Gaza War a "Victory" for Both

this Arab-Israeli conflict really was very similar to previous ones. so inconclusive, with both sides claiming victorious in an uneasy ceasefire. it really leaves you thinking, was anything really achieved by it? well, now that it's over, i guess you could say that peace, at least by its political definition, is achieved. but that was already in place prior to the events. anyway, as Peter said, fighting a war for peace is like "f--ing for virginity," and isn't that why Israel launched its raid? at the end of the day, both sides have lost lives and accumulated fervor, and are ultimately as insecure as ever. victorious indeed.

EDIT: the war lasted 22 days; maybe they will call it the 22 day war? anyway, i like how my last post was at exactly the midpoint of the war, haha.

11-day (so far) war in Gaza

It's a good thing I took The Modern Middle East last semester, as I now sort of understand the history of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. I wish I still had the course, though, because I'd love to hear some discussion on the latest war. One thing about this long-running conflict is that both sides have legitimacy. I'm sure other people have said this, but I will say it anyway. The Palestinians had occupied that land for a very long time and were forcibly displaced because of arbitrary lines drawn by European powers. The Israelis, on the other hand, had "fairly" won the territory with their superior military power. The trophy, of course, is LAND. Both countries can't get what they want, and so we have partition. Lines drawn to divide an already teensy lot of land. Neither country is satisfied, and neither will be, until they get a satisfactory settlement. But the thing is, they want the same thing, and from different ideological positions. So you have the underdogs, the embittered Palestinians under the Islamist Hamas who lash out saying the Arab world has deserted them. And you have God's people and America's pet, the Israelis, who will certainly not lose the war although they may not "win". The war will probably be short, as the others have been, but the "peace" that follows it will probably be artificial unless an amazing settlement is reached. What kind of settlement? I couldn't say.

i spend

So, this article talks about how American consumers are not helping their country get out of recession: "The idea that the American family will quickly spend us out of this recession is a fantasy. It won't happen." What is happening is that people are saving instead: "You look around, you see the closing stores, and you know someone needs to spend. Just not us."

People feel that they should save because their neighbors (haha) are losing their jobs. But if they aren't, and if their job is secure, maybe spending isn't such a bad thing. Right now, prices are generally low, so you get okay bang for your buck. Also, to save it for the short term wouldn't give you much return on your investment compared with historical savings rates; after all, the stock market is pretty dismal right about now. Not to mention you would be doing your country a (small) patriotic favor, and also the global economy.

This is what I've been doing, sort of, patriot that I am. Never have I shopped more online than I did in the past year. If you're a smart shopper, you will find some pretty sweet deals. And if you're not concerned about losing your job, you really aren't losing much. As they say in the housing industry, it's a buyer's market.

communicating

it isn't what it was meant. why does everything come out the wrong way? why are there forever gaps between people, between friends? You are the only one who knows it like it is.

if human beings are social creatures, why is it so hard to communicate with one another? no, you say, it's not hard -- we can just open our mouths to communicate. but from personal experience i know, as you probably do, that it is extremely difficult to communicate if you don't speak the same language. sure, you can get basic points across, like "i'm hungry" or "where's the restroom?" but what about more complicated ideas, such as feelings, dreams, things higher up on Maslow's Hierarchy? or concepts, plans, and philosophies? even if you speak the same language, simple sentences or gestures can be grossly misinterpreted and lead to gaping chasms between the closest of friends.

i think one of the reasons why it is so hard to communicate is because we are selfish in our natures. it's hard to put ourselves into other people's shoes because maybe you wouldn't think that way in their situation, but too bad, they do. it's extremely hard to be bigger than yourself, to emphathize. even if you do something nice for someone else, you can't take away the root of their pain. you can't heal others, though you can help the process along.

