Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
- Sir Arthur Eddington
My pearl of wisdom for today. I received a phone call last night from a friend I have not seen or talked to since we were both in kindergarten. I barely ever called her by her name, which I had difficulty remembering. Instead, my five-year-old self cooked up the wonderful title "the little girl across the street." But this little girl now grown up somehow managed to hear about my father, and then track down my mother, and from there me. She lives in Hawaii now and just finished her masters in geology at an Icelandic university. It was wonderful to talk to her, even though we don't in essence know each other much better than if we were to bump accidentally on the street. But somehow those shared playdates all those years ago grounded us in an easy familiarity and we talked for nearly two hours about anything and everything that came into our minds.
But as lovely and charming as the whole event was, I am still forced to recognize that a world in which that kind of thing is possible is a strange world indeed.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Political Musings
Alllll right folks. After a good sound dinner, some undivided time with my Newsweek, and a blessed end to a difficult midterms week, I am impassioned and ready to go. And I actually do have a lot to say. I'd been so proud of myself back in January when I was this lively and engaged political creature, well read on the latest electoral challenges for the candidates and determined to take an active part in this election cycle. I felt as though I was taking my place inside that miracle of the American democratic process. I lulled myself to sleep with grand visions of attending rallies, organizing voting drives, and basically living an early episode of The West Wing. Then I was hit with inertia. And loads of work. And midterms. The last of which, however, should deeply gratify my professors, so at least a couple people will be happy about it.
I think my fervor for Obama waned a little though February as well. Ever the cynic and the rebel, I found myself starting to rethink his qualifications just as everyone else became sure that he would pick up enough Feb/Mar wins to sail right into the nomination. All the talk of experience and the looming economic recession made me think that the choice between the two couldn't possibly be as cut and dry as it had seemed to me before; there were just too many problems facing the country for the decision to be that easy. But now that I have finally had a little time to slip back into the world of political chaos, I am once again consoled by the conclusion that it can be that easy. When it comes right down to brass tax, I find that I am perfectly content to place my vote on some belief of integrity of character, sense of optimism, and drive to look for the best options even with it means changing a whole lot about the present system.
For all that talk about experience, it struck me forcefully today that Hillary Clinton cannot claim that much more experience than her opponent. Her use of her days as First Lady come like a double edged sword -- if she claims them as examples of deeper experience than she must also claim the mistakes and inconsistencies that go along with them. The scandal over the 11th hour pardons, NAFTA, the shade of secrecy and duplicity left by the Lewinsky mess -- all of it. But the fact remains that she didn't answer any of those 3 a.m. phone calls herself. It was her husband's place, however much he may have sought her guidance. If the call for experience is going to be made, it needs to be experience that has prepared one of the for the top spot, not some kind of domestic attache to the top spot. The presidency of the United States has to be quite unlike any other job on earth, or at least that's what Clinton would like us to believe. This isn't some part-time gig flipping burgers.
And when it comes down to it, I think the tasks and realities of being president are quite beyond what anyone can realistically prepare for. When that point is taken away from her, all my previous concerns about Clinton come back to glare into the harsh light. I don't think I can ever say that I would trust her absolutely. She's got the Washington game down too well; she's been around the Clinton administration of '92-'99 so long, in fact, that she could not help to pick up some of its slickness, its oiliness. I do not dispute her intelligence, or even her qualifications to run for the nomination. But when she stands next to Barack Obama, each of them with policies so like the other, I cannot help but to place my bet with the optimist and the one who has demonstrated that he is willing to go against the political grain when it means standing by his convictions. He was in the midst of a tight IL Senate race when he chose to oppose the war in Iraq, staking not only a possible future reelection, but his very election itself on the fact that he saw the war as illegal and ill-advised policy. Unfortunately for Clinton, she has had enough experience in Washington to show us all that she will be swayed by popular opinion and re-electoral math. And I come back, too, to Obama's foreign policy beliefs, which are well documented in his books and the speeches he's given at various events and commencements. For me, those positions show far more sound political instinct and judgment than any amount of experience can bring. Because the truth is the experience game is hard to play -- it's impossible to get any more of it without someone giving you the opportunity to get some in the first place. And we don't really know how either candidate will act or deal with a job when they actually land what has to be one of the most intricate on the planet. So we are left to look at their history, their character, and the policies they've espoused. Policy-wise, Clinton and Obama are similar enough for the differences not to matter in any material way. And when it comes to character, I think Obama is the clear winner. I think he's far more willing to look at things that are happening, see that the system is clearly not working, and then irregardless of political precedence or past experience, begin to look for entirely new solutions. That's what we need ...
