Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in some other guy's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Monday, March 3rd, 2008
6:02 pm	After a seemingly sincere attempt to derail the president's tyrannical eavesdropping program, the LA Times reports that the Democrats are on the verge of giving in: "The objective would be to pass something that is less controversial," yet still allow Democrats to register their objections to the immunity provision, said one senior Democratic aide. [in other words, it would let the "liberal" Democrats off the hook while still giving the President everything he wants.] ... Officials from both sides acknowledged that there are probably enough votes in the House to pass the measure protecting telephone companies. But splitting the bill would give Democrats who oppose the immunity provision political cover for voting in favor of the broader legislation. Since winning control of Congress in 2006, the Democrats have more or less abandoned its obvious mandate to fight President Bush on his own ground. Wasting most of their time on a feeble showdown over funding for the war, they have failed to confront Bush on anything else -- least of all his dictatorial prosecution of the "war on terror," in which he has repeatedly proclaimed that he stands above the law and the Constitution itself. In the face of widespread hatred of a lying president and his war, they have shown little inclination to confront the former and only a feeble inclination to confront the later. The campaign for the White House, in fact, has helped distract attention from the matter, and Democratic leaders have even been heard to say that they won't even bother lifting a finger until the election is over. What few commentators have suggested is that this is all being done on purpose, that the Democrats do not want to take advantage of a president's unpopularity and arouse the citizens to action. It is simply assumed that they are honestly trying to, and badly failing. What if, however, we assume that the party leaders do not want to do this? Glenn Greenwald, the best critic of the Bush Administration writing today, comes very close to stumbling on the truth: There's very little point anymore in writing about how the Congressional Democratic leadership is complicit in all of the worst Bush abuses, or about how craven they are. All of that is far too documented and established at this point to be worth spending any time discussing. They were never going to take a stand against warrantless eavesdropping or the destruction of the rule of law via telecom amnesty for one simple reason: many of them don't actually oppose those things, and many who claim to oppose them don't actually care about any of it. That's all a given. But what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks. ... They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that's possible). It's almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits. "It's almost as though" indeed! Unfortunately for the American people, the reason for the Democrats' "failure" is plain to anyone with the willingness to see it. Accepting the role of a genuine opposition party (which would involve becoming a "partisan" party, indulging in the kind of "ugly divisive rhetoric" which our empty-headed pundits so deplore) would awaken a disillusioned and demoralized citizenry to action. It would whip the widespread dislike of President Bush into a widespread demand for impeachment. It would mean that the citizens, and not the party leaders, would be running the show -- and that is exactly what the party does not want. So the Democrats have simply done what, no doubt, seems to them the logical thing to do. They have raised a big fuss and backed it up with no punch. They've staged the most dramatic kind of political theater, all the while making plans to slip out the back when no one's watching. This analysis would undoubtedly be dismissed in any newspaper, or on any news show, as a "conspiracy theory." In our weird country, attributing everything that happens to invisible "corporate forces" is logical, yet the political analysis of political actions is laughable. Yet all these events have taken place in broad daylight, and none relies on any "unseen" knowledge (as would an actual conspiracy theory). One commentor on Greenwald's entry simply cries out for an answer: Ever since I cast my first vote for Hubert H. Humphrey, the party has baffled me often. The nation cries out for a party that will preserve our freedoms (if we have any left) and the Democratic Party was supposed to be the political party of the "common man" or as Dad used to say, "the party of the little guy". Why on earth do the Democrats not want to tap that rich vein of votes that would come from protecting our constitution and our rights? Why not, indeed? Unfortunately, this poor fellow and others like him will never understand what is happening unless he realizes that the first principle of every political pundit and commentator in America -- that political parties have no power of their own, but are merely conduits for "special interests," for corporate power, or even for voters -- is a complete fraud. If we assume that the Democratic Party is simply a collection of good-willed people seeking office, it makes no sense that they would act "against their own interests." If we assume that the Democratic Party is an institution with its own interests, and that its primary interest is remaining in power, all falls into place. The introduction of "superdelegates" into the nomination process to curb the "crazies" (i.e., the people) from hijacking the primaries and electing an independent man, the repeated trashing of a populist candidate in favor of a "safe" one (allegedly an "electable" one, but really "safe" only to the party bosses, as every one of these "safe" candidates has lost since 1984), the utter failure to curb the crimes and pretensions of the Bush Administration -- all falls into place. Political parties make few genuine political mistakes, in truth -- if a "mistake" is defined as one that threatens their own power. Nothing threatens the power of the party bosses and the establishment party more than the free activity of citizens trying to bring the party back under their own power. That is why the Republican Party has awarded the nomination to John McCain, a man not only distrusted but outright disliked by the Republican base, instead of one of the four or five other perfectly acceptable "conservative" candidates. They are more than willing to throw away the election -- which is exactly what they mean to do -- if it means retaining power, keeping the "crazies" (who, in this case, are admittedly a bit crazy) under control, and stifling democracy. The Democrats, of course, do not have the option of throwing the election away -- not with the widely disliked Clinton's campaign derailed, and the insurgent power of Obama's campaign. How they will deal with the democratic hope that will undoubtedly be unleashed by Obama's election remains to be seen. (Comment on this)
Thursday, January 24th, 2008
12:07 am	I came home just now to find that my girlfriend was blasting Second Edition/Metal Box on the stereo at almost-full volume to annoy the neighbors. And that's why I love her. Current Mood: amused (Comment on this)
Saturday, January 5th, 2008
