Great news! I might have a job when I come out of school

Well, if Obama's not lying,

The White House estimates the $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act that Democrats pushed through Congress with little Republican support will create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs by early 2011.

Reuters

Hopefully meaning that by the time June 2011 rolls around, I can have one of these 3 to 4 million jobs. Haha.

Watching Obama's speech

I'm a lagger--barely watching it today. But this reminds me of my stance on Calif. SC ruling,

"You must place the interest of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party."

Intimidate 'em into submission

So Hugo Chavez is a freaking tyrant. A media owner is being targetted for his station being negative about and critical of Chavez. Seriously, this guy is getting bombarded with police raids on his home, probes into his businesses, etc. The Venezuelan government is seeking avenues to prosecute this poor speech-freedom fighter, albeit capitalist.

And Chavez refutes the claims that these government actions are targeting the man for political reasons of suppressing his station's critiques. It's so gross that a head of state can engage in such mafioso-like surreptitiousness. He takes such egregious and nefarious actions--under high public visibility, too--and thinks that just by denying it and acting as though he doesn't know what's going on, he is innocent. People are not stupid; but they are intimidated and I guess they pretend nothing's going on either. It feels like a gang neighborhood--except, like, it's a country!

Here's an interesting quote from the L.A. Times, from which I read this story:

Richard Feinberg, a Latin America national security adviser for President Clinton from 1993 to 1996, says, "There's no question that Chavez routinely uses the vast powers of the state -- including tax collections and various government agencies -- to pinpoint and harass political opponents. There's a very clear pattern of abuse of state powers for political purposes."

I found it enlightening because here, it is recognized that state is not politics--even though in our time, things are so clear-cut ideological and oppositional, and statesmen are so much more concerned about power than the good of the state, that politics and government seem inextricable. Which is sad, because the state is pure. Politics defiles it.

And throughout this text, I've referred to the subject as "the man" because his name I can't remember and I can't spell... Go ahead and look it up in here.

This is one time that I'll write it out: FUCK

Haha, I'm just bitter because I missed Kobe! Supposedly that man was here today!! I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself. I hate myself.

Mommy loves me!

Today, I spoke with my mom after class. We talked about the weather, what we were each doing at the moment, and then I told her I was going to work later on in the day—that I had 2 hours before my shift began and that I was going to eat dinner at five. At this moment, she told me, “Oh, you should get some sleep before then!” And I was contemplating it, because I had wanted to start on revising my essay. But then she was persistent about it—“You have to sleep, okay?”—and of course, all of this is in Chinese. At that moment, I felt loved. I felt warm and fuzzy, I felt emotional. My mom is never like that with me—we never take anything seriously, and so we never show much affection. But at this moment, when her true motherliness had shown, I was taken aback and became suddenly very happy that, despite her kidding, her tough exterior, she loved me and cared about me. Not that I didn’t know she loved me, but it’s so profound how deeply a gesture that shows it, proves it, gives it substance—that gives her love a vehicle to shine through; it honestly touched me. I swelled with joy to know for sure that my mom loved me.

So I went back to my room, checked e-mail and Facebook, and proceeded to nap. I set my alarm clock for 4:42 p.m. Too bad I didn’t activate it. Good thing my roomie came in at that time and semi woke me…I might already have been awake, otherwise I don’t think she would have waken me up. But anyways, I did make it in time for dinner! Almost late to work. Good thing I wasn’t. I did a bit of running.

So I don't know how to start my research proposal; it's a five-pager

This is the premise:

People have been hailing the Internet as a tool that will enhance democracy. The prevalence of user-generated material and the plurality of opinions represented on the Web exposes users to a multiplicity of viewpoints that expands the limited scope of what tightly controlled (by virtue of scarcity) media, like radio and television, offers. (Hallins & Rosen) But the assertion of enhancement makes the vital assumption that when such diversity of opinion is put before a Web user, (s)he will consume all viewpoints and reach a conclusive personal opinion. However, I argue that rather than broaden a consumer's public consciousness, the Internet, with its rich, massive store of information, allows users to take initiative and tailor, choose and customize news for self-serving purposes. (Uses and Gratifications theory) Meanwhile, newspapers are more prone to preserving community sense, in that its coverage is focused on public welfare, whether or not the stories may be of novel interest to the reader.

If we take James Carey's model of communication as ritual, then news consumption is a practice that constructs social reality. Therefore, consuming self-serving news fosters a self-serving social reality, in which the individual becomes increasingly alienated from the larger community. The customizability of the Internet further compounds the problem of the individuals detachment from the wider public, as it not only enables but the plurality of viewpoints encourages hedonistic use, thus intensifying narrow communities.

This is a problem that, as the community narrows, then if according to Benedict Anderson, that the imagined community is the basis for the state, then inevitably, implications on political participation follows. Democracy is based on popular rule. If the populace is not unified by common goals, yet fragmented by distinct interests, then democracy is indubitably undermined.

Although the Internet has been used for successfully for affecting political unity and mobilization, it is dangerous to revere it unconditionally, as it has the potential--especially with the trend toward even more extensive usage--to splinter communities into narrow interests rather than forge solidarity by unifying individuals for wider public good.

We won!!! We won!!! We won!!! We WOOOOOOOOON!!

Yes! We Won! Going to the Finals!
June 4, baby! Woohoooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =0)

C'mon... '09 champs!