Warrior

Taking sibling rivalry to a whole new level.

    It's a movie. About a winner-take-all ($5 million) mixed martial arts tournament. Watch it. Not into violence, ladies? Two of the fighters are brothers, each with their own reasons to fight, and they share a father who's a recovering alcoholic, so there's plenty of drama for you to feed off of. I don't care who you are, you need to watch this movie. I laughed, I considered getting a little teary, and I even put my hands up to my mouth like a little girl does when she's not sure whether there's a mound of candy or a bear trap in that bag her parents put in front of her. I mean, did you hear the clunk it made?

     I took a risk in that simile, but I know it's slightly off. If I figure out how to explain that it's more of a car-rolling-up-and-it's-either-Dad-or-a-kidnapper-from-Taken thing while maintaining a certain fluidity to the passage, I'll change this post.

     Now put the 2011 Action Drama masterpiece of Warrior into your Blockbuster or Netflix queue, or watch it right now if you're particularly technologically savvy. On the other hand, if you're so much of a savage that you need to drive to the nearest blockbuster to get the movie, I won't think less of you this time.

     Happy Solstice, merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah, happy Kwanzaa, and happy New Year.

A Second Blog?

I'm thinking about creating a second blog. See, I've found that almost everything I've written recently has wanted  to be about controversial topics (my essays have personalities, don't yours?), like religion or ethnic minorities' effects on America. Stuff like that. I didn't want to write about religion in this blog (the educational, graded one), because it's impossible to debate, but I need to write about it. So, dear reader, I need your advice. If you've made a second blog, is it worth it? I'm not going to ask for your approval of the subject matter, because the point of controversy is you don't get to control the other opinions. Deal with it.

Thanks for your answers!

I'll Show YOU Risky Business...

     Risk is always present in our lives. Always. It is pretty obvious that every action has consequences good and bad, and thus it's apparent that every action involves risk. Think about Freakonomics, since we've all read it. There are incentives to every action, a  reward that would make it worth doing. It only makes sense that there are negative results of the actions that happen as well. Also note that both "positive" and "negative" incentives are not often guaranteed, and that's where risk comes in.
     Every time we make a choice in life, it's after some consideration of whether the possible benefits outweigh the possible undesirable consequences (These considerations are usually hasty or short-sighted, but that's not what I'm gonna talk about. Sorry; just keep it in mind, I guess. Meditate on it.). We make a surprising amount of choices every day, so we're almost always calculating risk. For instance:

Choice: Should I format my title the same way I format my acknowledgement of sexual innuendos?
Incentive: It'll be funny to me and anyone that's heard me use a similar joke, especially because it's going on Cardona's blog.
Risk: If no one's heard it, the joke will fall on deaf ears. Also, I may get in trouble.

So, to mix things up a little, I DARE you to think of an action that doesn't involve incentives or risk and put it in the comments so I can prove you wrong. Or severely edit my post.

What's so funny?

An example of ridiculousness. Note
that the caption's incredibly formal
tone is ridiculous in itself.

     We all have ideas of what is funny. Some people like slapstick, some people like wit, and some people like other kinds of humor I'm too lazy to copy off Wikipedia. But what matters is that every form of humor is based on nonsense and ridiculousness. This is called the Incongruity Theory. In short, we only perceive things to be funny because they don't make sense or they surprise us by challenging the norm. Think about it. Tom and Jerry? Every time Tom is crushed by a piano, you don't expect him to end up like an accordion only to pop back into shape after a second. And need I mention the dead baby jokes?

     So, if humor is funny because it's nonsensical, why are nonsensical things funny?

     Because they make us feel uncomfortable.

     Laughing is a defense mechanism used to relieve the laugher of some discomfort. The perfect example of laughter's use is as a response to tickling. When so many nerve endings are stimulated at once, it is physically uncomfortable. The brain forces us to laugh to divert our attention from this unpleasant feeling. The exact same phenomenon can be seen when we are surprised by a joke's punchline. The brain would prefer to laugh off the uneasiness than let us stand around babbling in disbelief. This is why there's a moment before anyone laughs after the joke, when the brain makes the connection, and decides to laugh off the awkwardness.

