My Insomnia is starting to irk me

So I have probably slept a total of maybe 8 hours the last three days, and what am I doing? NOT SLEEPING. Will someone explain this to me? I feel like Edward Norton in Fight Club. Does anyone have prozac or some shit like that; if you do, hook a brother up.

So I typed in my little blog description into google (Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.) and the first 80 million hits were all blogs with the same description. And here I thought I was being original. Who would have guessed that many people read Dante in Italian?

I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and it was amazing. Obviously, Moore's evidence was stretched at times, and he seemed to have an issue with Saudi Arabians, but overall, the picture was great. There were just so many instances were I felt so pained, confused, and utterly stunned in the movie that I couldn't believe it. I don't remember the last time a movie made me feel that way. Here was a woman, who was very pro-war, pro-military, and pro-America at one point in the movie, crying as she read her (dead) son's letter from Iraq stating that his platoon, as well as himself, did not understand why they were in Iraq. He said he wished that fool, Bush, would be elected out of office. Seeing that woman go to DC and get verbally assaulted by some woman for blaming Bush for her son's death was also quite striking; "Al-Queda didn't force my boy to go to Iraq," [paraphrase] the mother said. Watching an Army Corporal, in uniform, who had served in Iraq, state, "I will not go back, even if I go to prison; there is no way I will shoot and kill innocent poor-people in another country, especially when they do not pose a threat to me and my country" [paraphrasing, emphasis added] was also quite emotional; that statement got the loudest applause of the movie. Stating that, while in uniform, to a camera is an offense for which the Army Corporal can face time in prison; that Army Corporal is indeed one brave and idealistic man.

While the stories told by the citizens of America and the soldiers of the American military were by far the most poignant, Moore's attacks on Bush were also quite effective. Quite honestly, Moore made Bush look like a dolt, an idiot, a bastard, a liar, an ignoramus, and a tyrant ("Being a dictor would be easier, no question about it," Bush is shown saying) without having to narrate much; Bush's actions spoke for themself. The scene with Bush grossly incapable of saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me was hysterical. Moore did it all. He showed that the American public was lied to, hoaxed into supporting a war, for which innocent Iraqis and young, brave Americans died, whose sole purpose was corporate avarice; Moore showed that President Bush is unable to run this country, and Moore showed that this nation's government, military system, and corporate powers leave us disenfranchised, powerless, and unable to attain that which we desire.

So would I recommend this movie? FUCK YEAH. Even if you are the most ardous liberal-hating, gun-tooting conservative in the world, this movie has something for you, and, in the end, you might learn something vital. You can argue that many presidents weren't the sharpest people (Franklin Pierce, Gerald Ford), you can argue that many presidents were egomaniacs and mental headcases (Richard Nixon), and you can argue that many presidents were undeniably gun-ho (James Polk), but you can't argue that any president has so callously, greedily, unabashedly, and steadily lied to the American people, forcing them to go into a war they did not feel like fighting, for the goal of corporate profit, and with the by-product of massive, pointless civilian death. Alright, you might be able to argue that the Vietnam War resembles the current Iraqi War, but in that case, you're analogy also states that Americans should be rising-- violently and non-violently-- to resist the government, to end the war, and save whatever part of our souls remain.

"It does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. The war is waged by the ruling group against its subjects, and its object is not victory, but to keep the very structure of society in tact."
George Orwell
(Apparently from 1984, but I couldn't find it in any of the internet versions of the book... odd. Although it says something similar; I'm guessing some editing must have been done?)

The Bourne Legacy

So, apparently, Ludlum's family (orignial author of the Bourne series) has allowed some other writer (Lustbader) to continue the series. The title of this book is Robert Ludlum's the Bourne Legacy. It seems mad sketch; it includes Ludlum's name in the actual title, the new author is obviously going to have a different writing style than Ludlum (who is dead), and it seems like Jason Bourne would committ suicide if he was once again, for the fourth time, faced with people trying to kill him, having his wife and children in danger, and having to go around killing people. Remind me not to read this book.

Random Thoughts of the Day

Currently packing all my shit up in boxes and in these two huge bags I have. I'm moving down to D.C. this Saturday, along with most of my shit. Then I get the pleasure of coming back up to Boston on Wednesday using the Chinatown Bus. I have a shitload of laundry to do so that I have clean clothes to take down to the apartment.

I had an interview with Best Buy today, and it seems like I'll probably be hired (which is a good thing). Other than that, I have nothing else to write about. I'm seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 tomorrow, so I might write a review.

