Résumé
Kobe Hutchinson
(***Address***)
(***City, State, Zipcode***)
(501)-230-****
Summary
A cunning and creative individual with an extremely thorough thought process when it comes to tasks. Has a passion for writing and history, and can make nearly any topic interesting or informative. Seeks to make a creative mark on the world, especially through art, philosophical thinking, and ability to invent, among others. Will go through leaps and bounds to solve other people's problems, whether it is a social issue or a mechanical one.
Education
-12th Grader at Alameda Community Learning Center
-2nd, 2nd, and 3rd place in school science fair for 9th, 11th, and 10th grade respectively.
-2nd Degree Brown Belt in Wado Ki Kai style Karate
-Basic SFX and video editing ability
-30 WPM typing speed
-Member of school Leadership class, a student body government.
Experience
-Learned management and social advisement skills
-Training in handling expensive or delicate equipment
2) Lake Merritt Boating Center Counselor in Training (CIT)
-Taught kids basic sailing abilities and safety awareness on the water
-Helped manage kids, ages 6-13
-Acted as CIT during 4 different weeks, all with varying age groups
-Over 180 hours of assistance
-Has increased my own sailing ability and mechanical understanding of sailing vessels
3) Woodwork
-Has constructed various wooden objects, from full sized toy guns to lightsabers.
4) Participated in many major school art projects.
-School's art Instagram
-Senior Class clothing design and symbolism
5) Decent writer, public speaker, and thinker when approached with sociopolitical ideas.
-Wrote a 13 page essay on how the average citizen can reduce military spending with memes and graphs.
-Won my class debate in tenth grade, successfully made the argument that fracking should not be made illegal, whilst still blatantly stating that fracking is harmful.
6) Really excellent dance performer
(***Address***)
(***City, State, Zipcode***)
(501)-230-****
Summary
A cunning and creative individual with an extremely thorough thought process when it comes to tasks. Has a passion for writing and history, and can make nearly any topic interesting or informative. Seeks to make a creative mark on the world, especially through art, philosophical thinking, and ability to invent, among others. Will go through leaps and bounds to solve other people's problems, whether it is a social issue or a mechanical one.
Education
-12th Grader at Alameda Community Learning Center
-2nd, 2nd, and 3rd place in school science fair for 9th, 11th, and 10th grade respectively.
-2nd Degree Brown Belt in Wado Ki Kai style Karate
-Basic SFX and video editing ability
-30 WPM typing speed
-Member of school Leadership class, a student body government.
Experience
- Former Chabot Space and Science Center Volunteer Intern
-Learned management and social advisement skills
-Training in handling expensive or delicate equipment
2) Lake Merritt Boating Center Counselor in Training (CIT)
-Taught kids basic sailing abilities and safety awareness on the water
-Helped manage kids, ages 6-13
-Acted as CIT during 4 different weeks, all with varying age groups
-Over 180 hours of assistance
-Has increased my own sailing ability and mechanical understanding of sailing vessels
3) Woodwork
-Has constructed various wooden objects, from full sized toy guns to lightsabers.
4) Participated in many major school art projects.
-School's art Instagram
-Senior Class clothing design and symbolism
5) Decent writer, public speaker, and thinker when approached with sociopolitical ideas.
-Wrote a 13 page essay on how the average citizen can reduce military spending with memes and graphs.
-Won my class debate in tenth grade, successfully made the argument that fracking should not be made illegal, whilst still blatantly stating that fracking is harmful.
6) Really excellent dance performer
3 Writing Examples
Example 1: The Pacifist Anti-Pacifism Essay
This essay was intended for an online scholarship essay contest. It describes my disdain for the poor amount of action taken by pacifists in the 21st Century and the negative comments I get for my expertise on war and weapons. I describe how an educated population leads to a more effectively peaceful society.
MAINTAINING PEACE
Kobe Hutchinson
I like weapons and I enjoy their history. I know all about war and I know why war happens. I know how wars have started, and why they end. I know the pressures and genius that engineers have put into their countries interests through weapons, science, and technology to win. Fighting is what humans have done for the entirety of our existence. I acknowledge this. I appreciate the sacrifices of men and women and the ingenuity they have used to save themselves and destroy their enemies. I pay attention to the past. I get a lot of flak for this. Living in California with such interests proves an isolating experience. People think I am a freak. Gun-nut. Warmonger. Violent. Evil. I am writing this for those people. The people who do not understand me. They don’t create their own opinions. You could call these people liberals, or humanitarians, or pacifists. It doesn’t matter what they identify as. I only wish to change them.
