The Fancy Times

Andrew Carnegie
Seamus Swyers

I sit in the study of a large, yet humble mansion on East 91st street, Manhattan. At the moment I am preparing to speak with one of the richest men ever to live. As the subject of my interview crosses the threshold into the room I am surprised by what I see. The man that is before me is stands at no more than five feet tall, hardly fitting for a man of his supposed stature. This man is Andrew Carnegie, estimated to be worth almost two hundred and fifty billion dollars, and credited with the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. Today however, I am not here to discuss his wealth or achievements; I am here to talk about his theory: The Gospel of Wealth. In an article by this name Carnegie conveys a belief that the wealthy have a morale and social obligation to redistribute the wealth back into the community and help those less fortunate than them. (Wealth) Carnegie introduces himself and takes a seat across from me. He seems friendly and open to my questions. I wonder if he will feel the same when I start asking the tough ones. I start off asking him to go more into depth on his gospel of wealth idea. He begins by explaining that he had always planned to give back the money to the community. It wasnt until 1883 when he donated money in order to construct a library in his hometown of Dunfermline. Since then, he tells me I have funded the construction of nearly two thousand libraries worldwide. (Carnegie, Philanthropist) I believe it is my duty as someone with immense wealth to reintroduce this wealth into the general population, he tells me. He continues to explain more of the

principles of the gospel of wealth, saying that it is ones responsibility to gain wealth and then give it away. Many people dispute your ideas, I tell Carnegie, It is accepted by many that one stays in the social class that they are born into. Those born into poverty may gain money, but why should we accept them as part of high society? He pauses for a moment before his reply. He says that he was born into poverty and climbed up to a higher social standing. (I wondered if even he was accepted in higher society) He argues that if people

were willing to give away their wealth that there would be more cases like his. He doesnt mention however, that he never received any help or acts of philanthropy. If he had, we must ponder, would he have turned out the same man he is, or would he have simply taken advantage of the philanthropists by living off of them. Next I challenge him to dispute the widely held principal of Social Darwinism, the belief that giving to the poor only enables them to remain in poverty and that those less fit and less capable were intended to lead meager lives. How do you dispute the notion those born into poverty were meant to stay in poverty, I ask him Maybe they are inferior. According to

the survival of the fittest belief only those that the exclusive 400s club, so those dreaming of that lifestyle may have to keep imagining for possess the ability to survive were meant to survive. The lower class will only diminish if we the time being. make people help themeselves That belief is simply incorrect. The survival of the fittest does not apply in this scenario, he says. When asked why not? he goes off on a vague rant, talking a lot without really saying much or answering the question. It causes one to think that he might not really have the answer. Maybe his certainty of the gospel if wealth, is wavering. Could it be that he is unable to dispute the ideals of Social Darwinism. He fails to answer exactly how throwing money at the poor will help them. I wonder if he has thought that far ahead. How will what hes doing actually benefit those in poverty. His own situation supports the case for social Darwinism. He wasnt given any handouts that may have simply caused him to stay poor and never become financially independent. As I concluded the interview I leave with one thought. Is he just wasting his money?

Keeping Up Appearances
Mrs. Astor hosted another one of her fabulous balls last night. It was rumored that Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius Vanderbilt were present, although they left shortly after the party started. However, Mr. and Mrs. George Peabody either werent invited or declined their invitation. Young Miss Stokes was spotted wearing an immodest dress, which was very low cut and with too many cloth flowers. Still no one has been added to

ANARCHISTS ATTACK!

Haymarket Square incident. Fear not, these On a rainy, spring day on May 4 , 1886, a men will face justice. The men who commited crowd of protesters in gathered in Haymarket these ungodly wrongdoings will spend the Square Chicago. Two hundred laborers came to remainder of their life in prison, or face listen to a gross speech by The radical and immeadiate execution.The police force acted incendiary August Spies, As They made an swiftly and efficiently to bring the criminals to attempt to disperse the disorderly crowd, Police justice and the police force is applauding those officers were attacked by unknown combatants. select officers for bringing those fiends to A bomb was hurdled into the crowd of police, justice. killing several. The riot that ensued resulted in heavy casualties.
th

(Luckily, the Police force was there to with a bomb being thrown into the crowd. Eight men were brought to jusstice for the prevent it)

After the incident that occurred at the Reaper Works factory a few days ago, anarchist August Spies convinced an underwhelming number of fellow anarchists to come to his rally at Haymarket Square on May 4th, 1886 at 7:30 am. After a relatively tame three hours of speeches, the police force didnt see them as a real threat, until the last speaker of the rally, Samuel Fielden, came up to speak. With his fiery attitude he was able to convince his crowd that the webs of lies he was saying were true! He told his followers to "lay hands
Anarchists creating havoc after the bomb explosion.

on [the law] and throttle it until it makes its last kick." With that, two policemen were told to take him off the podium. Following the given orders, they obliged and removed the pedestal. The anarchists started a riot which only ended

Scandal in Paris

the only progress they have made has been the adjustment to the shoulder strap. Public outcry has already begun taking its toll on Virginie. It has been rumored that Virginie has been uninvited from two of the most fashionable parties of the year. The artist, John Singer Sargent, has also been criticized for his depiction of such revealing attire. His painting is shows his lack of decorum. Its safe to say that his potential in Paris has vanished.

Original

Painting

Gorgeous Virginie Amlie Avegno Gautreau has disgracefully modelled for a shocking new painting, Madame X, by artist John Singer Sargent. The scandalous work of art (if you call it that) has caused uproar in Paris. Virginie, known for her and beautiful complexion, is painted wearing a skimpy black gown. Her hair is twisted up, displaying her practically bare shoulders, which are covered only by thin straps. In fact, when Sargents first displayed the painting, Virginies entire left shoulder was bare, as her strap had slipped down! John Singer Sargent only fixed the fallen strap after extensive pleading from Virginies family. Even with this correction, the dress is dangerously revealing. Virginie Gautreau was born in New Orleans, but at the age of 8, moved to Paris with her mother. Since then, she has become a social climber, and has been very successful and happy. The Gautreau family, of course, is appalled by this painting, and has been pleading with the artist to remove it from the gallery in Paris since it was first displayed. But

John Singer Sargent

Inventions of Our Time

Keep up with new trends and discover innovative technology that is changing our time. Inventions today are revolutionizing our era. Inventor Thomas Edison has contributed greatly by developing the first incandescent light bulb and electric power generator. In 1878, Edison formed the Edison Electric Light Company to build generators, light bulbs and other electrical appliances. The light bulb has reinvented the way we live. No longer must we rely on kerosene lamps or natural light. The generator has made home electricity more stable and convenient to utilize. Another invention was the worlds first practical automobile. Invented by Karl Benz in 1885, this vehicle has completely changed the way people traveled. Most people did not actually own a car, but it made getting around for the

upper class much easier. Most of the vehicles travel 5-25 mph. You really cant be considered part of the elite if you dont own an automobile A third invention that has improved our time is Coca-Cola, invented in 1886. Coca-Cola was originally used as a medicinal beverage. It got its name from its signature ingredient coca, a plant native to South America. You can purchase Coca-Cola everywhere now for the reasonable price of 5 cents. John D. Rockefeller recommends that you buy Coca-Cola, the drink with class