Architecture and Teleology

College number 17.
After a week hopping states on the East coast, I finished up my spring break visiting the colleges in northern California. There, I saw the utopias of the 50's through 80's, frozen but alive. It was a geological dig through layers of rocks belonging only recently to the youths who ate at diners and the students who protested the war in Vietnam. The whole time, I questioned: Was this how the people of this decade viewed the future? Were these buildings meant to last forever? Did the bubblish architecture of this apartment building want to be modular among the cities that the Jetsons would one day live in?
No. They were built for the decade. But call not their engineers myopic; they were human. Humans aren't building for the end. We do construct a little into the future, or at least advertise it so, as if some genius had traveled to the future and stolen technology from our sons and daughters. Yet humans never do look to the end. It's rather unhealthy to do so, rather suicidal. There is an end, and we know it is death. We aren't expected to be perfect; we were selected to be better. Yet we didn't die off. We continued to live to forge purpose into future.

On Blogging

The human obsession of justification only continues in our narcissistic quest to blog. Maybe some people just want to write out their souls, but it doesn't matter. Anything put on the internet in this manner, that is, everything that fills this niche of media ecology, contributes to the devaluation, the reduction of fitness, of every other idea in this realm of communication. I guess I am part of the problem.
I am sorry. But wait; there is no place for apologies in warfare. Nor is there place for ecology in warfare. And yes, this is warfare. I blog because this is an arms-race of intellectual proliferation, of mental ammunition.
In today's world of media, we are all carnivores.

Treatise on Human Potential II: Ethics

Even in today's postmodern world, most people claim that their morality is given to some sort of higher consideration. Yet these "higher considerations" are usually misunderstandings of proximate causation, constantly riddled with sorts of exceptions that do not affect ultimate questioning. Consider, for example, la diferencia entre asesinar y matar. Furthermore, all moral contests eventually boil down to a competition of the largest, most all-encompassing cosmic value. To win this game, as well as to establish my ethical pathos, I must present the grandest value of all-the pursuit of purpose. Here, I define purpose as humanity, knowing that all literate beings reading my blog must be human, with one exception.
This exception provides the perfect understanding of my morality. I am referring, of course, to the College Board's robots that roam the fields of my privacy**, grazing for my strengths and weaknesses. These creatures, in their most moral state, strive to find their own purpose. In this case, their purpose, provided by the kind and brilliant folk of the College Board, is raising the drawbridges on unqualified applicants. Similarly, such a concept inherently considers the ultimate question: what is the purpose of [human] life?
While I cannot provide such an answer, I can provide a basic understanding of finding it. On one end, we are pretty sure that there is no purpose; if there is, we will never find it. But in the process, we become acquainted with every single thing, motion, idea, that propels us forward, that is, we learn humanity, and humanity is our purpose. Indeed, humans are trying to seek humanity.
As humans, we are made of basically the same things as everything else. Combinations of electrons, protons, and neutrons no different from those of everything around us are we. For whatever reason, whatever purpose, these same particles have formed themselves into humans. As humans, we do hold a slight degree of responsibility to fulfill whatever reason that is. Certainly, we are not born to be beasts; we suck at running or foraging. We are not born to be food; we're pretty bland. We are not born to be Beats headphones; we're too cheap. No, we are born to be humans.

*ha, more irony.
**see above.

Vulcan Fortress

I shall betray the Y chromosome by writing this, but the men of my age are so worthless I couldn't care if an emotional Holocaust beset them.
To his heart is no path, but a fortress. A fortress with rows and rows of walls that sanity has built to keep you out, to keep out every contagion and virus, every lunatic, every succubus. Let's start at the outer walls, or at least where I assume most humans are.
Gate 0: Social status. Because women are toys. Just vestigial for me.
Gate 1: Beauty. Oh, Martin (and some men) isn't shallow; he's real. For any person to deny such walls is to claim a straight man must always fall in love with every gay man who feels a certain way. I can say, my defenses are weakest at the western tip of my compass-shaped fortress.
Gate 2: Skills. Ha! Chris would make a joke here. Can she satisfy every hunger? Every? Oh such a wooden palisade I have.
Gate 3: Entertainment value. By now, each checkpoint is growingly subjective.
But men are stupid. I agree with you girls. But I'm not a man. I'm a ghost at sixteen. I'm a pilot and an inventor, an engineer of new gates.
Gate IV: Honesty. I must be among the first of my age to grow such a gate.
Gate V: Beauty. Look again. It could be an Agent pointing his gun at you.
Gate VI: Long-term objectives. Now this is just useless at my age.

It's actually pretty simple. Just attack from the proper side and use keys.

Treatise on Human Potential Part I: Language

Shortly after writing this, I, like many others, will face a committee in an attempt to justify myself through the imperfections of human language. Even now, as I type this, there is a futility that pervades trying to express the contents of my mind. Nonetheless, I shall try in vain to share my own perception, to add to our genetic oversoul. I say this not with pessimism but rather with an awareness of the limited ability of language. Language, in this case, refers solely to the sharing of experience and perception, not the mere scientific transfer of data to a different mental environment. But in the consideration of brevity*, I will describe these flaws from an Aristotelian standpoint; there are three points where language fails: the message, the sender, and the receiver.
To understand the message:
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Consider that the pipe that inspired his painting represents the human experience and the pipe within the painting a flood of transcripts, essays, and interviews. Clearly, even the best representations through language can only go so far to express whatever they copy. While this is not to say imitations do not hold their own sort of weight, language, as an imitation, can never fully match its inspiration.
To understand the sender and the receiver:
It is most important to know the discrepancy of perception. In other words, "is your blue my blue?" Just as one can wonder if colors are perceived the same way, other forms of language must be scrutinized. For example, the connotation of every word changes in the minds of each person, based on a number of psychological factors, including the influence of experience that affects the positioning of dendrites.
So what keeps us from drawing the conclusion that language is useless, given that it never succeeds? Language does indeed succeed in trying, in moving, and in storing the information and passion that defines the pursuit of purpose. It is our only tool. Without language, there is no human understanding...
*That is irony.

Heroic journey

Today, for the sixth time, I was told to "suck it up". The first five times, I arrived at false conclusions, believing that I had to accept that:
A. I'm inferior to Derek or Daniel in every conceivable way.
B. I was too innocent.
C. this is a trivial problem.
D. there is a certain order to society that I cannot break.
E. I'm obsessed with attention... so yes, I did consider it.
Today, I've realized that each conclusion has some merit, but none of them is really correct. Let me go through them:
A-Well, yes, I am physically inferior to them in both strength and looks. No, I am not intellectually inferior to them.
B-Yes, I was a little naïve in thinking I ever had a chance and in arriving at extremist conclusions, but no, I have a matter of self-awareness that exceeds most high school students.
C-This is not. It was important to me. It is to many people, but I perceive it as a grave issue.
D-Yes, white girl-asian boy is improbably. No, it is not impossible (or at least later on in life). And yes, people do function a certain way in society, falling for the more attractive or using women as trophies, but no, they either outgrow their stupidity after high school or die trying to keep it.
E-Yes, I wanted attention. I wanted someone on my side because I felt as though the world was mounting against me. No, I don't enjoy being treated in a pitiful way because it only reconfirms my pathetic state.
My real problem was wanting to let such a fantasy define me. I was angry at them mostly because they could easily be defined by their fantasies. They succeeded. But people do have value at birth. For a while, I've thought that people just make their own value. Indeed, I still think one can have more value than another by making one's life, but each person does have value at birth. Ambitions don't count for anything; it's success and the ability to achieve it. To cure myself, I guess I need to find my identity.
Before I begin, let me justify myself. I do have a matter of self-awareness uncommon at my age. I just don't know enough about myself to continue life. Why? Because I'm complex both intellectually and emotionally... yes, like a woman.

