Photo Essay

Image 1: Overcast Overwatch

SDCOE overlooking mission valley

Humongous, fluffy sculptures of iron grey water vapor churn impressively above the sprawling form of mission valley. Humming electrical lines stretch above the no-mans land between a SDCOE parking lot and a spacious golfing green. In the distance, stumpy mountains loom blackly; hazy from suspended moisture.

Image 2: Flagpole

SDOCE outside the Joseph Rindone Technology Center

A soaring spike of steel spears the very belly of a cloud swathed sky, trailing the flag of our United States of America alongside the ferocious visage of the golden state’s ursine mascot. Such a simple image raises a host of questions, if one has the curiosity to pose them. For instance, exactly what kind of metal is the flagpole made of? The likely candidate would be stainless steel, as it would require minimal maintenance, though a core of cheap material could easily be wrapped in some sort of corrosion resistant alloy. Such a rarely seen perspective could also give rise to several exiting guessing games. For example: write down every conceivable number on little scraps of paper and stuff them in a jug. Then have a few people randomly fish numbers out of the jug, until someone collects the exact height of the pole in meters, yards, feet, inches, and centimeters. Give that person a prize!

Image 3: Ocean Sliver

SDCOE overlooking USD and the Pacific ocean

Filtered through our rapidly warming atmosphere; the great constant, the enemy of comprehension, the soundless, motionless void that we call space takes on a cheerful azure hue. The barest sliver of an alarmingly acidic Pacific ocean can be seen peeking over the beaches and bridges of San Diego, providing a picturesque backdrop for a sward of houses and the outskirts of USD. A cool breeze ruffles the tops of leafy trees and sweeps petite wisps of cloud across the blue.

Image 4: Power lines

SDCOE

Enough current to melt the flesh, fat, cartilage - indeed the very sinew off of your bones hums nonstop through towering modern minarets, metal obelisks commanding attention for miles around, demanding acquiescence to little yellow patches emblazoned with the words DANGER - HIGH VOLTAGE. Are such fortifications the best choice for electrical peregrination? It could be argued that, due to their resemblance to military installations, they should be considered with similar design elements. For instance, a tunnel would likely be a more strategically desirable format than a system of wires suspended hundreds of feet above the ground, in addition to being more aesthetically desirable.

Image 5: Plant Light

SDCOE

Sunlight illuminates flourishing plant life through a hole in concrete support columns, revealing in glorious color the majesty of photosynthesis and the beauty of chlorophyll. As everyone should know, chlorophyll is a naturally occurring pigment in plants that absorbs the red and blue spectrum while reflecting the green, and is essential to plant life as we know it. Concrete, on the other hand, was invented in a form very similar to the modern formula by the Romans, and is made with a mixture of cement, aggregate material, and water (plus optional and obscure chemicals). Concrete has excellent compressive strength but poor tensile strength, a combination of properties that generally necessitates some sort of reinforcement, like rebar grids or spirals.

Image 6: Busy Bees

SDCOE

As I sat, enjoying a solitary luncheon, my wandering attention was drawn to a faint buzzing originating somewhere over my shoulder. Imagine my surprise to find a bush immediately behind my bench so packed with flowers the leaves were almost invisible. A few placid bumblebees were busy exploring the same phenomena, albeit with a more invested interest. My lightning fast quickdraw skills were put into full effect as I unholstered my camera and snapped off a flurry of precise shots with the practiced ease of Clint Eastwood. A moment of contemplation later I had the camera set to “macro”, and spent a good deal of time trying to get a nice picture of one of the bees (a feat easier said than done, as their movements were erratic and constant). Feast your starved eyes on the succulent fruits of my labor, and remember that, just as one must refrain from gorging themselves after a prolonged fast, lest their stomach rupture and spill highly corrosive acids into the abdominal cavity, causing slow and excruciating death, you must try to remember to blink while gazing at these photographs, or risk the eyeballs losing too much of their precious moisture to evaporation. Take pains, also, that you do not allow yourself to become dehydrated by crying at their beauty - the human body is 75% water, after all.

Honors Blog

Dear reader,

Before writing anything about the topic, I must clarify that I am not in honors, and so am not obligated to write this blog. However, I am going to do so anyway, because it seems like such an excellent prompt. Unfortunately, I have not read any of the same material about the decision that the real honors students have, so my blog will be, in the main, devoid of factual backup. I will also not strain myself to fit any deadlines, because I hate them. I will also not bother to follow any logical train of thought until I have compiled enough observations to organize them in a complete blog entry.

