Introduction: Every authority on United States Foreign Policy has acknowledged the Iranian motive of strengthening their nuclear program: to produce Nuclear weapon capabilities. The legitamacy of this determined motive will not be called into question. In conflict are the numerous options of varying feasibility and utility to deter Iran enough to maintain World Order and (more importantly) ensuring United States National Security. The history of the United States provides contemporary scholar with similar situations to draw upon, but with their history of violence and terrorism Iran presents a unique case.

*March 15^th, 1995 marks the date of President Clinton’s authorization of Executive Order 12957, this order “declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.” (Bush 2007) Furthering the United States control over Iran, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12959 on May 6^th 1995, imposing economic sanctions on Iran. A quick nineteen days later, a meeting of the Middle East Policy Council took place in order to digest, analyze, and project possible resolutions to the conflicted U.S.-Iran relations. The panel of experts who spoke at the meeting included: Ellen Laipson,

Gary Sick, and Richard Cottam.

*In his address to the Council, Professor Gary Sick disagrees with the Clinton’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s assessment that “[The U.S.] must isolate Iraq and Iran until there is a change in their government, a change in their leadership.” Warren Christopher, the 63^rd Secretary of State, was credited for the negotiation and safe return of 52 American hostages held in Iran. Despite the existing disagreement about Iran, Professor Sick concludes that no one wants Iran to have nuclear capabilities “We do not want Iran to get the bomb, and on that we are joined by virtually every government in the world.” (Sick 1995, pg.7) To ensure Iranian deterrence, Sick reveals a five-point strategy of easing U.S.-Iran tensions: (Sick 1995, pg. 9)

1. “Cool the rhetoric for a while.”

2. “Let’s take some time to get our priorities straight.” Ibid.

3. “Let’s begin to develop a strategy that engages our allies and lets us work with them, instead of bullying them and ignoring their own legitimate interests.” Ibid.

4. “We should adopt a policy of selective neglect.” Ibid.

5. “We should apply the Waco test.” Ibid.

*Addressing the National Security Council, Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Richard Cottam illustrated incredulity of American intelligence when he announced: “I’m arguing that the U.S. has misread Iran’s intentions. Much more seriously, it has misread basic fundamental trends of Iran, most of which are favorable to American goals.” (Cottam 1995, pg. 12) A writer for a journal of international affairs agrees: “The United States continued to misread, miscalculate and disregard [Iran’s] painful historical experience.” (Maloney 2007)

*Socialist Noam Chomsky expresses the deepest of sympathy for Iran vis-à-vis criticisms of the United States. Noam notes that pre-1979 Iran was ruled by “a brutal tyrant installed by the U.S.” Regarding U.S-Iran nuclear relations, Noam offers four suggestions to the United States (Chomsky 2007, pg. 11,13-14) :

1. “Call off threats that are virtually urging Iran (and North Korea) to develop nuclear weapons.”

2. “Join with other efforts to reintegrate Iran into the global economy.”

3. “Join the rest of the world in accepting a verifiable FISSBAN treaty.”

4. “Live up to Article VI of the NPT, which obligates the nuclear states to take ‘good faith’ efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, a binding legal obligation, as the World Court determined.”

*Writing for The Nation Alexander Crockburn provides a more cynical view than Chomsky. With a strong scent of disapproval, Crockburn suggests that it is likely that President Bush will bomb Iran before his term is up. (Crockburn 2007) Crockburn concludes that “the [U.S.] peace movement had better pull itself together,” (Crockburn 2007) allowing the categorization of Crockburn as an idealist or a liberal, in the International Relations sense. The opposite camp of the Machiavellian realists has not yet been discussed; their case will now be made.

*A writer for Newsweek suggests that President Bush should publicly ask Iran to open an American embassy in Tehran. (Zakaria 2007) This writer believes that this act of diplomacy will make the leaders of Iran defensive (Ibid.) and obligated to create a political interdependence.

