A Scientific Observation

    Browsing Scientific American and the science pages of the Times, I have realized something. There are very few scientific articles concerning physics, astrophysics, and non-theoretical cosmology. My theory is that they are too difficult for the general public to comprehend, but that theory falls through mainly because if you're reading SA, you're probably pretty intelligent. Throw in some mathematics! Stop being such hardcore writers. Give us some physics from deep space! Okay, this is just my expressing my discontent for the content of the magazines I'm working with. Stop writing to please environment hippies and small minds! I know you can do better.

Sagan

"“Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there—on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

Carl Sagan

Shame Is Not the Solution

Here is the link to the article.

     Teaching is a weird art. After teaching drums for about four months now, an unexpected obstacle has risen. I get no feedback so I don't know how to improve. If I were to ask a student to critique my teaching style, he would probably just say good and move on because it put him in a bad situation. Not that there are grades with music, but if it were a conventional classroom, a student would be pressured to write an unfair view for fear of saying anything bad about them. It would take some willpower. So really the question is how do teachers become better teachers? Do they judge by their test scores? Since they administered them, they shouldn't. A teacher will never really know how they are doing unless a student directly confronts them, and as I said, it is unlikely to happen. It is a strange art.

     I thought the article was bland. I've come to realize something though. Newspaper is boring. There is seldom an interesting editorial. I don't see any reason to read them unless you are trying to become a better writer (hence Blog). I don't think it is fair that teacher's ratings can be made public, and I do not think that shame is the answer either, but I believe the first step to becoming a great educator is becoming humble. They can go hand and hand, but this certainly isn't the way to do it. It is simply not fair. Read the article if you want to, but I wouldn't do it again.

Shuttering Bad Charter Schools

Here is the link to the article.

     What is wrong with charter schools? They are chances for gifted students to strive. It is a place for students who would be bored in a public school to learn. It is for the free thinkers and innovators of the future, and I only wish my parents had given me the option to go to one. I think why much of America hates charter schools is because they do not provide equal opportunities to all children. A child at a charter school will be more likely to receive a meaningful education than one at a public school because they are not tethered to the bogus education laws in place. This puts many children at a disadvantage, and thus the monumental hate of charter schools is erected. My thoughts are this: if you actually care about education, and not about numbers, you will find charter schools an amazing opportunity. Only the figure-crazed portion of America (and let's face it, it is a very hefty piece) would dislike an education in which you actually are allowed to learn. It goes back to the banking concept; those who are going to learn will learn, and those who would rather fill themselves with useless information will do so. Also, one thing about banking, I believe it is ultimately the student's decision whether or not they actually learn something. There are so many resources out there that allow anybody to learn anything, which is why I believe that charter schools are good. The public school student must find the resources of actual knowledge on their own, while a charter school delivers them to the student. Just because they are receiving a great education doesn't mean you should be mad at them.
     "A 2009 study from Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that 37 percent of charter schools performed worse on student test measures than their traditional counterparts. Given that data, closure rates should clearly be higher." Wow that made me mad.If you hate charter schools so much, why don't you go around burning them? Just because it scored lower than a public school doesn't mean that it is worse. I won't reveal it here, but I have a great philosophy on this. Coming soon. I would bet that if you talked to some of the charter students, they would be brighter and more personable than the average public school student. You are not your numbers.
     The author (unnamed, probably because he was too ashamed to post a name to it) is stupid. He uses backwards logic and fallacies to "support" his opinions on charter schools. Not to mention it really ticked me off. He relied heavily on ethos and allowed himself to get inflamed about charter schools. There were some logos present, but I don't agree with it. I could see the average mind agreeing with it, however. Don't even bother reading this garbage.

The Talent Society

Here is the link to the article.

     I will begin by posting a comment from the Time's forum written by a user called cgehner. "This is another one of the rambling, amorphous, nonsense editorials which Mr. Brooks seems to specialize in. To label the fact that, as a society and as individuals, we have become less cohesive, more shallow, without much of a sense of individual and social responsibility... to label this as "\'The Talent Society' strikes me as ludicrous." I could not have said it better. It reminded me of Sherlock (then again, so does everything) and how he calls himself a high-functioning sociopath. This actually is meant to be a joke I believe because that's what a psychopath is, but either way it fits David Brooks very well. He was probably sitting in his flat, alone, pondering his dwindling social network, because after all, he is a middle-aged man, so he can now speak for all of them, when he wrote this. I disagree with what he has to say, which is, social norms have changed from being married with kids to single and lonely.

