Hey all.

To start, I think I ought to bring my last entry to a close by posting about what happened regarding the qualifier.  As I stated last time, I was nervous going into it, but by the time I reached the date (or the day of reckoning, as I called it), I was feeling rather confident in my abilities.  I essentially rebuilt my understanding of physics from the ground up.  The big change was that instead of justifying my work through formulas and pure mathematics, I now rely on a handful of physical principles and laws from which all relevant expressions can be derived.  It's completely altered the way in which I approach physics, and it has made the whole discipline feel much more unified.

Anyway, I went in and took the test, but not before downing a double shot of expresso and a 20 oz coffee.  I was quite awake during those three hours :)  I finished with a half hour to spare, and I knew that the majority of my responses were correct, so I turned in the test.  After this, I then went out to the bar to relieve some stress, although I wasn't nearly as braindead as I was the first time I took the qualifier.  All in all, I was in a positive mood after completing the qualifier.

At the end of the week I received the results letter.  It was Friday, and I was at my tutorial hour in the classroom right next to the main physics office.  I had checked my mailbox prior to going to my tutorial hour, and I didn't have the letter, but I noticed that Dan Claes, the chair of the committee that writes the exam, was doing something at a desk in the office.  So, I went to the classroom to tutor some students, and about ten minutes later I saw Dan Claes walk by.  I darted back to the office and saw the letter I anxiously anticipated all week.  Taking a deep breath, I opened the letter...

I passed the qualifier!  I felt a huge rush of relief and euphoria flow through my body.  I couldn't believe it.  I had worked so hard, and it had paid off!  This was the first major, all-encompassing physics test that I had passed, and I passed with flying colors.  I later learned that my grade was an 85%, but upon review, I was shorted 3 percentage points; I actually had an 88%.  But that was no matter, for getting a grade above a certain threshold was all that counted.

Ever since that day, my mood has been lighter, and my workload has felt very managable.  I am going to be able to continue doing what I love, and I cannot be happier.  So, I'll be at the University of Nebraska for a while.

-------------------------------------------

To shift topics, there's something I want to rant about, and for the time being, this is the best place.

For nearly a year now, I've been working to fill a gap in my knowledge concerning history, current events, and politics.  Although I had a base understanding of all three, it was still rather lacking, and I couldn't keep up in more heated conversations, since I would be unfamiliar with different events.

I've been doing a lot of reading, both on and offline, and I think my political knowledge and stance has been strengthened and solidified, and it has even shifted into a new direction in some regards.  I'm much more up to date on current events.  My knowledge of history, although it still needs work, is in better shape, and good enough for making valid points.

So, what's my problem?  Well, the main person I discuss politics with is my father.  We differ quite a bit on some issues, as our axiomatic world-views are different.  When I'm at home, our discussions usually degenerate into arguments.  Thankfully, over the phone, it tends to be a little more civil.

Anyway, recently, my father sent me a wave of chain letters involving either loop quantum gravity or on political affairs.  One chain letter was entitled "HIstory Lesson," and, in essense, it attempted to create an analogy between Nazism and WWII with fundamentalist Islam and the current Iraq occupation.

Normally, I don't even read most of these, as they tend to filled with empty rhetoric and non-logic.  However, this one made some historical claims that weren't just mistaken, but were blatantly wrong with the intent to create a false reality in which the author's thesis had merit.  I mean, this chain letter lectured on how all those damn "liberal" teachers give out a revisionist history of WWII (you know, "this is the history that isn't taught in school anymore" and all that BS), but then this chain letter is the one ignoring or making up details in order to prove a false analogy.

I couldn't let it go.  So, I chopped the letter up into paragraphs and pointed out historical inaccuracies, and then gave my subjective interpretation of those corrections, and why the author's point was wrong.  It took some time, but I felt it was a worthwhile exercise.  When I was satisfied, I e-mailed the letter back to my father.

As of now, I still don't think he's read it, since he checks his mail sporadically.  Specifically, I talked with him on the phone the day after I sent it, and he told me he hadn't read it.  I mentioned a couple of those inaccuracies over the phone, but that didn't go anywhere.  I expected that to happen.

You see, my dad has this annoying habit that always happens when I discuss politics and current events with him; he goes off on tangents that either:
a.) although related to the topic at hand, prove to be irrelevant to the issue I raise (example: I talk about Iraq itself, specifically a current event, and he switches to Muslims in general, which, although related, is not where I was headed), and derails the current mode of thought
b.) is completely and utterly unrelated to the topic (typically, and this happens a lot, the issues of the 2nd Amendment or Illegal Immigration will almost always creep into the conversation, usually cued by a single word)
A lot of the time I'm sure he does this without noticing it, although he'll occasionally do it to dodge a difficult question or good point I make that he can't rebutt.

This, however, isn't the reason I'm ranting.  I'm used to this by now.  No, it was what we discussed next that got me frustated, especially tonight after I thought about it again (I'll explain why later).  He brought up the potential candidates for the presidency, and asked if I had any opinions.  I mentioned that I haven't been following it with much scrutiny, since I won't be voting in the Primary (I'm registered independent), but I did mention that I'm not much of a fan of Hillary Clinton, although it has nothing to do with her last name, which is essentially the reason my father dislikes her.

I then brought up Barack Obama.  Before I had a chance to say that I'm leery of his economic policies, my father stated boldly that Obama is a "dyed in the wool Muslim" that attended a "madrassa" as a kid, and that made him dangerous and suspect.  I instantly knew where this came from, as this was a talking point that was brought up on Fox News a few times (source 1 source 2), but has been essentially debunked if you care to take 2 minutes to look around.  Yes, Obama attended a Muslim school between the ages of 6 and 8, but from his own account, you can tell he didn't take it seriously, and also his father was a non-practicer of Islam.  After he left, he went to a Catholic school for a bit, and stayed with Christianity since that point.

I was mad that my father hadn't fact checked this, and had repeated what a couple pundits had mentioned.  First of all, madrassa is simply the arabic word for school (any type, secular or religious), so using the word was an attempt to use an unfamiliar term to confuse the audience.  Second, contrary to popular belief, people are people and so the statement "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim" is just a fallacy.  And even if he was, why does it matter?  I would only care if he espoused dangerous, fundamentalist views, which he clearly does not.

So, this already had me frustrated.  First, I received an e-mail that my dad hadn't fact-checked, but obviously believed enough to send out to several people in his address book, and now he spouts a Fox News pundit talking point.  What took the cake was what he said next, "Barack was also sworn in on the Koran."

"What?!  No he wasn't, that was someone else!" was my immediate response.  I was blunt, and rather agitated.  My father didn't believe me at first, so just to appease him, since I was at the computer, I did a google search and looked on Wikipedia.  Absolutely nowhere did I see a mention of this.  Of course, my dad had mistaken him for Keith Ellison (source 1 source 2), who used the Koran in his Oath Reenactment photo op (the actual oath is done by all the members of HoR all at once, so no one has their hand on anything).  I was still mad though, because I know my dad will talk politics when he can, and I'm certain he's probably said this to someone else, probably someone that won't fact check it either.  Fine, disagree with Obama's liberal politics, but please, let's deal in reality.

