The End

Last night, I finished watching the series finale of Entourage. No, you are reading a new post- as incredulous as it might sound- not the post Let Go (or Let it Go, I can never remember). It was still good, by all accounts, but it didn't inspire the same fervor that it did the first time around. I mean, a lot of the issues had to do with the season being cut short midway through production. Plotlines were raised and dropped in the final episode. As much as I like Sophia, it took her six episodes to decide to get married. Six. And she ardently disliked him for four. But Sloan! Oh Sloan. But let's get back to Let it Go. I got a lot of acclaim for that one, at least the most acclaim I've ever got for a blog post. People liked it, and I think I can see why. It's broad, I don't actually say anything, and it's got a nice message. The problem is that it sucks. If you like it, don't let me convince you that it sucks. Think what you think, despite what I think. It's not my job to tell you how to feel. But I just can't like it. I've gone through a lot since I wrote that post. And I don't think people matter as much as I thought. People are as much of a mixed bag as you can get. There are a few people who I genuinely believe should be revered, people I know who are so awesome that it baffles me that the school is not renamed in their honor. And there are people who I think the world would be better off without. I mean, I'm not going to go kill them because I've got the muscle composition of a crippled infant, but also because who says I'm in a good position to judge? The point is that all people don't matter. You might not matter to me. I might not matter to you. Earn that privilege, dammit. I guess this is a good time to end my blog. It's been a good run, I guess. 7000 roundabout views is nice, I guess, but other sites get that daily, instead of almost two years. I haven't been very good about updating daily. I'm not exactly going out on top. I've written some good posts, some bad. I think the writing experience genuinely helped me, and so did some of the feedback. I did really enjoy what I had here. I wish you all the best and nothing less, -Joshua Zeb Valett. I've got Dishonored to play.

How To Teach English (As Brutally Ignored by My New Teacher)

Much like Batman, I can claim that no one knows who I am. To my thousands and thousands of adoring fans, I'm no more than a shadow in the night who dispenses truth and punches. Unlike Batman, I'm not quite that naive. For one thing, Batman can't have never slipped up. He's told enough people that it doesn't even matter. It'd leak, it'd leak.

But anyway, I'm like Batman. But that doesn't mean that people don't know who this paragon of truth is, and that people don't know who my teachers are.

Now, I'm not a fan of my English teacher. It's got something to do with her personality, sure, actually quite a bit to do with her personality, but it's deeper than that. I'm not going to criticize her personality, because she's not the worst teacher I've ever had in that regard. Plus, it's petty to do that. Almost as petty as she is.

ANYWAY.

English has always been a favorite subject of mine. Part of it was that I really enjoy creatively writing, short stories and whatnot, but English classes have rarely catered to that. I can't really fault her for that.

She explained, on the first day, the type of writing she wanted. In her defense, she's teaching towards the AP exam. A lot of the problems I have with her teaching style are shared with the AP test.

One of the things that recent years of English have tried to eliminate is clutter. Clutter is the use of any words, no matter how well they fit, that do not explicitly add to the purpose of the piece. Or, to put it in clutter-free terms, "Clutter is extra words."

Now, clutter is never something that I thought much about. It didn't matter to me if it didn't directly add to the purpose of the piece if it was stylish, if it was unique, if it worked. Adding words for the sake of adding words is something I don't like. But to remove any superfluous words seems excessive.

To me, the English language, and language and general, thrives without rules. No author ever struck it rich by rigidly following guidelines. Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Shakespeare, and Joanne Rowling- all had wildly different styles, based on what they wanted to write like, and all found extreme success doing so.

Language is almost an organic process. It's evolving, it's not rigid, it grows and it changes and it morphs and that's what makes it beautiful. Ask hundreds of people what their favorite part of English is- and count how many people say analytical essays.

Not to say that the preference has much to do with the "correct" way to teach English. I'd prefer to do no work at all, and just read- but that's not the best way to do that.

In the real world, most of your literary encounters are not reading and analyzing essays. It's reading books, writing books, writing and reading summaries, not reading a passage and responding. There is no job where you will have twenty five minutes to read a passage and respond. It's that simple.

