44) Friday Night Special

A music hour brought to you by your resident high schooler.

Tracklist:

1) Ke$ha Just Wants to Have Fun (Ke$ha vs. Cyndi Lauper) - c.h.a.o.s. Productions
2) Papa Was a Ghost (Deadmau5 vs. The Temptations) - DJ Tripp
3) Somebody Told Me to Feel Good (Gorillaz vs. The Killers) - Aggro1
4) Virgin O' Riley (Madonna vs. The Who) - Go Home Productions
5) Don't Let it Be in Anger (The Beatles vs. Oasis) - DJ Y Alias JY
6) Just Stop Believin' (Journey vs. Lady GaGa) - DJ Tripp
7) When You Were a Starlight (The Killers vs. Muse) - team9
8) 4 Minutes (Jacques Lu Cont Remix) - Stuart Price
9) Ray Of Electro-Light (Pance Party vs. Madonna) - Ambulance (Jeffrey Tice)
10) Pea Proof (Black Eyed Peas vs. La Roux) - DJ Divide & Kreate
11) Shut Up And Take Me Out (The Ting Tings vs. Franz Ferdinand vs. Aretha Franklin vs. MARRS) - DJ Y Alias JY
12) Mr. Brightside (Jacques Lu Cont Remix) - Stuart Price
13) Human (Jacques Lu Cont Remix) - Stuart Price

43) Marquis de Sade

With every dark time in humanity, there is always a darker person willing to push the limits on societal evil. Whether it is mass murder, the invention of more devious torture devices, or the easier violation of ethics, someone in every century is there to break bounds.

Of course, there are the majority who call these people heretics, while the solemn few are brave enough to call these people heroes, pioneers of their time.

People call the Marquis de Sade a genius, only because he was the most innovative sexual deviant of his time. Unrestrained by religion, law, or morality, his collective thirty-two years in insane asylums can attest to the fact that his 120 Days of Sodom is still widely unparalleled in terms of brutality and violence.

The lasting legacy of the Marquis? We derive the word "sadism" from his name.

But whether you're the biggest pervert of the eighteenth century, or just a small time Issei Sagawa, the barriers of evil continue to be broken.

Just early today before this post, Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad for his crimes on 12:20:25 a.m. MDT. Many believe death by firing squad falls under the cruel and unusual punishments clause in the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution.

The worst part? Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff advertised the death with updates on Twitter, stating when he gave the order to kill and where to watch his live press conference afterward. As Mashable puts it: "A Tweet Too Far?"

But the real focus of this post, the real shocker, lies in a pediatric urologist at Cornell: Dix Poppas. He "specializes" in female genital cutting.

The original post at the bioethics forum starts off by introducing a comparative story: Tuskegee airmen who did not receive medication for their syphilis for four decades. This is to emphasize the dehumanizing, scientized language of modern medicine of what Martha Solomon says: “can obscure and deemphasize any ethical, non-scientific perspective.”

But back to Poppas. What exactly does he do? First of all, he operates on little girls. Girls that are no older than six years old. He cuts their "oversized" clitorises, then stitches up the glans for the purpose of "nerve sparing." It's for sensitivity issues.

Alice Dreger and Ellen K. Feder from the original article elaborates:

Here more specifically is, apparently, what is happening: At annual visits after the surgery, while a parent watches, Poppas touches the daughter’s surgically shortened clitoris with a cotton-tip applicator and/or with a “vibratory device,” and the girl is asked to report to Poppas how strongly she feels him touching her clitoris. Using the vibrator, he also touches her on her inner thigh, her labia minora, and the introitus of her vagina, asking her to report, on a scale of 0 (no sensation) to 5 (maximum), how strongly she feels the touch. Yang, Felsen, and Poppas also report a “capillary perfusion testing,” which means a physician or nurse pushes a finger nail on the girl’s clitoris to see if the blood goes away and comes back, a sign of healthy tissue. Poppas has indicated in this article and elsewhere that ideally he seeks to conduct annual exams with these girls. He intends to chart the development of their sexual sensation over time.