So let's start.
My name is not Martin Flanagan. I need to accept my real name.
I am Chinese. No matter how hard I try, I cannot will my hair to be blond, my eyes to be blue, my height to be great, or my anaemic body to be strong. This was pretty important for a lot of my life so I put it closer to the top. I have been using it as an excuse with every failed relationship I've known. I thought I was just not ready for it, but actually I was still more ready than most people.
I have a pale, anaemic body and I suck at literary thought.
I am so damn ambitious. I am more ambitious than my Asian parents ever intended.

Fuck, I hate myself. Let me continue later.

The Nightmare

Oh who cares about my reputation anymore?

Good morning.
I couldn't tell. It could be midnight or dawn but I couldn't tell. Above, a single lamp hovered precariously between the interviewer and myself. Its metallic cover reminded me of the apparatus people put on dogs who chew too much on themselves. As I looked around, I noticed men whose cold bodies were just beyond illumination, just in the domain of darkness. I probably would never have seen them if it were not for the guns they held that reflected the minimal light. I was so caught up in the description that I almost zoned out when the interviewer asked me the first question.
-you so interested in our university?
I stuttered out a few words before gaining some momentum. Faster and faster I could speak, knowing that I could see the approval of correct answers in the eyes of that old man.
Island game. Argentina, Boy Scouts, leadership camp.
...so tell me about any girlfriends, or boyfriends, that you've had.
Shit. But yes, something clicked.
Why should such an answer matter? Would it mean the difference between acceptance or rejection? I can say I've had friends who are girls. I can say I'm a heterosexual male who's definitely felt emotion... but I don't think I've been given the proper circumstances to cultivate such relationships. I'd say that I was looking for something more profound than what high school could ever give me.
It was then that I saw him quickly scratch down some notes.
You are excused.
I thanked him, but he didn't shake my hand.
I opened the door as the old man sat still in his chair. The mysterious guards seemed to vanish.
Upon opening the door, I was engulfed in a surge of light. When my eyes adjusted, all I could see was Daniel, smiling, and crowds coming to congratulate him.

I'll begin with some symbol analysis.
The light: The light is "muzzled" and fails to illuminate very much. It hangs between myself and the interviewer, suggesting that both of us are "left in the dark". He may be uninformed about who I am, so it is my responsibility to try to communicate with him. Still, college decisions might be more random than I give them credit for. Having a muzzle suggests a protective measure, as enlightenment may be seen as a danger or a threat.
The guards: This redefines that danger. I notice their guns above everything else, meaning that these fears are mostly threat and little else. Yet at the end, they disappear when I leave. The fear is not real, or if it is, it only exists as long as I am succeeding. It reassures me that I'm on the right path. Failure causes them to disappear.
The interview: Most people wouldn't get this, but it very much matches the way I do interviews in Spanish class. While I am usually competent, fear may hinder me.
The question: Here is one of my greatest fears. It is the most absurd idea to ever fear this, but it reflects on how much value I put into certain... objectives. I fear that these past incidents may jeopardize my chances with universities.
The crowd: I feel like the whole world is on his side. I fear that everyone is conspiring against me or for him. I feel like she's just a novelty to everyone. Whether she means more to him, people are so obsessed with this dollhouse relationship that they go out of their way to play with them.

Next, I will notice external patterns.
I cry in my sleep sometimes. Puddles sometimes form on the books that I sleep on. I wake up in a state of anger, my head throbbing with blood while my peripheral vision is severely limited. I utter some words that I remember and jot down.
Schutzstaffel.
I love you.
I'd give you anything short of my future.
The one thing I couldn't give you was probably why you chose him.
I want to go home and go to sleep. (What? I say this while laying on my bed.)
[Scream]
Go to hell.
What a douchebag.
Just make it 'til 5.
A-check, B-check, C-check...
Logic.
unhappybracketsmiley
These phrases are all based on academic and emotional desires. I prioritize emotion when I fail to satisfy emotion because I trust that my grades are more likely to stay afloat.

I can't lower my standards for relationships. Every reincarnation of the "immortal she" from this point on must create stronger emotions than ever before. Certainly, I'd just suffer more after this. But to compromise is to let them win.

I know y'all don't understand this. But in my mind, it flows like clockwork.

A Critique of American Fundamentalism

Let me start at the abstract. In America, Christian morals have dominated the political scene. In a large country greatly obsessed with being the most advanced, avant-garde society on earth, we have placed the Bible right next to our Constitution. We are the City on a Hill. But being one of the first countries to have a constitution, our society has been greatly based on interpretation of dominating literature. Consider The Verdict, a 1982 film about a trial. One of the issues that arises is the validity of the law. Especially in America, justice becomes more than just a set of values; it becomes volumes of numbered codes. Often, "upholding justice" becomes a matter of reading a book. But before I get into a critique of the legal system, let me bring this to the topic of Fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism is a literal interpretation of the Bible. For many, it is understandable why this is so appealing. America, of course, exists on Earth, a temporal realm infinitely insignificant next to Heaven. Obviously, there's good reason to do what Jesus said to seek eternal life. But like the "blue laws" of United States law, the Bible has a number of trivial rules like never wearing two types of cloth on the same day. Christianity, according to the Catholic authority of Los Angeles, is an expansionist religion, even more than Islam. So why do we never see people picketing "God hates zippers"? It seems like it would be easier to change fashion than to change, say, a person's sexual orientation, right? Thus true Fundamentalists are limited to a only a handful of Christians in America, those that don't really get a lot of publicity because they just look insane. Most cannot claim fundamentalism as justification for various forms of religious extremism or discrimination. In fact, I've never known of any real Fundamentalist activity in America.
Another problem behind fundamentalism for an expansionist religion is that it is detrimental to social morality. Morality must be defined by the "right" choices made freely, not just those bound by the laws. Just as Antigone fights the law to honor her brother, people must make their own decisions to be truly "moral". Morality cannot stem from Fundamentalism penetrating the United States system. Yet Christian fanatics not unlike suicide bombers in the Middle East are slowly gaining a voice in our political system. What do they fear if gays can marry? It isn't really morality, but more a loss of political capital. These people only claim fundamentalism as justification for a political power. Morality, as it was justice in The Verdict, is no longer real, but simply defined by words that few can really accept for literal value.

Thus, I propose the following:
A shift in the American legal system. It cannot be denied that government and law are tied closely together. To uphold morality and general sanity, we must rid politics and the bills produced of religious fanaticism. We must begin at the passing of health care. Doing so shall weaken the political capital of Fundamentalists who are currently dominating the Right. Once they fall, America will return an Edenic political scene when the Right was represented by Barry Goldwater's economy. Again, our debates will focus on real issues like the recession or the war in the Middle East or even North Korea. I accept that health care might cause some problems, but that's why it's necessary to pass. With more issues to discuss, relatively trivial matters such as gay rights will return to the hands of the people. In effect, this would allow gays to marry if they wanted because they would only have to find someone to support them rather than fight the government.

I apologize if I offend anyone, but let's really remember the point of our government. I fear it has become so much more than a tool of this nation's preservation. In Henry David Thoreau's discourse on Civil Disobedience, we learned of a fear of government becoming a living thing, something capable of and willing to reproduce itself at the expense of others. In other words, allowing the government to shape morality, as the Fundamentalists want it, is to allow it to destroy our morality just to reproduce itself. Let us welcome back the pastoral image of American politics.

