BITZER!!!!1!!one!

To my readers who are unaffiliated with my AP composition class (if you exist) feel free to ignore the contents of this note, and fear not if you don't get the arcane reference to the obscure rhetorician.

Fun

• lightening the mood,
• giving hope in bleak situations,
• humor unit,
• gaffe and faux pas,
• unintended puns,
• intended puns,
• arcane jokes,
• collective desire for,
• equal trade curve, see Work,
• sardonic humor,
• comical misanthropy,
• group quizzes,
• quasi-worship of George Orwell

Work

• see: sleep, lack thereof,
• trading curve with Sleep, Fun
• suppressed complaints of,
• brain frying, see sleep
• "what the f*** is rhetoric?"
• aching hand, see FreeWriting
• ponderous color and visuals,
• finding time to do,
• harder than exercise,
• headaches caused by,
• motherly concern for quality of,
• desire to rend, destroy

Blogging

• see Work,
• "who reads this anyway?"
• as a popular medium for presentation,
• colloquial language of,
• audience (or lack thereof),
• difficulty to write in presence of internet,
• wishes for popularity of,
• community / blog conglomerate,
• desire to fry server,
• allows for homework due on sundays,
• misunderstood humor,
• urge to sound intelligent

Presentations

• see Work,
• see Sleep, lack thereof,
• see Fun, gaffe and faux pas,
• see Blogging, popular presentation medium
• exhibition of skills, or lack thereof,
• see Work, "what the f*** is rhetoric?",
• see Sleep, dreams of flying A's,
• see Work, urge to sound intelligent,
• see Work, ponderous visuals and colors,
• see Fun, arcane jokes,
• see Work, motherly concern for quality of,
• see Work, desire to rend, destroy

Sleep

• lack thereof,
• see Work, equal trade curve,
• popular lust for,
• "is for the weak,"
• difficulty of extracting oneself from,
• dreams of flying A's,
• collapsing from brain frying

On "Outliers"

        Hello hello, reader reader. I'll be blunt; I'm writing a book review. I felt that you needed a warning to avoid reading this post if you (like me) aren't particularly entertained by this sort of thing. I did enjoy reading the book, which is why I dredged myself out of my apathetic muck to write about it. I'm certainly not a paid faculty member of a major newspaper, and my only ethos is that of a cynical, bored, quasi-philosophical high-school student, but to me my opinions are completely valid, and if I like a book I can recommend it with conviction to anyone I damn well please. Enough fluff, I'll talk about the book now.

        As you may have guessed, the title of the book is "Outliers." It explores the factors that contribute to the success of individuals, and what distinguishes those who go on to become famous/rich and those who are bound to more subdued fates. Such a work can easily become unwieldy, branching off into heavily abstract discussions and contrived connections, but the author (Malcolm Gladwell) does a marvelous job of making the average reader understand what's going on. His language isn't always simplistic, but the premises for his arguments are; he doesn't generalize, but points out patterns and says "hey, isn't that odd? Doesn't it seem reasonable that this common factor might have something to do with it? After all, X has this relationship with Y, which is related to Z" etc. I personally like that he keeps no undue certainty when discussing success and the factors that contribute to it; after all, success is a very subjective concept, and one can't easily pin down its meaning. 

        One truth that a reader can derive from Outliers is that life is far from fair. Like chaotic systems, the evolution of a person within our society, though highly unpredictable, is heavily dependent on initial conditions. Here is a very poignant example: in the early part of the book, Gladwell examines the correlation between birth date of Canadian hockey players and their successes in the game later on in life. What he found (and the reader derived from data)  was that those born earlier in the year, due to the age requirements for different leagues and training, were much more likely to do well than those born later. Most can agree that how hard someone works should be more important than their birth date in determining success, but again and again we found that those born within certain time ranges were much more likely to succeed than their unlucky counterparts. I was very impressed, because I hadn't yet seen a book that could convey that.

        I suppose I could leave you with a definite recommendation to read or eschew (that's me being wordy, aren't I cool?) the book, but I figured that I could leave you with my model for answering this question when I try to decide for myself whether or not to read a book. Question 1: Does it sound interesting? Question 2: Do I have any desire to read this book? Question 3: Do I have the time to read this book? Question 4: How difficult would it be to obtain this book? You can assign your own weight to these questions, and in the end decide whether or not to read the book. In the end, if the result of the test is ~80%, I personally decide to go out and read the damn thing, but you're free to choose your own interest threshold, of course. Despite my bias, having already read the book, I read my book review and decided that I would want to read Outliers, in case you were wondering. Fine, fine; I understand that you don't want to (and thus won't) go through that process. So here it is: I recommend, nay, DEMAND that you read this book, it will change your life and make you lose 30 lbs. Perhaps the weight-loss part is made up, but it is certainly possible that reading Outliers could have a profound effect on your psyche or world-view. Congratulations if you managed to wade through this paragraph, and I wish I could offer more but I doubt I could reasonably add more to this post.

