For over 50 years now, the United Nations has consolidated nearly all its power in one organization, the UN Security Council, and its five “permanent” members, the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK. In addition to holding permanent status on the powerful board, they also hold the often-abused “veto” to remove any resolution that threatens their interests. The UN Security Council must remove its permanent member status and remove the veto from all its members if it is to be respected as a world organization.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council all represent the victorious powers of WWII; it’s no coincidence that Germany and Japan are absent. The fact that the permanent members happened to be on the winners’ side is an unfair and unjust criterion for deciding who gets such a great power. In addition, the veto power gives these five nations humongous power and influence. Many resolutions that question evil actions are often shot-down because criticism would be counter to the permanent member nation’s interests.
A prime example of this is Israel. Despite the fact that it has committed abuses to the Palestinians and its own citizens, it continues to get away with its crimes no doubt due to the influence the US has on the UN Security Council. Indeed, since 1990, the US has made more vetoes than all of the other permanent member nations, many of these involving Israel. Such abuse and misuse of power can only be removed by the removal of said power itself.
The UN professes to be an international organization set up to defend the interests of all nations. But the UN Security Council, with its permanent members and the veto, is clearly at odds with its professed “ideals.” Only reform of the UN Security Council will enable the UN to pursue its noble and praiseworthy goals.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Winning Isn't Everything, Especially For Cartoon Characters
What do Tom Cat, the Trix rabbit, Chip the Wolf, and Plankton all have in common? They’re all “perennial losers,” destined by the hands of fate to be pitted in a losing war. But while this may seem all fun and games, deeper analysis into this phenomenon reveals a darker picture. If you don’t believe me, then perhaps an inside scoop might change your opinion.
First, because these guys can’t get the upper hand, we are starving four innocent souls to death. It should be noted there is another common theme to these characters; they all desire food. How can we talk about feeding children in Africa when we fail to address dietary needs in our own nation? This isn’t just hypocritical; it’s downright cruel and inhumane.
Second, think of the damage to their self-esteem. The fact that these characters continuously fail at life means that society is imposing a great psychological burden on them. Their tales of persistence and fortitude are beautiful lessons that should be admired and reflected upon to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Third, what becomes of the “perennial winners” when they always succeed? They become a bunch of nasty scumbags of course! Jerry Mouse, Mr. Krabs, and the seemingly “innocent” kids of Cereal and Yogurt Land epitomize the spirit of insensitive braggarts. By allowing this behavior to go unnoticed, we not only cause undue injustice on others, we also encourage future generations to believe that winning is everything.
What I have stated before you is the true fate of “perennial losers”. My views and others of the like have long been suppressed by those who attempt to portray a twisted picture of characters “who started it” and “deserve what happens to them.” But together, we can make a difference to insure that the perennial losers may be tormented no more.
First, because these guys can’t get the upper hand, we are starving four innocent souls to death. It should be noted there is another common theme to these characters; they all desire food. How can we talk about feeding children in Africa when we fail to address dietary needs in our own nation? This isn’t just hypocritical; it’s downright cruel and inhumane.
Second, think of the damage to their self-esteem. The fact that these characters continuously fail at life means that society is imposing a great psychological burden on them. Their tales of persistence and fortitude are beautiful lessons that should be admired and reflected upon to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Third, what becomes of the “perennial winners” when they always succeed? They become a bunch of nasty scumbags of course! Jerry Mouse, Mr. Krabs, and the seemingly “innocent” kids of Cereal and Yogurt Land epitomize the spirit of insensitive braggarts. By allowing this behavior to go unnoticed, we not only cause undue injustice on others, we also encourage future generations to believe that winning is everything.
What I have stated before you is the true fate of “perennial losers”. My views and others of the like have long been suppressed by those who attempt to portray a twisted picture of characters “who started it” and “deserve what happens to them.” But together, we can make a difference to insure that the perennial losers may be tormented no more.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
One "Inner Ring" to Rule Them All
I just read C.S. Lewis' lecture "The Inner Ring" this week, and I was very impressed at both the message and literary techniques Lewis made and utilized. It seems that the guy can do more than write fantasy books after all! But jokes notwithstanding, I respect the claim Lewis was trying to get across, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". It is a lesson I find applicable in all eras, from Lewis' to our own.
In terms of actual writing, what I found to be the most helpful was Lewis' frankness and bluntness. His lecture was very straightforward and to the point in terms of tone, and he clearly showed this in his interactions with the audience. Which leads me to my second point; Lewis was very involved with his audience. He constantly referenced them, discussed their possible fates, and spoke very casually to them. His first line was "May I read you a few lines from Tolstoy's War and Peace?" almost as if he actually needed their approval before proceeding. Such techniques, along with simple but clever diction choices and the usage of allusions contemporary to his time, helped to make the piece both intellectual and enjoyable to read.
As I have already mentioned, Lewis' main claim was this, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". Throughout the piece, Lewis uses his essay's title, "The Inner Ring", as a metaphor for inclusion and belonging. And while he makes the point that the rings are necessary, and sometimes actually good, he also makes the distinction that "the desire which draws us into Inner Rings is another matter. A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous." Near the end of the piece, Lewis reemphasizes this when he describes a fictional scenario about joining a musical quartet. While he argues that there's nothing wrong for participating if it's for the sake of "some wholesome reason", he does claim that "if all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short lived...By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic."
I found "The Inner Ring" to be both quite enlightening and fun. I can only wonder if his audience at King's College in 1944 felt the same. Regardless, I believe that Lewis' message is one for all ages, all societies, and all times. "The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow." Well said Mr. Lewis.
In terms of actual writing, what I found to be the most helpful was Lewis' frankness and bluntness. His lecture was very straightforward and to the point in terms of tone, and he clearly showed this in his interactions with the audience. Which leads me to my second point; Lewis was very involved with his audience. He constantly referenced them, discussed their possible fates, and spoke very casually to them. His first line was "May I read you a few lines from Tolstoy's War and Peace?" almost as if he actually needed their approval before proceeding. Such techniques, along with simple but clever diction choices and the usage of allusions contemporary to his time, helped to make the piece both intellectual and enjoyable to read.
As I have already mentioned, Lewis' main claim was this, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". Throughout the piece, Lewis uses his essay's title, "The Inner Ring", as a metaphor for inclusion and belonging. And while he makes the point that the rings are necessary, and sometimes actually good, he also makes the distinction that "the desire which draws us into Inner Rings is another matter. A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous." Near the end of the piece, Lewis reemphasizes this when he describes a fictional scenario about joining a musical quartet. While he argues that there's nothing wrong for participating if it's for the sake of "some wholesome reason", he does claim that "if all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short lived...By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic."
I found "The Inner Ring" to be both quite enlightening and fun. I can only wonder if his audience at King's College in 1944 felt the same. Regardless, I believe that Lewis' message is one for all ages, all societies, and all times. "The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow." Well said Mr. Lewis.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Transcendentalism: Its Meaning, Aspects, and Significance
Transcendentalism:
Also called transcendental philosophy, any philosophy based upon the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought, or a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical: in the U.S., associated with Emerson.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendentalism)
Transcendentalism was one of the most influential and powerful philosophical movements in the history of the young US. It was espoused by many this country's great movers and shakers, like Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and more. Like its inspiration Romanticism, Transcendentalism was a counter-movement against the logic and empiricism of the Enlightenment, emphasizing heart over mind with an American twist. But most of all, it gave future generations like ours beautiful treasures like "Self Reliance", "Walden", and others, beauties that classes and scholars alike continue to read today.
