Everything I couldn’t say yesterday

Having been shaped almost exclusively by the geopolitical events that have occurred in the past five years, it almost seems heretical to ask these things, but throughout my philosophical quest, I got into the habit of questioning beliefs that felt near and dear… Did 9/11 really change everything? Did 9/11 really require a paradigm shift in the way we dealt with the world?

Were we justified in invading Afghanistan? Would a preemptive attack on Afghanistan been justified, prior to 9/11?

Just how big a threat are the various Islamic radicals?

Does the Middle East need democracy? How should we spread democracy? Should America be more patient?

It would’ve been impossible for me to ask these questions yesterday. I thought I felt okay, but on that day, I realized that there was still a big gaping wound. 9/11 still hurts. There is nothing that I love more than my country, and to see it attacked…. I want to say that it feels like someone punched me in the gut, but it goes deeper than that… as if someone was able to wound my soul. 5 years later, I can’t help it. It still hurts.

It was fascinating going through the links Lloyd provided from the kids who were only in 3rd and 4th grade when it happened. It seems like ages ago to them. They couldn’t even fully comprehend what was going on. (And I noticed at least two of them remembering carpet. I don’t know what that means.) To me, 9/11 wasn’t ages ago. First of all, 5 years doesn’t seem as long a period of time as it used to. (It happens when you get older.) Secondly, it still feels like yesterday when it happened. Well, perhaps not yesterday. More like a month ago. It’s like when you stare at a bright light and it leaves an after-image when you close your eyes. That day burns brightly compared to everything else.

There were so many things I wanted to write about yesterday, but I refrained from writing. Yesterday wasn’t about me. For me, every 9/11 will always be about them. The dead.

There were people outside on the street waving peace signs. I suddenly became very angry, even though I recognized that it was probably irrational to be that way. To me, it felt like they were disrespecting the 3000 people who died on that day. I thought, “We tried peace in ’93. They came back 8 years later and knocked the towers down.” That oversimplifies the issue, in retrospect, but I still can’t shake the feeling that these people want to bury their heads in the sand. Yesterday, I was 100% sure Afghanistan was justified because 3000 people died and we helped disrupt al-Qaeda such that killing another 3000 would be extremely, extremely difficult. I felt like they didn’t care about bringing the killers to justice. I thought, “This day is about them, not you or your stupid political agenda. Shut up.” All this just from seeing them on the street. I was completely flustered for many hours afterward. Like I said, it wasn’t 100% rational, but it’s impossible for me to act rationally on the anniversary of September 11.

Every year, I mark the day with one word: Remember. It contains everything I want to say. It’s many things at once to me. It’s a solemn reminder to remember the tragic events. It’s a note of defiance, a warning to the terrorists that we will never forget and we will bring you to justice. It’s a wake-up call: America, don’t let this happen again. I’m not sure how one word can mean that much to me. Perhaps it’s because it takes me back to that day and all the emotions I had at the time. Perhaps it’s not the word. Perhaps it’s just the act of remembering. Just the pure, unadulterated act of remembering. For me, to add commentary would be to taint the memory.

And so, on that day, I will always continue to only put that one word. 9/11 will forever be dedicated to the act of remembering for me, until the day when Islamofascism has been utterly defeated.

Project Runway Picks

After Allison went out, I made my picks for top 3: Michael, Jeffrey, and Laura. I think Laura’s outfits are boring, but it looks like there’s been nothing but praise for them so far. I really enjoy Uli, but she hasn’t been getting much screen time and that makes me think she won’t make it. My instincts were only confirmed when the judges suddenly criticized her the week before last. The producers have a say, I think, and so, I picked the top 3 that would probably produce the most drama.

However, I missed last week’s episode, and my prospects for seeing this week’s are dim. (Fuck you, Calculus III.) Someone tell me if I’ve already fucked up my picks. This initially made me reluctant to make a post, but I’m just putting this out there now so I can either look like an idiot or a genius before the end of the show, before this becomes a postdiction instead of a prediction. I will be glad to be proven wrong on Uli, though.

