26th May Home-Learning: Poetry Analysis

We Slept With Our Boots On

They unloaded the dead and maimed right before our eyes
They washed out the blood, we loaded our ruck’s and then took to the skies
Over the mountains, villages, and valleys we flew
Where we would land we had not a clue
Bullets are flying, the LZ is hot
We’re leaving this bird whether we like it or not
30 seconds they yelled, Lock N Load and grab your shit
Get ready to go and make it quick
My heart is pumping adrenalin through all of my veins
I run as fast as I can through the lead rain
The noise is tremendous, terror I can’t define
The only reason I survived that day was divine
I kept pulling the trigger and reloading and pulling some more
You do what you have to do, with that I will say no more
We fought from the valleys to the mountain peaks
From house to cave, to car to creek
Dirty and tired and hungry and scared
We slept with our boots on so we were always prepared
Those majestic mountains so steep, so high they kiss the skies
The Hindu Kush has changed so many lives
Up the mountains with heavy loads we trod
Who knew hell was so close to God
Beauty and terror are a strong mixed drink
So we drank it like drunkards and tried not to think
Good men and bad men, Mothers lost son’s
Everyone loses their innocence when they carry guns
Washed in the blood, and baptized by fire
I will never forget those who were called higher
They say blood is thicker than water, well lead is thicker than blood
Brothers aren’t born they’re earned. In the poppy fields, the tears, and the mud
And when I get to heaven to Saint Peter I will tell
Another Paratrooper reporting for duty sir, I spent my time in hell

Steve Carlsen

(Task 1) Firstly, a bit of background information on Steve Carlsen:

Steve Carlsen was born and lives in Dowagiac Michigan. He joined the United States Army in October 2000 and went to Infantry Basic Training, and Airborne School in Ft. Benning Georgia. He then reported to D Company 1st battalion 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. 82nd Airborne Division in Ft. Bragg North Carolina. He deployed to Kosovo in November 2001 as part of peace keeping operations. He Deployed to Afghanistan in of December 2002 where he participated in combat operations. He was honorably discharged from the Army in 2003. He currently attends Southwestern Michigan College where his professor, Dr Michael Collins challenged him to write about his experiences.

And therefore, Steve Carlsen would be a frontline soldier at Afghanistan - He would have experienced personally the true entirety of war.

(Task 2) Analysis:

POV:

In the poem, the POV is of a frontline soldier, possible Steve Carlsen himself on one of his missions. The first stanza drops the reader straight into the war zone itself. The use of military slang such as 'LZ' and 'Lock N' load' further immerses the reader into the situation. The first stanza also gives an instant ugly depiction of war through the very first few lines "They unloaded the dead and maimed right before our eyes". This instantly shows the ugly reality of war.

The fact that immediately after "They washed out the blood", the persona boarded the same helicopter that was used to transport dead and wounded soldiers towards the war zone, where eventually they themselves will become the same dead and wounded soldiers being transported back and then it will result in a cycle of neverending horrors. However, the fact that in the entire poem, this was the only mention of death amongst fellow soldiers can show that the persona is either willing himself to ignore the atmosphere of death and destruction or that he has just seen to much of it. Either way, the persona seems to possess very assertive control over his emotions (normally what a war veteran would be like) so that he doesn't get affected much by seeing his fellow brothers-in-arms die. But through the rest of the poem, we can see this is not true at all; the persona is constantly fighting a battle inside of him. This is seen through how occasionally he shows signs of fear and resentment, both very human and very strong emotions. Basically, what seems to be a mechanical (robots, beep beep) cycle of life, bang and death is interrupted by human emotions.

Setting:

In the poem, the setting is pretty obvious. Afghanistan in the 21st Century, when America decides to launch an offensive against the Jihadists. America had not seen war for some time after the gulf war, and most of the soldiers sent there were merely rookies, be it sergeants, captains, the lowly private, not many had seen true war. In the poem, the setting is in a middle of a war zone, but the true battle, however, is fought within the persona, a battle against himself, and the conflict, Man VS Mind. The author, in a desolate reenactment of Hell where there is no salvation to be found, must find salvation within himself. The poem constantly shows turmoil and confusion of mind within the husk of a veteran of war.