Even if this movement is nearly two hundred years old and lays dormant at best, its tenants are needed now more than ever before. People all over not just the US but the world have become heavily preoccupied with work and making fortunes, all at the expense of family, society, and tradition. We blindly follow parties and groups when discussing the big issues of the day, and these parties in turn stoop to pandering to the lowest common denominator to gain more support. True, one shouldn't just refuse modernity and stare stubbornly towards the past, and one shouldn't refuse to work with others to achieve a similar goal; that would lead to even worse problems. But one always needs to promote a balance in thinking, keeping one foot perched forward and the other grounded in morals, culture, and etiquette. Transcendentalism as a philosophy and a way of life just might be the cure that we as a society need.
"... the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought"
Much of Transcendentalist thought may be considered by society today as "mystical" or "abstract". Indeed, many writers, like Emerson, emphasized religion and divinity in their works, while others like Thoreau actually wrote works away from society in cabins like a secluded monk. The Transcendentalists liked to pry deep into what humanity actually did, and then proceed to describe what humanity should do, very much like sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers do today. "Reality" was never what it showed itself to be; it was filled with layer upon layer of secrets and deceptions waiting to be uncovered. Only by "transcending" the mundane world of materialism and complication could one hope to discover the truth; only by "Simplifying, simplifying, simplifying" could one feel happy and content.
"... a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical"
But if transcending was the door to discovering the mysteries of the universe and obtaining joy, rejecting facts, custom, and dogmas was its key. The Transcendentalists expressly showed disdain for being a follower, always emphasizing man's dignity, self-worth, and individuality, and berating those who refused to exercise this and become slaves to ideology. They believed in the power of feeling and emotion over the "cold logic" of the Enlightenment, always equating them with divinity and nature. Even their style of writing expresses this; their writing was very flowery, poetic, elaborate, and ornate, more often than not ambiguous and hard to decipher. After all, if life was a maze, so was to be their writing; long, winding, but always leading to one final point.
Many people today might find Transcendentalism to be a philosophy of the elite, too fancy and confusing in an age where we applaud logic, science, reason, and human progress. Such things are to be admired and enjoyed, for without them humanity would be condemned to stagnation and unoriginality. But we must make sure that we aren't consumed by these principles; in our quest to become greater and smarter, we mustn't shove our humanity aside as a sacrifice. We must retain true to morals and higher laws, laws that still allow us to be ingenuous while protecting us from our own demons. I believe that Transcendentalism may be the key to such a goal. When Thoreau talked about reading newspapers in "Where I Lived, and What I Lived For", he didn't say don't read newspapers, but rather don't read them excessively. When he talked about railroads, he warned us about not letting them "ride on our backs" rather than saying we should destroy them all in one stroke. Life is filled with opportunities and bountiful treasures, but in our sojourns to find and take them, we mustn't stoop to the level of beasts and demons. We must always remember to preserve our innate goodness and stay true to our humanity, lest we suffer the consequences.
Also called transcendental philosophy, any philosophy based upon the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought, or a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical: in the U.S., associated with Emerson.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendentalism)
Transcendentalism was one of the most influential and powerful philosophical movements in the history of the young US. It was espoused by many this country's great movers and shakers, like Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and more. Like its inspiration Romanticism, Transcendentalism was a counter-movement against the logic and empiricism of the Enlightenment, emphasizing heart over mind with an American twist. But most of all, it gave future generations like ours beautiful treasures like "Self Reliance", "Walden", and others, beauties that classes and scholars alike continue to read today.
Even if this movement is nearly two hundred years old and lays dormant at best, its tenants are needed now more than ever before. People all over not just the US but the world have become heavily preoccupied with work and making fortunes, all at the expense of family, society, and tradition. We blindly follow parties and groups when discussing the big issues of the day, and these parties in turn stoop to pandering to the lowest common denominator to gain more support. True, one shouldn't just refuse modernity and stare stubbornly towards the past, and one shouldn't refuse to work with others to achieve a similar goal; that would lead to even worse problems. But one always needs to promote a balance in thinking, keeping one foot perched forward and the other grounded in morals, culture, and etiquette. Transcendentalism as a philosophy and a way of life just might be the cure that we as a society need.
"... the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought"
Much of Transcendentalist thought may be considered by society today as "mystical" or "abstract". Indeed, many writers, like Emerson, emphasized religion and divinity in their works, while others like Thoreau actually wrote works away from society in cabins like a secluded monk. The Transcendentalists liked to pry deep into what humanity actually did, and then proceed to describe what humanity should do, very much like sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers do today. "Reality" was never what it showed itself to be; it was filled with layer upon layer of secrets and deceptions waiting to be uncovered. Only by "transcending" the mundane world of materialism and complication could one hope to discover the truth; only by "Simplifying, simplifying, simplifying" could one feel happy and content.
"... a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical"
But if transcending was the door to discovering the mysteries of the universe and obtaining joy, rejecting facts, custom, and dogmas was its key. The Transcendentalists expressly showed disdain for being a follower, always emphasizing man's dignity, self-worth, and individuality, and berating those who refused to exercise this and become slaves to ideology. They believed in the power of feeling and emotion over the "cold logic" of the Enlightenment, always equating them with divinity and nature. Even their style of writing expresses this; their writing was very flowery, poetic, elaborate, and ornate, more often than not ambiguous and hard to decipher. After all, if life was a maze, so was to be their writing; long, winding, but always leading to one final point.
Many people today might find Transcendentalism to be a philosophy of the elite, too fancy and confusing in an age where we applaud logic, science, reason, and human progress. Such things are to be admired and enjoyed, for without them humanity would be condemned to stagnation and unoriginality. But we must make sure that we aren't consumed by these principles; in our quest to become greater and smarter, we mustn't shove our humanity aside as a sacrifice. We must retain true to morals and higher laws, laws that still allow us to be ingenuous while protecting us from our own demons. I believe that Transcendentalism may be the key to such a goal. When Thoreau talked about reading newspapers in "Where I Lived, and What I Lived For", he didn't say don't read newspapers, but rather don't read them excessively. When he talked about railroads, he warned us about not letting them "ride on our backs" rather than saying we should destroy them all in one stroke. Life is filled with opportunities and bountiful treasures, but in our sojourns to find and take them, we mustn't stoop to the level of beasts and demons. We must always remember to preserve our innate goodness and stay true to our humanity, lest we suffer the consequences.
The End
Friday, December 4, 2009
Afghanistan, Obama's Vietnam
I would personally call myself a Democrat in a more relaxed sense of the term. There are in fact many things that I side with the Republican Party on, mostly relating to social issues like homosexuality and abortion, while at the same time I admire the party of the donkey for its more welfare-oriented and, yes I'll say it, socialist approach to politics, epitomized in the recent health-care debates. The same thing can be said for President Obama. While I knew that he wouldn't be a perfect chief executive (no President will ever be, quite honestly), at least he wasn't McCain, Bush, or Cheney, and eight years of neo-Conservatism in the White House was enough for me. But, to put it bluntly, Obama's recent troop surge of 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan is extremely reminiscent of former President Bush's "active" foreign policy approach. I can't convey enough how disappointed I am with the President's decision.
