The Intellichaotic Ventures of Ms. Violet Li

Just because you're not there...

2005-08-31T16:22:00.000-05:00

While I'm sitting here in my cushy dorm room in my dorm accoutrements...

(I highly suspect that I live in the "minority" part of campus. I've never before seen such a big fraction of black people or Asian people in one place. The dorm section I live in the third, maybe second, worst section out of the five dorm sections. They couldn't put us in the worst because then there would be an outcry about how they're persecuting minority students. Oh, they're clever and subtle. This is a very race unfriendly school. Yep. And they wonder why all the Asian kids hang out with each other and no one else. I don't know... Maybe it has something to do with the obvious vibes of hostility.)

... there are really bad things happening in the world.

Goodbye, New Orleans. I never knew you though I always wanted to. Seemed so Tennessee Williams, and we all know Tennesee Williams was "interesting" in a Southern, gay, Vladmir Nabokov way. Hello, cholera and typhoid.

I blame global [annoying correction by someone] "climate change" again. The warm ocean is making hurricanes more severe even though Billy insists that hurricanes were severe before and will be again. That's true, but it's been a long time (more like never) since I've heard of this many "severe" hurricanes consecutively, plus that insane monsoon in India and tsunami in Southeast Asia.

You know, we never consider the nuances of problems like this until it directly affects us. Who knows. Maybe in ten years Boston and New York will be gone, underwater. Well, I suppose New Orleans was really a death trap in the first place considering how it's just a gigantic hole in the middle of the land, but undoubtedly, it's a shame.

Still, even if you want to deny global warming and such theories, there is no denying the hole in the ozone layer, unless you really believe that scientists are in on some sinister conspiracy. Just because we can't prove exactly how these climate changes are happening doesn't mean we should randomly fuck around with Earth. In fact, the unknown gives us a even bigger reason not to mess around.

A comeback in two ways.

2005-08-29T06:51:00.000-05:00

Good morning, blog.

I am once again in this big, giant, hellish Sodom, continuing to confirm my theory of: "If you don't go Ivy (or Ivy-esque) then don't go at all." More like... state universities suck ass because mediocre intelligence in pompous, trashy young people is not becoming.

I do not have hot water in my dorm. I pay more than I would have paid to go to MIT to live in this dump in a dump of a town. Of course, they have to charge us a zillion dollars to maintain their glorious little honors college so their wonderful little in-state honors students can go to school for two dollars. Literally, there is no financial aid here. Just ask my roommate who is having trouble making tuition.

Ah, but I'm a sophomore with junior standing who is finishing this year. One. More. Year. That is the only thing keeping me going.

I really prefer living at home with my animals and my healthy food which is not slop fit for pigs.

The American university system: another way they're cheating you of your dollar.

Detox.

2005-08-19T12:12:00.000-05:00

Today is my last day at the lab.

You'd think I'd be happy after all those months of working every single day like real people do. You'd think I'd be looking forward to my week of vacation before stupid, sucky school starts. Well, I am, but I'm also going to miss my lab so much. What am I going to do without my Brazilians?

All right. I'll cut to the chase. I'm going only vacation for a week from work/school as well as Blogger. It's a much needed break after our intellectual frollics through the forests of political, social, and silly issues. I'll tell you this, I really could use a break from such fucktards as jarek. Actually, he's the only fucktard. Hmmm... says a lot about him.

So I bid you all "see you later" with my illustration of jarek eating ice cream.

Expect me back around the 29th.

Here, kitty kitty kitty...

2005-08-19T11:38:00.000-05:00

I side with the tiger. What kind of dumbass sanctuary sells out their tiger by using it as a photo op? And what kind of dumbass girl would stand next to a tiger thinking she was perfectly safe? They had it coming. Poor tiger. He had to die because people are too dumb to realize that tigers are not housecats and definitely not toys.

Indiscriminate crap.

2005-08-18T13:00:00.000-05:00

China's far-western Xinjiang is home to minority Muslim Uighurs, some of whom have sought to establish an independent East Turkestan state. Human rights groups have criticized China for using the U.S.-led war on terror as a pretext for an indiscriminate crackdown on Uighurs.

I laugh because it's funny.

It's the one major thing China is doing right which all countries should take note of and emulate. East Turkestan state my ass. Okay. How many freaking states do they have already? Do you really want me to grab a map and check? I won't because it would be... oh, I don't know... a billion? And now they're trying to eat Israel. Nope. China won't stand for that shit.

If we don't crack down on them, they're just going to want to take over the whole damn world. Remember how Neville cracked down on Hitler before he could go crazy and invade all of Europe? Oh, whoops.

Too horrible to speak of.

2005-08-16T13:09:00.000-05:00

What kind of sick bastard would do this? What is the world coming to? Is there no common decency? Somebody save them.

Gomen nasai to the rest of Asia.

2005-08-16T08:44:00.000-05:00

Surprisingly, I have very few things to complain about today. I don't think I even know what's going on anymore. I went to a three day long wedding over the weekend, and I feel like exhaustion. Note to self: the only good reason to have a Jewish wedding is that people will carry you around on chairs.

Yesterday, I read about a rare feat which basically never happens: North and South Korea had a moment of harmony where they commemorated together the surrender of Japan that ended World War II. The surrender of Japan is a big thing in Asia. There are still anti-Japan sentiments that are widespread among the population. A famous movie/pop star once walked down the street in China wearing a Japanese flag on her shirt. Yep. She got feces thrown at her.

Understandable. Consider what Japan actually did to China, Korea, and various other parts of Asia. While Hitler was gallivanting about in Europe, targetting non-Aryans as he took over some countries, the Japanese were just indiscriminately killing and raping everything in sight. While Hitler was insane and crafty about his murdering, the Japanese were just doing it the old fashioned way.

They were these horrible, calculating people who were killing in cold blood until a couple of atomic bombs were dropped on them (What happened was horrible and cruel, something that no civilian deserved in the least bit, though it may have been necessary to win the war). Suddenly, they were humble. They wanted help from the West. They were willing to comply like good little victims who were just looking to rebuild and live in peace. And now they've taken on this pompous position as the most advanced and Western Asian country.

Should I be disgusted? Yes. To turn on your own people and become the lackey of some white nations is incredibly low. There should be peace, agreement, and constant communication between the East and the West always to ensure us a world which is diplomatic and cooperative, but to play off being some second-rate pseudo-Western nation is actually superior to all other countries who aren't doing that is just bad. Stop being European wannabes. It's not very attractive.

The preservation of culture as a whole has taken a giant blow with the onset of globalization. Japan had a beautiful heritage deeply rooted in Asian values. With this complete economic, social, and spiritual surrender to the West, Japan has mangled their own culture into something quite... weird. It is both a nation of extreme customs and a nation that worships the West. It's unsettling at best since it's now "Japan-ifying" Western ideas and selling it back in forms of ridiculous shows such as Iron Chef (love it), Extreme Elimination Challenge, and Bonzai.

Japan would do well to remember their place and pay some homage to their Asian brethren. After all, they are just a tiny island nation rapidly running out of land. If size matters for anything, most Asian countries could squash it like a bug. But we won't because essentially, I think we all have the intention to aim for a future where we can all work with each other like good little kindergarteners.

So Japan, perhaps taking the protests and bitter celebrations into consideration will do you some good. If we have truly made peace, then where is all this resentment coming from? As many Asian parents have said to their Americanized children with love and despair: You are Asian; don't forget where you come from.

A Eulogy for Eliza Beth in case you die

2005-08-12T15:24:00.000-05:00

It's Friday, and it's time for a fun post. Okay, maybe not fun, but definitely lazy. So here is a crazy poem:

A Eulogy for Eliza Beth in case you die

I once knew a girl who saw the neon blue bone
That delicately curves around the jaw line in my mind
And sharply presses against the cheeks.
Two iridescent cavities for eyes
And a cynical, smiling cage of teeth clenched behind sluggish lips.

I once knew a girl who dwelled in the back on my mind
In a mass, a clump of ancient poisonous plant,
A climbing ivy of some sort rooted in my spine,
Sipping away at my reason and shattered frenzy.

This girl once walked into the room in air of pedanticism
(Not yet sedanticism) with yellow hair near-tamed
And a innocently tie-died shirt exclaiming at me
(In my own language, nevertheless) Xi!
Double luck like at a wedding (How awkward).

This girl that I knew was the eternal fracturer
Perhaps instigator, provoker, stirrer-upper
Who held the twelve inch crowbar in her hand with the smug smile
Of one who knows too much
And brings it swings it down with an opening of the mouth
That releases fifty million pestilences.

