The Inadequacy of Standardized Testing

A Dialog with My Brain

It seems it's that time of the year again where students are taking their first semester's final exams. The tension is enough to erupt a volcano, and admidst the havoc of cramming, an idea came to me. It was an idea that has often haunted me, particularly during test time, but this time it's back with valid points. The conversation between my brain and I go as follows:

• Brain: "Arrghh, why are we doing this?"
• Steven: "huh?"
• Brain: "Why are you spending endless hours looking at papers and computer screens in the hopes of absorbing some information that you might not need for an exam given by another person?"
• Steven: "I kinda need to do this, I might not remember something for the test and --"
• Brain: "You don't get it! Why do you have to take a test at all? You're given a piece of paper, everyone in the class is, and you're expected to answer the questions on the sheet. The results are supposed to reflect how well you know the information--"
• Steven: "Yea, that's kinda how it works. It's always been that way."
• Brain: "Just because it always has been, means it's correct. You're tested on by a standard. Obviously this is fundamentally incorrect. Look around you - is any one person here the same as you physically? Emotionally? Mentally? Spiritually? No. Even if you were to have a twin, they would not be the same as you. Everyone is different, simply because of the massive amounts of variables that exist during the fetal developement process...my point? If everyone was all the same, then I would understand that a standardized test--one that is the same for everyone--would be necessary to test to see if one is operating a sub-"standard" level. Yet, because everyone is different, there is no strict standard."
• Steven: "yea, yea, but one can argue that there is a general standard margin of excellence where one should be if they are studying and keeping a good work ethic."
• B: "Steven, this far deeper than that. Yes, one can be tested on this general system that sets a margins of excellence based on how many points are recieved on a test, but it's not good enough! Do you know why test are standardized, at least on at the classroom level?"
• S: "No."
• B: "Remember, the goal is to measure one's knowlege and excellence, compared to that of a set margin. In other words, get all the answers right, you get a 100. Get some right, but not all, your grade is lowered accordingly. Test are standardized in a weak attempt to keep them fair and just. But what is fair is not always just."
• S: "I don't follow..."
• B: "Let me give you an example...soon, you'll be taking that mathematics final exam--"
• S: "uhhgg, don't remind me."
• B: "Anyways, yes, you've been studying like crazy but math isn't really your favorite topic. You understand the basic principles, but when you try to put into practice the more complex concepts, you utterly do not understand -- it shows on your previous quizes."
• S: "Your point?!"
• B: "Do you believe you are a disadvantage compared to, let's say, the economics major that sits next to you? Or to any individual that loves computing interest rates? I believe you are. For them, the work is more of a pleasure, and their natural aptitude for the subject allows them to perform at a much better rate than you. You would have to put in much more time and work (both of which you cannot afford) in order to receive a high grade-- a grade that will still be humbled by theirs'. By the same token, if you were to take an exam that tested your level of historical comprehension of the imperialism of the 1700s, you have a much greater advantage over many, due to the fact you simply understand history easily and find it fascinating."
• S: "So what you're saying is that standardized test...huh?"
• B: "oh for goodness sake, Steven! STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE UNJUST because they are skewed in favor of those who are more naturally fitted for the subject. By becoming 'fair', they essentially cripple those who have no taste for the subject of the test, who find it (the subject) unbearably difficult, and who cannot seem to understand (at least to an adequate level). I won't even touch even more pressing issues, such as one of your favorites, the phenomenon known as 'test anxiety'...."
• S: "Okay, so I get that it's not just. But life isn't just -- but it is fair. We all walk on the same gravity, breathe generally the same air, live under the same sky, etc. We're all expected to be tested against an ideal standard. What are any alternatives?"
• B: "Sure, that's all fine and dandy, but is scoring everyone by one standard scale and having their scores compared to one another truly the best course of action? Aren't we all beyond this whole 'survival of the fittest' bit? Besides, standardized test give too broad of a result. Joey got a 95 on a science test. Sarah got a 69. Does that mean that Sarah is truly ignorant of the subject? Perhaps, but there are too many variables. What if she did study with all her heart and soul, yet she simply couldn't understand? What if her home environment doesn't allow for fruitful studying? What if her mind, on a biological scale, isn't suited for understanding science? And if she got a 85, does this still mean she is ignorant of the subject? (after all, she is away from a 100 by 15 whole points! POINTS!! What is a point? Can one possibly measure how efficient one is able to use their acquired knowledge?? but i digress...) Must she be compared to the ideal standard of a 100% grade, or to Joey's 95, or to any other?  If the aim is to truly measure one's comprehension of the subject matter, then people must be tested on an individual basis. No grade scale. No comparison from one person to another. No more injustice. Personalized test should be implemented, one fit to make up for the variable's of one's life. In this way, more difficult questions will be provided to geniuses, while less difficult questions would be provided to those less suited. The basketball brute would no longer be at a disadvantage, compared to the math geek, in class."
• S: "But test serve a social purpose -- they give an idea of how everyone is performing compared to others. You simply can abolish this concept, it's part of the human's competitive nature!"
• B: "Honestly, I wish it weren't. Regardless, people can still be given this measure by comparing their status proportionally to others. For an example, no longer would Sarah have to worry about be considered lesser than any other, for the test she'll take will be made to suit her individual needs. What she makes on that test can then be proportionally compared to the 'scores' of others, who also took individualized test."
• S: "Well...It seems you have a proper argument forming there (albiet slightly fantastical and abstract), brain, but it's in futility. I still have to study for my finals -- but hey, what you said is good food for thought."
• B: *sigh* "Fine. My hope is some one on your blog will respond interestingly to my thoughts...yours have been..."
• S: " Yea? Have been what?"
• B: "Let's just say you'd make good friends with a neanderthal."
• S: "Sweet! I've always wanted to be pals with someone from the Netherlands!"
• B: "You twit! The citizens of the Netherlands aren't called neanderthals, they're called -- ah, forget it."