     For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRZ2Sh5-XuM

     I've developed my sense of humor by cutting the fat of  one-liners and acting purely nonsensical. It works, but before you go around trying to be funny by shouting nonsense, realize that being nonsensical is an art, and it requires practice. A few tips:
     1. Relate to the situation; branch off of it rather than going on an opposite or irrelevant topic. If you're in a dog park, don't talk about an airplane unless a dog's flying it.
     2. Different voices can help, just don't make them too obnoxious. Same goes for dances.
     3. Share this special kind of humor with close friends, so it's not too awkward if a joke goes wrong.

My Musical Stockpile

     Between my bedroom door and my desk, I have a corner reserved for my collection of musical instruments. I've placed them edge-to-edge to save space, but they still extend a good three and a half feet from my wall. In my collection, I have three saxophones, a fake saxophone, and a trombone. I don't just have all of these for fun (maybe a little, more on that later), but rather I keep each for a specific purpose.
     First my Vito Alto Saxophone. This is THE recommended saxophone for anyone that decides to take band for their required middle school music course, the perfect saxophone for someone that has about a 50/50 chance of continuing band pass ninth grade. Some people are content with playing a Vito all through high school, but luckily, I don't have to.
     Next, I have my pride and joy, the Selmer Super Action 80 Series II Alto Saxophone. I am the pied piper with this bad boy/girl. Yep, he/she's a boy/girl. It's custom to name one's instrument (usually only if you're a tad off, like I am), and I plan to once inspiration strikes. I'm certain I'll spend less time naming my firstborn son than I will my saxophone. I am the Pied Pier with this horn; its tone is so sonorous, so silky smooth, like Dove chocolate. I can turn three simple notes into the most longing, melancholy tune ever heard.I love my Selmer Super Action Series II Alto Saxophone, and I'm sure it loves me, too.
     Behind my saxophones and closest to the door (as it's my newest arrival) I have a tenor saxophone, on loan from the school. Since I've been drafted into the Blue Jazz Ensemble to play the second tenor (with the GODLY Thomas Strommen), this saxophone is very nice, it has a nice sound if not a little more brash than my Selmer.
     Sitting in the corner and receiving much less use (than my saxophones and than I'd like) is my trombone. I wanted to expand my musical skills past a very exclusive class of woodwinds, and I thought the trombone would the most different instrument I could get my hands on for a reasonable price. I was right. There is literally nothing similar between saxophones and trombones, and I'm still working on buzzing, using the slide to correct pitch, and even reading music (bass clef is kinda stupid).
     I also have a few instruments for fun. I have a "Chinese bamboo saxophone" ad well as a few of what I call noisemakers. On his way to a meeting whit a factory manager, my dad was ambushed in China by a "saxophone" salesman, who convinced him that a bamboo "saxophone" belonged in my collection. I am very grateful for the gift, but, as you can tell by the quotation marks, it's not really a saxophone. It's more of a recorder with a reed, and I had figured I was done with recorders after fifth grade. Also, I have yet to play a song on the bamboo; I can't figure out if I need an incredibly loose jaw or a very tight one. Finally, I have three "instruments" capable of playing only one note each, a conch shell, a cow horn (think Native American war horn) and a vuvuzela. These are plain novelties, and I almost never play them at the request of my family.
   
If I think of a nice sounding ending I'll put it here.
Love, Ryan.

YOU'RE WRONG!

Joking. When I made my mini-essay things, I had in mind a specific method and failed to use only one method per instance. Therefore, I had more than one method in examples 1 and 5. Either way, you all did great and I'm just a bad teacher. Joking.

1. Cause and Effect. I tried to stress the "if, then" format towards the end with anaphora. The only issue was I had to set that rhetorical gem up with an either-or, which means I used a Classification method as well.

2. Compare and Contrast

3. Process Analysis

4. Example

5. Narration. Sorry for playing Battlefield between writing each paragraph, but it was a five day break. What do you expect? Since I was so occupied trying to relate AP Comp to a first person shooter, I didn't realize how I slipped from analyzing the stepping stones of a story into describing Causes and Effects. Sorry.

6. Description

The Morality of War - Rhetorical Methods

1. When war is waged, it is either as a last resort to defend possessions (both tangible and abstract) or to gain them. In America's case, we always go to war for the former reason. Imagine if we stubbornly refused to go to war. We would be powerless as other countries fought for our land and threatened our freedom. If we refuse to kill people, they will kill us. If we go to war, we can save ourselves.

