A critical look at the present
For those of you who don't read
Morphogensis, Jon's blog, I'm posting this here:
I think that a major step in creating this critical history of the present moment would be to read the works of Leo Strauss, who, as many of you know, is a major philosophical figure behind the current right-wing coalition's political agenda; certain high-ranking Cabinet members, including Paul Wolfowitz, were actually students of Strauss's at the University of Chicago before his death in the early 1970s. In order to correctly evaluate the present and be able to take informed action, I think that we need to unearth the genealogy of the forces and ways of thinking that have constituted this moment; this is, in fact, what I have been referring to as a "critical history of the present."
So, I would like to, if possible, set up a reading group on Strauss in order to facilitate the construction of this genealogy. We needn't even meet in person; we could set up another blog or other online forum in which to discuss these works. Is anyone else interested in this?
I think this sort of intellectual endeavor is really important, and while I recognize that time is limited for just about everybody, I don't think that this would be too much to add (or put another way, I think that this would be worth fitting into a schedule). And, from a totally self-serving standpoint, your participation and input would make it a better experience for me. :) Let me know if you're interested, and I will pass the word along to Jon (actually, as he reads this and the comments, I'm sure I won't have to pass the word along). This goes for people outside of Pittsburgh too, as that is the benefit of discussion via blog - it transcends spatial distances. :)
More things that go unnoticed...
Sentenced to be Raped
In June 2002, the police say, members of a high-status tribe sexually abused one of Ms. Mukhtaran's brothers and then covered up their crime by falsely accusing him of having an affair with a high-status woman. The village's tribal council determined that the suitable punishment for the supposed affair was for high-status men to rape one of the boy's sisters, so the council sentenced Ms. Mukhtaran to be gang-raped.
The four men who enacted this sentence are now on death row, as Ms. Mukhtaran did not take the traditional course of killing herself, but instead took the men to court. She now lives under police protection, but is still shunned by many in her culture as having no honor and being totally disgraced.
In recognizing that this is a different culture than that with which I am familiar, I wonder to what extent I can be appalled by this sort of action. Don't get me wrong, I am. It sickens me to think that this goes on. But culture and tradition are a strange thing. I read a book entitled "Holy Days" about the author's experience living for a brief time amongst Hasidic Jews in New York City. Woman did not allow their knees, elbows, or hair to show in public. To them, that was a right reserved for their husbands. While this is not a lifestyle I would choose, I respect that some of these woman choose these traditions and are happy with them. So where is the line? I'm sure there are many woman who choose and are content with the culture which enacts gang rapes upon the sisters of male criminals. While examples like this (or rituals such as female castration which occurs still) are more extreme and seem easy to judge as "unacceptable", I still question where that judgement comes from.
Perhaps this struggle comes from a fear of being too moralistic or imposing my views onto the lives of others. But there are no universal moral standards -- belief, opinion, and even emotion are not unchanging, ahistorical concepts. They're tied to a person, a culture, a time, a place, and a number of events and occurences past and present that cannot possible all be accounted for. So again, my question becomes, how can I draw a line at what I think is "right" and "wrong" (for lack of a better way to put it)?
Perhaps this is why people so often turn to the belief in a higher power to answer this question. It provides a stability, a point of reference. As I don't wish to rely on anything outside of myself to draw these conclusions, where is my point of reference?
The Land of the Free
McSweeney's Daily Reasons to Dispatch Bush"
DAY 123:
When President Bush traveled to Pittsburgh in 2002, a protester named Bill Neel who refused to move to the "designated free-speech zone"—a baseball field a third of a mile from Bush's speech—was arrested for disorderly conduct. At Neel's trial, a police detective testified that the Secret Service had told local police to keep "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in the free-speech zone. The judge threw out the charge, saying, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"
Similar incidents have occurred at Bush appearances around the country. At a Florida rally in 2001, three demonstrators were arrested for holding up signs outside of the designated zone; the next year, seven protesters were arrested outside of a rally at the University of South Florida. At a St. Louis event in 2003, a woman and her 5-year-old daughter who protested outside of the approved area were detained by police and taken away in separate vehicles. This year, a West Virginia couple wearing anti-Bush T-shirts was detained by the Secret Service at a July 4 rally, and on September 17, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was arrested and charged with trespassing at a Laura Bush appearance.
When seven AIDS activists were ejected from a Bush event in Washington, D.C., on September 9, the Secret Service told journalists that if they approached the demonstrators, they would not be allowed to re-enter the event. One agent told a reporter who was prevented from returning to the speech that there was a "different set of rules" for journalists who did not talk to the activists.
