Shay

A lot of people reading this probably already know. Those who don't and deserved hearing from me in person, sorry for being cagey. Its all been pretty hectic and stressful and I just didn't really want to talk about it until it was a dead certainty.


So, anyway. Life-changing dramatic news is I'm being relocated to New York City!


I was at the US embassy yesterday morning, and if all goes according to plan, I should be landing state-side next Saturday.

le_futurisme has graciously offered her services as both hostess and Gal Friday until I get myself sorted (thankewww <333) so don't worry, I'm being well taken care of :)

ATTN NY/NJers: If I'm not friendly in the first few weeks it's because I start working straight away in a new, tough position, and have to juggle getting a SSN / bank account / phone / apartment / life / etc. in a foreign land at the same time. I assure you I'm not a dick, it'll just take me a while before I can get really social :)





SO MUCH EXCITEMENT WAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!1111!111!

Political Disclaimer:
Before diving into deeply contentious subjects, I’d like to precede by stating that I am and always have been a member of the Israeli peace camp. I support the Palestinian’s right to self-determination, within the boundaries of the land acquired by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.
Having said that, It is often the case that I find myself at greater odds with those who are left of me than those who are to my right, regarding the true nature of the conflict and the convulsed history involved. This is why I’m adding this disclaimer here.
The main issue I take with the radical left is with the post-modern movement of historical revisionism, to which I would like to point out that post-modernism works both ways.
Much of the problem regarding the history of this conflict has to do with prior suppositions and biases regarding the nature of history and justice.
So without further adieu, three contentious claims that have indeterminate truth values and one more:

1. Who is aboriginal to this land?

Up until fairly recent history, it was taken as a truism in the west that it is the Jews who are the only people in the world who can rightly claim to be aboriginal to the land of Israel (this is despite the bible being filled with depictions of the Israelite conquest of Knaan). The Muslims were merely the latest in a long line of conquerors.
I believe Lord Balfour’s remarks from 1920, quoted below, are very telling of the prevalent attitude:

“So far as the Arabs are concerned –I hope they will remember that it is we who have established an independent Arab sovereignty of the Hedjaz. I hope they will remember it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing, autonomous Arab State, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch — for it is no more than that geographically, whatever it may be historically — that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it.”

That last sentence – “…territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it.” is what I refer to. Of course, the Arabs in Palestine never knew any better. Most had probably barely met a Jew before Zionism began in the late 19th century.

I believe it is this interpretation which brought about the Balfour declaration three years prior to these remarks, and it is this interpretation which stood at the basis of the the four great powers’ and League of Nation’s backing of Zionism as a solution to the Jewish problem.

It is important to note that for many (if not most) Jews, this interpretation remained unchanged during the 20th century. While the consensus in the west (particularly in Europe) may have swung in favor of the Palestinian narrative after 1967, regardless of whose claim is more just or bears more “historical truth”, it is certainly a contentious point, and a matter of interpretation.

2. Can land be legitimately captured during war?

Likely originating in the Stimson Doctrine, there was a significant shift in the way the international community regarded this question during the 20th century from the idea that it is trivially true that land can be conquered to the idea that it is absolutely forbidden.
This is a completely new notion in the history of nations, and even since this new concept emerged, it’s application was ignored many times in the international arena.
It is unclear how “natural” this idea is. All states are birthed in sin. While certainly war is itself an affront to justice, the idea that rules of justice (or “international law”) can be applied to such horror is absurd. This does not justify “land grabs” but certainly puts into perspective and historical context that this idea is not self-evident. It is new, almost untested, and has not stood up well to the test of time and the requirement of fair and even application.

Most international jurors would agree there is a distinction between “aggressive conquest” and land gained during a defensive war. While Gaza might be up for dispute (I do not think it is, personally), certainly no one twisted HK Jordan’s arm and forced them to join the 1967 war. In fact, Israel quite expressly warned them not to. Since Jordan initiated aggression against Israel, the west bank captured during this war clearly falls under the ‘defensive war’ category. While some of the land captured from Jordan was originally Jewish-owned land, or land that was to be afforded to the Jewish state in the 1947 partition plan, it is unclear to my intuition what “natural rights” people have to land owned by their grandparents and lost during war. This remains unclear regarding Arab land lost in war, even if we choose to ignore the distinction between aggressive conquest and land gained during a defensive war (as many on the left do).

