Friday, April 15, 2011
LOST CAT IN ANN ARBOR
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
A Sorrowful and Sad
I found out two days ago that a good friend of mine killed himself by hanging. I still don't fully accept that Joe's gone, and keep thinking about asking him why he did it, and then remembering that he's gone, and I can't ask him anything ever again. He was by far one of the best people I have ever met. He truly cared about the WORLD and everyone in it. He opened my eyes up to many, many things in the four short years that we were friends. He was my longest friend and one of the first friends I made on the UM campus. We had each other when we didn't have anyone else, but we did grow apart a bit after he moved into Debs Coop and I got a boyfriend. I went to his graduation party at Debs and kept in touch via text after he moved back to Traverse City a few days after his grad party.
From what he told me, I gathered that he was having chronic pain issues that were affecting his ability to function, and he had to quit his job as a counselor because of it. It was only a month after he told me that that he was found dead. He's been battling depression his whole life. Some depression medicines can cause suicidal thoughts...I hope he didn't end his life because some medication made him think he wanted to. Who knows. He was posting updates on his Twitter all the way up until the night beforehand, and there was no hinting at what he was about to do. I wish I could have done something. He was such a precious person, one in 7 billion, that's for sure. Although he annoyed me sometimes with his negative outlook on politics and doom and gloom attitude, he was a realist. He was brave, and he didn't sugar coat the world so that he didn't have to feel bad about it. Maybe that's why he is gone? Well Joe, I am grateful to you for many things. I think you probably affected more people in your 25 years than many do in entire lifetimes (well, long lifetimes). I'm going to Ashley's this Saturday night and I'm going to order a Delirium Nocturnum and drink it for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other news, I still hate being in the group I'm in. I feel so defeated and so emptied of my confidence when I am around them that I don't even want to try to be friendly or excited about anything anymore. I feel like a complete lackey. I was incredibly nervous to give our presentation today--MUCH more nervous than I have been in years when giving a presentation in class. I usually get a little nervous, but not so nervous that I forget what I'm saying and mess up like I did today. The thing is, I wasn't nervous at all about speaking to our classmates. I was nervous about what my group was going to think of me. I feel like they all think I am some baby who doesn't know what she is doing and they have to do everything for me. They forget, however, that our whole project is running off ideas I GAVE THEM. I told them about commuting and stress. I told them that we should send out a survey to friends and family in metro areas. It doesn't take much to find a bunch of statistics, Matt, especially when you have a state-of-the-art electronic library provided you by the business school. Oh, and group tyrant Matt also got us into a bungle: while he was thinking solely of the business side of our project, he completely overlooked that our prototype is supposed to somehow improve democracy, and he even said in our presentation today that our idea is not driven by wanting to improve democracy. Wonderful. I mean, I can think of several easy ways to argue that our project improves democracy, so it's not that big of a deal. I just want to emphasize how money-obsessed he is. Ugh. I can't wait until this is fucking over.
From what he told me, I gathered that he was having chronic pain issues that were affecting his ability to function, and he had to quit his job as a counselor because of it. It was only a month after he told me that that he was found dead. He's been battling depression his whole life. Some depression medicines can cause suicidal thoughts...I hope he didn't end his life because some medication made him think he wanted to. Who knows. He was posting updates on his Twitter all the way up until the night beforehand, and there was no hinting at what he was about to do. I wish I could have done something. He was such a precious person, one in 7 billion, that's for sure. Although he annoyed me sometimes with his negative outlook on politics and doom and gloom attitude, he was a realist. He was brave, and he didn't sugar coat the world so that he didn't have to feel bad about it. Maybe that's why he is gone? Well Joe, I am grateful to you for many things. I think you probably affected more people in your 25 years than many do in entire lifetimes (well, long lifetimes). I'm going to Ashley's this Saturday night and I'm going to order a Delirium Nocturnum and drink it for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other news, I still hate being in the group I'm in. I feel so defeated and so emptied of my confidence when I am around them that I don't even want to try to be friendly or excited about anything anymore. I feel like a complete lackey. I was incredibly nervous to give our presentation today--MUCH more nervous than I have been in years when giving a presentation in class. I usually get a little nervous, but not so nervous that I forget what I'm saying and mess up like I did today. The thing is, I wasn't nervous at all about speaking to our classmates. I was nervous about what my group was going to think of me. I feel like they all think I am some baby who doesn't know what she is doing and they have to do everything for me. They forget, however, that our whole project is running off ideas I GAVE THEM. I told them about commuting and stress. I told them that we should send out a survey to friends and family in metro areas. It doesn't take much to find a bunch of statistics, Matt, especially when you have a state-of-the-art electronic library provided you by the business school. Oh, and group tyrant Matt also got us into a bungle: while he was thinking solely of the business side of our project, he completely overlooked that our prototype is supposed to somehow improve democracy, and he even said in our presentation today that our idea is not driven by wanting to improve democracy. Wonderful. I mean, I can think of several easy ways to argue that our project improves democracy, so it's not that big of a deal. I just want to emphasize how money-obsessed he is. Ugh. I can't wait until this is fucking over.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Meno -- an understanding
While working with my group on a project for my journalism class this evening, I suddenly realized I was having an experience similar to Socrates' in Plato's Meno. I was creating circle-graphs, and I was thinking in my head that they were kind of silly, unnecessary, and just for aesthetics, when my group member looked over at what I was doing and was like "Nice! Awesome! Those look great!" I felt good that he had finally said something I was doing was "great" because they all seemed to hate the slides I made for the powerpoint presentation, but then I realized that he was saying that merely because making graphs looks impressive. They didn't mean anything, really. All the stuff I had made for my powerpoint slides was actual meat and material, and they hated everything I did until I made something simply for the looks. (Hated is an overstatement....they just totally criticized them and we ended up throwing them out and making new ones...great.)