What are your brains telling you?

I fear for the future of music...

Warning before we get started.

I don't claim to properly know the guy of the topic, Justin Bieber, nor do I have a proper clue of his biography aside from the swift rundown I did. Simply put - I will be brutal. Readers, you might not like that. Get over it.

I have a duty to respond in a blog (I emphasize "respond", i.e. an emotional response). When I try to look at music in general, I dive into the worlds Rock, Electronica, Classical, Jazz, and some Rap. I explore and enjoy their sub-genres and hybrids. But when it comes to Bieber's work (Pop?) stuff, I can't help but to cringe. No hate to the person themselves, but FOR ME, their stuff is trash...so's country music, but that's a different story...

Now then, if I hate his life's work, shouldn't I hate him?

Not necessarily. Bieber's work may seem terrible to me, but his story isn't one to abhor or anything. The kid has talent, obviously. But because I am emotionally too outraged to continue writing coherently -- simply because I despise his music -- I will show a list of why I do not hate the person. (You'll see, even though my previous statement really does hinder my goal, you'll see why I don't hate the guy).

Reasons why I don't hate him, per se.

1. He's made over 200 wishes come true for dying people through the Make A Wish foundation. He plays a part in the Charity: Water stuff, giving clean water people around the world who don't have it. He has power, and so far, he uses it for the right things. There are plenty of more charity examples.
2. The guy has worked hard to make it. Talent + work = success.
3. I'm an artist, I inherently support other artist - it's my thing.
4. For more reasons of why I don't hate him, check out this random guy's blog (I think number 5 is pretty funny). He pretty much summarizes the reasons, in a jerk-ish, funny kinda way.

No hate for Bieber, but I don't care for him (I'm neutral).... and so, if my hate is not for Bieber, but I support his endeavor to succeed, to whom should I direct my burning hatred?? Well, I personally blame sappy pubescent girls, I mean, young teens for making a market for his TERRIBLE MUSIC (x_x)... 

Kill the that music...KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!

ThE lOtIoN iS a LiE!

Man, my router and I constantly have a never ending war...if I ever win a battle, I get a few days of speedy internet. If not, I have an eternity of brutal hours, suffer from internet withdraws... jk. Okay, let's get to the meat of this meal! ---->

SCANDAL in the J&J family pharmaceutical company!

 I've never trust big companies. MacDonald's, Coca-Cola, Funimation, The CONGRESS; I all subscribe to their products, but I'm always suspicious of what their pushin'. I'm particularly suspicious of pharmaceutical companies, a fear probably rooted from my experience with Capcom's Resident Evil game series and with my in my ignorance of how medicine works.

It seems a big company Johnson & Johnson is shelling out more than 2.2 Billion big-ones in order to settle criminal and civil accusations of improperly promoting the using of a certain anti-psychotic drug, Resperdal, to the elderly (with dementia) and to children (with disorders) -- regardless of the fact that the drug may have adverse affects for anyone other than the F.D.A approve schizophrenia patients. Adverse affect, you say? Yes, they include an increased chance for stroke in the elderly, and breast growth in young boys. Weird, right?

Our US Legislature may seem pretty weak with recent events (remember that Government Shutdown?)...

but at least our judicial system is making headway. J&J isn't the only major business being cracked down for their questionable promotion of possibly harmful drugs. Among that number are Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Abbott, just to name a few. It's about time some regulation is put into practice on pharmaceutical companies that hold so much...BIOLOGICAL control. I mean, all we have to determine of a vitamin pill will be good for us, is what they shove on to the label. I'm a skeptic, there, I wrote it.