The decision to use atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was one that would linger in the debate halls and blog prompts of humanity for generations. 

On the one hand, governmental decision makers would have known atomic bombs would kill thousands and thousands of innocent Japanese, but on the other, casualties could be just as high (indeed higher) in a conventional assault. The question then, becomes whether Japan should have been attacked at all or pressured to reach diplomatic understanding.

What am I Bringing to the Magazine?

1. Hopefully I will have a good, informative interview to contribute before any deadlines accrue, but I will also have a photo essay. I guess that if I really feel like it I could write another article, but I would need intense motivation.

2. Hmmm... What a difficult question. We could go with something obvious and boring like "HTHMA Internships", but there must be better choices. Cliches are always fun, but, sadly, the creative portion of the human brain does not give birth on command, so I cannot think of anything much more clever than "HTHMA Internships" (or similar variations like "HTHMA Internships 2009" or "2009 HTHMA Internships") at the moment.

3. I think I would like to read a stark assessment of the benefits and drawbacks, both hypothetical and literal, associated with internships. Of course, if this article was to appear in a magazine written terribly, I would not enjoy it. Similarly, if I saw a well written article about something less inherently interesting in a magazine I would read and enjoy it, going to show that a well written piece of writing is almost always more appealing than a poor one. Considering this, I would appreciate it if the articles obey the rules of english, not focus on any topic in particular.

Internship Immersion

I chose question number 1:

What did you learn during immersion? How did you learn it?

Answer:

Perhaps the most tangible "things" I learned during my immersion were: 1. How to coil really long cables without kinks or bends (things that would presumably shorten the life of the cables and make them more difficult to use), and 2. How to operate a TV camera, because I played the role of an impromptu cameraman for an episode of Math 2 Success.

I learned how to coil like a pro through the following series of events: One day I went to internship. There was nothing for me to do, so I sat in a chair and read an engaging book. eventually, a kindly man happened by and asked if I could help in the studio. I enthusiastically replied that, of course, I would help him (probably to a casual observer I did not appear remotely exited, but I assure you that I was bursting with joy). So, after stowing my book in my backpack, I wended my way to the ITV studio, where I was introduced to several other people who were busy as bees. One guy told me that I could begin by coiling up a blue cable that snaked across the floor like a starved anaconda. I did so, naively assuming that one coils a long cable (must have been 50 feet) in the same way as a rope. Sadly, I was not correct, a fact that was explained to me in civil terms by this other guy who showed my how to do it professionally. As he put it, when there are very long cables that need to be kept in good shape (because everything costs money) pains should be taken to coil them so that they lie (I cannot think of any word for this instance better than flaccid, and even that is not a very accurate description) flaccid, without the cable's natural tendency to twist in a certain way being ignored. He showed me a tricky flick-of-the-wrist maneuver so that the cable naturally forms a coil. I would outline exactly what to do, but, not to be blunt, that was a really long paragraph and I still have another one to finish so I'll just leave it at that. 

After the adventure with the cable, (I think if anyone ever asks me about that again I will have to make up some elaborate story about wrestling a 50 foot python or something else suitably manly) a completely different guy showed me how to use a camera and what the filming would entail, then the TV kids arrived, and (to cut a long story short) we started filming.

It is apparent that the two "things" I chose to describe were skills. I suppose a skill is subtly different from an ability or talent... (I am very tired right now so I will come back to this part later and hash out some acute philosophical connections) (at least I would like to call them acute but they will likely be horribly obtuse).

Immersion

This blog might be slightly (or even completely) irrelevant, as I failed to write it before the start of my internship immersion, but considering that such a series of events is out of my power to change, and the undeniably true saying goes; "better late that never", I decided to finish it anyway.

Question #1: What are you most excited about in regards to your immersion experience? Why do you feel this way?

Answer: I was most exited about being exempt from scholarly requirements for 2 weeks. Now that half of my immersion has expired, I am most enjoying the incredible opportunity afforded by such a bounty of free time, which I am spending by reading several of the books I have been meaning to finish. I am currently more than halfway through Don Quixote (a fantastic read) and after that I want to shift my full attention to War and Peace (my drive to finish this book failed me twice, and each time was in the same part of the book. Leo Tolstoy may have produced an intelligent, deep, and thematically refined novel, but the chapters about the war are so immensely dull that I could not force my mind to continue processing the story).

