Types of Government

(This is a short informative article.)

DEMOCRACY

In a democratic government, the people rule. They make the decisions, laws, etc by voting.

Unfortunately, that’s not exactly true. Because every democracy is really a…

REPUBLIC

In which the people govern… technically. Everyone votes to elect officials who then make the decisions, laws, etc.

ARISTOCRACY

Obviously, ruled by aristocrats.

MONARCHY

Ruled by one leader, typically a king, queen, or emperor. Of course, nowadays ‘monarchies’ can also be republics in disguise. They may have a king or queen, but this ‘ruler’ is really just a figurehead while politicians are the real ones in control.

DICTATORSHIP

In literature, (and sometimes in real life) this may also be known as the ‘eeeeevil’ form of government. This may be justified, since the best-known dictatorships ended (and began) in death and destruction. However, most dictators claim to be leading democracies or republics.

ANARCHY

This means there’s no government! What fun! (No, actually this is a very bad idea. Don’t do anarchy, kids.)

In summary, most governments are either republics, or they want to be republics.

Fictional Government: Children’s Lesson

WARNING: The paragraphs and points ahead are purely comical, but they’ll still give examples of the ‘five points’ I described earlier. I’m going to do my best to make this like a lesson for younger children: understandable, and hopefully fun.

‘Seboolah’ is an underwater kingdom of fish.

  1. Who’s in charge? (sovereignty): The ruler of the fishy kingdom of Seboolah is a king, making the government of Seboolah a monarchy.
  2. Who do I report to? (authority): The kingdom of Seboolah relies on a feudal system, much like Medieval England. That means the king of Seboolah is first in command, with aquatic nobles and officials directly under him, knights under the nobles, and peasants and commonfolk under the knights. One king is in charge of many nobles, one noble is in charge of many knights, and so on.
  3. What are the rules? (law): In the watery kingdom of Seboolah, every citizen must be respectful to those above them. Another law is that they can’t disrupt the peace without good cause. (A common law, no matter where you look.)
  4. What happens if I obey? (sanctions): Citizens who obey the law are guaranteed protection from invaders, and are allowed to shop and play around the neighborhood.
  5. Is there a future here? (succession): Since Seboolah’s government is a monarchy, the king’s son or daughter will take the throne after he dies.

The Five Points of Every Government

Honestly, this is probably one of the most important things I’ve learned from taking a government class: The five things that make a government work. Not only does it help me better understand society and politics, but it also comes in handy to know these five points when creating a fictional government for a book.

The five points are,

  1. Sovereignty, or ‘who’s in charge?’
  2. Authority, or ‘who do I report to?’
  3. Law, or ‘what are the rules?’
  4. Sanctions, or ‘what do I get if I obey? What happens if I disobey?’
  5. Succession, or ‘is there a future for this’?

Since this post is basically me recounting information in my own words, the next will be a little more creative. For a fun project, I’ll create a fictional government or three, and explain how these five points affect them.

The Unseen.

“Online education is bad for society because it puts classroom teachers out of work.”

Let’s take a look at this statement and find out whether or not it’s true. In order to do that, I will look at things that are in favor of the statement, as well as things that are against it, and compare.

IN FAVOR:

-Online education is in some ways better, in that you can re-watch lessons to solidify what you’ve learned, which may lead to more students choosing it over classroom education.

-Teachers can’t all switch to teaching online; there aren’t enough positions. You only need about ten online teachers for every hundred classroom teachers, because online students can come from everywhere and number somewhere in the thousands if it’s a popular class.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

-If, hypothetically, all classes were taught online, by teachers who provide their own material and are paid by the studnets’ families instead of the government, won’t the government have money to put towards other things? For example, unemployed classroom teachers could get paid for working on a government-funded project.

THEN AGAIN:

-But then the parents are the ones spending more money. Which means they’re putting money towards education instead of other things, like entertainment or vacations.

SO IN CONCLUSION:

There will always be a ‘however’, no matter how you look at it. I’d say it’s up to interpretation.

Optimism in Wes. Literature since 1500’s

OPTIMISM

hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.

Optimism has always been important in this world, in all kinds of media. As humans, we like to be hopeful about life. We hope for things like good jobs, or good days, or small things like good weather. When what we hope for happens, we’re happy. Some call it luck, some call it Blessings, but whatever you call it, you’ll be happy to hope again next time.

Based on this, you could easily guess that most literature is optimistic, and has been optimistic for quite some time. It doesn’t really matter when or where you are. You could be living on another planet ten billion miles away. But chances are, if you have emotion, you’ll be able to hope.

