Homer steadies his hand as he aims the hammer to drive the nail. He slowly goes through the motion of hammering without touching the nail mumbling “steady, steady...”. Spastically he drives the hammer down, missing the nail and smashing his hand. D’oh Homer yells in pain, Bart begins to laugh and mock his father. Homer turns his pain into rage and yells “I’ll teach you to laugh at something funny” and begins to throttle Bart by the neck. Like many before my generation the Simpsons has a vivid place in my subconscious. I have never been the biggest fan of the Simpsons but scenes like this from The Simpsons television show are ingrained in my memory, as I grew up watching many shows on television. The dysfunctional yellow family that is the Simpsons created timeless slapstick comedy thats humour is appealing to all ages, but the Simpsons is more than just slapstick comedy.

As a child I enjoyed watching the simply dumb antics of Homer and the rest of the citizens who inhabit Springfield. However, as I got older, I began to laugh at a “new layer” to the Simpsons that is lightly embedded in characters and events from the show; political comedy. Characters like Apu and Krusty the Klown became more relative and entertaining to me as I learned about social stereotypes and irony. I did not simply choose this topic because the Simpsons is debatably a great show, I chose this topic because it occurred to me that I have given little to no thought on the meaning and motives the creator of the show has expressed as political commentary.

    While talking to my art director, Jeff Robin, I was introduced to the idea that there's a deeper meaning to the Simpsons and was reminded of my Senior year english class. We read The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway and I found myself appreciating a deeper understanding of literature from the use of symbols, metaphors and motifs. However, when I began to read this book I did not have this perspective and therefore read the book with only the information that was presented inside of the book. I thought the plot was very dull and straightforward until I began to connect the book’s story with the context of the time period. The Sun Also Rises is a critique on “The Lost Generation” and explores major changes in gender roles, post World War One. The Simpsons, like Hemingway’s novel, contains many critiques on modern society, especially in the form of satire, and without the knowledge of social and political context the show is simply, dumb antics.

    With this said, I am curious to see what meaning I will take with me after the duration of this project. With a new perspective towards the the twenty-six season long series that is the Simpsons, there's no doubt a recurring theme will emerge. I look forward to immersing myself into the philosophy of Springfield.

NASA: I don’t even know what it stands for. I do know it was created by Dwight Eisenhower at the start of the Space Race and was used to learn about the great unknown and establish America as a leader in space exploration. I know that NASA put the first man on the moon in ‘69. Since then, NASA has been exploring outer space, developing advanced technology, and answering some of the world’s most interesting and hardest to solve questions.

When I was younger, I received a telescope for Christmas. It was one of the cool kinds; it knew its location and the date and, based off of those, could locate any planet or star in the sky. Unfortunately, after spending about a week looking at Saturn’s rings and the Moon’s craters, the telescope broke, but my fascination with outer space never died. In elementary school, I aspired to be an astronaut. My sister and I would build rocketships out of refrigerator boxes and pretend we landed on the moon. When my family went to bookstores, I would pick out books about astronauts Sally Ride and pilot Amelia Earhart. Around the same time, my parents introduced me to the movie Apollo 13. The movie was about a space mission that went wrong but was saved in the end. It quickly became my favorite movie, and whenever I was given the opportunity to pick my family’s nightly entertainment, I’d choose Apollo 13.

Learning about Sally ride, the first American woman to go into space, I became even more interested in becoming an astronaut. I remember laying in my parents’ bed, researching what it took to become an astronaut. My dad would email me articles about NASA recruiting people to go into space and information about paying to be a passenger on a commercial space shuttle. It was always overwhelmingly expensive, but super fun to look into with my dad. Since then, I’ve redirected most of my exploration interests to the ocean and the Human brain, but outer space is still extremely interesting to me.

I used my time in middle school and some of high school to learn about the historical side of going into space. Through history projects, I learned about the Space Race and its importance as a sub-section of the Cold War became fascinated with nuclear bombs and their history. While studying the Cold War and nuclear warfare, I learned that the Soviet Union launched Earth’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik. Not only did Sputnik start the Space Race, but it showed the world that the Soviet Union had the resources and means to launch a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world. Learning just the brief history of why America found it important to create the technology to go into space made me even more fascinated with NASA.