This is exactly what Socrates experiences from Meno in Meno. Meno is delighted by impressive shows of "knowledge" like when one quotes poets or uses big, extravagant words or ideas to describe something. You know, displays that are largely fluff and showy-ness...superficiality. I have a hard time working with these people because none of them seem real...they're all bar-going, money-spending, self-absorbed, gotta-get-the-A, gotta-do-what-teacher-likes college students. Hell, they're whatever, I don't care. They can be how they want to be and I will be the way I am.
When I voiced my opinion about something I had one person (the above guy; other two groupmates are girls) against me, saying no no no, and it was like his word was the last word. I was trying to convince only him...but he ended up saying no to me and my opinion wasn't taken into consideration. Whatever, not a big deal, but I still felt weird. It was like, why do I have to convince him? Why is HE in charge? Why does HE get to say "NO" and I just have to live with it? Fuck, I can't wait until this presentation is over. I just hope we don't sound like idiots up there because we started putting it together at the last minute.
This is exactly what Socrates experiences from Meno in Meno. Meno is delighted by impressive shows of "knowledge" like when one quotes poets or uses big, extravagant words or ideas to describe something. You know, displays that are largely fluff and showy-ness...superficiality. I have a hard time working with these people because none of them seem real...they're all bar-going, money-spending, self-absorbed, gotta-get-the-A, gotta-do-what-teacher-likes college students. Hell, they're whatever, I don't care. They can be how they want to be and I will be the way I am.
When I voiced my opinion about something I had one person (the above guy; other two groupmates are girls) against me, saying no no no, and it was like his word was the last word. I was trying to convince only him...but he ended up saying no to me and my opinion wasn't taken into consideration. Whatever, not a big deal, but I still felt weird. It was like, why do I have to convince him? Why is HE in charge? Why does HE get to say "NO" and I just have to live with it? Fuck, I can't wait until this presentation is over. I just hope we don't sound like idiots up there because we started putting it together at the last minute.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wrong Choice of Word
Does anything look amiss about the title of this article:
I thought so too. It blocks GAY rights? Obviously. OBVIOUSLY it blocks Gay Rights. We've all known that for years. The correct word should have been HUMAN rights or CIVIL rights. Using the word "gay" illegitimizes the action. Gay rights are what people believe to be illegitimate in themselves. There are no rights except rights of the human, irrespective of race, sex, creed, sexual preference, gender, etc.
"In Turnabout, U.S. Says Marriage Act Blocks Gay Rights"
Anonymous and Wikileaks vs. Big Media
This CNN article claims that members of Anonymous are calling HBGary employees and leaving threat messages. I call bullshit. What kind of hacker with any kind of intelligence would use a telephone to threaten someone? This is just a ploy to turn America against Anonymous and against Wikileaks.
Why are citizens so angry with Wikileaks? I really want one of these people to answer this question with a good, sound, thoughtful response. I doubt they will be able to give one; they're just doing what they're told.
Why is the media so opposed to Wikileaks? Because they didn't give them the info first so they could make a buck telling the citizens what they have the right to know?
The above article mentions that Assange's former right-hand man, Daniel Domsheit-Berg, wrote a book calling him a megalomaniac and making it into a negative that Assange wanted to pursue big, important leaks over small ones. Domsheit-Berg is setting up a website called openleaks.org, through which he will not be publicly posting leaks, but will instead give them over to journalists and human rights groups to examine and feed us the info they want us to know. Sounds like he just wants to be in on it for the money to me. I'm sure he will charge journalist and activists a hefty sum for any information he might have. Wikileaks gives everything for free.