No one ever said getting out of Afghanistan would be easy. No one said that it wouldn't be met with opposition regarding how and when to do it. I will concede that, at the very least, Obama seems to be making steps towards getting out of Iraq, his other war theater inherited from Bush, and that he specifically stated that troop withdrawals would begin sometime in the next 18 months (I just hope that he honors that commitment when the time comes), both of which are two very crucial decisions that never crossed Bush's mind. But let's face it folks, this war has been dragging on for about eight years. There is absolutely no sign of real "success" in the near and far future (and there's still no sign of what success actually is). Thousands of unnecessary lives are being wasted away as we speak, and even more money is being burned away into the furnace of warfare (hey, here's an idea to lower the deficit, stop pumping money across the Atlantic for starters). Somehow I find this situation to be very familiar. Deja vu, perhaps?
OK, so maybe a 16 going on 17 year old king's opinion may not suffice as "educated" or "sophisticated", but what about those of war families? While some have decided to dutifully prepare themselves for the call of war, many families, plagued with absent members serving up to three or four tours in Iraq, might now have to add more to their plate with tours in Afghanistan. For many, these sacrifices are making huge burdens on family cohesiveness, and, of course, every tour increases the chance of becoming another number in the news.
Getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been and will continue to be very thorny issues in the coming months, and while I commend President Barack Obama's efforts to "execute this transition responsibly", I believe that his methods are far from the proper way to go. A good lawmaker, a pragmatic strategist, and a clear-headed leader must know when it is and isn't the time to end a war. President Obama, the time is now. End this war for the sake of the Afghan people. End this war for the sake of the American soldiers and their families. End this war for the sake of rebuilding our economy by removing one more expense. Don't give me fancy language or beat around the bush. President Obama, please end this war.
No one ever said getting out of Afghanistan would be easy. No one said that it wouldn't be met with opposition regarding how and when to do it. I will concede that, at the very least, Obama seems to be making steps towards getting out of Iraq, his other war theater inherited from Bush, and that he specifically stated that troop withdrawals would begin sometime in the next 18 months (I just hope that he honors that commitment when the time comes), both of which are two very crucial decisions that never crossed Bush's mind. But let's face it folks, this war has been dragging on for about eight years. There is absolutely no sign of real "success" in the near and far future (and there's still no sign of what success actually is). Thousands of unnecessary lives are being wasted away as we speak, and even more money is being burned away into the furnace of warfare (hey, here's an idea to lower the deficit, stop pumping money across the Atlantic for starters). Somehow I find this situation to be very familiar. Deja vu, perhaps?
OK, so maybe a 16 going on 17 year old king's opinion may not suffice as "educated" or "sophisticated", but what about those of war families? While some have decided to dutifully prepare themselves for the call of war, many families, plagued with absent members serving up to three or four tours in Iraq, might now have to add more to their plate with tours in Afghanistan. For many, these sacrifices are making huge burdens on family cohesiveness, and, of course, every tour increases the chance of becoming another number in the news.
Getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been and will continue to be very thorny issues in the coming months, and while I commend President Barack Obama's efforts to "execute this transition responsibly", I believe that his methods are far from the proper way to go. A good lawmaker, a pragmatic strategist, and a clear-headed leader must know when it is and isn't the time to end a war. President Obama, the time is now. End this war for the sake of the Afghan people. End this war for the sake of the American soldiers and their families. End this war for the sake of rebuilding our economy by removing one more expense. Don't give me fancy language or beat around the bush. President Obama, please end this war.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thankfulness on Thanksgiving Day
Seeing as today is Thanksgiving Day, I decided to discuss some of the more enlightening and noble aspects the national holiday other than binge eating, football, and yearning for crazy sales tomorrow. When you really think about it, everyday should really be "Thanksgiving", but I doubt any of us can be content (or healthy) eating ten pounds of food all day, every day in the year. But I do think that the spirit of the holiday, realizing our blessings and feeling grateful, can and should be done everyday. I certainly feel that my life is blessed beyond recognition, and so, on this joyous, if not extravagant day filled with TV marathons and the oh-so-beloved Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, I want to outline a few of the things I feel thankful for:
1. I'm thankful for being alive (a no-brainer).
2. I'm thankful for being healthy. Many times in life we all seem to forget that, somewhere out there, there is someone alive, but just barely clinging on, unable to truly enjoy "life" itself.
3. I'm thankful for my family, nuclear and extended. Family is a beautiful thing, which can uplift and enrich souls. I mean, c'mon, how many psychos and nuts in history have been orphans or at least had terrible parental figures?
4. I'm thankful for living in the US. Hey, I have to admit, despite all the flaws, inconsistencies, and double standards I witness everyday in a culture foreign from my own, I still appreciate the great opportunities I have in this country. I love Egypt, and I love to visit, but I wouldn't necessarily enjoy an "extended vacation" there.
5. I'm thankful for my friends. They make my school days fun and enjoyable, and give me a sense of belonging and welcome. And do I need to repeat the psycho bit?
6. I'm thankful for my religion. I have always felt comfortable, if not proud, of being a Muslim, despite all the recent incidents committed by a bunch of crazy, wack-job, hypocritical idiots who don't see the repercussions of their actions and the effect it has on peoples' understanding of Islam (hey, did they have no family or friends when they were younger?)
I could continue this list on and on until I reach infinity plus one, but, for the sake of space and not boring you with superfluous comments, I will have to stop here. Obviously there are many things that I have that I, almost criminally, take for granted, and I'm sure many of you out there might also be the same. I believe that it is incredibly important to engage in this sort of reflection every now and then, not only because it can make for good writing and get you points in a certain class, but also because when you realize all that you do have, that which you don't just seems so trivial.
And on that lovely not, I bid you all farewell. Happy Thanksgiving, and make sure not to eat too much or drive under the influence.
the King
1. I'm thankful for being alive (a no-brainer).
2. I'm thankful for being healthy. Many times in life we all seem to forget that, somewhere out there, there is someone alive, but just barely clinging on, unable to truly enjoy "life" itself.
3. I'm thankful for my family, nuclear and extended. Family is a beautiful thing, which can uplift and enrich souls. I mean, c'mon, how many psychos and nuts in history have been orphans or at least had terrible parental figures?
4. I'm thankful for living in the US. Hey, I have to admit, despite all the flaws, inconsistencies, and double standards I witness everyday in a culture foreign from my own, I still appreciate the great opportunities I have in this country. I love Egypt, and I love to visit, but I wouldn't necessarily enjoy an "extended vacation" there.
5. I'm thankful for my friends. They make my school days fun and enjoyable, and give me a sense of belonging and welcome. And do I need to repeat the psycho bit?
6. I'm thankful for my religion. I have always felt comfortable, if not proud, of being a Muslim, despite all the recent incidents committed by a bunch of crazy, wack-job, hypocritical idiots who don't see the repercussions of their actions and the effect it has on peoples' understanding of Islam (hey, did they have no family or friends when they were younger?)
I could continue this list on and on until I reach infinity plus one, but, for the sake of space and not boring you with superfluous comments, I will have to stop here. Obviously there are many things that I have that I, almost criminally, take for granted, and I'm sure many of you out there might also be the same. I believe that it is incredibly important to engage in this sort of reflection every now and then, not only because it can make for good writing and get you points in a certain class, but also because when you realize all that you do have, that which you don't just seems so trivial.