We who are blind drop like flies amidst the din of darkness
Whilst you, Fracturer, perched like the scales of Justice
Holding a book in each hand.
Unlikely that Nabokov would be so kind as to explain
The differentiation between his mooding and moding
And explicable plotuous frantic frolics with pretty preadolescents
Which your fervid sense of smell smudges against the canvas.

What has your life become, Great Fracturer?
When the piteous states of words become the vivid ignorance of colors.
Luminosity is quite adverse when the world spins backwards,
Flips forward, rolls sideways, hops a few times on his head
And all while you gustatorily disdain their inhibitions
From your quite evident déjà vu.
Your tongue is shaped like a blade, your taste buds like feathers.

You are the magic eight ball with no regard for which way is up
And fifteen thousand facets on the pinpoint of a quill.
Broken dictionaries, crushed dried peppered fish, chicken cinnamon stick,
Clicking flash cameras instantaneous pictures, fifty four sleepovers and a hotel soap,
Soup in cat whiskers, infrared ink pens, triple bladed scissors pink cotton hearts,
Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal ...
Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal ...
Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal Trileptal ...

Reply to paraplegics: "Yeah, whatever."

2005-08-11T10:41:00.000-05:00

There has been a drought on the news front, at least on CNN, so I was forced to look under the entertainment section to find something juicy to read. I came up with this little bit. I saw the trailer for this a couple of months ago when I went to see Howl's Moving Castle, and instantly I was turned off.

"The only explanation is that people don't want to see something about handicapped people. There is some resistance," said Mark Urman, head of the theatrical division at the New York-based THINKFilm.

Yeah, Mark's right. I don't want to see Murderball because it's about handicapped people (I also don't like extreme sports because they're trying way too hard to be cool). It's not that I don't like paraplegics. I know a paraplegic. He's amazing. Some people are afraid of him because of how much power he yields with his presence. If lab work were gambling, he'd be a high roller. I just don't want to see a movie about them being "real people."

I'm sorry if I come off un-PC, but I don't care for films like that. The reason is, I don't think we need to have movies tell us that handicapped people are people, too. This sort of attention is further instilling in us, perhaps subconsciously, the idea that most people should and do think of paraplegics differently. In fact, we think of them so differently that we need an MTV movie to tell us that they're cool and they're just like "real human beings."

That's just a little ridiculous. I know paraplegics are ordinary people that have ordinary personalities. So why would I want to see a movie about regular people playing some sport I have no regard for?

And the fact that MTV is cool-ifying them makes it even more pathetic. Paraplegics are not cool. They're everyday people who suffered something horrible. There is nothing cool about losing your limbs. They've been through all sorts of horrible things. I'm aware that paraplegics can be cool if they so choose to be, so why do we have to cool-ify it? It cheapens them to some marketing scheme playing on people's guilt that they have legs and some people don't.

I don't know. Maybe some paraplegics think it's a good thing. If I were in a wheelchair, I'd probably be pretty pissed. Just because someone's in a wheelchair doesn't make him either a freak or a cool guy. When we finally truly reach the goal of the film, which is to show "people as people," then we will have no need for such films.

And that is why I don't want to see it.

The story of how I came to hate Republicans.

2005-08-10T13:09:00.000-05:00

There has been a general drought at The Court. This is where I admit I read Vox sometimes because he sometimes has something good to say. Most of the time, I'm there for the comments because half of them are so asinine that I have to laugh. But recently, Vox has just turned into one big giant ass.

Okay, okay. I take it back. I'm just sore because he defended Republicans, and I absolutely hate Republicans with a flaming passion.

Now, I understand Christian Libertarians aren't Republicans, but they are in no freaking way Democrats. And although I embrace Libertarianism, I don't think I embrace Christian Libertarianism because, well, I'm no Christian. But defending the disgusting Republican party is a little too much for me to take.

Let me tell you about a Republican roommate I had long, long ago last fall...

She was crazy.

That is the number one quality you have to focus on.

She wasn't stupid and she wasn't evil; she was just plain 100% insane to the bone.

A little about her background: She was one of those blue-blooded types who's family came off the damn Mayflower. Her father is one of those prominent Republicans (I think mostly because he was rich). She went to a snooty boarding school and claimed she could have gone to Hah-vard if she wanted. When her friends saw the Asian names on her roommate assignment sheet, they said to her, "Oh my God, *******. They're not going to speak English!" Because, you know, all people with foreign names don't know how to speak English. Our young Republican, avid supporter of Bush, hated Teresa Heinz Kerry because she had an accent.

Bizarre things she has said: "Guys, I wish we'd all, like, study together, like, at the same time, and go out together and stuff." Literally, she wanted us to do everything she was doing at every moment of the day. When she was in the room, everyone had to be perfectly silent so Princess could get her sleep. She woke up much earlier than us in the morning and made more loud, rude noises than an elephant.

She would constantly gripe about her father who has a kajillion kids by fifty thousand wives. He was a real hard-ass and also a real asshole. Her mom was a former beauty who now has faded and is in real denial about losing her youth.

She was not beyond blatantly stating stereoptypes about Asian people all the time even though me and my other roommate were both Asian. At one point-- well, let me tell the whole story.

There were three of us: me, Spawn of Republicans, and Good Roommate.

Good Roommate reads passage from sociology book.
Me: Yes, America tends to be more career focused than academically focused.
Spawn: When are you going back?
Me: What?
Spawn: If you hate it here so much, why don't you go back to China?
Good Roommate: She didn't say she hated it. She said it was career focused.

I have been in this country for more than thirteen years. No one has ever said that to me before. Well, I had never really met an ardent Republican before her, the crazy bitch. I was way too shocked to say anything. Now, I know white people don't want none of us here, but at least say that as a legitimate reply to some insult against America. That was not an insult. That was barely a statement.

So, in reply to Vox's post on Republicans: No, Republicans are not gay. No, they are not stupid. A lot of them may be Christians. They don't buy into the shallow glitz of Hollywood. But that does not make them good people. If the only reason to side with someone is because they blatantly show their evil bias in your favor, then you are one messed up SOB.

Some Democrats may be poor, but poverty builds the kind of character that fucked up rich kids will never have. Because of their struggles and strife, poor Democrats will sympathize with gays, minorities, and feminists, not because they're immoral and stupid, but because they have compassion, something pampered rich brats know very little about.

Of course, I think this party battle is pointless since the fatcats will always be manipulating the government every which way. It's just far more concealed than any tyrannical regime. However, they count on this divisiveness in the population so that the charade may go one.

New Link

2005-08-10T08:56:00.000-05:00

I have a new link up, which I think many people here could tear into. It appears my formerly good readership of about five or six has gone down to one. But one is still welcome to ferociously ravage this newcomer (she is rather green to the blogoshpere). Not in a mean way; in a good natured way which we are all so accustomed to. So, without further interruptions:

Mindless Prattle

So that's what it is.

2005-08-09T15:50:00.000-05:00

I just want to throw this out there. Wow. That explains a lot of things. I knew that some parents give their kids drinks, but that many? Personally, my mom offers me drinks once in a blue moon, if it's special, but that's because in China there's no drinking age and no binge drinking. (Plus, I'm a good kid.) You would think American parents would be aware that there's a huge drinking problem with teenagers. And you would think that would tip the off about not letting them drink...

One more energy bill, man...

2005-08-09T08:57:00.000-05:00

I was starting a new post yesterday. I swear I was. But I had to do a protein assay, and then I had to argue with American Airlines about my mileage on the phone for an hour. In the afternoon, I had not one, but two lab meetings. Yesterday was a busy day. However, compared with my weekend, it was pretty average. I spent my whole weekend with people from the lab, most of them foreigners (Brazil, Italy, Belgium...). Sometimes foreigners are really much, much nicer than Americans because Americans kind of look at you like, "Ew, Chinese girl. Do you even speak English?" They don't have that kind of arrogance because they're in a new place which they're all properly excited about.

My recent gripe has been this whole world climate changes thing. I mean, only Helen Keller wouldn't be able to see what's happening. Hmmmm... all in this year we had: giant tsunami, massive flooding in China and India, huge and premature hurricanes in the South, and unusual heat waves throughout the country. Okay, to some of you that just plain screams Apocalypse, but to me it screams global warming.

Yeah, I'm a greenie (not the chewy teeth-cleaning dog bone). I haven't realized my greenness until recently when I found myself so outraged by the administration's negligence of the environment. I don't see why anyone wouldn't be an environmentalist at heart. It's the only earth we have, and we have to live on it. Why isn't it a number one priority? Literally, it affects everyone. You'd think more people would care. Plus, I love animals.

