Palinnude.wordpress.com RIP

Yeah, Well, Whatever is go.

Filed under: blah

The New Blog

It’s almost ready.  Besides the URL, there won’t be too many changes, actually — I’m thinking I’ll use the same template this site does, tho I want to tweak the colors a little bit.

I’d like to say that I’ll have a new blogging attitude to go along with the new blog…  I always think I will, but I’m always to lazy and unfocused to execute it.  But two things might change that:

1) The complete retardation that has happened to politics lately

2) My reaction to the trolls over on my other blog home, Comments From Left Field.  Which hasn’t been pretty.

I’m just sick of dealing with all of it, and I’m searching for a new philosophy to guide my writing.  Just one epiphany, that’s all I need.

Filed under: blah

Now…

After one final Arabic exam, which was ten times easier than I thought it would be, my semester is done.  Which gives me a week to breath before diving into my senior thesis this summer.  I have three months to produce 70 pages.  I’m not sure how this marathon will compare to the one I just finished, all I know right now it that this project will be grad school practice.

With my brief vacation, I’d immediately like to…

1) Eat pizza

2) Maybe see Wolverine tonight

And in the next week:

1) Go home to RI

2) Play a softball game

3) Get a new blog going

Yeah, it’s that time..  This palinnude.wordpress.com thing never took off, and never will.

Filed under: blah

Stability and Middle Eastern Economies

One of my reasons for closing Loaded Mouth was have more time for college.  So I’m still writing, I’m just supposed to produce denser material read by nobody; rather than simplistic blogging read, unfortunately, by lots of people sometimes.

But if you’d like to read some of my agonizing undergrad work, here’s a PDF of the latest paper I worked on which gauges economic factors of stability in Syria and the United Arab Emirates.  This paper is the biggest project I undertook this semester, and since I blathered in it for 8000 someodd words, I’m hoping it looks intelligent, at least.

Things I’ve learned from writing this paper:

1) Expressing a web of facts and opinions with pseudocode helps organize my thoughts.  Before making tpics to write about IF/THEN/ELSE statements, I had no clue how I would write it.

2) The broader the topic and the less time you have to research and write about it, the more full of shit you might be.  My first mistake fwas starting by reserching simply the economies of Syria and the UAE, and not focusing on certain aspects of the economy.  Granted, before I took this class Syria and UAE were blank slates for me.  Which I know sounds weird to anybody who says, “Isn’t his major Middle Eastern studies?”  Yes, it is.  Here’s an apt analogy for my field, though: The way MidEast studies is conducted would be akin to American History majors learning about the governments and social movements of individual states.  Everyone thinks of history as marco, but when focusing on the Middle East everything is micro.  My courses hardly even touch Algeria and Liyba, and countries like, say,  Mauritania or Bahrain?  Forget it, I may never get to learning about them. It’s bad enough that I mat never get around to learning about the social movements of Qatar or Kuwait.

Anyways, one country that no course available to me touched was the United Arab Emirates, which I found surprising given their dynami performance in the global economy, so I jumped at the chance to put some independent research into the country.  But when you have a broad topic — we’re talking about a whole country here! — and a short time period, you’re never quite sure if you got it right.  When you’re writing about the country you question whether or not you’re full of shit.

For example, one of the conclusions I came to about the UAE economy was that it needed to focus more on its manufacturing sector so it can rest on exports when there’s a downturn in services and real estate.  But another fact I found out about the UAE is that their oil reserves, at $40 a barrel, translates into over $5 million per citizen.  Five million!  Imagine if the United States had so much oil to sell, it was worth $5 million per citizen.  Why work?  Why even build a dynamic economy?  You’re sitting fucking pretty.  After figuring out this fact about the UAE (and I mean “figuring out” literally, because as far as I know, there’s no trackable Barrels of Oil per Citizen (BPC) statistic), does it invalidate any assertion I make about its economy being in trouble?  Possibly.  I couldn’t give that too much thought, though, since at the time the thought crossed my mind the paper was due in a few hours.

