Another thing that's bothersome. Today, I had a slight argument, or discussion with one of my fellow workers about feminism. It bothers me that there is a continual banter in the lab that pokes fun at stereotypical married relationships between a woman and a man. So what started as a joke (something that revolved around how a woman doesn't forget how a man has wronged her, and will band together with other women to see that he suffers) made me more and more uncomfortable. So when one of the guys said something to me, wanting me to somehow agree that this is the case, I said something like "you have to be careful asking for agreement from me, because i define myself as a feminist." This sparked the interest of one of the more conservative guys that I work with. (who also, consequently, is one of the more nicer guys in the lab and is easy going and makes everyone laugh, M for short). Key points from our discussion

-getting too bogged down in any "ism" runs the risk of allowing the follower to accept hatred for a certain group or sex. (I proposed this, my debater, M, agreed)

-men and women will never be equal because if a man walks alone down an ally in the middle of the night, he has a much smaller chance of getting raped than a woman (M's argument)

-feminism and masculinity rises from the individual's competitive nature *not* as a reaction to societal expectations (M)

-M expressed concern with my assertion that women should be allowed combat roles in the army side by side with men (slight tangent here: I've read many articles that states that women have a tougher time in the army from the danger of getting raped by their fellow comrades than by getting injured by "enemy" fire) his concern was that if a man might feel reluctance to depend on the physicality of his woman comrade if the fight was hand-to-hand (something that I agreed with the physical differences between the two, but suggested that there were ways to get around this)

-the freedom of speech protects one's right to offend another. (M) This statement pretty much culminated after M and I agreed that we had our differences with how we viewed women. And while I agree with the statement (and countered that it also meant I had also had the right to express my difference in opinion and to state that I was offended) It bothered me. The guys in the lab pretty much use this premise to say homophobic and sexist remarks. And that argument has interested me. The protection of hate speech via the freedom of speech clause is interesting. And because it is protected, one is left to argue what should be said and what shouldn't be said. And a should argument is horribly difficult to get through.

I'm not being clear, and am certainly not expressing well the essence of all the arguments which left me feeling ... confused and depressed. But it is interesting. I've always assumed a position of liberalism. To have it confronted again with conservatism is an interesting experience.

ok. So Twilight is apparently a big deal. I normally try to avoid Big Deals, which is why I boycotted HP for 5 years, because something that *everyone* likes can't possibly be all that great. And I ended up being totally wrong. So ever since then, I've looked at Big Deals with slightly less skepticism. So I decided to check out Twilight. And since the entire Monroe County library system doesn't seem to have a copy of Twilight on their shelves, I decided to do the next best thing. Go to Blockbuster.

Robert Patterson is pure eye candy, and I'll admit it. (though it was kind of annoying that he seemed incapable of pronouncing "th". Couldnt figure out if that was affected, or if its because he's a brit playing an american) I drooled over him freely. (bf's away, that helps) By the end of the movie (which I'll attempt not to spoil) I still didn't get the buzz. Bella sucked. I mean, she was cool in the sense that she was an awkward teenager, and had a bit of a rock-chick vibe happening, but beyond that, not much. Her character would give these one liners, and I felt obliged to yell at the TV. "You're hands...they're so cold." Is all she says and gives the Bella-patented-snort/sigh/gasp noise. Any *normal* person, including someone who's supposed to be mildly intelligent would ask something else, like "are you ok?" It would also underline the idea that Bella's starting to figure things out. That's just one example. And when I feel the need to add my own lines to a script to make things seem more realistic in my own mind, you know its bad. Its never totally clear *why* they love each other. And its easy to understand why Bella's fascinated with a Vampire. I mean, they've lots of uncharted qualities that humans just don't get. But all she keeps on saying in the movie is a broken record of "I'm not afraid of you." It would be more pertinent to say "I trust you." But why would Robert Patterson (oops. I mean, Edward) ever have a thing for Bella? Its implied in the movie that she's a little eclectic from the average teenager, but its never clarified.

So basically, the movie is not so good. So *why* is everyone going nuts over the story? Minus the Robert Patterson-Kristin Stewart eye candy aspect, there's still a lot of hype over the movie as well as the books. Despite it being insipid, it clearly is ringing true with a certain group. Is it just America's fascination with vampires? Does the story of desire and temptation underline the tantalizing and crazy sex hormones running wild during high school? Is there some greater allusion to True Love that I'm just not picking up? Still mulling....

I think its a little too easy to be glum these days...I remember the momentous occasion when the stock market hit 10,000. It was a big deal on MSNBC, which I watched with my father some nights during high school. I *even* remember when the stock market was back in the 8,000's! whoa. now we're talking about the days of antiquity! Except, it also happened today. I was bummed when the Dow Jones slipped under 10,000, and I'm even more depressed now that its in 8,000's. Its the first time where something that has occured in the world has noticeably slipped to a point where there is negative growth. More ideological observations can be argued (and *are* argued) by people, but this is something that is non-negotiable.