*One correspondent to the Atlantic Monthly insisted in 2006 that “Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.” This definition of realism concluded the article that cited President Ahmadinejad policy which states “that modern Israel must be ‘wiped from the map.’” (Fallows 2006) Following the trend of painting a cloudy field of U.S. solutions to the Iranian threat, the correspondent failed to offer insight that would resolve the apparent discrepency. The conflicting discrepency is that on one hand the United States must not bomb Iran, but on the other hand Iran wants to destroy Israel.

*Writing for a Jewish Magazine, one analyst believes the only solution of dissolving the Iranian threat would be the region-wide implementation of a codified law disallowing possesion or creation of nuclear weapons. This analyst also projects the view that the only way for world peace to exist, nuclear weapons must be eradicated entirely. Naturally, a nuclear-free planet implies that even the United States would have to give up their Nuclear weapons. (Zunes 2007)

Two American, intellectual authorities on the Iranian problem have injected polarized resolutions to the Iranian threat to the public, thus reinforcing the existing challenge of the diversity of domestic suggestions for Foreign Policy. Business powerhouse Steve Forbes holds an opposite account to Matthew Rothschild, a writer for Progressive Magazine. Both authorities reveal valuable insight.

*In the “fact and comment” section of his weekly business magazine Forbes, Steve Forbes attacks Iran with this rhetoric: “We should conduct in-and-out military strikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These corrupt thugs are the praetorian guards of the fanatics running Iran these days.” (Forbes, 2007, p.58)

*Matthew Rothschild informs readers of Progressive with this commentary: “ If you don’t think Bush is planning on bombing Iran, well, then, you’re not paying attention.” To fortify his guestimation, Rothschild mentions Bush’s recent move of putting Iran on the terrorism list and Bush’s recent remarks made to the American Legion Convention. (Rothschild, 2007, p.8-9)

*Bush’s Iranian remarks at the Convention verbatim were: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability…under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” (Bush, 2007)

*Author of the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) Robert Spencer provides the Foreign Policymaking powers with perspectives from realists. In his article found in the journal of Human Rights, Robert Spencer notes the real danger of Iran: (Spencer 2006)

1. Iranian weapons have been found in Iraq in the hands of American aggressors.

Iran still supports the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

2. Rhetoric employed by President Ahmadinejad in his interview with CBS News correspondent Chris Wallace suggests a possibility that Ahmadinejad is calling America to war. “Ahmadinejad followed Muhammad's instruction to the letter both by calling Bush to Islam, and then by warning that his refusal would have bad consequences.

3. Iran has rehearsed large scale military maneuvers and has recently tested their short-range missile capabilities.

4. “Ahmadinejad continues to call for ‘elimination of Zionist regime.’”

*Conservative Politico William F. Buckley offers realism’s Machiavellian solutions to Spencer’s cited dangers of Iran. *Buckley insists forceful military deterrence upon Iran as the front-running strategy. Israel is the only solid American ally in the Middle East region and shares the responsibility of deterring Iran with America. Israel, though militarily muscular, lacks the depth of power necessary for Buckley’s plan of Iranian regime change. Buckley’s three step plan for the U.S. to carry out urges (Buckley 2007, pg. 58) :

1. “A bombing mission targeting [Iranian] Revolutionary Guard concentrations.”

2. “The destruction of known and likely nuclear sites.”

3. “A regime change.”

*Twelve years later, in their article “Iran’s Nuclear Challenge” political scientists Colin Dueck and Ray Takeyh, offer different advice to the Foreign Policymaking powers. “A better starting point for U.S. strategy toward Iran would be neither integration, nor rollback, nor malign neglect, but containment, supplemented by direct bargaining over the issue of Iran’s Nuclear weapons.” (Dueck and Takeyh 2007, pg. 202) Containment is a similar diplomatic tool that America implemented during the Cold War. (Dueck and Takeyh 2007) America won the Cold War.

