j dot rocks

VP Thoughts-McCain Edition

2008-08-21T17:55:00.000-07:00

While Obama's choice of running mate presents with a number of unique constraints, McCain's decision is more of a crossroads. Up until this point, John 'Maverick' McCain has tread a fine line, attempting to attract both his supposed conservative base and the independents which he so desperately desires. McCain's strength is national defense, and all things experience. Thus, it would seem logical that he look to shore up his economic repetoire or perhaps further solidifying social conservative credentials. Let's break down the candidates:

Mike Huckabee- The former Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee is considered by many to be the foremost social conservative in the current Republican party. The problem for McCain (and America) is that while Huck can wax poetical on the intersection of government and faith, his economic stances ('specially the part where he authorized raised taxes in Arkansas) leave much to be desired. Plus, there is the thought that the former Governor is developing a bit of a cult of personality. Huckabee would be well liked by many social conservatives, who view him as one of their own.

Joe Lieberman- The Junior Senator from Connecticut, Lieberman is one of McCain's closest friends. While he calls himself an "independent democrat", the only two issues where Lieberman breaks with the Democratic caucus would be the War on Terror (including Iraq, as he was a large proponent of the surge) and support of Israel. While this is all fine and dandy, it doesn't necessarily qualify him to be on a Republican ticket. Social Conservatives want a pro-life choice and Lieberman is a large advocate of abortion rights. McCain selecting him would essentially be sticking a finger at the Conservative wing of the Republican party. Need I remind Mr. McCain that Lieberman was once selected by AL GORE as his running mate?

Tom Ridge- The inagural Director of Homeland Security and former Governor of Pennsylvania, Ridge would seem to bolster McCain's already staunch advantage in the security department. The problem with Ridge, is that like Lieberman, he is unrepentedly pro-abortion. Ridge also has had many lucrative jobs in the private sector and many question his motivation for the job.

Mitt Romney- The former governor of Massachusetts, Romney spent the most money of any of the candidates in the primaries and his major target was John McCain. Though there was ill will between the two men, Romney brings the best Economic credentials to the table. Having successfully run Fortune 500 companies, the 2002 Olympics, a Massachusetts that was saddled with unbelievable entitlements, Romney will bring instant credibility to the McCain campaign. There is, however, another caveat. As Mike Huckabee has pointed out on multiple occasions, Romney is a Mormon.

Rudy Giuliani- The former Mayor of New York City, Giuliani was at one time the presumptive Republican nominee. Giuliani, like Ridge & Lieberman, personally is in favor of abortion. Giuliani would seem to be more suited for a role like Attorney General or National Security Advisor. Plus, Giuliani's torrid personal life might open McCain to some unwanted scrutiny.

Tim Pawlenty- The current Governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty would seem to be a solid middle-of-the road pick. Picking Pawlenty would be solely designed to put Minnesota into play, but with Norm Coleman's surge in the open Senatorial race, that may not be necessary.

Charlie Crist- The current Governor of Florida, Crist is often considered a rising star in the Republican party. While Crist is popular with Hispanics (as is McCain) and does have critical ties to the battleground state of Florida, he probably will not be chosen due to how the Democrats would attack him. It has long been rumored that Crist is a homosexual and McCain is no advocate of gay rights. (Though, I would note, that Crist denies this vehemently)

Sarah Palin- The current Governor of Alaska, Palin has been rumored to be the top choice for the GOP undercard in 2012, but McCain may desire to bump up the timetable. Palin would bring energy to the campaign, and would help bring energy concerns to the forefront of the debate. Plus, on a purely aesthetic level, Palin would greatly aid the campaign. However, McCain would note that Palin is currently pregnant.

Bobby Jindal- The current Governor of Louisiana, Piyush 'Bobby' Jindal, would add a unique blend of American dream and tough economic rhetoric. Jindal was one of the early favorites for the role, but two things stand in the way. First off, Jindal is quite open about his desire to finish his term in Louisiana and is widely popular for his crackdown on corruption and lowering of taxes. Second, Jindal is a favorite of many conservative voices, including Rush Limbaugh, who do not want to see him advanced before "his time", which many view as 2012 or 2016.

Jeb Bush- While the former Governor of Florida has the requisite credentials, his last name is Bush. Need I say more?

Cody's Top 3 (in terms of how likely it is McCain selects him or her):

1. Romney
2. Pawlenty
3. Lieberman

Personally, I think Romney is the choice. I wouldn't mind Pawlenty, but I can't accept Ridge or Lieberman. Jindal or Palin would be a surprise and I want a Jindal/Palin ticket in the future, so let's hope he avoids picking either of them.

VP Thoughts- Obama edition

2008-08-19T17:51:00.000-07:00

Two weeks from now, both Obama and McCain will have selected their running mates. If you're anything like me, that seems like an eternity. Let's take a few lines to investigate who will and won't be chosen and why.

First, it's Obama time. The problem with Obama's decision is that he is looking for a very specific individual, who may or may not exist. He needs somebody whose credentials won't dwarf his own (that's a considerable difficulty, when you most often describe yourself as a 'community organizer'), who won't alienate the crossover independent and Republican voters he has attracted, and won't be viewed as a cop-out by his more liberal base.

Let's talk candidates:

Joe Biden- A six-term senator and failed presidential candidate, Biden brings a reputation as a top-notch foreign policy wonk. Biden is also considered to be on Obama's shortlist for SecState. The problem with Biden is that while he would help smooth over an Obama resume weakness, he is known for being bombastic and antagonistic to criticism. For a campaign built on public relations, Biden represents a rather unnecessary risk.

Tim Kaine- The first term Governor of Virginia, Kaine is a relative unknown. Kaine might help bring Virginia into play, which would go well with Obama's desire to contest traditional Republican bastions of power. Kaine has a reputation for being very liberal economically, while maintaining conservative social views. Kaine would not seemingly shore up Obama's credentials in a given area, but wouldn't pull attention away from him either.

Chuck Hagel- The soon to be retired Senior Senator from Nebraska, Hagel only makes the list because he's a Republican who opposed the War in Iraq and has been openly critical (an understatement for sure) of the Bush Administration. Hagel brings some actual defense credentials, but like Biden, is viewed as a tad angry, and really doesn't have much in common when it comes to policy with Obama.

Kathleen Sebelius- The two term Governor of Kansas, Sebelius represents the "liberal bound" of the political spectrum on this list. Sebelius is a democratic leader on abortion, education, and spending; a leader the party leadership under Howard Dean has been attempting to showcase for some time. The problem with Sebelius is two-fold, selecting a woman might offend Hillary supporters, and frankly, Sebelius is too liberal for crossover voters.

Evan Bayh- The former Governor and current two-term Senator from Indiana, Bayh is normally listed as a Clinton supporter. Bayh is reliably liberal on all issues save Israel and foreign policy, particularly Iran. Bayh's resume looks impressive, but it is widely speculated that he lacks the personality for higher office. In other words, the perfect safe choice for Obama.

Hillary Clinton- Does she need an introduction? The only reason why Clinton would get picked is if Obama thinks he's losing to McCain and needs to secure all of her previous supporters. Does this sound likely? Not to me...

Bill Richardson- The former Representative of New Mexico, US Ambassador to the UN, Secretary of Energy, and current Governor of New Mexico, Richardson looks the best of any possible Obama choice on paper. It's a shame that all that disappears when he opens his mouth and sounds like a whining spineless suck-up. Obama could spring for Richardson, who would help with the Hispanic vote and would in no way upstage Obama at functions.

Chris Dodd- The senior Senator from Connecticut, Dodd is another Democratic machine lifer (he even ran the DNC for a couple of years in the late nineties), who is well liked by the more liberal wing of the Democratic party. Dodd is almost as reliably liberal as Sebelius, and has some potential black marks on his record due to charges of corruption in relation to the Mortgage Crisis. The idea of Obama putting a very liberal senator who may or may not have received bribes in his position as the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee strikes me as awkward.

Jim Webb- The junior freshman Senator from Virginia, Webb was an early favorite for the VP role. Webb, a strong proponent of the military, who authored the new G.I. bill, would seem to add some National Defense credentials and fellow youth to the cause, but Webb has frequently stated that he isn't interested in the role. Dean has been grooming him as part of the new leadership in the Senate, so there may be something to the denials.

Cody's Top 3-
1. Tim Kaine
2. Evan Bayh
3. Bill Richardson

The Republican side will be up tomorrow.

Cy-Fair College: the Walkthrough

2008-08-18T16:55:00.000-07:00

So, where has Cody's blog been all weekend? Well, it's been two things: first, I've been dealing with my cousins who live on a farm in Nacogdoches and are the living definition of "don't get out much". That's a story for another day. Second, it has been storming on and off and something always seems to be down between the DSL over here, the power, or even the blogger application I use for this site. My apologies. Over the next few days, I will probably double post a couple of times just to catch up. I have thoughts on politics, I have to recap my weekend hijinks (and there were some good ones), and will give another Olympic update. But for now, let me show you my new academic home! And yeah, I can't get it off the underline nonsense...

Here are a couple of views of our stadium (used primarily for HS sporting events; usually playoffs of some sort) from the road, namely Barker-Cypress Road.

This is one of the artistic sculpture/structures littered all over the campus. Do I have any idea what it symbolizes? Heck no! I just think it looks cool...

For all you Hawaiians out there, try to think of this as a koi pond, minus the koi.

This is the main drive up to campus. Not quite as scenic as A&M, bit I'll take it.

This is the cafeteria, which has 4 separate stations, which isn't bad for facilities of this size. I doubt I'll be eating here, but it's always good to have options.

Hark! It's the only ATM on campus!

Hey, it's a fountain! Wow, gotta love all this scenic stuff.

The obligatory bookstore, which, in case you were wondering, isn't hiring at the moment.

Back to the fountain idea. Do you see the soccer fields in the background? They're there, as are basketball and tennis courts, all for public use.

Your humble correspondent.

Your humble correspondent, on the move style!

They call it Lake Lone Star. I'm in love.

