Yesterday, I went to a modern music concert. Usually, I find something that turns me off the group. But that was not the case yesterday. Try as I might, the ensemble seemed to be doing everything in a striving for perfection. Their composition and performance both yearned for a ... no, an expression of ideas. While everyone is always doing that, I am usually not convinced by it. Yesterday was different, I felt they were reaching for perfect expression. I don't know, I just appreciated their efforts. What's more interesting was that I wanted to leave as soon as the music was done. I didn't want to ask questions, hob-nob with the performers or the composers, or sip some wine while everyone else did that. I couldn't have that. The music had shown me the pure, noble side of these people and, I knew, if I stayed any longer, my perception of them would invariably become stained by their personalities, behaviour, speech patterns, etc. It already started happening as I was trying to make my exit. I noticed their choices of alcohol, their conversations with each other, etc. I really wanted to leave. So badly did I desire it that I couldn't wait for the elevator - I walked down the stairs to avoid waiting with others for the elevator.
Upon ruminating further with a friend, I decided that there are two sides to people - their personalities and their visions. I've found personalities are a much more subjective issue - they can be great but not appeal to me or they can be really shitty and totally win me over. It's so subjective that I'm sort of afraid to subject the visions of people to their personalities. If I've only experienced their visions, I would be wont to know who they are - my perception of those people is as high as it can get. Meeting those people will not only reduce my consideration of them but also, sadly, of their vision. That's ultimately why I left as quickly as I did. That is all.
2005-10-08
2004-05-15
It's been quite a while since I've posted here. It seems that this blog has become a place for me to vent about political happenings. I was reading the Princeton Tory, a WAY-WAY-WAY right-wing magazine published by apparently well-educated people (being Republican and smart always seemed mutually exclusive to me, but perhaps I am "misguided"). Most of the stuff there was balderdash (the typical neo-con crap: anti-abortion, pro-religion-in-state, etc.). But there was a kernel of truth in there: they pointed out that most people in this country don't know half the people they are getting angry with. Of course, their argument stemming from that fact was complete crap, but still, that fact did bother me; mostly because it's true. Thus, my new goal, for the time between work and sleep this summer, is to a) become more educated regarding our government and b) help others do the same. Hopefully, this will enable everyone to make better choices when election time comes around.
Well, that's out of the way. Now to the real political venting. Obviously, the prisoner humiliations and the beheading are on everyone's mind right now, and rightfully so. Both show a rather disappointing side of the human psyche. However, I believe that the militants who beheaded the US citizen (Berg) were being truthful when they said it was in retaliation for the humiliations they (as a group) suffered at the hands of the prison guards (read: retarded 18 year old drunks being made to do something they were DEFINITELY not equipped to do). Terrorists might be vengeful, over-the-top, and other extreme things, but when they are brainwashed, they are probably going to say what is on their mind. So, all that BS people have been saying about the terrorists trying to pin the beheading on Abu Ghraib when they just wanted to kill is exactly that: BS. Someone I know, who shall remain anonymous, said to me: "I'd rather be humiliated like in the prisons than be executed like in the video." Now, sure, that makes sense, TO US. But has anyone consulted a Middle Easterner? Apparently not. The humiliations they were forced to bear are AS BAD IF NOT WORSE than a beheading. Being forced to perform sexual acts with others (especially for the married men) places a stigma on those men worse than death. Most of them say they can't again live in their hometowns and are being forced to move. They and their families will forever be separated from the rest of their society as the people who were humiliated at Abu Ghraib. So, in all, DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU'D RATHER BE HUMILIATED BY 18-YEAR-OLD HICKS (FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY RUNNING A HIGH-SECURITY PRISON THAT SHOULD RIGHTFULLY BE RUN BY SOMEONE WITH FAR MORE EXPERIENCE) THAN BE BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN FORCED TO GO THROUGH EITHER!!!! That comment really pissed me off, so I figured I'd vent here. I saw the beheading, it was extremely gruesome and TOTALLY reproachable. But that doesn't somehow make the Abu Ghraib prison torture somehow, 'less bad'. That is all. If anyone wishes to explain another point of view, feel free to post comments.
