Federalist...but not in a bad way.

I've been mulling this over for a very long time, well, at least a year, and I have come to a decision. I am a Federalist, though clearly not in such a manner as to be considered as aligned with the Federalist Society.

I think I have come to the conclusion that federalism is a necessary, important, and fruitful structure for government. Thus, from today forward (at least until I change my mind again, or encounter someone who irritates me into squabbling with him/her, which could very well be tomorrow), I believe that a Federal structure is the right way to go.

This is clearly uninteresting and insignificant to anyone else, but I thought I would share

Reality Check.

If you read this post and thought it was boring, uninteresting, self-indulgent, desultory, or petty...it's your fault. Because I'm telling you now. It's all of those things.


To those of you who knew me before this transition into law school, do you think that I have changed? (I want you actually answer this question. Though I know you won't. Ass.)

Every year of my life since I was 18 years old has been beset with radical changes in perspective. The color and shape of the universe keeps changing. Just a quick sketch:

1. In the 2000 election, I was not able to identify any differences between Democrats and Republicans.
2. I began the 2001 sophomore year in misery, hating myself and my life, entirely too introspective and bogged down in self-pity and self-loathing.
3. In 2002, I left the Western world for the first time in my life and was startled by China, a place where everyone looks like me, where people share the same blood. A place which awakened me to the fact that I really didn't belong anywhere.
4. In 2003, I decided to try certain drugs.
5. In 2004, I left for India, having never met an HIV+ person, an untouchable, or an orphan. Terrified.
6. In 2005, I tried law school.
7. In 2006, I began losing the battle to law school.

Suffice it to say, every single year sucked me deeper and deeper into trying to tease out the chaos into something that made sense, and every year there was a major shift, a re-alignment, a new understanding, and a deeper reflection on my own past understandings. (This is part of my suspicion about people who have very very strong and set ideological beliefs at this age. If a month goes by where an belief you hold does not gets obliterated, pushed aside, refuted, compromised, or at least seriously challenged by some experience or understanding...then I don't think you're paying attention. Or have accepted the primacy of faith over understanding. Which, I guess, is fine.)

The larger question is whether I really have changed or not. For example, I am abundantly, painfully, and bitterly aware that I have moments of pompousness, arrogance, and condescension. A quarter of the time I don't mean it at all, half of the time I'm not even aware it's happening (which, I guess is the most dangerous part), and the other quarter of the time I'm probably doing it on purpose because I'm being annoyed. Has it always been this way? I distinctly remember a moment in 10th grade, when one of my friends told me that Billy Baugh thought I "talked down" to him. It was the first time I had ever heard that, and I was devastated that I hadn't realized people thought such things of me. Anyone?

I remember being proud of who I used to be. I don't remember being ashamed of myself. I don't remember living in a complicated amalgam of an inferiority complex infused with the God complex infused with so much alcohol and cigarettes.

I remember, sitting in a Waffle House with Nic Turza when I was 16, and he must have been 18. It was after one of the band's shows at Ground Zero, and we just wanted to grab some food. And Nic was someone I had always admired, who I believed was one of the most brilliant and competent people I had ever known, but still had an incredibly developed sense of integrity and purpose. I imagine he had little or no respect for me, this being a guy who yelled and screamed at me the first time I ever met him. (apparently I ruined the ending of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and movie spoilers were a major pet peeve.)

And we talked, and somehow we ended up on our goals in life. When he asked what I wanted, I said that the only thing I wanted, and ever would want, is to have a decent life. To make enough money to provide for two kids and give them what was given me. To have a loving wife that I loved. To have a stable, contented family life. That's it, that's all, and what else could we want? (I'm paraphrasing a much more eloquent delivery I'm sure). And I remember Nik was surprised, and I remember that I was surprised at him being surprised. I had not the slightest iota of an aspiration for greatness. What I said that night must have moved him though, because he went home that night and wrote what I had said onto his wall in black marker.

Who cares? Who knows. Is that how you would think of me?

Interesting Note.

I don't have too much to comment upon with respect to the exact figures and the implications, since I'm not terribly aware of where the money is being allocated, though if bias and memory serves me right, it is, very very broadly speaking, shifting from domestic programs to the military budget...

I just wanted to note this simple set of facts about modern conservatism:

February 28, 2001: “In his first address to Congress, Bush likened his $ 1.9 trillion budget to a family budget...”

February 5, 2002: “President Bush yesterday proposed a $ 2.13 trillion budget for next year...”

February 4, 2003: “President Bush announced a $ 2.23 trillion budget for fiscal 2004 yesterday...”

February 3, 2004: “President Bush sent Congress a $2.4 trillion spending plan yesterday...”

February 13, 2005: “President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget...”

February 5, 2006: “President Bush plans to propose a $2.7 trillion budget tomorrow...”

Today: “President Bush took aim yesterday at domestic spending as part of a plan to balance the budget in five years without raising taxes while increasing funding for the Iraq war and permanently expanding the military. With the $2.9 trillion budget he submitted to Congress...”

If you're keeping score at home, $1.9 trillion to $2.9 trillion is an increase of more than 52 percent.

Nice.

Stupid.

When did useless college literature analysis begin to seep into journalism?

So you probably recognize these photos...
Here's the New York Times:

No commercial that appeared last night during Super Bowl XLI directly addressed Iraq, unlike a patriotic spot for Budweiser beer that ran during the game two years ago. But the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year’s commercials.

More than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated, cartoonlike vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous.

For instance, in a commercial for Bud Light beer, sold by Anheuser-Busch, one man beat the other at a game of rock, paper, scissors by throwing a rock at his opponent’s head.

Awful.


P.S. - I'm working on my first case!

(See Reaction Below)

What is this reaction to? THIS.



Hot Jesus. Which one of you may I dub "Pants Man?"


(As usual, discovered on the Daily Dish)

If anyone ever wants to do some research...

I've been reading about the death penalty in my Evidence course, something which I have always opposed for a variety of reasons, though I have never felt it to be a burning issue that consumed me and interested me like some other issues.

One bit of empirical evidence interests me though, in general, about the criminal justice system, which is whether there is a disproportionate incidence of "recidivism" amongst populations who have been exonerated by evidence presented after conviction. (I use quotation marks, since I assume recidivism requires an actual first violation...which isn't technically true if you've been exonerated.)

