Greetings and welcome to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated and official site to all things related to Un.
In today's update, it will be about the odd crumbs and detrius that one can find lurking in the corners of the Internet.
Up first, is a case that makes no sense what-so-ever and yet is taught in Evidence class. It also has an interesting local connection, which makes this doubly interesting. It combines the law and colorful local history: Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892). Apparently, Brown said that he was going to Colorado with Hillmon was held admissible to show that he had in fact done so. Basically, if you make a statement about intent, it can be used to circumstantially prove you did what you said. For example, if you say, "I'm going to Paris," you can use that statement to circumstantially prove you went to Paris. There are some problems with this doctrine.
1. People change their minds. I can easily say, "I'm going to Manhattan, KS for a week to make fun of those dumb Wildcats" and go to Las Vegas to play blackjack and Texas Hold-Em. If someone finds out, I can easily claim, "I changed my mind." So much for proving intent.
2. The tough third-party issue. With the Hillmon case, there was no real evidence that Hillmon actually went to Colorado. Is the letter enough proof to show that Hillmon actually went? Depending on the jurisdiction, it may be allowed or it may not be allowed.
Now two researchers are going to use modern tools to solve the problem of the Hillmon case: is the body in the grave really Hillmon or someone else. If it's Hillmon, then the story in the Hillmon case is probably true. Else, you've got another mystery. Who is the dead guy? Where is the crew from CSI when you need them?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jan/30/gravesite_lawrences_oak_hill_cemetery_might_hold_c/?city_local
You're lost in the middle of the woods. You need a fire and you happen to have a can of Coca Cola and a chocolate bar. What do you do? You make a fire using that can of coke and the chocolate bar. How? Just click on the link below to find out.
http://www.trackertrail.com/survival/fire/cokeandchocolatebar/
President Bust isn't happy that Hamas won. Now that Hamas has won an election and shown the world that democracy is spreading in the Middle East (something that President Bush said was good), they're now the butt of political jokes. One must wonder how they are going to respond to this sort of humor.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060129/ap_on_re_mi_ea/hamas_jokes
Americans aren't buying American cars, but are buying foreign brands like Honda and Toyota. The "Big Three" are wondering why. Now the American public is telling them, quite frankly, why the cars built by the Big Three aren't so great.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10892985/
That's all for now.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Saturday, January 28, 2006
State of the Union
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site for all things related to Un, or at least stuff this blog writer finds interesting.
President George W. Bush will present the State of the Union Address on Tuesday. Regular programming will be cancelled so the leader of this country shall tell Congress and the American people how the nation is doing and his plans for the future. I use the term "his" as all previous Presidents were male. Until there is a female president, I shall use "his" unless the premise of Commander in Chief actually becomes true.
He'll most likely talk about the major issues of this time: domestic wiretaps, the war on terrorism, etc. Expect him to talk about how the world is much safer since democracy is now a part of Iraq. The economy is stronger due to tax cuts. America will be safer if we have domestic wiretaps.
As an American citizen, it is my patriotic duty and obligation to warn everyone that accepting everything the President says at face value is not anti-American or unpatriotic. Questioning the status-quo is patriotic. If the Founding Fathers didn't question the legitimacy of being under British rule, there would be no United States of America.
To better facilitate the spread of democratic ideals and a sense of rational patriotism, I offer the following examples of common logical fallacies that people and Presidents use. Thanks to Stephen Downes and his excellent website explaining logical fallacies.
1. Slippery Slope: a faulty use of "if-then" premises that necessarily do not follow from the beginning premise.
EX: If we do not allow for a domestic surveillance program, then it will allow the terrorists to organize. If the terrorists organize, then they will plan another attack. If we do not stop their planning, the America will be attacked just like it did on 9/11.
2. Appeal to Consequence: The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false
EX: You can't agree that the President's powers can be limited because this will make America a target for terrorist attacks.
3. Prejudical Language: use of loaded emotional words to attach moral goodness to a proposition.
EX: Wireless wiretaps are good because without them, another terrorist attack will happen, just like the attacks on 9/11. (Note the use of terrorist attack and 9/11. The President and Vice President use "9/11" and "terrorist" frequently to lend support to their actions.)
4. Style Over Substance: as the term implies, the argument or arguer is presented in a way to add to the credibility of the argument.