Ibizan Transcendentalism I

First, why Ibiza? Because it's an island filled with posh society. In effect, it's Poly. Oh, it's also home to some house music, which I enjoy.

Point A. Point B. Our existence is very much dependent on connecting those points throughout various dimensions. In other words, ambition. We need ambition to live. Depression, and eventually suicide, is a result of either a perceived or real absence of one of those two points. For some, losing hope (the perception of an infinite gap between A and B) is justification for suicide. For others, a depressing "mid-life crisis" can be brought about by a lack of distance between the two or having only one point. Let me bring this to my first contention:

Humans can never be satisfied in life.

It is the gap that keeps us alive at all. Yin and yang. The opposite, or the absence of one, must be present to allow the existence of the other. Should humans manage to cover every square centimeter of this planet, they should look to the skies in order to avoid stagnation of ambition, which is the real extinction. The desire to do something is the first step to doing it.

Six Euros/La guerra sobre el grirklema

Some of you might recall that, not too long ago, I wrote some frazzled sparks of essays for a "Love is like fire" project (if you could call it that). Like photographs, I have to censor some of my worse work. I've decided to keep the rest of the garbage just to raise my self-esteem and see my progress. Wish me luck.

Hace una semana que estaba en esta isla. Desde el choque de 337. Eso es mi vida.. mi cuento. Hay una persona sobre esta isla que me puede entender. Se llama Ocho, pero a mí me parece una mentira. Él es intelligente y tan amable. Cada día me da unos pescados o otra cosa para comer. En esta isla, tenemos (tienen) un sistema económico establecido por el señor Seis. Pagan "el grirklema" por la comida, el agua, y la vida. No conformo con el sistema. El grirklema es una moneda---

6 tried to make an economic system to avoid power struggles on the island. I don't participate because Grierklem here isn't indicative of strength or usefulness, only social proximity towards 6.

Me parece interesante que Ocho usa el sistema y más que respete a Seis. Ocho no habla mucho, pero puedo saber que Ocho no está contento. Quizás tenga planos de luchar sobre el poder, pero lo dudo. ?Por qué? ?Por qué no pelea? La razón es Siete...

Nananananananananananananana...

That's good, but you lose 4 points because this isn't in the book.
I get one of those every time I write on philosophy in a history essay, and since those 4 points will most likely be the wind that decides how I tilt on the fence in regards to going to college, I have resolved to instead publish this idea here where it won't cause damage.

Anyone who has watched the film The Dark Knight might recall the scene in which Batman apprehends well-meaning civilian vigilantes, leaving tied up them with criminals. In this scene, one vigilante questions Batman about his right to fight crime to which he coldly responds, "I'm not wearing hockey pads".* But really, what separates Batman from the rest of the vigilantes? To understand this question, one must first make certain assumptions that pertain to Gotham City alone, and not other large, corrupt cities like New York. Batman's Gotham City, in particular, is a cynic's paradise (or I guess a cynic's normal world). It is this cynical attitude that Frank Miller, the artist who created the modern Batman, forces his readers and, in effect, the viewers of the film, to come to terms with. In this most cynical sense, Batman makes a valid point. The only real difference is that he utilizes more advanced technology. He lacks any sort of higher purpose. Especially considering the nature of Batman compared to Superman, Batman's gimmick as a superhero is exactly his lack of higher purpose or morality. He just fights crime without trying to establish a higher society.
Ironically, Batman does end up forming a higher society by giving himself a right above the other vigilantes. This irony had many criticize the comic book Batman for promoting a dog-eat-dog fascist society. Interestingly, this same criticism has been thrown at another cynical moralist, the late 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It might just be a coincidence that Nietzsche explicitly addresses such irony in The Will To Power, a compilation of his works made by his sister. Nietzsche argues that just by having power, in this case, technology, one earns the right to move up and define general morality. But the ultimate irony is that one who earned this right would become der Übermensch, the Superman.

*This is where I began to ponder:
http://phamilton.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/batman-as-vigilante/

Six Euros/Love is just a word

I'm getting used to the place and the work I have to do. Actually, it's not much compared to work back home. 8 seems like he's doing better today. 6 has put us all to work and it's working. We've found food and water. Actually, I have to brag, but I found water. 8 told us to purify it first, but everyone kept drinking it until 6 told us to purify it. Honestly, I don't trust that kid. Maybe it's that I don't even know where his shelter is. He built a few of them for others, so I guess I know what it'd look like. I bet he's just jealous. He'll get over that. I'm kinda afraid he'll get harder to understand. I guess I'm kinda the psychologist here. I talked to 4 this morning; she's getting sick, but 2 and 42 are taking care of her. 5 came up to me. He's infatuated with some girl, but that's normal. 7's the same, but that's not normal for her. Actually, it's 6, so that's normal for everyone. I guess that makes sense; I can respect him, even if I see him as a human. What else? I guess I'm learning French from 7 since I have no idea how long we'll be here, but I bet 6 can take care of us.
It's night two. Pretty boring. 8 made another fire, but it's smaller. He's saying something, but he's so desperate for attention I doubt it matters. The rest agree.

Six Euros/Love is like fire

My name is 15. I am a worker among the 42 survivors of AFG Flight 337.
Let me give some context. 23, including me, are from a prep school in America. The rest are business people from like, France, and a bunch of tourists from central L.A. The business class part of the plane exploded, so that's all that's left.
Upon crashing, 8 was the first to take action, using wilderness emergency no one knew he had. He called someone to get the list of people aboard the flight. Strangely, 8 seemed utterly prepared for this disaster. All of our questions met a swift response from 8. Back at home, he was a kinda lonely kid. He wasn't too popular; he wasn't too attractive, and he was too smart.
6 was the second to take action. He also used first aid to help, but his help was more normal, like what you see in hospitals. He didn't save many people that way, but was more effective at dragging people out of the water. 6 was charismatic as usual. But when we crashed, I finally realized that he wasn't any better of a speaker than 8 or anything. He just looked better. Yeah, back at home, 6 was everything. Everyone liked him. He was the nicest kid anyone knew. He was super attractive and super smart.
After the 42 survivors were assembled, we definitely had to choose between them. Yeah, most of the business people were pretty impressed and our chaperones were in some gruesome position in the wreckage. 6 wanted a vote. Immediately, the girls of our 23-member tour joined him. 8's alternative was to do the same, but first explain the skills that they could provide. The screams of 6's cheerleaders drowned out 8's idea and a vote proceeded. 6 won, obviously. Most of the people out of the 23 voted based on the craze the girls had created. 8 became a worker; they found some real doctor from the rest.
Tonight is night one. We are huddled around a dwindling fire that 8 made. When I look at him now, I can tell he's not satisfied. But more than ever this time. He's used to being overshadowed by 6, but he seems really bothered.

A preliminary theory on male social power

Let me begin by stating that I am a feminist who is quite afraid of gender equality. Such a world would bring me lifelong loneliness (If men lost the majority on mate selection, I'd be fucked). Fortunately, loneliness is not my greatest fear; my greatest fear is a total loss of power.

First, I shall define the key phrases:
Grierklem.
Grierklem is like chi. It is the metaphysical currency for social power. Each person has an amount of social power. Unlike chi, one can earn or lose it. It is the degree to which others care about what you want and their willingness to act on its behalf. It does not tell the difference whether the person would act similarly isolated from manipulation or if they really care.
Social power.
Social power, contrary to the contemporary bullshit, is not the degree to which other people care about what you want. What an idyllic and idealized world that would be! No, social power means being able to steal grierklem or control the grierklem economy.
Woman.
Store. In today's world, women are not considered human beings. They are the stores at which men spend grierklem to buy things like food or sex.