OTHER RANDOM THOUGHTS
I don't know why, but I've been kind of irked by people's lack of knowledge, lack of perception, or simply lack of understanding. I was reading some reviews on Robert Dahl's How Democratic is the Constitution?, and was honestly amazed by people's bravado. One reviewer-- who gave the book two stars-- said the book was interesting and made a few good points, but then began dismissing Dahl's claim for proportional representation and the need of a prime minister and president. The reviewer then went on to state that he didn't understand why a prime minister and a president would be needed. I'm not exactly the specialist on parliamentary systems, but I do know why a president and a prime minister are both needed in a parliamentary system. I wasn't really mad that the man didn't know why both a prime minister and a president are needed in a parliamentary system, I was mad because he attacked Dahl's conclusion because of this lack of knowledge. For some reason the man believed that since he couldn't see a connection, that Dahl's connection was somehow flawed; in reality, Dahl's connection is correct, and applicable to just about any other parliamentary democracy in the world (Spain, India, etc.). How in hell do you attack a Yale Professor of Political Science, one of the most respected and knowledgeable political scientists in the world, by attacking something you don't understand? I know I complain a lot about many things in life, and take a critical view on many stuff, whether I'm knowledgeable in the field or not, but I'm not going to go up to a brick-layer and say, "You're laying all the bricks incorrectly," unless I am one master brick-layer. Obviously, the brick-layer knows more about brick-laying than me. Another man attacked the same book, calling it trash, saying he was a political science major in college. He said the book was one sided, and didn't explain everything well, especially when talking about the Constitution. He went on to say it was the only Dahl book he has ever read, and the only one he will. Umm... excuse me? You're a political science major, and you've only read one book by foremost political science expert in America? And you say he didn't explain everything well, especially about the Constitution you say? Aren't you a political science major? Shouldn't you know a little something about the United States political system and how it's formed. I've read three or four books by Dahl, and I've only taken 5 or 6 political science classes at MIT. The book this man was attacking, wasn't very difficult to follow, and it assumed you had a working knowledge of the Constitution and of American Democracy. This book was written for political scientists, yet, this political scientist student seemed to lack the knowledge to comprehend the book. The student then went on the confuse one of Dahl's argument. The student stated that Dahl blamed the Founding Fathers for not being able to write a Constitution that pertained to this century. But, that's not what Dahl argued at all. Dahl at no point stated that the Founding Fathers (or Framers as he calls them in the book) should have been sooth-sayers; in fact, Dahl specifically says they were just normal, flawed men, who had no way of knowing how the country would change. That's the entire point, though. Dahl argues, why should we be following the Constitution if the men were flawed. Thus, the student assumes that Dahl wanted a perfect Constitution, when in reality, Dahl wants to change it. Dahl basically argues this: there are only two nations that have had the same government since 1800, the United States and Britain, every other nation has changed governments; the thing is, there is nothing wrong with that. Governments get old, things change, people want more benefits, societies shift. Why should the United States have a constitution that's two hundred years old, a constitution that talks about slavery, the electoral college, and Congress approval of war, when all of these things are either long dead, or should be? Sure, there's something nice about saying your government is the second oldest in history, but in return Great Britain and the U.S. have the largest inequality, voter apathy, and cynicism towards the government than any other true democracies. Maybe giving respect to a couple of dead, white guys is more important than universal health-care, social equality, racial equality, and a process that responds to the people, but Dahl, I, and hopefully most of you disagree.

Yet another episode of something like this irked me. I was reading a Slate.com review of Fahrenheit 9/11 (better called an attack on Michael Moore) in which a man complained about Moore's revisionist history while the author of the article revised history himself-- I found it quite ironic. The man attacked Moore, stating that the man lied, called his work a piece of crap, etc, etc. I'm not going to disagree that Moore embellishes, and at times stretches thin proof too far (read my review of Stupid White Men below if you want to see what I'm talking about), but this guy was just ripping into him. He made some good attacks, but some were rather weak; for example, he questions what veteran benefits, family member of soldiers who died in Iraq, and payment to American soldiers in Iraq had to do with the war in Iraq. Seeing how I had to use the word Iraq twice to describe two of the issues, it seems to me that those issues are indeed germane to the Iraqi war. Maybe the author of the article sees the war in macro terms; maybe he sees the war in Iraq in terms of policies, tactics, and international cooperation, but he seems to miss the fact that Moore might be trying to show us the war in micro-terms. Moore might want to show us the troops, the dead, the casualties and pain that the war has brought on young, poor males that were ordered to go oversees and fight a war for unknown reasons. But it seems that the author ignored this. Anyways, back to his revisionist history, he began to attack Michael Moore's belief that it was wrong for mainly poor males (the bulk of the United States Army, Marines, and Navy) to go to Iraq. Moore believes, I'm guessing from what I read, that more middle and upper class men should have been sent to fight a war for the rich. The author, inexplicably, begins to talk about the Civil War, and began to talk about draft laws in the Civil War. The rich have always had privileges when it comes to fighting wars, and there's nothing wrong with that, he argues. Of course, the poor are the main fighters, but there is nothing else to do, you have to send them, even if they don't want to. The author began to talk about the anti-war riots in the North against the draft which allowed the rich to pay the US government not to draft them and have someone placed on their behalf (wonder how many people are taught that in school-- yes, many poor Northerners didn't want to fight the South, but at the same time many poor Southerners didn't wan to fight the North), and how these riots were wrong morally. Still, it seemed that the author of the article not only ignored the underlying argument, and revised history, but he also made a false analogy. I can say A is good because A is good, but that doesn't prove anything. Mathematicians go out of their way to prove that 1+1=2, and that's much more tangible and credulous than the statement, "The rich have always had privileges when it comes to war, and there's no reason to change that." I might as well say, there has always been small pox, there will always be small pox, therefore, there's no point to cure it. My assumption that there will always be small pox has to be proven, it can't just be stated, unless already proven by someone else. He completely ignored the argument by stating an unproven premise as proven. The author talks about the draft laws during the Civil War as an almost enviable device to get people to fight wars, even when they don't want to. The problem is, it wasn't enviable. I remember being taught that the draft laws during the Civil War were hated and despicable. They made monetary inequality so obvious and so jarring that the poor rioted and rioted. Why should they be forced to go fight a war when a rich man can pay and skip the draft? The author himself mentions the riot, the fact that Lincoln almost lost his next election due to them. These laws aren't usually seen optimistically in history-- at least I think they don't-- but the author went out of his way to revise history and make the laws seem like a beautiful tool that saved the Republic from the Confederacy and slavery. Finally, his analogy is false, he kept saying that the draft laws ended slavery, and saved the Republic, in essence comparing the Civil War with the current war in Iraq; but soldiers of the Civil War had a clear reason for the war: the South had rebelled against the North, and the Nation needed to be preserved. The goal in Iraq is not as clear.

