Happy

Seems like a long time coming, but happiness returned to my life.

Then again, maybe I rediscovered the happiness. I came back to San Diego.

With nearly every group of friends I have had, after a long time apart (say 6 months or more) there has been a grace period where we retested boundaries, reassuring ourselves that these were trustworthy people. No such experience here.

At the airport ten of my fraternity brothers showed up to greet me back home. Two pints, two ribs and a half a chicken later, I remembered why I had been so sad to leave. That night the "Chappy Love" crew met up. To be sure drinks were involved... I wish I could tell some of the great stories which followed, but then I would enter the realm of fiction; I don't remember it all clearly. Now the group is heading off in their own directions. One to law school (directly against my suggestion, and cries), another to Connecticut, and another to Korea. Some others are staying put, but even those plans are temporary.

I may have returned to see the San Diego I remember for the last possible time, so I am grateful that I am bad with money for the first time.

All I can hope is that everyone else enjoys their break as much as I have mine. If I were to return to school now I would feel more rejuvenated than I had over the course of any of my weekends during the school year. All the same, I am already read to return to classes. I feel oddly guilty not having done much law related study. I have read though the assigning packet for the moot court competition in March, but other than that, I don't really know what I should be doing with my time.

I guess it is good that I learn how to have a vacation now, when I don't need them. Once I am an attorney, I don't think I will have that same problem.

Oh, and one other note. The average temperature for the day was probably 45-50 degrees (Fahrenheit for those keeping score); it rained for a little over 12 hours straight; I had a very thick North Face jacket one and could still feel the wind coming through... I counted ten San Diego State women wearing mini-skirts, leggings, stilettos and a hoodie. Thank God for San Diego State, eh?

Trends

Something about trends fascinates me. Sure, I get caught up in them (I am dating an upper middle class white woman, and until I started dating her I thought that J. Crew was a rowing team), but the social scientist side of me wonders why some and not others?

Why, in the late 1990s, did "Digipets" become the crazy? What was the appeal? It may have been good marketing, but more than likely I think it tapped into some inner part of who we desire to be. At 12 I had a responsibility. Sure, if I failed at said task I could push a pencil into the reset button and retry, but the simulated "caring" my Digipet (it was a pikachu, don't judge) made me actually want to work harder at it.

Why, for the last two decades, or so, has Magic the Gathering garnered such a, pardon the pun, gathering of individuals. My brother was, at one point, the 8th highest ranked MTG (as they so cooly call it) player in the state. Doesn't sound like much until you consider that there are hundreds of thousands of ranked players in the state. What was special about Magic? It created an escape. Middle aged men find repreive from the real world in Corvettes and twenty-something blonde women named "Candy" (for my cousin's wife, named Candy, I am sorry, but it just fit); middle aged women find their fantasies fulfilled in... um... I don't really know. The Notebook or something like that, maybe? The point is, Magic has developed a fantastical world where socially misfit people (not all, but yes, many or even most MTG players are exactly who you think they are) find others who are interested in escaping. This wasn't the case for my brother. He (and I swear this is essentially a direct quote) enjoyng, "being the person everyone underestimates because I have a hot girlfriend. Then, I make them cry over their elves and dwarves."

And then, there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF33tAbd-IE It is known as "Tecktonik" and comes from the slums of Paris. The French response to breakdancing, I suppose, though will not as much skill, strength, impressiveness, guns or straight men. I had a friend just yesterday tell me that Tecktonik was done by "French gangsters". As soon as I recovered from the fit of laughter (seriously, french gangsters? What color are their gang flags? White?) I considered this: Tecktonik serves as a focal point or way out. Just as hip-hop, here, serves as an exit from the slums, maybe Tecktonik serves this same purpose, but for the French "hoods". (I am sorry, the idea of a French Gangster may be the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. I can just imagine this conversation: "When I am done with my croissont, I will slice you with my cheese knife." "Yes, well, you shall have to beat me to it, for I shall chug this wine, and sleep with women who I will coerce into killing you..." Damn French.)