Language/Diction:

In the poem, there are many instances of the use of army slang. This is used to great effect in the sense that it shows how frantic wartime really is. It also immerses the reader into the poem. However, there were references to religion. The fact that the reader responded to St Peter's in a military-like manner shows the degradation of the human psyche through battle - everything was mechanical, and it's a never-ending cycle. It almost seems as if it is your duty to die, to sacrifice, that it is your mission to fight for your country, and end up in Heaven. The degradation is really the fact that even religion, even God Himself, has issues.

"Hell was so close to God"

Really, who knew?

Personal Response:

This poem really invoked a feeling in me - how messed up the world is. Reading through multiple war poems in a short period of time really showed you how mechanical the world is. Everything is in a cycle, war, peace, life, death, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, everything is ROBOTIC. It's as if the world is just a gigantic machine and we are the gears that move it. In all the chaos, in all the problems of the world, a small crack of human emotion shows through, but even the power of the mind is unable to withstand a five kiloton package of TNT delivered right to your doorstep. The feebleness of the human husk is forever our limit.

"When the rich wage war it's the poor who die" - Hands Held High, Linkin Park

The concept of time is wrong!

The concept of time is wrong. Very wrong. Time is NOT REAL! Time is something that WE invented to EXPLAIN the occurence of changes and is based on re-occurences, in this case the rise of the sun and moon that explains the difference between day and night. People use the terms 'today' and 'now' but this is technically impossible to do due the fact that by the second you say the term 'now' the 'now' had already passed therefore your sentence is termed in logical and makes no bloody sense.

Furthermore, the mere concept of time travel is flawed. If we ever got to travel through time to the future that means our future self would know that we were coming and then every single second in the flawed dimension of time we would be traveling to some other time that would eventually tear apart the space-time continuum that would end the world as we know it.

Physical time-travel to the past is impossible because the physical past does not exist. Physical time travel to the future is a daily occurrence. But note that it is always "today" always "now". As Lewis Carroll said, "Jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today." People really need to get an intuitive understanding of the concept that things change; once they have changed they are not what they were, and whereas they continuously change they are soon to lesser or greater degree not what they were. Even granite erodes away, however slowly. Because objects are unitary and subject to change, it is impossible for an object to exist simultaneously with a past or future manifestation of itself. To do so would violate the principle of the conservation of mass-energy at the least, and logical paradoxes conclusively preclude the possibility. Time travel as depicted in science-fiction is pure fantasy.

Logical Fallacies

This post shall be simple. I once saw a article somewhere about fallacies of logic. Now read and enjoy.

Simple errors arising from ambiguity.

The same word may be used in different senses (called equivocation): “Marriage is a subject of great gravity, so getting married will make us gain weight.” Or a sentence construction may produce a double meaning (amphiboly): “We’re having some friends for dinner.” Or a word may be emphasized inappropriately (accent): Contrast “I just love my dog!” with “I just love my dog!” Or words that are similar in form may not be similar in sense (figure of speech): “Does he have cold feet?” Who asked: Your husband’s mother or his doctor?!

Confusing the parts with the whole.

We may mistakenly assume that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole (composition): “A chimpanzee is an intelligent animal and even grasps certain numerical concepts, such as the difference between one and two. So a dozen chimpanzees probably would be able to divide a dozen bananas among themselves equally.” Not too likely, right?! But what about this? “Every member of a congressional committee is bright and understands fiscal policy. So the committee likely would be able to successfully restructure the country’s fiscal policy.” It’s the same fallacy.

And sometimes we assume that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts (division): “A group of musicians is wildly popular. Therefore, if they break up, each will be wildly popular.” Of course, that’s incorrect. But how about this? “A corporation consisting of several subsidiaries produces goods of high quality and is profitable. Therefore, each subsidiary can be expected to produce goods of high quality and be profitable.” Again, it’s the same fallacy.

Considering the form of an argument.

We’ve all heard of “if-then” arguments: If this is so, then that must be so. One source of error is assuming “this” defines the only way in which “that” can occur (affirming the consequent): “If a person has full-blown AIDS, then his or her T-cell count will be low.” True. But the following is false: “A person has a low T-cell count. Thus, he or she has AIDS.” Other conditions cause low T-cell counts. A twin error occurs in the opposite manner (denying the antecedent): “A person does not have AIDS. Thus, he or she does not have a low T-cell count.” False, and for the same reason: Other conditions cause low T-cell counts.