For some reason, the conversation repeated itself in my head as I was leaving UNL tonight, and it made me angry, angrier than when the actual conversation took place.  I think it's because, as I said, I've been making the effort to close my intellectual gaps in these subjects, and I'm working hard to not let my views be reduced to party talking points.  My father is quite aware that I've been doing this; it's no secret.  Yet, the more I'm learning, the more I'm realizing that father doesn't fact check and usually parrots conservative rhetoric (not necessarily always that of the Republican party, but stuff ultra-conservative pundits say).  Futhermore, it seems that when he hears an odd story with a ridiculous claim (see: every conspiracy theory ever), he's more likely to believe it, and when I present him with plausible evidence and explanations as to why those claims can't be true, he won't budge in the long term (he may acquiese temporarily, but he won't correct himself once the conversation has ended).  I'm making the effort to guarantee our conversations are not emotionally guided, but it seems like he's not making that same effort.

I'm not trying to change his politics, I'm trying to keep his arguments grounded in real, empirical facts.  Politics and history are not religion; i.e., nothing should have be taken on faith.  Everything about politics and history, should, by and large, be able to be proven to some extent.  There will be subjective interpretations, but those theories must be backed by some sort of empirical fact.  Yet, he seems to be approaching these topics just like he approaches his, um... "unique" slant on Christianity (it's a mystic-fundamentalist hybrid, to be succinct), that he can take some statements on faith and not be bothered to fact check.  The way he "preaches" about the 2nd Amendment is proof enough for what I just said.

So I guess I'll end my rant there.  I needed to get it out of my system for the time being.  It's one thing to discuss politics with someone who does not share your same fundamental views; it's a completely different beast when their view of reality is just completely out of touch with the actual thing.

Later.

Wow, I nearly forgot I had this thing.  Life has been pretty busy lately, and I was just lazy over winter break.  Though, this won't be a long post.

You'll notice that I didn't do a year in review for 2006, which is unlike the past three years.  Frankly, I think all I've posted during 2006 tells the tale.  It was a strange year of ups and downs (especially the first half) that I'd rather move past.  2006 was a lot like 2002 in many respects, which wasn't the best state of affairs for myself.  Anyway, the second half was the first semester of graduate school, and all that brings.  That year is over and done with.

For this year though, I had only one New Years Resolution: to pass the elementary qualifying exam.  That's actually the reason I'm posting here.  The retake is in one week, and I'll be honest, I'm rather nervous about it.  In fact, I describe it as being scared.  Here's why.  If I fail this test, I'm out of the graduate program.  That means that my plans for the future are derailed, and that my four and a half years of physics education amount to absolutely nothing.  Unless I teach high school (which requires more school on my part anyway), my B.S. degree in physics is useless.  I've never been in this situation before; a single test that will make or break my career.  I've been stressed, but the pressure I'm feeling right now is rather unlike anything I've ever encountered.

I'm more prepared and confident than last time, but I can't shake this feeling.  I wish there was some way to feel more resolute about this, that there was some way that I could be convinced that everything will be all right. 

This is rather out of character for me.  Tests don't normally freak me out, even if they are important exams.  I've dealt with situations of immense stress before, and with a collected state of mind.  Aside from the finality of this test, I don't understand why I feel like this.  It's disconcerting.

All I can do is study and prepare.  I have only one option: success.  I cannot fail.  Despite this, I doubt this feeling will go away.  It will remain until the test, and although I'll feel relief immediately following the exam, the dread will come back until I open the letter telling me whether or not I pass.

I don't like this.  At all.

Just got to get through the week.  That's all the time I have for writing at the moment.

Later.

I just completed the finishing touches on my report for classical mechanics on the Coupled Harmonic Oscillator.  It's not anything original; it's more of a regurgitation of several sources all packed into one coherent (hopefully) source.  However, I went to the labor of constructing this paper in LaTeX (essentially, it's like using a programming language as your word processor), which makes the paper look really nice and professional, especially when you use mathematical notation. 

Because it looks nice, you can download it here and browse through it.  Keep in mind, since blogdrive only "allows" me to upload pictures, I had to change the extension of the file.  To read the file, right-click the above link, and save the file to your desktop.  If it still has a .jpg extension, right-click it, select rename, and change it to .pdf.  That should make it work.

I don't know why I'm bothering to post this here, haha.  Almost no one who reads this blog studies physics, let alone cares about a paper that I wrote.  Oh well, I like the final product, and I have it archived here.  That's what matters in the end.

Other than that, life has been going pretty fast, and finals are coming up in a couple of weeks.  Hard to believe the first semester of grad school is almost over.

That's enough for now and this short update.

Later.

After all the heavy handed political talk of the previous post, I took the following quiz.  Just thought I'd archive the results here.

My Personality

Neuroticism	13
Extraversion	96
Openness To Experience	92
Agreeableness	88
Conscientiousness	97

That's all for now.

Later!

(I've probably edited this post about 6 times or so since its initial conception.  For those of you that managed to catch the original post, it may seem like I've changed my mind.  Well, the original post was an outburst of passion, if you will.  I needed to research a little more, and between that and some time, I've calmed down a little more and re-evalulated some of my statements.  I've realized the choices I talk about about aren't as cut and dry as I would like.  There's no easy answer, and so I've edited this post to reflect that.  I still have some research to do, that's for sure.)

I've come to a decision.  After the 2006 election, I will be sending in my voter registration card and renouncing my membership in the Democratic party.  I'm not sure yet if I'm going to simply be independent, or if I'll affiliate myself with another party.  At first I thought about the Libertarian party (if you saw an early version of this post, you know what I mean), but that was considered in a burst of passion, and reading more closely, I'm not so sure if full commitment to them is wise, since I have reservations about a completely unrestrained free market.  The other option is the Green party, although I need to find out more about their economics first, since they may be a little too socialist in their policies.  And yes, I know that it seems strange that I'm considering two parties that seem at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they agree on enough areas that I haven't completely made up my mind.

To pin me down politically, I'd say that I borrow from both Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism.  I don't believe government should interfere nearly as much as some aspects of social liberalism imply, but I"m not ready for a complete laissez-faire free market either.  I'm in a grey area that borrows what I believe are meaningful aspects of each, essentially subscribing to two general axioms: "Citizens should be free to pursue happiness as long as they don't infringe on another's happiness" and "The government, to a certain extent, has the ability to increase average happiness by enacting protectionary laws that moderately limit the free market gross excesses and its goods and practicies (such as hard, addictive drugs such as heroine) from impinging on each individual's pursuit of happiness."

To get back on topic, why did I have a sudden change of heart?  What made me decide to renounce my registration as a Democrat?  The motivation for me has been slowly building.  I've been investigating the other political parties, but was still undecided on where to turn.  However, recent events have made me realize that there is no real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.  They're the same damn thing.  They're both in favor of huge government and for limiting personal freedom.  They only differ on hot button issues, and they conveniently never find a solution. 

