Wet Hot American Adam

What do Obama and Gob Bluth Have in Common?

2010-02-18T21:51:00.000-05:00

During season two of Arrested Development, Gob Bluth begins “courting” a woman many years his senior, Lucille Austero. Following an awkward meal at their country club, the following dialogue occurs:

Lucille Austero: Today at lunch, you were ashamed to be with me.

Gob Bluth: No. I was ashamed to be seen with you. I like being with you.

I would imagine if you replaced “Lucille Austero” with “Dalai Lama,” and “Gob Bluth” with “President Obama,” you would get a fairly accurate picture of today’s meeting at the White House. It’s true that Obama met with the Daila Lama today, but he did so in an auxiliary room to the Oval Office. In addition, no press was allowed to cover the event, nor take pictures (although the White House later released a picture of their own).

Today’s events seem to be a microcosm of the Obama Administration thus far, full of compromised stances and weak values. In a recent interview, Obama said that he would “rather be a great one-term President than a mediocre two-term President.” If he continues along this trajectory, though, he’ll end up being a mediocre one-term President.

No President, or for that matter any prominent figure or leader, has risen to greatness by espousing a litany of half-hearted objectives. Further, Obama’s program of Radical Noncommitment is just tinder for the even-worse Republicans sitting across the aisle. They know now that Obama will not flex his political muscle past the point of exertion, and so they just wait him out.

Until Obama starts taking some pride in his beliefs, sticking to them, and seeing the through, he is destined to be like that kid in high school who tried so hard to get everyone to like him that in the end, no one liked him. Obama needs a Leo McGarry, not a Josh Lyman’s real-life inspiration, to get Obama to take some risks, pass some effective legislation, and “Let Obama Be Obama.”

[Note: I would still vote for Obama again over any of the ass-clowns on the other side of the aisle.]

Blog 2.0

2009-11-01T10:39:00.004-05:00

I realize I haven't updated this blog much. While I'd like to believe I will in the near future, I've also taken up a different line. My new blog, "Because The Onion Isn't Hiring," kicks off with this week with the article Ousted Leader Brett Favre Denied Re-entry Into Territory of Packers Clan.

Why I Hate Fireworks

2009-07-04T16:06:00.002-04:00

"And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,..." - "Star Spangled Banner"

Each 4th of July, at dusk, we crane our necks skyward, and oo and ahh at the pyrotechnic marvels above. And they are indeed marvelous and fantastic. But fireworks, in their essence, are nothing more than glorified explosions. The "bombs bursting in air" in the Star Spangled Banner killed people; lots of people.

Without sounding too much like the Grinch Who Stole Christmas, I think it's important to remember today what it is we're watching and recollecting. When Francis Scott Key penned his famous words, it was only after numerous casualties and sacrafices. Countries, not only America, are founded through violence, which then becomes myth, which is then glorified.

So when watching those burst of light and color tonight, have a Bud, sit back, and enjoy yourself. But while fireworks are beautiful, I think it's important to keep in mind that there are still myriad places in the world where a flash of bright light a deafening boom and explosion are not comforting or beautiful stimuli.

2008: The Year We Became Our Grandparents

2008-12-28T14:36:00.002-05:00

It's kind of weird knowing I've lived through a year that will be referenced by historians for ages. While 2008 will be remembered as the beginning of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, it could also be aptly titled "The 2nd Worst Year of the Bush Administration," being runner-up only to 2001.

I wholeheartedly agree with Larry Cohen, in his idea that 2008 is the year we tried to forget, just looking forard to 2009.

For me, though, 2008 is the year I became my grandparents, or at least began to understand them more fully. I understand their generation much better now, in 2 important ways:

Employment: I never thought that I would be so grateful for "only" having a job. I knew I'd be grateful when I got the job I wanted, but simply having employment was meaningless. Having a job was, for me and many like me, the logical result of having earned a college degree. There was nothing remarkable about this, it was a simple if/then statement: If I have a college degree, then I will have a job. There was nothing to be thankful for, since there was nothing extraordinary about it. For the past few months at work though, at least a couple of times a day, someone will say, "At least we have a job." This refrain usually comes as we're all complaining about our workload, and while we still complain just as much, that one sentence quickly puts our pithy plights into perspective.

Charity: I've always given nominal donations to charity out of societal obligation; it's the thing we're supposed to do. A big part of my apathy was that I truly felt I could not identify with those to whom I was giving. They were different, and we had nothing in common. Was this shallow? Yes. But I can't change the way I felt. Today, as financial institutions crumble, and investments can disintegrate into the digital zeros and ones by which they're buttressed, anyone and everyone can lose their entire savings overnight. "Cash equivalents" suddenly become pieces of paper; "fixed income" investments are suddenly more volatile than junk bonds.

I wish I could wrap this up by saying something optimistic like "We've had to suffer a lot, but we're better off for it." To quote Gladiator, "Is Rome worth one good man's life?" Is there no way for us to see our own shortcomings without so much suffering? Worse yet, even if we become more fiscally responsible and charitable, history is working against us: If history continues to repeat itself, doesn't that just mean we'll be the same fiscally irresponsible, apathetic society 80 years from now?

On Popcorn

2008-10-12T20:41:00.002-04:00

Have you ever taken the time to fully appreciate a single kernel of popped corn? The popped corn kernel is, I believe, a significant step in man's innate desire to express and simultaneously control chaos. It is Freud’s Eros and Thanatos, expressed in a perfect Hegelian synthesis. In so many ways, it is the culmination of a litany of mankind’s goals. And yet, it is usually eaten in a dark theatre, suffocated, stilted, and emasculated by the greasiness of the ultimate misnomer, a “topping,” butter, which might more aptly be called a “bottoming.”

Each piece of popcorn is an explosion, an ultimate act of expression and rebellion. And yet, each of these is stopped at its apex, and frozen forever in time, like a lion shot mid-pounce, then stuffed and placed behind a glass display in a museum. Each piece is like a miniature supernova, or a miniaturized miniature Big Bang, stopped in the process, en route to greatness. The potential within a kernel is limitless; in fact, the potential energy within one kernel is equal to that of a nuclear bomb (Alas, most of that energy would be lost in any sort of conversion). But man has taken that potential, and stifled it, capturing it at its most effusive and ebullient moment.

In a way, one must sympathize for the kernel. In that one ecstatic moment of emancipation, the detonation is halted and plugged up, never to become what it could have become.

Each time we pick up another piece of popcorn, a feeling of anthropocentricism should pass through us, as man has once again trumped nature. I’m sure the designer of the Hoover Dam felt a similar pride when he walked past his concrete behemoth.

It is also for this reason that the unpopped kernels at the bottom of the bag are such a disappointment. Forget that they are nearly inedible, without incurring a hefty dental bill as a result of their mastication. No, it is their unrealized potential that is so devastating. They are like a brilliant artist who is too afraid to take a shot at greatness, and instead elects for the comfort of a desk job. Is the artist and corn safe in its metaphorical and literal kernel, never to be noticed, only to be ignored and discarded? Of course. But they will also never achieve the brilliance so easily within their grasp.

Orville Redenbacher, that Harriet Tubman of corn, once said, “Every once in a while, someone will mail me a single popcorn kernel that didn't pop. I'll get out a fresh kernel, tape it to a piece of paper and mail it back to them.” An excessive amount of energy, you might say. But the disappointment of unrealized potential, especially in something as exhilarating as popcorn, has no monetary equivalent. Then again, the man also experimented with over 10,000 types of hybrids to produce his Gourmet Popping Corn.

This statistic makes one wonder what the other 9,999 kernels produced. Some were obviously too restrained, and produced a spark where a firework was sought. But were some also too bold, too expressive for our puritanical society to handle? Did Redenbacher create popcorn the size of a tennis ball, but fearing Icarusian consequences, abandon this quest and reverse course?

Popcorn, no doubt, is dangerous to any sort of institution that derives its power from control. One can only imagine the kind of anarchy that would erupt if every citizen possessed the ability to turn a kernel of corn into a volleyball-sized starchy explosion. Redenbacher’s commercials started appearing on TV in the early 1970s. The proximity of this event to the Summer of Love, Woodstock, and the general counterculture movement cannot be overlooked. While popcorn hit puberty during the Great Depression, it seems it finally came of age during the hippie revolution. Just as young people were liberating themselves, through freedom of expression in music, literature, clothing etc., the corn kernel was doing the exact same thing with its suppressed starchy interior.

There really is no succinct, “and therefore” to wrap this up. If Tom Robbins can introduce a novel with a similar tome to beets, maybe this isn’t a bad beginning to my own thoughts on religion, politics, art and life. Stay tuned, kids.

On Atlas Shrugging and Financial Bailing Out

2008-10-02T00:49:00.001-04:00

More than any other book I have ever read, Atlas Shrugged has had the most profound impact on my thoughts concerning religion, politics, economics, and mankind in general. After reading Atlas Shrugged, there is simply no way one can ever look at the world the same way again. One sees Rand’s Objectivism in every political sound bite, in every business deal, and in the underlying motivations of almost every interaction.

Driving home this evening, I listened to some of the sound bites from the Senate debate on the Financial Bailout Plan. All of the polticians were pandering to the average idiot, deriding unfettered greed, and the evil institution that is Wall Street. However, one quote stuck out from all of the rest. In his speech supporting the bill, John McCain said, “If we fail to act, the gears of our economy will grind to a halt.” This is, of course, an innocuous quote at first glance.

But then all of the pieces of the puzzle started to fall in place…

The basic theme of Atlas Shrugged is that John Galt, the enigmatic main character, is fed up with the current economic/political system, since it has become too bogged down in socialism. As a result, the desire to turn a profit has become a sin, and innovation consistently goes unrewarded. As Rand describes this dilemma, “Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.” In Atlas Shrugged, rather than perpetuating the current system by continuing to be productive, Galt declares that he will “stop the motor of the world.”

“Big deal,” you may say. A book written in 1957 contains a vague idea similar to a vague quote uttered by a politician 49 years later. I’m sure this is not an unprecedented, earth-shattering event. But wait, it gets far more uncanny:

Who, hypothetically, laid the groundwork for the current economic crisis? It is easy to blame the current Administration; and indeed, they are probably not blameless. But still, administrations come and go, and don’t always have the power to make economic changes impactful enough to effect change during their own tenure. Rather, huge crises require years of “planning,” and are the culmination of long-term policy. And who has been steering the titan that is the Federal Reserve for the past 20 years (1987 – 2006, to be more specific)? Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan was not just any economist, who would describe himself as something as simple as “conservative” or “liberal.” Rather, Greenspan was an out-and-out Objectivist, and was one of Ayn Rand’s closest confidants. He was part of the inner circle that got to read Atlas Shrugged as it was being written, and wrote articles for many Objectivist newsletters. He even contributed essays to Rand’s book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

During his tenure, many Objectivists criticized Greenspan for not being Objectivist enough, and abandoning the Objectivist ideals of which he claimed to be such a strong proponent. But what if Greenspan was doing just the opposite? Instead of simply pushing individual policies that reflected the ideals of Objectivism, what if Greenspan was doing something much much bigger? What if Greenspan was slowly moving all of his dominoes into place, getting ready to topple the system with one fell swoop? Once the first domino is tipped, years of planning fall into place.

