This and that

[tarigwaemir]

Haste Street, on the Feast of Ste. Veronica

Return of the long numbered post!

1. Various real-life happenings: Well, I felt lousy all week, thanks to stressing over giving my lab meeting presentation on my second rotation on Wednesday. Of course, no one expected me to have any results, and the P.I. and other members of the lab got rather engrossed in discussing why it's difficult to study cis-regulatory regions in the Drosophila genome, so all my anxiety about it was pretty pointless. (Theme of the week: needless anxiety.) I did, however, pull an all-nighter to finish running some scripts and making the presentation, not to mention trying to do enough of the reading for my classes to participate in discussion sections. Unfortunately, am still suffering from lack of sleep: I feel like I've been walking and talking in a mental fog except when caffeinated. (Ugh, to think that I used to never touch caffeine! Now I drink coffee at least twice a week. -_-) Also discovered that yes, I can work late in lab when suffering from cramps without painkillers; good to know that my diminishing self-discipline still has some sense of priority left.

Anyway, the weekend has improved my mood considerably. Finally got to visit the SF MoMA on Saturday: general sense is that it's cosier than the MoMA in New York, and the collections feel--how to put it?--much more focused. Also less eclectic than the modern art collection in the De Young Museum but still with its own style, though I'd have to go again to pin it down into words. I think my problem with modern art is that I am always attempting to impose meaning on a work of art if it isn't immediately apparent, and I get the sense that at least with some of the more abstract works, the whole idea is to break past this emphasis on (reification of?) meaning altogether. -_- "Art for art's sake" taken to the extreme perhaps. Anyway, there was a special exhibit featuring Olafur Eliasson, who apparently likes to play with light and illusion and audience interaction (art as the creation of both artist and viewer, etc.). What I especially liked was that there was a clear linear sequence to the work being displayed, which gave the exhibit a narrative structure of sorts.

Today, I went to the Korean church in Oakland for the second time. By bus, the trip takes an hour and a half. This time, I got a ride, and the trip took less than half an hour by car. -_- Can you believe that?! Ugh, I don't think I'll ever get used to the inefficiency of the public transportation system in Berkeley. Anyway, met the 청년부 (a.k.a. the young adult group), which is very different from the 청년부 back at home because here, almost everyone is older than me. Was relieved though to know that I'm not the absolute youngest; there are a few others who are around my age. serendip, 여기 놀러오면 언니 또래 남자들 좀 소개 해줄까? ^_^ 다들 여자친구 없다고 불만인가봐. I got a free lunch because of Lunar New Year--but no 떡국, alas!--plus we did 세배 (traditional bow to elders on New Year's) to the priest and received three dollars each in return.

Then I spent the afternoon conducting admissions interviews for Harvard for the first time. Yes, I signed up to be an admissions interviewer on a complete whim, and I have to say, I rather enjoyed the experience, although it did take up my entire afternoon. Unfortunately, I can't share the more interesting details of the interviews, but there really ought to be a "College Interview Dos and Don'ts" guide out there. >_>

Also, I locked myself out while doing laundry tonight. It's the fourth time since I moved into this apartment. I like to think of myself as a practical and organized person, but I'm beginning to think my mother is correct in calling me oblivious and incapable of taking care of myself. -_- I wouldn't mind so much if I were the sort of absentminded academic who forgets to put on socks while thinking lofty thoughts, but being absentminded because of sheer mental disorganization is not a good sign at all.

2. Recent exercises in music appreciation: Ferry Corsten's remix of William Orbit's Adagio for Strings (originally composed by Barber) sounds remarkably similar to his remix of Orbit's Pavane pour une infante défunte (Ravel). Not that I mind, since I played the latter track on loop for weeks after downloading it from petronia, but one wonders why Corsten bothered making remixes for both tracks if they were going to sound the same.