3. The legitimacy of the Nation State

The Enlightenment era idea of the nation state, predicated on the right to national self-determination, has in recent times fallen out of favor in the west.
Again this is a new popular idea, as democratic Europe shifts towards the American model of pluralism, it suddenly becomes unclear why the Jews of all people require a state all of their own. This is of course demagogy, often defended by proponents of a ‘one state” solution, or those who oppose Israel’s national character. Even today, most democracies are nation-states. Many such nation states, such as Germany, Japan or Finland, have laws designed to defend the demographic nature of the nation state, or allow for preferred immigration of certain nationalities or ethnic groups.

Often antagonists would argue that the Jewish people do not represent a nation, but rather a religion, and therefore are not entitled to self-determination. This is a misunderstanding of the complex ethnoreligious taxonomy of Judaism. Suffice to say though, that even according to religious halachaic doctrine, a Jew is first and foremost someone born to a Jewish mother. Thus, even by religious terminology, Judaism is a matter of heritage, not religious belief. Just as Jews don’t get to determine for Palestinians whether they are a nationality or not, so no one else gets to determine for Jews their status as a nationality. I believe that idea lies in the core of self-definition.

4. Reverse causality of occupation and war.

This last point isn’t contentious at all, but is often overlooked. Occupation is not the cause of the current state of war between the Jews of Israel and the Arab world. On the contrary, first there was ‘illegal’ war, and then there was ‘illegal’ occupation (* as noted in section 2, the question of legality of these terms are quite abstruse), not the other way around. Clearly, the 1929 Hebron pogrom cannot be explained as a “reaction” to Jewish occupation of land in 1967. The root cause of the conflict does not lie squarely in occupation. So while I’d be the last to argue that occupation and settlement were wise or beneficiary to Israel or to the promotion of peace, it is also false to presume that they are the cause of war or the sole obstacle to peace. As Ben-Dror Yemini rightly points out, the great injustices in this conflict (which he quantifies in a body count) occurred during wars instigated by the Arab side, not during 40+ years of occupation. Quite simply, there is a complex history to this conflict, it does not begin or end with an injective “one-to-one” function between occupation and war.

To all these points I’d like to add my main point in writing this — While it is certainly a legitimate position to believe that the nation-state is an antiquated idea, or that the Palestinian’s claim to be aboriginals to this land is truer to title, one must accept that these are contentious positions, akin to opinions, and not universally held to be fact. I would like to hope that accepting the disputable nature of these core-ideas, by both parties in the conflict, will lead to a more pragmatic understanding of the need for peace. Too much is fought over in the name of ‘historic justice’, by both sides. With this understanding of the liquid nature of history, I don’t know what justice is. And yet, even without it, I still see a need for compromise and for peace, because people need to live free and safe. This is my realpolitik, and I believe it holds a truer relation to our reality than either of the competing radical narratives.

Originally published at Total Eclipse. You can comment here or there.

Forty years ago today, the lunar module Eagle landed on the moon, fueling the imagination of of an entire species for decades to come. Two men stepped outside the lunar module and roamed about the magnificent desolation that is the Sea of Tranquility. After two hours and thirteen minutes, they returned to the Eagle, the tailwind of history on their side.

Originally published at Total Eclipse. You can comment here or there.

For a while now, we’ve been hearing about the crisis of journalism. As David Simon (HBO’s THE WIRE) once put it - Journalists today are expected to do more with less. As Simon has also wisely noted, this crisis in journalism began before the internet, but today, the most pertinent challenge to journalism lies on the web, with it’s “information wants to be free” attitude, and its cheeky anti-authoritarianism.
Most recently, some have suggested journalism can be saved by consumer technology, or that the internet will have to change to fit antiquated business models. Though I do believe journalism is worth saving, I believe both accounts to be naive and ultimately mistaken.