Learning about deductive reasoning.

Have you ever heard this? “Every man is mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.” It’s a famous “syllogism,” a form of deductive reasoning that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, a “middle,”and a conclusion. (The “middle” appears in both premises, linking them.)

An error occurs when the middle contains a term used in two different senses (four terms): “Wool coats shrink if they get wet. Sheep have wool coats. Thus, sheep get smaller when they stand in the rain.” Obvious, right? But what about this? “Many people pay no taxes. The working class is composed of many people. Thus, the working class pays no taxes.” Obviously wrong!

Or the middle term may be used inappropriately to link the two premises (undistributed middle): “Truffles often are found by dogs trained to locate them by scent. Illegal drugs often are found by dogs trained to locate them by scent. Thus, truffles are often illegal drugs.” Oops! This is wrong, just as wrong as the following. “Executives often are ambitious and want to make a lot of money. Criminals often are ambitious and want to make a lot of money. Thus, successful executives are criminals.”

One error occurs when the conclusion is broader than the major premise allows (illicit major): “Politicians are actually reasonable people and not biased nitwits. All politicians are human beings. Therefore, no human beings are unreasonable or biased nitwits.” Another error occurs when the conclusion is broader than the minor premise allows (illicit minor): “Politicians love power. All politicians are human beings. Therefore, all human beings love power.”

Considering the fabric of an argument.

Capital punishment is the source of many an argument, both good and bad. Following are some bad ones, all containing an irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi). In this one, the opponent is attacked instead of the premise of the debate (argumentum ad hominem): “Capital punishment is wrong because people who favor it tend to be less religious.” And in this one, the opponent is attacked by means of a countercharge (tu quoque): “Capital punishment is right because those who oppose it are more likely to be criminals themselves.”

Abortion is also the source of many bad arguments. The following contain irrelevant conclusions, too. This form uses an appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordium): “Abortion is wrong; what have these innocent babies ever done to deserve such a cruel fate?” And this form uses an appeal to popular passion (argumentum ad populum): “Pro-choice is right; if your daughter became pregnant as the result of a rape, should she be forced to bear the child?” This form relies on an authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): “Abortion is wrong because my religion says so.”

One last form of irrelevant conclusion is used by just about everyone, so let’s look at an example that is hard to criticize. This form maintains that because a premise is not known to be untrue, it may indeed be true (argumentum ad ignorantium): “No one has ever disproved the existence of the Tooth Fairy. Therefore, it won’t hurt to put your grandfather’s previous set of false teeth under your pillow every night. After all, she may be easy to fool.”

Circular Arguments

Scientists and creationists are always at odds, of course. The following fallacy is called “vicious circle.” In it, the conclusion also appears as an assumption (circulus in probando): “The story of divine creation as related in Genesis must be true because God would not deceive us.” Another fallacious argument is called “begging the question.” The conclusion appears as an assumption, but in a different form (petitio principii): “Miracles cannot occur because they would defy the laws of nature.” (All those talk show hosts who say, “And that begs the question...” when they mean, “And that prompts the question...” are simply wrong.)

Errors of Principles

Evolution has long been the target of illogical arguments that use presumption (secundum quid). One is called “direct accident,” in which the truth of an abstract principle is applied to a specific circumstance: “The theory of evolution maintains that man evolved from apes. Thus, the apes in our wildlife preserves will someday be found reading the newspaper.” Wrong, right?! So is the one called “converse accident,” which is the reverse: “Because the apes in our wildlife preserves will never be found reading the newspaper, man did not evolve from apes.”

Contradiction, Diversion, and Superstition

In one fallacy, the argument declares that an assumption is false if a contradiction can be drawn from it (reductio ad absurdum): “Intelligent people have open minds. Politicians are supposed to be intelligent. But anyone who says that recreational drugs should not be legalized has a closed mind. Therefore, politicians are not intelligent people.” In another fallacy, the argument takes the form of a question phrased so that a direct reply (instead of a denial) supports the implications of the question (plurimum interrogationum): “How many family members have you put at risk with the handgun you bought for self-defense?” Yet another fallacy (“after this, therefore because of it”) is the source of much of the world’s superstition, a legacy from early times (post hoc, ergo propter hoc). Can you imagine the audience reaction if a speaker were to be struck by lightning while denouncing creationism from an outdoor podium? It would make news all over the world!