The Republicans scare me with their foam-mouthed fervor with regards to trying to scare the American public into voting for them this election season.  Notice how often Bush has appeared on television recently, promoting the rhetoric of a terrorist "threat"?  Notice the unspoken, but implied, argument that if a neoconservative government is not elected this year, the sky will fall and the world will end?  I seriously hope I'm not the only person to notice this.

The Democrats, on the other hand, stand for absolutely nothing.  They are, to quote an individual with whom I have lost contact, "a party without a vision."  How can I bring myself to vote for people that base their entire campaign on stating, "I'm not a Republican.  I'm not like that other guy, so vote for me!"  It's just a smear campaign strategy with no alternative offered.  Even if the Democrats win a majority in the House and/or Senate, things won't change much.  Today's Democrats are neoconservatives in selective, socially liberal clothing, and even that is questionable.  Take a damn stand for once!

Two recent events were the last straw.  Those events were:

1.) Bill Frist's underhanded act of attaching the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) to the Port Security Bill.  Remember H.R. 4411, the bill I wrote about in July that would destroy online casinos and poker in America?  Well, Bill Frist, who was dead set and seeing that this piece of legislation was pushed through (for a multitude of selfish and self-righteous reasons), searched for a "must-pass" bill upon which to attach it.  Well, the Port Security Bill was the ticket, and a cut-and-paste later, H.R. 4411 was officially a part of a legislation dealing with port security.  And, amidst this act of pandering to brick-and-mortar casinos, horse racing, state lotteries, and the Religious Right, the Democrats did NOTHING.  They did not vote against the bill, and obviously didn't put up much of a fight to stop this from happening.  Passivity is silent compliance.

2.) The recent TV debates between Rick Santorum and Bob Casey for the PA Senate slot.  Prior to those, I was going to vote for Bob Casey, because I simply do not agree with Santorum's neoconservative social and economic values and he carries a self-righteous air of "moral" superiority that I cannot respect.  I thought Bob Casey would be a more moderate choice, until I watched clips of the debates.  The two men argued like petulant children.  Even more damning was that Casey didn't seem to be offering an alternative to Santorum's platform.  They differ on so few issues that there was only one thing they could do, and that was shout at each other and mudsling.  Had Casey kept his composure and answered with honesty, maybe I would still consider voting for him.  But, now I have no idea if he would be any better.  The attitude of both men during the debate was deplorable.

The above tore it, and I've renounced my membership to the Democratic Party, and I reject the two-party system that currently chokes America.

I'm voting for people based on their principles, regardless of whether or not they have a perceived chance of winning.  People complain that third party candidates won't win, so why vote for them?  It's exactly that type of thinking that allows the current two-party system to push us into national debt, prolong the occupation of Iraq, and restrict the freedoms of American citizens because they have different personal beliefs or orientations.

To digress a bit, why am I now considering the Green Party or the Libertarian Party (instead of being simply independent)?  The following is a short list:

1.) I believe in complete social equality, in that I recognize the rights of all Americans to the pursuit of happiness, regardless of your personal choices.  The libertarian answer to this is that the government has no business legislating morality or intruding on the personal lives of citizens.  This extends to issues such as same-sex marriage (which I have absolutely no problem with), abortion (which nowadays I don't like and could not personally advocate, but people need to make that moral distinction themselves), religion (I'm a recent convert to being a practitioner Zen Buddhism, of course I advocate freedom of religion!  Also I advocate the freedom to express it without having a lawsuit tossed your way.  However, to be fair, it needs to stay the hell out of legislation in all forms), and much more.  Essentially, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of another citizen, you shouldn't have to fear intrusion from the government.

The Green Party has similar views on equality, although it seems like for them it stems from a moral need (which, I have to say, is where my views stem from as well) rather than a distrust of big government.  They don't differ too much here, although I'm not sure if they'll actively legislate to get these ideas across.  I'd prefer that attempts at limiting freedom are actively blocked, rather than clogged with more moral laws being introduced to counteract the current neoconservative brand of moral laws.

2.) After having studied the World War II/Cold War era of American history, I recognized the folly of communism.  It subscribes to utilitarianism, which perverts the value of human life and the ability to realize your own, personal self.  I don't trust a gigantic government having a monopoly on all areas of economics.  I'll admit it, I like the concept of a free market, but within reason.  I sure as hell know I don't like the government being bedfellows with large companies that donate money to political parties after receiving various forms of corporate welfare.  A corporation is not a citizen.  It has no rights.  Only the people within it do.  Furthermore, the current stranglehold that, for example, oil companies hold over America is absolutely ridiculous.  The fact that barely any effort is made to produce affordable alternative fuel vehicles (heck, even the alternative fuel itself) shows how in the pocket we currently are to the oil companies.

Honestly, I haven't studied enough of the Green Party's view on economics and government participation.  I need to read up more at the current moment.

3.) The Iraq Occupation.  First of all, I refuse to call it a "war" anymore, because it's not a war.  The war ended when Baghdad was seized.  It's been an occupation ever since that day.  I am sick of the talk about how Iraq must be "won" or the terrorist threat to America will be greater than ever.  First of all, what must be won?  What's the objective?  Stopping the insurgency?  The insurgency primarily exists because a civil war is breaking out in Iraq.  Let's not mince words here.  We can't hold the hands of the new Iraqi government forever.  Like Israel did, they have to prove that they want to survive.  Our job is done there.  This is also what the Libertarians advocate.

Although I don't believe the LP has the same platform, but I also have moral opposition to war, as my views become increasingly pacifist.  This is where I find agreement with the Green Party.  They never supported the invasion in the first place.  They're the most pacificist of all the political parties, and I respect that morally.  I think war is terrible, period.  Although at some levels I disagree with their platform (on a practical/realist viewpoint, not on a moral viewpoint) that Afghanistan should not have been invaded, I agree with their Iraq platform. 

I don't believe our presence there will make the world any safer now.  What's done is done.  I'm tired of the fear constantly being pumped into our brains, especially when it seems like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Co. are ignoring the advice of the military generals.  There is too much death occurring in Iraq, both on the American side and on the Iraqi side.  Islam has a lot of growing pains to sort through (much like Christianity has already done), and its foolish of us to think we can do that for them.  It's just making it worse.  If another plot surfaces on our soil, then hopefully we'll be able to stop it.  We have current legal procedures for dealing with this (emphasis on the word legal).  But, we can't hope for a 100% safe future.  It's impossible.  What will be, shall be.  I see no point in creating a nation of Chicken Littles, which the Bush Administration in particular seems to advocate.

4.) Then, there's something like illegal immigration.  The Libertarian party doesn't advocate full amnesty for all current illegals, but they don't advocate complete deportation either.  The middle ground instead seems to be to strengthen our border security, but drastically REDUCE the bureaucratic red tape that makes legal immigration so damned difficult.  Essentially, consider the fact that we are dealing with real people here, and not numbers.  They're not invaders, but their presence is having an economic detriment, and their current employment is a form of low-wage slavery, which on a human-rights level, is atrocious.  This can't continue.