EX: Instead of "domestic surveillance" the phrase "terrorist surveillance" is used. Same program, different name. Nobody wants to go against a "terrorist surveillance" program. And if you make the presenter look like a "friendly and open" person, what have they got to hide? (other than a ruthless personality that will stop at nothing to get what they want)
These are just a few examples of logical fallacies. There is a larger and more complete list of logical fallacies at Stephen Downes' website. Remember to do your patriotic duty: listen carefully and question everything.
That's all for now.
Logical Fallacies
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
President George W. Bush will present the State of the Union Address on Tuesday. Regular programming will be cancelled so the leader of this country shall tell Congress and the American people how the nation is doing and his plans for the future. I use the term "his" as all previous Presidents were male. Until there is a female president, I shall use "his" unless the premise of Commander in Chief actually becomes true.
He'll most likely talk about the major issues of this time: domestic wiretaps, the war on terrorism, etc. Expect him to talk about how the world is much safer since democracy is now a part of Iraq. The economy is stronger due to tax cuts. America will be safer if we have domestic wiretaps.
As an American citizen, it is my patriotic duty and obligation to warn everyone that accepting everything the President says at face value is not anti-American or unpatriotic. Questioning the status-quo is patriotic. If the Founding Fathers didn't question the legitimacy of being under British rule, there would be no United States of America.
To better facilitate the spread of democratic ideals and a sense of rational patriotism, I offer the following examples of common logical fallacies that people and Presidents use. Thanks to Stephen Downes and his excellent website explaining logical fallacies.
1. Slippery Slope: a faulty use of "if-then" premises that necessarily do not follow from the beginning premise.
EX: If we do not allow for a domestic surveillance program, then it will allow the terrorists to organize. If the terrorists organize, then they will plan another attack. If we do not stop their planning, the America will be attacked just like it did on 9/11.
2. Appeal to Consequence: The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false
EX: You can't agree that the President's powers can be limited because this will make America a target for terrorist attacks.
3. Prejudical Language: use of loaded emotional words to attach moral goodness to a proposition.
EX: Wireless wiretaps are good because without them, another terrorist attack will happen, just like the attacks on 9/11. (Note the use of terrorist attack and 9/11. The President and Vice President use "9/11" and "terrorist" frequently to lend support to their actions.)
4. Style Over Substance: as the term implies, the argument or arguer is presented in a way to add to the credibility of the argument.
EX: Instead of "domestic surveillance" the phrase "terrorist surveillance" is used. Same program, different name. Nobody wants to go against a "terrorist surveillance" program. And if you make the presenter look like a "friendly and open" person, what have they got to hide? (other than a ruthless personality that will stop at nothing to get what they want)
These are just a few examples of logical fallacies. There is a larger and more complete list of logical fallacies at Stephen Downes' website. Remember to do your patriotic duty: listen carefully and question everything.
That's all for now.
Logical Fallacies
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Website Links, Part II
Greetings and welcome back to the Un-Zone, the site for all things Un.
It's time to update and it's the return of website links that I found interesting.
The first up is near and dear to my heart as a law school student at it involves drug dealers or drug users , the number one topic of Criminal Procedure cases. Their turn of bad luck is too funny to believe: a brick of cocaine fell out of a window and landed in front of a police officer who happened to walk by.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060125/NEWS01/601260331/1002/NEWS
With the emphasis on security at airports, one would expect flight attendants to know what items are not allowed onto airplanes. Apparently, one flight attendant decided to bring aboard a grenade. A grenade she thought would make for a cool gift for her son. Thankfully, the grenade was not a live grenade but a dud she bought at an army surplus store. Her common sense was a dud also.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/13711421.htm
The 101 Dumbest moments in Business as decided by CNN. Who wouldn't want to live in a condo that used to be a mental institution?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/101dumbest/
A professor who ranks "America's Whitest Law Schools." I'm not sure what to make of this. See Chapter Six for the complete rankings.
http://academic.udayton.edu/thewhitestlawschools/2005TWLS/Chapter6/State01.htm
Does it really cost nearly $1,000 to buy a toaster? Does a deep-fat fryer cost $5,500? Apparently the Pentagon thinks so. Despite being able to buy a comparable toaster for only around $800 and the fryer for about $2,000. I guess these products were combat ready, sort of like body armor...
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13163
That's all for now.
It's time to update and it's the return of website links that I found interesting.
The first up is near and dear to my heart as a law school student at it involves drug dealers or drug users , the number one topic of Criminal Procedure cases. Their turn of bad luck is too funny to believe: a brick of cocaine fell out of a window and landed in front of a police officer who happened to walk by.
