And you and I

I was talking to a Brit and an Aussie, telling them that, though I love my country and its citizens (paticularly the female ones), I have to admit that there is nothing sexy at all about the American accent.

"Not true," said my Aussie friend, "I sat next to this beautiful girl on a flight from Melbourne to Idaho who had the sexiest Southern accent."

"Where was she from?" I inquired.

"From Alabama."

I had to retract my initial statment.

Must buy myself a kei-tai (that's cell-phone for all you non-japanese speakers out there) as phone numbers I manage to aquire are all written on bar napkins or other scraps of paper which are then placed in my pocket and promptly washed, making them unreadible mounds of lint. In my defense, if they were numbers I were really serious about remembering and their owners girls I really wanted to become aquainted with I'd probably have taken more care.

My friend Kara convinced me to come out dancing afterward, and, more to the point, convinced me to throw back a couple of local-speciality long island ice-teas. Not a good idea if you're a-fixin' to leave it all behind on the floor. I won't bore you with the details, but, long story short: the bends, reconstructive surgery, and a t-shirt bearing the title "World's Best Clay Aiken Impersonation" emblazoned across the front.

Also, remember that Aussie girl? Well, it turns out she was (and still is) married.

I feel like such an adult now!

In her defense, she was in the midst of a divorce. Also in her defense, I probably wouldn't feel too comfortable prefacing my flirtations with "by the way, I'm married." And again in her defense, I probably would not have gone out with her if she had told me. I have no defense here, which is odd given that she was the one who didn't tell me she was freakin' married.

Picture turned up on my computer...Anyone know?

I saw this article recently on TCS. It's a great read about the differences between the red and blue states, a difference mirrored in the ivory tower liberal elitist and the no nonsense, hard-working conservative archetypes. The author examines the commonly held belief (among liberals) that the conservative populace is comprised entirely of wealthy robber baron-types and correctly points out that the blue states are actually considerably more wealthy than their red counterparts. The rich states went for Kerry. As he says, "It's the aspiring states that went for Bush." And this is exactly what we find: the red states are aspiring to and acheiving wealth at a much faster rate than their blue counterparts; the wealth gap between the states is closing rapidly, due both in part to the labors of the red states, and the languor of the blue ones.

It just goes to reinforce my belief that the people who vote liberally--the very poor and the very rich--are those who have the smallest stake in society and in the harms that liberalism can inflict upon it.

How in the hell do apostrophes work? I know the simpler rules such as "it's" is not a possessive, moron, it's a contraction. Simpler possessive forms, like one object owning or belonging to another single object, I also understand. But what about the following:

Nicks'.....is that multiple Nicks possessing one thing, one Nick possessing multiple things, or is it a bunch of little Nicks running around and possessing things?

Or Nicks's.....I'm pretty sure I've seen that one too. I think it's also one of the three options above.

And what of made-up names? Like "L'asia" or something. Is it pronounced "Luh-asia", "Lasia", or is the "L" silent?

I got involved in a conversation with Kazu at lunch--he was complaining about the Japanese government, claiming that the JET program (a program run by the government which brings over English speakers and pays them very good money to talk to kids about the values of learning English in a global setting. They also sometimes teach) was a waste of taxpayers' money.

"Ah, you've got quite the makings of a libertarian in you, Kaz."
"Yeah, but we're quite well taken care of over here. You won't get rich in Japan, but you won't get poor either. The government takes good care of you."

I was honestly a little stumped. People are taxed out the wazoo here, that's true enough, but poverty is all but non-existent; no slums, little crime. I told him I thought Japan was perhaps the exception to this rule (this rule being that socialist states don't work) but had to stop myself when considering northern Europe and Canada. Certainly these countries--or at least the Scandinavian ones and America Jr.--aren't any sort of economic powers, but still, their citizens live quite comfortably.

Even if we could prove that socialism is a good political system to the extent that it improves the economy and standard of living amongst its citizens, I'd still disagree with it on the grounds that I detest control. Even if one could promise me better personal and gross financial gains under a centrally controlled economy (or even just really high taxes), I'd spurn the notion because I love freedom more than money. Nevertheless, it's certainly far more difficult in debate to convince your opponents with moral arguments than with data.