It is my belief, that for journalism to survive as a profession, it must re-assess and embrace its core value to the post-crisis consumer. What does it mean to be a journalist today? What is journalism’s USP?

Contrary to the nay-sayers, it is categorically false that people will not pay for content on the internet. Apple’s iTunes Store is but one example for a very profitable venture based entirely on the delivery of nonphysical digital goods (i.e. content). The game is not over before it even begun. What is true though, is that people today expect to be able to manipulate and share the content they purchased in ways previously unthinkable. This usually means no DRM, but I’ll later give a slightly different example of the importance of convenience.

The value journalism can bring to its readership has changed a lot in the information age: It is no longer the case that a journalist is first on the scene of an important event; In a global village, having a journalist in every capital is no longer a significant advantage; A wide reach is no longer a logistic problem which could have formerly given newspapers an edge. It’s not a problem at all these days.

So what do we have left? What value does journalism have to give?
Well, there’s still quality writing and professionalism.

Starting with the latter, journalists have a special role in society, and particularly in democratic societies, which even grants them certain protections under the law so that they can perform this role unrestricted. Investigative journalism is and will continue to remain an important role journalism can play, one which can never seriously be challenged by amateur bloggers. Another important aspect regarding professionalism is fact-checking. One of the most fascinating side effects of the “democratization” of the vox populi brought about by blogging and web2.0 is the fundamental rift in respect for information authority. It used to be the case that the written word was considered to be of higher authoritative value than spoken word. This is so ingrained in our culture, to have drifted into the realm of contract law. This hidden assumption in our collective subconscious has, in the past, given newspapers a great deal of trust by default in the public. This trust is eroding - in part deservedly - and a new, more critical readership is being born and raised (The Wikipedia Generation, if you like).
This trust, though, can still be earned, by hard, honest-to-god, journalism.
I, for one, would be willing to pay at least the cost of a newspaper subscription if it meant I knew there were Carl Bernstein’s and Bob Woodward’s out there raking muck. But if I’m going to read bullshit sourced off wikipedia, well, just don’t expect me to pay for it. That’s what blogs are for, and to be honest, they do it better.

Regarding quality, I still believe people will pay money to read well-written pieces. Whether it be sharp political analysis or an editorial on social issues in my community, I still believe that good writers need not fear. What I do see as becoming a problem, at least locally, is finding these new writers. Too many of today’s best newspaper writers were also the best newspaper writers 20 years ago. The classic system, where one progressed from local news to the nationals has broken down, because why write for free (or spec) for a shitty local print publication with zero readership, when you can open a blog and reach thousands of like-minded individuals from the comfort of your own home. The solution to this problem is a very simple one - It’s the internets, stupid. The New York Times acted wisely when it bought and integrated the Freakonomics blog. What it didn’t do so wisely was accept the standards of convenience expected in this day and age.

The New York Times appeared to have ‘gotten’ it on one hand - here’s where we source our new content (talent) - but then refused to accept the fundamental changes in the way people expect to receive and treat content. When NYT integrated the Freakonomics blog, it cut down its RSS feed from full-text feed to a partial feed. Besides the whiplash from the devoted RSS readership, I can account for myself that all it got was my frustration and eventual abandonment of the blog. For a while I tried all sorts of workarounds to get to the full text feed. Eventually these workarounds broke and I just gave up on it and stopped reading. I’m sure this wasn’t their intent and I know they had their justifications for what they did, but this is a base misunderstanding of the expectations of the information-age readership. People expect to be able to move the content they consume from one platform to another, from device to device, and consume it as they choose. Paradoxically, I’d probably have been willing to pay (a small fee) for a full RSS feed of content that is otherwise given for free - because partial feeds just didn’t work for me back then. Today, we are in the 140 character blipping on my screen age and we’re back to clicking on the web, but the point still stands.