Time for Some Science and Engineering

So I sorta skimmed my blog and it seems I talk a lot about books and law school. To prove that I deserved my MIT degree, I'm going to solve a fluid flow problem. It's not really that hard (actually, it's really easy), but I'm sort of out of it, it being 5 AM and all.

This is the problem:
An oil storage tank having a diameter Dt=30 meters is filled with oil to a depth H=5m. The space above the oil is vented to the atmosphere. A pipe of inside diameter Dp=5cm leading from the base of the tank is accidentally broken, allowing the oil to spill onto the ground. Calculate how long it will take for the oil to drain completely from the tank.

I'm guessing this problem can be done two ways: Conservation of mass through a control surface, or probably more easily, through Bernoulli's Equation.

Due to the fact that I see the sun rising, I'm going to go with Bernoulli's Equation.
Bernoulli's Equation, is simply

(1)


Ok, I know that doesn't look simple; it isn't that bad if it's in integral form, but I couldn't find a good picture in integral form, so differential form will have to do. Bernoulli's Equation (which in reality Euler derived) is just simply stating the obvious: conservation of energy. Energy in a fluid system is kept in kinetic, gravitational/ potential, pressure, and forces that do not conserve energy (unsteady flow).

Anyway, the first thing to notice is that at both ends, the pressure is atmospheric, thus the pressure portion disappears (it's the p with the upside down delta in front of it). That's good since we had no idea what the hell the density (rho or the squiggly p, whichever you prefer) of the oil is. Since the flow of the fluid is constrained by the tank, it is safe to assume that the flow is steady (the steam lines of the integral will always be constant through time). This eliminates the first term of the top equation since the velocity is independent of time (and thus, its derivative with respect to time would be zero). The only conservative force left in this system is gravitational/ potential energy, thus, that's what the F must be in the first equation. So we are left with conservation of energy, and the following equation:

(2)
[0.5*V^2 + gh]final= [0.5*V^2 + gh]initial

If you've ever watched something leaking from a bucket with a hole, you understand that the velocity at the leak is much greater than the velocity of the water on the top of the bucket (because the hole of the leak is so much smaller than the area of the bucket's top). Thus, it is obvious from this, that the initial velocity is negligible and we get:

(3)
Vfinal= square root(2gh)

Hmmm... I'm going to need to use conservation of mass... damn. Anyway, the problem with the solution is that the height (h) isn't always constant. Obviously this thing is losing water, and thus h does not simply equal H= 5m. That and the fact that the problem asks for time, and there isn't a single t in the above "solution."

Draw a control surface just below the top of the water and through the broken pipe. And remembering that mass must be conserved, and using the following equation

(4)


we can get the height as a function of time. Equation four is a very simplistic form of the conservation of mass, but it'll work for this problem (because I picked an easy one... muahahaha).

Thus we get the following using (4) and noticing that the mass flow rate in must equal the mass flow rate out:

(5)
d(h*pi*(Dt/2)^2)/dt=-Vfinal*pi*(Dp/2)^2

Now we can substitute in for Vfinal and solving for dh/dt we get

(6)
dh/dt=-(Dp/Dt)^2 * square root(2gh)

We rearrange and integrate this puppy from h=H to h=0 on one side and t=0 to t=t on the other side and we get

(7)
t=(Dt/Dp)^2 * square root (2H/g)

I'm too lazy to actually plug in the answer. Elegant, simple, beautiful. Ok, ok, the answer is close to an hour with some change... I'm not changing it into minutes!

Loving Che

Yeah, I know this is my fourth or fifth posting in like two days... no, I don't have anything better to do... hey, if you don't like it go somewhere else. I have insomnia or something, and my dream job is to be a book reviewer for the NY Times (just kidding).

Unfortunately, this is another book review. This time the review is about a book by Ana Menendez called Loving Che. As you can probably figure out from my profile picture, I'm a huge Che Guevara fan-- I know he fucked up by helping Castro, but honestly, how the hell was he suppose to know Castro would do to Cuba what he did. If you know me personally, my huge Hasta la Victoria Siempre, Che Guevara flag that hangs in front of my door is also a dead give-away. Anyways, I bought the novel thinking it might be cool to read about the great Che Guevara through the eyes of a fictitious lover. I still think the premise is a good idea; Ana Menendez's book, however, was not a great idea. What's wrong with it? Well, I'm a guy, and as such, I'm not really a sucker for love stories, and dramatic romances. Given, I can handle romantic stories and movies, and if done well, I can even like them, even adore them; it's just that Ana doesn't do the love story thing well. The story is about this woman, born in Cuba but brought over to Miami as a small child by her grandfather. Oddly, her grandfather never talks about her mother or her father. After her grandfather dies, the woman of the book attempts to find her mother back in Cuba. Her search leads her nowhere, until one day she receives a mysterious package from Spain. In it there is a pseudo-journal describing her mother's love affair with Che Guevara in Cuba during the revolution. The romance between a married Cuban woman and the great Che Guevara might have been cool, except that it was so trite that I could barely suppress my laughter. The young, nascent love relationship between Che and the protagonist's mother begins when they look at each other at a party. They pretend like nothing happens, but it's love at first sight; they can't control their feelings; they must have each other. You get the point. If you think I'm kidding, here's a direct quotation from the book, "Loving Che was like palest sea foam, like wind through the stars." I mean some writing like this is usually good, but everything in the pseudo-journal is like this; it tends to be verbose, melodramatic, and insipid.

