Trippyshoe's Xanga

a new entry for a new year

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:04:40 GMT

you know the little status thing on facebook? the place where it has "David is _____" and you can fill that in with whatever you want. just a moment ago, i changed mine to "David is wishing he were more thankful." and it's true, i wish i were more thankful for what i do have. lately i've been wishing for a lot of things. i've been pouting over what's wrong with me, and wanting things to change, and just... desiring. not recognizing how incredibly blessed my life is.

and then i realized the idiocy in wishing to be more thankful, more content, more satisfied. wishing to be thankful is itself a manifestation of not being thankful. it's a way of pouting over what's wrong with yourself, not focusing on the blessings in your life. yeah, yeah, i know that's corny, but there's truth in it.

umm... i don't have much else to say right now.

i kind of just wanted to break this ridiculous two-and-a-half-month xanga sabbatical.

(let's hope the next entry arrives much sooner.)

i lost my cell phone.

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:37:47 GMT

but now i have a really cool new one. the bad news is that i lost everyone's numbers in the process.

so, to make things easier on me, please give me your number if you feel compelled to do so.

chinese class:

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:39:23 GMT

the only class so far in my experience at northwestern university during which i listened to 'mr. brightside' and made a xanga post.

ahhhhhh... northwestern. we love you too.

life, the universe, and everything.

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:46:27 GMT

i've lost my ability to gloat. effectively, until nine o'clock tuesday morning, it was still summer for me. classes hadn't started. now it's back to that same routine of classes and mock trial and everything else that i was (am) ambivalent about. it's not that i never enjoy school or extracurricular activities; it's just that the banality of it becomes irritating quickly. the school year melts quite rapidly into a mind-numbing schedule of math, chinese, statistics, religion, mock trial, church, sleep, food, in some particular order.

because they consume it entirely, this itemized structure and its corresponding events become my life.

there's this song, "bittersweet symphony", by the verve. its title refers to life in general. it claims that the purpose (or at least the outcome) of life is to be a slave to money and then to die. "no change, i can't change," it goes. "and i'm a million different people from one day to the next."

i hate the song.

it bothers me. it makes me feel more bitter than sweet. it embodies what i'm -- what many people are -- afraid of. how could life be about making money... and then dying? i can't justify that life, which has the potential of being so full of brilliance and vibrance, is entirely futile. the sun may rise and set the same way every day, but it's gorgeous.

somehow the banality and beauty of life coexists.

there's another song that bothers me. "iris" by the goo goo dolls. it's a pretty song, but i can't but to feel empty listening to it. "i'd give up forever to touch you ... you're the closest to heaven that i'll ever be." the reason atlas shrugged depresses me is similar. the philosophy of the novel is to create the maximum utility possible here on earth, to maximize one's enjoyment during one's time here.

so the purpose of life, the reason why we're here on earth, is for... our enjoyment?

well... actually... yeah, kinda. but there's a key shift that needs to be made in those philosophies for them to be fulfilling. you shouldn't be willing to "give up forever" to enjoy earth. no, it's the exact opposite. it is for eternity that one should enjoy earth. because God is the creator, we should enjoy the creation. it's the handiwork of the Almighty. through an appreciation of the wholesome pleasures of the world and those dwelling in it, one comes closer to the God who created it, understands Him better, better recognizes His omnipotent, majestic nature.

that's not all there is to know God, obviously. but i think it's part of the key to understanding what life's really about. it's not futile, and it's not hedonistic.

it's something else, something much more fulfilling, satisfying, and eternal.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:05:53 GMT

a summer resembling the hair of a middle-age man.

Sun, 10 Sep 2006 01:32:09 GMT

i rolled over and looked at my watch: 12:30 was displayed in all its digital glory. a strange, sharp pain pierced my spine. my apparently ineffective alarm clock, my cell phone, was underneath me. (i know, i know too many xanga posts begin with accounts of waking up and looking at the clock. i'm sorry. forgive me.)

slug.
lazy.
spiritless.
laggard.
sloth.
lethargic.
sleepy.
languid.

(it's remarkable how many of these
similar words start in either an s or an l.)

