Talking to Sally about Buffy helped me to realize why I like some aspects of Judaism.

Willow visits Tara’s gravesite and leaves stones. She leaves stones because it is the Jewish tradition — flowers die. Stones are permanent, or as permanent as something can be.

The basis of so many of the Jewish customs is about being deliberate. About doing things and living life deliberately. I like that.

Deliberate \De*lib”er*ate\, v. i.
To take counsel with one’s self; to weigh the arguments for
and against a proposed course of action; to reflect; to
consider; to hesitate in deciding; — sometimes with on,
upon, about, concerning.

	You are Kermit! Though you’re technically the star, you’re pretty mellow and don’t mind letting others share the spotlight. You are also something of a dreamer.
Take the What Muppet Are You? Quiz!

I have them from time to time. And they come back again and again. And I don’t know the answers. I’ll post them here as they come to me.

BigQ 1: What is wealth? How is it generated?

BigQ 2: What is the definition of human? Will it last?

BigQ 3: Are our thoughts our own? Are the chemicals of the synapses to our benefit or detriment?

• There is no good depression. It’s not sexy. It’s not fun. It’s not the new rock and roll.

And also…

It’s strange to me. I walk around and watch these cute leetle goth children with their shirts about voices in their heads. They have this thinking “Self, we are super cool because we pretend to have voices in our head.” Or even better they think they actually do have voices: “Selves, we are gloriously mentally ill!”

From Hello, I take zoloft. I am so gloriously mentally ill! You will love me, yes?

I’ve done it again. I start reading Everything and I just can’t stop.

This is such a very, very good article.

From seventeen.com (Seventeen Magazine):

In the October issue of seventeen, we named the 50 coolest schools where girls can get the best college experience. From frat parties to professors’ involvement, from campus safety to great shopping, we’ve picked the best of the best. Read on for more information on each school.

Now, from InstaPundit:

“Seventeen” has ranked the 100 “coolest” colleges. Apparently the first 50 were worthy enough to be investigated. I guess they didn’t look too closely at numbers 51-100. I’m proud to say that my alma mater – Wabash College – made the list at number 76. Unfortunately the editors forgot to check and see that Wabash is one of only three colleges exclusively for men still left out there. Has been since 1832. I guess this is further proof that rankings don’t mean too much. Although given their criteria and the enriching experiences that women have had while visiting Wabash – I’m not too surprised.

Well, to be fair, Seventeen says it was looking at the “coolest schools where girls can get the best college experience.” It didn’t say “as a student.”

I’m happy to say that Brandeis was ranked 77 – right below Wabash. Not sure what that means…

Mr. Sullivan, in his article, “The imperialist canard,” demonstrates himself to be rather easily (or, perhaps, conveniently) fooled. There’s a very good reason that, “In the campaign, [Bush] was clearly less interventionist than Gore, asked for less defense spending and urged America to be a ‘humble nation.'”

He was lying.

— Roger Rueff

Salon Letters in response to Andrew Sullivan

87 percent say that while women are ridiculed and criticized for doing something bad, or unfavorable, men earn a ‘cool’ or ‘humorous’ image from … the same behavior.”

Before you write the study off as unvarnished feminist nonsense, consider Martha Stewart, Kathie Lee Gifford, and now Winona. Now think about Robert Downey Jr.

Is he adorable or what?

Justice, Interrupted
Why Winona Ryder will do time for O.J.’s crimes.

Lauren Weinstein of the Privacy Forum on thumbprint security for computers:

“What do you do when somebody’s biometric information is compromised?” he said. “Do you have them go out and get a new thumb? Getting a replacement thumb is expensive and painful.”

College Seeks Security in Thumbs by Wired News

We have an open-ended war on terror, and the “liberals” don’t like that one bit. The “conservatives” say we need to stop terror wherever it is, root it out and destroy it, poison it and gas it, etcetera, etcetera. The liberals like to think that we can have traditional wars with traditional congressional approval and traditional enemies and traditional victories.

As I am ought to do, I take a middle line. I do not in anyway like the “War on Terror” or the implications it brings. I don’t like the lack of goals and objectivies. I wonder if the war will ever end. I dislike the terminology of war when a war has always been traditionally defined as a conflict between two nations. This is not a “war,” and yet it is a war.

It was simple before. We had one enemy, or any common foe. We had the Soviets or the Communists or the Fascists. We had a simple word, and that is who we fought, and we did it by attacking their countries. Well, now we have the Terrorists, and they have no country, and we cannot declare war on a complete people because a few among them are evil. If we were to attack every terrorist country, we would need to attack most nations on earth. America, Britain, of course Ireland. Most of the Middle East, including Israel.

We can no longer think of war as a cut-and-dried affair of nation conflict. Nor can we expect to end terror through “nation building.” The best way to root out evil is through a multinational coalition. This is the perfect time to create renewed power for the United Nations. For us to recognize that there are certain types of “warfare” that are not tolerated, and for every country to decide that we won’t take it anymore — anywhere.