That said, I still think there is no reason anyone, ever, should wear a mullet. Dance however you choose you French-wannabe-gangster-emo kids, but leave the mullets to the trailer trash of America. It is how we know who owns Camaros.

In the name of Procrastination Almighty...

Doesn't procrastination seem to be the perfect, or at least unilaterally accepted moralistic behavior of man? Nowhere in the "7 Deadly Sins" (Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride) does procrastination come up. The argument exists for procrastination's implication in sloth, but really, that is more a lifestyle choice than a temporary state of mind such as procrastination.

I have taken two law finals (a feat, I swear it), have two upcoming, and then a month of preparation for an oral arguments competition regarding civil rights under the Constitution. I want to procrastinate.

I just can't think of a topic...

I could go political with Obama's naming of the paramount cabinet positions, President Bush's rising popularity, or the attacks in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) culminating in an international fervor. I could, but that takes effort...

I could go funny with a conversation topic like synesthesia, why I love burritos, or my plans for the coming month (involves video games, alcohol, food, running, and a little bit of law). One, I already did synesthesia. Two, what kind of monster (Kat) doesn't love burritos? And, three, I am gearing up to live that month. The more I think about it, the more depressing the end of it appears. That and it takes effort...

I could just write nothing, but then I would feel some pang of guilt since I am not studying. So, I doddle on... BICYCLES!

How could I have missed bicycles? My roommate is convinced I have a problem with bikes, or rather that I am a bike "collector". Well, she is a shoe "collector" so I suppose we have our things. I am, admitttedly in love with bikes. Nothing else offers so much control, speed, and economicality (I know, not a word). Rollerblades? Too slow. Skateboards? Don't have the balance. Running? Yeah. Maybe. But I like not gasping for air. That, and how many people do you know who can average 20 miles per hour over ten minutes?

Aight, I am done. That is all I have...

Mike, kill me once we are done with finals and I am good and drunk. Em, Make sure my corpse has a scarf. Someone tell Pierce the cat that he can have all of my Apple cables and headphones to play with. Roommate (who shall remain nameless) you can have the bikes. They are in the living room anyways. May as well use them, right?

Synesthesia

Yea, it is a big word with a definite meaning. Then again, I love big words with definite meanings, so I am going to do a post about it.

First, my parents burned into my brain that television, or the majority of it, is not for educational purposes; they were wrong. I have learned a great deal from television shows. 1) Cosby and his kids taught me never to play ball in the house, though I do not have much confidence that I would have been treated as kindly had I broken Mom's vase (pronounced vay-suh, not voz). 2) President Bartlet opened my eyes to the reality of word trivia: for example "Only three words in the English language begin with the letters 'dw'." This, of course, must be modified a bit to say that only three words which are not proper nouns or slang (Dwight, you dweeb, Dwayne doesn't count.) They are: dwell, dwindle, and dwarf. And, 3) Gregory House has taught me that synesthesia is the experience of one sense through another.

Pot smoking hippies the world over would swear they experience this ony a daily schedule, but this comes without inducement for some. Synesthetics hear colors, smell sights, or even sight smells. Numbers have a particular color associated with their pronunciation, letters an attitude about them, and entire words a plethora of adjectives cataloging their meaning, all wholly disconnected from what the dictionary has defined them as.

When I first heard of this, two months ago, I felt envy. One of my best friends, a guy who is dyslexic, artistic to an ability I cannot begin to dream of, and driven by the experiential world around him, knew immediately what I was describing. His exact words were "What? You never noticed that 7s were kinda angry?" No, no I did not...

Luckily, geniuses who can create an experience for me exist in the world: www.playauditorium.com

This may be the most beautiful game I have ever played. I already told the programmers that I want to be a beta tester for it, and almost want to talk to them about legal aid should they determine they want to take this further than a simple flash game. Who knows, maybe I will...

Only if the sight and sounds of the situation smell right though... No, I don't mean that figuratively.

I figured it out...

