I am the Übernerd!

I spent much of this afternoon at the library. The intent was to merely study (this?) last weeks edition of the Washington Post Weekly for my International Relations class, but, alas, I got stuck.

This happens to me frequently in bookstores. I'll start browsing books and end up REALLY wanting to buy about three of them very badly, then remember what a limited budget I have. This has already occurred in the University bookstore at least twice this year.

Today, in the library, something similar happened. I started looking for and looking at books, but didnt run into the usual financial roadblock. I could take and read the books for FREE!! What an amazing concept.

I checked out 4 books today, 3 of which are written by Noam Chomsky. I haven't yet had the experience of reading Chomsky, but I've heard worlds of good about him, and have anticipated reading his stuff for a while. Today I checked out "Political Economy of Human Rights", "Latin America: From Colonization to Globalization", and "Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda", all by him. I'm so pumped.

The fourth book I checked out today is titled "Live from Death Row" by Mumia Abu-Jamal. If you have never heard of this man, you need to. He's been on Death Row in Pennsylvania since the 1980's, I believe, and there is much evidence to show that he was not given a fair trial, that evidence supporting his innocence disappeared, that racism was a very important factor in his trial, that he was represented by incompetent counsel, etc. Check out this site (and others!). It's www.FreeMumia.org

I can't wait to read all these. I have the books until 9/28, and I'm sure I can renew if I need to. It'd be awesome if I didn't need to, though. If I could finish all these by the 28th, then I could get more! And trust me, there's more. There's a whole library full of more.

"Frederick Douglass taught that literacy is the path from slavery to freedom. There are many kinds of slavery and many kinds of freedom. But reading is still the path."--Carl Sagan

Huskers, Anchondo, and where you are

Today I attended the first game of the Nebraska Cornhuskers' 2003 season, and what a game it was! We should've beaten OSU by SO much more (I'm not being facetious.... we made so many mistakes!), but I'll take the 17-7 win. No complaints. It's a good thing this thing is a typing deal, because my voice is long gone. GO BIG RED!

After the game, a couple friends of mine and I drove to Omaha to see a great band called Anchondo (remember them, Heath?). They're from Omaha, kind of hometown heroes, and a guy I lived near last year, a good friend of mine, has a brother and 2 cousins in the 4-piece band. So that's how I heard of them. If I were to describe their sound.... hmmm... sublime-ish, with elements of blues and latin groove. Definitely a band worth checkin out. www.AnchondO.com I don't think you can download any audio there anymore, but there is a song on their that plays automatically if you have a quick connection. It's called "She Devil", and it's the big single around here. Great song, but definitely not the only good thing they've produced. Check them out! Kazaa, dammit, Kazaa!

Check out MacGregor, too. They're from D.C., and I saw them play last year. Good band. Talented. Kinda ska-rap... intriguing. One song has a couple verses in Spanish. Muy bueno.

Alright, so, for some reason, at the concert, I was thinking about something during one of the (wonderful and amazing) guitar solos. Wherever I am, I say I'm "in" that place, right? Example: I go home for the weekend, I'm "in" Rhode Island, I come back to school, I'm "in" Nebraska. (stay with me) Now, isn't the fact that we're not actually "in" anything, but rather on it? Also strange is the idea that when we visit islands, all of the sudden we're "on" them. These are different from the mainland, for some reason. Whattup with the English language, and just vernacular in general? Do we say these things because we're "within" the boundaries of these states? Why don't we say it when we're "with-on" an island? Why isn't "withon" a word? "Withoff"? Also, consider this: when you're within the boundaries of one state, you're also immediately outside the boundaries of something else. Like Nebraska is directly outside of Kansas, Iowa, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado. So if we didn't say we were "in" or "on" Nebraska, we could say we were within the boundaries of [see states previously listed].

Anyways, right now I'm on Nebraska. In a week I'll be on Rhode Island (neither a rhode, nor an island. discuss). And I'm pumped.

*sigh* this has turned into another edition of Collin's 3am ramblings. I'm exhausted and it's bedtime. My voice needs to recuperate. Have a great night. Talk to you soon.

