¿Es posible reformar a los jóvenes delincuentes?

Es cierto que sin padres, los jóvenes pueden ser delincuentes porque no tienen a nadie que pueda ayudarlos. Por eso, cuando una persona joven hace un crimen, no siempre merezca alguno castigo porque es peor que la sociedad destruya su vida si puede cambiar. Sin embargo, todos los jóvenes delincuentes no puedan reformarse nunca. La dilema es entre ayudar a los niños que pueden reformar y La película Les choristes lo describe muy bien.

En la película, había una escuela para reformar a los niños sin padres. La escuela parecía un castillo. Los niños eran personajes muy diferentes. Un niño que se llamaba Pierre Morhange era delincuente cuando la película comienza, pero al fin, tenía mucho respeto por los otros. Él es símbolo de las vidas que la sociedad debe rescatar. Muchos otros, como Le Querrec, también podían cambiar. Era posible porque su maestro de su coro los daba la ayuda necesaria para tener éxito.

Al contrario, un niño que se llama Mondain estaba un poco loco. Él nunca cambiara. Cuando la película comienza, el era ladrón. Al fin, el había quemado toda la escuela, sonriendo y fumando. El es símbolo de los otros que no pueden cambiar nunca. ¿Es malo que no pueden cambiar? Parece sí, pero en realidad no es tan malo.

Cuando el mundo dio a luz la civilización humana y las guerras humanas, había ocurrido un cambio interesante en el cerebro humano. Por cada cincuenta personas, había un “tipo soldado”, una persona que no tenía miedo de matar a otra persona. Desde cientos de años, nuestro sociedad había usado los “tipos soldados” para luchar y también para controlar la población. Es interesante que estos “delincuentes” también paran la creación de otros delincuentes. Por eso, no es posible que la sociedad no tenga delincuentes.

Para resolver el problema de los jóvenes delincuentes, la sociedad debe verla diferencia entre los jóvenes con esperanza y los “tipos soldados” o debe elegir entre la posibilidad de una nueva vida o la amenaza de los delincuentes. Hoy, es muy fácil usar las computadoras para identificar los “tipos soldados” que no pueden cambiar nunca, buscando los químicos en el cerebro que hace un “tipo soldado”. Con esas personas, la sociedad puede hacer unos soldados o una policía. Dar unos propósitos es una responsabilidad de la sociedad y esto es una respuesta. Aunque hay drogas para “curar” a los delincuentes, no es bueno tratar de controlar al cuerpo humano. Por ejemplo, hubo un gran programa para hacerlo. ¿Dónde? Fue en la Alemania de Adolf Hitler. Con tiempo, el “tipo soldado” va a desaparecer a causa de faltar las guerras y los otros delincuentes van a cambiar, como siempre.

Postmodern Honor Code

If either of those mentioned in this read this, you can tell me to take it off. I really wanted to get this out.

"Chivalry is dead" quote many people too lazy to open a door for a woman or some other trivial tradition like that. You can't really blame men that much. I mean, women are decently independent and self-sufficient. But that's another topic. I would say another form of societal honor for men has been born.

We haven't lost our honor. Men have this unspoken pact amongst all other men: The Brocode. It includes a number of rules, mostly dealing with women. But above all, it teaches the lesson: Bros before hos. Let me clarify that "ho" does not necessarily refer to a prostitute, but rather any sort of woman.

For the past few months, I've felt deep emotion for this particular girl. One of my friends asked her to Winter Formal and at the time, I didn't mind. In order to avoid a terrible situation, I talked to him about it and that was it. This established a basis of trust on the fact that the Brocode usually ordains the person feeling the greater emotion to have her (ok I don't want to objectify women, but there's no grammatically correct way of explaining that otherwise).

Yesterday was Winter Formal. The details are pretty clear. Those two are together. I talked to that same friend afterwards. The truth is: I feel like shit right now. I've barely slept and I just want to cry or something, but the only motion I can squeeze out of my body is from typing these words. At the same time, I'm not angry. I still love her, though I can probably never be with her now.

