Can I do this?

Look! I'm still writing in this blog.
Am I allowed to do this? Does anyone care? I don't particularly know. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who look at this were my former classmates, and the occasional person from Canada or Russia. Or my former teacher. Hell, I don't know.
My test scores haven't shown up at my college yet, even though I have sent them. What is weird is that my junior year scores don't show  up, but my other years's scores did...I'm sure it will all work out all right in the end. I can't see all those years of work in school add up to being denied due to a late test score. I just don't get it.
I rode my bike to Monterey a few days ago, that was crazy.
My front shifting on my bike is giving me issues though. (right now is where I debate whether to get too detailed in my shifting analysis, because the imaginary people who may or may not read this post won't understand it) My crankset is a compact, so the BCD is 110mm, but I have a 38t inner ring, because I like that bigger inner ring (oxymoronic, I know). But this inner ring is really just a bmx chainring stuck onto my crank, and I'm sure it's not intended to be used like I'm using it. But finding 110 bcd chainrings in a 52/38 combination is difficult, and I don't particularly want to buy a standard crankset, even though having a 53/39 would be awesome.
Whatever. It works for now.

Last Post Before the Exam

          I chose a question that I thought looked difficult to answer; 2010 Form , question 2.

I believe I would have mainly focused on the descriptions of the physical lands and the descriptions of the people who live in the Midwest, because it is this contrast/comparison that keeps the reader's attention. Also, because the Midwest is talked about in a relatively negative way, it serves to show exactly what the author's elder's were excited for when they immigrated to America. They seem to be content with being allotted this land, even though the author describes it as vast and dull, with little things to do, and little people running about.The geometry of the states is brought up more than a few times, most likely to represent the dullness of the Midwest in the author's perspective.
The essays that did well focused on how "bad" the land was seen to be by the people who first uncovered it, but showing the actual people the environment created with respect, as they had to have been raised in such a land that was previously thought to be terrible and vacant. Juxtaposition was important; comparing the Midwest to something else--either the people, or another land.
I might not have done very well, but at least I would have gotten a decent part of the juxtaposition.

Poisonwood Postmodernism?

          Apparently, the world was "modern" up until the end of World War II. Until this point, everything regarding literature was well defined and rounded out, with not too much leeway for crazy structural exploits or styles of writing the plot of a novel.

It was as if we got back from the war and were like: "Man, this novel should have an ending"

                                                                           "Nah...it doesn't need one..."

So, postmodernism essentially just allows people to do weird stuff with books that hasn't really been done before (at least in the era when that book was written, as I'm going to assume the definition of postmodernism changes depending on it's precursor (modernism).

The Poisonwood Bible exhibits more than a few of these characteristics. For one, it is written after the war, and the time period it is reflecting on is the area around 1960, with the Congo's independence being a big deal.

But, postmodernism really is seen in this novel mainly by the use of narrators (and how there aren't numbers to the "chapters," but I' don't think that is nearly as significant). Kingsolver uses multiple narrators in this novel, which adds a form of insight and depth to this particular story, which is not seen very often in the other great literary works from the time period when it was written. While most novels that we cover in our English language/literature and composition classes during school focus on a main character, this book, with it's narrators, doesn't seem to focus on any one person, but rather the sincerity of the family as a whole, which allows the story to gather insight from many more sources than what most novels are capable of. A good example is how multiple people mention the poisonwood tree, and how the novel is able to gain insight from each child and their experiences with the tree, either personal or watching their father handle it like a dumb American.

Heart of Darkness vs. Apocalypse Now

          Of course there are lots of differences between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now. Lots. Well, one can always just say that the stories differ in settings, main character, plot (only to an extent), and all around "skin".

          "Skin" is a word that I would like to describe the difference with, before I talk about my single difference that I thought was most prominent (mostly because I'm sure someone else will write the same thing, and this first part might be somewhat original). When I say that the stories are the same, but the skin is different, I mean that the superficial details have been changed, but the overall meaning and story are nearly identical. Like two guitars that are identical, sound the same, and are made of the same components, but one has a clear-coat finish that allows you to see the flame of the maple wood that it is made of, while the other has a thicker, white lacquer that fades into grey, and then black around the edges. Or, perhaps a West Point lanyard and a UCSC lanyard; they both accomplish the same job, but look entirely different, and could even possibly carry a different meaning to them (I say this because I'm not sure if Apocalypse Now could be used as anti-Vietnam War type propaganda). For what it's worth, these are nearly identical stories told in two different mediums, and the war aspect of Apocalypse Now lends itself to more of a movie medium.