Being a 1L is supposed to take up massive quantities of time and pose the most difficult challenge you have experienced as of yet... You are intended to lose contact with people only to find out who your true friends have always been... You are meant to dive into books and come up only for air when necessary, but find that there is no air, only more books... Your life is supposed to change.

I figured out this morning, while running (turns out it isn't the great evil I thought, and that the most thought provoking questions arise when you literally can't get enough air in your lungs)... I liked my life before law school.

I had (still have, by the grace of God and a lot of work) a beautiful girlfriend. I had (and still have due to their seemingly infinite patience) friends who have maintained their commitment to supporting me since high school (which is seeming further and further in my past) and college (which I vaguely remember as being a good time in my life). I have even met some new people recently, pre-law school and in the past year and a half, who could have been added to that list. My family supports me, regardless of my career path, and I have more loves than just the law.

So, I am asking, why am I doing this?

That I didn't figure out while I was running today, but Thursday will offer up another 30 minutes of solitary time.

For those wondering, my first final went very well. I know I got at least a B, so that is one down and three to go. Yes, I want As, but in a world this competitive, with people who harbor a greater passion than I can muster for this subject, Bs will do for the first time in over ten years.

I just can't wait for winter break. Maybe then I can start to reclaim my old life. Maybe learn how to meld the two together... Who knows.

Airport Security

I can't think of a stand up comedian who has yet to turn to the time honored tradition (I am following the strain of commentary regarding tradition due to the recently passed festivity of Thanksgiving) of making witty comments as to the process of airport security. It is a nuisance few, except the cavity check fanatics (see, even I can make an airport security joke), would go through if not to ensure their ultimate safety.

Today I had my first run-in with these bastions of aeronautical invulnerability and fastidiousness: I had to have my bagged check. First, the person who checked my bags was a guy in his mid 40s. I was fine with this as long as when the cavity check came it would be performed by the attractive 21 year old woman working security (they exist!). I almost made the last comment out loud, but figured I would be best off not tempting the great fates as I had already been pulled to the side.

The man begins to unload my clothes, and I, being the upstanding citizen that I am, remembered that I had packed a tubular shaped um... tube... of toothpaste that was above the maximum of 3.4 ounces, which quickly I informed my own personal laundry airer of. He gave me a sideways glance and said "That is not what I am looking for, but thank you."

If someone said that to you, and you honestly believed that you had committed no harm, you would crack a joke too, right? In my infinite wisdom, I thought it would be appropriate. My retort was along the vein of "I don't think there is anything sharp, flammable, or explosive in there, but hey, I didn't pack my bags. I need to thank that Osama for that." Ever heard the Biblical verse warning of wasting your seed before swine? Yea... I was drowning the swine in seed. He looked at my sideways, unimpressed with my quick moving wit, and muttered "cute" and began to pull my underwear out of my bag. Here is where the 21-year-old-hot-chick-who-should-be-working-as-a-cocktail-waitress (this is Reno after all) gets called onto the scene (Maybe a comic book would fit the situation: "The Fantastic Adventures of Rectral Intrusion Girl"). She gets the pleasure of sorting through my underwear. I think the security guard thought he was funny as well. No more jokes...

The passed my bag through the x-ray machine two extra times, for a total of three, and asked me "Sir, are you aware of any small metallic objects in your bag? Perhaps three inches long?" Having been stunned to silence be securities attempt at humor, I was honest and said no.

One more check in the bag brought about the culprit: he pulled back the bottom flap (apparently I have a false bottom in my bag I was unaware of) and pulled out a BOXCUTTER.

Ever not had any air in your body? Imagine having the wind knocked out of you without ever receiving the punch, and you are beginning to get where I was at. I answered a slew of questions, and the one that cleared me of any criminal intent (barring negligence) was "What do you do for a living?"