Question #2: What are you most concerned about (what causes the most stress) regarding immersion? Why do you feel this way?

Answer: Fortunately this storm has passed in much the same manner as this blog entry, bringing to mind the old adage: "time heals all wounds". Before immersion, and during the early days of the intellectual sojourn, my subconscious was pressed to the grindstone of stress by the unyielding arm of my internship project. Eventually I decided to kill two plump bird with one stone, abandoning my sinking project concept to bolster the ranks of another group. In my mind, my time and efforts were better spent improving an already commendable group effort then struggling against setbacks as immutable as the laws of gravity for the sake of an already poor project. Since this liberating decision, my new group has another humble peon lending his mind and body to their project, and I have much less actual work to do, since the bigger the group the less each person must do. So here I am, taking a break from the outlandish and amusing escapades of Don Quixote to write this blog. Speaking of Don Quixote, it is a wonderful book and I particularly enjoy the wide variety of metaphors drawn from mythology that scatter every page. For my part, I would love to have the same knowledge of cultural myths that practically every character possesses and employs with such great skill and wit. One of my favorite is as follows (pg. 355):

"Along this road that I have described, rough and difficult, stumbling here and falling there, struggling to their feet then falling again, they gain the degree to which they aspire; and once they attain this, many are those we see who, having sailed over these shoals and between these Scyllas and Charybdises as if borne on the wings of favorable fortune, govern and rule the world from an armchair, with their hunger turned to satiety, their pinching cold to..."

The part of this that I find commendable (quite apart from the excellent and amusing syntax) is the reference to Scylla and Charybdis, which according to the footnote (prior to this I had no idea what these two names were) were a sea monster and a whirlpool, respectively, from Greek mythology. Such clever and apt references are rarely seen in any writing, and when used intelligently can elevate any story or argument.

PS

Mar 16:

In truth I do not know what motivated me to write this post-script besides a spate of crushing boredom, since it is essentially irrelevant and completely unnecessary. After reading Don Quixote, (which could be my new favorite book - it would almost be worth it to learn spanish just to be able to read the original version) I decided to leave War and Peace to gather dust on my shelf in favor of a much shorter, much more riveting book titled The Serpent and the Rainbow, by Wade Davis. The book is about the author's journey to Haiti in search of the formula of their zombi poison, and covers everything from history to botany to Haitian culture. Not only that, but Davis managed to combine mountains of the aforementioned (plus others) in the format of a suspenseful, informative, (true) novel, without breaking the mood, pace, flow, or whatever you want to call that elusive quality inherent to a good book.

How Progressigve was the Progressive Era?

The so-called Progressive era in America was a time in which, according to A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn, the people of the United States were so downtrodden, poor, oppressed, and unhappy that socialism was rapidly gaining popularity. The prospect of a socialist system was a direct threat to the rampant capitalism that had infiltrated American government, so the mucky-mucks tried to calm the masses by passing laws and regulations that barely improved living conditions. Zinn writes on pg. 14: "History books give the label 'Progressive Period' to the early years of the twentieth century. True, it was a time of reforms--but the reforms were made unwillingly. They were not meant to bring about basic changes in society, only quiet the uprisings of the people."

Undoubtedly if the upper class had spent more of their unseemly fortunes educating their underprivileged laborers, said workers would have been able to modify the very structure of America. Like a toddler with play-doh, the lower class could have molded the government and it's priorities into nearly any shape they wanted (in this case socialism). As the Declaration of Independence states: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Outstanding Blogs

1. Economic advice to Obama: Evan Lott www.evanlott.blogspot.com

I chose this blog because he brings up an interesting point: "Where exactly does that money go? We have spent billions of dollars for this war, but why can't we get that money back?" I find this observation interesting because our economy is in dire straits yet all the money is still there. The government doesn't just go around burning up American currency in huge pyres, does it? I am sure that any learned economist would scoff at my puzzlement, but too bad. I think this qualifies his blog because the foremost consideration when reading something is interest. The points he made interested me, therefore I enjoyed reading his blog.