Of course there'd be tons of variables to juggle (is murder generally a crime which is conducive to repeat offenses? The association between arrest rates and other variables like race, geography, prior criminal history etc.? Do people who have spent 9 years on death row have altered psychologies upon release? and on and on), but I would be curious to see if the numbers come closer to well-documented recidivism, or the general population. There are obviously 9 million conclusions that can be drawn from such evidence, ranging from the effects of being subjected to the criminal justice system, the nature of individuals arrested and convicted, the efficacy of criminal justice procedures in determining the "truth" etc...but I just thought I'd take a break from my reading and type down this random thought. I, of course, have no interest in following this up...but feel like it's an interesting question.

Also wanted to lay out an interesting quote from the noted conservative George Will, which isn't the basis for my views, but I found interesting nonetheless:
"Capital punishment is a government program, so skepticism is in order."

Oh oh oh yeah! One more thing...

Coolest Aquarium Ever.
As can be expected, I believe, I have nothing to say about the Super Bowl, and decided not to go to any of the parties being held by really excited people, because I will invariably laugh when the commentator says "tight end" or something, and be asked to leave. And it's just not that exciting to me. I will watch the game though.

Things I Like...and I'm an idiot.

Today was clinic orientation day. I had to be up for an 8:15 bus from Campus to the legal services center in Jamaica Plain...a low-income "ethnically diverse" area outside Boston. As usual, I woke up at 8:03. Noting that the bike ride takes 6 minutes, the all-too-familiar panic took over, and I was up, ready, and out the door at 8:09 on my bike. Unfortunately, last night ended with an ugly snowfall, whereupon the snow neither melted nor remained frozen. In other words, slush slushed from the slushy heavens. I say this because it means that the roads were completely frozen over in that rocky, foot-printy, tire-tracky, jagged slipperiness. Which goes great with a thin tired road bike. Lovely.

Anyhow, I happened to make it to campus at 8:17, relieved as hell, when the parking lot where the buses should have been was completely empty. Not a soul. As I pulled into campus, I began to panic that yet again my sleeping problems had fucked me over, and I made an unwise turn on a lake of ice, resulting in a rapid loss of traction, a panicky scramble for salvation, and a calamitous clatter as I, my bike, and my fat ass crashed to the ice and slid into a wall. I quickly scrambled to my feet, and then fell again. After locking my bike up, I made a panicked phone call to one of my buddies in the clinic, asking him where they were. His response?

Now? What? It's 7:20. I'm a douchebag with fat fingers who can't set his alarm without jamming down the time set button.

Otherwise, clinic orientation was interesting. It appears that I will be serving as an attorney for divorces, child-support, alimony, domestic violence, restraining orders, child custody, and all sorts of other family law. Apparently this entails independent interviewing, building case theories, doing paperwork, filing motions, restraining orders, subpoenas, and arguing the case in front of judges for hearings etc...in short, actually being a family law attorney. It's exciting, but a little terrifying to suddenly have to handle all the aspects of the law in someone's actual life. Not policy, or appeals, or corporate gains and losses, but someone's kid, or escaping an abuser's wrath. Yikes. Thank god I'll have some supervision!

As for what I like, I just wanted to say:

--Joanna Newsom's Album, "Ys" is fucking incredible. I bet most of you would hate the shit out of it, but I simply can't get enough. It is by far one of the best albums I have heard in a very long time.
--I also like Damien Rice's new album "9"
--"Before Sunrise" was great, although in my opinion a bit of a slow starter with more than a hint of lameness...even though ultimately I was touched by the movie, and a few choice exchanges. However, I just thought "Before Sunset" was incredible. I can't entirely explain why, nor am I interested in trying to unravel it, but I really felt so drawn in and invested in the movie...you know, the types of movies where you spend the next few hours after it searching all over the internet for any scraps people have written about the movie, or speculations on it, or looking up the actors etc. Good stuff.
--Also, has anyone else seen "Idiocracy"? The movie was pretty shitty all around, but the introduction of the movie developing the idea that in modern society idiots, morons, and degenerates reproduce more,earlier, and "worse," while intelligent and educated folks have much fewer children (if at all), leading to an increasing de-evolution and dumbing down of humanity...was really interesting. And I'm not actually sure why it would be wrong.
--I also love your mother.

Can't access the Blog for some reason...

But it appears I can access this "new post" page, so I'm just going to post my response to Rawjer's comment about repealing the the 17th Amendment here. My apologies.(though, as you can tell by the length of the post, I find it fascinating). Rawjer's post is in the post about "What I believe." (By the way, for you non-law students, and I guess even you law students, has the crap I've been talking about been unbearable to read, and you just sorta skip over it?)

And now back to my response to Super Jewboy:

Actually, I was referring to your use of the phrase "vox populi" which made it sound like you thought the 17th Amendment made things LESS populist, when in fact it makes things much MORE populist and nationalist, rather than federal. That was all I was saying...didn't you basically say something to the effect that the 17th Amendment makes gov't less responsive to the will of the people?

I think I'll begin with the argument about the "distinct advantage" in electing Senators differently, first by laying groundwork, and then making the point.

There's a dramatic difference from Madisonian conception of the system of checks and balances and the actual system which evolved. Madison viewed the separation of powers and checks and balances from an institutional standpoint, whereby the branches check each other through self-interest and pursuit of power and aggrandizement for their respective branches, that is, their interests lie in their institutional power. Thus, Congress has interest in Congressional power, and the Executive has interest in Executive power. The analogy or shift was from British mixed regime theory, whereby the King, the Lords, and the Commons, by the very nature of their composition of their constituencies, had inherent interests that checked each other. Lords have different interests than Kings, and Kings different interests from Commons etc, so each group naturally had its own interests that were embedded into English society, and thus served as a good framework for channeling self-interest.

America didn't have Lords and Commons and a King. They didn't have embedded societal interests that could be so fortuitously blended into a mixed regime. So Madison conceived of a system where the institutions themselves give rise to institutional interests which will check each other. It doesn't matter what your background is if you're the President...as your interest will be assumed to be in making the Presidency more powerful...which will cause you to check the Congress. This is not how things are today. This Madisonian approach, while still alive and actively debated today, was vastly cut back and diminished by the introduction of the Supremacy Clause and Judicial Review (which the debates show only 2 of 55 convention delegates rejected), which allowed the court to adjudicate the divisions of power between the branches, that is, relegated what Madison saw as a distinctly political power struggle, into a system guided by the rule of law administered by the Judiciary. Rule of Law, not political struggle. This is most clearly illustrated by the Convention's outright rejection(four times!) of Madison's attempt to institute a co-executive/judiciary mode of political judicial review, which was ultimately replaced by judiciary judicial review.

