I partially agree with the idea that “…government is best which governs least…”. A government is there to provide its people a basis to spread their ideas. A government is there to represent the will of the people that gave it its power. A government is also there to advise its people in times or turmoil, and finally to maintain a fair economic and legal situation for its citizens and businesses. These are the purposes a government should serve, with few exceptions. A government obviously does need to govern a bit, otherwise it is anarchy, which is extremely detrimental to society. In regards to the individual, the government’s purpose is to provide you the opportunity to succeed based on our own efforts, and to make sure no one else interferes with your attempts unfairly or violently. Its purpose is also to advise and lead you based on what the collective believes. The type of government that commands my respect is one that knows its limits, but is confident in its abilities. In other words, a government that knows what it can and cant do very clearly. It would use every power it is given to execute the will of the people, yet respect each persons rights and freedom. In other words, a democracy with good leadership commands my respect. This is because it is the best kind of government for its citizens. It does everything it can to give you an even playing field, and leaves it entirely up to you to determine your level of success. It is arguably the fairest and most stable government we have developed, financially and militarily. The role of civil disobedience today has become much less intense, and is essentially to let the government and people around you know what you think should be changed. It is not still effective at all. Unless a movement had enough support for the use of true civil disobedience, the government could easily put it down. If someone refuses to pay their taxes for instance, they can suffer legal consequences that will force them to pay taxes. A government can easily use this too put down a movement, unless the movement has enough support to make it too risky to put down legally. In other words, civil disobedience has become more of a notification to the government that their is a problem you wish to be fixed, and less an active stance in affecting the way the government makes decisions around that issue.
The reading of “Excerpts from Walden” was a fairly interesting time. It was complicated and difficult to understand, and so it required a large amount of thought and time to interpret. Thoreau and Emerson share two very similar, and large, ideals. They both believe society is but a hindrance to the nature of man, and they both believe that nature is how man achieves happiness and clarity. This can be seen in both works when Thoreau describes his reasons for moving to the woods and Emerson describes his experience as the “transparent eyeball” when visiting nature. We can also see the link between their beliefs regarding society when Thoreau abandons it in search of living life to it’s fullest, implying that society doesn’t let you do that. As well as when Emerson describes how society offers us consistency with regard to our needs, but sacrifices individualism and freedoms as a result. The main idea of the first portion of the excerpt “Where I lived and what I lived for”is that society creates consistency and breeds greed and a lack of appreciation for nature. It was also to express Thoreau’s discontent with his life in society, and how he wanted to move to nature so they could become isolated. In the conclusion, he is showing how humanity tends to follow the beaten path rather than create a new one. This implies we are naturally tend towards conformity. It also implies that success can be found if you confidently move in one direction. The benefits of performing this experiment would likely be to connect us more to nature, to understand why it is important to conserve it and why we need it to survive as a species. The largest things I would miss would be the ability to reach for a bottle of water whenever you are thirsty, or reach for a snack whenever you are hungry. The environment of instant gratification that is created by society today would be the thing this experiment is trying to show to us, and therefore would deprive us of such a luxury. For that reason along with the fact that I am not particularly fond of the amount or type of amenities in the woods I do not think I could complete this experiment. The largest thing a reader should take out of the excerpts we’ve read is that society is not something you deserve, it is not something you are entitled to, it is a luxury. Society is something that provides us with the consistency we need to support the amount of human life we have on this planet, but people must prepare. In the event said society were to collapse, how would Americans fare? Are we prepared to deal with something as catastrophic as the loss of something we weren’t truly entitled to? These are the questions I will leave the reader with, and the most important thing readers should take from these excerpts.
I argue very often with basically anything. I argue with myself from time to time whenever I am alone and bored. I very much enjoy arguing with people. The worst thing about my arguments is that most of the time they are pointless. The only other thing is that whenever I am wrong I usually keep the argument going or make it convoluted to annoy whoever I am arguing. One of my favorite people to argue with is Conner Schneck. This is due to his tendency to forget that the argument is pointless, or persist fruitlessly regardless of how convoluted it gets. I put that last part in there as per his suggestion. The way I argue is fairly intense. I usually start out with attacking my opponent’s points before laying out any of my own. This demoralizes them and reduces their will to attack my points. Once they are properly disproven, I lay out my points and they usually go unopposed at that point. The alternative is that they do attack my points and prove me wrong. We usually end up reaching a stalemate at that point where all of our points are disproven but neither of us has any more to dish out. This is when I start to try and confuse them to reverse the damage. This has about a 50% chance of actually working and if it does, I walk away happy. If it doesn’t, I walk away happy anyway because I annoyed my opponent. The way my peers construct arguments is usually entirely based around my structure as I usually attack first. Usually, they are on the defensive for most of their argument, and they may do a little attacking afterward if their resolve hasn’t been decimated. The way adults argue with me is something I will talk about in regards to my parents. Their arguments consist of one of four phrases, “Whatever…”, “I don’t care…”, or “You aren’t 18 yet, you don’t get to decide anything…”, or “I’m done, stop talking to me, whatever.” Now walking away from this dumpster fire, how we can develop a valid argument? To do this you need two things, a solid foundation (a fort) and a way to attack your opponent’s foundation (guns). Without a foundation, the person’s “guns” have nothing to fire at. Without “guns”, you can’t shoot down the other’s points. Without either a foundation or the “guns”, a group is incapable of a proper argument. Another pet peeve of mine is when people try to yell over each other as if volume proves their point. Just listen to the other person argument, and if they yell over you, it makes your side look more valid. Overall, I enjoy arguing and have a fairly good understanding of how to do so effectively.