I'm even bummed about the election. I really want Obama to win. He positively glistens with decency, intelligence and balance. However, the campaign is just getting depressing, as I read articles where there are immense right-wing rallies lead and incited by Palin. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/us/politics/08palin.html?ref=politics> That's depressing, too. And I understand some of it is probably due to the psycological effects of groups and rallies, and people do weird shit that they normally don't, but still. it also represents a something that these people believe in, at least a little. Enough to say it out loud when provoked. And that's depressing enough. I don't necessarily see Obama as JFK. I see him more as RFK...someone who's seen a great deal and someone who had traveled around and come to a general conclusion. Will I be branded an idealist if I say that I feel Obama has applied a different type of rhetoric and a different type of platform to ride on. True, most of the issues, when stripped of their flashy adjectives and hyped up democratic principles. But for once, they're boldly fashioned and stated self-assertively. Its exciting. But the the possibility of it all being for nothing is...depressing.

Its clear with politics that the argument for a reliance on experience is out the window. No matter who's side you're on, Palin-Obama cancel each other out. Especially when juxtaposed between McCain-Biden. (and still annoyed with Palin. during the debates, she effectively said that she tolerates gays + lesbians. gee, thanks. Nice of you to "tolerate" a significant percentage of the US population. 40 years ago, she would have been someone who "tolerated" African Americans, but still supported segregation)

Perhaps I just need to stop reading all of the books I've got stacked throughout the apartment. War Without End is what I'm reading now (Dilip Hiro). And that is also depressing fare. The idea of an Islamic state, Sharia law, and fundamentalism are topics that are difficult to condemn in other states, and are subjects that liberals and conservatives will clash violently over. I had a professor at Bates who forced us to think outside the box, when it comes to discussing Islamic states (I use the term to describe those states that are governed by Sharia law...perhaps an incorrect usage, but I"m not a political scientist, so its not my fault.) He gave us the comparison of Iran and Turkey. One state where Sharia is enforced via government, and another where secularism is enforced by government. In both states, there are movements to go the opposite direction. In Iran, Sharia is oppressive to many. In Turkey, secularism is oppressive to all overt symbols of religion, and crushes free speech, etc. And to give more to think about (and to argue with those who hold up the US as a shining example) its not as if the US doesn't also have vestiges of fundamentalism. I recommend Theocons (forget who wrote it) if you need further proof, other than old Youtube videos of Bush's state of the union addresses and other speeches. The argument can easily be made that this country is not entirely secular, either.

And where does all of this go? I think its an open ended question. For me, these ideas are still stewing around.

Alright. My turn now with Palin.

My issue with her is that she's a stupid politician, and she's destroying the image of women. I give props to her for wearing skirts and having long hair, not resorting to the "sporty mom doo" a la Hilary Clinton. As a woman, I kind of resent the fact that this is the best conservative woman that the McCain campaign could come up with. Perhaps it is the only woman the conservative faction could come up with. She's pretty. She has a life story that perhaps many American women can connect with. But she's horrendously ignorant.

However, I too, feel bad for Palin. She doesn't know what she's gotten into. I feel like the McCain staff has her so trained to spit out a few rehearsed phrases that she daren't think or say anything heart-felt in interviews. She isn't acting herself. That explains the response to Couric asking what magazines or newspapers Palin read. Palin answered something to the effect of "oh, everything. I have lots of sources and I read everything that gets in front of me." And then in typical Palin-fashion she continued in that vein for some time. What a stupid comment. She obviously doesn't read any newspaper on a regular basis, otherwise the answer would be on the tip of her tongue. Either she's afraid to say she only reads "Anchorage Daily" (or whatever. In which case she *could* have said "I'm the governor of Alaska. I read Alaskan newspapers daily to see what are current issues in my state.) or she should have said something like, "My staff and my husband often bring articles to my attention. I go through these materials, and they often come from many sources." Instead, it sounded like she was stupid and covering up something.

However, because of all this I've come to redefine my opinion about Bush. He is perhaps the stupidest president to ever sit in the oval office. However, at least I can imagine him as a not so bad guy. I see him as a stupid, but ultimately a congenial kind of guy that one could have a beer with and chat about football. (this is taking into account that I'm not gay, I've never had an abortion and look like a WASP). Palin, on the other hand, has a kind of intensity to her, which makes her ultra-right answers all the more frightening. In Bush's brain, I see empty space. In Sarah Palin's brain, I see a lot of far right conservative beliefs that aren't thought out, but fiercely defended and supported. In other words, there are catch phrases that she's decided to stick with, but she hasn't challenged them herself or thought out the reasons why she holds with them. Many commentators have it right when they say that it just seems as if she is chronically uncurious about the world. As a result of all this, I've changed my opinion about Bush. He is stupid. Palin is ignorant and stubbornly so.