Dueck and Takeyh agree integration should not be implemented. Integration would force diplomatic or economic contact with Iran, thus ensuring a peaceful interdependence between the United States and Iran. (Dueck and Takeyh 2007) Rollback is also denied legitimacy. “Rollback is a more aggressive option than containment, and the one singled out by the Bush administration for fresh use since the terrorist attacks of 2001.” (Dueck and Takeyh 2007, pg. 199) Rollback was used to overthrow Hitler’s Germany. American won WWII.

Samuel Huntington sets out to resolve his original argument that the interaction between differing civilizations is the most important element of global politics to conceptualize and comprehend. A “clash of civilizations” is the “greatest threat to world peace”, he contends. Due to the gravity of this hypothesis, Huntington implements his own research structure as a unique research design. The 1996 book “Clash of Civilizations,” was Huntington’s personal response to his original article, featured in Foreign Affairs written in 1993. Huntington’s book supplements his already argued hypothesis regarding the gravity behind a “clash of civilizations.

Huntington didn’t design any experiment, random-sampling, or conduct any surveys; rather he searched for resources that would assist in proving his hypothesis. The underlying theme behind a research experiment is discovery of the unknown. Huntington theory surrounding civilizations didn’t require statistical evidence, for he was anticipating or estimating what would occur in the future. Predicting future outcomes is indeed one reason to implement a research design strategy, for example: Predicting who will win the 2008 election, clearly Huntington’s theory surpasses the conventional narrowed scope. At best, the limitations of proving his theory would only allow an individual to accept the theory and through acceptance possibly alter the course of foreign policy.

The first part of Civilizations sets out to prove that the world is both multi-polar and multicivilizational. In the second chapter, Huntington displays his long list of resources that he will use to further prove his theory. An example of this is on page 41, when he cites seven or eight different definitions of civilization, defined by seven or eight different experts. To prove the world of its multicivilizational tendencies, Huntington explores the idea of social pluralism and cites Deutsch who claims that social pluralism “is the rise and persistence of diverse autonomous groups not based on blood relationship or marriage.” Another concept borrowed from Deutsch is individualism, which again helps Huntington fortify his stance.

The second part of Civilizations illustrates the decline of Western Civilization influence while Asian and Islamic civilizations gain more influence. To clearly illustrate an element of declining influence of the West, Huntington furnishes statistical tables from the Statesman’s Year Book, which display ‘aggregate territory estimates’. These tables exemplify the declining amount of land ‘owned’ by the West. An important trait of Huntington’s research is that the research has already been done by an external source and wasn’t specifically intended to supplement Huntington’s hypothesis. These furnished tables are just another example of Huntington’s wise use of sources.

The third part of Civilizations wants to reveal to the reader the inability of a societal shift from one civilization to another and that autonomous nations remain loyal to their specified civilization. Huntington resorts to Greece’s prime minister to provide teeth to this assumption of loyalty: the “Balkan wars…. have brought to the surface the resonance of Orthodox ties…this is a bond…” This excerpt reveals that through religion, civilizational ties are mended and formed and that this bond presents the inevitable formation of feuding civilizations. That religions have authority over their populace and that many religions exist, is a fact that Huntington cannot resist to use as fuel to further his crusade.

The fourth part of Civilizations seeks to admonish and disprove the generally accepted perception of the West that the world is a ‘universalized civilization,’ for it is this viewpoint that has escalated tensions among both the Asian and Islamic civilizations. Instilling fear into the mind of the reader is one of Huntington most valuable resources and he implements this resource very effectively. On page 188, Huntington provides the chilling words of the Iranian President Rafsanjani: “[we] must fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological and radiological,” and drive his point home, Huntington cites the Iranian vice president: “Since Israel continues to possess nuclear weapons, we, the Muslims, must cooperate to produce an atom bomb, regardless of U.N. attempts to prevent proliferation.” Huntington intends on scaring the reader and his intentions have undoubtedly been realized.