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060125/NEWS01/601260331/1002/NEWS
With the emphasis on security at airports, one would expect flight attendants to know what items are not allowed onto airplanes. Apparently, one flight attendant decided to bring aboard a grenade. A grenade she thought would make for a cool gift for her son. Thankfully, the grenade was not a live grenade but a dud she bought at an army surplus store. Her common sense was a dud also.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/13711421.htm
The 101 Dumbest moments in Business as decided by CNN. Who wouldn't want to live in a condo that used to be a mental institution?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/101dumbest/
A professor who ranks "America's Whitest Law Schools." I'm not sure what to make of this. See Chapter Six for the complete rankings.
http://academic.udayton.edu/thewhitestlawschools/2005TWLS/Chapter6/State01.htm
Does it really cost nearly $1,000 to buy a toaster? Does a deep-fat fryer cost $5,500? Apparently the Pentagon thinks so. Despite being able to buy a comparable toaster for only around $800 and the fryer for about $2,000. I guess these products were combat ready, sort of like body armor...
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13163
That's all for now.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Eugenics in America
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, a site on the Information Highway devoted to all things related to Un or at least stuff that this blogger finds interesting enough to post.
The following is a brief history of eugenics in the United States. Personally, I find eugenics to be distasteful, disturbing, and a bunch of pseudo-science nonsense. This post is not meant to be anti-American in any way but a look into a darker period in the history of the United States.
The Declaration of Independence states, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Despite this noble language, there have been instances in the history of the United States where these words were not applied in practice. One dark period in United States history, however, has not been talked about much. Few people know of this dark blemish in American history, mainly because of its association with Nazi Germany. This topic is the eugenics movement that consumed the United States from the late 1890's to the end of World War II. Even after World War II, the taint of eugenics-like programs still exists today.
Eugenics found its modern roots in England, with the general ideas sketched out by Sir Francis Galton, the cousin of Sir Charles Darwin. Basically, he stated that intellectual, moral, and character traits were hereditary and that through a process of selective breeding, these traits could be passed on to offspring. Society was weakening the gene pool by allowing marriages between "good" people and "inferior" people.
Regretfully, this pseudo-science crossed the Atlantic Ocean and spread to the United States. During the 1880's, Alexander Graham Bell studied the deaf population of Martha's Vineyard and concluded that the deaf should not be allowed to marry. In the late 1890's, states enacted laws prohibiting the "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.
Harry Hamilton Laughlin wrote the "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" in 1922, advocating mandatory sterilization for those who were "socially inadequate." These included epileptics, alcoholics, criminals, blind, deaf, and others. Nazi Germany adopted Laughlin's views and wrote the Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health: Breeding the "Aryan Race," enacted in 1933. This law stated the following:
The following is a brief history of eugenics in the United States. Personally, I find eugenics to be distasteful, disturbing, and a bunch of pseudo-science nonsense. This post is not meant to be anti-American in any way but a look into a darker period in the history of the United States.
The Declaration of Independence states, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Despite this noble language, there have been instances in the history of the United States where these words were not applied in practice. One dark period in United States history, however, has not been talked about much. Few people know of this dark blemish in American history, mainly because of its association with Nazi Germany. This topic is the eugenics movement that consumed the United States from the late 1890's to the end of World War II. Even after World War II, the taint of eugenics-like programs still exists today.
Eugenics found its modern roots in England, with the general ideas sketched out by Sir Francis Galton, the cousin of Sir Charles Darwin. Basically, he stated that intellectual, moral, and character traits were hereditary and that through a process of selective breeding, these traits could be passed on to offspring. Society was weakening the gene pool by allowing marriages between "good" people and "inferior" people.
Regretfully, this pseudo-science crossed the Atlantic Ocean and spread to the United States. During the 1880's, Alexander Graham Bell studied the deaf population of Martha's Vineyard and concluded that the deaf should not be allowed to marry. In the late 1890's, states enacted laws prohibiting the "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.
Harry Hamilton Laughlin wrote the "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" in 1922, advocating mandatory sterilization for those who were "socially inadequate." These included epileptics, alcoholics, criminals, blind, deaf, and others. Nazi Germany adopted Laughlin's views and wrote the Law for the Protection of Hereditary Health: Breeding the "Aryan Race," enacted in 1933. This law stated the following:
Article I. (1.) Anyone who suffers from an inheritable disease may be surgically sterilized if, in the judgment of medical science, it could be expected that his descendants will suffer from serious inherited mental or physical defects.