But I still love my friend. It's true; he violated our mantrust. But bros before hos. It's not like we're not friends. He had the balls to come talk to me about it. He has quite a deal of honor himself. Yes, I feel pain. But I haven't been hurt. Or at least I like to think so. Hurt is just a matter of responsibility for that pain. Well, I guess it's back to AP Bio for me...

¿El amor o el dinero?

Es la vieja cuestión. Los humanos siempre debían decidir entre el amor o el dinero. La opinión general de la sociedad es que el amor es más importante que el dinero. A causa de la cultura social del mundo, el amor es la prioridad porque una persona necesita amigos. Pero sin embargo, esta cuestión del amor y del dinero ya existe hoy. ¿Por qué, con la moral de la sociedad, es difícil decidir? En realidad, la cuestión no es entre el amor o el dinero. Es una guerra metafísica entre dos tipos de poder.

El amor representa el poder de amigos y familia. Normalmente, dos personas son más fuertes que una persona. El amor es las relaciones que pueden proteger a una persona. El amor también es el instinto que crea más personas. Sin amor, es más difícil crear bebés. En esencia, el amor es el instinto de los seres humanos contra la naturaleza. Para sobrevivir, hay que tener números; hay que no terminar la línea de natación. Cada vez que la naturaleza amenazó a los seres humanos, los seres humanos pueden luchar con los instintos de sobrevivir.

Por ejemplo, hace miles de años, los humanos siempre formaban unos grupos para hacer todo. En la época prehistórica, los “humanos” se movían en grupos para buscar la comida. Ellos construyeron pueblos pequeños cerca de otros pueblos pequeños. Los animales comen los otros cuando vivían solos. ¿Y hoy? No es tan diferente. Hoy, los humanos forman grupos para la comida (pero hoy son las compañías para trabajar por la comida). De tal manera, lo más de los humanos viven en unas ciudades, grandes o pequeños, pero en todo caso con otros. En fin, el amor no necesita ser “romántico” pero es un instinto que los humanos demuestran para sobrevivir.

¿Y el dinero? El dinero también es el poder. Pero es el poder individual. Tener el dinero es poder ganar contra los otros humanos. En la naturaleza, el dinero no tiene valor. Pero, donde el amor protege a los humanos contra la naturaleza, el dinero protege a un humano contra los otros humanos. A pesar de la cultura social de los humanos, cada persona también quiere tener éxito en relación a otros humanos. Los otros humanos crean un sistema de comparar el éxito. Por eso, los humanos tienen ese instinto. Además, los humanos no tienen la confianza perfecta tampoco. Como los animales, es imposible totalmente trabajar en paz con otros. Cada humano puede tener ganas competitivas contra otros humanos como el amor o ser el dueño de algo. El dinero es el poder concreto del universo humano.

Desde cientos de años, los humanos usaban el dinero en el mundo humano para todo. Sin dinero, una persona será débil. Cuando una persona quiere controlar el mundo, necesita el dinero. Por ejemplo, del siglo XVI al siglo XIX, el mundo político de Europa fue diferentes guerras para mantener las tallas económicas de cada país. Cuando Rusia atacó al imperio otomano y ganó lugares para buscar el oro, los otros países europeos atacaron a Rusia para que Rusia no pudiera tener más dinero. Si hubiera tenido más dinero, habría sido fácil comprar unas armas para amenazar los otros países. Y hoy hay una guerra sobre el petróleo, el oro negro. Hace muchos años, cada día, unos soldados morían por el dinero de sus países.

Pero en este caso el dinero parece muy malo. El dinero es un aspecto de la vida humana que no puede cambiar. Con el dinero, se puede comprender el valor universal de muchas cosas. Todas la personas no deben regatear tanto, y en esa sociedad, todos tienen más de una vida justa que tendrán en una sociedad sin dinero. No es posible perder el aspecto del dinero. Con la civilización humana, el dinero tiene un sitio especial. Aunque no tiene valor en la naturaleza, el dinero es importante porque la naturaleza no existe hoy en nuestra sociedad. En vez de sobrevivir contra un animal o una planta, la prioridad es sobrevivir contra los otros humanos.

