Mental Environmentalism

      I'd be lying if I told you that I've never tried to picture every tiny, unnecessary detail or thought that somehow winded up in my mind as a Picasso masterpiece.  I try to separate my thoughts into those dull business compartments, and they're set up inefficiently. There's a compartment that illuminates fluorescent lights, and I guess people would refer to this compartment as "priorities" - I'd say this compartment was the CEO to my mind. Every action, every word, and every step is immediately referred to or consulted by that compartment, slightly dominating, I know. We've got other inferior compartments such as body image, ambitions, and innovation, I'd say body image was slightly a higher rank than the rest. It's ridiculous of me, of course, to even consider something so insignificant as it's own compartment, but this is just another component that contributed to the chaotic mess of my mental state. I'm not shallow, I don't believe that your opinions of yourself reflect anything about who I sincerely am, but what options do you have when there's bankruptcy storming through your compartment?

      "What pollutes our environment, girls and boys?" asked the seventh grade science teacher. "Smoke!" "Gas! "Vehicles!" "Industries, duh!" "This is easy: littering!" The teacher laughs, and suddenly becomes stern "What pollutes your mental environment?" The class goes blank, no one's sure what's going on - okay, I'll stop this metaphor of mental environmentalism now, it's starting to sound like a horror story. "Standards!" "Technology" "Expectations!" would be a good answer for that teacher, though. I, half heartedly, will admit that I am the cause of the chaos going on in my gray matter; I opened the window during a storm of pollution. Do I feel guilty about it? No, why would I? Am I terrified? Yes, obviously. Have I tried closing the window? Numerous times. We've all tried. We all want to keep the pollution out as soon as we realize it's in; we read books, we write in our little black notebooks, we run, we try to do some Jane Fonda yoga, and sometimes we try to be children again, but that's my last resort. We've tried, but have we succeeded? Maybe, but the window is faulty. Don't worry though, the older that window gets, the sturdier it becomes. The Strange Case of Wellington Window - lame.
      My mind is polluted. It's as simple as that. This is one of those miraculous Miranda Hobbes discovery that leave you in shock for about three weeks before it's completely processed into your mind. I have a slight addiction to my cellphone, but I could beat it. Do I? No, I'm irrevocably obsessed with the entire concept of the web and technology; I cringe when I try to imagine myself perpetually going through a stack of books instead of Google. If you've got the technology, flaunt it, embrace it, but seriously don't overdo it - talking to those of you who legitimately have their phones super glued to the palms of their hands.
     Don't forget about the pretty side to my mind, the less dull, distressing side that is made up of colors, shapes, and thought bubbles - good thought bubbles. I've got it split right down the middle: a haunting grave yard that smells like the Corniche on Sunday mornings on the right, and a world of rainbows, ponies and Harry Styles to my left. It works, I guess.

Constitution Comparisons

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mkwGKnszyb87Z059b6dKYEFzDOxVUDHhP2nmP75-KKM/edit?usp=sharing

Comparing other countries constitution's with the Constitution of the United States Assignment

(Sorry I submitted it late! I almost forgot, but Veracross just sent an email). 

Was it a Revolution?

Paragraph on Britain
Historiography
My opinion

In total honesty, do you believe that all revolutions begun in "hope and moderation? This could be considered as euphoric, because did they all begin in moderation or wasn't it more like this sudden attack that took everyone by storm? There's one thing we're all certain of though: each of these revolutions have ended in something similar to dictatorship, which just brings all the revolutionary rebellions back to point A. Three of the four revolutions have experienced this cycle, except for one, of course: the American Revolution. Now, the cool/brainy stuff comes in; why would the American Revolution be isolated out of this category? Was it not a revolution? In my opinion, this Revolution stands neutral on Brinton's scale; it's not your run-of-the mill revolution. The following paragraphs take into consideration of other's perspectives and opinions upon whether or not the American Revolution was actually a revolution.
Brinton’s Anatomy of Revolution states:

The Whigs (19th Century)- This political party portrays the American Revolution as though it were some fairy tale that got passed down for several generations without truly knowing what actually happened. It was like repeating the tale of Cinderella's phenomenal moment of meeting Prince Charming, but completely avoiding the fact that she got terrible foot fungus after losing her shoe. They claim that the Revolution did indeed spark up "progress, advancement, and improvement", but reference to a work of literature by Ray Raphael, who claims a “good deal of the conventional understanding of the American Revolution is based not on factual accounts or evidence but on the dubious creativity of these 19th century biographer”. To sum this up, we all idealize the American Revolution to be some grand step in mankind, even though we greatly praise it for the mere fact that they stood up for their rights and fought for what they believe in; no one cares about the political, government-related stuff, people don’t make movies about that. Later within the 1800s, the dreadful, not-so-fairytale side of the Revolution is focused on. “More rigorous uses of evidence and analysis were used” such as analyzing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. These documents were considered the end to Western philosophy, democracy, and liberalism, which allowed the American’s to finally obtain their perpetuate desire for freedom and progress.
Side note: Historians that contributed to the advancement of the Whigs perspective included George Bancroft and John Fiske.