When you have been discovered in an airport with a boxcutter in a post September 11 world, how would you phrase your response? I am a law student. I am a recent college grad and you know how bad the economy is (that would likely be the worst choice). Thank God I had a real excuse: I used to work at Long's drugstore and must have dropped it in there. Now, if I had a timeline of my life before me as I spoke that sentence I may have been writing this as my explanation on a nice yellow legal pad rather than into my blog. I haven't worked at longs for 5 years.

So, how did the boxcutter get into my bag? I am not sure... but you can bet the bottom dollar that tomorrow (I couldn't help it once I started) I will not be thanking Osama.

Second, I flew out of Oakland Airport. HOW DID THEY MISS THIS?! It is their job to stop boxcutters, employed by the 9/11 hijackers, from getting onto the flight. I could have hijacked a plane and I didn't even know it. Good thing for them I didn't... And, you know, I have morals, a bright future, and a desire not to hurt others.

Oh, and on a final note, the toothpaste I thought I would lose? They let me keep it. Why? Because I was honest about having it. So, now we have a tip for those attempting to sneak something through in a toothpaste container: be honest that it is there, and you shall be allowed to leave with it. Seems like a good plan to me.

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving, and has an even better holiday season. In you traverse the globe to whatever your destinations might be, remember to check the false bottom you didn't know you owned for boxcutters you didn't know were in your bag. If not, it could be a minor 30 minute inconvenience.

The Speed Up...

I remember reading Scott Turow's "One L" as an undergrad.

The first few pages were written around now, just thirty years ago. Turow had snow and the weight of tradition (he went to Havard law) pressing down upon him, but here, the lift seems no more bearable. His experiences brought him along a dark spiral. Thankfully, I have not experienced that at this point (earlier I did).

To be sure, I am concerned about finals, at least not in the same strain as my classmates. Desperation can be seen in a few (I have heard over 5 outbursts regarding the insanity, inanity, and incomprehensibility of criminal law); the rest seem resigned to their reality, but none seem comforted by the facts of their reality: they are law students.

I read a story, I think on "Anonymous Law Student," about a professor telling her students at their last class "Relax. This was the goal. You ran as fast as any human could, and you are now standing on the podium. Be sure you know your material, but don't lose focus of your achievements..." Unfortunately, none of our professors echoed this to us. We are going to a tier two law school. For those outside of the know, we are not the best, nor the worst. We will have jobs, but not truckloads of money deposited in our bank account because we have a degree and a pulse.

Despite our "lowly" ranking (only in the world of law and medicine is someone who graduated cum laude considered lowly or underachieving), I think now is the time to look back and be proud of the paths we have walked. Some took the road less traveled via another sort of grad school, others struggled through to exceed expectations, and even fewer still are wondering why they are here at all with the opportunities they had presented to them; but we all have a common goal: work hard and be somewhere leading to greatness.

The fact that where we are respresents a place of greatness in society aside (The phrase "Wow, law school. That is amazing." does get tiring after the first month if only because of the inevitable "How is it?" proceeding, which none of us hope to or are prepared to answer.), I am looking back, and I am proud.

I grew up in a upper lower class home, and I have moved higher. I graduated from a university renowned for its six year average in four years and did so with honors. And, now, I am at a law school which is held in high regard. And, now, I have made it through the toughest time of law school: the first semester of my 1L year.

My story is not unique, so, as we gear up for finals, for those people who have walked along side me (thank you all for your help), and for those walking a similar path at other universities across the nation, congratulations. Look back, and be proud. Look forward with anticipation; the best, worst, most challenging and most rewarding are all yet to come.

Now... just make it through finals week.

Irony

I love acronyms. How else can a message be displayed in a quiet manner, but still carry the full force of it being spelled out?

Sometimes, however they are misapplied, misunderstood, or those naming an organization don't realize what they have done. Today, I bring the latter.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_7734/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1i32p2EO

Read the story through. It is the normal social guardians claiming that video games cause violent tendencies (I, a product of these violent video games, have not committed a violent crime since I was in middle school. I think it is just 12 year old kids being 12. Hormones, they make us stupid and violent.). Sure, maybe they do.