     This article actually has opened my eyes to something I have been pondering a bit: people who live in major cities have no concept of suburban life and suburban dwellers have no regard for city life. We both tend to make sweeping generalizations about the other in no time at all. I was in Mass General yesterday, and I noticed something. The state of mind one must have in order to survive in the city, is indeed, shifted from that of suburbia, however, we are all still people. Just because a young man lives on his own in the city doesn't mean he's a sociopath who is only concerned with his work. Maybe he knows he can't support another person on his salary. Maybe he just lost his job and his girlfriend left him. Maybe he is a sociopath. No matter the case, one can't just assume he is a hipster who rejects society's wants and substitutes his own. In short, there is not enough (any) research to support Brooks' claims.

Why Online Dating Doesn't Work

Here is the link to the article.

     Okay, well I've always had a sort of radical opinion on this: meet people in person. There is not enough human interaction today (says the man behind the blog). People's abilities of judgement are diminishing, and with the internet growing, likely will never return. A human meeting a fellow human is a magical moment that, in my opinion, defines us. We show who we really want to be to those who don't know us. The key is that it has to be in person, otherwise the illusion won't work and you'll be another sleazy online jerk. You might meet someone who seems repulsive online because her profile claims that, "she really loves cats," when in real life she is a leading biologist with a PhD who travels to Africa twice a year to study lions. You are not you online.
     Well, I thought this was a pretty generic article. There was nothing that jumped out at me. It was quite boring, but it was quick, and therefore, almost painless. It's worth looking at if you ask me because it only took a minute or so.

Beyond SATs, Finding Success in Numbers

Here is the link to the article.

     There is a slight problem with this article and foundation. That is, the SAT's are fair. I will start my argument by negating yours: a quality of an intelligent person is being able to pass a test. Good test-takers need nerves of steel as well as intellect and experience. It is a summation of your character, work ethic, and overall aptitude for learning. It is high stakes, but guess what? So is life, so get over it. I do not pity poor testers, but I will help you if you need it because everyone should be able to test with ease. Moving on, I thought the man who started it is pretty chill, but I have no personal reaction whatsoever to the editorial. I think it is an odd concept, but seeing how it doesn't directly affect me, it does not matter and shall be treated as such.
     I thought the writing style was better than most Times composers. It did get boring around the middle, but I figured I had gotten that far already, so why stop? I particularly dislike the title. It is quite misleading: I thought I would read some way to hack the SAT's, but instead it talks about some students that were selected for their intellect that is not consistent with their scores. I see this as a problem. Hell, I should move to the Bronx so I can go to school for free. I'd be a shoo-in. Anyhow, the piece was average. Don't bother reading it.

GOD IS ANGRY!!

Before you read this, watch this video. It will only take a minute.

     In this blog, I will break down my views on God once and for all because I constantly get pestered about it, and this will provide a definite place for me to point them. Please do not take this entry personally, I don't aim to offend, insult, or anger people in any way. I do not aim to preach atheism or agnosticism in any way, shape, or form. This will mainly be arguing against a Christian religious system because I am familiar with it. Your religion and moral beliefs do not and will never have any impact on me, and the same should be said about you. Read at your own risk.
     To start, God does not exist, at least not in the traditional sense that Christians accept. Creationism is plain wrong. It has been disproved by science. Hawking put it this way: there was no time before the universe was created. Therefore, there was no time for a being to create the universe. Since time did not exist, neither did anything, including a god. Thus, a major gap in Christian belief is created. There you go. Stephen Hawking disproved God in one sentence. It is worth mentioning that I have never heard a better argument from a Christian.
     God has always been a scare tactic, and nothing more. Christians have been using "him" as a means to get what they want since religion began. Heaven and hell are nothing more than a way to make people fear going against your philosophies. This is one of the most hideous aspects of Christianity. This is how they rose to power to begin with; a system which is fundamentally based in fear, but shrouds itself in claims of love should hold no ground in the world. It has become a mass-scale brain-washing, polluting youth, scaring kids out of free will to either make their parents happy or for fear losing out on heaven or in fear of going to hell.. Christianity makes our kids too stupid to put two and two together: paradise and purgatory are tools used be people who wish to control and contort you. Unless you wish to become a mindless pig, buy into it, because, again, God has already been disproved. They have this idea that they have this thing called the "Mandate of Heaven", or the divine right to rule. Government is only derived from a mandate of the masses. The convoluted idea that they have the rights to my life, freedom, and mind is something that I find absolutely outrageous. In the kid's video about Mine Craft, he claims to be the "authority of America" because he is a Christian. Guess what? I do not care. You will not order me around, order any of my friends around, or convert me because you cannot compete with my massive intellect. I make my own decisions, end of story.
     One of the most frustrating parts of this argument is trying to deal with Christianity's extremists. Some could make a point that they are the worst extremists of any mainstream religion. The main reason in defense of this is that they will distort their precious faith to accommodate what they value outside of God's realm. One of their most controversial subjects is their thoughts on gay marriage. Here is a simple solution in which everyone wins: stay out of it. Your ignorance is already at titanic levels, why not add a little more to it? Homosexuality is not a disease; it is also not something to be ashamed of. The next person to tell me how much they hate gays will be verbally skinned.
     To sum up, I'm sorry Christianity, but your reign of power has come to an end. With the separation of church and state, you have become useless. Your deity has been disproved and your sole purpose today is to corrupt the American population. I stand by what I said on an old post, that religion should be abolished. It causes too much fear, grief, and institutionalization of thought to be allowed to continue. But who am I to tell you off? Take what I have said, or leave it. Just know that it makes no difference to me.