Two of the largest buildings on campus, the Technology Center and the Learning Commons. If the seemingly unkempt greenery is bothersome, rest assured that it's intentional. They're going for "an accurate reproduction of the Katy prairie". Katy, for reference, is right next to Cypress, which is where the school is at, which is right next to my corner of Houston.

This is how picturesque the between-class walking can be. Jealous?

The theatre, stage view.

The theatre, house view

The art gallery

This is an example of the dedicated technical facilities that Cy-Fair College has. They also have programs ranging from CISCO Networking to Nursing to Advanced Carpentry.

You no smoke here!

You know what's refreshing? A campus with ample parking, rather than none to be had.

One of the covered walkways between buildings, complete with desert motif.

Yes, philosophy classes meet in the outdoor amphitheater.

The Center for the Arts, pretty obvious...

Oh, yeah, this is the Corolla.

More empty parking spaces, also known as the Corolla's personal playground.

Another initial walkup view.

Well, thus ends my first personal picture blog. Hopefully this gives you some idea of where I'm going to be operating for the near future.

Big Things Coming

2008-08-14T20:02:00.000-07:00

Tonight's post will be REALLY brief, because I spent all the time I'm allowing myself for blogging on a daily basis getting ready to give you, my readers a pictoral tour of the Cy-Fair Campus which I will call home in less than two weeks.

I went up to Katy Mills mall, purchased Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger in cassette form (which I intend to bust out on long trips, as I have a tape deck, not a CD player in the Corolla), picked up a memory card reader for my grandfather's digital camera, and went to Booksamillion only to realize that my idea of working at a bookstore is just not a good one. 7 dollars an hour is too much of a step down from 11 an hour for full time with PLNI and 15 an hour for part time with Theatrix.

I ended up coming home and putting in two applications online: Verizon and Sprint. I guess I need to shelve my wanderlust and get back to telecom, where I have experience, and thus, a greater potential for more money. I would not mind working the floor at a retail store for 4-5 hours a day, and really I wanted to apply at a UPS store, because their gig sounded really sweet. They wanted you to work 5-10 PM M-Thurs, would pay at least 10 an hour and would give a 3000 dollar grant for college students. That is EXACTLY what I wanted. The only problem is that the closest location with an opening is 37 minutes away, which puts in downtown Houston, which makes it about 1.5 hours away, which just isn't going to happen.

The relatives from Nacogdoches come in tomorrow. Pray for me. I'll need it.

Wednesday Thoughts

2008-08-13T18:53:00.000-07:00

Tonight's post will seem a little bit scattered. I have a lot on my mind and feel that this would be a good place to get my mind straight on some issues.

Lunacy re: Georgia/Russia

I will quote Susan Rice, who is credited as Barack Obama's "chief foreign policy advisor": "We cannot act on the basis of ideology or preconceived notions. When this crisis began, Barack Obama, the administration indeed, and all of our NATO allies took a very measured and reasoned approach because we were dealing with the facts as we knew them. John McCain shot from the hip, very aggressive, very belligerent statement, and he may or may not have complicated the situation." Rice made these comments in an interview on Pennsylvania public radio. There are two disturbing elements to this statement. First off, if we "cannot act on the basis of ideology", upon what should we act? Taking Ms. Rice as an Obama mouthpiece, it seems as if Obama is advocating a purely pragmatic foreign policy. I'm a big fan of pragmatism, and I would agree that international situations are complex and difficult to analyze. However, this is not to say that they cannot be analyzed. Some things are just true (one example would be that no matter who certifies the result as fair, the Zimbabwean elections are rigged by Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF thugs) and some statements should be aggressive. Obama seems to be advancing the idea that there is no uniquely American perspective or interest that cannot be compromised in the course of international affairs. I, for one, and John McCain for two, simply WILL NOT stand for this lunacy. I hold religious freedom, democracy, and justice to be principles that should guide American policies. I WILL NOT allow myself to be sucked into this liberal culture of moral equivalency and you shouldn't, either. The second issue I have with this statement is the assertion that John McCain taking a pointed stance that was basically duplicated and furthered by the Bush Administration after a short period of time somehow "complicates" the situation. I'm sorry, Ms. Rice and Mr. Obama; McCain made the right call. It's not his fault that your naivete caused you to be a day late in articulating the right American position... Obama needs to keep his and his mouthpieces' mouths shut when it comes to scoring domestic political points over Russia/Georgia. The points have been scored, and the tally goes to McCain.

Olympics Update

Phelps is a beast- Michael Phelps is dominating every race he is entering (though my brother Carson claims that his performance in the 4X100 free relay was sub-standard) and is currently engaged in the greatest sporting performance of all time. Yes, I really did mean that statement. Every American should be celebrating Phelps' success. He carries himself with dignity and class and has shown himself to be the pentulmate teammate. I cannot think of anything more to ask of an American athlete.
I can't stand the Women's gymnastics team- Before you think I'm un-American, let it be known that I am a huge fan of the American men's team. Their story is uplifting, overcoming the injuries to their two star veterans (the Hamm twins) and obtaining one of the sweetest Bronze medals in Olympic history. Horton, Spring, Artemev, Tam, Bhavsar, and Hagerty seem like they trust each other as teammates and are genuinely excited when each other does well and supportive when they do not. None of this is true for the women's team. The women's team seems like it's Nastia Liukin, Shawn Johnson, and in the minds of the two previously mentioned stars, 4 losers that drag down the team. Alicia Sacramone clearly was rattled during the floor and the beam, and Marta Karolyi tried to calm her down; but really, that's a job for a teammate, the lack of one is probably what failed. Plus, Liukin and Johnson seem "constantly focused" according to announcers. I just call it cold and disinterested in anything other than their individual success. I'll admit; halfway through the Women's Team Final, I started unabashedly cheering for the Chinese girls (I defy you to call them women) and do not regret that decision in the slightest.
May/Walsh redefine domination- It seems like they're on primetime every night. I have no problem with watching Women's Beach Volleyball. It's one of my favorite sports to watch, if perhaps for all the wrong reason. But I tell you what; these women cannot be touched, period. It has been a joy to see them make a dastardly difficult game look like child's play.
Chinese diving is head and shoulders better than everyone- Everyone else should seriously go home. China has a stated goal of winning all 8 diving golds. When I first of heard of this, I thought this was either pure lunacy or home-field induced bravado. I was wrong. China isn't just winning golds, they're driving stakes into the heart of their inferior competition.
Greatest race ever- The men's 4X100 free relay is now one of my top 8 Olympic moments of all time. Go watch the race on youtube.com or nbcolympics.com. Even if you don't have time, do yourself a favor and go watch the pure, unadultured brilliance of Jason Leszak's inspired finish.
Euro bias re: Softball/Baseball- This is the last Olympics ('til at least 2016) for both Softball and Baseball and this saddens me. I love both sports and they have a rich history in the games. The reason given by the IOC is that it's not played enough worldwide. What they really mean is that it's not played well by Europeans. Practically all of Latin America and Asia plays the game, as does all of North America, not to mention Australia. All this leaves is Africa (where it's getting a start in South Africa) and Europe (where the Italians aren't embarrassing and the Dutch have enough Caribbean islands to win any European competition of note) as places that aren't warm to the sport. If this logic was applied elsewhere, I can't see how the Modern Pentathlon, Handball, Field Hockey, or even Rhythmic Gymnastics deserve to be Olympic sports. I don't want those sports to disappear at all. I just want the Games to be the World's games, not the Europeans' games.

The Job Hunt- Barnes & Noble isn't going to pay me more than 7.50 an hour and that isn't going to cut it. I go to Katy Mills mall and the Cy-Fair HEB to pick up more applications tomorrow.

Personal Standards- I'm through being overinvested in girls who show a mild interest in me. The woman who the Lord has for me will love me for who I am and that love will not vascillate like dust in the wind.

Coming Up Soon- Cy-Fair College, Reading/Gaming reviews. Expect posts on these topics over the next two days.

Georgia, Russia, and South Ossetia: What's Going On and Why You Should Care.

2008-08-12T18:30:00.000-07:00

Originally, I was going to put forth a glossary of sorts, but I figure analysis, not raw data is for what the situation calls. However, I understand that not everybody is up on the names of people and places, so here's an abbreviated form of the glossary I was going to use:

Vladimir Putin- Former Russian President, now Prime Minister (the nominal second-in-command) of Russia. Still considered by everyone who watches Russia to be the man in charge. Is the architect of this aggressive action turned invasion of Georgia, and had the audacity to sit next to George W. Bush at the Beijing 2008 Opening Ceremonies while simultaneously coordinating the offensive. Is known for jailing or assassinating his political rivals, in true Russian style.

Dimitri Medvedev- In theory, or according to Barack Obama, is the highest ranking member of the Russian government. Even he isn't foolish enough to believe that. Medvedev was handpicked to succeed Putin, in an election that rivaled Zimbabwe for its transparency. Medvedev has been functioning in this conflict as the mouthpiece of Russian defiance.

Mikheil Saakashvili- The current President of Georgia; was elected in 2005 in a show of defiance to the will of Russia termed the "Rose Revolution". Is solidly pro-West, sent troops to Iraq and actually authorized them to use force (unlike German troops in Afghanistan), and has led the movement to get Georgia into NATO. Russia utterly despises Saakashvili, who isn't exactly a saint, having taken steps to silence dissent in his own country.

Sergei Lavrov- Lavrov is the Russian foreign minister who was quoted repeatedly as suggesting that if Georgia wanted the conflict to end, Saakashvili's resignation was the ticket to open negotiations.

South Ossetia- Disputed province between Russia and Georgia. Russia has much less of a claim than Georgia and the South Ossetians would probably prefer independence then Russian dominion. Still, Russia has tried to lay the ground for re-annexation, even going so far as to have Russian passports made for prominent South Ossetians. The conflict started after the Georgian's shelled the seperatists who are being supported financially, and now militarily by the Russians. In all likelihood, South Ossetia will be Russian territory by the end of the year.