10:47 pm	Since we're finally into the most exciting presidential race since 1912, it's time for me to give my capsule reviews of the major candidates. DEMOCRATIC: Hillary Clinton. As Ralph Nader brilliantly put it, "She expects a coronation." It'd be fun to see Bill as First Husband, though. Barack Obama. Watching him speak is like drinking a glass of cold water after sitting in a humid basement for an hour. He's crisp, cool, and charming without being "charming." Where's his platform? How would he govern? Who knows? But he's the most exciting candidate in years. That very vagueness, that refusal to do anything but hover vaguely around the center, is also the source of his power. He's also not nearly as inexperienced as the media-tag has it - see this Washington Post article (and all "inexperienced" really means is that he doesn't have Clinton's name recognition or connections; since First Lady isn't an actual elected position, she's got no more actual experience than Obama.). John Edwards. The best qualified man for the job. Furiously populist, possessed of a detailed and convincing platform, and charming enough to throw off Kennedy-ish sparks. His Iowa speech the other night was worthy of William Jennings Bryan. His chances of actually nabbing the nomination are slim - though not impossible - but an Obama/Edwards ticket would be well nigh unbeatable. Chris Dodd. My grandpa's candidate of choice. A very sharp man - I can see him being a terrific Speaker of the House - but not too presidential. He reminds me of all those disastrous candidates the Democrats used to back - Dukakis, Mondale - with pleasant demeanors and oversized eyebrows. Just dropped out of the race, but probably the best VP choice after Edwards. Bill Richardson. Nothing to say. Dennis Kucinich. A "funny little man," as my mom put it, but a terrific one. Extra points for trying to impeach Cheney a while back. REPUBLICAN: John McCain. McCain's been living off his "maverick" reputation ever since the 2000 election, when George W. Bush's sleazy smear campaign against him made him seem like a martyr. Now his sole remaining claim to "principle" is his refusal to equivocate on torture - not nothing, not at all, not with the stage owned by liars and bullies and shabby demagogues, but very little indeed beside McCain's reputation as an impossibly decent politician - which is now as abstract and unrelated to his actual deeds as the United States' reputation as a perfect democracy. Where was that decency when he backed a lying president's war and stamped it with his War Hero's seal of approval? Where is it now, when he continues to wave the bloody flag and call for still more troops? Rudy Giuliani. Well, what can you do but laugh? Any other response is grossly inadequate to the sight of this tyrant and bully parading himself as a Great Hero. Mitt Romney. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney oversaw the construction of state health care, a remarkable achievement from someone now found spouting the usual Reaganite line on the "nanny state." That caveat aside, he seems like a jerk. Mike Huckabee. With his hang-dog expression and mournful air, he's got an uncanny resemblance to Kevin Spacey's loser everyman in American Beauty. A dangerously simple and stupid man; to learn why, read this. Ron Paul. Paul manages to combine the foreign policy of George Washington (i.e., none) with the social-services stance of Calvin Coolidge (i.e., none) with the immigration stance of Patrick Buchanan (i.e., build a fence and keep out the scum). Naturally, he's got the youth vote. Fred Thompson. Has any actor ever contributed anything positive to politics? No. (Comment on this)
Friday, December 28th, 2007
5:05 pm	Attention all Ron Paul supporters I know I can’t get off this subject, but it’s been months and people I know and like are still supporting Ron Paul. Guys, assuming it’s not just a protest vote against the other Republican candidates (all of whom are even worse), there is no excuse for actually supporting Paul. He’s not a defender of the Constitution; he’s a dangerous extremist. Paul is right about many things — about the use of foreign policy to crush liberty at home (even if he confuses the federal government with the two-party system, a misunderstanding that leads him to automatically support tyranny as long as it comes from *state* governments), for example. His opposition to the war on drugs is very commendable. But quite a few of his opinions aren’t merely stupid, but violate his own undeserved reputation as an upholder of the Constitution. Paul appeared on “Meet the Press” the other day. He made the following remarks (which you can read here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/): MR. RUSSERT: You say you're a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and yet you want to amend the Constitution to say that children born here should not automatically be U.S. citizens. REP. PAUL: Well, amending the Constitution is constitutional. What's a--what's the contradiction there? MR. RUSSERT: So in the Constitution as written, you want to amend? REP. PAUL: Well, that's constitutional, to do it. Besides, it was the 14th Amendment. It wasn't in the original Constitution. It’s not in the original Constitution, so it doesn’t count! On the other hand, amendments that *he* wants to pass are just dandy. Similarly, Ron, the Bill of Rights was not in the original Constitution. Shall we toss it out? What about, say, the right of women to vote, the right of 18-year-olds to vote, or popular election of senators? What about black Americans, who held no rights at all under the original Constitution? For that matter, where is the sense in granting to the federal government the right to decide who is and who is not a citizen? If we rule that being born in the United States is not sufficient cause to call yourself a citizen, how then will we decide who gets that honor? Shall every person born here be given an exam at age 18, and kicked out of the country if they fail it? Let’s not even begin to dissect the hypocrisy of Paul saying something like “I’m against the FBI spying on people like Martin Luther King.” That's just a shameless attempt to appeal to liberal sympathies. Paul’s old buddy and hero Murray Rothbard bragged about his “principled” opposition to MLK and the civil rights movement, and Paul’s other hero, Ronald Reagan, opposed a MLK holiday until it became politically expedient to support it. If Paul had been president in 1964-65, do you think we would have gotten a Civil Rights Act? Or a Voting Rights Act the following year? (Answer: No, Paul explicitly states he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act because it violated "property rights" - that is, the right of racist storeowners not to serve blacks.) Tim Russert used to get on my nerves, but he brilliantly tears apart Paul’s hypocrisies here: MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." Needless to say, that comment sends Paul into an extended stream of sputtering and denials. But the message is clear: If it happens to me, I care. If it’s taking place over the hill, in the next town, out of sight, I don’t care. Fine — except that this is why we have a federal government; to take care of matters that local governments cannot. This is the only function of federal (or for that matter state) governments in a republic, and here Paul’s ideology — an incoherent blend of Randian “self-reliance” and Rothbardian “anti-statism” — leads him to oppose federalism