The point of all of that nonsense? Madison's system is not the one that survived. In fact, the system of Framer's intent is not the system that emerged and we cannot view our current situation solely through their eyes. The mutation? Political parties. The system we see has to be re-understood in light of the emergence of such an enormously significant political development, and not from a long-past perspective. The existence of political parties is not accounted for in the original system, and thus we have to view the Constitutional system in its evolution to accomodate political parties, not in its pre-political party condition. (I guarantee you're thinking of Madison's "faction" analysis from Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 as a discussion of political parties, but it is not. His analysis of factions is a retrospective look at the excesses of majoritarian democracy, not prospective views on political parties. (If you want, I can go into a much deeper discussion about what he means by faction.) Madison is referring to precisely the same problem Gerry is referring to in the quotation you noted about the people being led astray, that is, the excesses of democracy.) The Framers created a much better system than they had intended, not because they foresaw all of the problems, but because the system was able to adapt to massive shocks and revisions.

More relevant to your analysis is that Madison's (and yours) conception of bicameralism is not relevant in an era of political parties. Besides the fact that Madison's institutional view of political power struggle is far less applicable in reality than in theory, political parties kill the utility of an internal legislative check. In both houses, it is clear that it does not matter how they are elected, it matters more which party they are affiliated with. Thus, changing the composition of the electorate makes absolutely no difference in checks and balances. In the past 6 years, had the Senate been elected by states as a republican majority, the results would have been the same.

In addition, in regards to campaign finance, I believe that with the decline in campaign finance there would be an increase of corruption. I believe it is easier to corrupt 51% of 300 state legislators with promises, gifts, money, and favors than it is to corrupt an electorate of 30 million. If you are concerned about special interests infecting campaign finance, I believe special interests will have a much more direct route to office. More specifically, I think it would be quite easy for the most powerful and influential people in any state to have an easy ticket to DC. That is, the Senate would be even more aristocratic than it already is. To drive this point home, making the Senate more aristocratic, more elite, and more distant from the voting population was one of the specific rationales given for electing the Senate from state legislatures. The Framers WANTED an aristocratic Senate. Do we?

Also, I believe the Senate is by no means a clone of the House. The KEY aspect of bicameralism, unanimously agreed upon in the Convention, is a difference in the sizes of the house. Larger houses are more prone to demagoguery and the passions of the mob, while smaller houses are better for deliberation, but more open to corruption. These conclusions are relevant today, as the House is much much more lock-step and non-deliberative, while the Senate is more deliberative and manageable with 335 less people. But more importantly, both houses are dominated by backroom wheeling, dealing, negotiations, and party affiliations. NOT by actual deliberation. So why bother with repealing the 17th Amendment? What can be achieved in changing the composition of the two houses that cannot be accomplished by the fact that the HR is elected out of districts and the Senate by the whole state?

The utility of federalism is a wholly different issue that I don't think I'm going to tackle here. I do believe that there is great benefit and great necessity for federalism. But I also am acutely aware that federalism was the powder keg ignited by Lincoln's election which precipitated into the Civil War.

Rawjer Sakker Fires a Shot Across the Bow...

So, SJ has decided to fire the first shot in what I perceive will be a long war over "What I Believe." I've posted his comment from a few days ago below...and I think I will start as well...though to be honest, I'm a little drunk. Thanks by the way, I think this is important...though how fruitful it will be is still in the air.

But, I'd like to explore a different topic that I have been ruminating on the past few days. What do I believe. Here are the first five. Its harder than it looks, what are yours?

1.)The greatest joy a man can have is to have a woman by his side to grow old with. The second greatest joy is to have children.

2.)If you don't like the rules, you change them by legislative process. You don't break them, and you don't circumvent them.

3.) Parents shouldn't have to monitor what is on television for their kids to watch. Television should be okay for everyone to watch. It was once, and those old shows are still pretty good.

4.) A man should never hit a woman. Ever. The only crimes worse are murder and rape.

5.) Education is a precious commodity, and it should be funded over any other priority short of national defence.

I have thought about what I believe for a very long time, but find myself heartily unwilling to settle on anything solid. Clearly, however, I don't agree with you on most things...including this list, though I'm not sure we disagree on generalities as much as I am uneasy with the specifics. For example, I agree with #2 insofar as we assume we live in a system where the legislative process works. For example, I believe it may be acceptable to break laws, but you must be willing to suffer the consequences (ie. Gandhi and the Civil Rights movement). I would also disagree with the fact that parents shouldn't have to monitor what is on television for their kids to watch, mainly because it comes down to the same issue of who-gets-to-decide values and that I believe that just as it has always been a parental responsibility to monitor their children to prevent them from being eaten by lions ("Kids! Stay away from the Lion Den!"), it is equally a parental responsibility to monitor their children's television watching. I, of course, acknowledge that these are all of your personal views and values, while I am responding with a much more general and socio-political response, which is not entirely fair. Though I still disagree with you. I'm going to regret starting a list of this sort, but since you've started with an opening salvo, I may as well honor you with a response...so here goes...I'll begin with blander assertions that are less personal.

1) I believe that it doesn't have to be this way. Above all else, whatever the problems we face in this world, I believe that it doesn't have to be this way. This is the necessary component in believing we can and should work for progress.

2) I believe individual human experience and human joy and suffering should be the beginning and end of all government and morality. This is a reflection of my decision to ground my personal "metaphysics" solely in human consciousness, being aware I can't go any further (ie. God) without blind assertions. (Think Descartes' cogito ergo sum without all the circular crap that somehow leads to God.)

3) I believe liberty and personal freedom can only extend so far as does not unduly danger the security, liberty, and happiness of others.

4) I believe in nature and nurture.

5) I believe that no idea intended for the betterment of society should ever dehumanize individuals, whether it be into cogs, calculations, angels or demons.

6) I believe there is a human capacity for goodness and compassion, but a human inclination towards selfishness and indifference.

7) I believe systemic ideologies of truth are pedagogically useful, but destructive in practice.

8) I believe that some contradiction is inherent in all human ideas and may be a signal of honesty, but that some contradictions are violently hypocritical. (ya like the contradiction there?)

9) I believe there is a "system", but that the system is a product of aggregate individual behavior filtered through an institutional and cultural framework. I emphatically do not believe that the "system" is a conscious product of evil minds.

10) And I do believe that the "system" is fucked up, malfunctioning, and in need of serious work.

Anybody else? Please feel more free to respond to this than usual...because I really would like to see what people think, either on their own, or about what I believe.