People will pay for content, if it is delivered through a service that is convenient, easy to use, and constraint (DRM)-free. People will pay for digital newspapers, if they believe they are getting their money’s worth, where the value-for-money values now lie in: professionalism, quality and convenience.

Afterthought:
There’s some interesting parallels between this and the ‘On-Demand’ revolution going on in some other media, but I’ll leave that thought for another time.

Originally published at Total Eclipse. You can comment here or there.

TEL AVIV B GURION (TLV) LONDON LHR (LHR) LY 317 J 26 FEB 17:15 OK 20K
LONDON LHR (LHR) TEL AVIV B GURION (TLV) LY 316 J 01 MAR 14:30 OK 20K


Birthday Bonanza at Breakspoll 2009!

Happy New Year, my faithful devotees.

2008 has been weird. A lot of changes, and I'm not quite sure they're all for the best. It remains to be seen.


New Years Eve was a particularly odd experience. I went hopping around, met a coworker friend and hopped some more. I was all over town, but nothing felt even remotely fun (despite being seriously wasted).

I took this picture somewhere in Florentin.




Kinda weird to be partying when an hours drive away a quarter of a million Israelis are under rocket fire.
Why does this feel so familiar?

Tel-Aviv is so fucked up like that.


No real resolutions; I just need to get away for a bit.

Oh, and I've been volunteering a lot for the Labour Party in the coming elections. 39 days is not much time, and I feel like I'm too old for this shit, but I'll be damned if I fall for the same deathwish apathy enchantment half the people I know seem to be under.

Anyway. Yeah. Happy New Year.

Dear Yankee Friends,

I am not an American, but I am a citizen of this planet, residing well within the sphere of influence of the USA.

Since I cannot vote, you, my dear Yankee friends must do it for me, if not for yourselves.

Those who know me know I don't buy the usual biparty lines. I'm a very independent thinker, with Libertarian overtones. Having said that, I urge you to vote Barak Obama. Not Nader or any of that cockshit. Make a serious commitment to the betterment of this planet, don't prove a point.

I was a Hillary supporter, and unlike many others I'm not head over heels for the Obama/Biden policies (I have a particular disgust with Biden's War on Drugs politics and Obama's economic plan is merely a better bet than McCain's, not a full-proof plan by any means).
Having said that, another four years of GOP will doom our civilization. Really.

Psychology plays a big role in economy. It also plays a big role in diplomacy. And the world wants Obama, by a large margin. This is significant; With most people getting what they want, optimism for a better future can once again pour into our global markets and respect for American leadership will grow. Do not dismiss this; It is of key importance to the well-being of our society.

In 2000, we all thought Americans made a mistake, or Florida, which was governed by a Bush fucked it up for all of us. And that is forgivable. 2004 is when we really started getting disappointed in American leadership. I think in every corner of the United States people can agree with that now.

Make 2008 a better choice.


Vote Obama.

I'm Shay and I approve this message.

Fuck, no.

"Where's my fucking jetpack?" has become something of a cliche, but it points to a more serious truth; Yesterday's Tomorrow is Dead.
We've all accepted this in exchange for iPhones and Web 2.0. The smartest people in the world are probably not working for NASA's Jet Propulsion Labs; They're working for Google.
Or put it another way; We're likely to see a semantic web before we see a cure for cancer.
This isn't even a value judgment; It's an observation.

Transportation, more so than other industries, has seen a steady decline in innovation since the early 20th century. While the industrial revolution and to some extent the two world wars lead to quantum leaps in transportation technology, nothing since then has been even remotely revolutionary. Our cars and boats and jumbo jets operate on principal technology that is about a century old. Space technology, being the only notable exception has not made the move to masses. Prices never dropped down significantly enough to bring those "colonies on the moon" dreams of yesterday closer to reality.

I could digress into how this has to do with our petro-economy, with the premiums our society places which lead intelligent people to become lawyers rather than scientists, the devaluing of innovation in a patented and copyrighted culture controlled by corporations who have everything to lose and nothing to gain by change, etc. Instead I'll just say this: A lot of factors led to the situation being the way it is, but change is not beyond reach. We as a society can decide to change our priorities; To push smart people into research and engineering positions, to stress the importance of innovation, and to help promote a diversified transportation industry to keep interest groups from taking over.

