - unlike any geologist I have ever known, and I have known many. In the meantime, the biologist notes some things swimming in the icky oily fluid leaking from some containers. He becomes entranced by these little worm-like things squirming in the fluid when a very large worm-like thing rises mere feet from a runnel of goo in front of him. I have known and do know many biologists and while I am putting words in their collective mouths, I feel confident when I say,

Any self-respecting biologist would have tripped their own grandmother to escape something which looks like the love-child of a cobra and a lamprey eel.

[caption id="attachment_1096" align="alignleft" width="277"] See? Have we not learned anything since Elf? You don't mess with the wildlife![/caption]

Instead, the Prometheus biologist gets closer, "oh, aren't you pretty?" I felt like I was watching Elf, when Buddy the Elf tried to hug the raccoon in Central Park. How dumb do Hollywood writers think the American movie audience is? Animals that seem sweet generally aren't. We learned that lesson in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Seriously, outside of the fact no ship like the Prometheus could ever exist in 2093, no ship like the Prometheus could have ever been built within the context of the movie's setting because apparently scientists are all dumb as a bag of hammers. In fact, the android wouldn't exist, either. According to the writers, in the future no Education Reform ever takes place. Either that or scientists are a dime per dozen in the future and even nitwits can find a role on a science expedition. I don't buy that, either. The economist in me abhors such a notion. In terms of writing, the writers must have decided to insult as many science disciplines as possible in the making of Prometheus.

And, physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, chemists, and cosmologists take note: you were not deemed important enough to denigrate. Or, I might also believe the writers simply were not smart enough to figure out a means to insult you, so they simply opted to leave you out.

Why does the captain of a gazillion dollar spacecraft always dress like a homeless person, act like a truck driver, and speak as if they were yanked out of rural Missouri two days ago? The answer to that one is beyond me.

I also wonder why the only weapon in the future is a flame-thrower. I don't get that. Again, just because Ripley used a flame-thrower doesn't mean the prequel has to set the stage for all flame-throwers. Why are flame-throwers even on a scientific expedition? And its the first handy weapon? Why not an arc welder, or a laser welder? I can see much more utility in a laser welder as a weapon, or a plasma welder, especially on a spaceship. Of course, the movie would be watching the crew turn the Container Room into a bunch of briquettes - The End, no sequel to the pre-sequel because we just turned the Queen Alien and her hatchlings into alien jerky and pot roast.

I was not amazed at the scene where Dr. Shaw "proves" human lineage to the Engineers via common DNA samples. I need more than "see their DNA predates our DNA" and then a little screen shows the overlap. Scott and the screenwriters never used any nuance, merely "here, aliens visited Earth; here, they live in this 5-planet system; here, they are related to us."

Prometheus is no science fiction detective story trying to feel out humans relationship with the stars, or our own humanity, or how we came to be who we are. No events unfold in which the characters discover as the audience does how these pieces come together. The movie is almost like a set of video flash cards, arranged in order, which push the plot at the audience. Yuck.

And somehow, Dr. Shaw figures out the Engineer site on the moon isn't really their homeworld, but a military installation. And, somehow she is able to figure out something went wrong at the installation. How she came to understand these details is unclear to me. No facts are laid out, no observations made, no analysis, no interpretation.

"Oh, this is not their homeworld"

"Oh, this is a military installation."

"Oh, something bad happened here and something got out."

"Oh, they had their own weapons of mass destruction, too."

Yes, I saw the piles of Engineer bodies. Yet, nothing suggested to me the Engineers installation was military. No military weapons, no military equipment or hardware, the holographic Engineers did not appear to defer to anyone. Nothing David was able to interpret could have led anyone to that conclusion. In fact, of all the characters, David's was hardly useful. The wall were covered in glyphs which he could understand to some degree. He was able to operate the Planetarium Room (which was cool, I admit). Of all the characters, David's character could have contributed significantly to the understanding of the installation and the Engineers, yet the writers must not have thought his use towards exposition appropriate.