And since most writers have emotion, (yeah, yeah, most. Still not over a few certain character deaths.) this hopefulness usually transfers over to stories.

Optimism helps people think of things in a positive light, and can possibly help them find a way to get through things they’re dealing with. People usually read for three purposes: To learn something new, to be entertained, or to escape from the world for a time. (Some books are brilliant enough to offer a reader all three, but not all books are created equally.)

So here’s a question: What was happening that made people want to escape into a book?

There are a lot of years to cover there, so I’ll try to be brief.

In the 16th century, as in all centuries, there was a lot going on. Invasions, explorations, discoveries, wars over religion and power… If it were today, there would be a lot of people who would want to get a break by reading. But in the 16th century, there weren’t as many books as there are now. Why would there be, anyway? Not everyone could read, and not everyone who could had the time to. Some of the most famous works published in the 1500’s were plays by William Shakespeare.

Now, plays are a different story. (Pun intended. [wait, was that even a pun? {never mind}]) Nowadays, plays are thought of as either a sophisticated form of entertainment, or as incredibly low-budget movies. (Depends on who you ask.) But during the Renaissance period, plays were more like books for those who couldn’t read. They were stories you could see, hear, and experience. And while not all 16th century plays can be described as optimistic, most of them can be described as entertaining. In short, the plays made people happy.

Now, in the 17th and 18th centuries there were even more interesting things. More invasions and wars, of course, but also treaties, abandoned colonies, conquests, and witch trials. But along with these events came more books, like Don Quixote, Pilgrim’s Progress, Candide. and Ivanhoe.

The 19th century was just as interesting. (As well as one of my favorite centuries, to be honest.) You have the American Civil war, the Spanish Revolution, the Boer war, Presidential assassination, and the first Kentucky Derby among other things. As for books, some of the century’s most famous are Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, Jane Eyre, Frankenstein, Emma, Dracula, Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, and a Christmas Carol. All of these books are still regarded as classics today. Why? Because they’re entertaining, and can make a point. I’ve read some of these fictional works, and even though some of them had a less-than-happy-ending, (Frankenstein, Great Expectations.) that doesn’t necessarily make them unoptimistic. Frankenstein DID in fact have bits and pieces of hope throughout, but as it’s a horror novel, they were frequently ended. That doesn’t mean the reader can’t be optimistic. (They can always be hopeful/confident that no monster will be created again.)

In the 1900’s, literature changed, most likely due to the film industry. Popular literature went from books like Anne of Green Gables and The Wizard of Oz (both published in the early 1900’s), to books such as The Hobbit, and Animal Farm (Published 1937 and 1945, respectively), to books like Holes, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones (all published in the late 90’s).

The 20th century seems to be the century that changed the fastest, but that may be because we’re living in the century directly after it. There weren’t just big changes in science or social behaviors either, but in literature as well. The Horror, Fantasy, and Science-Fiction genres may have existed before the 1900’s, but many of the tropes (story elements, character types, and plot devices) in these genes were codified in this century.

And where does optimism fit in here? Well, the horror genre pretty much depends on optimism for most of the story. Horror novelists want their readers to hope for characters’ safety, or hope that the archaeologist won’t open the cursed vault, or that the monster will really be dead. Of course, being a horror novel, it will take advantage  of that optimism to make you dread what comes next.

Readers of Fantasy literature will likely be optimistic about the story’s outcome right along with the story’s protagonist. (Of course, this depends how idealistic the story is. Think The Hobbit vs Game of Thrones.)

 

Optimism is still important today, but most modern literature tries for realism. A trend I have noticed in a lot of Young Adult literature is the tendency to make things realistic. Less clean-cut, idealistic heroes, and more protagonists with problems and issues that occur in real life. And it’s not just the characters getting ‘grittier and more realistic’, it’s the scenarios too. If someone gets thrown through a wall, they don’t come out unscathed, they come out looking like roadkill. If someone gets hit in the head with a baseball bat, they don’t pass out neatly for the next few hours, they get a concussion, and don’t stay unconscious for more than ten minutes (unless they’re dead).

This doesn’t necessarily end all optimism though, it just serves to make the story more ‘believable’. Because, despite all the blood, grit, and grey morals, the stories usually end on a more-or-less happy note. And no doubt the reader will be hoping for a positive outcome throughout the story, whether or not the book’s heroes are quite so idealistic.

But has optimism been completely replaced by realism, pessimism, and other isms in literature?

