100 Pages Of Worthless Text

100 pages of worthless text.

That is until the next 100. If it is possible for one part of a book to suddenly create meaning to another part of the book, this is the prime example. Call it purposeful (as I would), a representation of war – horrible and slow at first, but soon becoming a daily routine that alternates the mind beyond comprehension. Or call it lousy writing that discovers itself. But the dynamic changes, to put it mildly.

This book is not a story. There is no plot. This book is not about war, Kurt Vonnegut, or mid-life crisis. The book is a 275 page painting. Pointless, random paragraphs upon pointless, random paragraphs amount to one thing – an intimate expression of war. More intimate than a story. More intimate than a book. As intimate as a painting, and art.

Imagine a painting covered in micro-dots. And then imagine at various parts of the paintings a sudden big blob. That is the Slaughter-House-Five. The tiny dots represent words, masses of unnecessary words, like masses of unnecessary deaths, and days of pointless war. The large, scarce blobs represent the alternating moments of war, when those long monotonous days at war suddenly are eclipsed by sudden insights. This is the meaning of Slaughter-House-Five, because it illustrates war, not stories, but the actual emotions, concepts, experiences, and times of war.

In the book these large, scarce blobs are represented by phrases. Phrases that profoundly share the sudden insights, not those of war, but those caused by war. True to the preceding dynamic of the book, these phrases don’t start showing up until after 100 pages. One such moment occurs on page 130, “She upset Billy simply by being his mother. She made him feel embarrassed and ungrateful and weak because she had gone to so much trouble to give him life, and to keep that life going, and Billy didn’t really like life at all.” Another moment occurs on page 135, “Derby described the artificial weather that Earthlings sometimes create for other Earthlings when they don’t want those other Earthlings to inhabitant Earth any more.” On page 141, “That’s the attractive thing about war. Absolutely everybody gets a little something.” On page 149, “He always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way.”

The Explanation of a Student's Perception Towards Learning

What are some ways school encourages or discourages a person's desire to learn? What makes some objects in school exciting and stimulating and others boring.

Obviously we are all characteristically different – we learn different ways, we have different interests and passions, and we all are more skilled in some areas than others. These factors, of course, don’t explain what ways school encourages or discourages a person’s desire to learn, but it is important to the topic at hand nevertheless. One must differentiate between the two variables: school and the person. If a person isn’t good at am aspect of school or doesn’t like it then he will likely not be interested in the subject. The reverse is true too, if the subject is lousy – either because of it’s content or teacher – then the student will likely not be very enthusiastic about the subject. When these two variables (the person and school), however, are conjoined and meet the standards of the student’s enthusiasm and interest, a special result ensues. The student develops a strong desire to learn and the subject becomes a lot more exciting and stimulating. These are not, however, the only factors. It goes without saying that boredom – either warranted or unwarranted – plays a role in one’s capacity to learn and their interest level in the subject at hand. This boredom can be caused by two scenarios – (1) the teacher is unknowledgeable, mean, and/or unenthusiastic and/or (2) the student already knows about the topics and the information being discussed. An intellectual ability in the subject, even if the student doesn’t particularly enjoy it, can help make up for the lack of enjoyment. The most important ways a school can encourage a person’s desire to learn is through real-world application and hands-on experimentation. One reason some people struggle with school is that they don’t understand how their course applies to them, their current life, and their future. If a teacher cannot explain why it is important to learn a concept that appears to lack a real-world application, then the point of the subject is completely lost on the student. Likewise, if a teacher force-feeds information into his/her students by lecturing, then the reality of the subject is lost on most students. In order for a student to truly feel excitement about school it must be taught by a stimulating teacher, the students must fully comprehend how the subject applies to their life, and the student must truly be able to interact with the concepts being taught.

Who are your U.S. Senators?

Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar

Who is your U.S. Congressman?

Dan Burton

Who is your state senator?

Mike Delph

Who is your state congresswoman?

Cindy Noe

Which of these is up for re-election?

Dan Burton

What are their positions/political affiliations?

Evan Bayh is a democrat

Richard Lugar is a republican

Dan Burton is a republican

Mike Delph is a republican

Cindy Noe is a republican

Who is running for governor?

Mitch Daniels, Jill Long Thompson, and Andy Horning (the 4th candidate, Christopher Streid, is on the write-in ballot)

Are all people created equal?