Also gave into temptation and bought the recording of Turandot I really wanted (Nilsson, Björling, Tebaldi). I looked specifically for the remastered version but was disappointed to find that the sound quality is still pretty substandard (the original recording is very old). The orchestra sounds thin; I don't know if that's due to orchestra size or recording quality or both. Nilsson's rendition of "In questa reggia" is fabulous though; can't believe a reviewer dismissed her as too Wagnerian for the role. She has the range to reach the notes and a strong, dramatic voice, but she also sings with great depth and subtlety of expression. I'm not usually a fan of "brassy" dramatic soprano voices, but I still adored Nilsson's voice. I don't think Björling was at his best in this recording, but I could still listen to his "Nessun dorma" endlessly on repeat. And oh, Tebaldi has the most exquisite control of pianissimi--absolutely heartbreaking.

(Bought several other albums too, which I'm still in the middle of processing. Maybe I'm finally graduating out of my mp3 blog stage at last.)

3. (Lack of) logic and the upcoming primary: Just learned that independent voters can vote in the Democratic primaries. I forget why I didn't register as a Democrat...I suppose it's because I think of myself as anti-Republican more than anything else. Anyway, I'm still undecided on who to vote for, so I went and actually read through a recent discussion of candidates on one of the mailing lists that I usually ignore.

One of the campaigners on the list wrote a long email outlining several reasons why he thought everyone should vote for Barack Obama. It was a fairly convincing list except for this astounding piece of illogic:

Barack Obama is smarter than Hillary.  This conclusion is based on personal experience. To be sure, Hillary is a very intelligent woman and would be a great president.   However, my friend Tom, with whom I went to college, is one of the smartest, if not the smartest, person I've ever known- he's certainly smarter than me.  After Brown, Tom went to Harvard Law School and was selected to serve on the Harvard Law Review; Barack Obama was in Tom's Harvard Law School class and was also selected to serve on Law Review.  They are to this day good friends.  When it came time for Obama and Tom to enter their third year at Harvard, both Tom and Barack Obama were gunning for the editorship of the Law Review.  Tom was elected as managing editor-- which means he finished second-- to Barack Obama.

Okay, even if we accept the writer's "personal experience" as valid, how the heck can you conclude that Barack is smarter than Hillary from this anecdote? Tom is smarter than the writer, Barack is smarter than Tom. At which point are any of these individuals directly compared with Hillary? Are we supposed to assume that because Tom is the "one of the smartest, if not the smartest, person" the writer has ever known that Tom must therefore automatically be smarter than Hillary? Even this claim would be completely unsupported, but stating it at least would make the writer sound less idiotic. Let's not even touch the fact that we're supposed to believe that this writer's standard for intelligence is worth trusting when he has just made such a non sequitur.

Although seriously, I don't know who to vote for. I haven't been thinking about politics at all or paying attention to the campaigns. My gut instinct is to vote for Hillary because I do want a female president, but that's an awfully superficial way to vote. Plus, people keep bringing up the point that she voted for the war in Iraq, and I actually do count that against her. I know that the senators may not have been fully informed at the time, no thanks to the obfuscations of the Bush administration, and I'm sure she had her constituents in New York to consider, but...I'm sorry, but a preemptive strike is not ethically justified. And yes, the attack on Iraq was a preemptive strike; there was no solid evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaeda (at least not any more than Saudi Arabia). How can I trust a president who was even willing to consider using preemptive strikes as part of their foreign policy? Is it too much to ask for a president who will have a foreign policy that actually holds America accountable for its own actions towards other countries? (...Okay, maybe my problem is that I oughtn't expect such ethical standards from the government in the first place.)

You know, I think this is the first time I've mentioned politics on this LJ since high school. Huh.

4. The Immortal Game: I stumbled across this book when I was browsing Pegasus with jaebi_lit a month ago, and after a failed attempt at self-restraint, I ended up buying it after all. It interweaves the history of chess with the author's account of his own obsession with the game as well as a specific chess game, the "Immortal Game" of the title, that took place between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky in 1851.

The prologue begins with this paragraph:

Think of a virus so advanced, it infects not the blood but the thoughts of its human host. Liver and spleen are spared; instead, this bus infiltrates the frontal lobes of the brain, dominating such prime cognitive functions as problem solving, abstract reasoning, fine motor skills, and most notably, agenda setting. It directs thoughts, actions, and even dreams. This virus comes to dominate not the body, but the mind.