You may be wondering why I keep calling it a pseudo-journal, and the answer is that there is no other way of describing it. Ana Menendez attempts to make it look like the journal is hurried, written hastily by her mother so that her daughter can learn the truth. While the journal does sell that point, it also does some dire damage to the story; the journal is so incoherent, so random, and it tries so hard to be poignant that it becomes lackluster, incredulous, and incoherent. I tried to speed read through the journal section of the book so that I wouldn't fall asleep while reading it. Worse off, the journal is redundant. Che and her mother have sex, and then stare lovingly into each other's eyes. Che and her mother have sex, and then stare lovingly into each other's eyes. Every now and then a hint of the revolutionary fervor gripping Cuba is shown, but that's it. This is Che Guevara, one of the top men behind the Cuban Revolution, and all you do is mention a tank passing by, or a jeep with guys with guns on it shouting through the street, or maybe an explosion due to Batista's fall? What a waste of a historical backdrop, coño.

I will say that towards the end the book became a bit better. The non-journal part of the book was better organized, more coherent and fluid, but it also appeared pointless. At the end of the book we learn nothing of the truth behind Che and the protagonist's mother's romantic encounters. We learn her mother's fate, but even this is dubious. The book, in effect, doesn't have an ending, and while the story does show a personal journey for a protagonist that I felt no emotional attachment to, the story shows nothing; the story gives us no ending, no beginning, nothing except a girl with a picture of Che Guevara.

The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love

One of the clearest memories of my childhood deals with a movie. I was probably only 10 at the time, and my mother decided to take me to see a movie. The movie had Antonio Banderas in it, and it was called the Mambo Kings. I don't remember anything about the movie other than it dealt with two Cuban brother musicians that came over to the United States to play rumbas, salsas, and boleros. More importantly, however, I remember my mom talking about the music and generally being optimistic about a tale of Hispanic immigrants trying to struggle in the United States. I guess it was one of very few Hispanic movies at the time. I had never seen my mother happy about any movie, let alone willing to go to a movie theater and spend the few dollars she had to see it.


A while back (two months ago?), I was in a book store (surprise, surprise), and I saw the Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love, a novel by Oscar Hijuelos about "two young Cuban musicians [that] make their way up from Havana to the grand stage of New York." The memories of my childhood, as well as the fact that this book won a Pulitzer, convinced me to buy it; I'm glad I did buy it. The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love is honestly one of my favorite books ever. The story is amazing and passionate; an emotional story with such life to it that you honestly believe the novel's story is reality-- a reality in which you preside. The book has it all, love, anguish, despair, happiness, betrayal, human follies, human sins, sincerity, and heart. I could go on and ramble about what a great job Oscar Hijuelos does using non-linear story telling and unconventional structure to tell his story, or how Oscar Hijuelos keeps his story eerily organized while jumping from story to story, tale to tale, time to time-- and I will talk about this later on-- but the truth is that the story is amazing not just because it's a great story with amazing writing, but because it has that quality only the greatest of books have-- the story the book tells somehow becomes your story. The story explains you and your life; it might not do this through one character, or one of the multiple sequences, but through a beautiful, melodic blend of many characters and many sequences. This might be especially true for me because it deals with Hispanics and first-generation Hispanic-American families (I was in one of those once), but I felt like an odd blend of César Castillo (a womanizer, a drunkard with an unquenchable sexual appetite and a will to help out friends, family members, and compadres so great that he willingly sacrifices his finances for them), César's younger brother, Nestor Castillo (a meek, depressed, young man longing for a woman who no longer wants him and unable to understand why his life seems so incomplete and unfilled), and Nestor's son, Eugenio Castillo (somewhat like his father, confused between his parent's Cuban life style, mannerisms, and attitude and America's culture). Adding a little more César, taking a lot of Nestor, and taking out all of Eugenio gives me my uncle, a 50-50 César/ Nestor combination gives me my father; the combinations are limitless and reflect amazingly the Hispanic culture. That is the true beauty of the book, I recognized every character in it, and every moment in the book, because they represented my life; Oscar Hijuelos' story was my story.

The food mentioned in the Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love was also nostalgic, reminding me of my food, which I haven't had since I went to Puerto Rico my sophomore year in college, and haven't had on a regular basis since living in Miami (four years ago now). True, there are a few Puerto Rican places in Boston that offer yucca, plátanos, tostones, arroz y frijoles, arroz con gandules, lechon, and bistec, but that food is lacking; it doesn't compare to the same food in Puerto Rico, and it definitely doesn't compare to the homemade version. The fact that I ate very little the days I read the book probably added to my pangs for some real comida that I haven't had for nearly four years now.