The Green party also has some interesting ideas concerning immigration, although here they differ more widely from the LP.  Once again, the principles are arising out of a moral view rather than a "freedom above all else" axiom.  I like the idea of getting rid of racial quotas, and just being fair when it comes to immigration.  They also support getting rid of the bureaucratic mess that plagues the current immigration process.  I don't think I can fully support their idea to provide all current citizens of Canada and Mexico that are in America with border passes, simply because you may be giving people with criminal backgrounds a free pass.  There needs to be a screening process in my view.  On the illegal immigration side, the individuals who have either committed crimes or that have racked up ridiculous hospital bills that they have not paid need to be held accountable for their actions, for example.  For those of us that live on the same continent, movement should not be very difficult, but we need to be careful too.
------
There's more beyond this, but I think I've written enough here.  The essential principle is that as human beings, we have the right to control our own destiny.  The government is present to prevent us from infringing on another person's rights, and I feel that the same must be done for corporations so that they don't become excessively oppressive to society as a whole.  I'm walking a strange line here, probably one that most people won't subscribe to.  However, when I have a clear mind, I'm never one to fully embrace a completely radical ideaology.

So, as of now, I'm not sure what I'm going to do.  The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or simply become an independent?  I need to resolve my views on economics, as they're not as fully formed as my views on social issues.  The Libertarians are quite extreme in their views on the free market, and sometimes it tends towards anarchism.  Whereas, if the Green Party espouses overly socialist views of economy (and it seems like it does, with some statements sounding like a redistribution of wealth), I'm not quite sure I can fully back that either.  What it will come down to is if I can reconcile my differences enough with one of the two parties to feel like I could join it.  However, if it seems too difficult, I'll simply register independent, and pick and choose politicians primarily from those two parties, depending on what their platform becomes.

I do understand that I've been general on some issues here.  It's possible that if I have the time, I will try and touch on them at length in another entry.  For now, I will close with a quote from a bumper-sticker, that, although primarily used for Democratic campaigning, I believe is as equally condemning of their party as well:

"If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"

Later.

Well, it's been a while since I've written anything on here.  Essentially, my life has been on overdrive since August.  Lots of things have happened to me as a person, and the work load in graduate school has been absolutely insane.  There is plenty I could talk about, but for now, I'm going to hone in on a recent occurance, the Elementary Physics Qualifier.

The Elementary Qualifier is a test that is given to all Masters/Ph.D. oriented graduate students in the physics department.  The test's purpose is not to weed people out of the program, but to prove that you can perform Freshman/Sophomore level physics from undergraduate school.  However, do not let this description fool you.  The test is not easy.  It is upper-echelon "simple" physics, and since it draws from a variety of sub-disciplines (classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, circuit theory, thermodynamics, optics, relativity, and quantum mechanics), there is an immense amount of material to intuitively understand and perform.  The difficultly from test to test, although considered relatively equal, varies quite a bit.  Overall, you may get what seems to be an "easy" test, in which very classic problems are presented, or a "hard" test in which the material in each sub-discipline is slightly more obscure and less likely to be in your mind.  So, as you see, this is not a test to take lightly.

To emphasize another particular point, let me mention that all graduate students have two opportunities to pass.  If you fail the test twice, you're out of the program.  No questions asked.

So, I took this test last night.  I stayed the full three hours, checked off 10 of the 12 questions to be graded, and turned my test in.  You would think turning this test in and then going out to grab a drink at the bar would be a relief, and I would not have this test on my mind anymore.  That's not true.  Instead, I kept rethinking how I answered the questions, and asked my friends how they answered the questions.  Then, after checking some things today on previous tests, in my textbook, and online, I've come to one sure conclusion as to my performance:

I failed the Elementary Qualifier.

Yep, you heard right.  Granted, I won't actually know my final score for a good two to three weeks, but I see the writing on the wall, I know how numerous my mistakes were, and the times were I outright guessed/bullshitted my way to some figure.  It would take some rather sympathetic grading for me to pass this.  I'm about 95% sure I failed this test.

Once again, a general, over-emcompassing physics test has completely humbled me.  The same thing happened on the Physics GRE, and it took a phone call from Dr. Day for me to even be in graduate school in the first place.  Now, even after being told to study well beforehand during the summer, I ignored the advice, and thought I could just lounge around and work at Eckerd, and not actually apply myself during this time period.

Then, the school year began, and the work load seemed managable at first, and then it kicked into high gear suddenly and unexpectedly.  I've begun spending 12-14 hours per day at the university, and even that hasn't felt like enough time to get everything done.  I feel like I'm constantly behind on my work, and not by choice.  Truth be told, graduate school makes undergraduate school look like a joke by comparison.

I didn't get much studying in before the test.  I went over a few back-qualifiers, and I felt like I pinned down the concepts I didn't understand.  But, like on the GRE, I tried to cram this all in my head much too fast.  Certain concepts were remembered backwards.  Others I completely forgot.  Then there were the concepts that I simply didn't review, but a day's worth of reading would have remedied that problem and would have given me the opportunity to answer two more questions completely and accurately.  Basically, I screwed myself, and I have no one to blame but myself for this.

I'm probably the only person who failed the qualifier.  Everyone was out of it, but it seemed like they had a better grasp on the concepts than I did.  I'll be honest: I'm embarrassed.  Here I am, wanting to be a Theorist, and I'll probably be the only person in my year that failed the qualifier on his first shot.  What does that say?

What's worse, is that I KNOW I am capable of doing this stuff, and doing it well.  If there is anyone I let down, it is myself.  I consider myself proficient at physics theory, and to slack and let this happen is inexcusable.  I have a lot to prove now, to show that I wasn't a "one-hit wonder" while I was in undergraduate school, and that I haven't already peaked and have no more potential.

I did not respect the Elementary Qualifier, plain and simple.

There is something to learn here though, and since I have a second shot, this may be a good thing.  This is a sort of a wakeup call telling me that I need to get very serious about my studying habits if I'm going to make it through graduate school.  My last minute cramming sessions from undergraduate schools won't cut it anymore.  It needs to be a constant procedure of review and integration.  I'm no longer going to be able to retain information simply by listening to lectures and taking sparse notes.  I need to read my textbooks over and over.  I need to read my undergraduate texts just as much.  I need to respect the difficultly of physics and the future exams I will be encountering.

So, although this entry has been rather negative in tone, there is hope for the future.  I get a second chance.  Not many people get that.  I have something to learn from this, and I believe I have.  Natural talent means shit at this level.  It's all about preparation and involvement.  Time management needs to be done correctly. 

Tomorrow I get to "cleanse" myself in a way by taking the Applied Mathematics exam.  I know the material well enough, and after tonight, I know I can currently teach it to another individual with a level of clarity.  I need to prove to myself that I can still do well, that I can destroy an exam if I prepare for it.  I have no other option than to do very well on this exam.  I must.

Afterwards, I will have to begin my review of undergraduate physics proper, starting with general physics, at a pace that makes sense (ie, less time on mechanics, more on thermo, E&M, and optics).  Since my time is limited during the semester, I'll need to be careful with how I deal with it, but during Thanksgiving and Winter break, I NEED to buckle down.

I will do this properly, and I will prove that I deserve to stay in the department and get a Ph.D.  I've been humbled, but now I'm determined.  And those that know me are aware of the things I can do when I am determined about proving something.