And on that lovely not, I bid you all farewell. Happy Thanksgiving, and make sure not to eat too much or drive under the influence.
the King
Friday, November 20, 2009
"Why Nuclear Non-Proliferation", a King Makef Production
I decided to discuss the topic of nuclear non-proliferation in light of the many recent events regarding the spread of nuclear weapons technology. The US and the West have been rabid over the idea of Iran or North Korea joining the "nuclear club", something we've all noticed in the news and in the colossal anti-North Korea, and, even more so , anti-Iran rhetoric. And while I agree that these countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons (I have no qualms over them having nuclear energy), I am still dumbfounded and disgusted at the hypocrisy of the nuclear countries when they want others to halt nuclear production while refusing to address their own stockpiles. I am especially appalled at the US and Russia in particular, who each hold thousands of warheads and expect other countries to just obediently and willingly stop producing just one missile. I made this movie to prove the point that nuclear non-proliferation, or halting the spread of nuclear weapons, is something that all countries, nuclear or otherwise, must commit to. I address every living being on the face of the earth when I declare "Atomic Bombs Destroy."
As stated above, my claim is simple enough; atomic bombs (and all nuclear weapons in general) destroy lives, homes, and families, and therefore in and of itself are a menace that must be eradicated. Of course, this implies that anything that "destroys" is "bad", and anything that is "bad" must be "destroyed." While this is clearly known by many people today (it's the reason why, knock on wood, we haven't been foolish enough, yet, to repeat Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I wanted to drive this point home by using real images to emote fear, sympathy, and remorse into the hearts of those who watch my film. Whether it's the powerful infernos of a mushroom cloud, the terror and sorrow in victims' eyes, or the grief and remembrance of those in Japan who pray for their lost loved ones or others', I wanted these images to truly encapsulate the "destructive" nature of the A-Bomb.
One of the most graphic pictures that I remember lurching at the sight of was the child with the many boils on their stomach. Just looking at that truly made me wonder in awe at the power the atomic bombs had not only in terms of destructive power, but also in terms of the health of those who survived. I specifically chose not to repeat any pictures to give alternating and fuller messages, and to provide something new and fresh each time. The bombs I show are vivid and, with the exception of one or two, clear in color. Conversely, many of the pictures of victims are black and white. While this may be due simply to the technology prevalent at the time these images were taken, it serves my purposes of providing "graphic explosions" and "gloomy suffering."
Finally, for the pièce de résistance, I picked out Russell Watson's "Il Gladiatore" because of its massive power and vigor. Watson's voice is booming and declaratory, and the chords are simply emotional. The lyrics are in Italian, but they nonetheless capture a solitary, lonely, and contemplative feeling fitting for a topic as serious as stopping the spread of perhaps the most destructive weapon known to man yet. The piece was meant to instill yet even more emotion, worry, and almost sheer distress, into the hearts of my audience, and with a slow musical line and a varied instrumentation including drums, horns, and string instruments, it certainly gets the job done right. Certainly, if I had picked something excessively upbeat or preppy like "Barbie Girl", my audience would have been listening with confusion and incredulity.
This movie was meant right from the start to awe-inspire, to cast fear, to induce terror, and, above all, to produce a call of action. I wasted no time on fluffy, roundabout rhetoric or apologetic claims like the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "ended the war." Sure, they may have done that, but at what cost? The menace of atomic bombs, the ugly beast of nuclear weapons technology must be put to rest, not piecemeal, not gradually, but cold turkey, by all nations, not just the ones we don't like or consider "threats to our security." "Atomic Bombs Destroy," end of story.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
My Entitlements
Main Entry: en·ti·tle·ment
Pronunciation: \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1942
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
(from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Entitlement)
I am entitled to many things. I am entitled to be respected. I am entitled to freedom of choice in my actions. I am entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I am entitled to be loved. I am entitled to equal opportunity. I am entitled.
But that's not all.
I am entitled to A's in all of my classes until the day I die. I am entitled to no homework in all of my classes until the day I die. I am entitled to a hot, smart, athletic, independent-minded wife that everyone would be jealous over. I am entitled to eat all the junk food I want and not get fat. I am entitled to be a Congressman representing Minnesota. I am entitled to be President of The United States of America and Egypt. I am entitled to be Supreme Overlord of Earth. Why you may ask? Because I'm...
the King
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Andrew Jackson's Been Impeached?
Our AP Comp class has recently been delving into the topic of spoken arguments, and when I was assigned this blog post for class, I was originally at odds over what to write about. Luckily, I have a very obvious and easy choice; my AP US History class's simulation trial of the "impeachment" of Andrew Jackson. The arguments are pretty obvious, we should or shouldn't impeach President Andrew Jackson. I was a member of the jury, and I was given four articles of the Constitution to use to determine my decision. It was then up to the defense and prosecution to sway me and my peers to one direction or the other.
First, each side would make opening statements to hint at what their arguments were going to be. The attorneys making these statements were confident and poised, and looked directly into the eyes of the jury. These statements were formal and eloquent in language, and the defense's opening statement even included praises of Jackson as "the greatest man on Earth who would never do wrong" or "the friend of the common man". They were intended either to produce or remove support and sympathy for Andrew Jackson, and both held hints of truth within them.
Both sides used interpretations of the Constitution as the base of their arguments, and both sides had "witnesses" to use as well. Usually, an attorney would call a witness to the stands, and would then ask questions that prompted answers that would help to support their argument. They would have to ask prompt, precise questions, ones that wouldn't pry too deeply into the witness's life, and ones that didn't involve opinions. They didn't talk too fast or slow, but spoke in a moderate pace, making direct eye contact with the witness themselves. Following this, the opposing side would initiate cross-examination, asking questions that would help to debunk the argument in question. They often asked questions one by one, attempting to find flaws or trap the witness into a position where they either seem "unconstitutional" or contradict themselves. Questions would once again have to be prompt and non-opinion answerable.
At the end, both sides would make closing arguments that were meant to tie everything together and remind the jury of their main points. They often had impressionable endings that were meant to leave us contemplating and, hopefully, supportive of their side. The prosecution, for example, claimed that "if there was any doubt whatsoever into the nature of Jackson's actions", that Jackson must be held into account and impeached.
Obviously these arguments were made in a way to persuade the jury and I to vote one way or another, and were conducted in a fashion to make the opposing side look wrong or illogical. Although I liked both sides' arguments, in the end I was forced to make a decision, one which I don't regret. Despite the non-conciliatory tone of the "impeachment" trial of Andrew Jackson, I found that both sides acted cordially and respectfully, and it was certainly very entertaining for me, Senator Akef, to preside over.
First, each side would make opening statements to hint at what their arguments were going to be. The attorneys making these statements were confident and poised, and looked directly into the eyes of the jury. These statements were formal and eloquent in language, and the defense's opening statement even included praises of Jackson as "the greatest man on Earth who would never do wrong" or "the friend of the common man". They were intended either to produce or remove support and sympathy for Andrew Jackson, and both held hints of truth within them.
Both sides used interpretations of the Constitution as the base of their arguments, and both sides had "witnesses" to use as well. Usually, an attorney would call a witness to the stands, and would then ask questions that prompted answers that would help to support their argument. They would have to ask prompt, precise questions, ones that wouldn't pry too deeply into the witness's life, and ones that didn't involve opinions. They didn't talk too fast or slow, but spoke in a moderate pace, making direct eye contact with the witness themselves. Following this, the opposing side would initiate cross-examination, asking questions that would help to debunk the argument in question. They often asked questions one by one, attempting to find flaws or trap the witness into a position where they either seem "unconstitutional" or contradict themselves. Questions would once again have to be prompt and non-opinion answerable.