Some leaders in non-western countries see terrorism as a legitimate form of warfare, like guerilla tactics and other methods used by an underdog with no access to expensive materiél. I understand these concerns. But attacking non-combatents, no matter how much you hate their government’s ideology, is simply not tolerable.

Sure the capitalist system may be flawed or even terribly evil, I have days when I believe that too. But I do not choose on those days to demonstrate my dislike of a system by destroying the human beings who work within it. You can say there are no innocents, and it is true that no one is truly innocent, but if we can’t believe at least that children are not to be targets, then what can we believe?

It is so difficult to address international policy because for every point put forward there is a caveat, but there is one thing we must all agree on — attacks against civilians are dishonorable, and are not fit for the rules of war. When someone lays down their weapons and surrenders they are afforded certain human rights. When someone never picks up a gun in the first place they need to be entitled to much greater rights. And no matter how much we hate the terrorists, those we capture must have the same rights as all war criminals, if we are to think of this War on Terror as a real war and not just an idealogical debate.

Which is it, anyway? A real and legitimate attempt to stop terror everywhere, to create standards of combat, to remove some of the most distasteful aspects of conflict from our society? Or is it simply the same military-industrial-governmental “conspiracy” we always see, one that wants oil pipelines through Afghanistan and free trade worldwide? Perhaps we as a people need to decide for ourselves, and perhaps we need to set forth goals and limits, and then we can have a real war, a legitimate war, a (dare I say it) moral war.

A nice picture from when I visited Brandeis over the summer — Sally, iMac, and I at the Apple Store

In the killing fields of Kashmir, set amongst the snow-capped peaks and lush valleys of this disputed territory, he is forever cleaning up the mess: An insurgency that erupted in 1989 has claimed as many as 60,000 lives, and on some days the corpses arrive by the truckload.

Counting the corpses in Kashmir

09-25-02 01:23:44 AM Tairngire

Liberals will always want to change everything for a variety of reasons. Their approach is folly, they would fail in the same way that a sterile mutant would.

Conservatives will always want to keep everything exactly as it is, for a variety of reasons. Their approach is folly, they would fail in the same way a dinosaur would.

The true path doesn’t exist. As much as people believe otherwise, the only way a cell/person/community/nation/planet can survive is by keeping them in balance, always on the knife edge. Too liberal, and things are shaken so much that all the wisdom of the past is lost. Too conservative, and all wisdom that might be gained is ignored. The only way to success is balance. And the only way to balance is to have both sides constantly duking it out for whatever idea they believe is best.

FLAME ON!

Lots of bloggers think it, I dunno. I do see it as a major lack of the whole “objectivity” thing, not sure on which side. Actually, I do have an opinion. I have an opinion! But let me explain what I’m talking about first.

War on Iraq. For years we’ve thought, gee, wish we could get rid of this Saddam fellow. Then someone says, “let’s get rid of Saddam” and suddenly the media is all very much against it.

I don’t care if its a good idea or not, what I can’t understand is why NO ONE on television, print, radio, whatever can put forth a good story on why we shouldn’t be attacking Iraq, oh, and also…maybe why we should? Cause apparently 70% of Americans would like to…and the news doesn’t want to admit it.

Instead of blaming it on a liberal bias that I just don’t see, I would look to what I learned last semester in Socolow’s great News on Screen class about how today’s press doesn’t like covering anything unless its being debated by politicians.

Basically, there is no “dissent” in the public (represented by the media) until a leader objects. War on terror? Unified as good. Until Tom Daschle comes out and says…maybe not so good. Then there are stories on that.

A few politicos said war, the rest called them warmongers, and there we go, easy way to slant the coverage. When every politician is saying its bad, and a few are saying its good, and no one is saying WHY its good, and a lot are saying WHY its bad, that is obviously what the news is going to report.

Neat how that works, huh?

Maybe some Republocrats should throw a big press shindig and talk about all the evils of Iraq and what we could do and why we’d do it and what it would accomplish. Might change the tone of the news coverage a bit.

And, as usual, Television Without Pity has deconstructed the last West Wing episode in such a way as to leave me completely cynical. Now I must rescind much that I wrote about it, and at the risk of seeming like I can’t trust my own opinions on things, but in reality becuase I’m pretty open to new ideas that are better then mine, I have to say that that ending sucked. But in a good way.

Well, in a cheap, rented, sentimental, can’t-write-anything-original, pulling-tricks-to-disguise-bad-writing, obvious-in-the-extreme, blatantly-false-and-simplistic, undemocratic sort of way.

Oh, well, at least Firefly looks promising.

I’ve only just now seen the end of this season’s West Wing.

I was disinheartened with the show for a while, and after September 11th it just seemed so petty. And then I got back into it, slowly, grudgingly, because I know that it can be good sometimes, and I really wanted some good politics. Like, politics that don’t infuriate me with their stupidity, but politics at their most important and most…touching. Government touches everything, changes things. And I was again getting very disgusted with our government, so I needed some relief.