“As a group, [we've]...sent a message to the pharmaceutical industry that this kind of widespread fraud and disregard for F.D.A. regulations isn’t going to be tolerated." Well said, Mr. David Stone, a winning lawyer from the suit.

So remember

When you're eating a multi-vitamin, taking cold medicine, an antidepressant, give another thought as to where that medicine came from. It might serve you well to be a skeptic, who knows...

when you grab that bottle of J&J lotion, remember, ThE lOtIoN iS a LiE! 

Smoke-Screen!

"The proposal provoked some protest among people who pointed out that New Yorkers under 21 can drive, vote and fight in wars, and should be considered mature enough to decide whether to buy cigarettes" - this happens to be the response from the people in NY city after a reform to raise the smoking age in the city came through.

they fell Hook, Line, and Sinker!

When I contemplate this reform, I knew exactly what the implications were. I wasn't around to witness it, but when the drinking age rose to 21, a phenomena occurred -- people began to purposely drink under age because it was fun to be rebellious! What is the difference here? Nothing. Kids already smoke from a very early age. New Yorker kids have a something to poke fun at now, and will purposely smoke just to spite the new reform. This has nothing to do with "maturity", being able to "vote and fight in wars" at eighteen, etc...although, that does make a valid point.

Who has to gain from this?

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist, but the only entity I feel can really gain from this is the tobacco industry itself. Tobacco will sell, there's no doubt about it. But now, more money will be pouring in from rebellious youths (from whichever way they'll indirectly get their cigs) to line the pockets of tobacco corporations. Sure, from a distance, this reform looks like an affront to the industry, but with all the cash they have, this is nothing to them. Tobacco, like anything else addictive like beer, aspirin (yes, think about it), and gasoline, will continue to make big C.E.Os prosper and an event like this could only boost their short-term (and most likely, their long term) gains.

You want reform, NY?

Stop enforcing age-restraining laws and whatnot, and get to the root of the problem -- lack of education. If you really feel it's necessary to make it harder for a product to be bought, on your concern for your people's health, educate the people about the risk of smoking. Make anti-smoking propaganda: tv commercials, online ads, posters, the works. Tobacco companies did the same to forward their agenda, and in a free economy, you're free to fight back on their turf.

Making laws to stop people from doing something? *sigh* please... that only works when everyone's already not doing it haha

A Sea Sick Reality

Sorry for the late post, but the eye doctor really zapped all of my time. Turns out my left eye's astigmatism has gotten worse. The extremist in me says I should just put it out, buy an eye patch, and begin my life as a ...

PIRATE!

...seriously though, they've been in the news, and they're not like you'd expect. Isn't the stereotypical pirate that nearly every American envisions is the Capt. Jack Sparrow or Blackbeard figure: powerful, cunning, charismatic leaders, and ruthless with a hint of honor? Well, forget the Pirates of the Caribbean, and start thinking "pirates of Nigeria". They're everything you'd expect from a pirate, except there's a harsh reality in the business. There are no swords. There is no honor code. There is no charm. There is only the money, the guns, and everything else that's in the way of getting it. It's a very bloody mess.

In Recent News...

Nigerian pirates have assaulted an American oil tanker, taking hostage both captain and chief engineer -- both American. No doubt they'll get what they came for, with plenty of booty and more. Regardless of a rescue op or not, there will probably be blood spilt, and those nightmarish devils will recede back into the darkness of the mist-covered ocean...

Personal Input

I am a romanticist. That's the bottom line. To see such a gruesome reality in one of my most treasured professions (if you can call it that), is just so...terribly sad for me. The pirate is everything I, everything WE cannot be -- truly free. He works outside of the system. He takes what he wants, when he wants to, and how he wants to do it. No God (i.e. no enforced moral code), no glory, no king -- only women, wine, and pleasurable wealth. And even though he always plays by his own rules, he never lets his own liberty burden others. If he pillages a village, only hostiles are captured/killed. If he boards a ship, no gun is fired unless fired upon first. The legendary figure I have in my head is a living paradox, called the Gentleman Pirate -- and he's a figure that probably never existed, except in the form of the privateer.

THE KING MADE THE PIRATE WHAT HE IS.

The privateer was quite an opportunist. When the king needed men to work outside the bureaucracy of his regular army, the privateer was ready for the gold. The English monarchy needed men, unmarked personnel, devoid of any national or political affiliation, to attack Spanish ships without the Spanish being able to trace it back to the English. As I know it, any loot they found was theirs to keep, just as long as they attacked the Spanish. Think of them a private contractors, PMCs, or whatever... working outside of the law, for God, Gold, and Glory.

Then, economic decision to hire on "naval thugs" was thought as morally wrong by the king's subjects and so it was outlawed. The approval was gone, but not the privateers. Haven been abandoned by their county and king, they became pirates, ones willing to plunder anything for anything. Legends were made, and the rest is history...