As an AP class, I'm sure they're teaching to a subset of a subset. They don't need to have a broad-reaching appeal, but they should cover the bases. No History class worth its salt would only focus on reading primary documents. No math class would only use addition, at least not past third grade. Why have an English class with only one type of writing?

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J.Valett

Killing Blow

Okay, just gonna steam right past the "Sorrys" and the "I'll do betters" and the "Here's a cake for all your troubles" to get straight to the discussion. If anyone is really that offended, write your local congressman.

Recently, in the great state o' Texas, a man (heretofore referred to as Jim) was hosting a barbecue. He had invited a bunch of his neighbors, some that he knew better than others. Sometime into the party, Jim hears someone screaming inside his house- his four year old girl (heretofore Jane). Why is Jane screaming? A neighbor (heretofore Adam) is sexually molesting her.

Jim then went and started to punch Adam in the face. He punched a lot. A helluva lot. And Adam died. Jim will probably not receive jail time for this.

And you know what? I'm okay with that.

Was it potentially excessive, beating Adam to death? Perhaps. I'm no father, but I can't imagine myself stop punching some dirtbag like Adam for molesting my daughter into his face was flat.

I don't know if I mentioned this on my blog before, but there are two crimes that I think are worse than any others, rape and torture. Murder? Oh, its bad. But much like the death penalty, murder is at least an escape from your assaulter.

Rape you can't get away from. Torture you can't get away from. And you have to live the rest of your life thinking about what happened to you, likely through no fault of your own.

This brings up a good opportunity to talk about the death penalty, and my feelings about it. A year ago, I would've said that all human life is sacred and that you shouldn't have the right to take it away. Now I am not so sure.

If this Adam was arrested, he definitely would not have received the death penalty. For some terrible and incomprehensible reason, the sexual assault on a minor doesn't usually guarantee life in jail or a possible death sentence.

Do all humans deserve to live? That's the basic question of the death penalty, and I say that all humans don't deserve to live. Someone who tries to take away the fundamental rights of someone else, someone that has no regards for life or someone else's wishes, they don't deserve to live.

Now it's time for some juicy qualifiers. No, not every thief deserves to die. The death penalty, while not strictly a deterrent for crime, should be used to curb the population of those members of it that can not function within it.

Serial killers? Honestly, I'd feel safer knowing that they were dead. Charles Albright, the serial killer who carved the eyes out of his victims, is still alive. He's in a jail cell somewhere, rotting, and drawing eyeballs all over his cell.

Rapists? Life sentence at the least, in my opinion. Rape is such a base, low, evil crime, and it outweighs murder in my eyes in terms of brutality needed to execute. Any schmuck can pull a trigger in the heat of the moment. To keep at what they are doing, rapists are a special kind of terrible person.

A year ago, I debated this, on the side of preserving life. Now, I'm seeing things differently. No, not every human has the potential to be something greater. No, not everyone deserves to be loved. No, not even every deserves the right to life.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Objectivism, the First

You know the drill, everyone. This is my first post in over a month, and I'm going to spend the first paragraph here explaining to you all why I'm terribly sorry about it, and that I'll do better next time, but you know, I won't. I do enjoy writing for this blog, or the attention at least, and I'm gonna keep it going for that, and for the two or three people who consistently read it.

See kids, that's called self-deprecation. Don't respond to it, because the person is probably just fishing for compliments. And so I was. Bad Josh.

In other news, this will be my fiftieth post, excluding the introduction I made but including the midpoint thing I made after one of my posts startlingly became popular, for some reason. What better way to celebrate the occasion that to break open the wine and start partying? Probably writing the post, that's what.

I don't remember how I was first introduced to Ayn Rand and her philosophy and style of life, Objectivism, but I started reading her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged a couple months back, and recently finished it. I found Objectivism to be a really interesting philosophy, and one that I would personally employ if not for some points I'll bring up later.