They Don’t Just Want to Kill Each Other

For some reason, I feel like there might be this impression that the sectarian violence was inevitable in Iraq. That these people have always fought each other and always will. With that frame of mind, one may think that their only goal is to kill each other, since that’s what they’ve always done. That if civil war exists in Iraq, the only objective of the Shiites and the Sunnis is to spill the blood of the other. That the objective is merely to fight.

We must think further than this.

The name al-Sadr keeps popping up in the news. His Shiite militias commit murder after murder. And I find myself constantly lamenting, “Why didn’t we kill him when we had the chance?” We did have that chance in the beginning of the war. I’ll refresh myself on the exact history later when I can find it.

If you think all al-Sadr wants is to kill people, you’re mistaken. Even Osama bin Laden has his dreams of an Islamic caliphate.

Now, the question is what kind of influence does al-Sadr wish to wield? Would he try to destroy the nascent democratic government in Iraq?

I can only propose a guess based on a knowledge of human nature and its lust for power: Yes.

The other question, though, is: What kind of influence does Iran wield over al-Sadr? Can Iran conquer Iraq via proxy (namely, al-Sadr)? It’s not so far-fetched when you consider what has happened with Hezbollah and Lebanon.

And of course, I have one more question: What should the US do about al-Sadr? Even if you don’t follow my paranoid line of questioning, al-Sadr’s militia poses a threat to Iraq’s government. A government needs to have a monopoly of force.

Meditation on Contradictory Truths

It’s been nearly 9 months since I brought to you the latest breakthrough I had in my search for a coherent account of reality. I’ve still been searching, and today, I reveal to you my latest revelations about life.

Since my last breakthrough, I’ve kept pushing and pushing. I thought deeper and deeper. At some point, the quest for knowledge, I realized, had become a quest to unlearn everything I knew. I kept throwing away assumption after assumption. Finally, stripped of all knowledge, I was left with only two fundamental truths. 1) Nothing matters. 2) Love everything. Of course, it’s not as if these were new discoveries, it’s just that everything else seemed to stem from these truths. The first, “nothing matters,” comes from my more cynical, skeptical mind. In this view, everything is meaningless and has no purpose. I came upon this truth when I kept asking myself, “Why? Why? Why?” With every answer, I tried to dig deeper. At the bottom of the hole I dug, I found nothingness. I found no reason to choose good over evil. I found no purpose to life. My second fundamental truth was a command that came from my (still) newfound Christianity: Love everything.

These seem to answer the two basic questions that I set out to answer: What does it mean to be human? how should I live? Yet, my answers were contradictory. How can you love everything if you believe that the universe is meaningless? I tried to take a leap, to pick one or the other, but I couldn’t. In my mind, there was no reason to choose good over evil, yet my choice was for good. (Let alone the fact that I couldn’t explain what was good or what was evil.) How could I explain this contradictory state? I tried to explain it pragmatically — that good was the best way to live life, but that seemed wrong. It didn’t take into account the complexities of life. Sometimes, you can gain from evil.

For months, I tried in vain to reconcile these two truths. I toyed with an idea of the “love absurd.” I’d write feverishly in what I thought were moments of epiphany, but nothing ever stuck. Last December, I finally came upon viewing the world as a giant game of improve and the philosophy of “forgetting the audience,” but that still felt too descriptive. It wasn’t the Middle Way I sought. In fact, I felt a Middle Way would be a betrayal of my principles, my truths. That’s why I’m didn’t lean toward Buddhism after all my thinking. I didn’t want to equivocate in my command to love everything.

Finally, I am stumbling upon a possible path toward reconciling the two contradictory principles: Don’t. It’s not that I’m going to ignore the contradictions; I’m going to embrace them. The struggle is the greatest thing about life. It is the Sisyphean cry of the existentialist, “I will not be defeated. I will live anyway,” combined with the Christian sense of purpose. The answer of “How to live” is to pursue contradictory goals at the same time.

Of course, this probably makes more sense to me than it does to you. I can only explain my proto-thoughts by analogy. My breakthrough came during my study of government. Modern democracies are comprised of two contradictory goals: To provide freedom to the people and to give government the necessary strength to act. It pits chaos versus order.

A completely ordered life is to live under totalitarianism. To me, this is surrendering completely to my second truth and forgetting to step back. A completely chaotic life is to live in a violent state of nature. To me, this is surrending to my first truth and acting however I want because nothing matters.