The pseudo-intellectual manifesto; Or, a letter to my future self

        I'd say hello and ask nicely how you're doing, but since we're essentially the same entity I figured I could get away without shelling out that pleasantry. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a two-way correspondence, and I could only guess the answers to the questions that I would ask. Under these circumstances, I only imagine that it would be possible to try and give you something useful, give you an epiphany, a blast from the past, etc. In that case, I would have to blindly guess which questions you might ask me, so pardon if you find some irrelevant information. Ironic, isn't it, that I'm writing this letter? What could your past self possibly give you but outdated information? In this letter I will attempt to form you into the perfect being, the one that I aspire to be; well rounded, kind, etc. This letter will be an additional pressure aiding your constant desire to achieve perfection. If I were a perfect being, then this letter would not be necessary; one, however, has to recognize their own faults, and I am no exception. I will remind you of the ideals that you once had, in an attempt to get you to conform to them. Perhaps this is not for your good but mine, but my current mindset has driven me to this path of action; I may not be as wise as you, but from here this is the best thing to do.
        Of course, right now, I am, or rather you were, a shame-less, flaming liberal. I would harbor no contempt if your rational reasoning drove you down a different path in the future, but know this: I would not allow you to compromise your utilitarian ideals. The greatest good for the greatest amount of people, the maxim goes. Don't let any perturbation of this infect your reasoning, know that pleasure and pains of different kind have weight, and that the greatest ideal is freedom to, though freedom from must not be forgotten. I have driven past the destitute, the poor disheveled masses, and the bankrupt all too often, and I have no doubt that I will continue to do so. Perhaps you will have more willpower than I, I suppose I can only hope for the sake of many that you will. It's easy enough for me to sit here preaching to you, I have to acknowledge my own shortcomings or else I won't be credible. But I ask you this: are you perfect?
        I sincerely hope that you haven't been driven to madness to the point where you could reasonably answer "yes." On the topic of madness; do not let any force, human, substance or otherwise, to cloud your mind or distort your reason. With the utmost clarity you can discern even the most elusive truths of this world. Sleep on all of your serious decisions where time is on your side. Above all, and I can't emphasize this enough, DON'T BE A DUMBASS. All of those people didn't call you a smartass for no reason. Let reason shine through your being, and at least be a mirror for the ideals that you're trying to stick to. There is a lot of distinction between you and all of the idiots in this world, and don't forget it. That's no excuse to lump everybody into that group; know that often others are guided by the same set of logics which you operate on. Never forget that there will always be more intelligent people than you, and use that as an inspiration to stomp every trifling barrier in your path to greatness. Know, also, that greatness is just a plus, and it should not be your ultimate goal.
        Know that you are just as much a human as that burger-flippin' 40 year old or the president o' the United Friggin States. You can believe that you're better than everyone, but you should never delude yourself into believing that you could logically show it, or even give anything other than weak evidence to support it. Know that everyone is at the focal point of their own universe, and that you can't force yourself into another's space. This is a central tenet of my philosophy, and I hope you see its value. This is one of the reasons why romances often go astray; humans are self-serving creatures. You should not judge anyone for following their own self interests, because at heart you are hoping to do so as well. Perhaps you will never find romance, but don't let disappointment cripple you. If you want something badly enough, go get it. Of course you shouldn't forget your morals, but I suppose that goes without saying. Oh the irony. Oh, and as a bonus favor for me, keep your love of satire and learn to take a joke or a personal attack with grace. Know that words are just such; they only carry meaning if you give it to them.
    Never let your value for human life be compromised. Know that to harm another is to harm yourself, albeit indirectly. Remember that it is only by pure chance that you were not born to be on the receiving end of a bad deal. When seeing a tragic event, remember the phrase "there, but for the grace of god, go I." You are the one you hurt, and the one you help. I don't believe in karma, but at least have some respect for the human condition. That homeless man once had pride, and you can be damn sure that he'll have it again if you get him back on his feet. You can only hope for someone to do the same for you, but if everyone lived by this philosophy it would be a given.
        I leave you with this note: know that you can always improve, and that every goal that you set, every material possession, and every other person on the face of this gloomy world has a weight that you give them. Moral equivalence cannot be proven, but remember that it cannot be refuted. You cannot avoid living your life selfishly, but know that it is better to act selfishly in the name of the human race rather than for yourself. You may believe that you're above the entirety of the human race, but never forget that you're a part of it. Take from this letter what you will, and go with my blessing.

An analysis of an aforementioned Video

        Greetings greetings viewer viewer. I figured each and every one (oh the irony) of you would be at least moderately interested in the process I used to create the video I posted earlier. So, without further ado, I begin.

