User:Schwindtd

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Hey everybody! My name is Daniel Schwindt and I am a senior in high school. My interests are history, economics, politics, current events, spanish, and debate. I am working primarily on the Uknown American Presidents, but my interests also range from Avatar: The Last Airbender to Alexander II of Russia. Feel free to leave me a message.

Hmmm ... I don't really want to edit articles anymore. It is so boring (especially copy-editing). From now on I will only edit articles if it can't be helped. My goal is to get to 1000 edits so I can get on the Missing Wikipedians page. I may leave after I have gotten Rutherford B. Hayes to GA status. Please enjoy the short essays I have written below. If you find them offensive, then you need to get a life. Oh wait, we're on Wikipedia. I guess that's impossible then, right?

This user is a participant in WikiProject U.S. Presidents

This user is a member of the WikiProject Television Avatar: The Last Airbender task force.

Avatar This user watches Avatar: The Last Airbender religiously.

Air This user is an Airbender.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Russia.

This user participates in WikiProject Biography.

This user is a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

Proverbs

1. He who laughs last, didn't get the joke.
2. "No hay libro malo que no tenga algo bueno."-There is no bad book that doesn't have something good.- Miguel de Cervantes: Don Quijote de la Mancha
3. What has been will be again; what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9, New International Standard Edition
4. “Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.” - Blaise Pascal
5. “Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are a good person is a little like expecting a bull not to attack you because you are a vegetarian.”- Dennis Wholely
6. “Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice.”- Harrison Ford
7. “A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.”- Oscar Wilde
8. "He Prayeth best, who loveth best; All things great and small; For the dear God who loveth us; He made and loveth all." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
9. "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them". - William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
10. "Brevity is the soul of wit." - William Shakespeare, Hamlet
11. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." - Jedi Master Yoda, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
12. "Do or do not; there is no try." - Jedi Master Yoda, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
13. "Teachers're always using that 'in your own words.' I hate that. Authors knit their sentences tight. It's their job. Why make us unpick them, just to put it back together more shonkily?" -David Mitchell, Black Swan Green
14. "All words are insufficient. Because of this. The poem exists before it is written." -David Mitchell, Black Swan Green
15. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." -John Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn"
16. "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky that would be like the splendor of the Mighty One." -The Bhagavad Gita
17. "The last temptation is the greatest treason/ To do the right deed for the wrong reason." -T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral
18. "An unjust law is no law at all." St. Augustine of Hippo
19. "Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." -Henry David Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience
20. "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured, or far away. " -Henry David Thoreau, Walden
21. "The evil that men do lives after them/ The good is oft interred with their bones." -William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
22. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,/ But in ourselves, that we are underlings." -William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
23. "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." -Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol"
24. "The liar is no whit better than the thief, and if his mendacity takes the form of slander he may be worse than most thieves. It puts a premium upon knavery untruthfully to attack an honest man, or even with hysterical exaggeration to assail a bad man with untruth." -President Theodore Roosevelt, "The Man with the Muck-rake"
25. "We appreciate that the things of the body are important; but we appreciate also that the things of the soul are immeasurably more important." -President Theodore Roosevelt, "The Man with the Muck-rake"
26. "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans." - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, "Inaugural Address"
27. "But let justice roll down like waters. And righteousness like a mighty stream." -Amos 5:24
28. “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.” -Lewis Carroll
29. "I know, I gotta go, I gotta go, and I got one last thing and I said it before, and I want to say it again. Cancer can take away all my physical abilities. It cannot touch my mind, it cannot touch my heart and it cannot touch my soul. And those three things are going to carry on forever." -Coach Jimmy Valvano, "1993 ESPY Awards Speech"
30. "Passion, though a bad regulator, is a powerful spring." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
31. "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." -Ralph Waldo Emerson
32. "Who shall bring redemption but the jesters." -The Talmud
33. At all times let a man be as supple as a reed and not rigid as a cedar.
34. "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne, Meditation XVII
35. "The tragedy of old age is not that one is old, but that one is young." - Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Letter to the Reader