So Bush wants to go through some wildlife reserves for more oil which will become fuel that depletes the ozone. Wow. There are so many things wrong with that one sentence. 1.) Kill some wildlife. Yay! 2.) Dig through their natural habitats to make sure they will never be able to survive there again. 3.) Let's destroy some more ozone so we can all die by severe weather changes.

His energy bill directly threatens a fishing spot in Boston Harbor which is a habitat for many different species. Okay, there are restrictions on fishing. Bush just wants to tear up everything to find a thimble of oil because, frankly, I don't think he cares about animals or anything except himself. I can just imagine what he's thinking... "Hey! Do you think there's oil inside pandas? Let's shoot them all and cut them open. If there's no oil, new panda skin coats for me."

I swear if he takes one step towards a panda, I will shove a shoe so far up his ass it'll come out the other end, while in the process, killing him. I am so fucking serious about pandas that I will chop off anyone's penis if he so much as lifts a finger against one.

In my opinion, fuck fast cars. All car companies should be working like little elves to build affordable alternative energy cars. I don't give a shit if it doesn't accelerate fast enough. I want to see all gas cars gone by 2010. Fucking save some whales, damnit.

I don't have to remind anyone, I'm sure. But earth is a delicately balanced ecosystem. Any minor change could make it explode at any minute.

Michael Bay's Chicken Little Complex

2005-08-03T10:50:00.000-05:00

I wrote this for the Karmaloop Blog which is supposed to be all hip and young:

Movies make us care about stuff, at least subconsciously. Didn't you have the urge to save some baby deer when Bambi's mom got shot? What about when Zach Braff in Garden State was all like, "Let me feel, Dad." Didn't you suddenly rise up just a centimeter against psychiatric drugs (not in a crazed Tom Cruise way)? At one point in life, didn't we all feel a little like Nemo with our ridiculed inadequacies?

So movies are powerful things, pretty much as powerful as books used to be. Without noticing it, they are gently nudging our brains towards forming opinions drawn from our cinematic experiences. This is why a war against Hollywood must be waged.

The epitome of Hollywood is the summer blockbuster, real popcorn-shoveling movies that pedal ideas with as much substance as Paris Hilton. But this summer's new explosion-happy blockbuster, The Island, is handled by our old friend Michael Bay, director of other classics like Bad Boys II and Pearl Harbor. In his semi-earnest attempt at an allegory in the tradition of such pieces as Brave New World and Gattaca, Bay presents to us a future where materialism (i.e. pathetic attempt at subtle product placement) and immorality runs rampant. In other words, a future where the sky is falling.

One reviewer, Kevin Carr, described Bay's film as "a beer commercial version of Logan’s Run for the lobotomized." Er, I couldn't disagree. Maybe if the lobes of your brain were not properly connected, you could appreciate the dazzling Calvin Klein-esque cinematography of each shot. Maybe if you were clinically insane, you could buy that the main characters survived falling off the side of a skyscraper. Maybe if you had seen Logan's Run, you would realize this is just a polished, Gen-X version of a smarter movie.

All that aside, what is Bay trying to pull? If anything, I'd think he were pushing his conservative agenda on viewers. (I have yet to discover his actual conservative background.) The message repeated with every unimaginative scene is: Cloning is bad. I have to admit he did not fail to display the humanity of "organ gardens" in his own elementary way, but he failed to provide any actual sound reason for his paranoia.

Cloning is a hot issue. Do I personally believe that Bay's future will be our own? No. Why? Because Bay made the situation too black and white. The world is not black and white. There is no way that we would ever reach that step where we would create exact copies of ourselves so we could kill them for immortality. Hell, immortality doesn't sound that great. Why would anyone want to live forever? Eventually, wouldn't it all get old?

Still, Bay's message has some relevancy to modern debate on the issue. The ethics behind cloning are completely unestablished. At what point does a clone stop being a copy, and become a sovereign human being? The question of religion will fall in. What right do we have to play God? Humanity has been considered sacred until now. And is this whole notion just paying homage to our arrogant belief that as superior beings in the animal kingdom, we have the right to all knowledge? Cloning must be pursued with caution and good sense. Undeniably, there is a creepy factor to it.

But as far as Bay's concerned, utopia is a Polyphonic Spree video where clones run rampant over the earth. This unrealistic solution, which is ridiculous as best, will make us think for when the time comes, what role, ultimately, will clonings play in our lives? And how will we define the ethics of the future when our ethics are so deeply rooted in a past that was completely unprepared for this.

Little capitalists in training.

2005-08-02T08:43:00.000-05:00

Excuse but, WHAT THE FUCK.

Back in my day, which was really a little more than a year ago, none of this shit was going down. But apparently, in Chelsea, they promote materialism in their disgusting spoiled, gift piggy brats.

Under a privately funded program, students will get up to $125 a year for perfect attendance all year, as long as they graduate. They have the chance to get up to $500 for a four-year string of zero absences.

I actually read about this maybe a week ago, but last night I was watching My Sweet Sixteen on MTV. MTV has this amazing allure. You're disgusted by it, but you can't stop watching. It's like a gruesome car crash. It's awful, but you have to stare at it. I'm sick of seeing America's homegrown spoiled little brats. They're quite simply pimples on society's ass. This dude spent $200,000 on his daughter's birthday party even though she's a stupid little bitch who has no respect for anything. Two hundred grand! That could feed ten families for a year! I'm sorry. I just want to puke all over her.

So that sort of brought back my anger.

This is fucking ridiculous right? In China you have to pay to go to school. You wish you could go to school for free. Hell, my parents paid lifeblood so I could go to my snooty Jewtown school. Do you know how high taxes are there?

These stupid kids who won't go to school. What little assholes. School should be its own damn reward. This whole policy is just making them more short-sighted. High school kids have no common sense! They are stupid! Stop perpetuating this image that money is the almighty ruler of the world! If they were smart, they would go to school because you need a fucking education to go to college and get a good job. Anyone who's not smart enough to know that shouldn't go to school and should just end up working at McDonald's until they die from not being able to survive on minimum wage.

We're trying to weed out the weak from the strong. The whole point of life is that you're affected by the choices you make. Offering kids this petty bribe is just telling them it's okay to be pigs. Hence, in the future, when they are confronted by a situation when their ethics are called to arms, they will choose the road more traveled by dumbasses who think it's okay to buy your way out of life. The saddest part is, our society glorifies the lack of good character. MTV tells us: "Be a brat and get everything you want! It's the cool way to live!"

I didn't get paid a cent to do anything. It is a privilege to go to school and do my duty to get an education. It's a privilege that my parents gave to me after years of hard work. Anyone who can't see it that way is just another pimple.

Sometimes you really have to hate Americans to love America.

A short.

2005-08-01T15:20:00.000-05:00

Mao was an idealist that went all fat and lazy.
He started out the classic revolutionary.
And then he discovered some equivalent to fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches.
He's like the Elvis of world politics.

A reply from Metro.

2005-07-29T15:05:00.000-05:00

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

2005-07-29T12:42:00.000-05:00

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

2005-07-27T08:48:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-25T14:56:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-22T15:06:00.000-05:00

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?

2005-07-20T09:23:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-18T13:01:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-15T14:21:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-14T09:27:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-11T08:49:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-08T13:43:00.001-05:00

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.

2005-07-06T10:35:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-05T15:05:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-07-01T12:33:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-06-30T12:39:00.000-05:00

I am taking a personal day away from blogger because of the unexpected death of my baby bunny.

My letter to Cynthia.

2005-06-29T11:16:00.000-05:00

Dear Cynthia,

I understand that American Apparel is an outcry against sweatshops and cheap labor. Even though this is a controversial subject in regards to globalization, I commend you on your company's good intentions. However, what really disappoints me as a consumer is your ads that appear in newspapers. I am specifically speaking of the ad in the June 28th edition of Metro, Boston's commuter newspaper. This ad was extremely large and eye-catching since it was on the back cover of the paper. While I sympathize with your need to sell your products, I don't agree with the way you are advertising it. The size and noticeability of the ad would not be offensive if it weren't for the fact that it was a huge picture of a girl in nothing but underwear.

A similar ad had been placed in a college newpaper with a girl looking provocatively at her audience. That's more reasonable because it was thrown in along with various "adult ads." The Metro has a different audience altogether. Most people who read it are commuters, middle-aged professionals who take the train from their suburban homes to their offices in the city. Do these people with kids and husbands or wives need to see this? Of course, everyone knows that sex sells, but why would you plaster half-naked women over a newspaper cover? It seems to me to be quite indecent. In our culture which subjects anyone who takes in media to oversexualization, you are only worsening the condition. By cheapening sex, you are cheapening an act of love and the individual as well.

