Life: Banality

I’m usually not open with my emotions, and I guess a post is impersonal, but still, at least it’s public. And public is open. So I’m moving up in the world...

I cried last night for the first time since winter semester, and over the same person. I don’t think she lost any sleep. Which is OK because she has always been comfortable falling asleep in any position anyway: on a bed, the floor, a couch, with a smile, or in sadness. It doesn’t matter as long as she is tired. That is what I tell myself at least.

I initially thought of a few good lessons to take from tonight’s loss. People change and you can’t hold on fighting for who someone was? Plausible at first, but people don’t change, they just become more honest. A relationship is not defined by how it ends but by how it is remembered? But again no, because relationships are defined by people, and I dwell on endings. Maybe, things happen for a reason? Yes. Although, we do make conscious choices and therefore can’t delegate responsibility to fate. Learn from your mistakes? Nothing I’ve done has been a mistake.

She was and still is many things to me. She makes me vulnerable. Weak even. So to fumble around with some invalid and clichéd idiom is disrespectful to the power of relationships. To our relationship.

I am shocked that she is so callous and am hurt that she is so content. And that is that.

Life: Hmmmmm?

I love to learn, but I hate to go to class. I loathe drama, but revel in difficulty. I have a need for stories but rarely read fiction. I am an adaptor if you will. Uneventful yet complicated.

As such, I find it necessary to constantly adapt. And not by purpose, malice, or even intention, but regardless, I change my mind constantly. I hear a catchy phrase and it inspires me, I am proven incorrect and it humbles me, I am complimented and it gladdens me.

I assume that I am not much different from anyone else in this way. We all have different moods and confidences throughout even a single day. It is normal. But still, there is more. There has to be. Mustn’t something be said for human behavior, for personality?

I wonder what truly motivates me. Why do I say certain things, and why am I so inexcusably sarcastic when saying them? See...

Where do we draw the line between a personality-flaw and originality?

Politics: I'm not a Fan of Cancer

If I was the Surgeon General my warnings would be more direct. Warning:

1. Your breath and clothes are going to smell horrible.
2. I think your teeth are turning yellow already.
3. You will never get laid (note warning 2 and 3).
4. Hundreds of children die from second-hand smoke you serial killer!
5. Stop. Girls will know that you have a small penis. (for men)
6. Look. You are fat. (for women)

Now maybe I’m insensitive but I can’t stand those little buggers. They give people cancer! It says it right on the box and people still wildly puff away. Addicted? Maybe. Naïve? Possibly. Loathed? Absolutely.

Here is my take. Girls who smoke are immediately unattractive. Guys who smoke are insecure. And those who smoke near me are inconsiderate. It is well documented that second-hand smoke causes nearly 6,000 deaths a year. It is an annoyance to breathe in while eating, walking, sitting, sleeping, reading, watching, and all other possible verbs while living.

But even so, do I have the right to tell smokers when and where they can smoke? In doing so, am I hypocritically imposing my will on the minority? Well let’s see.

To quote a comment,

As of Dec. 8th the state of Washington will no longer permit smoking in public places or even within 20 feet of the entrances to public spaces! This is to go into effect due to Tuesday'svoting where the measure to ban smoking was, from a "political" standpoint, overwhelmingly (~70%)passed.

Firstly, I don’t consider this a partisan issue. If anything, Washington being a liberal state makes the ban even more surprising. Usually, if there is even a question of right-infringement, a liberal state usually protects rather than denies. T he opposite is true for conservative states (generally).

Moreover, the question deals with the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The state has to, under rational basis; give ample evidence to prove the law serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly defined. And furthermore, that it isn’t unconstitutional. At least in modern discussion, a law is only considered unconstitutional if it restricts a fundamental right: one which is “implicit in ordered liberty.”

Narrowly defined? Well I don’t know (revel in that, it doesn’t happen often). I am ignorant to the exact law and to the realm of possible policies to protect non-smokers.

Is there a compelling state interest? Yes, to not have smoke blown in my face if I don’t want it. Or more maturely, to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke related illnesses (specifically children). Note: this is where I am not a hypocrite (gay marriage) because in this case there is a more legitimate interest than, “I don’t like it.”

Is the right to smoking, “implicit in ordered liberty?” Of course not. A person’s rights end where another’s begin, right? There is a guaranteed freedom to give yourself cancer (i.e. tanning), but none to give others the same. Plus, a smoking ban does not discriminate.

I'm all about liberty, but I'm just not a fan of Cancer, and I shouldn't have to be.