"To achieve the impossible dream, try going to sleep."--Joan Klempner

Today's Lunch Thought

I was just at lunch, and I overheard this awesome conversation. It was great because it combined academic scholarship and debate with modern vernacular. These two students were discussing Columbus. It went (something) like this:

Guy 1: Dude, Columbus came over from your island, though. He came over to the mainland from Puerto Rico.

Guy 2: Actually, Columbus never made it to the mainland. Know ya history, playa. He only went to the Carribbean.

I love college.

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."--Albert Einstein

Congratulations are in Order...

Krys got a house! Huzzah! PARTYYYY! (kidding, kidding)

Now, in all seriousness, my wonderful girlfriend has worked very hard, looked very long, and waited very patiently for this to finally come to fruition. From what I hear, the house is a bute, and really affordable. Way to go!

Again, CONGRATS and I can't wait to see it!

Adios

"Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish."--John Quincy Adams

Deregulation of Business

I was reading the New York Times today, and in it, on page A-14, there's a great (terrible) story entitled: "Administration Adopts Rule On Antipollution Exemption". The gist of the article is:

"The Bush administration relaxed its clean air rules today to allow thousands of industrial plants to make upgrades without installing pollution controlls, arguing that other regulations were in place to reduce emissions.

....

In one of its most far-reaching environmental actions, the Bush administration signed a rule that will allow thousands of power plants, refineries, pulp and paper mills, chemical plants and other industrial facilities to make extensive upgrades that increase pollutants without having to install new antipollution devices. The rule, for which industries have lobbied the administration for two years, could save them billions of dollars. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that more than 17,000 plants will be affected...."

You can read the entire article here (you might need to create a sign-in name, it's free, and totally worth it). There's alot more information in it, including both sides' respective opinions. I suggest reading it. It's very important. This will affect your air.

On the topic of deregulation, I just thought it interesting to mention about the infamous California Recall. One major reason people are upset with Governor Davis is his lack of positive action regarding the rolling blackouts there. The irony is that Davis is a Democrat. The blackouts are actually due to Republican deregulation of power plants. They're the Republicans who are pushing for the recall. I just found that kind of intriguing.

Talk to you soon.

"In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; and we will understand only what we have been taught."--Baba Dioum

A necessary apology

Last night I wrote based on pure emotion. I guess that's kinda the point of these things... to get stuff off your chest or back or wherever it is you keep it. But I did it in a very no-holds-barred fashion, which was entirely inconsiderate.

A comment I overheard last night, one that was probably just said in passing, one that was made with little personal significance attached, infuriated me. I overreacted to something that was wholly unintentional, and for that, I'm very sorry.

I feel like I may have offended people who didn't deserve offense, and that, in the process, I alienated others. My emotional rant put somebody I love in a very awkward position. This didn't need to happen.

I stand by my position, but I recognize that it was unnecessarily presented in a very personal manner. I still believe that people, in general, are not so different from each other. I do know that males and females definitely experience different experiences and feel different feelings, but I'm wholly against generalizations made by anybody. At risk of being called a hypocrite, I realize that I make generalizations myself, though I try to clarify when I notice I'm doing this. I'm working on it. I can only ask that others try the same.

What I wrote is not what I retract. I'm sorry for the tone I took and for the anger I professed. I'm sorry if I offended or alienated anybody. That was far from my intention. If you want, please don't be afraid to email me about this. This isn't the best explanation I can offer, but I suppose it'll have to do for now, since it's so late. Any further questions, please email me. I look forward to email (and it'll actually show that people read these, and that I'm not writing to a vast audience of empty cyberspace).
Alright, now to bed.

Have a comfortable night.

"It is a common experience that a problem difficult at night is resolved in the morning after a committee of sleep has worked on it."--John Steinbeck

When Inadvertent Unity Divides

I write this because I feel burnt.

Are boys and girls really that different? Is there such a thing as "women's intuition"? Are there things that girls "just get" and guys "just get", but a lengthy, undesirable explanation is necessary in order for the opposite gender to "get" those particular, respective things?

I can't believe it. While it's obviously true that boys and girls experience different things, both physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially (most of those feed off of one another), it seems impossible to me that there are certain things that all girls "get" and boys couldn't possibly comprehend, and vice versa.

The thing that stings me the most is this social stigma attached to gender. Boys don't know about feelings. Girls don't know about cars. Boys don't know about "he didn't call". Girls don't know about "first and ten".