Well, that's out of the way. Now to the real political venting. Obviously, the prisoner humiliations and the beheading are on everyone's mind right now, and rightfully so. Both show a rather disappointing side of the human psyche. However, I believe that the militants who beheaded the US citizen (Berg) were being truthful when they said it was in retaliation for the humiliations they (as a group) suffered at the hands of the prison guards (read: retarded 18 year old drunks being made to do something they were DEFINITELY not equipped to do). Terrorists might be vengeful, over-the-top, and other extreme things, but when they are brainwashed, they are probably going to say what is on their mind. So, all that BS people have been saying about the terrorists trying to pin the beheading on Abu Ghraib when they just wanted to kill is exactly that: BS. Someone I know, who shall remain anonymous, said to me: "I'd rather be humiliated like in the prisons than be executed like in the video." Now, sure, that makes sense, TO US. But has anyone consulted a Middle Easterner? Apparently not. The humiliations they were forced to bear are AS BAD IF NOT WORSE than a beheading. Being forced to perform sexual acts with others (especially for the married men) places a stigma on those men worse than death. Most of them say they can't again live in their hometowns and are being forced to move. They and their families will forever be separated from the rest of their society as the people who were humiliated at Abu Ghraib. So, in all, DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU'D RATHER BE HUMILIATED BY 18-YEAR-OLD HICKS (FROM THE UNITED STATES ARMY RUNNING A HIGH-SECURITY PRISON THAT SHOULD RIGHTFULLY BE RUN BY SOMEONE WITH FAR MORE EXPERIENCE) THAN BE BEHEADED BY TERRORISTS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN FORCED TO GO THROUGH EITHER!!!! That comment really pissed me off, so I figured I'd vent here. I saw the beheading, it was extremely gruesome and TOTALLY reproachable. But that doesn't somehow make the Abu Ghraib prison torture somehow, 'less bad'. That is all. If anyone wishes to explain another point of view, feel free to post comments.
2004-03-22
I'm not really angry about any political event right now, so I'll spread some interesting news:
I just found out that the number two al Qaeda guy they had surrounded for the past 5 days or so escaped! How you ask? Through a TWO KILOMETER long tunnel!!! That is a LONG tunnel. One mile is the same as 1.6 km, so that tunnel was about 1.25 miles long! That's incredible, especially considering the countryside in that area is rather rocky/hilly etc. Now, the Pakistani brigadier in charge is trying to tell us that the tunnel is brand new; that they didn't come across it the last time they looked through the area. I find that to be really funny. Noone digs a 2km long tunnel that fast! In Great Escape, a 300 ft tunnel took them well over 5-6 weeks. That leads me to believe that I must have misinterpreted the brigadier; he must have meant either that the last time they checked this area was NEVER or ... really, really, really long ago. That makes sense.
In other news, Sedna is not the tenth planet, but Pluto is still the ninth planet. Why? Sedna is only a smidgeon smaller than Pluto (about 10-15% smaller, I think). They're both on the inner edge of the Oort Cloud. There's no reason one should be a planet and the other not besides the whole 'tradition' thing. If we kept with tradition, we'd still be teaching that God created Earth and all its beings rather than that mumbo-jumbo scientists call evolution. Why, I bet we'd even be teaching that the earth is flat and in the center of the universe. What I'm trying to say is that tradition holds back science. It may be useful in other fields, but not science. Let either Sedna become a planet or let Pluto's planethood fall by the wayside. We can't be hypocritical just to keep with tradition.
There's nothing else to report really. Even though I'm liking Kerry less and less the more I find out about him, I'm still going to vote for him (namely because Bush can't seriously be allowed to "run" this country for four more years). It really hurts to admit to this, but I'm more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. It's a sad day when one has to do that in a democracy...