And people, use your common sense: why wouldn't Anonymous hack into a military website? Because that's not their purpose. Nazario, who claims Anonymous "undoubtedly" has the technology to do whatever it wants is, in all reality, probably pretty clueless as to what Anonymous has at all.
I do like the end of the article though. Anonymous IS for freedom of information and freedom of speech. We all should be.
Why are citizens so angry with Wikileaks? I really want one of these people to answer this question with a good, sound, thoughtful response. I doubt they will be able to give one; they're just doing what they're told.
Why is the media so opposed to Wikileaks? Because they didn't give them the info first so they could make a buck telling the citizens what they have the right to know?
The above article mentions that Assange's former right-hand man, Daniel Domsheit-Berg, wrote a book calling him a megalomaniac and making it into a negative that Assange wanted to pursue big, important leaks over small ones. Domsheit-Berg is setting up a website called openleaks.org, through which he will not be publicly posting leaks, but will instead give them over to journalists and human rights groups to examine and feed us the info they want us to know. Sounds like he just wants to be in on it for the money to me. I'm sure he will charge journalist and activists a hefty sum for any information he might have. Wikileaks gives everything for free.
And people, use your common sense: why wouldn't Anonymous hack into a military website? Because that's not their purpose. Nazario, who claims Anonymous "undoubtedly" has the technology to do whatever it wants is, in all reality, probably pretty clueless as to what Anonymous has at all.
I do like the end of the article though. Anonymous IS for freedom of information and freedom of speech. We all should be.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
CONSERVAPEDIA!
Oh my, I don't even know where to start. I stumbled upon this website the other night when I was just loafing around on the internet and now I can't stop myself from searching for topics just to see the ridiculous things Conservapedia publishes about them.
For instance, if one types "sex" into the search feature one gets an article that describes sex as "the attribute of being either male or female." It doesn't mention ANYTHING about what sexual intercourse is and any attempt to find an article about sexual intercourse leads right back to the initial "sex" article. There are only three sections in the entire article, the largest by far being the one entitled "Sexual Morality in the Bible." This section describes how the bible forbids having sex before marriage, labels people who do so as whores, and talks about how women could be killed for committing this heinous act, as well as if she were married under false pretenses, i.e. her husband thought she was a virgin but they discovered (somehow) that she wasn't.
You might be wondering why I was so avidly searching for sex on Conservapedia to begin with. Well, it all stems from reading a list of their "Commandments" and a section outlining precisely "How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia." The third Commandment states that anything not considered family-friendly is a sin. So, knowing the stigma extreme conservatives place around sex, I wanted to find out if this scientific, natural, NECESSARY biological process was too lewd to be included in Conservapedia's vast array of completely factual articles (please see The First and Second Commandments). And to my surprise and disbelief, apparently even an informational description of sexual intercourse is not family-friendly enough. As one quick-witted respondent in the "talk" section of the article noted: isn't sex how families are made?
Conservapedia also prides itself on having no censorship like Wikipedia has. C-pedia claims that the liberal editors of Wikipedia edit "conservative fact" out of entries so as not to concede anything to the conservatives and prides itself in being free of obscenities, trivial discussion, and inaccurate information, just like a real encyclopedia. It does provide links to opposing sites and claims to “welcome opposing views” but it then throws the tag of “liberal bias” onto any information gained through journalists and Wikipedia. Thus, it is easy to see that Conservapedia can cause echo-chamber-like effects: it claims to be better than other sources for unverifiable differences and reduces the credibility of other sources by labeling them in such a way that cannot successfully be argued against by the other side. For instance, it would be hard to convince a Conservapedia follower that Wikipedia is not liberally biased simply because the proponent of Conservapedia is biased herself. If you don't know what an echo-chamber is, it's a metaphor for what our power of filtering information is leading to: a world in which we only hear echoes of our own voices, i.e. a world in which we only see, hear, touch, taste, and feel things that we've chosen to, and only socialize with people who have the same opinions as us.
Conservapedia sucks, and perhaps they are more accurate that Wikipedia for the 6 entries they have, but they are much more biased than they claim Wikipedia is--and anyways, it's not WIKIPEDIA that's biased...if anyone, it is the people writing the articles, and people are allowed to have biases.