No quiero decir que el dinero es más importante. Solamente quiero mostrar que la moral sobre el amor y el dinero es demasiada romántica. Pero en conclusión, se necesita comprender la situación. Y también, sin embargo, el amor y el dinero no siempre son competitivos. El amor es el instinto que forman los grupos para ganar el dinero. El éxito del dinero compra el amor. Es verdad. Los humanos tienen el instinto de pensar en su futuro. Por ejemplo, un mendigo guapo y simpático es, en todo caso, un mendigo. Por eso, él morirá solo.

Analysis of David Hume

First, allow me to open with an analysis of Desmond Hume, from Lost.  In the series, Desmond Hume often bids farewell to other characters by saying, "See you in another life, brother".  One could argue that this other life is the afterlife, though it could refer to the metaphysical world.

The metaphysical world was designated by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the 18th century.  He suggests a parallel universe to the physical world made up of all the wills and thoughts of the population of the physical world.  In other words, a universe of philosophy constantly clashing.

Desmond Hume often represents this belief in the show as he is, literally, caught between various universes, though you would really have to watch the show to understand.  Furthermore, he is often at odds with other characters and submits his will to a certain cause, such as pressing a button every 180 minutes, just only will and thought exist in the metaphysical world.

Metaphysical world is such a clunky name.  For this purpose, I think we should refer to the physical world as, "Is" and the metaphysical world as "Ought", echoing the two words David Hume often used in his own analysis.

This is what I think of in class.

Is it possible that we can hear sounds that we really can't.  I mean we can only hear things in a range of theories.  But that doesn't mean sounds outside of that range don't exist.  (By "sounds", I refer to any wave that passes through space by means of vibrations in the air.)

So, maybe those sounds do pass through our ears.  Perhaps it is simply our minds that decide not to process them.  But those sounds might subconsciously affect our thinking.

Neo-Nominalism III

Notice the screens in the background.

As I mentioned last year, reality has value through discreet universes. The mind does recognize each of these individual universes. After all, what is the purpose of memory? But even for each universe, a new mind is born into it. If it is imaginable, the human mind is linked to it. What I am saying, essentially, is that every moment real or unreal that runs through our minds ultimately influences our decisions and reality. The scene shown above was a perfect illustration of neo-nominalism.

Here is a demonstration of consciousness in Eternal Existence.

I propose the concept of predator consciousness, prey consciousness, and universal consciousness. Somehow, animals evolve to develop ways of not being eaten by not tasting good or being poisonous. Yet does the prey always know what the predator is thinking? No. This is accomplished because the prey is linked to the reality of escaping the predator and also the universe of the possibility of being eaten. The prey consciousness and predator consciousness meets somewhere in these universes for them to be aware of how to escape or catch the other.

While I'm Going To Fail AP Euro...

Existentialism.

Existentialism is a philosophical school that emphasizes the concrete over the abstract and deals with what the human subject can readily perceive.  Though I never really realized this, much of my metaphysical analysis revolves around existentialism.

Look at the "about me" section (though I know it's not named that), and read it.  I suggest, unlike many other existentialists, that there exists no human being beyond a body.  This human being is made of and exists only within the human body.  A person has no personality beyond his or her brain.  A person has no breath beyond that within his or her lungs.  A person has no life beyond the beating of his or her heart.  If you kill a person, you kill a person.  The value of life does not exist beyond what we can make out of any single human being.  We're basically machines.

Then, you might ask, is it right to kill?  Well, it isn't right or wrong, but it's not very helpful so we don't do it.

So what about a fetus?  Is that not a life too?  Well, a fetus is a vegetable.

So why can't we simulate it in a laboratory?  There's really nothing you can simulate in a laboratory.