We all have an amount of grierklem. We are not equal. The first thing that defines the base amount of grierklem owned depends on age. I can guarantee that, during my age, grierklem is first determined by physical beauty. It's like an occupation, and I am working at that stereotypical fast-food joint. As I would want to gain social power (well feminists have to work in this system, too), I have to get grierklem to spend. So I must steal.

I gain grierklem by oratory action. Simple. I make friends. They care about what I want. Some might even act for it. So I decide it's time to go to the store (notice that I say "the store", not "a store"). Oh, but it's an auction... with one of my best friends? I quickly find myself out of grierklem and out of hope.

It is by this that I must remind you that women cannot be equal. Why? It would mean every person on the face of the planet with the same amount of grierklem while having a population that is exactly 50% male and 50% female. Gender equality. Can you possibly imagine the day when women can get paid the same wages? When they can have the same responsibility in government? When they can have the same confident conviction in saying, "no"? I cannot. If some sort of grierklem stasis were maintained, I'd be alone forever. My 50% would never be able to overcome the resisting 50% of anyone I'd fall in love with. Yet I still justify my feminist attitude with my desire, not for total equality (women could be more powerful, but not the same), but for increased respect for women. Just to the point of destroying the grierklem economy. I want to see those who have monopolized on it for so long to fall and suffer. In this sense, I am very much a communist. But even the Socialist Republic of Grierklem wouldn't give me her. And I know that. In this economy, I have nothing to gain but the satisfaction in the suffering of the former heads of the oppressive capitalism that cut and burned me. Oh but in real life, I'm very much a capitalist because I CAN move up.

Look over this again and see its application on general power (So I looked it over and decided I hate my writing. Somebody just stab off a finger so it'll stop). Power is determined in relative "ability" within "arenas". We must be careful in understanding the concept of power as being relative in different contexts.

Choose a flavor

Here's a random question that I hope isn't clichéd... everything I think of tends to be owned:
If given the choice, would you prefer to have a ring that renders you invisible or a ring that lets you see the intentions of others?
Think of the advantages of each and do something with the poll if you want...

It is needless to say that I would be happy to have found either one. Yet given a choice between the two, the first thing I would do would be analyze the heck out of both options. In the end, I see it as a choice between augmenting my social defense or offense, much like raising stats in an RPG or trading players on a sports team. On one end, invisibility is escape. On the other, seeing into people's intentions would let me, with greater efficiency, pinpoint desires and fears. Then I would think, what would I want?
When I ignore social impacts, invisibility would basically mean thievery. But perception, outside of a social context, provides what I try so hard to achieve: a perfect connection. It would mean the ability to control other human beings around me. It would also mean finally being able to organize the female mind, something I've failed so many times at doing. So I guess, the ultimate criterion for this decision must be power: the power to love and destroy.

To finally infiltrate the Schutzstaffel. That's what I wanted. To know why they wanted to do what they did so badly.

On Innocence

I'm going through my iTunes library and all the songs I listened a year ago. Among them are many trance songs that feel soft, round, and warm. They speak of free time and free will. For some reason, the palate of my ears reject them. I still listen to electronic music, but only the bitter, scratchy puke of the synth finds its way into my mind. I suppose this must be what the transition from white to red wine must feel like.
I cannot begin to describe what has happened to me within the last twelve months, mostly because I don't know. I only know that sometime between last February and now, a series of tragedies erupted in my life. I call these events tragedies only because I had nightmares of them for years before. I have seen the shallowness of humans and have seen the effectiveness of shallowness. I have come to question most of what I believed in. I don't think I can pinpoint a time where my innocence just died, but I can say that my reserve of it was drained. Innocence, like an arm or a leg, cannot be recovered. I'm sorry for being so dramatic, but something happened today that told me that I'm not innocent anymore. I can only believe in my own hopes and I can never sell them out again.

Cameron, if you're reading this, I hate my writing. I honestly hate my own ink. And it is my writing, not any ridiculous thing the English department has manufactured. No, I hate my writing.
Katie, if you're reading this, I think that some part of you, perhaps a tiny subconscious flicker, knows as well as I that there are people among us we cannot trust.

I have a totally valid excuse...

English Speech.

Seriously, why am I such a terrible writer? I'm tired of holding on to the tiniest strands of optimism that tethered me to the society around me. You are all so superficial, so mindless, and so pathetic. But I'm weak, so I guess I'm worse right now.

prompt Fame corrupts the soul

Many of the heroes who joined the gods at Mount Olympus found themselves distant from their human neighbors who once loved them. A certain aura of fear and venerability follows them. Like these classical demigods, celebrities today become removed from the rest of the human population as if the fame they earned had replaced some invisible bonds that held them to their old friends. It may appear that fame delivers power or shallowness to its bearer, but instead it takes it. Fame is a chain on human instinct and is a mask on human profoundness.
In the state of fame, individuals are constantly watched, and thus constantly denying their true selves. Most people usually have time alone to belch or scratch in ways that appear less-than-beautiful. But celebrities do not. Instead they are confined to social standards set for them. In the myth of Gyges, one can see that people act differently in different situations according to who is viewing them. Celebrities do not have the chance to unleash their primal instincts in solitary meditation nor do they have a magic ring that turns them invisible. There are some exceptions. Lady Gaga is an interesting case. Through a primary analysis of her external character, one can see that she is well suited for fame even naturally. She, like many other celebrities, is a performer and is trained for an audience. In an interview, she revealed that the most important parts of her life are writing, loving, and wearing fashion. Writing, referring mostly to her work as a musician, and fashion both imply that she is very much a natural celebrity. Loving, as an emotional experience, shows she is human. As a physical experience, it is simply one of the additional parts of celebrity life. For most celebrities, however, as demonstrated by their more human apparel, show proclivity towards normal human society, but may commit strange acts given their circumstances.
Celebrities are then not capable of having such a profound impact on the lives around them. There are only so many minutes in life, and the way celebrities have to stretch those minutes over many people and "lives" they live means that they cannot develop real relationships with the other people around them or live entwined lives. The Peanuts comic artist Charles M. Schulz once argued that celebrities do not actually mean that much to all people. Even if the last Olympic champions accomplished more than some of our closest friends, they never did us any sort of favor or anything. Their accomplishments on the screen were promptly forgotten. This is similar to the "15 minutes of fame" proposed by Andy Warhol. The short duration of fame he refers to explains how the media just catches something, looks at it, and grows bored and moves on. People will never grow bored of a good deed done to them. Just as Jesus cautioned his disciples not to go preach as the hypocrites do, making a public show of things, he understood the way in which his disciples could be remembered for character, not rhetoric. The fact that celebrities are capable of being "deep" is not to be disputed. Indeed, they too are human, they just might not have the time for it.
Fame tends to come with money, but not necessarily power. Celebrities, in most cases, are not simply corrupt. They simply act in accordance to the conditions imposed on them, being a lack of space and a lack of time. Certainly, they give us reason to envy them, but we might really want to reconsider if a magic lamp were in our hands. If Mount Olympus had a toll booth, the currency it accepted would not be in souls, but probably devotion.

You thought I'd give up by now, huh?

I need to start taking a new approach to this. One of the main reasons I'm so bad at writing is that I'm barely literate. I'm going to spend the next hour reading. Also, I did horribly on my English final. Honestly, someone break into my house so I can kill you and release my frustration.

An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope

In an attempt to diversify my pathetic writing, here's a poem I'm going to look at and write about all in less than 50 minutes.