Now, I completely realize how ludicrous this might sound at first glance. However, Greenspan was not a man of shortsighted views, nor a casual Objectivist. He ushered the US economy though many difficult periods, including the 1987 stock market crash, and stewarded the economy through the “dot-com bubble.” Why then, only a year after he left office, would the economy suddenly start to go into a tailspin? It could be argued that the new Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was unable to steer the ship that Greenspan had captained so adroitly. However, the causes of the current financial crisis have roots that go back much further than Bernanke’s brief tenure. The crisis is not due to one or two bad decisions, but rather a series of policies put in place over an extended period of time.

There was only one man who has had his hands in the national economy during the past 4 Presidential Administrations. This man also happens to have been privy to the development of a book/philosophy that espouses the dismantling of the global economy as the necessary conclusion to a corrupt political/economic system. Now, I suppose it could all be a huge coincidence, but the new and unbelievable is often initially dismissed as just that.

On the other hand, perhaps Greenspan just saw the world as it is, and instead of pandering to the whims and needs of those desperately seeking approval (and re-election), he chose to live up to the highest ideals he knows. As Rand says in her own summation of Objectivism, “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

[The author fully acknowledges the glibness of the current version of this post, and is working on collecting actual “facts” and “figures” to support his views.]

The "Grand" Opening of Obama's Utah Headquarters

2008-08-23T20:08:00.003-04:00

Driving home from work on Friday, I was incredibly excited to hear that the Grand Opening of the Obama headquarters would be held on Saturday afternoon. Feeling (naively it turned out) that Obama's 50-state initiative was real, and that he would be making just as hard a push in Utah as Pennsylvania, I promptly entered the occasion into my Blackberry, moving back all of the things I actually needed to do that day.

As I approached the headquarters Saturday afternoon, I became excited by the big crowds and news camera milling about. By the time I actually got into the headquarters, however, the veil started to lift, and the complete bedlam and plain lack of funding began to set in.

In regards to the state and age of the building, it is due either to the aforementioned lack of funding, or the extreme cleverness of the Obama campaign. My first thought as I toured the headquarters was, "This place seems like it hasn't been updated or renovated since the Kennedy administration.” Now, in 1960, Utah did favor Eisenhower by only 9.6%, so maybe this is a tactical move. However, I'm pretty sure the antediluvian feel was not exactly intentional. On top of this, the building was small and the event was, overall, poorly organized.

Unfortunately, this afternoon was more a harsh reminder of just how hollow the rhetoric of politicians can be, rather than the inspiring and catalytic event it could have been. While Obama's "50-state strategy" sounds great, I'm guessing the purpose is more to impress voters in swing states, than actually increase his chances in die-hard red states. After all, by having a 50-state strategy, a Pennsylvanian will project the effort in Pennsylvania 50 times over, since this is the only mental image the Pennsylvanian has of the campaign.

I suppose none of this is earth shattering, or mountain moving. Rather, it was an apt reminder of my favorite phrase from 4 years of high school Latin, "Facta non verba," deeds not words.

Man, Animal and Progress

2008-08-05T22:11:00.005-04:00

I don't think I've ever written a post that is response to a comment. However, I would like to refute Yoni's comment on my previous post.

Firstly, nowhere to I imply that I am anti-progress. I completely agree with the idea that what separates man from animal is his desire for progress, to be able to see not only what is in front of him, but also what is not in front of him, or what could be there. In fact, I believe it all hinges on words such as "could" and "would," which imply man's ability to imagine a different world from the one empirically presenting itself to his senses. This, I believe, is what creates the possibilities to have ideologies (the world as it should be), and religions (Heaven, the World To Come, etc.). It is this ability that made the first monkey jump down from the trees. While the trees may have had an adequate amount of food, foraging the forest provides a chance of finding better food.

Further, Yoni states that it is man's tendency to never be satisfied that separates us from animals. I would argue exactly the opposite, however. Animals are, by nature, never satisfied. They spend their entire lives hunting for food, hunting for mates, and attempting to gain dominance over their clan. (An apt example of this is how I killed my first goldfish. It was time to feed the fish, so I poured a little bit of fish food. The fish ate all of that, so I poured in a bit more. The fish ate that, and on and on the cycle went. In the morning, the fish was floating at the top of the bowl. In other words, the fish did not possess the ability to stop acquiring.)

Man, on the other hand, has the ability to willfully stop himself from progressing. This can take many forms, the simplest of which is the "game." By definition, a game implies an activity which has no utility. Of course, one could argue that playing chess makes your mind sharper, and playing football makes you stronger. Nevertheless, these are merely the ancillary purposes of the game. If they were the primary purposes, then why not just study logic puzzles and life weights instead.

The other way in which we willfully cease progress is through the Sabbath, or any form of pre-ordained rest. The animalistic tendency would be to continue to produce more, with every waking moment. Man, on the other hand, has the ability to cease work completely on purpose, because he understands that there is more to life than maximum production.

This, perhaps, is the thrust of my previous post. It is not that it is unnatural or anti-evolutionary to not work. Rather, it is that man has the unique ability to both willfully produce and increase efficiency, yet at the same time willfully cease production, and enjoy things that do not have to do with production and efficiency.

I'm Baaaaack

2008-07-06T23:36:00.006-04:00

For various reasons, I'm going back to my old blog. For one, I don't really need all of the bells and whistles of wordpress, as my "career" as a freelance editor and copywriter is, well, over. Fear not, though, I wouldn't just announce a return without a substantive post, as well. And here it is:

It's Never Enough

One of my tasks at work is improving the efficiency of our teams processes. On Thursday, I made a major breakthrough (yay me!), and figured out how to significantly speed up one aspect of our process.

[Now, as a brief (and deliberately vague) background to this, during this one step, there are four sub-steps. The 4th step was traditionally the longest and most annoying. I didn't mind the first 3 so much, but dreaded the 4th, as I kept thinking, "There must be a faster way to do this." On Thursday, I figured out how to significantly speed up the 4th step, to the point where it goes faster than any of the first 3 steps.]

So, as I was completing this process on Thursday (with the accelerated 4th step), I found myself getting annoyed with the first 3 steps, thinking, "These are so slow; they need to be sped up." As I was thinking this, I realized that a mere 24 hours ago, I felt exactly the opposite about these steps, marveling at how fast they were. And now I was frustrated with them, wishing for them to be even faster.

At this point (as I have a (bad?) tendency of doing), I realized that this is basically a microcosm of one of man's classic faults: never being satisfied, no matter what. And it just becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, feeding on itself, and never being satisfied. There will always be more money to gain, more toys to purchase, or more power to wield.

It was a an insightful into the kinds of choices one has to make in life. Money, property, power, etc. are essentially limitless. Friends, family, happiness etc. are not. Now, I suppose I could always want more friends or more family or something, but in these categories, the simple accumulation of resources does not make for more, or necessarily better assets.

Now, does this mean that one shouldn't have material goals? I don't think so. (FYI, my goals are to own a major league baseball franchise and a catamaran that is the size of a yacht.) But rather, it made me realize the importance of those things which are not traditionally associated with the term "successful." Because, while I may one day fall into the tax bracket termed "successful," I'll probably just be talking with my financial advisor about how I can reach the "very successful" bracket in a year. However, I probably won't be talking with a shrink, analyzing ways to increase my happiness 5-fold in the next quarter.

**To clarify, I would never write an entire post with just the ridiculously cliched message "The best things in life are free." Rather, this was a realizaiton that the reason for this cliche is that a lot of material items are self-feeding, and can never truly satisfy any desires.

Success?

2007-10-29T14:27:00.000-04:00

I find it odd that we live in a society that tells us that money is the root of all evil, while at the same time saying, "He's very successful," which is the same thing as "He makes a lot of money." If success = money, then how can it be the root of all evil at the same time?

Enough Burning Bushes For You Now?

2007-10-24T12:53:00.000-04:00

Well, are there enough burning bushes for you now? While CNN, Fox News, etc. cannot get enough of the wildfire coverage, cramming every headline and inch of the “crawler” with news about the conflagration, there seems to be one story missing from all of this: The God Factor.

Now, just because, in May, Jerry Falwell found out he’d been wrong his whole life, that shouldn’t stop all of the other televangelists from telling us how wrong we’ve all been.

But where are they all? It doesn’t seem too long ago that preachers were clamoring to tell us how 9/11 and the tsunamis in Indonesia were sure signs of divine revenge. And fire seems to be the most "godly" of all the symbols. After all, nowhere in the Bible does God appear as an airplane, or a huge wave. However, God does make his Act II debut as a burning bush, to Moses.

I mean, come on, this stuff is obvious. And further, isn't Southern California, a bastion of liberalism, supposed to be one of the most sinful places in the entire world?

I think, at some point, we have to realize that everything, yes everything, can be interpreted, or construed, as some sort of divine symbol. If you view God as the sole cause of everything, then yes, God caused the fires in California. However, that would mean that the same God also killed two women who were on their way to church.

Maybe we’re not hearing anything from the televangelists this time since it’s their studio and network heads who are getting “punished.” It's probably not the best strategy to tell the guy who gives you your paycheck that God is taking revenge on him. Maybe the televangelists are thinking twice before telling their Hollywood financiers that everything they're doing in life (and that includes paying you), is wrong.

Why Every Jewish Person Should Be a Mets Fan

2007-10-16T17:54:00.000-04:00

Being Jewish is all about being in the minority. It is about constantly being surrounded by a prevailing viewpoint, but sticking to your beliefs, even if they run contrary to what most of the other people believe, including Ann Coulter.

When the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, all of the prevailing evidence said to stop being Jewish, and to convert to this new faith. After all, the very center of the Jewish faith was destroyed; if you believe in any sort of God, this seems to be a pretty good warning shot. Nevertheless, Judaism has prevailed, and despite constantly being on the losing end of history, has survived for millennia.

Similarly, the Mets’ collapse of 2007 can most aptly be seen as the baseball equivalent of the destruction of the Second Temple. It is monumental, historical, and makes any Mets fan wonder what they’re thinking.

Nonetheless, a true fan, just like a true believer, will prevail, regardless of the empirical evidence piling up to the contrary. As Bill Simmons, an ESPN columnist (and diehard Red Sox fan), once wrote, “Rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for the house in blackjack.” Sure the odds are always in favor of the Yankees, and they are (usually) the dominant force, but that is no reason to root for them. A Yankees fan is simply a person who has no faith, and simply goes with the surest bet.

Similarly, it is easy in today’s society to be a Christian. The majority of Americans are Christians, our government is setup to represent Christian ideals, and there is a whole boatload of evidence that says Christianity is the right way to go (miracles, prophecies, etc.). My life, and every Jewish person’s life, would certainly be “easier” if they were to convert to Christianity.

However, staying with team Judaism is a matter of faith. It is a matter of rooting for the underdog, and advocating the minority viewpoint. Similarly, being a Mets fan is a matter of rooting for the underdog, and despite epic collapses, like the stones of the Second Temple caving in, staying a true believer.

Misguided Fan(atic)s

2006-10-06T15:53:00.000-04:00

(If you don't know about the events that occured during the Minuteman event at Columbia, here is the background article: Protestors Rush Minutemen)

Misguided Fan(atic)s

Whenever Ohio State football beats Michigan, students storm the field. Whenever Maryland basketball beats Duke, students storm the court. Whenever liberal Columbia students don’t like a conservative speaker, they storm the stage. Clearly, Columbia needs a better athletics program.

It is a common misconception that Columbia students don’t like sports. In reality, we hate sports for the same reason that France hates war – we never win. Since we can’t rely on our sports teams as a means to channel our pent up aggression, we turn elsewhere. Since we can’t go ape-shit in the bleachers of Baker Field, we go ape-shit in the seats of Roone Alredge instead.