At the end, both sides would make closing arguments that were meant to tie everything together and remind the jury of their main points. They often had impressionable endings that were meant to leave us contemplating and, hopefully, supportive of their side. The prosecution, for example, claimed that "if there was any doubt whatsoever into the nature of Jackson's actions", that Jackson must be held into account and impeached.
Obviously these arguments were made in a way to persuade the jury and I to vote one way or another, and were conducted in a fashion to make the opposing side look wrong or illogical. Although I liked both sides' arguments, in the end I was forced to make a decision, one which I don't regret. Despite the non-conciliatory tone of the "impeachment" trial of Andrew Jackson, I found that both sides acted cordially and respectfully, and it was certainly very entertaining for me, Senator Akef, to preside over.
Monday, October 19, 2009
What to do when Life Seems to Suck
Today wasn't exactly the most carefree day I've had in my life. I struggled on a math quiz, came home with a bunch of homework, and overall felt a bit tense and annoyed. Sound familiar? Well, maybe you haven't had exactly the same issues I had, but I can safely assume that we've all had our fair share of "bad days." And after I finally took the time to calm down and relax, I began to ponder what I should do to treat the symptoms of my hyperstress, and how I can prevent it in the future. Here's what I found:
1. Put things into perspective
This is perhaps the most important and most effective way of treating "hyperstress." Putting things into perspective allows one to see things in a more open, common, not-so-self-centered light. But this habit is perhaps the hardest one to adopt as well. It requires patience, inner strength, and a willingness to look beyond "me, me, me." Indeed, many times I am still plagued with worries like "When will I get my quiz results back?" over and over again. But that's when I try to think more reasonably. "I still have an A in the class, something which many people dream of having, so why am I worried about one quiz? In many other countries, the "difficult" homework I received today is child's work for them, so why should I complain?" Thinking this way not only makes me feel better, but it also makes me a better, wholesome person.
2. Keep yourself busy
It's certainly not new advice that when a person is so centered on one thing, refocusing their energy on something else will divert their attention from the original thing. In the case of my homework, I promptly took the opportunity this afternoon to take a stroll outside near my house and listen to my iPod after I finished, so as to calm my nerves and keep me sane after a hard day's work. I can tell you with confidence that this method is highly effective and does wonders for your overall demeanor.
3. Find company to spend time with
These days, the time when I finish my homework is also the time when I eat dinner with my family. And as I munched on my turkey and slurped down my soup, I began to feel a sense of joy and contentment, not just because of the food, but also because of the companionship my family provided. It simply felt good to be surrounded by others. It also helped to divert my attention away from my thoughts as well, serving as a double dose of anti-hyperstress medicine. And for those who just can't seem to find the time or opportunity to have a family meal, find a substitute. Maybe connect with the family in another setting, or find friends or neighbors to keep company with. Any situation that is warm and welcoming of your presence is fair game.
4. Let life take its course
This may seem like some sort of "ultra-deterministic" solution to a problem which we have "control" over, but I use the phrase lightly to denote a sense of acceptance. Once a person has done the best that they can (and I mean "the best"), once they've tried their hardest, once they've done as much studying or answered as many math questions as they can, it's time for them to let go. Just let go. Whatever happens happens, and unless someone comes up with a working time machine that lets me retake my math quiz (or better yet, "freezes" time to give me "all the time in the world"), there's nothing we can do to change the past. This can be hard and cruel sometimes, and I am certainly no stranger when it comes to having a hard time moving on. I too am the sort of person who always dwells on nitpicky mistakes or details, ("Did I do this right, what could I have done here?") But no matter how much I whine or contemplate, what's done is done, end of story.
I hope that my report has been of use to you, and I hope that you may find real application for these four strategies taken from an average day of school. Just remember to keep it real, keep it simple, and keep it true.
Best wishes in the fight against hyperstress.
the King
1. Put things into perspective
This is perhaps the most important and most effective way of treating "hyperstress." Putting things into perspective allows one to see things in a more open, common, not-so-self-centered light. But this habit is perhaps the hardest one to adopt as well. It requires patience, inner strength, and a willingness to look beyond "me, me, me." Indeed, many times I am still plagued with worries like "When will I get my quiz results back?" over and over again. But that's when I try to think more reasonably. "I still have an A in the class, something which many people dream of having, so why am I worried about one quiz? In many other countries, the "difficult" homework I received today is child's work for them, so why should I complain?" Thinking this way not only makes me feel better, but it also makes me a better, wholesome person.
2. Keep yourself busy
It's certainly not new advice that when a person is so centered on one thing, refocusing their energy on something else will divert their attention from the original thing. In the case of my homework, I promptly took the opportunity this afternoon to take a stroll outside near my house and listen to my iPod after I finished, so as to calm my nerves and keep me sane after a hard day's work. I can tell you with confidence that this method is highly effective and does wonders for your overall demeanor.
3. Find company to spend time with
These days, the time when I finish my homework is also the time when I eat dinner with my family. And as I munched on my turkey and slurped down my soup, I began to feel a sense of joy and contentment, not just because of the food, but also because of the companionship my family provided. It simply felt good to be surrounded by others. It also helped to divert my attention away from my thoughts as well, serving as a double dose of anti-hyperstress medicine. And for those who just can't seem to find the time or opportunity to have a family meal, find a substitute. Maybe connect with the family in another setting, or find friends or neighbors to keep company with. Any situation that is warm and welcoming of your presence is fair game.
4. Let life take its course
This may seem like some sort of "ultra-deterministic" solution to a problem which we have "control" over, but I use the phrase lightly to denote a sense of acceptance. Once a person has done the best that they can (and I mean "the best"), once they've tried their hardest, once they've done as much studying or answered as many math questions as they can, it's time for them to let go. Just let go. Whatever happens happens, and unless someone comes up with a working time machine that lets me retake my math quiz (or better yet, "freezes" time to give me "all the time in the world"), there's nothing we can do to change the past. This can be hard and cruel sometimes, and I am certainly no stranger when it comes to having a hard time moving on. I too am the sort of person who always dwells on nitpicky mistakes or details, ("Did I do this right, what could I have done here?") But no matter how much I whine or contemplate, what's done is done, end of story.
I hope that my report has been of use to you, and I hope that you may find real application for these four strategies taken from an average day of school. Just remember to keep it real, keep it simple, and keep it true.
Best wishes in the fight against hyperstress.
the King
Monday, October 12, 2009
Integrated Math, an Experiment Gone Wrong
If you're a student from Wayzata High School, then there's probably a 90% chance that you took, at one point, an Integrated Math class (unless you're one of those super math geniuses that bypassed the whole system freshman year, to which I have to say I commend your skills in the math ways.) And if you've taken Integrated Math, you've also probably felt frustrated with the system at least once as well. And I don't blame you. With its random subject changes, higher expectations regarding previous expertise, and rapid pace, it's no wonder you might feel the urge every once in a while to rip up that shiny, expensive, paper-covered textbook. To put it in a nutshell, Integrated Math is flawed. It's an equation that yielding only one solution, "ERROR." However, this equation can be solved, but it will take a few adjustments, recalculations, and some formulas to reach the optimal result possible.