Was reminded of Neal Stephenson's concept of "Enki's nam-shub" in Snow Crash (which also talks about "mental viruses" affecting human thought and capacity for reason). Am also reminded, now that I think about it, of those fungi which infect insect brains and cause them to walk up the nearest plant stalk so that the fungi can disperse its spores from the highest location. ^_^

Anyway, the prologue goes on to describe how Marcel Duchamp (famous modern artist; actually got to see one of his paintings at the MoMA on Saturday, which was a nice coincidence) became obsessed with chess when he was at the peak of his artistic career.

Even true love could not moderate his fixation. In 1927 Duchamp married Lydia Sarazin-Lavassor, a young heiress. On their honeymoon he spent the entire week studying chess problems. Infuriated, his bride plotted her revenge. When Duchamp finally drifted off to sleep late one night, Lydia glued all of the pieces to the board.

They were divorced three months later.

As you can probably tell, the author is looking at why and how chess becomes such an all-encompassing passion for its enthusiasts, and yes, I am constantly reminded of Hikaru no Go ("Immortal Game" even sounds rather like "Hand of God", don't you think?) while reading the book. I only know the basics of chess (up to castling and that's about it), and I've never won against the computer even on beginner mode, which just goes to show how hopeless I am at strategy games in general, but the book makes the game easy to follow and explains all the chess terminology in detail. The last time I was this much in love with a nonfiction book was when I was reading Victoria Finlay's Color (which I raved about and quoted extensively here).

Apparently, one of the legends about the origin of chess describes the difference between chess and dice as representing the dichotomy between free will and fate:

One story portrays two successive Indian kings, Hashran and Balhait. The first asked his sage to invent a game symbolizing man's dependence on destiny and fate; he invented nard, the dice-based predecessor to backgammon. The subsequent monarch needed a game which would embrace his belief in free will and intelligence. "At this time chess was invented," reads an ancient text, "which the King preferred to nard, because in this game skill always succeeds against ignorance."

Isn't that awesome? *_*

5. BBC adaptation of Strong Poison: Got the DVD via Netflix and watched it a few days ago (instead of reading papers for class or catching up on sleep). The actress who plays Harriet Vane roughly looks like how I imagined her, but lacks the heavy eyebrows or the deep voice that Sayers mentions so often. Actually, the actress' voice is rather thin and a little high in pitch; the line where Harriet says, "I used to piffle rather well, myself," sounds more self-pitying than self-deprecating as a result. I also didn't like the fact that Harriet broke down in front of Peter (I'm fairly sure that doesn't ever happen in Strong Poison); Harriet is too guarded for that. They also make her out to be attractive, while I believe she's described in the book as being striking despite not being "pretty", which is a fine distinction but an important one.

The actor who plays Lord Wimsey does resemble the part, I suppose. I kept fixating on his eyeglass (how do they wear those things?), and the wrinkles beneath his eyes. I keep forgetting how old Wimsey is supposed to be in the books, but of course, you couldn't forget that in the screen adaptation.

I was horribly disappointed by Miss Climpson. They truncated the part when she goes to find the will, making her investigation much less clever and more dependent on luck, and she looks positively pleased with herself when she's preparing herself for the false séance. In the book, Miss Climpson feels guilty about deceiving the nurse--something that I think is very much a part of her character--but in the BBC adaptation, she actually shows some contempt at the nurse's gullibility, which I don't think is in character at all. -_-

I don't want to say it's a bad adaptation though; I actually enjoyed it very much, despite my nitpicking. They kept in my other favorite part, when Miss Murchison learns how to pick locks from the reformed thief (scenes like those remind you just how thorough Sayers was in capturing all aspects of British society), and most of my favorite bits of dialogue remained intact.

6. Some links of interest:

imaginarybeasts has posted up a double issue: Magic and Science. (I really regret not submitting for this issue. ::sighs::) Anyway, the cover art for science is fabulous; anyone who's ever done a fetal pig dissection will surely appreciate it.

Reading Copy mentions a book where the author interviewed bands about their favorite foods.

And if you want some more book-related links (or possibly participate in a "identify that first line" game), head over here.

Yours &c.

Post-script: Ack, I forgot to add, happy birthday to aiwritingfic and owari!

Comments

[arboretum]

Just learned that independent voters can vote in the Democratic primaries

For serious? (You're in California too, right? or are you voting by absentee ballot for uhh. some other state...?) I've been trying to work out how this works for weeks now; I'm registered as an independent, and I keep wondering if I'm eligible to vote in the primaries, argh.