My topic for the debate is free college tuition. I am arguing for the pro side. This is unfortunately not my personal position on the topic, which will leave me at a disadvantage, but I have argued against my opinion in the past and I will again. The things I know is that a big argument against fee tuition is going to be where the money will come from. This is going to be the biggest trouble spot for me, but I believe I have an argument against it. I also know that I am on a position that will primarily take the moral high ground. This will be insufficient for a debate, so I must find statistics and facts that give me a logical position. I know there are benefits to free colleges, such as less student debt and better out fo school student performance. Not to mention increased credit scores for students and more disposable income that will go back into our economy. Obviously, I need to get stats and sources to support me. The first useful thing that came up on google was an article that provides how a free community college system could work. This is likely to come in handy to me. The main logical argument for this side and topic would likely be something related to the increase in disposable income for students if they aren’t burdened by student debt. The ethical argument that could be made for this argument is also the crippling amount of debt college students gather up during their education. We have formed a society where a college degree is essential if you want to make good money, yet to get this education we are draining students and their parents of the very thing they seek. It makes higher education less accessible to people. The emotional argument would be what I just transitioned into, access to education. We are denying students education by putting a paywall in front of it. It is a contradiction of our goals and therefore infuriating. At least this is how it is to me. Overall, I am pretty excited to research this topic further and construct my argument.
My suggestion for the topic of our debate is the European Union. The question is, should it continue to exist, or should it be abolished. The opposing side, commonly conservative nationals so that is what I will call them, propose many downsides to the European Union. The defending side, typically liberal globalists so they will be referred to as such, propose many benefits to the European Union. The conservative nationals argue that the European Union is a counsel of bureaucrats that are out to use Europe to enrich themselves and push their political agenda onto European countries. Liberal globalists argue that the European Unions strives for the betterment of everyone and grants tremendous benefits financially and politically for Europe. I am personally more convinced by the conservative nationals as there are several examples of the European Union sweeping aside peoples personal freedoms. This is the primary reasons I have problems with the European Union, but there are several other reasons as well. For instance, some immigration is good, but letting millions of immigrants into your country with no penalty constantly has many adverse effects. Your culture will begin to fade into the culture of those immigrating, your government will look out to take better care of the disadvantaged immigrants than their own citizens, etc.. Not to mention these representatives (or at least a good portion of them) are in fact unelected, yet they are given the power to represent the entirety of Europe. Personally, I feel the EU shouldn’t be abolished, but I do think it needs to take a very serious look at itself and change for the better. Otherwise, there may be an Orwellian future awaiting us. On the topic of the new year though, I’m really not one for resolutions. I feel they are goals that are typically long term that people wish to undertake in a short time. Once they dont achieve this goal quickly, they abandon it all together. This process is unnecessary and disappointing in my mind. Regardless, if there was one thing I would improve about myself, it would be my level of self-awareness. In order to make anything better about myself, I first need to understand the problem thoroughly. In order to achieve this goal, I will continue to question my own reasoning, morality, and actions. The only thing standing in my way of this goal is the natural human condition. We are ignorant to our own actions, and constantly look for approval from others to justify the actions we take. This is an irritating feature of humanity that prevents such things as self-awareness. Nonetheless, I plan to do what I can to counteract it. Happy New Year!