Everyone needs something to fight for, or against: The PLO has Israel, the Earth Liberation Front has SUVs, Georgia Tech has Georgia, and Columbia students have…conservatives. As a whole, we hate conservatives with the wrath of a thousand suns; if truth be told, it’s probably only a matter of time before the College Democrats declare a veritable jihad on them.

Now, I do not use the term jihad flippantly. We are, in fact, singularly driven by our hate of conservatives. We hate them so much so that we object to them in all shapes and forms, even if it might make us hypocrites. Case in point: Last week, we protested the conservatives who limited the free speech of the hockey team. But this week, the audience in Roone Alredge infringed upon that very same ideal of free speech, simply because that speech was coming from a conservative. We have become unabashed, fundamentalist liberals.

Which is exactly why we need better sports. The sole area where fundamentalism is permitted, even encouraged, is in sports. I am a Mets fan for absolutely no good reason. I have no logic behind my loyalty, and I have no qualifications for it, either. I do not believe in athletic pluralism; I believe that the Mets are clearly the Chosen team, possessing more inherent worth than any other team. And this is perfectly acceptable.

The problem, or reality, is that we each possess a need to unequivocally believe in something. We each need some sort of cause around which we can rally. However, politics is no place for unequivocal belief; it is a place for objective dialogue. Unfortunately this objectivity is obscured by all of the bottled up aggression we incur when Columbia can’t kick an extra point or penetrate a 3-2 defense for the easy lay-up.

Maybe if we had these things on Baker Field or Levien Gym, we could be levelheaded in the political arena. Maybe we’d become more conservative; maybe we’d become more liberal. It really doesn’t matter. All that matters is that at least we wouldn’t be compared to the “bleacher creatures” of Yankee Stadium.

The Devil Must Love Your Hat

2006-06-21T19:01:00.000-04:00

Perhaps the surest sign of the Apocalyse is the newest trend in headwear: The “Pan-Logo” Baseball Cap (pictured below)

What are you trying to say when you wear a cap like this? Is your message, “I love baseball!”? Or maybe, “I love baseball, but not quite enough to have a favorite team, and if I do have a favorite team, I’m too much of a pussy to upset people who don’t like my favorite team.”? Maybe you also own a black magic marker, and when the playoffs begin, you black out all of the logos of the teams that didn’t make it, and then you continue to black out teams as they are eliminated, until, lo and behold, you’re wearing the cap of the winning team! Good for you, you dithering prick.

The reason that you represent everything wrong with society is because you have no opinions, you have no sense of right of wrong, you want everybody to be your friend, even though in truth they are nothing like you. Cultural relativism, defined by my linguistics professor as “I’m okay, you’re okay, pass the bong,” is your raison d’etre. In other words, you live to please everyone else.

What wearers of this hat fail to realize is that every inclusions is an exclusion. When you make a lame attempt to include everyone, you end up excluding everyone instead. By wearing a Yankees logo, you exclude the Mets and Red Sox fans. By wearing a Mets logo, you exclude Yankees fans. By wearing a Royals logo, people know you’re a fucking idiot.

The boldest leaders and the brightest intellectuals have one thing in common: they challenged the status quo. You, on the other hand, Mr. “Pan-Logo” Baseball Cap Man, root for the status quo. By wearing a Mets cap, I upset people; but I am willing to do this for the sake of showing some loyalty. Further, a logo is meant to be an identifying mark, like the uniform colors an army wear. When I see a fellow Mets fan, I feel a sense of identity with him. Who do you feel a sense of identity with? The sport of baseball? Maybe you’re hoping Bud Selig (the commissioner of the MLB) will see your hat, and say, “Hey, wow, you like every team?! You should come work for me!!”

However, even Bud Selig does require, I believe, a backbone if you want to work for him. So, you’re out of luck there too.

On the other hand, I will tell you some professions that probably love you, however: sales people, politicians, drug dealers and Satan. Most of us, when deciding which vacuum cleaner to buy, listen to each sales pitch, but then challenge them to figure out which one is really the best. You, on the other hand, probably buy every vacuum cleaner pitched to you, in order to not offend anyone. When a politician knocks on your door, or appears on your TV, you probably eat up every word they say. And whoever has the last (but not necessarily the most persuasive) word, well, they surely have your vote. And when the drug dealer or Satan come along, well, I’m sure you’ve picked up on the pattern by now.

My quirky, most likely pedophilic, 9th grade history teacher once said, “A compromise leaves two people unhappy.” Your hat, on the other hand, leaves everyone but you unhappy. Progress is founded upon new, unique ideas. Your “pan-logo” hat, however, champions regress.

As a loyal Mets fan, I thought that the worst thing in the world was a Yankees fan. The only thing worse, I now realize, is a Yankees/Red Sox/Mets/Mariners/Brewers/Nationals fan.

Physics and Fundamentalism

2006-02-05T13:49:00.000-05:00

“Physics and Fundamentalism”

The Law of Conservation of Energy doesn’t just apply to physics problem sets. Freud knew that, and used this law to create his theory of consciousness and unconsciousness, saying that one channels built up emotions (energy) into other emotions, thus converting energy but never destroying it.

I think we are seeing that again today, in the form of the recent outbreak of protests, demonstrations, and violence in reaction to Danish cartoons lampooning the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

My initial reaction, I must admit, was pretty elitist. I snubbed my nose at such base reactions, and thought with pride about how differently I would have reacted. I thought about all of the times I have been offended as a Jew, and of how I reacted. It usually involved some sort of letter-writing, or signing some (self-fulfilling) online petition, that in reality probably never actually made its way onto any legislator’s desk. But, being the cultured and civilized Westerner I pride myself on being, I have always been taught to abhor violence, and seek the peaceful solution.

Naturally then, my reaction to the recent violence in Lebanon and Syria was that of disgust, and a bit of self-pride, confident in the knowledge that I would never do something like that. I tolerate free-speech, and am accepting of other people’s opinions.

But then I really began to think about the situation. What could possibly make someone react so violently, so radically? Even when someone lampoons my religion, I don’t think of reacting like that.

It was at this point that two fundamental differences occurred to me, that create an enormous chasm of ignorance between me and the Muslim world we read about:

First, religion for me, and many Westerners, I believe, has been reduced to a strain of “phenomenology” that is little more than naive realist metaphysics grafted onto armchair anthropology. In other words, it has lost its deep meaning to us, and so an attack on religion carries little more weight than an attack on lifestyle or on taste in music. We forget sometimes that for others, religion is the core of their being.

Second, letter-writing and petition-signing is my version of energy transference. It is an outlet for my pent-up emotions, a channel through which I can release my frustration, and blow off some psychological steam. Not everyone, however, has these channels available to them. Without peaceful channels, people will, naturally, make their own channels.

When the Danish Embassies in Beirut and Damascus went up in flames, we were witnessing the redirecting of rage, built up over decades. This was rage not just over the cartoons, but over the entire way that Westerners treat the Muslim world. They stomp on all that they hold sacred, and invade their sacred spaces (physically and metaphysically). Whereas this might prompt one of us to start a PAC, or a non-profit organization, these resources are simply not available to many. They have to watch as the United States wages what (we all know) is really just the 10th Crusade on the Holy Land, while the rest of the world stands by idly, decrying America at times, but really doing nothing about it.

What would I do in this situation? Without peaceful avenues to pursue, there is no way I can be sure that I would not resort to violence.

The funny thing, as I reflect on my reaction, is how different it sounds than most of what I write. I am a registered Republican, I sat in the front section when John Ashcroft came to speak, and I have been pretty apathetic to current events lately.

However, being the good Humian empiricist my professors have trained me to be, I cannot sit by and ignore or dismiss what is going on in the world. I cannot snub my nose, and casually remark to my friends about those misguided extremists in the Middle East.

There must be a reason for it. The most startling thing about these reasons is that they point, overwhelmingly, to the fact that we are really all the same. We have the same needs, and the same urges; the only thing that is different is how we express these urges.

Boyle’s Law teaches us that pressure is inversely proportional to the volume of a definite amount of gas. As we consistently encroach upon the personal space of people who hate us, repeatedly denying them outlets for their frustrations, what kind of reaction do we honestly expect?

The laws of physics don’t lie. And you don’t need a particle super-collider at CERN to prove them either; all you need to do is turn on the nightly news.

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

2005-10-13T22:22:00.000-04:00

You Passed the US Citizenship Test

Congratulations - you got 7 out of 10 correct!

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Crash Theory

2005-10-04T17:10:00.000-04:00

Every day, I feel myself less and less.

Probably the best movie made in recent years, Crash, opens with the lines, “It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In LA, nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.” I think that there’s one thing missing from this though. The reason we crash into people is not to feel just “something;” it’s to feel ourselves.

Our entire world, our social structures, our religions, our schools, everything around us, is designed to perceive the other. We wear glasses to see the world around us better. My grandfather wears a hearing aid to hear the world around him. Every day, we invent new ways to better perceive the world around us. We’re constantly creating sharper images on TVs, and creating crisper speakers to go with them. In fact, the entire discipline of science is based on the idea of helping us to better understand our surroundings. Quantify phenomena to make them easier to understand. Diagram processes so they can be better comprehended. We, as a culture, are obsessed with increasing our awareness of the world around us.

Why do we do this? Because our society is based around Hegelian dialectics. Now, I didn’t say that just to drop a fancy, polysyllabic term, and to make my parents feel better about dropping 100K on my education. I also used it because it’s true, through and through. A dialectic is basically the idea of identification by comparison. In other words, when I see someone who is black, I think, I’m white.” When I see a jock, I think, “I’m not a jock.” When I see a woman, I think, “I’m a man.” And on and on. By forming enough relationships, a rough shape begins to emerge. Sometimes, I’m not good at conveying my thoughts in words, so this picture kind of sums up how I view a dialectic relationship:

As more and more relationships are created, a shape in the middle begins to appear. In fact, you can almost “see” the shape. But in reality, there is nothing there.

I think it is because of this that so many of us experience “identity crises.” We spend no time thinking about ourselves as ourselves, and thus, while we have crystal-clear conceptions of the world around us, we still don’t understand ourselves in the slightest.

It is also from this need to create dialectics, to create more lines, that many of more pressing problems arise. For instance, the basis of the Cold War was an Us (not U.S.) versus Them. We were the Capitalists, not the Communists. We were the religious, they were the atheist. But when the Berlin Wall fell, and Communism was no longer a real issue, we lost some our identity. We lost one of those lines, and so our shape became less defined. So what did we do? We created another Us versus Them. This was done through the War on Terror. We now have a clear Us (America, Great Britain, (aka white people, Christians, etc) and a clear Them (Iraq, Afghanistan (aka Middle Eastern people, Muslims, etc.). Professor Mark C. Taylor once said, “Aggression against is identification with.” I think that this is 100% true.

In addition, the entire current political system is based on dialectics: Blue vs. Red, Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice, Liberal vs. Conservative, etc. etc. etc..

Unfortunately, we have created a society in which the only time we feel a sense of worth is when we receive some sort of recognition from someone else. This leads to people going to absurd lengths to achieve their “15 minutes of fame.” People scale buildings, eat 40 hotdogs in 12 minutes, or kill.

The fear of being alone, and going unrecognized, is so ingrained into us we go to extreme lengths to achieve recognition. This also manifests itself by the taboo we have against being alone. The hermit is shunned. Taking a personal day is a sign of weakness. Over and over again, we are bombarded with the message that it is not okay to be by yourself. You must have friends, you must have a spouse. While all of these are certainly necessary to a fulfilling life, I think, they are certainly not all that there is.

