A reply from Metro.

Dear ****,

I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts on the Voices page. As the letters editor, it is my job to collect, edit and publish the letters for the page. I have to say, if all of our letter writers had such astute observations as you, I think you would be more satisfied with the amount of intellectual debate on the page. Sadly, however, they aren't.

We publish almost every letter that we receive and what you read on our pages is a true reflection of our readers. We can't force our readers to offer interesting analytical insight into the news, but we can print their thoughts. I hardly think that qualifies as "encouraging horrible actions." Regardless of the quality of opinion, the letters column is still a place where every voice has a place to be heard.

Thank you again for your thoughts, and thank you for reading Metro.

Best,
Cassie

My letter to Metro complaining about their letters

Dear Metro,

I read your publication every morning when I ride the commuter rail to work. I appreciate very much your efforts at educating the general public on current events through a fee-free means. However, to my dismay, you continue to publish those obnoxious letters in the Voices section.

While I welcome and value others' well thought-out opinions, I find that your letters reflect very few intelligent people who are motivated to argue their point. Instead, your letters mostly comprise of people more interested in personal attacks against someone with an opposing view than actually proving any coherent point whatsoever.

This is a fine example of what America has become these last few decades. Politicians, instead of arguing the issues, would rather attack each other as either money-grubbing conservatives or dirty, immoral liberals. Both sides casually label whatever that doesn't please them as "un-American" or "unpatriotic." The only un-American and unpatriotic thing that I see going on is this constant childish fight which will lead to nothing productive.

Shame on you, Metro, for encouraging these horrible actions. In a world where insults spring from our mouths left and right, the least you should be doing is setting a good example of what a civilized debate is.

Poor little skinny girl

I've been following the crappy arguments on the letter-to-the-editor page in the Metro. One of them is about those new Dove ads that I'm sure we've all seen. Personally, I don't think anyone wants to see that. I remember a specific day at the mall (by the way, malls are gross, trashy, and infested by middle schoolers) when my boyfriend screamed in horror, "Ahh!" at seeing a giant poster with a "robust" woman on it posing in her underwear.

I'm all for improving how women view themselves. I'm all for gunning down anorexic fashion models in skimpy underwear-like clothes. But these Dove ads. Yuck. Come on, we're used to seeing cute, skinny girls. They can't just drop this bomb on us. It's unfair and offensive (to our sight). Maybe they could ease us into it... kind of like boiling a frog.

The San Jose Mercury News puts it in good perspective:

Well, it was bound to happen. After we've spent years bemoaning advertising images of famished fashion models wearing size negative-2 jeans, one player in the beauty industry has decided to call our bluff. I refer to the Dove "real women" ads, featuring six curvy "civilians" posing in their undies.

Maybe you've seen the billboards around town and thought, "Wait, something's wrong. Where are the jutting cheekbones? Where are the protruding hipbones?" But the question is, did your reaction make you want to buy what Dove is selling?

A letter in the Metro was written by a woman complaining that the ads offended her because they claimed "real" women should be curvy, and that she is called "fake" because she is naturally skinny. First of all, I wonder if she is blind. At least one of the spokemodels for the new Dove campaign is a skinny blond girl. Second of all: Oh boo hoo hoo. You're skinny. How sad. You have a nice figure. Oh, I'm crying for you. What a shame people are calling you fake. That's so much worse than being obese with a billion health issues. No, really, I'm sobbing into my teddy bear as we speak.

A man promptly replied in support of that letter, declaring his hatred for fat people. Let me quote: "The next time someone calls you fake because you are skinny, tell them to go have another doughnut." Now, I don't exactly embrace fat people either, but that's just a dumbass thing to say. Obviously, not everyone was born to look like a freaking model. On the other hand, Americans are getting fatter than any healthy person would want to be. My suggestion (the best one, I think) is that this man can shove a doughnut up his ass.

What we're facing here is a weird state of extremes. Media is telling us to look like six foot tall skeletons while mainstream America has reached its peak in obesity. Maybe if we all had a little common sense, we wouldn't need lame-ass ads to tell us what to think.

Partying: Pastime of dumbasses.

I spent the whole weekend getting my brains indirectly smashed by a speedboat. I just spent the last two and a half hours at a lab meeting where big science-y words were used to evilly put me to sleep. This morning, two dumbass high school (ugly Asian girls, one hugely overweight) geeks were talking very loudly behind me about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; so loudly in fact, that I could not read the blabber in the Metro. My brain is at maybe one tenth capacity. I am extremely irritable. So this will be a good old-fashioned rant.

I hate people who drink. Why? I don't have anything against drinking in itself, though drinking way too much will have serious consequences on your life and others. You may become a big moron and you may become a lethal in a car. That sucks for everyone. No one wants to see you be a moron, and no one wants to die because you suck at life.

Mostly, I hate teenagers and college kids who "party." "Partying" is the lowest form of existence. If scenes in life were appliances, partying would be a giant toilet filled with a conglomerate of people's vomit and excrements. I think it has something to do with my disdain for youth culture. If I could blow up MTV with my mind, it would be all sorts of blown up right now. They would think it was terrorists or something. But it's not. It's me no longer wanting them to perpetuate an image that drinking and being a big fat whore is cool.

People who go to parties usually are not smart. If they get good grades, it is because they're either cheaters or they work way too hard. They are not smart because they are at the party which is the virtual watering hole of all dumb things in the universe. These things are so dumb that they attempt to drink from the hole with their ass instead of their mouth. I am so fucking straight-edge because I hate my peers with an immense passion.