Well, this experiment was not incredibly enlightening. I am painfully aware of my own flaws and my inability to fix them. This is typical because I am a procrastinator, and fixing human flaws doesn’t have a due date. The virtue I did the worst on was industry. I am going to be completely honest here and say that I waited until Monday to even start recording my virtues, and even then, the data is lacking. On top of that I am “not finished yet” with my first book, so for every day I didn’t read it, even though I told myself I would, that was another dot. Being a procrastinator is good but bad and bad but good. It is great short term relaxation but immense long term stress. It’s like being trapped in a body of boredom and disconnection while I am screaming at myself in my mind to do something productive. My second worst and most notable failure is order. Like industry, I have short bursts of productivity and organization, but they are short lived. For some reason no matter how hard I try to keep myself organized I just don’t, and it’s all because I am flawed. In other words, I am lazy, and I have no one to blame but myself. My best virtue was chasity, for obvious reasons (you laugh here). My second best virtue was humility. While I am technically breaking humility by stating this, I find it hard to brag about myself without feeling like an *******. So I don’t say anything openly about thinking I am better than others, but there are definitely thoughts, whether they are morally right or wrong. But I am not counting thoughts because they do not affect others or their perception of you, and society is what determines morality. As for other thoings such as temperance and tranquility. These aren’t normally violated by me but lately there have been several back to back tech events. As a result I have been “over indulging” in food, but this is typical. I stress eat all the time. Tranquility is a different story, as when I am under pressure I usually do good, but I can lose my tolerance for any interruption or humor. In other words I can overreact often when it comes to doing things under pressure. While I am disappointed that these are parts of my character, it is human nature. I can try all I want to make these better, but they will never truely cease. Everyone will forever be morally imperfect in the eyes of others because of the very moral imperfection we have within us.
P.S. Another painful 30 minutes of attempting to get my fragile internet to exist in our dimension once again to post this blog.
My first impression of this poem was one of extreme confusion. It was worded so strangely and so abruptly that I had trouble figuring out the theme for a few hours if not a day. When I did figure out the theme though I had already made an assumption of what it was. I was close, saying that the authors little world represented order, but I misinterpreted this as him disliking order, not desiring it. I still have quite a few questions for the poem though. Some may seem obvious but I am obviously not the most knowing when it comes to poetry. First of all, what was the reason behind wording the poem so randomly and strangely. For example, we transition from the author putting his little world together straight into the meat of the poem. The real message of the author that I missed, the desire for order in a chaotic reality. Another question is the police sirens at the end. The message this is sending and the point of it being there is just flying right over my head. The only idea I could have is a representation of chaos in a world meant to be orderly. This is a bit of a stretch though. The sound and sense questions asked for this poem were slightly easier to answer as now I really knew what I was looking for. Unfortunately they are going along the lines of my incorrect assumption of the theme. The only difficulty I had with the questions was finding the poems reason for existing. The way writing poems has affected my analyzing is pretty significant. I immediately looked for stanzaic form and rhythm patterns as well as rhyme patterns. I was breezing through the first few questions but hit a wall as soon as it began asking for my interpretation. So writing poems has increased my ability to analyze poems, not give my perception of them. This is why I am still not a fan of analyzing poetry. And as such, I much prefer writing it. So I am hoping that there is little to no poetry analyzing left, though I feel my hopes are misplaced.
My perception of poetry has changed significantly. When we began it was like looking at dough but not knowing what it was made of. It is pretty nice and it’s good to have. I can also turn it into something better, but I didn’t quite know the makeup of the substance. Now I have made two poems or dough balls if you wish to stick to my analogy. It was pretty nice to write the poems and pretty easy considering I had some pretty good topics to write about. I do still enjoy writing poetry significantly more than analyzing it though. My second poems topic though. It is definitely a pretty sad one. There were several analogies in the poem that would make it crystal clear if you got them. The topic was essentially a cynical outlook of absolutely everything and everyone in life. How a character became just as tough and cold as the others did. This is something I have to build off of for most people. First of all if you are cynical then you believe that people do everything for themselves. You believe that human integrity is untrustworthy at best. I am cynical as nothing I have seen has been out of self interest. Before I give you examples I want to point something out. If someone does something out of self interest it doesn’t mean this is going to always hurt others. In fact, the majority of self interested actions help others. For instance if someone volunteers, they are achieving a higher public opinion of themselves. They are also giving themselves a boost to their confidence because they feel good for helping people. On the other hand whatever they are doing for other people is 90% of the time benefiting others. This is still a self interested decision, whether the person intends it to be or not. But it is still benefiting others, so it isn’t a bad decision. I know this wont change a lot of minds, and I am not saying this position is intelligent or dumb, as that is irrelevant. I am hoping this was an adequate argument for cynicism that has the reader at least consider their position though. Next though, I’m not too sure how adding images to my poem could help. Trees could be used in images to assist with the uncovering of the analogies. It could be used to help set the gloomy tone and mood of the whole poem. I am not entirely sure what else images could be used for. Overall though poetry has become a lot more interesting for me. I am still not great at analyzing poetry itself but I enjoy writing pieces, regardless of how bad or good they may be.
