1. Get rich. Easiest step ever. :D
2. In New York, go up to one of the more successful homeless guys. Purchase all of his ratty clothes, as well as his cardboard box and- if he has one- his bottle of liquor with a paper bag wrapped around it. Altogether price? $10,000. It's a fair deal- it takes a large amount of time and dedication to get his clothes as filthy and torn as he has, and his cardboard box as soggy and... well... cardboard box-y.
3. Situate yourself in your newly purchased plot of land. Bring tons of cold, hard cash.
4. During the daytime, ask people who are passing by for spare change. If they give you $5 or more, give them $500 or more. Make sure they don't cause a scene. (Anyone who gives you small amounts of change can receive a voucher for a free product from your massive industry or summat.)
5. After 1-2 days of this, or just when word starts to get around, pack up and leave. Pay a hobo $1,000 to watch your spot for you. Never come back.
6. About a week after the first time, repeat process with an entirely different homeless guy. Every time you repeat the steps, increase the time in between by certain amounts (1 week turns to 2 weeks turns to a month turns to a month and a half turns to 2 months and a half, etc, etc).
Eventually, people will begin to become unsure of whether a hobo is the amazing super-rich guy who gives away money, or just a normal hobo. Thus, the homeless will receive an increase in donations, and the kind folk who gave away their money to the filthy hobo on the street corner will get something back for their charity. It's like forced karma. ^^
[Repeat in other cities as you find necessary- poss. hire other people to do the same job at the same time, or just get a friend to help you with it.]
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Meaning of Life
I am a semi-existentialist. I admit that there is no apparent reason for our existence. Or the existence of anything. At all. Even if you believe in a (or multiple) God(s), what would be the reason for their existence? Or whatever decided their existence was necessary? And so on, and so forth, for all previous and future existences. The origin of existence should not, itself, exist.
However, disregarding the source of all matter (the Big Bang, although the most likely theory, does not count- for what, or who, created that?), I believe if there is a reason for our existence it is a simple, one word answer... which, after I expand on it, will become much more than one word. And that word is this:
Happiness.
Every instinctual drive, although geared toward survival, is ultimately in favor of "happiness", or any good feeling. Why do human beings (as well as cats, dogs, monkeys, and even some sharks or carnivorous whales) seek entertainment, after all? Survival facilitates the desire for happiness (seeing as how it is impossible to experience while you are dead): love and sex as well. People who are selfish instinctively attempt to increase their own happiness; selfless people spread it both ways, as the giving of happiness to others increases the happiness which they themselves possess, and also, obviously, spreads the happiness in a wide arc of rippling circumstances. For the most part, however, it is the selfish desire of increasing their own happiness with feelings of goodwill that fuels this desire.
This is obviously a very debatable point, and in fact, I almost regret attempting to insinuate that happiness takes precedence over survival in nature's design. However, regardless of whether or not that particular point/series of points is accurate, I still believe that the best way to use my own existence is to attempt to spread as much happiness as possible. You may say this is a ploy to create a false feeling of self-importance within myself, or simply to appeal to others as a being of benevolence. This is of no interest to me. I realize that this particular strategy (although, admittedly, very difficult so far) is the most suitable way to live my life- as it even allows for my selfish desires to be fulfilled in the form of... well... self-fulfillment, if not self-indulgence.
I can only hope that all others shall be as amazingly pure and selfless as the humble person which I am. Ha.
However, disregarding the source of all matter (the Big Bang, although the most likely theory, does not count- for what, or who, created that?), I believe if there is a reason for our existence it is a simple, one word answer... which, after I expand on it, will become much more than one word. And that word is this:
Happiness.
Every instinctual drive, although geared toward survival, is ultimately in favor of "happiness", or any good feeling. Why do human beings (as well as cats, dogs, monkeys, and even some sharks or carnivorous whales) seek entertainment, after all? Survival facilitates the desire for happiness (seeing as how it is impossible to experience while you are dead): love and sex as well. People who are selfish instinctively attempt to increase their own happiness; selfless people spread it both ways, as the giving of happiness to others increases the happiness which they themselves possess, and also, obviously, spreads the happiness in a wide arc of rippling circumstances. For the most part, however, it is the selfish desire of increasing their own happiness with feelings of goodwill that fuels this desire.