So congrats, Barack Obama. Now that I'm finally paying attention again, you've won back my vote. Now I hope you can do the same in Pennsylvania.
____________________________
P.S. It's occurred to me that I may want to reconsider the title of this blog. People seeing "whatever comes to mind comes to blog" might assume that I blog whatever comes to mind at all times, thus leading them to the unfortunate conclusion that not much goes on in my mind. Not the kind of idea I want to promote, least of all in my own writing ...
I think my fervor for Obama waned a little though February as well. Ever the cynic and the rebel, I found myself starting to rethink his qualifications just as everyone else became sure that he would pick up enough Feb/Mar wins to sail right into the nomination. All the talk of experience and the looming economic recession made me think that the choice between the two couldn't possibly be as cut and dry as it had seemed to me before; there were just too many problems facing the country for the decision to be that easy. But now that I have finally had a little time to slip back into the world of political chaos, I am once again consoled by the conclusion that it can be that easy. When it comes right down to brass tax, I find that I am perfectly content to place my vote on some belief of integrity of character, sense of optimism, and drive to look for the best options even with it means changing a whole lot about the present system.
For all that talk about experience, it struck me forcefully today that Hillary Clinton cannot claim that much more experience than her opponent. Her use of her days as First Lady come like a double edged sword -- if she claims them as examples of deeper experience than she must also claim the mistakes and inconsistencies that go along with them. The scandal over the 11th hour pardons, NAFTA, the shade of secrecy and duplicity left by the Lewinsky mess -- all of it. But the fact remains that she didn't answer any of those 3 a.m. phone calls herself. It was her husband's place, however much he may have sought her guidance. If the call for experience is going to be made, it needs to be experience that has prepared one of the for the top spot, not some kind of domestic attache to the top spot. The presidency of the United States has to be quite unlike any other job on earth, or at least that's what Clinton would like us to believe. This isn't some part-time gig flipping burgers.
And when it comes down to it, I think the tasks and realities of being president are quite beyond what anyone can realistically prepare for. When that point is taken away from her, all my previous concerns about Clinton come back to glare into the harsh light. I don't think I can ever say that I would trust her absolutely. She's got the Washington game down too well; she's been around the Clinton administration of '92-'99 so long, in fact, that she could not help to pick up some of its slickness, its oiliness. I do not dispute her intelligence, or even her qualifications to run for the nomination. But when she stands next to Barack Obama, each of them with policies so like the other, I cannot help but to place my bet with the optimist and the one who has demonstrated that he is willing to go against the political grain when it means standing by his convictions. He was in the midst of a tight IL Senate race when he chose to oppose the war in Iraq, staking not only a possible future reelection, but his very election itself on the fact that he saw the war as illegal and ill-advised policy. Unfortunately for Clinton, she has had enough experience in Washington to show us all that she will be swayed by popular opinion and re-electoral math. And I come back, too, to Obama's foreign policy beliefs, which are well documented in his books and the speeches he's given at various events and commencements. For me, those positions show far more sound political instinct and judgment than any amount of experience can bring. Because the truth is the experience game is hard to play -- it's impossible to get any more of it without someone giving you the opportunity to get some in the first place. And we don't really know how either candidate will act or deal with a job when they actually land what has to be one of the most intricate on the planet. So we are left to look at their history, their character, and the policies they've espoused. Policy-wise, Clinton and Obama are similar enough for the differences not to matter in any material way. And when it comes to character, I think Obama is the clear winner. I think he's far more willing to look at things that are happening, see that the system is clearly not working, and then irregardless of political precedence or past experience, begin to look for entirely new solutions. That's what we need ...
So congrats, Barack Obama. Now that I'm finally paying attention again, you've won back my vote. Now I hope you can do the same in Pennsylvania.
____________________________
P.S. It's occurred to me that I may want to reconsider the title of this blog. People seeing "whatever comes to mind comes to blog" might assume that I blog whatever comes to mind at all times, thus leading them to the unfortunate conclusion that not much goes on in my mind. Not the kind of idea I want to promote, least of all in my own writing ...