Dear Reader:

Welcome to my User page! It isn't pretty or well thought out or funny or clever or ... well, it just isn't that good. I would like to say that the following essays are simply writing experiments, a "Wikipedia User Page blog," if you will. Please do not be offended by anything on this page. To offend you has never been my intention. Some of the "Reflections" are quite random and may seem very pretentious. And if you were thinking that, then you are probably right. The "Meditations" is a short collection of essays I have written for classes. Please remember that I am not a professional writer. Or a very good one. I just wanted someplace to express myself and, well, here is this wonderful page. The real secret is that I just don't feel like editing articles that much, but I want to get to 1000 edits. I figure I can just earn edits with this. I would also like to apologize for this overly long user page. Maybe I will put all this crap up on subpages. Or would it be more fun to make the reader suffer? Hmmm ... If you have any comments or concerns please feel free to leave me a message. Just remember that I will remove mean or malicious comments.

Sincerely,
Schwindtd

Reflections on Wikipedia: A study in scarlet

In my almost two months of service at Wikipedia I have been a priveliged observer. I do not edit too frequently and, though I have not counted, I know that a significant portion have been to talk pages. Those that have been to articles have been largely uncontroversial. I believe that Wikipedia is a failure. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a source of usual ill repute. The "pedia" is a grand resource for locating dates, events, and names, but it is lacking in depth. Take a look at any history article. The casual reader may look at the article and believe it to be of excellent caliber. To the more advanced reader Wikihistory articles are woefully lacking in historical connections. I would like to emphasize that history has less to do with the exact date an event occured than the significance of the event in the short and long run. I theorize that the reason for Wikipedia's lack of analysis is because there is a lack of incentives. Taking a page from economics, all men respond to incentives (assuming they are rational). The incentive to edit an article could be the satisfaction of spreading knowledge or the pride in rendering a service unto others. Upon closer examination it is evident that because there are a large number of editors the responsibility is divided many times over. The incentive to write a well-thought out article is watered down because there are so many people editing. It also does not help that the editor very rarely feels the burden of his mistakes. Many hands make much less work, but they also decrease the incentive to work thoroghly. To confront such challenges necessitates confronting the very nature of Wikipedia. A restructuring would be impossible. Wikipedia will improve in some areas at a snail's pace, but will stagnate in just as many areas. Such a picture may be very doom and gloom, but it is more realistic than the optimists' predictions.

I have, thus far, had little experience with POV editors and edit wars. I do not understand the point of an edit war or of bringing a POV to the "pedia." Why do editors care so much? It is a chilling time when the fights over the Israel-Palestine article are just as "bloody" as the real world conflict. Do editors lose their perspective? Editors are truly lonely people who have far too much time on their hands (including me). From working at Venezuela articles I can honestly say that Wikipedia editors are a very snappy breed. The reasons for the fights at Wikipedia are lengthy and complex, but at the root of all of them is the impersonability of the internet. In an age where an editor does not have to see or directly confront another editor, fights will propagate at astounding levels. Some editors like the drama of a good ArbCom case (Why they would I have no idea). More likely people become more bold and introduce vitriol into their discussions simlpy because it is harder to directly feel the consequences of actions on the internet. The computer screen is the most dichotomous instrument of the modern age. On the one hand it serves as a portal to new worlds and cultures, but on the other hand it is a strong barrier, distancing the participants from one another. Such actions, which are grouped under the umbrella term "Cyber bullying," are multiplying on the web. Cyber bullying has become the scourge of the internet. The internet is a testament to man's intellect and his folly. It is troubling that Wikipedia must be caught in the middle of this trend. Perhaps one day the internet and Wikipedia will change. To accomplish such a feat is extremely difficult, though, for it requires profound societal change. I don't suggest holding your breath.
Wikipedia claims it is not a bureaucracy and yet they have a select group of editors called "bureaucrats." There are sysops, admins, autoconfirmed, non-confirmed, and anons that roam these pages, each with separate priveliges. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a hierarchy to me. Whenever there is a hierarchy in an organization there is always the inevitability of a bureaucracy. Perhaps the Wikipedia's bureaucracy is weak or disorganized or decentralized, whatever. It exists regardless. To me that is a sickening indication of the poverty and moral bankruptedness of this website. Why lie to my face? Wikipedia is inherently dishonest in its practices. Every wikipolicy has subsections that have their own subsections that are then subdivided until ... This multiplication of policies is disheartening. It turns off new users and frustrates older ones. Is simplicity too much to ask for? Maybe. There are so many rules and regulations that it is impossible to claim that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. That's dishonest.