The United States, thankfully, did not reach the levels that Nazi Germany reached, but the results were ghastly. The Germans forcefully sterilized hundreds of thousands, killed millions of innocent people, and performed horrible experiments on live humans. In the United States, the state of California for example, sterilized 6,200 people classified as "feeble-minded." Yet, the language used by two well known people living at the time sound so eerily similar that one might believe that they were the same person.
Hitler writes the following in Mein Kampf:
"Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unfit must not perpetuate their sufferings in the bodies of their children....[I]t is a crime and a disgrace to make this affliction the worse by passing it on to innocent creatures out of a merely egoistic yearning."
Compare that statement with this written by United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. in his majority opinion in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927):
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind..."
According to Westlaw, it has been negatively criticized, but it has not been overturned. It's a highly questionable, although a legitimate ruling by the United States Supreme Court. As a historical sidenote, one justice did dissent to this decision, but he did not write one.
One can easily say that these examples are mere aberrations. Given the historical context, one can easily explain these as a sign of the time that these people were living in. Yes, this may be so, but it does not excuse a Supreme Court justice who is interpreting the law to write such a repulsive decision. One might say that people now are enlightened in the United States and such viewpoints are an aberration today. This assumption, sadly, is not so. Such a viewpoint exists, but couched in more palatable terms.
Take for instance, the Pioneer Fund. Founded in 1937 by a group of men including Harry Hamilton Laughlin, their Charter of Incorporation amended in 1985 states their purpose is for "human race betterment." Some of the research they funded came up with the following results. Children from professional backgrounds did better in their future life than those from a working class background. In South Africa, children of African descent did worse on standardized tests, but made significant improvements when taught in a certain manner. To explain these differences, the Pioneer Fund uses the "Out of Africa" Hypothesis that states that those living near the Equator did not need to specialize much to survive, whereas those living farther away from the Equator specialized by adapting to the changing seasons. Hence those living farther north, i.e. North America and Europe, had better brains and talent. Very enlightened views.
William Shockley, one of the founders of the modern transistor that made the computer revolution possible, was an avid believer of eugenics. He wrote a series of editorial letters to the Palo Alto newspapers claiming that the human race was going downhill because of bad breeding. Mr. Shockley came up with a solution to this problem. He suggested paying money to those with low-intelligence if they volunteered to be sterilized--$1,000 for every IQ point below 100. Of course, since these people were supposedly stupid, the money would be kept in a trust. To make it profitable for others, people who convinced those with low IQs to get sterilized would get a monetary reward. He continued to have these views until he died.
Take for instance Ethnic America written by Thomas Sowell. This book was highly touted by readers on Amazon. This book was considered a "must read" by several well-respected magazines and newspapers. Supposedly, it was a hard look into ethnicity and culture in the United States. This might be so, but some of what he writes is disturbing. This excerpt came from page 213:
"The internal distribution of children among blacks has made the upward movement of the race as a whole more difficult. The general tendency of poor people to have more children than middle-class people has been accentuated among American Negroes. Better educated and higher income blacks have even fewer children than their white counterparts, while low-income blacks have even more children than equally low income whites. Much of the struggle that has brought some blacks up from poverty has had to be repeated in successive generations because successful blacks did not have enough children to reproduce themselves."
Based upon this paragraph, one could make the conclusion that African-Americans would move up on the socioeconomic scale and be much better as a whole if the better-educated and higher income African Americans had more children. This conclusion, of course, is absurd. There are other factors that would help all people do better later in life and selective breeding is not one of them.
To quote Vincent Freeman, played by Ethan Hawke, in Gattaca, "There’s no gene for fate." Let’s just hope nobody takes eugenics seriously in the future.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Website Links
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site for all things Un.
It's time for an update and today's update will be about various websites I found interesting in my view.
Today's Dumb Criminal story is about a techno-savvy criminal who wasn't so savvy about what you can't sell on the Internet. Like cocaine. Other foolish things he did include posting up a phone number and making an actual sale to an undercover cop.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/consumer/6311338/detail.html
Osama Bin Laden apparently had some time to read while out somewhere in an unknown region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Maybe the US government should read this book. I wonder if he posted a review on Amazon.com?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060123/od_nm/binladen_book_dc;_ylt=AoaUV37VIvjo_G42J8jnP.Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
Roe v. Wade is now 33 years old. Instead of being an important case in Supreme Court history, it is now the de facto litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/22/abortion.anniversary.ap/index.html
Ferrofluid sculptures. That's it.
http://www.99express.com/posts/ferrofluid_sculptures.htm
A professor pretends to be a Neo-Nazi to test whether "academic freedom" exists at colleges and other places of higher learning. What could possibly go wrong? He got fired and now he is thinking about writing a book like A Million Little Pieces. Go figure.