          The difference I selected was the effect on the native population. In Heart of Darkness, Conrad portrays the natives as objects and they die from overwork and guns and other things by a conquering people. In the movie, the natives seem to be viewed as more of a people, than objects. Although they still are slaughtered by guns and trigger-happy folks high on LSD, because the setting is much more modern. Comparing the Belgian Congo over a hundred years ago to a war zone in Vietnam that is still in recent memory for some living people will present major differences, simply because the technology available to the men at the time is so much greater. No native killed in Apocalypse Now died because of overwork, no, they all died because of a gun, or a sword, or a bomb, or an explosion. I believe it is the seriousness of the novel that forces the movie to portray the vicious deaths in this manner.

Heart of Darkness Trouble?

          Throughout Heart of Darkness there have been some sections or passages that leave me really confused. Yes, yes, I know that sounds really lame, and "confused" might not be the perfect word to describe how incredibly dumbfounded I am at points, but seriously--some parts of this book leave me with no clue as to what is being described or what is going on.
          Take page 109 for example.The big passage actually starts on the bottom of 108, and it doesn't even specifically state who is talking. I just have to assume that the speaker is Marlow, narrating his trip on the river to find Mr. Kurtz. But wait! They haven't told us that yet, so we don't understand what he is doing. He then talks for about 3/4 of 109, about things that I just don't understand. It's this type of odd writing that my brain dies on, because context clues are sort of non-existent. I just don't get it.
          Sure, I understand that he is describing a scene from his boat, and he is describing the African men he sees from the boat, and he describes them as human...and then says they aren't, and then goes into this two paragraph chunk of stuff that I don't understand, and then compares the men to a dog. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Juicy Quote

"They were conquerors, and for what you want only brute force--nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of the others. They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got."

There are two parts of this quote that really grab my eye. The first is the part where "strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others," really prods at the idea that the men in the Congo (white men, of course) felt the "power" they had there because there was no real resistance. This would be increasingly easy to see upon analysis by someone visiting there...like Conrad...

The second is the "for the sake of what was to be got." Because essentially, that really sums up the point of a white person's influence in the Congo. Because there wasn't really a downside to exploiting the Congolese (at least, to the white folk).

Chapter 12: "David and Goliath"

          This chapter introduces E. D. Morel, who finally puts a dent into Leopold's ghostly armor. Morel worked for a shipping company that Leopold used. When he discovered the atrocities that were committed in order to get the goods that his company was shipping, he found the urge to publicize them. Assuming Leopold had a lot of shipping, Morel was asked to keep quiet more than a few times; offered bribes and really nice jobs in different areas. Morel wasn't wealthy, nor could he just quit his job and attempt to use his journalism full time.
          But he did, and he developed his own publication, West African Mail, which had specific sections devoted to exposing the atrocities in the Congo. Originally, he used pen names, but he rose to become the most outspoken critic of Leopold's exploits. This is where he differed from other critics; he had a fanbase. People came to him with stories and information, even people who were supposed to be on Leopold's side. This was especially notable when the letters for the missionaries, who had their own mail service that was not censored by Leopold's men, because their letters were the most horrifying. Morel so far is the most successful guy in doing publicity damage to Leopold, because he got the situation onto the minds of members of Parliament.

Response to "Seriously Screwed Up"

          In the grand scheme of things, this book has brought to light the "people" side of exploration. It's the PEOPLE. Why does this happen to innocent PEOPLE? Why did certain PEOPLE come into contact with the new surroundings first? Why didn't other people step in and stop them? Why did it take so long? Why do these exploitations happen?
          I think it's sort of simple. Most people, like you, or me, or Jeff over there, or Joe (the plumber), are "normal." We are fine with our surroundings. We don't have any horrible mental scarring from a violent childhood. We don't have undiagnosed autism. We don't have a lust to find a new place. Sure, some of us want to "get out of Napa" because Napa is so boring, but we want to stay within the confines of a place that we know exists. WE don't know the feeling of knowing that there is a place out there that has never been photographed, that no video footage has captured; a place that is completely new. "Well, Eric, I have never been to Spain, or Russia..." Yeah, I know that, but OTHER PEOPLE HAVE. We have photos and documented evidence of those places. With Africa and the Americas "we" did not. In fact, no one did.
          Imagine, for a moment, that Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and that other guy ( face it, you don't know his name either) went to the moon. That's pretty intense, right? A whole new place.
          Now, imagine if they had not been able to take pictures.
We would not have any images in our minds when we thought of the moon. We would just have imagined pictures, based on descriptions, but not the real thing. And deep down, we would all feel the lust to want to see that place for ourselves.
          So, now that we know what type of "lust" these "explorers" had, what was the defining factor that led to exploitation?
          These "people" were not normal. Take Cortez; sent out to study and develop a career at 14 years old. As a seasoned 16 year old, he returns to his home and is disappointed with the low level of life his family has had. He turns this want for more into fuel that drives him into the New World, and riches are on his mind; not the animals that inhabited Mexico that he either fought or converted to Christianity.
Pizzaro was another guy who grew up incredibly poor. In fact, this guy grew up illiterate. What more motivation could one need to exploit an entire world, that isn't really ever seen by the general public. There aren't really repercussions of anyone's actions in a "new place," initially, that is.
Don't even get me started on how not normal Ponce de Leon was; Fountain of Youth? Really?
         Take Henry Morton Stanley. He was not normal. This guy had a troubled childhood and a habit of over-exaggerating things. He needed to please his peers. He did what he needed to do; what he could justify as "right" in his mind. That's what a lot of these guys were able to do, and it ended pretty similarly.
          So, I guess what I'm saying, is that the PEOPLE who tend to gravitate towards "new place" situations are not "normal," and exploit the indigenous (I can't believe I just used that word to describe humans) because of their abnormalities, and the reason we have trouble coping with this today is because we can't really get a hold of what the feeling was like back then to be in a place no one had been before (at least no one that matters),  and that no one would be able to get to.