2. Literary analysis: Jacob Harris www.jacobharris.blogspot.com

Jacob does an excellent job of both literary analysis and writing in his blog. "In other words, it is showing that he likes feeling and petting things that are soft and pretty, which leads up to him petting another characters hair in the end of the book, causing her to panic, which causes him to panic, which makes him hold on so tight to where the characters panicked flailing causes him to accidentally crack her neck, killing her." He pairs good vocabulary, fluid sentence structure, and insightful analysis, resulting in a good blog.

Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday

According to Dictionary.com, science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation." Since we obviously did not spring into existence with an understanding of life's mechanics, (In truth this point is impossible to prove, as everyone alive today was born into a society that possesses at least a rudimentary understanding of existence. For all we know, the entire universe could be a figment of the readers imagination.) science is the process of distilling the kaleidoscope of action and reaction into recognizable and quantifiable patterns.

Charles Darwin contributed significantly to mankind's collective scientific understanding, finding a pattern in the seemingly chaotic play of evolution, blazing a trail that the rest of us could follow with our bumbling brains. He occupies the same lofty tier of history as Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, and Leonardo da Vinci; men whose names will, in all probability, not be forgotten as long as human civilization persists. Their accomplishments brought them resounding fame, but it should be remembered that before they gained such towering proportions in history books, they were no different than the rest of us.

My point is that science is a field of study that conveniently keeps pace with humanity's intellectual evolution, and that all anyone has to do in order to ascend to a similar stratum of history is contribute positively to the general database of scientific knowledge. If one manages to do so with the same inspired savvy, the same daring panache as these intellectual colossi of yore, then that individual's name and achievements will be observed in the same light (however, people will refuse to acknowledge anyone in this fasion until after their death, which might blunt any sense of accomplishment somewhat).

To answer the question then, a balance must be struck between observational analysis and less tangible theories. If someone wants to believe in higher powers, there should be no social restriction to their beliefs, but at the same time religion comes in all forms, some of which might not be conducive to ordered civilization. For example, even though God/s might be vicariously bloodthirsty, I do not advocate sacrificing members of society on alters at the top of skyscrapers just in case. At the other end of the spectrum, a culture based solely on scientific knowledge does not seem like a good option. Focus on a single theory to the exclusion of others can result in crippling social shortsightedness.

Stuff That Makes a Great Interview

DESIGN PRINCIPLES:

1. Be Polite. Even if the interviewer harbors a deep personal hatred for the interviewee, retaining good manners will allow for barbed questions and comments that will not be sufficient for the subject to challenge outright, thus causing the interviewee to grow flustered, frustrated, lose their cool, and make it much easier for the interviewer to extract the required information. This interview demonstrates exemplary execution of this principle - the interviewer can be seen speaking courteously to a person devoid of higher brain function (Sarah Palin).

2. Keep digging until you receive a satisfactory answer. Note that this "digging" can be done with either a 20 pound maul or a razor sharp trowel (or anything in between), according to the preferences of the interviewer. A good example of this principle in action is this Sarah Palin interview. You can see the interviewer digging with what I might describe as a medium-weight shovel until the interviewee is practically forced to admit that she cannot name a newspaper.

3. Keep the interviewee on their toes trying to guess where your next blow will fall, regardless of the preferred approach. Adhering to the tenants of guerilla warfare will ensure that your questions fall on the interviewee's metaphorical underbelly. The previously cited interview of Sarah Palin also happens to fit this third design principle like a tailored glove on a petroleum jelly smeared hand. Obviously Sarah Palin was not expecting to be asked what newspaper she read, or she would have taken the 5 minutes necessary to find out (or make one up).

13 Interview Questions (Revised)

This interview of Barack Obama was done well

1. Where are you from?

2. What did you do after high school?

3. What college (if any) did you attend?

4. Did your choice of college influence your career path? Or vice versa?

5. If not college, what made you want to do what you do now?

6. As it is stated on sdcoe.net, the mission of the office is to “provide the highest quality education for students in County Office operated programs.” In your opinion, how well is this done? Are there any changes, major or minor, that could make it make it easier to achieve or exceed this mandate?

7. It seems like a technical impossibility to provide news or instructional television without some sort of bias (ITV cannot air every scrap of useful information). What do you think of this opinion? What kind of bias do you notice ITV expressing? Is there a certain kind of bias that is actively pursued or valued?

8. Albert Einstein once said: “The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.” As someone who supervises elements of ITV, what sort of thoughts does this quote engender?