itself. MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery." REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist.. MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery. REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach. What a truly vicious concoction of half-truths, calumnies and outright lies clouds our hero's perspective! Lincoln did not go to war to free the slaves, but to save the country from an illegal and treasonous rebellion (which, I might add, was not supported by the majority of Southerners). The rebellion took place because of Lincoln’s stated refusal to permit slavery to spread to the rest of the continent — a stance that Paul, an avowed supporter of “property rights,” would undoubtedly have opposed. Furthermore, Lincoln did attempt to buy out the slaves from the border states, who had not seceded. All of them refused. This is what Southern apologists like Paul (and Pat Buchanan) refuse to understand: The South did not want to abolish slavery *at all*, let alone peacefully, and they were willing to destroy the country rather than let it happen. That and that alone caused the deaths of 600,000 Americans. But that’s not the real news here. The real news is this: Presumably Paul means that if a right-wing (or left-wing, for that matter) secessionist rebellion against the United States were to take place during his presidency, he would take no move — as Lincoln did — to preserve and uphold the Constitution, as his oath of office clearly states. This puts the United States at the mercy of any crackpot movement that manages to get a militia on its side. In other words, his vaunted devotion to the Constitution is a sham and a farce. Do we want a president like that? Hell, no. Please, save the hosannahs for someone who merits it. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, November 8th, 2007
4:09 pm	I've had a general sort of critique of libertarianism rolling around in my head for some time now, and since I feel like I've confronted like 10 libertarians in the last two weeks, I think it's time to expand on that critique. Don't be offended, please. ( A spectre is haunting our campuses — the spectre of libertarianism. ) (Comment on this)
2:27 am	A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila is an interesting show. Reasons: 1. The “plot” of the show is this: Tila Tequila, a model with an enormous fanbase on MySpace, wants to find True Love. Naturally, the best way to do this is to pick 16 people and spend 10 days narrowing them down to one. And since she’s bisexual, the obvious thing to do is to pick 8 guys and 8 girls. So she puts them all through mildly eccentric stunts and ordeals and “personal time,” and at the end of each day kicks two more people off. 2. This sets up a world where conventional morality seems suspended – although it has its own queer internal logic. And soon enough it’s dangerous; alliances are made and dissolved by the awkward intensity of the situation. You don’t know who’s going next, and you start to care. 3. All of the guys and girls, without exception, are initially drab and blandly pretty (or blandly ugly). Somehow this seems inseparable from the confidence that drizzles over them at the outset like California sunshine – it flattens out everything, makes it tasteless. As the race wears on – it’s now half-over – that confidence evaporates. They begin to seem fragile, shaky, each riddled with idiosyncracies. You start to cringe a little as each of them gets knocked off the show. 4. Every character dutifully falls into step and professes undying love for Tila – but why? None of them’s spent more than a few minutes with her and some of the people saying this haven’t even spent that much. It’s like the kids in the audience claiming that Elvis was looking right at them. 5. The whole show is something of a shaggy-dog story because Tila, quite obviously, would be horrible to actually date. Her reaction to any sign of misdirected affection – i.e., affection from any of the 16 people she’s lined up to anyone but her – is to throw a tantrum. It’s a telling sign of the sheer bloody confusion that the show sets up that you don’t know whether to consider this an unreasonable reaction or not. 6. At the end of episode 3, after being kicked off, Ashley – the molasses-slow, drawling, slightly “off” Texas character – launches into a furious diatribe against everyone on the show. It’s shocking because it doesn’t seem to make sense within the show’s context; it’s as if a character in a movie suddenly began railing against the movie. Lurching off, getting in a brawl, screaming at the house like Marlon Brando, Ashley derails the entire show’s momentum – he’s taken the whole thing too seriously, too seriously for a show meant to be lighthearted and silly, and in so doing has exposed the show’s bright trappings as fake, and its twisting, turning emotional convolutions as real. Not that there’s anything wrong with that – sometimes you need the fake to get to the real. 7. In the latest episode, Vanessa transformed herself – or was transformed by judicious editing – into a cartoon villain straight out of Hanna-Barbera, stomping her feet and spouting lines like “I always get what I want.” Of course, Tila keeps her on – makes things more interesting. 8. There’s an even more interesting show hidden behind this one; what on earth do these kids talk about when the cameras are off? Do they resent what’s happening to them? Is it the most exciting thing that’s ever happened to them? Will their lives ever be this interesting, this unpredictable, again? 9. The show’s most beautiful, and effortless, accomplishment is to make bisexuality seem unremarkable. You like guys and you like girls and what’s the point of drawing attention to that fact? Maybe the show started out as a tease, a come-on for easily titillated viewers; it doesn't come off like that now. 10. Dani, the show’s semi-“butch” girl, is the show’s not-so-secret heart. She’s the one, you feel, who “knows better,” who realizes how stupid this whole thing is, but she can’t bring herself to give up the idea of Tila. The idea of Tila – way better than the reality. She’s everything you’ve always wanted, everything you thought you couldn’t have – and she’s only that as long as she remains unreachable. And the same goes for Tila: she wants a "true love" because she likes the idea of having a true love. So she enjoys "getting to know" each contestant for five minutes at a time - just long enough to be intrigued with a taste of each personality, but never going deeper, never really getting to know anyone. The feeling of first getting to know someone - that surface thrill, that mystery - turns soon to dust each time, when she senses something she doesn't like in each contestant. But it's going to be that way with everyone, eventually; it's not likely you can pick 16 people at random and find a perfect partner among them. The show will end after its last episode, but it's unlikely that "true love" will be found. But as Orson Welles said, if you want a happy ending, that depends entirely on where you stop. (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, August 18th, 2007
4:37 am	I can't recall a single time in my life, ever, when I was as happy as I feel just now. (Comment on this)
Monday, August 6th, 2007