Back on the subject of the book, Oscar Hijuelo's writing is majestic. His book isn't written linearly, it jumps quite a bit, but the jumps tend to have themes to them; the jumps go from fast driven stories of passion to slow stories of sadness and loss. The book deals greatly with songs, and the chapters are basically two different sides of a "record". It appears that Hijuelos takes this structure and applies it to the story as well; it appears almost, as if the stories are jumbled in together like songs. Stories of happiness and optimism go together and form one song; stories of sex, man-hood, and cockiness make up another song. So, while the story appears to be randomly spread across the book, in reality it makes a very cohesive and beautiful book. The words Hijuelos uses, the poetry, and the mix of language (Spanish and English) give the book a nice flow to it, and give the book and its stories a life of their own. Everything Hijuelos did in this book forced me to get more and more emotionally involved with the book, even when I didn't want to. I felt truly sad for Nestor and for his son when things didn't go their way, not to mention César.

FINAL VERDICT
Read this book. Not reading it is like not reading One Hundred Years of Solitude or For Whom the Bell Tolls or To Kill a Mockingbird, books that capture you emotionally, haunt you for days after you've finished reading them, and, more importantly, have something to tell us about humanity, society, and oneself. Better yet, read it in Spanish (apparently Oscar Hijuelos translated it after it became popular), you know I will.

State of the Union

I watched Nightly News with Tom Brokaw for the first time in a loooooooong time today. After seeing some of the news, I decided I would write my opinions on some of what I saw and heard.

SUPREME COURT'S RULING ON HMO'S
In a unanimous decision (9-0), the Supreme Court decided that patients did not have the write to sue HMO's over malpractice. That is to say, if my doctor tells me that I should get a procedure done or else my health will probably get worse, but my HMO denies this claim, I cannot sue my HMO if three years down the line my health deteriorates greatly due to not getting the procedure or if I die for not getting the procedure. In other words, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that a bureaucrat in an HMO trying to maximize his employer's profits had the right to overturn a doctor's opinion, and if this overturn of opinion caused you harm... well too bad. Of course, if it was the doctor who told you not to get the procedure, go right ahead and sue his/her ass for every dollar you can. The Supreme Court argued that HMOs were ruled by federal law, and since the laws that allowed patients to sue for malpractice were state laws (Texas, California, Maine, and about 5 other states passed these laws), they could not be constitutional.

This ruling completely baffled me. HMOs are corporations right? Is the Supreme Court saying that states can't apply laws to national corporations because they're interstate commerce or something? If that's true, then how did states sue tobacco companies (I'm guessing through federal courts, but that as well baffles me)? I haven't read the decision, and I probably will soon and write something else on it, but this ruling really scares me. The ruling effectively weakened a patient's ability to fight a huge, national corporation that is willing to put its profit over the health of the American people. This ruling just bolsters my notion that the American government is just a tool in corporate America's tool belt. I guess, that the next step would be to force the national government to allow people to sue HMOs for malpractice, but, honestly, when will that happen? The bill will take maybe 3 months to write, a month to pass the House, another month to pass the Senate, another 4 months for the Bill Review Committee to have a new bill both Houses of the legislature will agree upon, two more months for them to re-pass the amended bill, and then George W. Bush will veto it. Great, what a beautiful process. Most people will agree that it is easier to keep state government more accountable to the people than a federal government (it's easier to keep track of a city two hundred miles away than a city 2000 miles away), but the Supreme Court overruled something that apparently the public in Texas, Maine, and California want, just to save the HMOs a couple million dollars. Of course, everyone ignores the fact that lives will be lost; those, of course, don't matter.

ABU GHRAIB
Nightly News also had a story on Private First Class Lyndee England. Private First Class Lyndee England is the gal who appears in just about all the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse pictures. If you have no idea what I'm talking about just go to this site and on the right side there is a photo gallery of the abuse. Now Lyndee contests that none of the seven privates in the prison who apparently abused the Iraqi war prisoners should go to prison, since they were ordered by their superiors to do the things they did. I only wonder, did she never hear of the Nuremberg War Crime Trials? The Nuremberg trials aren't exactly meaningless historical trivia, especially when relating to military behavior. Do people out there not know that the Nazi's stated that they only killed the Jews because their superiors said so? And do people not know that the Allies still found them guilty of crimes against humanity? Heck, if you aren't a history buff, ok, but don't tell me you haven't seen A Few Good Men. Didn't the ending of that movie point to the fact that even though the men were just following orders, they were still somewhat responsible for their crimes? Didn't they get dishonorably discharged? Hell, if your that fucking ignorant, didn't one of the two defendants say what I just stated out loud? Yet, you're going to say that you dragged a blind-folded, naked man with a dog leash through the floor because you were following orders? How stupid can you be?

Anyway, my final thought on this, I know the army, marines, navy, and air force are basically trained to kill and mutilate, but maybe a history class should be forced on all military personnel, or, if not, at least a class on proper behavior, or a class on the Geneva Convention-- and yeah, I know, the US doesn't follow that old, outdated thing anymore... but maybe, just maybe, we should.