Re-read the story, though. What is the name of the group responsible for this study? The National Institute on Media and the Family. Now, turn that into an acronym. What does it come out to (omitting smaller regularly ignored words in acronyms)? NIMF. Seemingly innocuous, right? Read it phonetically. Ni-m-ph. What does it sound like? How about, nymph? For those of you who, at this point, don't see the humor in the irony: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymph

The long and the short of it is that I find it funny that a group claiming to be the vanguard for social norms and moralistic references displayed before our children would name themselves something which spells out to the acronym of what is, of essence, a mythical ancient Greek whore.

Well played, NIMF, well played.

They Never Learn

In the 1950/60s (to be fair this is a trend with roots throughout the panoply of human governments) Congress, state legislatures, and the public en masse failed to recognize the necessity of forward progress. Civil rights were nullified or expressed as non-existent within the text of the Constitution. Birth control, widely denounced by both religious institutions and its followers, was not permitted (Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479) in many, possibly most, states. Segregation failed to respond to the obvious inefficiencies and racial bias (the final nail in the coffin being the infamous doll test: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2919.shtml). Social unrest and dissatisfaction was ubiquitous, and society refused to change.

Graciously the era which brought these challenges also brought reform, placing politicians in positions of power who intended to better America's welfare. Great Presidents and Congressmen stepped to the plate and made America sit up and at attention, grasp their society, change their destiny, and hope for a better tomorrow. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon (yes, I said it. He screwed up at the end, but he wasn't the worst president we have ever had), Carter (Yes, I skipped over Ford. Face it, he was a place holder. A Presidential Proxy, I suppose.), and Reagan. Modern politics brought us Bush I (a true Republican. Economics were his name, game, fame, and any other words you can rhyme.) and Clinton (a democratic idealist who understood that temperance economically and social mobility created a lasting and optimistic society). The era of good feeling faltered here.

To be fair, the game started with the "War Room" strategy created by Clinton's presidential campaig. The resentment was carried onto the legislative field, via Newt Gingrich (Who names their kids Newt?) and politics became, as they had been just prior to the "Switch in Time That Saved Nine" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine) adversarial. One-up-manship became the mode of operation, and progress seemed to halt.

The last eight years aside, we seem to have come full circle. America has elected a president who has pronounced the era of political animosity over. Americans, while bogged in the mire of a financial crisis, see the horizon again. Recently my grandfather describe to me why he voted for Reagan: "He made me proud to be an American after ten long years of inaction and inactivity." That sentiment, lost on my prior to this election, came forth in a mad rush as I watched a man I believe in and trust with my nation accept the vote of the American people.

Then I turned to Congress, and read this story: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-congress-house-gop,0,5707846.story

Why, Republicans? You just heard the American public denounce the ultra conservative logjam. Why throw yourselves down that hole?

Don't get me wrong. I am happy they did. It displays their disconnect with the American Public. But at the same time, I hoped for more. Moving to the right is a denial of the opportunity to have a conversation and create a greater end. Why pass such an opportunity by?

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

These men serve the Constitution. As the Preamble states, the Constitution was created by "We the People." As such, Congress has effectively pledged themselves to the people. In my eyes, moving to the right, refusing to have a discussion, hunkering in for what will undoubtedly be titled by some as the demise of America, and ignoring that age old rule we are taught in Kindergarten ("Play nice with others.") shows no interest in fulfilling their duty. Instead Republican leaders have chosen the path of adversity.

America needs change. Now, if only our leaders could know.

Law School . . .

If one were to look at the title of this post, they would notice that the ellipse I have employed is properly spaced. For those interested, and those who have been shanghaied into reading what will almost certainly become a mind numbing post on the antithesis of life that is law school, legal dictum requires that the ellipse be just so spaced. Why? Because the legal profession, and those who further the hell fire driven goal of intentional muddling that has been created via centuries of hubris induced legal decisions and scholarship, can conclusively be titled the most anal retentive profession that terra firma has ever had the great displeasure of spawning.