While discussing the topic of writing at Talk:Villa del Cine, I looked over some wikipolicies, namely WP:WTA. I was dissapointed for two reasons: 1) it suppresses vocabulary and interesting writing. 2) it is often applied in absolutes (i.e. these words are bad). Are words like note and explain really so awful? Do we really have to look at the tiniest of "implications" of every word? I will not break with policy, because the rules are the rules, but I think the rules should be applied on a case by case basis. I do not hate WP:WTA. It is mostly a very good policy. But when I heard that conjunctions like "however" and "but" were once included, I was shocked. A user explained to me that "however" often implies synthesis. Well, let's see.

“ Rutherford B. Hayes pushed for legislation to reform Civil Service, but he was not able to pass a major reform bill because of political pressures coming from the Stalwart Republicans and the Democrat controlled House of Representatives. (this sentence does not appear in Rutherford B. Hayes) ”

That sentence must be the spawn of the devil. It must be synthesis, right? Well, no. That comes from sources as varied as Liberty, Equality, and Power by Murrin, and Rutherford B. Hayes: Warrior President by Ari Hoogenboom. Those sources support it, but it is obviously dangerous synthesis and must be obliterated. It doesn't matter that it is verifiable (note the two sources right there). The same applies for "however."

“ Hayes joined the U.S. army in [blank year]; however, he did not see combat until [insert date here].(this sentence does not appear in the article.) ”

This sentence is made up, but for the sake of argument it is verifiable so there really oughtn't be a problem, right? I don't know. It is so bizarre to me. I understand why these rules are here, but they are so foreign to me. I have never had to follow such rules. I think this may be the cause of the poor depth in Wikihistory articles, generally speaking.

Reflections on Writing: A study in syntax

Wikipedia editors are long-winded folk. Writing for an editor is as wondrous as singing is for a singer. Just as a singer sometimes wishes they could sing forever, editors often wish they could write forever. Wikipedia editors are the worst abusers of that desire. Too often the casual reader will come across an article only to be completely turned off by the syntax, or sentence structure. Why do they get turned off? Sentence structure creates the flow of an article. The syntax of passages should be varied, yet smooth. Long sentences should carry the reader smoothly to a point, not jostle them around with their sheer complexity. Short sentences should punctuate long sentences, not repeat endlessly. Of course, there are no immutable rules when it comes to syntax. The structure should match the topic and the goal of the writer or editor. As many editors tend to write with "padding" or "fluff" words, it is important to watch what syntax you are using. The editor must be ever cognizant of how he structures his sentences and what effect that structure will have on the reader. Imagine, if you will, if all the sentences in an article were short. It would be stocky. The article would be short. The reader would feel jerky. The words shake him. The article is boring. It is too staccato. The article would be monstrous. The same goes for long sentences. An overly complex and convoluted sentence with numerous prepositional phrases and independent and dependent clauses and appositive and gerundial phrases will immediately put the reader to sleep and will water down the effectiveness of the message thereby rendering the article unreadable and unknowable. Prose should be interesting and informative. I should learn from it, but not get bogged down in facts or figures. Evidence should support the prose, not the other way around. When reading an article, the syntax should make me feel like I am floating in the clouds. The style ought to be smooth, punctuated with fast flowing phrases and slow moving clauses. The syntax should support my weight, but not overwhelm me with its strength. Writing requires a certain degree of subtlety, at least good writing should. Encyclopaedic writing is always more dull than good writing, but perhaps that is because encyclopaedic writers are poor writers. The purpose of the Encyclopaedia is to inform. To inform the reader you must grab their attention and never let go, but don't be brash about it. Boring prose does nothing to inform the reader, quite the opposite. I will retain more information if it is presented to me in an interesting and confident manner. As Alexander Pope said, "True ease in writing comes from art, not chance. As those move easiest who have learned to dance."