The Sopranos

I know I usually just talk about books, but today I'll talk about one of the greatest TV shows ever, the Sopranos. I'm not a big fan of TV; I usually just watch the worst, crappiest shows that are purely melodramatic or sexual (the O.C., Temptation Island, etc.), but the Sopranos is different. The Sopranos is like a long movie with a deep plot as well as an action/thriller heart. The show revolves around a New Jersey Mafia Underboss (later he becomes boss), called Tony Soprano. The show has it all, Tony has issues with his mob family (which includes his uncle and his mother) as well as with his real family. He has issues trying to juggle his uncle (who conflicts greatly with him on mob issues, but is still family-- at one point, his uncle tried to kill him), his mistress, his wife, his kids, and his underbosses (capos in Italian). This forces him to see a psychiatrist, which complicates his life even more. This man has to deal with a daughter who is having a hard time accepting that her father is a mobster, a wife who doesn't understand why he has so many issues, a mother who has a psychological problem that doesn't allow her to love anyone, a son who has just learned that his father is a criminal, an old friend who is apparently snitching to the FBI, a capo who can't control his anger, and mobster friends who look out for their best interests only. The thing about the series is that individual episodes can be weak (especially the first couple), but as an entire series of shows the Sopranos is amazing. You honestly feel pity for Tony Soprano and his problems; you get to see the murders, the racketeering, and the brute force in this man's life, as well as his benign fathering, tender love, and utter confusion. This show is so complex and complicated, yet it still keeps you interested through every step of the way.

I highly recommend watching this show.

Kofi Annan

So today, I just discovered that Harvard had Kofi Annan as their commencement speaker. Jesus fucking Christ, why the fuck can't MIT get someone as important as him-- just so you know, my friend and I had a two hour conversation once as to who we wanted as our commencement speaker, and we both agreed that Kofi Annan, as an MIT graduate, and an important member of the growing international crisis, was by far the best choice out there. I mean, I know he was the commencement speaker at MIT my senior year of high school, but for crying out loud, the U.N. was rather meaningless back then; today, he is one of the true leaders of the world, leading the charge for multilateralism against the United State's view of unilateralism. Not only that, but Kofi Annan is a fucking M.I.T. graduate (Sloan School of Management).

After finding this out, I decided to go see the video of Harvard's commencement, Jesus Christ he was a million times better speaker than our stupid N.I.H. speaker who didn't even make any sense. Kofi talked about the importance of the United Nations, and the stupidity of the United States (although he made it clear that he was talking about George Bush). Overall his speech was a million times better than the N.I.H.'s speaker's speech.

I shoulda gone to Harvard.

My Ramblings on History

I was just remembering part of Stupid White Men by Michael Moore; in one of his chapters he mentions how on a television political show one of the guys from the Beltway Boys (I believe that's the name of the show on Fox News), started making a ruckus over a the teacher unions in the United States. He blamed them for everything and then went on to state that kids now-a-days didn't even know what the Odyssey and the Iliad were. The point of the story is, that the next day Michael Moore called this man, and asked, "What exactly are the Odyssey and the Iliad?" Amazingly, the political insider didn't know, and said something to the effect of, "Ok, Mike, you got me; I don't know what they are." How ludicrous is that? Not just was this man bitching and moaning about something he didn't know about, but he seems like an ignoramus. How the hell do you not know what the fuck the Iliad and the Odyssey are? I mean, I can see not having read them (sometimes translations of classics suck) but how the hell do you not know what they are? More importantly, how the hell do you complain about other people not knowing what they are if you don't know what they are?

On another part of the book, Michael Moore begins to complain about how today's graduating college students don't know any history. He mentions a test of historical events in which most students in the top twenty schools (Yale, Harvard, etc.) were only capable of answering half of the questions. Moore begins rambling about how horrible this is and how this shows how horrible the American education system is. Something about this conclusion irked me; I've always been taught that while facts are important, dates are not. If history is taught to learn from other people's mistakes, what does it matter if the mistake happened on May 13, 1888 or May 14, 1888? Plus, there are so many questions to ask about history you can always force people to look ignorant.

The Rule of Four

I've finished yet another book, who would have guessed it? It is currently 6 AM and I couldn't sleep, so I decided to finish the book that has recently reached number two on the New York Times Best Seller List (behind the Da Vinci Code). The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason is good, and I basically agree with most reviews out there: the Rule of Four is like the Da Vinci Code, only better written and much more intellectual. Many reviews, however, add the additional name of Umberto Eco into the comparisons; the comparison between Eco and the two new writers is ludicrous. While the Rule of Four is far superior to Dan Brown's dumbed-down Da Vinci Code, it does not compare to any of Eco's writing, especially the Name of the Rose, which Rule of Four is repeatedly compared to.

WHY IT IS BETTER THAN THE DA VINCI CODE
I know many people think the Da Vinci Code was great, and while I'll agree that it was a good thriller, it certainly lacked substance. There are logical gaps and the so-called puzzles were foreseen chapters in advance. One clear example of this, in my case, anyways, had to do with the clue about the apple and the fact that it dealt with Newton. When the protagonist finally unraveled this "puzzle" all I could think was, "Duh, what kind of Harvard Professor are you if a lonely engineering undergraduate could figure out the puzzle before you could?" While the Rule of Four has similar faults, the faults aren't as grave. I still saw many of the "twists" and solutions to the "puzzles" in advance, but generally I only saw four pages ahead, not the four chapters ahead I saw in Brown's book. Caldwell and Thomason also appear to be more brilliant than Brown, or, if not brilliant, at least much more willing to do research. Their subjects don't just delve in the story of the mysterious Renaissance book, Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, but also discusses the arts, medicine, poetry, literature, and simplistic physics. More importantly, however, the writing style of Caldwell and Thompson was coherent and fluid, as compared to Brown's writing style, which I found rather dull.

