Simple Idea for a Novel

The moment just came to me. I had the thought of doctor Izzie Stevens from the show, Grey's Anatomy, which words elicited her character as "unprepared" and "youthful." Just not ready for the end road. Then I thought of myself, a selfish and unready student to face the lives of others, dependant as if it were on my hands. Then the idea surged within me that I had become a doctor, saving lives of every sick person that came to my hospital—even my loved ones. Then I thought that there needs to be growth to every doctor that faces trials, for the sake of growing as a person and as his profession. Here is where I finally hit the nerve (pun intended): that I operated on my immediate family—or even those who I cared about. I assumed this was a way to create the betterment of a person individually and as a professional (i.e. medical doctor). After all, the professional and the personal are almost the same. They seek the same goals in what they love and pursue. Here I figured that where the lives of those we care about are at stake, we tend to think more stringently focused and impassive about other frivolities—a paradox. These moments of our lives leave us to seek a more focused life. It makes us better. I still have to think of the characters that play a role in the life of the main character. The family has to push him to be better. Maybe he ignores the family—like myself—and later becomes a better man (not that I'm there yet, or can be). Well, the man does become better. They all are empty and frivolous people with problems. They all blame each other, but they still need each other to survive. The one character needs mainly the saving; so in reality, he is one being saved. He is solicitous in his own life, particular of doing things right; and by right, I mean that he seeks to do what he sees fit for his own life.

Clinton Scratches for the Homosexual Vote

Jonathan Darman of the Newsweek team wrote an article on gay rights and the Clinton campaign for president. I don't know why I take an interest in this topic, but I just know that I do. Maybe it's my theonomic conviction, which led me to write on the topic and ruminate the subject matter. To me, the article seemed more of a campaign clout than a advocacy plight for Clinton's approval of the same-sex agenda. Even in the article is seemed like the same-sex marriage advocates seemed unsatisfied with the Clinton campaign, and even asking for results in her administration, if she becomes president. Personally, I find her very dangerous sitting in the Oval Office. I am so opposed to the notion of marriage granted to the same-sex. I recently blogged a post on what form they could unionize themselves in a civil union, but it isn't called marriage per se. There are other factors that play a role here, but let's focus on the article.

"But for all her gay support, what has Clinton really done for gay rights? Not much, some gay activists say, but neither has Obama or Edwards." Regardless of the these fellow candidates 'failed attmepts' to secure a role for the same-sex community, it still begs the issue that Hillary isn't doing squat about this—and the homosexuals get it. Now of this I am not scared of. I hope she never does anything that will grant them marriage status under law. This is a divine right for the opposite sex. All I got out of this article is that Clinton is comfortable around homosexuals. Point granted. I work with them, but it doesn't mean I approve of their life-style. They are nice people, just like I would view any other heterosexual who treats me with the equal respect. Do I deprecate against any part of his life-style he exhibits? Yes, if I believe it is done unethically. Even straight people could be unjustified in their reasons for depriving homosexuals of their natural rights. There should always be a balance.

Therefore there is something to be said of this issue, and it is likely that it is going to be going away soon. It is only going to heat up the closer the primaries come to a close. Personally, I think Hillary's press coverage is just another plight to stay away from paying for her ad campaign in the primary race for the presidency. It is assumed in the article, and I believe it is definitely a plausible circumvention on the part of the Senator. No matter what she did in the past for the homosexual community, it still stands that she is trying her hardest to get these votes. To some it may work out, but to the rationally capable, she is shy of a lucid victory for the candidacy. If she's going to win the primaries, she needs a new trajectory.

Percolated Central BlogSpot (8/12/07)

Periscope Articles (Newsweek)

In Newsweek magazine, there was an article that deals with the NSA's ability to surveillance any U.S. citizen, for the sake of the safety of the American people. This is an epithet for the "constitutionality" for autonomous surveillance of so-called "terrorists." The post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) stated that wiretapping can only be justified with a warrant. However, due to the recent events of the 9/11 terrorist attack, wiretapping can be procured without the FISA mandate. What does this say of our 14th Amendment rights? Although it isn't enunciated as a legitimate right, courts have ruled in its implication, ad hoc in reference to civil rights. Therefore, how much more should we argue against the derogated (unjustifiably), the personal rights of its citizens (of any country)? It is treated under the right to privacy. One or two court decisions here would be appropriate.

Is privacy, then, a right that one ought to procure or a privilege? I would say yes, it's a right. In a democracy, it is an implied right. But if a government is run by "big government," then it is not a right; it is a granted privilege, via the government. Therefore, under my thesis, where is America going? I believe it is no different from a fascist state (i.e. Statism).

Education

McKeller's Mathematics & Genderism
She writes lengthily on math and incentive for women should love math. In fact, it
is cool to be a math nerd: "It isn't just for boy nerds."

I love the fact that she is making math a passion for women who "play" and iconize ditsy characterization of feminization in modern social classes. Women, now monomaniacs, love to highly hyperbole these icons of modern play. So her endeavors are kind and honest. This is something I am truly grateful for. This is truly what I desire to instill not only in men but women, too. The author of the article says that McKellar's view shows that women will get more out of life when they realize the importance of 'knowing' and discipline. I couldn't agree more. That was an amazing phrase! The thing was that McKellar was in the Wonder Years on Fox 11. The thing was that she wasn't portrayed as the smart child. She was, however, a shy girl. She reminds me a great deal of a girl I used to date: shy, smart, timid and sometimes a pain in the ass (but it's OK).
The amazing part is that she (McKellar) is showing to be the epitomy of the viable prospect for marriage, not just dating. It is amazing, however, the things McKellar has accomplished. She's even been in scholarly journals with other Mathematicians, contributing to Mathematical and physics theorems.

