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!

Eggs

While taking breaks from reading works by Sartre or Nietzsche, I do the things asked of me by my teachers. Recently I was given a small packet containing short stories to read, and one story appealed to me more than the rest, so I decided to talk about it here. The story more directly deals with the genesis of writing, as opposed to the developed process, which I am more accustomed to seeing discussed. William Kennedy is a noted author and journalist, and in this short story he describes an absolutely godawful short story that he tried to get published in Collier's.
It seems to me that the author had known all along that the short story within the short story wasn't very good, but he had very forgiving critics, such as his mother and banjo teacher. Obviously unsatisfied with their responses of "very good," he decides to ask his father, who validates his opinion that the story sucked. Not expecting this, the author is shocked and decides not to ask his father for feedback anymore.
This is a very simple story, but it carries several important messages. First of all, not every single piece you write, including your first one, has to be very good. It doesn't matter whether or not you write a completely crappy essay, as long as you decide that you like it, you may still show pride in your work. Kennedy keeps his initial rejection slip as proof of this. The quality of the works to come aren't always reflected by early stories.
Secondly, Kennedy shows that writing is a process, and you gradually improve as a writer by taking what you like about your work, and keeping it to use or improve upon later. The use of Herby, the heroic protagonist of Eggs, as a character in a later work exemplifies this. Even though "a retarded orangutan could write a better story than 'Eggs'," a story can "get better," even without becoming good.
Kennedy's story gives hope to budding writers who (by most standards) are terrible at writing. Anyone who feels distressed over the quality of their work, whether it be in writing, academics, or construction, would do well to read and analyze this story.

Why I choose to write

I can't say for certain which of Orwell's four primary motives for writing apply to me the most. Being a cynic, I can't help but identify myself with sheer egoism. I have a dangerous level of self-confidence. While I don't usually think of myself as being above others in reality, I acknowledge that to myself I am essentially a god. I would never hesitate to hold open a door for someone, or help an old lady across the street (as the cliche example goes), but I believe that every person, myself included, should be at the center of their own respective universes. My acknowledgement of the fact that I'm far from the center of others' worlds sets me apart from the average person with a non-philosophical sense of self-importance.

When I write, it is usually because it's necessary work for a class that I'm taking. But when I'm seriously writing (with fervor, as in more than just for school) I am usually attempting to convey some sort of idea or knowledge to someone who I believe isn't knowledgeable on a subject. I only very rarely write argumentatively, most of the time my writing is meant to inform. I believe that when I give people my knowledge through writing, my ideals become more accessible, more feasible, or more true for them. To this end I essentially try to push myself towards the center of others' worlds via proxy. Everyone desires power and recognition, and I'm no exception to this. It's my cynical view of the human race that all motives are inherently selfish, ignoring the negative connotations associated with the word. Writing, being an expression of humanity, must therefore be purely selfish as well.

A fitting beginning

The potential for this blog is infinite, though in all likelihood it will never amount to anything of considerable importance. That being said, there must be some purpose to pouring one's thoughts into the internet. I won't pretend to know what that purpose is. After all, I'm almost sure there is no general truth in the real purpose behind blogging. Some people do it to become famous, others do it because they're famous. As I said previously in the description, I created this space to spew my thoughts into the cesspool of the internet because it was necessary work for a composition class that I'm engaged in.

I like video games. I pour a considerable amount of my energy into playing them and beating them. Many would view my love of gaming as a trivial characteristic of a bored child, which will have no meaning once I grow up. I myself don't understand why or how anyone could enjoy the outdoors so much, or expend the energy to become a great painter when there are more enjoyable activities abound. We're free to form our own preferences and do what we want, without persecution from others if we're lucky. Because anyone can be a blogger and share their thoughts, there must be no single motive for the act of blogging. </post>