The fifth and final part of Civilizations concludes with a continuation of Huntington’s crusade of instilling fear so that we, the reader, understand our duty as Westerner and as Westerner’s, we must affirm our own unique type of civilization. It is an “us vs. them” world and the sooner we understand that, the better off we will all be; so believes Huntington. On page 304, Huntington provides the reader with what is wrong with our (Western) civilization and its actors:

➢ An increase of antisocial behavior exists
➢ The family is decaying
➢ “Social capital” is declining
➢ The “work ethic” is declining
➢ A decrease involvement with intellectual activity is occurring.

Interestingly though, Huntington doesn’t use external resources to prove these points and comes across as editorializing and lacks scholarly concurrence and validation.

The problem with the Huntington’s premise of: resource-validating research is that Huntington had already made up his mind about the hypothesis long before researching for this argument. A good research design requires that the researcher is truly unbiased and genuinely neutral. This isn’t to say that Huntington was wrong or that he is a poor research, rather, Clash of Civilizations does not fall within any convention of research design.

The lack of research design, or neutrality though, does pose a large question of the validity of Huntington’s arguments. Huntington’s approach is flaw for this reason of non-neutrality. By displaying such a bias, it has become apparent that Huntington has set himself up to be blinded or ignorant of other relevant and important details that may factor in unkindly to his initial theory/assumption/topic to be argued. Intentionally neglecting potentially relevant material is never a wise decision, for it inevitably invited an argument-weakening element to the table.