WHY IT AIN'T BETTER THAN THE NAME OF THE ROSE
So why isn't it better than Eco's Name of the Rose? Simply put, the Name of the Rose was one of the most dense, intellectually stimulating pieces of literature I have ever read. To read through two pages of the text, Spanish, Italian, Latin, and French were necessary. The mystery to be solved was unsolvable-- or at least I could not decipher it for a second, everything came as a surprise to me-- and to read through a chapter so much research was needed that reading the book was not only a literary pleasure, it was a historical learning experience. The Rule of Four could not compete with that; much of the book (~25%) is wasted explaining the life of the four main characters and three secondary characters, as well as explaining the undergraduate scene at Princeton. While I liked the stories involving Princeton at times, at times they seemed superfluous. Sure I liked that the four protagonists were seniors writing their theses, and that the main character faced many of the same issues I do know (what to after graduation, how to handle a long distance relationship with his girlfriend, how to keep his friendship with his friends who are moving far away alive, etc.), but I'm a college senior, I'm not sure how many other people find that appealing. And even though I'm a senior, I still found that parts of the college stories undermined the book's cohesiveness, not bolstered it. At other points, the protagonists appeared to make really stupid decisions; as four very intelligent Princeton seniors, the four main characters made more than a few flawed decisions, when any rational, semi-intelligent person would have picked another option. Finally, while the Name of the Rose's ending stunned and amazed me (truly sublime ending), the Rule of Four's ending was hackneyed and trite. I more or less knew the ending before I read the final chapter; that is NOT the way to end a book.

FINAL VERDICT
First off, I think I need sleep-- although I know I'm just going to go read some more. The Rule of Four is a good book; I'd recommend it in a second. The book has a good amount of thrill and enough intellectual ambiance to intrigue the reader for a long time.

GEORGETOWN
So, while I earlier received an e-mail from Georgetown Law that I was in the top of their list, as well as stating that there appeared to be spots available for people from the waiting list, I have recently received a new e-mail. That e-mail said, "Sorry, we miscalculated, we don't have any open spots, but hey if someone changes their mind we'll let you know!" Ummm... yeah, who is going to change their mind in July? Guess that law school is out of the question... time to find a job doing mech e crap in D.C. or something.

Genghis Khan and Stupid White Men

So I finished two books that I want to talk about: Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford and Stupid White Men... and Other Sorry Excuses for the Sate of the Nation! by Michael Moore.

STUPID WHITE MEN
This book is a decent book; it wasn't very well written, nor was it completely honest at times, but it certainly made many amazing points. Some of the points the book raised well dealt with the treatment of blacks in America, the prison problem in the United States, and the lack of differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. A couple of his points, however, were weak, and rather loosely researched. For example, he attempts to scare males by saying that more females are being born than males. Moore insinuates that Mother Nature is trying to kill male humans. The only problem is that there have always been more females than males, and the reason for the increase in disparity has to do with the fact that older males tend to have more daughters than sons (there's a strong correlation, as men grow older, there's more of a likelihood of a girl being born). Since the age of marriage and the age at which couples give birth to offspring is growing older in America, it is therefore likely that more women will be born than men, and that this disparity will increase as men and women mate later in life. Another flawed point has to do with CFCs; Moore talks about fridges and A/Cs and how they contain Freon and CFCs. He blames the South and the increase of its population for highly increasing the size of the ozone layer. Unfortunately, Mr. Moore has forgotten to mention that most modern A/Cs and fridges don't contain Freon, nor do cars, and all the other contraptions he mentioned. Heck, CFCs aren't even found in hair spray cans anymore. All of that has been replaced by less toxic, or non-toxic chemicals. So, overall, Michael Moore did a good job explaining things that were either political or social (welfare, crime, business influence in government), but when he attempted to discuss science, he generally failed miserably. Most of his ideas dealing with social issues were enlightening, if not at least thoughtful. His lack of scientific knowledge, however, undermined his attempt to discuss the environment, disease, and procreation.

GENGHIS KHAN
There's less to be said of this book, since it is primarily a biography, and secondly a historical account of the Mongol rise. I was amazed to find out how beneficial the Mongol Empire really was. We all grew up hearing how the Mongols were evil barbarians that had no respect for life. But in reality, the Mongol Empire was a religiously tolerant, monetarily advanced, international economy creating, knowledge spreading kingdom that did many things to improve the standard of living of its people, as well as spread many new and exciting ideas between India, the Muslim World, China, and Europe. Nothing could stop them, except for the Black Plague and their own inter-familial squabbling. Their only real defeats at expansion came in Japan (due to two storms destroying their entire navy, even though the Mongols easily crushed the Japanese Samurai in their only battle), Germany (only due to lack of interest in settling in Europe after having defeated the Germans and the Polish), Egypt (their only actual military defeat that came at the hands of Russian slaves that the Mongols sold to the Egyptians 10 years prior; the Russians knew how to fight the Mongols from their previous battles), and Java (this time they won the battle but were tricked into leaving).

MY APARTMENT
So Richard Hu has found an apartment in Bethesda, Maryland (yeah, I don't know where that is either) and he's moving in on June 26th. I, of course, am his roommate, and as such need to move down with him. Still, I don't know if I should stay in Boston or just go down to Bethesda and try to find a job. Honestly, I'm kind of confused; I still don't have a job in Boston (although I have started to try harder) and it would just be extra rent to have a place here and in Bethesda. Still, I really like Boston, not to mention that two of my friends that I will probably not see for a while (one at least) are still around in Boston. Last, but not least, my girlfriend is in Boston, and I want to spend whatever little time I have with her before beginning a long distance relationship (although the fact that she's a pre-med doing the MCATs makes spending time with her rather difficult). Plus, I have to decide what I'm going to take down there, and what I'm going to jack from my dorm. Not to mention that I need money in case I do want to come back to Boston from Bethesda (as you can imagine it is kind of hard to get on Amtrak free now a days).