I'm so sick of this shit. Why can't we wake up and realize that boys and girls are, before all else, people? And that people have similar experiences, that people have similar emotions, that people are curious and want to learn about new things, that people are caring and compassionate by nature?

I'm a person. You're a person. Recognize me for who I am, and please, please, never, ever stigmatize me by clumping me into the vast generalization of "boy". I'm different from all of them, just like "all of them" are different from all of them. Glaring generalizations only serve to divide.

I'm going to bed. Sorry I'm in such a bad mood. But I feel better now, if it's any consolation.

I hope this finds you well.

"You're unique. Just like everybody else."--Source unknown

Sight and Sense

On CNN today was a piece on a man who had surgery on his corneas, which included something regarding stem cells. He had surgery on his eyes... he used to be blind and now he can see.

I can't imagine that... living in darkness all my life, finally knowing the beauty of "blue". I can't even fathom trying to consider any concept of color without sight. Do you think you could describe "blue" without referring to any other color? Describe a sight without referring to sight. Describe a sound without referring to sound (I guess that'd be easier... you can both feel and hear vibrations). What about taste? I don't know what it would be like to be missing a sense.

Speaking of missing a sense, I wonder if there was another sense we were all supposed to get, but never did. I'm saying, maybe God or evolution or space aliens or whatever made us left something out by accident and we haven't yet noticed. It'd have to be something completely unique, something really, really different. Nothing old, nothing new, nothing borrowed, nothing blue.... telepathy? Seems too obvious. What about.... see this is hard.

We already have five senses and we're trained, by ourselves, to depend solely on these senses. We are in such a predisposition to agree and believe that these are the only things we need to survive and to enjoy and to live. And that may be so. But couldn't there be something else? I'm going to ask my physical anthropology professor, and if she doesn't know, I'm going to ask my philosophy TA from last semester. I'm sure we can have a nice lengthy discussion about this.

He's from Rhode Island, by the way. And he's a hippie. A wicked hippie. It's awesome.

There. Philosophical schpiel for the day. Now I got it out of my system. Hopefully more tomorrow.

Oh, I saw Evanescence tonight. They were pretty good. Not that it was a surprise, but the place was just about overrun by 13yr olds, with their parents sitting in the back (with me). I kinda felt old.... especially when they played "Zero" by the Smashing Pumpkins. They did it justice, so that was cool. I enjoyed myself. Maybe wasn't worth $26, but I missed the first 3 acts, so maybe it woulda been worth it had I seen them.

Talk soon.

"How wonderful yellow is. It stands for the sun."--Vincent Van Gogh

Questions:

I've been thinking about these recently....

1) Does anybody ever have an 'ordinary' day? I mean, has there ever been a day that can't be defined by something relatively good or relatively bad happening? Today was the first day of classes for us here, and everybody had a different story to tell. But it seemed like just another day. Even though everyone had a different story to tell.... I think what I'm getting at is that every day is extraordinary. There is no ordinary. No day is like the previous or next. Appreciate it. (Sounds cliché, but I've actually deduced and proven....)

2) Is there such a thing as "angry apathy"? I think it's a paradox.... here's why. See, to be angry is to show emotion. It's to care about something enough to give your time and energy to it. You're focused on it. You're concerned about it. Now, to be apathetic is not to care at all. There is no emotion. There is no concern. Thus, anybody angrily screaming "i dont care i dont care I DON'T CARE!!!!" is a filthy stinkin liar. They do care.... they're angry.

3) Speaking of apathy, isn't that worse than hate? If I tell somebody that I hate them (which I'm sure to never do), they're getting my attention and my emotion and my focus. Now, if I completely ignore a person because I have absolutley no feeling towards them whatsoever, isn't that worse? Would you rather hear "My opinion of you is lower than you could possibly imagine", or "I have no opinion of you, for considering you is a waste of time to me"? I think I'd prefer the latter. At least that person's considerate. Even if the hate is based on false pretenses, that person took the time to evaluate me, if even for a second. I'd rather be hated than not acknowledged at all.

Have fun.