So, yes, this has changed my thinking of these situations slight bit.

Question #3 Response

          The average European liked riches and getting wealthy. With any new land, there are always people who will believe that the new land will have untold riches. This land also was a place to gather people to sell for use in the western world at the time. The "riches" could have been items like gold or salt, and were sold to many other nations throughout the world to expand Europe's dominance at the time. This type of thing tends to happen whenever a "new land" is discovered, think about what happened to America when people found out it was prosperous. At a certain point, the map of Africa had enormous blank spots where Europeans had not visited, and many explorers were challenged to put on (sometimes fatal) expeditions.
          When Europeans found African states, their morality in matters descended because of the slave trade. They easily destroyed kingdoms and states that had been set up, purely because the Europeans needed bodies for the slave trade. I guess the main thing would be that the Europeans didn't exactly think of the Africans as human beings (at least on the same level they thought themselves to be), and so they were able to get by with treating them poorly.

Post Mortem Senior Project

I really couldn't be happier with the "project" in my senior project. Although I did have to create a completely new cycling club that was universal and accepted all high school students...And raise $20,000....and figure out all of the liability issues (which neither the NCOE or NVUSD want a part of), I was able to do so really quickly, because I already had a good knowledge of what exactly I needed to do, and how to do it. All I needed was enough time to attract attention from the Eagle Cycling Club and BAM-there is now a universal high school club supported with bikes and equipment by the most prominent cycling club in Napa Valley. My paper was kind of boring though, but here it is.

Questions About Research Paper

1. My topic is knee health in cyclists of all ages, and how cycling effects the knee over time during exercise. The issue I'm covering is whether cycling is beneficial or detrimental to the knee over time.

2. The most useful thing I have come across is an article on common knee injuries in cyclists. Because if I use this article as a base, I can use the injuries mentioned as tangent lines that allow me to analyze where in a cyclist's life the injuries happen, why they happen, and how they can be prevented.

3. My stance on the topic right now is that cycling can be beneficial to knee health, but only if the rider trains smartly and has a correct bike fit. With a good fit and a good training plan, it seems from my experience that guys can race and ride for a really long time.

4. What I envision doing in this article is presenting the premise that cycling affects knee health, and then ask the question of whether over time it is beneficial to the rider. I will spend a few pages presenting the general topics on knee health, and common injuries, and then spend the next pages after that talking about the benefits of cycling. I will tie up my paper by comparing the possible injuries and benefits, and then probably make a statement similar to my stance in #3. One part of my paper explains gearing to the reader. Gearing on a bike is difficult to explain to someone in person. Here we go.
On a bike, there is a "chainring" on the crank. The crank is the center part where the pedals attach. The chainring has a certain amount of teeth on it, and every time the pedals spin a full revolution the number of teeth on the ring is "pulled."
On the wheel, there are sprockets that have teeth on them as well, and they are connected to the chainring via the chain of the bike. Sprockets are little rings that are a lot smaller than chainrings, but still have teeth on them. The sprockets turn based on the amount of teeth pulled each revolution by the chainring in front.
For example, if the front chainring spins one revolution and has 50 teeth, the "pull" is 50 teeth. If the sprocket on the wheel has say, 30 teeth, the sprocket will turn one full revolution, and then another 2/3 of a revolution per turn of the pedals. Since the sprocket is connected to the wheel, the wheel moves at the same rate, propelling the bike.
Likewise, if the sprocket on the wheel has 10 teeth, the wheel will turn 5 times for every revolution of the pedals, because the pedals "pull" 50 teeth, which is 5 times the amount of teeth on the sprocket. And because the sprocket moves 5 times around per revolution of the pedals, the wheel does as well. The more revolutions a wheel does for every pedal stroke, the harder it is to pedal, and the faster the bike moves.

5. Something new? I have to say the actual reason behind making the gears juniors use easier was very interesting. I had a feeling it was for knee health, but I did not realize it was actually to make them faster when they are older.