Concerning Syria, my main conclusion was that the higher their unemployment climbs, the more likely it is that Islamists — the Muslim Brotherhood — would destabilize the Asad regime.  Who would you rather have a semi-authortarian like Bashar al-Asad in power, or Islamic hardliners?  Well, the question might be answered with “Depends…”  There’s Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qa’ida, of course — we don’t like those people.  But there are also Islamists like the Gulen movement, which is arguably in power in Turkey right now — the same Turkey that’s liberalizing its economy and vying for European Union membership.

I’m guessing that the ideology of Syria’s Islamists lean more towards the former, but am I sure?  No, that’s a question which could take up another 8000 word paper.  So for the time being, I could be full of shit.

So many questions…  Research bring up questions is natural.  it just seems like I don’t have time to research them all before producing a final product.  I just write the paper and hope I’m on the mark; or somewhat close to it, etc…

Update: Found out one of the finding aids I worked on at my library internship is up.  I just found out, I should say…  Haven’t looked over the final product yet.

Filed under: blah , economy, islamists, oil, papers, syria, undergrad work, united arab emirates

Beer: Definitely a check; Steers: Well, he eats red meat, so check; Queers: Eh, not so much

Ladies and gentlemen, without introduction (really, does this jackass need one?), I present to you the face of the former John McCain campaign for president, that plumber guy.

I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children.

Got any other prejudices you’d like to air, Samuel?  Oh, and you have gay friends?  Heh, that’s funny.

Personally, what I can’t wait for is the chorus of Republicans screaming that their own media creation doesn’t speak for them, only for himself.  Such delicious irony.

Update:

Perhaps I spoke too soon about Republicans backing away from Plumb Job after his anti-gay remarks.  One of my biggest fans on the right, Donald Douglas — a dishosent hackjob who never fessed up concerning lies he published about me — defends Plumb Job’s statements:

Nowadays, as we have seen with the recent controversy over Carrie Prejean, but also today with Samuel Wurzelbacher’s statements, traditional Americans have been rebranded as “bigots.”

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Oh really!  So when Plumb Job claims that he doesn’t want homosexuals — excuse me, “queers” to use his words — going near his children, that’s not bigoted?  How is that not bigoted?  Oh wait, I see, it’s because all of you assholes are “traditional Americans,” therefore you’re just all better than us weirdos who pine for equality for all those fucking queers, right Donald?

What a traditional fucking piece of work you are.

Filed under: blah , fuck this asshole, I guarantee you your "gay friends" only associate with you because they crave your plumber's crack, joe the plumber is a huge douchebag

Final and Beginnings

In the middle of class this morning, it dawned on me that I was attending my last lecture as an undergrad.  I still have another semester before graduation but spending that learning Arabic in Cairo means I won’t have “normal”, per se, lectures, so this was it.  I think I smiled for a minute, but one isn’t allowed to get too giddy in these situations.

Afterwards, I had a long discussion with my professor about going to grad school.  He asked he if I was giving it thought, and thinks I make a good candidate — a good PhD candidate.

Until now, I only gave thought to my masters and that’s it.  I guess I don’t have confidence in myself to go all the way…  Hell, the thought of getting a bachelors was flummoxing to me a few years ago; going to Cairo in a few months still hasn’t hit me yet.  It’s like I pretend it’s not happening.

As more time while I’m focused on writing and research passes, I’m learning that nobody in these fields — authors, professors, etc. — is sure about their plans.  Professors have told me that every PhD candidate gets a doubtful feeling while doing their thesis research.  Interviews don’t lead to where you expected them to and you think, “Is this going to work?”  Then they all complete their PhD’s, get hired as professors, write books, and get called know-nothing crazy ivory tower liberals afterwards.  So everthing works out.

I guess it’s all about diving in and learning how not to drown.

Filed under: blah , hmm.

Fartiquette

I’ve got a problem

I take classes at Hampshire College, but I’ve heard this phenomenon has begun at my future alma mater, UMass Amherst, too.  It’s unisex bathrooms — or “Whichever,” as the signs at Hampshire call them.  Now in the real world, unisex bathroom means you lock the door and use it alone…  But in my world, unisex/whichever means men and women occupying the same bathroom at the same time.