And as if that wasn't enough:

Many have told us that the genital displays involved in the follow-up exams were more traumatic than any other part of the experience. Indeed, when I once asked a group of women with androgen insensitivity syndrome what they wanted me to work on primarily in my advocacy work, they said stopping the exams, particularly those in which med students, residents, and fellows parade through to check out the surgeon's handiwork.

So not only does the dear doctor get away with it, he also lets other people watch. Might as well start cutting off every male penis and stitch up those results.

All in the name of science? Perhaps, but it's clear that Poppas does not understand the damage he's doing to these girls. Is it some sick sexual perversion he possess? I don't know.

Just remember that when you sleep tonight, someone, somewhere, is eager to prove humanity's inner evil.

42) Home of the Brave

Writing your congressman/senator or appearing at town hall meetings is a political exercise many young students go through to understand the American democratic process. It is the point of inspiration for many aspiring students that wish to succeed in government someday.

However, the public and the media often forget that these figureheads of government are still human. We hold these idols to a high expectation of leadership and heroism, destined to make change for the better.

We understand the high profile world that these representatives are embroiled in. We see stories of their sexual escapades, their sudden lapses of intelligence, or their public outbursts of politically incorrect statements.

The media that paints this image always exposes the drama that runs through their lives. Most recently, CBS scored a hit with their series The Good Wife, which explores a lawyer's tumultuous life after her husband's political career goes awry with infidelity.

Everywhere you go, there's always someone who loves to expose the government and its puppets for what they really are: manipulative control freaks who are irreparably corrupted and ethically ignorant in the name of representation and control.

So when some students catch a congressman at a bad time and film him, there are bound to be interesting results:

(Alternate link if the above doesn't work for you)

It's a hot debate as to who's right or wrong here, even though it's obvious that the students can play the harassment card.

I call it a debate for several reasons:

1) The senator will issue a public apology and get away with it. There is a 0.0001% that he will resign as a result of this video.

2) The students will lose a harassment lawsuit against the congressman, should they choose to file one.

3) Public exposure to the video will be minimal at best.

My thoughts?

I've always been a fan of the theory that the American government is always decades behind the societal changes that occur in the United States and in the world. This is why it took so long to elect an African American president, or why the ethnic minorities in Congress are grossly unrepresentative of the public at large.

It allows this hypothesis to be drawn: The ruled and the rulers are separate entities that shall never coexist peacefully.

While Washington D.C. is steeped in centuries old tradition of cutthroat politics, the public is utilizing technology to share ideas on how they want things to be done.

It's the friction between the two halves of this America that make the system a miraculous display of continuous function for fear of anarchy.

As we delve into tougher times, more personal sacrifices are required to keep the American machine running. This requires the superhuman strength that we expect from the politicians that hit students on the streets. It's time for the media myths of leadership to take fruition.

All the while, the public can continue to lose themselves in watching another season of reality shows and Youtube memes, oblivious to the problems that they don't have to deal with. Leave it to the politicians, they say.

Who knows? Maybe America has earned its dishonorable death.

41) Summer of Dance

A summer starting YOMcast about the Gulf of Mexico's hazardous oil spill, with a link for a live video of the leaky pipe, the Obama administration's questionable response, first day of FIFA South Africa, the cliche surge of movies, and a hat tip to Mr. Sutherland and his first podcast.

Semester 2: Final

In analyzing my writing, evidence suggests my composition abilities have improved little over the past semester. While I realize my weaknesses, formulating and enacting solutions to this has been a difficult endeavor.

When using my first post on this blog as a reference point, my syntax and composition have morphed into marginal gains when it comes to expressing meaning in my posts. Although I have developed and changed my style in different ways, there are several reasons as to why I believe there has been little improvement.