As a society, we have made great strides in learning to comprehend the world around us. Over and over again, in form after form, be it in classes, or talking to a friend, we’re constantly observing the world around us. But despite all of that, despite all of the philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, theology, and geometry that we’ve been taught, none of it helps us to contemplate ourselves.

Sure I can say, “I asked her out, because I was strongly attracted to her looks. Her looks are important, because to my subconscious, they signal strong genetics, and my desire to procreate caused me ask her out.” I can rationalize anything, explain anything in fancy terms, based on complex Latin derivatives, and make it sound good. But what have I learned about myself? Nothing.

I realize that this entry isn’t like my other ones, and there is no incisive political wit, or funny anecdote, but I think there is still a point. I think that we really need to ask ourselves, from time to time, about ourselves. The problem is though, we don’t even know how to ask the question. It is nearly impossible, it seems, to contemplate ourselves as a thing-in-and-of-itself. I think that there are some answers in Eastern philosophy, and meditation, but I don’t know for sure. The only thing I do know is that in every person, there is a glaring absence. In the recesses of our minds, filled with information on art, literature, numbers, and emotions, there is a still a gaping cavern of self-information waiting to be filled.

The "Theory" of Gravity

2005-09-14T21:03:00.000-04:00

Note: This entry appeared in the Columbia Spectator on 9.14.05

"The 'Theory' of Gravity:
Intelligent Design Reconsidered"

There is a great deal to be said about Intelligent Design (ID), and it would be foolhardy to attempt to encapsulate the entire debate in one brief article.

Proponents of Intelligent Design, from academics to President Bush, have argued that “all points of view should be available to students studying human origins.” This argument sounds noble; heck, it sounds downright liberal. How could there be anything wrong with exposing schoolchildren to multiple points of view, and giving them a truly rich and all-encompassing education? How could a “good” science teacher only teach the Darwinian view of evolution? Well, because a science teacher teaches science, and while Intelligent Design is certainly a “theory,” as is evolution, the main difference is that Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is a religious or philosophical theory, and has no place in a biology classroom.

If we are going to continue to drag down evolution, because it is technically a “theory,” let’s look at some other “theories” out there. No one has challenged a physics curriculum that expounds, upon vulnerable and impressionable young minds, the “theory” of gravity. Just like with evolution, there is no direct proof of gravity. Gravitational equations can be used to explain the motions of the universe; however the causes of gravity are unknown. Alas, though, there is another physical theory that exists, called “occasionalism.” Occasionalism states that when a rock hits a window, God is given the occasion to break the window.

Just like gravity, occasionalism is a theory: there is no way to definitely prove or disprove it. For the sake of comparison though, we won’t be so blunt as to say that it is God breaking the window, but rather a Force, or a Power, that is breaking the window. And no, this is not a force, like the forces in Newtonian physics...this is a Force. This is a Force, with that telltale capital F. We won’t say that it is God, just like the “Intelligence” in Intelligent Design is just a capitalized term.

While most opponents of Intelligent Design are against it because of the dangers it poses to science, my opposition stems not only from a desire to protect the sanctity of science, but from a desire to sanctify religion as well. How does Intelligent Design endanger religion? The foundation of religion is faith, or the belief in the inherently unprovable. By entering the domain of science, religion opens itself to the onslaught of scientific rigor, which could easily “defeat” or “disprove” a Holy Book if it does not hold up to be 100% logically consistent. Religion, for me at least, is about believing what cannot be proven. Science, on the other hand, is about believing only that which can be proven. Intelligent Design presents a lose-lose situation for both the scientific and the religious community.

While I am certainly opposed to the teaching of Intelligent Design in the science classroom, I also certainly understand why it is so appealing: Intelligent Design looks nice, and it is comforting to think that there is some sort of Organizer, who has an ultimate plan in mind for the Universe and for every person. But “niceness” and “comfort” are no way to judge a scientific theory. Just as a baseball player is not admired for his hairstyle (save Johnny Damon), and a model is not admired for the speed of her fastball, a scientific argument should not be judged based upon how “nice” it looks. By applying the identical criteria to both science and religion, we will only serve to water down both areas, and do irreparable damage to the two distinct forces, science and religion, that have kept civilizations flourishing for thousands of years.

Addendum: Last night on the Daily Show, they talked about Intelligent Design, and John Stewart said," Of course, the organizer doesn't have to be God, it's just some sort of entity that has the power to create the entire Universe." Well said John, well said.

God and Poker

2005-07-17T23:44:00.000-04:00

“Shuffle up and deal,” and then there was light! Poker junkies, like myself, will recognize the first half of this sentence as the words used to kick off the World Series of Poker every year. It is the sign for the dealers to shuffle their cards, and then deal out the hands to the players at each table. The second part of line should be recognizable to, well, most of Western civilization. These are some of the first words in the Old Testament, which mark the beginning of God’s creating the world.

Though my mom despises poker, a lot of life lessons can be learned at the poker table. These lessons though, don’t strike you outright—they are really gleaned by analogy from the situations presented. The poker table, in many ways, is a microcosm for many situations in life, and the strategies used to win at poker can often be extended into analogies for strategies that prove successful in life.

Trust me, if I have learned one thing from playing poker, it is that you cannot actually learn life lessons or become a better person by playing poker. Most poker players I know are among the sleaziest and saddest people I have ever met. When your entire livelihood depends solely upon deception, your character tends to take a turn towards the ignominious. Playing poker, I’ve realized, every so often, is fun. But when you play too much, you become obsessed with the idea of “being someone you aren’t,” and you become callous and even deceitful. But I have gotten way off topic.

One analogy I really like from poker is an extension of “play the cards you’re dealt.” In poker, there is a combination of factors that lead to winning a hand. The first factor is the cards you are dealt, which for our sake, we will say is “you,” or the person. The second factor that creates a winning hand is the “community cards.” These are the cards that everyone needs to use to make the winning hand. This is similar to the “environment” of a situation, since it represents the situations with which everyone must deal. The final factor is how you play your cards, or rather, what you make your opponents think you have.

Now that we have that established, some interesting ideas start to emerge. You can call it a philosophy on life, a philosophy of religion, a philosophy of God, or whatever you want. Here is how I see it:

When you are born, you are given certain characteristics, by a God, by Nature, call it whatever you want. But the interesting thing is, these initial characteristics are not directly related to any final result. While good starting hands are more likely to win, there is no guarantee of this. The best hand to start with in poker is “pocket aces.” You already have a pair of aces, essentially, and that is one of the best hands you can have. But let’s say that the community cards are 5-2-2. Now the player holding 2-5 has a much better hand.

Upon reflection, this is more an example of someone who happens to fall into a perfect, matching environment. The analogy that I am going for is that life is really a combination of the cards you are dealt, but more importantly, how you play those cards. Here is a better example:

Let’s say that you are dealt 6-2. Let’s say someone else is dealt King-10, a much better starting hand. The community cards are a King, an Ace, and a 7. But with the way you play your hand, your competitor is sure that you have the Ace, that you have the stronger hand.

I think that this is more of what I’m going for. Sometimes, the cards you’re dealt don’t matter, it’s as simple as that. Life is more about how you play your cards than which cards you’re actually dealt.

You can take this however you want. Take it as a philosophy for life, or take it as a philosophy of religion. I’m not sure that I necessary believe it, but it also makes for a nice resolution to the whole determinism/free-will debate. You can say that life is deterministic in that there are certain qualities with which one is divined at the beginning of life. And these initial conditions do, to a large measure, dictate the winners and losers. But this is by no means absolute.

In our last situation, the player with 6-2 could have made the easy choice to lay down, or fold, his hand at the beginning. Instead he chose to play his shitty cards, but do the best he could with them. Even when the environment didn’t gel well with his starting cards, he still chose to persevere, and play as if he had the winning hand. Thus, there is determinism in there, to satisfy those who have a more traditional belief in God, but the situation is ultimately decided by factors external to not only the starting hand, but external to the environment as well. That should satisfy the humanists among us.

I realize that this is not an airtight proof of some sort. For instance, what is it specifically with which we are imbued at birth, and what factors are ours to control? I don't know if an answer exists to this, but I would hate to have this idea lingering in analogy-land. Oh well, that's for another night.

All in all, I find it amusing that I glean this kind of stuff while sitting around with some of the most dismal people I have ever met. But hey, isn't that what this whole thing is about anyway? I guess it really is more about what you do with the situation than with the situation itself.

Locking the Gates, Losing the War

2005-07-14T23:55:00.000-04:00

In "Good Will Hunting," Matt Damon's character says to a Harvard grad student, "In 50 years...you're going to realize that you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin education you coulda got for a dollah fifty in late chahges at the public library." Well, sorry Mom, but that's what I'm getting this summer. So, as I sat listening to my professor in "Philosophy of Biology" regurgiate last night's reading, I wrote this:

"Locking the Gates, Losing The War"

After making sense of the news coming in on the morning of July 7th, I opened my window shade, to look out on the Columbia University campus, across 114th Street. The first thing that struck me was that, for the first time since I came to Columbia 2 years ago, the gates on 114th Street were locked. When I asked a security guard why the gates were locked, he said, somewhat nonchalantly, “Because of London.”

As I walked (the long way) to class, it began to dawn on me: terrorism is winning. The only reason we have yet to realize this is because we still measure victories by number of casualties—terrorists don’t. Terrorism is not about the number of people killed; terrorism is about the effect of their actions have on the psyche. In fact, if you look at the origin of the word terrorism, it comes from the Latin word terrere, which means “to frighten,” not “to kill” or “to hurt.” For terrorists, the casualties are just a means to an end. By closing the gates on that Thursday, we opened the flood gates to terrorists.

Beefing up airline security after September 11th was appropriate—there was obviously a need for it, to say the least. But when Columbia security decides that only the gates on 116th Street can be opened, then they are assisting the terrorists in their war, or even admitting defeat. They’re showing, essentially, that the terrorists have fully permeated their minds. Putting more police officers on the sunways was also understandable, since the last two major terrorist attacks were on mass-transit systems. Locking down the Columbia campus was not fitting, as I highly doubt that terrorists have a plan to blow up the stacks in Butler Library.

When tallying up the score for the War on Terrorism, we need to revise our scoring system. By significantly inconveniencing ourselves, we are conceding points to the terrorists. We lose when we allow the threat of terrorism to affect the way we conduct our day-to-day routine. We let terrorists win when we have a visceral reaction.

What we need now is to remember the lessons we learned dealing with the playground bully in 2nd grade. The bully won when we went out of way to avoid the swing-set, or when we went and “told on” him.

Political pundits will continue to tell us that we “live in a different time,” and signs on the highway will continue to flash “Report Any Suspicious Activity.” But just keep in mind that each time we do something like this, we are telling terrorists that what they are doing is working.

How did you get that 2nd grade bully to leave you alone? You ignored him, and his jibes. When he realized that he was no longer having an effect on you, he moved on. But every time you cried, or ran away, he just became worse.

The pundits may be right, we may live in a different time. But by inconveniencing ourselves, and conducting our lives based on fear, we are only giving terrorists another reason to terrorize.

A Waste of Time

2005-06-29T01:37:00.000-04:00

Since I'm sure you all have nothing to do, I highly recommend going to toothpastefordinner.com. Take some time to peruse the entire website: it should only take you a day or two.

This one comic from the site is about blogs, so I thought I'd put it up here.

In other news, I am attempting to write a book. The basic premise is that the political war between red/blue is really a war between science and religion. I want to analyze the underlying assumptions on each "side," and then offer a possible resolution. And no, the answer is not one of those "We should all just get along, and accept each other's differing opinions."