The broad points of Objectivism can be summed up in one phrase; "Live for yourself". A staunch anti-Communist, Rand believed that no person should be forced to live for another person, or that anyone besides you has any right to dictate what you do.

Your profits from your work are yours, your creations are yours, your house is yours, and you don't have to pay taxes on any of it, because you've earned it.

The principle tenant of Mrs. Rand's philosophy was that the standard of morality relied upon hard work. In the conventional, for lack of a better term, system of morality, kindness is its standard. If you deny your friends a dollar at lunch, you are mean, and if you lend them that dollar, you are nice. You are mean if you chase them to pay you back, a saint if you let it go.

Objectivism isn't like that. You are judged as good or evil based on whether you work for what you own or whether you mooch off of someone else for it. The worst criminal in both the conventional and Objectivist viewpoint is the thief, the person who takes from someone else unjustly.

Don't believe me? Murder is theft of someone's life. Rape is theft of someone's sexuality and free will. Stealing is, well thievery, and I hope I don't have to explain that one to you.

On that broad level, I like Objectivism. And there is another thing I like about Objectivism, one belief that I think should be adhered to much more often in our culture; the thought that you are not perfect.

I see these posts on Facebook of all different types of people, and a caption "Like if you Think that Everyone Is Beautiful <3". It may be accompanied by a picture of a young child with cancer (the one I'm thinking of is clearly photo-shopped), a girl whom most would consider unattractive, or someone with a debilitating injury.

Want to know a secret? I don't think everyone is beautiful. I think it is really, incredibly stupid to entertain that notion. I also don't think that a great personality can make someone beautiful. The moment we give in and call everyone beautiful is the moment the word ceases to mean anything. I've called maybe two girls I know beautiful ( I'll admit I'm a bit lax when I say it about celebrities, but Keira Knightley... wow.), even if it wasn't to their faces. That makes it MEAN something.

Also, it doesn't entertain the notion that intelligent people should be shackled down by their less intelligent (Editor's note: Spelled Intelligent wrong twice there) peers. This one our society has fewer problems with, as colleges and honors classes and A.P. classes have no problem saying that people aren't good enough to take them.

But Rand didn't stop at morality, she also had a lot to say of romance and politics. I'll come back to politics in a little bit, but I'd like to talk about her ideas on romance for a little.

There's a great quote somewhere, and I'll see if I can dig it up (Ed. note: nope!) where she said that the person you love, like, marry, are interested in, etc, is a reflection of who you are. The person who loves a goddess is the greatest (or god, whatever), because they strive to improve themselves and to better themselves. They aim high. The people who settle for promiscuous folk, those who hang around with sluts and harlots, those are the ones who don't deserve to be loved because they love those who aren't worthy of it.

Rand also didn't believe that the mind and body were things to be treated as separate entities, as much of the world does today. Who you found attractive is a reflection of what you loved, ergo what you are.

Now, the more astute of my readers may be wondering how Rand can allow anyone to be in a relationship. "If you can only do things for yourself, then relationships can't work out! They are about compromise, and pixie dust, and all the other ingredients for the Power Puff Girls!"

Here's an old How I Met Your Mother quote, from when the show was good. "It's hard. Making sacrifices, living with someone else, it's...hard. But if it's the right person, it shouldn't matter, because when it's the sacrifices or they leave, it's the easiest choice in the world." Slightly paraphrased.

Be with someone because they make you happy, not to make them happy. Do things for other people to make you happy, not for them. I have a little idea on this; I'll make me happy, and you make you happy. That way, you don't have to worry about me, and I don't have to worry about you.

If you do love someone, you'll want to do things to make them happy. That's fine, that's great in fact. Do it for you! But if you are in a relationship with someone who makes you unhappy, leave. Don't fidget around. Your happiness is your responsibility, take control of it.

 'Everyone deserves love', one person once said to me. No. That simply isn't true. If everyone deserved love, then why would anyone work for it? Why would people work to become funnier, prettier, or smarter? They wouldn't and the world would stagnate.

If no one you know deserves your love, wait for someone who does.