Democracy could be construed as a Middle Way. It’s often portrayed as a delicate balancing act. I disagree strongly with this characterizing. It’s not a balancing act; it’s a struggle. It is a messy, constant struggle. Just like my struggle with the meaningless universe. With a democracy, you fight to create law, to define situations, but to not define all situations.

I will live my life similarly. But then I ask myself, is it possible to do such a thing? Does it make sense to be a living contradiction? Yes, I can.

I now appeal to another analogy. Is light a particle or a wave? Kind of one, kind of the other, kind of both. It’s bizarre. The human mind works the same way. If light can be two things at once, then perhaps I can as well?

And so, I begin to think that to live life is to constantly struggle between contradictory fundamental truths (perhaps not necessarily the two I’m thinking of now). There is no final reconciliation. There is no transcendent truth above them. There is no delicate balance. There is only the struggle.

I realize: Hope and futility can coexist.

Of course, the analogies are imperfect. I haven’t even bothered to explain why I think “Love everything” should be a fundamental truth. I have holes all over the place, I bet. Are my fundamental truths even the correct ones? Still, I think I’ve stumbled upon my main contradiction: Hope and futility. And I’ve realized that although they are in contradiction, they can still coexist. The key is not transcendence or balance, but struggle. To live my life simultaneously believing in, and acting upon, both.

A Response to Lloyd and the Facebook Fracas (that somehow morphs into something else)

Lloyd wrote this today:

If only a fraction of the energy and indignation that tens of thousands of college students are now expending on the Facebook fracas be applied elsewhere… to, say, indignation and action over the de facto torture policy of the Bush Administration… then maybe things will get…

…never mind. It’ll never happen. ;p

::cranky::

It’s quite easy to voice your indignation when all you have to do is click “Join this group.” I expended just about as much energy as it takes to turn the TV on. If we applied the same energy elsewhere, well, we’d get just about as much done as we have now.

If we could change Bush’s policy by getting thousands of people to click a button, it could happen… maybe, but keep this in mind: We weren’t going to march on facebook. We weren’t going to hold our ground. If Mark Zuckerberg had held his ground for a month (or perhaps two weeks!), Generation Y would’ve acquiesced quite easily. Bush is a million times more obstinate.

As someone from the inside of this “revolution,” I can say that it was no revolution. We were merely consumers extremely who clicked a button to say that we were dissatisfied with a product, stirred up by a few trouble-makers who took an extremely short amount of time to invent a group.

I think it’d be easier to first get all the people who voted for American Idol to vote for a president. ;P

But do delve even further into the psychology of this generation, it was rather interesting how this was a decentralized phenomenon. Sure, there was one guy who wrote a spiel for the Facebook group, but it easily could have been another person from any of the other Facebook groups against News-feed. It easily could’ve been someone else. To put it in plain English: This outcry had no leader.

If Gen Y is really going to get anything done, it needs leaders. Yet, our current choice of role models is lacking. Celebrities? An incompetent president? The morally bankrupt former president? The stilted former vice president? The current vice president who shot someone in the face?

Can we really say that without Abraham Lincoln, the Union would’ve been as great? Can we really say that without Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement would’ve gone as far?

With political discourse poisoned by hacks like Coulter, who can we look to for inspiration? Who can we look to for wisdom?

I’m not saying that the leader is the end-all, be-all. That would be anti-democratic to say that all we need is a great leader, but it sure helps to have a good leader — to have a catalyst for action by the masses.

Like I said earlier, if Zuckerberg had held out for a month, he surely would’ve been victorious. We need people in positions of power to make a difference. Luckily, democracy provides the means to put these people in power.

Yet, the adolescent hearts and minds of this generation were forged in the fires of 9/11. All those who are in college right now, who are on facebook, they are the ones whose lives are shaped by that one day. Perhaps with the world in disarray right now, we can look back on that one day to find courage and integrity in the midst of a previously unimagined act of despicable evil. Even then, there was hope, so too now, there may be hope.

Of course, I’ve gone a long way from Facebook, but I felt it would be wrong to have stopped writing. All I can say is that I will do my small part and maybe one day become a leader, as I hope to be. I can tell Lloyd that he has a right to be cranky now. On the surface, we look like misfits, but with the right catalyst, something great may still yet happen. Although it looks like courage and integrity are in short supply, we have a powerful example in our past of what these values mean. I just hope it’s enough.