That just doesn’t follow!

And in the notorious fallacy of non sequitur, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the argument, as in this example: “Because fish have gills and birds have wings, because dinosaurs are extinct and snakes are not, because the duckbilled platypus and the spiny anteater have characteristics of both reptiles and mammals, because animals need the waste products of plant respiration to survive and plants need the waste products of animal respiration, because plenty of plants need insects for fertilization but earthworms don’t even need another earthworm, because dolphins are intelligent and whales can sing, because crustaceans look so much like big bugs and primates look so much like humans, and because nearly every meat on the planet doesn’t taste all that much different from chicken, the theory of evolution is correct.” That just doesn't follow!

~ Logical jargon FTW.

Ten Guilty Pleasures

Ten things that I indulge in that I probably shouldn't.

1. Reading the newspapers and finding out that 99.9128397287983616287647268% of all the articles are pro-Singapore.

2. Walking past the Speakers' Corner.

3. Noticing how the path to success is to name your company/product after a fruit.

4. Watching American Idol, and musing upon all the wannabes "desperate for some ardent glory."

5. Laughing as bishops violate the Seven Deadly Sins. Note the irony here.

6. Reading about how Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, Rihanna, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Taylor Swift (WTF?!) and a hundred other singers are occult.

7. Being amused by why the f*ck Kim Yong-il is desperate to live in a life of complete secrecy. And going against the world. He must think he's the angel of some God unbeknownst to us and should probably be burnt at the stake.

8. Musing about the failed structure of the world. Yet I myself am a failure since I am part of the world.

9. OBAMA IS AN AVATAR.

10. Realising how any single anime has all sorts of explicit sexual references. Any single girl would be wearing super-miniskirts revealing everything.

"Every man is mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal."

x = y
a = x
a = y.

Fallacies of the world.

Capitalism.

Now, what is capitalism?

As defined as the most awesome Wikipedia, "Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned; wage labor is predominant over self employment; supply, demand and price are at least predominantly set by markets forces rather than by government regulation; and profit is distributed to owners who invested in the business. Capitalism entails the predominance of business and commercial activity, production for exchange (commodity production) and also refers to the process of capital accumulation."

Basically summing it up, we make our own money. You win, you win. You lose, you lose. It's your problem, not ours.

Nowadays, we constantly ask ourselves on why every one of us will at some point in time harbour a sense of jealousy that will eventually grow into a the fruit of betrayal. It is all due to the Deadly Sin of Greed.

But why is greed evident in our society nowadays? Many factors cause this, and an evident one would be due to the use of capitalism as our market structure.

Fallacies in capitalism are evident. Today, I will talk about five of them.

5) Capitalism is the Reason why the Third World is Starving, and why the Rest of Us are so Rich.

20% of the World's Population Consumes 80% of its Resources.
Two of the three arguments presented here are indeed correct: first, that Capitalism is the reason why the rest of us are so rich; and secondly, that 20% of the world consumes 80% of it's production, But there's a catch-22 here: 20% of the world (the people who have a free-market economy) PRODUCE 80% of its resources. Capitalism has been able to make use of resources-both natural and artifical-better, more efficiently and greater than any other system. The 20% of the world's population who consume 80% of the worlds (useable) resources do so because they have the means to do so, and are doing so more efficiently than at any other time in history.

The reason why the Third World is starving is because they have no freedom-and thus no incentive-to go out and produce for themselves. They have no property rights to protect what's rightfully theirs, and produce. However, it is correct when we say that the First World is a burden on the Third World, we have tarriffs and protection a plenty in the first world, wherever you go. Aid also has a negative effect on the Third World, by simply providing an incentive to rely on the First World. Observe that in the countries that have received the most aid, the economies have been shrinking.

4) Capitalism causes Excesses in Some Places and Depletion in Others.