To start, the only major change that has occurred on this blog is the podcasts (which I've named YOMcasts) that I've started doing. Although they don't include actual writing, I feel that they illustrate my point better. This is because you're hearing my style and tone through sound rather than actually reading words. I've been debating whether these podcasts help my writing abilities by allowing me to think more about how I express myself.

With podcasts, I often rehearse my speeches to prevent fractured expression. This is because I'm self-conscious enough to care a lot about what others might think of me over the internet. This is why I go to great pains to take certain positions on issues.

With the first YOMcast, I was not rehearsing, which explains a lot of my stuttering. Later prevention of this has helped me try and improve my public speaking skills, along with composition improvisation. Most importantly, it has shown me that how you say things are more important than what you actually say.

Many parallels with this can be drawn to my writing. While it's not the actual composition of words, it is the actual style with which I convey ideas. There is a difference between saying "That was a horrible movie," and saying "That movie made me want to vomit and gouge out my eyes."

I have seen this in my own writing. Take this in context:

Perhaps where I'm going with this is that school seems utterly pointless at an early age.

Compared to this:

...especially in high school, when students are forced to do assignments they do not see the reward in. Day after day, the modern student must struggle against a cause they have no standing reason to believe in.

The major difference between the two is that the second one develops the same point with detail. Podcasting had taught me to be more clear and precise because the audience might not understand your point if you are being too vague. I make the second sentence convey more meaning not only with more words, but with more emotion.

This is the style I've learned to develop. I bring all of this up to understand whether I've actually improved my writing skills. What I've come to question is whether these podcasts are just a subconscious laziness factor that I've developed in trying to avoid improving my writing.

So the question stands: Have I been improving or stalling?

One thing is clear: I have changed the way in which people can understand me on this blog. Trying to analyze whether I've improved, is a inner philosophical semantics question I've yet to fully work out. I can't concretely say I've "improved", but I'm siding with evidence to the contrary. If anything, I realize the dilemma present.

With all of this in mind, I can say without a doubt there have been posts in which I have surprised myself in terms of subject matter. In keeping with my volatile attitude, there are many subjects I never imagined I would be writing about. Looking back at these posts drudges up feelings of shame, guilt, or happiness.

As evident by post labeling and tagging, I've covered a wide variety of subjects ranging from personal stories to politics. This all depends on the mood I'm in according to the day on which I write the post. Like many other blogs, sometimes it is easy to tell whether the author has had a good or bad day.

YOM is no exception. I'm not afraid to admit that I sometimes regret the subject matter I chose to write about given the free write option. My bad days of depression and teen angst bleed through in posts about myself and my struggles.

I rarely talk about my brother, mostly because of the pain it brings up. But this post that appeared gives a rather impersonal and uncomfortable exploration behind my seventeenth birthday. You can't get more in-depth than this.

I'm rather surprised that I would mention a dead sibling at all, but I speak of it freely and openly. Although I regret the subject matter involving my brother, I don't regret writing that post. I have surprised myself in posting it, but I'm even more surprised at the feelings of closure it has given me on the matter.

Maybe that's why I can talk about it so freely. Or perhaps it's because of the eye-opening statistics on Google Analytics. If the numbers are right, I get very little visitors, and most of them are just not willing to leave a comment. This I can understand, for I hesitate to leave comments on the blogs I read. I only leave words if I know the author in person.

It's the prospect of not standing in the spotlight that's given me the freedom to try these varied and surprising topics. Knowing that nobody's paying attention makes it easier to write things you wouldn't otherwise share.

I've tried topics I never imagined I'd touch. My original guideline of writing about games, education, and society has expanded to include fictional stories, religion, and government. I can only hope to become even more varied in my topic choices. Most importantly, I hope I can continue to surprise myself and learn more.

It's been a long road since my first semester final, and in that time, I've tackled alot of life's problems using this this blog. I can only continue to do so with more writing. Writer's block might be a problem, but I think I'm going to keep trudging on, even after the school year ends. I can only hope others do the same.

Finally, if there's anything I've learned from this past year of posts, it's that I finally and truly understand what YOM means to me.