The character of Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) was pointless. Her character rightly died at the end, as any character who runs with the danger should. I'll never understand why directors, writers, whoever, has characters run in the same path as the danger. Dumb. I'm tired of seeing characters behave this way. If a giant rock rolls down a mountain and heads toward you, you deserve to be crushed and killed by said rock if you run downhill along the same vector as the rock. A smart person would dodge to the left of right allowing the rock to pass harmlessly. Hell, a reasonable intelligent person would dodge. In fact, any person beyond 4th grade would dodge, as we have been taught in games of Tag and Dodge Ball and Football and Basketball and in any other activity where getting away from an opponent is necessary. Except in the movies, where

everyone either runs to the danger or momentarily runs in front of the danger until the danger catches them and crushes them like a bug."

Finally, the movie insults James Cameron, Richard Branson, Elon Musk and any other wealthy entrepreneur who might want to finance a space expedition. Scott has the penchant for using really old men as maleficent benefactors. Consider Tyrell from Blade Runner. Old. In Prometheus, Weyland looks like he is 150 years old. Again, I argue, we will never be able to live as long in the context of the Prometheus universe simply because the scientists as created by the screenwriters are morons. Though, who built Prometheus? Probably the Japanese or Chinese or Indians or Germans, as the Prometheus expedition was obviously crewed by Americans. No international folks on-board. Well, except for the crazy Scottish geologist. But, he was probably educated in the U.S. so my argument still stands.

In the future, China, Germany, Japan, and India build spacecraft for the U.S. to crew. According to R. Scott and his staff of writers, American scientists will be too stupid to build one for ourselves. The aforementioned countries will be all too happy to build the US as many spaceships as we need so we can ship ourselves into deep space, where we will end up as part of an alien version of Iron Chef as the secret ingredient.

Why do the scientific benefactors have to be crazy old guys? Why not a Richard Branson-type, or a Mark Zuckerberg-type, or a Elon Musk-type? Young, adventuresome, wealthy and with other wealthy friends. The crazy old coot played by John Hurt in Contact is another fine example of a wealthy benefactor who has lost all his grapes. How come the mission to LV-223 wasn't sponsored by Apple? Now, that would have been a sexy spaceship and undeniably simply to navigate as long as you didn't need to tweak anything.

I'm at the end of my rant. I think I am perhaps one of 5-6 people who found Prometheus insulting and insipid and boring. I also admit that after all of the science reading I have enjoyed over the last couple of years any science-based movie is going to have to work extremely hard to overcome my personal distaste for playing fast-and-loose with science. Also, as I also read philosophies of science and stellar creation I find any superficial smattering of ideas appalling.

I fully wanted and expected Prometheus to be thought-provoking, curious, challenging, and of the depth I'm accustomed to from Ridley Scott. He has done some great work; Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, American Gangster to name a few, besides Blade Runner. As director and co-producer, Scott has to be blamed despite the fact he did not write the screenplay. But, the writing, dialogue, action was wretched.

The Monkeys of Typewriter Island

I write because I think. My thoughts need a form. I give them a form through the laborious machinations of word selection, ordering, and penning them on some hard- or soft copy media, following generations old rules.

My favorite author of all-time is Ray Bradbury. His prose is poetry. The meter, tone, tenor and lyrical nature of his writing captivated me early in my life. Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke are my other literary gods; Bradbury will always remain the pinnacle of the trinity for me.

Reading is a passion of mine. As a youth, I would hide under my covers with a flashlight so as to prevent any light from spilling out under my door, giving away my late night foray into adventure. Another decent trick was to take clothes from my dresser and push them against the bottom of my door. I would read into the wee hours, through Royals baseball, and into the radio show which dealt mostly about UFOs, Bigfoot, and government conspiracies.

My father asks, "Why do you buy so many books? Why don't you just use the library?"