Well it certainly seems like it. Optimistic books are usually for children, or aren’t happy until the end. Though even pessimistic books usually serve to remind us just how fortunate we are, therefore becoming optimistic by technicalities/chain of events. But then again, just because a book makes you feel happy and hopeful about life, doesn’t necessarily make it an ‘optimistic story’. And what makes a book qualify as an optimistic piece of literature anyway? Is it the idealism and hope of the lead characters? Is it the lightheartedness of the plot? It could even be that the author is allowing for a ton of hope spots.

In my opinion, an optimistic story is something that allows you to hope, either for the characters, or for the future of the world you live in. A book that makes you think, a book that changes the way you look at things for the better, or  book that makes you appreciate life… That’s an optimistic book. At least from where I’m standing.

Too Salty!

Think of marine mammals, which breathe air like we do but drink only salt water; and think of fish such as salmon which live part of their life in saltwater and part in freshwater. How do aquatic organisms deal with the different concentrations of salt in the water?”

Well, everyone knows that attempting to quench your thirst with seawater will never get positive results. That is, if you’re like most land mammals and birds. However, sea-faring organisms were created with the fact that seawater could be the only accessible type of liquid for them in mind. So let’s take a look at how some of these creatures resist getting their throats and bodies dried out by all that salt.

ALBATROSS

These birds have salt glands behind their eyes that drain excess salt out the tip of the beak.

FISH

Most fish constantly gulp down water to keep from drying out, but saltwater fish also pump out salt through their kidneys and specialized gills.

SHARKS

Sharks absorb water, getting rid of the excess salt through a glandin in their digestive system.

Source: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/water-h2o-life/life-in-water/surviving-in-salt-water

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmoregulation

Intelligence, Intelligence.

Today’s question is…

“What does it mean to say a creature is “intelligent?” Describe some of the intelligent behavior of various animals, and compare it to human intelligence.

First, let’s take a look at what are believed to be some of the earth’s most intelligent creatures. (Besides humans, of course.)

Elephants, dolphins, crows, dogs, and primates are some of the many intelligent animals.

What qualifies them as ‘intelligent’? Well, 3/5 of these are wild animals who prefer to live together in social, family groups. Social behaviour isn’t everything, though. All of the above creatures are also creative, and good at communicating with one another.

So how does this compare with human intelligence? Humans are social, as well as creative and good at communicating. But humans are also inventive. Tools and technology (and opposable thumbs) trump teeth, strength, and prehensile tails.

Arthropoda

Arthropoda is the largest phylum in the world. Should all of these creatures really be classified together under one group? Why or why not? What do they all have in common? Cite some facts or examples to support your point of view.

I believe that all of the creatures currently classified as arthropods should continue to be under one phylum. As long as it makes sense to do so, it makes sense to do so, right? The five things that make an arthropod an arthropod are:

-An Exoskeleton

Meaning they’re invertabrae. Their skeleton is on the outside.

-Segmented Bodies

Segmented both inside and out.

-Jointed Appendages

As in limbs.

-Bilateral Symmetry

Divided vertically in two mirror images.

-Open Circulatory System

Blood is pumped through spaces called sinuses to reach tissue.

Sources: http://animals.pawnation.com/5-characteristics-arthropod-5177.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/arthropoda.html

Uses of Soil

“Someone says, ‘Soil is just dirt to hold the plant up.’ Would you agree or disagree with this statement?”

I would disagree with this statement. Sure, soil provides anchorage to the plant, but it does much more than just that. Soil also provides the plant with some of the water and oxygen that it needs. It also provides habitat for fungi, burrowing animals, and insects.

One could argue that even with those extra qualities, soil is still essentially just for supporting plant and animal life. BUT, soil is also good for breaking down and recycling raw materials, as well as foundation for engineering projects.

Source: http://umaine.edu/gardening/master-gardeners/manual/soils/soil-and-plant-nutrition/

Plants are Cool! (But You Knew That.)

Today we’ll be looking at a few of the many uses of plants, and how they could be used in the future. Some of the most common uses for plants are cloth, rope, wood, dye, and of course, food.

While that list just about covered the basics, there are other potential jobs for plants. For one, algae and sugar-cane are known to be very efficient in the conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen. In areas with polluted air, oxygen farms could be set up using these plants. (No, I’m not talking about parks. I mean actual farms that consist of major oxygen-makers. Be nice, huh?)

Not to mention using plants for natural remedies. (Come on, everyone knows how great aloe is when you have a burn.)

Source: http://www.pfaf.org/user/otheruses.aspx (For more plant-use info, click the link!)