40) Politcal Clustersuck

I guess it comes as no surprise that most of the high level government positions in the United States are held by the rich, white, and old. This contrasts against the increasingly diverse America, proven by the current illegal immigration debate, and the unprecedented African American president.

Seeing that America is starting to come to terms with its own unique diversity, it's become more and more clear that an identity crisis has taken hold over the nation. An American societal reformation, so to speak. This manifests in different ways, from the race clashes in local city governments, to the bipartisan bickering of the Senate.

So every year, when elections roll around, I don't find it surprising that my own immigrant parents hate to look at the ballots.

Perhaps they've never been the political kind, or that they just don't care to read through the thick wad of papers explaining all the propositions and candidates' positions. And yet, I hear them complain daily at the dinner table about how the American government is ineffective, filled with liars and hypocrites.

So when I think about their contradictions, it's not just another case of where your parents go against their word. I can't quite pinpoint it.

Maybe they just don't want to vote because none of the candidates represent their ethnicity. Maybe their origin country has instilled a subconscious die hard hate of American democracy. It's probably a reason I'll never understand in my lifetime.

So when the annoying white ballots arrive in the mail, it's just another reminder of much my parents are passive about American politics. They heap it on their desk, letting it waste away in time. Of course, it soon becomes a chore of marking the lines, voting for some random candidate that's vaguely familiar due to them being the current incumbents, or because their names have popped up in some sponsored commercial that comes on during primetime.

I've seen them too, having an inkling of what these candidates represent, what political party they are a part off, and what they plan to do in office. No matter who or how someone gets elected, I try not to leap at a sense of false hope. I've become used to being disappointed by big shot political types that rarely gets anything lasting done. I follow politics pretty closely, and if I haven't heard of their achievements, they don't exist.

And maybe that's the reason my parents have so little faith in themselves and in the democratic system when they stare at the ballots on their desk, black pen in hand. They do it because they know they'll be disappointed by whoever comes on. They know nothing will change, and that their vote matters little.

And when I try to get them intrested in the issues, I can see the weariness in their eyes. I see the same old look that appears on the face of the booth people who sell tickets at a theater. I even feel a bit of pity for them.

Have I overemphasized how much my parents don't want to fill in ballots? Want to guess how these ballots are magically filled?

It comes as an unbelievable statement to people when I tell them that I vote in the elections. I'm obviously underage, making it an illegal and laughable endeavor. Then again, I'm not talking about high school elections. I'm taking about the real deal federal ones, the things your parents get in the mail.

So if somebody should ever ask whether I do the voting for my parents, I'll never tell.

Because I find that prospect laughable.

Book Review: World War Z

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War is a fictional book by Max Brooks that recounts a fictional zombie world war. The book mimics Studs Terkel's The Good War, which retells the tale of a world conflict using interviews gathered from the people who were there. The book is a simple collection of interviews as they recount their stories of survival.

Because of an unknown outbreak of rising dead that consume the major population centers of the world, a huge battle for humanity's survival begins. We hear stories from all kinds of people facing this global threat, ranging from a recluse Japanese otaku to the director of the American Central Intelligence Agency.

At first glance, World War Z is nothing more than a fictional book that attempts to pull your imagination into an apocalyptic hypothetical. However, as you read on, it becomes obvious that the interviews are disguised political, social, and economic commentaries. The varied settings of the book between survivors go in depth about how their situations are directly related to the workings of the world at large.

For example, the interview with the fictional former White House chief of staff explores the American government's treatment of the zombie threat:

We got dozens of these reports a week, every administration did, claiming that their particular bogeyman was "the greatest threat to human existence." C'mon! Can you imagine what America would have been like if the federal government slammed on the brakes every time some paranoid crackpot cried "wolf" or "global warming" or "living dead"? Please. What we did, what every president since Washington has done, was provide a measured, appropriate response, in direct relation to a realistic threat assessment. (59)

It is a simple truth behind any dangerous situation: formulate a response according to the threat level. However, this leaves a lot of open doors as to what an actual threat response constitutes. It is clear that the government cannot respond to a threat unless it is extremely pressing and widespread. It is impossible for a government to explore and handle every possible threat. This usually results in a explosive situation in which people are blamed for not taking the appropriate precautionary responses when the threat turns public.