"How we think shows through in how we act. Attitudes are mirrors of the mind. They reflect thinking."--David Joseph Schwartz

Fireworks

Also, uhh, fireworks were just going off a few blocks from my window. It was a very pleasant and beautiful surprise. Off to a free midnight movie. Later.

"The backbone of surprise is fusing speed with secrecy."--Carl von Clausewitz

Relinquishing Freedom

I was standing in the Subway line yesterday behind a man wearing a U.S. Army tee shirt. You know, one of those free ones they send you with the video when you call and say "I'm interested in the U.S. Army". Most of the ones I've seen read something like "Army of One" or "212 Reasons...." etc. Not this one. This one read, in huge yellow letters printed on a black tee:

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

To this, I pose a simple question: Why not?

What do I have to give up for my own freedom? Security? Democracy? My civil liberties? If I give anything up, is the outcome actually true freedom? What's this definition of "freedom"? It seems to me that we may be referring to two different freedoms, which makes debate difficult, since we're not even discussing the same thing.

See, when I think of "freedom", I think of that right guaranteed to me in such documents as the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and, above all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, Article 1 of the UDHR states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Now, Article 30 (the final one) states: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

NOBODY has the right to take away my freedom, just as nobody has the right to take away YOUR freedom. Therefore, there is no circumstance - not one - in which it is permissable to compromise one's freedom. It's a basic human right. You have a voice. You have a mind. You have a right to security. Nobody has a right to take any of those away.

I saw this slogan often after the pre-emptive strike on Iraq was perpetrated. Those who championed the slogan seemed to support the attack (an attack which, incidentally, I whole-heartedly opposed, and still do, just for the record). Now, there's nothing wrong with these people, I just happen to disagree with them. But I've never engaged in any kind of dialogue about this with somebody who wore this on their shirt or hat or car or whatever. If any of you feel like discussing it, email me. I'd like to hear the other side. Of course, it will probably end up being a hot debate, which I love. My email is sullivan@bigred.unl.edu

.

Until next time....

"Safety is all well and good. I prefer freedom."--E.B. White

Best imitation of myself

(Earlier, I posted something to this effect. Due to apparent problems with the publishing, all information was lost. I don't know if this is true, or if it was actually published unbeknownst to me, or what. If something like this appears to have already been published, disregard uhh one of them. Thanks.)

So I'm back online. Because of the worldwide world, UNL decided to turn off the residents internet access (since we're all connected, so if one of us gets it, we could all get it) until the patches could be distributed. Seems that everything is running smoothly *knock knock knock*. It was kinda nice not having the internet for a few days. Gave me a chance to catch up on some reading (and boy, did I read!), and, luckily, just as my internet was turned off, I got a cable for my television, so I could still get news. Now, I didn't have news.google.com, or the New York Times (not until Monday), but CNN sufficed, I guess.

I wonder about the person who wrote the worm. I find it kind of disconcerting that it was so easy for somebody to expose and exploit an (apparently) obvious flaw in one of the worlds most widely used operating systems. I think it'd be cool to be that person. Being able to say "That was my worm" must feel so empowering. Now, it's certainly a terrible way to gain infamy, as I'm sure the perpetrator will once he/she is caught, but infamy can sometimes make one more notorious than fame.

Question: If given the decision, would you choose fame or infamy? Note that, if you base your decision on notoriety and recognition, it's probable that more people know who Charles Manson is rather than who the 23rd president of the United States was, not to mention his accomplishments in or out of office.

What if the worm-maker considers his/herself an artist? What if she/he considers the worm a work of art? Millions of people around the Earth - which, as it happens, is the only place we know how to communicate with or within, for the time being - have not only heard of this, but have been affected by it and experienced it. It's something that has moved people to act and rethink and it sparked all kinds of emotions (mostly, I would guess, frustration). Now THAT's art.

Alright, that's all for now.

"This antitrust thing will blow over."--Bill Gates, 1997

3am excitement

Since today is technically Wednesday (though I haven't gotten any Tuesday night rest yet), then tomorrow is the official day (Thursday) that all my residents move in. I'm so ridiculously excited. I can hardly wait to meet all the guys on my floor. I'm ready to influence them and help them to grow closer to one another and aid in building a strong floor community and offer counsel if need be and point them in the right directions and share past experiences and make new friends and study with them and be annoyed by them and go to dinner with them.... (This is the part of the RA job I'm really enjoying... the anticipation, the excitement, and the new-ness).

