I just sent the following to my uncle, aunt, and grandmother:
Subject: On the off-chance that anyone remembers -
Body: that I was born on October 28th, I join you in wishing myself a happy birthday.
Cheers, fam.
Love,
-A
This betrays the completely sour mood I'm in. I don't usually care about these things. Proof positive? You didn't know it was my birthday until I posted, didja? No. Because I don't post these things on Facebook.
What a freaking horrendous day.
So here's to my continuing mission to get older and avoid the alternative for as long as possible. Holding steady at 24 now.
Skoal and much love to all,
-A
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
"Joe" for President
I think he had the most stage presence during the third presidential debate. And during that part where the politicians discussed how they had hurt each other's feelings... well let's just say that I practiced my scrawl for that write-in slot.
All hail "Joe", for he of the 15 namechecks during the presidential debate shall rule the Earth.
This thing is giving me a migraine, but it's like a train wreck. I... can't... tear... my... eyes... away...
All hail "Joe", for he of the 15 namechecks during the presidential debate shall rule the Earth.
This thing is giving me a migraine, but it's like a train wreck. I... can't... tear... my... eyes... away...
Monday, September 29, 2008
Shanah Tovah U'metukah
... and a happy new year.
Best wishes to all for tremendously joyous, fulfilling, and a positive year to come. Gmar chatimah tovah.
All my love,
-A
Best wishes to all for tremendously joyous, fulfilling, and a positive year to come. Gmar chatimah tovah.
All my love,
-A
Friday, September 26, 2008
Baruch Dayan Emet
This man was one of the best, truest, and dearest influences on my life. He was, as I once said in a tribute to him, a great mentor, teacher and friend to me and many other of his students.
A word of advice before I retreat into my cave for a few hours: don't ever wait an extra week to do the bi-annual phonecall. Sometimes you very unexpectedly lose the chance.
A word of advice before I retreat into my cave for a few hours: don't ever wait an extra week to do the bi-annual phonecall. Sometimes you very unexpectedly lose the chance.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Front... and Right
Just another smattering of proof positive that newspapers love Obama (looking atcha, Ben). If you look all the way, way, way, way down, that would be what the NY Times considers the other presidential candidate.
Yeah, McCain's name is first in the caption (click the pic), but this is preposterous. Bush is hardly prominent in the picture and he's still running the country. Obama's the most noticeable guy in the depiction of the newest economic Justice League.
Use the wide lens and deflect the criticism, Times boys. This arrangement is just too obvious and cheap.
[Ed. Note: It has come to my attention that someone on the Corner on National Review remarked on a similar picture today. Truly I'm starting to get the hang of this punditry thing.]
[Ed. Note 2: The photo credit may go to a wire service a la AP or Reuters. I need to re-check. If it is the doing of some nefarious news giant, then the criticism goes to them for snapping the picture and the NY Times for running it in the manner that they did.]
No. No. No. Go back and do it again.
If Palin had been groomed for the veep position just a bit longer, picking her would have been an even better idea. She has yet to find her sea legs with only a short way to go until the election, and it's not like anyone in the press is going to shirk their responsibility when it comes to illustrating that where they can.
Nobody came out asking Obama substantive questions when he first hit the national stage. Some might say that the mainstream press is still shying away from doing so. Certainly where the substance of the issue has been hair-raisingly negative, they have shied away from doing so even more.
Yeah, I gripe. But the fact is that the blame here doesn't go entirely to the press, especially because they shouldn't be faulted for asking susbtantive questions (they should be faulted for extreme bias). The issue here is the stupidity of the Republican camp for throwing Palin out there as 'just as or more experienced' than Obama where it counts, while failing to take into account some very obvious and significant facts that impact her presentation.
Obama's had a couple of years to build up the stage persona, and certainly has a better team of puppeteers and speech writers behind him than Palin does. In addition, the press is almost entirely and solidly in his camp. This means that he can sit down with a Couric or a Gibson (and let's not even discuss Chris "Tingling" Matthews and Keith Olbermann) and get away with dodging questions and blatant lies. In order to come out of an interview looking 'bad', he'd pretty much have to grunt, spit, and start eating the set. And even then, MSNBC might portray his actions as a brilliant new take on the environment and a recommendation that we return to our roots.
Palin... well, other than hardcore conservative base, I'd say she's still "gaining acceptance." And that means that you don't put her in a position where she comes off looking like this because she's still in her political diapers.
Damn it, people. You make it so hard to vote with a clear conscience these days.
More later. School time.
-A
Nobody came out asking Obama substantive questions when he first hit the national stage. Some might say that the mainstream press is still shying away from doing so. Certainly where the substance of the issue has been hair-raisingly negative, they have shied away from doing so even more.
Yeah, I gripe. But the fact is that the blame here doesn't go entirely to the press, especially because they shouldn't be faulted for asking susbtantive questions (they should be faulted for extreme bias). The issue here is the stupidity of the Republican camp for throwing Palin out there as 'just as or more experienced' than Obama where it counts, while failing to take into account some very obvious and significant facts that impact her presentation.