Integrated Math is, on paper, a system that is professed in its title, integrated. It "integrates" different mathematical concepts and tries to put them into "real-life" situations, whether it's running a cookie and juice stand to build arches for houses. But while it seems like a good strategy on the surface, in practice the reality is far from Integrated Math's intended goals. It can completely change subjects on you from out of nowhere. One day you may be talking about, say, inequalities and solving them, and before you know it you could be venturing into the wonderful world of similarity and congruence of triangles. Inequalities=triangles? WRONG! But this kind of sudden shift in focus (a real-life example, taken directly from Integrated Math 3X) only begins to reveal the haphazard system Integrated Math truly is.
In order to "integrate" all the subjects Integrated Math teaches, the course requires previous exposure and background to more "basic" math concepts. That's why there isn't one Integrated Math class, or two, but four, one for each year of high school. Such a prerequisite is completely understandable and justified, except for one thing, humans forget things easily, especially during the most wonderful time of the year, summer vacation. Furthermore, in a school like Wayzata, which follows the block system, a person can take a year's worth of math in half the time, and while this does mean that a person can take two years of math for the price of one, it also means that a student can go one, one and a half, or even two years without ever touching a calculator to use for the quadratic formula! That's a long time to forget some of the more "basic" math concepts required for next year's class. A critic of my criticism might counter by suggesting that we remove the block schedule rather than Integrated Math, but my rebuttal would have to be that the block schedule provides way more benefits than Integrated Math ever has or ever will, and thus must take precedent over it. Furthermore, removing the block schedule would create a much larger stir than removing Integrated Math. Block schedule>Integrated Math, period.
If the sudden shifts in curriculum and the imparting of information in the course were spread out over a longer period of time for each unit, some of the problems mentioned above might be substantially or even significantly mitigated. But the sad fact of the matter is that this is not the case. It's not just a matter of shifting from inequalities to triangles, it's a matter of shifting from inequalities to triangles in two weeks' time! This is most certainly not enough time to delve deeply into both of these important subjects, and it certainly aggravates the whole "basic" information business as well. One of my tutors for the PSAT once commented on how it goes by so quickly, only those who are really proficient in math can even hope to keep up with it. The rest of the student population is left scrambling to get their act together to get an A or B in class. This rule applies even in the math X's, or accelerated classes where the more "proficient" students are supposed to be. No, this problem is intensified in math X's; accelerating an already accelerated class is apt to cause hardship and trouble, no matter who's taking the class.
Haphazard unit changes+unrealistic requirements (considering time)+fast pace=UGGGHHHHHH, MELTDOWN!!!!!! Okay, maybe not that. But it does equal a flawed, unrealistic, and unacceptable math curriculum. But it doesn't have to be this way. It's not like every school in Minnesota is under the curse of Integrated Math. There are plenty of other curricula to be used as examples locally, models to be tested and formulated specifically for the home of the Trojans. The students of Wayzata High School demand and deserve the right to a good mathematics education, and hold the power to achieving it. They can talk to school administrators and suggest different curricula. They can research and look up different math textbooks and deliberate on which one's the best and most understandable in the student's eyes. This math problem can and must be solved. Everyone at Wayzata holds the power to pick up their calculators, type in that formula, and get "NO ERROR, ONLY CLARITY" as the answer on their screens.
Integrated Math is, on paper, a system that is professed in its title, integrated. It "integrates" different mathematical concepts and tries to put them into "real-life" situations, whether it's running a cookie and juice stand to build arches for houses. But while it seems like a good strategy on the surface, in practice the reality is far from Integrated Math's intended goals. It can completely change subjects on you from out of nowhere. One day you may be talking about, say, inequalities and solving them, and before you know it you could be venturing into the wonderful world of similarity and congruence of triangles. Inequalities=triangles? WRONG! But this kind of sudden shift in focus (a real-life example, taken directly from Integrated Math 3X) only begins to reveal the haphazard system Integrated Math truly is.
In order to "integrate" all the subjects Integrated Math teaches, the course requires previous exposure and background to more "basic" math concepts. That's why there isn't one Integrated Math class, or two, but four, one for each year of high school. Such a prerequisite is completely understandable and justified, except for one thing, humans forget things easily, especially during the most wonderful time of the year, summer vacation. Furthermore, in a school like Wayzata, which follows the block system, a person can take a year's worth of math in half the time, and while this does mean that a person can take two years of math for the price of one, it also means that a student can go one, one and a half, or even two years without ever touching a calculator to use for the quadratic formula! That's a long time to forget some of the more "basic" math concepts required for next year's class. A critic of my criticism might counter by suggesting that we remove the block schedule rather than Integrated Math, but my rebuttal would have to be that the block schedule provides way more benefits than Integrated Math ever has or ever will, and thus must take precedent over it. Furthermore, removing the block schedule would create a much larger stir than removing Integrated Math. Block schedule>Integrated Math, period.
If the sudden shifts in curriculum and the imparting of information in the course were spread out over a longer period of time for each unit, some of the problems mentioned above might be substantially or even significantly mitigated. But the sad fact of the matter is that this is not the case. It's not just a matter of shifting from inequalities to triangles, it's a matter of shifting from inequalities to triangles in two weeks' time! This is most certainly not enough time to delve deeply into both of these important subjects, and it certainly aggravates the whole "basic" information business as well. One of my tutors for the PSAT once commented on how it goes by so quickly, only those who are really proficient in math can even hope to keep up with it. The rest of the student population is left scrambling to get their act together to get an A or B in class. This rule applies even in the math X's, or accelerated classes where the more "proficient" students are supposed to be. No, this problem is intensified in math X's; accelerating an already accelerated class is apt to cause hardship and trouble, no matter who's taking the class.
Haphazard unit changes+unrealistic requirements (considering time)+fast pace=UGGGHHHHHH, MELTDOWN!!!!!! Okay, maybe not that. But it does equal a flawed, unrealistic, and unacceptable math curriculum. But it doesn't have to be this way. It's not like every school in Minnesota is under the curse of Integrated Math. There are plenty of other curricula to be used as examples locally, models to be tested and formulated specifically for the home of the Trojans. The students of Wayzata High School demand and deserve the right to a good mathematics education, and hold the power to achieving it. They can talk to school administrators and suggest different curricula. They can research and look up different math textbooks and deliberate on which one's the best and most understandable in the student's eyes. This math problem can and must be solved. Everyone at Wayzata holds the power to pick up their calculators, type in that formula, and get "NO ERROR, ONLY CLARITY" as the answer on their screens.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Who's the REAL animal rights champion, Hearne or Singer?
Although man has used, manipulated, and yes, eaten animals for hundreds, even thousands of years, the issue of whether animals have a claim to rights just as much as we do is a relatively new development. There are many people out there who all agree that the status quo in regards to our relation with animals is flawed or incorrect, and needs to be changed. But at this point, the opinions diverge in completely random directions. Some examples of this difference in thought are Vicki Hearne's essay "What's Wrong With Animal Rights" and Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation." Both claim to be authentic sources of "animal rights" thought; in fact, Hearne slams Singer personally in her essay. So the question remains, who's the real animal rights champion?
Hearne's essay is packed with powerful, emotional appeal. Hearne wastes no time in providing personal analogies and anecdotes with her two dogs, Annie and Drummer to put her point across. She argues strongly in the defense of the owners of pets, while denouncing animal rights organizations like the Humane Society as "the pound, the place with the decompression chamber or the lethal injections." She also considers the term "rights" as a reciprocal responsibility of duties, the government does something for Hearne because she does something for the government, and Drummer does something for Hearne because she does something for Drummer.