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1137649957316870.xml&coll=1
It's time for an update and today's update will be about various websites I found interesting in my view.
Today's Dumb Criminal story is about a techno-savvy criminal who wasn't so savvy about what you can't sell on the Internet. Like cocaine. Other foolish things he did include posting up a phone number and making an actual sale to an undercover cop.
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/consumer/6311338/detail.html
Osama Bin Laden apparently had some time to read while out somewhere in an unknown region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Maybe the US government should read this book. I wonder if he posted a review on Amazon.com?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060123/od_nm/binladen_book_dc;_ylt=AoaUV37VIvjo_G42J8jnP.Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-
Roe v. Wade is now 33 years old. Instead of being an important case in Supreme Court history, it is now the de facto litmus test for Supreme Court nominees.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/22/abortion.anniversary.ap/index.html
Ferrofluid sculptures. That's it.
http://www.99express.com/posts/ferrofluid_sculptures.htm
A professor pretends to be a Neo-Nazi to test whether "academic freedom" exists at colleges and other places of higher learning. What could possibly go wrong? He got fired and now he is thinking about writing a book like A Million Little Pieces. Go figure.
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1137649957316870.xml&coll=1
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Single
It's another update to this site today. A few random thoughts that came to my head that I had to put down on this site.
Being a good person--a genuinely nice person--does not lead to immediate success with romance. In fact, it is the most naive thought a person can have. On the surface, it seems rational that a member of the opposite sex will find this attactive. It doesn't work that way, ever. If you're single, the worst adjectives that describe you are not what you think. They're not "fat" or "ugly" or even "moron." Oh no. They're the following: "smart", "nice", and "sweet". Yes, they may seem like good things, but they are not.
It may not sound bad, but to a person who has heard "Let's just be friends" everytime they charm a person to deep friendship, it's like calling that person "radioactive." Sure, it doesn't sound bad, but think about it for a moment. Imagine yourself wanting to buy a dog. Let's say a Golden Retriever. What qualities do you like in this furry companion? Hopefully, you're not thinking "chewy." I digress. Hmm...what about "smart," "nice" and "sweet?" OK, this might be stretching it, but add the following adjectives to the list: "loyal" and "friendly." What are you thinking right now? Maybe "Gee...that sounds like the perfect dog to me!" and not "Gee...that sounds like the perfect person I want to date!" Good luck getting past the "just friends" stage in a relationship.
Stranger still, most people (I am assuming this to be true as I have read many articles and books on this topic) want to date/marry a person who is "smart," "nice," "friendly," etc. Yes, looks are important also, but I would like to focus on these three aspects. Some people might add in other adjectives more fit for Prince Charming or Cinderella (post Glass Slipper). And yet, they go into relationships with the total opposite of what they supposedly want.
This might explain the basic premise of the dating ritual: the harder you supposedly are to get, the harder the opposite sex falls for you. After some time, your intended target will find you so irresistable that they will ask you out. Or so it seems in real life. Maybe I am wrong with this line of thought.
One could explain this by saying that people have an intense desire to have what we can't have and to have what we don't have. Sort of like a car nut wanting to own a Porshe 911 or a female wanting to own a 20 carat diamond ring. That sort of thing. Sounds perfectly rational. And yet, this intense desire is irrational. People (supposedly) want a partner who is kind, friendly, smart, etc. and yet get into relationships that do not work. This defeats their intended purpose of finding the ideal mate as falling in love with a non-optimal partner is not the ideal solution to this problem. "Love," using the term loosely, is a powerful force that turns everyone it hits into irrational beings. Our urges are irrational. Which makes them think in a strange fashion by messing up their sense of logic. Kind of like staying with no-good, cheating scum because "they love them." Seeing an episode or two of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich with show this very well. Of course, these people do not learn and fall into the same routine over and over again. And each time after a failed relationship, these people wonder where the nice men and women are.
But does it pay off to be a genuinely nice person? Maybe. It sounds better than "You're going to be lonely and miserable for the rest of your life." Or so it has been said. If you are a genuinely nice person, don't change because you are desperate for a date. Someone, sooner or later will discover there are genuinely nice people. And besides, genuinely nice people will not chew your shoes or shed lots of hair. There is the downside involving the remote control, but that's a problem that can't be helped.
That's all for now.