Reflections on Politics: A study in ranting

"That government is best which governs least," proclaimed recluse and hairy transcendentalist, Henry David Thoreau. Since Thoreau announced that to the world, Conservatives (that is a poor word, they are not conservative but liberal. Why do we insist on abandoning the correct political terms inherited from the Europeans?) have rallied behind it. Liberals (another malapropism) laugh heartily at Thoreau, believing that the government is the Messiah. I am always astounded by the vitriol and gusto with which partisans attack one another. The hard core liberal Democrats are always portrayed as at the throats of the equally hard core conservative Republicans. These people, I can say with absolute confidence, are the most misinformed Americans of all. They believe so completely in the talking points of the closest babbling head that it is evident they know very little. Oscar Wilde, in his infinite wisdom, said, "A man who does not think for himself does not think at all." Bravo, Mister Wilde. Bravo. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if their opinion is really, really dumb. Let me let you in on a little secret. Those talking heads, those politicians, those wonderful "conservatives" or magnificent "liberals" are a bunch of hacks. Their interest is not the interest of the people, despite what they tell you. Politicians, like the rest of us, are selfish. Politicians are always motivated by either expanding their power, wealth, and future prospects, or getting votes. People who idolize socialist revolutionaries are so naive it is really quite pathetic. Those who rail againt the injustice of capitalism are "drunk on the righteosness of their own fictions." (Azar Nafisi). Those who claim to fight for smaller government are hypocrites. Name one conservative who has managed to roll back the sweeping tide of bigger government. Reagan? No. He didn't change anything in the long term. Bush, Jr.? He signed the biggest expansion in Medicare since LBJ. There are no black and white, good and evil lines in the real world. To those people who just love liberals or adore conservatives I tell you to kindly get off your high horse and shut up. Your pablum is a waste of my time and a waste of your time. Your self-righteousness both sickens and amazes me. So please take your opinions and keep them in a box in your attic. They have no use in the real world.

But what are my beliefs? Well, to be frank I am practical. I am an independent. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have virtues, but both have vices. Once upon a time, I thought myself to be a "liberal" (there's that word again) democrat, but I am slowly moving towards the right. Inevitably I will join the ranks of the centrists. On economics I believe in less government because I believe in much of what the Public Choice Theory of Economics states and because I don't trust politicians anymore. Whenever something goes wrong, our instincts are to make a law to deal with the situation. The human instinct leads to more government, not less. Government is vast and full of complex and conflicting interests; the government is simply not very efficient. Laws are waterboarded until they are so watered down that the measures are ineffective at best and ruinous at worst. The idea that the government is some kind of benevolent and wise ruler is very unrealistic. Yes, the government is capable of doing some good, but it usually does a good deal of harm. I have no qualm with "liberals" when it comes to what they believe. Their opinion is important and should be at least listened to with some sense of regard. I only feel that they ought to look at the government for what it does, and not just assume that government will always save the day with legislation or spending or whatever. The same applies for "conservatives." I detest social conservatism. I believe that social conservatism is an abandonment of the "conservative movement" founded by Buckley and Friedman. Social conservatives often call for the government to legislate morality. I believe that the government ought not to legislate morality, but let people live their lives as they please (the caveat being that their actions cannot harm a third party). For me "conservatives" seem loath to admit that government has occasionally helped. Both sides are frustrating, but they do do some good.