[troisroyaumes]

Yes, I'm voting in California, and I've been told that independents can vote in the Democratic primaries, although granted not from an official source. A quick Google says that SF Gate at least confirms this, so I'm hoping it's true? You might have to ask for the right ballot though...

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

You can vote in either the Democratic or the Republican primaries, but not both.

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

PS. If I don't vote for Hillary it will be because she was a corporate lawyer for 15 years and served on the Board at Walmart for 6. (Though apparently she fought very hard for more women in management positions while she was there...still, more than 10 years later, Walmart is facing a class-action suit from 1.5 million female employees who claim that mngmt positions are still not open to them.)

Also because I'm getting a little bit sick of Bill Clinton.

[troisroyaumes]

Thanks for the info and the Clinton background! I didn't know she was on the board for Walmart, though I guess she's not the only senator to have been a corporate lawyer. -_-;; Well, I suppose I'll just have to make up my mind by tomorrow morning...

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

No problem. My parents are news junkies so I've caught between 3 and 4 hours of election news coverage every day for the last two months.

For instance, last Saturday there was an episode from the fourth season of The Wire on at emblem's where the opponent of the candidate running for mayor runs a smear campaign accusing him of once representing a slum lord. The episode came out about a year ago but I thought it was sooooooo funny, because this was exactly the accusation Hillary leveled at Obama during the famously nasty January 21st debate in South Carolina. It was almost totally without substance since Obama, who working as a neighborhood organizer at the time, only spent about 5 hours on the case and had long ago given away to charity all of the contributions his group received from that property owner.

I apologize if you detect a bias in these statements. I do think Ms. Clinton is more qualified but I just can't bring myself to support her.

Putting aside the debates concerning general electability, the major critiques of Obama have been:

1. He's young and inexperienced; he's only served one term as a Junior Senator and hasn't headed any major senate committees nor backed any important bills.
2. During his time in the Senate he's avoided weighing in on sensitive issues (debatable), preferring to keep a clean record.
3. He isn't knowledgeable about the day-to-day operations of the government, nor about the intricacies sure to be involved in the passage of legislation on important issues like Health Care and corporate reform.

Obama counters that it is the President's job to inspire and prioritize, not to micro-manage.

The major critiques of Hillary have been:
1. She has experience, but as a corporate lawyer/first lady who did not succeed in passing universal health reform.
2. Numerous scandals still surround her and her husband, notably Whitewater and continued stonewalling on the publication of presidential records.
3. Bill Clinton can't be in the White House without getting his hands back into politics (may be a plus, if you were a fan of his presidency).

Hilary has countered that she has been more closely scrutinized than any other Presidential candidate in history, and so, naturally, the press has more dirt on her.

Publically, their positions on major issues like Iraq and Universal Health Reform are virtually indistinguishable. The feeling though is that Hilary is probably much more conservative than she is letting on (she was a hardcore republican in college before becoming a democrat), while Obama is probably more liberal. Hilary was pro-war in 2003 and more recently, pro-taking a tough stand against Iran. Obama's position is unclear but he has definitely not been as keen on American militarism.

Good luck!

[troisroyaumes]

Ooh, thanks for the summary.

Hilary was pro-war in 2003 and more recently, pro-taking a tough stand against Iran. Obama's position is unclear but he has definitely not been as keen on American militarism.

This is actually the most important issue for me, emotionally. I think health care and the economy are important--and the president's policies on those issues will probably affect me more directly--but I care more about international relations. (Possibly a side effect of having gotten my citizenship fairly late.)

Can I mine you for more information? Are there any differences between the two concerning climate change?

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

It's hard to say. Both have said that the environment will be a major issue for them (and both definitely believe in global warming -- they aren't stupid). But it's hard to know which one is more sincere. When they frame the debate, Hillary emphasizes her personal belief in the importance of the environment (and I tend to distrust Hillary's public statements of her beliefs), and highlights her plans to invest in alternate energy as well as support increased use of green technology like those new more-efficient lightbulbs. Obama presents the issue as something whose time as come -- an issue felt deeply by the American people -- and advocates greater government regulation of industry and as well as federal rewards for companies that take steps towards reducing emissions.