LLMs: A Second Look

I have always spoken very highly of LLM students here at Harvard. I would always describe the major difference between WashU and Harvard as the participation and abilities of the LLM students. That changes today. (all pictures contain actual LLMs, though not from here)



For example, Chinese LLMs cheat. Not that they are aware that they are cheating necessarily, but I think that the vast majority of Chinese LLMs cheat in some form or another, whether serious or minor. Whether it's typing 15 minutes after the exam has ended, openly discussing materials they are not permitted to share, passing on exam answers from one class to another, or whatever it may be...it's a constant and consistent pattern.

Example 2: LLMs speak more in class, and I was misled in corporations to mistake complex hypotheticals I didn't understand for substantively interesting questions. I noticed instead, that when asked direct questions about simple concepts, LLMs have the tendency to avoid the direct question by adding in tons of intermediary hypothetical facts that produce a long, complicated answer that has nothing to do with the concept at hand. Since I didn't know what a hedge fund and leveraged buyouts were in the first 5 weeks of my corporations class, I mistook these questions in class for deeper understanding. Not true.


Example 3: LLMs are full of shit. Boy. I could feel the bullshit up to my ears today in one of my classes when some of them spoke. The problem wasn't that they were bullshitting. It's that they were raising their hands and eagerly letting loose. I also have found myself dozing off through LLM mini-lectures about irrelevant social issues and their effects on society while the professor was trying to probe an abstract concept that we could later apply to facts.

Now, admittedly these kids are sharp. They're brilliant, they're hard working, they are hampered by language problems, and they obviously have some serious ability. I merely am adding the trait "annoying" to the list.


Finally, i just wanted to post this bad-ass picture. Say what you will about the North Koreans...but damn can they build a revolutionary monument!!

"Eyebrows" he hath not.

Actually, that reference makes no sense...since Jim Webb clearly does have eyebrows...unless you immediately recollect that last year's Democratic response to the State of the Union was delivered by Governor Kanine...who had the most irritating, off-putting eyebrows I have ever seen. I would have preferred the asian-lady tattooed eyebrows to those fuckers.

Anyhow, I just finally got a chance to see Webb's response to the state of the union, and I have to say, that it is one of the better speeches delivered by a politician than I have heard in a long time. This is not to say that it was great, or that it was wonderful, honest, and inspiring. Hell no. But, it wasn't the stupid "There is a better way" speech Kaine gave last year, and it certainly was miles and miles above anything I have heard ANY Republican utter in the past few years (an exception may be Arlen Specter's increasing fury over Gonzales' statements on Habeas during a Senate Committee.)

Anyhow, I doubt anyone will have any interest in watching it, but I thought I'd include it here, as this blog has become just as much a receptacle for the things I watch and encounter as the things I think....so here:

The Art of Deduction.

So I was sitting in the WashU library reading my Evidence assignment for the first day of class, and I encountered a section on inductive and deductive reasoning. As examples of deducting reasoning, the textbook gave two problems without answers. I read the problems, and just ran into brick walls. Like headfirst, just plowed right into them and could not move an inch. I sat there and thought over them, and re-thought over them, and felt that sick feeling where your mind simply refuses to budge. Like I was dividing by zero, ya know? DOES NOT COMPUTE! ERROR! Drove me fucking insane.

So, after awhile, I just gave up...but I refused to look on the internet for a solution. Because I would not let it beat me. I didn't want to cheapen it. I did not want to simply skip past it. Instead, I took a nap with AHJ for two hours. As I came out my nap and laid there in the dark, the stupid problems were still in my head, and I felt like I was on the cusp of it....but I could NOT figure it out. Everytime I thought I had solved it, I skated on the edge of a solution but could simply not see it. Driving me crazy. So I went outside, smoked a cigarette and just thought about it. And then I got it. And once I got it, I tried again on the second one, and I got that one too. So, basically, it took me four hours. But I was ecstatic that I had overcome it.

So, for the hell of it, I've decided to reproduce these problems and post them for you. So, all I ask is that you don't look the answers up...if you respond to this at all.

1) Once upon a time in a faraway land, the king wanted his son to marry the smartest young woman in the kingdom. Three tied for the highest score. The king seated these three women at a round table. He asked them to close their eyes, which they did. He then announced that he was placing a beanie on each of their heads, positioned in such a way that, when they opened their eyes, each would be able to see the beanies on the heads of the other two but would not see the beanie on her own head. The king told the young women that the beanies might be either red or white. "When you open your eyes, you are to raise your right hand if you see one or more red beanies. When you deduce the color of the beanie on your own head, lower your hand and rise. Now open your eyes." The king had, in fact, placed red beanies on each of the three women's heads. All three raised their hands. After ten seconds, one of htem lowered her hand, rose, and explained her deduction that she was wearing a red beanie.

How did she do it?


2) In a faraway land there were two tribes. The Lynx were inveterate liars, while the Cougars were unfailingly veracious. Once upon a time a stranger visited the land, and on meeting a party of three inhabitants inquired as to which tribe they belonged.
The first murmured something the stranger did not catch. The second remarked, "He said he was a Lynx." The third said to the second, "You are a liar."

What is the tribe of the third person?

Reassuring...and then Not So Much.

This man reassures me....


A few of the Youtube responses do NOT:

"torture has always been used to get information.
this is not a new thing.
welcome to reality. you and that moronic redneck guy have a thing or two to learn about the way things really work."

"listen, asshole, why don't you go hug a terrorist?
as if scumbags weren't tortured when clinton was president.
please. stop being so naive."

"goofy works at disneyworld. and that's where you belong. in a magical kingdom where everything is puppydogs and cotton candy. why don't you go find a terrorist and give him a big hug, you anti-american sisterfucker."

Who is this guy who is responding? I mean, how do you picture him? The way he talks, he's obviously young...so it's not some Bill O'Reilly type...but he's so loose and free with terms like "sisterfucker" that indicate some sort of collegey, 15-29 type person...but the fact that he would respond to this on Youtube and say something so inane, stupid, and rhetorically ineffective implies that he's not some intellectual who has sat down and thought this through. I mean...is this some nihilistic pale computer geek? Or some redneck southern boy? Or is he like SJB? Or some khaki-loafer-side part-brooks brothers jackass? Could he be black? Chinese? I have a very hard time figuring out who a person like this could be....anyone have a guess?

And as usual, there's nothing more exhausting or demoralizing than stumbling onto a discussion thread that involves something political...the incessant ad hominem attacks, the vitriol and disgusting invectives hurled about are just so discouraging.

I found a letter to the editor in the Boston Globe today that really struck me...so simple and trivial, but ringing true...