I had some deep thoughts today, but, it being 3am, I dont remember what they were. And, quite frankly, right now, I don't care. I need to be at a meeting at 8:45 in the morning, and I still need to iron my shirt. I'm sure the thoughts will come to me another time....

By the way, it's only 2 am. I just got off the phone with Krys one time zone over, so I was thinking in Eastern (read: "Real") time. I just gained an hour. Mentally, of course. Sweet.

Enjoy yourself.

P.S. - By the way, I spoke with my friend Justin today. He's in D.C. right now, just moved in for school. Anyway, I mentioned to him about how my friends and I could not find one good thing Bush had done in about 3 years. He mentioned the $15 billion in aide to Africa to fight AIDS Bush mentioned in his State of the Union Address in January. Though this hasn't completely come to pass quite yet (Congress is still mulling it over), should he follow through with what he stated, that would be the one thing. Oh, and if he can resolve all conflict between Israel and Palestine. (As cynical as that was, if his and Blair's peace plan ["road map"] actually works, he will have an historically great thing to his credit. I don't believe it will happen, just because of how stubborn Israel and Palestine are, but if he did it, he would be something of a miracle worker.

"Time is a sort of river of passing events, and strong is its current; no sooner is a thing brought to sight than it is swept by and another takes its place, and this too will be swept away."--Marcus Aurelius

Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Senator

(Disclaimer: I am registered to vote as an independent. There are many Democrats I disagree with. There happen to be even more Republicans I disagree with. As a citizen who has just acquired his privilege to vote, I feel it's necessary to know the candidates. I know Bush. I know Nader (should he decide to run). I knew nothing of any Democrats, so I chose to inform myself. I suggest everyone else who intends to vote does the same.)

Kucinich, I've decided, is a very smart man. I took it upon myself tonight to distinguish each Democratic presidential candidate from one another, partially because I didn't believe that they could be, and partially because I'm afraid for their party unity (certainly a legitimate concern). So, I was on www.Democrats.org, the official site of the Democratic National Committee, and found links to all of the candidates' respective websites. Here's some interesting tid bits I've found on the people who stand out:

Al Sharpton: Though many seem to think this man is insane, or just fun to laugh at, he has some very good ideas. For example, his campaign is centered on Human Rights, and he's an abolitionist (as I am). Some of his ideas seem impractical, but are strong in theory.

John Kerry: A war veteran, and very, very proud of it. Though he's a Democrat, he supported and voted for the attack on Iraq, and still does, whole-heartedly, it seems. This distances him from the other candidates, many of whom appear to merely attack everything Bush says and does.

John Edwards: Is promoting a "College for Everyone" educational program, which would "provide states with the resources to make the first year of tuition at every public university and community college free for students who come to college prepared to study and work hard while they are there." Man, would that be sweet! Certainly not practical, as it would be very difficult to discern between the students who come "prepared to study and work hard while they are there" and those who don't.

Richard Gephardt: He has an idea for an International Minimum Wage. I really like this idea, as I think it would help alot of people, and I like that he came up with it. Again, not practical, seemingly impossible, and incredibly difficult to enforce.

Dennis Kucinich: Will push for abolition of capital punishment; will aid in the transition to alternative fuel sources; will create a Department of Peace; will end the discriminatory and unethical War on Drugs; will preserve a woman's right to make her own moral decisions with regards to her body; will treat corporations as corporations, not as people; will affirm and ratify treaties the U.S. has refused to take part in, such as the Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, and the International Criminal Court, among others; will challenge the rationale of the USA PATRIOT Act; he will cut unnecessary military spending and use the money to contribute to such programs as Social Security.... the list goes on.

Obviously, I support Kucinich (at least at this point in time, with the amount I know about the candidates). I think I agree, at least partially, with everything he promotes. Though I anticipate Dean receiving the nomination (in which case I may vote third party), should Kucinich get the blessing, I'd certainly vote for him.

(P.S. - If you get the chance, go to moby's website (www.moby.com) and check out today's journal entitled "What Happened?". The second part had me laughing for minutes. Literally.)

Off to bed....