The "plan" is to dedicate an hour each day to the book. If I actually stick to my plan, I could have something substantial by the end of the summer. But, you know what they say about "the best laid plans..."

I'm kind of tired, so the social commentary part will have to be put on hold for another entry. For now, go waste your time on toothpastefordinner.com. It's BRILLIANT!, just like in the Guiness commercials.

I Declare The War Is Over...in 1968

2005-05-30T21:06:00.000-04:00

For those of you who do not know who don't know who Phil Ochs is, he is possibly the greatest and most insightful folk singer to come out of the Vietnam era. His songs are also really really good, on top of being powerful. In fact, Bob Dylan once even said, “I just can't keep up with Phil. And he's getting better and better and better.” The reason you probably have never heard of Ochs is because he committed suicide at the age of 36. (Interesting, it was revealed after his death that the FBI had a 410-page file on him.)

On my way home today, I was listening to my iPod, thanks to my new iTrip (so cool, it let's me listen to my iPod over my car stereo). Anywho, the song, "I Declare The War Is Over" came on. Here is a snippet of the lyrics:

Angry artists painting angry signs
Use their vision just to blind the blind
Poisoned players of a grizzly game
One is guilty and the other gets the point to blame
Pardon me if I refrain

I declare the war is over
It's over, it's over

So do your duty, boys, and join with pride
Serve your country in her suicide
Find the flags so you can wave goodbye
But just before the end even treason might be worth a try
This country is too young to die

I declare the war is over
It's over, it's over

The scary party is that I think that most of this is just as true today as it was almost 40 YEARS AGO.

The first part reminded me, of course, of the protests last August in front of the RNC, in New York City. There were over 30,000 protestors, changing slogans, but really, it was just a lot of anger, and I felt that that protest, and many protests in general, are really just an opportunity for some people to make themselves feel better. On that day, 30.000 people did absolutely nothing but clog up traffic in Midtown. No one's mind was changed as a result of the protest: conservatives probably became more conservative when they watched it and liberals just nodded their heads in agreement.

Wow, I was planning on writing a pretty negative entry, about how America is stupid for not learning from its past, and how the idea of studying history to not repeat mistakes is bullshit. I certainly believe the latter, and the fact that Phil Ochs could write song lyrics 40 years ago that fit the present day scenario perfectly seems to prove this.

But I think that below all of this is really a message of hope. Many people, from my friends, to family, to political pundits on TV, have said that the War on Terror is the end of the American Empire. They've said that we've lost our power in the world, and that we've lost the respect of almost every single other country. Further, if we ever do regain respect, it will take at least a generation or two.

I disagree.

40 years ago, people thought the exact same thing. They thought that we were being hegemons by invading countries we had no business invading. But look at what happened: Things turned out pretty okay. Now, I am not in any way, shape, or form supporting the War on Terror, or President Bush, or any of that. But maybe the one thing we can learn from the past is that things will be okay. As the fat black guy said in Harold and Kumar, "The universe tends to unfold as it should." Granted, "as it should" is a pretty subjective statement, but you get the point. I'm also not staying people should stop dissenting or anything. The sooner the War on Terror is over, the better.

I guess that we have a tendancy to make the worst of things, and to see ourselves, or our generation, as some sort of focal point of history. But, if we sit back, relax, and have a Pina Colada, we might just realize that life isn't as bad as we might make it out to be.

Time to Start

2005-05-22T01:41:00.000-04:00

This summer I am taking a month off. Why? Because I came to the realization, about two months ago, that I have absolutely no idea what I want to do with the rest of my life. It was really shocking, although it shouldn’t be when you’re only 20 years old.

I have thought, since my freshmen year of high school, that I wanted to be a rabbi. For those of you who only know me post-high school, my freshmen year I was in a big car accident, and was essentially paralyzed for a week or two, and spent a few months in rehab, until I got back to where I am today. I viewed this as nothing short of a miracle, and thus, it was my responsibility to spread that feeling of miraculousness to everyone I knew.

[NOTE: In this entry (and subsequent entries) I am going to lay it all out there. I am going to be brutally honest with myself, and with everyone I know. If you don’t want to read this, don’t, it won’t hurt my feelings.]

Now, I know what most of you are thinking already. You’re saying, “Adam, there is a time and place for honestly, and even though a journal is (supposedly) personal, it is still a public venue." I say, “Fuck that.”

The problem is that not enough people are honest with eachother (Screw spellcheck, I think eachother should be one word, since it implies a singular relationship). Of course, there are limits. I’m not going to put anything on here that would embarrass someone else. I’m not here to hurt anyone, I’m only here to begin to figure out where I’m going, and I can’t do that if I continue to hide behind a veil of flirting, lies, and flattery. If you want to know what I think of you, ask me--I will tell you.

I figure, disingenuousness only hampers progress. If I spend all of my time flirting with you, or on the opposite end, sending little snide remarks that intimate that I don’t like you, we’re just going to spend a great deal of time in limbo. For me, and I’m sure for you, this is no fun. There is an endpoint to flirting and insulting, and what the hell is the point if we never reach it? I don’t want to stay up all night wondering what you really think of me. So fuck it, I’ll tell you, and most likely, after I do that, I’d bet you’ll tell me.

The reason for all of this? Because too many people live their entire lives on some linear track that was set in motion at an early age, i.e. inheriting a parent’s business, or going to a college because their father, grandfather, and great-grandfather went there. Life is comfortable on this track, because there isn’t really any friction between them and their circumstances. But then, they wake up one morning, on their 49th birthday, and realize that they’re not happy. They like their wife, but it could’ve been better. They like their job, but there is something else out there that they would’ve preferred to do. But it’s too late. Too many people would be hurt if they made a radical change now.

That’s why I’m starting now. I have no idea what I want to do with the rest of my life, and the only way I’m going to make any progress is if I’m honest with myself, and with the people who know me best. Right now, I’d like to be either:
a) a fisherman,
b) a writer,
c) a professor,
d) a wall street whore, or
e) a script supervisor.

I don’t know anything else—even the things many people think they “know.” I don’t know where I’d like to live, I don’t know what I’d like in a wife, or even what qualities I life in girls, or friends for that matter. And I suspect that you don’t know these things either. You’ve been told certain maxims that sound nice. You like to quote movies and songs, but you don’t really know if that’s what you think.

I’m going to wrap this up, since I don’t want to ramble too much. There’s a lot more to come. If you care, you’ll learn a bit about me. But maybe you’ll also learn a little something about yourself, too.

Despite all of the uncertainties posed in this entry, I do know one thing: You have an opinion about what you just read; but will you be honest enough with yourself to share this opinion?

I freaking love this place

2005-03-22T15:52:00.000-05:00

I freaking love this place. Why? Because, first off, today is beautiful. It’s probably 50 degrees out, and there isn’t a cloud in the sky. So, I decided that instead of running in the dimly lit, over-testosteroned, 1/10 mile track, I would take a run outside. I finished my run alongside Morningside Park, where you can see for miles over into East Harlem, which is beautiful. And no, I’m not being sarcastic. It looks something like this:

(I know it's not a great picture, but use your imagination)

I vividly remember a conversation (well, more like a question and an answer) I had with my best friend Yoni a long time ago. I highly doubt he remembers it, but it went something like this:
Me: Do you think, if you took a random sampling of people at any one point in time, most of them would be happy?
Yoni: No

That made me sad. I mean, obviously not everyone should be ecstatic at every moment in time. But, if any single person took a collective survey of their life, I’d bet that they could find more things to be happy about than to be sad about. Now, I know that I’m sounding like a blind-eyed optimist, but I’m serious. The reason that this sounds so ridiculous is because most of the things that could go in the “beautiful” or “happy” category are never recognized. No one really takes the time to think about how beautiful the shadow of a tree on a sidewalk can be, or how nice the sound of a bird somewhere up in that tree is.

And that made me realize something important. When you see something beautiful, you have to share it with as many people as possible. I think that that’s why the world needs artists. Artists capture those beautiful moments and spread their beauty. They help people tip their scales a little more towards happy, or at least a little bit away from sad. That's why I love this place so much--becausr it provides this little glimpes of beauty that can brighten up my entire day.

That’s why to so many people, I think, modern art is so disappointing. People have to be told “That’s art.” The person is left to ponder the beauty, and has to stretch their own idea of beauty to accommodate this new “art.” The viewer is left with the feeling "Well, I guess this is art," instead of a feeling of admiration for what should be something beautiful. Overall, I think modern art leaves most viewer’s unfulfilled. I don’t know why we insist on shying away from natural beauty, like in my favorite painting of all time:

(I know that this picture doesn’t do it justice. But you should all go down to the Met to see it for yourselves. It’s also about 4’ x 6’ so there are a lot of minute details that you can’t see in this picture)

I hope that in my life, I can help others see beauty in places in their lives they wouldn’t normally find it. If someone can walk out of their house in the morning, and not think about how depressing it is that they have to go to classes or meetings all day, but think just for one second about how amazing it is that they have the opportunity to experience so much, or that they have the money to have a house, or that they can see the shades of pink, purple, and green of an amazing sunset, then I think I will have accomplished my goal, the same goal that Monet, Mozart, and Joyce shared. Or rather, I’ve accomplished my goal as just another person perpetuating beauty to be perpetuated by another person, for another person…

Science & Religion (and misogyny)

2005-02-23T16:49:00.000-05:00

So, to clear up some question that people asked me after Bible class today, below is the proof that women evil.

First off, the religion part is that, despite what some professors may say, the moral of the Tree of Knowledge story in Genesis is that women are evil.

But, how can we be sure?

Well, we know that in life, time equals money.
So, T=M.

We also know that women are time and money.
So, W=TxM
or, W=M^2. (see above)

We also know that money is the root of all evil.
So, M=E^1/2
or, M^2=E

Now, using simple substitution, we get…
W=E

How can you argue with that?

An Update, I Guess

2005-01-24T18:59:00.000-05:00

So, I haven't updated this thing for a while. The reason: I have a real journal now, as in the type where I can write anything, like how much I hate you, or how I had the craziest dream last night about a cell phone and a goats, and well, yeh, that's why I can't say it here.

See, the point of a journal is it's an outlet, a place to reduce tension. People write in journal for the same reason that they drive fast, lift weights, scream, curse, and have sex--all of these are forms of release. And when you have to censor yourself, then you're not really releasing all of the tension that you have built up.

But I can still use this for amusing updates or observations. One thing I've come to realize is this: My life is too good for me to ever become a great philosopher. If you look at all of the great thinkers in the past, they were pretty miserable. Nietzsche went insane and spent the last 10 years of his life in an asylum. Mozart was almost always near bankruptcy. James Joyce hated Ireland, and couldn't wait to get out. The list goes on, but it made me realize one thing: Life and immortality have an inverse relationship. If your life is good, and you just go through it enjoying yourself, and doing your thing to help yourself, and other people, chances are you won't be remembered 1000 years from now. But if you live your life as a radical, always going against the grain, and stirring things up, you probably will be remembered down the road. But a life like this isn't truly enjoyable. There would necessarily always be a good deal of tension, and uneasiness. I think that it's this tension that forces people to do something extraordinary.

I just don't have that tension in my life. I know that this kind of sounds like an excuse or something, but I think it's true. Who knows, maybe some day I'll do something great or whatever, but I think that the odds are stacked against me. And no, I am also not envious of those who do have hard lives, and will produce something great. I'm very happy with my life the way it is.