2. The killing that takes place during war is not murder. Murder is often remarkably one-sided, while war is practically an agreement. Both sides are usually prepared to fight and know who to shoot. Of course, civilian casualties resemble murder as the victim has no really chance to fight back, nor do they wish to. Also, while murder is without good reason, this isn't always the case in war. If killing five innocent people will save twenty, it should be apparent what must be done.

3.War is the crudest form of conflict resolution known to man. It begins when all other desirable forms of negotiation are exhausted; the conflict is resolved by causing the necessary loss of life to force the enemy's surrender. Each side will attempt to harm and threaten to harm the opponent until a side finds concession preferable to extinction. A war can begin for a number of reasons, but the fear of death acts as a driving force every time.

4. Pearl Harbor is a great example of a lack of morality in war. The attack resulted in the death of 57 civilians and over two thousand deaths of unprepared servicemen. The act of declaring war with a bombing run is perhaps the least immoral act possible; without giving the opponent the opportunity to prepare is inconsistent with the morals of armed conflict. Battles in the middle of a war, however, are usually appropriate, even if atrocities like chemical warfare are utilized. This is because both sides go into a war expecting to die and accepting the results.

5. In the video game "Battlefield 3," three Russian soldiers invade Paris and kill its policemen as they rush to defuse a nuclear bomb. They end up killing a few dozen innocent people, but they are fighting to save the hundreds of thousands of residents of Paris and the millions that would die in the resulting world war. The Russians know they are morally sound because they understand how guilty they would be had they ignored the threat.

6. War is, without a doubt, an atrocity. Within the war, however, is a universal effort to minimize the horrors. In the end, men and women will walk the fields damp with blood and surrounded with the unsettling silence that slowly replaces the groans of the dying. Both sides imagine this; many have seen it before. Both sides seek to keep their graves, and often the opponents' graves, as empty as possible. Unfortunately, both sides realize, this can only be done by beating the enemy into submission.

Lightsabers And Ray Guns Are Coming. Give Me Some Time.

     There is nothing in this world that can't be improved. I don't know about anyone else, but I am disappointed in mankind's so-called innovation. We've been dreaming of jetpacks and  flying saucer-esque houses for decades, and the generation assigned the task has failed to make these things readily available.

     But Ryan, I've seen a commercial/magazine article/Mythbusters episode where they had a jetpack!
     That's great, do you have $110,000 to $135,000 lying around?

     The issue with our so called "innovation" is it's not truly public, as it ought to be. Every flying machine and aerodynamic sports car is restricted to our nation's wealthiest. It seems as though we'll never have the popular innovation that captured the hearts of the viewers of the Jetsons. Also worth noting are the houses that are designed to be incredibly green or aesthetically pleasing. They all cost exorbitant amounts more because they're unique than because they serve some purpose. In this way, any houses we can consider "futuristic" are reserved for the top tenth of a percent.

     I want to shape the world, to be an engineer. I've said "I don't want to live forever, but I'd like to make something that does." Unfortunately, I'm most interested in creating guns and airplanes; machines of war. Seems like I'll be remembered as a murderer. But is it such a crime to design weapons? My philosophy is that everybody deserves a chance to live, even if he must fight for it. It is every man and woman's natural right to live, even if he must kill to preserve that right. As long as my creations are used to preserve these rights and not create terror (Think of in the movie "Iron Man," where Tony Stark loves creating weapons until he finds they're being used by militants in the Middle East), then I'll be content.

Computers aren't as powerful as the people that use them.

     Computers have become the foundation of Western life. In fact, they're also acting as Westernizing agents as the "non-Western" parts of Asia, South America, and Africa all become more advanced, albeit at different rates. Computers are quickly becoming extensions of people's will. they can be used to communicate and create; they can be used to manipulate and kill. Is this truly unnatural? Are computers making us less human?

     Computers are simply acting as catalysts, allowing quicker and stronger actions to be taken by their users. For instance, wars are almost always won by the side with the most advanced equipment. The Europeans conquered America and Africa with guns against the native's arrows. Today, America is fighting its wars with Predator and Reaper drones against Al Qaeda's supply of Cold War era Soviet weapons. Computers only make it easier to learn, speak, and kill; they haven't given us these skills. 