Reflections on Morality: A study in ethics

The average human lives life according to predictable standards of conduct. These "morals" or "ethical codes" are cultural, religious, or social constructs that have been built up over the entirety of humanity's short existence on this planet. Beware those who preach in absolute morals, for morality knows no absolutes. Stealing, it is generally accepted, is wrong. But what if a thief steals bread to feed his family? Absolute morality cannot answer the "impossible ethical question," or if you're a trekkie, the "no win sitation." Because morality is a social construct, it can change. Up until the late 1900s it was considered indecent and immoral for a woman to wear short clothing. How the times have changed, at least in the Western world. Ethical codes are ever evolving and this makes the concept of justice a particular philosophical problem. What is justice? Is it reciprocity of treatment (i.e. "an eye for an eye")? or is it having every justification for such action and giving way to mercy? These questions are impossible to answer because they are open ended and because they must be viewed in the context of a particular circumstance or case. We urge people to be just, we call for the courts to bring us justice, but what justice is varies from person to person. How can we reconcile all these ethical codes that sometimes conflict? Justice is an illusory promise. It is a theoretical ideal that will forever escape our clutches just as the grapes and water faded from Tantalus's grasp. Perhaps we are doomed to forever roll the stone of justice and morality up the hill only to have it roll back down, trampling upon our withered, writhing remains. Justice has only so much value as we assign to it. Justice means only what we want it to mean. Justice is but a reflection of our personal values and what we hold to be the ultimate truth. As a related theory to Einstein's theory of general relativity, I propose we observe carefully the theory of moral relativity. Perhaps justice is best left in the hands of God. We are too imperfect to ever reach for such an ideal. This is the fate of all men.

Meditations: A series of writings

A note to all editors: This section represents the original thought of User:Schwindtd and it should be kept in the original style. Thank you.

Literature

The following piece was written on March 29, 2010 for an English Class assignment. The prompt was: "What makes a hero and villain?" with specific examples from Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran. Please do not plagiarize. This paper has been included in turnitin.com's database.

Heroes and Villains in Reading Lolita in Tehran

The modern hero and his arch nemesis on television and in comic books are always superhuman, having any number of superpowers that are as ludicrous as their costumes. Azar Nafisi, novelists, and literary critics re-examine the old notions of heroes and villains as super humans who battle for good and evil. In her book Reading Lolita in Tehran, Nafisi writes her own definitions of heroism and villainy. In her interpretation heroes and villains are defined in terms of their humanity. Heroes are complete humans; villains lack a part of their humanity. These men and women are no longer described by their super human powers, but by their human traits. Heroes must be able to understand others, a trait villains lack. Heroic figures must also preserve their identity, with villains being the destroyers of identity.

Empathy determines the heroes and the villains in literature. Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird explains empathy most eloquently: “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” (Lee 30). Heroes must be able to understand and thus empathize with other characters because “Heroism feels and never reasons, and therefore is always right.” (Bartlett). If “the greatest sin is to be blind to other’s problems and pains” then heroes must understand the world around them. (Nafisi 132). Nafisi, herself, is a hero because she empathizes. Towards the end of Reading Lolita in Tehran, she describes a young man who set himself on fire. As she explains his life story, she begins to understand him, his motivation, his dreams: “yet for people like him … the war must have been a blessing … [giving] a sense of community and purpose…” (Nafisi 252). The capacity to view the lives of others makes a character a complete human, a hero. Without it characters become almost soul-less and cruel because they deny the importance of lives other than their own. Such a view of the world backs up the monstrous crimes that villains such as Humbert Humbert commit. Even when Lolita runs to his room crying, Humbert does not truly understand her situation. Rather, he revels in it: “You see, she had absolutely nowhere else to go.” (Nabokov 142). Humbert’s blindness makes him an incomplete human; it makes him almost psychopathic. That is not to say that heroes must be perfect, not at all. Rather, heroes must have the basic will and capacity to feel.