4:41 am	Today was my last day as EIC of the Wildcat. It's been a serene summer. Some problems, but no major crises (after the first day, when everything that could go wrong did go wrong). I even got a special little plaque (an incredibly beautiful one at that) to hang up on my wall. Let's see. I'm living with Alyson now. We've got an apartment a block away from campus. It's super lovely, and she's super fun. We went to Ikea a few days before we moved in and bought a whole bunch of cheap yet snappy-looking furniture. Our place looks so austere, and yet mildly cluttered, just cluttered enough to be interesting. We adopted a little plant, since we can't have a cat. We named him Neville. Alyson and I have the most terrific conversations. She really is the perfect companion. More on this later... My car got broken into! I left it overnight in the parking lot and when I came back my front window was shattered and my (unremovable) CD player bashed up! Fortunately my insurance paid for a new window and CD player and now my car's about five times as clean and snappy-looking as it used to be. So thanks, would-be poachers! So I'm leaning toward Edwards in '08 now. Much as I hate the Democrats on principle, reforming the party from the inside is probably the only way. I can't stomach H. Clinton or the rest of the party elites. The Republicans probably won't provide much more than an amusing spectacle next year; even they can't get that excited about the people they're running. It's been drizzling around here lately. It's gorgeous and makes the entire neighborhood reek of awesomeness. Current Mood: happy (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, May 25th, 2007
2:38 pm	It's been insufferable to sit through countless condemnations of Jimmy Carter - who, a few days ago, said simply what everyone else in the country already believes - which all take the exact same shape: "Jimmy Carter, look in the mirror." "Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?" "Carter belongs in peanut gallery." In fact, Carter was a fine president, inasmuch as that means anything. That he is not considered one speaks volumes about what we consider "great" in our presidents. Look at the usual reasons for consigning Carter to the dustbin. "He was only elected to one term." So what? Grant was elected to two terms, and no one considers him a great president. And Lincoln, our greatest president, only served a month over four years. This means nothing. "What about the economic situation?" FDR governed during a far worse economic crisis that lasted at least until his third term. In addition, the crisis began during Nixon's administration and continued through Reagan's first term. "He didn't get anything accomplished." Carter, a Washington outsider, was deeply unpopular with his own party. Despite the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress, they refused to work with Carter and constantly belittled him to the press. It's telling that everyone remembers Carter's embarrassing "fight" with a rabbit, but no one remembers Reagan joking that he had outlawed Russia "forever," and "we begin bombing in five minutes." Despite these obstacles, he retained a relatively modest foreign policy and managed to secure a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. "He allowed the overthrow of the Shah." This convenient untruth allows us to blame Carter for the current Iran "crisis." The truth is, the Shah was a tyrant who was overwhelmingly unpopular in Iran. One doesn't have to approve of the Ayatollah Khomeini to believe that the U.S. had no more right to prevent his taking power than Iran would have the right to overthrow President Bush. "What about the hostage crisis?" Well, what about it? What was he supposed to do, declare war on Iran? In fact, Carter handled the kidnapping with dignity, considering he was under assault from all sides for not starting a war. Alas, this crisis probably sealed Carter's historical fate. Giuliani, in the first Republican debate this year, told a flat-out lie: “[Iranian President Ahmadinjad] has to look at an American President and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan’s eyes, and in two minutes, they released the hostages.” In fact, Carter had secured the release of the hostages by working nonstop on his last night in office. Unfortunately, their release coincided with Reagan's inauguration, leading many to believe, falsely, that the Iranians had been alarmed by the election of an old movie star whose biggest coup during the campaign had been to chuckle a harmless-old-codger laugh at Carter and quip, "There you go again!" In fact, speaking of Ronald Reagan, who expanded the power of the president back to pre-Watergate days, hacked brutally at the welfare state and cast countless Americans into poverty and darkness, cracked down on civil liberties and popular government in a manner that even Nixon never dared, unnecessarily revived the receding Cold War and did his best to stave off its end (the myth that Reagan and Gorbachev share credit for the fall of the Soviet Union is just that - a myth; as one Gorbachev aide has said, the U.S.'s flailing show of fake-aggressiveness only gave ammunition to the hard-liners in the Kremlin), and finally sold weapons to Iran so he could illegally finance a private war in Nicaragua - compared to that, Carter was a bad president? But perhaps it's true. Carter wasn't a great president. He is something much more important: He is a great citizen. When Carter bid farewell to the Oval Office on January 14, 1981, he said this: "In a few days, I will lay down my official responsibilities in this office -- to take up once more the only title in our democracy superior to that of president, the title of citizen." In the years since 1981, Carter has been one of the most outspoken and honorable people to hold that honorable title. May he serve as an example for many years to come. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, April 21st, 2007
2:31 pm	Um, time for an update. 1.) I just got engaged to Alyson. Yes, that Alyson. diptutod. Wedding set for May 2008. More later, but for now just know that I'm the happiest guy around. 2.) I'm going to be editor in chief of the Wildcat over the summer! I'm so excited - and, frankly, relieved. I decided to apply at the last minute and I spent about two weeks sweating over the job interview - it's twenty minutes being grilled in a small room in front of about 15-16 people, all of whom rank high in the journalism/media departments, and only two of whom I already knew. I'd been noticeably nervous during the interview with the editorial board, so I was worried that I'd shake right to pieces. But I just sucked it up and walked in and did a fantastic job of pretending, for 20 minutes, that I'm A Professional (tm). I have no idea how I went from walking in there a complete nobody to do my interview on a particularly bad day in February 2006 to, 14 months later, being in charge of the second-best college paper in the country (it's true! the Princeton Review said so!), but I'm glad it happened. I feel like I surprised everyone, which is always nice. 3.) Classes almost over. I've got a pretty solid A in two classes; slightly worried about the third because I suspect my research paper's thesis doesn't quite hold together. Oh well. It was 13 pages and had 16 sources; he'd have to be especially cruel not to give me at least a B. If I ace the final I should be OK. 4.) Went to a Wildcat banquet + party last night and it was really quite fun. The crowd I work with, as Alyson noted, are all remarkably fun and enthusiastic and chill. 