Angry Letter

Recently, at my traditional school, they've been trying to make us Early College kids go inside the cafeteria. Of course, I argued back, got myself into some trouble, and wrote this angry letter to tell them off. Also, the man that I was arguing with was was a hat that rests upon the behinds of smelly beasts.

To whom it may concern,

This letter is about the recent, unjustified treatment of the Robeson Early College High School students at Fairmont High School. It is being written because of recent events involving the hostility of a faculty member and for the privilege of standing where we always have.

As stated, the prime complaint is the treatment I received from a faculty member - a man whose name I never learned - the morning of September 24th while standing outside of the cafeteria and waiting for my bus. The man came up to us (I was with other students) and told us that Early College students had to go in the cafeteria. When I asked him why, he just said "Because the assistant principal said so." I told him that that reason didn't make sense, and after some back-and-forth, he accused me of "giving him lip." In my opinion, he was the one growing angry, while I was being as respectful as the situation permitted. After accusing me, he took me to find the assistant principal even though I told him that I had to get on the bus and go to school.

Talking to the assistant principal - who was more respectful and calm - he explained his reason for why Early college students couldn't   stand where we have been for several years: because other, Fairmont, students would think they could also stand outside. While this is a better reason, it is still not a satisfactory one.

For one thing, we had always stood in that spot. Never once, to my knowledge, has an Early College student caused trouble at Fairmont High, yet we are the ones getting punished. Why is that? When one student misbehaves, the whole class shouldn't be punished. That is not only an unjustified action, but an unethical one as well. If we can be told to go outside, why can't other students; those of Fairmont High? And how would sending Early College students inside keep other students from sitting outside?

Another, glaring reason why Early College students shouldn't be forced to go inside of the cafeteria is the fact that we have to wait and watch for out bus that brings us to RCC (which we were late for because of this incident). As is a consequence of being human, the bus drivers can't be ready at the same time every morning of every day. With time being largely important (since we may have college classes that morning) we can't afford to loose precious minutes not knowing if the bus is waiting or not. A minor side effect of this is inconveniencing the bus driver, who'd have to sit and wait for us

While I agree that certain rules can be reasonably imposed upon Early College students - such as things that could reasonably disturb the peace - I do not think that this is one of those situations. As Early College students, we are distinct from Fairmont students, and should be acknowledged as such.

I sincerely hope that this problem does not happen again. If there are any further issues, I request that it be discussed with the student(s) or a representative of the student and, if need be, a representative of the faculty or administration at Robeson Early College High School.

Sincerely,

Kyle Sozanski
ECHS Student

And that's pretty much it. I'm sure we've all had our problems with authority, but there should be no reason why a figure can't acknowledge and accept a teenager as a sentient and intelligent being. 

A Trip to Compton

Compton is, quite simply, the most darling and adorable neighborhood east of the Mississippi. The residents -- the majority of which are African-American and go by the colloquial group title of "gangsta" -- are some of the most eclectic people of all time. Their duplicity is only rivaled by their enmity towards one another. To clarify: each endorses a clique of sorts, which adorns its members in bright and embellished clothing and jewelry to identify one another. Their dogmatic following of their own is a charming and oft emulated throughout the east coast, though to a lesser degree. All in all, when I think of traveling to this elusive Garden of Eden, my spirit is elated in a sea of ecstasy. Sadly, the full experience is elusive, and even when captured, ephemeral.

And that was my trip to Compton.

The whole Shebang

Syria. Right now, it's running rampant on every form of media. Or rather, the events that have occurred within its borders are running rampant; chemical weapons are quite an attention-drawing mechanism, aren't they?

This use of chemical weapons has really gotten everyone's panties in a bunch. Especially our country's. Mostly the president's. Of course, his panty-bunching has caused a domino effect of panty-bunching, so it's pretty safe to say that everyone's panties are in a bunch. Especially mine.

"But Kyle," you're already blurting in, "You don't wear panties, and mine aren't in a bunch." Both of those things are false, you liar. You shouldn't lie; liars go to Hell.

Anyway, a couple days ago, the president walked up "Osama is dead lane" to update all of us on his plan, which used to consist of "carrying out a remote missile strike and then backing out." Why we needed to be updated on a plan as simple as that, I will never know. I mean, even the idiots of this country can get something as simple as that. Apparently, that's not so, thus a speech was needed.

In his speech, Mr. Obama told us several things, of which I took some notes. They are (in bullet form) as follows:

• Ethos and Pathos appeals (attacks, imagery)
• Rules of war violated
• No civil war resolve [on the U.S. part] through force
• gas mask distribution [to regime], rockets launched
• Attacks on key neighborhoods (not military bases)
• Confirmation in government [Syria's] strikes
• [Appeal of] WWI + II gas attacks
• Threaten [U.S.] allies
• 0 tolerance policy with chemical weapons
• Congressional vote [on attacks]
• No boots on ground/no campaigns/no war
• Other means not working
• Russia is in
• Pressuring Asad
• Postponing strike
• Waiting for U.N. investigation
• Chemical reserves
• Slippery slopes: "if we don't act, gas will be used again" + other WMD's

If you don't understand any of that, this will be one of the few times I don't blame you. Just ask for clarification on them somewhere.