Capitalism doe not cause excesses and depletion. Instead, there is a simple market mechanism to prevent this: if one man had a whole lot of computers he needed to sell to buy a helicopter he wanted, he would try and sell all his computers to people who want/need them at a low enough price that they'll be bought, but high enough to buy a helicopter (in which case it would be a boon to people who want computers for him to have more, so the market price would go down). If he sold enough computers to buy his helicopter, he would buy what he wanted, all the while diminishing his excess to people who want/need computers. The very fact that having one thing by itself is worth more than having two, three, even ten thousand to any one person is how the market prevents excesses. If our man who wanted a helicopter made neither a profit nor a loss from selling computers and buying a helicopter, he would still have the same net worth after his enterprise, but there would be no more excess.

3) Capitalism is Responsible for Immoral Behaviour.

Capitalism is the system of non coercion, aka voluntary interaction between people. Because of this, Capitalism-in its proper meaning-can NOT be held responsible for people's decisions. Capitalism is an economic system that requires the seperation of economy and state. It does not force morality or a particular lifestyle upon people.

2) Capitalism Leads to the Depletion of sometimes Precious Natural Resources.

Many years ago, the developed nations were very much dependent on coal as their main source of energy. Oil was just some black liquid with no value that came up from the ground from time to time. But as time went on-as more and more coal was used-the devolped nations, and the developing nations also switched to oil, once useless, as their main source of energy. Coal didn't run out, as more and more competition meant that sources were hard to get hold of. Suddenly, uses were invented for oil, and low competition for the resource meant more companies extracting oil.

Nowadays, the same situation has happened for oil. High-tehc companies are developing more and more ways to use "alternative" fuels. Even the oil companies are looking into ways to develop these fuels. As with coal, oil will eventually take a back seat to new fuels and extraction methods.

1) Capitalism = Profits Before People.

There is a simple reason why, under Capitalism, this is a big lie: under Capitalism, all interaction is voluntary. To make a deal with someone else, you first must agree to their terms. Force is illegal, and any force is inherently anti-capitalist. The employee must agree, through a process of discrimination, to work for the employer. The employer must offer reasonable conditions if the employee agrees to work for him/her. Therefore, a business must consider the interests of their employees, as the employees can, as always, choose to leave if they want to.

Because of the fact that forced work-slavery-is inherently anti-capitalist, all work under capitalism is voluntary. Therefore, a company-or any organization-must offer whoever decides to work for them a good deal, or else fail and go under.

That was in ascending order of importance. Now that we all know capitalism is a fallacy and should be abolished immediately and without delay and left in ruination to rot and forgotten and only be remembered by the ex-masters of society (GEORGE BUSH) why aren't we taking any action?

Because of the simple reason that capitalism has already been with us for hundreds of thousands of years, and the rich have gotten so rich and powerful and the poor so poor and weak we can't do nothin'. In the end, we must abide by the system and live by the system and feed by the system. Essentially, our life is the sinister system that is CAPITALISM.

Now, refer to my previous post.

"Where's mah ACE?"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That's all we think of today. Money. What's in it for me? What rewards do I get? Nowadays, we, as human beings, have lost all sense of humanity to become materialistic and unfeeling zombies working for the sole purpose of material gain and set with the goal of material prosperity.

But even before adulthood, before we are able to even earn our keep, this trait is already very evident, in schools with competition, which are the elite schools, and an excellent case study would be US. This is more than obvious from the fact that volunteers in our school are just so little. Any request from teachers, be it to help out, to stay back, must always be followed by the promise of extra CIP hours. Without those, everyone else just scampers off with or without their tails between their paws. It goes against our conscience, it goes against our sense of morality, it goes against everything we know, and we don't mean to say it, but the ultimate question has always been "Is there ACE involved?". Now, this isn't entirely our fault too.

Nowadays, we lead a banausic life governed by rewards and incentives. Every living moment of day, we worry about our results, our ACE, our CIP hours, out OP points. Now, is this such a surprise? We carry the gene of materialism. It's present in our parents, and our grandparents too. Any single request today MUST be accompanied with a reward, be it monetary or another favour owed. Throughout the eons, man had always been so. Man is man. And greed in man always manifests.


"Oh and Mr Siew, if you are ever reading this, you promised me more ACE points for creating the inaugural Mark Day!" <-- THE IRONY.

Nowadays, we can't help but be materialistic b*tches.