     People are afraid of computers bringing about a polarized society, but this is natural progression. Apparently, people worry about a two class system emerging with the growing prevalence of computers: a system divided by whether or not one owns a computer. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your position), this is bound to happen. Not because of the nature of the computer, but because of the nature of capitalism. Once again, computers are just going to accelerate a natural phenomenon, in this case the division of socioeconomic classes.

     In short, computers are part a serious cultural shift in the Western world, but they are not the cause. The cause, instead, is basic human nature as we try to solve our own problems as easily and efficiently as possible.  Thus, though it pains me to say it, it is unlikely we will be able to solve the "problems" that coincide with the use of computers.

Page 126.

"An Eye for an Eye" Doesn't Work As Well As It Should.

     With two tests and a Drum Major audition tomorrow, I figured I could relieve my stress by going on YouTube for a few minutes. This time, I tell myself, I won't click every related video or find new videos to search for, yet here I am, two hours later with an encyclopedic knowledge of the Westboro Baptist Church. Within five minutes of watching the videos, I truly hated the Church. After about 15, it came to me that hating them put me on their level. After all, they hate people for who they are, and I hated them for who they are. Regardless, I want to do something to fight these people. I don't want to fight them by throwing tear gas into their church (which I briefly considered before having my revelation), but by participating in a counter-protest.
     I'm afraid these people can't be changed (many other protests pointing out their flaws have had no effect), so the best thing that can be done, is my opinion, is to lessen their impact. With humor. Brick Stone (if that's not his real name, I'll be disappointed) is one of the most famous counter-protesters, who dresses as a reporter (he holds a microphone) so he can get close enough to the Westboro Baptists to interview them with hilarious and occasionally profound questions. I leave a selection of his best videos for your viewing pleasure, but I also warn you that the linked videos and related ones contain harsh language and sexual content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9XzShL0h8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74LSy2QFpJI

I wrote about ten titles before this one.

     I'm not the best writer in my grade, my class, or even my circle of friends. I know plenty of people who can pour their thoughts onto a piece of paper and it'd be ready for publishing. I can only produce passable work after at least two complete revisions.
     Before I met Mrs. Cardona, I was proud of my writing. Most of my writing assignments were to convey ideas, so it didn't matter how many jagged edges the words had. I would write what I knew, and the reader could wince at my inappropriate diction (I've always been too formal) or awkward cadences without my sympathy. Now, however, I spend hours to write things that took me thirty minutes in lower communications classes. This is mostly because my methods of writing are too inefficient.
     I haven't yet invented the wheel for my writing. I need to push every new essay out of my head as if it were a cart with square, stone wheels. I push it slowly, making slight, relatively insignificant changes, chipping grains of sand out of the stone blocks. Then, I determine that the wheels are taking too long to make; I start over, in spite of all the work I put into each sentence, making each sound like a major chord. That's another problem with the first draft, the sentences sound nice, but they're too predictable.
     With every new essay, I bash away chunks from the stone wheels, then add odd flairs from objects that belong and usually don't; I adorn my cart with golden lining and shards of bone. Each piece gives and takes attention from the others, the gold looks exceptionally beautiful among the bones, and the bones give the viewer something to contemplate. In the end, I'm still pushing a cart while some have created Cadillacs, but it'll get me where I need to go.

High Off Life

     Sorry for using such a hackneyed phrase, but it suits my message. Just watch.

     In today's America, every minute of one's life must be spent working; to take a break is practically suicide. This is especially apparent in school (I would use a professional example if I wasn't a student), where once I've finished my assigned homework, I always have an essay to revise or a scholarship application to write. I have no free time except that I've reserved for sleep. Or do I? The simple solution I've found is optimism; I've learned to enjoy working. As the old adage goes, "if you have a job you love, you never work a day of your life." Of course, I really don't like homework or writing, but I tell myself I do.
     It's a well proven fact that people who pretend to smile for a few minutes a day become happier people in general. With this in mind, I've been forcing myself to crave fulfillment from completing a Spanish packet or turning in my best essay. This worked perfectly last year, but this year things are more difficult, as they should be. Every year (at least in school), classes become more challenging. Those with weaker constitutions may become apathetic or turn to drugs to forget the pressure. I want to learn to be an engineer, so neither of those options suits me. I simply relieve the stress by enjoying the experience. In a way, I want stress to be my drug. We'll see how it turns out; I have a feeling this may be a stupid, possibly masochistic, idea.