[troisroyaumes]

Good to know...thanks again for the input! I've been reading through various websites, but the more recent news is filled with political forecasts rather than recaps of the candidates' positions.

[arboretum]

oh hey, thank you for these summaries; you didn't write them for me, but they're helpful.

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

Yer welcome! But uh, fair warning -- I'm not actually a completely objective party here.

[arboretum]

Thanks, I asked around and it seems like other people agree :D

[dorrie6.livejournal.com]

I think my problem with modern art is that I am always attempting to impose meaning on a work of art if it isn't immediately apparent, and I get the sense that at least with some of the more abstract works, the whole idea is to break past this emphasis on (reification of?) meaning altogether. -_- "Art for art's sake" taken to the extreme perhaps.

I'm really glad you said this, because I think you've just put into words something I've been trying to figure out for a long time.

[troisroyaumes]

I've been thinking on it for a while too; it's hard to articulate one's reaction (or lack thereof) to art. ^_^

[cherry-chiicake.livejournal.com]

Well, on the politics thing, saying "we were tricked into voting for the war!" doesn't exactly give me confidence in your leadership skills.

[troisroyaumes]

Good point, and yes, that just gives me further misgivings on the whole issue.

[tokyofish.livejournal.com]

I noticed that the public library has Peter Whimsy DVDs. I saw a couple there the last time I was poking around the DVD section. =)

Man, I feel like I haven't seen you in YEARS. Let's definitely get together sometime in March!

[troisroyaumes]

Ohh, I was looking for them there earlier, but maybe I didn't look hard enough. Thanks for the heads-up!

And yes, let's meet up sometime! Just email/call me (emailing is probably more reliable) when you're free; I'm now at LSA so am available for lunches during the week.

[owari.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for the birthday well wishes~! ♥

[troisroyaumes]

I hope you're having a good birthday! <3

[unrequitedangst.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't mind so much if I were the sort of absentminded academic who forgets to put on socks while thinking lofty thoughts, but being absentminded because of sheer mental disorganization is not a good sign at all.

I laughed aloud at this--I honestly feel like education has made me less and less capable to deal with the real world. If I ever get a Ph.D., I will probably be one of those people who lives at McDonalds. T_T

The Immortal Game sounds fantastic--I'll have to take a look at it next time I go to the library.

Oh, yes, I meant to ask you but I keep forgetting, what was the topic of all your fly pushing?

[troisroyaumes]

Oh yes, it's seriously a daily concern about what to eat, and I think if I didn't get hungry (and didn't want to spend money on eating out), I wouldn't manage it at all. >_<;;

My last rotation was looking at selection on binding site affinity in cis-regulatory regions in Drosophila genomes. My current rotation is looking to see if there are feedback loops in the Toll-Cactus-Dorsal pathway and whether they affect expression.

[tryogeru.livejournal.com]

Muahah, that's a brilliant cover. Especially love the little plug tail.

That bit about viruses reminds me of Toxo, and how it causes rats to pretty much give itself up to a cat. ::woobily hands:: That's voodoo, that is.

I wonder if independents can vote like that in NY. Hmmm. But I'm registered Republican anyway. Ah well.

[troisroyaumes]

Isn't it awesome? I love it to piecees.

Oh yeah, you told me about that. XD

Who're you voting for in the Republican primaries? McCain?

[tryogeru.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure. Either I vote for McCain because I really really don't want Romney or Huckabee to win, but then again, I fear McCain's too strong of a candidate against the Democrats... Oh I don't know, I think I'll have to see tomorrow.

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

I locked myself out while doing laundry tonight.

I hang my keys (they're on a lanyard) on the door handle of the door to my flat, so I always grab them when I go out. It makes it a lot easier to remember them!

On voting: Based on the debates and the speeches I've seen, I think Clinton is about x100000 smarter than Obama and would do a better job as president, period. I also think she's much more prepared to deal with the Republicans in the general election, and Obama rubs me wrong on so many levels. I hear you on the Iraq vote, as that is a difficulty for me, too, but I think what's more important now is how the candidates plan to deal with the situation now. Again, not much of a difference between them in policy content, just in approach--Krugman has an interesting column here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) on their health care plans and how their ideological positions matter despite their relative similarity in policies. I think Clinton's the more progressive of the two and I think she's the more likely to advance a progressive agenda, based on her work in the Senate. She also won't be hindered by the baggage of "unity" that Obama keeps talking about (which I find extremely problematic because "unity" in Congress nearly always means the Democrats giving in to the Republicans on everything rather than standing up for their constituents).