Peruse the preceding sentence quickly (for all of your dictionary Nazis, get off my back about the oxymoron). Does the writing seem to drag its feet in the mud getting to a point which could easily have been made in fewer words? Does it send you to a dictionary? More than once? Welcome to legal writing. Let me give you an actual quote. "The intimate political relation, subsisting between the president of the United States and the heads of departments, necessarily renders any legal investigation of the acts of one of those high officers peculiarly irksome, as well as delicate; and excites some hesitation with respect to the propriety of entering into such investigation." First, this isn't too bad. Second, a translation into modern English would read: The political relationship between the President of the United States and the heads of the executive departments makes any legal investigation into their actions difficult, and raises hesitation whether such investigations should be held at all. Not that difficult. Why couldn't Marshall (the case is Marbury v. Madison) have stated what he meant, rather than drawing out some unnecessarily complex statement with regard to the propriety of anything?

The modern language doesn't have a need for flowery language; the modern world, that is, outside of the legal profession. The Blue Book, the book of uniform citations employed throughout the American legal system, requires lawyers pay attention to details, rather than ideas. The arguments for requiring adherence to the Blue Book rests upon the need to research sources personally. As one lawyer makes an argument, the opposition can research the rule, contort the law to their purposes, and come back with an argument of their own. Sure, I will concede the point. How about this, though? How about, as most legal dicta allows, expect people to act REASONABLY?! Can it be that hard to look up a case? Two centuries ago, I understand the need for uniformity. Today, however, I can type the name of a case into the nearest search engine and have hundreds of briefs, a few transcriptions, and commentary enough for a lifetime. Yet, still, many lawyers press for this complex system. Legal writing teachers the nation over demand the adherence of their students to these arcane, though regularly updated (again, leave me alone dictionary Nazis) rules.

As another point: history. I understand the propriety (Thank you, Marshall, for today's vocabulary lesson) of summoning the lessons of the past to apply to the modern world. Law, however, employs history to teach you why you are wrong. Common law can be easily summarized as reasoned thought; the rule comes about through a normal debate considering circumstances and actors in a given situation. Perfect? Hardly . . . (Notice the perfect ellipse, please. If you don't I feel like I have wasted my $180,000 in loans.) But, the rules are not contrived for policy purposes (on the whole), but for the purpose of fulfilling the logical expectations of those people participating in any activity. The modern law, contrary to the common law, is the description of society, as it should exist, according to legal scholars. Those same scholars who require that I put spaces between my periods in the ellipses have defined the course of future interactions via the legal system. This is, as per the Constitution, subject to legislative and judicial employment of these rules, but (as I am sure many of your intelligent readers would expect) they are snooty legal scholars as well.

What is the point of this post? I don't know. But, when you read this Mike and Nick, remember this: you go to the same law school as me. Is that bad for you? Maybe... haha

I love law school. Though, admittedly, I do hate it. (Yes, Oxymoron.)

Want to know what law school is like? Nick put it as best any video game could: http://rfshq.com/free-rider-2/Tracks/92511

Word and w00t

Sisyphus and Prometheus

These two Greek legends personify law school.

Sisyphus-Pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to have it tumble down the side again, and is forced to push it up again. The process continues through eternity.

Prometheus-Has his liver eaten out once a day, every day, by an eagle (or vulture depending on your bard). He gave fire to man... Zues, can we say "Over reaction."?

How do these relate to law school, one may wonder at this point.

With Sisyphus the obvious connection can be made with the futility of the exercise. Sisyphus rolls a boulder up a hill repeatedly. We read cases, repeatedly. He watches as the boulder rolls back down the hill. We watch as the teacher's decimate our thoughts (yes, you pseudo-dorks, one in ten of our thoughts are destroyed, just like the Roman legions). What is more telling has to be what Sisyphus thought as he rolled the boulder up the hill. Albert Camus made the extraordinay point that the myth speaks to the futility of life. The first chapter (the very first issue) addressed, is whether life requires that man commit suicide (stick with me here, the gravy train keeps rolling. Suicide, kids, never has been and never will be the answer). Why, then wouldn't Sisyphus allow the boulder to sit at the bottom of the hill, waiting endlessly for the man tied (metaphorically) to it in punishment, and just give up? Camus takes the most bleak route possible: feeling content, for Sisyphus, relies upon the knowledge of hopelessness. Not that the task is enjoyable, nor that any hope persists in his mind. It is precisely because he knows the limits of his existence that Sisyphus can be, to Camus, truly free.