The Aspiration of a Czech: Tomorrow Might be Better

If dreams come from a certain absence that ought to be filled, it must be that Czech’s dream a lot. Autonomy, pacifism, thwarting foreign invaders, free speech, I think not. These unattainable elements are the fueling propellant behind the diverse arenas of culture, i.e. cinema, literature, paintings, photographs, journalist, performing art, belief in god, no belief in god, television, radio, for short. Every article of art comes from at least a minimal disagreement of any current regime. Art, therefore, would cease to exist in a utopia. Let’s say then, for argument sake, that the history of Czech (and arguable the contemporary Czech) is the antithesis of utopia. With this assumption that anything non utopian is anti-utopian, it becomes much clearer why Czech literature is not only voluminous, but also riddled with exquisite use of language, use of social commentary, use of anti-establishment themes in literature.
There will be no coherent, historically linear theme in this essay. Rather, it is important to remember the utopian aspirations of every discussed story. Again, the Czech people have very little reason to expect a brighter day tomorrow, for them; history hammers the notion of perpetual darkness. To quell this darkness, by turning the lamp on for the allotted hour of the day, Czech authors implement intriguing tools to shed more light, in a hope for more than just one hour. These tools including (but not limited to), humorous irony, dark irony, xenophobic remarks, remarkably mirroring descriptions of daily life (by doing so, bleakly reminding people of the neutral day-to-day drain actually is a positivism), mention of popular attractions, inviting a character who has it worse than the reader (later addressed in ‘A Mother Speaks’ and possibly ‘Hope’), and the mentioning of culture (it is ‘impossible to exterminate’ and binds people together)
Currently following the logical path of a line, I believe that Alexandr Kliment’s, “A Mark on the Wall,” will be the most optimal story to begin with, though I must warn you that like the Czechs, the path I take will be misleading, circular, rectangular, loud, quiet, strong, contrasting, weak, and last but not least, clear and succinct. (Actually capitalized) “HOW BEAUTIFUL this world is!” Starts ‘Mark’ (for short), like many stories to create the sense of irony. Irony in ‘Mark’ has an introducing paragraph of the beautiful weather and springs offerings: “…her annual revival process of colors, shapes, and smells…” And a central body chastising (in a ironic and slightly twisted manner) the current Communist regime. Culture is the tool of revealing that actually in fact, it is a reversible ‘absolute’ of man: “Culture lives, grows, reproduces, brings forth fruit, decays, and blooms again.” Apparently this story represents the decaying nature of a quelled culture, and I will tell you why.
Explaining how culturally enhancing a jet airplane is, Kliment calls the jet a ‘winged wheelbarrow,’ which I believe is just an expression of imagination, and must not have much analysis tied to it. More importantly is what the winged wheelbarrow allows for. Enthusiastically, Kliment explains the great offerings of the wheelbarrow, “[it] transports statesmen and diplomats all over so they can meet, make clever, prosaic speeches, and without much ado, reach civilized agreements on ways to organize human affairs more simply and pleasantly.” To put this culture argument into context, you will have to read the often, neglected footnote.
Later, Kliment again, ironically enthused describes that Prague has finally become a quiet city: “…once clamorous and dusty. It is quiet here now.” A quiet city is a quelled, forcedly obedient city. When I first arrived in Prague, one thing I could not stand for was the silence in the Tram. “They are like robots,” I would tell my inquiring ‘foreign’ friends and relatives, “they like don’t talk at all on the Tram, I definitely heard a pin drop once.” Later, with my head down in shame, I would soon realize just why it is so quiet in the Tram. It is quiet in the Tram, because it is public channel where everyone may hear your business.
Before 1989, the implementation of the ‘secret police’ quelled (at least in public outlets) the public from speaking out and complaining about anything. This silencing began as a process once it was realized that any one was a spy and people just stopped moaning in public about the regime. The autonomy of the regime may only exist if everyone is behind it and no one questions it. Ensuring this non-inquisitorial ideal contradicts the nature of the utopia that Communism promised. ‘Silence,’ unless at day care center is actually a bad thing. Kliment’s dream was to have his culture, his spirit of argument back; he didn’t know he would have to wait for more than a decade. The unknown indeed creates masterpieces of literature.
In ‘A Mother Speaks,’ Jeri Marek creates a personal account of the horror of the Holocaust. Through the words of a child less mother (who becomes the narrator), Jiri portrays a sullen sentiment, which although only affected the childless mothers, will affect any reader of this short story. The mentioning of the Holocaust in any story exudes a plethora of emotions: horror, depression, fear, anger, paranoia (of foreign invaders, of murderers, of mindless pawns for the Armageddon), and definitely not joy. It is only safe to assume that ‘A Mother Speaks,’ does indeed create a haunting picture.