To bring this full circle, I must say that no, this Facebook fracas isn’t a sign of things to come. We expended very little effort to bring this about, and I’ll say it one more time, that if Zuckerberg had held out longer, we would’ve given up quite easily. This isn’t a victory by any means. Zuckerberg was very understanding. We didn’t fight anything. There was an outcry, but there was no battle. Thus, by logical extension, there was no victory. I will disagree vehemently with anyone who says differently. This was no demonstration of will or action. There was no test of our wills. There is no inspiration in this event. If we expended the same energy elsewhere, we’d get stomped down, just like we would’ve rolled over had this (non-)battle gone on longer.

Want to be famous?

Say that the government planned 9/11. Pretend that you were on one of the flights that crashed into the WTC. Say that the government forced you to change your identity, and now you’re coming out. Say that there are more of you.

Better do it quick. It’s going to happen sooner or later.

EDIT: Or rather, I bet it’s happened already. However, it’s all about timing. With the 5 year anniversary of 9/11 coming up, now is the perfect time. We’ve had just enough distance and we have just enough kooks who will lap up everything you say. With the coming media anniversary circus, you will be able to make the rounds. Maybe you can contact the guy who said Rove was going to be indicted in the Plame case.

Why Rumsfeld Won’t Be Replaced By a Democrat Anytime Soon

I was thinking that if Bush wanted to be a uniter, not a divider, and wanted to change the situation in Iraq, he could fire Rumsfeld and hire a Democrat in his place. Highly unlikely, I know. But if you have any hope, here’s where I demolish that hope.

Scenario: Rumsfeld, suddenly, retires due to “health reasons.” In a surprise move to establish unity, Bush names a high-profile Democrat to the post of Secretary of Defense. The American public sees a little progress in Iraq. New Secretary of Defense gets the credit, not Bush, or Republican Party by extension. Secretary of Defense becomes next president.

Scenario Two: Rumsfeld, suddenly, retires due to “health reasons.” In a surprise move to establish unity, Bush names a high-profile Democrat to the post of Secretary of Defense. The situation in Iraq worsens. The political career of the Secretary of Defense is over.

Bush can’t replace Rumsfeld with a Democrat since if it helps the situation in Iraq, he’s helping Democrats win the presidency and look real good on security. Even if he tried, a Democrat probably wouldn’t want the job since they mostly see Iraq as a quagmire and impossible to improve. Ideology aside, it is very difficult to turn the situation in Iraq around, and if you don’t, your political career is over.

Why it might be good for the nation and the war on terror for Bush to replace Rumsfeld… I’ll leave you to figure that out. But you might as well not try since it’s never going to happen.

I know it’s an odd argument to make. Who’s out there saying Bush should replace Rumsfeld with a Democrat? Well, for one, I’m just wondering aloud that it might be cool if it happened. Secondly, I think I saw on Sullivan something about him thinking that Lieberman was pushing himself for Secretary of Defense?

Also, what if Bush replaced Rumsfeld with anyone? I think even a lot of Republicans want to distance themselves from Bush when it comes to the War in Iraq. Seriously, who the hell in Washington would want Rumsfeld’s job?

Miscellaneous News

Item 1:

I was holding off on cheering for this until it was official, and now it is: Court Names Calderon Mexico’s President-Elect. Unfortunately, the losing candidate, Obrador, plans on defying the courts ruling. That’s the hard left, for ya. We take our peaceful transfers of power for granted here in America. It wasn’t always the normal state of affairs. In fact, when it first happened (when Jefferson replaced Adams), it was quite radical. Now, I’m not saying that Obrador will resort to violence, but we’ve already heard the *wink wink nudge nudge* earlier. That’s the far left, for ya. Pretending to be the champion of the people, but really only the champion of chaos.

Item 2:

The New York Times just figured out what I figured out a long time ago, and what many right-wing folks have figured out a long time ago. Immigration is going to be a big issue in this election. Article: “In Bellwether District, G.O.P. Runs on Immigration.”