I think America has to decide something. Bush was elected because he was the son of a president, and because people found him "accessible". Clearly this was the same thought process in the McCain campaign when they chose Palin. They wanted someone that might connect with the American people. However, America needs to decide whether they want the president to be someone that the look up to, or someone they feel comfortable looking down at. I've shuddered and grimaced every time I've watched Bush meet a foreign leader, wanting to somehow tell them "he isn't representative of us."

I know in saying that, I'm running the risk of hero-worshipping Obama in comparison. And I'm not saying Obama is perfect. everyone has faults and character flaws. However, he seems to have a compelling life story, he has a sense of humor and a bluntness in his ideas of how politics truly work. He's bright, but sharp, listing off his points in a numbered list. He's polite and respectful, making eye contact with McCain during the debates and calling him "John." He's someone that demonstrates good leadership qualities. The ability to listen, to get his point across clearly and to make decisions without cronies. These are qualities that one can look up to. In summation, he is presidential. Palin is embarassing. Its time for American voters to decide what they want in their president. Do they want someone who we are proud to call "ours" and are proud to represent the country? We've had 8 years of that not being the case.

Reckoner
Can you take it with you
Disavow the pleasure

You were not to blame for
Bittersweet distractors
Dare not speak his name
Did I cater to all you
All your needs?

Because we separate
It ripples our reflections
Because we separate
It ripples our reflections

Reckoner

Did I cater to all you
All your needs?

~Radiohead

I haven't updated in so long...where to start??

Yay! Graduation! Now looking for jobs in NY and Boston. Wherever I get hired first wins!

Hiking trips in the future: Mt Slide (catskills) Mt Greylock (Berkshires) And am starting to do running every day in prep. any other good suggestions??

reading material: Half way through The Universe in a Nutshell (now need to read a Brief History of Time as well as Cosmos by Sagan to round that trio out), the Republic of Suffering (looking at approaches to death in the Civil War) and Art History: Critical Theory and Terms.

I spent my days wrestling with the dog, making food for my family, and procrastinating on cleaning my room. I've also a few projects around the house (cars that need washing/waxing, doors that need painting, bookshelf that needs making). Hope everyone is well and happy!

22 people killed in Gaza.

BBC calls it a "day of unrest."

no words of disgust or scorn I can come up with right now seem appropriate to match this _______.

Taking guitar lessons has proven to be invaluble. I now understand why musicians stereo-typically smoke pot. I now understand why they get so tetchy when you say that they don't have to pull long hours of work. And I feel worse for them, even, because I now understand that they can't ever cram.

My life is really weird at times.

So guitar lessons. I show him my scales, and I start to play the allemande from suite no 3 (bach). When I get to the repeat, I pause. I NEVER do repeats (I know, I know, bad me) But this time, I felt like I *had* to, because my playing was so horrendous. I was actually blushing. I managed to slur through it (and once I did warm up, it was alright despite a few inevitable flubs because Someone Is Watching.) At the end of the lesson, I got praise for improvement and good work. A moment of embarassment (because I was playing so horrendously) turned into a moment where I could prove that I can indeed play.

Then I was doing a reaction with an organic compound. WE're talking all carbons and hydrogens. I add pentanes to it as a solvent (more carbons and hydrogens) and somehow, I get a precipitate. WTF????? Its like mixing milk with water and then getting chunks in the bottom of your glass. (I know, milk's really a colloid, but the principle's the same) So there was an example of something that was supposed to be easy, and now I've precipitates.

Story of my life....

Oh housemates... I have only slept 1 night undisturbed since the start of school. Last night wasn't the one. Had a good time watching the football game with them. Our common room was packed with men. I was the only chic there. (too bad none of them were exceptionally interesting because I don't think I had much competition) Went to bed at 11-ish and crashed (ok, so having 3 beers makes me do that). Woke up at 2-ish. The bloke who lives upstairs was thumping around. I'm not entirely sure if he was walking, if he was sorting out books, or if he was tossing his dumb-bells. But he and his buddy were chatting (fine, whatever, I can tune that out up to a point and it *is* saturday night). But the thumping made my windows rattle, and because they were inconsistent thumps, I couldn't tune it out. Then they decided to order papa john's. (he waited by teh door at 3, but the pizza only came at 3:30). By 4 the "party" or the thumping had stopped. But of course, by then, I was awake. The sleepy-tired-awake. I started to get really really sleepy at about 6 this morning but had to get up at 6:30 to get the papers into Commons. So. Now I'm really really tired. And I've work to do and a sep sci meeting at 8 pm. I've no motivation to do work. Grrrrr. Frustrating too when he seems like a relatively nice guy. Just PLEASE limit thumps between the hours of 6 am-11 pm. sigh. note sleepy penguin.

sigh.....perhaps one of these days I can do something, in the social sphere, that I will look back on, and say: you know, I handled that rather well. Until then...