I'm certain there's some cavil, some non sequitur in the line of thinking that says that someone other than you knows what's best for you and your money. Throughout history, wealth redistribution has invariably done more harm than good toward closing the wealth gap. And yet, unless I can point to specific reasons for these countries' successes or flaws in their systems not readily apparent to the armchair economist or political enthusiast, I look utterly retarded making the above arguments.

I did retort that I thought an established system of property rights might have something to do with this anomaly, but Kaz is neither fluent in the language of economics nor English, so I don't think he understood my point.

Still, this was nothing more than an educated guess. I really need to do some reading\research on this subject; this is not the first time this question has come up in debates with the bleeding hearts over here.

I really need to do more reading, period. All I read are Japanese Kanji and grammar books, and I feel as if my knowledge of the English language is going down the crapper, along with my knowledge of other areas of interest, like politics, law, and economics.

In any event, any help explaining the above would be much appreciated.

Not too much going on here. Too little, in fact. I feel like I've hit a rut in my (non) writing and can think of nothing to post. I did wake up the other morning with a zit on my nipple. I popped it and milk squirted everywhere. Other than that, though, a whole lot of nothing. I've only one class today, so perhaps I can come with something interesting to write, but until then my second chapel speech will have to do. No nudity, no art, just strait-up Jesus. Enjoy.

Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

(1Corinthians 14:34-36)

Such words certainly sound abrasive to our modern ears. And yet here they are in writing, penned by perhaps the most famous evangelist in Christian, if not all of history, Saint Paul. Certainly the text is old and its meaning perhaps outdated, but it very openly takes on the form of a commandment, apparently the construction of a moral principle. If this is in fact, as it appears to be, a moral principle, a principle that is no longer accepted by society, then we have raised an important question: are our most deeply held beliefs, our moral principles, as constant as we would all like to believe, or are they indeed mutable? And if our moral principles come from God, and God is constant, does this mean that his teachings are not?

Not only is this an important question but also an extremely difficult one, and one to which I don’t have the answer. It is certainly possible that an entity as complex as God could be both all-knowing and constant while ordaining a transient set of morals, essentially sanctioning practices that both He and we now find detestable. And certainly, the logic of finite beings invariably runs into problems when used to explain the nature of an infinite being, potentially rendering useless any attempt we make at such an explanation. Nevertheless--and I realize that I depart here from logical argument construction--I simply cannot imagine that God would ever condone such subjugation of women, regardless of whether or not society found such practices acceptable. I think the better explanation here is that Paul was wrong. Paul, coauthor of the Bible and universally considered among Christians to be one of the holiest and most devout men in history, made a mistake. Paul, like all of us, fell short of perfection; he fell short of the glory of God.

The philosopher and mathematician Descartes once wrote that human beings’ concept of perfection was proof of God’s existence. He pondered a wholly imperfect being’s notion of perfection and surmised that such an idea made little sense without the existence of a perfect creator. And while this proof was later shown to be faulty, it is perhaps evidence rather than proof of His existence. Maybe more importantly it illuminates an ideal for which we should all strive. We all certainly fall short of God’s glory, but we continually pick ourselves back up and once again make this impossible journey towards perfection. This is an important lesson in life that we all must learn: we all must learn how to fail. Failure is a part of life; it’s inescapable, it’s who we are. God understands and expects as much from us, which is why he sent His son Jesus to offset our mistakes; Jesus is our permission to fail. After all, if the canonized Paul is permitted to err, aren’t we all the more entitled to do so? You should always strive for perfection, aspire to God’s glory, but understand that failure is not only acceptable, it’s unavoidable. Reach for the heavens, be prepared to start anew when you come up short, and may God be praised as you do. Amen.

Ok, grades are due by noon today, so I'm a little swamped, but after today things cool down quite a bit. I promise I'll post something of substance along with some skimpy pics of me in a wet T.



Dido's hot. That's why I posted this picture.