Abkhazia- Another disputed province that Russia is invading through. In this case, Russia actually has strategic interests (domestic oil pipeline), and some semblence of an actual claim (as opposed to being friendly to seperatists). Georgia is in a better position to defend this territory than South Ossetia.

Tbilisi- The capital of Georgia. The majority of Georgian troops have retreated to this city, where Saakashvili is rallying the country.

Kodori Gorge- The area of Abkhazia that the Russians are attempting to clear of Georgian troops.

What does Russia want? In my estimation, this is Putin's way of reminding the world that Russia remains a premier military power who has a clearly defined sphere of influence. Russia is asserting its ability to dominate countries similar to Georgia, including Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Kyrgyzstand, and the real desired prize: The Ukraine.

Will Russia annex Georgia? Nope. Medvedev just called for a cease-fire, which isn't exactly binding, because Putin hasn't officially endorsed it, but should eventually be adopted. If anything, he's tipped the Russian hand. Russia just wants Georgia to get a very clear message that pro-West governments will not be tolerated. Saakashvili has been humilated, and it appears that the Russians will leave without his resignation.

Why hasn't the US come to Georgia's aid? Well, in a way, we have. Bush and Cheney (with some McCain action, too) have publicly censured Russia and demanded a cease to the hostilities. Air Force planes airlifted Georgian soldiers from Iraq back home, aiding indirectly in the defense of the country. Really, Georgia is a kindred spirit in the War on Terror, but is too isolated to offer any more American strategic support or interest.

Why hasn't any other country come to Georgia's aid? That's a very good question. One of the largest oil pipelines and strategic supply lines supporting the European Union goes through Georgia and one of Russia's objectives was to disrupt it. There has been no outrage from the so-called Western European powers, some of them (not Sarkozy, thank goodness; it's refreshing to see some French backbone for once) have even indicated that they believe Georgia to be at fault for the conflict, which is laughable to say the least. Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Italy, or even Portugal all could have justifiably helped Georgia, yet none of them did. Yet another sign that Europe has given up on the idea of National Defense, which is sadly predictable, thanks to the spread of soft socialism.

Why hasn't the UN taken action agains the Russians? This may be news to some (I'm looking at you, Bill Richardson!), but Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council will full veto power over any UNSC action. Why would Russia sanction itself?

What does this mean for America? It means that our allies aren't safe in general, and aren't save from Russian aggression in particular. It means that the CIA needs to brush up on its Cyrillic, and dust off some Cold War contacts. Russia is back, and it will continue to assert its agenda in the coming months.

It rained. I went to the grocery store. I watched some Olympics. I played Head Coach 09 a lot and Madden 09 a little. That was my day.

Madden Night

2008-08-11T16:34:00.000-07:00

Two housekeeping notes: 1. The Georgia/Russia update is put on hold for a day due to the further incursion by Russia, which changes my analysis by enough to push it back a day. 2. The last post "The Top 8 Women to Watch in 2008", is one of the most fun pieces I've ever written. If you haven't already, go check it out!

In productivity news, I was successful in my attempt to take the nefarious placement test and register for classes. First, let's discuss this placement test. Due to the fact that I received a 5 on the English Language AP Exam and a 4 on the English Literature, the state of Texas does not and will not require me to take any English classes. However, from what I understand, because I haven't taken any college English classes, which they admit I don't need to take, I was required to take the Writing section of the COMPASS test. I didn't know what to expect, but after getting cleared to take it today, I began to get a little scared. The 3 people taking it at the same time as me had failed it multiple times and were talking as if it was cruel. 19 minutes later, it occured to me that these people were morons. I got a 99th percentile and a perfect on my essay, which I wrote in 15 minutes. This allowed me to register for classes, with one minor hitch. Apparently, Business Math at A&M counts for "Finite Mathematics", which is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't work as a pre-rec for Calculus or Statistics. Thus, my schedule is (as of now) filled with the following classes:

1. College Algebra
2. Intro to Philosophy
3. Principles of Sociology
4. Intro to Mass Communication
5. American Government II

The times I'm taking them at aren't ideal (College Algebra is at 7AM on Tues/Thurs), but I'm not complaining. I finish all classes before 4, which gives me a reasonable amount of time to work. I am very happy that I was able to get this taken care of today, and my personal goal is to have a job solidified by Friday. Tomorrow continues the search, with an actual schedule to work around this time!

Madden 09 comes out on August 12. That's tomorrow, and because Madden is such a big deal, it's got a midnight release tonight. I have never attended a midnight release for a video game and really had no plans to do so tonight. Before you get on my case for not sticking to my guns, let me explain my reasoning. I'm going to be up 'til at least 11 anyway, watching the Olympics. NFL Head Coach 09 is bundled with Madden and I am suuuuuper stoked about that game (moreso than Madden itself). There's a Wal-Mart 10 minutes from the house. So, really, can you blame me?

The Top 8 Women To Watch in Beijing 2008

2008-08-10T21:29:00.000-07:00

This is a joint production brought to you by Daniel Maile (http://dmaile.blogspot.com) & Cody Hensarling. We actually researched this piece for a couple of hours and pared down a larger list of Women to Watch to get the 8 most deserving. Enjoy...

1. Nicole Reinhardt (GER)- Canoe/Kayak

Cody: Reinhardt is a tenacious German kayaker who is known for her versatility. Strong in the K-1, K-2, and K-4 disciplines at a variety of lengths, Reinhardt has tasted victory at the '08 World Cup, the '08 European Championships, and the '07 World Championships. Serving the German community as a public servant, Reinhardt is also one of the more well-liked athletes representing them at the Beijing Games.
Daniel: Well, in my estimation, she has the cuteness and the hotness needed to make this list.
She looks like the kind of girl you could take to a party, have fun, but could probably have just as much fun relaxing.
Cody: I can think of 2 good reasons to watch her... Plus, she's cute.
Daniel: I'm thinking camping trips... and she's from the mother land, Deutschland uber alles.

2. Guo Jingjing (CHN)- Diving (3m Springboard Synchronized, and 3m Springboard Solo)

Cody: Guo is one of China's true athletic celebrities. She was estimated to have earned $2 million in endorsements in the year 2007 alone, unheard of for a diver. She was so successful as a public figure that the Chinese team threatened to kick her off the Beijing Olympic Team if she didn't retreat from public life and its "excessive commercialism". Oh, and by the way, she has 2 golds and 2 silvers coming into the games and just won the synchro.
Daniel: Ah, Guo...
Cody: There's something strangely seductive in her eyes
Daniel: She reminds me a little of Zhang Ziyi, mixed in with a little Michelle Yeoh.
Cody: I think it's the eyebrows, they aren't what you'd expect from a Chinese woman.
Daniel: She makes me think, wow, she's extremely pretty, but in a seductive, naively come-hither way.
Cody: Yeah, you get the impression that she doesn't fully understand her allure,
Daniel: or that she's unaware of it.
Cody: It's refreshing,
Daniel: which makes it even MORE alluring!

3. Christina Vukicevic (NOR)- Track & Field (100m Hurdles)

Cody: Just 20 years old, Vukicevic is one of the up and coming hopes for the Norwegian track team. Her best international performance to date is a 2nd place finish at the 2006 World Junior Championships in Beijing. Norway is not known as a summer sports power, but has in recent years gained a little more international credibility.
Daniel: Determined, cute, and unafraid to run the extra lap. You have to love that kind of indomitable spirit... along with those abs.
Cody: Ah, yes, it is quite amazing to see someone who specializes in overcoming hurdles. And has abs of steel.
Daniel: I bet she has a side job as being one of the valkyries that come down from Valhalla to sweep the battlefields of dead heroes, whisking them away to an eternity of awesomeness... and abs.

4. Alyona Bondarenko (UKR)- Tennis (Women's Singles & Doubles)

Cody: Bondarenko has been ranked as high as #19 in the world, and is one of the top singles players at the Olympics. In truth, she is much more well known for her doubles prowess with her sister Kateryna. Together, they won the 2008 Australian Open. She has 6 singles titles to go with 11 doubles crowns.
Daniel: Alyona Bondarenko. Just look at her name. In it, you see "abandon," as in, "abandon all hope, ye who look upon this beauty." I'm somehow imagining what would happen if Sharapova and Kournikova came together and had a baby...kova.
Cody: She wants me to be pure... This is just not fair! Why are women always so cruel?
Daniel: Pure like fallen snow. Pure like silk on soft skin. Pure like creamy, melting white chocolate spread over decadent fudge cake with sprinkles and- Oh, Lord. I think I just had an aneurysm... of love.
Cody: Is that what that's called these days?
Daniel: I don't know. All I know is that I need to plan a trip to the Ukraine.

5. Kerri Walsh (USA)- Beach Volleyball

Cody: 99 Career International titles. World Champion and defending Olympic Gold Medalist. Won 75 of 76 matches since 2006. Is there anything else that needs to be said? Walsh and Misty May-Treanor are the greatest pairing in Beach Volleyball history. At a towering 6'2", Walsh is by far the most dominant presence at the net in the tournament. If she doesn't win Gold, it will redefine the term 'upset'.
Daniel: Kerri Walsh has that old "Je ne sais quoi" about her. Maybe it's the great competitive spirit. Maybe it's the way she dominates the sand. Maybe it's the whole always-wearing-the-bikini-thing.
Cody: Kerri makes me want to learn how to come from behind as well as she does.
Daniel: I can't help but wonder why she's not playing for a Greek team, considering she's the perfect Amazonian, make-your-heartbeat-skip-and-slam-the-ace type of Olympian athlete.
Cody: Amazonian is right, Kerri is just impressive; period.
Daniel: She makes me want to climb something.

