Arrogant Teens

Yesterday, my new English teacher finally came into school after being taught by a substitute English teacher for the past 3 months. Everyone's been really excited for it because they didn't particularly like the teacher we had before. He seemed nice, but he was kind of a strange guy, and he didn't really know what he was doing. When the teacher came and gave the first class, everyone was excited for a new face, and I was personally excited to finally have a teacher who could teach English well (hopefully).

Of course after the class, everyone gathered and spoke their words on the new teacher. I really liked her, and I was hopeful for the class. For some reason though, the rest of the class had a different opinion. They all said the same thing.

"Oh god, we're actually going to have to work."

Perhaps I'm overreacting, but when I hear comments like that, it upsets me. I can't stand the attitude that teenagers have towards teachers and education sometimes. Sure, I understand that homework is not always the most pleasant, but without it we would all just be illiterate fools.

In Herricks, we have such a rare opportunity. We have a school with generally good quality teachers, we live in an environment that generally encourages learning, and we don't have to pay extra because it's a public school. So many people do not have the advantage that we have. People in Africa or in 3rd world countries don't have the chance for good education, but not even that. A lot of people in the US lack good education, especially in the public school sector.

I understand, when you're young, it's generally hard to appreciate the gifts that have been given to you because you don't have a full scope on the world yet. Even I fall into the trap of seeing things narrowly, judging, and acting like I'm superior. Everyone does.

However, if you're expecting to get into Harvard or another high level school and you say that you don't like your English class because you "actually have to work"? School isn't just about numbers and grades. We're learning such incredible things, and everyone takes it for granted. If you're going to be lazy in High School, you'll probably be just as lazy in a high level college. After college passes you by, you'll have a degree but nothing to back it up. Perhaps you will later regret the amazing opportunity you had to talk to world class professors who are experts in their field and ask intelligent questions. More likely, you wouldn't even know what you were missing.

The Overwhelming Modern World

Thoughts go through my head like speeding bullets without a target.

In a world where information is nearly infinite and accessible by everyone, it's hard to comprehend how the world works, or how the world should work. So many things are available that have never been available before. I think about all the books I have yet to read, all the movies yet to see, music yet to hear, skills left to learn. We have so many choices and because of this, it's hard to choose anything.

Access to technology and information has changed the world so quickly in such a limited amount of time, especially in the world of art. Visual arts were once used to capture images, making portraits of famous individuals and recreating landscapes. Then, photography was invented, which captured these images much more easily and effectively than an artist ever could. Bewildered, they could only create a new world that could not be captured by cameras, leaving to the confusion of modern art.

With the development of better quality cameras at cheaper prices, anyone was able to take up photography. Because everyone can do it, very few could be recognized for doing it, and because of that photography declined.

Music has also fell victim to modern technology, to a certain extent. It used to be that you had to go to a recording studio and pay to be able to make recordings. You had to practice an instrument and develop a high level of skill to even be recognized. Nowadays, a person can record on Garage Band, access many instruments through synthesizers and other electronic music, and layer on multiple records. One person can make an entirely full song from the comfort of his basement. In addition, the creation of games that allow people to make music has made it more available.

In this modern world, everyone has become more equal. But if everyone is equal, then why should anyone be recognized for anything? Anyone can be an artist, making the field more competitive for much less of a reward.

Since my interests lie mainly in music, I want to focus on that for a little while. Although everyone listens to music, it is not nearly as important as it used to be. Radio is steadily dying in favor of programs like Pandora and Last.fm that give people music they want, and Spotify which provides access to hundreds of thousands of albums for free. That plus illegal downloads, nobody really buys music anymore. Now, the destruction of the record industry wasn't a total loss. Musicians used to make very little money off of their songs as it was stolen away by recording deals and high taxes. I'm sure you all know the story with the Beatles.

