we do this all the time.

La chat non verrà salvata nel registro.

me: schmorion

you: hi

me: whatup.

im bored again

you: not alot

me: oh, had you read the kite runner?

you: i'm trying to decide what to do with my life

yes, i have

me: oh yes, life decisions suck.

had you liked it?

you: no, not life decisions, just now decisions

in a way

it’s well written

but i liked his second book better

porque?

me: i didn't like the book at all. i thought it gave into orientalis thinking in some ways. i hated his use of persian words- it felt like he was making the land sound foreign, exotic by using persian words which are easily translatable and not special and in my opinion potentially confusing to non persian understanders. also, i had a really hard time believing the narrator's shame in what he had done.

i really disliked the book.

also, maybe because i know it's been made a movie, i kept on thinking it was like a screenplay with only the plot that's significant and otherwise devoid of literary effort.

you: i agree in that way

but any book about a place such as afghanistan is going to be read through an orientalist lens

and it could have been more complicated

for me, i think i would have liked it more if it hadn't been talked about so much

what pisses me off is that people speak of it as if its the only true representation of afghanistan

but the book itself can't be blamed for that

me: hm, i can't say i've read or watched many reviews. most would be on the film i'd assume.

but yes,

i can imagine how people would do that

you: no, i've just heard about it a lot

like, in every bookstore its the book people HAVE to read

and it was a bestseller for months

me: see, that's why i was disappointed.. because it lacks literary talent.

it's so badly written.

ok maybe not badly but it's not a great literary work

you: well yeah, its not

but its not awful

me: i might just be saying this because the two books i read before were amazing.

you: yeah

i mean, it wasn't the best writing i've ever read

me: i read lolita in english- i had read it in turkish long long time ago. and the other one is actually the translator's work but have you heard of dr. zhivago?

you: but it wasn't geared towards an audience of stellar literary critics, and it wasn't trying to be a masterpiece

me: yes

but still, put some effort into your writing.

i guess i was just disappointed because i was expecting more out of it.

you: yeah

i didn't expect a lot, maybe that's why i liked it a little

or maybe i'm comparing it to the movie, which i didn't like

me: and also, every time there was mention of the states, it was described as this heavenly place where everyone is treated wonderfully - which i'd imagine would so not be the case for an afghani

you: oh, i know

well, the father deteriorated in the us

me: yes but that doesn't change anything.

it was his own inner thing.

you: oh, lolita was great

me: loltia is amazing.

you: yes

me: every word in that book is fascinating.

you: i know!

me: the whole book is like one really sweet, lustful, magical liquid.

dude, and it's kind of creepy how as the reader you want humbert humbert to do whatever he wishes to, to lolita despite the fact that it's sick. it's that well written

you: no, you hate him, but he's fascinating

and she's frikin irritating too

it’s soooo good though

me: yes but it's just soooo well written

yep

it's definitely one of my favorite books.

i can't think of others right now though

you: but lolita is lolita, and the kite runner was written for a completely different audience

have you read possession?

me: nope, but i think you told me about this book. by a woman writer yes?

you: yes

you should read it

me: who was it by?

you: i'm not going to tell you what i think til you read it though, cause i want to see your reaction

a.s. byatt

me: ok, i'll try to find one the next time i go to a bookstore

i'm not sure if i can though-since it's turkey.

you: but listen, lolita is lolita, and the kite runner was written for a pop-ish audience

yeah, i mean, someday read it

me: yep. Georgia!

so sudden and horrible

you: i know!!!!

i was so shocked and horrified

me: yeah,

you: dude, what's up with the world?

me: my sister's summer school in new hampshire ended today

and apparently they're not sending georgian students back

it must be horrible

can you imagine,

you: wow

me: i'd be very mad if my family was in my country, in war and i was in the states

you: oh, i know

i have a couple friends who that happened to

well, not war like that, but heavy conflict, and lots of uncertainty

nepal

me: yeah

you: it was awful for them, i can only imagine how much worse it is for kids at a summer camp, with a war

me: yes

and the stupid school told the turkish students that maybe the states won't let them come back to turkey either.

you: what?

me: but that's the stupidest thought ever

you: that's ridiculous

me: because i mean iraq's been in war for years now and it's our neighbor too

you: yeah

but that's a different geopolitical strategy, therefore a different bias

such bullshit though

me: yeah, they'll come

it's stupid

but you,

i really don't want to live a third world war.

you: me neither

really, i don't

me: i think we've been raised too spoiled and we can't take it-as a generation

you: or maybe it would make people wake up?

me: well, certainly not all.

but i mean at what cost?