Unalienable Rights

The Declaration of Independence identifies rights inherent to the dignity and existence of mankind-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I propose, or, rather, reveal, my own five rights.

1. I hold and uphold that all "people" have the right to their own emotions.

2. I maintain that all "people" have the right to the action of desire.

3. That no force may ever contradict another's principles without destroying them.

4. That any force has the right to redefine "people".

5. That all beings, abstract or concrete, have the right to resurrection.

Among each of these Truths is the right granted to interpret as one wishes, though any opposition to interpretation is allowed. No argument can be made, however, that disproves all five of these rights at once.*

Мартин Джетских фланаган

*Go ahead. Try.

Daily Critique

I'm going to kick Pandora's Box and go for this.  In debate: Lassen Sie nicht die Kritik fallen!.  Don't drop the critique!   (I think.  I got that off a computer translator.  Probably totally false.  Check out that system that puts whatever you type through like 12 translators and see the result [on a side note, who the hell has time for that?].)

Anyways, I have to say, I really respect people that can just say "no".  Sorry for some misogynist 

"rhetoric", but it appears very difficult for girls to say yes or no.  Look at rsvp responses.   Girls tend to stick in the "maybe" section.  If it's a "no", make it a "no".  There shouldn't be:

Yes: 15

No: 3

Maybe: 13

And when one (referring to both sexes) says "no", life is easier.

If you talked to me at 7:20 yesterday, thank you.

I'm finally back.

Yaaaaaay.  To the 7 people that read this.  Yaaaaaay.

Recently, I've been watching the Brad Neely comics on Youtube.  And I can imagine they seem rather obscene and bland to many people.  But in reality, as a Poly student, I'm just picking it apart, trying to find the life lessons in it.  And I did.

Philosophers try really hard to be as far from moderate as possible.  But this is ridiculous because their job is to define hypothetical life for "the subject".  But because "the subject" is so moderate, contemporary philosophers are really distancing themselves from the truth.

Notgonnalie.  I do that.  But at least I know.

The Doorknob Principle

Yeah.  I don't write much now.  And by now, all five (or seven) have already realized that.

So here's the doorknob principle:

When people wait at a door and no one appears to be inside, immediately, the people already waiting will tell anyone who arrives that the door is locked.  However, if they do so, the new arrivers will try to open the door.  It is the action of warning that person that triggers the opposite reaction.

However, this is not the case with greater risk.  For example, if those same people are waiting at a door and instead they tell those who arrive that the doorknob is electrified and if the people arriving have the slightest reason to believe them, a battery or spark for example, then they will not attempt to open the door.  People are more likely to value words if they are larger.

Skepticism actually applies to tiny truths rather than large lies.

Daily Critique

I'm back finally.  Here's another loser thing I do each day.  I come up with a social critique each day that does not necessarily have to change society, but make the observations necessary for progress.  As you can tell from February, these are usually angry speeches criticizing post-modern romance.  Also, my English is improving (Jajaja, for those of you who get it).

To continue my rants, I want to share a short excerpt from the film (My life is not a book.  It's more of a film) known as life.

Sputnik : Estoy enojado.  ¿Por qué?  Pour quoi?  Why does life beg me to rise and command me to fall?

Angles : Err... [shifts uneasily in seat while reaching for water bottle]

Sputnik: There are opportunities... and not the kind you're thinking of. [tries to imply something to Angles, but fails]

Angles: Okay.  I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

Sputnik: Я–очень одинокий!  Я–свободен!  I'm lonely!  There.  I said it.

Angles: What?  Are you trying to "break" me again ?

Sputnik: No.  I'm saying that I'm tired of dangling opportunities [meaning chances to ask the unnamed girl out].

Angles: Well take those opportunities.

Sputnik: Yeah, yeah.  Carpe diem and whatnot... [Takes Angles' water bottle, but returns it after flipping it thrice]  You don't know the consequences of "opportunity".