        I was chose my base topic - rebellion - because I figured it would be the easiest topic that I could think of that I could create an argument for and relate to daily life, considering all the unrest in the Middle East as well as here at home in the US. Being the blatant liberal that I am, I generally view the protesters in a positive light, and this bias has inevitably shaped my presentation of the topic. I set out wanting to explain how the protests had shaped the world around them, but found that conveying how the protests were brought about was much easier to represent visually. Heaped with emotion as this piece is, I wanted to convey the energy and solidarity of the movement for Democracy in the Middle East, and I chose my images carefully around this wish.

        To begin, I chose a black and white image of racism in the US, and yes that effect was intentional.  First off, black and white photos are thought of like relics, pieces of a long-forgotten era. The color scheme is similar for the first group of photos: the point I was trying to get across was that oppression is an outdated method, something that belongs in a time before mass-freedom and democracy. There is another historical parallel; in the time of the US civil rights movement, the distinction between black and white people was much clearer, and it was much easier to consider them to be different. With the advent of the colorful images of those in the Middle East, the line is blurred, and people are seen more as equals than opposites. The reason why the images were of US happenings is that oppression comes in all societies, where the ruling class tries to maintain the status quo. The protesters in both of the series of photos were fighting the ruling class, and that is why they are side-by-side. Sometimes authority must be challenged, and in this video I argue that those in power are by no means infallible.

        Before the transition to color, there is an outline of a police officer beating a protester presumably. This is juxtaposed with the picture two places further, a colorful rendering of the community fighting back. The roles and the color are reversed, and a new vitality is given to the image of the protesters because it it. One outdated policeman comes up against the full force of the protective voice of a community which seeks to release the chains on its people. In the first two colored pictures, there is a central figure, with hand raised, indicating that they are the leaders of the rebellion. Seeing the protesters hurt and tied up earlier gives a sense of awe and reverence for these leaders; I hoped to convey my own reverence for them, after all.

         There are people of many skin colors in this video: resistance to oppression is not an isolated seed, but it has spread to every corner of the world, seeking to reproduce for the good of the people. The man without a shirt standing atop a car resembles a modern day jesus: leading his people toward freedom. He holds his hands out not violently but imploringly, as if asking for peace and justice. With this image I wanted to again convey the power, courage, and virtue of those leading these protests. A lone man raises his hand, while surrounded by police in a public area. This is not just a group effort, every individual has battles they must face, alone if necessary. Sometimes much must be risked to attain freedom. The picture of the crowd with the flag is meant to show that this is a popular movement, taken up by entire populaces to embrace ideals in places where they haven't gained much ground previously. Of course "Peace in the Middle East" (you can probably guess which picture I'm talking about) is meant to serve as a capstone for the peace, the crux of the revolution, and a common ideal which many strive for. The three-word phrase at the end solidifies the positive view of the protests.

        The music is at the start seems bleak and depressing, but it only begins so. As the images of oppression get more graphic, the beat rises to a crescendo until the public discontent boils over and the first colorful image arrives to signal that the status quo has gotta go. The most intense part of the piece is in the middle, with all of the photos of the protesters. The loudest part went along with the protesters because, again, I wished to convey their energy and passion through music. Towards the end, the music lowers, and nearly all is quiet when the text "JOIN THE REVOLUTION" comes into view, sometimes opposition need not be beefed up with fanfare.

        For the more technical among you, I have some bland rhetorical terms to hurl at you. In this video there are several claims: first off, the people in these protests are full of energy, and I use the loud music and the empathetic expressions on the faces of the protests, as well as the raised hands to show this. Secondly, the people leading the charge are brave souls: there is always someone at the forefront spearheading the effort and leading the group, despite the grim possibility of police abuse highlighted in the beginning. This is especially true for the man standing above the crowd, he occupies a unique and powerful position, and his height in the picture is meant to correlate with his virtue. Lastly, those in authority are not always right. I often hear stories, past and present, about police brutality when handling protesters, and the grotesque images are meant to show that the crimes that they are capable of committing are often horrendous. Authority is not infallible, and thus subject to change or replacement.  My warrants are that having energy and vitality indicated a love for life, the basic humanity, and thus freedom; after all, demagogues are often exuberant. Also, I assumed that being a leader of the people, as opposed to the ruling class alone, indicated virtue. Lastly, I assumed that being fallible indicates that replacement is fair.

That's all folks, hope you had at least a decent time reading through this dull description of my efforts in creating this video. Cheers, and have a nice day!

A visual argument, on the topic of Rebellion and the Arab Spring

        Hello hello reader reader. In my usual daily delirium, I decided to do something daring and do-able. Yes, I am aware that I cheated on that alliteration, but that's beside the point. For no particular reason at all, and certainly not to fulfill any required work for a certain AP Composition class, I decided to make a "Visual Essay" highlighting some key images of the Arab Spring and rebellion in general. The purpose of this was most definitely NOT to get me points in the aforementioned non-existent class, but rather to emphasize that authority can be abusive, and that authority being challenged can be very beneficial for those under it. I suppose I also wanted to emphasize the courage of those that spearheaded the protest and glorify them, but that's a secondary point. At any rate, for any interested party, here is the video which I have been droning on about:

On the Concept of Risk

        To begin, I felt that it was necessary to refer to the subject as the "concept of risk" because those who know me are aware of the fact that the board game is one of my favorites: it's not a very large stretch of imagination to believe that I would consider writing an entire blog post dedicated to the strategy and the metagame. No, no, in this particular post I will discuss the all-pervasive possibility of failure or unintended consequences, and how its existence affects our actions and thus our lives. The good, the bad, I'll try to cover it all and evaluate risk in a fair manner, for it would be sacrilege to my logical nature to do anything else. I arbitrarily choose to start with the bad, in order to appeal to the frightened child in us all.