Main sources of profit must come from performances then, since you can't really sneak your way out of paying for those. Unfortunately, Ticketmaster ruins that to a certain extent. Ticketmaster basically has a monopoly over all ticket sales for major artists. They've made deals with all the big venues so that they can sell tickets only through Ticketmaster, giving them the power to price the tickets however they like. More obscure artists can run away from this, by selling tickets through other services (brownpapertickets.com) but due to their obscurity they're probably not making much money anyway.

Nowadays, I see some pop musicians who try to follow the former glory of rock stardom in the past, but it seems expired and fake. We're living in a new kind of world, where spunky personalities and rock n roll don't do much. One man with a computer making dubstep can raise a crowd much higher than a rockband can, for a cheaper price.

If you look at history, you could see the same sort of thing. Louis XIV created the castles at Versailles, some of the most beautiful castles in the world. Egyptians created the great pyramids, impressive architectural feats that to this day are unable to be created. How were these incredible things created? Well, Louis XIV pretty much made France go broke and the Pharaoh in Egypt used slave labor. The world is probably better off without those things, but you cannot deny the spectacular things accomplished in an imbalanced world.

As the world becomes equal for all, it becomes privileged for none. Is this good? Is this bad? It's hard to tell.

 

Death

It's been a horrible tragedy with Mr. Lagnese. I wish I could say more about him, feel more empathy about the situation, but it's hard for me to sympathize with because he was never my teacher and I never knew him particularly well.

To be honest, I've never had a very deep experience with death. The first time I ever experienced death of a friend was right before school started. A girl I knew at camp died of a brain aneurysm at the age of 13. She was one of the friendliest girls I have ever known, and one of the people who helped me get settled at camp when I felt out of place my first year. When I found out the news, I was completely shocked. It didn't seem like reality. It only hit me a few days later, after the idea grew that she would never come back for anyone. Her story was done. Finished. She would never open her eyes again.

I think that the most horrifying thing in the entire world is death.

Growing up in an Athiest household, I've never had any comfort with death. I don't believe in heaven, or reincarnation, or purgatory. What I believe, although I ignore I believe it because it is hard for me to cope with, is that when a person dies, nothing happens. Their eyes close. They simply cease to exist.

When I was younger, I used to get panic attacks from my fear of death. I couldn't comprehend how the world could just stop. One day it all just ends, just like that. I had trouble enjoying anything in life. I'd go to a play, but I wouldn't be able to focus on it because I knew everyone was going to die anyway. Nothing means anything. It all ends.

Even know as I write this, I'm not delving into my deep thoughts about death. When I do so, it gives me such an extreme feeling of pain that I am unable to contain and control. How could it be that it all stops? How could it be? I understand that death is vital to life. Out with the old and in with the new. Somehow though, it seems like I am immune to that, or so I'd like to think. It seems so far away it couldn't possibly happen.

One positive way I view death is as a deadline. Once your dead, you can't do anything anymore. Because of that, you must live a life you want to live before it's too late. I know it sounds corny, but that's the only good thing I can get out of it. Steve Jobs said in his speech that everyday he would look in the mirror and think, "If I died today, would I be ok with the life I've lived?" Death has a way of putting everything into perspective. Death makes all problems cease to exist, because makes everything cease to exist.

Honestly, when the future comes, I have no clue how I'm going to deal with the death of family members and friends. Because no one close to me has died, I've been able to run from away from reality. One day though, my grandparents will die. My parents will die. My friends will die. And I will die. And all of this will have meant nothing at all.

Groups/Leadership

There's always something inherently difficult when working in a group.

There are some things in life that seem to work like magic. People getting along, sharing opinions. At the same time, there are things that do not work at all, due to some other unexplained reason.

What makes a group work effectively together? What makes a good leader? Why do some people fight while others don't? How can a group make the right decisions?

If you are to look at how groups operate, I think it's important to look at leadership first. To answer some of these questions, I look back on situations where leadership was effective and ineffective.

One thing my mind goes back to is during this summer when I was in a play. It was a play adaptation of the movie His Girl Friday. We had 2 and a half weeks to put up the show (but since this was camp that meant we could rehearse from 9-6 with lunch break). The rehearsal process was going quite well, and I blocked off one of my scenes. Unfortunately though, the director had to take leave because his mother had died.