'try not to eat right before bed.' i didn't really pay attention to my mom's familiar chiding, but i did unintentionally follow it. i ate my ice cream/banana/peanut butter concoction anyway, but i didn't go to bed for a while after that.

i'm not sure what happened. when i was employed by discover card, i had no problem going to bed by 11 and getting up by 7. now i'm struggling to force myself into bed by 1, and can't respond to a 10 o'clock alarm.

determined to revive my lethargic/slothlike/&c. body from its apathetic state, i went running. 'watch out for the attack dog,' an affable elderly gentleman warned. i chuckled; the fearsome beast following the man was a tiny, excited beagle. i was fascinated by the beagle. he didn't, like some dogs, try to act like an attack dog. he was perpetually curious. thrilled. vivacious.

smiling, i finished my run and headed home.

that evening was the first rehearsal of the year for church orchestra. it's not the same. it's the same music, same musicians (mostly), but... you know. of course, it's not the same. some of the vigor is gone. some of the personality is gone. well, that's not fair. the vigor and personality are different.

'i want to be able to hear sally!' he reprimanded us. 'you're supposed to be accompanying the oboist, not drowning her out!'

oh. it's not about us?

when we self-absorbed stringed instrumentalists backed away a bit (just a bit -- we can't let go of our egos completely), we heard it. the gorgeous oboe solo. pure and vibrant, juxtaposed against our parts: repetitive and, well, boring.

sometimes life can be repetitive and boring. but that's because we get so nearsighted and don't see the astonishing beauty around us. i don't usually notice how very beautiful the sky is. but just look at the sheer majesty of it.

how can you be lethargic with a world like this?

how can you roll over, irritated,
as the sun beams through your window?

how?

my summer is quickly receding. but i hope my youthful sense of wonder and curiosity and excitement and willingness for change is not.

i may be growing up, but i will never, ever, ever grow old.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Thu, 07 Sep 2006 00:46:50 GMT

i forgot how depressing atlas shrugged was.

don't read it if you're on the verge of committing suicide.

edit: to clarify, i'm nowhere near the verge of suicide. thank goodness. my point was that if i were on the verge of suicide, and i read that book, well... yeah.

the only winning move.

Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:01:44 GMT

a warning: if you're not in ncfca or are not particularly passionate about debate, you probably won't care to even glance at the rest of this entry. it's an overblown, bombastic case for this year's resolution. it's deliberately different than what will probably be run this year. (after all, what would be the point of me offering an "abolish nato" case?)

the plan itself isn't a very good one; its only purpose is to try to introduce a slightly different perspective on the resolution. the case structure is one that would never work in ncfca, but, well, i'm not in ncfca anymore, so this case is 100% pure rojasian debate theory and structure, down to a rojasian resolutional analysis.

let me know what you think.

so... without further ado:

the only winning move.

a case for the '06-'07 NCFCA team policy resolution.

Mutual assured destruction, or MAD for short, is what prevented complete chaos and annihilation of the U.S., the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world. In their book Getting MAD, the analysts at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and Strategic Studies Institute write that "At a nuclear exercise in 1972," the Soviet Union "saw the devastating results of a simulated U.S. first strike against the USSR, and the results shocked the leadership." Especially near the end of the USSR's existence, there was a "realization that a nuclear war cannot be won." It was this pervasive fear of guaranteed devastation for both sides of the Cold War conflict that resulted in a tenuous lack of violence.

Mutual assured destruction will not save us in the twenty-first century. The greatest direct threat to Western civilization today is militant Islamism, the twisted fundamentalist branch of Islam that basically wants us dead. But as Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton University, argues on August 8, far from being a constraint for supporters of such a belief, mutual assured destruction "is an inducement."

Let's look at the example of Iran and Israel. The "fanatical champions" of the enemies of Israel in the Iranian government would like nothing better than to use weapons of mass destruction on Israel. The threat of a retaliation by Israel, the U.S., and the rest of the world does not make militant Islamists tremble in fear. Conversely, their "martyrdom complex" emboldens them because they know that they'll go to heaven in such an event. This view, Bernard Lewis writes, "plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions."

This is a unique threat that we are not prepared to face. This is why, Judge, my partner and I are unconditionally convinced and resolved that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) should be significantly reformed or abolished.

Observation I. Parameters.

Before we begin our analysis of this resolution, let's define a few key terms.

According to the NATO Web site, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is "an alliance of 26 countries from North America and Europe committed to fulfilling the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on 4 April 1949." The North Atlantic Council "has effective political authority and powers of decision" over NATO.