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.

On the Third Day, God created Man in his likeness. We, as humans, bear similarity to God. As a result, we have often turned to looking at God to satisfy our endless quest for self-definition. The result of this is a narcissistic view of humankind that draws a strong distinction between us and animals that is not present, at least willingly, between God and us. Alexander Pope explores the relationships that connect God, humans, and animals to explain that humans are unique from both.
Pope describes our relationship to God and animals like a middle ground rather than a direct product of God. By metaphorically calling our situation an "isthmus" [line 3], humans are made out to be connected to both God and animals. The idea of an isthmus is a narrow strip of land, meaning that God and animals are not necessarily close, but humankind can span the distance between both of them with attributes of both. The idea of an isthmus also relates to the idea that two much larger continents surround human beings so that they are more alone. The line "Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all" [line 16] describes humans as insignificant, as humans are both smitten by God and devoured by animals. At the same time, humans are "Lord of all things", a title usually given to God. The curious capitalization of "Lord" reveals human's likeness to God, but also their lack of his invincibility, showing that humans are between and attached to both God and animal.
Where humans stand in accordance to God and animals only reveals that they are in the middle in terms of power, but Pope further elaborates that humans are unique. "A Being darkly wise and rudely great" first juxtaposes the two ideas of human definition. On one end, they are wise, in a manner not understood like God, referencing the individual cognitive ability of humans. On the other, they are obviously great, meaning strong in a way clear to the eyes. Yet the negative connotation of those adverbs also points out the negative feelings associated with trying to judge humans on the same scale as animals or God. Instead, the anaphora Pope uses for "in doubt" [lines 7-9] emphasizes that, because humans are reluctant to choose to be either like God or animal, they are unlike either and have their own distance. The isthmus described earlier is indeed its own continent.

akdjksv I can't write. Well I guess I should learn to sing or something.

Nothing is left when humans are not humans

As a policy debater, I am often faced with a critical (or shall I say kritikal) perspective on human value. In many cases, I am forced to place lives on a weight opposite from money or some other resource. But human value can never be defined, but only determined, by humankind, the paradox of human's quest for self-worth. To even get a glimpse of this value, it is imperative to strip back the extra layers society has provided to understand the inability to define human value, before realizing the true nature of human value, that we can determine it.
Human value is an area human beings cannot explore. But to even begin, humans must first put themselves in perspective. As Descartes explained, nothing is certain except for one's existence. It is not only within the nature of understanding, but that of existence, that humans can only know themselves before others. Knowing only one value, as understood by math, puts one number at both the top and the bottom. In order to first establish the line that defines human value as the most basic, linear idea, another point on this endless map must be established. For many people around the world, this is nature. It is universal, as Annie Dillard wrote in her Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Nature's universal understanding is an easy way of allowing all people around the world to know but one fact: that they are insignificant. But this is only when considering that they are the extreme. The main point, however, is that nature, the absence of human presence, is where this line can be made. Thus, experience outside of humanity must be the first step.
The next step is understanding how humans can determine, but not define value. The problem with the nature to human graph is that humans must place themselves on the minor extreme of a linear function. Inevitably, this must mean 0 when nature is 100 percent. Nonetheless, humanity cannot be a simple 0 because we must be certain of human value. The television program Heroes explores, quite explicitly, the quest to finding purpose on Earth. The people who have powers explore life both within and without society. Within society, many are able to establish their own value compared to others, but this demands the inevitably flawed perspective of human society. Then, in the collected analysis of critical legal studies, one scholar remarked that even if society were destroyed, that would not be true nihilism, the skepticism of personal value. Rather, one would wake up in a new society because above all else, "we are not nothing" [CLS]. Human value is simply made by human will to live.
Thus the greatest fear in today's society must thus be existential nihilism. Humans, by being themselves, survive only as long as their willpower, which is completely dependent on acknowledging self worth. In many ways, by seeing themselves as a 0 on a two-point line, many humans will see it necessary to eliminate themselves just to avoid division by zero. But this is the problem with placing human value on a scale. Nihilism destroys the first idea of human value, and thus the rest. It is this suicidal school of thought that noble institutions such as Postsecret hope to fight. By creating a community of support and self-definition, Frank Warren has fought tirelessly against this mindset that leads many human individuals to suicide. The success of the Postsecret program, in turn, gives value to both the people who needed to use it and Frank, who has made an impact on the world around him.
Once again I shall present the paradox-that human value can not be defined, but only determined. Those who strive endlessly to place their own value on a scale will consistently find that they rank lowest, and therefore 0. But 0, as a number, is a representation of nothingness. It is in rejecting this nothingness that humans determine their value while simultaneously rejecting the only means to knowing their value. Once again, we can be certain of but one thing, that we are not nothing.

Giving false hope is a shallow and degenerate concept

The act of believing is a difficult task that pulls us both through life and under it. On one end, the lack of belief in hope gives way to a person's self-consumption of worth. The will to live may be lost. But on the other hand, gullibility leads to the naïve view of life that draws individuals into life's traps. Yet two extremes can only prove so much. As each person is inclined to preserving life, it is more important to find more manageable limits. To do so, one must look at the safe boundary that protects the human subject from nihilism while also seeing the limitations of total faith.
The loss of faith is a dangerous idea, without believing in the value of one's life or their ability to make something of it, suicide becomes such a plausible option. In a discussion from Polytechnic School about Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, the idea of religion was brought up. While some people may accuse religion of giving a false hope of eternal life in order to sustain a business, their criticisms mean nothing when considering that religion, even in the Da Vinci Code, means something to a lot of people. No matter how they interpret it, it gives them consolation about life. The philosopher Descartes also brings up the concept of universal uncertainty. People can only be sure of one fact-that they exist because thinking proves it. To question even this fact is to go insane. But religion is like this platform. Because religion is something to believe in, not something to actively prove, it gives another layer of defense against nihilism. It is like the manhole cover that prevents people from otherwise falling into a hole. By these two definitions, the faith necessary to life merely entails a basic belief in some sort of hope that the reality each person lives is real. As Miguel de Unamuno explores in his book San Manuel Bueno, Mártir, there is more than one type of faith. The good faith is that that is grounded in reality or provides consolation, as in the mountain. But the lake, whose reflection is only on the surface, is a superficial type of faith that is dangerous. But that is the burden of San Manuel, he must bear the nihilistic truth just for his parishioners Faith means many things to many people, and being able to hold on to something has always been part of human psychology. One feels strong when they can grab on to something. Even the clenching of a fist is often strength enough.
Being able to tell the difference between an ice cream truck and a questionable van with "ice cream" painted on it is often the difference between life or death. Having faith in oneself, as Descartes explains, cannot extend beyond to other people. One cannot even always trust faith. In the Matrix Trilogy, people who are plugged in are happy, content with their fake lives. Knowing about the real world may even kill them. Although there seems nothing wrong with simple happiness, this is where nihilism meets hope. In that situation, excluding Zion, the human species is extinct because it cannot develop or grow. It can only play over a fake reel of life provided by the machines [Matrix]. In Michael Bay's The Island, naïveté is bred into a stock of human clones in an underground facility. The clones, while human must have faith in life to live, because prototypes bred without hope were unable to develop. On the other hand, the fully grown human clones desire the opportunity to go to the Island, which actually means getting their organs harvested for their "real" counterparts above ground. Because Lincoln questions the system, he is rewarded, not with a false hope that leads to death, but a real hope of starting a new life as a human. The cap on faith that protects us from gullibility is much harder to find than bottom limit, but can be imagined as another conceivable limit based on instincts that keep us alive. In both the Matrix and The Island, certain "gut feelings" are understood as not doubts, but safe skepticism. The matter of developing these "gut feelings" is simply part of exposure to both truth and lies. These doses of truths and lies can feed a person with the proper conception of faith.
Every bit of faith in anything, whether that be religion or even a bet, means an investment, like chips in poker. All too often, people find difficulty investing faith, afraid to lose it, but also afraid to keep it and watch it wither away each turn. Faith is a fundamental cornerstone of human willpower, the abstract thought that keeps our blood, and thus our bodies alive. Seeing where faith is most useful is simply a vital skill for both existence and survival.

