.:imprudent, insolent children:.

Ever read the news articles about politics, especially the ones that quote politicians?

Ever think to yourself, "this is RIDICULOUS!"?

That is precisely the feeling I had while reading some of the Times today. One article in particular, concerning Talk of Pelosi as Speaker aggravated my waking morning mind. First, the reporter needs to go back to communications school, or better yet, the writer's house at any university. However, the thoughts of Republican strategists evoked the wincing sensation that results from nails scratching a chalk board.

- First: "'Is America ready for Nancy Pelosi's Contract With San Francisco?' asked Representative Ric Keller, Republican of Florida, posing a question that, one imagines, could form the basis of many Republican advertisements this fall."

- Second: "Republican strategists say they are eager to conduct a direct assault on Ms. Pelosi, focusing on what they believe are her vulnerabilities."

Such imprudence and insolence should be attributed to children swept up in a cloud of emotion that fogs their judgment. The frequency with which I or friends compare children and politicians should unnerve even the most ardent believer in the "goodness" of the political system. And, my friends and I are the most ardent supports of this delicious enterprise in the democratic rationality of man. Yet, when I read articles such as this, I am reminded of Hobbes and not Locke or Montesquieu. Or perhaps, Ann Rynd. (Though this is less of egoism for the self, and more "do whatever is in our interest".) Washington warning against forming political factions was well intended, even if impossible.

Republican "strategists" conducting direct assault on her vulnerabilities. Sounds more like a war strategy for Iraq. Perhaps we should send these strategist to their quagmire over in that neck of the woods. The parties should never be assaulting each other. Time wasted with such imprudent actions is not amiss with the genius slowness of the political system the founding fathers purposefully created. Yet, they expected the system to stabilize as a result of the democratic obstacle course of the Constitution. I neither know nor will venture to guess if they expected representative officials to spend so much time attacking one another and vying for the adoration of fans to never even enter the obstacle course. Politicians are elected not only to speak on behalf of their constituents, but also to exercise rationality in carrying out the wishes of such fickle people as we Americans. When we get carried away with plots to 'get them ___' (fill in the blank with whatever group you'd like), our elected officials who are in office before such new sentiments arise are presented with the problem of listening to constituents, and also doing what is best for them and country and in tow with what is right. Of course, what is right might not be apparent either to him/her at the time or to the constituents. Officials elected as those new sentiments form and voice the opinions the mass want to hear should take heed when making a pack with us fickle people. But we should remember why we have officials in the first place. If I wanted to attack the views of my fellow citizens I can do that on my own without the need of politicians. I elect them to keep the government running and to make sure my opinion is heard in that greasing of the machine. Our politicians serve us, and it's about time they remember that. If they forget, we can always just elect a new one.

for the ears: billy bragg
for the eyes: emmet gowin

.:fresh face:.

So I've done some remodeling to my blog. I changed the top image and the bottom right... both of which are my own creations. The new website address is www.truthinvanity.com and the new title is Truth in Vanity. The obvious, glaring question remains to be asked and answered: what does 'truth in vanity' mean?

The answer: I am subscribed to Vanity Fair and I adore the magazine. I often found myself quoting such-and-such about some news headline. When people stared at me I would respond that there is a lot of truth in the magazine! And by truth I meant both that the facts weren't incorrect and that many of the articles dealt with politics, art, philosophy--culture. Then the phrase 'truth in vanity' came to occupy my wandering thoughts. The incohorence, the irony, the irrationality of it all. Could there be a bit of truth in our vanities? Or, was truth vain? Better yet, what is vanity? According to Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (random I know), vanity has 2 meanings: too much pride in your own appearance, abilities or achievements; the quality of being unimportant, especially compared with other things that are important. The latter is more what I wish to convey. There is a truth in the things that seem unimportant. If this life is unimportant on a grand scheme, and therefore vain, I still believe that there are truths to gather. And, I confess, I was thinking a bit of the former. In a way I know I am vain. I love material possessions and pretty things. Vanities of vanities I adore, and there is some truth to those adorations. Truth, in the sense that those vanities are not unimportant or meaningless though that seems contradictory. Perhaps looking gorgeous is vain, but there are things to learn as a result of that vanity and that vanity is not on the whole meaningless or worse, and inquity.

