Shoes, Lets Get Some SHOES

In today's day and age, shoes have become a necessity in the everyday working world as part of the business dress attire. It would be utterly laughable if a CEO of a major corporation strutted into his important business meeting devoid of shoes. It is curious that the we consider going to work without shoes to be so taboo, so barbaric, even if one only works in an office cubicle where shoes are hardly necessary. People don't think practically when it comes to footwear in general. Many spend more money on shoes than they do on any other article of clothing - I know I did on my pair of shoes. It is the trend of sophistication and of style that trumps practicality in today's popular culture. People have enough money in this culture and many richer cultures around the world so that they can afford to spend money on shoes, whereas in poorer and developing countries many show up to work without shoes every day. I don't think people realize how silly it is that we care so much about shoes and our appearance like that in general - I didn't realize it until this topic was brought up in class today. 

I think as much as it would be practical to allow people to go barefoot, it is not going to happen. People, especially those with "bigger" jobs such as wealthy bankers and the like, have too much to lose to take the risk needed to venture outside the norm, outside the arrogance of being "sophisticated". Yes it is ridiculous, yes it is impractical, but it is how the world works as of right now. The issue of shoes versus no shoes is very small compared to the issues of today, and it would be foolish to raise attention to this issue in particular because in the end, it really doesn't matter that much. 

I admit that it would be very interesting if this was allowed. I believe people would divert back to barefoot more vigorously than people might think - I know I would consider it. But, until this trend appears, I am afraid it will continue to be: "NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE."

Is it better to try and fail or not try to avoid failing altogether?

Considering this is my question, I have had time to think about it before this class. This was actually one of my many Theory of Knowledge journals (ToK is a class I took in high school for the International Baccalaureate Program.) This question requires the thinker to be impartial so that one is able to examine all sides of the argument. 

Trying and failing is an essential part of every person's life and happens every day. Failing is in itself a very complicated concept because even though it is obviously a bad thing, it helps develop whoever failed and it teaches a lesson that can help them mature and grow. Many famous people will tell you that failing was essential in their success, and that they did not get to the top easily. For example, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb after trying everything (even a lemon peel) and failing. Everyone encounters obstacles, but it is how you react to misfortune and failure that truly shows your character. If one is able to learn from failure and grow from it, then they are getting something out of it. Also, the trying part of trying and failing is significant as well. This is because if you try and fail you may have failed because of a lack of effort - one's "try" was lackluster. Learning to try with everything you've got is an important lesson in life. Just like one can never succeed by not trying, one can never succeed by not trying hard. 

This seems like a no brainer, that trying and failing is obviously better than not trying to avoid failing. But failure can have severe consequences, especially in excess. To see yourself try and fail can strike at one's self esteem, regardless of whether you learned from it or not. This drop in self confidence can be unhealthy and one must exercise caution when failing too much. Sometimes not trying can be smart - especially in instances where it is not likely for you to succeed and/or the stakes are high. For example, you are on the game show Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, and you are on the last question, and you don't know the answer. Why would you try and most likely fail if you could just not try and still come out ahead? I know that is very exaggerated, but the point still stands that not trying is smart sometimes depending on the situation. 

In conclusion, it seems I have again come to the seemingly recurring conclusion of, "it depends on the situation". This is because one can not honestly argue one side of this without considering the significance of the opposing argument. Trying and failing is imperative for a person's development, as long as it is in moderation.

Kindergarten, A Good Idea?

Seeing as I am approaching this topic with no prior knowledge of the two opposing sides and their arguments, I will approach this question impartially, at least at first.

My first thoughts on the subject are in favor of kindergarten. Why is kindergarten a bad thing? It seems to me like kindergarten is as crucial step in a childs academic and social foundation as high school and college are. The children in kindergarten are being exposed to other children that are the same age, something that they may or may not have ever been exposed to. Not only that, but they are being introduced into a structured system of living that they will exercise for the next couple decades of their life, including getting up for school and being there for a majority of their day. This also includes the hugely significant aspect of being immersed in a social environment for the first time with other unfamiliar children (this rules out the sibling factor). The children will develop social skills at this stage, and they are tools that the children will continue to hone and utilize for the rest of their lives.

Thinking about the negative aspects of kindergarten brings up a few key points. Maybe children are too young for this stage. If this is to be deemed a problem, then how does one prove that a child is too young? The easy answer is simply that you cannot prove it one way or the other because of the ambiguity of the question. There are certainly multitudes of children that have succeeded so far while having undergone kindergarten at the current age, and there are many that have not. To blame a child's success on whether or not they attended kindergarten and at what age would be foolish.