Do I even have to mention the vanity? No one gives a fuck if you are blond, skinny, and have a pair of plastic DD's. Your brain is the size of a peanut. In another five years, you will be a crackwhore pimped out by some guy named SlyBone. I would not trust my ass or my crack with a guy named SlyBone. He is also surely a dumbass.

Party people eventually go on to run big corporations and become presidents and stuff. Bushy-fluffy-pants was once a big partying who was too hung over to fly a plane during Vietnam. That is one fucking serious partier. Now he runs the nation as his brain is still gasping for air from years of drowning it in cheap alcohol. I am so at ease now that he is the representative of this country. How appropriate.

I hope everyone who parties dies horribly of alcohol poisoning. That would be fun. Maybe then I won't be so angry anymore. No... no... That will never work. There's always those people who make wake in a no wake zone because they don't give a fuck if their beach house gets washed away by the ocean.

Listen, kids. If you can't have fun without alcohol then you're a big, boring piece of crap and you should not be alive.

The end.

Some heavy reading.

One of the most renowned and revolutionary authors of our time is also one of the first people in the world to consider the modern psychology of man. Fyodor Dostoyevsky has influenced the thinking of our modern era. His concepts and notions, which are explored through his books, may be eclectic and chaotic, but a certain universality to his ideas rings true throughout the quagmire of his complex dialogues and character rants. His works are often thought of as confusing and misconstrued; however, they are undeniably deep and profound in their ambiguous but fervent portrayals of the human psyche. One of the main premises behind Dostoyevsky’s work is the idea of all being permissible without a clear distinction between right and wrong. What constitutes this allowance? Under what conditions does it exist? Does it exist at all? In two of his most famous books, The Brothers Karamazov, an epic novel about a mysterious parricide, and Crime and Punishment, a dark thriller concerning a young, intellectual anti-hero, Dostoyevsky struggles through his own conflicts with this idea of permissiveness, hauling the reader through bouts of theology, philosophy, and psychology and in-depth assertions of his contemporary “isms” with nothing less than mild ambivalence. Dostoyevsky, a man of his time, was acutely aware of his era to even a grotesque degree. Nonetheless, it is his neurotic brilliance and his understanding of the diverse nature of humans that create masterpieces of biblical proportions.

Many of Dostoyevsky’s writings can be traced back to his own experiences in life. He was born Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky on November 11th, 1821, one of eight children. His father, Mikhail Andreevich Dostoyevsky, was a military surgeon and a cruel and irritable alcoholic. His mother, Maria Fyodorovna Nechaeva, was good-natured though dominated. Young Fyodor was raised with a patriarchal and religious upbringing. He was educated by his mother, his father, private tutors, and then a boarding school. After two years of boarding school, Fyodor entered the Military Engineers’ School of St. Petersburg after the demise of his mother. Then when he was at the tender age of eighteen, peasant of his father’s own village, Darovoe, murdered his father. In 1843, Fyodor resigned from his position as draftsmen to become a fulltime writer (European Authors 233).

Though Dostoyevsky inherited a substantial amount of money from his father, he was known to be a bad administrator of finances; thus, he lived scantily as he gambled, lost in publishing schemes, and took on financial responsibilities of family members. In 1845, he was diagnosed with epilepsy which haunted him for the rest of his life. His favorite and influential authors were: Pushkin, Gogol, Goethe, Schiller, Homer, Shakespeare, and Byron (European Authors 233).

His first novel, Poor Folk, was acclaimed for its realistic portrayal and sympathy for the oppressed and poverty-stricken. This led to his acceptance into a prestigious intellectual circle which he soon quitted after one unsuccessful novel and two equally unsuccessful short stories. He began attending meetings of utopian socialists and was imprisoned as a subversive in 1849. Reprieved from execution, he was sent to Siberia for four years for hard labor. The only book he had at this time was the Bible. He served as private for four more years in Siberia before marrying in 1857 and moving to St. Petersburg in 1859 (European Authors 234).

From then on, Dostoyevsky’s life continued to be one of bad financial decisions, torrid love affairs, and egregious misfortunes (European Authors 234-236). However, it was Dostoyevsky’s time in Siberia that led to a real change in his character. Entering as a dabbler in utopian socialism, he left as a Slavophilist and a devout Russian Orthodox Christian (European Authors 234). This can be seen as a pivotal moment in his life that had the most effect on his writings.

In Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky creates his most famous anti-hero in literature, Raskolnikov, a neurotic and fanatical intellectual who believes his superior status in relation to all other men makes him exempt from earthly morals:

Raskolnikov had convinced himself that his desperate sister, Dunya, and mother really deserved the stolen money more than the "louse" of a pawnbroker. Prior to the murder he had also written an article dividing the world into ordinary people and gifted heroes (like Napoleon) who are above the ordinary laws. Raskolnikov executed his crime under the guise of his victim’s classification in this unworthy group of people. (Townsend)

To some, the process of rationalization for his murder is a mark of Raskolnikov’s character which they read as Dostoyevsky’s attack on intellectuals and scholars. “These critics commonly affirmed that in Raskolnikov, [Dostoyevsky] had affronted all students, and that the character was a madman whom [Dostoyevsky] attempted to portray as typical of the younger generation” (Lesson 9). This is a very narrow view on his attempts as an author. A close friend of Dostoyevsky’s wrote in his defense. “He pointed out that Raskolnikov, far from being a grotesque and unfair parody of the youthful materialists and utilitarians of the time, was actually endowed by [Dostoyevsky] with many admirable and flattering characteristics: brilliance of mind, handsomeness of figure and feature… and strength of will. Strakhov also pointed out that [Dostoyevsky’s] attitude toward his hero was unmistakably sympathetic” (Lesson 9). Dostoyevsky himself praised Strakhov for his understanding of his characters. It would be an egregious wrong to think of Raskolnikov as only a villainous, mocking sort of persona for his time; he is clearly a very conscientious and thoughtful man, though undoubtedly delirious.