I just finished writing a letter to my state senators about bill H.R. 4411, which passed through the House of Representatives recently.  This bill, entitled the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006," would render the process of transfering money to online gambling sites illegal.  It would block U.S. banks from allowing such transactions to take place essentially.

As those you who know me are aware, I've been playing online Texas Hold 'Em for the past year, and have been studying the game avidly through various books and by posting and discussing hands on messageboards, such as on FlopTurnRiver (October '05 through January '06) and 2+2 (May '06 through present).  The game, although it involves probabilistic chance, allows one to make choices that alter one's odds within each hand, therefore making it possible to make decisions (essentially, fold, call, or bet/raise) that contribute to a positive mathematical expectation.  In non-mathematical terms, if you make the "right" decisions all the time (a caveat however, most correct decisions are not immediately obvious, it takes study, practice, and some basic math to be able to weigh the odds properly), after playing hundreds of thousands of hands, you are essentially guaranteed to make a net profit.  So, this makes the game a terrific exercise in mathematics, player psychology, and competition.  It's subtle, complex, and great fun to play and study.

This bill, if the Senate ratifies it (it's pretty much guaranteed that President Bush will sign the bill if it reaches him), will make online play in the United States difficult, if not impossible.  It specifically attacks online gambling, although it makes curious and hypocritical exemptions for online horse betting and online state lotteries (the epitome of giving poor people false hope).  And, I am sure that if this bill passes, the opportunity for stateside online casinos and pokerrooms will be next to nil. 

Given my recent interest in politics, I saw this as a perfect opportunity to finally exercise my right to be heard as an American citizen (outside of casting votes, that is).  I sat down and composed a letter to both PA senators, and I am also sending a copy of the letter to the two NE senators, since I will be a resident of that state in the near future.

This is not a well publicized bill, and it will creep through if the American public lets it.  Thousands of Americans play online poker, but most are oblivious to this bill and what it will do.  Essentially, it will freeze your money.  What you have online will be stuck online, and you will not be able to deposit more or withdrawal it.  However, feel free to keep plugging away at those state lotteries!  One of those tickets will surely be a winner!!! </sarcasm>

Anyway, I encourage anyone who plays online to definitely check out what this bill is all about and write/call your state senator about this issue.  Or, if you just support the freedom to spend your legally earned money on legal activities (gambling is a legal U.S. pastime in casinos.  An online casino should not be any different), I encourage you to at least pass the word on to your senator about this bill.

By the way, I would really prefer that internet gambling would be established on U.S. shores and properly regulated.  That way, everyone is happy.  Customers get quality, scam-free games, and the U.S. government gets plenty of tax money from an individual's net winnings.  It would take some effort to implement, but I see that as a far superior solution than what this bill is attempting to produce.

I want to post the letter I wrote, as it's far more eloquent than this quick entry, but I will withhold from doing so in the time being.  I want the letter to reach the senators first before I put a copy of it online, so I'll have to give it a few days.  The letter explains my position well, and I hope that it makes an impact.  My parents were convinced by the argument as well, and have signed the letter in support of my views.

Well, that's enough for now.  This at least gets the issue out there, and I know a couple of my peers do play poker online, so this should help them get aware of the issue.

For more information on the issue, either download H.R. 4411 directly, check the Legislation board at 2+2, read the Poker Players Alliance website, do a google search, and watch this funny clip from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart about the Net Neutrality Act and H.R. 4411.

Later.

Hey all.  I know that after my long, previous post, I disappeared for a while, as I'm wont to do every summer.  Since that last entry, however, I've been noticing a sort of change within myself.  Given that I have free time this summer (which I should be using to review my physics, but meh, I'll deal), I've been rectifying an aspect of myself that I've neglected for far too long: that of my political/historical knowledge.  Prior to this summer, I haven't given history (especially recent US and world history) the time of day, and that goes for daily news in addition to the past.  I've also largely ignored politics, with the notable exceptions being the 2004 elections or when my father would bring up either a current political issue or some strange conspiracy theory that "intertwines" with modern American politics.  But, for the most part, during my college years, aside from rejecting conservatism, I've not dwelt on these topics much, happy and content to wade my way through four years of school.

This all changed recently.  My Oppenheimer class, which was enlightening, was the catalyst of it all.  It was there that I realized that the political BS that I've been witnessing around me existed even back around the early 20th century, and that our current situation most likely has roots in the general history of the past one hundred years.  With this thought in my head, I began my investigation of US and world history, and I started to read current event articles on the internet from our country's news outlets.

To supplement this seriousness with some humor, I also watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report frequently.  The irony in their faux reporting resonates, and it gives me hope that there are people out there that recognize the ridiculousness that exists in current slew of politicians.  Honestly, it is humor like this that, when you're finished laughing, makes you realize with horror just how partisan, polarized, and extreme our political leaders have become.  Yes, my political leanings can be termed liberal.  However, I'm not naive or disillusioned.  I have huge issues with the right, but I don't let the extreme lefties off either.  They're being detrimental to the system too, albeit in a different, but damaging way.

In fact, let's take a look at the modern political liberal, as seen by the average American.  They're seen as extreme, whiny, disorganized, unreasonable, hostile, out to destroy Christianity, out to ban guns, traitors, and the list continues on.  I'm going to be honest, some of these descriptions do fit.  The Democratic Party to which most liberals belong is disorganized.  The party has no current vision except to be anti-Republican on hot-button issues, but be a lap dog to the Republican majority on other ones.  They refuse to make a true, progressive stand because they fear to lose even more seats in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.  And yes, many of the extreme liberals (such as a Ted Kennedy, for example) are hostile and sound unreasonable.  I do attribute some of the hostility due to the current state of HOR/Senate procedure and the terrible polarization that our country faces, but still, it's not the best excuse.  As for the rest of the claims, I don't agree with them, and will get to them in due time (probably another post).

So, what's my issue with them?  The previous paragraph illuminates a key failing on the part of liberals in my eyes.  They've forgotten what it means to be progressive, and they've forgotten how to appeal to the common American.  They use rhetoric and anti-conservative speech to try and get their point across.  Instead of offering an alternative, we just get told how the Republicans screwed up.  Uh... no freaking duh guys.  But how about we see a true vision of which liberals can be proud?  How about we let our actions speak louder than our words for once?  The conservatives, in my opinion, have the art of rallying behind spoken word down to a science.  But with the Democrats, it degenerates into preaching to the chorus.  And when these liberals encounter a conservative, instead of trying to initiate dialog, they're poised for the attack.  Yes, conservatives are guilty of this too, but they have the distinct advantage of being the majority.  The Democrats are trying to engage in a pissing match, and when your opponent is physically bigger than you, your words aren't going to do much good.

Democrats, just like Republicans, need to realize that, in the end, we're all human beings with differing views on life.  A little respect will go a long way, and this endless game of tit for tat in Congress, which has been escalating over the past decade, is poisoning American policy.

What I've been trying to do is gather facts and data so that when I get into a political conversation, I can keep calm and rational and not feel the need to resort to personal attacks on ideology.  It's a lofty task, but it needs to be done.  By doing this, I want to prove that a person with liberal leanings can have a level head, can look at an issue from more than one point of view, and heck, even find some common ground.  That way, the conversation can stay focused on the issues at hand, and not at the ideology being proposed to solve the problem.