The story begins by painting the real life, day-to-day drain of a depressed, lonesome old woman; “I’m just an ordinary woman living in an apartment house and there’s nothing remarkable about me.” By introducing the narrator like this, Marek paints the picture, that this narrator could be anyone with his statement: “there’s nothing remarkable about me.” Sometimes I think that, sometimes you think that, in any one’s inner monologue, this bleak statement has arisen at least one time. To blast this notion, that the narrator could be anymore Marek exemplifies this self-deprecating character with the statement: “I’m a bit afraid you’ll refuse my story because it’s too ordinary to be worth writing down.” In fact, as you will learn sooner rather than later; If put in the right context, eerily this phobia of ‘ordinary’ could quite possibly be true. In due time, this ‘ordinary’ turns out to be not so.
The nameless narrator (it is now apparent why she has no name) lost her only child, a boy who loved to watch sparrows and play with toys, to the Holocaust. I feel that saying one was lost to the Holocaust may not be the appropriate term to describe the actual event itself. This feeling that I describe, of being unable to describe an event, a thing, an object with just one phrase or one word was, is actually not my own, for I borrowed it from the story.
The narrator glosses over the unfortunate word of ‘war’. The word ‘war’ is not biting, it is not loud, and it doesn’t do itself justice. ‘Losing one to the Holocaust,’ is just a five-word phrase that if heard time and time again, it too would lose its kicking steam and would leave its audience with a quasi-real feeling. For the narrator (among many other women), ‘War’ and ‘Holocaust’ meant the extermination of her child. To bring the reader back to reality, the narrator reminds her audience that: “There was a time when life was wonderful.” Further along the story, the harsh reality of this woman’s suffering is felt by anyone who considers herself human. To read these words: “I saw my child go to his death,” you must realize that the only way to objectively, logically account for this, one must be a stolid robot, unable to feel sorrow.
Watching a child off to his death would yield this heart-breaking statement of the mother: “Worst of all, I survived-I did not die, although my heart stopped beating long ago.” For many non-Czechs, for instance Americans, such a statement would be ridiculed and pawned off as something melodramatic, something ridiculous, something insane, something only the ‘Ernest Hemingway’s,’ of the world would declare. However, the sixty-year-old events of the Holocaust or the fresh wounds of the pangs of Communism have indirectly affected millions of Czechs. Americans lost 3,000 of their own for a now revered ‘ridiculous and dogmatic’ reasons. Ridiculous and dogmatic are words to describe the extermination of non-threatening peoples and the silencing of those who wish to speak their mind.
If you look carefully through the pain, and sift through the sorrow, you will be surprised with hopeful intentions of the narrator. Hoping for a brighter future, filled with loving people must be a result of such terror: “War? No, there must not be; the footsteps of the children who went to their death, are like a drum sounding the alarm: there must not be another war!” This, I feel is the most important message of the story. Acknowledging the many loses of the Holocaust and war, but just like talking to a wall, it will give you something to do, but will only take you so far. The narrator proves her wisdom by making it the duty of the audience to ensure a brighter tomorrow, by revealing such atrocities and showing that must never again be repeated. What good would man be if he could not advise others with the knowledge he obtains?
Dated on September 22,1975, the story “How Bad News Turned Better,” written by Ludvik Vaculik furthers this notion of desperate times with hardly much to look forward to. The story introduces with bad news: “I SUFFER A SEVERE SHORTAGE of good news. I know…I’m not alone. (More bad news.)” The main character expresses distress when his letters to the bureau are returned without being opened. He is a miserable failure and never recognized for his greatness. But like many stories, this one highlights the small but good things. Letters from friends are good not just because it affirms the fact that one has a friend, but also that the letter was received. The society portrayed in this story is inefficient and unfriendly one.
In Ludvik’s story, as soon as it appears things are good, ironically (with the title in mind) the news will turn worse. The character receives a letter from his friend Milan Uhde from Brno who received money for literary royalties. Milan realizes that his great fortune will be minimized by the taxes he must pay for his reward. Another example of good leading to bad is the description of his invitation to the PEN congress in Vienna. What a wonderful experience it would be for the main character, however it would indeed create some real difficulties in his life. If he were truly invited, then he would have to apply for a passport to leave the country. In a closed off society like pre-1989 Czechoslovakia, this was a task often met with conflict.
The last section of the story is where I believe the most hope and optimism may be found. The narrator describes his annoying situation with obtaining some supplies from his friend who lives outside of Prague. The narrator requests various rasps and two carpenter’s clamps. The narrator receives from his friend, six identical rasps and twenty identical wooden handles (which were not even mentioned in the list of supplies). Confused and mildly annoyed, the narrator doesn’t understand why his friend would do such a thing. Finally, he finds a letter from his friend that explains that his town too is running out of supplies and because the friend was unable to meet the requests of the narrator, the supplies were free.