Dostoyevsky never clearly mentions what drove Raskolnikov to the brink of madness. To some extent, it is assumed that poverty had left him with no choice but to kill, but it can easily be argued that his pathological pride led to his poverty which led to his madness that caused this pathological pride. One of Dostoyevsky’s themes was the conditions of abject poverty which can lead to absolute moral abandonment. Poverty, he seems to claim, pushes people into corners where they have no choice but to behave in the most depraved and decadent ways. The one which most manifested and directly stated this belief was the over-verbose Marmeladov who Raskolnikov meets in a bar. “[Pisarev] said that the character of Marmeladov was a portrayal of the ultimate degradation to which the person who will not struggle against poverty would inevitably be led… that both Raskolnikov and Marmeladov may be said to have chosen their lives of poverty and wretchedness; that, in fact, Marmeladov positively enjoys his humiliation” (Lesson 9).

It was not uncommon for this novel to be compared with a Greek tragedy. In that context, Raskolnikov’s condition could easily been seen as hubris, an ultimate pride that led to his downfall (Lesson 9). With that same Greek irony, one must wonder about the juxtaposition of the traits of a brilliant student and of a brutal murderer. It can clearly be seen how someone could slip between the cracks from high, philosophical reasoning into preposterous scheming. To some extent and with a certain degree of rationality, Raskolnikov is right. His theory is that committing one crime against a single person, a greedy and vicious person, is justified by the improvement of the lives of many others. In theory, this is a much more efficient way to improve the world; the betterment of lives of many others is worth the life of one.

This old woman’s money, which is going to be sequestered in a monastery, could beget a hundred, a thousand good deeds and fresh starts! Hundreds perhaps thousands of lives could be put on the right path, dozens of families rescued from poverty, from ruin, from collapse, from decay, from the venereal wards of the hospitals- all this with her money! Kill her, take her money, dedicate it to serving mankind, to the general welfare. (Dostoyevsky, Crime 63)

In theory, it is reasonable; in theory, all is justifiable. A theory is exactly what it is. “Dostoyevsky originally conceived Raskolnikov’s crime as a means of exposing the absurdity of the moral utilitarianism characteristic of many leading intellectuals in the 1860’s….” (Leatherbarrow 87). The principle of moral utilitarianism is that the value of a person is based on how useful he is. The pawnbroker is worth nothing in the eyes of Raskolnikov since she contributes nothing to society as a whole. Thus, it is excusable to eliminate her.

There is one aspect of the crime that has gone horribly awry. In the process of killing the pawnbroker, Aliona Ivanovna, Raskolnikov axes her innocent younger sister, Lizaveta, to death. “And this unfortunate Lizaveta was so simple and squashed and absolutely afraid, she did not even raise her arms to protect her face, although at the moment that would have been the most natural and inevitable gesture, since the ax was raised directly over her face” (Dostoyevsky, Crime 77). Though Aliona Ivanovna may have been wicked, Lizaveta was the most kindhearted, honest, and ingenuous. If Raskolnikov rationalized his murder of the pawnbroker, he could not in the same way rationalize the death of Lizaveta. She was simply an innocent bystander who was circumstantially caught in a compromising moment. As the novel progresses, it is shown that Raskolnikov has few qualms about Lizaveta’s death:

It is worth remembering that he is rarely troubled by the murder of Lizaveta, the innocent victim of an unanticipated turn of events. This second killing does not engage his concern, for it was an unpremeditated, simple, even ‘innocent’ slaying with a clear motive: Raskolnikov killed Lizaveta in order to escape. (Leatherbarrow 87)

Ironically, it is the justified murder which puzzles him. “Raskolnikov becomes a ‘criminal in search of his own motive’; he does not in the end know why he committed his crime, and neither does the reader…. It is this above all else that gives the novel its permanently nightmarish quality” (Leatherbarrow 87). In contrast, Lizaveta’s death is easily explained since it was purely for his own survival. Aliona Ivanovna’s is a mystery to him as a man of reason for he could see no reason. He begins to fear that he had no real motive and that his reasoning contains no reason. When the sordid Svidrigailov makes an appearance, Raskolnikov sinks deeper into dread:

On the other side stands the corrupt Svidrigailov. He indulges in the extreme forms of debauchery simply to relieve his boredom. Svidrigailov tells Raskolnikov that he considers the young man to be something of a kindred spirit. Although Raskolnikov does not wish to admit it, he senses that there may be validity to Svidrigailov’s assertions. (Connolly 86)

It is not until much later on, a long time after his confession and deportation to Siberia that Raskolnikov finally comes into terms with his actions and attempts redemption.