Man’s identity is the most precious thing he possesses because it is the only thing he always has and always uses. In literature a hero “becomes one who safeguards his or her individual integrity at almost any cost.” (Nafisi 225). By safeguarding their identity heroes define themselves. By safeguarding their integrity, heroes preserve their humanity. Identity, personality, and individuality are all components of a person’s humanity. Nafisi explains that in Henry James’s novels what heroes gain is “self-respect”. (Nafisi 225). Heroes may lose happiness or even die at the end of the novel, but what they seek and find is their own identity. Nafisi, once again, serves as a template for a hero. When the regime demands all university women wear the veil, Nafisi and two other professors refuse. Nafisi says, “I told the … Committee that my integrity … was being compromised by its insistence that I wear the veil…” (Nafisi 152). Nafisi stands up to the regime in the name of her identity, which the regime tries to literally hide with the veil.

Villains destroy identity by stealing it from their victim, making them metaphoric criminals, too. Humbert Humbert is a villain because he destroys Dolores, creating a new image, a new name, a new identity for her, Lolita. Humbert does not just rape her body; he rapes her humanity as well. By destroying identity, villains show their carelessness which is derived from their lack of empathy. For the same reason the Iranian regime is a villain as Manna points out to Nafisi, “Don’t they do the same thing, cutting up books and re-creating them in their own image?” (Nafisi 50). A character that lacks understanding can destroy the humanity of others. As soon as he does, he is a villain.

If heroes and villains are to be defined accurately, the reader must put away the old notions of heroism and use x-ray vision to look deep into literature. What divides heroes and villains is not a change of costume or a nefarious laugh, but a difference in their humanity. Characters become heroes if they can empathize and if they preserve their identity. Characters that cannot empathize and destroy another’s identity lack a trait that defines humanity. That deficiency makes them villains. The truth of literature is there is no all-discriminating line dividing good and evil, hero and villain. The signs are more nuanced, but they do point in a direction. The definition is just there to help along the way.

Bibliography:

Bartlett, John. Familiar Quotations. 10th ed. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1919. Print. Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. New York: Warner Books, 1982. 30. Print.

Nabokov, Vladimir. Lolita. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books, 1997. Print.

Nafisi, Azar. Reading Lolita In Tehran: A Memoir in Books. New York: Random House, 2004. Print.

Free Writing

The following piece was written on August 30, 2010 for an English class. The prompt was to emulate an Elvis Costello essay that followed a similar format. Please be aware that the "Note from the Editor" is a framing device and should not be confused with the real world.

A Note from the Editor

Dear Reader:

The following piece has been chosen from a lengthy list of submissions for our “Musical Essay Contest.” The author, who wished to remain anonymous, gives us a musical tour of a High School student’s sixteen hour day. If you wish to comment on this article please contact our Reader’s Section Editor at readercomments@chicagoreview.com. We hope you enjoy!

Sincerely,
George Hasman
Editor-in-Chief

Putting your life to music: An essay in notes
By Anonymous

6 AM: Is it worth it? Will it make a difference? Why should you even bother? The world can wait another five minutes, right? The dark hour of the morning, when even the sun is too tired to come out, is just depressing. How can anyone call this morning? Fighting off the morning blues is like fighting off the biggest, hungriest dragon. You cannot go out unarmed lest you return to your dank cave a charred human-kabob. What you really need is some funk. James Brown’s “Get Up offa that thing”(Get Up Offa that Thing) should get things going. The ceaseless thumping and bumping of the beat drives you off the bed and into the waking world. It doesn’t hurt that Brown exhorts you every verse to “get up offa that thing!”