        Risk is inherently dangerous. Risk ruins lives and relationships. Risk is the reason why so much potential in this world is not realized, perhaps why we haven't yet colonized the moon or cured cancer. Risk accompanies any path of action, and some people dedicate their lives and careers to minimizing it, usually in a financial or political scene. Alas, I find it hard to continue writing this; I'm sure you all are intelligent people and don't need me to tell you what risk is. The question, for me, then becomes "how can I contribute a unique viewpoint or fact about the concept to keep my readers' interests?"

        I argue that risk is philosophically tied to happiness. There can be no reward if there is no risk; after all, what value would a trophy have if you hadn't faced hardship to earn it? Without a negative result to feel good about avoiding, happy endings are meaningless. Moreover, life without risk is too deterministic and dependent on circumstances for my tastes. One of my greatest quirks is that I simultaneously believe that we can change fate, despite the fact that it's immutable. (I could go over the logical basis for my belief, though that's a blog post for another day.)  I guess the larger point that I want to bring up is that happiness can't exist without despair.

        Avert your eyes if you don't wish to see me beating a dead horse. Without X to contrast with Y, we can't appreciate either. One who has grown up knowing only Y can't appreciate it. Statement of personal belief, followed by a small opinionated sentence fragment. Statement of larger aim.

You're still reading? Impressive. I can't even stand to read my own writing sometimes.

        Back to the haphazard discussion: one of the most unique concepts that I pondered when I was younger was the idea that, without exception, anything and everything had an opposite. You may say "but people are unique and don't have opposites," but you'd be looking at the matter from an emotional viewpoint. In my mind, people are collections of attributes and experiences. Most attribute have opposites (mean and nice), and every characteristic or experience that doesn't can be broken down into parts that do. Tripping and scraping your knee on the driveway is a combination of: losing balance as opposed to keeping balance, the death of knee tissue as opposed to generation, an attractive force (gravity) as opposed to a repulsive force (think magnetism), and sadness as opposed to happiness.

        I believe that humans cannot comprehend anything that doesn't have an opposite. I suppose it is up to you, the reader, to challenge me if this belief seems absurd; just know that I've probably already contemplated the first criticism that pops into your head. Perhaps a spirited debate would ensue, who knows. I'd appreciate any well-intentioned comment. At any rate, you're getting tired of reading my loose arrangement of opinionated statements. Maybe you can even look to this post as sort of a how-to guide on making stylish logical fallacies, then it might serve some purpose. As a final note, I apologize for going off in such a tangent, because I was "supposed" to be discussing risk. I figured that I would rather annoy you, the reader, by keeping the title. I will relish your frustration. </sadism>

On the value of practice

        I'd like to say that my recent life has seen massive paradigm shifts in how I view the idea of practice, due to the fact that I occasionally like to be overly dramatic in my writing. However, to stay as true to reality as possible, I will attempt to refrain from assigning undeserved importance to small events. Oh dear, I seem to have left you with the all-important question: "What's your point?" I would like to talk about practice and how recent developments have altered my view of it, dear reader. I'm not referring to the arcane definition involving lawyers and a mountain of legal terms, but the process of becoming better at any given activity.
        To begin with, I feel the need to distinguish something between the popular definition and my own. Practice is often called so because the activity is being done for the sole purpose of improving the participant's skills. Most people, for example, wouldn't consider a soccer championship match "practice" explicitly, though the weekly meetings to complete drills and related activities would be thought of that way. I would like to think that the term "practice" encompasses so much more than its popular meaning does.
        No matter the circumstances, when you are doing something, you are getting better at it. How much fun you are having and the enjoyment you reap from doing something matter not, and paradoxically the importance of the activity is irrelevant. Every moment of the championship game is preparing you for the next one, albeit silently. While playing any video game, you come to discover that you do better on subsequent playthroughs (I'm somewhat of an expert on that subject, being a video-game fiend of at least 11 years). After doing anything you come to realize that you could do it better next time. Hindsight is 20/20, as the saying goes. Anything and everything you do may be considered practice from this viewpoint, and thus we come to see that the popular definition is rather narrow.
        Taking this into account, we may find an important fact: everything that you do can be thought of as practice and thus may be considered inherently worthwhile. Working through a terribly hard mathematical problem will give you insight into the next one, like lazily sorting papers or working on a hard program all day will eventually make you the resident office wizard. Because the importance of the activity and the satisfaction you draw from doing it are irrelevant, they do not determine (or even affect) the inherent value of practice. In simpler terms, just doing something is at least a little worthwhile whether you hate to do it or not.
        At this point you may be wondering what the "recent developments" I mentioned earlier were. Well, recently, I was tasked with reading a book titled Outliers that talked heavily about the subject. A magical rule called "The 10,000 hour rule" came to my attention, and it went something like this: in order to become the very best at a given activity, of world-class quality, you must spend at least 10,000 hours doing it. At first I thought that notion was silly, but then the author brought up a valuable point: none of the exceptional people mentioned in the book were exceptions to this rule. With such a powerful body of evidence, I could hardly disagree. This rule had an unusual corollary when coupled with the fact I mentioned earlier: if you could possibly value becoming a world-class participant in any given event, every drop of effort you pour into doing anything is worth it to some degree.
        Perhaps more important than the random bits of information presented in my dissertation is this idea. Interestingly enough, this notion has another corollary: If everything you do is worthwhile, there is no need to feel sad for being lazy, because you are in fact working towards something by playing badminton with friends, or in my case playing League of Legends. Perhaps the limits of my style or writing skills will prevent me from conveying just how impactful this new-found philosophy is, but I will leave you, my reader, with the information presented here in the hopes that it will be as beneficial for you as it was for me.