The fact of the matter is, you don't need to resort to these sexual images to sell your products. I have seen your other ads online, and their nature is completely unnecessary. Your products speak for themselves. They are good, quality products that consumers would love to buy. I'm sure you have very good business, but consider how removing your explicit images would benefit you. There is a whole market out there that does not completely consist of "horny" young people. Perhaps if you accentuated what you stand for rather than tainting your good ethics with blatant sexual images, you will become a huge seller to families as well as the youth.

After all, not all young people in America want you to sell sex; I am one of those who would rather buy your product for what it is rather than what it suggests.

More on how American Apparel is a big, giant ass.

And... AA uses porn star.

Fine line between genius and serial killer.

2005-06-28T08:51:00.000-05:00

How much does this man look like Jack Nicholson? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a lot. Well, looks aren't the only thing they have in common. While Jack has played many a psycho, murderer, and psychotic murderer, Dennis Rader is all of those things. Yes, that Dennis Rader, the one who killed ten people in Wichita.

While many people may be horrified by the story (how he had sexual fantasies while stalking victims and all), I have to say, I was a little intrigued. It was like a subplot out of a Thomas Harris novel (Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon, Hannibal). And with all the media brainwashing I had been subjected to, I just had to check this out. So I clicked on the BTK slideshow timeline photo gallery thing-a-ma-bob. Okay, pictures of mediocre-looking people, some newspaper clippings, and BAM! I found this:

Now, is that crazy or what? I think there must be more to this poem, but it's certainly impressive as it is. That's some freaking art right there: the poem of a serial killer to his victim. He was waiting for her inside her apartment, but she never came home. Then he sent her this. That's just ridiculously, creepily romantic.

I hope this guy gets put away for life. He's obviously not resisting it. He knows what he deserves. I sure he'd even be fine with the death sentence. But... you have to ask yourself especially in our current culture of romanticizing violence, where do we draw the line between art and psycho-sickness? This man, the anti-hero, if he were in a novel, would we celebrate his character as that of mystery, bloodlust, and torture? Will we celebrate it years from now when he becomes little more than a myth?

Reality's pretty fucked up, but glazing it over with fiction and fantasy makes it quite eerily magical.

Heed the Wise Zoidberg

2005-06-27T09:12:00.000-05:00

I own volume four of Futurama thanks to a certain boy who probably has no concept of what a romantic gift would be. Well, it's still a good gift, and I'm glad I got it because something in the news last night reminded me of it.

I think we all heard that flag-burning has been outlawed in these United States. Honestly, I didn't give it much thought till last night when a news report said that several men were arrested for burning and ruining flags in a public area. Suddenly, it struck me how ridiculous it is that you can't burn a flag. (Those guys were probably arrested on account of the fact that it was public property also.) But what does that have to do with Futurama?

With the oncoming July 4th weekend, we should probably all give a little thought to what Freedom means. This question is the exact one addressed in episode 5.4 of Futurama, called A Taste of Freedom. This episode portrays Earth (the new America) and it's holiday Freedom Day (the new Independence Day). In a frenzy of excitement and celebration, our friendly alien, Dr. John Zoidberg, uncontrollably gobbles up a flag in front of a crowd (including president and etc.) at Washington D.C. Zoidberg is promptly sentenced to death.

In his defense, Old Man Waterfall (defense lawyer) makes a profound speech: No, you don't [He takes it off.] 'Cause I lost my real hand plantin' the flag when we took back Halley's Comet! Yet it was worth it. So much do I love that flag. [The court sobs.] I love it even more than I love my seven wives. That's right, I'm a polygamist. [The court boos.] Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestine as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin. If it would protect the freedom of the proud people who salute that flag! [The court cheers.] Freedom such as polygamy. [The court boos.] I rest my case. [He puts his hand back on. His leg falls off.] Oh, jeez!

What ensues is a world of pain when Decapod 10 (Zoidy's planet) takes over Earth and enslaves all the people. Zoidberg: Deny my freedom will you? Well we'll do to you what we did the the Squash Men of the Squash Planet! Squish them!

At the end, Zoidberg saves Earth by lighting a flag on fire to distract heat-seeking missiles. Zoidberg: Wait, people of Earth listen. Yes I'm desecrating a flag - to preserve the freedom it represents! Finally, Nixon grants him the right to eat the flag whenever he wants.

Now, come on, wasn't that a great lesson that TV taught us? The freedom that the American flag represents, which we are trying to preserve by passing this law, is the exact freedom that is at jeopardy when this law was passed. I admit burning the flag is disrespectful and perhaps in poor taste, but the symbol of it is beautiful because it shows that America truly is a land governed by its people with the freedom of expression. Sure, tons of people died for this country, but they didn't die for a piece of fabric; they died to uphold all the principles that this country stand for. Mostly, freedom.

What is this nation without the sacred right to flag-burn? A step closer to communist China? So the next time you see a flag flying high and proud, hope that one day we will once again be able to see it in flames.

(Sidenote: Freedom of expression in China, at least in the form of ridiculing the government, has significantly improved since the early 90's. General mockery is acceptable. By acceptable, I mean you won't get arrested for having a restaurant show based on the premise.)

Mimi.

2005-06-24T15:30:00.000-05:00

This is my kitty in a sink.

I am testing that new image upload thing that Blogger is touting.

Anti-Cruisian comments.

2005-06-24T08:45:00.000-05:00

I don't even know how to approach this. Is a giant asteroid about to destroy the earth? When did everything become so bizarre? While the Supreme Court decision is ripping through the other blogs, I think we should take a little time out and realize that Tom Cruise has gone insane.

I was casually flipping through the channels this morning when I paused on NBC. There Tom Cruise was, looking all disheveled with bags under his eyes, and yelling in a crazed fashion at Matt Lauer. Apparently, this little interview went horribly awry when Lauer asked Cruise about the whole Scientology/antidepressants/Brooke Shields thing. Cruise flipped out and started acting like he was a big giant expert on psychiatry. Plus the fact, he looked like he was seriously high on something. Maybe those "vitamins" he's so keen on talking about.

Yes... Tom Cruise is a studied expert on psychiatry... And I was voted Strawberry Princess on Buttercream Island.

Personally, I think some psychological drugs would do Cruise some good. If the "discussion" had gotten any further, he probably would have lunged at Lauer, causing the stage crew to shoot tranquilizers to heavily sedate the raging lunatic.

Don't do Scientology, kids. You don't want to end up like Tom Cruise.

Chuck Norris should lend me a gun.

2005-06-23T11:58:00.000-05:00

Last night I had this horrible shooting pain behind my left ear (which I still have today). I always get this before a cold because viruses tend to infect my nervous system first and then the usual symptoms. Instead of going out, I decided to sit on the couch and see if anything worth watching was on TV. Luckily, it was King of Queens/Yes, Dear Wednesday (tonight is King of the Hill Thursday on FX). Who doesn't like Yes, Dear. They had Chuck Norris Walker Texas Ranger on it. And when is Chuck Norris not funny?

Now, that episode of Yes, Dear (with Jimmy going to his high school reunion to relive his days as 'coolest guy') got me thinking. I think I will hate my high school reunion. In fact, I don't think I'll go. I ask my boyfriend, who was sitting next to me, if he'd go. Of course he'd go! Everyone loved him in high school! He was the proverbial harmless, nice guy who did stupid stuff to make people laugh. Voted class clown. The yearbook picture... Well, that's another story for another time. I hate him.

Meanwhile, I seriously considered high school to be unnecessary drama. Looking back, who the hell cares who said what about who and all that crap. I mean, some people were really bad at getting caught up in all the diplomacy of appearing to be nice, but really being a bitch behind everyone's back. I have to admit, at the beginning of my high school career, I was a dumbass.

Towards the end, I kind of became outspoken, sarcastic, and (eh-hem) not very unconfrontational. While most people were busy pretending to like each other, I was pretty open with my hatred. Plus, I only knew the smart kids since I was only in the smart-kid classes, which meant most of them were snooty, insecure, nerdy, or Asian. My post on 'mean boys' was dedicated to the many "unpopular" boys of my classes. Really, they were quite stupid.