7 AM: You hop into the empty leather seat. It’s far too early for this vehicle to invite you in, but school beckons like the Sirens. You pray there are no rocks. Your eyes can’t decide whether to stay open or shut. The Funk Doctor’s beat just wasn’t enough. Lucky you, though. You got a prescription for Motor Music. The doctor suggests that you play Night Ranger, that classic 80’s band, at full blast. Specifically the doctor’s orders are to listen to the rock ballad “Sister Christian” from Midnight Madness. The gentle piano solo soothes you. It’s a clever trick. The electric guitars enter and thrust the melody haphazardly through the speaker. You’re motorin’ now, but what’s your price for flight?

8 AM: The bell signals the start of the daily regimen. This part of the day should be spent in thought, but it’s too early for that. To wake up your mind I suggest Bob Dylan’s “Mr. Tambourine Man” from Bringing it All Back Home. Dylan’s raspy, youthful voice on this 1965 album is unconventional, but great. Dylan may not be a master of the notes, but he is the poet laureate of music. His verses are so eloquent it almost makes you forget he sounds like a wheezing asthmatic.

9 AM: Your feet have led you to a different class. Your mind is lost entirely. You see the teacher’s mouth move, but you can’t hear what she says. You’re day dreaming, flying through whatever fantastic world you have created out of sheer boredom. To facilitate your visions of daydream flight you should tune your radio to something more classical. Gustav Holst’s “Jupiter” from The Planets is the perfect piece. The introduction is framed by repeating patterns that simulate the flight of a bird or the casual daydreaming student. The Chorale is so magnificent you actually think the music inspired God to make the sky, not the other way around.

10 AM: You traverse the quad, hurrying to beat the bell to AP Economics. For this class the music should be methodical and precise. The only way you can get in the mood for Economics is to listen to Johann Bach’s “Minuet in G Major” as performed by Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia Orchestra. With Bach no note is misplaced and no chord is out of line. The piece is simple, yet scientific. You can feel the number of notes and rests. With such music at your ear tips even muddy Economics can become clear.

11 AM: The scene shifts. Room: Holloway 501. Class: Honors Forensics. Music: Rush’s album Hemispheres. Rush captures the dichotomy of man in the lyrics and melody of the first portion of the album. Dionysus and Apollo, the id and the superego, are at war in the human mind. Debate is just the class to test out this duality of man. What is debate but a verbal manifestation of the conflict of the mind?

12 PM: With your free period finished, lunch is on its way. Soon your stomach will be full and content with the catch of the day. Though the hour does not call for martial music, only Sousa’s “Stars and Stripes Forever” performed by the USMMA Regimental Band, (The World is our Campus) can match the fullness of range and style that such a moment requires. Sousa’s marches contain an enormous range of heavy brass and light woodwind, a completeness your ears will appreciate as much as your stomach does.

1 PM: You trod into Physics. Science after lunch is not ideal. To get yourself back into the groove you need “Parabola” by Tool, (Lateralus). The song is chock full of complex time signatures and note combinations, making it sound utterly alien. No wonder their music video actually featured an alien autopsy. The haunting tones matched with subtle allusions to mathematics make this song perfect for any physics or math class.

2 PM: No school day can be complete without a little experimentation. While you are dozing off or twirling your pen in AP Statistics, maybe you should turn your mental iPod to Dizzy Gillespie’s “Salt Peanuts”. The syncopated rhythm is so convoluted that even fifty years later it still carries a biting freshness. The notes blare from the trumpet with tremendous flare, something be-bop is famous for. The notes, when compared to Bach, jump randomly like atoms, continuously colliding and separating. Your eyes bob up and down just to keep time with the bouncing melody.

3 PM: The hour has arrived. You have passed away the tedious hours and now your reward is delivered: Freedom. To commemorate this joyous moment, this celebration of life you play the “Hallelujah Chorus” from Handel’s Messiah. The joyous choir voices penetrate skin and bone and give words to the joy you feel when the last bell has rung for the day. Unfortunately the cycle will repeat the next day. Only the weekend can grant you a reprieve.