It is with quotes like these scattered throughout the book that we realize what Max Brooks is trying to say to us. Although it may be unintentional, it is a screen of truth against the preconceived notions of what a country's government is supposed to do in times of duress. It is a hypothetical test on if a government is prepared to respond to a threat. It is a scenario that asks what a country can do about their society, economy, and government in a world wide crisis.

Another reoccurring theme of World War Z is the lack of morality and ethics when survival is the only objective. Practicality and logic is needed at the expense of basic rights and ethics. Even the fictional vice president of the United States admits it:

So many of his proposals looked crazy at first glance, but once you peeled back the first layer, you realized that underneath there existed a core of irrefutable logic. Take the new punishment laws, those really set me off. Putting people in stocks? Whipping them in town squares!?! What was this, Old Salem, the Taliban's Afghanistan? It sounded barbaric, un-American, until you thought about the options. What were you going to do with the thieves and looters, put them in prison? Who would that help? Who could afford to divert able-bodied citizens to feed other able-bodied citizens? More importantly, why remove the punished from society when they could serve as a such a valuable deterrent? (149)

It is the collective threat of death incarnate that forces people to throw the rule book out of the window. There is deep insight into humanity's depths of darkness when their collective security is threatened. Martial law and discipline is needed inside city walls when there are millions of enemies banging on your door. These situations cause people to alienate basic rights that most Americans take for granted.

Beside all the political commentary, there seems to be a unifying goal World War Z has in trying to teach people that we must stop fighting each other in order to save each other. The United Nations today is a mere symbol of world peace that may never be achieved. It is the ultimate rule of alliances that is explained: people only unite to fight a larger threat to both of them. Quite literally, the enemy of your is enemy is your friend. The only message that can be understood is that we must stop fighting petty wars against each other. What do we do when a matter of global cooperation is required?

This book is meant for almost anyone who has a passing interest in the American government's hypothetical workings, the futility of elitism during Armageddon, or the struggles of the average person in a zombie apocalypse. There is something in World War Z for most people, and it's interesting to explore one subject while it is being infused with another.

If I were a government/economics teacher, I would force my students to read certain parts of this book. While the accounts are fictional, it is clear that the situations would actually occur in real life if a zombie apocalypse happened. It is a good way to learn about how government reorganization works based on the situation. On the plus side, you get to learn about it in a zombie backdrop.

There is a section in the book that includes an interview with a person who sold a fake drug called Phalanx to people to "combat" the zombie outbreak. This is an interesting exploration into the capitalist society of the United States and how its consumers are driven by fear, with help from government institutions that want order. The interview with the former Chief of Staff confirms that the drugs were needed, even if they didn't work:

Look how much time and money had been put into cancer research, or AIDS. Do you want to be the man that tells the American people that he's diverting funds from either one of those for some disease that most people haven't even heard of? Look at what we've put into research during and after the war, and we still don't have a cure or a vaccine. We knew Phalanx was a placebo, and we were grateful for it. It calmed people down and let us do our job.

What, you would rather we told people the truth? That it wasn't a new strain of rabies but a mysterious uber-plague that reanimated the dead? Can you imagine that panic that would have happened: the protest, the riots, the billions in damage to private property? Can you imagine all those wet-pants senators who would have brought the government to a standstill so they could railroad some high-profile and ultimately useless "Zombie Protection Act" through Congress? Can you imagine the damage it would have done to that administration's political capital?