After the Vietnam War, pacifist action against war has diminished to almost nothing. A pacifist is defined by some as a person who believes all violence and war of any kind is unjustifiable. By this definition, I do not believe anyone in the world is a pacifist. Nobody is absolute in their thinking. The existence of evil, not from up above, but from within ourselves, is enough to make any and all violence a necessity in the right situations. People have forgotten the sheer horror that humans are capable of. People have also forgotten the will to stop them. In reality, pacifists are people who strongly oppose war and believe in peace. I count myself among them. But among the new breed of pacifists is inaction, and foolishness. I may be a pacifist, but dislike the inaction of other pacifists. I actually know the ins and outs of war. “Know your enemy” as they say. The very first pacifist movements were led by former soldiers, who had returned from hell in those trenches. My question for pacifists is this: When your country enters a full-scale war, like a massive conflict between large rival countries, what are you going to do about it? How will you stop it? You didn’t have any effective objection to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Falklands and Balkans. Since Vietnam, no massive pacifist protest movement has ever grown enough to make significant action. Immediate public and political opinions didn’t shift. Policy changed only when the politicians did. It took them more than a decade.
My point is simple. Who is in more of a position to stop or end a war? Those who know it, study it, and appreciate its history and sacrifices, or those who ignore the subject because it’s too “violent”. Who is more in a position to debate gun control? Someone who knows about guns and can define any type of firearm, or someone who has no clue what any specific guns are. I am mistaken for a person who wishes all guns were legal, and wishes all wars could happen. This is far from true. Just because I appreciate the ingenuity that went into, say, the AR-15 rifle, does not mean I want people to have them. Just because I like war history and know all about it, does not mean I wish for it to happen again. This knowledge simply makes me more prepared.
Going back to my question, what I would do in a situation where our country was fighting a massive war against another world power is a process I think everyone should know about. I first analyze the conflict, just as any historian would, and determine if it’s justified. A justifiable war is a rarity in our modern times, but with examples like the Second World War, people had no choice but to fight for their lives in the face of evil. Would we be fighting evil that must be stopped? We must answer that first. Second, I determine a plan of how to end the war. If this war was justified, I would do my best to help us win, and make sure the evil we are fighting does not. If this war started for reasons that I find ridiculous, unfair, or otherwise unjustifiable, I fight it on the home front. However, I would not just pick up a picket sign and start yelling in the streets. I would try something more impactful such as books, television, speeches, and essays. I would attempt to reach the masses with a logical and reasonable message to stop the war. With prior knowledge of how previous wars start, and a deep understanding of what it’s like fighting a war, this topic of debate would be right up my alley.
My wish for all people in this country and abroad is for them to be a little more knowledgeable about the conflicts in our species’ history. The only way to truly maintain peace for as long as possible is to know exactly why you still have it. Peace is fragile, war is resilient. Ask yourself, how many people died for the very ground you stand on, and why? Ask yourself, what would you do in a giant world war? How will you achieve peace as quickly as you can? I know what I would do. I feel other people should think about what they would do too. My point is that for us to maintain peace and freedom we must not only look around us, but look within ourselves, and improve our own understanding of what it really means to fight, and why. Without this understanding, we are unable to truly fear the consequences of war, nor strive enough for the benefits of peace.
This essay was intended for an online scholarship essay contest. It describes my disdain for the poor amount of action taken by pacifists in the 21st Century and the negative comments I get for my expertise on war and weapons. I describe how an educated population leads to a more effectively peaceful society.
MAINTAINING PEACE
Kobe Hutchinson
I like weapons and I enjoy their history. I know all about war and I know why war happens. I know how wars have started, and why they end. I know the pressures and genius that engineers have put into their countries interests through weapons, science, and technology to win. Fighting is what humans have done for the entirety of our existence. I acknowledge this. I appreciate the sacrifices of men and women and the ingenuity they have used to save themselves and destroy their enemies. I pay attention to the past. I get a lot of flak for this. Living in California with such interests proves an isolating experience. People think I am a freak. Gun-nut. Warmonger. Violent. Evil. I am writing this for those people. The people who do not understand me. They don’t create their own opinions. You could call these people liberals, or humanitarians, or pacifists. It doesn’t matter what they identify as. I only wish to change them.