Politics: God bless America

I often wonder whether I’ll say, “…and God bless America,” after a political speech. For one, I don’t believe in the capitalized version and for now, not the lower-case type either. Would I be lying if I said “God bless America?” I am not a believer per-say, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t want America to be blessed if there is a god. And there very might well be one, so why wouldn’t I at least take the chance. It can’t hurt, right?

Regardless, the point is that America is blessed. Minus a few mishaps here or there (Hurricane Katrina and Bush being our President) we usually have it pretty well. For example, September 11th was the worst attack on our soil in well, ever. And with an attempt to not sound completely insensitive, 3,000 deaths aren’t all that bad.


More importantly, the Pentagon came out with a report saying that in the past year there have been 26,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Obviously, we have been in Iraq for more than a year and deaths from coalition attacks weren’t included either. So the actual number is probably considerably more egregious.

And before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, let me say, I know, "that is war." And I also know that most of those deaths are from insurgents killing their own people in baseless bombings.

But here I still ask, are American lives worth more than those of Iraqis’? Can we justify indirectly and directly causing ten to twenty times the number of civilian deaths from September 11th with saying, “well someone attacked us first?” And to clarify, this is not a critique of this specific war, but the justifications used to legitimize war in general.

Maybe, “God bless America,” is working in creating favoritism towards America. But I always thought God was impartial? Maybe the Iraqi’s should start saying it.

I know I will.

Politics: Abortion as a Dangling Carrot

I can’t take credit for the idea; Some Princeton professor who is infinitely more creative and experienced than I conceived this little thought experiment (note I didn’t say more intelligent). But in any event, I will share my concurrence.

Many (insert derogatory adjective) voters are of the one-issue variety. And most of these are the abortion kind. Better than the apathetic party dwellers, but still, uninformed. Blind sheep if you will, they limit the abortion debate to good versus evil or freedom versus oppression. Often, they insult the Bible and the Constitution by only recognizing convenient verses.


I recognize abortion as an issue, a very important, relevant, and culturally defining issue. One which deserves much attention, but to lessen the complexity of a candidate’s individual ideology and policy to one belief is at best, lazy.

Because the President has no bearing on overturning a constitutional legitimacy claim (i.e. abortion as a privacy right under the 14th Amendment) except in a Supreme Court appointment, it follows that one-issue abortion voters’ votes are only practically successful if a President does appoint a Justice who upholds their abortion opinions in the court. Let’s be honest, principal doesn’t do much for dead babies or privacy rights if the court doesn’t change precedent.

So with all this hoopla surrounding Roe and Alito, it is cognizant to discuss the history. Decades have passed since Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (confirming Roe and establishing specific guidelines) were argued and decided. Over ten cases have been argued since, and have all upheld the privacy rights of women.

And during most of these battles, there were a majority of Republican appointed judges. Not to assert that all Republican judges are anti-abortion, but based on the voting record of millions of Americans, for their sake, I would hope there is some parallel. In other words, I would be pretty upset if I voted solely on the possibility that a President could get the chance to appoint a nominee with my views on abortion (legally, not personally), and given that chance, the president I chose did not come through. I would feel back-stabbed. But as is, life is not fair.

As earlier stated, these predominantly conservative (at least when appointed) Supreme Court Justices continuously reaffirm Roe. I will not argue the constitutionality of abortion, for although I disagree with him more than not, Scalia offers a troublingly logical dissent for Casey. Therefore, it is obvious I am not read enough to offer more than immature arguments. But what I can do successfully is offer an explanation which I believe is very plausible.

It is normal to wonder why Roe has not been overturned with a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. But it could be contended that it will never be overturned, but not for any constitutional or even moral reasons, but scarily, for political ones. What would happen to the moral base if Roe was reversed? Would their motivation to get out and vote be curtailed? And what about all those soccer mom’s who (many of which have had abortions) agree with privacy rights but vote Republican because they see Roe as untouchable. Would they become one-issue voters for the other side if abortion was made illegal? Now I’m not saying that this is a conservative undertaking, for there are many fervent pro-choice voters out there. But for mere fairness, the bench is mostly conservative, so the responsibility lies mostly with them.

So. Roe is even more political than we thought. And this is not as conspiracy theorist as you might think. I believe it, and for those of you who don’t know me, I am the ultimate realist. Would it not completely change the political field of play if Roe was overturned? Wouldn’t the conservatives lose motivation for an entire sect of their base? So why would they overturn it? It is a beautiful carrot dangling over one-issue voters’ heads. It is motivation. It means votes.

Roe won’t be overturned.

Life: I'm writing a book

I have neither qualification nor talent enough to write a book. But then again, I have never been one to understand parameters. So the real question is, in this semi-autobiographical attempt at entertainment, am I trying to get away? And if so, from what?