Significantly is the adverbial equivalent of significant, which the Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines as "important, large, or great." It defines reform as "to become better, or to make (something) better by making corrections or removing any faults."

Now that we've defined these boundaries, let's move on to:

Observation II. Resolution.

We present three assertions in defense of the interpretation of the resolution that we will maintain throughout this round:

Assertion 1. A significant reform will maintain the principles upheld in North Atlantic Treaty.

In part, the values espoused within the Treaty are a safeguarding of the freedom of the member countries' peoples, a promotion of stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area, and a unity of efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. My partner and I agree wholeheartedly with these principles and do not think that the proper way of attaining a significant reform is by changing the foundational principles upon which NATO is based.

Assertion 2. A significant reform will change the techniques by which these principles are upheld.

Correspondingly, to fulfill our burden of a significant reform, we are not obligated to provide as a plan anything more than a significant change in the techniques by which we intend to uphold these principles.

Assertion 3. A significant reform will not violate international law.

Because my partner and I believe that NATO's member countries have an obligation to comply with international law, we assert that a policy that violates the UN Charter or other forms of international law would not qualify as a significant reform.

With these assertions in mind, we present:

Observation III. Value.

We begin by examining our fundamental value, the preservation of peace and security. This is an value unequivocally espoused by NATO's member countries as a reason they agreed to the North Atlantic Treaty. The preamble to the Treaty asserts that those countries "are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty."

Our burden as the affirmative team is to show you why this resolution should be enacted. We intend to fulfill this burden by showing you, Judge, that this resolution better upholds the value of the preservation of peace and security than a vote for the current system.

Observation IV. Method.

But how shall we determine if this value is being upheld through our case? To answer this question, my partner and I present the method of a reduced threat of terrorism. As we indicated in our introduction, mutual assured destruction is not preserving peace and security anymore, and this is materialized in a constant threat of terrorism. If we can show you that our case reduces the threat of terrorism, and thereby upholding the value of the preservation of peace and security, then an affirmative ballot is warranted.

Observation V. Contentions.

Contention 1. The preservation of peace and security of the NATO member countries is threatened through the terrorist tactics and uncompromising violence of militant Islamism.

This contention is almost so apparent as not to need a defense. Terrorist attacks in the U.S., bombings in London, bombings in Madrid, a recent thwarted airplane bombing in London -- all within the past five years. And as we indicated in our introduction, mutual assured destruction is no longer a deterrent for our enemies. It only emboldens them.

Bernard Lewis notes a passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook: "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. ... In both cases, victory and success are ours."

This is the martyrdom complex that we discussed in our introduction. Olivier Guitta wrote in the Weekly Standard on April 4, 2005, that "The most important political event in Saudi Arabia in the last year may have been the appointment on February 9 of Abdullah bin Saleh al-Obaid, a hard-core Wahhabi, to the prestigious post of education minister. Al-Obaid replaces a secularist reformer at the head of a ministry controlling 27 percent of the national budget and influencing the mind of the next generation." Guitta calls this "a victory to the sympathizers of al Qaeda."

Contention 2. This threat can be decreased through educational reform and positive propaganda in terrorist-supporting countries.

The most effective way we can combat this threat is by honing in on those that are "influencing the mind of the next generation," as Guitta incisively puts it. This should be done in two ways.

The first would be a diplomatic push for educational reform. Western countries cannot allow certain Middle Eastern countries to continue teaching their students that it is holy and right to blow themselves up to destroy others' lives. As Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, wrote on June 18, 2003, "Iran is ripe for change: 48 million Iranians (70 percent of the population) are under 30."

By focusing their diplomatic influence on educational reform with countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia, Western countries can "influence[e] the mind[s] of the next generation," reaching out to this huge percentage of young Iranians.

The second method by which this threat to our peace and security can be alleviated is through what my partner and I call positive propaganda. As Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said on July 18, 2006, "We should also do more to support Iranian dissidents and opposition figures."

But my partner and I argue that we should do even more than that. There should be a greater funneling of resources into and greater support for alternative and dissident media, organizations, and political figures. Through that, Western countries can slowly change the mindset of Muslims away from militant Islamism into more moderate Islam. The preservation of our peace and security depends on it.