So, in a round-a-bout fashion, what am I trying to say?  Liberals need to clean up their act.  First off, drop the anti-Bush rhetoric.  His poll numbers are low enough, and honestly, most people just don't want to listen to it anymore if that's all you have to say.  Second, find a vision to unite around.  Don't immediately dismiss your opponent's point of view, and if you disagree, use facts and logic to back up your arguments.  Try to avoid language that sounds overly partisan, because that's a big way in which you can and will alienate people with moderate views.  Third, actually investigate what your ideology stands for and how it applies to American politics and society.  Fourth, try and avoid rallying around an extreme, controversial figure, especially if you don't agree with them on key points.  Fifth, keep your temper checked at the door!  These are just a few things I wish people, particularly modern liberals, would do.  This actually can apply to conservatives too, or just politicians and political activists in general.

The tone of this blog will probably be changing.  Instead of it being a journal of my life and my problems there, it will probably start to be more focused on political issues and my take on them.  I'm sure the day-to-day entries will crop up here and there, and I'll continue to add my poetry as I write it, but for now I want to be able to concentrate on focusing my thoughts and sharpening my political wit.  Now is the time to practice, especially since I'm moving to a state that is overwhelmingly conservative.

I'm going to take a look now at an issue that made national news, but probably should have been left to local news.  This pertains to a school valedictorian that had the plug pulled on her speech.  The reasoning behind this apparently rude act?  Well, long story short, like all Valedictorians, she was required to submit her speech to a school committee for editing and approval.  Upon review, the committee found her speech to contain remarks that could be interpreted as proselytizing for Christianity.  Since public schools, as state-funded institutions, cannot advocate a particular religion, they edited her speech and gave it back to her.  At that point, she agreed to the edits.  However, at graduation, she went back on her word and started to deliver the full speech.  When she reached the part of the speech that was edited out, her microphone was quickly muted, which received jeers and boos from the crowd.  You can read about the rest of the story here.

Anyway, I'm not one to jump to conclusions.  I had a feeling as to the tone of the speech and how it was delivered, but I reserved final judgments until I tracked down a transcript of the speech.  A few hours ago, I found this speech.  Here it is in full:

Do you remember those blocks? The ones that fit into cut-outs and teach you all the different shapes? The ones you played with before kindergarten, during the good old, no-grades, no-pressure preschool days? I find it funny how easily amused we are as children. Many of us would have sat on the story rug for hours with those blocks, trying to fit the circle into the square cut-out. Thank the Lord for patient teachers.

As one of the valedictorians for our senior class, many might assume I caught on to which blocks fit into which cut-outs quickly. But, to be honest, it took me awhile. Up until my freshman year in high school, I continually filled certain voids with shapes that proved often peculiar and always too small.

The main shape I wrestled with over the years remains my accomplishments. They defined my self-worth at a young age. I swam competitively throughout junior high and high school. If I took third in a competition rather than first, I found I missed the mark; I failed.

But strangely enough, if I took first, I belittled my success, and even first place left me feeling empty. Either way, the shape entitled "accomplishments" proved too small to fill the void, constantly reminding me living means something more. Something more than me and what I do with my life, something more than my friends and what they do with their own lives.

The summer after my freshman year, I quit swimming. I quit trying to fill the huge void in my soul with the meager accomplishments I obtained there. After quitting, this amazing sense of peace rushed over me and I noticed, after 15 years of sitting on the story-time rug, this teacher standing above me, trying to help me: God. I disregarded His guidance for years, and all the while, He sought to show me what shape fits into the cut-out in my soul.

This hole gapes as a wide-open trench when filled with swimming, with friends, with family, with dating, with shopping, with partying, with drinking, with anything but God. But His love fits. His love is "that something more" we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting. God's love is so great that he gave His only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.

This is why Christ died. John 10:10 says He died so we no longer have to reach in vain for the magnificence of the stars and find we always fall short, so we can have life -- and life to the fullest. I now desire not my own will, but the will of God for my life -- however crazy and extravagant, or seemingly mundane and uneventful that might be. Strangely enough, surrendering my own will for the will of God, giving up control, gave me peace, gave me a calm I can't even begin to express with words.

Four years ago, recognition as one of the valedictorians for our senior class would have been just another attempt to fit the circle into the square cut-out. But because my heart is so full of God's love, the honor of speaking today is just that: an honor. Without it, I would feel just as full and purposeful as I do at this moment.

And I can guarantee, 100 percent, no doubt in my mind, that as I choose to fill myself with God's love rather than with the things society tells me will satisfy me, I will find success, I will always retain a sense of self-worth. I will thrive whether I attend a prestigious university next fall and become a successful career man or woman or begin a life-long manager position at McDonald's.

Because the fact of the matter remains, man possesses an innate desire to take part in something greater than himself. That something is God's plan. And God's plan for each of our lives may not leave us with an impressive and extensive resume, but if we pursue His plan, He promises to fill us. Jeremiah 29:11 says, " 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.' "

Trust me, this block fits.

So there you go.  A speech that starts off quite well (I love the imagery of the blocks) quickly turns into an inspirational speech and sermon of sorts.  In a public forum or in a church, this kind of speech would be appropriate.  However, this is a speech for graduation, and as such, not only is it a terrible valedictorian speech, but it is also inappropriate for the setting in which the student wanted to read it.

Before I continue, let me set the record straight.  I have no problem with religion or spirituality.  I think the spiritual side of the human experience should be explored by all, and that it can lead to a lot of personal good.  I am constantly thinking about spirituality, even though I am not currently aligned with any particular religion.  The message of love outlined in the Christian Gospels is one I can appreciate and revere, and I wish more people took it seriously.  I'm stating this now so I can't be bombarded with, "You're an anti-Christian liberal!"  So, with that said, let's continue.

For those that aren't aware, I was the class Salutatorian in my high school (I.E. I was ranked 2nd overall), and as a result I also had the opportunity to deliver a speech to the graduating class.  When I was approached with this honor, I tried to think of a theme that would appeal to the audience.  I realized that this speech was not only for me, but it was for the entire graduating class.  I needed to include everyone.  This was not the time for me to get up on my soapbox and talk about myself in length.  And so I crafted a speech that talked about passion and how our past, present, and probable futures tied in with the concept of passion.  I told everyone in my class that it is imperative that they seek it, for pursuing your passion leads to happiness and contentment.  I warned them that they should not let money and other individuals derail them from pursuing their true passions.  I included the possibility that some people were going straight into the workforce after high school, others were going to college, and that others would be enlisting in the military.  In the end, my speech ran a little long, but I made it apparent that I cared about the future of my peers, and I wanted to impart to them some wisdom I had learned during my last two years of high school.