9. Have you noticed any changes in SDCOE stemming from or in response to our national economic troubles?

10. What future changes do you predict might be implemented at SDCOE or ITV to accommodate the economy?
11. What is your opinion about the recent bailout plan/s?
12. If you could do anything at all for a living, including nothing, what would you choose? Why?
13. If you could be one kind of plant, what would it be?

My Internship Experience

My first experience with internship was uneventful, to say the least. Law drove me and several other students to our respective internship sites and I got directions from a kindly man sitting at a desk that said INFORMATION. Following his directions, I met a man who escorted me to my mentor's department. For the sake of detail, this man was a little taller than me and possessed a reasonable degree of courtesy, but I could sense that he wondered what the hell I was doing in such an austere business environment. After arriving at the realm of my mentor, I met her co-workers, who informed me that she had left her place of employment earlier that day for personal reasons. Upon further investigation, I discovered that she had scheduled the internship to begin next Tuesday, in order to accommodate the other interns. This unexpected turn of events was indeed unexpected, but not remotely alarming. I contacted Law (the internship coordinator) and he told me to wait until he could pick me up and drive me back to school. I sat on a bench for about thirty minutes, then decided to sit on the ground next to the bench because it was getting uncomfortable (this bench was constructed by someone who obviously had opinions about ergonomics that diverged wildly from reality). I remained in this state for about an hour, passing the time by meditating and admiring the nearby trees and  distant cloud formations (both of which were entirely worthy of mention; these trees were full not of leaves, but tufts of small white flowers and vast cotton candy clouds were backlit with blazing curtains of sunlight). Eventually, Law arrived and drove me back to school, at which point I walked up the stairs, found an empty computer, and wrote what you are reading right now.

The Relevance of FDR's First Inaugural Address in Modern America

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the 32nd president of the United States, and the only person to carry the title for more than two terms. In spite of a deep depression and brutal war, he served as president for a grand total of 12 years (nearly 4 terms). In his inauguration, he mentioned what has become known as the Great Depression, outlining the causes and his plan to fix them. Although his accomplishments were arguably more impressive than those of other presidents, his speech contained precisely the same language every other president uses (and in fact, every politician) when things aren't going very well.

"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." 

As you can see above, this famous phrase from FDR's inauguration speech ("the only thing we have to fear...") is a cunning ploy intended to bolster the flagging hope of a nation teetering on the brink of financial collapse. While some may be able to unearth shreds of brilliance or prescience in the speeches of men and women faced with tribulation (like FDR, for instance), under closer inspection these uplifting words are revealed to be meaningless. A speech is nothing but a speech, intended to raise confidence in listeners where otherwise there would be only despair, in order for the speech-giver to garner support (obviously, anyone can give a speech, but I will narrow the field down to presidential speeches). You will be convinced of this by examining the purpose of speeches and their inherent un-trustability in the following paragraphs.

Let us ask ourselves why leaders give speeches. Is it to give the impression that they are addressing the listeners individually? To give the government a "face", so to speak? Or could they simply be intended as a chance for the speaker to employ their charisma and/or writing skills? Technically speaking, there is no reason to give speeches in the first place, as it would be much less fuss to send the press a letter outlining their chosen course of action (just like our unreasonably exalted founder George Washington did in his farewell address). Whatever the true reason, it seems apparent to me that the mere fact that someone wants you to believe something is reason enough to doubt it (so you should stop reading this right now). Opinions and beliefs should be formed by the personal experiences of their owner, not by a leader who is a complete stranger to the vast majority of listeners.

Speeches are by nature deceptive for several reasons. First, because a speech has a more "personal" touch than an article or battle plan, and they rely on this fact to undercut much of the instinctive distrust people hold for the media. Second, because of the sheer amount of positive phrases they employ (which tend to be relatively the same across a broad spectrum of speeches). The orator cannot be trusted who insists on moral exhortations while a nation teeters on the brink of disaster (a state they seem to spend a great deal of time in). Third, and last, because any speech should be treated with the same fistful of salt that one would treat it's equivalent if it appeared on some shady, backwater blog site (even though there are some wonderful blogs that happen to fit this description).