Sounds rather pointless without proper context, but this dialogue represents an internal struggle within each member of Poly society.  While Poly should be known for offering more opportunities, in many cases outside of academics, we are depriving each individual of them with our isolation.  Each individual at Poly has become beyond self-aware in isolation.  It becomes the obsessive self-consciousness that bites away at the heart.  Why can't we be like public schools?  Asking someone out is not the bureaucratic system it is at Poly.  There should not exist the model "Become friends for 6 months, ask out, date for 2 weeks, stop because of 'the value of preexisting friendship'".  Bullshit.

Pandora's Box 10

Value is a key point of psychology.  People often misvalue certain aspects of life.  This is the modern concept of hamartia, the term used to describe the "fatal flaw" of personalities in Greek tragedy.

Some people misvalue abstract values such as "dignity".  But most people misvalue what is given.

For example, punishment is NOT given.  There's no "karma", so people take it as their own responsibility.  However, certain things, such as the basic nature of things, are fully given.  We cannot expect certain animals to not eat the smaller animals it sees.  There's nothing we can do.  Now, I suppose the same is true for death, but death must be valued as a total change, not a process.

Wow.  I am a terrible writer.  Of course, I have a really legit excuse.

The Internet Part III: Technological Teleology

Humans, in our self-created "evolution", have accelerated us.  Many may say that we're becoming weak by depending on tools such as the Internet.  But really, these things have become part of us, just as we may depend on a kidney.  But until we become fully integrated with technology, the fears of obesity and being eaten by a larger animal remain.

But really, what is the purpose of having technology consume us?  In the end, as humans become lazier and lazier, we become cells in a massive global organism called the Internet.  Laziness, as we have it, is a by-product of technology.  Rather than total domination by work, the end of humanity comes when we are actually able to do work without having to work.  But at that point, we as a whole would be born.

Pandora's Box 9

Note: This section, "Pandora's Box" needs to be about psychology in general.  I'm moving into the territory of giving out psychological damage that could go beyond hurting a person and a relationship to emotionally crippling someone for their life.  It's not that I care, but that I prefer being the only person that knows; mostly, it's because I have no answers.

It's Valentine's Day

Anyways, in my method of not celebrating (for one obvious reason), I will discuss the concept of being isolated.

I partially got this from a book about Lost.  It is said that a one is revealed to who one truly is by being stranded on an island.  I took this a step further.  What if this person created the island?  As part of a exercise to dissect someone, I took them to the lower levels of Poly's theatre where the lights were all off.  Then, I asked them a series of questions that eventually led them to telling me a story that they made up about them being on an island.  They made it all up, besides the fact that it's an island.  As the story progressed, it became more and more imaginative.  By the time we were called upstairs, I knew his greatest fear.  It was useless, since I had no idea what the cause was, but it worked.

The island works in mysterious ways.

The island has its reasons.

61% is an incorrect figure.

It's now appeared that the incestuous relationship game has blossomed and blistered within Polytechnic High School.  If those actually in a relationship or not in one at all, this shouldn't offend you.  For the rest of the population: I'm going to spend around 100 words in order to say two: FUCK YOU.

This should define it:

In high school, from 14 to 19, "relationships" take a different form.  Ethically, they should be a mutual respect between two people who have minimal hormonally-charged feelings for each other.  In instinct, it's the stage where the young humans are taught how to deal with mating.  That means that it's not a game.  There was no goal, and if there was, it's certainly not the joy of logging on to facebook to switch your relationship status so you can use my minifeed to piss me the fuck off.  It's simple.  Have feelings.  Whatever.  But it is not a prize.  As soon as you start holding your significant other's hand in the air, you begin to commodify a human being.  It makes humans an object.  In many senses, yes, humans can be objects, but in the case of relationships, it's the most hypocritical thing to objectivize someone who you want to share emotions with.