Okay, so that's my little rant of the day. I promise I'll have something that's actually worth your time to read next time.

llama llama duck

2004-11-22T18:37:00.000-05:00

If you've ever wondered about anything, questioned any answer, pondered any quandary, or been really really stressed out, then click here, and your troubles, your quagmires, and maybe even your herpes, will dissapear

Our Bubble

2004-11-04T02:40:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: Here is this article, as it appears in the Nov. 4 Spectator The View From Inside Our Scholarly Bubble

Our Scholarly Bubble

I'm sure the same thoughts are going through everyone's heads right now: "the country is screwed for the next four years," "we've lost our global credibility," "in fours we'll be talking about that liberal Justice Rehnquist," etc. etc. And I certainly do not disagree with these thoughts. But I think that we can also use this time to reflect a bit upon ourselves, and just how sheltered we really are.

Throughout our four years at Columbia, we read "everything" from Aristotle to Kant. And we feel great about ourselves, and how diverse our knowledge is. We know that you can look at the world through Hegelian dialecticism, or Freudian desires. But we still cannot figure out why someone, in fact 59,095.510 someones, voted for Bush. We must come to the realization that we are still missing a crucial chunk of knowledge, because all that we have learned cannot explain to us why President Bush garnered 52% of the popular vote last night.

Nothing I have learned could explain to me why someone would vote for a man who said in the town hall debates that he'd been "reading the Internets." The fact that the man who can command the largest standing army in the world does not know that Internet cannot be pluralized is appalling to me. Even though I consider myself an ideological Republican, and have voted that way in past elections, I could not bring myself to cast a ballot for a man who is so out of touch with technology. But you know what? My guess is that Bush was actually told to say that, exactly that, Internets. If he had a little earpiece in, Carl Rove was definitely whispering into it "Say Internets." But why?

I think a story told by my 10th grade history teacher, Mr. Bowditch, will help to explicate this: Mr. Bowditch had just purchased some land in upstate Maine, and when he went up to purchase the lumber to build his house, he found out his check had not yet been cleared. After talking with the owner of the lumberyard, the owner gave him $30,000 of lumber because my teacher "sounded like a good guy, and had a firm handshake." This is what mattered most to this man--character. It didn't matter what school he had gone to, or what he wearing, it just mattered that he was a "good guy." If this lumberyard owner was wiling to risk $30,000 based on a man's character, I'm sure he'd vote for the President based on the same criteria.

So how does this relate to Bush and his "Internets?" When he said "Internets," I'm sure that there was a collective rolling of every Columbia students' eyes. But at that same moment, a portion of the country fell further in love with Bush. His lack of technological jargon reaffirmed people's conviction that Bush is a simple, straightforward guy--and this is what matters most to them--his conviction and plainness, just like it mattered most to the man selling my history teacher lumber.

I know that one reason many of "us" voted against Bush was because we were worried that Bush would dilute the lines between Church and State--a separation we prize in America. But a large portion of those who voted for the President were attracted by this dilution. They would love to see their children reciting the Lord's Prayer every morning in school. They love their religion, and thus, they would love to see their religion extended into everyday life. I don't think I need to point out that supporting Kerry does not make someone an agnostic, it just means that I have a place for my religion, and that place is not in the Oval Office or the Supreme Court. Regardless, any curbing of religion is seen by some Bush supporters as a sure sign of Godlessness.

I've talked to people who have met the President, and no matter where they stand politically, they cannot deny that when he looks you in the eye, and shakes your hand, its hard to not like him, at least for those few moments. And while for us, the "learned" elite, this does not translate into an effective leader, for some this is all that matters.

Last night's results, and the subsequent shock felt around campus, shows us that we are lacking something critical in our education.

So how do we go about solving this problem? How do we come down from our ivory towers? Maybe we can't, maybe it truly is an unsolvable problem. Should Columbia add "Farm Hum" to its core, where we would go spend a weekend on a farm every semester? Probably not. But next time you browse through nytimes.com to catch up on the news, and the latest op-eds, try browsing through wichetaeagle.com as well. It's easy to get caught up in our liberal campus in our liberal city, in our liberal section of the country. However, I think our complete lack of empathy for those who voted for Bush shows how thick those iron bars on 116th St truly are, and how unexposed we are to the rest of our society.

And to throw a picture in there, since I can do that now:

Skydiving

2004-09-25T16:28:00.000-04:00

A few days ago, Seth Wainer sent out an email entitled "Operation Dumbo Drop," encouraging us all to go skydiving with him and some others. At first, I laughed and shrugged off the idea. But then my conscience called up and said, "Ya know Adam, you've always said to yourself that you've wanted to go sky, wait hold on, someone's on call waiting. No, no I do not want to resubscribe to Barely Legal Panda Bears. Yes, I know that I've had a Gold Membership for the past 7 years, but those were tough times, things were different then. I'm reformed now, I find that type of stuff sick and degrading. Oh, it's only $14.99 for a 3 year plan. Well then, sure, I guess so. Sorry Adam, that was my stockbroker, very important stuff. Anyway, you don't know the next time you'll get an opportunity to go skydiving, so you should go for it,”

And so, I decided to join in, and just not tell my parents about it, since I knew they wouldn’t approve, and probably stop paying for college (which my mom had said before, specifically about skydiving).

After a pretty crappy night of sleep (I guess I was a tad nervous/apprehensive), I woke up at 6:45 (AM!!) on Friday morning, and half slept, and half listened to Seth and Dave do Ali G impressions for 2 1/2 hours, all the way down to Freefall Adventures in Williamstown, NJ.

When we got there, we all had to sign these 5 page waivers that basically said, “If you die for any reason whatsoever, even because your instructor was drunk and packed a six-pack instead of a parachute, you cannot sue us.” So that was fun, especially when it got to the part about who to contact in case of an emergency. I figured, screw it, I’ll probably tell my parents about this anyway, so I might as well put them down…as opposed to Marc who put down Rachel Zisser, who would then have to tell his parents that he broke his neck/died.

And so, after a long wait, and a 20 minute prep, we were off.

(I have a video and a dvd of the whole thing, if you want to see it, but I’ve also posted some pictures here (account: ang2108@columbia.edu, password:ang2108), as well as including a few in this blog.)

The plane ride up was about 15 minutes, to get to 13,500 ft (which we later found out is the highest you can go without oxygen). I actually was not too nervous once we got in the plane (except for when my instructor was fiddling with one of the windows, and it just popped out—quality aeronautical engineering there). Once it was our turn to jump, I took one final look down, and we were off.

We freefell for 60 seconds, reaching a terminal velocity of 120 mph. It was pretty intense, and it seemed to go by in about 20 seconds.

At 5000 feet, we pulled the rip-cord, and then I got an awesome 5 minute trip, as we watched the world below us, and did cool stuff, like flying through a cloud (you actually felt the coldness and dampness) and then doing some crazy spirals before we landed. I stuck my landing perfectly (well, technically, I fell over on my face, since I completely misjudged where the ground was, due to my complete lack of depth-perception).

I called my parents on the way home, and told them what I did. My mom was kind of pissed, but all in all wasn’t too mad, and was glad that I told her about it afterwards. I watched the video back in the dorm, and it was amusing to watch myself, and made me realize that I definitely want to do it again (multiple times) so I’ll actually know what to except, and be able to enjoy it a little bit more, instead of just being overwhelmed. All in all, very very fun day.

UPDATE This entry (slightly modified) will be in the Sept. 7th Spectator! "Would You Like A Protest With That?"

2004-08-30T21:01:00.000-04:00

As most of you know, the Republican National Convention has descended upon New York City. And with the convention comes the protestors, as many as half a million, in fact. On Sunday, the biggest protest, organized by "United For Peace and Justice," took place as protestors marched from Union Square Park up to Madison Square Garden, where the Convention is taking place.

I decided that instead of watching protest highlights on the nightly news, or having to tell my friends, "Well, yes I was a few miles away from the protests, but...," I decided to go on downtown and check out the action for myself. Just to clarify, I did not protest, because I find myself lying somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, not completely agreeing with the current administration, but not irascibly opposed to it either.

I enjoyed many of the signs, such as this one

or this one

But there actually is a point to this blog. After standing outside for a couple of hours, I decided to go into the McDonalds behind me, get a bite to eat, and watch the protest from the second floor. I brought up my Chicken McNuggets meal, and sat in front of a big glass window overlooking the festivities. As I took out my camera, I was told by the manager that we weren't allowed to take pictures from the restaurant. I asked the lady eating next to me why this was, and she just replied "That's their policy, you can't take pictures." The manager reiterated this, but in a more curt fashion, simply restating, "No pictures."

I still cannot figure out why pictures are not allowed to be taken, aside from them worried that too many people would try to take pictures from the store, and overcrowd it, which seems unlikely since most spectators weren"t taking pictures, and very few were in the McDonalds. What irks me is the blind acceptance of absurd rules. Outside people were standing up for their beliefs, shouting and sweating, some risking arrest, while inside people were simply being told what they could or could not do, and did not ask twice.

While taking pictures from a McDonalds may not be the biggest problem facing Americans today, the attitude of the lady next to me seems to seems to be a microcosm of many Americans, from all over the political spectrum. Even some of those protesting may fit into this category. Because they are so bent on getting President Bush out of office, they consistently have a violent reaction to anything the President may say. It doesn't matter what policy he proposes, it must be wrong. But this attitude is, in truth, just as dangerous as readily accepting what an authority says.

The problem today seems to be that a "conservative" will always go along with the Conservative Platform, instead of actually thinking about each policy, and deciding if the policy seems agreeable. Similarly, a more Liberal person will hear that same policy and automatically dismiss it as a bad policy.

As we near the November elections, just keep in mind what a candidate actually says, instead of looking at the name of the party next to his or her name. Even if you know you're a Liberal, a Conservative, a Libertarian, or an Independent, think about what each candidate actually stands for, challenge even your favorite candidate, and be sure you know what goes along with casting that ballot or pulling that lever.

Dubya's Blog

2004-08-09T23:51:00.000-04:00

Though my blog is obviously ridiculously important, it may not be the most important blog in the country. CIA Asks Bush to Discontinue His Blog.

An amusing article, but there is something horribly wrong with the picture in the article

give up?

Macs are for smart people.

Ok, I feel trite for taking a low-blow at Bush, no better than any liberal, tie-die, hippie, going on and on about Bush being horrible and stupid, and since his grammar is improper, it logically follows that his foreign policy is fallacious. The problem with this argument is that it's convincing only "Northeast/university-educated/Starbucks" liberals to hate Bush, and it makes his base, Midwestern-types, love him more. They (his base (don't want a dangling pronoun in there, have to watch my grammar in this entry)) don't care at all about intelligence; it (intelligence) has nothing to do with being an effective leader. All that matters is being trustworthy, genuine, and "a good guy."* (This frame of mind is epitomized by an instance my 10th grade history teacher told the class about, in which he was building a second house in a small town in Maine and was lent $30,000 in lumber because he had a solid handshake.) In fact, the fact that liberals put so much importance on intelligence makes Bushies hate them even more.
So, when you're driving through Kentucky, stopped at a gas station, purchasing some beef-jerky inside the store, and you and Buck get into a discussion about the upcoming election, don't bring up the latest "Bushism;" instead, point out that job creation is at its lowest point since Bush took office, about 7 million jobs behind his initial 6 million job goal. You can also point out that the last President to say that the economy is “taking a turn” was President Hoover, and we all know how well the economy did after that turn.