Brett Bursey, who held up a "No War for Oil" sign amidst hundreds of Bush supporters at a 2002 appearance by the president in Columbia, South Carolina, was arrested by a police officer who told him that "it's the content of your sign that's the problem." He was charged with trespassing; when that charge was dropped because Bursey was on public property at the time of his arrest, the Justice Department charged Bursey with "entering a restricted area around the President of the United States." He faced six months in jail; in January, he was convicted and fined $500. The federal magistrate, Bristow Marchant, denied Bursey's request for a jury trial, and later ruled that the protester had not been unreasonably singled out among the Bush supporters by police—although other people were there, he said, they did not refuse to leave, as Bursey did.
In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department told local law-enforcement agencies to pay special attention to anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." In April of that year, after the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at protesters at the Port of Oakland, a spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center said that "if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."
Secret Service agent Brian Marr told NPR that the agency creates free-speech zones because "these individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured ... we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." The ACLU is suing the Secret Service for suppressing protest at Bush events in Arizona, California, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and elsewhere.
(Sources: James Bovard, "Free-Speech Zone," The American Conservative, December 15, 2003. See article at: amconmag.com. Jonathan M. Katz, "Thou Dost Protest Too Much," Slate, September 21, 2004. See article at: slate.com. Dana Milbank, "Secret Service Not Coddling Hecklers," Washington Post, September 10, 2004. See article at: washingtonpost.com.)
The importance of 4 years
At the party we had this past weekend (which was a jolly good time, if i do say so myself), I had a conversation with a friend about the upcoming election. An argument that was put forth was that, if The JaggerBush is re-elected, things will get worse. However, this would not be so bad, as it would drive the voting public to demand change. I agree that things would get worse. And I agree that, PERHAPS this would lead to a change four years down the road (though The JaggerBush won't be in the election in four years anyway...). HOWEVER, I think the next four years are crucial and cannot just be suffered through until something better comes around.
One MAJOR reason I think this is stated in
this article. Basically, the next president is going to be able to select SEVERAL federal judges during his term. A federal judge is a LIFETIME appointment. LIFETIME being the key word here. It already sickens me that there are those like
Leon Holmes running around. This isn't even a matter of me wanting Federal Court Judges who have similar views on issues as me. It's a matter of me wanting judges that THINK and are at least quasi-rational. I don't want anymore judges who think that pregnancies from rape occur "as often as snowfall in Miami"(just as one example). The decisions of the next president, as with ANY president, extend so far beyond four years, that I don't take any comfort in the fact that, if re-elected, at least the JaggerBush himself can't be around any longer than one more term (though I wouldn't put it past his administration to try to engineer it so that he COULD stick around!).
Suburbs are bad for you health
Not that this is anything that's all the new or surprising, but
this article discusses how the suburban sprawl can be bad for one's health. The main arguments center around lack of exercise, as living in the burbs more or less requires having a car and driving everywhere.
I grew up in the suburbs. While there were things I didn't like, I thought that I could be happy there. Then I moved to the city. Now, I don't think I could ever go back. For over two years now, I have lived without a car. True, I have had to, at times, rely on some of my wonderful friends for things such as getting to and from the airport or taking my dog to the vet (no dogs on the bus). But for the most part, I can walk to most places. After a big dinner out, walking home is much better for my digestion than just sitting like a lump with bad food coma.
More so than the physical lifestyle, I feel much more at home in the "mental" atmosphere of the city. There is a sense of creative process, of culture, art, music, academia. People THINK. I am surrounded by more people who share my views and my values here than in the burbs.
So, I'm a convert. And apparently, it's better for my health anyway! :)
Hippopotamus with Wings
A couple of nights ago, sometime around 5:30 am, I awoke from a bad dream and ended up swatting Jon awake (though obviously not COMPLETELY awake, as he remembers none of this). The cause of my swat? I had been having a dream that bugs - about the size of earwigs (*shudder*) or bees - were crawling all over me. So, upon waking up, I was still swatting. I got up, went to the bathroom (made Jon turn on the light when I got back so that I could check the bed for bugs - it was a freaky dream!), went back to sleep with only a miner case of the crawlies.
Yesterday, I was thinking back to the dream and remembering it. With some distance from the mild terror it invoked, I was able to think about the bugs more clearly. And this is where I give you all kinds of ammo to make fun of me; The bugs were hippopotamus (or hippopotami or hippopotamuses - all three ways are correct). But they were bug-sized, and they were crawling all over me. Sadly, I can't remember what color they were - I tend to dream in bland neutrals, if not black and white. However, in order to make my story more colorful, let's say they were purple. :)
*********************************************************************************
(the **** line means this is a totally unrelated topic)
I've been called many nicknames in my life by friends, family, and strangers. Schna is the most recent one to stick, along with Moose (the latter as a result of my moose collection, of course). Waitresses constantly call me 'honey' and 'dear' (fortunately, Jon NEVER calls me either of those - OR 'sweety', 'darling' (well, sometimes sarcastically), 'schnookums'...etc.).