In the end, if we were simply to judge human beings by the relationships that they are involved in, we destroy our progress as a human race.  Maybe it IS just the looks.  But it's not an image or a toy.  Humans go for looks because that is a sign of selecting a healthy mate to make healthy babies.  But when people start dating JUST FOR THE RELATIONSHIP, you are waging war on other humans by making them objects.  Thus, in the situation of attempting to establish proper unions, we are actually making war.  This symbolically destroys the human instinct and right to reproduce by portraying it as a form of death.

So to summarize it: to those who are not in real relationships or single between 14 and 19, FUCK YOU.  YOU'RE FUCKING MURDERERS.

Units of Utilitarianism

Has anyone ever given consideration to what's the significance of their "life"?

Of course.

But no one has ever decided to measure it?

Of course.

People should be measured by their interactions with the world.  These units, positive or negative, will result in their evaluation in society.  Those with more positive measurements are rewarded.  Those with more negative measurements are punished.

It's a simple method.  In a few years the Internet will be able to check on the measurements of each individual of a state (not that it will, but it can).  Possible units of measure include: the number of people that die as a result of an excessive usage of resources by one person, the number of offspring that cause overpopulation, or the amount of creativity that can be monitored through the Internet as well.

Pandora's Box 8

Note: I write this so people can verbally break others without being an obvious douche.

It takes time to hurt someone mentally.  But one of the quicker ways to break someone is analyzing his or her favorite style of self-expression.  Their mind, when trying to express something, usually chooses to break free of its natural restraints, making the person use the form of expression that would fail them in typical communication.

*Express in this sense means to release inner emotions by communication.

*Communication means any sort of contact that causes a change in previously known information.

For example: Sound.

When people express themselves by talking or screaming or singing, they usually do so because their voice normally fails them.  By using sound in expression, one would try to compensate for the fact that one would otherwise fail to communicate.  In other words, a person who uses his or her voice to express him- or herself is constantly silenced.  Their environment is either hostile or apathetic towards their sounds.  But they hang on because they feel as if they have something important to say.

The weapon:  Let them know they don't have anything to say.  This removes their only hope.  Let them know their voice is unheard, insignificant, pointless drivel.  Also, sound is often linked to aggression.  Aggression makes them unstable.  You should already know their weaknesses through their expression, so it's a matter of pushing the button.

Valentine's Day is coming!

And fuck it.  The reason why we celebrate has nothing to do with what we do on it.  It's about Saint Valentine, who gave his life for his loved ones.  It's not about the great festival of fools who go to the supermarket at 8 in the morning to pick up some generic gift for their loved ones while they plan an expensive dinner.  

It's not the celebration of emotional bribery.

Humanity

I've been wondering about what the difference is between humans and other creatures.  The answer is two words...

Spare time.

Pandora's Box 7

Whenever one says something, even if it is a lie, it is believed to be true on some level.

This is especially true when dealing with new subjects.  For example, if one wishes to learn a new skill, it is easy to control their beliefs in that area because they have absolutely nothing to rely on for truth.  So watch people.  If you want to pick them apart, wait until they are about to start something new.  Take advantage of it.  Soon these people will fear trying new things.

Wonderful, no?

Fruits of Research 2: Sex=XXX=3 Kisses?

Note: I understand that philosophy becomes quite... dry.  And eventually I shall learn to make it more eloquent.  But if you knew my current English situation, I'm sure you'd understand.

"And you are engaged, sir?"

"Of course.  I love [name deleted]."

"So you have experienced 'love'?"

"Of course."

"Being an experienced man, is there anything you can tell other men about 'love'?"

"...Well... I can't describe it.  It's perfect."

Perhaps it's true.  Perhaps he is in "love".  But obviously this must be a secret or something indescribable by an experienced source.  Of course, I have no idea what it is, and becoming more "emotionally sterile" each day, it might not matter.  But what is it?

I'll try.  It's two things: Instinct and Morality.

On instinct, at least for men, "love" is merely the human drive to reproduce manifested in the search for the strongest human match.  Of course, that involves various "anomalies", but we can assume that there is a general consensus on what is "strong".  Anything else is either a new instinct being formed in human evolution for the good of the population or a failed experiment of the gene-pool.