A day on Main St.

Hello, hello reader. The massive problem of homelessness in the U.S. was recently brought to my attention, and I think that it should be brought to yours as well if it hasn't already. In order to do so, I have composed a little passage for you to read on the subject. Enjoy?

        It was a dark and stormy night  No one quite understand who he is or how he got there. His unpleasant body odor leads one to believe they'd never want to invite him to a dinner party, though he seems charismatic enough to be invited anyway. Every day, without fail, this man stands in an alleyway from dusk until dawn, just saying hello to people. No one is quite sure why; the fact that he doesn't wear a shirt until well into December leads many of the pedestrians to question his sanity. A fair number of the people who've met him would describe him as a "Lady's Man," because he seems overly friendly to women.
        Take this incident for example. One day, a single mother whom I know passed by him without even acknowledging his presence. This man, slightly disheartened, followed the woman, most likely determined to get a "hello" in return. He finally caught up to her at the stoplight, and at that point he noticed something unsettling: he had emerged from the alley during broad daylight, and his previously nocturnal, homeless glory was out in the bright sun for the first time in months. He looked horrible, his dread-locked hair falling upon his bare, scarred back. The woman seemed astonished, and was unsure of how to proceed. She was terrified, to be sure, but she wasn't sure if she wanted to cross the street to evade the man, or confront him. After the initial shock, I imagine something like this registered in her brain: "this poor man probably only wanted me to say hi to him." Ashamed, and unaware of any other way to express her apology, she rummaged through her purse for a moment before finding an old, torn dollar bill to give to him. After a long silence, the man grabbed the dollar that she was holding in front of him. She promptly turned and walked away, feeling that it was the best thing that could be done at that point.
        The man walked into his cold alleyway, ashamed. He felt that the woman had effectively said "I don't want to talk to you, but I pity you: here, take this dollar and be gone... mongrel." He then remembered his position, and gained some perspective and felt less terribly about the incident. After all, why should a destitute man with only a large refrigerator box, a sleeping bag and a few dollars get disheartened? He decided right then that being homeless in America was worse than having a woman ignore him. He remembered a Rodney Dangerfield movie from his younger years and laughed a cruel laugh, saying to himself "I don't get no respect."

On Numbers

Why hello, reader. Recently I was asked by a professor of mine to participate in a quirky little activity: writing six dissertations on an abstract concept of my choosing in different common rhetorical modes. Being mathematically inclined, I chose to discuss the concept of numbers. Perhaps I'm posting this more for my benefit than for the enlightenment of the reader, but that shouldn't detract from the post's marginal value. After all, selfishness is inherent in all motives. That's a philosophical argument for another day, though. I'm going to be writing six little pieces on the concept of numbers, and for added fun you should try to guess which mode each was written in.You may find the list I'm using here.

Number 1: Numbers are thought by many to be more than simple concepts. But does a number have any inherent meaning? To answer this question, let's examine the number 3. I draw two similarly-oriented half-circles both connected at their ends and move it so that it's taller than it is wide. What does this mean? You may recognize it as a number, but what if I distort it a little? Imagine I make the symbol incredibly short, and it begins to resemble a line. In my mind, homeomorphic shapes are essentially the same. What meaning do you see in the line? Certainly you don't associate it with a triangle or a Triforce.

Number 2: I'm not really sure when my fascination with numbers came to be. There was always that arcane book called "number power" sitting on the near-unreachable shelf in my parents' room taunting me like the raven on the bust of Pallas. I'd earlier seen my father reading it, and the looks of twisted confusion on his face as he was reading (presumably) the later, more difficult chapters made me realize that I deeply wanted to read the book. One day, I hauled a large chair into the room and hoisted myself until I could barely grab the book with my seven-year-old fingers. I can't remember a time in my childhood when I was more enthralled by a book.

