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.