:bemused:

I want this guitar.

*bellyflop*

If you like the ocean at all, listen to this:

the lighthouse ~ Interpol

whine.

have I a story to tell.

I should just not be allowed to post an entry when I'm tired and its late. Its akin to having a friend take away your cellphone when you're drunk to prevent any awkward drunk-dialing calls. :shakes head:

I've finally figured it out. For a while, its bothered me that the US wasn't accepting more Iraqi refugees than they are. I mean, the numbers are horrifying. Sweden accepted 12,000 in 06 (I think), and will take in 20,000 more this year. The US? 600. It really bothered me. I mean, the US took in 12,000 somali refugees, why would they also not extend this to the displaced Iraqis? Suddenly it dawned on me. Its pride. For the US to admit Iraqi refugees into our borders would force them to imply that their policy of security in Iraq isn't working. It would undermine their quasi-unified front of unity with regards to the "growing secure" Iraq state. So basically, its a united front for Bush, who's disillusioned or just fucking stubborn not to realize that his tactics have resulted in the deaths of almost 4000 US military men, who are about roughly only 10% of the total Iraqi deaths. (and that's a rough scale. I'm not sure if its gotten even worse than when I last looked into this) The thing that bothers me though is the excuses that are given instead. Never do they say: well, you know, we have to keep a bold face for the boys in the pentagon. Instead, they refuse entrance to Iraqis who have given monetary "aid to terrorists." Meaning, anyone who's paid a bribe in Iraq could be accused of aiding "terrorists." And now is where I am disgusted.

Pardon for the preachy speech of yesterday. Now I'm immersed in Guns of August, by Barbara Tuchman (a classic) One of the many things that sucks about this whole packing business: after I read Brothers (see below), what would have made for a good contrasting read, as well as a source of additional information in the topic would have been the Kennedys and the Fitzgeralds by Doris Kearns Goodwin. my copy is now packed in one of teh 8+ boxes I've labelled books. Crap. I'm now borrowing my mother's copy of Guns of August and trying to chomp through that before I have to go back to school. Of course, an interesting read after I finish that would be my copy of Nicholas and Alexandra by Massie. Which is, of course, now packed in one of the 8+ boxes that are labelled Books. Sigh. Ma vie en boites!

Just finished reading a fascinating book, called, Brothers: The hidden history of the Kennedy years by David Talbot. Its a little intense into conspiracy theories, though that is part of the point of the book. Its rather well written in that it tends to culminate findings from other books and articles written on the subject. As the conspiracy theory over JFK's assassination has a WEALTH of information published on it, that sort of thing is IMMENSELY helpful.

In reading this book, you have to admit that there is something about the Kennedys that appeals even after all these years. Its interesting, my mother will cynically bring up the fact that Kennedy did have many mistresses and initiated the american involvement in Vietnam. However, I'm willing to applaud the man for this line in a speech (ok, so pats to Sorensen, too): "We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we are only 6% of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94%, that we cannot fight every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem." Reading this quote, and then looking at foreign policy NOW makes for an interesting contrast. To immerse yourself in the culture of the 60's (probably the most fascinating decade of modern American history...right after the 40's) and then look at a newspaper in 2007, the differences are rather alarming.

What has happened so that religion has become imbedded in speeches from politicans? (I've heard, "God Bless America" many many times in Bush's speeches as well as those from other politicians, who feel teh need to wear their "patriotism" on their sleeve) Where has our militarism come from? Looking back at the struggles of Kennedy to keep his military advisors reined in, but now, especially with regard to the IRaq war, it seems as if Powell was having issues keeping the President reigned in. Looking at the President's military experience, this seems problematic. Where has this machoism and war-culture come from? Now, we see our president landing jets, I see advertisements for the national guard before I watch a movie, there's a War on Terror, and international establishements are ignored, diplomacy is all but dead in Washington. Speaking of diplomacy, where is our State Department? Albright travelled the world and seemed to compliment the presidency, providing her own input and allowed her independency (limited, but still there) to pursue relationships with other countries, and fact-finding through peaceful means. The state department under Bush has seemed little more than simply an extension of his National Security program; the secretary of state now seems little more than an International Press Secretary, who briefs the BBC via satellite phone in the comfort of DC.

Pardon the rant, I feel there are many things to reflect on. We should not allow ourselves to be ignorant in the hawkish political leanings of our government. With elections for the new president now heating up, it would be well advised to see where we have been as a country, to decide where we are headed and whether that is something that we truly believe in.