After the Vietnam War, pacifist action against war has diminished to almost nothing. A pacifist is defined by some as a person who believes all violence and war of any kind is unjustifiable. By this definition, I do not believe anyone in the world is a pacifist. Nobody is absolute in their thinking. The existence of evil, not from up above, but from within ourselves, is enough to make any and all violence a necessity in the right situations. People have forgotten the sheer horror that humans are capable of. People have also forgotten the will to stop them. In reality, pacifists are people who strongly oppose war and believe in peace. I count myself among them. But among the new breed of pacifists is inaction, and foolishness. I may be a pacifist, but dislike the inaction of other pacifists. I actually know the ins and outs of war. “Know your enemy” as they say. The very first pacifist movements were led by former soldiers, who had returned from hell in those trenches. My question for pacifists is this: When your country enters a full-scale war, like a massive conflict between large rival countries, what are you going to do about it? How will you stop it? You didn’t have any effective objection to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Falklands and Balkans. Since Vietnam, no massive pacifist protest movement has ever grown enough to make significant action. Immediate public and political opinions didn’t shift. Policy changed only when the politicians did. It took them more than a decade.
My point is simple. Who is in more of a position to stop or end a war? Those who know it, study it, and appreciate its history and sacrifices, or those who ignore the subject because it’s too “violent”. Who is more in a position to debate gun control? Someone who knows about guns and can define any type of firearm, or someone who has no clue what any specific guns are. I am mistaken for a person who wishes all guns were legal, and wishes all wars could happen. This is far from true. Just because I appreciate the ingenuity that went into, say, the AR-15 rifle, does not mean I want people to have them. Just because I like war history and know all about it, does not mean I wish for it to happen again. This knowledge simply makes me more prepared.
Going back to my question, what I would do in a situation where our country was fighting a massive war against another world power is a process I think everyone should know about. I first analyze the conflict, just as any historian would, and determine if it’s justified. A justifiable war is a rarity in our modern times, but with examples like the Second World War, people had no choice but to fight for their lives in the face of evil. Would we be fighting evil that must be stopped? We must answer that first. Second, I determine a plan of how to end the war. If this war was justified, I would do my best to help us win, and make sure the evil we are fighting does not. If this war started for reasons that I find ridiculous, unfair, or otherwise unjustifiable, I fight it on the home front. However, I would not just pick up a picket sign and start yelling in the streets. I would try something more impactful such as books, television, speeches, and essays. I would attempt to reach the masses with a logical and reasonable message to stop the war. With prior knowledge of how previous wars start, and a deep understanding of what it’s like fighting a war, this topic of debate would be right up my alley.
My wish for all people in this country and abroad is for them to be a little more knowledgeable about the conflicts in our species’ history. The only way to truly maintain peace for as long as possible is to know exactly why you still have it. Peace is fragile, war is resilient. Ask yourself, how many people died for the very ground you stand on, and why? Ask yourself, what would you do in a giant world war? How will you achieve peace as quickly as you can? I know what I would do. I feel other people should think about what they would do too. My point is that for us to maintain peace and freedom we must not only look around us, but look within ourselves, and improve our own understanding of what it really means to fight, and why. Without this understanding, we are unable to truly fear the consequences of war, nor strive enough for the benefits of peace.
Example 2: Friedrich Nietzsche and Man's Desire to be Guilty
This short essay was an examination of excerpts from "The Genealogy of Morals" By Friedrich Nietzsche
This relates to mankind's desires to be at fault and be punished for strange reasons. This is heavily rooted into sin and religious pseudo-morality. It is also linked by my writing to a lecture by Viktor Frankl, a holocaust survivor and professor, who said that if we expect man to be average, he will achieve less, but if we over-estimate him, he will achieve what he really can.
Kobe Hutchinson
Period 4 English ¾
9/19/16
Friedrich Nietzsche and Man’s Desire to be Guilty.