6. Marinella Falca (ITA)- Rhythmic Gymnastics

Cody: An integral member of the dangerous Italian Rhythmic Gymnastics team, Falca already has a silver medal, earned at the Athens games in the Group Competition. Falca specializes in the Hoop and Clubs and is known for her pixie-like facial expressions.
Daniel: Marinella is just too darn cute. She has the look of the girl next door, but I bet that Italian blood makes her more than capable of bringing the heat when it comes down to it. Plus, her warm-ups are probably considered a national treasure.
Cody: She plays with balls for medals and they call it art. How exactly does one go about getting one of those judging gigs?
Daniel: You pray to the Almighty Father and ask him to give you a little bit of heaven before you die. That's how.
Cody: I've have a craving for Italian. And maybe some pasta, too...
Daniel: I'll have a heaping helping of Marinella with a side of drop-dead-sweetness. Oh, she comes with it? Molto bene.

7. Charlotte Craig (USA)- Taekwondo

Cody: Charlotte "Charley" Craig has been the best American in her weightclass since age 14. Standing at just 5'5'', Craig is one of the favorites in the flyweight division. Already impressive in her own right, after training with the "first family of Taekwondo", the Lopez family, Craig is a complete fighter.
Daniel: I don't care how tall she is, that girl can throw me clear across a room. That's hot.
Cody: I swear there's a movie to be made here. She's blonde, from California, and schools Japanese at their national pastime? C'mon... Any girl that can look hot in the clown gear that they make the taekwondo fighters wear is a 10 in my book.
Daniel: She's got style. She's got flair. She's got looks that kill and a kick that will RUIN YOU. What more could you ask for in a girl her age? I mean, she's not even in her twenties yet!

8. Ophelie-Cyrielle Etienne (FRA)- Swimming

Cody: I'm not even going to try. I don't even know what event(s) she's entered in. She's cute. She's French. She's listed on nbcolympics.com. What more do you want?
Daniel: I want her to hand-feed me chocolate-dipped French strawberries. That's what.

Politics and Faith 1

2008-08-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

As today is Sunday, I have decided to discuss politics from a Christian perspective. Seeing as its election season, it's only natural that I would like to critique the Barack Obama campaign...

It cannot be denied that to the American political left, Barack Obama has become a bit of a messianic figure. It's not hard to understand how this happened; people are always looking for deeper answers, and the majority of liberals are not finding those answers in religion. Now, there are certainly exceptions, but stereotypically, the liberal side of the political spectrum is not the side you'd expect to see in the pews of a typical church on Sunday morning. Barack Obama is an inspiring speaker, who offers broad themes that appeal to our most basic urges. Rather than provie specifics, Obama is a master of positive vagarities. Couple this with a healthy dose of Bush Derangement Syndrome (the idea that Bush is the worst president ever to live and is an abomination whose absence will allow love to exist again) and liberals have more than is healthy invested in Obama.

I can understand why Obama is the object of worship-like obsession, but I can't understand why he revels in it, and make no mistake, he certainly does. From his wife's comments that he "can save America's soul" to his own claim that he "has become a symbol for all that America can become", Barack has allowed his ego to evolve above rockstar status into something larger and more terrifying. When you observe his recent "world victory tour", it's almost as if he believes that his very presence has the power to shape world affairs. I would contrast this arrogance with President Bush's current approach to diplomacy at the Olympics. Bush is absolutely holding court in Beijing. According to an interview with Bob Costas, Bush has met with Vladimir Putin, Dimitri Medvedev, and Hu Jintao multiple times while being America's Most Valuable Fan at the Games. When Costas asked if he thought his efforts would be effective, he responded "it's hard to tell, I'm just focused on creating a dialogue where world leaders with listen respectfully to America's opinion and take it into consideration when determining future action". That's not arrogance; that's being Presidential. I cringe to think how Obama, the man who claims he's running for President because "he doesn't like what America has become", would represent America on such a grand stage. For once, I think most people would agree with me that if only in this situation, Obama would make Americans yearn for the more unassuming Bush.

I don't think that Obama is making inroads with evangelicals as many publications (who probably are 100% in the tank for him anyway) would claim. It's hard to see how as he's advocating a policy which asks America to place its hope and finances in the Government alone and is personally asserting a persona that some of his fans would liken to the Christ himself. Perhaps the explanation is that some of us in the evangelical community are disillusioned with his opponent (I sure am) and are willing to gloss over his policy proposal shortcomings to focus on his more generic strengths (he's inspiring, he's internationally minded, he's very intelligent, etc...). My request is that these people look harder at Barack Obama, because the more you see of him, the less you're bound to be inspired. He is like all men that desire things solely on the basis of character: compared to Jesus Christ, they all fall short. In Obama's case, it's not as much falling short as falling flat on his face.

This is a shorter post. I've been working on two pretty research intensive posts which will go up on Monday and Tuesday, respectively (at least, that's the plan): 8 Olympic Women to Watch (interpret that as you like) and Georgia, Russia, and South Ossetia: What's Going On and Why You Should Care.

Tomorrow, I go up to Cy-Fair CC and hopefully complete everything that needs to be taken care of, so I can go get a job.

Relationships & Recapping Day 1

2008-08-09T17:15:00.001-07:00

Last year, in a previous iteration of this blog, I posited the first rule of college romance, along with 2 subsequent corollaries:

Rule #1: We don't pick who we like.
Corollary A to Rule #1: Just because we 'like' somebody doesn't mean action is a good idea.
Corrollary B to Rule #1: We can't pick to 'not like' someone.

A year later, presumably a year wiser, I have some thoughts on Rule #1 and would like to present a couple more.

"We don't pick who like". Sure; I think this is still pretty ironclad, but I hadn't ever really considered an alternative perspective. What about the person who we like? Can they influence us? Can they, in effect, get us to fall for them? The answer, as obvious as it may seem to people, is HECK YES. College is a time where people learn how to present themselves to others. Unless you aren't branching out from your high school crew, you have a fairly clean slate; nobody knows about the skeletons in your closet. Many people take advantage of this effect and transform themselves into what could loosely be called chameleons. What does that mean? Well, my brother, Carson, who's heading to Westmont for his freshman year, has this quirk that never ceases to make us laugh. Whenever he talks to someone with distinguishable speech patterns or physical characteristics, he subconciously mimics them for the rest of the day. Once, I caught him regaling me about his days growing up in a trailer park in Georgia. Right... While Carson's quirk is good for a laugh and generally harmless, let's take it to another level. What if a person, either male or female, tailors how they present themselves specifically to attract the other person? That's potentially problematic, because it's basically dishonest. This can lead to painful "awakenings", when the other person realizes who the faker truly is. So, my point is this, be wary! Yes, we don't choose who we like; but that doesn't mean that liking the people we do is good, right, or healthy.

Rule #2: We don't know what we want.

For years, I have complained, agonized, and wrote dopey blog posts demagoguing the fact that girls claim they want the nice guy and fall for the jerk. What I've come to realize now is that we live in a day of introspection. We constantly analyze why we want what we want and why we do what we do. Sometimes, I believe, we deconstruct what we do and construct what we want to do. What does this mean? Sometimes, we convince ourselves that we want something other than our actions show we do. This is one problem; the other is that in today's society, we have so many influences pulling on us and encouraging us to get into relationships as soon as possible that sometimes we don't even stop to check ourselves. We can throw ourselves down a path that we don't want to go down and don't even realize what we're doing. My point is this: if you know that they want someone like you, but they keep falling for people nothing like you, don't worry! Either they'll figure out that they want someone like you, or they'll start being honest with themselves and the rest of the world.

Rule #3: We grow at different paces.

As somebody who used to be (before my lack of responsibility-induced sojourn) one of, if not the youngest person in his class, I used to believe that age didn't matter in relationships; if only for perfectly selfish reasons. I still believe that, but I realize now that maturity does matter. In fact, a mismatch in maturity levels is possible the single fastest deal-breaker in all college-age relationships. This has a few applications. First, we probably should watch ourselves if we like a person who's vastly less or more mature than ourselves. In keeping with Rule #1, it's not like we can stop liking them, but caution (a la Corollary A) would probably be prudent. The second, which is a little tougher to take, is that, seeing as college is a time of discovering who we are, having the courage to realize that you and your significant other are in different places and take action accordingly is the right thing to do. Scary, no?

Olympic Recap

I have seen footage (either online or on MSNBC, telemundo, USA, CNBC, or NBC) of the following sports: men's soccer, women's soccer, boxing, women's handball, men's road race cycling, women's volleyball, women's beach volleyball, men's beach volleyball, women's air rifle, men's swimming (IM, breastroke), women's swimming (IM, free relay), women's sabre fencing, men's gymnastics, women's judo, and women's weightlifting. I could break down each event that I saw, but my fingers would probably fall off. Which wouldn't be cool. So, instead, here are my 5 top performers from Day 1/2.

T1. Sada Jacobson/Mariel Zagunis (USA)- Women's Sabre

Mariel Zagunis succesfully defended her title in Women's Sabre. Think about that for a second. She was the first American to win gold in a fencing event in 2004. Now, she's the first woman to defend an Olympic fencing title EVER. That's impressive. But really, for me, it was much more fun to watch the matches of Sada Jacobsen. Sada was a more cautious, thoughtful fencer. She reminded me of a chess player with a weapon, a scary (deadly?) thought. The Americans' swept, and I had a ball listening to the answers miss over 2/3 of the calls. I give 'em credit, though; nobody knows who scores in fencing until they bust out the video replay.

3. Katerina Emmons (CZE)- Women's 10m Air Rifle

First off, the gear that the competitors wear is borderline ridiculous. Double eye blinders, clear glasses, leather jackets and pants, and even colored headgear to show pride in country? Excessive much? Second off, it cannot be easy to run away with such a precision event as a shooting event; yet, that's exactly what Emmons did, shooting an Olympic Record in the final round. Third, her intimate embrace after her victory with her fellow shooter husband, Matt Emmons, was touchingly sweet.

4. Aleksandrs Samoilovs and Martins Plavins (LAT)- Men's Beach Volleyball

Phil Dalhausser & Todd Rogers are the defending world champions of Men's Beach Volleyball. Last time I checked, Latvia isn't exactly known for its beaches. You would think that this dichotomy would be enough to safely call the prelim match that these two teams had for the Americans. You would be wrong. Samoilovs and Plavins were energetic and endearing, came back from large deficits multiple times, and impressed me to no end on their way to what analysts are calling "the greatest upset in Olympic Beach Volleyball history".