If I were to go to my reunion, I'm afraid I'd open fire on the bunch. At senior prom, I got up on a table and started cursing at the whole damn room because my camera went "missing." (The bastard got scared and left it under a table. What a moron. Totally could have gotten away with it.) It wouldn't matter what I would have accomplished. I could win the freaking Nobel Prize and no one would care that much. After all, we're all supposed to be high achievers due to our wits or connections to the upper-class (mostly connections since bunches of the little white kids were cheaters).

I don't think I'll even mention the lewd boys and the things they said. At least they were ridiculously gullible to the point of amusement.

High school is a sty. You are forced to make contact with all the people you hate, and there's nothing you can do about it.

In that sense, college is a little better because you don't have be around idiots. You can just shut yourself up in your room forever.

I must want to be a doctor because...

2005-06-22T13:05:00.000-05:00

I'm so excited about this article!

Do you understand the ramifications of such a discovery?

The big bell is being rung! Is this the cure for cancer that we have been searching for?

Somehow, I find it doubtful that it can be this good and this effective. But the fact that this discovery exists gives me so much hope.

And to think, it all happened at Penn State. Stupid Penn State. The whole time I was there I thought it was so worthless. They're greatest previous discovery was how to freeze ice cream with alcohol and sound. That got them a deal with Ben & Jerry's. It's all so clear now... That's the reason why the stores there only sell Ben & Jerry's.

It wasn't Harvard. It wasn't MIT. It was Penn State. The irony. While I was lamenting over turning down MIT... Penn State was curing cancer.

In Penn State's article, they said:

Though previous [studies] have investigated the cancer-targeting potential of AAV2, none allowed the AAV2 to remain in culture long enough to see the effect that Meyers and his team observed.

Hmmm. I can just see it now. Some lazy Penn State student left it in the dish too long and ingenuously came up with the finding. Typical, no?

A cat, obstetrics, and the Japanese.

2005-06-22T11:28:00.000-05:00

I think I'm going to shoot myself.

Apparently, there are exactly zero certified MD obstetricians in the Greater Boston Area that can speak Japanese. If you are an obstetrician in the Greater Boston Area and you can speak Japanese, then please hide, because if I ever find out about you, I'm going to grab you and shake you while I scream, "WHY? WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL ME YOU EXISTED?"

I have spent the last two days looking for this non-existent doctor for: my boyfriend's father's employee's little Japanese wife who is pregnant and has some sort of weird medical condition. Being pregnant and small, she wanted to go back to Japan and have the baby. Hah! Double hah! Every Asian person knows that you should always go to America to have babies so the baby can have citizenship, and maybe so could Mommy. Only a fool would have a baby in not-America when that can be avoided.

I settled for a Japanese-speaking certified nurse midwife in a health center in Roxbury. She worked in Japan as a midwife. How hot am I. It took me two days, but I did it. I found the answer to their little Japanese prayers.

And there you have it: another little piece of Asian culture.

Blog etiquette.

2005-06-21T14:29:00.000-05:00

Ew. I started writing an entry about some [crap], and it was turning out really meaningless, so I stopped. I don't want to write meaninglessly because that would be beneath me as a headstrong and opinionated person.

Honestly, I don't know what to blog about.

Maybe I'll blog about how this one person on VQ's blog won't believe that AIDS is caused by HIV. Yes, there is actually a person who doesn't believe AIDS is the result of a serious case of HIV viral infection. I'm going to quote myself because I'm too lazy to write it again.

HIV, a virus, gives you a condition that makes apoptosis occur in your T4-helper cells which are essential to every immuno-response. The virus penetrates these cells and lies dormant in the DNA until it becomes active. Then it begins to replicate itself inside the cell, using the cell's resources. When there are enough, apoptosis occurs, and all the viruses are released. Being HIV+ means that your body has created antibodies to attack the virus (though with futility), and that you tested positive for these antibodies. AIDS is when there are so few (~200) T4-cells, since the virus killed them, that you are in serious danger if any sort of infection occurs in your body.

I don't know. Maybe a shot in the dark, but that's what I picked up at college. It sounds pretty convincing, doesn't it? And they do tons of research based on this.

What really gets my goat (and has gotten my goat multiple times) is the symbolic Chupacabra from Hell: the blog debater. The blog debater is a person who goes to blogs where blogmasters talk about real serious stuff in big, smart words, and then they try and bring in some idea or other with more big, not always smart, words.

Excuse me if I'm blind, but when that little link says comments, it doesn't say: Have a serious debate here! Test your best debating skills! Debate with people who take themselves too seriously!

Quite honestly, I have no respect for a good debate. I'd be like the Alan Shore (reference?) of little Chinese girl lawyers if I were a lawyer. Debates are stupid. The real world is not a debate. No one gives a crap about presenting ideas in a clear and inoffensive manner. Hey, if CNN can't do it, why should I learn how to?

Now, I know Steele gave me an A on that rebuttal paper because I was crystal when it came to refuting that opinion piece, but I chose a stupid one on purpose because obviously I'm not going to be so objective on something I care about. You would need to seriously discipline me to get me to "debate" in a civilized fashion. Like whips and all that.

So blog debaters, I understand your need to voice your opinions like you're a grown-up and your need to be treated like you're at afternoon tea with the governor, but blogs are not afternoon tea with the governor. It's pretty much free territory. Would it really hurt your pride that much to take a few punches and laugh it off? No. It builds character. I promise.

That is why I like Billy D. He is funny and he makes a point. Definitely the best VQ-er. Lookin' sharp there, D.

The insanity continues.

Do you know how hard it is to find a decent goat graphic these days? Sheesh.

Philanthropy.

2005-06-20T08:57:00.000-05:00

Damn it. I keep pressing back on this page for some reason, and I end up losing all my posts! I could go off in a string of obscenities, but that would be a further waste of my time.

Now I have to start over.

Pre-post message to the readers:

Dear Readers,

I would like to express my gratitude for your existence. How a silly girl like me got anyone to bat an eye is truly a wonder. It would be nice to continue being gracious and eloquent, but that is really not my strong suit, I believe.

Please enjoy yourselves, and don't have a hernia.

Today, I'm going to talk about something uplifting and positive. Ooooohhh. What the hell is going on, right? Well, this was all brought upon by a certain boyfriend who took me to a certain house on Popponesset Island (in Cape Cod). What kind of people have houses in Cape Cod, on an island nonetheless? Rich people. And what do rich people talk about? Their rich exploits. In this case, their rich exploits in Alaska, Puerto Rico, Greece, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah. Don't get me wrong (I hate it when people get me wrong, hah), they're nice people, and I certainly do love them for it. But we all have to admit, the generations get more and more messed up as you go along. If your mommy and daddy are rich, you get to have everything, and everything doesn't seem like all that much. (He dares to tell me ski camp is exactly like normal camp. Except you're at Mt. Hood and skiing!)

They have no idea, do they? When I was little, I wasn't busy being bored by the spectacular view of Alaskan landscapes, or having fun sliding down mountains. I was scrounging up free food at those church festival things, and wearing hand-me-downs from almost everyone we knew. Yeah, we were blind, freaking in the dark poor.

I'm just going to plunge right in: I'm not exactly what you call a people person. Actually, I'm the irksome type who gets annoyed by everything. Certainly, I am not outgoing or friendly most of the time. In fact, I try to avoid eye contact as much as possible. To strangers, I must be like a real raging bitch. Hey, I'd rather be a raging bitch than one of those falsely nice people who only act so nice because they're fake piles of shit (i.e. a lot of people who wear those ugly i.d. bracelets).

Still, I try to hold the door. I try to say thank you. I try to be polite and courteous.

But that's not what philanthropy's all about. Don't confuse them. You can be a selfish-ass person who is polite and outgoing as hell. Trust me. I had to live with one for a few months.

Call me old-fashioned. Call me an idealist. Call me a socialist for all I care. But I think every damned kid deserves to go to Greece. I don't give a crap if he's rich or poor, he deserves to go to Greece and Puerto Rico and Japan and the moon. He deserves to have the opportunity to make something out of himself, to learn about other people, to try and connect to this horrible human breeding ground we call Earth.

And most privileged kids will never understand that they're family vacations and worry-free spending is not a God-given right.

So when I become fortunate in the financial way, (which I plan to be because I want to be a kick-ass doctor and all) I'm going to not give my kids everything they want. Maybe the world's not fair, but kids are not going to be some kind of spoon-fed, soft-skinned wimps who have no idea how to succeed as a human being. In our day and age, there's no such thing as the self-made man. I almost wish I could be poor just to show them how hard life is and how lucky they are, but I'm not crazy. No one wants to be poor.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that the best way (not the only way) to be a philanthropist is to make sure your kids don't become assholes. Assholes are easy to produce. They're like accidents or defaults, really. It must be a lot of work...