Being a good person--a genuinely nice person--does not lead to immediate success with romance. In fact, it is the most naive thought a person can have. On the surface, it seems rational that a member of the opposite sex will find this attactive. It doesn't work that way, ever. If you're single, the worst adjectives that describe you are not what you think. They're not "fat" or "ugly" or even "moron." Oh no. They're the following: "smart", "nice", and "sweet". Yes, they may seem like good things, but they are not.
It may not sound bad, but to a person who has heard "Let's just be friends" everytime they charm a person to deep friendship, it's like calling that person "radioactive." Sure, it doesn't sound bad, but think about it for a moment. Imagine yourself wanting to buy a dog. Let's say a Golden Retriever. What qualities do you like in this furry companion? Hopefully, you're not thinking "chewy." I digress. Hmm...what about "smart," "nice" and "sweet?" OK, this might be stretching it, but add the following adjectives to the list: "loyal" and "friendly." What are you thinking right now? Maybe "Gee...that sounds like the perfect dog to me!" and not "Gee...that sounds like the perfect person I want to date!" Good luck getting past the "just friends" stage in a relationship.
Stranger still, most people (I am assuming this to be true as I have read many articles and books on this topic) want to date/marry a person who is "smart," "nice," "friendly," etc. Yes, looks are important also, but I would like to focus on these three aspects. Some people might add in other adjectives more fit for Prince Charming or Cinderella (post Glass Slipper). And yet, they go into relationships with the total opposite of what they supposedly want.
This might explain the basic premise of the dating ritual: the harder you supposedly are to get, the harder the opposite sex falls for you. After some time, your intended target will find you so irresistable that they will ask you out. Or so it seems in real life. Maybe I am wrong with this line of thought.
One could explain this by saying that people have an intense desire to have what we can't have and to have what we don't have. Sort of like a car nut wanting to own a Porshe 911 or a female wanting to own a 20 carat diamond ring. That sort of thing. Sounds perfectly rational. And yet, this intense desire is irrational. People (supposedly) want a partner who is kind, friendly, smart, etc. and yet get into relationships that do not work. This defeats their intended purpose of finding the ideal mate as falling in love with a non-optimal partner is not the ideal solution to this problem. "Love," using the term loosely, is a powerful force that turns everyone it hits into irrational beings. Our urges are irrational. Which makes them think in a strange fashion by messing up their sense of logic. Kind of like staying with no-good, cheating scum because "they love them." Seeing an episode or two of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich with show this very well. Of course, these people do not learn and fall into the same routine over and over again. And each time after a failed relationship, these people wonder where the nice men and women are.
But does it pay off to be a genuinely nice person? Maybe. It sounds better than "You're going to be lonely and miserable for the rest of your life." Or so it has been said. If you are a genuinely nice person, don't change because you are desperate for a date. Someone, sooner or later will discover there are genuinely nice people. And besides, genuinely nice people will not chew your shoes or shed lots of hair. There is the downside involving the remote control, but that's a problem that can't be helped.
That's all for now.
Back to School...Again
Greetings and welcome back to The Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated website on the Internet devoted to all things Un. Or at least things that I find of interest at any given time while writing stuff for this blog.
It's that time of the year...the beginning of the Spring 2006 semester. The final semester for my second year of law school. It's time to go back to "critically read and analyze" large amounts of "legal knowledge" and during two weeks in May, "compose answers to" or "answer to the best of your ability" questions written by a professor. Basically, read a bunch of cases and statutes, remember them, regurgitate everything onto the pages of a bluebook in three hours, and pray that you remembered everything correctly. Oh for joy.
BA II, Payment Systems, Professional Responsibility, Land Transactions, and International Economic Law. Doesn't that sound like fun? Monday through Friday until 3:00 PM. That will be so much fun. I shall have to temper this exciting legal education with things like "college basketball" and "Pub Night." Speaking of Women in Law Pub Night, I shall return and perform again. Get ready for a surprise. For those who saw me last year, this year should be just as entertaining...I hope.
Anyways, it should be an interesting semester.
That's all for now.
It's that time of the year...the beginning of the Spring 2006 semester. The final semester for my second year of law school. It's time to go back to "critically read and analyze" large amounts of "legal knowledge" and during two weeks in May, "compose answers to" or "answer to the best of your ability" questions written by a professor. Basically, read a bunch of cases and statutes, remember them, regurgitate everything onto the pages of a bluebook in three hours, and pray that you remembered everything correctly. Oh for joy.