Personally, I don't have an ideal mode of transportation thought out. I do know what I'd want from it; First and foremost I'd want it to be safer. In the 21st century, we're losing too many people to 'accidents' which really, in this day and age even calling them accidents is borderline-offensive. There's nothing accidental about a statistical death toll we know how to predict and how to influence (eg, differential taxation on safer automobiles would lead to a lower death toll, at a cost which is both economically and political "uncomfortable"). Humans simply cannot operate these machines to a degree of control that would enable avoiding these 'accidents'.

These are not 21st century machines.

Other obvious features I'd look for are faster, greener, and cheaper. Transportation is such a fundamental aspect of our society and economy, any revolution in this industry could have widespread and long term repercussions on the way we function as a society, the way we do business, the footprint we leave on this planet, etc.
These are all things worth considering, and I hope change is not beyond reach. We desperately need this revolution. We just need to make it happen.


(first time I answered one of these writer's block things, what do you think?)

Not normally one for posts dedicated to movie reviews (hell, not really one to post at all nowadays), but I just got back from seeing Waltz with Bashir, and I feel like I need to let something out on the proverbial page else I explode with indigestion.

First off, it's an amazing film, go watch it. For my Yankee friends, I'm not sure when US screening starts, but keep an eye on IMDB or your local listings, it's definitely a film worth going to the movie theatre for.

I spoke of this earlier with curare, there's a quality to Hollywood films in general, which does not skip over Hollywood War films, that makes them... Larger than life. It's not just the silverscreen, but something about them always has an aspect of "epicness".

Israeli war films, in the tradition of Avanti Popolo and Kippur tend to bring it down to the utmost human level. Perhaps you need to be an Israeli for this, but it feels like I could there. This could have been me, in this film.

Waltz with Bashir takes this personal dimension and rolls with it. The film can be described as an animated auto-biographical pseudo-documentary, revolving around the filmmaker Ari Folman's attempt to reconstruct his memory of the events that took place during his service in Israel's first Lebanese War. The filmmaker goes on a personal journey through his distorted hallucinations and half-memories, interviewing people who were there with him, trying to clear his path to the truth of what happened.

The cinematographic choice of making most of the film animated (in a style reminiscent of Linklater's A Scanner Darkly) is brilliant. The overall theme of the film has to do with a distorted, escapist reality and the manner in which we, as human beings, try to deal with a reality that is more distorted than our delusions. The stock film that is used and is not animated, if it were presented in any other context, would be chilling to a degree that it becomes uncanny and unreal. The way in which it is presented left the audience, myself included, in solemn silence. And a single tear.

There's so much more I want to say about the way this movie made me feel, but I simply lack the words. Foremost, though it alludes to the collective subconscious, Waltz with Bashir is a personal film. Thus, I can only conclude that the experience I am going through now, as I try and work out the movie in my head, is a personal one as well. All I can say is that the emotional impact, at least for me, has been enlightening, if a bit overwhelming.

When I left the theatre, I was sure I could never bear to see this film a second time. By the end of writing this post, I think I need to go see it again.

SO

It appears I'm starting to work for 5min.com this Tuesday. I have a trial-period of course, but I think I'm gonna be a good fit there. Wish me luck!
I'm a bit late jumping in on the startup parade, but you know, I figured it was bound to happen sometime. My position at the Gemius project, though much more promising (and a slightly higher pay) just wasn't going anywhere. Been there for three months now, and still no contracts signed..So.. You know, a man's gotta work.
(Though if any of you faithful readers are looking for a job and have a bit of patience, drop me a line)

I'm also applying for an MBA program focusing on business and marketing psychology. Two days a week BS at the College of Management for a couple of years. It's right up my alley, career-wise, and you know, doesn't hurt the CV one bit.
Especially if I ever want to gtfo of this country.