5.) Speaking of which, God am I glad my stint as Copy Chief is nearly over. I'm glad I did it, but it felt like going to the North Pole for six months sometimes. I feel like I've disappeared off for the face of the earth for the entire semester, and it's going to be a little odd not being at work till 12:30 a.m. most nights anymore. For better or worse, I'll probably never get the Associated Press style out of my system now. 6.) So. Biography. Got 36 pages done and I'm about halfway through my dude's life. I'm feeling a little daunted by all the sources I've accumulated since January, but I really need to set some time aside soon to finish it. Quite happy with what I have so far, though. 7.) Reading. The Federalist Papers, which I've always meant to read (I think I had this half-formed goal to read them last summer). Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg, a rather scary book about the rise of Christian neo-fascism in America. Some other stuff, more halfheartedly. 8.) Classes! I've signed up for Coming of the Civil War and Civil War + Reconstruction, both of which I'll certainly need for my thesis, assuming I don't change my mind about my topic before I get around to doing a thesis. Mulling over the others. I'll probably take 5 classes, just because I don't want to get stuck in college forever. I might GRO Political Ideas just because I got a C in it and I really think I would've pulled an easy A if I'd been bothered to come to class more often. Besides, it's never a chore to read Plato, Locke, Mill, Hobbes (well, maybe Hobbes), Marx, Rawls (actually, Rawls is the most boring and awful philosopher I've ever encountered ever!), all those guys. I'm tempted to take an economics course just because I detest economics and I'd like to be able to justify that. 9.) My cat, Koshka, is adorable. 10.) I might go to the Buffy Sing-a-Long with Davida tonight. That'd certainly be a blast from the past. Current Mood: happy (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, February 24th, 2007
12:51 am	books books books Here's a little meme I've been meaning to do for a while. 1. Total number of books owned: Probably about 300. I used to own more but I traded in a lot of the older ones. I keep meaning to catalog them all, which would probably be immensely helpful; a lot of the time I can't even remember whether I own a particular book! 2. The last book I bought: "The State and Revolution" by V.I. Lenin (just bought tonight; one chapter in), "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White (one of those things that's been recommended to me forever but which I've only now gotten around to), "Everyday Stalinism" by Sheila Fitzpatrick, "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy (a new translation, looks fabulous -- not that I'll get to it any time soon). 3. The last book I read: "Sofia Petrovna" by Lydia Chukovskaya, a short and sad novella about a woman who loses her son in the Great Purge of 1937-38, for my Russian History Since 1917 class. I've been reading a bunch of other Russian-related books for my biography of Alexander Kerensky for another class, but nothing straight through just yet. Lately I've been feeling the urge to read something light and funny and not related to Russia, so maybe I'll dig out some James Thurber. Actually, I'd really like to read a novel. And preferably not a 1,136 page Russian novel from the 1860s. Can anyone recommend a good novel? 4. Five books that mean a lot to me: Oh, this'll be hard to narrow down. No surprises here for anyone that knows me, I'm sure. *Buried Alive and The Politics of War by Walter Karp. The former is simply the best collection of essays I've ever read, containing fantastic pieces on what it means to be a citizen, the republics of pre-Machiavellian Italy, the Peloponnesian War, Bobby Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson, and the appalling attacks on liberty and the Constitution by the Reagan administration. The latter is a compelling and brilliant work of history, telling the story of how - in the Spanish-American War and World War I - the United States was transformed forever from a neutral republic into an imperial republic. Karp is the finest political writer I've ever read, at once witty and concise and never afraid to say the unsayable. Consider this fantastic analysis of the Cold War: So it was (to leap five years ahead) that when a reckless demagogue [Sen. Joseph McCarthy] cried out in February 1950 that [Dean] Acheson's State Department was a hotbed of pro-communist treason, millions of Americans flocked to that lunatic banner and cheered that manifestly false charge. For in its perverse and twisted way it conveyed the deep forbidden truth of the age, a truth which by then could no longer be spoken, which could scarcely even be thought, which I feel even now my own temerity in uttering: the truth that, while Stalin was a despotic Asiatic brute, the lying pantaloons who sought an imperial diadem, contemptuous of all that Americans had the sacred right to hold dear, who lusted after "the murky radiance of dominion and power," were indeed betrayers of the American republic. Amen and amen. *Studies in Classic American Literature by DH Lawrence. A beautifully-written and hilarious diatribe-slash-treatise-slash-stream-of-consciousness-soliloquy about a bunch of, well, classic American novels. Or is it? What can you say about a book of "criticism" that spends an entire chapter railing against Benjamin Franklin for trying to make everyone act good and sensible? At once the most profound work of criticism I've ever read -- utterly eschewing the abominable postmodern slush that passes for 99 percent of criticism. I admire some critics, but Lawrence surpasses any of them; he constantly shocks me with his eloquence and unpredictability. I've never been able to get through any of his novels (nor do I want to, since he seems like something of a sexist), but his criticism and travel writing remain an inspiration. And hey, you can read the whole thing right here!: http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/dhlawrence/bl-dhlaw-studies-1.htm *Nine Stories by J.D. Salinger. The hold on me exerted by Salinger remains strong almost a decade after I first discovered him. His writing is everything writing should be, and remains something of a touchstone for me, a goal for how good I'd like my own writing to be. All of Salinger's work is worth reading, but I'd recommend this one first to anyone, partly because it's so good and partly because it's much easier to appreciate his best-known work (you know the one) if you approach it as something of a period-piece rather than the mother-of-all-rebellious-texts it's been sold as. Salinger was uber-trendy a few years back, when nearly every hip person of the week seemed determined to namedrop him, but his work remains vastly superior to anyone who ever tried to copy him. *Lipstick Traces by Greil Marcus. Chances are you already know what you think of this book, but bear with me. Apart from, incidentally, including the best descriptions of music ever written, it's a gripping trawl through the history of "events" so small they never really made history, until they suddenly erupted and turned everything upside down, leaving the world wondering what happened. If you ever wondered where Johnny Rotten's absurdist critique in "Anarchy in the U.K." (let alone the apocalyptic horror in "Holidays in the Sun" came from, look no further. Occasionally dismissed as "pretentious" by people