also, people forget incredibly easily

you: i think our political consciousness has been eroded such that we will blindly accept incredibly destructive decisions though

me: another war and 10 years afterwards people love their comfortable homes again

yes, i agree, such as what russia's doing to georgia now

you: yeah

me: have you seen it in the news at all? it's regular people's houses and stuff.

see that's what i don't get.

why not the government officials' houses-surely technology's developed enough to aim that well

you: but i mean, if in WWII people accepted concentration camps in germany and 'relocation' camps in the US and the dropping of atomic bombs, what would we accept now?

me: yeah i know

you: well, yeah, but it was the same in iraq at the beginning..."specialized" target missiles at "specialized" targets were all civilian deaths

me: dude i really don't want to live a third world war.

you: i really don’t either

me: i don't think i'd survive, i'm trained only in theory not practice.

you: the other scary thing was that as soon as i saw the news my first thought was if this is the beginning of another one

me: me too

you: i think we can survive much more than we think we can

me: it's strange though.

i mean, look what we're doing now,

talking to each other in the comfort of our homes (sort of) from two different hemispheres

and it’s hard to imagine giving such things up and go back to the primitive survival conditions of war

you: that's true

me: hey can we post this on the blog too?

you: hahaha, yeah

me: and also,

doesn't it sound like something you'd read in a history book?

the start of the wwiii when russia attacked georgia

you: but i think we have skewed perceptions of what its like to live in a war

you: or when the us invaded afghanistan

dunno

me: it's really scary how things change overnight too

you: yep

and how much power stupid people have

and stupid things

me: yes. but haven't we also talked about how wars have always been recorded in history as victories and glorious things?

i mean, this is no different than slaughters of 1400s

you: of course

me: and i'm thinking it's natural

but then it's unfathomable to think one can put and end to it all

you: i think we just find more complicated ways to display animal instincts, and then paint ourselves as modern and sophisticated and above barbarity

me: hey another screwed up thing is this youth constitutional draft this woman in akp wrote to supposedly protect teenagers (i don't know from what)

it had articles like

teenagers over 18 but under 22 can't go into restaurants or clubs discos bars theaters etc unaccompanied after 22.00 o'clock

you: wtf?

that's a ridiculous thing

me: she withdrew it though.

oh and it also had an article like placing worshiping chambers (temple sounds too big) in every school

for the free expression of religion she said

stupid woman.

dude, i'm seriously scared that one day these things will actually come true.

in this country

you: dude, there are a lot of things i'm scared of will come true

that's ridiculous though

me: yep

you: so my derechos humanos professor was talking about eras and other philosophical frameworky things

me: yes,

you: he said that we're now in a period of transition to a different system, but that its very gradual, and unlike in other times of transition, there is no idea of what should be next, and therefore nothing to propel the change

this explains the chaos

i think i agree with him

me: i like that.

i mean, it's relieving that it's an idea that explains everything

you: people's politics and identities and minds are so focused on the idea of the nation, its impossible to conceive of other realistic ways of being

it does explain everything

but it is grounded in concrete thought

me: haha, you made me so happy

well, your professor did

you: me too

the same class he said that asia is a conception of the west

these two ideas made me love him more

me: ok kid, i have to go

because i slept very little yesterday

you: okay

me: but, one last thing

l'oreal used beyonce to advertise stuff but whitened her skin.

idiots.

i mean, on pictures not in reality=)

you: that's stupid

me: yeah

you: well, yeah

me: it's racist in the first place, but also even commercially, it's beyonce, she's so well known as she is

you: yeah

that's incredibly stupid

kid, this world is depressing

me: maybe i should change back my mind to dying when i'm 62.

you: maybe you should see what happens before that

you still have 42 years to decide

me: yes.

i'll consider.

you: good.

me: ok

you: i'd like you to live long

but go, sleep.

me: i'd like you to live longer than me, haha

you: hey!

then you'll leave me the pain

me: exactly

you: that's not fair

me: and you'll have to take care of peeling the paint=)

you: okay

you too, if the opposite happens

me: alrighty then. by-bye!

you: bye!

pink ribbons never existed for me. how about for you?

sometimes, when childhood friends meet, and one happens to be a couple of years older than the other, even though this age difference didn't use to be apparent in their children's relationships - except for occasional exemption of the younger one from being it during hide and seek, the older friend fills with a kind of joy peculiar solely to bigger sisters, and calls the younger friend shamelessly pretty.

Half my wardrobe is from Target

That the rights of an individual extend until they interfere with another's rights is a pretty solid and well accepted notion of liberty.