These pirates,

the ones we see in the news, are related to the historical ones, in that they are naval gangs. Either they are contracted to do the plunder, or the profit is in the plunder itself. Regardless, it's a sick sick reality.

On a side note, I will be dressing as Jack Sparrow for Halloween... heheh

THE Shutdown

So the Fed shutdown for a bit, now what?

The aftermath seems simple:

• Who came out on top = democrats
• Who came out disorganized, and split = republicans
• There seems to be a substantial amount of debt (more than there already was)
• There's an elephant in the room.

The Chaos

During, and in the aftermath of the Federal crisis, one thing was apparent: the parties were showing their true character. That is, the Democratic party was holding strong together on their own values while the GOP seemed to be split in their ideals; it shows in their voting. While the Democrats were united in Obama's legislation, "of the Republicans, 18 Senate and 144 in the House opposed the legislation, while 27 in the Senate and 87 in the House supported it." (Roberts, Lewis, Pilkington) The Tea Party, needless to say, was split.

The Debt

Wasn't the skyrocketing debt the reason why the Fed made a "debt ceiling"? And guess what, the debt NOR the ceiling is gone. Along with the $24 billion debt built up by the crisis, our precious U.S.A. still has $60 trillion, more or less, to deal with (according to the US National Debt Clock: Real Time). Get this, this whole Federal nonsense, that has "no economic rationale", says Mr. VP JB, COULD REPEAT! Yup, resolution to the problem just another band-aid, raise the debt ceiling...again. The deal will fund the government until January 15th and raise the infamous ceiling until February 7th. There was alot of disorganization the first time around, let's hope something is properly done -- don't change the band-aid, we need some antibiotics and stitches! (I applaud anyone who can follow my lunacy)

That Elephant...

Sooooooooo, Fed functions are back to normal, everything's s'well, right?...Right?....WRONG! Congress is absolutely scarred by this crisis. The impending stress of another Fed crisis is probably not off everyone's mind, allowing for high tensions. The Republican party has some splits to take care of, and the unified Democratic party easily has the power. With the wrong push, this bicameral system could easily be torn apart by a coup d'etat of sorts of one party over the other...but that's simply an extreme. A bigger problem is afoot -- the lack of bipartisanship! The idea behind our sort of political system was that the differences in the ideals of both parties would complement each other's to create a perfect result: legislature that embodies the best of both worlds for the best of the American people!

With this event, the Fed Shutdown (a.k.a the Elephant), clearly some scars and rifts were made in Congress, and a cooperative (or at the very least, a decisive and practical) future of legislature seems very...fantastical.

Side note: I found what the foreigner said at the end of the theguardian's article pretty funny and enlightening, being that the fall of one party happened in his native land's history -- when Mao Zedong took over.

My, my, that's a lot of debt -- about $60 trillion worth.
A little doodle.

Soto, Steven. "I.O.U." . 23 Oct 2013. Pen & graphite on 4.75" x 9" drawing paper.

Anarchy

So a man was brutally beaten...lets play the blame game.

I saw the video, as I'm sure many have, and what I witnessed was the abuse of the law on both parties -- Alexian Lien (the poor fool, stupid enough to disturb a wasps nest) and the Hollywood Stunz group (a.k.a the wasps' nest).

You just don't do that, Lien.

So yea, the biker group was aggressively blocking major roadways for their fun. They should have found a way to legally reserve some road somewhere, or at least find some other place to do their fun (i.e not a major public roadway that leads to a major metropolitan area). But a guy, with all logic/reason, just doesn't commit vehicular assault on a couple of bikers (with a family in the car) and expect everything to be hunky dory -- especially if every one of his biker buddies will wittiness it! Seriously, is it healthy to poke a bear? Is it reasonable to spit on a lion? Is it OK to kick a horse's hind leg while standing behind it? Then as to why poor Lien decided to piss-off an army of bikers is beyond me...I'm sure the meeting with the boss, or the lunch break, or a beer with the guys, or whatever it was could have waited. "But what if it was an emergency", many would ask. Well, one emergency certainly doesn't resolve another. As anyone who saw the whole video would agree, he would have gotten caught by the traffic either way. Way to go Lien...

Am I supporting the bikers?

Slightly. What they did was extreme and unlawful....but quite human. While I applaud their humanity and desire for justice (again Lien, I'm sure you didn't have to ram your car into them if you wanted to pass...) they didn't have to smash the guy's face in. If one man had the Land Rover's action on camera, I'm sure others did too. The evidence would have been more than enough to convict Road Rage Lien. The authorities should have handled this business.

hah, the law always feels better when the blues bash in the the brains of a road-rage-maniac than when the public takes the matter into their own hands.

Which brings me to my final point...