whose idea of good music writing is Pitchfork. Also, the only book you ever need to read about art. *The Complete Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz, 1950-62 (so far). I'm immensely proud that I've been able to get both Alyson and Matt (who are easily the two most intelligent friends I have) to appreciate the genius of Schulz. As Matt said: "It's like sitting in a soft rain," or something like that, and I've never heard it put better. Or as Bill Watterson said: "When I read the old books, I'm amazed at what a melancholy strip it was. Surely no other strip has presented a world so relentlessly cruel and heartless. Charlie Brown's self-torture in the face of constant failure is funny in a bitter, hopelessly sad way." But because Schulz was a great artist, with a keen and wry perception of what humans are and what terrible things they do to each other and themselves without meaning to, he transformed his lifelong feelings of melancholy into a generous and healing work of art, and perhaps the best depiction of childhood in the history of literature. Plus, it has the most hilariously idiosyncratic humor I've ever encountered. An example... [Linus is looking for a piece of paper] Lucy: [handing him one] What's wrong with this? Linus: Well, I'm supposed to write a poem for school. . . . Such a magnificent work of art demands the proper piece of foolscap! Lucy: [clobbers him with the paper] And here's five runners-up (and, just for the hell of it, all fiction, even though I don't read fiction that much): The Plot Against America by Philip Roth (the only novel published in recent years that absolutely floored me.) The Member of the Wedding by Carson McCullers (I was briefly in love with her last year; she's right up there with Kathleen Hanna in my repertoire of peculiar crushes.) Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit by Jeannette Winterson (a lovely, dry, mellow, and poignant memoir, though not the sort of thing I usually read; about a girl forced to deal with the repercussions from her ultra-conservative evangelical family and community when she realizes she's gay.) The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (a discovery almost as momentous as Salinger, in its way - "I was crazy about The Great Gatsby. Old Gatsby. Old sport. That killed me.") The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath (a rather embarrassing choice, but I can't think about the first few chapters of this book, set in New York, without getting all misty-eyed.) 5) Tag 5 people and have them fill this out in their journals: Alyson Davida Matt Olesya Angel (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, December 29th, 2006
5:08 pm	In 2007, aubade1984 resolves to... Lose ten orson welles by March. Start a sleater-kinney fund. Go to koganbot every Sunday. Give some soft pretzels to charity. Admit my true feelings to bonolicious. Keep my ohmygodbecky clean. Get your own New Year's Resolutions: how droll. Current Mood: amused (Comment on this)
Sunday, December 10th, 2006
5:49 pm	Most fury-inducing headline ever: "U.S. hails Chile for surviving Pinochet." No matter that we helped put him there, after working to destroy Chile's thriving socialist democracy. After all, a capitalist tyrant is always preferable to a "Marxist" president. As that great statesman Henry Kissinger put it: "I don't see why we need to stand idly by and let a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people." If Kissinger and his ilk had been around in 1932, would they have joined in the Business Plot to stage a military coup against President Franklin Roosevelt? It's hard not to think so. (P.S.: "I say let Pinochet go. He has suffered enough after his ordeal in the belly of Monstro the whale." - The Onion) Current Mood: angry (Comment on this)
Thursday, December 7th, 2006
11:12 pm	( a pretty plain old vanilla sort of survey ) Current Mood: calm (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, November 24th, 2006
4:01 pm	I always wondered this... What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Midland "You have a Midland accent" is just another way of saying "you don't have an accent." You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio. The West Boston The South The Northeast The Inland North Philadelphia North Central What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes (5 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, November 5th, 2006
8:16 pm	Back in June, I desperately wanted to read Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. Of course, something about the idea of actually reading a 900-page book with itty-bitty print about a bunch of troubled intellectuals sitting around talking at a sanatorium in the Swiss Alps just before World War I broke out made my head ache, yet still I wanted to read it. More than anything, I suppose my desire reflected a profound wish to escape into early 20th century Europe, a world which fascinates me perhaps at once because it seems so utterly suited for me and because it is utterly gone forever. I never did get around to actually reading it, but I did find a girl who, to a remarkable extent, embodies for me some of the very same qualities. I'm on my third straight weekend of Nothing But Alyson, aka diptutod. And, well, I'm nothing short of thrilled. It's only been four hours since I last saw her, but I already miss her. When I first got to university, I had this vague notion that I'd stay unattached the entire time, and just have random flings. My few ventures into that sort of territory were pretty boring and/or disastrous, but somehow I wound up with a girlfriend. And not just any girlfriend, but the kind of girlfriend I've wanted my whole life. Finding someone who shares my love of history and pre-1950 culture alone would have been pretty spiffy. Finding someone with a general whiff of old-worldly classiness about her would have been spectacular. But all that would have been pretty self-defeating if she'd been a prude or at all prissy. But Alyson also has this streak of wicked irreverence that I adore. One of the things that struck me most when we first met was how often she laughed, and how lovely she looked when she did. She reminds me of Barbara Stanwyck's character in The Lady Eve - equal parts classy lady and fast-talking con artist/adventurer. More than anything, I'm amazed at how easy it is to talk to her, how fun it is to hang out with her no matter what the context is. We went to a fairly boring party a couple nights ago, and instead of just standing around awkwardly like one might expect, we just hung out together and had a good time. I'm excited about seeing her no matter what we're doing, playing pool or having dinner or going to a movie or just sitting at home, because she's always a blast. And on the off-chance you didn't get enough of her, Alyson... -is fiercely, wonderfully independent and self-reliant, but also quite affectionate and sweet -is, of all the people I've met who claim to be witty, the only one who actually was -has a wickedly adorable smile, and cute expressions in general -hates quite a few of the same things I do (gamers, in particular) -is maybe the only person I've ever met who completely "gets" my sense of humor -is really, really, really, no I mean really gorgeous, God you won't even believe it how did I get so lucky -claims not to be well-read, but is nonetheless fearfully articulate, in the slightly awkward manner of one who grew up