(That is unless any of you faithful readers know a cheap/fast way to get me an H1B visa (or better) =])

What else is new?

oh yeah, West Coast Extravaganza 2008 was absolutely incredible. I had an amazing time. Got to see some really great people, family, and friends. I missed a few of you too, I know (sorry Brad), I wish I had more time. I tried to extend my stay, but there were just no flights, and I'm already overdrafting about a month's salary, and that's before I paid rent or had a job, so...

I wish I could move Berlin, London and New York City to California and move somewhere in between.

Where's my fucking teleporter, future? *shakes fist*

Well, I think that's it.

End Transmission.

Tel Aviv San Francisco, back from Los Angeles, stopping over in Frankfurt.


1/6 TLV-FRA
1/6 FRA-SFO
6/6 SFO-LAX
15/6 LAX-FRA
16/6 FRA-TLV



weeeeee!

Well, it's time I posted a bit of an update I guess on what's going on in my life, for posterity if nothing else.


I just booked me a flight to SFO and LAX for the beginning of June. I'll crash at my sister's place in Palo Alto, and then catch a plane to LAX to meet up with Ariel and Maayan (my usual travelling partners) as well as Roy and Jenny who we'll be staying with and stealing their car and booze and food.

I'm probably about two weeks away from finishing my stupid empirical research paper (finally), and I might be starting a new (much higher paying) job real soon.

Since the week of my birthday, I've been pretty much in a constant drunken stupor. It helps me sleep, but is probably not the best new years resolution for the fine age of 27 (ie: "become an alcoholic").
I do seem to have much more of a social life now than I had a few months ago when I was in the deepest pits of school-related hell.

Enough with the good.

I'm beginning to accept that despite all the effort I put into it, I may very well not be continuing next year to a Ph.D program in the states. I met with Prof. Lee Ross from Stanford for dinner on my birthday (we'd been exchanging emails regarding my application and he suggested we meet when he was in Israel), and spoke with him about it. I'll spare you the gory details, but it boils down to:

A) I am not an American
and
B) I do not have much experience in academic research.

Now, obviously, generally nobody who finishes their BA has had the opportunity to be a research assistant. This is true for most schools. However, exceptional students might have overcome the obstacles involved and made it anyway. This is of course much easier if you are studying your BA in Princeton rather than City College, but, (and I quote) Life Isn't Fair.
Regarding the not-being American thing, it's a little trickier and he used much vaguer language, as application committees are not supposed to take financial resources into account at all. However, it's kind of impossible to ignore the fact that foreigners will not be receiving any federal grants or most scholarships, and so, take their money from the respective departments.

Another fun and fine factor to consider is that Tel-Aviv University screwed me royally, and just released my final transcripts and certificate of BA conference to me late last week, though it is backdated to 10/2007 (!!!)
Of course, in any sane institute, such as many of the finer schools in the US, they don't really understand why they have to even consider a student who cannot provide final transcripts during application, or even as late as February. Hence, I've received rejections from schools who never even saw my final transcripts. I'd imagine my application may not have even been considered for many of them for this reason.

Anyway, nothing is final, but it has become apparent that despite trying to keep an open mind and always preferring to be success oriented in such endeavors, I may very well need to plan what I intend to do in the coming years instead. In August my lease is up, and though I'm pretty sure I could extend it, that's only a few months away, and I need to start figuring out what I intend to do with my life, or at least the next year.

The thought has occurred to me to just go. Ditch everything and take a flight to New York. I feel in my bones that it's where I'm supposed to be. Even with my current visa, I can stay for half a year. That's a long good while, and hopefully I'd be able to get some kind of job, or maybe apply for a green card.

Berlin is another city that calls out to me, but I think that ship might have sailed already.

I could of course find a real grown-up job (as much as I love working at a comicbook store, that shit is never meant to last), and start getting my life in order in Tel-Aviv (or probably Yaffo). you know, mortgage and shit.

Finally, I could decide to go to school here (though not in fucking TAU). The IDC have a few good MA programs. I'm not even too late to apply for this fall.