Who’s King Of Pop Now?

Here is the link to the article.

     Here is the problem: there are too many ways to download music (or buy it for that matter) to actually decide who is the best seller. With crazy piracy rates, it is impossible to tell who is number one. Sure, Cohen was atop Amazon for a while, but does that make him the king of popular music? Not quite. He has written some of the greatest songs ever, such as Hallelujah. This does not make him the greatest pop musician in the world because, to be honest, it is completely aesthetic. Cohen is far from my favorite pop musician. Some bands atop the list are Oasis, Mumford and Sons, Panic! At the Disco, and Guster. None of them even resemble Cohen which leads me to my next point: stop categorizing music as pop. Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is the conventional form of "pop", meaning Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus or someone like that. Call Oasis indie, Mumford folk, Panic! rock, and Guster indie. Stop calling music pop, or even worse, the lazy way out, which is of course, alternative.
     I really liked some of the points the author raised. "Until the last century, there was no expectation that artists would constantly change styles and messages." He just crapped all over our generation's music, and while I don't agree with a lot of it, it is true that some of the older popular artists have stayed true to their original genres. You don't hear Paul rapping. But I do have to say that musical taste does evolve, and it is a creative freedom that we posses to be able to move on. I don't think we should judge bands based on how closely their newest album resembles their oldest. While the author claims that music should not be like fashion, I must disagree and say that if music never evolved, we would still be singing drum beats from thousands of years ago. There is no final destination, and just because we are in a dark age right now, don't go bashing people's musical talent because they're popular. By all means, do it if they suck, but Cohen doesn't. He wrote probably the most influential piece of music of all time, so don't say anything about him. Clearly this writer doesn't know much about music and its history. Ethos is way out of whack here. You cannot simply rely on pathos when discussing music. Try again next time.

A Universe from Nothing

Here is the link to the article.

     Einstein is truly a man of another character. His strengths were not strictly scientific as he was an outstanding philosopher, and a great bike rider. I have a fairly long list of his moral ideas which have no place here, but it is worth mentioning. I have little reaction to the excerpt because there is little science that I did not already know because I have an interest in cosmology and have done a good deal of independent research on it. I know that the universe is expanding and all that jazz that I won't get into for fear of boring the reader.
     I thought that the article was well-written. To start, it was actually an excerpt from a book. The reason I liked how it was constructed was that it pulled a generic quote out right from the start to engage the imagination of the reader. The purpose of the excerpt wasn't entirely scientific; it possessed a mysterious quality that caused the reader to want to wonder about the universe. It is encouraging the average mind to become extraordinary. It makes the reader think to further the opportunities of science. It is an advertisement that dares the reader not just to question Einstein's theories, but to come up with their own and try to prove them. Not that it will happen, but that is the beauty of it all. You are free to think whatever you would like, and the author is only there to guide your thoughts and emotions. Overall, a nice article for those who are interested in cosmology.