In actuality, it is important to assume that the narrator might just have realized how lucky and fortunate he was, despite all of the problems around him. He never had his letters accepted, he couldn’t go to Vienna, his friend’s couldn’t even make money from their literature, and finally he couldn’t even get simple supplies for himself- yet through a different light, the narrator had a lot. He had friends willing to sit down and spend time writing to him. Among these friends were Vaclav Havel and Milan Uhde and university professor. His university professor friend went out of his way to try to appease the narrator with ‘much-needed’ supplies. This is a story of a man’s realization that he doesn’t need much in life to remain autonomous and worthy of happiness. By proving that life’s simplicities may bring you joy, a few friends and a few supplies can go along way.
The final story I will be utilizing is the ultimate story of hope: ‘The Sweet Weekend,’ by Lenka Prochazkova. In this reversed-order story, the main character eats a whole bar of chocolate as a means to end her pain and suffering. Her pain and suffering, as the reader finds out at the end of the story comes from the break up with her boyfriend. Twenty-four pieces, eaten every hour on the hour becomes the therapeutic tool for the main character.
To express the dreadfully long process of healing, the narrator describes with detail every aspect of her day of grieving. The sweet chocolate bar ironically represents the unfortunate nature of her break up. At one time during her relationship, it had been decided that if her boyfriend had cheated on her, he would leave her a milk chocolate bar: “Buy me some chocolate instead. Milk chocolate, okay? So I can obliterate the shock with something sweet.” One morning, she wakes up to find the bar of chocolate next to her alarm clock: “So this bit of fun had cost him even more, she realized,” after noticing the bar was from a pub, thus had a convenience fee (represented by the increase in price).
Every hour on the hour, she would eat one piece of chocolate and wash it down with rum, and accompany the two with a cigarette. It was decided then, that the systematic ingestion of chocolate, alcohol, and nicotine were to be her ways of dealing with the pain. The suggestion of this system is that it will take just one day to get over the fact that: She and her boyfriend had split up and that her boyfriend decided this outcome by not remaining faithful to her. Breaking up is tough enough; being cheated on is even tougher. Her twenty-four hour period of pain comes its climax when: “At a quarter to eleven, hunched over the lavatory bowl, she was violently sick.” Too much of a good thing will yield unfortunate results. Too many sexual partners (in this case: one sexual partner) will yield the unfortunate result of a break up. Too much will create an environment of regret, doubt, and self-loathing: “She was only a whore, d’you hear? It didn’t mean a thing! What am I supposed to do now, hang myself?!” Asks her ex-boyfriend after ‘gifting’ the bar of chocolate. Indeed it is only human to be attracted to more than one person and seek sexual gratification from this person, but how then, humane is it to knowingly attacking the mental state of a ‘loved one’ by cheating on her?
That one would cheat on another does not create a happy or optimistic outlook for humanity, yet the theme found in ‘The Sweet Weekend’ does present advice for the individual. The advice found in this story declares that, yes, things will hurt when a relationship takes a turn for the worse. Yes, pain will be felt, excruciatingly at times. However, realizing this pain can be the only first logical step towards the salvation of the mind and body. By making an itinerary for grieving process, it becomes apparent that indeed life will go on and things will be just fine.
Do not neglect the pain and sufferings of life by mindlessly blocking them out of your thought process. By neglecting to accept that pain, the individual does not allow for the human brain to become re-enforced with positive outlooks. Whatever doesn’t kill you can only make you stronger. This cliché ought to describe the one central theme throughout all of the Czech Short Stories.
The Czech’s have gone through a lot, but those of them who have survived the past must note that they must set themselves up for a hopeful and bright future of tomorrow. These stories I addressed represent this common theme found in the Czech culture. Things are bad, people are bad, but deal with it, know that you can be happy and just hope for it. By hope for it, I don’t mean in Disney movie kind of way! Sugar coating aspects of history and culture is not a Czech thing to do. Tell the story, incorporate the darkness, because that darkness is the legacy of this culture. Just because it is dark does not mean that the sun will not rise.
Just because the Communist Party has silenced you, Kliment tells us to prevail, keep writing and keep expressing yourself. Just because children were systematically exterminated, Marek’s ‘mother’ hopes that the upcoming generations will be more pacifistic and less aggressive. Vaculik teaches us to accept and appreciate what we have in life, to realize the small things as mean towards the larger goal of remaining content. Vaculik teaches us that ‘they’ (whoever the oppressors may be) may take many things from you and if you aren’t careful, you will become to insensed to value the basic things that still can keep us human. Finally Prochazkova teaches us that to deal with pain, we must meet it head on and tell ourselves it will eventually be okay. Hope for the best and work for it and I promise you tomorrow can be better.