This is obviously a very debatable point, and in fact, I almost regret attempting to insinuate that happiness takes precedence over survival in nature's design. However, regardless of whether or not that particular point/series of points is accurate, I still believe that the best way to use my own existence is to attempt to spread as much happiness as possible. You may say this is a ploy to create a false feeling of self-importance within myself, or simply to appeal to others as a being of benevolence. This is of no interest to me. I realize that this particular strategy (although, admittedly, very difficult so far) is the most suitable way to live my life- as it even allows for my selfish desires to be fulfilled in the form of... well... self-fulfillment, if not self-indulgence.
I can only hope that all others shall be as amazingly pure and selfless as the humble person which I am. Ha.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
School System
I believe we have lost the true definition of grading. Or, more appropriately, the meaning behind grading.
Grades are meant to be a representation, as accurately as possible, describing a child's intellectual grasp of whatever subject the mark is in. However, the institution of homework and extremely strict due dates on projects, as well as the nearly universal grading of "binders", has entirely changed the meaning of the grades. They now reflect- regardless of which subject they are meant to describe- a child's memory, organization, and even healthiness, often more than they do the actual material being taught.
The first thing that should go is binders. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea why teachers include these in the grading curriculum. They measure a student's organization, the amount of dependable friends they have (for assignments they missed), and, perhaps most of all, a student's luck (i.e., a student's binder gets torn apart by their dogs, = screwed). The only reasoning I can possibly find for this is to prevent cheating (in classes where teachers do not collect homework). Beyond that, all the reasons are strictly non-subject oriented.
Homework should change as well. I am not saying it should be gotten rid of- I will not be that unreasonable. My reasoning is not that it's annoying, or even that it causes stress or lack of sleep. If homework is not done, the student should be punished. Their grades, however? Should not suffer. If a student does not do homework, but gets amazing grades elsewhere, on what grounds would a teacher be able to say "This student is average"? Discipline should govern homework (increasing discipline as the missing homework increases each term). But homework should not, as it does in so many classes today, govern grades as greatly as it does.
Finally, the last thing I'll touch upon (although not the last thing wrong with schools...) is deadlines. This, once again, completely reverses the fact that school should be based on intelligence. Projects should, obviously, exist- they are one of the most accurate assessments of a student's intellect- but teachers should be very flexible with the deadlines on them. And arguing with "That puts too much stress on the teachers" does not prove your point- in fact, all it does is move some of the stress off the hormonal teenagers onto the mature (often not) teachers- and it's the teacher's job. Allowing for stretched deadlines creates much, much more accurate grades, which allows students who could otherwise finish the term with a C to actually obtain the grade they deserve...
...and by deserve, I mean based on intelligence and learning capability for that particular subject. Nothing else.
Grades are meant to be a representation, as accurately as possible, describing a child's intellectual grasp of whatever subject the mark is in. However, the institution of homework and extremely strict due dates on projects, as well as the nearly universal grading of "binders", has entirely changed the meaning of the grades. They now reflect- regardless of which subject they are meant to describe- a child's memory, organization, and even healthiness, often more than they do the actual material being taught.
The first thing that should go is binders. Frankly, I have absolutely no idea why teachers include these in the grading curriculum. They measure a student's organization, the amount of dependable friends they have (for assignments they missed), and, perhaps most of all, a student's luck (i.e., a student's binder gets torn apart by their dogs, = screwed). The only reasoning I can possibly find for this is to prevent cheating (in classes where teachers do not collect homework). Beyond that, all the reasons are strictly non-subject oriented.
Homework should change as well. I am not saying it should be gotten rid of- I will not be that unreasonable. My reasoning is not that it's annoying, or even that it causes stress or lack of sleep. If homework is not done, the student should be punished. Their grades, however? Should not suffer. If a student does not do homework, but gets amazing grades elsewhere, on what grounds would a teacher be able to say "This student is average"? Discipline should govern homework (increasing discipline as the missing homework increases each term). But homework should not, as it does in so many classes today, govern grades as greatly as it does.
Finally, the last thing I'll touch upon (although not the last thing wrong with schools...) is deadlines. This, once again, completely reverses the fact that school should be based on intelligence. Projects should, obviously, exist- they are one of the most accurate assessments of a student's intellect- but teachers should be very flexible with the deadlines on them. And arguing with "That puts too much stress on the teachers" does not prove your point- in fact, all it does is move some of the stress off the hormonal teenagers onto the mature (often not) teachers- and it's the teacher's job. Allowing for stretched deadlines creates much, much more accurate grades, which allows students who could otherwise finish the term with a C to actually obtain the grade they deserve...
...and by deserve, I mean based on intelligence and learning capability for that particular subject. Nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)