to more fully understand someone, you have to spend time with them or speak with them a lot. and people just don't have that kind of time to spend, not unless they really care about someone. and even then, there is always room for miscommunication because of our physical separation from others. you can't know everything about someone else's history, all their memories, their emotions and motivations. and so we have these barriers between us.

but then again, are these barriers really that much of a bad thing, as i seem to be hinting at? would life be as fulfilling if we could just meet people and 'know' them? and here, i'm not just talking about stereotyping, certainly a shortsighted though perhaps inescapable habit. i think the fact that you can't really know someone else completely, the fact that there will always be an element of the mysterious in everyone (assuming that people are not simple beings), no matter how well you know them, makes social interaction worthwhile and rewarding. so i've come full circle. we miscommunicate, but in the process of fixing the conflict, relationships are built up.

kennedy

Caroline Kennedy is seeking Hillary's vacated Senate seat. I think she has a good chance of winning it because people are so superficial. Let's be honest, one of the reasons Obama won the presidency was because of the color of his skin. So many of his voters didn't know anything about him except that he advocated change and that he was "black." I really hope Ms. Kennedy doesn't get voted in just because of her name. She just seems to be another typical Democrat. Don't get me wrong; I voted for Obama and rooted for him over McCain. His defeat would have meant the demoralization of our nation and beyond. But will he solve any of our nation's real problems? So far, he has not. (Although, to be fair, he hasn't been inaugurated yet. However, he already seems to wield more power than Mr. Bush.) Another trillion dollar bailout is far from change; it is copying Bush. Also, it just delays the inevitable, and may be more costly than cost-saving. This guy explains it better than me.

I think our leadership should value sound decisions more than timeliness. Sometimes, in a hurry, I take a wrong turn because I think it will get me to my destination sooner. But really, all I've done is gone in the wrong direction and actually wasted time, and gas. Our Fed certainly made a lot of hasty decisions back in November to save all those banks. Why, though, should we waste so much money to save institutions that squandered what they already had? What if we just decided to waste a whole bunch of money on nothing? Moreover, isn't the American Dream based on "reaping what you sow?" There are reasons behind why institutions go bankrupt, and now they are making taxpayers pay for all these mistakes. This in turn causes consumers to cut back on spending, which deepens the cycle. But then again, I am certainly no authority on banking, just a poor finance major who barely reads the WSJ.

EDIT: Kennedy dropped out of the race a while ago, I sort of feel bad.

Heaven vs. Kingdom of God

I think many Christians underestimate the power of Christ's resurrection. They refuse to believe that it is once for all, complete, and extends to everyone who accepts it. This is because they are too caught up in their own and society's views on who deserves salvation. But the truth is, none of us deserves salvation, and it is freely given to anyone who chooses it. So all this "Christian" talk of how gay people and people who commit suicide cannot achieve salvation is wrong. Where in the Bible does it say that? True, it does say that sodomy is wrong and a sin. However, it also says that lying and stealing are sins. The penalty of ALL sin, however "small" we think it may be, is death, so you are just as deserving of death as the next person. But if we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, we will be saved. Salvation is a simple concept, tied to life and death. There are no degrees when it comes to salvation; you are either saved or not.

Becoming a good Christian, or better person, is a different matter entirely, and there are degrees. Everyone will be judged twice, according to Revelation -- once to determine entrance into heaven, and once to determine entrance into the Kingdom of God. The former is judgment based on your acceptance of Christ as Savior and Lord. The latter is judgment based on your deeds, your works. In other words, this judgment weighs the level of your commitment to Christian principles, of how well you follow the Bible. So, being merely saved is not enough to enter the kingdom of heaven; you must also be a good Christian. So I guess the question for myself and other Christians is, is heaven alone good enough for you?

i think i know why i use this site

because it forces me to write fast, to pour it out. because of that line that goes and grows. these people are geniuses and killers of writer's block.

dock:
find your harbor, away from the storm, a place to dock, a place to rest. find your haven, away from the turmoil, a place to think, a place to mend.

oneword.com