(another hidden option is work hellahard for a few months, maybe move in with my parents for the cheapness, and fuck on off to new Zealand for half a year.. but.. yeah, I dunno).

Anyway, off to drink.

It always gets better rigt after my birthday... So... Any minute now... Yes..?

Phenomenal Cosmic Power, Itty-bitty Living Space.

1) DRINKING BUDDY OF THE YEAR - Dina. I'm a rotten friend, but she tries.

2) LIFETIME SERVICE AWARD (longest friend) - Ariel and Moshe. Most of our lives, and relatively bullshit-free.

3) NEWCOMER AWARD - NEWEST FRIEND? - Dana

4) HIGH POINT OF THE YEAR? the 5 seconds after finishing my GRE.

5) LOW POINT OF THE YEAR? - School-related anxiety which has kept me locked up for far too long

6) BEST HOLIDAY? - The retarded student strike?

7) BEST SONG OF 2007 - Wasn't really into 2007 musically. I can't bloody well give it to Thou Shalt Always Kill. Maybe something off the new Burial.

8) MOVIE FOR 2007? - Technically it's 2006, but I only got to see it in 2007; The Fountain

9) BEST VACATION? - weekend in Berlin!

10) WHO DID YOU SPEND VALENTINES WITH? Fuck Valentines

11) BEST RELATIONSHIP? That would be telling ;)

12) WHAT WERE YOU FOR HALLOWEEN? My boring-ass self

13) RESTAURANT OF THE YEAR? I'm tempted to say the Cafeteria, but really it's Olive who have served me best this year.

14) BOOK OF THE YEAR? I've hardly read anything from 2007 really, but wth, let's give it up for Crooked Little Vein.

15) BEST DECISION MADE THIS YEAR? To start thinking about shit.

16) WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR NEXT YEAR? Pee Aitch Dee

17) MOST STUPID IDEA WHEN DRUNK? Haven't been sufficiently drunk to do anything radical. I did call Noa this week at half past whenever in the morning and sang the chorus to Song for the Dumped on her voicemail.

18) TV SHOW OF THE YEAR? THE WIRE.

19) FRIEND YOU SPENT THE MOST TIME WITH THIS YEAR? Probably Tal.

20) BIGGEST CHANGE OF THE YEAR? I moved? Graduated? whatever. It's been hectic.

21) BIGGEST RETARD AWARD? So many to choose from, but let's all give a round of applause to our student union leader, and his brilliant plan to stop progress at the expense of his hostage constituency.

22) NEW YEAR RESOLUTION? Finish up my shit and graduate. Live a little.

With sincere apologies to Martin Niemöller.
( Read more... )

So just a quick update, in case anyone still reads this. I know I've been off the grid since forever, but anyway:

I did my GRE today. Got a 700 on the quantitative section and a meager 610 on the verbal section.
Either way, who cares, at least it's behind me. Can't say I really put my heart and soul into studying for this, but fuckit, I think I gone done good enough.

Now, I still have to finish my statement of purpose, go over some writing samples again and again and again in hellish autistic repetition until it looks like something remotely academic.

Then, apply. Must do this soon. yes. This week.


Then, I can finally dedicate time to finishing up my empirical seminar in psychology and then..

then..

I'll rest.


(or not).


(Ishould'vebeeninNewYorknowarghhh)

random clip:

When we take a piece of some material and subdivide it into smaller pieces, we cannot carry on this process indefinitely. At some stage of this process the bits become so small that they cannot be seen with the most powerful microscope. At a further stage, we should reach a limit of the subdivision that the particles can undergo without losing their chemical character. Such a limit is called the molecule*. The smallest particle visible in the microscope is still about one thousand times larger than the largest molecule. So we see that between the molecule and the smallest visible particle there is a wide range of sizes. Findlay calls these the 'twilight zone of matter'; and it was Oswald, I believe, who called it the 'world of neglected dimensions'.

Science & Sanity, Alfred Korzybski, 1933.

* This is not strictly the case, as many substances are composed of atoms or ions, but are not made of molecules.

I need music.

Recommend me something nice.


No dubstep please (unless it's really good).