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.