Not to be crude (not like I’ve ever been crude on the internet before), but when I goto the bathroom, I often, uh.. Hell, sometimes I’m embarrassed when another man is in there.

I talked about proper whichever bathroom etiquette with a girl at work tonight.  I asked her that, suppose I’m at urinal, is it OK to let a fart rip while a woman occupies the same room?  This is a somewhat serious matter because I try to hold this stuff in until I goto the bathroom, and some of these farts are loud…  And long.  I mean, when I let one rip, just watch out.  There might be nuclear fallout.

My coworker told me that I should go ixnay on the flatulence-ay.

Seriously, WTF?  Where else am I supposed to releive myself?  It’s a bathroom!  I don’t mean to be a pig, but it’s a bathroom!

It’s not her fault, it’s this whichever businesses fault.  I guess I’lljust have to wait until I find an actual mens room.

Filed under: blah , poop

The (lack of) Communications of Fear

One of the scariest tenets of the modern right is their inability to rationally talk with anyone who disagrees with them.  We see this on a micro, intra-party level when Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs launches verbal bombs against Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.  I also thought LFG was among the heaviest wingnut blogs around, but when Geller rants “Charles Johnson – poster boy for the left,” you’d think the man just had the highest recommended diary on Daily Kos.  What is Johnson’s crime?  Offering up criticism of Glenn Beck’s insanity.  That’s just too much indifference for righties like Geller, who demand carte blanche obedience.  Shorter Geller: Don’t like Beck? Well, I don’t talk with you, Obamabot!

We see many examples of this anti-social behavior on a macro level, too — the most recent example is Obama’s handshake with Hugo Chavez.  As is wholly predictable these days, this handshake has caused the right to go apoplectic.  Malkin asks if anyone smelled sulfur during the handshake; after calling it a “terrorist fist bump,” Tom Maguire quips ”When socialists salute!”  Etc., etc.  Apparently, there has to be a purity test world leaders must pass for us to talk with them — somebody tell that to the King of Saudi Arabia!  Oh wait, the right only cared about Obama’s meeting with Abdullah because they could scream about the supposed bowing act — the fact that Saudi Arabia continues to be a leading human rights violator, not an issue.  Clearly, in their eyes, heads of state can be shitty, oppressive people as long as they’re not socialists as well.

Not to digress on the hypocrisy too long (once you start, it’s tough to stop), but the point of this post is just how scary this asocial behavior is.  Could you imagine the world today if this obedience-first, anti-social style of Republican occupied the White House in the post-WWII era?  We didn’t have that, of course.  Despite the fact that the Soviet Union was more fearsome and brutal than Chavez could ever hope to be — with a massive nuclear arsenal and ICBMs, too — the Republican Eisenhower administration kept diplomatic lines open with them.  When the impromptu “Kitchen Debate” took place in 1959, Vice President Nixon had a direct, face-to-face meeting with USSR president Khrushchev.  Reflecting on politics today, let that sink in for a moment…  Could you imagine former Vice President Dick Cheney meeting with any one of today’s lesser enemies while he was in office?   Now that just sounds silly.

The direct correspondence between Khrushchev and the White House continued into the Kennedy administration, and not only was present during the Cuban Missile Crisis but played a key role in averting total nuclear war.  Robert McNamara, Kennedy’s Defense Secretary, discussed the cabinet meetings and tense diplomacy during the crisis which ultimately led to its resolution:

McNamara: Kennedy was trying to keep us out of war. I was trying to help him keep up out of war. And General Curtis LeMay, whom I served under as a matter of fact in World War II, was saying “Let’s go in, let’s totally destroy Cuba.”

On that critical Saturday, October 27th, we had two Khrushchev messages in front of us. One had come in Friday night, and it had been dictated by a man who was either drunk or under tremendous stress. Basically, he said, “If you’ll guarantee you won’t invade Cuba, we’ll take the missiles out.” 

