Well, I submitted about 50 applications for clearkships on the 4th. The federal court rules require that the judges wait until the 19th to arrange interviews with anyone who is still currently in school. So, I have heard from NONE...maybe because they didn't want to talk to me like a pirate?
Umm, other than that I am not putting the effort into my classes this semester that I should be. It's a tie between a) laziness, b) part-time scheduling, and c) procrastination as to why I'm not focused, but seeing as I know that why haven't I fixed it?
Oh, and when did co-coordinators of an event lead to one person doing all the work? Not because I want to but out of a sense of obligation to get crap taken care of I'm the one that has to do it. This makes me frustrated both with myself and with the other people who are supposed to be my "team." Also, it inevitably leads to me failing to get some things taken care of, which really really sucks.
Really, I just want to doing nothing all the time and sleeping through most of the day. But that's probably just the allergies talking (they give me a nasty headache all day).
Now I need to snack...
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
What do you do...
Okay, so I officially know that I'm not "cool" because I've worked at the library on Friday and Saturday night two out of the last three weekends and I'm excited to be awake in time to watch Meet the Press. So, based on that, I'm gonna get a little "political" here because I want to.
I'm very irritated with a lot of the talk about Iraq right now because the knee jerk reaction of "out now" is not a good policy but continuing down the current path will fix nothing in that area or here at home. First of all, I've never thought being there is a good idea, but it's too late know to change that choice because we've been there for five years (good lord, that's a long time) so arguing about it is pointless. But the debate we should be having, outside of the standard sound bite wars of campaigning, is about how we make the country less un-whole than it currently is.
There are real consequences for pulling out now: if we leave now we show the world what we don't stand for. Regardless of the possibility of terrorists taking hold or the foreign fighters coming into Iraq, if we simply pull all of our troops out instantly we would live a ginormous mess and civil war which we are largely to blame for starting. The message that sends to most other nations are detrimental to our reputation in the international world when there are other missions we declare must be fought -- like if we finally pulled our president's head out of his pooper and determined to stop the genocide in Dafur -- what other nations will follow our lead into those more legitimate actions? Moreover, removing Saddam was never a bad thing, but pulling out now will leave the potential for an equally bloody reign of sectarian rule in the opposite of Saddam's violence. There are people there who need to be protected, and until there is evidence that the powers that be in Iraq understand and agree, we must provide local officials and the armies with the training to help.
However, continuing down the path that we're currently undertaking is not going to ever be effective and only lead the the death of more men and women, both U.S. citizens and Iraqi. Those consequences are unacceptable. However, the path that I think needs to be travelled seems to be impossible. How do you find a political leadership that will protect all Iraqi's rights in an area that is full of people who have had a blood feud for more than a thousand years? That is a question that we can't even answer when the anger is a mere fifty years in development. I have no idea what the answer is to this concern, but it is the question that we should be addressing. The other issue we should be addressing is what the mission our troops should be completing. They cannot be the only protection within the cities, country, and borders, there just aren't enough of them. And, while most of the experts who have reported from Iraq have stated that the Iraqi military is prepared and capable of doing more, the sectarian concerns have bled into the discussion of their effectiveness.
I have no idea what should be done, but what I want is a serious discussion in the public sphere of these issues instead of sound bites and the debate that should have taken place FIVE YEARS AGO.
Now, to totally change the topic, last night I was confronted with the following situation:
I was at work at the library, and a guy who is there daily doing research who insists upon taking to me to much told me he didn't like going to D.C. There are a lot of reasons which I would understand as to why, so I asked him "Why don't you like to go to D.C.?" And his response was "First of all, there are too many black people for me."
HOW THE HELL SHOULD I RESPOND TO THAT? What I did was look away and pretty much stop talking because I had no idea what else to do. While I could rationalize my reaction a number of insufficient ways, I realized that it is because I am completely uncomfortable with confronting such an attitude. I am embarrassed about that.
Other than that, same old, same old.
Go BEARS!
I'm very irritated with a lot of the talk about Iraq right now because the knee jerk reaction of "out now" is not a good policy but continuing down the current path will fix nothing in that area or here at home. First of all, I've never thought being there is a good idea, but it's too late know to change that choice because we've been there for five years (good lord, that's a long time) so arguing about it is pointless. But the debate we should be having, outside of the standard sound bite wars of campaigning, is about how we make the country less un-whole than it currently is.
There are real consequences for pulling out now: if we leave now we show the world what we don't stand for. Regardless of the possibility of terrorists taking hold or the foreign fighters coming into Iraq, if we simply pull all of our troops out instantly we would live a ginormous mess and civil war which we are largely to blame for starting. The message that sends to most other nations are detrimental to our reputation in the international world when there are other missions we declare must be fought -- like if we finally pulled our president's head out of his pooper and determined to stop the genocide in Dafur -- what other nations will follow our lead into those more legitimate actions? Moreover, removing Saddam was never a bad thing, but pulling out now will leave the potential for an equally bloody reign of sectarian rule in the opposite of Saddam's violence. There are people there who need to be protected, and until there is evidence that the powers that be in Iraq understand and agree, we must provide local officials and the armies with the training to help.
However, continuing down the path that we're currently undertaking is not going to ever be effective and only lead the the death of more men and women, both U.S. citizens and Iraqi. Those consequences are unacceptable. However, the path that I think needs to be travelled seems to be impossible. How do you find a political leadership that will protect all Iraqi's rights in an area that is full of people who have had a blood feud for more than a thousand years? That is a question that we can't even answer when the anger is a mere fifty years in development. I have no idea what the answer is to this concern, but it is the question that we should be addressing. The other issue we should be addressing is what the mission our troops should be completing. They cannot be the only protection within the cities, country, and borders, there just aren't enough of them. And, while most of the experts who have reported from Iraq have stated that the Iraqi military is prepared and capable of doing more, the sectarian concerns have bled into the discussion of their effectiveness.
I have no idea what should be done, but what I want is a serious discussion in the public sphere of these issues instead of sound bites and the debate that should have taken place FIVE YEARS AGO.
Now, to totally change the topic, last night I was confronted with the following situation:
I was at work at the library, and a guy who is there daily doing research who insists upon taking to me to much told me he didn't like going to D.C. There are a lot of reasons which I would understand as to why, so I asked him "Why don't you like to go to D.C.?" And his response was "First of all, there are too many black people for me."
HOW THE HELL SHOULD I RESPOND TO THAT? What I did was look away and pretty much stop talking because I had no idea what else to do. While I could rationalize my reaction a number of insufficient ways, I realized that it is because I am completely uncomfortable with confronting such an attitude. I am embarrassed about that.
Other than that, same old, same old.
Go BEARS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)