1.) Are all people created equal?

Created by whom? Americans don’t even agree on who created them. How, then, can we know if we are created equally? I think that the real question is ‘are we all born equal?’

Are we all born equal?

Absolutely not.

How can a child born to a single mother on welfare be equal to a child born with “a silver spoon in their mouth”? From its first breath of air the latter child is gifted with a much brighter future. Top quality medical care, a last name with a reputation, a more stable family, three meals a day, better schools, better neighborhoods, and an opportunity to get a secondary education. The former child? Born into a family struggling to make ends meet, probably, to some degree, a non-existent father, drug-ridden neighborhoods plighted by violence and gang affiliation, poor schools, reliant on welfare for food, and staggering statistics that all but guarantee nothing will change. To say all people are equal is simply an ignorant statement. How can a gay couple be equal to a straight couple when the latter couple can marry and the former can’t? How can all people be equal when a bachelor lawyer makes five hundred dollars an hour while the kid who has to support his family makes 5 dollars an hour at the local fast food restaurant? Nobody is equal, and nobody ever will be. It is simply impossible for all people to be equal. The following conditions would have to be met in order for citizens to claim every infant has an equal opportunity in life: equal pay, equal respect, equal schools, equal intellectual interests, equal social status, equal political standing, equal medical care, equal anonymity regardless of genes, absolutely no affiliation with stereotypes or biases, and equal freedoms. Even in America not everybody has equal freedoms – there are about 2,300,000 inmates locked away in our country (U.S. Department of Justice). The common words in the after mentioned conditions is clearly equal. Equal everything. This is also known as socialism. Except what I’m suggesting is not. Equal political standing is not true in communism. The opportunity to choose the path of your life is not an option in socialism. Simply put, there is no society that ever has, is, or ever will come remotely close to meeting all these conditions. America is as close as it gets, and even we don’t meet half of these conditions. Stereotypes, unequal opportunities, unequal pay, and unequal schools are just some of the conditions America inevitably suffers from. Unfortunately, there isn’t anything to do about it, humanity is doomed to imperfection. The best thing is to come as close as you can to perfection, even if it barely makes a bleep on the chart of progress. Everything can be improved, but never perfected. Life always has been this way, and it’s inevitable life will always be this way.

Reation To "Supersize Me"

It is, more than ever, evident that we live in a very diverse, and often opposite, country. The “information age”, as they like to call it, has given us the ability to access opinions more than ever. Movies – Hollywood blockbusters to your Youtube minute spot – and the internet have given us the ability to capture lots of opinions quickly and effectively. A teenager in Maine can read the thoughts of an elderly woman in California with the simple click of a mouse. Better than ever, we’ve been able to capture the opinions of the mass population, and have been able to compare based on different categories – some politically correct and some not so much. Of course, this surplus of information, as many dictators will attest, creates lots of controversy. Is there more peace in limited information or surplus information? That is the battle that many developing countries are facing right now. But, of course, that is another topic. The point I’m trying to make is that the increased public knowledge has deepened controversies, led to thicker tensions, and pushed the extremes of each argument. Nowhere is it more evident then in the controversies surrounding Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me.
The biggest controversy surrounding Supersize Me is the cut-off point between companies’ responsibility and personal responsibility. In the movie none of the McDonald’s food had any sort of nutritional facts on them. In addition, most of the stores either didn’t have a nutritional fact chart or had it hidden away somewhere. In addition, the movie was being produced amiss numerous lawsuits where obese people had sued McDonalds because they had become so overweight, claiming that McDonald’s responsibility to prevent them from becoming so unhealthy. I find this to be completely ridiculous. It is simply outlandish to blame companies for your erroneous decisions. I can only imagine how baffling our society is to immigrants or tourists from other countries. I remember when I came to America in 2001 after living in Africa for almost all of my life. I was completely baffled by the oddities of American society and the fast food industry, in particular the “Pokemon” craze at Burger King. Imagine my complete dumbfounded surprise at this cultural phenomena – fresh off of eating a home-cooked meal every night in a third-world country to oiled, unhealthy food spurred by advertising scenarios that featured catch lines such as “Catch ‘Em All!” It wasn’t, however, the fast food franchises that surprised me, but rather the number of people who flocked to them regularly for meals. These very people consumed whatever the fast food industries gave them, including the “happy meals”. One of my earliest memories of America is the controversy surrounding the red and white “Pokemon” balls the kids were given. Apparently, kids had been eating them, so they were discontinued. Did it really take Burger King’s leverage to convince people that eating a plastic ball the size of your hand is not a good idea? How self-unreliant are we? This scenario isn’t much different from the lawsuits over obesity. Does it really take a pronounced warning from a fast food chain that eating too much food, of any kind is unhealthy and can lead to obesity? I’ve heard the arguments that before Supersize Me came out, many Americans didn’t know how unhealthy fast food was. Please, I knew that when I was 9, fresh off of living in a country with few restaurants of any kind. Companies shouldn’t be responsible for our common sense (or lack thereof). Should I jump off the roof off my house and then sue the people who built it? I do agree that restaurants and food companies should be responsible for labeling the nutritional facts of their food for people who suffer from diseases such as diabetes that need to know that kind of information, but the label (or lack thereof) on food should not replace one’s common sense regarding how much food they eat. It is simply atrocious how irresponsible and unwilling American people are to blame themselves for making bad choices about their food consumption.
Another big controversy surrounding Supersize Me was the perceived extremity of Morgan Spurlock’s experiment. Critics of the movie state that people should know that eating fast food for every meal and getting very little exercise is unhealthy. Obviously, the critics failed to observe the truth of Spurlock’s experiment – the scenarios surrounding his experiment are very similar to the scenarios surrounding many Americans. It’s almost as if the critics of the movie are denying America has an obesity problem. Certainly the movie may not apply to you or most of the people you hang out with, but you can’t deny that it does apply to numerous Americans.
Morgan Spurlock’s movie points out the obvious, but not the obvious the critics think. The movie points out that Americans, as free people, should clearly be responsible for themselves. To be otherwise is to trivialize the values of freedom and independence we so endear. I hope the direction we are taking is not divergent to the difficult road we have taken get to where we are.