AMERICANS WONDER why the world at large hates us. Recently I found the answer.

I went to the Burlington Mall with my two small children. In one store, I asked a question of the sales clerk who was ringing up my sale. Apparently, I shouldn't have done that, as the woman behind me, apparently irritated, sighed for my benefit.

As my children and I were walking in the mall, two teenage girls behind us made loud comments about how slowly we were walking in front of them.

Then as we were leaving the mall, a man in a Ford Explorer cut me off to take a left in front of me.

As a country we are so obsessed with ourselves -- me first, who cares about everyone else. It makes me so scared for the world my children are growing up in.

No wonder the world hates us -- after today I hate us too.

Exam Done: What will I say?

Exam is over!!

That "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" was a wonderful movie that I thoroughly enjoyed. Thaaaaat's right.

Actually, I find myself enthralled by the Founding Era and the continual development of the Constitution after this course. Aside from the absolute unlikelihood of having such a brilliant group of individuals gathered together in creating this system, the richness of the intellectual history and the radical twists, turns, leaps, and modifications made by the Framers were so well-articulated (and so mistaken in many ways) and incredible. Of course out of the Constitutional Convention, only a handful were driving the creation of the Constitution...but the intense philosophical and political battles fought over ratification are just amazing to soak in and ponder. I will say outright that I am simply stunned at the level of discourse over the Constitution...completely awed by the brilliant works that were dashed off and published in newspapers, and the depth of engagement and principle that was at the heart of the battle. Simply amazing. Amazing.

I've actually come under the spell of the exaltation and glory that we shower on these Founders...and I am totally among the ranks of elementary school teachers who constantly talk about how important these men were. I passed it off previously as the sort of American patriotic crap we're so often exposed to, and assumed that the way things are just makes sense, that it was all fairly logical, and that they just happened to be in the right place at the right time. ..and that we glorified some sort of myth. But, hot diggity damn. These guys were AWESOME. Even more interesting is how deeply flawed and human they are...for example, this giant of a man, James Madison (my new personal hero) was 5'4" 100 pounds, sickly, awkward, and apparently a terrible public speaker with a thin, reedy voice that didn't carry well. For some reason that inspires the hell out of me.

And then there's Alexander Hamilton, who spent his bitterly cold and brutal nights in Valley Forge in his tent reading Montesquieu, Adam Smith, English Constitutionalism (while taking copious notes about sexual positions and sex details out of other books)...and writing a letter to finance minister of the colonies (amounting to 38 pages typed) laying out a new, revolutionary plan for financing the rebellion (which eventually led to the foundation of American finance)...all at the age of 24. And then...at the Battle of Yorktown...as a colonel...personally charged at the head of an elite infantry unit in a daring, dangerous, and bold attack that took out the last British force and ending the war. (and then of course there was the whole constitutional convention, Federalist Papers, first Secretary of the Treasury, and the duel with Aaron Burr over honor...and all that nonsense.) Enough said. The dude was awesome. I just bought that Alexander Hamilton biography that took the country by storm a few years ago (it's huge)...and I'm excited.

I need to be re-inspired...and I never thought it would come from the Founding Fathers...but it truly is awe-inspiring.

I've also gotten the urge to name my daughter Madison if that day ever comes...but I really don't want to because it's the third most popular name for new girls in 2005 (followed strangely, by Abigail). Even more annoying? It has been in the top 10 most popular names for girls since 1996. He's MY hero! (What does that leave? Hamilton, shortened to Ham? no thanks. Maybe Alexandra...)

Anyway...that's enough for today. Be warned, I will probably be prattling off about this stuff as I keep reading through it...but I figure if you're on this blog in the first place, you probably already gave up on content and substance.

A very good quotation.

I stumbled across this on Andrew Sullivan's website, and thought it was quite good...so here it is.

"Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on 'I am not too sure.'" - H.L. Mencken

Of course I completely disagree with Andrew Sullivan's subsequent assessment that such self-doubt and uncertainty is the heart of conservatism, to the contrary, I believe it's the heart of modern liberalism. To illustrate are two passages from a piece written months/years ago that I saved contrasting the development of liberal and conservative Cold War perspectives:

The Conservative Perspective

Over and over during the last half-century, conservatives have looked at America's enemies on the march — with China, half of Europe and half of Korea newly in Communist hands. The culprit, they argued, was liberalism. The New Deal, with its collectivist principles, had blurred the distinction between Soviet Communism and American freedom. And modern culture was undermining old certainties, above all the belief in God. As a result, Americans lacked the ideological confidence of their fanatical totalitarian foes. And that self-doubt was making them weak. Whittaker Chambers, the communist turned conservative whose 1952 conversion tale, "Witness," strongly influenced the early cold-war right, said Americans would suffer defeat after defeat until their "faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as Communism's faith in Man." The West, added James Burnham, the most influential foreign-policy thinker in the National Review circle, was losing "the will to survive." and seen a society enfeebled by moral relativism.

After Vietnam, conservatives saw the disease of self-doubt growing even more acute. Many on the American right hailed "How Democracies Perish," by the French author Jean-François Revel, which declared, "Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it." Into this dark, dispirited landscape came Ronald Reagan, saying the things conservatives had been waiting three decades to hear. "The era of self-doubt," he announced, "is over." And in perhaps the most famous speech of his presidency, Reagan in 1983 invoked Chambers to denounce the right's old scourge: moral relativism. Calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire," he admonished listeners to resist the temptation to "label both sides equally at fault, to. . .remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

The Liberal Perspective

Niebuhr was a dedicated opponent of communism, but he was concerned that in pursuing a just cause, Americans would lose sight of their own capacity for injustice. "We must take, and must continue to take, morally hazardous actions to preserve our civilization," he wrote. "We must exercise our power. But we ought neither to believe that a nation is capable of perfect disinterestedness in its exercise nor become complacent about particular degrees of interest and passion which corrupt the justice by which the exercise of power is legitimized." Americans, Niebuhr argued, should not emulate the absolute self-confidence of their enemies. They should not pretend that a country that countenanced McCarthyism and segregation was morally pure. Rather, they should cultivate enough self-doubt to ensure that unlike the Communists', their idealism never degenerated into fanaticism. Open-mindedness, he argued, is not "a virtue of people who don't believe anything. It is a virtue of people who know. . .that their beliefs are not absolutely true."