The poetry I’ve read in class has been pretty bad. I’ll admit I did pick up to booklet of high school poetry so I wasn’t expecting anything Shakespearean. It didn’t affect my idea of or approach to poetry all too much, but our discussions did. I’m not sure about some people, but having a structure for my poem to go by has been fun. It is likely because it is similar to programming in a sense. You work out a line and then the next, then I had to rhyme and still have 8 syllables. I plugged things in and put things together. Most of the time the things didn’t work so I just kept throwing ideas at the line until it had something. Then I modified the words to pertain to the last two lines and overarching theme of the poem and boom, a poem is written. Of course this was the physical process that made the poem, not the mental and emotional one. I chose to write about human personality, specifically how people shape it and cover it up, because I’ve experienced these things in my life a lot. There are a lot of people I am close to where, if they are speaking to me, are a completely different person than when they are talking to someone else. I’ve understandably become able to see pretty clearly through peoples “public faces” to figure out their real intentions. I’m not saying I’m a psychic, but if someone tries to put on a mask for me I immediately look for cracks. Because of the personal experience with this and the way of thinking I attained from other people it was fairly easy to write this poem. It was just the structural limitations that I had to get around. I don’t think my poem is anything special but I hope it gives people insight into the possibility that everyone they see is not who they are. The kid you see who acts like they’re on top of the world is likely to have several flaws they are trying to cover up with outward confidence. This kid is likely to get very defensive or abnormally serious when you bring up their issue. The kid who constantly complains how terrible their family is may just be blaming them for their shortcomings. It’s all a paper mask, one wrong step and the whole thing gets torn to shreds.
Unfortunately, the book suggested to me by my English teacher was not available in the library at BHS. Because of this I’ve opted to read another book I found interesting, and save the suggested book for the next independent reading blog. The book I chose for this blog was “1984” by George Orwell. There are three ideas generated by this book that I would like to give my opinion on in particular. The first, which is the theme of the book, is that government can, and will, get too big. The second is that rebellions or attempts to remove the tyranny of the government could result in a tyrannical government. The third and final is a question I would like to ask and look at, “How can we prevent this?” The idea that government can and will get too big is something I would like to first dissect before we delve into it. I believe government can get big, but not that it is inevitable. For instance, if people don’t screw up and allow the government to dominate them, it will never happen. But people tend to enjoy the praise and reward of dealing with the governments crap, so it isn’t guaranteed that a government wont become too big. The thing about government is that once it realizes it has at least some power over people, one of two things will happen. Either the government will try to further its power to feed its ego and bank, or the people will continue to keep the government in check. If it’s people continue to keep the government under their control and not the other way around, it produces free and prosperous (not necessarily politically stable) countries like the USA! But think of what happens if the government tries to further it’s own power. Eventually its population will realize how much it’s screwing them over and rise up. This brings us to our next idea, rebellions against this tyranny could end with another form of tyranny. For instance, we saw the Russians rise up against a government that people believed to be tyrannical near the end of WWI, when the rebellion they created ended up with the Soviet Union (which, if you didn’t know, was one of if not the most tyrannical country ever spawned). This is because of what we discussed in our earlier idea. The only difference is that now its an emotionally or financially driven mob that takes the place of the government. As you can piece together, this is almost certainly going to result in another, even more tyrannical government. This is because humans not trained to at least resist power reaching their heads are unlikely to stop any power from getting to their head, no matter what they think. It is just another one of the painful flaws of this species. The last topic may be a simple question, but it is a fairly complicated answer. One of the biggest things that has prevented the American government from becoming tyrannical is the checks and balances system. Think of it like this, three children are on a playground , Boy A, B, and C, and each has their own toy. If boy A comes over to take boy B’s toy, boy B will refuse to give it up. Not only that, but boy C will step in and help boy B. That is because boy C doesn’t want to only have one toy when boy A has two, it would be unfair and unequal so therefore, not in the best interests of boy C. Since boy A now has two boys going up against him instead of one, he backs off, and plays with his one toy. Another way the government is prevented from gaining too much power is through the use of arms. The government would not want to assault an armed populous, so it steps back whenever it thinks it is getting unlawfully forceful with it’s citizens. That is up to many interpretations but I am not here to debate guns with people. The last major thing that stops government from abusing its power is its own interests. It (most of the time) realizes that it can’t exist without its citizens, and if it puts them at risk of rebellion, then the governments power would be meaningless anyway. Not to mention if the populous wasn’t loyal to it’s own government, it risks looking weak and even being attacked by another government. Overall government is there to exist for the people, not the people for the government. This is why it is unlikely (though still possible) that a government will rebel, meaning we don’t have to worry about the other two ideas anyway.