For instance, if one types "sex" into the search feature one gets an article that describes sex as "the attribute of being either male or female." It doesn't mention ANYTHING about what sexual intercourse is and any attempt to find an article about sexual intercourse leads right back to the initial "sex" article. There are only three sections in the entire article, the largest by far being the one entitled "Sexual Morality in the Bible." This section describes how the bible forbids having sex before marriage, labels people who do so as whores, and talks about how women could be killed for committing this heinous act, as well as if she were married under false pretenses, i.e. her husband thought she was a virgin but they discovered (somehow) that she wasn't.
You might be wondering why I was so avidly searching for sex on Conservapedia to begin with. Well, it all stems from reading a list of their "Commandments" and a section outlining precisely "How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia." The third Commandment states that anything not considered family-friendly is a sin. So, knowing the stigma extreme conservatives place around sex, I wanted to find out if this scientific, natural, NECESSARY biological process was too lewd to be included in Conservapedia's vast array of completely factual articles (please see The First and Second Commandments). And to my surprise and disbelief, apparently even an informational description of sexual intercourse is not family-friendly enough. As one quick-witted respondent in the "talk" section of the article noted: isn't sex how families are made?
Conservapedia also prides itself on having no censorship like Wikipedia has. C-pedia claims that the liberal editors of Wikipedia edit "conservative fact" out of entries so as not to concede anything to the conservatives and prides itself in being free of obscenities, trivial discussion, and inaccurate information, just like a real encyclopedia. It does provide links to opposing sites and claims to “welcome opposing views” but it then throws the tag of “liberal bias” onto any information gained through journalists and Wikipedia. Thus, it is easy to see that Conservapedia can cause echo-chamber-like effects: it claims to be better than other sources for unverifiable differences and reduces the credibility of other sources by labeling them in such a way that cannot successfully be argued against by the other side. For instance, it would be hard to convince a Conservapedia follower that Wikipedia is not liberally biased simply because the proponent of Conservapedia is biased herself. If you don't know what an echo-chamber is, it's a metaphor for what our power of filtering information is leading to: a world in which we only hear echoes of our own voices, i.e. a world in which we only see, hear, touch, taste, and feel things that we've chosen to, and only socialize with people who have the same opinions as us.
Conservapedia sucks, and perhaps they are more accurate that Wikipedia for the 6 entries they have, but they are much more biased than they claim Wikipedia is--and anyways, it's not WIKIPEDIA that's biased...if anyone, it is the people writing the articles, and people are allowed to have biases.
Rant X.0
I need to rant. I'm on my second margarita, and I need to rant.
In the past couple of months I've come into contact with some of the most mind-baffling and infuriating people I've ever experienced. I keep hearing these people say in so many words, "this doesn't affect me so I don't care about it" EVEN THOUGH it affects a great portion of other humans, their friends and family included. For example, a girl from one of my classes wrote in her blog (not verbatim, paraphrased) "the news only has bad things and is like boring and all the bad things happening in the world don't affect me, so like I don't want to know about them. I like celebrity gossip and fashion, and this one website I follow even has a section called 'Kindness!'" ARGH!!! Do you not care about anyone or anything but yourself? Do you think that if you don't know what's going on in the world, then it isn't really happening? Guess what: protesters are still being tortured/killed/abducted in Egypt, the Bank of America is still trying to frame Wikileaks, and the food you eat and beauty products you use still have dangerous chemicals in them that the government ignores because it's run by the heads of those industries (a.k.a. people who have LOTS of money).
Another guy that I interviewed while working on a group project for my journalism class said "yeah, I don't get the news because, you know, it brings me down. I need to keep my good vibe going." Okay, yeah I guess that's so since you look and act like you're tripping balls half the time.
ANOTHER couple of guys in my Political Philosophy class raised his hand today to offer an explanation for why it makes sense to disallow a gay judge from ruling on a case involving gay marriage. He said "if a heterosexual person, like me, was the judge, then since the ruling doesn't affect me at all, I would be a less partial judge." A gay judge might have a stake in the outcome of the case, so he might rule in his own favor (i.e. if he wanted to be able to marry his partner). Okay, I can see where these guys are coming from, but seriously, is there such thing as a truly impartial judge in the first place? ALL judges have their own interests and opinions. They're supposed to ignore those and merely interpret the law, but the law is so ambiguous in some instances that they must rely on their own judgments (hence, the term "judge"), which I am not convinced can really be separated from personal beliefs and opinions. Further-- why does being heterosexual mean that the judge wouldn't be affected? I certainly have many, many friends and probably some relatives that are gay, which means that, even though I'm straight, I most definitely will be affected, because the people I care about will be. But whatever, some people, I guess, don't care about anyone but themselves.