Is having a lot of material goods a help or hindrance to happiness?

3.) Is having a lot of material goods a help or hindrance to happiness? Why are some people able to be happy with little, while others with more are miserable?

Mark this one down as one of the biggest misconceptions. Material goods, contrary to popular belief, have no long term effect on one’s happiness. This is not to say that in sporadic moments material goods may provide happiness. They most certainly do – just look at Christmas, or your birthday – but soon these emotions wear off. Possessions you were so excited about now just take up space. It is part of the great consumer market of America – give people something, and keep improving it, and they’ll keep buying it. How many people do you know who’ve gone through multiple generations of ipods, computers, and other popular items? And it’s exciting at first. Some people want to flaunt it and others just want it because it’s cool. But everything, over time, takes its place in history, where, ‘yeah, we remember it, but why was it so special?’ happens. There are very few things in life that our continuous over time, and none of these are material possessions. Even a clock will skip a second in a gazillion years. A solar powered flashlight will be replaced by a more effective type of flashlight sometime down the road. So, what has escaped the perils of time? What can not be upgraded, wear off, or be forgotten? Only love. There are many derivatives of love, but ultimately they all come down to one basic question – was it in spate or kindness? And thus forth, no object can make one happy, but the meaning surrounding the object can. You know, the old blanket that you’ve had since you were born, the old wedding gown, the necklace your mother gave you right before she died, etc. Sometimes we don’t even know why we keep things, but even without realizing it, they serve a special, unique, subconscious reminder of love. This is why it’s not material goods that determines our happiness, it is the simple gestures of love – such as giving gifts of material goods. Wealth does not determine happiness, luxuries do not determine happiness, not even luck determines happiness. You can be a billion dollars in debt and be the happiest person in the world if you have people to love, and people who love you. Likewise, you can be worth more than all but five countries and be the most unhappy person in the world. You see, if material goods have no effect on one’s long term happiness, then they can not be a hindrance to being happy – only a misconception.

Why do some people prefer being alone than being with others?

Why do some people prefer being alone than being with others?

Sometimes in life we have opinions and personal attachments that we feel so passionately about that we will defend it until its/our end. A lot of times, these are the very things we can’t explain – they exist in our souls, but not necessarily our society. Perhaps we are so sure they are of such colossal value that we do not need to justify their importance. Take for example pulling a trapped person out of a car crash – your intentions were good, but you can easily harm the person more by moving them. There have been countless lawsuits* and other negative affects from these sort of incidents. Essentially, we can have the most pure, best intentions, and still get sued, face defamation, or suffer other negative outcomes. These are where the holes in society are, and this is where solitude exists.