I take issue with this idea. Knowing your limits, first, represents the end of exploration. The human mind has been created, by millenia of evolution (or a spark of ingenuity by some creater, pick your poisin) to expand upon current knowledge, experience, emotion, whatever! That is our purpose. Law school has not, as of yet, harbored this purpose. Thus far, no knowledge has been gleaned. Rules, definitely; logic, absolutely; but knowledge has eluded me thus far.

So, is law school as depressing as this? Well, yes, it is, but only because of the unending task (our eternity lasts three years). But, despite the lack of knowledge, we have been tested every day. We are shown our limits, and expected to break free. I don't know how Camus could be satisfied with his answer. We aren't set free in the acceptance of our existance, our unending task. We are set free by the hope that Camus argued so furiously against. Hope brings potential for the chains to break. Then again, unlike Camus, I don't believe there is a limit to the human spirit within each individual (No, I will never be able to run like Michael Johnson, but maybe I can think like Camus). Nobody can decide that for me, and my own failures to press beyond, into the ethereal unknown represent my only limitation.

Now that I have gotten this far, I don't especially care to think about Prometheus. You can do that one on your own.

I don't understand...

The Story of the Day

The best quotes (Yes, plural) there?

"She praised McCain for working with Democrats to pass legislation and for standing up to President Bush on the Iraq war."

Has he really? No, not really. He has not voted against the appropriation of funding for troops in Iraq. Proof? The proof is in the pudding, or something like that. Here, vanilla or chocolate.

Vanilla: Quick, tell me who said this "Our troops can leave behind a successful mission, and our nation can leave behind a country that contributes to the security of America and the world. To do this, we must continue to help the Iraqis protect themselves against the terrorists and the insurgents." A) President Bush B) Sen. John McCain. You have read the speech, so you know the answer. Yes, it is thoroughly evident from this quote that Sen. McCain has as much experience protesting as... um...

Chocolate: If you read the speech, he says he will vote for the legislation, "but under protest." It is a nice sound bite. A great political move. But, why did he protest? His words speak louder than I could: "During a war, in a measure designed to give our fighting men and women the funds they need, the Congress has given in to its worst pork-barrel instincts." While the fight against pork-barrel is an admirable one, it is an issue which both candidates agree on. Further, he isn't without stains on his hands. Proof of such here.

Sen. McCain has not stood shoulder to shoulder with the President on Iraq, but to claim he has gone toe to toe with him fails the test of history. Barack Obama, to be fair, as not stood in opposition to the war in Iraq either; he is a politician, and voting against "funding our troops" is the closest thing to the "black spot" as politics has. That or openly supporting gay marriage outside of San Francisco or Boston.

"Rothschild said she was also excited by the prospect of a woman being in the White House, even though she and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin disagree on issues."

This one cannot be defeated by facts, nor reason (it is surely reasonable to follow the "just like me" theory of election politics).No, I take that back about reason. Reason can be employed here. Feminists have argued for the past century that women should be held as equals to men. I absolutely agree. If women should be held to the same standard as men, I would believe that it would follow from there that men should be held at the same standard as women. One standard for all, and all for one standard. So, if the politics of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton had nearly identical platforms. Later in the article Rothschild, a former fundraiser for Sen. Clinton, later argues that she believes Sen. Obama would take the nation in "too liberal" a direction. Let us compare the one area where Clinton and Obama had a difference of opinion: health care.