Because of my interest in space and history, I want to learn more about NASA. By researching NASA, its landmark events, and its contributions to modern science, I will create a project that shows how important NASA has been in the historical context and how it has influenced society and science today. What role did women play in NASA? What rights did Soviet women have that American women didn’t that allowed Soviet women to travel to space first? Along with answering these questions, I look forward to learning what preceded NASA and how those might have contributed to Eisenhower’s creation of NASA. This project will give me an opportunity to further explore a topic that has captured my interest since I was a little kid.

Assumption @ 0: Nikola Tesla

David Lutze

I thought I was going to be an inventor and would always think of crazy insane things that would be really fun to make. I would sometimes spend hours on end thinking of how I would create these inventions and how they would work. I even had an invention journal where I would write in a code and detail my “inventions”. I would go as far as pricing these inventions for when I would eventually sell them. Some of my inventions included things like force fields, homing missiles, and being able to make a field around an area that would make that area invisible to the outside. The one that I thought about the most was making a hoverboard. By far, my biggest goal when I was young was to make this, and I would 90spend hours daydreaming about it. Unfortunately, I never really figured out how it would work, mainly because I was really young, and didn't really understand the type of technology that I would need to create a hoverboard, or any of my other ideas for that matter.     

During this time, I held Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Edison as my inspiration, as idols. Da Vinci because he was inventing things that were way ahead of his time, and the fact that most of the inventions in his notebook were written in code. I’m not sure why the fact that he was inventing helicopters so long ago fascinated me, but that drew me to him. I was amazed by Edison for most of the same reasons. The fact that Edison had the innovation to actually create and improve the light bulb is just astounding to me. Then I learned about Nikola Tesla, and his invention of the Tesla Coil. This was something that blew my mind, and although I never really pursued my interest in him, I held him to be my new “idol”. I guess I was content with simply holding him in reverence, beyond anything that I could hope to understand. Again, I was very young and naive. Then I happened to watch a segment on the History Channel about Tesla, and I was absolutely astounded by all of the crazy stuff that he did in his life that I really had no idea about and it was also pretty interesting how he kinda lost it in his later years.

For a long time the thing that I found most interesting about Tesla was his invention of the Tesla Coil which could produce huge electrical currents. In modern days these are used to recreate lightning. The fact that Tesla created something that could recreate lightning over a century ago absolutely astounded me. Something else that Tesla did that I thought was awesome, was his very last patent that he filed was essentially for a biplane that could take off vertically. He filed this in the very early 20th century, so this was about a century ahead of his time. This plays back into why I was very interested in Leonardo Da Vinci, they were both very ahead of their time. In his later years, he began to create a giant Tesla Coil to broadcast radio waves across the Atlantic ocean. He thought that if he could do this, then he could take it a step further and pretty much broadcast energy to the whole world through the air. But unfortunately he ran out of all funding on this project, and it was never finished. Another thing that drew me to him, was the fact that he really didn’t get credit for a lot of the things that he did, and that he went up against Thomas Edison who at the time was one of the biggest inventors alive, and someone I used to hold as my idol.

I think the biggest reason that I chose Tesla is that we both, to a certain degree, had outlandish ideas that at the time seemed insane. The difference between me and him is that he actually built stuff, and I just sat there thinking about it. And I think that’s why I was drawn to him, because he actually went out and made all, or at least most of those crazy things that he thought of. He was a sort of symbol for me that said you really can do whatever you set your mind to.

Trevor Hill

1/22/15

Atatürk, Assumption at Zero

    In middle school, I developed an interest in affairs in the Middle East because they occupied so much time on the news. Because I’m a very history-oriented person, I wanted to know which events caused the turmoil we witness there today. Rather than get a definitive answer to my question (there really isn’t just one answer), I stumbled across something that I found much more interesting. I discovered that almost the entire Middle East was once united under a single entity, which, compared to today, actually kept order and peace and made it a stable region. This entity was called the Ottoman Empire.

Ever since my first Google search of ¨Ottoman Empire¨ in middle school, I’ve been in love with its culture, history, and government. I found stoic pictures of their leaders, the sultans, who were artistic, wise, and well-rounded. I found paintings of men and women in lavish clothing and turbans and fezzes. I became absolutely infatuated with the way that the Ottomans practiced elegance, pageantry, and sense in all things.