The Progressives (early 1900s)- “The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution” is one of many sources that the Progressives used to attack the Whigs’ perspective upon the Revolution. Schlesinger’s interpretation of the American Revolution reveals that although there was a good deal of revolutionary “sentiment” within the 1760s and 1770s, the entire thing was the result of American businessmen (or women, for the modern feminist) that were eager to increase their personal profits with the only way they knew how: oppressing the British trade regulations and obtaining power within “British-dominated markets”. Merrill Jensen proceeded to argue that the “economic slump of the 1780s” was the consequence of the wars that took place. These historians were capable of altering the view that others had about the American Revolution, which eventually left the Whig idea abandoned.

The Imperial School (early 1900s)- In contrast to the previous articles’ views about the American Revolution, this group of historians takes the British Empire’s point of view into perspective and allows us to grasp both sides of the story. They focused on the growth, management, and mismanagement that occurred within the Empire, but did not deem mercantilism and the Navigation Acts to be “oppressive or restrictive”; if they had been either of those, then the American colonies wouldn’t have been as notoriously successful as they were.

Despite the several opinions that were formed based upon Brinton’s anatomy of a Revolution, historians will forever debate whether it is correct to actually classify the American Revolution as a revolution. The prominent historians that have the leading, most persuasive arguments are The Whigs and The Progressives, in my opinion. They both allow the reader to comprehend every aspect of the revolution: political, financial, liberalism etc. The Neo-Whigs lacked sufficient evidence, in my opinion, so I did not take their opinion into consideration. All in all, as I said earlier, the American Revolution stands neutral on the scale of Brinton’s anatomy.

American Revolution Trailer

(Scenes taken from others videos)

The Trailer

Friendly Floatees

       It's been about three years since I've begun my journey; among the seas I was raised by none other than the finest sharks to inherit their strength, and taught by monks of the North Pacific. I have been trained by dolphins, I now know to use that unnecessary hole drilled on the top of my head for the good of humanity. Losing my companions around the depths of the sea has slowed my sail, I spent about six months grieving over Marla. The good die young, as Bill-y Joel once said. Life is nothing more than a perpetuate journey that I must embrace; the few that remain of my colony have set their own sail towards Britain, but I am too attached to this side of the world, I do not crave the shore anymore. We all lived in this bubble, we couldn't go beyond the perimeters, and my only colleague was a moldy bottle of shampoo.
       I strive to be like my ancestors, conquering the world one bill at a time, but to achieve that I must carry on with my training. They shall know me as Billdha, the spiritual one. Bill Duckton, an old friend of mine, once said that in order to get their attentions, all we have to do is speak our voices; I have lost my voice during a traumatizing thunder. I do not need a voice, I have my actions.
       I am Moby Duck.

People?

 "Everything everybody does is so — I don't know — not wrong, or even mean, or even stupid necessarily. The worst part is, if you go bohemian or something crazy like that, you're conforming just as much only in a different way" -J.D Salinger

Humans are put under this assumption that we're all nothing until we become something; is that something necessarily good? Does that something include nudity, fame, or money or does it include brains, morals, and deeds? Are you doing something right to prove to others that you're good? Who are you trying to prove? Who is it that we're all trying to impress? A boy? A parent? A teacher? Why? I know these questions are way too in depth for what I'm about to discuss, but that's what comes to my mind when I think of Locke's belief that all of us are just moral and decent beings trying to get by. I know there are some people we absolutely can't handle, whether it be that they're annoying, rude, "too nice"(some people refer to this as phony), obnoxious, or simply mean, but under all of what you see of them, they're so much like you. We all want to please our parents, our friends, the college committee, or even a sibling, but why do we think we're the only one? We believe that we're the only ones going through something traumatic, stressful, or heartbreaking, but in a world of 7 billion people, why do we think we're alone? We give other people labels or we have impressions of them, they do likewise, but we never really know what they've got going on, whether it be mentally, family-related, or academically, we give them labels that stick to our mind and never really go away. All those people are actually humans beings, they may want something different out of life, but does that mean they're wrong? What gives us the right to judge someone? What gives others the right to judge us? There is no right, you're not superior, but you're human. Think about this: does anyone do anything to hurt others or do they do it to protect themselves? We've all got morals, we've all got decency, but no one really sees that because they're too busy taking care of their morals and decency. It's still there, though.

Dare to Know

“Dare to know! Have courage to use your own reason!” 

This quote can go several ways, it could have a complex meaning where some would spend about ten minutes trying to decipher this, or it could simply mean: speak out.

Society won’t be able to handle anything anyone’s got to say that completely gives them a different perspective, because we’re humans and we’re very comfortable living by what we were brought up with. Does “dare to know” mean dare to know what your audience would respond, or is this “dare to know” fixated to society in order to accept that there are many things they do not know? What would you do if someone told you that everything they’re teaching you at school is pointless? Or that your parents/teacher know just as little as you do? What would you react if someone were to tell you that cracking your knuckles does cause arthritis? You’d be confused, you’d deny it, you’d be mad, and you wouldn’t want to think about it ever again; someone just shifted everything you’d thought to be true, and you really aren’t ready to accept that. I think that’s why so many of us ignore our courage to stand up for something we believe in in fear that they’d react by throwing rotten tomatoes on you. Some people, quite few, are lucky enough to have caught one audience members attention and that one person could completely go along with what you’ve got to say and you may not have changed a nation’s perspective, but you changed a life. I don’t want to disappoint you, but I’ve never had the courage to use my own reason, until this week. I’m finally over that fear that if I were to run for Student Council, I would get harshly rejected just because people didn’t like me enough; I just got over that fear that was just some figment of my imagination, and I can pretty much say it’s a small step towards confidence.