Then before we could respond, we had a second message that had been dictated by a bunch of hard—liners. And it said, in effect, “If you attack, we’re prepared to confront you with masses of military power.” 

So, what to do? We had, I’ll call it, the soft message and the hard message.

At the elbow of President Kennedy was Tommy Thompson, former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow. He and Jane, his wife, had literally lived with Khrushchev and his wife upon occasion. Tommy Thompson said, “Mr. President, I urge you to respond to the soft message.” 

The President said to Tommy, “We can’t do that, that’ll get us nowhere.” 

Tommy said, “Mr. President, you’re wrong.” Now that takes a lot of guts.

Kennedy: We’re not going to get these missiles out of Cuba, probably anyway, by negotiation.

Thompson: I don’t agree, Mr. President. I think there’s still a chance.

Kennedy: That he’ll back down?

Thompson: The important thing for Khrushchev, it seems to me, is to be able to say, “I saved Cuba, I stopped an invasion.”

McNamara: In Thompson’s mind was this thought: Khrushchev’s gotten himself in a hell of a fix. He would then think to himself, “My God, if I can get out of this with a deal that I can say to the Russian people: ‘Kennedy was going to destroy Castro and I prevented it.’” Thompson, knowing Khrushchev as he did, thought Khrushchev will accept that. And Thompson was right. 

Now think about that for a minute.  Not only did the Kennedy administration have direct communication with the USSR, but in the cabinet meeting Kennedy had somebody who knew and formerly lived with President Khrushchev.  Given that the stakes were nuclear war, it’s no exaggeration to suggest that the world would be a much more different, desolate place today if the US/USSR direct diplomacy of the Cuban Missile Crisis didn’t exist. 

Talking with your enemies brings peace.

Of course, one person sitting at that cabinet meeting thought Kennedy and everyone else were full of shit, and that’s General Curtis LeMay.  A hardline Republican then, LeMay is analogous to what the Republican party has become today.  Had Kennedy listened to LeMay, none of us would be sitting here today, blogging about it. 

The LeMay factor of today’s Republican leaders is what scares me the most about them; and if this wing of the party ever takes power again.  They don’t want presidents to talk with anyone who doesn’t pass their political litmus test.  If these anti-social Republicans were in power in the 1960s, or even the Eisenhower Republican era of the 1950s, we wouldn’t have had diplomatic communications with the Soviet Union.  We wouldn’t be here. 

Compared to such a bleak future, I hardly see where Obama shaking Chavez’s hand is a mistake.  I’m more scared of not talking to him, or any other world leader.

Filed under: blah , chavez, Cuban Missile Crisis, Diplomacy, handshake, kennedy, Khrushchev, michelle malkin, nuclear war, obama, robert mcnamara, Saudi Arabia, summit of the americas, tom maguire, USSR, Venezuela

Redefining Unbelievable

Texas Governor Rick Perry, after he addressed a tea party protest:

Perry told reporters following his speech that Texans might get so frustrated with the government they would want to secede from the union.

“There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.” 

Unbelievable.

I’m not sure what else I can say..  Which doesn’t involve screaming.  I haven’t been shy about criticizing Obama, but to have a sitting governor of one of the largest state’s in the Union talk of secession – secession! – before Obama has been in office for even 100 days is fucking ridiculous.  Especially since Obama is reacting to the mountain of problems handed to him by the previous president.  Apparently, that previous president is from the State of Irony.

When some wingnut loonbags on the internet talk about secession, that’s one thing — one thing to generally be laughed at, ridiculed, and summarily ignored.  But when these statements are made by a Republican governor, against a president who hasn’t been in office for four fucking months, that’s something completely different.  This is just psychotic.

Filed under: blah , do you believe in treason?

lolwut?!

Two research papers + One scope note + Arabic + New job = Me not around much.  But I’m proud to report that on a MidEast economics midterm paper, my professor underlined a joke I made and wrote “lol!” in the margin.  In intertubez terminology, that’s full of…

Filed under: blah