Friday, December 21, 2007
FreeRice.com
A fabulous little website that tests your grasp of English vocabulary while simultaneously donating food to impoverished nations aorund the world. Also, slightly addictive; I somehow managed to get up to level 50 and have now spent almost a half hour failing to accomplish that feat again.
Seriously, though, it is a much better use of the ten or fifteen minutes that you might be tempted to waste on celebrity gossip. And now that my SAT days are firmly in my past, I can almost enjoy the vocabulary lesson.
http://www.freerice.com/index.php
Do it.
Seriously, though, it is a much better use of the ten or fifteen minutes that you might be tempted to waste on celebrity gossip. And now that my SAT days are firmly in my past, I can almost enjoy the vocabulary lesson.
http://www.freerice.com/index.php
Do it.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
People Watching
On the train into the city yesterday, I realized that I have become quite the people watcher. Right off the bat like that, that statement does have a stalker-ish ring to it, but I do not mean staring people down in an intimidating and frightful way. Instead, I really find myself fascinated with just watching people. It astonishes me how different people are. In the same country, in the same city, on the same train car, there were a myriad of different people, all looking like they were off to do very different things with their evening. I find myself occasionally trying to work out these unknown faces' life stories in my mind as I sit a few feet away from them or watch them walk by. I have a wonderful image of an older woman sitting knitting what looks like it might one day become a jumper, and I can imagine her hurrying off the train, eager to get home to a nice hot cup of tea and a distinguished little husband in herringbone slacks who sits, reading, waiting for her. It tickles me to no end when this same older woman turns to the surly looking teenager seated next to her with a pursed expression on his face and his head bopping to the music playing in his earphones. She leans into him a bit and starts brushing some lint off his shoulder. I would not have guessed for all the world that they were any more closely acquainted than that they happened to be sharing the same seat together. People surprise you, and I like that. People offer so much, continually keeping me on my toes, forbidding me from lethargic complacency and amusing me when they turn out to be quite different than you think they are.
And so, I think that, thus acknowledged, I will continue with this delicate little people watching habit of mine. It certainly makes train rides pass more quickly.
And so, I think that, thus acknowledged, I will continue with this delicate little people watching habit of mine. It certainly makes train rides pass more quickly.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Daring ... You either have it or you don't
Somehow I got sucked into watching a marathon of America's Next Top Model this past weekend when I was really supposed to be preparing for finals. As I watched some very annoying model hopeful dissolve into tears when she was told she was going to be attached to a wire cord and hoisted up in the air so that photographers could snap pictures of the girls in karate poses, ala Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, I realised that daring is one of those things that you either have or you do not. It's very hard to tell someone that they have to buck up and act daring. I realise that models acting on a painfully contrived show are not the best example for this kind of thing, but I think it is pretty common across human nature. It's either naturally part of a person's personality, or one is just not that type of person. That is not to say that the daring among us are daring across the board. I would have absolutely jumped (no pun intended) at the chance to flit around in the air striking martial arts poses, but there are quite a few things I cannot picture myself doing with ease. I will probably end up sky diving at some point in my life, but it will be the result of a great deal of nerve and mental work. I do not suppose that I could simply get on board the aircraft, cooly fly to 10,000 feet, and then walk over, cross my arms, and fall out of the plane. So if I have daring, it is of the rather timid variety, I'm afraid. I have to work a bit to bring it out, but it is there, hidden beneath the surface. But there are those people who just exude it. People you can imagine energetically going after anything they wanted, or doing anything they got into their heads -- these are the truly intrepid. More than blithely doing stunts that make it onto network reality shows, they have a "just go for it" mentality when it comes to all sorts of things. It's curious; they often know and appreciate all the dangers involved, but the risks do not phase them. I envy it really, this unabashed view of life, but I cannot imagine taking that mindset and implanting it successfully in the mind of someone who did not already think that way. So, again, you either have daring or you do not, and more power to the people to whom it comes so easily.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Do not go . . .
Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-- Dylan Thomas
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-- Dylan Thomas
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Election 08
It makes me chuckle to see just how abstract all my postings tend to be. I'm always, it seems, talking about things 'in theory', and with a lot of stream of consciousness thrown in to boot. I am not quite sure how I get caught up in that trap, but it's pretty amusing nevertheless. In some ways, I find that I cannot help myself -- the big picture interests me far more than the little everyday things that go into the big picture, and I hope I can train myself to somehow wrap my mind around part of that big picture some day. In the meantime, however, I'm afraid I am going to sound pompous and insufferable.