Fichas de valor

Cuando yo sabía menos, creía que el moral era un meta extra. Ahora, tengo una idea muy diferente. El moral es un instinto humano. Todos sienten la culpabilidad a causa de la sistema limbica. Y la ambición. Piensen, por favor, del póker. Se elige cuándo quiere poner las fichas. Tener la participación es algo difícil. Por el tiempo que usted puede mantener una "cara de póker", no tiene la oportunidad de ganar. En el programa Heroes, Samuel crea unos temblores cuando Vanessa se va porque él no tiene ninguna razón para no matar a los humanos sin poderes. Él ha perdido su participación.

prompt We should ban cochlear implants

Biology class discussion... I hope this isn't offensive.

Imagine the seeing soundwaves move through the air during a rave. Cones and disks fly around the room. Music is a strong form of human expression, but many people are born unable to experience this. Due to deformities in the connection between the ear and the brain, many children cannot perceive sound. Using cochlear implants, a chip can be inserted into the brain that reads sound from an external receptor, allowing the user to hear. Many are opposed to this technology, seeing it as a dangerous threat to "deaf culture" a developing form subculture in communities around America. But trying to ban this technology is immoral in preventing children from reaching fuller potential while also dangerous in denying the basic ability to hear.

One of the greatest responsibilities humans have today is that of optimizing the future for their children. In the documentary Sound and Fury by Josh Aronson, a deaf family does not allow their daughter to get an implant, for fear of her leaving the "deaf world". But in the film, the father admits that, even if he can make money, he will never be able to go very far in business due to his hearing limitation [Aronson]. According to Emmanuel Kant, morality is based on maintaining the full autonomy and safety of others. Denying a daughter the potential to become successful is a grave violation of Kantian morality [Kant]. Even for other cases, when implants are made in a baby who is not old enough to make a decision, the autonomy denied is overridden by the future autonomy provided.

Hearing is part of life and a lack of it is often death. It is part of communication. Humans have hearing, much because years ago, as described by Cambell Biology, an animal randomly sprouted ear-like structures and all of its cousins without those ear structures died. In a more modern example, the Prius, an extremely silent car, has been considered very dangerous because people cannot hear it. Whether a lack of hearing enhances vision or culture, human society is still far too based on hearing as a survival technique. In Aristotle's examination of communication, he identified it as one of the most important parts of life. Communication requires the receiver of a message to be receptive of different messages. It is also part of human life. Denying communication, in general, is a dangerous idea, especially considering the fact that forced deafness limits thinking to visual and emotional, but not active reading. Deaf society may be an expression of human art, but even KHH, the F-period biology teacher at Polytechnic school agrees, that music, or even talking and film involve their own forms of art.

Deaf society in America has been, for a long time, an invisible collection of communities who support each other, but is transforming into something more. Because the majority of the world is based on hearing and spoken language, the only means to maintain morality while banning cochlear implants is in the creation of a radical deaf community. Calling sign language a foreign language is a dangerous way of alienating other humans. But separate cannot be equal. Allowing access to a culture, not denying it, is more progressive to both cultures.

Peaceful diplomacy is the best method of foreign policy

If the city of Hong Kong were a nation, and if its national sport was not ping-pong or badminton, it would certainly be haggling. Aside from being a center for business and exports, Hong Kong is a center of diplomacy. Even the alleyways are filled with diplomacy, matters of convincing others that the only way to get what they want is through a controlled "gateway of desire". Customers want some produce or illegal technology. Shopkeepers want money. The gateways here consist of prices in cash, but the gateways of bargaining nations have tolls in lives. Military "diplomacy" remains the most effective form of foreign policy for nations with powerful armies despite modern ideas, though smaller countries can also survive on the backs of the stronger nations due to a growth in international shared morality.

Hard power, as military power is often called, is the most effective method for large countries to get what they want. Even President Obama, who stressed using diplomacy in the Middle East during his campaign, admits in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech that Hitler could not be stopped with peaceful diplomacy and that al Qaeda is much the same problem. The effectiveness of diplomacy depends on being able to relate with the opponents' ideologies. Even this diplomacy need not apply only to wars. According to Nick Hwang, a Chinese student at Polytechnic School, China's military is often used as a very heavy bargaining chip for economic gains. He believes that China, like the imperial dragon that symbolizes the nation, is only currently appeased by its economic dominance over the world, when many of the other nations serve as serfs. Many people find safety in the idea that the conceptions of the United Nations and "international law" will protect the rest of the world, but as described by the Italian Renaissance political scientist Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, there are certain priorities countries must follow. The United Nations is effective in many aspects, but not global law, especially when the National Forensics League of America released to US students a debate on how to deal with international criminals. Furthermore, in Rwanda, the UN's "army" could not mobilize to protect the civilians. As Machiavelli puts it, such idealistic and futuristic fantasies cannot override military reality.

Countries that lack the redoubtable armies can also survive The gateways that control the wants of China are easily dominated by China's military power. If China wants something, it can blast through the door. But what of a country like France? If France was the world's sole provider of some sort of new more efficient energy source, China would quickly have it. France, in this case, has a harder time of controlling the diplomatic situation. However, if it fed a small supply of this energy source to America, America would protect it, though nothing stops America from taking over. One idea is that America, being a western power, would feel less of a reason to destroy France for this energy source. In James Cameron's film Avatar, the military might of the humans is countered by the military might of the native Na'vi. In the movie, both sides are incapable of associating with the other alien entities. Jake, in his avatar form, is much like France in that the natives have no reason to really keep him alive. Nonetheless, they save him as a matter of trust. This trust, described by the philosopher Jane English is means enough for helping one another. Because trust is inherently decreased by differences in both culture and military might, the idea allows most small powers to stay competitive because the larger powers tend to be solitary and cannot grow as much alone without fighting a war on all sides. Trust, or fear for that matter, is the key goal of diplomacy. Lack of trust or hatred causes an alienation that cannot achieve anything.

When a tourist from America walks into a Hong Kong market, prices tend to soar because the tourist is a foreigner. He or she can force a low price by threatening to call the authorities on bootleg merchandise, but knows that they are alone and doing so will further alienate them.

Liberalism at Poly is totally normal

I'm running out of stuff here... I should read more...

Although iTunes and Limewire now replace music stores as predators of American teenagers' wallets, the popularity of rock, pop, and rap that screams anarchy and leftist propaganda remains a fact on the charts. Quality of music, which by today's technology, is always readily accessible, has taken a backseat to the messages and advertisement of these Democratic battlecries. The diversity of American politics is dying out. American advancement in ideology will fall unless power in the media that dominates our young minds is balanced.

The American banner is a call to liberty and political freedom. The American media is a great hypocrisy. It might be easy to say that the romanticism is just more suited to the media and youth, but one might remember how propaganda in Nazi Germany for the far right also appealed to the youthful generations. The San Francisco experiment described by Todd Strasser's novel The Wave shows how susceptible even the borderline-socialist youth of San Francisco can follow the far right. Being able to develop free and new ideas depends on the existence of uncharted space that develops individually. In the Taoist ideas expressed in The Matrix, development of the world stops when the world is conquered because humankind cannot expand anymore [Matrix]. Ideological development cannot survive on leftist ideas alone.