5. Dzhakhon Kurbanov (TJK)- Men's Light Heavyweight Boxing

Olympic boxing has a worse scoring system than figure skating used to have before its much needed overhaul. I mean, I watched 3 bouts, and concluded that a totally oblivious spectator could determine that the system was either plagued with complete incompetence or utterly corrupt. Kurbanov defeated defending world champion (in the Round of 32, no less!) Abbos Atoev of Uzbekistan 11-3. Kurbanov makes the list of my top performers, because he racked up such a large margin of victory while seeming to be pummeled for 12 straight minutes while flopping around like a dead fish. I swear, when I figured out that he was winning 11-3 instead of losing, I nearly vomited...

On a final Olympic note, props to Bob Costas! I don't know what the Olympic experience would be like without his iconic voice and top-notch coverage.

Tomorrow, I attend Living Way Church for the first time in a year and watch some more Olympic coverage.

08-08-08

2008-08-08T16:25:00.000-07:00

You may or may not have realized this, but I'm kind of crazy about the Olympics. Full disclosure: my favorite movie of all time is Chariots of Fire. The Olympics for me are purely magical. I have studied the history of the games, and can identify most of the gold medal winners in the major events, dating back to 1896. I believe that the games are more than politics, more than a gesture, more than a competition. Call me sappy, but if they could stop wars in the ancient days for the Games, there's power there. I highly recommend LZ Granderson's article on the US soldiers competing in the games, located on ESPN.com. In lieu of his masterful article, here are my top 8 all time Summer Olympic moments:

8. Emil Zatopek (CZE) wins the 1956 Marathon. Zatopek was a renowned distance runner who had never run the marathon at any level. He was known for his ability to run while appearing to die on the track (hey, I do that too!). During the marathon, the pack leaders set out on a blistering pace which Zatopek matched. Several miles through, Zatopek asked the favorite, who was clearly struggling, if it would be all right if he sped up. The leader, who collapsed from exhaustion a mile leader, thought he was kidding. He wasn't. Nobody got within spitting distance of Czech for the rest of the race.

7. Bob Beamon (USA) soars to new lengths in the 1968 Long Jump. Bob Beamon was the favorite in Mexico City, having jumped 27'4'' in the US Team Trials. However, nobody expected what happened. Beamon soared a record-breaking 29'2.5" and immediately buried his face in his hands. His world-record jump stood for 23 years and is STILL the Olympic record. Unbelievable.

6. Eric Liddell (GBR) wins the 1912 400 meter dash. Liddell's story was memorialized in the movie Chariots of Fire. Liddell was the fastest British 100 meter dash runner and was joint favorites with American Charlie Paddock in that event. 3 months before the games, upon learning that the qualifying heats for the 100 would be held on a Sunday, "Scotland's finest", a devout Christian who would go on to die on the mission fields of China, pulled out of his best event and switched his efforts to his 3rd best event. The switch was an impressive demonstration of conviction and paid dividends with a Gold medal.

5. Mark Spitz (USA) silences the doubters in 1972 swimming. After brashly declaring that he would win 6 golds in 1968 (he won two), Spitz was back in 1972 to maintain his bid for the 6 gold medals. He did even more, winning 7 golds, a feat still unequaled by any other athlete in a single Olympiad. Furthermore, Spitz set a new world record in each of the 7 events (the 100 m freestyle, 200 m freestyle, 100 m butterfly, 200 m butterfly, 4 x 100 m freestyle relay, 4 x 200 m freestyle relay and the 4 x 100 m medley relay). Spitz set the standard for domination for years to come.

4. Billy Mills (USA) does the unthinkable in the 1964 10,000 meter race. Billy Mills was the second fastest American distance runner at the Tokyo games. For those of us that follow distance running, that means literally nothing. Ron Clarke, the Australian favorite, had the World Record, which was a full minute faster than anything that Mills had ever run. Mills had even quit running for a number of years, having joined the Marine Corps. Yet, somehow, on this day, Mills, a Native American, dug deep and found the inner strength to sprint from 3rd to 1st on the final straightaway. He remains the only American to win the 10,000 and nobody from the Western Hemisphere has won it since.

3. Rulon Gardner (USA) topples the Russian Bear in the 2000 Super-Heavyweight Greco-Roman Wrestling Finals. Alexander Karelin is and was the stuff of legends. The quiet and imposingly enigmatic Russian wrestler hadn't lost a match at ANY level in 12 years and hadn't given up a single point in 6 years. Yet, somehow, someway, farmboy Rulon Gardner defeated Karelin 1-0 on the sport's biggest stage. Call it a fluke, but Gardner's story was that of the ultimate underdog prevailing.

2. Jesse Owens (USA) jumps to glory in the 1936 Long Jump. Jesse Owens was one a few black athletes to give Hitler a bad taste in his personal games, the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Jesse would win 4 gold medals, including the 100, 200, and the 4X100 relay. However, he barely got out of prelims. He had fouled on his first two jumps and needed a clean qualifying distance on his third. Seeing that his major competition was rattled, German jumper Luz Long decided to offer some friendly advice. Long suggested to take off from a foot behind the take-off line, knowing that Owens was more than good enough to qualify even with the impediment. Owens took the German's unexpected, unsolicited advice, qualified, then later won the Gold.

1. Kerri Strug (USA) sticks it to win the 1996 Women's Team Gymnastics Gold Medal. The gold came down to the USA's final event of the competition: the vault. Legendary coach Bela Karolyi knew that his team needed solid scores to prevent the Russians from stealing Gold from under their noses. Strug fell on her first vault and tweaked her ankle. In considerable pain, Strug earned a 9.712 after sticking the landing on her second fault and then promptly collapsed and was hospitalized. Her courage clinched the Gold for the US women.

What did I do today? Found out that I couldn't take the test today, but was reassured that it's not a big deal (thanks... if it's not a big deal, why can't I take it now?). Ate mexican at Casa Ole for lunch with the grandparents, and sat down to watch the Opening Ceremonies. GO USA!

T-minus 1

2008-08-07T11:44:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games. Get excited! I kicked off my Olympic mania by watching Guzan's boys take on the Japanese in Pool play. The Houston Chronicle led me to believe that the game started at 4:45 AM. Well, when I flipped on the TV at 4:45, I realized that the paper was wrong: I only saw the second half. Here's my thoughts from what I did see:

- Freddy Adu couldn't get a call to save his life. I love me some Freddy, but his sulking and whining over what could graciously be described as minor contact didn't help the team. He needs to keep his head in the game and realize that this is the Olympics and PK's aren't being given out for free.

- Brian McBride is much, much, much more physical than Jozy Altidore or Freddy and his presence is critical to our future success in the tournament. Without McBride working hard, there just aren't going to be enough opportunities to take down the likes of the Dutch or Nigeria.

- Maurice Edu is a gambler. I know he's supposed to be a defensive mid, not a center back, but he sure is a heart attack waiting to happen. He made a few impressive plays, showing off his athleticism, but there were a couple of bonehead errors that a better team than Japan would have capitalized on.

- Brad Guzan can't do this alone. Orozco, Parkhurst, Edu, and Wynne was the backline and clearly they weren't on the same page with the USA's goalie of the future. Orozco in particular seemed to enjoy hanging Guzan out to dry. I'm aware that most of them are playing out of position, but Parkhurst needs to be the leader he was brought in to be and get them playing together before Guzan reaches his breaking point.

- The mids look good. Holden, Kljestan, Robbie Rogers, and Bradley all played very well. Robbie Rogers and Holden in particular looked great. Holden's goal was the result of hard work and was definitely deserved. The future of USA soccer is in the Midfield and I am convinced that that future is quite bright.

What did I do today? Well, I've been on my own all day so far, as my grandfather had to take my grandmother down to Houston Memorial Hospital for a day long battery of tests. She has been on kidney dialysis for 8 years and is trying to get on the kidney transplant list. Pray for her. I took the car out for a spin and returned the shorts to Wal-mart. I also picked up a Cherry Limeade from Sonic (it's been waaaaaaaaay too long) and listened to about an hour and a half of Rush. I'm currently watching TV (Thursday is Burn Notice day!!) and doing laundry. I have about 4 days to get all the clothes I have here organized. I'm not particularly hurrying, but I am making progress. There also, in a bit of good news, is a few more sets of clothes for me to arrange as a courier brought my missing bag to the house at 7:30! It turns out that it never left LA. Props to Continental and Northwest for getting my bag back quickly and keeping me in the loop all the way.

Tomorrow, I intend to watch the Opening Ceremonies and see if I can take the English placement test that Cy-Fair CC wants me to take early (I'm scheduled to take it on the 14th, and I can't register for classes before I take it). That and more laundry/organizing.

I figure I'll end today's thoughts with a political point. It's fairly simple: Democrats like high oil prices.

It's not hard to figure out why Congress hasn't done something about 4 dollar gas. It isn't the Republicans' fault; they're the ones sweating it out on the House floor after the AC has been turned off by Nancy 'Don't Call Me Obstructionist" Pelosi while the Dems are enjoying their 5 week paid vacation. It's the enviro-crazies that are preventing drilling from occuring. Pelosi has pushed "use it or lose it", implying that "Big Oil" is sitting on vast stores of oil in the interest of racking up profits. I think she and the rest of the Gore-bots are thinking that nobody realizes that all new drilling efforts are tied up in the courts. Well, that might work for a while, but eventually people will realize that that's a load of BS. What then? I really don't know, but I am led to believe that Pelosi will try to spin blame on somebody else. This is really what I think her/the DNC's plan is. They need to scapegoat the opposition. They're trying to run an angry campaign, a campaign that tries to provide a solution to a pressing problem. The hitch is the problem that they were going to use, Iraq, isn't really viewed as a quagmire anymore. Thus, they're trying to spin gas prices as the creation of Big Oil and their natural allies, the Republicans. Does ANYBODY believe that Bush/GOP rank and file/McCain are to blame for energy prices? I certainly don't. This sucks for America, but bodes well for McCain's chances.