Today, however, I had two totally unrelated encounters, both with middle-aged men, in which I was called by a 'nickname' of that sort that I have either never encountered before OR (as in the latter story) never been called by anyone who was not an over-75-year-old woman.
Story number one: This morning, as usual, I made my regular stop at Kiva Han, for hot chocolate and a carrot muffin. The gentleman working behind the counter, after taking my money and giving me my change, said the following to me (I must admit, this is actually the SECOND time this week he has said this to me, but I forgot about it earlier when I meant to post about it):
"Have a good day, Sister."
Can't say I've EVER been called 'sister' in that way before this week. It was an interesting experience. I could, of course, start postulating on why this would surprise me, what that means about society, blah blah blah...but that's tired and I don't care enough.
Story number two: I was talking to the gentleman in my office who is in charge of the money. We were trying to figure out when my boss would be back in his office (which is always a guessing game), when he said the following to me:
"Your guess is as good as mine, pumpkin."
Pumpkin? I mean, this guy is probably in his early 50's. Pumpkin? I still am having a hard time figuring out who calls people pumpkin? Have any of you every called someone pumpkin?
(Funny side note - there is a town in Arizona called Punkin. For some reason, whenever we drove through, that always made me laugh).
Anyway, I'm putting out a request to you sprawling masses out there (HA!) for good stories of 'nicknames' that you have been called by strangers or aquaintances (basically, anyone who is not intimately connected to you in some way or another).
Back on Top
I will have to admit that for the next 10 days or so, I might be posting a lot about baseball. How much that continues into October depends on who makes it into October. Things are looking good now. The Cubs are back on top in the wild card race. The Giants and Dodgers are more focused on the NL West Division Title (I don't know...they might get some competition from the D-backs..HA!). Watching the Cubs on Wednesday, I was really happy to see Remlinger filling the role of closer. I have to admit that, as of late, Hawkins hasn't been inspiring major confidence when he comes in to close out a game. Anyway, that's all I have to say on this at the moment. I'm sure there will be more to come...
In other news...
This guy thought it might be fun to change his name to THEY.
"'They do this,' or 'They're to blame for that.' Who is this 'they' everyone talks about? 'They' accomplish such great things. Somebody had to take responsibility," he said.
Hmm..I wonder if the name Yinz is still available? :)
The wonders of caffeine
So, the Cubs won last night, and as predicted it was a close game: 1-0.
Two disappointing things occurred, however.
The fireworks were cancelled. That in itself is not a big deal. HOWEVER, they chose to NOT TELL the crowd until after they did this whole, LONG stupid promotion for the 84 Lumber Classic (PGA tournament opening today around here). After waiting for over 20 minutes, we get an announcement that there will be no fireworks.
We had either two or three families sitting together in front of us (there was an assortment of adults and about 7-8 kids ranging from 4-14ish years old). At least 3 TIMES PER INNING, these kids were getting up and leaving or coming back. I think they might have seen maybe 20 minutes of the actual game. While they were not in our row, they climbed up INTO our row to get in and out, so everytime they came or went, we couldn't see. I started having to stand up for a couple of minutes at a time while they haggled for money from their parents, explained why they'd lost their little brother out by the concessions, or took orders for food. FINALLY, during the 9th inning (mind you, these were not inning breaks but in the middle of game play), they were all leaving and standing right in front of us. After a whole game of this and a WHOLE LOT of caffeine, I was assertive.
I am going to repeat that, because you won't hear it often: I WAS ASSERTIVE. I was very proud. It was a nice mix of polite irritation with a hint of bitchiness, and I made sure I said something when the parents were definitely listening, as my irritation was more with them than with the kids anyway. Alas, I got to see the bottom of the 9th in it's entirety and then had a clear view for the stupid golf-promo and lack of fireworks.
On the bus ride home we had the pleasure of sitting in front of a squad of Pitt gymnasts. It made me wonder if the valley girl voice is a prerequisite for being their friends. Even the guys seemed to talk that way.
OH, oh, and I'm in the market for a teeny, tiny violin that actually plays, so if anyone has any info on where I could obtain such an item, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. :)
Ah, college boys...
Today on my lunch break I went to the gym, and what did I see? College boys working out together. Now, there is nothing particularly remarkable about this. I wouldn't have even given them a second look, except that one of them was wearing a T-shirt that caught my eye. I'm not sure if I should be pissed off or amused (though i think i'm more amused than anything), but this is what his T-shirt said on the back (I didn't care enough to wait until he turned around to see the front):
"Freshmen girls: Get them while they're skinny"
On a TOTALLY unrelated note, I'm going to the game tonight. It might be my last Pirates game (I believe this weekend is the last time that they're home for the season), but I'm going to cheer for the Cubs tonight. Go Cubs. Actually, I'd love a high scoring close game where the Cubs win, but the Pirates to a lot of good things too. HOWEVER, with the pitchers tonight, it's more likely to be a close game with very little scoring (pitchers' duel) than anything. Should be a good time though. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Zambrano hit a couple of batters (the Pirates are notorious for not getting out of the way of ANY pitches) and then got pissed off about it. Could be interesting...will update later.