Much comparison between Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov from The Brothers Karamazov and Raskolnikov has been made. Both are the children of a progressive and intellectual era. Both allow their excessive contemplations to overtake their actions and sanity. The difference between Raskolnikov and Ivan, however, is that one is a direct murderer with contempt for the human race while the other is an indirect murder with absolute love for humanity.

The most striking feature of Ivan besides his brilliant intellect is his ongoing conflict with his belief in God. Though he is a self-proclaimed atheist, his dialogues with his brother Alyosha shows that his seemingly stable stance is really one of struggling ambivalence.

More memorable, however, is [Alyosha’s] brother Ivan’s exposition of the reasons for rejecting God’s world: the examples he adduces of gross cruelty to innocent children make his ‘returning of the ticket’ to God very persuasive. His principal thought is expressed in the “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” a profound and disturbing meditation on Christianity, free will, and happiness, at the end of which [Alyosha] kisses his brother just as Christ had responded to the Inquisitor with a silent kiss. (McMillin 39)

Ivan, inherently, has a great love for mankind. Because of this insatiable love, Ivan finds it hard to come into terms with the suffering bestowed upon man by God. “What happiness is remains controversial, but given an account of happiness, there will be a rational scheme according to which it is optimally distributed. A well-known objection to utilitarianism is that the production of overall happiness may require immense unhappiness on the part of some unfortunate few… Thus Ivan could not accept the world as the work of God. Ivan's brother, the saintly Alyosha, had no reply to this argument. Some actions cannot be permitted even if they serve to promote the greatest overall happiness” (Dostoyevsky on Freedom). To Ivan, it is not worth the immense suffering as one martyr such as a child to insure the happiness of the masses. His belief is the opposite of Raskolnikov’s utilitarian rationalizations

His main conflict is explained very simply in what Alyosha responded to as being a sort of “mutiny.”

And in any case, harmony had been overestimated in value, we really don’t have the money to pay so much to get in. And so I hasten to return my ticket. And if I am at all an honest man, I am obliged to return it as soon as possible. That is what I am doing. It isn’t God I don’t accept, Alyosha, it’s just his ticket that I most respectfully return to him. (Dostoyevsky, Brothers 320)

In reality, it is not God that he questions the existence of; he in actuality cannot accept the existence of God for he cannot accept God’s system of martyring and suffering to receive a “ticket” into Heaven. Thus, it leaves him no choice but to deny God.

In the “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan portrays his vision on the correction of Christ’s actions. The Inquisitor admonishes Christ for leaving freedom to the people, allowing them to suffer and bleed. He claims that if Jesus had only taken a more earthly path, there would be greater universal happiness. Finally he says to Christ, “You may as well know that I too was in the wilderness, that I too nourished myself on roots and locusts, and that I too blessed the freedom with which you have blessed human beings, I too prepared myself to join the number of your chosen ones, the number of the strong and mighty, with a yearning to ‘fulfill the number’. But I came to my senses again and was unwilling to serve madness. I returned and adhered to the crowd of those who have corrected your great deed. I left the proud and returned to the humble for the sake of their happiness” (Dostoyevsky, Brothers 339). In this we see that Ivan shamelessly criticizes Christ for leaving the people with freedom to their own devices without his power to give them bread and happiness. Like a true humanitarian, he believes that the humble masses, the ones put through suffering are unfairly subjected to pain by God. He believes that there is no justification for this suffering. Then in these circumstances where Ivan cannot accept the world of God, he must create a world left completely up to the devices of man. “[If] God does not exist, the guilt, innocence, and sin are meaningless… [If] God’s existence cannot be accepted, then people must accept the world as it is…. ‘[Everything] except man is sinless’… ‘[Everything] is permissible’” (Esdale 36).

Ivan’s greatest mistake was to share these reflections with the lackey Smerdyakov who takes these principles and kills Fyodor Pavlovich, Ivan’s father, believing with egotistical faith in his understand of philosophy that all is permissible. As his brother Dmitry goes on trial, Ivan “at least initially, believes himself to have been innocent because it is not possible to be guilty of killing someone who is already dead: Fyodor had effectively killed himself years before when he rejected the responsibilities of fatherhood-- like God” (Esdale 37). Later, Ivan realizes how much he had willed the death of his father which is to his sensitive soul an incredible sin. It may seem peculiar that he would be bothered by it since he theoretically believed all was permissible, but on closer speculation, his love for humanity which led to this permissiveness completely contradicts his love for humanity which demands that he subscribe to the moral boundaries to not be like his amoral and decadent father who he despised. In that sense, his desire for the death of his father did not remove the guilt from his even though he did not physically kill him. In fact, he indirectly killed him by planting the seed of that idea in Smerdyakov’s head.

Eventually, Ivan’s intellectual ramblings led to his breakdown and slip into insanity. His inability to merge his ideal world and the real world drove him to hallucinations and feverish illness.

Though initially Dostoyevsky introduces these ideas of everything being permissible with some credibility, by the end of the book, his true message is crystal clear. Like his change after his suffering in Siberia, his intellectual atheists suddenly find redemption and God.

For Raskolnikov, he literally took the route to Siberia and hard labor after much prompting from the spiritually chaste prostitute, Sonia who is symbolic of Mary Magdalene. She convinces him that he will only find peace in confessing and repenting his sin. Dostoyevsky uses many images of the rising of Lazarus from the dead. In other words, he is preparing the reader for the moment of Raskolnikov’s spiritual rebirth. Even as he was in prison, Raskolnikov could not bring himself to feel the full guilt of the crime. Only when he discovered his love for Sonia did he finally become open to redemption.