In conclusion, all speeches are pointless waffle and should be immediately disregarded by listeners. Ask yourself why you are devoting your precious time to listening to the threadbare rhetoric of absolute strangers who only want you to feel hopeful because they have a chance to lead you. Any person who has taken the metaphorical podium throughout history could just as easily have been standing in the audience, and vice versa. Allow yourself to take a step back from the whole human situation and consider the fact that we are all just glorified monkeys with big brains. If you can do all of this you may be able to "cut through the crap" that infests every nook and cranny of our civilization, both metaphysically and materialistically.

Sources:

"Franklin D. Roosevelt: First Inaugural Address." Bartleby.com. 25 Jan. 2009

"Obama's Inaugural Address: The Full Text." Time. 20 Jan. 09. 25 Jan. 2009

Striking Passage from Obama's Inaugural Address

- MSNBC text of Obama's inaguration by the Associated Press - January 20, 2009

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."

   This passage struck me with its reference to America's current military prominence and how that alone is not enough to overcome obstacles. In fact, the wars that we as a nation tend to derive pride from (such as our role in WWII and the revolutionary war) were either against a more powerful adversary, as in the revolutionary war, or where we had to build up the economy and military to prepare, like when Pearl Harbor was bombed. My knowledge of history being the patchwork shanty that it is, I am under the impression that we went into Vietnam with confidence, but lost. Some might say that there was no winner or loser, but I think if a nation starts a war and doesn't win, it counts as losing (not that it's a bad thing).

   I suppose the excerpt speaks to the higher morality of just about anything, from international relations to personal conduct, and could support equally impressive arguments and counter-arguments for either.

Revised Icon Thesis

Thesis:
John James Ingalls' semi-famous eulogy quote combined with the historic snapshot of Iwo Jima bring into sharp relief the procedural irony of modern war, throws into question the reasoning behind hierarchal systems, and to a lesser extent provides a window into certain aspects of human nature.

Body Paragraphs:

The process of modern war is ironic because it essentially consists of two (or more) entities with opposing agendas struggling to outmaneuver the other and establish their agenda as the prominent one. These "entities" are structured in such a way as to maximize efficiency, much in the same way as a mechanic maintains a machine (this analogy brings into play several other interesting possible observations, but they must wait for a later paragraph). Of course, these structured entities are attempting to dominate by sending the most of the enemy's participants to the one place that (we think - or rather, John James Ingalls thought) rank and prerogative count for absolutely nothing. Maybe I just have a negative personality, but that strikes me as incredibly ironic.

In order to approach this next quandary, I must pose a question: are "humans" and "animals" not fundamentally the same type of organism (aside from debatable differences in cognitive ability)? Please take a moment or two to ponder the question. I believe the answer to this question to be a "yes" for 3 reasons: 1.) we function under the same basic requirements, such as food, water, and oxygen, 2.) our cellular structure is too similar to be coincidental, and 3.) if one was still not convinced, proof could be found by mashing up a human and a cow (making sure that the masses were relatively similar) and asking an impartial observer to identify the remains. Therefore, I reason that since humans and animals are indeed in similar biological classes, and since hierarchies are a human invention (the way humans consider them - animal hierarchies tend to be based on fitness), human hierarchies are pretty much meaningless, because (to the best of our "scientific" knowledge, which is admittedly non-existent) we all come from the same place, we all go back there, and we don't bring any of our political clout in either direction.

If we assume the two previous observations to be true (the ones about mechanics and animals), then we must ask ourselves why humans process information in such a radically different way than practically every other organism on this planet. Do sheep make cars? Do cats sketch out quantum mechanics? Strangely enough, a few slightly famous people have given this same question some serious thought (they are called philosophers), but have yet to produce a widely accepted theory. It seems to me that everything humans touch is somehow ____ (some might call it blessed, others infected) by our seemingly unique logical thought process. This is also true for the aforementioned modern war (and its inherent irony), but animal territorial rivalry does not strike me as especially ironic. This could be because animals generally fight for pragmatic reasons exempt of ulterior motives (again tying into the quote taken from the illustrious John James Ingalls).

A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words. I don't think I quite reached that total, but I could if I was willing to devote extra time to ferreting out increasingly obscure connections between the image, the quote, and the "real" world, and so could you. I am sure that the individuals raising this flag would have had some thoughts on this quote if they had heard it, especially considering that three of the men were killed in action (Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, and Michael Strank) shortly after this photo was taken.