Complacency and Entitlement: The American Dream

     America needs more nerds. More tryhards. More of those no-lifers who dedicate themselves to the pursuit of knowledge and achievement. Ever since the Cold War ended, America has been toying with the erroneous idea that we are the sole superpower of the world and no one can change that. With this notion polluting the mind of every student K through 12, we've interpreted "satisfactory" and "excellent" to be synonymous.
     Two Million Minutes demonstrates that Americans barely put forth half the effort in school as Indian or Chinese students. We see school as a time to meet up with friends and talk about our date last night while the teacher mumbles on about the American Revolution. Most Americans don't want to try because even people with negative IQs can get into college if they play a sport. Additionally, people in America are satisfied with being "good enough;" being middle class is the American Dream. In India and China, school is a way to escape poverty; most Americans have no such worries (perhaps the economic downturn is good for something: giving us a reason to seek higher education).
     In the Cold War, education was seen as a public good and as a way to defeat the communist menace. Those seeking education were heroes and domestic soldiers. Since we haven't yet perceived the economic threat of the BRIC (Brasil, Russia, India, China) or the destructive threat of emerging nuclear powers, students haven't been as encouraged. The previous generation worked hard to save their country, and they're now reaping the benefits. Generation Y, however, can only feed off of Generation X's success. If only we could have another Cold War.
     Finally, C material does NOT deserve an A. Bio X should require work suiting an honors class(and maybe experience in Honors 9th Science, WHS is finally starting to fix this) and APUSH is not a class you take because you miss a friend who took Euro. America's students need to commit to education. Until everyone does, our best will rival China's worst.

No Rules

     As I wrote in my "Why I Blog" post a few weeks ago, I planned to use this blog to discuss philosophy. I created this blog, however, because I would be graded on my posts for AP Compostition. It makes sense, therefore, that many of my posts would revolve around topics assigned in the same class. I did my best to satisfy my interest in philosophy while getting a good grade. However, by the grace of my teacher, I've been allowed to write on any topic. I've chosen rules.
     I'm not going to talk about rules in general, but rather general rules. A common discussion in philosophy is Natural Law. In essence, this describes what kind of rules every man, woman, and child in the world is subject to. Many men have proposed different ideas of what rules men are subject to. Additionally, With all the advanced in evolutionary science, I've concluded that men and animals only really differ because the former has the gift of cognition. Since men are so much like animals, I've gravitated towards the idea that men are only subject to the same laws that govern animals, which are nonexistent. In short, I've gravitated towards nihilism.
     In essence, nihilism is the idea that there is no inherent value or law over men in a natural state. Just like animals, we are constantly fighting in a "survival of the fittest" scenario. I believe John Locke's laws, which claim all human beings are entitled to life, liberty, and property, are more like guidelines. To understand why, consider the following: Two man are starving to death in a sealed cave. Is it justified that one man kill another so the former can live off the limited rations, or, if worse comes to worse, off the other man's remains? If anyone answers no while believing in Locke's laws, they've created a paradox. I believe that these guidelines are followed not because they are forced upon us, but because we choose to follow them.
    Sigmund Freud concluded that every human action is made to satisfy the survival drive or the sex drive. this theory, we can theorize that every kind action is a selfish one. Every man we choose not to kill, we do so because we think the man may be useful and/or to avoid punishment. Similarly, we choose not to enslave or steal from others because we fear it will eventually hurt us. In the end, we are all only concerned for our own well being. It's fun to consider compassion to be a subconscious act by our brains to help us survive.
     I am not and, hopefully, never will be advocating anarchy. However, I believe everyone should understand why we allow government to rule over us so we can make proper decisions when we vote and so we can know when we would rather be free.