In his place, the assistant director/stage manager had to run the show. As you can probably assume, this ended up as a disaster. In addition to the fact the assistant director didn't know much about acting, we were unable to get lines learned or scenes blocked. We were set to be off book after a week, but even after that we didn't know our lines. Cast members were feeding off lines to other cast members who would forget in hopes that it would help. People would get angry at each other for being unprepared. The assistant director sat back and watched, not knowing how to react.

After a few days they decided to pull in the director who put on the 8 day show (yes, it's possible) to help out. The thing was, she didn't seem to know how to organize everyone either. She helped people speak loudly, but beyond that she couldn't give much guidance, and her form of directing seemed patronizing, making most of the cast dislike her.

Since the directors were not effectively helping to put the show together, it put the responsibility onto us to make the show good. I don't think any high school student is able to put a good quality show together though. Things weren't working, and we didn't know what would make things work again.

The show was pulled together to a certain extent. I suppose it was alright for the situation we were in, but even compared to the other camp shows it was mediocre.

Now, let's look at Metamorphoses. The show ended up quite spectacularly if I do say. No one forgot their lines, and if they did they covered it up flawlessly. Everyone knew exactly how to act out their roles and there wasn't confusion because every kink was worked out.

Luke kept everyone on a tight rope. We were given limited amounts of time to prepare, and unlike during the last show I was in, we knew there would be trouble if we forgot. Instead of taking the responsibility of giving lines to cast members who forgot, we'd call for line, or just make it up. That way, the scene wouldn't be practiced so that a person would forget their same line and have it given by the same person.

Because there was less discussion and more practice, we were able to pull a show together. Cast members never got personal, giving advice in regards to acting. That was the director's job strictly. Although some could say a director like that has to much power and may make the wrong decisions, they do a key thing. They make decisions. And even if they're wrong, it's better than being insecure.

Now, you could say in this case the problem with leadership has to do with the individual person. But let me give you a hypothetical situation. What if students had to put together a play completely on their own? How would it be done? Is it even possible?

The power dance I helped choreograph with the dancers was a somewhat similar situation. Our only instruction was to make a power dance. From that, we make our project with virtually no guidance. Somehow though, it worked.

In our group of 5 people, we disagreed, but we never all out argued. Everyone was comfortable sharing their opinions, even if they ended up being bad. Unlike the other groups, we never really fought. Even though some of us had more dance experience than others (me having none, everyone else having a lot) no one was patronized. Every opinion was valued even if it didn't have complete evidence defending it.

Now, even though no one took a strong leadership role, I think I ended up leading the group. Since I wasn't dancing, I was able to watch and give my opinions. Whenever a problem came up, we looked at the possible solutions, and after discussing we solidly chose one and did not change our plan.

One problem I often have when I'm in groups is when I have a strong opinion and no one agrees. On some matters when I feel like something is bad, I get a sick feeling in my stomach. If the other group members still want to keep the idea and I am unable to convince them, I stay quiet, but I still can't get that feeling out of my stomach. Somehow for this project though, I had no such feelings.

To me it seems that a large reason why groups don't work is because people are afraid of being firm and decisive. People do not want to make things unpleasant for other group members by speaking sternly, or they are insecure about the knowledge they have and they do not think they can make the right decision.

It's unpleasant to work in an environment where those who don't work hard enough are punish and even those who work hard are punished when their decisions are wrong. However, this is the only way we as humans can operate effectively.

A group needs a good leader who can make strong choices but also be willing to listen to the opinions of others and sacrifice his own opinions for the good of the whole. A good group member is someone who does not disrupt the process by only contributing when it will benefit the group as a whole. At the same time though, he cannot be afraid to share if he things that something is wrong. It is the responsibility of the whole group to keep decisions unless there is a good reason to change them, even if not everyone agrees.