BA II, Payment Systems, Professional Responsibility, Land Transactions, and International Economic Law. Doesn't that sound like fun? Monday through Friday until 3:00 PM. That will be so much fun. I shall have to temper this exciting legal education with things like "college basketball" and "Pub Night." Speaking of Women in Law Pub Night, I shall return and perform again. Get ready for a surprise. For those who saw me last year, this year should be just as entertaining...I hope.
Anyways, it should be an interesting semester.
That's all for now.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Poetry
Greetings and welcome to the Un-Zone, the irregularly updated site for all things related to Un on the Internet. It's time for an update.
This update is a poem. It's got this bluesy-folkish beat to it. A lot of decent blues songs are about love gone wrong and this poem is about love gone wrong.
It’s a little homage to my career as English major (the use of metaphors and similes) plus a dash of discrete mathematics (logical statements). You'll understand what I am saying once you read it. Kind of humorous in a wry sort of way.
When I write these poems, I start out with little fragments that pop up in my head. Little phrases and sentences that might become a stanza. I generally write these fragments down or I forget them five minutes later. They come at the strangest times: in the middle of the night or even in the middle of a shower. It’s really weird. Maybe it isn’t as strange as I think it is. With this poem, however, I just sat in front of the computer and typed it out. It was a Zen-like moment of pure poetry writing. I’m surprised I came up with all of these metaphors and similes. It's called "Still" To be honest, I like this one.
I hope you indulge me and allow me to post up stuff like this. Enjoy.
STILL
If romance is an adventure
And love is a vast sea
Then I’m a blind captain
Wondering what is happening
Will someone give a map to me
If that special person is land
And love is a vast sea
Then I’ll always be wondering
If others are blundering
Off the edge of the world like me
And I’m still looking
I’m still looking for love
His arrows are stupid
Passed over by Cupid flying above
If romance is a winding road
And love is a journey
Then at the end of the night
I search for a guiding light
Why is a light I can never see
If romance is a marathon
And love is the finish line
Then I have run millions of miles
Without getting many smiles
And I’m not feeling fine
And I’m still running
I’m still running away
My tongue is frozen
The words I have chosen I can’t say
If romance is a tug of war
And love is just a game
Then I’m a guy who is crazy
And whose vision is hazy
A rookie in a professional game
If romance is like hunting
And love is like a gun
Then I’m a hunter admitting
That I have trouble hitting
Targets that are on the run
And I’m still standing
I’m still standing here
Like a deer in the headlights
I’m frozen with fear
If romance is like a cloud
And love is like a plane
Then I’m a pilot who is learning
That crashing and burning
Is an experience full of pain
If romance is like the weather
And love comes in shades of gray
Then a hurricane is growing
And the winds of fate are blowing
My chances with you away
And I’m still flying
I’m still flying low
Flap with all of my strength
For any length, there’s still no place to go
And I’m still looking
And I’m still searching
And I’m still seeking
And I’m still finding
Finding myself—all alone
Finding myself all alone
This update is a poem. It's got this bluesy-folkish beat to it. A lot of decent blues songs are about love gone wrong and this poem is about love gone wrong.
It’s a little homage to my career as English major (the use of metaphors and similes) plus a dash of discrete mathematics (logical statements). You'll understand what I am saying once you read it. Kind of humorous in a wry sort of way.
When I write these poems, I start out with little fragments that pop up in my head. Little phrases and sentences that might become a stanza. I generally write these fragments down or I forget them five minutes later. They come at the strangest times: in the middle of the night or even in the middle of a shower. It’s really weird. Maybe it isn’t as strange as I think it is. With this poem, however, I just sat in front of the computer and typed it out. It was a Zen-like moment of pure poetry writing. I’m surprised I came up with all of these metaphors and similes. It's called "Still" To be honest, I like this one.
I hope you indulge me and allow me to post up stuff like this. Enjoy.