In “The Genealogy of Morals”, Friedrich Nietzsche makes the claim that mankind has a need for self torture and desire to be guilty. Nietzsche states that, “Man, with his need for self-torture, his sublimated cruelty resulting from the cooping up of his animal nature within a polity” (Line 1-2) This urge is not well explained. He says that our desire for self torture is just “his true and inveterate animal instincts”(Line 6). His remark that we hold back our own animalistic urges through an organized polity is supported by his latter citing of organized religion. When Nietzsche states that, “[animal instincts], making these a sin against God” (Line 6-7), he must mean that sin is an invention of mankind in order to incriminate itself. However, we needed a judge to see us as guilty (or in this case, unworthy) and, as a result, the belief in God arose. What he means by that is that religion arose from this urge for guilt and self torture, because we needed a platform in which to make ourselves evil or broken and a solution to strive for.
This leads to an analysis of what mankind’s true intentions are. Nietzsche introduces this concept that Mankind has a desire to be guilty and to torture itself, even on an individual level. His reasoning for this stems from the mindset of monotheistic religion, and how we invent sin in order to make ourselves guilty. However, we also create a solution to these sins. The belief in God and the following of this objective moral high ground that we created was a solution to the flaws we think we have. Friedrich says that, “He projected all his denials of self, nature, naturalness out of himself as affirmations, as true being, embodiment, reality, as God…” (Line 8-10). We created an imaginary escape from our imagined flaws. This could possibly be to try and better ourselves, but in a deluded human manner. It could be like what Viktor Frankl says. If we overestimate man, (in this case with an objective moral high ground), we make him as he actually is. But if we try to expect man as he is, we make him worse.
This short essay was an examination of excerpts from "The Genealogy of Morals" By Friedrich Nietzsche
This relates to mankind's desires to be at fault and be punished for strange reasons. This is heavily rooted into sin and religious pseudo-morality. It is also linked by my writing to a lecture by Viktor Frankl, a holocaust survivor and professor, who said that if we expect man to be average, he will achieve less, but if we over-estimate him, he will achieve what he really can.
Kobe Hutchinson
Period 4 English ¾
9/19/16
Friedrich Nietzsche and Man’s Desire to be Guilty.
In “The Genealogy of Morals”, Friedrich Nietzsche makes the claim that mankind has a need for self torture and desire to be guilty. Nietzsche states that, “Man, with his need for self-torture, his sublimated cruelty resulting from the cooping up of his animal nature within a polity” (Line 1-2) This urge is not well explained. He says that our desire for self torture is just “his true and inveterate animal instincts”(Line 6). His remark that we hold back our own animalistic urges through an organized polity is supported by his latter citing of organized religion. When Nietzsche states that, “[animal instincts], making these a sin against God” (Line 6-7), he must mean that sin is an invention of mankind in order to incriminate itself. However, we needed a judge to see us as guilty (or in this case, unworthy) and, as a result, the belief in God arose. What he means by that is that religion arose from this urge for guilt and self torture, because we needed a platform in which to make ourselves evil or broken and a solution to strive for.
This leads to an analysis of what mankind’s true intentions are. Nietzsche introduces this concept that Mankind has a desire to be guilty and to torture itself, even on an individual level. His reasoning for this stems from the mindset of monotheistic religion, and how we invent sin in order to make ourselves guilty. However, we also create a solution to these sins. The belief in God and the following of this objective moral high ground that we created was a solution to the flaws we think we have. Friedrich says that, “He projected all his denials of self, nature, naturalness out of himself as affirmations, as true being, embodiment, reality, as God…” (Line 8-10). We created an imaginary escape from our imagined flaws. This could possibly be to try and better ourselves, but in a deluded human manner. It could be like what Viktor Frankl says. If we overestimate man, (in this case with an objective moral high ground), we make him as he actually is. But if we try to expect man as he is, we make him worse.
Example 3: American Revolution Video Group Project Screenplay
This was a focus project on a chapter from Howard Zinn's book, "A People's History of the United States" about the American Revolution.
This quirky screenplay is in two sections, a narrator section and an editing section.
I made this screenplay in one night, and tweaked it over about a week. We had a lot of jokes in the background and things to keep the video laughable.
It is not in traditional screenplay format for editing purposes.