Follow-up
Okay, so I've done a little more research and discovered I was somewhat mistaken about The Patriot Act. Yes, the government can perform searches unbeknownst to the individual who's premises is being searched. HOWEVER, the government DOES have to notify that individual of the search EVENTUALLY. I'm not sure if that's much more comforting, as there is nothing in the law which dictates within what time frame the individual must be notified.
Anyway, as I don't want to be the perpetuator of false info, I figured I would clear that up. My source of reference was
Fact Check, which I highly recommend as a good source for finding out the truth behind political ads and statements made by various partisan groups.
Fact Check is a non-partisan organization.
Big Brother's Okay!
I found the following quote in the
NY Times:
"The value we gain in public safety far outweighs any perception by the community that this is Big Brother who's watching."
RON HUBERMAN, executive director of Chicago's office of emergency management and communications, on that city's new video surveillance system.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on this sentiment. Do you really feel safer or think that you are safer under increased surveillance?
My thoughts? Well, I think it's bordering on ridiculous to assume that by taking away privacy, the government can ensure public safety. I think it's ridiculous to make the connection (which many do in arguments for this increased surveillance) that more surveillance=a safer society=a more utopian society=happy people.
I'm not happy; are you happy?
Sure, video surveillance around the city of Chicago is not a camera in every private TV. However, when strolling along the lake or through Grant Park, the moment of peace, quiet, pleasure, whatever is altered by the fact that WE ARE BEING WATCHED. AND, I think it's naive to assume that cameras in ever TV is not a possibility (or reality). It's certainly legal now, under the Lord High Protector The JaggerBush.
Floods
As everyone knows, there have been a lot of hurricaines as of late (with two more to come). The last, Ivan, set records for remaining an actual hurricaine for 10 days. It also caused a LOT of flooding even as far north as here: Pittsburgh.
Last night (Saturday), we went downtown for the Pirates game. The flooding was pretty unbelievable. Whole roads and sidewalks were underwater. Today I went back, camera in tow. The water had gone down probably a good 6-8 feet (which ended up being about 50-60 feet back down the shoreline). There was debris and mud everywhere. Perhaps the most unusual sight though was the plethora of beached boates. There was a boat in the middle of the road, SEVERAL points grounded at Point State Park...it was crazy.
Once I get the pics developed I will see what I can do about posting a few. I also got some cool pics of this guy who is travelling around to major cities with big anti-JaggerBush posters that he tapes all over the ground and lets people sign. There were some pretty amusing things written on the posters. Some of my favorites:
"I trust no Bush but my own"
"Bush is a sick, sick man who needs therapy"
"Encourage thinking, say No to Bush"
Hmm...I can't think of anymore at the moment. Perhaps Michelle can help as she has digital photos of the signs and might be able to read some of the other great comments.
Anyway, here are a couple pictures from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that depict some of the flooding downtown (the boats floating at the point were some of the points we saw grounded today, as the water level subsided):
Ohio River Consumes Point State Park
Allegheny River Overflow
More reasons to love the Senate
I'm beginning to lack the energy to be pissed off about things like the following article. Instead of being pissed off, I just feel totally defeated. One step closer to being beaten into submission by a government full of moralistic assholes with no common sense or compassion. And so it goes...
I've decided to post the whole article here, as it's short and important. While increased money to the NIH is a very good thing, once again the main thrust of the prevention of AIDS is abstinence. Once again imposing moral judgement over practical approaches. However, the freezing of funds to the Ryan White CARE Act is perhaps the most significant and the most disheartening point of the article.
Ryan White AIDS Funding Freeze
(Washington) The Senate Appropriations Committee has frozen funding to the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act and other AIDS care programs.
The only program to see an increase in federal money was the Aids Drug Assistance Program which will get an additional $35 million - falling far short of the $217 million AIDS care activists had sought.
"This funding short changes the fight against HIV/AIDS," said Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques.
The only substantial increase was $1.1 billion for medical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which will benefit HIV/AIDS research.
In addition to flat funding the CARE Act, the committee voted not to increase money for prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Prevention is our only vaccine and we need to get it out to those most at risk: young people, gay and bisexual men and people of color communities," said Jacques
But, while the committee voted to hold the line on HIV/AIDS education and care it decided to give $36.5 million to fund abstinence-until-marriage programs.
"The Senate put politics ahead of science," added Jacques.
The Ryan White CARE Act is the largest single source of public funds (excluding Medicaid) that treats people with HIV/AIDS in the United States. First enacted in 1990, the Act supports a wide range of community-based services, including primary and home health care, case management, substance abuse treatment and mental health services, and nutritional and housing services.