We're talking about election year, and a hard damn, uphill fight. We were the "cleanup crew," the unlucky bastards who had to mop up all the shit left by the last administration, and believe me, the previous eight years had piled up one tall mountain of shit! The only reason we squeaked back into power was because our new propped-up patsy kept promising a "return to peace and prosperity." The American people wouldn't have settled for anything less. They thought they'd been through some pretty tough times already, and it would have been political suicide to tell them that the toughest ones were actually up ahead. (60)

This is the kind of political exploration that World War Z depicts. A good way to learn about how a government works is to examine its response to crisis. What better way to learn than to actually hear what the administration officials think? You'll probably never get a chance to talk to them in real life, so it's not too much of a handicap for an aspiring political leader to start examining World War Z.

Or perhaps this is a book for the psychologist? There are multiple interviews with people who change drastically due to the zombie apocalypse. It is interesting to see how people respond to their dilemmas, infused with a backdrop of desperation and disbelief. The head of the American Department of Strategic Resources recounts a story:

One woman, a casting director, exploded. How dare they degrade her like this! She had an MFA in Conceptual Theater, she had cast the top three grossing sitcoms in the last five seasons and she had made more in a week than her instructor could dream of in several lifetimes! She kept addressing that instructor by her first name. "Magda," she kept saying, "Magda, enough already. Magda, please." At first I thought this woman was just being rude, degrading the instructor by refusing to use her title. I found out later that Mrs. Magda Antonova used to be this woman's cleaning lady. (140)

It is this kind of storytelling that makes World War Z appealing to so many people. Not only is it a gut wrenching story about zombies, but it is also a learning guide to certain aspects of politics and human behavior.

There's something for everyone in World War Z, which is why its no surprise that it's a New York Times bestseller, or that the book is being made into a movie. If you haven't read this book, you need to. You have no idea what you're missing out on.

Interlude: Invincible

"You believe in god?"
"Goddamnit, not this again. You know how I hate this religious bullshit you just LOVE to bring up."
"Sorry to try and find meaning in everything."
"Not our jobs."

The two continued to bicker on, not knowing or caring whether they could find an answer to their troubles. It didn't matter whether they did or not. It was the act of questioning that they loved.

"You think society will ever accept us?"
"I don't care if they ever do. Doesn't change a goddamn thing."
"I'll still love you either way."
"Let them hate what they fear."
"Let them fear what they will never know. Happiness in the purest form."
"Don't you go soft on me now."

They needed each other to confirm their lives of unbelievable courage and faith. Everybody hated that they were together, hated everything they represented and all the stereotypes they carried.

"We both know religion screwed it up for you and me. Never stood a chance in the face of the world."
"Never expected anything else. We don't control who we love."
"Love is blind, mate. Love is blind."

Their relationship had developed to the point where either of them would die for the other. This was because they would both perish if anybody found out.

"I just wish for one second I could say anything about this without fear. Fear of reprisal, fear of death."
"You and I never feared death if we were willing to love each other. We fear it because we both don't want to lose each other."
"Love or courage?"
"It takes both to be human."
"Is that why they're blind to tolerance?"
"It's just human nature."

They couldn't fight back, and they knew there was no chance. Somebody would find out sooner or later, and they would both burn at the stake. It was just a matter of when.

"I'm not scared anymore. This is worth it all. All the tears, all the rain."
"Then show them nothing else. Give them no respect."
"I'm ready for our funerals."
"Just like soldiers?"
"You'd be crazy not to fight for your life. For everything we stand for."

The two kissed. Alone in the world that would be so cruel to them, they walked into the falling rain. Thunder clasped to applaud their courage. They knew that somehow, somewhere, their love meant everything. They knew that one day, people would not frown on those who chose their path. They would be accepted.

And that was what kept them going.

Quickwrite: Rules Of Love

The rules for relationships in American society are diverse and varied. Because of the many cultures and ethnicities in the United States, there is a good mixture of what is to be accepted as relationship rules. There is a generally accepted doctrine for what to do, but this varies widely depending on where you are in the world.

This all makes describing "American" rules of love exceedingly difficult. However, the most common guideline/stigma to relationships is the prohibition of infidelity. No matter the religion or culture, this is the common taboo due to its negative image to devotion.