Contrast my speech to what this particular valedictorian wrote.  Her speech is egocentric in its construction.  It only talks about her and her experience.  In no way does she try to branch this message out to her graduating class or the parents in the audience.  For me, the most damning aspect of this speech is that, for the farewell ritual that is the high school graduation, the initial theme never reaches its potential and therefore renders itself pointless.  It in no way connects to the audience.  It gives no over-arching message for the future of the peers; it only talks about her own.  It gives no advice, just an anecdotal story in the form of a feel-good triumph over adversity.  I kept waiting for the punch-line of this speech, yet it never came.  I guess the punch-line is that she found her block that fits.  What about a message for everyone else to do the same?  What about how this ties in to the rest of her life experiences, and how this new enrichment will drive her forward, and that all the rest of her peers should similarly seek an enrichment (not necessarily religiously based, BTW, but it can be) to balance out the chaos within their lives?  This theme had so much potential, and instead of utilizing it as such, she used it as an opportunity to preach about her born-again experience.

The second half of the speech is an unabashed endorsement of Christianity, spoken like a true born-again Christian.  When you want to thank God and Jesus for your gifts and peace of mind, say just that.  Language such as "His love is 'that something more' we all desire. It's unprejudiced, it's merciful, it's free, it's real, it's huge and it's everlasting. God's love is so great that he gave His only son up to an excruciating death on a cross so His blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace" is preachy.  This girl graduated with a 4.7 weighted GPA, how in the world could she not realize this is the same language used within a sermon, and, even if she didn't intend it, is what proselytizing sounds like?  I'm not being cynical, I'm honestly posing this question.  The rest of the speech just reiterates this theme, and reads like a pamphlet handed to me on the streets of NYC.  She was not just thanking God for her accomplishments, she was endorsing that we should all be doing the same, and the subtext of that message reads that if we don't, then there's something wrong with us.  That without "surrendering" oneself to God and Jesus, one cannot lead a fulfilling and fruitful life.  I'm sorry, that's laying it on a little too thick, and furthermore, I can see how people could feel alienated due to this speech.  After reading the speech and considering both sides, I agree with the school's decision to edit her speech and pull her plug for deviating.

Once again to set the record straight, I don't feel she should have been barred from any mention to a religious figure.  If she wants to include that in her list of thanks or to make a point on life enrichment, that's fine by me.  Seeing the above speech, I'm certain that I could rewrite it with many of the religious references intact, and have it pass the school's standards quite easily.  What's wrong here is that her message is more than just a thank you.  It's advocating her experience as the only way in which to find fulfillment, and indirectly advises everyone in the audience to do the same.  Furthermore, as I said before, the egocentric and non-inclusive nature of her speech makes it all the more inappropriate for a graduation ceremony.

Pertaining to why she would feel like her speech was not an endorsement of Christianity as the only way to find fulfillment, I would argue that is the result of the people with which she most likely has surrounded herself.  Born-again Christians are an enigmatic bunch to me, as they tend to relegate themselves to groups that think and talk exactly like they do, and rarely deviate from this area of comfort.  However, I find this to be self-centered, as Jesus was out among the shunned of society, trying to understand them, help them, and show them love.  Actions speak volumes; words have no meaning until an action supports them.  Anyway, I'm hypothesizing that many of her friends and family speak in a similar manner on a day-to-day basis, and so the language in her speech is commonplace for her.  However, one needs to be able to approach their own words as objectively as possible, and I believe she has failed to do this.  She's in for a rude awakening in the college environment if she does not learn to do this.

The most despicable thing of all though is that this piece of news has turned into yet another political issue!  Conservatives, particularly those of the religious variety, are crying foul and claiming a violation of free speech.  Umm... yeah right.  Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want.  If you belong to an institution, either state or private, you are subject to its rules.  If it says you cannot say or do something, well guess what, you can't say or do that (though if the rules get ridiculous and out of hand, there is the appeal and judicial process).  Furthermore, free speech, as I understand, ends when it infringes on the right of others or violates some other part of the constitution.  The audience (at least the graduates anyway) did not have the right to leave the ceremony; they were to remain for the duration of the speech.  That's strike one.  Strike two is that the school is a state-sponsored (read: government) institution, and as such, cannot advocate any particular religion above another.  Even with a disclaimer, the speech was a sermon, and in our sue-happy world, this could lead to some messy legal repercussions.  It's best to just avoid the problem altogether. 

The girl has also appeared on some news shows.  Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.  If she somehow has stopped by here and reads this (although I imagine what I've wrote already would anger her a bit), promise me one thing: that you'll be more than an armchair preacher appearing on news shows playing the victim.  Let your actions speak louder than your words.  Don't surround yourself in a comfort zone, and make sure you investigate your religion earnestly.  People who speak in the way your speech is constructed are a dime a dozen, and I've rarely seen them do anything beyond speak.  And, above all, don't let this event get to your head and turn you self-righteous!  Jesus preached humility and acceptance, and even told us that we should give the clothes off our back to our worst enemy.  By getting self-righteous about this free-speech thing (which, BTW, I doubt the judicial branch will agree with you), you're going to poison your mind.  There are better things to get outraged over, don't let something like this distract you.

But yeah, getting back on track, I'm saddened that this is politicized at all.  Once again proof that politics are degrading into a hum-drum conglomeration of hot button issues that are resurrected every two years, but never fixed.

Anyway, I think I've vented enough about this issue, and shown why the publicity this story has received is ridiculous, and also shown why the school was right in what it did.

I'm pretty tired now.  Time to head off to bed.

Later.

Well, it's the conclusion of my 22nd birthday.  Rather uneventful day.  I imagine all post-21 birthdays are like that, heh.  It's all downhill from here...

Well, here we go.  The entry I planned to write ever since college came to its conclusion.  I've written one of these after every school year came to an end, and this year is no different.  Now, what I want to do is post something from a previous entry, from about one year ago.  It was the entry in which I summed up my junior year, and commented about my freshman and sophomore year as well.  So, here we go:

Freshman Year: Being the new guy once again.  This year I found where a lot of my interests lay, and made some decisions that permanently shaped the path I was to follow through college, including my involvement in the theatre program and joining Sinfonia.  However, socially, I was still awkward and confused.  I hadn't become totally comfortable with being myself, and I was still shy and somewhat unconfident, particularly when it came to social matters.  My personal identity was in a state of constant flux, and I found myself questioning the values of friendship and patience.  The year for me ended on a down note, and I was eager to get home.

This summary of freshman year still holds true, and even a year later, I find nothing to really alter.

Sophomore Year: A year of transformation.  Since I knew where my interests were, I no longer had to worry about that.  Instead, what this year saw was the beginning of a personal transformation.  I, through directing a play and dealing with some uncomfortable social situations, started to become more self-confident and assertive.  I was starting to let my real self out more, and I started to develop some new, lasting friendships.  I began to contribute more to Sinfonia and the theatre.  I started to understand the politics of the college more, and I started to become less naive when it came to the motives of individuals.  My opinions on a lot of people changed that year.  Some for the better, some for the worse.  However, I feel like I finally began to understand what friendship is, and what it means to be a leader.  This year ended a lot more pleasantly.