On morality, refer to David Hume's Ought and Is.  Ought is the stuff you see in the movies.  I ask of you to lower your standards.  Is is reality, the one that we experience.  There is no "falling in love at first sight".  There is no situation where both people fall in love at once.  We were not built so perfectly.  Morality is a system.  Love is a system.  Like other systems, there is no hope beyond breaking it.

Pandora's Box 6

Once again I am late.  This time I was at debate, so I have a decent excuse.

In the process of emotionally crippling people, I think it's important to make that person feel insignificant.  This makes them weaker and makes others seem stronger in comparison.  One way is to not use resources on that person.  For example, don't spend much time trying to hurt them.  Remember that quality beats quantity.  Time, if assumed a resource, makes the person feel as if they are not worth a lot of time, and thus, not worth a lot at all.  The same goes for other "resources".

Finals Week(s) is the best time to write blog entries

Note: I talk way to much about metaphysics in this blog.  Don't worry.  It doesn't make too much sense to me either.

I guess I'll talk about foresight.  To quote Dr. Pixton: You'd like that right?!?

Foresight results from experience.

And I know what you're going to think.  Yes, you can plan for something that you've never experienced the same way that they sell umbrellas in Southern California.  But the truth is that you've already experienced it in your mind.  I already imagined that you would think that.  Therefore, I wrote this.  Perhaps this would make more sense.

Foresight results from consideration.

If you simply consider something, part of you believes it happened.  Every part of you prepares for something you've thought about before.  This is what makes dreams so amazing.  While your first degree being doesn't think much of it, your body is preparing, preparing for the gold, the ghosts, the ghastly waves, the paralysis, the experience.  Unfortunately, human society's dominance of the wild unpredictability of nature has taken away many experiences, making your body's preparation for dreams pointless...

Procrastination Chain

One thing leads to the next.

First I decide to take a break on myspace (yeah I know... I use it.) to take a bulletin quiz or something.  Next thing I know, I'm looking at an advertisement for perfume.  Normally, this wouldn't bother me.  However, there was a label that came with the perfume...

Twilight.

Really?  Perfume?  I guess it was somewhat humorous when Harry Potter had its own jelly beans... but perfume?

While I applaud Stephanie Meyer for her exploitation of American capitalism and consumer slavery, I have to say this needs to stop.  Books need to stay in the libraries.  We all know no one's gonna give a damn in five years, so go read Jane Eyre.  This is disgusting.

Pandora's Box 5

I guess girls at all-girl schools get this, along with countless other tactics... but I just figured it out.

These young women are constantly fighting each other.  Whenever they find that they hate someone, they start telling rumors to their alleged friends.  This dehumanizes their enemies, just as the Nazis did with the Jews.  By doing so, they hope to make the rest of the people turn against their enemies by stripping them of respect.

Racism of Thought

Has anyone considered that we've been trained to value the body over the mind?  We've been trained to think that it's wrong to be racist or make comments about people's physical appearance, but that it's fine to attack other people's ideas and thoughts.  While we can't say racial slurs, it's totally alright to say stuff like "commie".  It shows that by defending our appearance over our thoughts, we care much more about people's bodies than their ideas.

Yes, ideas are part of the mind, but the point is that our society promotes shallowness.

While I'm Studying Chemistry...

Note: I'm not in AP Chem.  I was going to.  But I decided against it because I don't feel like I'll ever do anything that involves chemistry (except psychology a little).  So please stop asking me what Ulmer's homework is...

Anyways, I have recently been listening to the anthems (Poly life).  I've noticed that leftist countries tend to have badass anthems.  I was inspired as I listened to the USSR's anthem.  China has quite an interesting one too (The March of Volunteers).  And even France, where liberalism was born, HAD a brilliant anthem in "La Marseillaise".  It's not the socialism.  It's the "Unbreakable union of free republics", "Let our flesh and blood form the new Great Wall", and "may the blood of the impure water our fields!" that stirs my blood.