Long Nights with Knights

There was an episode in Grey's Anatomy dealing with karma or fate. Why do we do things we know we are going to regret? For me, it's having a headache. That's what I get for studying long hours, drinking my energy drinks in order to finish my work. I got all A's. I thought about my death today. I thought that if I died on duty, how meaningless could my life get? And my social life: none. It couldn't be more meaningless than it is right now. Why is it that I can't find much to write about? I have iconized Anne Frank, yet I cannot even begin to think like she did; she loved to write copiously, but not emptily. Anyone can write something; however, it takes an artist to write elaborate fantasies that lay rooted in the image of the soul. The writer and the poet are much ado of exuberant rumination. She made it her difficult endeavor to write and seek to write. There are so many stigmas that I use in my writing, viz. grammar taboos. Taboos are something I need to stay away from in my writing. Well my headache has now gone away. It feels better. I felt like I was going to die. I too love to write. I have written, and along with my writings, my teachers have praised my writing.

I do a lot of watching of TV on my computer. I need to do more reading and writing. My life is radically changed in many different ways. I am different in character and temperance. I think my dispositions have altered to a pathological degree. I am calmer in situations anyone would call disingenuous. I'm also more disciplined—I believe—in my studying habits. It's been a while since I have gotten straight A's. My love for science is increasing. There are a number of different philosophers that loved the sciences, especially in dealing with the substance problem of Locke. The reason I bring that up is because we as human beings look for meaning in the minutia of individual prospects—be that potential mates (i.e., soul-mates) or anything worth considering "meaningful." This is, I believe, my prospect in higher learning and science. I love the disciplines of the sciences, i.e. biology, biochemistry, and the science of interpretation—the bible included. I have been introduced to Michael Behe (author of The Edge of Evolution), a biochemist. He wrote Darwin's Black Box, where he argues that Darwin was critically wrong in his hypotheses that would show the theory of evolution plausible. Yes, the sciences are proving to be affinitive to me.

Musings of the Day

There are so many things I would like to write about. I've been hard-pressed by my classes, primarily because I have finals this week. Insane! I can't express how much I have been stressing the paper, too. As I read (in the leisure time that I have—close to none) Anne's diary, there is something that overwhelms me of this young girl who loved to write. She wrote just about anything she could think of. She wrote of her maturity, weaknesses, sexuality, anger, family, etc. She found any time to write as a personal responsibility to herself. I find that extremely attractive. A woman who truly writes from the heart, and who find herself bound to her very nature to write, is one for the eyes and the mind. Men nowadays seek woman with other "attributes." I personally find them unjustifiable. Do I seem ephemeral and bleak writing about these frivolous things? I personally do believe that. I find that a man knows who he is when he knows what he wants. What does it mean to be a man qua man, howbeit? Alas, that is the question!

Random Thoughts

So I'm a little irritated right now. My laptop will not update from Microsoft for some weird reason. Personally, it's getting on my last nerve. I've done a lot to try and figure it out, and nothing. I submitted my research paper this morning. The prof. was not too happy with me missing three day—consecutive days. That is really bad, even for me. Let's see…what else has been a major pitfall for me lately…Oh yes, I'm lonely (as if it changed). There are some good things, at least. So my life isn't all nostalgic—which is really good news. I don't like some of the unoriginal scenes that the emos and the punks elicit. It seems to me that there is a moral epidemic happening even with these social outcasts. I find it disturbing that they're even around. (How do we get rid of them?) I found another hobby other than writing: thinking, which is basically the same, except there's no using of the hand and paper and a writing utensil.

I have to read this book on the California Constitution. It sounds extremely boring. I read about the formation of the state of California. It sounds like America isn't as patriotic and romantic as the media would hope for. There were many wars that took place in order for us to have this wonder state we call California. So many people died in the name of imperialism, on both sides. The Spanish people were so deprived of their rights that we had to coerce them into selling us the land. We would have bought all of Mexico, but President Polk believed it would cost a lot of money to further the warfare. Personally, I find it equally wrong altogether even to have begun the war. There are so many ethical problems with the American-Mexican wars to even begin to think. On a similar note, we hear constantly—from the media—that Bush is a criminal, and I would even rant that there isn't a single crime that he has committed; and I would ask what law he broke, too. The accusers can't name one law he has violated. But then I finally saw what was going on. It was a spiritual law he was violating: genocide. Some would argue, from a teleological point of view, that it isn't a spiritual matter (see Aristotle). He has done so much to secure the profit of American economic growth instead of truly helping the Iraqi people. There is a reason why he hasn't been indicted, however, other than the fact that he is the president: There is no law that would indict him. And now that the Democrats are in office, there is plenary evidence there isn't, or else they would have by now. The fact is, we live in a plutocracy, and that's not going to change soon. The rich will continue to suppress the poor, and the rich will continue to get richer.