I'm really annoyed that nearly half the states are voting tomorrow and the Democratic primary has already narrowed down to two candidates. *gets off soapbox* Um. Feel free to delete or whatever, if this is overly-ranty in a non-political-ranty space. *has no sense of boundaries*

[troisroyaumes]

Good idea! I'll have to see if I can stick a nail by the door or something along those lines.

I don't know about their relative intelligence, but I do agree that Barack Obama is not nearly as charismatic as people make him out to be. His speeches have little substance, from the few I've seen. -_- On the other hand, I don't know if I'd agree that Clinton is necessarily the more progressive...perhaps I should read more about their policies though before I make any conclusions.

I'm actually very tempted to vote for Edwards. I don't know his policy stance now, but I remember preferring him to Kerry four years ago. Well, I really should do some more research before tomorrow. And no worries about soapboxing! This journal is by no means a "non-political ranty space"; I used to rant about politics a lot here before I went to college.

[sub-divided.livejournal.com]

John Edwards dropped out of the running! Last weekend. He may still be on the ballot but he hasn't been campaigning, debating, or running ads.

[troisroyaumes]

I didn't know this! Okay, well, that cuts down on the choices then. Also, I've been reading through the NYTimes and WSJ, and I don't think I would've voted for Edwards after all...it's kind of appalling how little I knew/know about the candidates' stances on issues.

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

His speeches have little substance

I think that right there is an indicator of intelligence--strictly speaking, perhaps not their IQs, but the level and quality of the discussion they bring to the table. I was watching the last Democratic debate and Obama spoke about generalities and platitudes ("change?" What is this "change" you speak of? What kind of change? Changing what? For what? Give me specifics!). When Clinton spoke, she spoke about policies, specifics, and numbers--she had a much better grasp of the nuances of policies (e.g. exactly how many people are uninsured, why, how much that costs the health care system right now, how much her plan would cost and why, etc.).

I don't understand the charisma or the great orator thing that Obama has going on. For one thing, I think he has a speech writer, so it's not his words that are great. For another, there's not much content in his speeches. However, I haven't been impressed by an orator since Cicero died, so I may have unrealistic standards.

I think Clinton's health care policy is the more progressive in its ideals, and I also think she has a record of fighting for equality, however messed up the result (e.g. healthcare reform in the '90s). She also has the most diverse campaign staff, which is an interesting factoid to me. I was having a hard time deciding between Clinton and Obama because their policies are so similar, so in this case I ended up going with the one I think will do a better job and the one whose rhetoric pisses me off less.

I think I would have voted for Edwards before he bowed out--he's the candidate who ran on the most progressive campaign and made poverty part of the national media's discussion.

However things turn out tomorrow and at the Democratic convention, I'll volunteer for the nominee--when I can choose between the better of two candidates, it's easy to lose sight of the larger picture, which is that they are both so much better than the Republican field and worlds away better than the sitting president.

p.s.

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

The Republican candidates terrify me.

[troisroyaumes]

Yes, I'm frustrated by Obama's vagueness. I wouldn't mind his idealism if he had any solid plans to back it up, but he seems to be riding on a wave of lofty-sounding rhetoric, which only makes me feel irritated and skeptical. I've been watching some of the debates on Youtube, and Clinton sounds much more intelligent and capable.

On the other hand, I really am concerned with their stance on foreign policy. Would you agree with sub_divided's assessment: Hilary was pro-war in 2003 and more recently, pro-taking a tough stand against Iran. Obama's position is unclear but he has definitely not been as keen on American militarism.

(Ugh, let's not even talk about the Republican candidates. >_<;;)

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. I think Clinton was pro-war in 2003, and as I said above, I find her vote on Iraq and her vote on classifying the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization quite troubling (the latter vote is one of the reasons I Do Not Like Pelosi). I do give Obama credit for speaking out against the invasion of Iraq at a time when very few people did. However, I don't think he's a peacenik, either, since he is in favor of sending troops into Pakistan to root out terrorists, with or without the permission of the Pakistani government (such as it is).