Random appreciation moment: My boyfriend's mommy is great because of her generosity. It is the most vast and deeply felt generosity I have ever encountered. Let us all bask in its glory and learn something from it.

Minority.

2005-06-17T15:29:00.000-05:00

After being accused of being a moral parasite, I have to say I feel pretty damn good. I've never been called anything so... threatening before. You know, parasites cause real damage, and they can even kill the organism they breed on. I'm usually such a small, unintimidating girl, but online I can make people angry! Yeah!

I'm starting to think that the only people who read my blog are Christian libertarians because of what carried over from Vox Popoli to The Court of the Virgin Queen to me, and, well, as you can see, I'm completely not at all a Christian libertarian. This is weird because I feel like I'm trapped in a very small part of the world where only Christian libertarians live.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone's cool as long as they have a sense of humor. But I find that a lot of people don't, and that's disturbing because modern American Culture is all about humor. Then again, who cares about culture.

So if you read my blog and you haven't read VQ's or Vox's, it would be nice if you left me a little message to let me know. (I don't expect anyone, really.)

Another, to pass the time.

2005-06-16T14:17:00.000-05:00

Two posts in one day! Wow-whee!

Two more hours to kill, my friends.

I write imflammatory comments, yet I'm afraid to inflame. What kind of cowardly instigator am I? Should I have a disclaimer? Okay.

Disclaimer: Everything I write is actually full of shit. There's no point in being offended by it. It's like talking to hear yourself talk. I'm writing to see text on a page.

After a decent thirty seconds of soul searching, I have come to this conclusion: Since it takes so much to draw out a response from people, I feel it's necessary to be obnoxious and offensive. It's like a jump-start for your brain. Maybe if I'm awful enough, I'll get you to think about something passionately. And that would be boatloads of fun.

Speaking of fun, this lovely doggy-woggy is going to be in court soon. Should I let that speak for itself, or should I ridicule it for a few minutes? Ridicule it is. The Boston Globe can be quoted: "In an age when courts hear too many of life's grim tales, Murphy's story brought some badly needed chuckles that resonated nationwide." Yes, because courts are places where chuckles belong. Screw court; let's just bring the whole procession to a circus. While we're at it, let's move funerals aways from cemeteries and bring them to circuses, too. Hell, dogs can be the pallbearers. That would be a good laugh.

Jesus is my what?

2005-06-16T12:35:00.000-05:00

The fact of the matter is that I have four hours to kill because my stock of cells got contaminated (not by me), and now I have nothing to do experiments with. I have to wait till next week for the cells to grow and split and grow. The scientific world, as always, is running like clockwork. Every day I feel a little closer to explaining the inexplicable nature of life even though my results from Tuesday were really weird.

Now I am desperately seeking some simple information on anisomycin that could possibly help me. That is not going so well, or maybe too well. And since no one reads this anyway, I think I'll tell you why I think Christian people are so creepy.

I don't think all Christian people are creepy. The secular ones aren't so bad, just like secular Jews are cool. But then you have the hardcore go-to-church-every-Sunday types who strictly follow some kind of prescribed morals. They freak the hell out of me (no pun intended). I mean, come on, religion should be an obligation that no one wants to act upon willingly, or at least without a bout of complaints. Sure, you can love God all you want, but God's more like a teacher; you do as much work or get in as much trouble as you know you can get away with without being yelled at, suspended, or, ultimately, expelled (to Hell). Sometimes, you do something wrong, and the teacher gets mad, but she'll forgive you because you're just a stupid kid. A normal kid would be as described. Only the creepy little annoying suck-ups fawn over the teacher and do extra homework. Those are the ones who are tattle-tales and apple-polishers. Derogatory.

I have Christian friends. A lot of church-ish people helped my family back when we were literally destitute. Christians are nice peoples... when they want to be.

Then again, there are those crazy Christian people who want to impose some sort of weird morals on the world like we should all be happy drones who never do wrong. Of course, we should all accept Jesus Christ as our savior for such and such reasons. I saw The Passion of Christ. Please, no need to shout. I get it. You love him because he did all this stuff to save your souls. Okay, but I don't think my soul needs saving. I don't want to be given props for being a good person; I want to be given props for doing well on a test, for baking awesome brownies, for brushing the cat, but not because I'm making the right decisions in regards to morality. Right or wrong, I don't need some book to tell me what's the right way to act. As for gay marriage, go for it. Marry a couch for all I care. There's no integrity to a word. A word is fabricated. Make it anything you want it to be.

What's the deal with not wanting to find out how the world work? What have you people got against science? I don't see you complaining about science when it's all going around curing your diseases. But as soon as one atom bomb drops or something, you denounce it. Hey, you win some, you lose some. If you're going to whine about stem cell research and how science is messing with your morals, then get off the penicillin and walk off your own damn infections. Who needs cancer treatment when you have God? No need for an abortion because God stopped you from having premarital sex. Yes... that is so realistic.

And it's a little offensive. I don't think my people took it so well when you tried to convert us. How do you expect to get along with the rest of the world when you're all about your God? We, the heathens, don't take it well when you call us heathens and look down on us. Let's just keep religion out of our diplomatic dealings.

Really, there's a need for some sort of eternal hope in the afterlife and in a greater being. God's nice and all, but please stop smoking the Bible to get high off Christian morals. Look, here's the deal: When the chemotherapy and double mastectomy fail, then you can turn to God as your last resort. I seriously would not advise prayer as treatment for cancer. Seriously.

Lance, you've created a monster.

2005-06-14T09:23:00.000-05:00

If you happen to be one of the altruistic supporters of Lance Armstrong's cancer bracelet campaign thingy, you're a dumbass. Well, aren't you shocked and insulted. How dare I say that after you forked over a buck for an ugly bracelet that supposedly shows how charitable and supportive you are of stuff like cancer, troops, and "freedom." I don't know how to tell you this, but you're not a good person. You're on some freaky power trip that is so prone to manifest itself among young, white liberals (who are often blond and wear American Eagle) because they think they have some sort of good intention to change the world.

And you are. You are changing the world. You're making it worse by wasting electricity and water, by drinking and driving, by flaunting your stomach fat in your midriftless shirts, and especially by imposing those hideous bracelets into our lives. If you think you're actually solving "the problem" by wearing some stupid bracelet with the word "respect" on it, you are sadly misled. Because you are the problem. And you're not solving it in any way ever.

But the thing is, you really have no intention to sacrifice yourself for anyone else's well-being. Those damn bracelets are more for aesthetic value than for anything else (which proves the bad taste of the AE-wearers). Look, since you really don't care about a lot of stuff like respect and cancer, don't pretend like you do. Please, just be honest and get rid of those ugly-ass bracelets. You're not fooling anyone.

Thank you.

The plight of the blind boater.

2005-06-13T09:10:00.000-05:00

I have learned something very important this weekend: We have to seriously start rallying for the rights of blind boaters everywhere. After years of movements to eliminate the discrimination of people based on their physical disabilities, I am surprised -- no, shocked and appalled that no one has yet spoken up for the everyday blind boater.

Various other physically decapacitated boaters have been spoken for, such as this deaf boater, who ironically takes a cruel stab at those who are visually challenged. The ability to see clearly does not jeopardize a person's ability to skillfully operate a vehicle. Frankly, his blindness makes his other senses keener, and his intuition for suitable for the complex sport of boating. Sure, many of you may argue that a blind man cannot see where he is going and will eventually crash into a boat or hurt someone. I have the solution.

Two entries ago, I discussed the acute intelligence of the average dolphin. Clearly, they are far more intelligent than a dog, so why not train a new breed of seeing eye dolphins? This would represent a tremendous milestone in the struggle for blind boater's rights. Furthermore, these hooligan dolphins will finally be gainfully employed like model citizens should be.

Next stop: Teaching seeing eye dogs how to drive.

Shanghai: Shangri-la?

2005-06-08T08:43:00.000-05:00

A year ago this time, I was in China sweating it out in the horrible, horrible humidity. And now, as I sit here typing away to you who is not reading, I am melting just a little bit even under all this air conditioning. Really, China isn't half as bad compared to this. Even if it were thirty-eight degrees Celsius and the air were as wet as a lake, the food was good and the general free-for-all feel of city was (ironically?) liberating. But of course, perhaps you would object to my personal Utopia. After all, you could seriously eat a big dog there guiltlessly. (By the way, I've been to that place in the picture. And yes, it is everything it's cracked up to be.)