Where were the authorities? Being that they failed to prevent this havoc, they have the ultimate blame. There was a massive street hunt through town, just to catch and get vengeance on this one guy, AND no cops were around to stop it? I mean, if one kid brings a knife to school, every cop in a 20 mile radius flips (exaggeration), but if a swarm of bikers hunt one guy down in public, no authorities are around to bring the peace? It is this sort of weakness, shown by the local authorities, that gives way to the criminal groups that many fear: gangs, mafias, cartels, you name it. Lucky for us, this show of local force was done by a group of biker stunt artist -- not a gang or self-appointed militia.

Remember, anarchy happens when the will to empathizing ends, and apathy reigns. Lien, next time, don't run over a guy. Empathize with him...try to drive around -- or call the authorities (that should have been there.) 

Feminist TV Shows? What?

Warning: Personal Confusion

To be extremely honest, the topic chosen for today was a bit confusing. Furthermore, the fact that I don't watch TV often doesn't help either. Any "television" I watch consist of procured anime/cartoon series off the net...So the article I read about the supposed "Golden Age of Television" flew straight over my head! Seriously, the author of the article wrote of names and titles as if EVERYONE is supposed to know and understand them! I knew from the first few paragraphs, the topic was a lost cause.

The Female Influence

From what I did gather from the first few paragraphs, and what actually did make sense to me, was a statement of sexism: that there wasn't enough female influence in rising and history making television. I don't buy it. My childhood, if anything, was drowned in the animes and cartoons of the 90's and 00's -- sorta like today, except then, I'd have to stay up late at night to watch it on the tube. During those late-night hours of glazing endlessly at a screen and in the aftermath of restless nights, I would spend my time admiring not only the heroes of those epic sagas, but also the (stereotypicaly sexy, and much smarter) heroines! Lets jump back in time, shall we?

One of My Famous, Relatively Small Bulleted List (this time of anime Heroines that I've Admired)...

feel free to browse

• R. Dorothy Wayneright (The Big O, 1999)
• Okay, so she was a sidekick, but I always felt that without her, Roger Smith, the detective/giant mecha warrior, would crumble. I mean, what's Batman without Alfred? Plus, she's a robot.
• Faye Valentine (Cowboy Bebop, 1998)
• Although at many points she plays the role of the anti-hero (i.e. displaying much greed, selfishness, foolishness), her desire to recover her memories and her eventual loyalty to her companions makes her truly fantastic. Simply the fullness of her character, her faults and greatness, make her one to be admired. Not to mention, she can handle a gun pretty well as a space bounty hunter. Cool, right?
• Major Motoku Kusanagi (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, 2002)
• Honestly, she's one of my favorite. Without a doubt, she is the star of the show. She's sexy, cunning, quiet, deep, punctual, and deadly. Her absolute courage in the face of terrorism against Japan and her strength as a covert agent cyborg her makes her one to admire, fear, and drool over!
• Kagome Higurashi (Inuyasha, 2009)
• The tale is a story of courage and drama, as this high school girl is forced to travel back in time into feudal Japan, only to confront a reality where mythological monsters exist. While there, she has to grapple with the powers and treasures her ancestors had to save the world -- and not to mention with beasts, friends, and foes she'll make along the way. If that's not awesome, idk what is...
• Chihiro Ogino (Spirited Away, 2001)
• Haku, the male role, may be a dragon, and everyone else may be a spirit of sorts, but Chihiro is a ten year old girl that has to struggle in order to regain her identity and to see her parents again. Her faith in friendship and kindness is perfect.

Last, but not least...

My favorite heroine from my childhood would have to be...*insert drum roll here*... HARUKO HARUHARA from FLCL (2000)! A spontaneous, pink-haired female from outer-space, Haruko has that perfect mix of lunacy and secrecy to truly make her a full character. Her energy is to be admired, her comedy (even her perverted-ness) is to appreciated, her butt-kicking action is to be feared, and lastly her ruthlessness is enough to make one flip out of their chair (just when you though you knew her, something goes crazy)! As an alien, ironically, she portray what the ideal of a human should be (albeit in an extreme and exaggerated manner): a person her who embraces their flaws with a touch of narcissism (balance), a person who acts with a free spirit (energetic and free), and a person who truly loves music (appreciation for the arts). Yea, did I mention she wields an electric guitar as her companion and weapon of choice? Along with being able to play tunes by Presley, Hendrix, and McCartney, it fires bullets, rockets, and can act like a flying rocket board... IN SHORT, she is one interesting character, and for that, I've appreciated her presence FLCL. <3 

MY POINT?

I don't know anything about HBO, USA, FX, A-B-C-D-E...&c, OR ANYTHING ABOUT THE GOLDEN AGE OF (American) TELEVISION; but I do know about anime. It makes sense to me, and I've seen enough to burn holes through my retinas, so to speak. I know for a fact that the female presence and influence in anime media, which has invaded our soil by storm since the early 60's (remember Astro Boy and Speed Racer?),  has not been absent. One of the greatest selling manga/animes, Fruits Basket, was made by a female mangaka, Natsuki Takaya!