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin

International Life

I just finished meeting with 2 of my advisors for my majors. One of them was advisor for International Studies. As a requirement, if I want a degree in IS, I need to spend at least some amount of time in another country (does Canada even count? I wonder....).

I've been wondering about spending time in another country, probably Spain. I think it would be so incredibly wonderful. I don't know how much time I'd want to spend there, but it would be cool to stay for a while. Difficult, of course, but undeniably cool. Anyone wanna come with me?

More to come later.... maybe.... probably.

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."--Nelson Mandela

Presidential Competence, Christianity vs. Capitalism, and a poster

I spent a large portion of my night tonight with two good friends of mine from freshman year, Dave and Samantha (Sam). We had some very intriguing conversations, as we normally do. Here are the three that really got me thinking:

1) We were discussing how it's impossible for a president to do everything right. While some are better than others, there will always be something that a president does that somebody doesn't like. This led us to analyze our current president: George W. Bush. We honestly, between us, could not find anything he did that we liked. Now, these are three open-minded, diverse college sophomores, one from South Dakota, one from North Dakota, and one from Rhode Island (me). We discussed war, deficit, economy, tax cuts, Death Penalty, gay marriage, the environment, etc. and really found nothing any of us agreed with (at least nothing any of us said we agreed with...). This was disappointing to me. I knew I disliked our president, but I didn't realize that I disagreed with him on everything he did.....

2) Later we were discussing Objectivism, the ultra-conservative philosophy of Ayn Rand, now spearheaded by Leonard Peikoff. I have recently read some pamphlets regarding the system of thought, and enjoyed it. It was something different to read. One of the pamphlets, entitled "Religion vs. America", really hit me hard. It had to do with the idea that the men and women who founded and shaped our country were not religious fundamentalists as the Puritan pilgrims were. They were, rather, products of the enlightenment. Though this is a very strong and intriguing concept, it wasn't what I found most compelling. On the subject of religion, Peikoff mentions that to be true to any religion, one must never embrace capitalism. He argues that if one is genuinely concerned for the poor, as the Bible and other holy books mandates, then that person must support complete redistribution of wealth. Basically stated, Christianity and socialism go hand in hand.

This seemed ridiculous to me at first. In my experience, I have noted that Republicans in this particular country are generally more conservative, and conservative's are generally more fundamentalist with regards to religious. Most often, they are the one's promoting prayer in public schools, promoting that the Ten Commandments be posted in public schools, that God stay on American currency, etc. (Note: This is not necessarily a good or a bad thing, this is merely an observation I've made.) Also, conservatives tend to be more supportive of a capitalist system. For example, earlier I described Objectivism as "ultra-conservative". In Rand's book Atlas Shrugged, the dollar sign is not only the symbol for free trade, but also for a free mind.

Therein lies the contradiction, doesn't it? This is a prime example of the hypocracy of modern theology. People seem to have looked past the deep meaning of religion, the moral paths it can lead, the endless hope it can provide, and use it solely for their own personal advantage. Note that, somehow, the same book justifies "eye for an eye" practices, yet commands that "Thou shalt not kill". Another book supports jihad against infidels, and also embraces nonviolence.

I'm no better a person than anybody else, but I wish that people, in general, myself included, could be less hypocritical in their beliefs and practices. Kind of a personal and societal goal I'd like to work towards.....

3) We were chilling in Dave's room tonight and were oogling his new poster (warning: it's definitely something some may consider "racy", hopefully it doesn't offend you, or lower your opinion of me). Rather than explain it, here's a picture of it. What made me so happy tonight is that we could have done the ol' "huh huh huh girls huh huh" deal, but we didn't. For some reason, we (Dave, Ann, and I [Sam abstained, and laughed at us]) analyzed the hell out of that picture. We discussed which person felt like what and why. We talked about passive-aggressive, the dominant figure, why. We mentioned how this came to be, is one of them asleep?, did she just wake up?, was it the kiss that woke her?, etc. It was a very interesting and mature conversation, and I'm glad we were able to have it, rather than merely drooling. In conclusion, we are such complete and total nerds (read "Intellectuals") that we can't even let a sexy picture go without saying something analytical about it. I'm still pondering whether that's good or bad..... right now I'm gonna say good, because I think we enjoyed it on different levels then.