“Love is our true destiny. We do not find the meaning of life by ourselves alone – we find it with another.”
– Thomas Merton (American and Trappist Monk)

This quote by Thomas Merton perfectly reflects the opinions of society. Perhaps it’s ignorance, discomfort, bias, or naivety, but society disvalues solitude. Why? Society, and a similar word - social. Through our years we have come to value social interactions to the point where they are among the most important parts of our lives. Most often people do not see complete opposites in the same light – meaning that the people who’ve come to value social interactions so much tend not to value solitude. This is all fine, in no way am I criticizing people who tend to be more extroverted, but I identify with those who tend to be more introverted and/or value solitude. As I described earlier, being alone is one of those ‘personal attachments’ that I value so highly but have a difficult time explaining. Nevertheless, I will give a humble attempt at it.

“He alone is great and happy who requires neither to command nor to obey in order to secure his being of some importance in this world”
– Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (Playwright, Poet, Novelist and Dramatist)

There are quite a few characteristics of being alone that are quite appealing so it’s impossible to label one more important than the other. One characteristic of being alone that is quite appealing is perfectly stated by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in the above quote. When you are alone you lose your external conscious – your awareness of what others think of you and in turn how you act. In society you either lead or follow, but in solitude you do neither – which is part of the beauty and the cause of peace.

“The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready, and it may be a long time before they get off.”
– Henry David Thoreau

We all have times when we are just completely fed up with other people or life, and this is a time when a lot of people like to take a step back and just relax. This is another reason why people enjoy being alone.

“I lived in solitude in the country and noticed how the monotony of a quiet life stimulates the creative mind”
– Albert Einstein

As Albert Einstein states, another reason why people seek solitude is that the combination of “alone time” and lack of social conscious sparks the creative mind.
Clearly there are a lot of reasons why some people enjoy being alone rather than being with others. Sure some people find it uncomfortable and/or “weird”, but it all depends on your viewpoint:

“The whole value of solitude depends upon one's self; it may be a sanctuary or a prison, a haven of repose or a place of punishment, a heaven or a hell, as we ourselves make it”
– John Lubbock (English Biologist and Politician)

Perhaps we are all inevitably alone:

“We're born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Only through our love and friendship can we create the illusion for the moment that we're not alone.”
– Orson Welles (American motion-picture actor, director, producer, and writer)

No matter what your opinion, there is no denying that solitude can be a very important and healthy physical and mental state for a person. That is why people take time to be alone – it’s healthy, important, and impacts your life. Being alone is a breath of fresh air in this pressure-filled, hectic, and dangerous world.

* The Good Samartian Law was established to prevent these kind of lawsuits, but they still occur.

Is it honorable or stupid to carry on a fight against overwhelming odds? Is honor more important that life itself?

3) Is it honorable or stupid to carry on a fight against overwhelming odds? Is honor more important that life itself?