Obama's had a couple of years to build up the stage persona, and certainly has a better team of puppeteers and speech writers behind him than Palin does. In addition, the press is almost entirely and solidly in his camp. This means that he can sit down with a Couric or a Gibson (and let's not even discuss Chris "Tingling" Matthews and Keith Olbermann) and get away with dodging questions and blatant lies. In order to come out of an interview looking 'bad', he'd pretty much have to grunt, spit, and start eating the set. And even then, MSNBC might portray his actions as a brilliant new take on the environment and a recommendation that we return to our roots.
Palin... well, other than hardcore conservative base, I'd say she's still "gaining acceptance." And that means that you don't put her in a position where she comes off looking like this because she's still in her political diapers.
Damn it, people. You make it so hard to vote with a clear conscience these days.
More later. School time.
-A
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thoughts and the Devolving Monologue on Chemical Castration
Given that Jindal apparently did sign the bill referred to in the post below, I decided to do a little research on the matter. And by a little, I mean "Wikipedia."
So Wiki says a couple of things that leave me wondering as to the point here.
The first is that this penalty already exists in five other states, including California and Florida. The second is that people that are treated with high doses of the relevant chemical still experience sexual arousal and fantasies. This means that they need to be dosed with hella lot of the stuff, and there are potentially severe side effects.
Ok. Bad. Very bad and uncomfortably so.
On the theoretical level, it seems a pretty just punishment for the commission of sex offenses against minors (which, I think, is all that the Jindal measure targets). For me, the question is how badly and irreversibly you screw someone up when you've made a mistake. It's the same issue that presents itself with capital punishment. Life for a life seems to make sense, but only if the system works perfectly. Which our current justice system most certainly does not. If you want to learn just how flawed it is, go to law school and be amazed.
All that said, the same argument could be used when speaking about incarceration and it's not as if there are tons of advocates for scrapping the penitentiary system. It's just that someone at some point decided that inflicting jail - the deprivation of liberty, freedom, and time - was less objectionable than any physical punitive measure. I can't say that I disagree with this, personally. But the entire concept does seem to reflect a general societal queasiness rather than any inherent consensus about what is just. No one regains the time lost in jail, or necessarily rids themselves of the lasting physical and mental effects resulting from the experience. What's done is done and the consequences are relatively acceptable. I think it might have to with the directness of the damage. One is straight up - you kill, you are killed. The other is - you killed, we will put you in a place where we're safe and things may happen to you but it's not our responsibility.
This is the first time I've thought seriously about the issue, so please forgive the sophomoric rambling. It will coalesce into a point within several days.
Anyway: many of us were raised to admire Patrick Henry's declaration of "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Of course, it was said in an entirely different context and - viewed in the light of American history- certainly a much more positive one. But the current interpretation implicates freedom of decision and freedom from both physical and mental restraint (usually). The right to life, liberty and happiness calculus changes when someone violates societal norms, sure. But leave that aside for a second.
Ancestors of this nation equated liberty with life and the loss of that liberty to a fate equal to or worse than death.
Interesting how things have changed and what caused them to do so....
Late now. G'night.
-A
So Wiki says a couple of things that leave me wondering as to the point here.
The first is that this penalty already exists in five other states, including California and Florida. The second is that people that are treated with high doses of the relevant chemical still experience sexual arousal and fantasies. This means that they need to be dosed with hella lot of the stuff, and there are potentially severe side effects.
Ok. Bad. Very bad and uncomfortably so.
On the theoretical level, it seems a pretty just punishment for the commission of sex offenses against minors (which, I think, is all that the Jindal measure targets). For me, the question is how badly and irreversibly you screw someone up when you've made a mistake. It's the same issue that presents itself with capital punishment. Life for a life seems to make sense, but only if the system works perfectly. Which our current justice system most certainly does not. If you want to learn just how flawed it is, go to law school and be amazed.
All that said, the same argument could be used when speaking about incarceration and it's not as if there are tons of advocates for scrapping the penitentiary system. It's just that someone at some point decided that inflicting jail - the deprivation of liberty, freedom, and time - was less objectionable than any physical punitive measure. I can't say that I disagree with this, personally. But the entire concept does seem to reflect a general societal queasiness rather than any inherent consensus about what is just. No one regains the time lost in jail, or necessarily rids themselves of the lasting physical and mental effects resulting from the experience. What's done is done and the consequences are relatively acceptable. I think it might have to with the directness of the damage. One is straight up - you kill, you are killed. The other is - you killed, we will put you in a place where we're safe and things may happen to you but it's not our responsibility.
This is the first time I've thought seriously about the issue, so please forgive the sophomoric rambling. It will coalesce into a point within several days.
Anyway: many of us were raised to admire Patrick Henry's declaration of "Give me liberty or give me death!"
Of course, it was said in an entirely different context and - viewed in the light of American history- certainly a much more positive one. But the current interpretation implicates freedom of decision and freedom from both physical and mental restraint (usually). The right to life, liberty and happiness calculus changes when someone violates societal norms, sure. But leave that aside for a second.
Ancestors of this nation equated liberty with life and the loss of that liberty to a fate equal to or worse than death.
Interesting how things have changed and what caused them to do so....
Late now. G'night.
-A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)