Wordle.net.

I put in this blog in wordle.net. It gives you a "word cloud," which basically means it gives you systematic typographical art.

I love typography-- its brilliant. But that bears no relation to this site, which is probably why I never discuss it here. In any case, I'd be interested in what other people get when they put in their sites as well!

Alright, I was tagged!

I have been tagged by Idiot's Stew of http://idiotsstew.blogspot.com/ The tag requests that I post 8 random facts/habits about myself and tag 8 others in the process as soon as this is posted.

So here we go. Eight random things, and none that have to do with politics, philosophy, or anything I normally write about:

1.) I wear a watch, but still take out my phone when people ask me the time.

2.) I am a registered bone marrow donor as of today.
3.) One of my major pet peeves is when people come into my room without knocking.
4.) On my wall, I have a fabric from Marimekko.
5.) I shoot digitally with an Olympus Evolt 510 and a Nikon Coolpix
6.) I speak primarily English, but know a considerable amount of French and a little Arabic and Spanish. More Arabic than Spanish.
7.) I'm not a carrier of the Sickle Cell Trait
8.) My children include my Black 1st Generation 30GB Zune and my Toshiba Special Edition Satellite Laptop.


I don't really know who to tag, but if you want to do it, go ahead and say I tagged you...

Optimism

Alright, in the election aftermath, I've decided that the best thing to do is proceed with optimism. I think that we're heading in the right way.

What I DO want to do is be critical of the world around me. What I DON'T want to do is be a complete downer. It's not productive.

I'm really through with politics for the week.

In other news, I was shown this little blurb from another friend online. In Defense of the Elite 


Aside from the title (I'm not sure how much defending the elite need considering their position as well, the elite), I think is somewhat interesting blurb (I wouldn't necessarily call it an article)-- there definitely is a difference in the words 'elite' and 'elitist'. Using them interchangeably is not only ignorant but irresponsible.


In fact, I'd be even more interested in reading an article by someone who isn't even a part of the 'elite'. Of course, the way things are, there are few people who aren't part of the 'elite' who are in a position to write a response to the discussion.


Hm, I'm definitely not part of the 'elite,' but I'm not far enough away from it for my opinion to really be as valuable.


But really-- how much do the Elite need defending? Toward whom is this passage aimed? If I were being overly critical, I say its a little defensive, and not simply defending. But I do recognize that the distinction needs to be made between the words. I just harbor an bitterness toward the 'elite' to begin with, I think.

My President is Black

So, Barack is our President Elect (projected, and probably correct).

What this means to me:

• That the youth can indeed have an impact (bodes well for the future).
  
• That various demographics can indeed come together under a common theme.
• People of the United States do indeed want change. Well, a lot of the delegates, that is. 

What this doesn't mean to me:

• That race relations have been perfected. We have a black president, obviously racism is a thing of the past <-- untrue, and the fact that some people think this demonstrates the exact opposite to me.
  
• That there are no more 'excuses' for underachievement-- I've heard this one. People say that because Barack Obama has succeeded, that this simultaneously nulls any argument that it is impossible for some people to do well in this established institution. I wouldn't say that its IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to succeed, but it can certainly be much harder. Barack Obama's story doesn't speak for everyone. His situation isn't the same for me, or anyone else, and just because he can succeed doesn't mean everyone can. That's ignorant, and its usually an argument rich people make to rationalize why they're rich and others aren't.
  

This is a brief post, but honestly, I woke up at 4am to vote, I'm exhausted. I just REALLY want to get an  international point of view.

Voting! Part One

So, this was my first experience voting. My mother is not American, so I'm really one of the first on her side to vote in an American election. Exciting, right?

What did I do... I woke up at 4am and waked to the polls with some other girls from my dorm (Some students decided to camp out in front of the polling places-- thats how long the lines were over here.

While I was waiting in line (polls opened at 7am-- pretty close to on time as well), I thought about some of the people back on campus who couldn't vote, for the dumbest reasons too, and some of the stuff we learned in our voter education class.

Of all the things people have told me, what hit me the hardest was that we should be wary of people trying to take away our vote for different reasons. That we should recheck our polling place, and recheck our forms of ID and definitely re check the clothes we wear (beyond that of general Obama and McCain wear which we all generally knew not to put on for voting).

Few things, in my opinion, are more offensive than someone trying to take away my vote. For me to be a disenfranchised American, who has done NOTHING wrong (in that I mean history breaking the law or something similar), and not be able to choose who leads my country, and thus, my family, is frightening in the least.