4 PM: You return home to find your celebration premature. You have work to do. If only there was a way to make the work fly by. I recommend playing the triumphant and defiant melody of “Building the Crate” by Harry Gregson Williams, (Chicken Run). There are at least four intertwined phrases, but the main theme is what drives the pace of the music. Williams guarantees that you will be inspired to work once you catch a whiff of this excellent musical homage to The Great Escape.

5 PM: The sun dips lower and lower, the TV is on, but it blends into the background. You lounge silently on the bed. The frenzied pace of the preceding hours melts away. The time is ripe for a calming musical contribution. You need a song that knows it doesn’t have to hurry to get where it’s going. I suggest “Canon in D” performed by the London Symphony Orchestra, (London Symphony Orchestra Play Great Classics). Pachelbel’s masterpiece takes its time when divulging its secrets. You cannot help but relax while the piece flows on.

6 PM: The torch of day extinguishes steadily into night. The pinks and oranges and reds and purples mix into bands of hues unknown. The cosmic nature of this moment must be met by its musical match. Stephen DeRuby’s “Infinity”(Sunset) combines exotic instrumentation with oriental mysticism to portray the infinite beauty and complexity of the fading sun.

7 PM: After the stirring beauty of the sunset and the tranquil tones of the late afternoon, nighttime must satisfy another human need. Humor in music is a rare thing. It is especially hard to do without lyrics, but David Maslanka is undeterred. His “Rollo Takes a Walk”, based on an old cartoon, is remarkable for its wit. Jazz rhythms and kazoo solos depict the spirit of the character far better than any printed image. You will soon find yourself quietly chuckling as you imagine Rollo strutting down an old-timey street. It is just so bizarre.

8 PM: You’re on the couch again; your brain idles as the television swamps your brain with the latest prime-time dribble. Perhaps now is the time to look inward: “The unexamined life is not worth living,” after all. To jumpstart your introspection you must listen to “Moonshadow” by Cat Stevens, (Teaser and the Firecat). As a child I used to watch my dad strum the guitar, singing Cat Stevens melodious words. The anaphora of the song and the parallel structure tingle the brain, making you think about life in the context of the song.

9 PM: The night is periodically interrupted by the whoosh of cars passing by on their way to … You don’t have too long before curfew and bedtime. The mood calls for something with a fast pace, but a cool, calm quality. Only classical Spanish music can answer the call. Your radio begins playing the quiet, yet confident “Malagueña” performed by Thomas Tirino at the University of Miami.

10 PM: With your conscious hours ending and the urge to sleep growing, your musical taste takes a sudden swing towards the forlorn. For such periods I recommend John Cale’s “Hallelujah,”(I’m Your Fan). The song is remarkable for combining major and minor chords to make a melancholic sound that mirrors the “broken hallelujah” of the song. You dip gradually into sleep, wondering: what will tomorrow’s score be?

Politics and Society

The following piece appeared in an edition of the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. It discusses the 2nd Amendment in the context of a gun rights issue in the State of Florida at that time.

The Second Amendment

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” So begins the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. Many Americans only quote the last part of this controversial amendment, forgetting the first clause beginning with “a well-regulated militia”. This clause tells us that the founding fathers felt that guns were to be allowed in the context of a well-ordered militia. The reason groups such as the NRA may overlook this clause is because to them it is a relic from the revolutionary war period. But that is not entirely true. One can put a modern interpretation on that clause. The modern meaning would focus on the well-ordered portion. This means that gun ownership and use must be strictly confined to well-ordered. The idea of people being allowed to purchase a weapon and bring it to work or school is inconsistent with this amendment. This is because the amendment clearly defines that it must be organized; a group of students or workers acting unilaterally to purchase, carry, or use a gun is entirely prohibited because it does not represent any sense of order. This order is what is necessary to the safety and security of all people and so gun ownership can and should be restricted extensively so as to fit the requirement of Order.