Number 3: It is my opinion that common knowledge about the different kinds of numbers is only skin-deep. Most people could tell you that the integers are whole numbers, and almost as many could tell you that real numbers are made up of the integers as well as the decimals. But who knows that imaginary numbers have both a real and imaginary component? We all know that pi is irrational, but how many people that you meet on the street could tell you that irrational numbers are defined as ones that can't be expressed as a fraction? And what of the transcendental numbers? The eternal symbol, e, can't possibly be the root of a real polynomial with real or integer coefficients (e.g. 4.5x^2 + 1.33x + 0.66), but how many people would know that? This lack of general knowledge is lamentable.

Number 4: According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary , are "arithmetical value(s), expressed by a word or symbol, representing a particular quantity." This definition, however, makes numbers seem less important than they actually are. Most would agree that numbers are more than just for counting: they allow for the creation of a mathematical framework in which we solve various problems in the world. Without numbers, people would have an awfully hard time communicating amounts, dates, or specific information about cargo, food, etc. Numbers are basically the blocks upon which buildings, machines, and inventions are built.

Number 5: I believe there should be a national day of recognition for math and science in the US. Granted, we wouldn't get a day off from school, but it would be a day to reaffirm our commitment to education and engineering. Consider just how much numbers have shaped our society: without them we would be severely limited in our ability to communicate amounts. For example, most people would be dissatisfied with the US government if their yearly debt report simply stated "a lot." Without a strong commitment to science and math,  we as a country are doomed to fall behind other industrialized nations very rapidly in the fields of innovation and business, thus such a day would not only be beneficial but necessary.

Number 6: No one is quite sure who wrote the first number. Of course, we've all seen the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but the point at which humans evolved enough to sufficiently understand the concept of "amount" and the written language is still obscure. Obviously the need to communicate amount is what preceded the invention of numbers. As societies evolved, the need for numbers became inevitable, and thus they came to be used in common practice. With the proliferation of these symbols, suddenly a new level of depth of meaning in communication was possible. As a result, societies were able to expand, civilizations arose, buildings were made and copied elsewhere, and humanity was able to advance.

I hope you had fun reading my spiels. In case you were wondering, the rhetorical modes that these were written in will be available at some point on Sunday or Monday. As always, have a nice day.

On the merits of blogging

        Twitter. Tweets. The ubiquitous Fail Whale. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't know the meaning of any of these in today's society. Why have they become so popular? Are the services that they're offering or the ideas they're symbolizing really that valuable? Above all, who would pay attention to, or even care about what Taylor Swift is eating today? If she isn't even in my Monkeysphere, why should I care about Taylor Swift at all? The answer lies in the fact that we live in a celebrity-worshiping culture.

        Of course, the knowledge of the going-ons in the life of a particular figure have no intrinsic value. Yet, tweets have become some sort of commodity as of late. Think of them as some sort of social currency; we dredge the schedules of celebrities from their public pages so we may share them with others in exchange for more gossip. The supply is in the social network, and the demand is in the heart of the general populace. Social economies of scale thrive upon the adoration of the public for its leading figures. But, if economic theory is applicable here, we must face the grim reality that some day there will be a market collapse.

        Consider Black Tuesday. People were reaping enormous profits off of the stock market. As news of this spread, more and more people joined with the belief that profit was just a moment and a dollar away. As more and more people were buying random stock on a whim, the markets became more unstable. When the stocks began to devalue, everyone panicked and dumped their shares onto the market. People lost a large amount of money and our nation was launched into the great depression. People and families suffered.

        Consider Akon. His managers were all the rage at parties because they could tell pretty much anyone what the star was up to. Others, wanting to gain similar status, started gathering information about celebrities with breakneck speed, believing that popularity was just a talking point or a click away. But many of these socialites failed to realize that not all of the information they had was important, and at some point people would tire of hearing their hapless chatter. This is the way the Twitter ends. This is the way the Twitter ends.

TL;DR: don't invest in gossip, it's worthless and it'll cause a social market meltdown. </rant>

On Computing

        The World Wide Web in the recent years has really been living up to its title. Every day, innovation is fueling the expansion of the internet. Progress may seem slow at times, and when that seems to be the case it is useful to remember that progress can't be lost, and thus advances much like a glacier or tectonic plate: slowly but surely. Even when movement seems to be imperceptible, we can predict potentially enormous long-term effects. It is with this belief in the progress of the internet and the computing society that I form my response to a few valid criticisms against them.

• Does the internet render privacy impossible?
  The question here is whether or not someone can remain truly anonymous in a society like ours. Even before the digital era, census data was available to any determined party. Now, credit card data is held online in databases of questionable security. Social networks render anonymity nearly unattainable for their members. However, there is a glimmer of hope for the independent mountain-man or retired CIA agent. If you keep a low profile in real life and don't give anyone reason to add your information to the internet, you're covered. This is, of course, assuming that you don't do the adding yourself.
  