reading big words that one seldom got the chance to speak aloud (or, as her aunt put it, more succinctly: "He talks like you!"). -not only tolerates my peculiar, random tangents but actually listens to and enjoys them -is fascinated by early twentieth century Europe, Nazism, lists Heinrich Heine and Egon Schiele as favorites, etc etc etc -has told me that I resemble a cross between Bertie Wooster and Jeeves, and on our first date drew an approving comparison with, of all people, (I'm not making this up) Cary Grant -is a really, really good kisser (sorry, you probably didn't need to know that, but it's pretty important as I'm sure most of you will agree) -enjoys long walks and doesn't mind that I walk like five times as fast as any reasonable person should. -enjoys Christmas/the holidays in exactly the same way I do (this is going to be my first December in, um, as long as I can remember where I wasn't alone and miserable! imagine!) -genuinely adores and appreciates me -EDIT: I forgot to mention her deliciously wry, dry, sardonic voice! -too many other small things to name On a weird side note, she went to my elementary school and lived about a minute's drive away from me during both of our formative years. She was apparently in my brother's kindergarten class, though he doesn't remember her. We took a late-night walk down past the park to see her old house the other week. I think I've been kind of stunned by the whole thing, but even though it's been going super fast (we went on our first date a month and a half ago and made it official on Oct. 15) it all feels very natural. It's funny that I, who generally can't stand seeing even my best friends for more than two or three days in a row without feeling kind of panicky, not only have no problem seeing Aly for like five nights in a row, but spend most of the remaining two days of the week wishing she was around. Current Mood: indescribable (7 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, August 31st, 2006
1:56 am	I interviewed KRISTIN HERSH! She's playing here this weekend, so I sent an email to her publicist last night to see about an interview, and got no reply. Two nights ago, unable to muster up much enthusiasm for the boring article I was going to end up writing (talk to two or three local bands + publicist = mundane filler "we're all really excited about the show" type article), I sent a somewhat rambling but nice message to her personal email (which is on her site), mentioning that I'd met her after her last show (4 months ago) and talked to her for a few minutes. I figured it was worth a shot, but I didn't really expect a reply or anything. So the next morning I sign on and there's an email from Kristin Hersh. It's short, so I figure it's just a polite refusal, but hey, it's cool that she emailed me, right? I open it and it's all "Yeah! Sure! Thanks for asking! Call me anytime! Here's my cell number! Unless you'd rather just email me questions." Yeah, like I'd really rather send an email than talk to Kristin Hersh on the phone! So I call, leave a message, and she calls me back at the office a couple hours later. We talk for about twenty minutes, and by the end I"m really wishing I could think of more questions to ask. I wish I'd tape recorded it, but I managed to type up most of the good stuff as we talked. Things are not that great otherwise. Well, they're okay. Could be worse. I've got a Russian quiz tomorrow and I haven't studied a bit. It's two weeks into the class and I only know like 3 very simple phrases by heart. And my personal life is the usual pathetic shambles, but I don't particularly feel like writing about it, other than to ask myself why I continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over and over and over again. And again. And again and again and again. Because when it comes to certain things it's like I'm still 16 and completely clueless about the way the world works. If liking someone means getting your heart battered mercilessly by some careless, immature blunderer, then the hell with liking anyone, right? But then of course you go and do it anyway. What a charming system. The interview was kind of free-flowing, but I went through and organized it into Q and A format just for the record. Anyway, ( Here it is... ) (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, August 24th, 2006
4:05 pm	i for one am fuckin' pissed that Pluto isn't going to be a real planet anymore! Pluto was always my favorite planet when i was a kid, because it was so mysterious and it didn't get talked about as much as the others. plus i always felt kind of sorry for it, i figured it must get lonely being all the way out there with no other planets around. i remember seeing a picture of "what it might be like" in a book i had when i was little, all dark and icy and covered with frozen gas craters, and it looked like the coolest place ever. and now they want to banish it from the books just so they don't have to qualify three other small objects as planets too? well, you astronomers can go to hell. (Comment on this)
Thursday, July 20th, 2006
4:17 am	a voice of the old republic, revived Very few things can make me feel good about the future of our country these days, but this did. Jean Sara Rohe, 21, was one of two students invited to give a commencement speech at New York's New School on May 19. After working on her speech for weeks, she realized the night before the commencement that she'd be speaking right before Senator John McCain was to give a speech, the exact same one he'd already given at two other colleges, including Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. After reading McCain's speech online, she decided not to pass up the opportunity of a lifetime. Understandably nervous when she met McCain before the commencement, she writes: "He didn't even make eye contact when we shook hands, so I figured I didn't owe him anything." Here's what she said. I won't quote from it, since I think it deserves to be seen in full. What strikes me most about the speech is that while the words are scathing, she doesn't come across as angry at all; she's full of joy. She seems to glow as she goes along, caught up in what she's discovered: The wonder of being a citizen of a republic, not an oligarchy, who can address a senator or a president as an equal. The ecstasy of being able to speak your mind. Most of all, perhaps, the sheer release of being the one person in the room capable of saying what everyone is thinking. After the speech caused a very minor media ruckus, McCain smeared Rohe secondhand through his chief of staff, Mark Salter, who called her "an idiot" on a blog post, adding: "It took no courage to do what you did, Ms. Rohe. It was an act of vanity and nothing more." I can hardly imagine the courage it must have taken for Rohe to do what she did. I can easily imagine the small-mindedness and meanness and blustering shameless self-regard of Salter's remarks; we see it in our politicians every day, and in the vile contemptible pundits who fill our news channels with simpering lies and obedient omissions, poisoning the public discourse, throttling the very soul out of the citizenry. But civic courage of the sort displayed by Rohe is so rare that we barely know what to say when we see it. This was a brave act in part because McCain is the most revered and trusted man on the right. He's attracted almost none of the bad feeling that's started to stick to the entire party like a sour