Bullying also presents itself as an argument for why children should not be exposed to this social scene so early. But is bullying really caused by children attending kindergarten? I think not. Bullying is MUCH more likely to be attributed to poor parenting; a bully does not become a bully suddenly. He or she is a product of insecurity, and insecurity is derived from past experiences, which may include the child's parenting. For parents afraid that they may be exposing their child to potential bullies by sending them to kindergarten: bullies are just as likely to be present in kindergarten as they are in high school, if not less likely. Parents who shelter their children like that are not allowing them to experience crucial aspects of our social infrastructure that are best learned as early as possible, so they may be put into practice as soon as possible.

An example of an aspect mentioned above is the skill of being charismatic. If a child does not enter kindergarten and instead waits until later to enter school, they will be entering at a stage where the majority of the other children have already made friends and experimented with interacting with peers they do not know. It is a valuable and lifelong skill that must be practiced all the time in order for the child to be successful. This is not to say that all children that enter kindergarten will grow to be charismatic - that depends on other aspects of a child's life as well - but that child will be starting at the same spot all of his or her peers are starting at, making it more likely that they will develop similarly.

On a personal level, I entered kindergarten at the normal age and progressed through school in a normal fashion. However, I did not develop into a charismatic person until my freshman year of high school. In elementary and middle school I only had a few friends. In my life I have been exposed to bullies of all ages. But I am grateful for all of my experiences, especially kindergarten because I feel I would be at a huge disadvantage right now without the lessons and experiences that I learned in that crucial year of my developing life.

Discussion Concerning Torture

The word torture carries with it a sense of fear, so that when torture is mentioned one might inwardly flinch at the horrible things that one associates with the word. For example, when I think of torture, I think of waterboarding, cutting off fingers, the medieval stretching machine, and the scene in the movie Taken with Liam Neeson torturing the terrorist for information about his daughter's whereabouts. So we can start the discussion about torture with the basic fact that torture itself is extremely vague. Is a mother who sends their child up to bed without supper a torturer? They caused their child to suffer because of something the child did wrong. Where is the line drawn between punishment and torture? Is torture just an extreme form of punishment? These are questions you must ask yourself before you go on to declare torture this horrible crime. Torture is also completely subjective and depends completely on each situation, as explained in the aforementioned example. If you think the example is silly for being so simplified, think again because it is a situation that follows all the guidelines that befit torture. Do you torture a dog every time you wave a treat in front of his face and force him to perform some stupid trick?

So we have established the lovely ambiguity of torture. The only way to handle this question, it seems, is through examples. Say someone kidnaps YOUR daughter. Your girlfriend or boyfriend. Your dad or mom. And you find them and they know where your loved one is, but they just won't tell you. The moment you begin interrogating your prisoner, you are torturing them. But is it necessary? For you it is. Who is to say the life of your loved one is worth this person's life? They may have wronged you but is it fair for you to put their life in your own hands simply for the safety of your loved one? How about another situation. A terrorist is captured by the CIA and he is the only one who knows where the bomb is that is planted to kill thousands of people at a local office building. Do they torture him and threaten his life to save thousands? Is that when torture becomes necessary? Now think of it as you are the CIA agent in charge of the prisoner and you order no one to touch him. But you receive a phone call informing you that your wife is in that building. Now anything goes, right? But WHY. That terrorist is someone's husband. He means something to his loved ones.

Of course it is easy to play devil's advocate in this situation, so I will answer some of my own questions that I have been asking. I believe torture is completely 100% justified if it is possible to save a life or several lives. Why? Because torture does not kill the person, whereas if they are endangering someone's life by their actions that have caused them to possibly be tortured, then there is a life at risk. In other words, there must be a purpose when it comes to torturing someone. A group of soldiers have captured a member of the opposing army. They are torturing him. Is that right? That enemy soldier may have shot and killed someone. That enemy soldier is fighting for his country and putting his own life at risk just by enlisting. The group of soldiers know that they would befall the same fate if captured by the enemy. But is that right to play the whole "eye for an eye" game? That is another question in itself. I feel that I cannot judge these soldiers that have committed torture until I can truly and honestly put myself in their shoes. I have never been shot at or had someone die right next to me. So I feel the only people that can judge these soldiers in this specific situation would be other soldiers albiet of a higher rank. But again I am playing devil's advocate. Using my justification I stated above that torture requires purpose, it would seem these soldiers are completely unjustified in what they did. But even earlier I stated that torture is completely vague and depends almost entirely on the situation at hand. Therefore, the soldiers in this situation are not completely in the wrong, but I am not in a position to judge them like I said before as well.