In terms of writing style and rhetorical mode, Singer's essay is 180 degrees opposite that of Hearne's. Singer writes in a philosophical, tempered tone, devoid of the strong emotion of Hearne's writing while still preserving his own passions. His structure is simple and to the point, "this is my argument, these are my reasons, these are the counterarguments, this is why they're wrong." Singer argues against the practice of what he calls "speciesism", or favoring the human race over that of "nonhumans," something he places on the same level of racism. He argues against this practice specifically in the fields of animal experimentation and animal consumption, but implies at the end of his essay that there are even more problems to discuss besides these two great issues.
So which author takes first prize? Obviously such a decision is bound to have bias and subjectivity on my part, but my answer in the end is wholeheartedly in favor of Singer. Singer's essay is, in my opinion, crafted far more wittily and logically than Hearne's, whose essay I believe filled with too much pathos appeal and not enough logos or ethos. Furthermore, Hearne's main argument and point is ambiguously hidden in a clutter of "what are rights?" and "look at these stories about Annie and Drummer." Singer's argument, however, is loud and clear, "don't experiment on animals, and don't eat animals." And while I may not be prepared to abandon by T-bone steak or rotisserie chicken anytime soon, Singer is, in my mind, the real animal rights champion compared to Ms. Hearne.
Hearne's essay is packed with powerful, emotional appeal. Hearne wastes no time in providing personal analogies and anecdotes with her two dogs, Annie and Drummer to put her point across. She argues strongly in the defense of the owners of pets, while denouncing animal rights organizations like the Humane Society as "the pound, the place with the decompression chamber or the lethal injections." She also considers the term "rights" as a reciprocal responsibility of duties, the government does something for Hearne because she does something for the government, and Drummer does something for Hearne because she does something for Drummer.
In terms of writing style and rhetorical mode, Singer's essay is 180 degrees opposite that of Hearne's. Singer writes in a philosophical, tempered tone, devoid of the strong emotion of Hearne's writing while still preserving his own passions. His structure is simple and to the point, "this is my argument, these are my reasons, these are the counterarguments, this is why they're wrong." Singer argues against the practice of what he calls "speciesism", or favoring the human race over that of "nonhumans," something he places on the same level of racism. He argues against this practice specifically in the fields of animal experimentation and animal consumption, but implies at the end of his essay that there are even more problems to discuss besides these two great issues.
So which author takes first prize? Obviously such a decision is bound to have bias and subjectivity on my part, but my answer in the end is wholeheartedly in favor of Singer. Singer's essay is, in my opinion, crafted far more wittily and logically than Hearne's, whose essay I believe filled with too much pathos appeal and not enough logos or ethos. Furthermore, Hearne's main argument and point is ambiguously hidden in a clutter of "what are rights?" and "look at these stories about Annie and Drummer." Singer's argument, however, is loud and clear, "don't experiment on animals, and don't eat animals." And while I may not be prepared to abandon by T-bone steak or rotisserie chicken anytime soon, Singer is, in my mind, the real animal rights champion compared to Ms. Hearne.
Friday, September 25, 2009
A Short Treatise on why Macs are Better than PCs
The timeless computer war over which operating system is the best and most powerful has been a central focus of the home computer industry ever since the industry took off in the 1980s. By that time two prominent companies, Apple and Microsoft, had arrived on the corporate scene, and both were poised for the upcoming battle over which company would attract the most hearts and minds of consumers in the following decade. Retrospectively, the answer is quite obvious. Dominating the global computing industry, Microsoft holds an enormous share of the world's computer operating systems, and its founder, Bill Gates, was known for many years by the epithet "World's Richest Man." However, one must not equate popularity with quality, a word which, I believe, rightly belongs to the Apple Macintosh line over anything else. (Just for the record, I am currently typing this blog on a MacBook.) The reasons for this "fact" are listed below:
1. Macs don't break (easily)
All computers, or rather, all electronic devices are subject to bugs, glitches, and malfunctions. This is a simple fact of life. However, there is no doubt that Macs receive far fewer viruses and break down far less often than their PC cousins do. I still have a PowerBook G4 computer soon to reach 6 years of age that has only broken twice in its seasoned lifetime. It continues to perform internet, word processor, and powerpoint tasks with ease and efficiency to this day, and I can see no end to its lifespan anytime soon. Perhaps this supposed invincibility is due to the fact that Macs, forming a much smaller market share than PCs, are less targeted by hackers rather than less vulnerable to them, but the fact remains that Macs are, on the whole, more stable than PCs.
2. Macs have a better user interface
Once again, I must take into account my own bias and my greater usage of Macs before I delve any further into this topic, but it should be noted that my family owns a Gateway computer in addition to three (count 'em, three!) Macs, and after using both types of computers considerably, I firmly believe that the Mac user interface is far more simple and aesthetically pleasing than the interface offered by Windows XP and Vista. Knowing that, I just think that the Mac interface is just plain better than that of Windows, no further questions asked!
3. Macs look cooler
OK, maybe sheer looks shouldn't be a serious criterion for whether an operating system is better or not. But all Mac operating systems are run on Apple computers, so not discussing Apple computers would be like not discussing the exterior of a Mercedes-Benz when making a judgment of the luxury car company. The Mac operating system and Apple computer are two halves of one whole, and the Apple half certainly pulls its own weight when it comes to doing a good job. On first glance at an upscale specimen of Appleness, one is allured by the shiny, chrome silver exterior, awed by the led-backlight keyboard, and captivated by the crystal clear monitor of many fantastic colors. In my eyes, such beauty and style can only be given the title and rank of "Mercedez-Benz of computerdom."
Whatever the reader of this blog's personal opinions may be, this wraps up my short study on the soon to be age-old "computer question". I have tried to combine fact with feeling, reason with passion, and I hope I have either enlightened, impressed, or even converted the heart of the reader in regards to my stance in this matter. One final note. There is no doubt that Macs burn a bigger hole in your wallet (even I lament at this sad truth) than PCs. One can easily get just as much, or even more hard drive, memory, and features on a PC for less than on a Mac, but, then again, it pays to have quality over quantity, right?
1. Macs don't break (easily)
All computers, or rather, all electronic devices are subject to bugs, glitches, and malfunctions. This is a simple fact of life. However, there is no doubt that Macs receive far fewer viruses and break down far less often than their PC cousins do. I still have a PowerBook G4 computer soon to reach 6 years of age that has only broken twice in its seasoned lifetime. It continues to perform internet, word processor, and powerpoint tasks with ease and efficiency to this day, and I can see no end to its lifespan anytime soon. Perhaps this supposed invincibility is due to the fact that Macs, forming a much smaller market share than PCs, are less targeted by hackers rather than less vulnerable to them, but the fact remains that Macs are, on the whole, more stable than PCs.
2. Macs have a better user interface
Once again, I must take into account my own bias and my greater usage of Macs before I delve any further into this topic, but it should be noted that my family owns a Gateway computer in addition to three (count 'em, three!) Macs, and after using both types of computers considerably, I firmly believe that the Mac user interface is far more simple and aesthetically pleasing than the interface offered by Windows XP and Vista. Knowing that, I just think that the Mac interface is just plain better than that of Windows, no further questions asked!