Thanks for reading and considering,
-J. Valett

Humanity, and Where It Ends

Hey everyone! A couple of things before I go on.

The secret project has pretty much halted, except for some content I'm getting around to making. I've got a couple of ideas boiling over.


I added a new column to the left of some media I'm media-ing. It's not really all that important or anything, just something new I thought I'd add. On to the topic then.

SPARSE AND SUBTLE MASS EFFECT 3 SPOILERS AHEAD, Y'ALL

My Bio teacher started out the school year with a story. The story was of a most unfortunate man, named Joey, and all of the terrible things that happened to him. Piece by piece, limb by limb, Joey's body was replaced with technology. At the end of the story, everything was replaced, and Joey was declared an android.

Our job, as the students, was to decide when Joey stopped being human and became an android. Was it when his heart was replaced with an advanced pacemaker? Once his kidneys were gone, replaced with mechanical ones? Most of the class decided that once Joey's brain was replaced with a computer, then Joey ceased to be, and Joey* took over.

I finished Mass Effect 3 recently, and Christ was the ending bad. Like, I'm not sure how professional writers and directors could have created such a terrible ending. If a nuke exploded, destroying everyone and everything, it would have been infinitely better. It was really bad.

But that was just the ending. A lot of the lead-up to the ending was really fantastic. Some of the deaths of my favorite characters struck really hard, especially- well I'm not going to say it for you, but if you know what the Shroud is, then know I was close to bawling.

One of the subplots dealt with the Quarians and the Geth. Imagine iRobot, where all the robots go feral and kick the humans off of Earth. You are sent to either mediate between the organics (Quarians) and the robots (Geth), or to choose one side over the other. Going into this, the same thought probably ran through most gamers minds: Biological creatures are inherently more sacred than machines, so if need be I'll wipe out the machines. After all, you'd rather unplug your toaster than kill your parents.

But then we get into the specifics of it all. I won't spoil anything, but I'll say that it really becomes a difficult choice (spoiled somewhat by a YOU WIN EVERYTHING choice, but whatever). One of the Geth asked a question that really got me thinking.

The question was, "Does this Unit Have a Soul?"

After much deliberation, I've decided that anything that can ask questions like that is sentient. Any creature that can recognize itself as a being is worthy of the term sentient. To rephrase, being self-aware is what I think defines an intelligent lifeform from an unintelligent one.

Problem is, it's kinda hard to identify whether or not something is self-aware. It's not like your dog can tell you that. Maybe it's been trying to.

Before I go any further, it means that you know you exist. While that seems like an easy thing to us, having been collectively self-aware for quite a while, you've got to think about how hard it must have been for the first person to ask themselves that. I mean, how do you phrase that?

Anyway, I've also recently started Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I know, I game a lot. This game discusses augmenting humanity quite a bit. A gap has appeared, not unlike the one we have today between rich and poor, between augmented folk and normal ones.

The augmented people are naturally better at things. Chips let them think faster, move faster, be more precise, heal quicker, and tons of other great things. Why wouldn't any one want that?

The problem isn't that people don't want it. The problem is that people can't all get it. The rich are able to augment children from an early age to be smarter, better, faster than the other children, whom, even those who would've been geniuses, are held back by biology.

This gap isn't that different from the one in our society today. The people who can afford the newest and fanciest-schmanciest tech have it much better. But let's take it on more of a base level.

Imagine a child who grew to age 18 in northern Africa came to America, and began searching for a job. The education system in those countries is nowhere near what we have in the United States, so finding a job would be difficult. Well, more difficult than it is for everyone else amirite?

Is it fair that he cannot get a job because he lacks the education he never had a chance to get? No. Should he be given the job over a similar individual who does have that education and would be able to perform the job better?  No.

So what happens to the African child (http://tinyurl.com/2dgp5a5)Well, as of now, he doesn't get a job.

That's why I believe education is one of the greatest tools out there. But we're not here to preach about education, at least not in this post.

I was planning on discussing things like Google and what they are doing to our brains, and Facebook and all that, but maybe next time.