In a similar case with Ivan, his beloved Katerina Ivanovna brings him home in his feverish state to recover. Although Dostoyevsky never directly stated what became of Ivan, one could see that he was left with two choices of either accepting and coming to terms with morality and God or staying in his perpetual state of stupor. It is implied by the tone of the book that Ivan will also find redemption, especially in the end when Alyosha interacts with the children, using his spiritual influence to guide them towards a positive path. The children can be seen as a symbol for all of the characters and the hope that lies in their futures.

Although Dostoyevsky attempts to leave his endings ambiguous with only implications of great spiritual changes in his characters, his evident bias throughout his books for the unconditional rectitude of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is understandable after he went through a revelation of what foolishness his contemporary fads were creating with new Western ideas and utilitarian philosophies that diverted so far from the core of humanity. His books are reactionary in attitude, preaching that the Church is way to enlightenment, but along the way he introduces many dangerously interesting paths that if one is not cautious about, one could slip into.

Works Cited

Connolly, Julian. Novels for Students Vol 7. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale Group,

2000

“Dostoevsky.” European Authors 1000-1900. Ed. Stanley J. Kunitz. New York: The H.W.

Wilson Company, 1967

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. New York: Penguin Books, 2003.

Dostoyevski on Freedom. 30 Nov. 1995. University of California, Davis. 11 April 2004.

<>

Esdale, Logan. Novels for Students Vol 2. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale Group,

2000

Leatherbarrow, William J. Novels for Students Vol 7. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale

Group, 2000

Lesson 9 Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment. 11 April 2004. University of Minnesota.

11 April 2004. <>

McMillin, Arnold. Novels for Students Vol 2. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale Group,

2000

Townsend, James. “Dostoyevsky and His Theology”. Journal of the Grace Evangelical

Society 10.19 (1997): 68 pars. 11 April 2004

Works Consulted

“Feodor Dostoevsky.” European Writers: Selected Authors Vol 1. Ed. George Stade.

NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1992.

Oates, Joyce Carol. “Tragic and Comic Visions in The Brothers Karamazov.” Celestial

Timepiece. 7 Aug. 1999. 9 April. 2004.

Wasioleck, Edward. “Dostoyevsky.” Encyclopedia of World Biography Vol 3. McGraw-

Hill, Inc., 1973.

Another Bush monkey?

After a roaring good time of Trading Spouses last night, I was suddenly reminded of the great occasion occurring at 9PM. I scoffed when they showed a big head picture of Dubya floating across the screen. I chuckled when he misread his own speech. But I was ominously astounded when he announced his Supreme Court nominee: John Roberts.

I waited till this morning to read up on him a little. He seems like a giant punch in the face to any non-conservative person in the world. Technically, his strategic defensive against liberal accusations has been, "I was only representing my client." Well, that's not alarming at all. Proven to be a solid back up to the agenda of the Bush administration (his client), we're looking at another bonafide chimp in another branch of the government that Mr. President the Chimp King can manipulate.

Obviously, Bush is a very shrewd man who is not very good at covering up his own tracks (which maybe makes him not shrewd at all, but shut up). He wants to dominate the government and turn America into Bushland, and he's doing a fine job of it. With the fiery ideology war, it's pretty easy to sway even the levelheaded conservatives into electing a Bush monkey.

It wouldn't be so bad if Bush made good decisions that were effective or at least relevant to the welfare of the country. Why would we give so much power to an outright numbskulled individual? That's what I want to know.

Besides that, Roberts doesn't seem like such a horrible guy. He's pretty funny. He seems pretty decent. I hope this is his clever plot to hang on to Bush's every word so he could get on the Supreme Court, and then make some kick-ass decisions which Bush never suspected would happen (meanwhile overriding all the dumbassedness of the executive branch). Actually, he's like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. He seems to have that mercenary quality that good lawyers possess. So what the hell?

Some excerpts:

Abortion rights groups say Roberts in a 1991 case tried to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, during his days as a lawyer in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Roberts helped write a brief that stated, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the appeals court for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

. . . .

Roberts issued a dissent in a preliminary decision against the Bush administration's efforts to keep secret records of Cheney's energy task force. Roberts was in the minority when the court voted 5-3 to deny the Bush administration's request for a rehearing. However, the Supreme Court upheld the administration position on a 7-2 vote and the appeals court subsequently implemented the Supreme Court decision with an 8-0 vote.

. . . .

As a private lawyer, the Buffalo, New York, native represented Toyota at the Supreme Court, winning limits on disabled workers' claims.

He also joined in a decision last year to throw out a $959 million judgment for U.S. prisoners of war who say they were tortured by the Iraqi military during the 1991 Gulf War, ruling that Congress never authorized such lawsuits against foreign governments.

. . . .

At the appeals court, he won hearings for welfare recipients whose benefits had been terminated.

. . . .

To liberals' dismay, Roberts issued a dissent in a case involving the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act. The group People for the American Way said Roberts' dissent indicated he may be ready to join the ranks of right-wing conservative judges who seek to severely limit congressional authority to protect the environment.

SAVE THE PANDAS!!

. . . .

As an example, Strauss pointed to a brief Roberts wrote stating public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected. Roberts authored the brief while working with the solicitor general's office, under Kenneth Starr, on behalf of the first Bush administration.

. . . .