This line was great: “In fact, many Republicans, on the defensive here and around the country over the war in Iraq, say they are finding that a hard-line immigration stance resonates not just with conservatives, who have been disheartened on other fronts this year, but also with a wide swath of voters in districts where control of the House could be decided.” Because I thought this was obvious a while ago. With the “in fact” it seems like this is a shocking revelation.

Whatevs. Slow news day, I guess. Then again, I think there was something in the article about political hacks a few weeks ago thinking this wasn’t an issue anymore? They should try listening to talk radio sometime. Not that they represent mainstream mainstream America, but these are the people who are probably going to vote for Republicans during midterm elections.

Item 3:

Bush finally names a replacement for Mineta, the old secretary of transportation: Mary Peters. Mineta created the disastrously incompetent Transportation Security Administration (TSA — an acronym I’m very familiar with, but some people don’t pay as much attention to flying as I do). I was glad to read a while back that he was gone. I’m hoping his replacement will be better. So far, it sounds like she’s a good manager. But her specialty is in highways. I think the outlook is dim on transportation security being drastically reformed for the better.

To the East

Last year when I left, I had a completely different feeling than now. I was simultaneously in a state of happiness and a state of sadness. I felt like an era was ending. Like things would never be the same.

Now, I feel differently. I realize life doesn’t have simple little chapters that you open and shut. Things are more entangled. I’m still friends with my companions from high school.

So when I finish college, I won’t suddenly embark on a new life. It’ll be the old life entangled with a new life. Just like what’s happening now. But geography is catching up to me. I can’t just visit back and forth easily. It leads to a more schizophrenic existence. What happens when I’m done with college? Where will I live?

To be perfectly honest, I’m not happy at all about going back. I’m dreading it. Before I was just anxious about flying (well, not flying, just going through security at the airport) and frustrated that no one sympathized with my anxiety. Now, it’s full-blown anxiety about leaving. What’s annoying is that there’s no transition period. It’s just — boom! — suddenly I’m on the other side of the country.

I feel as if I should have mixed feelings. Like, I should be looking forward to going back somewhat. Yet, I’ve recently found myself once again second-guessing my decision not to transfer. I just can’t bring myself to be optimistic.

That’s all I have to say for now. I’ll see all of you on the other side. Updates may be non-existent for a day or two (or three?). I know I don’t like to say that I’m going to make an entry on something in the near future because it usually never materializes, but I’d like to further examine the term “Islamofascism.”

Freedom or Violence?

Just some unfiltered musing…

I think I’ll have to devote at least one chapter in my discourse about how so-called revolutionaries really have nothing more than a fetish for violence. I watched V for Vendetta the other day, and it only confirmed my thoughts. It always pisses me off when the story ends there, with the violent overthrow. The Parliament building blows up in the movie and suddenly everything’s supposed to be okay? Hellz naw. That’s when the real story starts. The French Revolution was an utter failure despite their success in violently pulling their king from absolute power.

The real strange thing is how my mind has forged a connection between the leftists and the neocons. The neocons share this fetish for violence. It seems like they believe violent conflict is inevitable with Iran. (Don’t believe me, read some Krauthammer.)

Really, it kind of reminds me of the games I used to play when I was a kid. Whenever I played with my Lego’s, every battle was epic and apocalyptic. Every battle escalated into an all-out war. By the end, either everyone dies or only one person survives. It seems like the neocons want this same kind of epic battle with the Islamofascists.

The leftist revolutionaries and the neocons both share the same short-sightedness. The neocons thought that once the statue of Saddam came tumbling down, democracy would magically appear. Once the mighty Americans bomb the shit out of people, then they suddenly want to be just like us. Yet, strangely, they forgot that once we defeated Hitler, it wasn’t as if democracy suddenly became the end-all, be-all. We had to battle the communists.

Of course, I’m generalizing. The neocons and the leftists will tell us their views are more nuanced.

The great Machiavelli told us that the people have two desires: To be free and to achieve revenge against those who would oppress them. These are two distinct desires. The revolutionaries and the neocons conflate the two. But to be free is something entirely different than defeating those who would oppress you. It is infinitely more difficult.

It doesn’t matter how nuanced your view is if your favorite, most inspiring stories, end with violence. That is where the story should begin.