Humans, throughout our history, have had a romantic fascination with willpower. The erotic idea of perseverance until death has been embraced by every society since our beginnings. Some consider it to be a test of manhood – who is the strongest? Others consider it a representation of the beauty of humanity – the ability to think for oneself, to make decisions on the fly. Some people consider it a test of morality – who is the most loyal? And some even see it as art – a human in its natural form, balancing the struggle to survive and the smartest decision with self-imposed morals and love for others. Of course, as always, there is the other side. Is it stupid to fight until death, when you could preserve your life, and possibly others? Is the perseverance of carrying on a fight against overwhelming odds proof of mankind’s natural warlike instincts? It is further proof of society’s embracement of perseverance until death when people shoot down these lingering questions. You see, I believe that humans want the idea to be true, they make it to be true. There is a human need to fulfill these fantasies, to prove that man is intelligent, strong, and brave. The most obvious way to prove these romantic adjectives is through the very subject that this paper is about – perseverance against odds. But why? The best explanation is that when we describe man as brave, strong, and intelligent, we describe ourselves. It is that yearning to instill self-confidence that makes us describe humanity, often spuriously, as supreme beings. There is no denying that we are the strongest, most intelligent life on Earth. But the reason has little to do with whether we are the most dominant life on earth. It is actually a battle we’ve created within ourselves, collectively, as humans. The battle of truth. Although we believe ourselves to be the strongest life on Earth, we own a large number of weaknesses that other species on Earth do not. Our intelligence has led to more faults, most importantly self-confidence. Do other species need the self-imposed worthiness that we, as humans, so desperately require? Through our intelligence, we have discovered our deepest weaknesses – most namely fear. So we fear ‘fear’. In our fears we lose self-confidence, as we worry not about the fear itself, but rather that we will never get over it. There is a lot of truth to the cliché, “nothing is ever as bad as it seems.” Fear does not consume us, but rather the feelings of fear do. Over time humans have started to rival fear (or, in some cases, become fear itself, but that is another topic), as our intelligence has proved to us that fear can be overcome, even if our feelings don’t agree. The most obvious way to rival fear is to be it’s opposite, to become unfearful. This brings me back to the very beginning – where I asked why humans are fascinated by perseverance (a.k.a. bravery) against odds (a.k.a. fear). Perseverance, overcoming odds, is the most noble of ways to rival fear. When one can do this, one does not fear anymore. You see, this is not about what humans fear, but rather why humans fear. In our actions we have subconsciously discovered answers that our conscious intelligence has not realized. We have discovered that perseverance (bravery) against odds (fear) is what leads us above our fears. Now that we have established the reason behind humanity’s fascination with perseverance, we can now go back to the initial question, “Is it honorable or stupid to carry on a fight against overwhelming odds?”.
This is a rather hypothetical question, dependent on the external factors surrounding the situation. How lopsided is the fight? Who are you fighting? What are the risks? What are the reasons for fighting? I believe that honor is as much of an adjective as beautiful or ugly, they do not tell much. Honor, like beauty, belong in two separate categories: what others think of you, and what you think of yourselves. You see, upon first glance, this question asks whether you see it honorable or stupid when other people continue fighting against overwhelming odds. If you take the question and make it about yourself, the question changes. Is it honorable or stupid to yourself to continue fighting against overwhelming odds? The first question is obviously up to the discretion of others, which affects some people more than others. Some people make every decision based on what others thinks, and some people rarely consider other’s opinions. Ultimately, though, we all consider other’s thoughts to some degree when we make decisions. The first version of the question (is honorable or stupid when others continue fighting against overwhelming odds) has already been answered yes, society finds it honorable to continue fighting. The second version of the question, however, is much harder to answer and much more important. Is it honorable to yourself to continue fighting against overwhelming odds? This, of course, is a difficult question to answer because, as I have previously stated, humans naturally consider other people’s opinions when they make decisions. To answer this question, one must think only of themselves. Do people give themselves honor? I believe that the answer is no, honor only exists around outside forces. True, we all have morals, which many consider to be a measure of self-honor, but morals are different than honor. When one follows their own moral codes, they may feel as if they are honoring themselves, but they are actually honoring others. You see, people, by themselves, do not need honor, because they are comfortable with themselves. One does not feel honor because there is nobody around, and, reversely, one does not feel ashamed because there is nobody around. Essentially, this whole topic is one of many controversies in the great “man vs. society” argument. Since I have decided that honor cannot relate to the second variation of the question, we are left with “stupid”. This, I have determined, is the answer. My opinion is that it is best to keep fighting against overwhelming odds only, and only if, the risks of retreating are greater than the risks of continuing fighting. Otherwise it’s stupid. Ultimately, I believe that whichever way leads to the most favorable outcome is the correct way, and the other way is stupid. Most of the time that way will not be to continue fighting. If, however, you are going to be giving up personal liberties or peace for your loved ones, then one should unquestionably continue fighting. Martin Luther King Jr., a man I deeply admire for his wisdom, courage, and leadership, once said, “A man who won't die for something is not fit to live”. This quote is the epitome for why one should continue fighting against overwhelming odds. Dr. King however, never suggested that one must continue fighting to “be fit to live”. Consider this quote – “The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.” Dr. King, at first, appears to be contradicting himself, but actually what he is saying is that one must determine whether to continue fighting against overwhelming odds not because of nobility or honor, but because of unconditional love for themselves and others. Perhaps the most fitting quote was written by Dr. King in his book “Why We Can’t Wait” (1963). Dr. King wrote, “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.” You see, not only can retreating not destroy your life and others, it can also provide an opportunity to consider a non-violent approach in which enemies can understand each other and work on ways to coexist. This may only seem hypothetically possible, but consider the results of the Civil Rights Movement in which Dr. King played such a large role in. The civil rights fighters had the opportunity to fight against overwhelming odds, but they decided instead to protest peacefully, instead of hating the enemy, they loved them – to the point where their enemies became their brothers. Yes, the Civil Rights Movement did turn violent in several situations, however, this was over necessity, not stupidity. Sometimes the best option is to continue fighting against overwhelming odds (a much larger white population and armed officers and police dogs in the case of the Civil Rights Movements). But as the Civil Rights Movement showed us, fighting is not the best option, peace is. That is why I believe that one must decide whether to continue fighting against overwhelming odds based on whichever result will lead to the most peace and the least casualties.