on the ipod: metric
art: john atkinson grimshaw

.:wharton/college:.

now that the first year of university is behind me I have a nice perspective to reflect on the year. Truth be told, I hated Wharton. Nothing wrong with the school in the least, it just didn't seem like a good fit. Near the end of second semester I deeply considered switching to the college. I had my parents behind me, I even had composed the first email to get the ball rolling. Of course, I still was't positive. Give up a degree the best business school? And what would I study? I couldn't defunct in order to study philosophy--my parents would have killed me and I could have done that at UVA for a fraction of the cost (see, I do have a wharton inside whether or not I admit it). So then perhaps I'd study PPE (politics, philosophy and economics). When touring Penn I actually was drawn to that college major, so not a bad choice. Then I started to think, so what do I want to do with that type of degree. Go to law school. Then what? Go work for a firm? Sure, sounds like a fine path, but what did I want to do with that law degree? Whom did I want to help? Did I just want to make lots of money and screw any sense of a social contract? Not really. That isn't too say I didn't want to make lots of money, just that it wasn't my main goal. So what did I want to do????

Pressing question that many college students find themselves being asked by everyone on the planet. But it doesn't matter what I tell someone else and I don't even care what another thinks of my career choice. What matters is what I want to do, and finding that answer for myself is much harder. So, here is the path of questions and soul searching I walked. If it helps you, great. If it doesn't, sorry. :(

We don't pick a lifetime job anymore. We pick career paths. Those paths perhaps for some are a single entity, and perhaps for some of us, those paths are as varied as the stars in the sky. So, what interests me? Tons of things. But what was there that I enjoyed, that I could talk for hours about and still not be finished. What inspired a passionate revolution of my mind and soul? Retail answered the first. Helping the poor answered the second. Of course, both of those are very broad categories, but that is fine. So, I could help the poor through a PPE degree. And I could go into retail with a creative liberal arts degree. But let's look at my desire to have an impact on the lives of the world's poorest people. I could join the peace corps (great organization), I could run tons of missions through my church, I could be in an essence, I complete hippie. (I'm pretty much already there so that wouldn't be a far leap.) But that is helping on a very micro- level. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Yet I want to have a bigger impact on a bigger scale. I could rally on Capitol Hill with the thousand of other lobbists, or I could join some politically active group. All those are options that many people have taken. Yet you know. Not many of those people are business people and perhaps they don't speak the language of "suits". Microfinacing is a new and intriguing way to help the poor help themselves. Poverty doesn't equate to slothness. And sholving food and clothing to provide basic supplies works, yes. But at some point, they need economies. They need small loans to start small businesses like food carts. We're not talking about $1 million loans to start restaurants. We're talking about $1000 (if even) loans to start food carts. A degree in political science would put me in a position to help, sure. But in a way, it's a sort of fluff understanding of the influences. Money is what makes the world go 'round. So why not use money to help. And where best to learn about money? Wharton.

Of course I have neglected my other joy--retail. The way I explained it to a friend--I have a lifetime to make money and I also have a lifetime to help others. So why not actually get money first by working at a higher paying job and then go off on my globe trotting help-the-poor mission? Because I also have a biological clock. I don't want to lug kids around the globe. And I figure I'll have a few careers in my life so switching is not a bad idea. It doesn't make sense to spend years a lot of time and energy to prepare for something that I might want to possibly to in 20 years. Hell I might get hit by a bus tomorrow. However, that doesn't mean to serach for the greatest good in the nearest future. We do plan for tomorrow and the day after. So a college degree should be useful, but that doesn't mean I have to taylor my life career to that one degree. Plan for the next 5 to 10 years and reevaluate down the road if this is where I should be. So after I've walked down this path of helping others, perhaps I'll venture over to the Retail path. Who knows.

For right now, I'm loving Wharton. In fact, Bri and I were the face of Wharton in its debut as the Number One b-school in Business Week.

on the ipod: imogen heap
art: my photos from italy (soon to be posted)