They like big buts and they cannot lie

From the New York Times front web page…

Headline: “Economy Adds More Jobs in August Than in July”

Blurb: “Unemployment ticked down a tenth of a point, but the average American worker is logging fewer hours and wage gains are minimal.”

Is it just me, or does every piece of economic good news come with a big “but” in the newspapers?

Broken Gun

We’re in the train. I walk into the train car ahead of me and pull out my space-age looking gun. I try to be menacing, “If you don’t give in to our demands, I will shoot every single one of you.” Yet, they aren’t taking me seriously. I decide that I have to make them take me seriously. I point my gun at the closest person. I pull the trigger, but instead of a giant laser beam, a tiny stream of water squirts out. They laugh at me.

I’m angry because they aren’t playing along. What’s wrong? In other dreams, the guns, the special attacks, don’t work, but everyone else acts as if they do. Of course, when that’s the case, usually nothing happens instead of a stupid squirt of water.

I tried to imagine the laser beam — a huge red laser beam shooting out of the gun — but still, the gun didn’t work.

I’m surprised I didn’t take control of the dream at this point, because I was semi-lucid. I was aware that I was dreaming, at some level, but not aware enough to realize the implications of being inside a dream.

A Small Note on the Term Islamofascist

Saying that someone is an Islamofascist, or Islamic fascist, doesn’t mean that all Muslims are fascists any more than saying that someone is a Chinese-American means that all Americans are Chinese or all Chinese are American.

I use the term because it’s the most accurate term out there for describing who these people are. The cartoon debacle proved that. They resorted to violence to try to get a Western government to repress an independent newspaper.

Iran-Romania Oil Barge Junk

You know what? I looked up the oil barge thing, and it was very, very boring. Like, honestly, I give as much a shit about this as I give a shit about John Mark Karr. Which is a very small amount of shit!

(To steal from Mr. Colbert) All you need to know: Iran’s being a punk-ass bitch again.

I know that isn’t exactly a paragon of civilized political discussion, but I’m in “not giving a shit” mode.

A Democrat with a Plan???

Whuh??? Democratic Senator Biden’s op-ed in the Washington Post: A Plan to Hold Iraq Together.

Obviously since I’m a Republican, I’m obligated to question his patriotism and shout from the rooftops (c’mon everybody, join along), “CUT AND RUN! CUT AND RUN!” Karl Rove should make t-shirts and/or a song.

Or maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe I should say that this is a reasonable start, and we should have a civilized debate about what we should do in Iraq. Maybe I can disagree with his plan without saying that Osama wants you to elect Democrats. Alas, if only we lived in such a world. Still, I will do my small part.

Here’s Biden’s reasonable 5-point plan:

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid — especially from the oil-rich Gulf states — but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

I disagree with point 5, specifically. The keyword is stability. I believe that withdrawing troops will make Iraq less stable. A “small follow-on force” will not be enough to “keep the neighbors honest.”

I’m not sure that you can make “oil the glue that binds the country together.” I don’t see how this plan makes oil a unifying force. Still, a more federal system may be the least worst choice that we have when it comes to Iraq.

I really, really like point 3. Ever since I read the book about the Marshall Plan, I realized that an economic plan for Iraq was necessary. Unfortunately, Bush doesn’t realize that. Even in the provinces where we had modest success, the lack of jobs threatened to tear it all apart.

Facebook Status Listlog

Since summer is nearing its end, I decided now would be a fun time for a Facebook status listlog:

  • August is MOVING!!
  • Kate is cleaning out her aviator of a summer’s worth of crap.
  • Jason is announcing that the part tonight will be fucking crazy!!
  • Tym is on campus all day.
  • Sarah is listening to the clock tick.
  • Cary is thinking of converting to Federerism.
  • Matthew is going to be at work when his room assignment info goes online.
  • Paige is missing her lovelys from school <3.
  • Gina is missing her B______ 0:).
  • Heather is counting the hours until she’s done with camp.
  • Arash is is en route to baltimore via Raleigh, NC and a 311 concert.
  • Ingrid is drinking espresso at Bully Blend’s.. w/ Jack Billion! (he’s at a different table) it’s a small world.
  • Keshav is watching Zoey 101, hoping that Joycs (the puppy) will get a good home as she has been returned.
  • Ethan is has eaten all the blackberry pie.
  • Jeff is excited for Donatos.
  • Terrence is remodeling.
  • Cameron is sitting in CCJ 201.
  • Stevie is exhausted.
  • Tiffany is finally over the flu… looking forward to going back to hopkins!
  • Bill is looking forward to making it back to Hopkins to chill with all you cool people.
  • Shana is not looking forward to Friday. :(.
  • Jessica is wanting to go home sleep, eat, talk to the fam and see Brian.
  • Sean is remembered well at the Chelsea Hotel.
  • Mike is a driver not a thinker.
  • Shawn is concerned about Mother Nature. Mother! Nature!
  • Ashley is listening to KMEL online cuz she misses the Bay.
  • James is praying for daylight…of August 27th.
  • Clara is probably still doing laundry.
  • Winnie is debating the pros and cons of ethnic studies and theatre.
  • Roy is done looking for a supplier.
  • Christine is content after eating at the House of Chicken and Waffles.
  • Jude is sucking in his gut.
  • Ashley is thinking of Anna’s sweet lips…
  • Elizabeth is in London.

There are a few gems in there, but none are as brilliant as mine:

  • Shawn is a motherfucking snake on a motherfucking plane.

Pluto Demoted

It is so official: Pluto is not a planet. Take that, you pluto-loving sons of bitches.

Funnily enough, in that op-ed Tom Kreider admits: “Even I was a little abashed last week when the International Astronomical Union tried to protect Pluto’s status by proposing an absurdly broad definition of planethood that encompasses moons, asteroids and trans-Neptunian objects — in other words, pretty much any half-formed hunk of frozen crud that can pull itself together into a ball long enough to get photographed by the Hubble.” The defender of Pluto says it more eloquently than I how that other proposed definition, scientifically and aesthetically, isn’t worth a Vice President (which itself isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit).

And I’ll quote the op-ed again to illustrate why Pluto shouldn’t be a planet: “Pluto is idiosyncratic — neither a dull, domestic terrestrial planet nor a surly, vainglorious gas giant. It’s mostly ice. It’s smaller than our own Moon, and has an orbit so eccentric that it spends 20 years of its 248-year revolutionary period inside Neptune’s orbit. It’s tilted at a crazy 17-degree angle to the ecliptic, and its satellite, Charon, is so disproportionately large that it’s been called a double planet.”

The anthropomorphization in the article was starting to piss me off, though. Come on! Pluto is a fucking chunk of ice in space! It doesn’t have feelings! It doesn’t care if we humans categorize it as a planet or not.

Here’s the new definition of planet for the more scientifically minded: “a celestial body that is in orbit around the sun, has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a … nearly round shape, and has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.” Pluto will now be categorized as a “dwarf planet.”

Ooh yeah, I am gloating now. For a long time (compared to my relatively short life so far), I have said Pluto is not a planet. Vindication at last!

Iran Watch

I missed this story a few days ago: Iran tests short-range missile. Iran began a series of war games, but I don’t think the war games themselves are cause for alarm since the article says that: “Iran has routinely held war games over the past two decades to improve its combat readiness and to test equipment such as missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers.” Keyword: routinely. Nothing new. However, the surface-to-surface missiles they tested are troubling. They seem to be sending a signal similar to the one that North Korea was sending a while back, when were testing missiles. Is the message one telling the West to stay back, or is it aggression towards Israel? Or both? If only we lived in a world without nukes… this would not be troubling at all. One more thing: I wonder if they bought these missiles from Russia.

In the next bit of news from Iran: Iran ‘fires on Romanian oil rig’. An Iranian warship fired at a Romanian oil rig (owned by a private company) and then boarded and occupied the ship. I wonder how much attention this received in the news. (Probably not much.)

The explanation for this is murky: “The Romanian company in Iranian courts earlier this year over a dispute involving another oil rig, Fortuna, the financial weekly Saptamana Financiara has reported. It was unclear whether the incident was related to legal issues.” (Is that even proper grammar?)

Even if it did have legal issues, what gave Iran the right to take over the oil rig? I wish I knew more details, but the aggression on Iran’s part seems unwarranted.

I’ll be following this story.