Quote of the Day
I am taking this quote from the New York Times quote of the day:
"Even during Stalin's time, even during Soviet times, all deputies were formally elected. It allowed concrete people to solve concrete problems. This is a return to czarist times."
KONSTANTIN F. ZATULIN, a Russian legislator, on Vladimir V. Putin's proposed political changes.
For anyone who isn't aware of the Putin's propsed political changes, I highly suggest checking it out. Jon has also posted recently about this (
Morphogenesis), so you can go check it out there as well.
One point that Jon made (in a comment I believe) was the the press seems to be aware of just how frightening and "shocking" these proposals are, as they put much, MUCH more power in the executive branch. HOWEVER, the same shock and fear isn't registered here, where many of the political changes that have occurred or that are being proposed (such as the changes to the power structure of the CIA) during the past four years have done the same thing here in the states.
Anyway, the NY Times has had articles daily concerned with the political situation in Russia, so if you're interested in finding out more, that would be a good place to start at least.
I'm not socially stunted!
This article was posted in the comments, but I was very excited and had to share with everyone. I'm not socially stunted just because I border on being freakishly short! WOO HOO!!!
The article, in brief, talks about findings that indicate that short children are not less likely to have friends or not be cast in good roles in plays (interesting variable to measure...).
It's funny, because I've always seen my shortness as a strength rather than as a handicap (socially, that is). People remember me, because there is something immediately distinctive about me. And in remember, I am more familiar. And familiarity breeds attraction (and by this I don't mean sexual attraction, but fondness and friendship kind of attraction). SOOOO, my shortness, I feel, has HELPED me socially. It also gives me something about myself that I can laugh at, and healthy self-deprecating humor is often a good icebreaker.
So, shorties of the world have no fear. We may be used as arm rests and beer rests, we might get more elbows to the face, armpits to the nose, and beer spilled on us at parties, and we might ALWAYS have a hard time seeing at sporting events, concerts, movies, etc., but we are not socially defunct. WOO HOO!!! :) :)
More About Antidepressents in the Media
F.D.A. Links Drugs to Being Suicidal
The media pisses me off. If you were to look at the title of this article and not actually really read it, you would think that taking antidepressents would cause teenagers to commit suicide. However, in reading the article, it doesn't sound as if the article is claiming it is that black and white. Here are some of the facts from the article:
- The risk of suicide among patients given the pills is very small. If 100 children and teenagers are given antidepressants, 2 or 3 will become suicidal who otherwise would not have had they been given placebos, agency officials said. None of the children in the trials committed suicide, but some thought about or attempted suicide, researchers found.
- A large study of depressed teenagers conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health recently found that Prozac was far more effective in treating depression in children and teenagers than was talk therapy.
- Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teenagers, trailing only homicide and accidents. Without treatment, many more teenagers will die, several experts said
- Then last year, GlaxoSmithKline announced that tests of Paxil had found that teenagers and children who took the pill were more likely to become suicidal than those given placebos. The announcement was quickly followed by a similar one from Wyeth, the maker of Effexor, another antidepressant.
Okay, so studies have shown (I'm saying this with full awareness of its limitations) that taking antidepressants can sometimes increase the likelihood that a teenager will commit suicide. However, does anyone stop to consider WHY? A point I was going to make, which I was happy to see is actually IN the article, is that often times a person does not commit suicide at their lowest point. At that point, there is usually a lot of apathy, lack of energy, despair. They don't care enough to kill themselves. It's only as people start to get better that they go through that period of being really low but actually having the energy and caring enough to do something about it. That's when most suicides occur.
But Dr. Temple speculated that some people taking the pills become suicidal because they are actually getting better. As their depression improves, he said, they gain the energy to act on suicidal thoughts that their illness had suppressed.
I don't mean to sound harsh or uncaring, and I understand that people want something or someone to blame when something terrible happens, like your child committing suicide. However, thinking like that displayed by this mother:
Mathy Milling Downing of Laytonsville, Md., whose 12-year-old daughter hanged herself in January, said: "Candace's death was entirely avoidable had we been given the appropriate warnings. "The blood of these children is on your hands.''
doesn't help anyone. However, I think many are reluctant to criticize a mother who has just lost her 12-year-old in such a manner (yeah, I'm the bitch who will do it I guess). Not only is it totally irrational thinking, but it's not going to give that mother any comfort, closure, or increased ability to move on beyond her grief. It gives her a place to put the blame, or a reason behind an act that borders on being unexplainable (if it was something good, it would be more likely to be attributed to God or Fate). Sometimes things happen that you can't prevent, prepare for, or explain.
Bad morning...Good morning...Bad morning...Good morning
I've only been away for two hours, and yet here I am, at work, having ALREADY gone through all the normal ups and downs usually reserved for a WHOLE DAY.