Anyways, sorry this was so long. It's almost 3am and I think it's time for bed. More philosophical fumbling tomorrow, I'm sure.

Goodnight.

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity and incumbancy."--George W. Bush in Sweden, unaware that a live TV camera was still running

Moby!

I was on Moby's website today for the first time in months. I forgot how much I enjoy reading his journals. He's a much different thinker than anybody I know, and I think it'd be really cool to have lunch with him sometime. http://www.moby.com, his journals are there. He asks some fun questions, but important ones, too. Anyway, he's a genius.

Book's coming along OK, I'm about 1/4 way through it. Spent another day telling myself I'd get stuff done, and doing little of it. Hope that doesn't come back to bite me. Maybe I'll get it done tonight....

Hasta

"I don't want you to agree with me, I just want you to be involved."--Moby

"Jews for Buchanan" and that mischievous "N-Word"

I've been reading alot lately. Yeah, I've been busy training for this RA gig, but in my spare time I've actually been able to finish a short book I've been on for three months (sad, I know), and start one I bought almost a year ago. Needless to say, I'm happy to be reading regularly again.

The book I just finished is called "Jews for Buchanan". It's with regard to the total and complete farce that was the 2000 presidential election (the title alludes to the idea that over 3,000 elderly Jews voted for Pat Buchanan, the candidate most likely to be labeled anti-Semitic). Now, it's far from unbiased. I think John Nichols, the author, is about the most anti-Bush, anti-Republican person I've heard of. Now, it could be that he was just arguing for Gore, but I think it was his sarcasm and cynicism that led me to believe that he's far from objective.

Being that Nichols is far from centrist, the book probably exaggerates many points. Some of his sources seemed unchecked. But most of it seemed to have at least some credibility. The conflicts of interest within the Supreme Court is what really interested and intrigued me, not to mention the disenfranchisement of thousands of black men and women in the state of Florida (I still question Katharine Harris' alleged crusade to achieve this end, though she also had a strong conflict of interest, as well...).

I do recommend and did enjoy this book thoroughly. It's certainly not a be-all, end-all to the question of "How did we get bamboozled in 2000?", but it's a good start.

(As a warning, the following may be pretty offensive. This is unintentional. Please don't be offended!)

The book I was just able to start is called "Nigger: The strange career of a troublesome word". I'm 37 pages in, and it's powerful. Here's what it's about, in Randall Kennedy's words:

How should nigger be defined? Is it a part of the American cultural inheritance that warrants preservation? Why does nigger generate such powerful reactions? Is it a more hurtful racial epithet than insults such as kike, wop, wetback, mick, chink, and gook? Am I wrongfully offending the sensibilities of readers right now by spelling out nigger instead of using a euphemism such as N-word? Should blacks be able to use nigger in ways forbidden to others? Should the law view nigger as a provocation that reduces the culpability of a person who responds to it violently? Under what circumstances, if any, should a person be ousted from his or her job for saying "nigger"? What methods are useful for depriving nigger of destructiveness? In the pages that follow, I will puruse these and related questions. I will put a tracer on nigger, report on its use, and assess the controversies to which it gives rise. I have invested energy in this endeavor because nigger is a key word in the lexicon of race relations and thus an important term in American politics. To be ignorant of its meanings and effects is to make oneself vulnerable to all manner of perils, including the loss of a job, a reputation, a friend, even one's life. (Kennedy, 3-4)

So, there's the entire first paragraph of the book. It is, to say the least, offensive. Though I think this was part of Kennedy's purpose. I don't know how many times the word is used, but I know that it hasn't lost meaning yet, and probably won't. This proves the power and the stigma attached to it. I think it's certainly something that deserves the analysis and research that Kennedy hass afforded it.

It's a page-turner, too. I don't consider myself a fast reader at all, but I finished nearly 40 pages in about a half an hour (it helps that the words are printed a bit larger than usual, and that the lines are spaced a bit more, as well). The only reason I put it down is because I was so exhausted. I should finish it soon (I hope). So far, I whole-heartedly recommend it to those interested in social and especially racial issues, and even to those who generally aren't, because, as Kennedy stated above, "To be ignorant of its meanins and effects is to make oneself vulnerable to all manner of perils...."

Until next time.....

"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today." -- Laurence J. Peter