These are the ideas roughly translated into more current issues...
(hopefully it still makes sense taken out of surrounding context)

In the years since 9/11 restored foreign policy to the heart of American politics, these cold-war debates have returned in another form, with the critical difference that only one side knows its lines. Even before the attacks, many conservatives feared America was emasculating itself yet again. In a one-superpower world, they argued, America no longer had to tailor its foreign policy to the wishes of others. And yet, in the conservative view, the Clinton administration had permitted constraints on American power, playing Gulliver to foreign Lilliputians intent on binding it in a web of international institutions and international law. Predictably, conservatives attributed this submission to America's lack of faith in itself. The "religion of nonjudgmentalism," wrote William Bennett in the book "Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism," "has permeated our culture, encouraging a paralysis of the moral faculty."

But George W. Bush is not wrong to think that America's security depends on how other countries, particularly in the Islamic world, govern themselves. In the long run, more accountable government can help drain the fury upon which jihadism feeds. Where Bush — like Burnham before him — goes wrong is in believing that America can unilaterally declare a moral standard while exempting itself. For President Bush, freedom is a one-way conversation. The United States calls on other countries to embrace liberty; we even aid them in the task. But if they call back, proposing some higher standard that might require us to modify our actions, we trot out John Bolton. For the rest of the world, freedom requires infringements upon national sovereignty. But for the United States, sovereignty trumps all.

Most Muslims, according to polls, do not consider democracy an alien notion; in fact, they hunger for it. They simply do not believe that it is America's real goal. And that is largely because they do not feel that America abides by the principles it preaches. As the Jordanian journalist Rami Khouri has noted: "George Bush talks in terms of the U.S. having a national mission to promote freedom in the world. . .everybody in the world looks at the U.S. and asks, Where is the moral and the legal and the political authority for you to do this? The authority has to come out of some kind of reference point, some legitimate reference point — treaties, international law, international conventions, U.N. Security Council resolutions, General Assembly consensus, some mechanism that has credibility."

Anyhow, the article I'm referring to is absolutely fantastic for taking these ideas and really working them through much more current events and the relevance of these ideas in terms of the Muslim world and modern policy...so if you're interested, let me know and I'll email you a copy.

Exam.

As can be expected, with an exam lurking around the corner on Monday, I am going to be busy trying to cram as many random facts into my head as possible before 10am Monday morning...so I won't posting anything. For the two of you who care.

And for anyone in St. Louis, I will be back on Tuesday, and be there until Saturday morning...so hopefully I'll see you then for a little bit of...

My Brother Made the NY Times

As you may or may not know, my brother is an engineer who longs to be in the movie business, writing, directing, producing, and editing...However, up until now he has basically been editing anime music videos, that is, choosing songs and using anime footage to make music videos. For example, this is a video I asked him to do, because I said he had to do a Bjork song...(For those of you who actually watch it, look past the anime characteristics, and look to the way the clips are meticulously chosen and executed from a random anime series...the first minute should be sufficient to get a flavor for his eye...)



Anyway, as he's been continuing to do anime, he's also begun branching out into doing live-action videos to music. Amidst the ongoing "controversy" about YouTube and intellectual property rights, today's NY times article specifically discusses one of his live action videos:

One video posted last March, credited to Kusoyaro Productions, includes clips from the 20th Century Fox film "Napoleon Dynamite" that have been cleverly edited to create a new music video for Eminem’s song “Lose Yourself" from "8 Mile."

The two movies’ heroes couldn’t be more different: Napoleon Dynamite is an awkward teenager in rural Idaho who stuffs his pockets with tater tots, while Eminem’s character in "8 Mile" finds refuge from his trailer-park life by rapping in clubs. The video has been watched more than 60,000 times.

Ron Wheeler, a senior vice president of content protection at Fox Entertainment Group, said that even though Fox was not being paid for the right to use the "Napoleon Dynamite" clips, the company had not asked that the video be taken down.

"We are not in the business of just saying no, but we do consider it unauthorized use," Mr. Wheeler said.

He predicted, though, that the studio would be saying "no" more often in the future. Fox is working on a policy that will address the issue of mashups in a way that those creating them can understand.

"We will offer as much freedom as legally able, but at the same time it will be less than some people are doing now," Mr. Wheeler added. "It won’t be ‘anything goes.’ "

Brian Grazer, a producer of "8 Mile," said some of the mashups he had seen were "pretty hip." But he said he, too, viewed them as a form of piracy: "It bothers me artistically. Here’s this thing where you have no control; they are chopping it up and putting your memories in a blender."

Directors may have a tough time accepting the wild world of mashups, particularly those who have been given control over the final cut of their movies. Mr. Grazer said he believed that Curtis Hanson, who directed "8 Mile," would not be pleased. "Something like this drives an auteur nuts," he said. Mr. Hanson did not return calls seeking comment. Eminem, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

Anyhow, I just thought I'd post about it. I'm actually quite excited that he's received some sort of attention about it...and I expect that this article will actually boost the number of people who will see his video. I myself saw the video for the first time today...and I actually thought it was hilarious...like a lot funnier and a LOT more skillful than I remember. I encourage you to take a look. It's less than two minutes.

MLK Day

I really don't make much out of this holiday, in the same way that I generally don't have much of a response to Black History Month. But then again, I barely respond to Christmas and Thanksgiving either (and when I do, it's really just about food.)

In any case, I was looking through some pictures of Dr. King, and as usual, I always feel somewhat in awe of seeing actual pictures of what he has done, and the way in which he accomplished it. And then, as usual, my mind started to drift away towards the more morbid aspects of racism in America...so I began doing searches. Here is what I uncovered. I really have no commentary or purpose in showing these pictures except just to quote Shakespeare that "What's past is prologue."

1919 Nebraska Lynching
1920 Georgia

1936
1920 (?) Duluth Georgia

And then, just for fun, here's a picture from last year and the actual captions.


I'm totally not being a negative nancy today either. I think MLK's accomplishments are incredible, and am glad that he actually has a national holiday. These pictures are just the incidental things I stumbled across while reflecting back.

Carl Jung: Frat-tastic.

There is a 1-in-5 shot that I know this guy's name.

For those of you unfamiliar with Carl Jung's theory of the collective unconscious, Wikipedia defines it as:

The collective unconscious refers to that part of a person's unconscious which is common to all human beings. It contains archetypes, which are forms or symbols that are manifested by all people in all cultures. They are said to exist prior to experience, and are in this sense instinctual. Critics have argued that this is an ethnocentrist view, which universalized Jung's European-styled archetypes into human beings' archetypes.