Unfortunately for me, and for you--my loyal readers--I didn't understand a bit of the research that I read on the Golden Age of TV, so I hope you've enjoyed my tangent on to a topic that I did understand. ☺ IF you want to learn about that other junk, go away. GO. AWAY. lol

A greater question...

Is American media more sexist compared to other media around the world? Hmm, somebody bring me an article of that. At least then I'd be able to comprehend what's going on... 

peace.

No original art today--no time--but I did want to share this screen shot of Haruko Haruhara (FLCL)! There's really a lot more chaos going on than you can imagine. I believe this is from the last episode of the series.

Ideologies Become Worshiped. Just look at how it happened before...

My internet has been acting weird, ironically, so this post is a little late...but here we go!!---->

When You Think of "Internet"...

...what comes to your mind -- Do endless nights of Youtube or Netflix fill your thoughts? How about those ever so useful Wikipedia articles and how-to guides? Does Google's chaos of vast free information excite your bones? Personally, when I think of the Interweb and all its majesty--aside from all of my manga reading escapades--I think of memes. Yes, those funny, sometimes annoying, trends that you see rampaging all over Facebook, Twitter, and whatnot, are what I think of. Not only I, but apparently nearly every internet user has heard of their double-edged non-sense (by definition, a meme spreads into a culture like a wild fire, evolving and prospering further).

Who's El Rey of the Internet Realm?

I would argue that, even though they are more current and possibly just as popular, the Rage Face Comics memes cannot uphold to the glory of the King Meme. Any other meme that arises from simply captioning a free-frame of a TV show (image macro) or any meme that arise form celebrities doesn't even compare to it. Whereas many of these second rate memes have arisen from chat rooms, blogs, and other forums like 4Chan, the subject of this King Meme is one that has been active since the ancient times:

• Their relationship with us has lasted over 9,500 years!
• In Egypt, their were worshiped as, or associated, with cult deities.
• In China, they were favored pets.
• In Norse Mythology, they were fairies that could either bless your house OR steal your soul before it could reach the afterlife.
• In Russia, they were considered while in America, they're considered bad luck (not a surprise that they're opposites hahah)

Seriously, if you haven't guessed what I'm talking about, you've either been a hermit for the past 10 millennia and or you simply hate the fury subject -- no pun intended...actually, yes.

Cats!

Indeed, the craze over Felis catus is mankind's honorary meme. Ancient memes, such as in stone carving and the like, were as common as today's 4chan's lolcats. From anthropomorphic nonsense to simple cute pictures of kittens cuddling in a flower bed, CATS ARE EVERYWHERE.

The Same Has Become of the World's Ideologies.

Here's the juicy part. Aside from those who hate cats, many people forget the ugly side of cats. The social craze forgets they're animals -- (possibly) flea-infested felines that are utterly useless, unless they're used for pest control or for crazy street fight entertainment. They might serve for pet therapy, but their anti-social nature leaves this area for their counterpart, dog. They can't be used for rescue or as disability aid, again Canis lupis familiaris wins. So what happened, how did these cats become nearly idolized?

Allow me to present a parallel. At the end of WWII, America rose to the top as THE world superpower. America this, America that, everything American was considered golden...but America wasn't the only winner. Russia had gained a major victory over the Germans, and they too rose to the top. In short, terms known as Capitalism and Communism became terms that were considered paramount in their particular place of origin. It didn't matter what the term entailed -- that it meant social suffering or not -- it only mattered that the term was considered the best. Since their origins, the connotation of the terms have taken lives of their own. Today, as in then, the terms are quoted to what they're expected to be, not for what they were originally intended to be.

May it be any clearer? Communism/Capitalism is the flea-infested cat, that's only good for feeding. It's petted, made to be cute, and idolized. It's the rest of us clearheaded fools who have to clean up the cat poo.

To stay in the spirit of cat-a-mania, I've made a quick piece of art of Felicia, of Capcom's Darkstalkers.
"Felicia". Steven Soto. 2013. Color pencils on 8.5" x 7.5" cut out, on  12" x 9" black cotton.

If We Were Communist, This Wouldn't Have Happened...Maybe...

A National Tragedy

By now, September 24 of 2013, even the most uninformed American has at least heard a mention of the tragedy that occurred in the secured Navy Yard, in Washington, D.C. 12 lives were claimed 9 days ago, by gunman Aaron Alexis, who was himself killed by the police who swarmed the area in response.

The Problems Presented

• A lack of national security (e.g. anyone remember Ed Snowden?)
• How can security clearance to an area of such importance be given to a man of such potential danger?
• A lack of awareness for mental disorders.
• Surely if this wasn't the case, a red flag would have raised when even considering giving access to a mentally hurt person.