Contention 3. It is NATO's duty to promote educational reform and positive propaganda.

Because we have established how this threat is directly correlated with the value upheld by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, we contend that it is NATO's imperative to address the threat in a manner consist with international law.

Consequently, we submit for your consideration:

Observation VI. Proposition.

The North Atlantic Council, with the funding and enforcement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, shall enact the following measures:

1.    A unit within the Public Diplomacy Division called the Educational Reform Unit shall be created with the purpose of exerting diplomatic pressure on countries to reduce the pro-terrorist propaganda espoused by their public school curricula.

2.    A new division within the civilian structure of NATO called the Division of Anti-Terrorism Advocacy shall be created with the purpose of promoting media, organizations, individuals, and other entities to discourage beliefs consistent with militant Islamism and terrorism.

3.    The equivalent of USD 5 billion, indexed by U.S. inflation, should be annually set aside for the enforcement of these proposals, raised through increased contributions from each member country, proportional by gross domestic product.

Joshua, the computer in the 1980s film WarGames, was programmed to run simulations of a "Global Thermonuclear War" until it came up with a tactic leading to victory. After many, many simulations, Joshua reached its conclusion. "The only winning move," it claimed, "is not to play."

Joshua was wrong. Not to play is no longer a winning move.

ahhhhhhhh.

Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:31:02 GMT

that's not a sigh of contentment.
or of anguish, either.
it's an unsettled, confused sigh.

i just posted a new entry.
and immediately made it private.

i'm just too melodramatic sometimes.

six flags: great america.

Fri, 01 Sep 2006 04:08:48 GMT

so, we're back to straightforward post titles. and why not? it seems like a straightforward topic. six flags (homeschool day!) was nothing short of fantastic. saw a few familiar faces here and there, hung out with some of the coolest people on earth (don't let that go to your head, ryan), and sent my body through much more than any human body is meant to go through.

but, looking at that last part, i can't help but to wonder about that. roller coasters aren't natural. they're gargantuan metal or wood constructions with the sole purpose of forcing the bodies voluntarily constrained within their bounds through extreme speeds and ridiculous g-forces. the combinations of velocity and acceleration and directional maneuvering it coerces you to endure through is just incredible.

now, i'm not a wimp when it comes to roller coasters. i've been on every roller coaster there, several times. it's just that something seems disturbing about the whole concept of the roller coaster. send yourself through physical terror for thrill? at least, i'm guessing it's the terror that causes the thrill -- what else? if you weren't just a little freaked out by roller coasters, what's the point in riding it? to have a lot of wind blow in your face? or to see some colorful scenery?

it's not just roller coasters though.
most forms of entertainment are built on some kind of conflict.

the excitement of roller coasters is built on the incongruous, simultaneous existence of fear (fear of smashing into the ground, parts of the roller coaster, the tunnels; fear from just being out of control) and knowledge that such fear is unwarranted (unless you happen to hit that unlucky 1 in 300 million probability). of course, if you only thought you were going to die, that wouldn't be a very pleasant experience. so the thrill is from the conflict between the two combating emotions.

sports and other games necessarily require some kind of conflict. obviously, in baseball, football, tennis, or pictionary, there are multiple teams or opposing players. even in solitaire, you're playing against the threat of losing. books, movies, even the news all have conflict. what good would a plot be without both a villain and a hero? how interesting would it be if your newspaper only reported on incumbant senators running unopposed, and not about the threat of militant islamism and competing views on how to combat it?

no, that would be ridiculous.

but, you know what? there's not going to be any conflict in heaven.

no militant islamism to read about and fight, no fear of death or pain, no twisted murderers or rapists or thugs or corrupt businessmen or robbers. just absolute, unadulterated bliss. in our fleshly lusts, though, we require such things to be entertained, to be satisfied, to be happy. not in eternity. in eternity, we'll have peace, absence of conflict, and we'll be entirely, absolutely, unequivocally fulfilled.

when i stepped off of the raging bull, vertical velocity, batman, i wasn't fulfilled. don't get me wrong -- it was absolutely thrilling, and i don't regret going to six flags at all, of course. but it was only temporary satisfaction. the conflict was resolved. and i moved on. and i'm moving on to the next thrill. the next piece of entertainment. the next method of fulfillment.

yet there's only one place, one thing, one person that gives ultimate fulfillment.

you know what that is.