In simpler terms, it's basically the idea that all humans have certain shared impulse or understandings that are not derived from personal experience. For example, the idea of the "wise old man"or a "nurturing mother" are the most obvious examples. It is not conscious or accessible at will, but is inherited and a level of psyche universal in humanity. Now how does this relate to frat-tastic?

I was watching "My Name is Earl" today (my birthday gift), and the brother goes to a frat party and does a keg stand and gets excited by all the frattiness, and makes a reference to a single fraternity brother.

What was the name the writers chose? You guessed it.

Steve

Incidentally, type Frat Boy or Fratboy into google images. The incidence of gay porn is hilarious.

Two Points.

One uninteresting point that I find interesting...Thought I'd pass it along.

1) During the ratification debates there was a serious fight between the Madisonian idea that popular elections across large districts would result in producing better, more meritorious representatives of the people. Essentially, Madison believed that only someone with true merit and wisdom could convince a large disparate group of people to be their representative, and avoid corruption and demagoguery in the election process. On the other hand, Patrick Henry believed that this would create an aristocracy, as it is inconceivable that an enlightened poor man could ever defeat any rich man in an election, thus creating an aristocratic government protecting only aristocratic interests.

The only interesting point is that my professor pointed out that the new campaign finance laws have made it such that donors cannot give large sums of money to the enlightened poor man because of restrictions on individual donations. Individuals however, can spend as much money as they'd like on their own campaigns. Makes sense right? Not so much. Apparently the new wave of elections involves the political parties spending their time scouting out "Self-Funded Candidates", ie. Rich People, in order to ensure that there is enough money to run a campaign. Boiled down to obvious, yet inevitable essentials: Only rich people can run for office. The richer people will win office. There is not a shred of doubt that our government decisions are made completely by a wealth-based aristocracy.

As for the consequences, draw your own conclusions. There's plenty.

2) On a more interesting note, yet another dazzling display of journalism. Side-by-side with the Bush speech about the troop "surge" is this:


Really?

No comment (no, not literally asshole)

I watched the Bush speech tonight (how could anyone look in his eyes and believe he should lead us?), and then watched about an hour of talking heads, senators, representatives, responses, military analysis, and then about 30 minutes of a C-Span Senate hearing about troop withdrawal. (two analyses struck me: 1) CIA specialist's comparison of the current situation to the Lebanese Civil War, which lasted 14 years. 2) The comparison of the current Jihad in Iraq to the Afghani invasion by the USSR, namely the lingering effects of training/experience with explosives and arms, and the potential dangers arising from this "networking" opportunity. )

Anyway...Apart from just the pure inability for me to comprehend what could possibly be done at this point...I was distinctively irritated by all of the Democrats I heard speak today (Webb, Boxer). It appears now, unsurprisingly, that I just hate politicians.

It may be because I have developed some sort of awe-filled hero-worship and idolatry of several of the Founding Fathers over the past 2 weeks, having dug into their lives, thinking, actions, triumphs, convictions, strength, and everything else...but it could also be just because modern politicians truly are douchebags. Where is greatness lurking these days? Where are the giants among us?

Anyway...I decided to copy and past an email a reader to Andrew Sullivan. Just because I'm not sure I even know people who could describe their experience as being much different than this:

I am one of the Americans most untouched by the war going on. I have no friends or family in the military, and to extend that even further, none of my friends have any friends or family in the military. I live in a nice secure bubble, where I get to enjoy a lifestyle amongst the highest in human history. I received a tax reduction so I get to enjoy the fruits of my labors more than I might have otherwise. The war affects me not at all. I recognize the mistakes made, and consider our entire exercise in the middle east to be futile at best, harmful to our country at worst.

Yet, I remain ambivalent. I decided, as long as nothing is asked of me, I will continue to turn my head from the events. The moment a sacrifice is asked of me, I will turn actively against it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I mean any sacrifice. A dime in taxes to pay for rebuilding an army Bush has misused would be too much.

Awesome: Shut up and Watch.

Slow Mo Golf Ball Bullet


Jello Cube:


Bouncing Rubber Yo Yo Ball


Bouncing Water Balloon


Kid Hit by Water Balloon


Golf Ball Being Hit at Slow Mo


Getting Shot by a Paintball (Holy Shit. I'm So not playing.)


Lighter Flame in Slo-Mo


And if you made it this far...here's a longer one. There's some stupid crap on here, and some really terrible music, but there are definitely some gems here...


Can you watch this one without cringing?


And Just in Case you have never seen the Diet Coke Mentos Super Fountain...The Grand Finale


...I just wasted 30 minutes. And it was FANTASTIC.

Psychology of Politics

So I was reading this article discussing the correlation between fear, death and conservatism (no, it's not a wild-eyed lefty rant in the slightest...) which incidentally discussed the "real, stable differences in personality" that correlate to political preference. The article references the work of multiple psychological studies of extensive research on personality and preference correlations between conservatives and liberals. You can read the article here, but I thought I'd just paste some of the more interesting findings:

As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3.

Conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

Conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity...Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information,"

Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home. People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better.

The more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right.

Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

None of this was surprising to me, and is pretty much how I had categorized liberalism and conservatism. And if reason and intuition is to believed, I think it makes perfect sense. The dead giveaway that I am more liberal (though I deny it somewhat) than anything else?

"Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men." Game. Set. Match.

New Year's Resolution: Well done.

As might have been noticed by everyone, I have become quite the Negative Nancy. Or Naysaying Nancy. Or Nattering Nabob of Negativism (hell yes it's a real phrase, though whether it is pronounced "Nuh-bob" or "Nay-bob" is still up for debate). My guess is that one of you should know exactly the origins of this phrase, and if that person does not, then I declare the right to levy charges of impotence against you from this day forward, not because there's any relevance to the claim, but just because I am.

Anyhow, back to the negativity. I have resolved, and not just because the New Year forced me to, that I should become less negative (or as someone keenly pointed out, I should become more positive.) I constantly try to undermine anything and everything that comes my way, whether it's firmly establishing myself as a hater at Harvard, feeling my life as a Hater of Harvard, or shitting all over the legal profession, or becoming increasingly critical of government and its facilitation of massive aggregations of wealth (though the alternatives remain yet unsatisfying), or simply bitching about everything and everyone. And the simple fact is that it is far easier, far simpler, and far more cowardly to simply be cynical and pessimistic about the universe than it is to hold out hope and attempt to find the good that exists and to stand for principles. Properly conceived, cynicism and pessimism are often the most self-destructive form of ideology. It is a diseased worldview, an insidious seductress that can neither be pushed away or rejected...because you will always find assholes, you will always find suffering, and you will always find evil. There will always be evidence to support your views.