Number Games

     Everyday, I hear the same few classmates complaining about how low their grades are because their just teachers are unfair. To you shallow people, and I think you know who you are (though you won't be reading this), stop. Just stop. Your fanaticism over your cume is your greatest fault. Your unrelenting drive to beat my GPA will eventually be the death of you. Or will it? After all, if you let your numbers define who you are, you are living a non-human life. You aren't experiencing what it means to learn, to live. You are only fulfilling your parents and teacher's expectations, and while the act is admirable, it is far less so than learning, not for your future's sake, but for personal enjoyment and want. The one who learns for another is a fool, a hypocrite, a fake. True knowledge exists only in the way that we want it to, not because it is required to be.
     Your grade is fair, dear complainer, as your actions and words have justified it. Your incentive for apathy is holding you back, and will do so until your dying day. Meanwhile, you become defensive at the slightest mention that you do not, in fact, deserve the number grade that you have, the rank and the credit you have "earned" due to the above. Your work ethic, you claim, is great,but in fact it is just that. It is a work ethic, not a learn ethic. For those of you who spit facts back, I have little reverence. I cannot accept that you wish to do well. However, when the two coexist in one body, an essential colossus of learning is spawned. There are very few; I am not one. Nobody I know is one, so why even bother continuing to talk about it? There is a difference between a person of wisdom and a person of knowledge, of learning. Your learning should not exist in merely an academic setting. One must carry what is developed in the classroom into life, and more importantly, bring learning to your feeble lives, for it will give them strength. Take notice of your thoughts. See just where they take you, and maybe, just maybe, you will escape your fate of numerical suicide.

On The Birth of Charles Dickens

     Charles John Huffam Dickens was born on February 7, 1812 to John and Elizabeth Dickens in Landport at Portsea. In case you didn't notice, that makes today his 200th birthday. I randomly came across this fact while reading a comparison of he and Twain which was actually quite interesting, but consider the odds of my finding this. If my calculations are correct, it is a one in 73800 chance that I find out his birthday on exactly his 200th birthday.

     I am not the biggest Dickens fan, although I have blogged about his lifestyle; I've only ever read his Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol. While I did enjoy it, and it was one of the best books we read freshman year, I have never read any of his other works. I'm pretty sure A Tale of Two Cities is in the Junior curriculum, however, I don't know if that applies to the AP class. One thing in particular I liked about Great Expectations was Dickens' ability to present and alter characters. Pip's moral persona changes so rapidly throughout the novel that it adds energy to the piece. While he is one of the few that actually changes, the rest of the characters' personalities are placed carefully and in accordance to the plot, the theme, and most importantly, to Pip. Dickens is revered as a master of the English language at the level of Shakespeare and Twain, and in celebration of his 200th birthday, I dedicate this post to him.

First Impressions of Townie

     I am actually having trouble reading this book. I can't concentrate on much of what Dubus is saying because I feel as if the story isn't going anywhere. Granted, I'm only 46 pages in, but I think something key about memoirs is that their plot inches along. It happened in The Tender Bar. As well. The plot just doesn't move. It takes so long to get going, then you only have a moment of enjoyment for the last 50-100 pages you've read.
     The reason I enjoyed The Tender Bar so much was because of the constant, beautiful language that Moehringer used. It made you forget about how slow the story actually was, and when one finally arrived at one of the high points, it would overwhelm them. This changes with Townie because Dubus' linguistic skills are not even close to that of Moehringer's. They are wildly pedestrian; he describes his already boring life with your average writer's word choice. Moehringer talked constantly about how he expanded his vocabulary; Dubus does no such thing. While Dubus is still talented, I feel as if he is writing to write if that makes sense. He seems as if he's taken the joy of the act out of the work. It is as if he takes away his artistic integrity. As I continue to trudge through Townie, I may choose to follow up to this. Maybe not. We will see.

Facebook is Using You

Here is the link to the article.