The library was my home away from home, growing up. Located beneath a grocery store in a shopping center three blocks from home, I would spend hours every day during summer vacation reading and wandering among the shelves. Little stickers on the binding would give goers a hint about the book; a magnifying glass was "mystery," a rocket ship meant "science fiction." Other stickers might have existed, those were the two I cared about. I would read my books, write the titles on a pre-lined form, and upon reaching 25 titles, I would turn the list in to the librarian and I would receive a free book from a selection of brand-new books arranged on a table near the check-out counter.

But, for me, the library also had a downside. I had to give the books back. Spending a day, or three, or a week, developing a relationship with the characters, and indirectly the author, and then having to give the book back felt appalling. Would you play with a puppy for two or three days, then return the puppy to the shelter? Some would, I imagine. Not me. Characters, themes, scenes, story arcs, and the energy the author placed into developing his or her fictional world was a relationship to me, albeit a very one-sided relationship.

For some, sure, reading is purely entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. I am no different. However, I also consider the time, effort, energy which a book has been imbued by the author. A book is not merely a pulp-based product containing letters and words arranged in clever ways. Well, actually some books are not much more than a collection of words which at first blush appear to be intelligently arranged yet upon further inspection lend credibility to the existence of The Monkeys of Typewriter Island. I think Typewriter Island might be part of the Self-Publishing Archipelago; being a geographer one might think my geography skills should be more attuned.

For some, those who don't read and their counterparts, those who don't write, writing is seen not simply as drudgery but as a form of torture. I'm pretty sure water-boarding of most Americans would be unnecessary:

"You have a choice: write a 3-pg essay on the Man vs. Nature elements of The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper, or water-boarding."

I'm pretty sure most college students would elect water-boarding.

In my college-level geography classes I pose the following essay question:

You are a technology entrepreneur and have been working out of your garage for the last 18 months developing a new technology. You wife and family have had enough, and thankfully, you now have some financial backing, i.e. venture capital, to relocate to more substantive environs. Given the nature of your efforts is technology, locate three cities in North America which could make a good home for your new technology company. Then, narrow your selection to one city. Explain your selection process using the 7 Traits of a Technology Hub as discussed in class."

Sometimes, the responses (which I have captured, errors and all, below) border on literary bankruptcy:

"I would either go to California or Texas or Florida. California would be a nice place to continue a business it has a high yeild to gain economic profit and so does Texas. Californica and Florida are located on the ocean so they would have easier shipping access for products. All three states for the most part have a high level of population. All three have about the same amount of rail way routes but since Florida is a smaller state it seems they would have more travel consumptions to other states. Florida and Taxas are smoother flatter states as to California has the rocky mountains making vehicle travel harder but if i had to place to continue the business i would settle in Miami Florida because it has the best of the most the features i mentioned."

"The three cities I choose were Atlanta, Philidelphia, and Dallas. Each of these cities are driving more than every and are continuously growning...One reason is beacuse the city offers tax incetives for new jobs created. Another reason is because there are colleges there. Which intern means, newly educated people looking for employment."

Frequently, I boggle at the presumed importance of barge traffic, river systems, and the need for unskilled labor in response to questions about technology-based businesses. While the importance of UPS and the USPS is without question highly important in the delivery of books to my doorstep, and the delivery of consumer electronics to Best Buy, Target, and Wal-mart is also highly desirable, I fail to see how Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, or Twitter might even remotely find barge traffic part of their business plan.

After reading about globalization, non-governmental organizations, broad issues of immigration, and the growing interconnectedness of our global societies, I pose another writing assignment.

After having read about the nature of Globalization, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and a number of societal issues and concerns, I want you to communicate your own personal geography. You drive through your town, the countryside, on your way to work, school, church, and now, with a little bit of training, you are hopefully more aware of the life going on the other side of your windshield. Describe your Personal Geography."

Think about your personal geography. Let your mind ferment some thoughts as you read these responses.

"I see geography at work all the time, especially what I was younger and we went on road trips. On those road trips we would drive through the mountains and they were so beautiful. There was so much definition it makes you wonder how they got to be that way. I have also been through the dessert. Even though there is really nothing out there to see but the sunset and how everything grows...It is amazing to realize that all this goes on and how it affects us in our everyday lives but also wiht geography...We can always count on our surroundings and our environment to always be there for us."