The Transition

2008-08-06T16:32:00.000-07:00

Yes, I have decided to start blogging again. Daily. Yes, I said it. Daily! I will bring you, the reader, recollections from my daily grind, a Christian perspective on politics, and emotional musings on life.

I left Hawaii at 10:20 on Tuesday, August 4th on Northwest Airlines. I was initially worried about the flight; my bad experiences on US Air, American, and United fresh on my mind. My favorite airline is Continental. Unlike most, which will charge for the air which you breathe, Continental takes customer service seriously: good movies, plenty of free food, $1 headsets, friendly flight attendants, and decently roomy planes are just par for the course. I booked my flight with Continental, but they decided to partner share me with Northwest; thus, my trepidation.

I shouldn't have worried. The movie was Made of Honor, which (sidenote) was AWESOME. I normally can appreciate romantic comedies, but don't go out of my way to watch them. This one was superb, primarily because none of the jokes reached the unbearably awkward stage. Patrick Dempsey did a great job of being likable and believable at the same time. Michelle Moynahan was appropriately attractive, and the treatment of the other male romantic lead (aka the "nice guy/loser") was surprisingly dignified. What can I say? I love the idea that the best friend gets the girl. It gives me hope...

Back to the plane ride: there was no turbulence, I was able to stay up the whole time, and I didn't have to buy food because I thought far enough ahead to bring my own. That's my definition of a good flight. I got to LAX at 6:50 AM, and immediately had to change terminals. You'd think that'd be no big deal. At most airports, take Atlanta for instance, it's just a tram ride and some stairs. In LA, it's having to walk outside, flag down the right bus, go through 2 full security checkpoints, and then dash to the gate if your connector boards at 7:30 (as mine was). I find that a bit ridiculous, but it didn't really matter, as due to Tropical Storm Edouard, my plane was delayed until 10:00 AM. Or so I thought... I grabbed some breakfast from Ruby's Dinette (so overpriced that I might scream at the thought of being forced to eat there again) as it was only thing open. I head back to the gate at 8, only to see that my new departure time was 8:30 AM. The time was bumped back, bit by bit, as I slept, until we left at 10 (surprise, surprise...). The flight was supposed to be all about the turbulence, which mercifully for the perilously afraid of heights me, did not come to be an apt discription. Though it was a 3 hour flight, Kung Fu Panda was shown, as was an episode of Monk. God Bless Continental! I loved both programs, having seen both previously. Unfortunately, when I got to Houston, I discovered one of my two bags was lost (the clothes bag, thank goodness, not the xbox). So, as of now, it's just slippers and jeans for yours truly, as I have a host of shirts already here.

When I got back to the house, there was a surprise waiting for me. You'll have to bear with me, as I don't have a lot of car knowledge, but I think it's a red 1999 Toyota Corolla. It's got some milage (97,000), but it is otherwise in perfect condition and runs like a charm. It becomes mine at the end of the semester if I can make it through without incident. Now that is some serious incentive! I love it already. God is good and so are my grandparents. To my mother, who will either read this or be told of this: I DIDN'T ASK FOR OR EXPECT THIS!! ALSO, I'M NOT REFUSING THE DEAL! WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? IT'S A CAR!! I am paying gas, insurance, and all expenses. If it makes you feel any better. Which I know it won't.

I managed to stay up until 8:30, woke up at a reasonable time, visited the build site for Pawpaw (my grandfather, Executive Pastor of Living Way Church of Houston)'s new church, and went shopping for shorts (which didn't fit and I will return tomorrow), deodorant, and an electric razor. I also helped Pawpaw pick out a new router so I could get wireless around the house. Setting it up seemed easy, until the DSL router spazzed out just to rain on my parade. Two hours with AT&T technical support later, we are up and running!

Plans for tomorrow include: taking the car out for a spin, returning and replacing the shorts, and watching the US Men's Olympic Soccer team take on Japan in pool play. GO FREDDY GO!

It's good to be back.

on friendship

2007-04-07T22:36:00.000-07:00

Who am I to expect from you what I demand from myself?

I have come to the conclusion that I expect a great deal from my friends. I don't know if this is fair or not, but I do realize that I desire after it. What do I want in a friendly relationship?

1. Loyalty. Perhaps for me, the most defining moments of a friendship are the calls at 3:30 AM. You know; the ridiculous requests that only an insanely selfless person would honestly consider. Yet, consider them I do, and consider them I pray you will. It's the idea that there need be no pretense. The idea that if you have a reason to wake me at such an ungodly hour, it's good enough for me not to even have to ask. I act. You know this. If I was to ask the same of you. Would you do it? This isn't metaphorical. This is real. I am not trying to dazzle you with my moody wordplay and brooding musings. This is as honest, hard-hitting, and concrete as you'll ever get from me. This is my concept of loyalty; to which I am slave.

2. Respect. Aretha Franklin had a point when she claims that all we really want is a little respect. I have been told that I do not show people respect. This is fallacy. Normally, in my mood-swinging funk, I would agonize over this supposed failure. Not today, oh false accuser. I do prove to be respectful, and wish likewise upon you. I do not judge people's desires. I criticize, yes; but judge who and what you are? No way. I do not tolerate people lying to me to save face, because that, to me, devalues the respect I offer. I do not seek to maim you for who you are, whatever that may be. I do not seek to tell you that you are, yourself, inferior, and should imitate someone or something better. That would be base, and when this is what is shown to me, is what sparks most of my odd anger.

3. Compassion. Shared suffering is relative. Pain is not something, in my mind, that is universally quantifiable. Until that blessed day when I meet my heavenly father, I will never be without some form of the burden that is pain. I do not tell you, no matter how ridiculous or selfish your affliction may seem, that your pain is unworthy of discussion or pity. This ties right back in to the worth of self which I so value. It may seem trivial to more 'worldly' people, but to you, it is all. Those who seek to find an ally in me, need realize that I percieve emotions as powerful beyond reckoning, whether or not they are 'legitimate'.

These 3 above all.

If you have shown me these qualities in the past, realize that I have noticed. If you have not, realize that I will not hold that against you. If you just don't care, then you probably shouldn't be reading this post in the first place.

In the end, friendship, fellowship, and brotherhood is what will allow me to survive as a stranger in a strange land. I seek it; I analyze it; I am to refine it. Do you do the same?

on me

2007-03-26T20:27:00.000-07:00

Who is J. Rockaway?

Joseph Bartholomew Rockaway is the secretary and scribe for THE MCGURK ORGANIZATION. He is bespectacled, skilled in English, grounded, and the voice of reason to Jack McGurk, the proprietor of this particular bunch of sleuths. Joey is detail-driven, with an eye for patterns, a desire for the world to be black and white, and a general distrust of law enforcement. Joey believes that he is the real behind-the-scenes brains of the group.

THE MCGURK ORGANIZATION has other members.

- Jack P. McGurk is the fiery redheaded leader. Quick with the hunches, slow to do his own legwork, McGurk ascribes to be a king among mere mortals. Not gifted with an extraordinary talent, he compensates with enthusiasm, motivation, and power-tripping.

- Willie "The Nose" Sandowsky is the most mellow of the group. Willie has the preternatural ability to smell things from long distances, as his nickname implies. Willie looks first to the obvious, and is slow to think outside the box. However, Willie is unfailingly thorough, a skill which eludes many others in the organization.

- Wanda Grieg is the female foil to McGurk. A noted tree-climber and tomboy, Wanda is the muscle of the crew. Some would say she has a secret desire for fearless Jack, yet it seldom shows. Wanda is one of the few who is unafraid of force and tends to see big-picture implications in the most minute details.

- Gerald "Brains" Bellingham is the science expert. Blessed with a smart-alec tongue as well as a subscription to Scientific American, Brains remains the only kid to ever have fooled the great McGurk. Naturally, upon realizing his failure, McGurk hired Brains. Officer Bellingham isn't easily fooled and has a well-documented capacity for ingenuity.

- Mari Yoshimura is the daughter of a prominent Japanese businessman. What makes her useful to McGurk is her title as the "human lie detector". Mari has the ability to throw her voice, which tends to come in handy in a pinch. Mari combines a slightly odd sense of humor with a sense of duty unparalled by her comrades.

They call me J. Rockaway. Who are you?

on questions

2007-03-24T14:58:00.000-07:00

Another one of my fellow bloggers, the infamous pork chop, cites the importance of asking the deeper questions. A deeper question, she later defines as a question to which you don't have an answer. Aside from the immediate sarcastic note that "where is dick cheney's bunker located?" would meet this definition, I feel that this is an intruiging concept; one worth delving into its depths.

So, here's some "deeper questions" I have:

1. Why do I get lonely?

2. Why do people believe that negotiations will work with terrorists or guys named Jong Il?

3. Why do stable people get passed over in relationships?

4. Why did Enterprise get shown on UPN with only one major black character?

5. Why did Chuck Norris become an urban legend?

6. Why did Hideki Irabu flame out in Major League Baseball?

7. Why can't I get into bars on Northgate with an out-of-state ID?

8. What would be a good piece for college DI?

9. Why am I always introspective?

10. Why can't I keep in touch with everyone I want/need to?

11. Why can't the Devil Rays get their act together?

12. How does Barack Obama expect to be elected?

on temper

2007-03-22T23:14:00.000-07:00

I'm tired.
Very tired.

It's going to change. I'm going to play more, watch less, and stop asking the ref for fouls.
I'm going to realize that nobody cares about my pain; they've got their own.
I'm going to realize that I care, and people notice, whether I know or not.

Screw pain. Screw being damaged. Screw feeling hopeless.

Yeah, I've been taken advantage of; yeah, karma isn't real. I don't care anymore.

All I've got to say is watch your freaking back. I am pissed and ready to make my own justice.
Am I referring to anyone in particular? At this point, it really doesn't matter.