It started with the alarm waking me up for the first time in a long, long time. I'm usually pretty good at waking up before my alarm goes off. Ah, not today. Stage 2 -The Bus. For some reason the buses were running later than usual, which means they were more crowded than usual. Fortunately, I was able to catch a luxury liner (that would be a bus that is two buses long with that accordian thing in the middle to hold the two parts together), so I got a seat. I was about two rows back from the accordian thing, and the girl behind me insisted on having a (loud) conversation with the people who were sitting IN the accordian thing. To make it worse, it wasn't even an interesting conversation. They were undergrads talking about their upcoming German test. Hmm, maybe they'd understand this: Schließen Sie die Hölle!!! (that would be roughly 'Shut the Hell up!!!').
So the bus arrives at CMU, where (yay!!) they are all getting off. So, annoying girl behind me starts squeezing her way through the aisle, and her giant-ass purse spills all over me and the floor (well, I only got a cellphone to the head, but it was enough). So she's giggley and insincerely apologetic. Get off the fucking bus already! Finally, as the bus is about to pull away and force me to ride another stop (which at this point means 20 feet) with this beacon of intelligence, she finishes packing her purse and heads for the exit. Then I hear, "Hey you alls (would that be all's? i have no idea how to spell that, which makes me quite proud actually.), you dropped this". What did she drop on the bus, in front of everyone. Oh yes, her birth control pills. Heh heh!
Ah, first high point of the morning.
I get off the bus, stop and get hot chocolate and a carrot muffin from Kiva Han (which is becoming my new morning haunt) and go to my office. Perhaps it's because I'm not a coffee drinker, but as I'm walking, the hot chocolate keeps splashes OUT of the little opening in the plastic lid. Maybe I walk like a camel or something. Who knows...
ANYWAY, I get to my office and wait an age for the elevator. Get on the elevator. Up to floor two. Stop. Someone gets off. WHAT?? It's one freaking floor and this dude waited a good five minutes for an elevator!! He was young, appeared to be in decent physical health...what the hell?? Then I notice he appears to be not feeling so great...maybe hung over, maybe coming down from some high or another. So, I stop being irritated. Person gets on. Up to floor three. Person who got on at 2 gets off. BLARGH BLARGH BLARGH!!!!!!! After making two more stops, I FINALLY arrive on the eighth floor (I really should just start taking the stairs...much faster. The biggest deterrent is that the stairwell has NO ventillation, so it's hot, stuffy, and smells like day old ass).
However, I would soon be greeted by my second happy moment of the morning. My carrot muffin was EXCELLENT. :)
So, as I will be away from my desk for most of the day, I figured it's post now or never. It could have been worse...I could have told you about my toe jam (which really would have been a boring post, as I have none. Haha! Now I HAVE told you about my toe jam!!).
***note*** toe jam, in the above instance, is not to be confused with the toe jam that is tofu hotdogs. :(~~~~
Fan Appreciation
I've found that the most frustrating thing about reading other blogs are the stupid people who comment on them. I check a couple of different blogs that get upwards of 100 comments per post. However, 90% of those comments are gushing, crappy, ass-kissing remarks about how awesome the blogger is, how talented the blogger is, blah blah blah....it's irritating. And then, when someone FINALLY makes a comment that isn't just flattery, everyone ignores it (which means that everyone ignores me the rare times that I make a comment). Isn't part of the point of blogs to start some sort of dialogue? To connect with people in a way not previously available to us? To communicate and think with others despite not being in the same general area?
SO, in light of that rant, I would like to say that I really appreciate everyone who has ever commented on this blog. Your comments are insightful, funny, engaging, and not pointless flattery. I am not a narcistic person. I am not a person so in need of affirmation that I write a blog so that the masses will adore me and shower me with praise (of course, were I craving that, it would require far more talent on my part to acquire such praise...fortunately, that's not the point!). This doesn't mean every comment should be insightful. Hell no. I appreciate the silly, the fun, and even the frivolous as well. There's a good mix, and that's what I want.
So, thanks. :) You are appreciated.
The eternal debate
Books and articles have been written, arguments have abounded, and still people still keep having the same old debates over mind and body, mind and soul, monism or dualism...it's getting old. This debate would be far more intersting if something NEW were brought into it, but it all is being boiled down to science versus religion, reason versus faith, truth versus truth.
Take, for example,
this article from today's NY Times, entitled
The Duel Between Body and Soul.
To the credit of the author, there is one particular point that was made that I agree with:
"I think about sex and this activates such-as-so part of my brain" - as if there are two separate things going on, first the thought and then the brain activity.
He argues that this is dualistic thinking
To constrain myself with a label, I am a monist. My brain, my body, my feelings, my actions are all one in the same. I am not an ensouled body acting upon the world, but a being in relation with the world. I do not cause my brain to become activated, nor does my brain cause me to behave in certain ways. What exists is the act of my behavior, which can be broken down, classified, and explained retrospectively by my thoughts, physiology, environment, etc.