The sultans were the real objects of my affection. The sultans, as both governmental and religious leaders, had absolute power over everything. They were always exemplary people, and as such their decisions were usually well thought out and sensible. I have great appreciation for monarchs who did their job properly; there’s just something so wonderful about someone being all-powerful and actually using that power for good. Unfortunately, the sultanate was abolished in 1922 by Atatürk, the first elected leader of Turkey.

I can’t help but wonder, if it weren’t for the allies breaking apart the empire after World War I, would large scale conflict still exist in the Middle East? Would the Turks have been better off under the sultanate, or was Atatürk’s secular republic their best option? I, personally, have always seen something glamorous in monarchies (especially ones led by legitimate and intelligent sovereigns like the sultans), and although the freedom that citizens of a republic are allowed to enjoy is important, there’s something to be said for a monarchy that can keep peace versus a republic that can’t.

However, the Turkish people idolize Atatürk (which means “father of the Turks”) and don’t have nearly the same love for the sultans who ruled before him. Obviously, their opinion is more credible than mine. Could that mean that things really were better off under Atatürk than the sultans? I’ve decided that I want to research Atatürk, the last sultans, and the fracturing of the empire in order to develop an educated opinion on whether the Ottoman Empire’s existence was justified because it kept peace, or not justified because the peace it maintained was over a populace that couldn’t experience real freedom. Essentially, to better my understanding of Middle Eastern history, I want to know which was better, the Republic of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire?

As a kid I would always go into the family room to watch the news with my grandfather. Politicians here, crisis rising there, but most often what caught my attention was the Middle east. When I was six I learned about the Iraq war, then I turned ten and my grandfather told me about political parties and how there is no better option than the republican party. Finally I entered middle school and there was the place I learned that past event in history always intertwined with current events. One past event that really caught my attention was the Iranian Revolution….

As an American it can be hard to discuss the Middle East here at home. I’ve heard parts of Iran’s revolution but I’ve never gotten the full story and I don’t even know the true motives that started this revolution. This revolution peaked my interest because I’ve always known that the U.S. and Iran did not have a good relationship but my why questions were never answered. When I was sixteen I saw the movie Argo and instead of answering questions the plot was too thick that I just became more confused. I asked even more questions that the people around me had no idea how to answer.

During my 2015 intersession on a bus ride home from L.A. my art teacher Jeff Robin played a movie called Persepolis. A woman depicted her childhood and young adulthood throughout Iran’s revolution. This was the first time since Argo that I felt interested in Iran. It was amazing to see someone who lived through a revolution, hearing her experience made me feel as though I was there. She gave her opinion as she grew up and she told us, the viewer what was going on the entire time. Watching her movie and reading about her graphic novels made me feel safe about the topic, for the first time I felt as though I could be curious about the Iranian revolution.

Is the Shah bad for being a puppet and not true to his country? Or are the Muslims too extreme? Who was wrong and who was right? And why was the U.S. even involved, what peaked our interest. As a child it’s hard to imagine war. Who? What? When? Where? Why does war happen? Too many questions not enough answers.

The Shah of Iran I believe came from a dynasty or monarch or something. I think he was placed there by the U.S. but I don’t know/can’t remember. The Shah also had his own personal police force that I am interested in because, I don’t know if its true but I hear that they killed a lot of innocent people. He was overthrown by an islamic organization and this islamic guy took over and ran the Shah out of power. Acts against the Shah started in 1977 and in 1979 the rebellion and war was well underway. From what I understand there were those who really wanted an islamic power to take over. And then there were those who were very loyal to the Shah because they didn’t want anything to change.    

Wars, revolutions, rebellions they’re all so unsure, it scares me and honestly not knowing about the middle east leaves me anxious so I ought to face my unsure fears straight on. My not knowing anything about the middlest east has to do with the fact that it is a very controversial topic that most people try to avoid. I always felt uncertain and nervous when opposing opinions came forth in a school that wasn’t High Tech High. Wanting to know more stems from a basis in being curious about all sorts of things. All my life I’ve continuously asked questions or brought up issues people didn’t want to here. Having that ability to do whatever I want helps me to continue to ask questions and think. The iranian revolution for me is something that I have never had the creative space to explore or think about. That’s what draws me to it the most, knowing that I can discover something new without getting in trouble or being judged for it makes me feel secure.