If you understood any of this, you should probably be scared or appreciative.

on plausability

2007-03-21T18:26:00.001-07:00

To understand from where I’m coming on this one, realize that I watch two tv shows religiously: House MD and Grey’s Anatomy. I’ve already blogged about things I learned from House, so it should be apparent about which of the two what follows will be. In the last episode, everyman (T.R. “Don’t Call Me a Faggot, Isaiah” Knight as George O’Malley) “sleeps with” or “has a drunken, hedonistic night with” (take your pick) the supermodel (Katherine Heigl as Isobel “Izzie” Stevens). This is disturbing on a number of levels. First, it’s not like George hasn’t been down this road before. He once, rather horrifically, tried to bed the tragic heroine (Ellen “No, I’m Not Crying, This Is How I Always Look” Pompeo as Meredith Grey) only to be foiled in the middle of the process due to Meredith bursting into tears. Ouch. That really sucks. But, we (those of us who are cheering for George to stop getting screwed over every three seconds) are comforted over the next few episodes when George “learns life lessons from her lapse” in judgment. Right…

Um, apparently, George needs to go back to school, as that clearly is not a lesson to which he has taken well. He and Izzie were both drunk, in an attempt to help George work up the strength to make up with Callie, his newly wedded wife. Keep in mind that Callie is insanely jealous of Izzie’s status as George’s confidant, which is what started the whole freaking conflict. George, in his intoxicated state, tells Izzie that Callie thinks that she has feelings for him. She laughs her ass off, but then we fast forward... nobody’s laughing and people are naked.

Normally, as I, too, find Izzie quite attractive, I would be thrilled for everyman striking a blow against prejudice. This time, not so much… George is viewed as the perfect “just friend”. He was there for Izzie when she had emotional trauma over the loss of her fiancée, and she has tried to help him through all of his crises (which, because George is the everyman, are too many to list). It’s a symbiotic relationship that works. But the look on Izzie’s face the morning after the deed was enough to piss me off. It’s not like Izzie doesn’t randomly sleep with male friends (see: Karev, Alex); it’s that she just can’t bring herself to see George in that light.

What the heck is this? This is role solidifying. George is the best friend, and as a result, he doesn’t get to have his way with Izzie. Period. He likes her, she likes him, yet there’s no way Hollywood would let the insanely attractive girl fall for the geeky guy. This isn’t a comedy, people…

Why does this irk me? This is yet another message from Hollywood that nice guys have a very set role to which they can hope to ascend. They get to hold the baggage, but don’t get to be the star. This just doesn’t make sense! I’m not advocating for girls randomly sleeping with nice guys. No, all I’m saying is that pigeon-holing nice guys into a set role is setting relationships up to fail. Thus, my charge: forget labels; just treat the other like he/she deserves to be treated.

on balance

2007-03-19T11:53:00.000-07:00

As I sit alone, solitarily eating my lunch, I wonder about the balance of confidence and vulnerability. Perhaps it’s because I’m listening to such uplifting tunes as “Paint It Black”by the Stones; regardless, it’s an interesting subject...

Confidence is a major component of attractiveness. Case in point example, No’ukahauoli Revilla. No’u, as we called her, was moderately physically attractive, in shape, but not what one would call curvaceous. However, No’u remains, to this day, the most attractive person with whom I have come into contact. Why? Well, many people, including myself, speak of the “aura” that surrounded her. She could simultaneously put you at ease and floor you. She was the kind of girl that most guys perceived as not quite out of their league, (Obviously a great catch, yet still remotely plausible) as evidenced by a conversation I had where 5 different guys in s/d were going to ask her to prom. I have often asked myself why she had/has this effect over guys. The only answer I could come up with is confidence. Now, don’t get me wrong, she is/was very skilled at a host of things. She placed 4th in Dramatic Interpretation at NFL Nationals during her senior year in high school, was an AP student, and editor of the school newspaper. Every time you came into contact with No’u, you just got the feeling that there was nobody that could stop her. It wasn’t that she appeared cocky; she was just supremely calm and confident in everything. Obviously, No’u had a lot going for her. However, when it came to her romantic relationships, things weren’t always such a breeze. There were rumors of one of her two sig. others in high school cheating on her. I don’t know if this is or isn’t true, but just the suggestion of such a thing threw me for a loop. Why in the world would anyone cheat on No’u? I asked myself this very question a number of times, and all that I could come up with was a set of other rumors. Ok, yeah, this is a lot of unfounded speculation, but I’m arguing that it fits in to a bigger picture. It was posited that while everyone thought they knew No’u, nobody knew the true character of No’u, even her boyfriend. Now, here’s something. Confidence is great, but if it comes at the expense of vulnerability, how would a couple ever achieve emotional intimacy? I don’t know if this is what happened to No’u in high school, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it did.

So what do I pull from this? It seems that what we desire in the course of a relationship is an initial burst of confidence that fades into vulnerability. But wait, if vulnerability is the ultimate goal, then why don’t we want it in the beginning? As I said before, it’s a balance; but this is not the behavior of a balanced concept…

For me, personally, I’ve found that the only time when I’ve ever heard of girls being attracted to me is at speech/debate functions. This isn’t that off-putting to me, as that’s also the arena in which I feel most comfortable. Still, I have to ask: so, if it’s a super-confident Cody you’re attracted to at s/d, but it’s a vulnerable Cody you want later on, why couldn’t you just be attracted to a slightly confident, slightly vulnerable Cody from the beginning? And that really, is my charge. People: seek the balance, flee the lies.

on madness, part two

2007-03-15T20:55:00.001-07:00

V-C-U! V-C-U! V-C-U! The first upset of the tournament was so, so, so freaking sweet. This is the best game I’ve seen all year, pro or college. Eric Maynor & the Rams justified my faith in their skill, yet it took a rollercoaster of a game to do it. Four players had to leave with profuse bleeding, VCU made something like 15 3’s, Greg Paulus has to be considered a star now, Paulus and Maynor nearly got into a fight, Josh McRoberts single-handedly dominated the paint, and best of all, VCU came back from down by 13 to win on a Maynor jump shot with 3.2 seconds left. Just incredible!

Other, less happy notes:

- Screw Tech. Every year I pick them incorrectly. If I need them to win, they choke; if I count them out, they get a miracle. Yet another reason to nuke Lubbock.
- Old Dominion’s loss to Butler was closer than it seemed, but a loss is still a loss.
- Where are the upsets? Just 2 through 12 games? And only an 11 and a 9? C’mon, where’s the madness in this?
- Davidson very nearly beat Maryland. This is tough for me, because I have Maryland going to the Elite Eight. However, the way they finished the game potentially precludes progress…
- Penn is very good. As early as last year, I noticed how tenacious Ibrahim “Ibby” Jaabar plays. The Aggies really had their work cut out for them. Thank goodness for Dominique Kirk. Kirk, Law, and some Joe Jones dunks were what allowed us to overcome the lackluster play of my two favorites: Antanas Kavaliauskus and Josh Carter. We wore out the Quakers, but Louisville looms, and we’re gonna need Carter and AK to step up their game.
- Hehe. All you people who claimed Stanford was the upset special of the first day were so, so wrong!
- On a less boastful note, I guess Marquette isn’t going to beat UNC after losing badly to Michigan State… Whoops.
- Scariest team of the day: Vanderbilt. Vandy just killed an experienced, hungry George Washington team. This is a great development for me, because many predicted them to be upset-prone, and I need them to go to the Final Four.
- UCLA and Washington State steamrolled after some initial troubles, no real surprise there.
- Thank goodness for Xavier! Xavier was trailing most of the day to those darn pesky mormons… Thankfully, Drew Lavender, the Earl Boykins clone came up big in the clutch.
- Darn Gonzaga; the magic is apparently gone. I may have to modify my rule, as this is two years in a row where they’ve burned me.
- UNC & Pitt got good scares for about 10 minutes, which lines up with how I figure both of those teams.

Day One Results: 16 Games, 12 Correct, 4 Wrong. Wrong: (Marquette, Gonzaga, Texas Tech, and Old Dominion) Upsets predicted: 2 of 3 (VCU and Xavier)

on duplicity

2007-03-14T19:06:00.001-07:00

(Disclaimer: what follows is a blog on relationships/crushes/love/women written by a guy who probably should never disclose his thoughts on the subject without a death wish. However, it's not as bad as it usually is.)

My good blogging friend c. felleisen wrote his last blog on the true nature of love. I had every intention of writing a long comment, but I got so long-winded that I decided to turn my thoughts on the subject into a post.

I could spend quite a few words discussing the nature of love, but frankly, that would end up being a post that even I would have a hard time stomaching. Instead, I will hang around the periphery of the issue.

My experiences with romance have been aborted and difficult. Perhaps that's due to my personality, which tends to be abrasive and critical. Perhaps it's because I pick real winners for which to fall. I don't know, but I do know that this has colored my experiences on the topic.

I present rule # 1 of college romance, in all its aborted glory.

Rule #1: We don't pick who we like.

This one, I attribute to Amanda Apolinar, a good friend who counsels me whenever I'm bordering on blissful. Its message is simple, we have little control over to whom we are initially attracted. This is simple enough, so here's

Corollary A to Rule #1: Just because we 'like' somebody doesn't mean action is a good idea.

Case in point example: every time I develop feelings for someone, I have the urge to tell them. Why is this? I don't know, I guess I'm just hopeful. Yeah, well, if I actually looked at Rule #1, I'd realize that because the people who I like are not necessarily the people I should like, there are times that shutting up is a great plan.

Corrollary B to Rule #1: We can't pick to 'not like' someone.

Hiding, supressing, or disguising one's feelings is all well and good, but it's total fallacy to assume that you can just stop liking someone. Attraction doesn't disappear, unless your perception of the person radically changes.

Love, as many before have put it, is more than a feeling. (Yeah, see, I can work in lame song title allusions. I'm sooo good at this blog thing...) I just take that for granted. However, I wonder how many people put this into action? This is where duplicity comes into play. So many times, girls/women claim that they want the stable, supportive guy who genuinely cares about their wellbeing. Yet for some strange reason girls seem to fall for the asshole/bad boy. Now, in years/months passed, I would at this point laungh into a diatribe on how stupid this is. Not today. Today, I actually can outline a reasonable case for the asshole.