Anyway, West Wing was getting pretty good again, and then they decided to kill Donovan, and boy was I pissed. They always have to kill someone, is that it? Have to ratchet up the drama a bit? No, by the end I realized it was useful. It wasn’t great. I liked that charater. It wasn’t fitting for him to die in that way, after we spent so much time demonstrating the superiority of Secret Service training. He didn’t see the second shooter? It rung false. But it was a good plot device.

Bartlet had to make the choice of assasinating a foreign leader who is also a terror kingpin. And the decision is clear, yet agonizing. And he has family too. And when people die, it affects other people, and it cascades. The writing was good at demonstrating this. One year later we begin a search for a replacement to Mrs. Landingham, a wonderful woman who died suddenly in a traffic accident on the eve of a big Bartlet decision. Then Donovan dies here. And, of course, in the first season we had our shooting as Roselin to end it all.

Maybe Sorkin can’t figure something else out. Dunno. Regardless, the issues raised were deep and powerful and well executed. My ideas of politics continue to change. And the George W. Bush impersonation who is Bartlet’s opponent is just so good. They don’t show him as an idiot, but certainly as a dolt (and no I don’t know where that line is).

I think the question really becomes this: when it is time to assasinate a foreign leader, to weigh a decision and execute it in accordance with your morals and with the good of your country, when you have to do something that really matters, not just politicking…

When a leader has to do that, make that choice, who would you rather have in office? And I personally would like someone well educated, even if it means I have to deal with some manner of elitism.

I’ve learned after much struggle that there is no reason to detest those who are smarter than me. Everyone has their own unique abilities, and sometimes someone is just right for president, and someone else is not. Me, for instance. Not president material, at least not yet.

So more than once, even before this kitschy anniversary, I’ve had to check myself and ask if the outpouring a year ago, the one I joined, had more to do with sentimentality and voyeurism and entitled naiveté — How could this happen to us? We’re Americans! — than genuine grief and horror at an outsized human tragedy. I’ve let myself wonder if I was duped: If Sept. 11 really wasn’t that big a deal next to Rwanda and Bosnia and Chile. But I resist such cynical accounting. If you can’t care about all of those horrors, you can’t care about any of them. And if we let grief and anger about Sept. 11 belong to the right, they win. The left can’t change America as long as it hates it.

It’s My Country and I’ll Cry If I Want To.

Aimee Mann on Boston:

I think that one of the reasons I wound up here is that Boston — because there are so many colleges there, it’s like a constant string of 20-year-olds. When you start reaching your late 20s you feel out of place, there isn’t a peer group for you.

Aimee Mann on LA:

You can encounter a lot of people who are really misguided or really disturbed or really sort of awful. But you can also encounter people who are desperate to meet other people who are creative. There just aren’t a lot of natural meeting places. You can go run errands, go to the dentist even, and literally not see a single person. It’s a very weird feeling.

Quotes from Aimee Mann on her new album.

…it is the day that they cancelled Farscape.

I found someone who has a much more incisive analysis then I want to write right now. So I’ll post that.

I Predicted This!(Score:3, Offtopic)
by Geckoman on Saturday September 07, @12:30PM (#4212451)

My theory for the past 10 years has been that there is an inevitable tendency for any given TV network or channel to become exactly like all the others. New, focused channels may pop up, or old ones may refocus, but those are momentary spikes, and the general direction will remain unchanged.

Remember when MTV actually had music? Or when VH1 did? Now they both mostly have crappy reality shows and cheesy documentaries.

Remember when TNN was The Nashville Network? Even if you weren’t a country fan, you had to respect the attention they gave to their target demographic, with “Dukes of Hazzard” and “Dallas” marathons, NASCAR, outdoor shows, and the Grand Ol’ Opry. The first bad sign was when they started showing Star Trek. Nashville? Huh? Now they’re the “National Network,” and last time I checked there were no fishing shows or overalls in sight.

CNN used to be all news; now it’s mostly talk shows that are vaguely news-related. Fox and WB used to be hip and edgy, and now they could give CBS a strong challenge for the snooze market most nights. Heck, even the Weather Channel has shows now!

And soon we’ll all pine for the days when Sci-Fi actually had science fiction. I’ll go out on a limb and predict that they’ll soon change their name to “SF,” then shortly thereafter start pretending that it stands for something completely different, like — I don’t know — “Serious Favorites: The Best Shows Everybody Likes!”

When we were told we’d have 500 channels of programming, nobody ever bothered to mention that they’d all be showing reruns of Law & Order and Friends.

The comment is on Slashdot.

Thanks to pajor for this one:

“The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology,” threatens an entire industry’s “economic vitality and future security. [It] is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone.”

That was Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, testifying before Congress. He wasn’t talking about DVD pirating. He was talking about videocassettes. Good thing the Supreme Court disagreed.