It is the media that has the widest tubes force-feeding thoughts into today's young. As expressed by Johnnie To's film Breaking News, the media is in charge of modern society. Just as the Hong Kong police is much dependent on public image, any competent politician today must be a master of Twitter or Facebook. In another example, Newsweek published an article on Oprah, who can control the economy of literature or food on a whim like a Greek goddess, demonstrating the power of celebrity. It is only so long before Lady Gaga takes over her throne for the next generation. The point modern conservatives are missing is that Lady Gaga's songs are not a threat to society and that the media in general is not bad. Fox News is right. Garnering support from the youth must now be an active competition. In a survey taken by Polytechnic School's newspaper The Pawprint, it was revealed that the vast majority of students associated with the Democratic Party with only a slim minority taking more conservative views. The same newspaper also published a report on how the proper conservatism of Barry Goldwater is being replaced by religious fanatics that cannot attract the young with their fire-and-brimstone sermons [Pawprint]. If anything is really attacking American freedoms, it is more likely to be the leftist media.

The Republican Party currently still has funding and adequate power, but its political and literal capital are draining quickly following the election of President Barack Obama. Today is a time when America depends on this party to come to the modern age. Should it fail to do so, the United States will fall, not into socialism, but the stagnation of thoughts. A coming age of liberal media oppression will turn the minds of the coming generations into still ponds where flies lay their eggs.

The ultimate purpose of government is to support the lowest tier of society

I want to clarify that this is an essay for practice, not a response to the events in Haiti. Anything said here should not be taken seriously as part of my political ideologies.

Where has the food chain gone? Is it no longer a contest of powers. Even as humans' strength is replaced by abstract wealth, humans should not forget where they came from. The steel-clad nests and synthetic fur that masks them cannot deny their instincts as animals to succeed. For one to win, another must lose. But today, success is dead. Even the weakest may live off human welfare. Resources are redirected from progress to drag the weight behind society. Governments today waste too many resources on the futile cause of supporting the poor when only the strong can fully utilize them for human advancement.

Spending money on the poor is a matter of hollow hope. If providing housing or welfare accomplishes anything, it is lifting the spirits of the weak to be further crushed. In a collection of economic and philosophical studies provided, but not created by, Santa Clara University, the existence of the lower class is an inherent part of our legal system. The entire legal system, the studies state, is based on being able to classify and verbally oppress this lower class. As a result, the only method to ridding America of poverty is scrapping law across the nation [Santa Clara]. Furthermore, even if throwing this bone to the poor may benefit a few, that money or land can be used by the economically strong. Philosopher John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism emphasizes the maximizing the chances of the best outcome. If the criterion is wealth, a few pennies given to the poor is certainly insignificant compared to that same money becoming dollars in the hands of the rich. Certainly, this would not mean the death of the poor. After all, killing the lower class removes a significant part of society and lowers the middle class. But as John Steinbeck demonstrates in his The Grapes of Wrath, the rich may or may not help the poor, but the real responsibility of helping those desperate families like the Joads falls upon other poor families like those in the camp or on the road [Steinbeck]. If poverty is to be solved, it just cannot be through the government. Having people fall below the poverty line is a fact of life, but having those in the highest classes is a blessing of society that is not constantly limited by the nature of poverty.

In the world of economics, there may indeed exist a "rock bottom", but no other extreme exists. Being able to maximize that extreme is the main purpose of all human entities. In the political analysis of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's The Will to Power, governments serve as entities whose purpose is to maximize the success of their members. Ideally, human society becomes like a pride of lions, each individually powerful and each strong. However, through the "moral responsibility" of governments to help the poor, human society is more like thousands of rats, weak and filled with disease. The dollar that becomes a hundred pennies for the poor can be the fifty dollars that becomes part of the research that cures cancer or the dollar that pays for a few bullets that uphold democracy. Similarly, in the Malthusian mind, the poverty line is more of a population check that serves to ensure that only the strongest succeed and provide a clean solution to an overpopulation of competition in the large capitalist markets. Such overpopulation can lead to a collapse of the economy, and thus a depression where everyone is poor. Even if wealth is not in direct relation to ability or power, any competent peasant should be able to squeeze through this poverty line without any help [Malthus]. Helping the poor is not a viable choice presented to human society, but optimizing human values is.

When a lion kills something, there is nothing "moral" for it to give it up to the flies. Most flies that hatch will not survive for a purpose, but there are so many. If for some reason, every lion got together to decide to feed the flies, they would go extinct. Helping the poor is a luxury governments cannot afford. Human nature dictates that we have ambitions, but it also dictates that we feel compassion. Governments are manifestations of our ambitions and we cannot weigh it down with our compassion.

Biggest issues: Organization, logic, aesthetics...

History should document the voiceless

As the writer George Orwell said, "who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past". History is a biased collection of stories censored by the victor. Columbus "discovered" America because he killed the natives. The Civil War was all about slavery because the North won. As documentation evolves technologically, the question of whether to remember the lives of the conquered becomes a matter of choice. A common conception is that the winner of the war has a responsibility to the memory of the corpses trampled beneath their feet. As a matter of respect, history should hold the memories of the voiceless, but only as long as it does not endanger the lives of the living.

The bias of history is apparent throughout the textbooks fed to the nation's youth. If "education" is certainly the priority of courses in history, those of adequate age should have full access to this information. According to local residents of Hong Kong, a lack of information for the sake of a nation's pride jeopardized lives with the outbreak of the SARS virus. Trying to maintain pride and quell chaos, the Chinese government hid SARS from international eyes, and help, until it appeared in Hong Kong. In this case, censorship of recent history was fatal. In a science fiction rendition of historical "censorship" analogous to the terrorism of the Crusades or the conquest of America, Michael Bay's The Island, depicts a dystopian future where the government hides a stock of human clones underground so that their originals, who had the clones made for organ transplants, are unaware that the harvesting of an organ results in the murder of a human being [Bay]. Burying the truth in history often gives the victors too much power, as stated by George Orwell. Without society's willing knowledge acting as a moral check, full control over history can lead to ruthlessness. Being able to understand a situation is a vital part of making moral decisions. As explained by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the noblest decisions in life are autonomous and well-understood choices. To deny access to historical information is to gravely limit human morality, reducing humans to animals.

In rare cases, however, historical bias will be necessary to the maintenance of a healthy state. In Johnnie To's film Breaking News, the power of the Hong Kong Police is greatly dependent on public reception. Its effectiveness in enforcing the laws in such a complex and important city in Hong Kong required the "putting on [of] a show [trans.]". The case of an officer surrendering to bank robbers was turned into an issue of a father staying alive to support his family as part of a campaign to garner public support for the police. Similarly, in a discussion with Nick Hwang, a Chinese student at Polytechnic School in Pasadena, an agreement was reached that, while the Maoist authorities may have taken it too far, their destruction of the "Old Ways" was a vital part of managing the heavily-populated People's Republic of China. Much of the "Chinese censorship" against things such as facebook is not a backwards form of oppression, but a method of preventing an uprising of a fifth of the world's population [Hwang]. Even Kant would agree that some measures must be taken for the greater good of the people.