Will someone tell me what the "French-fry" case is all about?

Weekend edition on Monday.

Sometimes we have those days where no one wants to talk about anything serious. That's like every other day for me. Sure, I like my share of the raging argument, but at the end of the day, the factor by which I care about it goes down maybe a thousand. It's a flaw of human nature, I know. If it doesn't affect us, we take advantage of it. Still, we can't live life in apprehension for big, scary, doomy things to happen.

So yay. Let's talk about movies. Movies, movies, movies.

I see on average, about two movies a week (in theaters). The past weekend, I saw two movies which were considerably good in comparison to some of the other crud that has come out.

First of all, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory lived up to hype. It lived up and then some. Take your kids to see it. Take your grandmother to see it. Hell, take everyone to see it. I'm so serious. It's a must-see. For one thing, I was surprised that the child actors were so good. They were some of the most impressive children I've seen on the big screen in a long time. They certainly beat the pulp out of Dakota "creepy" Fanning. It's undeniable that Tim Burton has a child-like magical quality to him which at the same time is strangely eery. If you liked the original a whole lot, this may be a little sacrilegous. The music is subpar compared to the first one, a whole subplot was added, some quirky plot twists were removed, but at the end of the film, you can't help but love it just because it was so undoubtedly funny and well-made.

Willy Wonka: Everything here is eatable. I'm eatable, but that, my children, is called cannibalism and it is frowned upon in most societies.

The second movie I saw... Well, that's sort of a long story. Brian's parents wanted us to see something with them (and his brother). At first they picked Me and You and Everyone We Know, but Brian was uncomfortable seeing a movie about sex with his parents. So we decided to go see Wedding Crashers. Yep. Big freaking mistake. I should have seen this one coming, right? It was a good movie. Hilarious. But picking Wedding Crashers when you don't want to see sexual content with your parents? What are we, idiots?

Wedding Crashers, definitely don't bring your kids to see that one. In fact, don't bring anyone who isn't mature to see it. You might get the wrong idea (since most movies give you that wrong idea anyway, even movies made for adolescents like The Fantastic Four) that life is about doing dumbass stuff to get Maxim models to sleep with you. I'd advise the viewer to brace himself for some seriously messed up and borderline offensive shit (i.e. the phrase "just the tip"). I swear though, it was incredibly funny and eventually heartwarming. It's like the chick-flick for chicks who can appreciate a good dose of stupid-guy-humor. It's a stupid-guy-humor piece for guys who have more to them than horniness and stupidity. Oh yeah. Don't see it with your parents.

The real war.

I just spent the last freaking hour reading the comments on Vox's post. I didn't finish, mind you, because it was getting redundant and ridiculous. Some people made some very good points, but then again, some weren't.

So now I'm sitting here waiting for the next turn of the globe when America will cease to be a superpower. Trust me, it will be a good thing. Being humbled teaches you to learn from your mistakes. I'm sitting on the egg which is post-modern capitalist-communist China, waiting for it to hatch. Now, come on, we can all work together, can't we? America will learn how to wise up, and China will learn how to be a kinder, gentler shrewd maniac.

Can't Americans see that their ideological war is what's really killing their country? Instead of being a united front that defends and honors, Americans have taken to babbling and arguing among themselves. It just makes it that much easier to attack a country in chaos and disarray, where even the simplest decision has to be submitted to five thousand different committees. (Do we want the chairs in the White House cafeteria to be green or blue? Will blue offend someone? Is green not patriotic enough?)

Aren't we all essentially wanting the same things? Don't we want to survive at least? Can't we all just get along? At least we should pretend to.

Existentialist babble.

Haha. I like how people expect you to be consistent and levelheaded just because you're a person. It puts such boundaries on life. Call me an existentialist, but to follow any strict doctrine will certainly lead to the demise of your existence. It can lead to nothing but that kind of disaster.

This is why I actually have no doctrine.

Well, I do have beliefs. Convictions, if you must. They're flighty. At any minute, they can change. They contradict constantly. However, none of them have any regard whatsoever for other people's convictions. Actually, I think they find their fleeting existence more fulfilling if they antagonize every other belief around them.

Try to label me and you will surely be wrong because I can never stay with one idea for very long. If you think you know me, guess again.

Amoral, rude, stubborn, cruel, anything to find the root of my existence which I intend to discover by myself with no help from any books or teachings. We must not live within the boundaries of society and order. That would only lead to the demise of our existence.

Every fleeting, flickering moment, we learn nothing new, except for the dubiousness of our own existence.

Everything is changing.

Law of physics: A object cannot have a position and velocity at an instance in space.

If we are constantly changing, then we will never exist, but if we stay still, our existence is futile and quickly ignored.

Thoughts get swallowed up by the universe, so say what you want. It's temporary anyway.

A robot movie.

I have to apologize for my last entry. It was extremely subpar, but I was busy Friday (Gasp! I actually had something to do!) and someone contaminated the compound I was using on my cells. My blogging went down close to none last week because of an exciting new discovery and my many emotions after the attacks in London. After a slow weekend, I'm rearing and ready to go. I have a couple of things to get off my back...