I just found out that the number two al Qaeda guy they had surrounded for the past 5 days or so escaped! How you ask? Through a TWO KILOMETER long tunnel!!! That is a LONG tunnel. One mile is the same as 1.6 km, so that tunnel was about 1.25 miles long! That's incredible, especially considering the countryside in that area is rather rocky/hilly etc. Now, the Pakistani brigadier in charge is trying to tell us that the tunnel is brand new; that they didn't come across it the last time they looked through the area. I find that to be really funny. Noone digs a 2km long tunnel that fast! In Great Escape, a 300 ft tunnel took them well over 5-6 weeks. That leads me to believe that I must have misinterpreted the brigadier; he must have meant either that the last time they checked this area was NEVER or ... really, really, really long ago. That makes sense.
In other news, Sedna is not the tenth planet, but Pluto is still the ninth planet. Why? Sedna is only a smidgeon smaller than Pluto (about 10-15% smaller, I think). They're both on the inner edge of the Oort Cloud. There's no reason one should be a planet and the other not besides the whole 'tradition' thing. If we kept with tradition, we'd still be teaching that God created Earth and all its beings rather than that mumbo-jumbo scientists call evolution. Why, I bet we'd even be teaching that the earth is flat and in the center of the universe. What I'm trying to say is that tradition holds back science. It may be useful in other fields, but not science. Let either Sedna become a planet or let Pluto's planethood fall by the wayside. We can't be hypocritical just to keep with tradition.
There's nothing else to report really. Even though I'm liking Kerry less and less the more I find out about him, I'm still going to vote for him (namely because Bush can't seriously be allowed to "run" this country for four more years). It really hurts to admit to this, but I'm more voting against Bush than voting for Kerry. It's a sad day when one has to do that in a democracy...
2004-03-16
Time for a bit of political venting:
I'm sure everyone has heard about Spain. Zapatero is now in power, finally doing what all of Spain really wanted: the removal of Spanish forces from the US-led invasion of Iraq (yes, invasion). Of course, as soon as he takes power (Zapatero), there is a document found, purportedly by US intelligence (in Spain [why are they there]), belonging to al Qaeda that explicitly states that the group set off those bombings in order to make the conservative government lose the upcoming election.
Now, there are (at least) two obviously absurd conclusions to be made from this "discovery." Firstly, if the al Qaeda were in fact setting off the bomb to force the expulsion of the conservative government, wouldn't it be rather obvious to the operatives working in Spain? That is, would they really need a document explicitly stating the reason for the attacks? (The answer is no) It makes no sense to have such a document.
Secondly, again assuming al Qaeda set off the bombs with the explicit intent to remove the conservatives in Spain, why would they not come out as soon as possible and take responsibility. Seeing as this is a time-sensitive thing (as elections usually are), they would like to let everyone know that al Qaeda is doing this so that the populace of Spain knows to expul the government that got the al Qaeda on Spain's back in the first place. But they didn't; rather, they let it come out on its own through slow police inquiries and the CAPTURE OF THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES. Would they REALLY have wanted their arrests to be the final keystone in the framework for determination of guilt in the attacks? I don't think that makes sense (not even to Dubya).
Finally (yes, there are three, not two), assuming the al Qaeda wanted to get Spain to leave Iraq alone; would this REALLY be the best way to do it? First of all, the entire notion that al Qaeda would care enough about getting Spain out of the US-led coalition is ridiculous. First of all, al Qaeda IS NOT RELATED TO IRAQ IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. Secondly, assuming that the fundamentalists in al Qaeda wish to see Westerners out of Iraq, history has shown them that bombing a country usually doesn't help in getting the country to leave them alone (case in point: Sept. 11, 2001). Unless we assume that al Qaeda members (and the several university-taught terrorists leading that organization) refuse to learn from history and like to put their heads in the guillotine, the whole notion makes no sense.
Now you ask, why did they attack the Madrid trains? That's a good question. The way I figure it, there are several terrorist cells in cities across the world. I don't think this was intended as an attack on Spain alone; rather, it was meant as a second iteration of the attack on the WTC in New York in 2001. The al Qaeda (brainwashed by their leaders as they unfortunately are) wanted to further drive home the fact that no Westerner is safe from them -- not in the US nor in the EU. It is a sad state of affairs that you kill 6000+ and then 200+ people to state your message, but I believe that is the reasoning behind it. Nothing as fancy as the conservative right would have us believe.