smell. The press has been bleating for his "courage" and "integrity" and "incorruptibility" and "Lincolnishness" and so on ever since 2000, and six years later, it's paid off: He's easily the only Republican candidate I've heard anyone get excited about for 2008. We hear that he's a "radical" - one who opposes abortion rights, one who voted for the Patriot Act and one who both voted for and still noisily supports the Iraq War. One who still stands by his protege, the contemptible Fife Symington, Arizona's governor in the '90s, forced to resign in '97 after being faced with seven charges of fraud. What manner of radical is this? The plain and painful fact about McCain is this: Can you imagine a better way for a Republican to make a career for himself than by loudly lambasting the Bush right at every turn, while actually quietly going along with them at nearly every step? McCain's reputation as a radical is entirely the product of what he says, not what he does. Does the fact that McCain spent time in a POW camp - as did thousands of other soldiers in Vietnam, and World War II, who did not attempt to make a political career out of it - make him an honorable man, whose every action is to be read through that fact? And here is this valiant self-appointed tribune of the people, this truthless pretender to democracy, reduced to cravenly smearing a young citizen's character when all she has done is point out the truth. As the great journalist Walter Karp said of Bobby Kennedy: "What was truly singular about [him] was that he aroused the most extravagant political hopes while standing opposed to all that was best and most promising in his day." The Founding Fathers would be proud of Jean Sara Rohe. It was George Washington, after all, who begged the nation to "beware of the impostures of pretended patriotism." It was John Adams who said that the people "have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible divine right to the most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers." So would Abraham Lincoln, who said, "Let the people know the facts and all will be safe." So would Senator Robert La Follette, the great Progressive candidate, the Ralph Nader of his day, and one of the few public figures willing to stand firmly against America's disastrous involvement in World War I. In 1921, running one last time for the Senate after years of being smeared and denounced as a traitor by half the nation, La Follette had his own Jean Sara Rohe moment: Moments before the white-haired Senator climbed to the podium on that cold March day, he was warned one last time by his aides to deliver a moderate address, to apply balm to the still-open wounds of the previous years, and, above all, to avoid mention of the war and his opposition to it. La Follette began his speech with the formalities of the day, acknowledging old supporters and recognizing that this was a pivotal moment for him politically. Then, suddenly, La Follette pounded the lectern. "I am going to be a candidate for reelection to the United States Senate," he declared, as the room shook with the thunder of a mighty orator reaching full force. Stretching a clenched fist into the air, La Follette bellowed: "I do not want the vote of a single citizen under any misapprehension of where I stand: I would not change my record on the war for that of any man, living or dead." The crowd sat in stunned silence for a moment before erupting into thunderous applause. Even his critics could not resist the courage of the man; indeed, one of his bitterest foes stood at the back of the hall, with tears running down his cheeks, and told a reporter: "I hate the son of a bitch. But, my God, what guts he's got." (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006
12:03 pm	to burn a flag If anything could depress me more than the best band in America breaking up, it's the sight of the Senate coming within one vote of trashing the First Amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/washington/27cnd-flag.html?hp&ex=1151467200&en=3caeb149d9e60823&ei=5094&partner=homepage Is there anything scarier than this? Apart from maybe Arizona candidate for governor Don Goldwater demanding that illegal immigrants be put in Stalinist concentration camps, no. Why would the Republicans move to banish flag burning at a time when no one actually burns flags anymore? More importantly, why would they try to shove this blatantly illegal measure into the Constitution itself? Not because they care about what the flag supposedly stands for. After all, if we ban this, why not ban other things that are even more offensive? How about the religious fascists who protest soldiers' funerals because they're "defending a country that upholds homosexuality"? If they want to make it illegal to burn U.S. flags, why not also make it mandatory to burn Confederate flags? If displaying the one flag proclaims your love for America, then displaying the other flag just as surely proclaims your love for slavery and treason. But then, the Party of Lincoln is more like the Party of the Confederacy now, and the same party that embraced racism and waves the hateful banner of "states' rights" to discredit the opposition certainly won't hesitate to abolish the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time, if that's what it takes to stay in power. Of course, the simple act of burning the flag isn't what's being outlawed. Retired flags are burned all the time: It's standard military procedure. What's being outlawed is burning the flag as a statement. Nothing more. "I have sworn," declared Thomas Jefferson, "eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Even John McCain disgraced himself by voting for this twisted and shameless stunt. But let Orrin Hatch rant and rave all he wants about the "wrath of the voters" coming down on those who opposed this vile anticonstitutional measure, froth all he wants about "an ongoing offense against common decency." The majority of Americans saw this for what it was: A waste of the Senate's time and an insult to the intelligence. "This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic," declared Senator Daniel Inouye, who voted against the amendment. Was he speaking of the war party's vendetta against freedom, its bitter hatred of liberty? No, he was speaking admiringly of the right of the government to define "patriotism" as obedience to the powerful, to punish dissent and arrest "sinners" who commit heresy against the cult of the flag. Even those who disapprove of the measure must make sure to express their contempt for those who exercise their freedoms. Why not just admit the obvious: That this is a religious measure? Nationalism is a religion and the flag is its highest and most cherished idol. Does it have anything to do with real patriotism? No. No one gave a damn about the flag before the early 20th century. It wasn't until World War I - and the ensuing campaign against dissent waged by the Wilson administration, which sent thousands of people to prison for criticizing the government - that the cult of the flag changed it from the tattered emblem of the Revolution into a stern and imperious symbol of the American Empire. Walter Karp once noted that in school he learned more about the Panama Canal than about Abraham Lincoln and more about Betsy Ross than about the Founding Fathers. Today, the majority of the U.S. Senate would prefer that we know more about the flag than the Constitution. (Comment on this)