To me, telling me I can't vote is similar to saying, that while I'm a citizen, I'm not human enough to be allowed to vote, or for my vote to matter. That's a little dramatic, but then there's, "I don't care about your opinion," and that ones of the most dangerous statements one can make. Even worse is the, "Your opinion doesn't exactly mesh with what I want. And what I want is what is obviously best for everyone." Not that that isn't a common sentiment-- most people think that what they want is whats for the common good. And some people even take it far enough to presume others don't even KNOW whats best for them.

That's a little dicey, really. That is, if you're not a parent or guardian.

But taking away someone's vote is almost saying that. Or there are the situations where its a matter of intelligence and thinking that because someone isn't as formally educated, that they can't possibly understand politics.

If that is true, its because people make it that way, the media and the elitist. Not because politics is inherently hard to understand ( I'm going to come back to that in a later post, I think, because I definitely have a problem with this).

In any case. For the Election Day proceedings, I'll be posting more than once today. We're having a school-wide lock-in, where we can sleep in cafeteria building, and we've put up projection screens which are broadcasting different channels. Its really awesome. So I'll be around, as a member of the Student Government Association that is organizing this.

For me, at least, I figured that it was at least somewhat important that students knew what the goings-on were once they casted their ballot, you know? Its a lot of these peoples' first elections. With this in mind, I thought it was even MORE important.

Tonight, feel free to post with any of your voting experiences, happy or sad. I'm off to the polls at 4 (after our school rally) to hand out water bottles and snack bars for the people in long lines. Its an SSGA initiative that we're attempting. Completely unbiased (it has to be, considering you can't campaign at polls), we plan to hand out various foods to people in those multi-hour long lines-- all of which will be stamped with Your local Student Government Association thanks you for voting!" 

the Media...

I'm sure that by now, everyone has seen the New York Times' endorsement of Barack Obama.

I can't quite remember a time when the media was ever unbiased. But at least it used to be somewhat subtle.

When did it become alright for the media to be so openly biased? Shouldn't we expect them to give us the truth-- the facts despite whatever their opinions are? There is some amount of human error in this, as it is quite hard for people in general to keep their opinions and beliefs out of their commentary. But to go out of the way to endorse a candidate and his party platform?

It doesn't matter who the candidate/party is, I simply don't believe that news writers should be putting themselves out there politically.

Obviously people will lean toward reading whatever news has a bias toward their party. But doesn't this only contribute to the collective ignorance of the readership (I'm thinking particular of news papers, but it definitely applies to broadcast journalism, and other types)?

More than anything, its the impudence that infuriates me. People will read this endorsement and not think that it is as all untoward. This same gall is what makes me angry at politicians and CEOs.

People in power get away with so much; not because they're slick about it, but because the public doesn't call them out on their wrongdoings. And thats what gets me angry.

The Matrix?

In philosophy class, we're reading the book, Meditations on First Philosophy, by Rene Descartes. 

The premise of this is Descartes throwing aside all his previous learned assumptions and questioning them as he develops new beliefs. An interesting idea, no? Although, very time consuming, I'd assume. 

He starts all of this with the possibility that he is simply dreaming-- yes, like the Matrix. I never saw the whole trilogy, but I remember the idea that the reality we lived in was a complete simulation similar to the idea Descartes presents.

I don't mean to shake stuff up for no reason, but what if this was true? What if it all was a dream? Our philosophy TA asked us this question in her presentation for us to discuss (our class is about 9 people, which makes for amazing discussion). My answer? 

It doesn't matter. 

What would we do if it was in fact, all a dream? Wake up? Untrue. In fact, we wouldn't know it was a dream until we woke up. 

On a different (and slightly more selfish note), I personally need to be able to believe that this answer doesn't matter, or that this isn't a dream (which we couldn't really prove anyway). I need this because on a day to day basis, I have to motivate myself to keep going, and to keep living my life-- everyone does. People wouldn't take out the trash if they believed the trash didn't actually exist anyway. They wouldn't work for money if it was a contrived concept to buy contrived items like food, clothes, and mortgage. 

A larger scale paints a completely different picture. Everything we have learned is based on one obvious concept-- that we exist. That the atoms we split, the papers we write, the stock we trade are all actual things. Existence is the given in every proof we make. 

This is a rather short and to the point entry. Just something I thought to get off of my chest, I suppose. Others might have been thinking, Well, why wouldn't you want to know if the world you live in is actually some intricate simulation? 

So that there was my explanation. You couldn't do anything about it anyway, so why fret? Which isn't necessarily a transferable concept. I base this on the assumption that most things are not hopeless. This is one situation in which there is ACTUALLY nothing that can be done, which is rare. 

Anyway, opinions? Feel free to take this in another direction.