So say a hypothetical Maria likes to shop at Wal-Mart (or Target) because she is a poor student and prefers to spend her money on other things, but also because she simply likes the clothes. Or that a, say, Laura really likes Nike's, for reasons of fashion and comfort. Each of them has a right to choose whether to consume these products, and to be happy and satisfied with them. (like our hypothetical friend Dan and his iPods?) But, if you take the production of these clothes, and in the case of Wal-Mart, their conveniently low prices into account, aren't they in a way infringing on other people's rights to decent wages and healthcare and a means to survive and exist contentedly in the world? Sweatshops don't exactly enable liberty.

This is confusing to me. Or maybe its just late.

I am going to sleep now, goodnight.

Stupidity

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html

I came across this article somewhere on the internet, and its title intrigued me. So I read it. Its kind of long, so in short:

Robert Nozick, in analyzing what makes such a large proportion of intellectuals oppose capitalism, says "Why then do contemporary intellectuals feel entitled to the highest rewards their society has to offer and resentful when they do not receive this? Intellectuals feel they are the most valuable people, the ones with the highest merit, and that society should reward people in accordance with their value and merit. But a capitalist society does not satisfy the principle of distribution "to each according to his merit or value." Apart from the gifts, inheritances, and gambling winnings that occur in a free society, the market distributes to those who satisfy the perceived market-expressed demands of others, and how much it so distributes depends on how much is demanded and how great the alternative supply is. Unsuccessful businessmen and workers do not have the same animus against the capitalist system as do the wordsmith intellectuals. Only the sense of unrecognized superiority, of entitlement betrayed, produces that animus."

His argument continues to answer his question through an analysis of the educational system, basically claiming that intellectuals (who he defines as "wordsmiths" - not necessarily all academics, but those in positions to generate and articulate ideas. ie not mathematicians, but published geography professors) are rewarded in school based on a different set of values than they later encounter in greater society, and are thus resentful that they are not sufficiently recognized once they leave academia.

Though the article gets a little more complicated than that (read it, e, you'd find it interesting), that's basically his point. Intellectuals feel underappreciated by society, and are therefore jealous, and therefore resentful.

(You should know that this article comes from a market-liberal/libretarian think tank. Don't even get me started on their mission statement.)

This idea makes me mad, and a little sad. You know I consider myself a little intellectual, you do too. We're college students with inquiring minds :) And I do think that knowledge is an incredibly important part of life, and society. I do want more people to be intellectually inclined in the world. I think that's supremely important. Perhaps that value is selfish, in a way. I know it is, actually. I want people to be as privileged as I am in opportunities to look critically at the world.

But how can he dare say that any anti-capitalist tendencies I might have are purely because I am resentful that the system doesn't value me? He operates on the assumption that people are not capable of empathy. I make this accusation because I firmly believe that my opposition to capitalism comes from a deep incapability to ignore the inequalities that it has produced. I don't feel under-appreciated, just mad that people like him have so little faith in the ability of people to acknowledge the sufferings of other people, and his presumption that people are so inherently individualistic. I am an individual, but I'm a part of a collective, and I'm keenly aware that I am only able to articulate my ideas because society has given me opportunities to do so.

Though capitalism relies on an assumption that people are selfish, constant resistance to it has demonstrated otherwise, in so many cases. We can be collective in our actions, rational in terms of a group rather than ourselves. This is something I need to keep believing, it helps keep me sane through my cynicism.

Its so hard to save the world when it feels that society emphasizes individuality so much that people can legitimately disseminate their overbearingly stifling ideas that people are so selfish and individualistic as to solely oppose an ideology based on how resentful they are.

Kid, why do we care so much?

What to do!

i was thinking of something you said in our previous conversation. ideology is intangible yes. and i've come to realize that this is my problem with ideologies, mainly "isms." most of the time there's a very intricately designed foundation beneath these ideologies that different people fight for, -which i appreciate and admire- but the motivation to fight for a certain ideology comes from a very tangible thing. for example, if a hypothetical Sophia grows up in a poor household, however witnessing all the riches in the world be devoured by others, she'll surely advocate equal rights for all. but then, a hypothetical Daniel, who derives pleasure out of the number of newer and newer models of ipods he possesses will not want to give his capitalistic privileges up. right? there are exceptions of course, but it isn't anyone's right to take away from Dan, this joy, let alone question the legitimacy of it.(i am being hypocritical here, i am ruthless when it comes to questioning legitimacy of luxury, and you would agree)here, the metropolitan part of the country does not cease complaining about how stupid the rest of the people in this country are, for voting twice on the conservative party - which is of course not the desirable government! but the farmer plowing his field for a never profiting plantation of cauliflowers makes his decision very easily based on the insignificant(from a broader perspective) amount of raise the government puts on the baseline price of cauliflower. so, when there are so many tiny tiny details influencing people's lives greatly, i find it overwhelming, once again, to save the world. ah, what to do!