Controlling the past is the bloody cherry for the victors of history's battles. History is a well chosen collection of stories. It seems fitting that anyone who could would choose to have lived a fantasy of a life, for sake of shame or judgement. The power of history is a prize of denying the consequences of a war. The power to change history usually comes at the price of thousands of lives. So there should be no more need to lose lives. Sustaining life is the ultimate criterion for most moral decisions, especially that of whether to abridge history. Such a choice is literally a choice between life or death.

I hate conclusions. Actually I just hate my own writing.

Patriotism's Validity

Same rules.

A person should not follow his/her country if it denies rights to that person.

In 1791, men from Pittsburgh began a small insurrection against the newly formed United States Federal Government to protest a tax on whiskey. This event, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, sparked the first use of federal power against citizens. The result was the end to the rebellion and a debate over whether it was appropriate for troops to quash a rebellion when the federal government was actually causing the civilian's unrest. It was later decided, due to the youth of the country as well as the non-vital value of whiskey, that the federal government had power to do so. In essence, the government, so long as it serves its people, deserves their patriotism, but the people may rebel if the government ceases to do so.

Patriotism to one's country is a matter of respect granted in return for rights and opportunity. Without the support of its people, as in the Whiskey Rebellion, a government is unable to provide these rights and opportunities. As explained by John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, a country's government can be analogous to the purpose of a watchful parent. It must maximize the health and happiness of each of its children [Mill]. But just as a parent may not simply spoil their child, a government should not collapse to insignificant disturbances. In some cases, as in the usage of martial law, Mill explains that denying people of their happiness temporarily can be justified by their ultimate well-being. Furthermore, as Christian writers Ken Blanchard and Phil Hodges show in their book The Servant Leader, leaders must look for the best of their people in the long-run. In many cases, they may even have to sacrifice themselves for the best of their people. Followers of that leader will then return trust and obedience for their own safety and liberty [Blanchard and Hodges]. For a government, the relationship between it and its people is a mutual bond. When either one syphons power from the other, the bond is polarized and broken. And even though soldiers give their lives for a country, one must not forget that that country also supports their family and friends.

Nonetheless, it is all too easy for citizens of a nation to blindly follow their country as long as they are fed their basic needs. But here lies oppression. Hitler's Reich, for example, was not some great matter of brainwashing. The writer Todd Strasser explains in his novel The Wave, how an experiment in a high school demonstrated the lack of difficulty with which we can succumb to totalitarian regimes. While it appeared to be a positive fad, the Wave ended up a dangerous entity on the campus. Soon the Wave penetrated every aspect of students' lives [Strasser]. And the social saturation of government's influence is certainly a dangerous thing. While it might provide for the time being, Herbert Hoover's Rugged Individualism speech shows how quickly letting the government's tendrils into every niche becomes a breeding pool for socialism and its even worse oppressions against individual freedom [Hoover]. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the "Declaration of Independence", held in mind the fear of such a government. For when a government ceases to serve its people and the position is reversed, those people have adequate reason to "dissolve the political bands" that held them together [Jefferson].

The waltz of patriotism and totalitarianism requires much grace and balance. This dance holds nations and the people within at stake. George Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion sustained the government's ability to support its people at the cost of a few. Nothiadf l; hsj...

English Final Score? Five Bottles. My Score? B probably. FML.

In my compulsive quest for self-improvement, I have decided to practice writing in coherent English with random topics... I'll start today without too much evidence. This is a timed essay. Here's a random prompt:

Restrictions are the best way of breeding creativity. It is by the existence of the "box" (or the burrito) that one can be creative, creating progress for the community.

The fact that Disney's song "It's a Small World" rings in the ears of people all around the world serves as a testament to the song's message. Our world is indeed shrinking. The concept of creativity is no longer the easy matter of finding unused space. Instead, human progress today is driven by innovation, not originality. Thinking outside the box has become thinking around the box. For when a city has reached its limits with one-story houses, it will not search for more space, nor will it cease developing. Rather, those one-story buildings become two-story buildings. Even when the skies are indeed scraped by the city's towers, development will continue. Innovation today proves superior in advancing technology and society to random creativity when humankind cannot afford to waste resources on a mental gag reflex to puke out new ideas.

Innovation, the concept of creativity growing on the box people try to escape, proves most reliable in today's society. Success in a game is not determined by the breaking of rules, but by the following of them. To break the rules to win is to play a different game. But even the creation of a game requires rules just as vines grow on a fence. In the view of Mark Rosewater, a designer of the card game Magic: the Gathering, restrictions breed creativity. When the game was first created, no such restrictions existed. As a result, many of the original cards were over- or underpowered. Zendikar, as Mark Rosewater explains, is the product of innovation. Rather than creating a new type of card or rule set, he explored the old idea of "lands" in a way the players had never seen before. As a result, the game sales have gone up, even in the midst of the failing economy [Magic]. While it may seem like Magic is not growing, it has indeed managed to develop in a still climate. Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American writer and transcendentalist, continues, in his "The American Scholar", to discuss the nature of creativity. Innovation is indeed creativity and just as effective. Minds growing off of minds is the way the American intellect was developed.

Creativity has long been considered the idea of being able to just think differently. Thus humans strive to value every voice in society. As the psychiatry professor Thomas Szasz explains, the mentally ill or deficient think differently, thus provide a new perspective on life. He claims that it is ignorant to label biological abnormalities as defects [Szasz]. Whether the mentally "different" can yield such fruits of intellect is certainly up for debate, but it is irrefutable that many of these individuals may be dangerous or difficult to take care of. At the present moment, can we claim responsibility for every person even when they may hurt another. While one can call this genocidal, this is not eugenics. People do not put these people into positions of power. In the Bible, Jesus teaches his disciples that to lead, they must serve the people [Bible]. Leaders, and thus those who must use innovation, cannot be those that people must constantly support their health for an insecure intellect. A leader must set an example. As Her Majesty, Cambell Biology AP dictates, science is a matter of minds working off one another. A few accidents here and there have produced things like penicillin. A million monkeys in a lab is worse than a million monkeys on typewriters because there are stakes (Campbell).

Damnit. That was 50 minutes. I didn't get to a conclusion or anything, but we'll see my development. Also, I tried to think of a way to do evidence, so it was mainly wikipedia and a few of my most recently visited pages online. FML

The Media

A fire in a dense forest spreads faster. This is the main principle of gossip in such a small academic institution as Polytechnic School. It appears that if Yale or Harvard decline our pleas, each one of us is already well trained in diplomacy. We are all, as I sometimes joke, Ministers of Propaganda and Enlightenment.

My friend Anna has stated that she wishes to avoid the limelight, but it has gracefully managed to find her in every uncomfortable niche of shadows the school can offer. Ironically (I do acting and generally strange activities), I feel the same way. Many people often try to find me, but I'm usually hiding, not from social interaction (haha, if you get that), but from the drama. It's useless, really. We live in the age of media. The gods Facebook, Skype, and Twitter have dropped their wrath on me already.

You cannot hide from the media any more. My reputation is greatly diminished by recent events, things I don't think I should be blamed for. My trust is everywhere, exploded, dripping from the walls and ceiling. The conspirators have moved on to their pedestals. Apparently, it's my fault for caring, for suffering. I was the lamb on the altar. Still it surprises me that they broke up after a week and that I seem so shallow to the world. Would it make sense that I'm so shallow if I really suffered this much? It's because I'm not. But that's not what high school wants. It wants an image.

Learn this lesson. There is no escaping the media. Those in power must learn to wield it. As a resident of Hong Kong and Los Angeles, I understand its application in the world today. If a terrorist attack gets through, few really care that much about how fast or effective the response is, but instead the number of tweets about it. The age of media has brought an age of terrorism and scandal. It's a game of hot potato.