TodayI thought , I would take a break from mysilly musings , though -- a bit of peripeteia if you will. In that spirit, I am going to talk about practical and only practical things. And here is where the presidential election comes in. I could go on and on about the innane little tidbits of electoral history I've picked up from somewhere or another, or how we seem to be walking down the road toward a battle between two political dynasties called Bush and Clinton. But I will, instead, restrain myself, and just say that I really haven't a clue who I am going to vote for.
Of course, in any other year, when the election process gets started at the reasonable one-year mark, that would not be a problem. But in the 21st century, where it seems that these campaigns kick off earlier and earlier, the fact that I don't feel I zealously support one candidate or another is a source of concern. After all, we've certainly seen and heard enough of them to feel as though we are getting to know them, whether we like it or not. But that's part of the problem, I think. Because they all know they are in for a long haul, they are careful not too rock a boat that is supposed to keep them afloat for a year yet too much. Capsizing this early in the game would just be embarrassing. So instead we have these sorts of mediocre characters who occasionally say something defined and controversial, but two days later quickly step back from that show of guts. At this point, I think I would be more attracted to a candidate who went out and firmly and with gusto laid out his agenda, even if that agenda made me hate him (or her). I would prefer that to these pathetic feelings of indifference.
In any case, here is the present run-down. It was helped along partly by a grid that MSN has come up with to rank the candidates according to their take on the issues. Supposedly, once you go through and fill the whole thing out, you will be able to separate the candidates you support based on the number of green squares they have under their name from the ones who have red squares plastered near issues on which you diverge. Happily, this set everything straight for me: at the end of a well-spent half hour I was sitting and staring at a grid awash in the muddy green and red squares of neutrality. Nevertheless:
Hillary Clinton -- Undoubtedly smart and experienced. Oily, however, in the answers she gives to just about everything. Plus, I just cannot trust her. And she is going to have to decide whether she wants to wear the badge of her sex proudly or as a millstone round her neck that the male candidates tug on from time to time. She can't play both cards.
Barack Obama -- I like the guy, I really do. He seems more honest and less given to puffing up statistics so that they favor him. He is humble and well-spoken. And he has held his ground in the Iraq war, which is admirable. But as much as I would love to vote for candidates solely based on their positions on issues (and we see how far that silly grid got me) I think you also have to factor in ability and leadership. Now Obama is young, so maybe the leadership will come in time. The problem, however, is that we need a strong leader and we need him or her now and I don't think we can wait a year or two for a candidate, no matter how likable, to mature without paying a high price for it. Also, I am nt wild over his stance on foreign policy. I agree that dialoge and diplomacy works a deal better than going into a country guns a'blazing, but promising unequivocably to talk to any foreign power at pretty much any time could dampen considerably the delicate behind-the-scenes work of the State department.
Bill Richardson -- My suprise candidate. Unexpectedly, his position on the issues aligned with mine more than any other candidate. Plus, he has significant executive experience. And he's from New Mexico, and so occupies a special little place in my heart. But does he have the grit it's going to take to win a general election?
The rest of the Democrat playing field -- Edwards is unappealing, despite the shiny silky hair. Kucinich is interesting but impractical. And Joe Biden is just a little insane.
Rudy Giuliani -- The man cannot get his story straight. And he needs to understand that although he did lead New York through the chaotic days following 9/11, New York is one small and uncommon part of a much bigger country. He faces the very real possibility of not resonating with voters west of, well, the Hudson. Also, he cannot get his facts right to save his life. He seems determined to take perfectly straightforward statistics and tweaking them so that they fit his needs, but no longer are perfectly straighforward. (See relentless comments on prostate cancer in the UK).
Mitt Romney -- In case you haven't heard - he's Mormon. With all this talk abotu religious tolerance, it's pretty laughable that people are willing to vociferously writing him off for this reason alone. Fiscally, I think he's got some interesting and workable plans, and his focus on education is dead on. Socially, I cannot agree with him as much as I'd like. His position on immigration is one of the most perceptive out there, but his views on gay marriage are inconsistent and contradictory. I like the alternative fuel goals, but I think we need to stop looking at drilling in Alaska as a feasible idea; it would only be a very short-term fix in any case.
The remaining Republican playing field -- Ron Paul has taken fundraising to new heights, but for what exactly, I am not quite sure. Duncan Hunter is intimidating as all ____. And I liked Fred Thompson better on Law & Order.