Sen. Clinton: Mandatory health care for every man, woman, and child in the country. Governmental health care an option and subsidies for those in the lower income brackets.

Sen. Obama: Mandatory health care for children and an expansion of the medicare program in order to create it as more efficient.

If she was legitimately worried about the "liberalization" of America, she never would have supported Clinton. We aren't electing the sex of those in the office, we are electing the influence that person holds over the daily lives of millions of Americans.

The "Obama Hates Women" campaign numbs the mind. I did not vote for John Kerry because I believed he was more manly than George Bush. I voted for him, like I said in my last post, because of an idea. Sex, race and religion be dammed.

Grow up, ladies...

Experience or Political Savy?

"She might not have the experience but a lot of people don't have experience when they take a job," said Candy Cartaya, a Cuban-American and retired accountant speaking about Gov. Palin.

I have to give it to Candy Cataya, she has a reasoned response. Not reasonable, but at least reasoned.

Cognitive dissonance: A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.

I would be willing to place a bet that two months ago, prior to the Palin frenzy, Candy criticized Senator Obama for his lack of experience. In my first month of law school the process of discerning key differences has created a burden upon the students. We are forced into a constant and consistent state of cognitive dissonance. Just to create an example everyone can follow: grade school taught us that the sky look blue because of the absorbency and refraction of the hydrogen, helium, oxygen, etc, present in the atmosphere. Walk outside at dusk in any city with a population above 100,000, and you will see the brilliance of a polluted sky. Blue may still persist along the horizon, but orange, red and purple dominate your sight. What reason can offered as an excuse for this apparently disparate view? The angle of the sunlight entering the atmosphere; the high amount of pollutant factors which reflect or absorb colors not naturally affected by the sky; and then, every once in a while, someone will give you the crazy answer: because today was an extra happy day, and the Earth is smiling back.

Candy, you have given the crazy answer. You might argue that she has executive experience, no matter how limited. One could even stretch human imagination far enough to allow, however unreasonably, for the belief that her state borders a nation we are either currently or will soon appear to be at odds with, and thus she has experience dealing with foreign aggression (even though both Article 1 and 2 of the constitution forbids this).

But, Candy, please? How can her job experience not be necessary here? She has no knowledge on foreign policy. Her views are not supported by experts, but by political savvy. In a hypothetical world where McCain has died in office, we would be left with a President unaware of the history of American foreign policy, let alone capable of dealing with the complexities of a national economy interwoven with the international markets.

How can her experience not matter? This isn't an election for who will fill our sodas at the movie theater. Work experience may not be necessary in such an unskilled job. Most of us have taken a position which requires a week's training for us to master. This is the presidency. National factors, such as the economy, education reform, and natural disasters, require a breadth of knowledge lacking in any governor's chair, corporate position, or state legislator (National experience exposes individuals to these complex situations. I believe every congressman has more reason to present themselves to the national forum than a governor). Combine these with the precarious station of the United States as the "leader of the free world," and you have a behemoth of a nation waiting for the wrong leader to collapse the nation in upon itself.

Is Obama perfect? No, hardly, but at the least he is different. He is distinct from what we have known for the past decade. Economic policy has failed (this is written two days after the collapse of Lehman Bros.), our international stature has been a mess since the end of the Cold War, and Sen. Obama wants to fix that. Diplomacy, a form of communication the United States seems to have forgotten on the international stage, grants us the opportunity to speak with other nations about what they believe is the best course of action. The parental technique of "respect their intuition and they will respect your rules" works on the international stage as well.

Does he have experience? No, not enough. I have no excuse there. His ideals, mentioned above, however, seem to me to represent a potential for a brighter future. As a side note, I have heard too many people state that "It can't be much worse than our present situation." That must be the worst reason I have heard for voting for Obama (though admittedly I support anyone voting for him, regardless of the reason). Vote for him because you are interested in an ideal. Vote for him because he offers a "change you can believe in." Yes, I just used his campaign slogan. But, then again, I believe in change.

Ya... Palin. "A joke" just doesn't describe it.