SCREENPLAY
ZINN 2
REVOLUTIONARY WAR
AITOR SCROLL DOWN FOR EDIT SCRIPT
NARRATOR
The Revolution: A bloody fire stoked by the rich and fought by the poor. The population of white poor men was to be the army of these oligarchs and wealthy men. On both sides, soldiers were given little pay, little respect, and little comfort. The americans were defending what they owned, while the british, despite seeming unstoppable, had a key disadvantage. They were fighting for the interests of their leaders in a foreign land they do not own, do not live in, do not know anything about, for no justified reason. *cough* *cough* Iraq *cough*
This is the average british soldier
(Heavily armed modern soldier with pistols, mask, and sniper walks up)
Wait Wait, no, that’s not right, *ahem*
(enter redcoat)
Here we go. this is the average british soldier. Like his american counterpart, he gets paid very little. During this time, word of the war and it’s intent was not connected, and the reasons why men fought wasn’t very clear. Men were from all colonies and all occupations. They were shoemakers, industrial workers, sailors, you name it.
(showcase of various occupations)
Control of the poor men in these regiments was difficult, and desertion was common on both sides. The americans had more motivation however, as this was their homeland and they were often told that they should die for it. *cough* Iraq *cough* While many didn’t agree, it was enough to stop the british in their tracks. American soldiers often had nothing to lose, many had lost their livelihoods with the poor economic conditions and taxes perpetrated by the british.
(Redcoat turns around and IRS sign is on his back)
During the war, combat evolved. Colonial soldiers used guerilla warfare and new long rifles to stay hidden and take on targets from a distance. This was a step up from the previous kind of warfare.
(two soldiers firing at each other in the open in multiple cuts, and they are like 3 feet from one another.)
This new type of warfare was elusive, and proved very effective. Guerilla tactics looked like this:
(vietcong soldier hiding in bushes with AK-47, and waits for the soldier to turn around and then pops up and shoots him.)
Well, sorta like that.
During the combat, indians and slaves alike had trouble picking sides. The people who enslaved or removed them, or the people who made them come here. Their choices, forgotten in history, were not always the best.
(Slave hits the colonist in the head and kills him, then walks to the redcoat and tries to hug him. The redcoat raises his musket at the slave)
Once the war ended, a new nation that was sorta kinda maybe united finally almost was about to emerge. kinda. After various documents the new government sorta not really perfected the constitution and legal systems-- they totally didn’t-- the nation could organize. Good thing, because the british came back in 1812 to that foreign land to fight a useless fight for no reason AGAIN *cough* Iraq *cough*.
Anyway, the nation had some trouble sorting out. Former soldiers had lost their home life and were viewed sometimes as insurgents. America had been a lawless and unfair land and until federal intervention, was the worst place to be during the war. Luckily, those rich guys people hated for making them go to war had a point. British rule sucked. A lot. The new verdict was economic opportunity and equality-sorta-. All men were to be considered equal and deserving respect. A step forward against the tyranny and superiority of the monarchs. There was no king. There was no rule. There was a system. You wouldn’t want america to be like this:
(random unorganized unrelated stuff)
After the colonies manifested as the United States and fought off the world’s biggest power, they were pretty free to do what they please, like kill lots of native people and enslave more people. YAY.
Most of all, they could go west. In the west was more wars to fight, trees to cut, and land to farm in.
(explorer walking into the distance)
Editing script
Images hold in the screen until a new image in the narration is needed. (for ex. once the narrator reaches a point where it says (4) image number 3 is replaced with 4, and holds until it’s time for number 5. Video follows in brackets [1], clips are labeled, a clip cannot be onscreen at the same time as a picture. All video is silent unless told otherwise.