EDIT - 6:07 PM

     Further reading:  Freakonomics  by Steven Levitt, for a somewhat Freudian study of incentives.
     ALSO, after posting this I thought of a better way to explain compassion in the brain. If one follows the theory of evolution, it is possible that compassion is an acquired trait. What possibly happens is when one does something compassionate, his brain rewards him for trying to survive by giving him a hit of dopamine. In a way, we could be addicted to kindness. However, the brain also contains a check to this addiction in the Limbic System. This part of the brain is responsible for the more primal emotions, including fear. If the brain detects danger, the Limbic System acts as an override and tells the body to not rush into the burning building to save a baby. Of course, the Limbic System is weaker or stronger in different people. An interesting extension/tangent based on the balance between compassion and survival instinct is American politics. I'll let you guess which party corresponds to which emotion.

I don't know Obama, but he acts like a nice guy.

     I was a little disappointed by Obama's back-to-school address. It was was very nice, but perhaps it was too much so. Everything about the speech was open and accepting. He even alternated between strong and meek for his chin position(something I utilize to evaluate someone's sense of confidence). He did well enough to avoid a drop in volume, but he occasionally failed to find a word or finish a phrase quickly, which is interesting considering he's speaking what he's already written. The issue with this is that he's looking down often and speaking at the same time, which makes him look timid. Someone so powerful, someone who is instructing children, ought to slightly look down his nose at the audience. Also, not once did Obama close his fist. Every hand gesture was open, which tells me "you can try hard in school, if you want to. I wouldn't mind." A simple point, a closed fist as he tells us we must become the most educated country would truly motivate me. This kind of lenience is what has presented us with our decline in education. I appreciate his use of facts and statistics, but I feel they were diluted by specific examples and unsupported claims. Finally, I applaud his use of simpler words to seem more approachable, but he could have turned it up ever so slightly to achieve the image that ought to be respected that Obama needs.

People can be Monsters.

I was recently led to a web page with a collection of "Jim Crow" laws (this page: http://www.sju.edu/~brokes/jimcrow.htm , to be exact), and I found these laws are disgusting. Not only do they show how extreme segregation was in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but they also dispel the idea that the North was a safe haven for blacks. Everyone assumes that even during and after the civil war, blacks were treated equally. It's ok to admit it, I thought so too. And while a lot of the laws are from the Deep South, Maryland and North Carolina, generally thought of as "northern states" also forbade interracial marriage and interracial military service, respectively. What I don't understand is what fuels these laws. Is it fear, hatred, ignorance, or some combination of the three?

Like Madlibs, but better.

    I recently read a batch of short stories, and I was amazed by how little they had to say. Even for their length, only half a page typed, I assumed the stories would be devoid of details as their respective authors tried to pack as many relevant details into the story as possible. Oddly enough, these stories were the opposite, where the plots are rather bare, but there are more details that seem irrelevant. It feels like I'm being shown a skeleton (as you would see in a textbook, not a crime scene) with bits of muscle, organs and flesh in only a few select places and I'm expected to figure out how the entire being looks.
    I was initially annoyed by this lack of information, but now I'm thrilled to read short stories like these. As I read, my imagination is allowed to wander. I can make these stories relevant to my own life whether the writer intended them to be or not. I would love to write short stories myself to similarly help other readers, but I'm afraid my writing style is too real. I feel like I've let myself down if I don't include every important detail. I guess it's something else to work on.

Why I Blog

     I believe the first thing that needs to be said about this blog is that I only created it as a project for my AP Language and Composition class. I think Facebook should be sufficient for talking to other people, but I'm open to the experience of blogging and I'm hoping I won't be too disappointed.

     I've seen a few blogs before I began this project, and many of them were simply journals of the creator's life. I'm sure the creators are nice people, but I'm oblivious as to why they would expect another person to regularly donate time (that could spent truly living) to read about the exploits of a relatively average person. Therefore, I will only share personal experiences on this blog if they are significant to whatever I'm discussing.

     I'm not totally sure about what I will be writing about on this page, but I'm heavily considering philosophy. Philosophy is interesting that it exists almost solely to be discussed, and a blog seems like the perfect way to discuss it; blogs are organized; every post made can be found in one spot; and, most importantly, blogs are free for the writer and the reader. Regardless, this blog will not be a plea for attention, but rather either a service (perhaps like the Philip DeFranco Show) or simply a place where people can consider other ideas.