STILL
If romance is an adventure
And love is a vast sea
Then I’m a blind captain
Wondering what is happening
Will someone give a map to me
If that special person is land
And love is a vast sea
Then I’ll always be wondering
If others are blundering
Off the edge of the world like me
And I’m still looking
I’m still looking for love
His arrows are stupid
Passed over by Cupid flying above
If romance is a winding road
And love is a journey
Then at the end of the night
I search for a guiding light
Why is a light I can never see
If romance is a marathon
And love is the finish line
Then I have run millions of miles
Without getting many smiles
And I’m not feeling fine
And I’m still running
I’m still running away
My tongue is frozen
The words I have chosen I can’t say
If romance is a tug of war
And love is just a game
Then I’m a guy who is crazy
And whose vision is hazy
A rookie in a professional game
If romance is like hunting
And love is like a gun
Then I’m a hunter admitting
That I have trouble hitting
Targets that are on the run
And I’m still standing
I’m still standing here
Like a deer in the headlights
I’m frozen with fear
If romance is like a cloud
And love is like a plane
Then I’m a pilot who is learning
That crashing and burning
Is an experience full of pain
If romance is like the weather
And love comes in shades of gray
Then a hurricane is growing
And the winds of fate are blowing
My chances with you away
And I’m still flying
I’m still flying low
Flap with all of my strength
For any length, there’s still no place to go
And I’m still looking
And I’m still searching
And I’m still seeking
And I’m still finding
Finding myself—all alone
Finding myself all alone
Monday, January 09, 2006
Random Thoughts
Greetings and welcome back to the Un-Zone, the semi-regularly updated site for all things related to Un. It's a new year and nothing has changed or so it seems. It could be that things are changing so fast, it seems like nothing has changed at all. Or I am totally clueless about what is going on right now. Oh well.
I watched lots of college football. Penn State v. Florida State was entertaining. Lots of missed field goals. That game should be called the "Crappy Kicker Contest" or "The Wide Everything Game" in homage of Florida State's notorious record of losing games due to missed field goals. Three overtimes. One missed extra point. Four missed field goals. Redeeming yourself after kicking the game winner? Priceless. For everything else there is no consolation, cause you're not a winner and will be harassed on campus when you return and will forever be known as the guy who missed several game winners.
Let's get this straight. USC was overrated and overhyped. Come on..."best college football team ever?" How about Oklahoma winning 47 in a row? USC? 34. Leinart and Bush will trample Texas and win by at least a touchdown? Texas won. Leinart saying that USC was still the better team? You didn't win. Texas had no Heisman winner and little respect. But that doesn't matter if you won the championship game. Better team? Texas.
I made no resolutions this year. Never make them. Don't care for them. That's all.
In about two weeks, law school win begin anew. Whoopee. I can't wait. Note the enthusiam or the lack of it. I sometimes wonder why I am in law school. Not that I don't like law school, but I question why I made that decision in the first place. I sometimes think I should have went into a PhD program or cooking school or something different. It would have been more structured and the grading process would have been less...well...subjective and more objective. You know you screwed up in cooking school if you burn everything to a black char. You know you sucked on an essay if you see lousy grammar and a lack of focus. Law school? You think it was randomly graded. See the November issue of the Brief-Brief. Oh well.
I'm going to write an article for the February edition of the Brief-Brief. I'm not sure what it will be about, but it will probably cement my burgeoning reputation as a funny writer who doesn't care what people think about him and knows way too much. Might as well throw caution to the wind and take the leap off the cliff. You never do anything without giving it your all, right?
That's all for now.
I watched lots of college football. Penn State v. Florida State was entertaining. Lots of missed field goals. That game should be called the "Crappy Kicker Contest" or "The Wide Everything Game" in homage of Florida State's notorious record of losing games due to missed field goals. Three overtimes. One missed extra point. Four missed field goals. Redeeming yourself after kicking the game winner? Priceless. For everything else there is no consolation, cause you're not a winner and will be harassed on campus when you return and will forever be known as the guy who missed several game winners.
Let's get this straight. USC was overrated and overhyped. Come on..."best college football team ever?" How about Oklahoma winning 47 in a row? USC? 34. Leinart and Bush will trample Texas and win by at least a touchdown? Texas won. Leinart saying that USC was still the better team? You didn't win. Texas had no Heisman winner and little respect. But that doesn't matter if you won the championship game. Better team? Texas.
I made no resolutions this year. Never make them. Don't care for them. That's all.
In about two weeks, law school win begin anew. Whoopee. I can't wait. Note the enthusiam or the lack of it. I sometimes wonder why I am in law school. Not that I don't like law school, but I question why I made that decision in the first place. I sometimes think I should have went into a PhD program or cooking school or something different. It would have been more structured and the grading process would have been less...well...subjective and more objective. You know you screwed up in cooking school if you burn everything to a black char. You know you sucked on an essay if you see lousy grammar and a lack of focus. Law school? You think it was randomly graded. See the November issue of the Brief-Brief. Oh well.
I'm going to write an article for the February edition of the Brief-Brief. I'm not sure what it will be about, but it will probably cement my burgeoning reputation as a funny writer who doesn't care what people think about him and knows way too much. Might as well throw caution to the wind and take the leap off the cliff. You never do anything without giving it your all, right?
That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)