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

There are some personal biases at play here, too. I naturally gravitate toward people who emphasize details, facts, and logic--that's the kind of intelligence I can relate to most easily and that's how I evaluate policy. I'm just naturally skeptical of people who talk in generalities, and the Bush, Jr. campaigns have entrenched my knee-jerk wariness of anyone who promises a better future in generalities. I want proof, damnit! No fluffy language! :P

[troisroyaumes]

Plus, according to CNN, Clinton "would not meet with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in first year of presidency."

I find this awfully disconcerting...

[jaebi-lit.livejournal.com]

What she said was that she wouldn't meet them without preconditions, not that she wouldn't meet them at all. This goes back to the Democratic debate in July, when Obama said he'd meet with the leaders and Clinton said she wouldn't meet them without setting some conditions first.



Question: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. ... And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

Clinton: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration. - USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/obama-vs-clinto.html) and NYT Caucus blog (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/clinton-obama-commander-duel/)

[troisroyaumes]

Thanks for the clarification! This eases my mind somewhat; I would have been really concerned about a candidate who would have refused to meet with the leaders altogether.

[love_archived]

Wow, this was a long update, and I'm so happy to hear the presentation ended well. <3 Also, thank you for the birthday wishes!

[troisroyaumes]

Not my longest update, actually, since these sort of "multiposts" are a tradition in my journal. ^_^ (And thanks! I'm so relieved it's over.)

You're welcome! I hope you had a fabulous birthday...sorry to hear you've been sick lately. ;_;

Clinton vs Obama

[color-blue.livejournal.com]

I support Obama for many of the same reasons that subdee does. Also, just another note - in the South Carolina debate, when Obama brought up Hillary's work at Walmart, Hillary countered by saying that she'd worked for the Children's Defense Fund. And yeahhh, Hillary's early record is impressive - she'd done things like organized a student strike in her college because she thought it should recruit more black students. But it appears to me as if she's sold out, and not just because of serving on the board of Walmart or being a corporate lawyer. It's also the Welfare Reform Bill that she supported during Bill Clinton's presidency (which the Children's Defense Fund was completely against, a fact you never see her bringing up), and the Bankruptcy Bill that she signed, and, Tari as you said, her vote in Iraq.

I think she voted for the war for the same reason that she supported welfare reform & the bankruptcy bill - because she thought it was the politically opportune thing to do, since it would make her appear tough on terror. And she seems to have a history of doing these things, and I don't see that changing if she becomes president, don't think that if she's once again faced with the choice of doing what's right and what looks to be the thing most likely to get her re-elected, that she'd choose to do what was right. And maybe Barack Obama will turn out to be that way too, but so far his voting record seems to indicate otherwise. In the end, for me, it comes down to which person's judgment I trust more, and Hillary fails that test.

Re: Clinton vs Obama

[troisroyaumes]

Oh, I didn't see this comment until today but thanks for your input nonetheless! Well, it looks like the race is still close, so I guess we'll have to wait for the primaries to finish before we know who gets the nomination.

[shoujo22.livejournal.com]

Hi there. Um, I feel like a complete idiot for doing this here, but I'd like to friend you if at all possible. It seems that we have quite a bit in common. As a matter of fact, I am seriously thinking about applying to a Molecular and Cellular Biology grad program. My old boss would kill me if he knew that (I'm a former Biochem student worker/lab tech).

I'm also a total JRock/KPop/manga fanatic. I would also like to let you know in advance that I tend to let go of all of my stress and frustration when I post entries in my journal, but fear not. I am far from emo *I swear*. I'm a little silly at times, but still relatively harmless.

[troisroyaumes]

Hi! I friend back anyone who friends me--open friending policy on this journal--so no need to feel awkward about it at all. ^_^ Thank you for introducing yourself first though, since it's always nice to know why I'm being friended. I was going to ask how you found my journal but I just saw that you're friended to pyrefly. It's always nice to get a fellow biologist on the friends list; it makes me more inclined to indulge my inner dork. ^_^