TodayI thought , I would take a break from mysilly musings , though -- a bit of peripeteia if you will. In that spirit, I am going to talk about practical and only practical things. And here is where the presidential election comes in. I could go on and on about the innane little tidbits of electoral history I've picked up from somewhere or another, or how we seem to be walking down the road toward a battle between two political dynasties called Bush and Clinton. But I will, instead, restrain myself, and just say that I really haven't a clue who I am going to vote for.
Of course, in any other year, when the election process gets started at the reasonable one-year mark, that would not be a problem. But in the 21st century, where it seems that these campaigns kick off earlier and earlier, the fact that I don't feel I zealously support one candidate or another is a source of concern. After all, we've certainly seen and heard enough of them to feel as though we are getting to know them, whether we like it or not. But that's part of the problem, I think. Because they all know they are in for a long haul, they are careful not too rock a boat that is supposed to keep them afloat for a year yet too much. Capsizing this early in the game would just be embarrassing. So instead we have these sorts of mediocre characters who occasionally say something defined and controversial, but two days later quickly step back from that show of guts. At this point, I think I would be more attracted to a candidate who went out and firmly and with gusto laid out his agenda, even if that agenda made me hate him (or her). I would prefer that to these pathetic feelings of indifference.
In any case, here is the present run-down. It was helped along partly by a grid that MSN has come up with to rank the candidates according to their take on the issues. Supposedly, once you go through and fill the whole thing out, you will be able to separate the candidates you support based on the number of green squares they have under their name from the ones who have red squares plastered near issues on which you diverge. Happily, this set everything straight for me: at the end of a well-spent half hour I was sitting and staring at a grid awash in the muddy green and red squares of neutrality. Nevertheless:
Hillary Clinton -- Undoubtedly smart and experienced. Oily, however, in the answers she gives to just about everything. Plus, I just cannot trust her. And she is going to have to decide whether she wants to wear the badge of her sex proudly or as a millstone round her neck that the male candidates tug on from time to time. She can't play both cards.
Barack Obama -- I like the guy, I really do. He seems more honest and less given to puffing up statistics so that they favor him. He is humble and well-spoken. And he has held his ground in the Iraq war, which is admirable. But as much as I would love to vote for candidates solely based on their positions on issues (and we see how far that silly grid got me) I think you also have to factor in ability and leadership. Now Obama is young, so maybe the leadership will come in time. The problem, however, is that we need a strong leader and we need him or her now and I don't think we can wait a year or two for a candidate, no matter how likable, to mature without paying a high price for it. Also, I am nt wild over his stance on foreign policy. I agree that dialoge and diplomacy works a deal better than going into a country guns a'blazing, but promising unequivocably to talk to any foreign power at pretty much any time could dampen considerably the delicate behind-the-scenes work of the State department.
Bill Richardson -- My suprise candidate. Unexpectedly, his position on the issues aligned with mine more than any other candidate. Plus, he has significant executive experience. And he's from New Mexico, and so occupies a special little place in my heart. But does he have the grit it's going to take to win a general election?
The rest of the Democrat playing field -- Edwards is unappealing, despite the shiny silky hair. Kucinich is interesting but impractical. And Joe Biden is just a little insane.
Rudy Giuliani -- The man cannot get his story straight. And he needs to understand that although he did lead New York through the chaotic days following 9/11, New York is one small and uncommon part of a much bigger country. He faces the very real possibility of not resonating with voters west of, well, the Hudson. Also, he cannot get his facts right to save his life. He seems determined to take perfectly straightforward statistics and tweaking them so that they fit his needs, but no longer are perfectly straighforward. (See relentless comments on prostate cancer in the UK).
Mitt Romney -- In case you haven't heard - he's Mormon. With all this talk abotu religious tolerance, it's pretty laughable that people are willing to vociferously writing him off for this reason alone. Fiscally, I think he's got some interesting and workable plans, and his focus on education is dead on. Socially, I cannot agree with him as much as I'd like. His position on immigration is one of the most perceptive out there, but his views on gay marriage are inconsistent and contradictory. I like the alternative fuel goals, but I think we need to stop looking at drilling in Alaska as a feasible idea; it would only be a very short-term fix in any case.
The remaining Republican playing field -- Ron Paul has taken fundraising to new heights, but for what exactly, I am not quite sure. Duncan Hunter is intimidating as all ____. And I liked Fred Thompson better on Law & Order.
And there you are . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)