In defense of the asshole

- they don't just blindly submit to the girl's interests. there's conflict. conflict is interesting, at the very minimum.
- they are fun to tame. (do I buy this as possible? no. but I can see how it could be appealing. sort of a motherly instinct, perhaps)
- they are more willing to be themselves, and less pressured to meet the girl's desires; thus, being more genuine.
- they are more willing to be spontaneous, as the other person's sensibilities just aren't an issue.

A reasonable case, yet there's one small problem. As Amanda infrequently reminds me, I am incapable of being a real asshole. Thus, my charge to all 0 ladies who read my blog.

STOP EQUATING POSITIVE QUALITIES TO ASSHOLES ALONE! My goodness, it's ridiculous to observe sometimes. Anyways, it's a simple request. Give the good guys a chance to win, sooner rather than later. Trust me (well, maybe not, my experience on the issue borders nil), less pain and more joy for all parties involved.

on madness, part one

2007-03-13T11:06:00.000-07:00

Every year I fill out a bracket. I have won every pool in which I have played for the last three years. This year is probably the year when that streak dies. However, perhaps for my own sanity, here’s the logic behind my more controversial NCAA Tournament first round selections.

Upsets:

9 Villanova over 8 Kentucky

Tubby Smith scares me. As in, Tubby Smith’s unbelievable choking act which occurs every March almost fools me ever year. Not this year. Nova’s Scottie Reynolds is a heckuva guard who, along with Curtis Sumpter, will be too much for Kentucky.

11 Winthrop over 6 Notre Dame

This is my lock game. I had good feelings about Winthrop last year, when they were two points from helping me pick my second ever correct 2 v. 15 upset over Tennessee. These guys are good and Notre Dame, as well as the Big East in general, is overrated. Winthrop by 12. Easily.

10 Texas Tech over 7 Boston College

This is just one of my rules. Always take Tech in the first round if they’re an underdog. Why? Well, Tech is the most annoying school I’ve ever encountered, so, I’ve learned not to bet against them early.

12 Old Dominion over 5 Butler

Old Dominion has won 14 out of 15 games and played very well in the CAA. Butler won the preseason NIT, which makes people believe they can play well in tournament time. This is practically a Bracket Buster game, in that most people don’t know much about either team. I like both teams, but two of the 5-12’s have to be upsets, so I go here.

12 Long Beach St. over 5 Tennessee

Bruce Pearl was a great coach for Wisconsin-Milwaukee, which led them to a 5-12 upset, if I remember correctly. However, Pearl’s boys at Tennessee have always irritated me with their inconsistency. I don’t know much about Long Beach State, but Tennessee almost lost to ‘throp last year and karma is nasty. Here’s my second 5-12.

10 Gonzaga over 7 Indiana

My second rule: the more people that doubt the Zags, the more faith you should put in their chances. Josh Heyveldt, their most consistent player, got kicked off the team for felony drug possession. Everybody is off the bandwagon and extolling the virtues of Kelvin Sampson’s Indiana club. This is fallacy! Gonzaga thrives on doubt.

9 Xavier over 8 BYU

Third and fourth rules: always take the team with an X to start their name in the first round, and never, never, never, under any circumstance pick BYU if you intend to be welcome in the state of Hawaii in the following year.

11 VCU over Duke

As much as I love Coach K, there’s two things I don’t like about his boys’ chances. First off, they’re an all white team, at least as far as stars are concerned. Call me racist, but this isn’t the 60’s. Second, this is a horrible draw for Duke. I’ve seen VCU play, and they’ve got three solid guards who can push the tempo, press, and shoot the 3. Duke could have destroyed Stanford or Arkansas, even Old Dominion. Just not VCU or Winthrop. Sorry, Coach K, guess I’m not a Cameron Crazy this year.

More later, as the bracket develops.

Oh, btw, my final four is Texas A&M, UCLA, Vanderbilt, and Wisconsin.
Call me crazy, but them's the picks...

on house

2007-03-12T17:59:00.000-07:00

House MD- Season One Marathon=Cody’s Spring Break. Oh, yes…

Here are some things I’ve learned from the veritable fount of wisdom that is House:

1. Everybody lies. (House)
2. Everybody screws up. (House)
3. Pretty people get everything handed to them; so if one doesn’t do something that would count as taking the handouts, they are to be valued. (House>Cameron)
4. It’s not important if a person kowtows to ethical concerns; it’s important if an ethical person kowtows to ethical concerns. (House>Cuddy)
5. Whenever you’re breaking and entering, it’s best to have a white woman with you. (Foreman)
6. Sex very well might kill you. (Cameron)
7. The best solution is actually sometimes the one that’s too obvious. (House)
8. Symptoms are just that, symptomatic of a larger problem. (House)
9. A doctor’s 6th Amendment rights are a perfect justification to ban euthanasia. (House)
10. It’s infinitely harder to watch someone die than to die. (Cameron)
11. When you’re in charge, logic is negotiable. (Voegler)
12. When you betray someone based on convenience, the new alliance will inevitably end when it’s convenient for the other person. (Voegler>Chase)
13. Anybody that’s got one thing that they do extraordinarily well, which they have to do to keep their sanity, is damaged. (J.H. Giles>House)
14. For some, death is easier to deal with than infidelity. (House>Husband of an infidelious patient)
15. Clarification “I’m the guy who’s saving your son; you’re the one who’s killing him” is fun. (House>Angry Mother)
16. The last leper colony in the US is in Louisiana. Who would have guessed? (House)
17. It’s not paranoia if someone’s out to get you. (Foreman>House)

provide more if you got ‘em…

on diversity

2007-03-07T23:51:00.001-08:00

Sitting in Shoemaker’s Intercultural Communication class, I came to the realization that it was time to stop making fun of people who claimed that diversity was Hawaii’s greatest asset. I sat and listened to people make the most baseless claims without any regret. I used to think when people would make comments like “people that don’t support the war in Iraq should leave the country”, that deep down inside they were aware that what they were saying was just a tad bit insensitive.

It turns out I was wrong. There are ignorant people everywhere. I would sub-classify them as follows:

1. racehorses- people who have no idea that legitimate other ideas exist. They believe in the existence of other ideas, but deny their worth. It’s as if they are “wearing blinders”.
2. hedgehogs- people who claim to openly engage other ideas, and ‘engage’ is the right term. While claiming to be open to dialogue, as soon as a difference in opinion arrives, they diatribe against the person making the argument. Think Stephen Colbert, except without the kidding part.
3. koalas- people who claim to be diverse, but are really just racist in an atypical way. While claiming that they try to fight prejudice, they take almost no heed to concerns that their particular method of fighting intolerance ignores the vast majority of affected persons. They’ve got one tune, whether it be reparations or sleeping, as it is for actual koalas.
4. armadillos- people who just don’t care. No care whatsoever. You want your voice to be heard. They don’t care what you have to say. Why? Because Texas is the only state in the union that can split itself into multiple states. Sometimes you just want to see these people get run over by trucks. Ford F-150’s.

I want to believe that I evaluate people’s opinions from a reasonably objective perspective. That is diversity. It’s placing value on rationality over preconception. How well do I do this? Probably not well. But I want to be better, which has to count for something. Doesn’t it?

on disclosure

2007-03-07T20:37:00.000-08:00

Assume for a second that you have a deep burning desire. A desire which consumes a large portion of your thoughts; one that can't be ignored. Got it?

Let's say you do. The problem occurs in expressing that desire. You have every intention of getting your feelings off of your chest, yet for some reason you feel that they won't be received well. The problem isn't you. You believe in openness, in disclosure, in honesty, in fairness. The sad thing is, at the end of the day, disclosure isn't about you.

Disclosure doesn't depend solely on your desires. Courage is the key to disclosure. Why? Primarily because the main determinant of whether or not disclosure occurs is others perceptions of you. Some people have an easier time achieving higher levels of disclosure, which is an obvious concept, yet one which appears to be ignored. If you are perceived as a generally attractive person, then confessing your feelings for another individual is not only acceptable, it is frequently welcomed. It's a boost of confidence to most people. Yet, what if you are perceived to be a brooding person? Then your feelings, which may even have a purer justification, become a problem with which to be dealt. How is this fair? How is this right? How do we let this happen?

Disclosure has inherent value. Typically it leads to higher levels of trust. It advances relationships, creates intimacy, and grounds/tempers our expectations for the future. However, as I've stated before, the fact that disclosure takes more out of certain people is quite often ignored. This is problematic because these benefits are designed for people with pure intentions, yet achieving them has absolutely nothing to do with one's intentions! People can steal benefits based on other's stereotypes/perceptions, and on the flip side, for others, discourse is a stone wall to be scaled.

Why discuss discourse? Because I'm sick of writing letters about my feelings only to be purposely avoided. I'm sick of people not listening to what I say and jumping to conclusions that usually aren't founded.

Let's say I have something I want to disclose. I know that it won't be taken well, yet most of me claims I should be open about it. Is it even worth it?

on dreams

2007-03-07T16:30:00.000-08:00

What is a dream?

Is it a subconcious assertion of one's true feelings? Is it a random happenstance based on the recency effect of communication? Is it a reflection of secret desires to which one normally wouldn't admit?

Maybe. Or maybe a dream is a combination of the three. I don't know. What I do know is this: how we re-tell our dreams colors the subconcious with the concious. When was the last dream you had where you remember over 50% of the details involved? For me, never. However, I, like many others, tell people my dreams. Yet, there are gaps in my recollections, which, gradually become filled with suppositions. Suppositions which are probably more telling than the dream itself. Why? Because this is a form of normalization/justification. No longer is a dream just a dream; it has meaning. Meaning which the storyteller has modified, creating intent.

So why the pondering of dreams? Well, at lunch today, I was coerced into regaling my company with a dream I had three nights ago. I wonder now how much I really dreamt...