So why am I sitting here making desperate plugs for China? Seriously, I have nothing better to do. I was going to talk about Arrested Development, but my segue was probably something you would completely not care about (not that I suppose you really care about anything).

You're probably thinking, how can a country where people eat dogs be remotely great? That's exactly why it's so great: because you can eat dogs. You can do lots of stuff beside eating dogs. You can pick your nose in public. You can bargain in department stores. You can eat buns hot off the steamer. You can buy a purebred puppy or kitten for twenty bucks. You can buy a DVD for one buck. What a land of freedom. If you have the cash, go crazy. Go nuts. Do whatever you want.

And even better. All the landscapes and scenery, it's everything you can hope for and more. Much, much more. That kind of ancient mysticism, you can neither buy nor produce from a meer two and half hundred years of history.

China: Land that retains its history and culture? Yes (unlike Japan that totally sold out). Land that is crazy competitive and capitalistic? Pretty much. Land that has the best food ever, and you haven't lived till you've had it? Definitely (I bet even dog tastes pretty damn good).

You want me to talk about the communist regime? Too bad.

What the hell, Douglas Adams?

2005-06-07T07:47:00.000-05:00

I saw Hitchhiker's a while ago. Not that I'm a huge nerd or anything (really, aren't I just), but I can admit that I was fairly excited about the film's release. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't exactly struck by the book. Frankly, (throw tomatoes at me if you will) I found it incredibly dull, lacking substance, and riding shamelessly on the coattails of quirk. I was purely amazed by the some of the visual effects displayed by the trailer.

What I think sums up the movie very well is a quote by a certain boyfriend's brother: "It was like a children's movie, but at the same time I can't imagine any child liking it." Targetting an audience is possibly the most important thing in the universe, rhetoric professor insists.

Sadly, the best part of the movie is the beginning when the narrator narrates that dolphins are the second smartest animals on Earth. Then a cute little fish song ensues (see "So Long & Thanks for all the Fish"). So my question is: What the hell, Douglas Adams? Did you foresee this happening? Did you know about this from the beginning, and kept it from us all this time?

Of course, we all know what I'm talking about (probably unlikely). Dolphins have been discovered using tools! (Eery, since the day before yesterday, I made a comment about dolphins being able to use tools if chimps can.) Anyway, this delightful discovery has revealed the cutest tool-using technique in the history of the world. Apparently, adult dolphins teach their young to cover their snouts with conical sponges for protection while they forage. All together now: awwwwwwwwww.

First the wholphin, and now this? Dolphins are just the most precious little bastards.

Mean boys.

2005-06-06T08:09:00.000-05:00

It's not hard to believe that Tina Fey dedicated a short-of-genius script to the nuances of teenage girl-ism. After all, we all have to admit, girls are (for lack of a more suitable word): bitches. If you fail to see this, you are either a hermit with no TV, or a German sausage. We were all once in high school (even worse, middle school) and we remember the ongoing rage of war that proceeded throughout our pseudo-dramatic, soapy peers. "(Insert slutty girl's name) totally hooked up with (insert stupid girl's name) boyfriend last night. She is such a slut." Yeah. Blah blah... blah blah. That's all well and good, but come to think of it, guys are quite the little gossip-mongering, catty Barbie dolls as well. Of course, by different standards.

So, as I have pondered this mysterious condition for many a day now, I have come to a few conclusions:

1. Spawn of Alfred Adler: Boys, men, young men, naturally, all fear being inferior, i.e. inferiority complex. The general overcompensation they resort to when feeling threatened is to attack the object of their fear, and to smuther it until it can no longer pose a threat. Since this can't be done physically like in the jungle, boys from a young age learn to destroy someone socially- especially when the threat is a female.

2. A Murder of Crows: Birds of a feather flock together. If a boy puts himself in a position to be pointed out as different, he may soon find himself to be ousted by his murder, leaving him vulnerable and alone. The easiest way to achieve social acceptance is to shift the target from himself to another prey. Other boys will gladly join in the derision since they also deeply fear an ousting.

3. Nice Guys Finish Last: A double crossing nature will get you far. If a guy is sneaky enough, he can both prey on an object and copy homework from him at the same time. This is considered a valued social skill which many find elusive. The popularity of the tactic, however, is brought about often by the stupidity of the prey.

4. Too Dumb to Mate: Members of a murder are often unaware of the unappealing façade of such a close-knit (maybe to the point of suspected homosexuality) group. Thus, we see an unlikelihood in the development of intimate relations where the murder tends to flock and hunt. However, when each member is dissected from his group and group-related fears, his disposition may prove to be favorable to a few females.

And there you have it. After being corralled like cattle into close, confined spaces with my peers, all I have to say is: I blame the schools.

My very own spot in the cytoplasm

2005-06-03T14:05:00.000-05:00

Dear everybody,

I'm sure any blind person could see the huge disparity in date between my last entry and this one. Must a girl explain her life away? Well, come on now. Can't I be a writer, a girlfriend, a daughter, and a research intern? And why is it that the second time around, Erica Jong sounds downright gullible? (Forgive me, Erica Jong.) Those are the infinite questions of the universe.

Speaking of the universe, I'm playing G-O-D in my very own little microcosm here. I am Lord of all RMS-13 cells! I shall smite thee who betrays me! Flee, young microbes, and fear my antibiotics! But rest safe, fresh RMS-13 cells, for I shall protect thee from evil midget armies of bacteria.

I apologize, sincerely. I'm a little delirious from working in the laboratory of the world reknowned Dr. P. Reed Larsen. Yeah, that's right. He's like the Tom Cruise of endocrine research. You wish you were me.

And this entails?

[Removed for reasons such as not wanting anyone to steal my research.]

Moral to the story: Support stem cell research unless you're ready to bow to the Germans and North Koreans!

Yay God.

You use it to make beer!

2005-05-04T00:22:00.000-05:00

I am thoroughly struck by Cameron Diaz and her army of chimps as they trek through rainforests in the name of "environmentalism." Okay, so what if I stole this story from The Daily Show. It was far too amusing to pass on. If you look at her face, the stupidity is written all across it, the dumbfounded look fully glazed across her eyes. And this is what actually semi-legitimate leftists agendas have come down to: complete exploitation by pop culture to sell to my generation's lazy, extravagant, and inconsequential attitude.

To quote USA Today (as pointed out by Lewis Black):
[Kid] Rock, Diaz says, initially scoffed at their talk about the importance of clean waterways. "He was like, 'I don't need any water.' We were like, 'You need water to make beer!' He was like, 'Oh, my God!'"

And I was like, "He totally bathes in beer when he's not shooting rats at the dumpster."

On Eva Mendes:
"She couldn't get up (alone) in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom because she was afraid she'd run into a spider. She can't even SEE a spider," Diaz says.

Yes, and every time I see an HIV retrovirus I run and scream, "OH MY GOD! KILL IT! KILL IT!"

"I don't think that kids know that the world's available to them," Diaz says. She hopes Trippin' will get them to follow some grumpy-dad-type advice about saving electricity and other resources.

Wow, because I was pretty sure that the show was about watching famous people looking stupid as they wander aimlessly through third world countries. Then again, how else are you going to sell environmentalism? Death threats seem a little extreme. But you have to wonder if Diaz really buys into that. My guess is that she does since that's what MTV told her tiny brain, but the profits can't hurt either.

Being a "Scrub"

2005-05-03T19:49:00.000-05:00

It is Tuesday night once again. I have just aced my organic chemistry final. One more exam to worry about: electromagnetism. Speaking of electromagnetism, back to Tuesday night primetime television. Where is Scrubs? Where is it, I demand! Some network bastards have replaced it with a very special Law & Order crossover. So, I settle for Sex and the City, where Carrie the Moron (a story for another day) snarkily refers to Mikhail Baryshnikov as "The Russian."

Despite the little entertainment faux pas, I still highly prefer Scrubs to Sex and the City. The magic of it all is the novelty of a doctor sitcom. I believe the last doctor sitcom was Doogie Howser, an artifact, really. My recent search of doc shows revealed a list by The Student Doctor Network which, by the way, did not include Scrubs. Let's look at the list, shall we?

ER (NBC)
Old school doctor show. The classic and the most successful, perhaps even the most realistic, but does little to give me optimism. Plus, Noah Wyle got so old and disheveled looking.

Strong Medicine (Lifetime)
See last post.

Doc (PAX)
Who watches PAX? I'm not even sure I know what PAX is. The Christian network?

Nip/Tuck (FX)
If this is about doctors, then Sex and the City is about journalism. Also another topic for another day.