Jessie Aguilar

Assumption A0

Rey Pele

I think it’s really amazing how people can get attached to a sport and at the same time love that same sport.  My world has revolved around  soccer for quite some time. I was influenced by it in me from most of my family since they have passion for soccer.  I have learned of great legends in the game and spectacular players that have or are currently playing soccer professionally. I enjoy watching soccer no matter what team is playing as long as it’s a good soccer league for example the  English Premiere League in England. Even though I really like watching it, nothing beats actually playing the sport with friends specially.

The first time, I personally ever heard the name Pele was when Manchester United won the Champions League in 2008. The Champions League is the most important trophy club wise, Only the best in Europe compete for it. Well known soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo for me was the best at the time. When I said that in front of my grandpa, he told me to be quiet and that I didn’t know anything about soccer. Thats when he went on to explain who Pele was and everything that he had accomplished that players now aren’t able to. He explained everything I needed to know about Pele to convince me that Cristiano Ronaldo is one of the best in my time, Pele on the other hand is the best of all time, huge difference.

For many Pele is the best soccer player of all time, for others he is one of the best of all time. There is no question that he is a legend in the soccer world. Not too long ago in  1999 he was named player of the century by the International Federation of Football `History and statistics. Pele is widely known for his time in the Brazilian soccer club Santos where he score an amount of 619 goals and won  many championships. Pele is remembered even more for his outstanding three time world cup champion for Brazil. Although Brazil is widely known for having great soccer talent it was Pele who lead the team to most of those victories and accomplishments.

    I can try to imagine how Pele must have felt when he made the Brazilian National Team, even though he was a prodigy of his time. He missed or messed up a play from time to time, he is only human after all. When he did get it right on the other hand it was unlike other players that were good just not in Pele’s level. Although I would want to know why he never went to go play in Europe even though many teams wanted him. So what if the president called him a national treasure, so what if the team made sure he was getting “paid good”. Playing in the old continent, Europe is what every player dreams of.

Delilah Nichols

“Jackson Pollock” Assumption @ 0

    I have never liked art because in my opinion, and many others, I am not the best at it. My senior year (after failing to comply to the guidelines of an independent intersession) I was sucked into taking Art. I was upset and decided not to even show up for the first few days. Although I don’t draw or paint the best I still love to look at art and am able to appreciate a good artist. For this reason, I was pleasantly surprised when I found out our class would be taking a trip to the San Diego Museum of Art to see the Gauguin to Warhol exhibit.

    Upon entering the room, I was struck by the wall-sized canvas of bright yellow and red splashes and hidden black faces. “Convergence” by Jackson Pollock. I spent a good twenty minutes examining this particular piece as opposed to the two minutes I spent in front of any of the other paintings, almost like a meditation of sorts. I would occasionally be interrupted by debates behind me of whether or not Pollock’s “Convergence” should be considered art.

    However, I wouldn’t agree with the nay sayers. Pollock’s work dares you to look deeper. There is no clear image in front of you. It’s a crazy cluster of cracked paint and color, but it makes me feel something. When I look at Pollock’s work I don’t feel overwhelmed or trapped by all of the lines of color. It eases my over examining mind, forcing me to take in the whole canvas before I’m even able to focus on one aspect.

The first thing I notice when I begin to dive in is that the paint doesn’t look splattered, it seems meticulously placed and swirled. This also eased my mind. His art is like an onion, so I just stood there peeling back each layer of color, trying to make up my own shapes and words in his canvas.

I want to research Pollock further to figure out if, like his art, he was an onion. How many secrets was he holding onto? Is this why Pollock created drip art, because he had secrets or because of another reason? I’m very curious about his work and how it reflects him and how it began. I wonder what obstacles he faced in his life and how that impacted his work. I’m intrigued by the way he put paint to canvas in such a precise way and what that meant. And I want to know if he was happy because the bright colors and sporadic looking art shows me an outgoing soul and crazy mind.