Scene 1
(0) The Revolution: A bloody fire stoked by the(1) rich and fought by (2)the poor.(3) The population of white poor men was to be the army of these oligarchs and wealthy men.(4) On both sides,(5) soldiers were given little pay, little respect, and little comfort. The americans were defending what they owned, while the british,(6) despite seeming unstoppable, had a key disadvantage. They were fighting for the interests of their leaders in a foreign land they do not own, do not live in, do not know anything about, for (7) no justified reason.(8) *cough* *cough* Iraq *cough*
Photos:
0. Picture representing the revolution
1. rich people
2.poor people
3. Photo of redcoat
4. Colonial soldier
5. Old Barracks
6. redcoat
7. confused man
8. Picture map of iraq
Scene 2
[1]This is the average british soldier. Wait Wait, no, that’s not right, *ahem* (transition) [2]Here we go. this is the average british soldier. Like his american counterpart, he gets paid very little. During this time,(1) Why the war was even happening and why men fought wasn’t very clear. Men were from all colonies and all occupations. [3]They were shoemakers,[4] industrial workers,[5] toymakers,[6]cooks, you name it.
Videos:
1. Heavily armed modern soldier walks up with sniper and combat gear
2. Enter alex the redcoat walking from the same place
3. Allen working on shoes (add whaterthoose sound)
4. Alfonso working on gunsmithing
5. toymaker
6. Alex grilling (include the whip)
Pictures:
1.confused guy again
Scene 3
(1)Control of the poor men in these regiments was difficult, and desertion was common on both sides. [1]The americans had more motivation however, as this was their homeland and they were often told that they should die for it. (2)*cough* Vietnam *cough* [2]While many didn’t agree, it was enough to stop the british in their tracks. American soldiers often had nothing to lose, many had lost their livelihoods with the poor economic conditions and[3] taxes perpetrated by the british.
Pictures:
1. Mutiny on a ship picture
2.Vietcong
Videos:
1. tax clip 1
2. tax clip 2
3. IRS whip (must be cut off from another clip...sorry)
Scene 4
[1]During the war, combat evolved. War used to be an open field confrontation where they simply stand in front of one another and shoot each other. {this video needs only guns sounds, and wait till it’s over to begin 2nd part of narration. It is not silent, but mute when i tell them things behind the camera “start reloading”}
[2]Colonial soldiers used guerilla warfare and new long rifles to stay hidden and take on targets from a distance. This was a step up from the previous kind of warfare. This new type of warfare was elusive, and proved very effective. [3] Guerilla tactics looked like this: Well, sorta like that. {line the kill up with the last sentence}
Videos:
1. Standing warfare clip
2 & 3. Use the best clip of alex walking up and looking for allen as 2, and for 3 use the whip kill clip.
Scene 5
[1] During the combat, indians and slaves alike had trouble picking sides. The people who enslaved or removed them, or the people who made them come here. Their choices, forgotten in history, were not always the best.
Videos: 1. Slave attack clip
Scene 6
(1)Once the war ended, a (2)new nation that was sorta kinda maybe united finally almost was about to emerge. kinda. (3)After various documents the new government sorta not really perfected the constitution and legal systems-- they totally didn’t-- (4)and the nation could organize. Good thing, (5)because the british came back in 1812 to that foreign land to fight a useless fight for no reason AGAIN (6) *cough* Iraq *cough*.
Pictures:
1. white flag
2. Declaration signing
3. Constitution
4. Signing again
5. Sailing warship
6. picture of Iraq
Scene 7
(1)Anyway, the nation had some trouble sorting out. (2)Former soldiers had lost their home life and were viewed sometimes as insurgents.(3) America had been a lawless and unfair land, and until federal intervention, was the worst place to be during the war. Luckily, those(4) rich guys people hated for making them go to war had a point.(5) British rule sucked. A lot. The new verdict was economic opportunity and equality(6)--sorta. All men were to be considered (7)equal and deserving respect. A step forward against the tyranny and superiority of the monarchs. (8)There was no king. (9)There was no ruler. (10)There was a system. You wouldn’t want america to be like this:[1]
Videos:
1. Random unorganized stuff
Pictures:
1. Tea party picture
2. civilian soldier from 1790’s
3. Wild west
4. founding fathers
5. Monarch
6. 1% with all the wealth
7. Declaration “all men” statement
8. Burger king
9. Actual drawing ruler
10. PACMAN
Scene 8
(1)After the colonies manifested as the United States and fought off the world’s biggest power, they were pretty free to do what they please,(2) like kill lots of native people and enslave more people. [1] Most of all, they could go west. In the west was more wars to fight, trees to cut, and land to farm in.
Pictures:
1. old american flag with circle of stars 2. suffering natives Videos: 1. Alfonso explorer clip
Fin