The real point of all of this is that I had a breakdown of sorts yesterday. Ever since completely falling apart at the end of last semester, I've spent a lot of time evaluating my decision to come to Harvard. And though I'm aware of the responses people will have to the poor Harvard Law student who is unhappy with his life, I found myself so miserable yesterday that I was nearly in a panic. There's too much to go into, but academically, personally, spiritually (in a manner of speaking), professionally, and physically, most things have turned out very badly. I walk around this campus like a ghost, not talking to anyone, not recognizing anyone, not having friends I'll eventually meet up with, not having anyone to turn to if I need help, if I fall ill, if I want to try a restaurant: In short, I am isolated and much lonelier than I have ever felt. And it only seems to be me amongst even the boatload of transfers in this sea of students. I don't feel like explaining this any further...though I started writing this post with a view to explaining the origins and feelings of my breakdown yesterday...So...this post is now breaking down and I'm just going to stop.

Basically, my new year's resolution went straight down the tubes yesterday. And today I start over again trying to rebuild some semblance of a contented life.

The Daily Roundup, though not really daily.

Over the exam period, in my moments of boredom on the internet, I collected random bits and pieces of interesting things that I had planned to post but never got around to...so today I'm just going to post all of that crap so I can clear off my desktop. However, to start the day I wanted to direct my attention towards an interesting article in the NYTimes today...

I have always stated outright that if admissions processes were merit-based, that Asians would fill the top schools, if not absolutely, than at least overwhelmingly. Likewise, I have also played on certain stereotypes about Asians ever since I became self-aware enough to realize that my life and the community in which I grew up was not normal, but inordinately Asian -- Mainly, skill at math, skill in science, and the universal slant-eyed bowl cut inclination to piano and violin etc. Today, the NYTimes verified the fact that I was, am, and always have been right about Asians, dubbed the "new Jews." (In case that comment was confusing, it's a reference to the Ivy league history around the turn of the century of changing admission standards from an academic meritocracy to the concept of "well-roundedness" in order to exclude Jews and increase the number of robust, shiny-eyed Protestant stock.) In any case, the article is here, and it's an interesting look at Asians and college admissions, proportions, and the problem of Asians being better than everyone else (despite my strenuous objections to the contrary).

On a lighter note, I would just like to point out the vitality of the free press and the importance of the media in shaping our perceptions of global conflicts and cataclysms:

On top of that, I would just like to post a picture of politics.
What a lovely picture.

Finally, back to the issue of Asians, I just wanted to post a picture of Kim Jong Il.
Besides the interesting note that the new UN tactic to attack Kim Jong Il and pressure him into subservience on the nuclear issue is a ban on trading luxury items with them, which include Mercedes, BMWs, Cadillacs, expensive liquors (b/c he loves Hennessy. And johnny walker scotch), Rolexes, sporting stuff (he loves basketball), caviar, Harleys, and American movies.

Kim is reportedly under his physician's orders to avoid hard liquor and prefers French wines. He also is said to own an extensive movie library of more than 10,000 titles and prefers films about James Bond and Godzilla, along with Clint Eastwood's 1993 drama, In the Line of Fire, and Whitney Houston's 1992 love story, The Bodyguard.

Remember: Kim Jong Il loves Godzilla. Just let it roll off your tongue. "Kim Jong Il Ruvs Godzirra"

Anyway. The real purpose of the picture is to demonstrate how disproportionately large the wine glass is to his head. That is the key.

...And now I return to reading the records of the Federal Convention of 1787, which means reading through Madison's hand-written notes from the Constitutional Convention...which, while rewarding, is fucking tedious.

2:30 a.m. and Pamela Anderson's on my Mind...

Actually...not really. But I stumbled across this video, which is about KFC's treatment of Chickens in their factory farms. I'm not on any sort of animal rights kick, I certainly am no fan of PETA, and I'm totally indifferent to Pamela Anderson(ie. Blondes, who needs em?)...but I do find the videos of the chickening process fairly interesting to watch. So here you go.

Long Absence.

Well, as I'm sure no one has noticed, I haven't posted for a very long time. Reasons? Both because I was still in a pretty nasty funk over what happened in my first semester of Harvard, but also because it was Christmas break and I generally have no interest in being anywhere near a computer when I'm home. And no, it's not a principled aversion or anything like that, I just am too impatient to get on the internet when I could be sitting on the couch eating cookies and watching television series on DVD. (although this year it was far more playing Call of Duty 3, Guitar Hero 1&2, and channel surfing.)

So, since Christmas consisted of a painfully short 9 days of sloth, gluttony, a nice visit to the girlfriend's family's for Christmas, a Christmas in Brooklyn, dancing lessons from my father (I forced AHJ to come down for the night), and not much else...I figure that sentence is summation enough.

Luckily, I've emerged from the funk that came over me at the end of the Semester, and I've begun another class on January 2nd: the Creation of the Constitution. The class is actually one of the best classes I've ever taken so far, although of course it has only been 3 days. The professor (who incidentally is a federal appeals judge) was the front-runner for O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court (only to be passed over for poster boy John Roberts), and I have to admit that I am absolutely stunned by the depth and breadth of this guy's knowledge of the history of thought, the history of our country, the history of the country, and I can only presume, the law of this country. He moves gracefully from deep discussions about Catholic liturgy to expounding Adam Smith's theory of economics to rattling off long stories about Alexander Hamilton's life to explaining the Financial Revolution and the origins of the money supply to explaining why D.C. traffic is so fucking terrible. (It's intentional. After the Congress under the Articles of Confederation sitting in Philly were attacked by soldiers who hadn't been paid, it became apparent that a Congress w/o military power couldn't defend itself, and became even more apparent that the State of Pennsylvania wasn't about to fight with its own troops. So when it became time for the New Constitution, they decided to put DC in its own no man's land and build it with all those ridiculous circles and terrible roads precisely so that when the mob comes and attacks, cannon fire can shoot all the way down the street and crush them.) Enough said. Even though the man is apparently very conservative, I cannot be but overwhelmed by his intellectual weight, insight, and obvious brilliance. It has been a very long time since I have been so singularly stunned by someone's ability like this. I'd like to talk to him more, but feel certain that I would just humiliate myself somehow.

Anyway, I'm happy to say i really enjoy this class, though it is a week's worth of material covered every single day. (13 weeks of class crammed into 13 days. Do the math.)

Anyway, now that I'm back, I'm sure the next post will be more interesting...if any of you have actually returned to read this thing.