• Is the computer the end-all couch-potato maker?
  The answer to this question is an unequivocal "yes." Variety, as the cliche goes, is the spice of life: something that presents novel content on a regular basis will be highly addicting, and such is the case with the internet. But is this a bad thing? People have always had distractions; cave painting, pistol dueling, and arson to name a few. None of these require much effort from the participants, save the travelling effort. My point is that people throughout history have had the choice to remain sedentary, and while much productivity has much been lost from this, there isn't anything inherently bad about it. Anyone sufficiently interested in their own well-being will take it upon themselves to regularly exercise. Thus surfing the net should be regarded as simply a recreational activity, not as an obscene act to be vilified.
  
• What if I'm disgusted by everything that I can find there?
  You must be new here. I have been on 4Chan and arguably seen the worst that the internet has to offer. However, being a product of my generation and heavy surfing, I am nearly immune to the negative effects of seeing things normally considered gross and appalling. If you're seriously offended by the things on the internet, just ignore them. That's not saying that illegal activities such as drug trafficking should be allowed, but grossness is just inherent in the ugly side of internet culture. You don't have to look at the pictures of polycystic kidneys or blatant pron if you don't want to.
  
• Will there be a new social divide to conquer because of the limited availability of computers?
  This question could have been raised decades ago when the first alphanumerical room-filling computer calculators were made. Of course everyone can't afford to lease the ENIAC. But now, the power of a computer that used to fill hundreds of square meters is able to be compressed onto a silicon chip smaller than your fingernail. Moore's Law has a corollary: computing power will get cheaper and cheaper as the years go bye. Assuming this trend will hold true until 2022, the highest end computers of  today will be reduced in cost to around 1/32 of their cost today. In the future, though computers may be slightly expensive now, they will definitely be more widely available in the future, and thus there is no  reason to worry that the internet will cause a social divide.

Of course, I have a bias for defending the merits of the internet, but I see these arguments as having some degree of objective truth. </argument>

On Trolling

I've often said that there are two types of people on the internet, the people who are horrible trolls, and those who aren't. But that sentence standing on its own makes it seem as if I think that half of the people in the net are mean-spirited bastards, and that's not true. However, to say that trolling is only a small problem is a gross understatement. It's like saying you'd like to visit a place where 49% of the people are completely rude and possibly homicidal, maybe even cannibalistic. Most non-trolls would agree that the world would be a better place if we could all just get along. At best, the trolls are slightly annoying. At their worst, trolls are completely unbearable. No amount of language filters can hold them back, and they will continue to plague the rest of us unless we can cut off their food source.
All trolls are known to thrive on the hate of the community. They relish when their ignorant comments get serious responses, and they bathe in the annoyance of all who they interact with. The act of "feeding the troll" is often considered to be detrimental to the health of the feeder, as they are left in an angered state and the trolls go merrily off on their own ways, after forcefully writing a few expletives and pejoratives, given. It seems the only way to stop the relentless advance of those who wish all others ill will in the internet is to put on a stone mask of indifference, but doing so comes with a price. If you actually get to the point where you are immune to the vitriolic language of a troll, you find that you have become so jaded that having fun on the internet seems almost impossible.
You may ask "how do we defeat the troll?" The sad fact of the matter is that you usually can't. No amount of reason will win you an argument with these monsters. If you stoop to there level and hurl insult after insult, the troll will surely panic and run, but you will also become a troll yourself. However, there is a quantum of hope for victory. Deep down, all trolls are actually just emotionally hurt and vulnerable people. If all else seems lost, try appealing to the inherent goodness of the troll. There is a possibility that you can convert them back into helpful members of the internet society if you do this. However, never be fooled, and never forget that most trolls have an extremely hard shell of cynicism surrounding them. Only attempt to convert trolls if you're sure you can survive their relentless barrage of insults.