*Granted, Bush does not possess any of these characteristics, but that's another issue entirely.

Feel free to leave any comments, especially grammatical corrections; I wouldn't want to be mistaken for the leader of the free world.

Irony

2004-07-27T18:26:00.000-04:00

As you know, the DNC is occurring right now in Boston. And as always, there are protestors; for this convention, the protestors would be Republicans. However, the protestors are complaining because they are not being allowed to protest as close to the convention as they would like. The Boston PD has said that for the sake of security, certain freedoms have to given up. Republican protestors are, obviously, saying that this is unacceptable. But doesn't this, sacrificing certain freedoms for the sake of security, sound awfully familiar to the idea behind a little piece of legislation called the Patriot Act?

Moved

2004-07-23T18:37:00.000-04:00

I've moved all (12) of my entries from my old site to this one. I couldn't move the comments, so if you made a comment on the old one, feel free to repost it here. Or, if you were too shy to post, skulking away in the corner, wondering "Will Adam think I'm less-cool if I comment on his journal?", then reread all of my entries and post a new comment.

(And no, I won't think you're less-cool, well, unless you're this guy )

And on that note, I learned how to incorpate PICTURES! into my entries, so now I can post pictures, like this one from after-prom weekend my senior year

or this one from freshmen orientation .

Fun

New Location, Nothing New

2004-07-22T19:30:00.000-04:00

Absolutely nothing new here, just the change of location. But here's a link to a good site of live mp3s from some bands, including Guster, Ben Folds, and DMB alphaquam.com

Tools

2004-07-11T23:18:00.000-04:00

What's that you say? "Adam, how can I delineate between a tool and a person I'd actually like to spend some time with?" Well, the answer is actually quite simple.

On a recent excursion to the movies, I noticed a young man, wearing a white polo shirt (okay by me, and by many people's standards) with pink shorts.

It seems we have a problem here.

When I go shopping for, let's say, a new shirt, and I see one I like, I know that it is something I like as soon as I see it; it's somewhat of an innate reaction, one could say. I say to myself, "I like this shirt," or "this shirt is a nice shirt." It is for these aforementioned reasons that I will buy the shirt.

However, let's say that I am tool. We are of course speaking in a hypothetical sense, since I have not been a tool since I was fourteen months old, and refused to wear cheap-ass "Huggies" diapers. Anywho, let's say "Adam the Tool" is shopping for a pair of shorts, and he passes a pair of pink shorts.

NO ONE in their right mind would see these shorts and say "I like these shorts," or "these are nice shorts." In fact, the majority of the population, being non-tools, would pass by these shorts without a second thought.

HOWEVER, a tool sees these shorts and says, not that he like the shorts or that they look nice, but rather "some of my friends have these shorts," or "I have seen these shorts in [insert crappy men's fashion magazine here, i.e. Abercrombie Quarterly]" and for this reason I will buy these shorts.

It is my belief that within a given society there exists a "fashion norm" that everybidy recognizes and subconsciously agrees with. Some choose to diverge from this norm for various reasons, such as to rebel against "the Man" or even when we dress up in a tux, to show that wee are going somewhere that requires clothing much nicer than just the norm.

Wait, there was a point to that, I'm sure of it, I just cannot remmeber what it was. Anyway, the point of this is to show that if you buy something because you've seen it on other people, or for a similar reason, you are, incontrovertibly, a "tool." Ok, that's all, have a good week.

Comments?

"'Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all."

2004-04-11T05:03:00.000-04:00

"'Tis better to have loved and lost,
than to never have loved at all."
-Alfred Lord Tennyson "In Memoriam"

These words have always rung true to me. Whether it be a lesson learned from Good Will Hunting, or the correlated epiphany in 11th grade English. These words seemed especially true to me after Dan passed away, because I had to find some way to understand his death, and one of the olnly bright sides I could see was all of the time Dan had blessed us with his presence. I figure that one day, years down the road, when the pain has subsided more, his memories will shine brighter than the gloom cast by his too-early departure.

But tonight, as I returned from a fantastic dinner with my mom, stepdad, aunt, and uncle, I recieved one of the most depressing pieces of email I have ever read. For those of you reading this who don't go to JTS, because JTS is such a small (Jewish) community, whenever something significant happens, i.e. a marriage, birth, or death, the student/faculty body recieves an email of congradulations or condolence. Tonight's email was, evidently, of the latter type. It inforned the JTS community that

"With deep regret, I wish to inform you of the death, from natural causes, of our friend and colleague, Rabbi Gershon Schwartz, husband of Dr. Shuly Schwartz, Dean of List College"

As horrible as this news is already, it is compunded, for those reading this who do not go to JTS, by the fact that Dean Schwartz' son, a Brandeis University senior, also passed away earlier this year.

Never before have I felt so much pain for another person. I have certainly felt my own pain before, and felt another's pain because I could compare it to my own. But tonight the pain of the Schwartz family and friends was palpable to me. I could feel the tears welling up behind my eyes, and the sheer terribleness of the situation refused to leave me.

I knew Rabbi Schwartz somewhat well. I had been to a List College Fellow's dinner with him, and he was vibrant, and funny, and just plain goofy, too. I had also been in the pleasure of his company a few other times. I can certainly see how his memory will one day shine brighter than the shadow cast by his death, etc. And though I did not know Dean Schwartz' son Ellie, I certainly learned a great deal about him, and he sounds like an incredible and inspiriing person himself. And I am sure that one day his memory will shine brighter than the shadow cast by his death, too.

But then when the two are compunded, I have so much trouble seeing how Tennyson's quote can still hold true. He wrote the poem in response to the death of a close friend, but tonight I just cannot bring myself to see the truth in his quote. I do not want to go on, becuase I am sure this is much harder on those who knew Rabbi Schwartz and Ellie better than I, and because I cannot continue to write about such a horrible topic.

May God bring peace to those who mourn,
And may their lives be for a blessing.

"What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal." ~ Albert Pike

Yasir Arafat and a Tiffany's Silver Seder Plate

2004-04-07T00:02:00.000-04:00

here are not too many things that inspire me write a journal entry...as is made quite clear by my semihemidemidaily entries. (A semihemidemiquaver is a 64th note in music.)

Anywho, I was on the pristine subway back to Columbia this afternoon when I picked up a NY Times sitting next to me on the seat. I perused the usual bullshit about Iraq, the 9/11 commission, and the Presidential campaign. However, I stopped on page three, in which there was a huge picture of Arafat with dozens of microphones being stuck in his face. Why the big hoopla? Sharon has said that he no longer feels bound by a three-year-old commitment to President Bush not to harm Arafat. Now, I understand why Sharon has made this threat, partially as a deterrent from any retaliation by the militant group Hamas for the killing two weeks ago of its spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

Regardless, Sharon is still using threats to kill a person, and this simply does not sit well, especially when juxtaposed to a beautiful Seder plate. As we enter Passover, we remember that we were slaves in Egypt, and under the yoke, and threats, of Pharaoh. Further, the day before Passover is The Fast of the Firstborn. One of the reasons for this fast is because when the Angel of Death killed all of the Egyptian firstborns, he was killing children of ordinary Egyptian citizens who were not necessarily bad people or especially malevolent to the Jews, and thus we sympathize with those families who had their firstborns taken away.

On a similar note, not every Palestinian hates Israel, and not every Israeli hates the Palestinians. But when Israel invades a Palestinian camp or a Palestinian homicide bomber blows up a marketplace, it affects everyone equally, whether they are with the Palestinians/Israelis, or against Palestinians/Israelis.

In the Haggadah we read about how to answer four different types of children: the wise child, the rebellious child, the simple child, and the child who cannot ask. What I take from this is that we must approach every person and situation uniquely, and never assume one solution or answer works for everyone. The solutions used by both sides in the conflict are blanket solutions, and while a raid may be targeted at a specific leader, the consequences affect a much larger group.

Though Passover is a time to thank God for freeing the Jews from Egypt and giving us the land of Israel, this does not translate into “we are entitled to kill whoever we need to or do whatever we want to protect the land.” I really don’t want to take sides on the whole Mideast Conflict, and there was a great article in today’s Columbia Spectator, The Two-State Pipe Dream, about how even a two-state solution is not truly viable. It was kind of disheartening to read, but unfortunately brought out many good points.

What all of this has truly made me realize is this: Military and diplomatic solutions will not solve this conflict. Divvying up territory and putting up barricades will not achieve any sort of peace. The only solution will be a mutual understanding between Palestinians and Israelis, a mutual respect, and an admission of faults. I’m not saying that this will be, in any way whatsoever easy or quick, but it will be the only lasting solution.

Otherwise, I fear that Isaac and Ishmael will meet again only upon the death of their father, and I do not want to find out what that means.

An update, sort of

2004-03-26T01:25:00.000-05:00

I feel bad for not updating this, as people keep complaining. Though it would take me a good 5 minutes to do this, those are 5 minutes I could be wasting doing homework, or reading, or not reading, or wating my time in other manners. But, to satiate those craving an update, here is a song I wrote for Sonita last summer, when her application for citizenship was turned down because her fingerprints were expired.

Expired Fingerprints

Today my new life's begun,
Like a game show host, "Tell 'em what he's won!"
"Congrats, you're now a permanent resident
of the Good Ol' US of A
You can now elect America's President,
And you can have a say."

Just one more thing, you'll be on your way...

CHORUS:
Place your hand on the screen,
The one next to the sleek machine.
Watch your fingerprints slowly fade,
It's better than the Fourth Crusade.
Soon it will be done,
You'll be like everyone.
It's time to replace,
Your old, different face.
You're zeroes and ones,
In our Patriotic Database.

Behind the polyester clothes,
lies Generals, Senators, CEOs,
who all nod and grin,
as the spirals slowly spin,
like a galactic black-hole,
sucking in my body and soul.

CHORUS

Darwin knew we need diversity.
The machine only knows uniformity.
You don't fit the mold,
many times you've been told.
Home, do you even know where that is?
You were the mathematical whiz.
Here, you stand in line,
You pay your fine.
You didn't commit that crime,
but you'll do the time.

CHORUS

Your identity's no good anymore,
Your culture, we can ignore.
Uniqueness gone, symmetry acquired,
You can go now, your fingerprints: expired.

Valentine's Day

2004-02-15T04:04:00.000-05:00

So, the usual, cynical entry by a single adolescent on Valentine's Day would be something along the lines of "Valentine's Day is so over-rated, blah, blah, blah." However, I wholeheartedly disagree with this, for the following 3 reasons:

1) Valentine's Day is not a poor excuse by Hallmark and Godiva to capitalize on America's consumer culture. In fact, I find Valentine's Day to be a beautiful reminder that we should take some time out to appreciate those we love. Just like we are supposed to take a day to especially remember our secretaries, our moms, our dads, or the birth of our saviors, we should also take some time out to cherish those we hold most dear in our lives. Though we "should" cherish our loved ones every day, our lives are hectic, and we can often forget the little things. I am not saying that this is okay, nor am I saying that this is reprehensible, but sometimes we all just need a little reminder to take some time out and spend some quality time with our significant others.

2) One does not have to have a "date" or "significant other" to truly enjoy Valentine's Day. For instance, this evening Stef and I enjoyed back to back screenings of "When Harry Met Sally" and "The Thomas Crown Affair" (the new one). "When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible."~WHMS. We had sushi and ice cream, and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. There is nothing second-rate about spending Valentine's Day with friends, since we do love our friends, at least in a Platonic sense.