A memoir to the loved one: Marie DeFer

My Sweet Marie, January 24th, 2007

Thank you for your words of encouragement, I can't describe to you how much it means to me how much your words are helping me get through this whole ordeal. Not just you and me, but me and Prague. Prague has treated me too mysteriously and my thoughts are constantly flooded with the so many incredible differences and beauty; just writing about it makes invites a profound sense is perplexity. I have experienced my own hell of culture shock that I am experiencing and it needs to leave me.

Yes, I was the kid to make fun of the author who wrote the article about “culture shock” which was found in our welcome to Study abroad binder which I received in around October. However, my ignorance of Czech political history hit me smack in the heart yesterday, during our second day of Czech intensive class. (That is why yesterday for me was so hard. I was thinking so much about everything, that I couldn't spend time doing anything else, including talking to people and going out. Instead, once I had this experience and it settled in and hit hard, I devoted the rest of my day to learn as much as I could about Czech Republic on Wikipedia.) Our Professor during class told us about why Czech people don't smile and don't talk to people, because the paranoid neighbor complex still resides within many of them and will burn within them indefinitely. Even the emotions belonging to those born post 1989 are tainted, because obviously their parents went through it.

With that being said, finally the Professor said something like this: "You just have no idea what its like to think your neighbor is part of the secret police..." and finally trailed off, and said that we should have a ten minute break. I don't know whether it was because I was in the first row and center, or whether or not other people picked up on it, but there was a moment lasting no longer than a second that emotionally floored the shit out of me. (By that I mean has compelled me to think about all of this shit) The look she gave can only be illustrated by thinking of that famous Great Depression picture called (which I just looked up) Mother of Seven Children During the Great Depression.

You know, we read about this stuff or hear about it or meet someone from Russia who is in America telling you about how bad it was, but over here it is different. It is not that one story's ills trumps another story's depression, but rather that I am here, not only surrounded by thousands of victims of the Regime who I see every day, but also residing in the area of Reign and Tragedy.

Even you won't be able to truly experience it, until you experience it directly, and I will tell you, it is not pretty.

I sat down to write you back about your beautiful words of encouragement, instead I write you a History lesson that eventually led to my first shed tear here in Prague. Hopefully (but probably not) it will be my last.

Love,

Jamie

A high GPA is futile to the individual who believes that their GPA is the deciding factor of their self-worth. While high GPA’s are indeed important, I do not agree with Matt Foster’s conclusion that ‘we students have been shafted,’ on the basis that the power of a high GPA has been diminished. I think a high GPA is nice and naturally, I too would like to make mine higher, nonetheless, it is not the deciding factor in life.

I am talking from anecdotal experience when I say that I have met many so-called geniuses who have amounted to nothing in their lives. Their high GPA and straight-A record could only get them as far as they were willing. In their minds, a 3.97 GPA was sufficient to get any thing they wanted, because they were under the impression that they were intellectually superior. A high GPA becomes a lost cause when its owner values it over everything and anything.

A kid I went to high school with had a perfect GPA and perfect SAT score and got accepted into Princeton. However, this kid also was the captain of the Tennis team, in the Debate Club, he was gregarious and easy-going, and he was a great trumpet player. These factors combined, I believe are the determinants of success. This kid utilized his talent of success and was able to spread it out all throughout his life, not just his studies, not just his tests.

I guess what I am trying to say is: Yes, a high GPA won’t matter as much if its owner only excels at studying, writing, and test taking, because the high GPA illustrates the limited nature of that individual. If you are a well-rounded individual with a GPA, there is nothing to worry about. It is the student who overvalues their GPA to the point of compulsive perfection that should be concerned.