     The author of this article did something interesting: she implied pathos. She made you feel emotional about the subject although she wrote using only logos and ethos. It makes you want to scream and kick something. She illustrates a miserable paradox: you can't expect to use the internet without being put at some sort of disadvantage, but you still can't not use the internet or you won't be able to function as efficiently because of this age of instant information. This really ticks me off because it shows that big corporations are controlling our lives, and not just because of the mass of time you spend on it for no reason. It is not okay. I will not have Facebook make my life decisions for me. I am my own person, and I will not be raised to die by some dirty, money-filthy pig sitting behind a desk. So here is what we do: create a movement to ban the tracking of web data, rendering us immune to online red-lining. This will be a serious problem unless someone does something big. Will it hurt the economy? Yes, but will it save you, reader? Heck yeah. Take a stand for yourself because God knows nobody else will.
     Actually, this article was a pretty rich example of logos and ethos. It argued using (seemingly) valid points, and presented ideas that a fairly seasoned reader wouldn't know or realize. I felt strongly that the article was correct, which means that she did her job, and did it well. I have a natural distrust of big-game corporations such as Facebook and Google, but that doesn't stop me from using them. I'm writing this using Google Chrome, and was on Facebook an hour ago. This scares me a bit, knowing that every move I make is being recorded, analyzed, and judged by people who I'm sure believe themselves to be better than I am. Sure, many people are eating out of the palm of your hand, but I am not.

Is GPS All in Our Heads?

Here is the link to the article.

     I chose this article because it has much to do with the last post I made. Humans are not only losing social skills, but now they are losing basic survival skills. If there was some sort of apocalypse, the ones without the GPSes would be the only survivors. During my driving hours about a year ago, the instructor had me drive someone home, and even though I knew exactly where he lived because we are old friends, she insisted on plugging it into the GPS, "just in case." People's faith in themselves is diminishing past the point of return. I much agree with the article; humans need to experience navigation for themselves, and I personally believe they need to be cognitive of it at a very young age to develop the skill. There are really no upsides to using a GPS other than showing you exactly where you need to go, so why not actually use your head and think about the route you need to take? Another incident of mass indolence.
     I liked the language of the article very much. Actually, it's not that I enjoyed the language so much, but instead I liked a specific analogy. Julia Frankenstein said, while describing the lack of information displayed on a GPS map, "Developing a cognitive map from this reduced information is a bit like trying to get an entire musical piece from a few notes." Beautiful! A GPS is the equivalent of a condensed score! Someone hit the Mr. Ketchen soundboard! This was a very interesting read. I am beginning, through this blog, to finally comprehend the magnitude of human incompetence in life.

Quantum Cryptography Comes to Smart Phones

Here is the link to the article.

     Have you ever seen a person doing something absolutely idiotic with a smartphone? I sure have. I think that the idea of a smartphone is actually quite stupid. A smartphone takes away from your life. I have some crappy phone with a slide out keyboard that I use every now and then. I also have an iPod touch, second generation. I bought it with the mindset that all the apps and the ease of music navigation would be worth it. I mainly bought it, however, because it was around the time that everyone started getting them. If I had known how useless they actually are, I would have put my money I worked hard to earn to better use. Nowadays, the only thing I use my iPod Touch for is my book app (which is actually awesome, it has all the classics you could think of; it claims some 23,000+ books, but I would still prefer a kindle) and as a clock. I use my sister's old green iPod for music, but mainly listen on Spotify on my computer. The unneeded distractions spawned by smart phones don't seem to be going away, or anywhere for that matter, so instead of arguing with the feeble people who use them, I will instead talk about the article.
     The author relied on logos mostly in an attempt to warn the infidels of their blessed iPhone's shortcomings. That is actually quite ironic as people with iPhones probably don't read SI. And not Sports Illustrated. As these foolish people continue to place their trust in the fact that nobody can hack it because it's their phone, more and more are being robbed. It is sort of sad I think; the poor people too stupid to realize it are playing prey to sleazy people. These thieves are real threats, and people are too caught up in their iLightSabers to take heed. None of this would've happened if we didn't have smart phones in the first place. They are a way for pompous people to flaunt their wealth. Nobody needs one, especially high schoolers.  There is nothing important enough happening in anyone's lives at Hanover to constitute the number of Twitter followers they think they deserve. News flash, you are a boring, miserable, shallow person! Nobody should willingly pay attention to your status updates, profile picture changes, and relationship statuses. I see a fair number of my classmates on their iPhones in class constantly. They are repeat offenders; some even sit in the class with their iPhones in their laps, blatantly disrespecting their teachers, classmates, and making themselves look bad. If you had an actual emergency, excuse yourself from class and make a call in the office. Just because you think what you will be drinking Friday night is more important than your schoolwork doesn't mean that it actually is. In short, smart phones are a dehumanizing society and creating emotional, ethical, and social issues. They are unnecessary and should be disposed of accordingly.

Memoir Take Two: Townie

Townie by Andre Dubus III.