3. Macs look cooler
OK, maybe sheer looks shouldn't be a serious criterion for whether an operating system is better or not. But all Mac operating systems are run on Apple computers, so not discussing Apple computers would be like not discussing the exterior of a Mercedes-Benz when making a judgment of the luxury car company. The Mac operating system and Apple computer are two halves of one whole, and the Apple half certainly pulls its own weight when it comes to doing a good job. On first glance at an upscale specimen of Appleness, one is allured by the shiny, chrome silver exterior, awed by the led-backlight keyboard, and captivated by the crystal clear monitor of many fantastic colors. In my eyes, such beauty and style can only be given the title and rank of "Mercedez-Benz of computerdom."
Whatever the reader of this blog's personal opinions may be, this wraps up my short study on the soon to be age-old "computer question". I have tried to combine fact with feeling, reason with passion, and I hope I have either enlightened, impressed, or even converted the heart of the reader in regards to my stance in this matter. One final note. There is no doubt that Macs burn a bigger hole in your wallet (even I lament at this sad truth) than PCs. One can easily get just as much, or even more hard drive, memory, and features on a PC for less than on a Mac, but, then again, it pays to have quality over quantity, right?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Language and Identity, Relations and Effects
Man has used language and vocalizations to convey his thoughts, feelings, and desires ever since his first appearance on Earth. And in doing so, he has paved the way for a whole new method of communication and human interaction, but at the same time provided an unintentional method of cultural and national identification. It is no coincidence that so many languages, French, Russian, Japanese, and Spanish to name a few, all have the double definition of nationality as well as a distinct method of communication between certain members of the human race. Language has also been one of the planks of nationalism movements and a cause of border wars throughout the past few centuries, from the German unification movement and wars over the "true owner" of Alsace-Lorraine of the 19th century, to the pan-Arab and Zionist movements of the 20th. Language has become just as much a source of identity as physical traits and religion have been in the past.
But is that to say that the languages one knows automatically places them in a unchangeable mold set for life, one which cannot be reversed? Of course not. People have, and continue to gain access and acquire mastery of languages other than their own, learning 2, 3, sometimes up to 4 or 5 different languages, while at the same time maintaining a clear view of who they are and where they stand on life's greatest issues. Indeed, one of the more favorable, and almost required characteristics of the successful person in the modern, cosmopolitan world of the 21st century is the knowledge of more than one language. This knowledge is used by people of all different types of people in diverse professions, from an French businessman learning Chinese to do trade in Beijing, to a CIA officer acquiring knowledge of Arabic to conduct operations in the Middle East with greater efficiency.
There are some things in life that man can never change. He cannot escape his end, and he cannot alter his beginning. While a person may have the mark of their culture implanted from birth in the form of external looks, religious beliefs, and language, this last mark certainly doesn't have to be the only one of its kind. One can transcend this seemingly impassible canyon, and acquire knowledge of tongues other than their own. As the 21st century unfolds, those who are willing to make this crossing may find success in life more easily, and may become the vanguard to lead man's continuous march into the future.
But is that to say that the languages one knows automatically places them in a unchangeable mold set for life, one which cannot be reversed? Of course not. People have, and continue to gain access and acquire mastery of languages other than their own, learning 2, 3, sometimes up to 4 or 5 different languages, while at the same time maintaining a clear view of who they are and where they stand on life's greatest issues. Indeed, one of the more favorable, and almost required characteristics of the successful person in the modern, cosmopolitan world of the 21st century is the knowledge of more than one language. This knowledge is used by people of all different types of people in diverse professions, from an French businessman learning Chinese to do trade in Beijing, to a CIA officer acquiring knowledge of Arabic to conduct operations in the Middle East with greater efficiency.
There are some things in life that man can never change. He cannot escape his end, and he cannot alter his beginning. While a person may have the mark of their culture implanted from birth in the form of external looks, religious beliefs, and language, this last mark certainly doesn't have to be the only one of its kind. One can transcend this seemingly impassible canyon, and acquire knowledge of tongues other than their own. As the 21st century unfolds, those who are willing to make this crossing may find success in life more easily, and may become the vanguard to lead man's continuous march into the future.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Why I Write, Orwell vs. Didion
Both George Orwell's and Joan Didion's essays entitled "Why I Write" share the same name, (or rather, Didion "stole" it from Orwell), and both describe the path that they followed to become writers from youth to adulthood. Beyond that, however, there is very little similarity. Besides the fact that our class read more out of Orwell's essay than Didion's, Orwell's essay is also more descriptive and thorough, and addresses not only himself as a writer, but writers as a whole. He discusses the main motivations of writers, and also includes specific examples of his work like "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia"
Didion's essay is much more centered on her life and her experiences, and unlike Orwell who describes four motivations of writers, she emphasizes just one, what Orwell would have described as the "political", persuasive motive. However, she does describe her personal life and experiences in much greater detail than Orwell, giving her essay a more personal, and at times aesthetic feel.
While both styles and both approaches in the writing of these same-title essays are pervasive and convey what the authors want to say in a clear and precise manner, it is my personal opinion that Orwell's essay gets the job done better than Didion's. His work, to me, resonates more and leaves more of an impact in my mind than Didion's. By taking a more general approach and discussing writers as a whole rather than just himself, I think he makes his essay more academic and interesting. In addition, I think that Orwell's language itself is far more sophisticated than what Didion's essay has to offer. Orwell's four motives of writers, Orwell's poem reflecting his own personal life at the time of writing, and his claim that all books are "failures" all outshine Didion's most interesting word choices, such as "I, I, I", and writing is "an aggressive, even a hostile act," to name just a few excerpts from both essays. While Didion's essay was certainly very interesting to read and definitely well-written, Orwell's version of "Why I Write" simply stirs up my thoughts and makes me wonder a bit more.
Mohamad Akef
Didion's essay is much more centered on her life and her experiences, and unlike Orwell who describes four motivations of writers, she emphasizes just one, what Orwell would have described as the "political", persuasive motive. However, she does describe her personal life and experiences in much greater detail than Orwell, giving her essay a more personal, and at times aesthetic feel.
While both styles and both approaches in the writing of these same-title essays are pervasive and convey what the authors want to say in a clear and precise manner, it is my personal opinion that Orwell's essay gets the job done better than Didion's. His work, to me, resonates more and leaves more of an impact in my mind than Didion's. By taking a more general approach and discussing writers as a whole rather than just himself, I think he makes his essay more academic and interesting. In addition, I think that Orwell's language itself is far more sophisticated than what Didion's essay has to offer. Orwell's four motives of writers, Orwell's poem reflecting his own personal life at the time of writing, and his claim that all books are "failures" all outshine Didion's most interesting word choices, such as "I, I, I", and writing is "an aggressive, even a hostile act," to name just a few excerpts from both essays. While Didion's essay was certainly very interesting to read and definitely well-written, Orwell's version of "Why I Write" simply stirs up my thoughts and makes me wonder a bit more.
Mohamad Akef
Thursday, September 10, 2009
1st blog
welcome,
here begins our eventful journey into the wonderful world of the blogosphere. i am your guide, mohamad akef, and i will be here all year and beyond. i hope i can be of assistance. let's get going. huzzah.
mohamad akef (your guide, i already said that)
here begins our eventful journey into the wonderful world of the blogosphere. i am your guide, mohamad akef, and i will be here all year and beyond. i hope i can be of assistance. let's get going. huzzah.
mohamad akef (your guide, i already said that)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