So do I believe in a soul? I believe that's not a valid question. That would imply that the essence of me is a separate entity - my soul - which acts upon and within my body. I don't really agree with separating a person into mind, body, and soul. A person is the sum total of all the experiences, interactions, and moments from past, present, and future (this is an idea beautifully expressed in Salman Rushdie's novel,
Midnight's Children).
Yes, I work in a field which studies the brain and behavior. Yes, I recognize that sometimes, to be practical, we have to think of the brain as separate, or behavior as outside of time, in order to begin to understand. However, any conclusions drawn need to be recognized as having limitations, as existing in time and place, and as dynamic.
Therefore, to me, the idea of a soul is just as limited as the idea of a "scientific conclusion". It's a heuristic, a shortcut to understanding and dialogue, which too often becomes a reality or an entity of it's own.
Isn't it ironic?
Yeah, and how many of you just thought "don't you think?". When thinking of a title, that was not my intention, I swear! Anyway, my point was not to get a terrible song stuck in your heads, but to call your attention to a news story about how
a coronor discussing gun safety shot himselfin the leg.
Toumey told The Herald-Times for a story published Saturday that he was demonstrating gun safety to some people at a Lake Monroe boat ramp about 11 p.m. Wednesday when he accidentally shot himself.
He said that as he checked to make sure his weapon was unloaded, the gun discharged, and a bullet struck him in his left leg.
I am reminded of a conversation that occurred several months ago at a friend's house about how one would define irony. I can't remember if we came to any conclusions, outside of giving examples of what is ironic and what is not (for example, I feel that this story is ironic, but EVERYTHING in Alanis Morissette's previously alluded to song is NOT ironic...which in and of itself might be ironic? Though I would say no, it's more just stupid than anything).
Along the same lines, I was giving an NP test today that requires an individual to give a definition of a series of words. Through this test, a person is given a 'verbal score', which is compared to a norm for their age and education and later to future scores obtained by the same person to note any potential decline (this is a WAIS test). Anyway, some of the words are easy to define, others much more difficult. The scoring is pretty strict too, with definitions being scored as 0, 1, or 2 (2 is the best).
Words that tend to give people the most trouble (or ones for which they they tend to gget 0's or 1's) include:
Tirade
Regulate
Evasive
Remorse
Fortitude
Audacious
So, as I know that many of your out there are literary folk, I challenge you to give me a definition (no cheating!) of each of these words, and see how you score on the WAIS.
And if you're really itching to, you can throw in thoughts on the meaning of irony too, just for kicks. :)
Retribution
So I joked that I was going to burn in hell as a heathen...my day has come. Our AC (which normally is cranked so high my fingernails turn blue and my teeth chatter) is out. We lost power about twenty minutes ago (it's back now) and we're down from 3 elevators to 1. It's armageddon in my building and I'm condemned to the firey hell for the rest of the afternoon.
For a bit of humor in your day, I give you
this article, which is another hilarious example of The Jaggerbush's difficulty (and apparent lack of insight into this difficulty) with words. To quote:
"We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
Weekend
*Yawn*
It's the end of a long weekend. Not looking forward to going back to work tomorrow. *raspberry*
However, going back to work means going back to actually POSTING. So, there will be more from me again starting tomorrow.
Happy Labor Day. Woo hoo labor!!
Captured?
Hmm...word on the street is that the US caputer Bin Laden?
Osama Bin Laden has been Captured in Pakistan?
IF this is true, I would put money on it that, since Bush didn't decide to announce this (to my knowledge) at the RNC, that he will choose instead to make the announcement a week from tomorrow - on September 11th. Yeah, going for the big-time symbolism, that would be my guess.
I'm ambivalent about this. True, capturing Bin Laden has been the goal for 3 years, right? However, two things about this DON'T make me exstatic. One, capturing Bin Laden is only going to have symbolic effect. His capture (and I'm sure, subsequent death) will not cut down or, in my opinion, undermine in any way the workings of the Al Quaida network. If anything, he is fullfilling the most glorious role of martyr for the cause. Second, and this is the BIG ONE, this is going to be a HUGE plus for the JaggerBush in the coming election (shouldn't be, but your average voter doesn't really THINK anyway, and the capture of Bin Laden would make the JaggerBush look like a hero). Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised, again IF THIS IS TRUE AND NOT JUST RUMOR (i'm obviously not really buying it yet), if the US hasn't had him since way back when, when he first 'disappeared'. Why not wait until the crucial moment, two months before election day, when it can be announced on the anniversary of his crimes that the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks has been caught?
If anything, I fear that the capture of Bin Laden now will only serve to perpetuate the hate, intolerance, and overall ignorant idiocy (perhaps this is redundant?) that seems to abound.
