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.

Two examples of good work

Which came first - the stagnant puddle or the microorganism? 

An attempt to iron out the wrinkles of technical ignorance surrounding turbidity and bacteria with the Bunyanesque weight of scientific evidence and blistering logic.

By: Will Schrenkeisen

Dec. 11, 2008

  Picture a tall glass full of fresh, crystal clear water. You hold it aloft, impaling the pellucid chalice on a brilliant shaft of purest sunlight, sending a dazzling pattern of refracted light cavorting throughout your surroundings. You quaff daintily from it to slake your overpowering thirst, your tender taste buds and olfactory nerves blessedly free of any fetid influence. For most, this is the very image of healthy cellular refreshment. Yet how many people would be as blasé about quenching their thirst if the glass in question was full of a murky, stagnant brew with a rancid odor? The word used to describe water in terms of these very attributes is turbidity. The more discolored, funky smelling, or otherwise offensive a water sample is, the higher its turbidity rating (more on this later). Obviously the turbid water mentioned above is not fit for consumption (drinking your own urine would probably be much safer), but a common misconception of this phenomena is that high bacteria levels somehow cause water to become turbid. In fact, the situation is reversed. Bacteria cannot spontaneously cause turbidity, but the more turbid a body of water is, the easier it is for bacteria to survive.

  The visual indication of turbidity (cloudy, murky, discolored, or any other suitable adjective) is caused by suspended solids in the water; particles that can run the gamut from fine sediment to industrial by-products to planktonic life forms. These suspended solids cause the water to lose its clarity by scattering light, thus limiting visibility. Odor can be caused by the waste products of bacterial metabolism, but smelling water is not a very reliable test for bacterial concentrations (bacteria can smell very different from one another). Turbidity can be measured with any one of a plethora of tests, but perhaps the most simple, reliable, and effective measurement is obtained through a nephelometer. A nephelometer (more commonly referred to as a turbidimeter when used for water testing) functions by projecting a beam of light through a medium (liquid or gas) and measuring the amount of light reflected off the particles into a detector. In the United States the results are expressed in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), and internationally with Formazin Nephelometric Units (FNU), but can also be expressed in Formazin Turbidity Units (FTU). 

  First, clarification must be made on the term “bacteria”, as it will be used extensively in this article. Bacteria come in a bewildering array of forms with equally diverse effects and requirements, and not all of them malicious. Consider, for instance, that there are about 10 times as many bacteria cells in your body than your own cells. In seawater, the most common form of bacterial agents are Bacteriophages, with as many as 250,000,000 per milliliter of seawater. However, these miniscule viruses operate by infecting other viruses and bacteria, and so are of little consequence to the objective of this article. Pathogenic bacteria, on the other hand, are the organisms responsible for the majority of medical cases associated with swimming in (or drinking) polluted seawater, such as Amoebiasis, Otitis media and externa, Conjunctivitis, or Gastroenteritis. Viruses, though responsible for a great deal of much more potent maladies (including Adenovirus and some flesh eating diseases), generally cannot infect a host (swimmer) unless the individual’s skin, and thus their innate immune system, is compromised with a cut or lesion.

  Unfortunately, these harmful bacteria are very difficult to test for, largely because of their tremendous variety of species and subgroups (making it inefficient, costly, and time consuming to test and catalogue their numbers). Due to this difficulty, biologists test for indicator bacteria, organisms that can be readily tested for and correspond significantly to the levels of other pathogenic bacteria (though the indicator species are not particularly virulent). Three common types of indicator bacteria biologists test for are total coliforms, E. coli, and Enterococci. The term total coliforms serves to define a very broad group of bacteria which can originate from soil, decaying vegetation, or the intestinal tracts of warm-blooded animals. E. coli (short for Escherichia coli) is a type of coliform found in the lower intestines of warm blooded animals, which when present even in small quantities is a strong indication of recent sewage or animal waste contamination. Enterococci is a subgroup of the fecal streptococcus group and closely mimics the behavior of many kinds of pathogenic bacteria, making it an ideal bacterium to test for. Finding the most probable number (MPN) of these indicator bacteria gives an indication (hence the name) of the population of their pathogenic cousins, and because of this relationship the EPA has set certain standards that when broken merit a beach advisory. These standards are; total coliforms - 10,000/100ml, E. coli - 235/100ml, and Enterococci - 104/100ml.

  As briefly mentioned above, turbidity can be brought on by several things; algae, plankton, sediment, fecal matter, and storm runoff being among them. In fact, anything that can cause a great deal of small particles to mix with water is a potential culprit. High bacteria levels cannot create turbid conditions, as the organisms are too small to scatter any noticeable amount of light. However, turbid conditions can give rise to escalated bacterial concentrations, since the light scattering properties of sediment, algae, plankton, etc. serve to shield bacteria from the rays of the sun, including the ultraviolet spectrum, one of the major limits of aquatic bacterial growth (bacteria and viruses can also attach themselves to the solids, providing effective shelter and insulation from chlorine and other disinfectants). In addition to this, the suspended matter (possibly soil, runoff, or excrement) could itself be harboring various microorganisms or providing food for the bacteria as it decays (or perhaps both), as the case would be if the cloudy conditions are caused by human sewage, animal feces, or algae. 

  Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg, as high turbidity can reduce or eliminate the amount of light reaching aquatic plants, limiting their photosynthetic capacity and reducing the amount of oxygen they release into the water. In addition, particulate matter can adversely affect the function of gills and the development of eggs and larvae. All of this is especially true in lakes, reservoirs, and bays, as there is little if any current to dissipate the suspended solids (in many cases there is only enough to keep them suspended). If enough suspended solids have accumulated and enough plant life has been choked out, the fish, shellfish, and other animals which rely on them for both food and oxygen will begin to die. Obviously, increased levels of dead and dying animals in the water, along with organic detritus (possibly from algae, plankton, and decaying macrophytes), in combination with the sheltering properties of suspended solids will lead to high levels of bacteria. If this cycle continues for long enough, it can lead to the body of water in question undergoing hypoxia or anoxia, resulting in a dead zone.

  Hopefully, having finished this article, the reader will possess a greater understanding of the nuances of turbidity than when they started. They (that is to say, you) are now equipped with the necessary tools to plumb the inky depths of scientific understanding, to avoid the deadly pits and mantraps that so often snare the unwary. After all, roughly 50% of all people surveyed with a brief series of water related questions expressed the opinion that bacteria is the primary determining factor in water quality. This shocking inaccuracy can be avoided through the simple expedient of reading the information presented above, cross-referencing it with the source material, and extrapolating to form a rock-solid, scientifically viable set of personal opinions. Just imagine what could be accomplished if more people knew that bacteria is a product of turbidity, and not the other way around.

“Turbidity.” Wikipedia. 7 Dec. 2008

“Turbidity.” Water on the Web. 17 Jan. 2008. 7 Dec. 2008

“Understanding Turbidity.” USGS. 7 Nov. 2002. 8 Dec. 2008 <http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/bacteria/helpturbidity.cfm>

“Office of Water.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 21 Nov. 2008. 3 Dec. 2008

“Nephelometer.” Wikipedia. 6 Dec. 2008

“Bacteria.” Wikipedia. 5 Dec. 2008

“Total Suspended Solids.” Wikipedia. 5 Dec. 2008

This editorial is good work for me, and I am slightly proud of it. My opinion stems from what I see as proficient use of metaphor to "hook" the reader, a hook that rapidly devolves into a mire of inconsequential details and half-answers. It does have a relatively lengthy list of sources, even though four are from Wikipedia (incidentally, Wikipedia is the best internet source for everything imaginable, and I do not know why people insist on using Google, because all Google does is link you to related web pages, most of which are written by people with absolutely no knowledge of the subject).

I accomplished these glowing achievements by making extensive use of Thesaurus.com and Wikipedia. For once, I actually made drafts of my work, a practice that I generally eschew because it involves more work than is necessary to arrive at a passable final product. Ironically, the only person to provide consistent, helpful feedback and revisions was myself, somewhat limiting the effectiveness of the entire process and making me wish I had simply typed up the whole thing in the last two days, as is my wont. I feel that this approach would have saved me time, boredom, and frustration, while producing an editorial of comparable quality.

Sadly, this next example cannot be displayed directly on the page of this blog, but I urge the reader to view it by using this simple link. It is a satire I wrote with a good friend (named Nathan Eisenberg) in middle school, and every time I read it I get a laugh out of it. This satire is quite possible my favorite piece of writing, though some may find it slightly offensive. Reading it gives me pangs of nostalgia, from a time when I could actually write for fun and find the process inherently enjoyable (something that is happening less and less with all these damn analytical essays). I liked the piece so much that I substituted it for a slightly related project in 9th grade instead of writing one from scratch, which is how it ended up on the pages of my freshman DP. 

Me and my pal accomplished this by brainstorming over a piece of scratch paper for an assignment in which we had to construct a satire on any issue after reading a historical satire as a class (I cant remember the details but it was from either Ireland or Scotland and had to do with food, possibly potatoes, and poor people). It was not very hard as we were both fairly competent writers and filled with humor and inspiration for this particular issue.

Sea Shepherd morality

- New Yorker article on the Sea Shepherd - Nov. 5, 2007

After reading this article and contemplating the methods employed by one Paul Watson, I have come to the conclusion that what he does is perfectly acceptable, and if it is illegal it should not be. I have reached this conclusion not necessarily on behalf of the whales (though I oppose whaling), but because of what his tactics and activities represent. It seems that there are so many laws, regulations, restrictions, jurisdictions, and limitations (imposed by the few in power over the millions without) that the world is gradually being converted into some sort of very large clockwork toy to gather dust on the desk of some wealthy, influential individual. For example, this man (Watson) is diametrically oppose to whaling in all its forms and appears to delight in employing any means necessary to put a stop to it, yet he cannot legally resort to certain extremes. Why is this?