What if...

Hear me out now, for I know the wound is still fresh and a nation is still morning, but allow me to propose a radical idea -- a strange answer to solve all. Communism. Yes, if the nation were to follow the ideology of Communism, the shooting at the Navy Yard, the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, and nearly every other national tragedy could be averted! By following the code of Communism, written out in Marx's Communist Manifesto, the United States would (and I'll point out the ones only relevant to my current point, Communism is such a vast topic, one could go on forever, and ever, and ever...&c, &c.):

1. Abolish all private property!
2. Make education a national priority!!
3. Abolish the state...*cough* sounds radical, right?

Bare with me. 1) If all things were public, the people themselves (and I emphasize the individuals) would make it a personal matter to uphold national security. It would be in the benefit of everyone to protect themselves, and whatnot. 2) If education was a national priority, like in the nearly-socialist Scandinavian countries, public education would be free, even up to university levels. Social issues, especially health and sciences, would would be emphasized. Most likely, people like Aaron Alexis would be helped before a crisis would erupt. 3) With the end of the State, i.e. The Man, The System, &c, the authority and well-being of everything would rest in the direct hands of the people. This in itself raise awareness on all levels, hitting a near Utopian high.

Of course, I'm a hopeless romantic...

Communism on paper is a beautiful, Utopian paradise (and I don't mean A Brave New World sort of stuff). But if the rode to such wellness was that simple, everything would have already transitioned to such a state. Communism in practice is scary, simple because the 3 main points above have never been fully realized. 

Never forget Tienanmen Square.

"These are the stakes..." Economist v. Moralist

The Bottom Line

The reality is this: with the rise of individual interest (i.e desire for democracy) in Syria, the Syrian government has responded with violence to several peaceful protest. Worst of all, chemical weapons were deployed -- on citizens, WOMEN AND CHILDREN included. Should we, the world, intervene?

What does the Economist have to say about this...?

"Although there has been a mass exodus of Syrians since the civil war, and the unemployment rate is dropping to an all-time low, prospects for the future look promising. Putting it in basic terms -- after a stable force takes control over the environment, production of local goods will begin to resume and open jobs will be filled with the formerly jobless populace. Yet, with no one to buy such pricey goods, prices will be forced to plummet, allowing for the now employed population to buy, augment there lives, multiply their numbers, and be prosperous. So in the long run, this conflict will make room for more economical growth than ever before. Simply look at Japan after its reconstruction, and anyone would agree with my theory. Out with the old suffering system, in with the new... Who are we to affect the development of a nation's new economy, nay, a nation's greater prosperity?! Mandeville would find this to be fair: that in the interest of a greater economy (and thus the better welfare of future citizens), the onslaught of the many is justified. We should not intervene. Let's sit this one out, and let the fires calm themselves." - Steven Soto, the Economist

What does the Moralist have to say in response...?

"Pure utter non-sense! Of course, looking in a purely narrow point of view, the economy of that war-scarred nation would recover to a better state than pre-civil war, but is it worth it? I disagree with Mr. Soto completely, believing that the morality behind the economic system of any nation-state, i.e. Syria, defines the future of said political body. Would we have Bashar Hafez al-Assad revert the set of values in Syria's economy back to barbarianism? For anyone who knows anything about the era of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islam) in the Middle East, al-Assad would have morality set back to those dark ages. Before we know it, it'd be okay to bury alive first born female children -- rather, it'd be considered economically sound! Swift, satirist and defender of virtue in economics  would be appalled to see their values degrade to the point where citizens find it OK to eat their own youth. As far as economics are concerned, Adam Smith would agree that the means of reaching Mr. Soto's mentioned glory do not justify the means, esp. if the morality of the nation is compromised in the process...making it truly a pariah in the global community. There's no public good in this, not at all." - Steven Soto, the Moralist

Note from the Editor...

I favor the latter, rather than the former opinion. The future of lives, not simply an economy, is on the line. A mass genocide is taking place where human right are being violated. IF we were to sympathize, or empathize -- place our feet into the hell fires of the war zone, were innocent mother, father, brother, and sister are torn asunder by the raining bombshells and chemical missiles -- we would definitely find cause for a military intervention. If peace is not an option, place the knife against the enemy (not kill), and make peace an option. Our family, the global human family, is in danger. It is our obligation to end the violence against our brothers. - Steven Soto, the Editor

"These are the stakes! We are to make a world in which all of God's Children can live, or go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die." - Lyndon B. Johnson

"THE WORLD". Steven Soto. 2011  Prisma Colors on 11'' x 8.5'' drawing paper. 