"In this section of studying its made known that peoples geography is much different than other peoples geography...someone who lives in the United States has total different geography than someone who lives in the Country of Asia, Australia, or Germany."

"In my everyday life i use geography in more of a younger way. For me being a Freshman college student I use geography for simple things. Like mapping out how to get to ____ from louisville, How to get around a mall without back tracking, and also how to use development to pick where i want to go to school at. Geography is not that big thing in my everyday life sense i am so young."

"The area around us is very unique, we have two large rivers that combine to make a larger area that formed into a larger lake because of a dam. Also to the east of us we have the appilation mountains that forms a location of intrest if your into high altitudes hiking or into snow sports. The demograhics have a major influces in the how you live to because the different age ranges of people means you cant just talk to people about local gossip if thier 80 years old and doesnt no about that."

These are actual responses from college students. College students, meaning these individuals have been passed along through our U.S. educational system, from kindergarten beyond high school. These people either graduated from high school or worked to earn a GED.

Reading and writing is fundamental to education. Reading provides us with examples of how are written language should appear, the form and function our language should assume. Reading helps our brain create imagery, trains our brains to transform symbols into meaning and then into images. I'm describing communication and I feel stupid doing so. Everyone should have basic fluency in reading and writing skills. U.S. citizens proclaim, "ya gotta speak English if ya want to live in this here country!" Yeah, well, apparently reading English and writing English isn't all that necessary, even for natural-born citizens.

Reading truly provides us with brain "food" for thought. Writing, on the other hand, helps us sow more brain "food," by helping us not only train our brains for thought but also aids us in communicating those ideas and notions to other people. Writing, to continue my agrarian-themed analogy, is pollen, seeds of thoughts, notions, ideas, and images which take root in and yield potentially yield luscious fruit. Or, fall lifeless in the desert of Dogma, awaiting for the literary equivalent of Climate Change, er, "Idea Warming," as in, "I'm warming to your idea of selling cupcakes door-to-door."

Meanwhile, China, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and an entire host of other countries cannot learn English fast enough. Many of my international students struggle with American English. Rightly so; American English is the 4th hardest language to learn, behind Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic. I would throw in Korean, too.

Our American Education System cannot continue to dilute the importance of reading, math, and science. As a society, we will ultimately fail. Social fragmentation along income and educational lines will occur, and these ruptures could potentially fall along regional boundaries. The New England states do very well in school-aged spending, median family incomes, ACT scores, and overall academic achievement. The Southwest states of Arizona, New Mexico, along with Oklahoma do not fair well, and neither does Tennessee, Mississippi, or Louisiana.

I provide writing samples simply to illustrate efforts by recently enrolled students in Higher Education. These students have been passed along through Primary and Secondary Education, and now find themselves in Higher Education. As new adults, students often do not recognize they are now responsible for their own effort, not Mommy or Daddy, and they now have to engage their brains and use what they should have been taught in high school. So often, I am told, Standardized Testing rules the classroom, with little room for creativity. Additionally, with "blended" classrooms containing Special Education students through gifted, teachers are often forced to "teach to the middle" abandoning either end, or focusing on the time-consuming needs of the learning disabled to the detriment of other students. In the end, the students lose, and the loss permeates our society creating fractures in our economic and social systems about which I have previous posted.

I hold students accountable for their efforts. One cannot simply say, "that's what I was taught," or "I was't taught that." As an adult in Higher Education, a student has to bring an effort to the classroom and not simply be a respirator of oxygen anchoring a chair. However, I also want to say to administrators and drafters of previous education reform efforts, "thanks for making my life difficult and creating class after graduating class of adults who are barely literate and are unable to abide the rigors of college. Furthermore, you should be ashamed of what you have wrought upon these people, in molding them into people unprepared for Life outside of high school, and setting them up for failure. Only by their own graces will these students be able to correct the damage your policies have inflicted upon them."

Education is a fundamental right, not a privilege.