The pen might actually be the sword

        Recently, I was asked to reflect on the process of writing a substantial paper. At first my mind was flooded with thoughts like "what a chore this will be," "what sort of vale could anyone derive from reading this," and my personal favorite, "I have trouble seeing the merit in taking action." The last one could be thought of as my philosophy that guides most of my action, or the lack thereof. It comes as no surprise, then, that the manner in which I churn out a piece of original writing is rooted in my inherent laziness.
        When do I start writing? There are several cases. The first is when my brain decides that the consequences of not writing are dire, as with the rhetorical analysis second draft. The next, less prevalent case is when I decide, for no particular reason, that writing would be fun. I relish the chance to make myself seem smart, and writing can be an enjoyable experience when an appropriate audience is involved. I began writing this blog post for a combination of both of the above reasons.
        The location where I write is hugely important. My personal experience has told me that any attempt to write something meaningful in a crowded or public area would be completely futile. Even in my own house, I am not free to write anywhere. In any location where it is possible that someone could be looking over my shoulder, I  do not feel safe writing. I strictly limit myself to trying to write things from the safety and comfort of my own bed. The following cliche is definitely overused, but it fits well here: I form my own personal "sanctuary" when deeply involved in the writing process. I attempt to shut out all outside influences and focus on drudging meaning from the thoughts in my head and the emotions in my heart. If the piece I'm writing is strictly persuasive, I try to balance the two impulses, knowing fully that my audience consists of other people.
        There is actually only one place where I actually feel free to say what's on my mind. On internet forums, while I don't believe that I'm free from having my writing be judged aggressively, there is something very different, and very good, about the writing process while posting on anonymous forums. The internet is a place where you can let your inhibitions run wild, and say whatever the **** you want. But only a part of the internet allows this. For example, I blatantly censored the word **c* back there. There is something very therapeutic about writing blindly to an unknown audience, it allows all of the emotions that society wants you to bottle up to escape and prevent pressure failure. When everyone is anonymous, you begin to see other posters as facets of a greater community rather than strictly individual adversaries.
       While writing with conviction is important, in order to appear strictly logical you must find a way to prevent damaging emotions from surfacing in your writing. Being involved in an online forum is like having a convenient and ever-accessible pressure-release valve on the heavy metal tanks of emotion. Therefore, before every large writing project, I allow myself at least one hour of free browsing and commenting time on a forum which will not be named here. The need to write at top mental condition is great, so I think this is fair.

Re: The performance of the American Educational system

        It isn't hard to find someone who would argue that the American education system could use some improvement.  And there is some objective truth to this. The United States currently ranks 25th (source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html) in the world for Math education by country. Apart from that, there are a large amount of students in remedial education that hardly get any attention. Two works, which I analyze today, illustrate these facts. "Two Million Minutes" is a documentary that compares the lives of two students from the US, India, and China, and uses the comparison as representative of the entire systems. "I Just Wanna be Average" is an essay that is an excerpt from Mike Rose's Lives on the Boundary, which illustrates his experience with the remedial education system.
        Two Million Minutes is essentially arguing that other developed nations (i.e. India and China) are trying harder to educate their students, and the students themselves are overall more motivated to work hard. American students are subtly portrayed as slightly lazy, while the Indian and Chinese students are often shown working hard to achieve their goals. While students here are playing football or watching television, the Chinese and Indian people are practicing the violin, or spending their time programming. In my opinion, this is a fairly accurate comparison of the educational cultures of both societies, ignoring the subtle bias. Of course this doesn't mean that China or India are better than the US, but there is definitely room for improvement over here.
        This fact might be most obvious when evaluating the performance of the remedial education system. By some twist of fate, the bright child Mike Rose was placed on the vocational-ed track, which was "a dumping ground for the disaffected." No impetus was placed on these kids to succeed, and none of their teachers ever expected anything of them. As such they lived up to the expectations. Again, the educational culture here may be blamed for this. The teachers can't be bothered to really try to educate their students because everyone else has already given up hope on them. Why even bother? The answers to this question are mostly subjective, but one could easily argue that a lack of serious education is an enormous waste of potential, even for those people who have already been given up on. You know a class is in trouble if the teacher has trouble even reading aloud from a history textbook. In my opinion, give people the option to learn, to succeed, and to live a happy life and they will jump at the opportunity when the need becomes apparent. But these things take time, of course.

Regarding the Back-to-School address by PotUS, Barack Obama

Following this sentence is a haphazard and amateurish rhetorical analysis of the Back-to-School address by President Obama:

I immediately notice the hand gestures to the audience, to begin the speech with a signal of familiarity. Obama seems to smile a lot, what a friendly person! He gives kudos to many people who he feels deserves recognition, establishing him as a humble person. He references his knowledge of school schedules to establish his trustworthiness. He clearly outlines his goals for the speech, and speaks passionately. I notice, specifically, that he gradually speaks louder when talking about essential points, or other important components of the speech. He emphasizes his own personal experience to improve his ethos. He emphasizes the importance of now, and the positive impact that current efforts will have on the future. He uses language "you guys, etc." and expresses genuine concern by speaking passionately, so that the listener has all the more of a motive to listen to him. He tone differs depending on what he's saying; for example, when he mentioned that his favorite subject in Middle School was basketball (lol, humor) he spoke in a light and jovial tone, but when he talked about the urgency of continuing education, he was serious and used a heavy tone. He has specifically tailored this speech to use reasonable appeals that would leave an impression on a student listener. He uses the pronoun "you" to familiarize himself with the audience ever further. The pointing wish his fingers was especially... Poignant (forgive me). The specific examples help to reinforce his hopeful message, and make his (potentially) difficult goals seem reachable. He ends on a positive note, just encouraging students to try their best, and emphasizes the need for hard work, which is definitely not unreachable. Over all, he spoke very reasonably, while still maintaining that any student is capable of doing great things. What a hopeful fellow!