I find it interesting that he manages to do the things he does and avoid being labeled as a pirate (or worse) and thrown in jail (or worse). It seems that his publicity is a huge advantage to him, to the extent that he could not operate the way he does and retain any semblance of respectability without it.

During the process of reading this article, I was struck by a one of Watsons ideas, because it bore striking resemblance to an intellectual impass I had been pondering myself. It was the problem of population and how it relates to our dependence on nature. According to the article, Watson proposed reducing the worlds population to a billion through unspecified means. In my opinion, as the human population continues to expand, the problems we are seeing with greenhouse gasses, food, environmental balance, and animal life will progress apace. Even if we manage to rein in our most destructive habits and replace our inefficient, dirty technologies with green ones, eventually there will be so many people that even these new technologies will not be enough. What then will we do? Is there anything we could do at present to forestall this grim future? Of course, it is not difficult to predict which course mankind would take when all else fails, as all the evidence we need is in our past. I predict that either governments would instigate some sort of mass-culling process (which would lead to gigantic civil wars), or, with the lack of food and other resources, people will just start killing each other to make room (not exactly war, because civilization would essentially collapse, but pretty close to it), and possibly resorting to cannibalism. It certainly is a sticky situation, because no one would be prepared to regulate the population (and no one really has the right to either), but doing so could benefit the species, and indeed, the entire planet in the long run.

In the end, this article brought to my attention the futility of modern society. There are tangible benefits to be had by reverting to some sort of tribal structure, as doing so would address many of the problems plaguing our current system (disagreements would tend to lead more readily to fights, keeping the population in check). However, such a system would bring up just as many problems as it could potentially solve (nuclear weapons, wide-scale eco-devastation with nothing to prevent it but other tribe/clan opinions, genocide, etc.). It seems that we have become so dependent on laws and regulations keeping our world of technologically advanced weaponry in check that to remove them would open the doors to some psychopath amassing a nuclear arsenal and destroying inconceivable multitudes and causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment.

Response essay to Marie Arana's article on racial language

- Washington post article He's Not Black by Marie Arana - Nov. 30, 2008

I agree with this article on many points, but disagree on just as many. I agree that to make assumptions about a person's genealogy based on the shade of their skin is as unfair as it is uninformed. I find many points of contention, however, with the authors focus on words, a reliance that strikes me as ironic. The words "white, black, yellow, brown, etc." are merely what people use to convey certain concepts or images. To the best of my knowledge, language as we know it developed to enable our distant ancestors (who, incidentally, were African) to convey the thoughts their minds produced to the other members of their hunting/gathering group, facilitating teamwork. They might have decided to refer to rocks as rocks, but that does not imply any level of knowledge beyond that rocks are heavy round things that can be found on the ground. The word is merely a conduit to transport a thought, not a description of the object's every characteristic. 

The profound irony of of racial tension (as I see it) is that the more sensitive people become towards the entire issue, the more difficult it becomes to overlook. The only reason a particular word or phrase becomes offensive is because of the way society views it, not because of any inherent trait of the word. I recognize that this issue is a very delicate one for many people, and that in all probability I know next to nothing about the realities of racial discrimination or labeling, but is it not apparent, at least, that the more delicate an issue becomes, the easier it is to cross the line? 

If you are describing a person, (or even something as mundane as a fence or building) you will likely choose the words that convey the most information about the subject with the least amount of effort or time. Another example that may help to illustrate my disagreement is paint. Let us choose green. The color green is not a primary color, meaning that in order to make it one must combine both yellow and blue. Despite this, you do not call green paint yellow-blue, for there is no such color. Yellow-blue is green, and varying the ratio of yellow to blue results in different shades of green (yellow-green and blue-green to name but a few). It may be true that a far more accurate word could be found to replace green, but, having said that, why would it be necessary? 

I personally have no compunctions against someone labeling me as "white", and I certianly don't expect them to call me a Caucasian or a European (I have never been to Europe, so why would my ancestry automatically make me European? I believe there is a fine line between race and culture), but recognize that this could be do to the not-so-subtle predominance of white males in both history and modern society. It is far easier to denounce something when you have no actual experience with the issue at hand (racism, or more specifically racial terminology).

The bottom line, then, is that I see the article as promoting one set of broad connotations in favor of an even broader set, with the only real difference being how these connotations are applied. Is it truly favorable to designate people by their ancestry (labels that will, in time, develop their own negative implications), which they most likely have very little actual association with?