The most common situation of rule violation is cheating on your mate, or having more than one girlfriend/boyfriend. This is most usually criticized because it is not a true representation of love. Having betrayed a partner automatically earns you the label of a degenerate.

However, depending on the situation, it might be okay to have more than one partner. Usually, it is non-consenting, but occurs in the interest of sexual or emotional gratification. It all depends on the person in a certain place and time.

While there are no serious consequences to this kind of behavior, there might be feelings of guilt or shame for the person who commits the act. People end up having their feelings hurt, and relationships may get broken. Trust is destroyed between people and there is shunning by friends and family who find out.

Society as a whole does not punish this kind of behavior because it realizes that infidelity happens far too often. It is driven by humanity's more basic instincts for self gratification. In some cultures, infidelity is not seen as a taboo at all, even though the act carries a bad connotation.

It is unclear where these relationship rules come from, but it is obvious that they are heavily influenced by religion and the general media. Often, religions condone or encourage only certain types of behavior when it comes to relationships. That's why traditional American marriage occurs inside a church.

As for the media, certain stereotypes describing relationships are almost always obvious, and the majority who watch mimic the behavior.

As a whole, the rules of love are strictly dependent on society and the people inside them.

39) Naturalistic Fallacies

As the year draws out to a close, I'd like to think this blog was worth something to me and to others. That would make me happy.

For a high school student, and most people in general, happiness is a very important aspect of their lives. We love happiness because it is a pleasant feeling; everybody knows what it is and wants more of it.

After reading The Happiness Myth by Jennifer Michael Hecht, It's become quite clear that modern research has isolated why we feel happy when we do certain things. This is blatantly obvious to most, only because the reasonable explanation is "it just does." I'm trying to find out WHY it makes you feel all nice on the inside.

According to the book, the origin of human happiness is divided into a few categories: Wisdom, Drugs, Money, Bodies, and Celebration. Some include aspects of of the others, and can be experienced by all. Everyone feels happiness in their lives. Might as well go looking for more.

I don't claim to be a neuroscientist or anything, but it seems that happiness triggers a chemical response that makes you "feel" good. So if all happiness is derived from these chemicals, are we not in fact drugging ourselves? Can we become addicted?

Of course of we can. Some people stick to hedonism as a guideline for living because it's human instinct to become happy. It was invented along with the first humans.

The real problem is obtaining happiness. There are many actions that can be taken to induce the chemical heaven in your brain, but it all depends on what you like and how far you're willing to go. We know of the obvious methods with questionable legality.

It ranges from roller coaster adrenaline rushes, hundred people orgies, and the killing of others. To each their own. Besides, don't forget about the sadist who refuses to hurt the masochist.

The truth is, when you become older, the opportunities to obtain happiness widen exponentially. You get to drive, drink, smoke, live on your own, etc. It's the transition to this stage that you can either embrace or ignore. It's this transition that makes things complicated.

It's the drugs you take with your friends at lunch, the short-lived relationships with that one person, or the combined glee of that last bell on the last day of school. This kind of happiness is liberating, addicting, and revered above all else.

And then there's the downside. There are laws, regulations, and rules that prevent you from trying to have fun. So you break them and you keep going.

Or you turn violent and angry, letting your frustrations turn you into a person with desperate needs and desires, a person that society fears and shuns.

I've come to believe that this whole transition phase is vital in shaping the rest of your life. Knowing whether or not you can achieve happiness in your adolescence allows you to make decisions on what kind of person you want to be, what kind of life you want to live. It's what defines your goals, aspirations, and endeavors. It's what drives you to live and succeed.

So perhaps you can imagine the frustration that occurs when a person in this transition phase is feeling unhappy. When they refuse to see the life ahead of them. When they don't see the point in finding future happiness because they can't find any now.

So they say happiness isn't everything. Maybe not, but it sure means alot.

What is the unhappy high school student to do?