Next point of annoyance:
When walking around campus, I always see people I know from classes. Whether we've actually talked in class or not, we know that we know each other, and I look at them, make eye contact and try to smile. They look away and walk by without acknowledging my existence let alone that we know each other from class. Does this happen to you? Isn't it irritating? It all started happening with this graduate student named Robin that I know from a few philosophy classes. We've had three classes together, and she never acknowledges my existence when we walk by each other on the street. I thought perhaps she's just stuck up because she's a grad student and I'm a lowly undergrad, but it started happening with lots of others, too. This one girl, she calls herself Irreverent Mary Emma Young, I've actually had 2.5 classes with and we've talked in classes and sat next to each other. I saw her on campus last Thursday and we walked right by each other, I smiled, she looked away and kept walking. What is wrong with people? Are people so worried about seeming too friendly, or are they too self-conscious to be honest human beings and wave or say "hi" if they recognize someone? Or are they just fucking stuck up? Mary Emma is a model for a fashion magazine run by a student group, so perhaps she's much too pretty to acknowledge the existence of...another pretty girl. I just don't get it, and I'm tempted to stop the next person who does that to me and ask them why they did it.
People are just so...ruled by everything that doesn't matter. Grow up.
In the past couple of months I've come into contact with some of the most mind-baffling and infuriating people I've ever experienced. I keep hearing these people say in so many words, "this doesn't affect me so I don't care about it" EVEN THOUGH it affects a great portion of other humans, their friends and family included. For example, a girl from one of my classes wrote in her blog (not verbatim, paraphrased) "the news only has bad things and is like boring and all the bad things happening in the world don't affect me, so like I don't want to know about them. I like celebrity gossip and fashion, and this one website I follow even has a section called 'Kindness!'" ARGH!!! Do you not care about anyone or anything but yourself? Do you think that if you don't know what's going on in the world, then it isn't really happening? Guess what: protesters are still being tortured/killed/abducted in Egypt, the Bank of America is still trying to frame Wikileaks, and the food you eat and beauty products you use still have dangerous chemicals in them that the government ignores because it's run by the heads of those industries (a.k.a. people who have LOTS of money).
Another guy that I interviewed while working on a group project for my journalism class said "yeah, I don't get the news because, you know, it brings me down. I need to keep my good vibe going." Okay, yeah I guess that's so since you look and act like you're tripping balls half the time.
ANOTHER couple of guys in my Political Philosophy class raised his hand today to offer an explanation for why it makes sense to disallow a gay judge from ruling on a case involving gay marriage. He said "if a heterosexual person, like me, was the judge, then since the ruling doesn't affect me at all, I would be a less partial judge." A gay judge might have a stake in the outcome of the case, so he might rule in his own favor (i.e. if he wanted to be able to marry his partner). Okay, I can see where these guys are coming from, but seriously, is there such thing as a truly impartial judge in the first place? ALL judges have their own interests and opinions. They're supposed to ignore those and merely interpret the law, but the law is so ambiguous in some instances that they must rely on their own judgments (hence, the term "judge"), which I am not convinced can really be separated from personal beliefs and opinions. Further-- why does being heterosexual mean that the judge wouldn't be affected? I certainly have many, many friends and probably some relatives that are gay, which means that, even though I'm straight, I most definitely will be affected, because the people I care about will be. But whatever, some people, I guess, don't care about anyone but themselves.
Next point of annoyance:
When walking around campus, I always see people I know from classes. Whether we've actually talked in class or not, we know that we know each other, and I look at them, make eye contact and try to smile. They look away and walk by without acknowledging my existence let alone that we know each other from class. Does this happen to you? Isn't it irritating? It all started happening with this graduate student named Robin that I know from a few philosophy classes. We've had three classes together, and she never acknowledges my existence when we walk by each other on the street. I thought perhaps she's just stuck up because she's a grad student and I'm a lowly undergrad, but it started happening with lots of others, too. This one girl, she calls herself Irreverent Mary Emma Young, I've actually had 2.5 classes with and we've talked in classes and sat next to each other. I saw her on campus last Thursday and we walked right by each other, I smiled, she looked away and kept walking. What is wrong with people? Are people so worried about seeming too friendly, or are they too self-conscious to be honest human beings and wave or say "hi" if they recognize someone? Or are they just fucking stuck up? Mary Emma is a model for a fashion magazine run by a student group, so perhaps she's much too pretty to acknowledge the existence of...another pretty girl. I just don't get it, and I'm tempted to stop the next person who does that to me and ask them why they did it.
People are just so...ruled by everything that doesn't matter. Grow up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)