Icon Thesis

Thesis:

John James Ingalls' semi-famous eulogy quote combined with the historic snapshot of Iwo Jima bring into sharp relief the procedural irony of modern war, throws into question the reasoning behind hierarchal systems, and to a lesser extent provide a window into certain aspects of human nature.

Body Paragraphs:

The process of modern war is ironic because it essentially consists of two (or more) entities with opposing agendas struggling to outmaneuver the other and establish their agenda as the prominent one. These "entities" are structured in such a way as to maximize efficiency, much in the same way as a mechanic maintains a machine (this analogy brings into play several other interesting possible observations, but they must wait for a later paragraph). Of course, these structured entities are attempting to dominate by sending the most of the enemy's participants to the one place that (we think - or rather, John James Ingalls thinks) rank and prerogative count for absolutely nothing. Maybe I just have a negative personality, but that strikes me as incredibly ironic.

In order to approach this next quandary, I must pose a question: are "humans" and "animals" not fundamentally the same type of organism (aside from debatable differences in cognitive ability)? Please take a moment or two to allow your cerebral cortex to assimilate the question. I believe the answer to this question to be a "yes" for 3 reasons: 1.) we function under the same basic requirements, such as food, water, and oxygen, 2.) our cellular structure is too similar to be coincidental, and 3.) if one was still not convinced, proof could be found by mashing up a human and a cow (making sure that the masses were relatively similar) and asking an impartial observer to identify the remains. Therefore, I reason that since humans and animals are indeed in similar biological classes, and since hierarchies are a human invention (the way humans consider them - animal hierarchies tend to be based on fitness), human hierarchies are pretty much meaningless, because (to the best of our "scientific" knowledge, which is admittedly non-existent) we all come from the same place, we all go back there, and we don't bring any of our political clout in either direction.

If we assume the two previous observations to be true (the ones about mechanics and animals), then we must ask ourselves why humans process information in such a radically different way then practically every other organism on this planet. Do sheep make cars? Do cats sketch out quantum mechanics? Strangely enough, a few slightly famous people have given this same question some serious thought (they are called philosophers), but have yet to produce a widely accepted theory. It seems to me that everything humans touch is somehow ____ (some might call it blessed, others infected) by our seemingly unique logical thought process.

A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words. I don't think I quite reached that total, but I could if I was willing to devote extra time to ferreting out increasingly obscure connections between the image, the quote, and the "real" world, and so could you. Just look at how far a single meandering train of though brought us!

Bush and the Environment

- Washington post article Bush to Protect Three Areas in Pacific by Juliet Eilperin - Jan 6 2009

- Salon.com Bush's seven deadly environmental sins by Katharine Mieszkowski - Nov 8 2008

These two articles highlight the pros and cons of Bush's environmental policies. On the one hand, few presidents have viewed the natural world with such a cold, industrial perspective, and on the other, no single person has protected so much marine area in all of history. Though the articles analyzed these facts, they did little to hypothesize why. I think that there are several possible reasons for his change of heart, though the most likely is that Bush does not want to be remembered solely by his appalling failures, so he preserved a vast swathe of aquatic territory in the twilight hours of his administration. This strikingly out-of-character behavior could also be because he wanted to diminish Barack Obama's impending achievements, or because he simply realized that the natural world is a vital and irreplaceable resource, both materialistically and metaphysically.

Whatever his motives, preserving 195,280 miles of rich and delicate ecosystem is a phenomenal act and deserves proportional recognition. However, in the words of Vikki Spruill (president and chief executive of the Ocean Conservancy): "This move, by itself, is a really positive move. The net gain is a question we will have to address years from now". Obviously this preservation must be weighed against the ample body of damning policies G.W. Bush has managed to accumulate around his person if we are to truly measure his contribution to human society (and all the other mammals, fish, plants, fungus, and insects that have the misfortune of sharing this planet with us).

Internship

1. What do you hope to learn or discover about the "adult" world of work while you are at your internship?
I hope the internship will provide me with insight of the "professional" world, and give me an idea of what to expect in such dismal environs.

2. What do you hope to learn or discover about yourself and your identity while you are at your internship this semester?
I could say that I hope to discover that I am a proficient worker and human being, (terms that have become entwined in our society) but such expectations would only set me up for disappointment, as I am certain that the "professional" work environment is vicious with it's requirements.

3. What goals do you have for yourself for your internship experience?
My goal is to learn about stuff.