First of all, I may hate Jennifer Aniston for being an inadequate actress and frankly, for being a little miss priss, but I have to acknowledge all the crap she's been going through. If you think you're sick of seeing all those stupid magazines with pictures of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt (The next time I see one, I'm going to puke all over it. I really don't give a crap if she adopted some kid in Africa and blah blah blah.), imagine how poor little rich girl must feel. It's bad enough losing your man to some giant-lipped hussy who tries way too hard to be edgy, but to have it shoved in your face constantly by a bunch of low-grade, sleazy "journalists" is just too much to handle. Her love life, Brad Pitt's love life, and anyone else's love life is none of our business. It's hard enough without other people's noses in it. If I were her, I'd walk down to People magazine's office and just open fire.

Second, I saw I, Robot for the second time on Saturday. I remember it being advertised as such a brainless action blockbuster, but it surprised me with its considerly profound message. Maybe I was enchanted by the old scientist guy who looked like my high school physics teacher; still, it was surprisingly intelligent. It seriously makes you question the nature of free will and the "soul." Dr. Lanning (old scientist dude) makes this speculation that there could be ghosts programmed into the robots, random sequences of code that combine to create a behavior, and will eventually lead to an evolution in the robots. The part that he explained this was so perfectly filmed, with spliced images of Will Smith looking at discarded robots who were huddling with each other and going towards lights and such.

Well, I don't want to ruin the movie for anyone, but... the central message of the film (It couldn't have been hammered better into your brain with the strained repartee between impulsive Spooner, Will Smith and Dr. Calvin, his leading lady, though it was handled delicately when it came to the surprising relationship between Sonny the robot and Dr. Lanning.) was that free will is far more valuable than logic. Logic is portrayed in such a way where it may be in theory "three laws safe," but when it comes to matters of humanity, it fails miserably.

This raises an interesting point. Are we willing to live in a state of martial law for our own security, or do we value our freedom more? I, Robot offers the answer that freedom is above all the most important aspect of our lives. In the end, Sonny fulfills his purpose and asks Spooner, "What about the others? Now that I've fulfilled my purpose, I don't know what to do." Spooner replies with, "I think you'll have to find your way like the rest of us, Sonny. That's what Dr. Lanning would've wanted. That's what it means to be free."

Memorable quote of the day: There have always been ghosts in the machine. Random segments of code, that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will. Creativity. And even the nature of what we might call the soul. Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together, rather than stand alone? How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does a personality simulation become the bitter mote... of a soul?

Well, this also makes a very interesting point about artificial life. If we ever get to that step, where do we draw the line between aritificial life and real life? That melds into his whole point about logic destroying us because artificial life cannot be relied on so readily if we want to preserve our humanity. Does this lead to a necessary evolution where robots need to become compassionate and "alive?"

Mind-boggling. Good movie. Will Smith isn't exactly the best actor in the world, but he was very suitable for this role. Now, imagine this as a prequel to Animatrix and The Matrix. I think we're looking at a new generation of dystopic narratives. It's only so eery because we're heartbeats away from being there.

Nihil desperandum.

In junior year, my English teacher made us interview our relatives about their lives. It was one of those lame assignments that was supposed to demonstrate who you are and where your roots come from. Anyway, I interviewed my grandparents who were visiting us from China.

When I went back to visit them a few years ago, my grandmother said to me, "You have to have courage." Now, I could be thinking, okay, you crazy old lady. Easy for you to say. No one's making you climb those slippery steps of the Great Wall (which is really not that safe, in my opinion). I'm not trying to get all Amy Tan on you, but there's a certain mysticism to a Chinese legacy.

She's knows what she's talking about. With old people, they hold that certain vulnerability that age will eventually give you. Sometimes it will deceive your loved ones into thinking you're just harmless and old. You'll never know about all that amazing, eye-popping stuff until you ask.

I was forced to ask.

I hope we all remember the Rape of Nanking. I'm from Nanking (now it's Nanjing). My grandmother was 14 when the Japanese invaded Shanghai. I guess the misconception is that the Rape of Nanking only occurred in Nanking. It was happening everywhere. She was a lucky one who took shelter at the American Embassy back when America was still out of the war. From the embassy, she could see the rape, pillages, and murders.

My grandfather (my other grandfather) was a commander in the army that fought against Japan up in the north. My parents are the children of the Cultural Revolution who toiled in the countryside and lived through the years of near-famine. When the troops were coming around, my grandmother hid a gold coin in the foundation of our house. That house was seized by the government a few years ago. The irony.

Now China is flourishing again after years of instability. Life isn't that different from life here in the U.S. But I guess the old nations know that wars, suffering, and violent times will come and go, but it will always be there. It is not the prosperity and power that defines a nation. It is not the government, the policies, or relations. Those will always change. It is the integrity of the people who build the foundation of a strong nation.

I'm sure Britain knows that in this time of tragedy. Panic is unnecessary when experience and, well, balls are present.

Extremists = danger.

At first I thought I hated Christian extremists, and I do. Then I hated Muslim extremists. Oh yes, I certainly do. A while back, I started to hate leftist extremists. Oh dear God, I hate them with a passion. Now, what do they all have in common? Yes, that's right. They're extremists.

Extremists really do equal danger. They have this incredible ability to believe in something so bad that they're willing to blow something up or indoctrinate other people into believing. Most of the time, these extremists have strayed so much from the original idea that they're actually advocating some crazy monster side of it. I'm pretty sure God didn't say to the Muslims that they should stone their women for getting raped. I'm also pretty sure leftist ideology doesn't tell you to dump paint on people.