Then I listen to our own rather cartoonish anthem.  It's not that I don't feel proud, but there's no vigor, no force, no heart.  Our anthem is about hope, the hope that America offers.  But where's the part that makes young men wish to take up arms?  Where is the part that makes foreign countries wish they could march to our song?  Maybe we're not liberal enough.  Of course we can't go communist, but if Europe has surpassed us in social freedom, we've failed.  This country was founded to make a haven for those oppressed in Europe.  And now here we are.

Selling Out and Sold Out

As usual, I receive my 20ish ("ish" was defined as give or take 3 today) emails per day.  Most of them are notifications that my mailbox has been trained to deem "junk".  Every so often, I encounter this:

Jane Doe invited you to join the Facebook group "Petition for Some Band/Company to bring back their old songs/products".

The members of the group accuse some party of "selling out" and losing their original customers in favor of money.  So these people will ask some other group to cater to them rather than get rich.  I understand their point.  Unfortunately, with these tough times, I think we should be a little more utilitarian.  We can't expect these people to change their ways at their expense.  Especially not now.

And if you imagine these were not tough times, then it wouldn't really matter because this is the Will to Power, the right, desire, and means of every individual to drive to success.  In that case, people can stop complaining on Facebook and form together some sort of mob to sign a real petition/boycott/burn down the studio/factory.  But I won't lie.  I've joined those groups before  to "Save Polaroids".

Pandora's Box 4

Saturday is actually a better day for this.  I'm always working on Sundays.  Well, for the three people that read this-here it is.

Since we're in a world of eternal contention and this is about making it worse for everyone else, it seems appropriate to talk about violent arguments.

Let's get this straight.  If you want to argue about something, you want to make a point to another person.  However, somewhere along the line of the argument, you start trying to convince your new "opponent" that you are right and that he or she is wrong.

So for all you pacifists, you can just use this to end the argument.

But for those of you who want to be satisfied, keep participating in the argument.  But let your "opponent" try to convert you.  They won't get anywhere.  And you can tell yourself you've won.

Pandora's Box 3

Yes I'm late.  I told you.  It doesn't matter because about 3 people per week will read this blog.  This week, I will discuss enjoyment.

Vacation was almost over.  I ended up at my friend's house at 7 in the morning and we were waiting to go to Disneyland (which is far too expensive by the way).  With about 15 hours left of actual freedom, I began to worry.  It was sad, especially because I was supposed to enjoy myself.  But a minute later, I was fine.

I started by finding out what I was afraid of.

-I was afraid that I wouldn't enjoy myself enough on the last day.

-I know I probably failed something and school would remind me of that.

Then I found what I wanted to feel.

-Neither of those.

Then I found what caused those.

-Worrying

-A fear of failure/school

So I did this: I could solve both by solving the second, and since school was inevitable I simply ignored it.  I didn't let go of it, but I just decided to live the moment.

Procrastination is healthy sometimes.

And it's simple.  It's not living for the moment.  It's living the moment.

Drive to Desire, Desire to Drive

Desire is not an emotion.  It is a power to achieve.  To want something is to potentially get something.  Potential is fulfilled by a strong enough desire.

Desire is not the image destination.  It is the entire journey.

Level 1: Do we "want" something?  People often ask that when they fall short of achieving that thing.

Level 2: But do we "want" to "want" that object at all?  This is the question to be asked.  The proper human already has the means to achieve any desire that they desire to want.

Can humans fly?  No.

Do humans want to fly?  Sometimes.

Do humans want to want to fly?  Never.  Humans know it is an impossible task.

But what about expanding borders?  There are no borders.  The human "soul" is limitless.  The Level 1 desire is in the soul.  We can want anything.  The level 2 desire is part of the body.  Level 2 is what keeps us attached to reality.

And if that's not satisfying, THAT'S WHAT ART IS FOR.

So from now on, after you ask yourself "do I want this?", ask "do I want to want this?"