In conclusion, don't believe the tripe they feed us in the television news (seeing as it is tripe, I hope no one would believe it even if I didn't tell them [unless of course, they like tripe]); it's all just a big lie to justify W's desire to be the World Good Guy (even if that means we break every single piece of international law and custom in existence today).
I'm sure everyone has heard about Spain. Zapatero is now in power, finally doing what all of Spain really wanted: the removal of Spanish forces from the US-led invasion of Iraq (yes, invasion). Of course, as soon as he takes power (Zapatero), there is a document found, purportedly by US intelligence (in Spain [why are they there]), belonging to al Qaeda that explicitly states that the group set off those bombings in order to make the conservative government lose the upcoming election.
Now, there are (at least) two obviously absurd conclusions to be made from this "discovery." Firstly, if the al Qaeda were in fact setting off the bomb to force the expulsion of the conservative government, wouldn't it be rather obvious to the operatives working in Spain? That is, would they really need a document explicitly stating the reason for the attacks? (The answer is no) It makes no sense to have such a document.
Secondly, again assuming al Qaeda set off the bombs with the explicit intent to remove the conservatives in Spain, why would they not come out as soon as possible and take responsibility. Seeing as this is a time-sensitive thing (as elections usually are), they would like to let everyone know that al Qaeda is doing this so that the populace of Spain knows to expul the government that got the al Qaeda on Spain's back in the first place. But they didn't; rather, they let it come out on its own through slow police inquiries and the CAPTURE OF THE TERRORISTS THEMSELVES. Would they REALLY have wanted their arrests to be the final keystone in the framework for determination of guilt in the attacks? I don't think that makes sense (not even to Dubya).
Finally (yes, there are three, not two), assuming the al Qaeda wanted to get Spain to leave Iraq alone; would this REALLY be the best way to do it? First of all, the entire notion that al Qaeda would care enough about getting Spain out of the US-led coalition is ridiculous. First of all, al Qaeda IS NOT RELATED TO IRAQ IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. Secondly, assuming that the fundamentalists in al Qaeda wish to see Westerners out of Iraq, history has shown them that bombing a country usually doesn't help in getting the country to leave them alone (case in point: Sept. 11, 2001). Unless we assume that al Qaeda members (and the several university-taught terrorists leading that organization) refuse to learn from history and like to put their heads in the guillotine, the whole notion makes no sense.
Now you ask, why did they attack the Madrid trains? That's a good question. The way I figure it, there are several terrorist cells in cities across the world. I don't think this was intended as an attack on Spain alone; rather, it was meant as a second iteration of the attack on the WTC in New York in 2001. The al Qaeda (brainwashed by their leaders as they unfortunately are) wanted to further drive home the fact that no Westerner is safe from them -- not in the US nor in the EU. It is a sad state of affairs that you kill 6000+ and then 200+ people to state your message, but I believe that is the reasoning behind it. Nothing as fancy as the conservative right would have us believe.
In conclusion, don't believe the tripe they feed us in the television news (seeing as it is tripe, I hope no one would believe it even if I didn't tell them [unless of course, they like tripe]); it's all just a big lie to justify W's desire to be the World Good Guy (even if that means we break every single piece of international law and custom in existence today).
2004-03-08
Starsky and Hutch:
First, I have never seen the original. I don't even know if it was a show or a movie, which is why I just wrote original rather than original show, or original movie, or original series. But the movie I just saw was funny. Snoop Dogg is actually a very good actor. Haha, the golf course scene. Get it? Not if you didn't see the movie. See the movie. I'm getting bored of this blogging thing. That's it. This might very well be the last blog post.
First, I have never seen the original. I don't even know if it was a show or a movie, which is why I just wrote original rather than original show, or original movie, or original series. But the movie I just saw was funny. Snoop Dogg is actually a very good actor. Haha, the golf course scene. Get it? Not if you didn't see the movie. See the movie. I'm getting bored of this blogging thing. That's it. This might very well be the last blog post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