Hutcheson Understands Visual Arts & Fashion

"Men, who have a Sense of Beauty in Regularity, are led generally in all their Arrangements of Bodys to study some kind of Regularity, and seldom ever design Irregularity: hence we judge the same of other Beings too. Viz. that they study Regularity, and presume upon Intention in the the Cause wherever we see it. Making Irregularity always a Presumption of Want of Design: Whereas if other Agents have different Senses of Beauty, of if they have no Sense of it at all, Irregularity may as well be design'd as Regularity." (Hutcheson, Francis. An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue [1726])

Let's translate the above phrase to modern lingo...

Men, who have an understanding of beauty in order, tend -- in all they're organized activities/things -- to seek out order, and hardly ever try to design something chaotic: moreover we think others do the same. In other words, they (we) seek out order, and assume (this order) was intentional to whatever caused it, wherever we see it. We believe chaos (i.e not order) as always an assumption of the lack of orderly design. In contrast, if others have a different sense of beauty, or if they have no sense of it at all, chaos would be labeled as orderly.

So What is Hutcheson Saying about Art, or even Fashion?

Simple, there are two main points that señor Hutcheson makes in the said quote: 1) Humans have a common sense of beauty, in that it is found in order/design, 2) humans assume the order/design was intentional. As an artist, I see these points as important elements in one of the cornerstones of the industry; the concept of the construct of beauty.

Allow me to elaborate on the second point, first. Let's construct a scenario. Imagine a framed landscape painting of a mountain range hanging in a room, and three people from different areas of the world examining it: a Middle Easterner, an Asian, and a European. The painting was made to mimic it's subject, with the paint strokes realistically true to the model. What happens?... As they people examine the wilderness, immediately the elements of design (Texture, Space, Shape, Color, Tone, Line) begin to draw their eyes throughout the composition, and they make analytical observations of the piece. Either consciously or subconsciously, they'll find a sense of order (principles of art: Harmony, Unity, Movement, Balance, Contrast, Proportion, Pattern, and Rhythm) in the wilderness depicted. From this chaos of a painting, a design is understood, by the Asian, Middle Easterner, to be made there by the artist. Thus, there is beauty. 

This then leads to the first point. Terms such as "good" or "bad" are based on human preference and have little to do with beauty, rather pre-experienced beauty effects this preference. The Middle Easterner may hate the mountain range depicted, favoring more his native desert oasis, but by no means can call the composition of the masterpiece horrendous. This can further be extended to abstract art, where the subject matter is not necessarily clear. Famous pieces like Picasso's "Three Musicians" (1921) may not be quickly understood, but the same elements and principles of design are still present -- and the world, as history will tell, has deemed his work to be beautiful. In short, design = beauty, and vise versa. The better the design, the more beautiful, but again "better" is based on preference.

So what does fashion have to do with this?

If beauty is a concept that is sensed by humans, order carved out of the chaos of things, then products of mankind, with intended design, are inherently beautiful. This includes today's modern fashion, that consist of anything from Miley Cyrus' teddy bear non-sense to the most covering  arabic burka, from an adult actress' slingshot bikini to a nun's habit. 

Hutcheson would say, that when properly examined, you might not like all of today's fashion but you'll find some order in the design -- you might be even able to call that odd plaid jerkin beautiful, in some sense or another.

Some links:
Cyrus' Teddy Bear Non-sense
Burka
(You'll have to find a Slingshot Bikini reference on your own)
Nun's Habit
Plaid Jerkin

If You've Seen Any Sci-fi flic, Then You've Probably Have...

...either seen or heard the mention of the mysterious WORMHOLE.

Yet, what exactly is a wormhole? Let me break it down for you...

1) If you've ever seen Jet Li's The One, you'd notice that the villain would use these supernatural phenomena to travel through reality into different alternate-dimensions. Although this is Hollywood-made fiction, the display isn't that far off from the truth. Essentially, wormholes are a pair of black holes. In Einstein's calculations, he found "that the solution lent itself to an extension whose geometric interpretation was that of two copies of the black hole geometry connected by a "throat" (known as an Einstein-Rosen bridge). The throat is a dynamical object attached to the two holes that pinches off extremely quickly into a narrow link between them."


2) Theorists have since found other wormhole solutions; these solutions connect various types of geometry on either mouth of the wormhole. One amazing aspect of wormholes is that because they can behave as "shortcuts" in space-time, they must allow for backwards time travel! This property goes back to the usual statement that if one could travel faster than light, that would imply that we could communicate with the past. (Holoman)


3) Although, Stephen Hawking denies that any wormhole be stabilized enough for any literal use. One particle is all that would be needed to disrupt the whole thing!


4) At present, I believe space-time wormholes are only theoretical constructs derived from general relativity; used for studying theoretical physics...but nevertheless, this should never dismay any sci-fi fanatics from enjoying their fun!

Cheers.

SotoMeister.