Pigs in a Boat
Here are two totally unrelated stories (via
Pesky) that I felt like posting:
The first is for Mike and Pete and anyone out there who has heard their pig-fucking joke. Check out this article:
Police Accuse a Man of Crime Against a Pig. :)
The second is a bit more on the serious side. As I'm sure you're all aware of the whole Swift Boat Kerry-bashing commercial (who wouldn't be at this point?), I will spare you a long lead-in to
this article, which indicates that "as many as 25 percent of the names are fictitious supporters of that group". Can't find enough fundies to agree with you, just forge their signatures!
However, I do have to agree with one point in the above linked article (not the pig one, dammit!):
Both men say they are angry that Kerry's swift boat service has dominated so much of the campaign. And they say both sides are at fault.
"You see it every campaign, there's dirty politics on every side," Anderson said. "If the politicians spent more time on issues than on this, we'd know more about them."
On the subject of knowing about the issues, does anyone happen to know when the first debate is going to be?
Go Illinois
So, previously being from Illinois and still knowing many people in the state, I shudder to think what will happen if Alan Keyes is elected (go Obama!). Some of the things he has said border on being Santorum-esque.
Apparently, gay marriage is bad because at the core of all marriages is procreation, and so in gay marriages, both individuals are "selfish hedonists". Without evening beginning to go on a tangent about adoption, I have to say....WHAT????? So the whole point of getting married is to pop out babies?? Oh, and all those heterosexual couples who choose not to have children are also selfish hedonists. Go hedonists! Some of the best people I know are gay and/or heterosexual people involved in childless relationships and marriages. So, I feel nothing but pride to count myself amoung them (and NOT amoung the Santorum's and Keyes of the world).
For a whole blog dedicated to the stupid things that Keyes says, check out:
The Truth About Keyes.
Oh, and was I the last person on earth to find out that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian? Mad props to her for not fearing to come out against the bordering-on-facist-conservatism of her father. Go Mary Cheney!
Quote of the Day
As I leave my office to go spend my afternoon in a closet (more or less), I leave you with this quote from the book I am currently reading: Salman Rushdie's
Midnight's Children:
"I told you the truth...Memory's truth, because memory has its own special kind. It selects, eliminates, alters, exaggerates, minimizes, glorifies, and vilifies also; but in the end it creates its own reality, its heterogeneous but usually coherent version of the events; and no sane human being ever trusts someone else's version more than his own."
Hand gazing
Were I a purist-Freudian, I would classify myself as a classical orally fixated personality. I talk a lot, I love to eat, I've been a nail biter my whole life...
In late July, I was in a wedding. The day before the wedding, the bride (a friend I've known since I was 9) and I went to get manicures. She wanted the manicure, I went along for the bonding experience. Since then, I have kept my nails painted with the ever-fashionable clear nail hardener and have not bitten my nails. Over a month and counting!!!
In breaking this habit (I hope!), I have been able to reflect more upon it (which has led to reflections on various other things, which I will get to later). First, I noticed that I bit my nails in sistuations in which I was nervous (big surprise) or unable to talk (like in class listening to a lecture or at business meetings for work). Further support for the Freudians who are dying to classify me into a neat little oral package (hmm..that sounds kinkier than I intended...).
I've also found myself contemplating my hands more during the past month than ever before. I like the way that normal length nails look. My fingers suddenly aren't so stubby looking (still stubby, just not quite as bad). I've found that when I look at my hands, as opposed to looking at my overall self in the mirror, I look my age. My hands are not the hands of a 17-year-old (even though I have gotten carded occasionally at rated-R movies). Yes, they're freakisly small, but there are subtle lines, signs of aging I can't quite identify but that are there nonetheless. I've also found, in contemplating my hands, that they remind me of my mom's hands. Strange...I thought that was just a clevor ploy for books and movies. Honestly, how many times have you heard some narrator (in film or on paper) talk about remembering someone's hands (usually after said person has died)? Hands that are wrinkly, smooth, leathery, soft, firm, or pliable?
While people use lotion, manicures, and various other treatments to halt or slow the aging process of their hands, they age. There is no makeup to hide them or make them look younger. When trying to determine someone's age in the past, I now recognize that I have often looked to their hands. You know those terrible Maury Povich (my mom is a big talk show watcher) shows where you have to figure out who's really a man or woman amoungst a group of cross-dressers? Well, even then, (i'm so ashamed to admit i've watched these shows...on numerous occasions!) I look to the hands. Next time you see a movie star who is in her 40's, but looks 30 (this is usually the case with the women more than the men), check out her hands. 40-year-old hands, I can almost guarantee it.
So, to end my (pointless?) dissertation on hands, I will say this; I think a lot can be revealed about a person my his or her hands. I am beginning to think my hands suit me perfectly.