The gist of the whole speech is that the strike -- which was supposed to be immediate -- is being postponed for a Congressional vote and to await further U.N. investigations. This is probably because popular opinion pressured him into waiting, since we all know America is filled with a bunch of hippy wimps who just want to make love, not war.

Going based off of what was said in the speech (since I can't research anything offline), it's clear that the Syrian government was the one who initiated the attack. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard for the rebels to manufacture/acquire chemical weapons, but it's unlikely based on the location of the strikes. Unless the rebels are some evil masterminds and they did attack those neighborhoods so that the U.S. would strike the military bases, thus weakening the regime, thus allowing the overthrow the oppressive government! Yes, that's obviously what happened. Don't think beyond that, there's no reason to.

The main argument against a U.S. military strike is, according to popular opinions and plenty of differing polls, is that the American population is tired of war; that they just want to stay out of it and not worry about it. Honestly, I can see where they're coming from in that respect. The second, almost as major, point is that it'll just lead to a war (commonly referred to as World War III) and put boots on the ground. Ya know, contrary to what we were told.

Talk is Cheap

Alright, so I know I haven't posted anything in a while. Mostly because I've been tired as hell, but today's experiences have enraged me enough to get on here.

If there's one thing -- one thing -- I learned (or confirmed, since I've thought this for a while) that people are idiots. Complete and utter morons.

Just once I wish he wasn't.

"But Kyle," you stupidly attempt to argue with me, "I'm people. I am not stupid!" Yes, you are. Sit down; shut up. Read. Maybe you actually are intelligent, but since those kind of people area rare breed, it's pretty safe to assume that you're an idiot. Whether a slightly-below-average idiot or a I-write-my-name-on-my-undies idiot, you're an idiot nonetheless. Or maybe you're not. The hell if I know.

Anyway, as always, I have an example. Evidence to support my claims is always nice, isn't it? I could go off on that, but that's another rant for another time. Today, during an English class, we looked through USA Today's website and check out some pictures of war protesters (y'know, about the Syria thing). The first one to illicit an idiotic reaction was one of a group of protestors... well, protesting.

This one.

And holy shit, can you guess what my classmates did? Go ahead, guess. It shouldn't be too hard.

If you answered "said something intelligent and meaningful in relation to this image," then you'd be dead wrong. However, if you answered "HAHAHA OBAMA = AL... how do I pronounce that word?" Then you are one of those idiots and I hope this offends you enough to write me hate mail. I'm not even going to tell you what Al-Qaeda is, Google it for yourself. There was one person -- a male of the Negro (I can say that, dammit! If you find it to be racist, it's you own fault) variety -- who didn't even know what Al-Qaeda was. Al-Qaeda; the arch-nemesis of this imbecilic "war on terror." The group synonymous with the September 11 attacks. And he didn't know who they were. Holy shit. I'm not sure if he's just that stupid, or the educational system is letting us this far down (to be fair, it's already letting us down pretty far). I mean, sure I watch the news every morning, but you'd think that we, as a country, would know about a rather large terrorist group that dislikes us.

And do you want to know what a good 25% of the rest of the class did? Laugh. Like overgrown children, they laughed. My best guess is because "Al-Qaeda iz ud fonny werd."

And that's not even everything. There was a picture that followed just after that one.

It's this one.

Now what could this possibly mean? Is it about how the newlywed couple were protesting in their own right? Is it about finding happiness even in tough situations? I actually have no clue, because the caption didn't say. But if there was one detail you would notice, what would it be?

Funny enough, that same 25% of my class noticed "the white girl with the phone." And you know what they thought about her? That she was "childish." Please, for the love of all that is holy, please explain to me just how her behavior is childish? She could have been recording the protest (it's happened before). Or perhaps she's taking a picture of the person taking a picture. I'd get pretty hyped if I saw someone from USA Today taking a picture of me. But no, that painfully large percentage of people thought it was childish. Idiots.

There's only one thing worse than an idiot, and that's a loud one. Oh yea, I had to deal with one of those today too. Well, not just one. There are a multitude of them that run rampant around the school. I come in close contact with several every day.

Every single thought they blurt out sounds as if it were ground in a cow's intestines and just about as intelligent. Words can't even describe how unsurpassably dense I find these people. Seriously. I just tried using a thesaurus, and even then there wasn't anything descriptive enough.

I hate things like this, and yet I still feel compelled to use it.

Idiots will be the death of me.