"Vincent" Response

As with all pieces of art, there are two ways to view Vincent’s story: optimistically or pessimistically. The radio show hosts could be saying that there is no hope for “special” people. They do not think in our world, so they cannot be expected to operate in our world. Perhaps it is best to let “special” people operate in their own little world, where they operate in uncanny ways, such as Steven when he sat in his room 10 inches from the T.V. and watched old movies. Perhaps they cannot coexist in our world where the slightest eccentric behavior immediately defines who you are. Then again, the story ends on a brief, yet clear, positive note when Vincent gets involved with the chicken project, and his other activities fall in place again. This is what makes me believe that the show is about (to steal a quote from presidential candidate Barrack Obama’s campaign) “the audacity of hope”; the daring dreams that “special people” and “us” can coexist in one world. Maybe these people are just like us, maybe there is no difference between them and us, maybe everyone’s behavior is fatefully eccentric. Ultimately, though, the basic meaning of this story derives from these two contrasts in viewpoints, the optimistic view and the pessimistic view. Is the glass half empty or half full? Ultimately, this is more than just a metaphor; it is a truth of life. In life there are always two clashing forces: happiness and sadness, optimism and pessimism, half full and half empty, the Colts and the Patriots, the Greeks and the Persians (Ancient Greece tie-in), etc. That is, I believe, the basic essence of the story on this radio show; that life is a guaranteed clash, and it’s not necessarily what happens, but how you put it in perspective.
What is truly remarkable about this story is how incredibly similar it is to the classic literary novel “Of Mice and Men”. Fundamentally these stories are built around similar characters, similar themes, and similar messages. George Milton (the “normal” character in the novel) is remarkably similar to the Vincent’s family, both juggle the weight of dealing with a “special” person who is engaged in their own world, while also trying to still maintain a place in “our” world. Lennie Small (the “special” person in the novel) is remarkably similar to Vincent. Both act like babies despite their adult ages, both rely on people close to them for moral and physical support, and both have a remarkable fondness for small animals (Lennie rabbits and Vincent chickens). The plots have some notable similarities (such as the rabbits-chickens connections) but overall are not very similar. It is mostly the unwritten that makes these books so similar, the unwritten parts such as the fundamental message of clashing viewpoints, the struggle of “mentally challenged” people to coexist in “our” world, and the sameness they share with “us” that makes one embarrassed to ever think they are different.
Perhaps the most appealing part of this story is that (contrary to what I stated earlier about clashing viewpoints) this story is a metaphor. Differences are what separate us all. Perhaps this story is more of an extreme example, a man with a rare type of “mental disability” and the “normal” American, but an example regardless. This story begs the question, ‘how different can one be before it affects their coexistence with society (or the surrounding people)?’ When do those differences reach a certain point when racism, biases, cliques, or other social barriers separate us? This separation can cause serious emotional instability for the excluded people. A perfect example of this is the thesis in the radio show that perhaps Vincent quit his job and other activities because he was beginning to feel too far away from the world he struggled to exist in, the one “we” exist in. Clearly, he desperately wanted to fit in, and despite his family’s best efforts to keep him involved, he wasn’t fitting in. This leads us back to the first part of this radio show, when it is discussed whether “special” kids should be put in Special Ed. Are we solving the problem, or just further worsening it? Are we pushing the differences even further than they already were? Perhaps the reason “special” people are considered so different, is because we make them different.