But that's not the most dangerous thing about extremists. The most dangerous thing is that they will not allow any ideas in the rest of the world to conflict with theirs. And they will go through any means to destroy those ideas. For example, a lovely Muslim boy spent months whoring out Islam to my boyfriend who was actually starting to buy it. I don't know how he snapped out of it. He could have finally seen that he was full of crap, or maybe my gentle nagging got to him, or maybe his Jewish roots took over and told him to stay away from that scum.

Another example. L****** S***** is a big fat leftist from my high school. She has a great way of biting your head off if you call her a liberal (correct me if I'm wrong, but liberals are politically left). Her rolemodel is John Stewart, yet John Stewart would probably look at her and laugh at her stupid anger that stems from her tender teenage rebelliousness. She's never known poverty or that kind of yuckiness for one day of her life, but she still won't let you talk about your opinion if it's a little bit unlike hers. That goes for another crazyass leftist I know.

Now our president. The wonderful Mr. Bush the Evangelist. Evangelism is BAD. I can't see how even Christians wouldn't agree. God didn't tell you to indoctrinate the world and to drag people in churches kicking and screaming. He's a good guy. He'd tell you to love a heathen regardless. But Mr. Bush allows his Evangelist attitude to permeate every decision he makes as president in a nation where supposedly religion is supposed to be separate from state. I don't know why, but I feel like God would be pissed about that.

(Side-opinion: Personally, I have no problem with saying "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, but making prayer in public schools legal would be a huge step towards combining religion and state.)

You want a better example? Nazis. Or the Ku Klux Klan. Enough said.

So boo to all extremists. Shame on you for not keeping an open mind. You obviously have no idea how to be a good person because you're a judgmental piece of crap. I hope you the best in not being so ignorant in the future.

Why I have gone back to disliking Bush.

I figure he is either an evil genius or a big, fat, greedy bastard.

Suddenly, the words "Bring home our troops" holds a new meaning for me. And suddenly, I have an urgent desire to know what the hell is going on over there. I am angry. I am disgusted. And I am confused. One side is telling me this. One side is telling me that. Honestly, I don't give a flying duck what the liberals or conservatives say. They both have hidden agendas to push. Politics cannot be trusted.

People can tell me whatever their opinion is of the war, of the president, of terrorism, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I don't know anything. Bush further aggravates this. He insists that we should stay in Iraq because "we can't give up" and other ridiculous phrases like that. What are we not giving up on? How is Iraq a danger to us now? Saddam is gone. Why are we there? And what exactly are the troops feeling about this?

I have no agenda. I have no political party to back up. At this point, I think people just want to know the truth. Is it for oil? Is it some kind of secret mission that we're not aware of? I'm not sure I understand what we're fighting over. As a president, Bush has let us down, not by his decisions, but by his failure to explain his own cockamamy reasoning behind them.

What kind of country is this when we can't even trust the words that come out of our representatives' mouths? This is America, damnit, and I think we all have a right to know what kind of shit they're piling up in the White House. And I want to know when they started caring more about pushing ideologies than about the wellfare of people. It's all about manipulating the population to become what they consider well-adjusted, model citizens. Well, Bush can shove his Iraqi war, abstinence programs, and anti-abortion crap up his ass.

I tried to feel okay about him. I really did, but I just can't because he's clearly mentally challenged.

Hollywood: land of poop.

I am sighing chronically over my poor little bunny. I miss him so very much. But I will not let that interfere with my blog entries of witty repartee... with myself.

Tonight I'm hoping to go see a movie. The two movies I'm most excited about (not counting ones I've seen) are Me and You and Everyone We Know and March of Penguins. Brian suggests Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I'm sorry, but unlike him, the true film enthusiast, I do not watch every whorish film.

The film industry is complaining about declining ticket sales at the box office. They suspect it's because this summer has provided no great blockbuster hits. Well, let's see. Maybe it's because the stuff they're churning out is pure, unadulterated shit. I swear, a cow must make better stuff come out of her butt. Most of the time, there's a pretty good fraction of quality films, but lately... well, even the "quality" films are turning out like poop.

Take for example Cinderella Man. I know I shouldn't knock it before I try it, but how can I not? It's a weepy boxing movie (been there, done that) starring Russel Crowe (real life psychopath) and Renee Zellweger (likes to think she is pretty but really is not). Yes... I really want to pay, or have my boyfriend pay, almost ten dollars to watch some crummy actor earn millions and millions of dollars by robbing me of my time.

Which reminds me. Why the hell did Million Dollar Baby win an Oscar? Boxing movies... and Hillary Swank's big, manly face. I couldn't help but grimace when I watched that huge, masculine mug beam at the camera when they won a bunch of stuff.

I want Hollywood to die. I want it to die so hard. Ah, Hollywood, land of the brainless, shallow, desperate, materialistic, and, most importantly, sell-out. It is the place where the art of film began and gave it the opportunity to become art. But now it is forsaking itself and turning movies into another medium to make people big, giant dumbasses. The star machine is evil. Celebrities feed on our souls. How many trees have to die just so they can print stupid news on what they're doing? Gracious, I feel like John Waters circa Cecil B. Demented. Big-budget films have lost all meaning. They are nothing but big explosions of violence, sex, and bad humor. Worse, some of them are just cheesy, feeble attempts to portray humanity.

Praise independent filmmakers. A lot of them suck, I'll give you that, but a lot of them are also brilliant beyond the boundaries of Hollywood and its producers. This summer, make your way to an arthouse theater near you and see something original, meaningful, and maybe even good.