I honestly do not think this question can be answered with a solid yes, torture is justified, or no, torture is never justified. There are very strong arguments for both sides.

Are professional athletes overpaid? Absolutely not.

There are many stereotypes that one may associate with a professional sports player, including but not limited to big, dumb, and overpaid. This last stereotype is a very discussed and debated topic, simply because many envy those who can play a sport for a living and make more than 10 office workers in their lifetimes. This envy clouds our thinking and really diverts us from thinking logically.

The first logical question that comes to mind when I am confronted by someone arguing that a sports player (let's say football, for example) is overpaid is this: Why don't you play football professionally, then? The answer comes with excuses about height and weight and how those big dumb brutes are born with natural talent, while they ignore the fact that they were obviously not born at 6'3", 220 pounds of HARD EARNED muscle, with a mind full of tactics that can only be a achieved by a lifetime of dedication to the sport. A Navy SEAL is not born a Navy SEAL, they must work their whole lives for it - just like a football player.

Then I ask the second question that comes to mind when thinking logically: What do people want? As in, what occupation is the most lucrative and what does the public want to see the most?  Entertainment is the answer. More specifically, millions of Americans enjoy their Sundays by watching football, rooting for their favorite team or player. Becoming a football player is in no way easier or harder than becoming any other professional. To become a doctor, a professional in the field of medicine, one must undergo years of studying and learning. To become a football player, a professional on the fields of stadiums across America, one must undergo years of psychological and physical stress, just like any other professional does. They must perfect their game and their physical shape to prepare for the intense competition of actually being drafted by professional teams.

To those that think football players are overpaid: Put yourself in the shoes of Superbowl champion Aaron Rodgers and honestly try to think about what he calls a job. He has the courage, the skill, and the determination to go up play after play against 11 defensive players at 200+ pounds each. He is no small guy, but if he messes up - forgets who he's throwing to, gets distracted, etc - there are consequences no average human can honestly say they would want to endure. Being tackled by Troy Palamalu, one of the smallest defensive players on the Steelers (the other Superbowl contestants), probably feels similar to being blindsided by a freight train. Aaron Rodgers has paid the price for his success - he has suffered two concussions and will most likely have brain damage later in his life as a result, just like many other football players. Brain damage is just the beginning of the long list of problems that arise as a result of being a football player. Other problems being damage to bodily parts such as knees (common in running backs), backs, etc. Some players are out of the action as early as their early 30's, doomed to live the rest of their lives with the scars that accompany a football player.

My final question: Why wouldn't one aspire to become a football player? I mean honestly, making millions of dollars a year playing a game that I love sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. But since I can't grow half a foot and 100 pounds and be in the best shape of my life, I'll let them play and entertain millions while I strive to do whatever it is I can do to the best of my abilities. They are making an impact, leaving their mark in their own way. Why should I worry so much about what they are doing and what they are making? My energy is better spent making a name for myself in the plethora of other fields out there, just not the football field.

BIOGRAPHY

Kyle was born in Delaware. He was not aware of how wonderfully obscure his birthstate was. Many even asked him, "Where the hell is Delaware, anyway?" He was born in the depths of winter on December 29th, doomed to forever get ripped off when Christmas comes around. His birthday is so conveniently placed 4 days after Christmas that gifts are often lumped together as "Christmas/Birthday Gifts". He grew up with three sisters - and if that wasnt hard enough, his parents divorced when he was ten and he had to live with his mother and three sisters... in the same house... with one bathroom. He moved a lot, all over Delaware, and he came to know the area well. His idol is Joe Biden for representing Delaware as the vice president. He went to Mount Pleasant High School as an International Baccalaureate student, and while he was there he excelled in the program. He also played three sports per year and went on to represent Mount Pleasant as the captain of the lacrosse and soccer teams, while going to states for wrestling. He has friends that now attend college all over the country: Columbia University in NYC; Arizona State University; UCLA; USC (South Carolina); Syracuse; and many at the hometown University of Delaware. He enjoys Ithaca for the most part, but hopes to transfer to Clemson next year because of many factors (not including the biting wind and bitter cold or the fact that it was -16 degrees last Monday).