3)If you are single, and feel the need to have some sort of "date" on Valentine's Day, just go down to your local bar/hang out place/library. There will be plenty of males/females who feel exactly the same way you do, and would do anything (even hook-up with you!) to get the pleasure of sexiling their roommate. As for me, I have the room to myself this weekend, and thus there would be no one to sexile, and thus no need to go out of my way to pick up a girl.

And so, Happy Valentine's Day!

JOURNALy type thing

2004-02-10T17:58:00.000-05:00

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention. I learned the term "cuddling out," kind of like making out, but just with cuddling. I thought that was a really cool term, and I think it is imperative that everyone incorporate it into their vernacular.

JOURNALy type stuff:
Friday was rainy and disgusting, and at 12:15 I remembered that I had a meeting at 12:00 at the JCC, down on 76th & Amsterdam. So, I hopped in a cab, and I went to an orientation for an Everybody Wins! type of Orientation, because I'll be doing a program to read with 2nd graders who are grossly below their reading level. I'm really looking forward to it, partially because I get to read those books that we all loved, but have forgotten about. A few that were on the list in the Orientation packet:

Goodnight Moon
Amelia Bedelia
If You Give a Mouse a Cookie (I have this entire book memorized; if you’d like a recitation of it, come find me.)

On Friday Newman came down from BU. Why, you ask? Because Jordan is a master of giving cheap, but "meaningful" birthday gifts. For instance, 3 or 4 years ago Jordan gave his Mom tickets to the Daily Show. Not only are they free, but Jordan probably wanted to see it more than his mom. It was okay though, because I got to go with them.

So his “gift” to his mom this year was “him being home for a weekend.” Obviously it wasn’t to see all of his friends on Friday night, or to see his GIRLFRIEND at TCNJ on Saturday night. No, I’m sure that had nothing to do with it. It was all just Jordan being his generous self.

Anyway, we went down to NYU to see a hilarious play called “Sex: AKA Weiners and Boobs.” Matt Sadewitz (a friend from HS) was in it, and it was a lot of fun. “It was as clear as a pumpkin pie on a crisp autumn summer.”

Afterwards we chilled in Aaron’s room (**which it turns out was Sam’s (from Birthright) room last year…weird). Anyway, it was fun, and I also got to see some of Aaron’s artwork (graffiti) not only on some buildings, but in his room as well. Very interesting, but beautiful too.

Headed back up to Columbia around midnight and went to Erin’s room for a while. We just chilled and talked for an hour or so, and it was good to catch up with her.

It was the first time I've left Columbia for a Shabbat, and to be honest, even though I had a great time down at NYU, I really missed the whole Shabbat environment. It'll be nice to be here this weekend.

Israel...Finally

2004-02-10T15:03:00.000-05:00

First, I would just like to clear up something...my first kiss did NOT occur December 26, 2003. It occured in the summer of 1999, at Long Lake Camp for the Performing and Fine Arts, on the last night of the first session. If you want more details, inquire within.

http://www.snapfish.com/thumbnailshare/AlbumID=10904786/t_=8766096
There it is, my Israel Pics! Enter my email address: ang2108@columbia.edu, and the password is "israel."

Ok, so I started typing a whole long thing about Israel, but I realized that it was way too long. So, here are some highlights:

The Negev: I've never been to a dessert before, and just being out there, in the middle of nothing, hearing nothing but the sound of the wind on the sand was truly amazing, even, religious.

The Kotel: Very cool to actually be at the Western Wall, where it all started, and getting to spend a Shabbat there was amazing too. I alos saw Avie Pinkser there. He's a rabbi who taught Hebrew High and he and I became really good friends....he even wrote me a reccommendation for Columbia/JTS.

Camel & Donkey Rides: Camels were fun, but I HATE the donkeys. After Dave fell off of his, I was laughing so hard that I fell off of mine, which made Sam get off of hers.

The Dead Sea: We covered ourselves in mud and went into the somewhat-frigid water. It was really cool just floating there. Plus, it's good for your skin.

Our tourguide: Her name was Morge, and she had a hat with a little alligator on top of it. But she was really cool, and had really good insights into Israel. She also provided us with a "fair and balanced" view of Israel, and made us appreciate just how complex the conflict is. She also had really inspiring stories.

I'm sure that I'm forgetting something, but oh well. That was pretty much Israel...well, a lot more than that, obviously, but it was amazing.

I know that I want to spend at least a semester there, and possibly take a year there.

Israel

2004-01-20T00:18:00.000-05:00

Israel was fun...more to come

One of those days...but in a good way

2004-01-05T22:55:00.000-05:00

It is often said that F Scott Fitzgerald was blessed with the ability to write beautifully but cursed with a lack of material to write about.

I had a great day, and not for any particular reason; it was just one of those days. I met with my rabbi in the morning, and we debated and talked, and had a good time. (Did you realize that when you chant the Shema, it's a 3/4 waltz?)

I did most of my packiing for Israel, and am almost ready to go. I'm going to my dorm tomorrow to unpack all of my school stuff so I can go straight back to my dorm after the trip.

But, aside from all of this, I just had a really good day. I don't even know exactly why, I just have one of those good feelings right now. But, unlike Fitzgerald, I don't have the writing ability. Don't get me wrong, I consider myself to be a good writer, but with the way I feel right now, I feel like I could fill a novel. However, the operative word here is "could."

I wish I had a canvas right now. Even though I don't "know how to paint," I could at least express myself in it.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to keep my happiness to myself for now.

When I Rule The World

2004-01-04T00:58:00.000-05:00

Even though Jeremy and I already have a deal worked out (he'll be President of the World, and I'll be Chief Rabbi), hopefully I can also be President of Football (US not Euro-crap).

While some people like Ms America's talk about feeding every poor child and creating world peace, and other utopian idealist creations.

HOWEVER, here is what I will do when I rule football:
1) There will be no offense and defense squads--rather, there will be one "TEAM." You don't see in basketball, when the other team rebounds the ball, all of the players switch around. It should be the same in football.
2) When the quarterback runs the ball, and then slides to avoid getting tackled, it's an automatic 5-yard penalty. To me, sliding is the ultimate in pussying-out. Take the hit like a man, not like a....ummm...not-man.
3) Inside the uprights (the "goal-posts" for those of you who have your priorities so messed up that you do things such as work, or read when football is on) there would be a smaller set of uprights. Before the kick, the kicker would have to call whether he was going for the small uprights, or just the regular ones. If he makes the smaller set, it would be worth 4 points. If he doesnt make the small ones, its no points, even if it's within the larger uprights. I think that this would add another level of risk to the game--kind of like the 2-point conversion.

Also, when I am on the Executive Board of the World, I will also make everyone else in the world named Adam change their name to Adam1, Adam2, etc. Or, per Allie's suggestion, they can call themselves Ad, or Am, and thus Ad1, Am1, Ad2, and so on. Basically, I can;t stand other people named Adam. Yes, I know I just offended a lot of people, including good friends, but I hate you. Don't get me wrong, it's not entirely your fault, but every time someone yells "Adam" and they're not talking to me...the blood boils a little bit more and a little bit more.

In preparation for this change, those people named Adam may want to begin contemplating new names, such as Pontilius, or El Salvador, just to name a few suggestions.

Well, I'm off. Oh, and I'll be in the city for a while on Tuesday just doing random stuff, so if you're up for a get together, drop me a line.

3 DAYS UNTIL THE HOLY LAND.

It's good to be me

2003-12-30T17:41:00.000-05:00

iBook: $1499
Kosher Meat: $5.99 lb.
Knowing that I won't get a computer virus or mad cow disease: Priceless

There's a First Time For Everything...

2003-12-27T18:50:00.000-05:00

...like the first time I kissed a girl (which was yesterday). Oh, and also, the time I started one of those online journal things. I don't plan on making this particularly introspective, since I am under no illusions that this is a "journal." I am making this for a) my amusement, and b) other people's amusement. So if you are expecting entries about how I cry when see a rose, or how my biggest weakness is turquoise pens, you've come to the wrong journal.
However, if you do want to hear about the "zany," "whacky," sometimes quixotic everyday happenings of a confused, overwhelmed, and opinionated college student, than you are in the right vicinity.

So, let's start off with today. At 12:00 AM I was just arriving in New York City, thanks to the driving of Ariel "NASCAR" Eckstein. In my car, the speedometer ends at 110 MPH. If we put my speedometer in Ariel's car, the needle would have snapped off about 43 seconds into the trip on Clover Ave (a very very very residential street) when Ariel almost smashed into four deer. And with that we were off. We made it to the Lincoln Tunnel in less than 40 minutes (put my address and something around the tunnel into Mapquest--I bet they estimate a slightly lengthier trip).

In NYC we finally settled on Little Italy, and after aimlessly wandering the area we assumed to be near Little Italy we came upon a huge sign over the street that said "Welcome to Little Italy." (The drive in the city was also adventurous, with Ariel cutting off some cabs, and other cars, including some punk ass youngens (to whom I gave my "blank, retarded face"))

We went to this really cool little joint called "Cha Cha's" and we all had great desserts. Ariel, aside from putting Speed Racer to shame, was also named "most masculine friend" by Bettina. I lost because I said I was fat, and you can fill in the blanks for the rest of the clique.

Today (today) I went with my mom and stepdad to the Short Hills Mall--which has apparently been named the new Ground Zero by the Department of Homeland Security. We first saw a huge group of SS looking cops walking through the mall, and then caught a glimpse of SWAT cops in full gear, WITH their machine guns in their hands. I guess that Al Queda figures if they can destroy every Fendi bag and Burberry scarf, then they've defeated the American spirit. If I were them I'd go for the massage chairs at Brookstone though.

Tonight, I decided that instead of doing something crazy like going out and being social, I would stay in and watch a three hour special about the training of Navy SEALs (the people, not the animals). It was awesome, and it made me realize that I may not be cut out for the SEALs--so I guess I'll have to settle for rabbi instead. But I'll still hold out for the possibility that the SEALs may one day need a scrawny rabbi to accompany them on a mission--ya never know.

Okay, that was long. And since I'm writing this for purely entertainment purposes, I'll try to keep it shorter in the future. Sorry, no witty closing.

Wet Hot American Adam

What do Obama and Gob Bluth Have in Common?

Blog 2.0

Why I Hate Fireworks

2008: The Year We Became Our Grandparents

On Popcorn

On Atlas Shrugging and Financial Bailing Out

The "Grand" Opening of Obama's Utah Headquarters

Man, Animal and Progress

I'm Baaaaack

Success?

Enough Burning Bushes For You Now?

Why Every Jewish Person Should Be a Mets Fan

Misguided Fan(atic)s

The Devil Must Love Your Hat

Physics and Fundamentalism

Could You Pass the US Citizenship Test?

Crash Theory

The "Theory" of Gravity

God and Poker

Locking the Gates, Losing the War

A Waste of Time

I Declare The War Is Over...in 1968

Time to Start

I freaking love this place

Science & Religion (and misogyny)

An Update, I Guess

llama llama duck

Our Bubble

Skydiving

*UPDATE* This entry (slightly modified) will be in the Sept. 7th Spectator! "Would You Like A Protest With That?"

Dubya's Blog

Irony

Moved

New Location, Nothing New

Tools

"'Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all."

Yasir Arafat and a Tiffany's Silver Seder Plate

An update, sort of

Valentine's Day

JOURNALy type thing

Israel...Finally

Israel

One of those days...but in a good way

When I Rule The World

It's good to be me

There's a First Time For Everything...

UPDATE This entry (slightly modified) will be in the Sept. 7th Spectator! "Would You Like A Protest With That?"