The Bourne Supremacy

Just finished reading the Bourne Supremacy, and I must say that I really enjoyed it. Since I had already read the Bourne Identity, I was already familiar with the main character, and, to an extent, joined to his well-being. The book is a great thriller, with an incredible array of plots and sub-plots. The only thing that bothered me was that Jason Bourne didn't massacre the people who put him through hell (in this case, the United States government). Still, I liked the fact that he tried to kill a couple of bureaucrats that were playing god with his life.

Graduation, Georgetown, and the Death of the GREAT GREAT Ronald Reagan

GRADUATION
On June 4th, I received, in my hand, a diploma from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was an awesome ordeal; I can't even truly explain it. There stood Charles Vest, the president of MIT, and as he handed me my diploma, he shook my hand, and said, "Congratulations." Honestly, that was one of the best moments in my life; it's up there with losing your virginity, getting accepted to your school of choice, making love with someone you truly care about, or receiving your first pay check in your first job. I guess what made it truly special is that I earned that degree. I didn't just cruise by a four year institution of higher learning and then get a diploma handed to me; I struggled, worked my ass off, and generally studied harder than I ever have to receive that diploma. It was just an amazing moment when I held that thing in my hands... truly amazing. That moment alone was worth waiting in the hot sun for 4 hours while wearing a black robe and listening to random names being called. I feel like I've accomplished something in my life.

GEORGETOWN
As one can imagine, sitting for four hours while hearing random names being called is not exactly the most entertaining enterprise; this waiting leads to the mind wandering. Still, there was one main thought in my mind most of the time while waiting for graduation to end... Georgetown. For some odd reason-- maybe it was the high of receiving the diploma-- I felt that I would receive an e-mail from Georgetown that would make my life even brighter than I expected. Amazingly, I was right (and everyone wonders why my nickname is the Prophet). When I got home, the first thing I did, even before taking off my robe, or framing my diploma, was checking my e-mail. In my inbox, I found an e-mail from Georgetown. It stated that there appeared to be spots available for next year and there was a limited number of people on the preferred waiting list; more importantly, I was on the top of the list, and as such, they wanted to know if I was still interested in attending Georgetown. They had to make sure that the openings were for real, and that if I was still interested, they would contact me on June 15. Kick ass shit.

RONALD REAGAN IS A PIECE OF SHIT
So today, while reading MSNBC.com I read that people were trying to place Ronald Reagan on the $20 bill and take off Andrew Jackson; or if that did not work, take FDR off the dime and place Ronald Reagan on it. This was the last straw; ever since he died, I have heard nothing but praise for the man; people claim he is the best president ever, that he saved America from the USSR, that he ended the Cold War, etc, etc. Honestly, I read one article where the journalist said that during Reagan's administration, the economy faltered, the poor got poorer than any other time, that the deficit increased exponentially, that Reagan underwent through more scandals than any other President, and that Reagan pursued more violent "counterinsurgencies" in the Third World than all other Presidents combined (I'm assuming the journalists considered actions in Vietnam as actions of a war and not counterinsurgencies). After all of this, the journalist went on to say, that all of that should be ignored; President Reagan had personality and was a very amiable figure, and, because of this, along with his strong sense of conviction and honesty, was one of the best, if not the best president ever. Here, now, is my response: WHAT THE FUCK!?
How can anyone disregard human rights, the economy, the deficit, scandals, and other important factors with a wave of their hand and then proclaim that after ignoring these factors, someone is the greatest President ever? Amazingly, he wasn't the only one stating this repeatedly; on the radio, in the newspapers, on the television, all I hear is how great of a man, how amazing of a President, how heroic Ronald Reagan was. Are people blind? Noam Chomsky keeps stating that the mass media is a puppet, feeding the American people bullshit and propaganda more effective and poignant than anything Orwell could imagine; while I generally agree with Chomsky's analysis, I did not believe that the American media was a great propaganda machine-- it is after all a free press. After this, however, the media has proven Chomsky's point. Are people blind? Do people really believe all this shit, about him being a great President? People continue to proclaim him as the hero that ended the Cold War; nobody mentions that the USSR's economy was stagnant and problematic since Brezhnev was Soviet chairman and that the Soviet Union knew this; no one mentions that Reagan wasted an amazing amount of money on such useless and futile things as the "Star Wars" program. Honesty, the Soviet Union was never a true military threat to the United States (the Soviet Union's army could not compare to the United States in technology, mobility, or in firepower; not to mention America's immense advantage in economies), and no matter what, the Soviet Union was in dire need of reform. Maybe the person who should be getting credit for the fall of communism in the Soviet Union should be Gorbachev, who pushed for obvious reform through the Politburo, who were less willing to pass these reforms than most imagine. Hell, history tends to show that Reagan made Gorbachev's job harder; Gorbachev wanted to curtail Soviet military spending, but Reagan's rhetoric of an Evil Empire only made Gorbachev's job that much more difficult.
Ok, enough of this: Reagan sucked, and people should stop saying he was great just because he died.