Teenager Tramatization Article Paragraph Response

That is one big title. Good thing I have this enormous document to go with it.

The "Criterium Race"

          In road cycling there are three types of races. A "road race" is usually on a semi-closed course that is large, and the race covers anywhere from 35-180 miles (at the pro level) and can have long climbs and long open flat roads exposed to the wind. Road races are the races like the Tour de France. Another type of race is the "time trial," A time trial is a race against the clock. Usually raced on one's own (sometimes there are team time trials, where a number of racers can be used), and it is purely a race against the times of others competing on the same course. Drafting, riding in the slipstream of another rider to reduce wind resistance and save energy (up to 40% less energy is used in some cases), is not allowed in these types of races, so the stronger and more aerodynamic riders do well and set the fastest times for the course.
          And then there is the "criterium." Think Nascar, but on bikes. I'll explain my past few races in hopes to show how a criterium race works, and what makes some riders more fit for them.
          I started training for cycling races this January by racing in the Early Bird Crit series in Fremont. every Sunday I would drive to a less-than-booming business area and along with many others, take advantage of the newly paved roads and course set up by the mentors and race officials. A criterium is a fast paced race based on laps. Criteriums are usually races on courses not much more than a mile or so in length, and the race is based on time. A blog that has a few good examples of criterium courses is right over here. I've been racing twice each Sunday, once as a Cat 5 racer, and once as a Junior (under 19) racer. The Cat 5 race was 40 minutes (give or take 5 minutes), and most recently we averaged 24.6 mph. The Junior race was shorter and less organized, averaging only 23 mph. Because Criteriums are shorter than everage races they usually have the highest average speeds, and range from a pretty easy course to a very technical one.
          Criteriums are intense, action-packed races where the riders are constantly jockeying for position in the peleton (pack of riders). As this page will explain, criterium racing is close quarters and fast; it's easy to get boxed in by other guys in a corner or during a sprint, so it's critical to always know where the riders around you are. Criterium races are fast and filled with adrenaline, and favor riders who feel comfortable bumping shoulders with others in a pack and who have a lot of brute force.
          Brute force? I've been riding for awhile, and can pump out a decent 750 watts in a sprint (yes, I am aware most people have no idea how to gauge that effort), but I'm a lighter guy. I like climbing a lot more than I like flat courses against the wind. The bigger, stronger guys do well against the wind, and do better on flatter terrain where a weight-to-strength ratio doesn't matter as much. Because of this, I have to change up my tactics in order to get a chance at placing in any of these races. If the pack is altogether at the finish, a field sprint will ensue, and the stronger riders will battle it out. But, if I manage to break away from the front group, in a "breakaway" (I know, aptly named), I may only have to sprint against a few other riders. In my first junior criterium I initiated a break with four laps to go, and stayed away from the main group until the finish with four other guys. I got third, mainly because I worked too hard on the last lap, but it was really fun and a great learning experience.

Newer Generations on Airline Security

          No, I don't have any memory of pre 9/11 airplane travel, racial profiling, or national security. I was still at the age where I thought airplanes dropped people off in front of their houses, and flew away based on magic. The most prevalent thing I have learned from these essays is simple; to me, the racial profiliing, national security, and of course, airline security, is completely normal.
           Let's start with the airlines. I have no real airline exposure from the days before 9/11. I have always needed to leave for the airport multiple hours in advance because everybody knew that security would take a really long time. Apart from the complaints of my parents and other passengers waiting in line, I had no knowledge of "how it used to be." I assumed this long wait was normal, and for me, it always has been. Being young, I could only glean so much from these complaints, but it was enough for me to realize that in the past things had been different. I simply didn't understand the magnitude of change that had occurred.
          For my generation, or at least, for myself, it took years for us to understand the how important an event like 9/11 is, and how powerful it's side effects were. Right now, as I type this post, sitting in my bedroom listening to "Everybody Talks" by Neon Trees, I am a side effect. Sounds weird when I put it that way, but my mentality towards the issues of airline security, national security, and racial profiling has been completely shaped and molded as I have grown up, and this is mainly due to 9/11. I have no problem with inconveniencing the masses to prevent the occasional national security breach. I'm fine with government intrusion, as long as the intent is to keep me safe. I have grown up being told that the protection of national security is more important than my privacy on matters such as library records or baggage on airlines. This stuff is life for me, and I've never known anything else.
          Given that last sentence, I do understand the magnitude of the change now. When I look at how lax we used to be as a people in the past, with airline security and safety measures much lower than nowadays, I shudder in disgust and think about how easy it would be to cause a national security breach...and then I think of 9/11.
          And then I think about what actually needed to happen to our nation to have a child grow up with the mentality that I have currently.
          And that puts 9/11 into perspective for me.