The Residents (Discovery Health)
Resident Life (Discovery/TLC)
Trauma - Life in the ER (Discovery Health)
Kingdom Hospital (NBC?)
Critical Hour (Discovery Health)
All of the above: What?

Dr 90210 (E!)
The Real World version of Nip Tuck. It's more of a makeover show than anything else.

Doogie Howser
I have no idea. Quite honestly, it's before my time.

Chicago Hope
USC Medical
Super Surgery
Add to the list of What?

Where's General Hospital (not that I've seen it)?

Although I know Scrubs is extremely unrealistic, it gives me some hope for the future when I will being doing grueling studies and sleeping minimally. Why can't doctorism really be like Zach Braff playing practical jokes? Because being a doctor is serious, serious work. Maybe that's why doctor shows are so seldom funny or fun. However, TV doesn't fail to point out the circus which is law (see James Spader, a.k.a. Alan Shore).

Others: Grey's Anatomy, House. Medicine is sexy?

Take my advice: Scrubs is the only way we will ever remove our ingrained fear of sterile needles, germy waiting rooms, and death. Perhaps then my future won't look so grim.

And to end like Carrie "Bad-Writer" Bradshaw: Should I end my piece with a stupid question now?

Lifetime: Television for idiots.

2005-05-03T11:35:00.000-05:00

One evening as I was leaving my house, my mom stopped me and said, "Be careful. There are some bad people out there. I just saw this movie where this girl..." blah blah blah. I came to the realization of what she was talking about. "Mom, were you watching Lifetime?" Don't get me wrong; my mom is incredibly insightful and shrewd about most things, but when it comes to American culture, she's still one foot in China.

Ah, Lifetime, how almost-persuasive you are. If you didn't know, Lifetime is advertised as "television for women." They're a champion in bad TV movies usually starring obsolete actresses like tall girl from Saved by the Bell and Chandler's mom. But what their advertising slogan isn't telling you is their strong social message. That is why I am here today: to clarify the complex nuances of Lifetime.

The many tenets of Lifetime:

1. Women are always being kidnapped, raped, molested, stalked, killed, assaulted, and victimized, but they maintain their dewy, fresh beauty and silky, styled hair.

2. Women, when not being kidnapped, raped, molested, stalked, killed, assaulted, and victimized, are hustling money from rich, old bastards and sleeping with their young, stupid sons.

3. Teenage girls are always popping out babies like clockwork.

4. Using the same soundtrack over and over is NOT a crime of cinema.

5. Correction: TV movies are NOT legitimate forms of cinema; therefore, it is permissible to use the same soundtrack over and over.

6. All actresses will eventually be desperate enough to star in a TV movie.

7. Men are scary, and we should all be scared of them because they will kidnap, rape, molest, stalk, kill, assault, and victimize.

8. Cable television will show any crap.

9. It is not desperate to repeatedly show The Nanny and The Golden Girls over and over, hoping for some sort of ratings.

10. It is not desperate to air a new reality show that has nothing to do with women, hoping for some ratings.

Tune in to New Movie Mondays where you will see more of the tenets of Lifetime.

Gourmet babies.

2005-05-02T17:59:00.000-05:00

I visited Vox Popoli's blog a couple of days ago, and I was delighted to find a virtual playground for hyper-conservative kids with tribalistic hostility and extended vocabularies (Vox, on the other hand, is pretty decent). It's funny; I'm 18, and they're like 40. What exactly would you think of a situation where middle-aged, Jesus-loving, coots are ganging up on my opinions? I couldn't expect more attention or criticism if I were the president. It's quite flattering knowing that people are paying attention to my comments and coming to my blog to make fun of me. Then again, I'm not the one that looks like an asshole. They must be very threatened by un-conservative tides. Poor fools, unwilling to come to terms with the fact that it's okay to laugh at babies being eaten.

I have to admit: I googled "eat babies," and the image retrieved was this. I don't know about you, but this says to me eating babies is about the equivalent to fuzzy, white kittens. Well, what's so wrong with eating babies? The idea isn't even that novel. Jonathon Swift's A Modest Proposal makes some very excellent arguments: there is an overpopulation problem, babies make good food, and they taste delicious. If we ship thousands of unwanted babies to third world countries where people are dying from malnutrition, I'm sure some sort of solution could be worked out. Why don't they eat their own babies, you ask? Well, since they suffer from malnourishment, their babies can't be that meaty. They need some good, hearty babies born from America's zaftig teen mothers (the ones that end up being irresponsible and neglecting the chubby little guys, who end up becoming petty criminals from bad neighborhoods).

In fact, America is shockingly behind in the field of eating babies. As you can see here, the Chinese have been eating babies for years. Does America want to be labeled as a barbaric nation for not keeping up with current trends in gourmet cooking? No. Call your Congressman today, and demand your right to babies.

Yes, this was meant to offend everyone. Or whatever.

Blast from the past.

2005-05-01T19:00:00.000-05:00

The new Doublemint commercial happens to be an old Doublemint commercial. This is obviously shameless reminis-ploitation. Really, it reminds us of simpler times with two-seater bikes and headbands. But does the gum taste any better? I remember it as tasting like rubber after five minutes. Perhaps Doublemint needs a makeover to demonstrate an improvement in taste and texture.

On the other hand, Old Spice chooses to entice us no longer with stinky, old fishermen. Instead, they caught up with the new trend to flaunt some girl parts at the camera. It's probably a desperate ploy to keep up with the scandalous Tag and Axe commercials often featuring "bad" behavior. And it works. That commercial sticks in my memory, and it reminds me of how I like Old Spice. Sure, the girl is gross, but it gets the job done.

Do the ends justify the means?

Homer can't relate.

2005-05-01T13:01:00.000-05:00

It's refreshing to actually venture outside of a liberal college culture and see some real opinions out there that are not deeply rooted in Full House.

So I have discovered most of the world is dumbassed. It's delightful how no matter what your opinions are, you can express them in such a fashion that makes you an asshole. I want to know what happened to pleasant nonchalance. When did people start caring so much about the rest of the world? As far as I'm concerned, whatever works for me is fine. Spreading my ideology is the least of my worries.

That brings me to the whole concept of extremists. I hate them. To have such strong convictions is a very dangerous thing. We should learn from the present state of The Simpsons, with its new stream of non-sequitor plotlines, that maintaining one strategy of attack for anything will lead you to desperately seek relevance in the future. Hence the exaggerated attempts at post-modern comedy. Extremists have an inability to see clearly because they're too caught up "believing" in stuff. Evolution, man. You have to keep up to survive. Values are fleeting, but survival is crucial for, well, survival.

Right-wing misogynists are so funny. Cute little bastards.

Jesus is a pervert?

2005-04-30T20:13:00.000-05:00

Because VQ sent me this a week ago. I find myself a little shocked at this earthly, fleshy portrayal of your divine Christ.

This got me thinking: What kind of guy was this Jesus? Humor me. Look at this in a secular perspective. What kind of a person could get thousands of people to believe he's the son of God? Furthermore, how convincing did he have to be to be such a threat? Quite amazing. He must have been some sort of presence. Some sort of sexy presence.

Or are these flaming holywomen just experiencing Christly paraphilia?

TV is evil.

2005-04-30T17:32:00.000-05:00

I'm absolutely livid with rage at the superfluously stylistic film, Alfie, starring a very weak-spirited and big-faced Jude Law. Personally, I can't see the irresistibility of his Jude Law-iness, but I can see how that sparkling portrayal of a glamorous New york life is eroding the very fabric of humanity.

It never occurred to me as a child that I could grow up and become a professional philandering slacker (and thank God because, quite frankly, that would be horribly empty). It's evil TV like this that indoctrinates us with the notion that being a lazy bastard pays off with flashy nightclubs and steamy bar sex. Really, I'd like to believe that most people can distinguish between well-molded hedonistic images and real life, but we come from an age of corn-fed, plumply pampered, lazy children who live off the fruit of their parents. Not working is the norm. College, for most people, is synonymous with wasting a huge load of money to drink and get herpes. And the real world, how cushy will that be?

Civilization with our advanced forms of decadence is spawning a generation of social tumors.

Now, Seriously

2005-04-30T14:34:00.000-05:00

How do you maximize the taking-serious-ness of your blog? Does the template matter? Does the font?

I'm almost positive content is the quintessential staple of it all, but let's not be hasty here. Obviously, we can't deny how much influence visuals have on the psyche. Green is too relaxed, no? Grassy meadows, limeade on a hot day.

However, now I must take a quest into the fascinating world of organic chemistry.