Once again, this rings true.  As I realized this year, my college experience was divided into two eras, which were split into my first two years, and my last two years.  The groups I interacted with were quite different in those first two years, although by the end of my sophomore year, I saw the path I had to follow.  If I had to pinpoint where I really began to develop my true sense of self, it would be the end of sophomore year, when I began to load on the responsibilities, such as becoming treasurer of Sinfonia and president of Wig and Buckle, and when I had to make some life-altering decisions about the groups of people with which I wished to associate myself.  I was a socially naive and an (arguably) innocent person when I entered college, and I still did not have a strong sense of self.  My sophomore year challenged this facet of my persona.  I could have faced this during my freshman year, but I ran away from it.  I hid and made excuses.  By the end of the social challenges I faced during my sophomore year (which were just a logical continuation of my freshman year), I saw that I had to become a leader.  Ironically, this was right around when I discovered metal music in earnest and developed a rabid passion for listening to music, instead of just dabbling in it.  Although it seems unconnected, I really feel that finding a genre of music that spoke to me was a hugely defining moment in finding my true sense of self.  Anyway, on to junior year.

Junior Year: A year of affirmation, strength, and friendship.  My transformation from the previous year now complete, it was time to show that it was all worth it and that I was a better person for it.  I took on numerous leadership roles, and began to see my actions in the grander scheme of things.  I wanted to lead by example, and to develop and flesh out my personal values more.  I took on the role of president in Wig and Buckle, and later on, Sinfonia.  I directed the winter musical, and led it on to become one of the most harmonious and successful productions to be seen in Leedy Theatre.  I saw myself uniting people, and playing the voice of reason. 
This was also visible in my academics.  I remained strong within my physics classes, and I was intrigued by everything that I learned.  I've now come to enjoy physics so much so that I am disheartened that I won't learn much "new" material in the next year.  I learned a lot and I finally got to know a lot of people within the program, something I had neglected up until this point.  This was my busiest, most stress filled year, but at the same time it was my best and most fulfilling.  I developed some great friendships, and I took more chances.  I learned to value the time I have with my friends.

I still consider my junior year to be my best year of college.  How could I deny the fun I had during that year?  Living with Chuck and Kazda (pre-falling off the face of the earth) was insanely fun, and some of my most memorable late night experiences took root in that room.  I directed Edwin Drood, and that turned out marvelous and was great fun.  My most memorable Sinfonia experiences also happened that year, such as the Penn State trip, Lyrecrest, and the parties.  Some of my previous friendships strengthened significantly.  My classes were among the most interesting I've ever had, save for two others in my senior year.  The conclusion of this year seemed like it left so many open possibilities, and for a while, it seemed like my senior year was going to be insane in so many ways.

There is another time period I simply cannot deny, and that was the summer of 2005, when I lived on LVC campus with Bob, and worked with Dr. Walck on Three-Qubit Entanglement.  Undeniably one of the best post-high school summers I've experienced, bar none.  The research and work I did was intense and inspiring.  Living with Bob was also quite the experience, and I'm really quite glad I had the opportunity, as I got to know him well during that time period.  The aura surrounding that whole summer just fills me with content.  It's hard to describe how intimate and comfortable the whole experience was for that summer.  Add in turning 21, visiting my Uncle Doug in Ohio, and going to Conclave, and you have the makings of one awesome summer.  It's going to be hard to top that experience.  The summer of 2005 was the logical continuation of my junior year.

The first of my senior year, once again, seemed like a logical continuation.  I had the great pleasure of taking Chinese Religion and Philosophy, one of the best classes I've ever had.  I had a main role in The Real Inspector Hound, which I look back on fondly.  Plus, I cannot forget the Thursday bar nights with Chuck, Jenilee, and Vanessa.  Those nights were the epitome of what post-21 college life was all about.  Although being Sinfonia president was a tough job, it was going reasonably well for a while.  It was a decent deal of work, but we were getting things done.

Then, the world as I knew it would turn upside down in a couple of short months.  I'll pass over some details, as it's not terribly necessary to detail them, and I'd rather them not be misinterpreted anyway.  It's the aftermath of them that's more important.

Fast forward to January.  I had been cast in Cabaret as Max, and we were in the first week of rehearsals.  As always, there is a bonding experience in the cast, although the experiences were more intimate than typical.  There was a spectre hanging over some of the proceedings, and I occasionally let it bother me quite a bit, although it was isolated at that time.  Then, everything culminated on the Friday night party Chuck and I threw at our Main Street apartment, the night that the police came and busted us.  Ever since that event, my last semester at LVC became a roller coaster ride filled with far more valleys than peaks.

The event in and of itself had no bearing on the rest of the semester.  I would have a few more run ins with disciplinary figureheads, but nothing earth-shattering or life altering.  Those events just served to make my life more uncomfortable.  They were hardly the source of my problems.

I plunged into a depression near the end of January, right around the height of cast morale for Cabaret, which was very strange for me.  I'm not going to get into why I fell into the depression.  Just look back at the few entries I made this past semester, most of them hint at my personal issues.  I've the admitted the majority of what was bothering me at this point and time, although there is one piece I've kept to myself for a variety of reasons.  Why do I keep it to myself?  Because after a large span of time it won't matter, and it carries enough consequential weight that admitting it would have been far worse than just keeping it to myself, regardless of the initial pain that ended up causing me.

So what happened?  In February, I started being controlled by my emotions.  I withdrew myself from the rest of the Cabaret cast and crew, and began to feel isolated.  As a by-product of my thought processes, I started to believe that the majority of the cast didn't likemy prescence, however untrue that may have been.  My role was an isolated one to begin with, so I didn't get much interaction with people on stage (btw, the size of the part has NOTHING to do with my experiences during that time period.  I'm always happy to play a part, no matter how big or small it is).  Then, during get togethers, I began letting my thoughts rule my life, and depress me in the midst of my peers.  I nearly hit rock bottom.

Things brightened up a little after that, about the time that the show had opened.  I assumed that I was going to be okay, and I pushed my thoughts aside, and for a good while, I did a good job ignoring them.  However, this whole ordeal did one thing.  It tarnished the Cabaret experience for me.  I'm the only person in that cast who did not have a good time, and I look back on that time period with regret.  Not because of the process of rehearsing the show, but because of the emotions I associate with the whole time period.  I voluntarily isolated myself from the cast, and I probably ruined the chance at some deep friendships, and even harmed some of my current ones.  So, when people would reminisce about the show, I usually clam up.  I truly have a hard time looking back on that whole time period, as I was emotionally screwed up.  It's a real shame really.  I wish I could share the excitement the rest of the cast felt, but I just can't.

In the meantime, I, for the most part, single-handedly planned Province 27 Workshop.  I know I shouldn't have done that, but with the mood I was in and the general lethargy I felt within the chapter towards the event, I felt that it was better off if I just planned everything myself.  It went without a hitch on my end, and the event reinvigorated the Sinfonian spirit in many of our members, so although it was stressful, I'm glad I was able to make it a smooth and streamlined process.

Enter Much Ado About Nothing.  I'm going to be frank, I'm not happy with how I handled the show as director, especially after having put together Edwin Drood so efficiently.  I was in over my head with an overly ambitious concept (the moving walls, and keeping the script essentially uncut) being applied to an already ambitious show (a two and a half hour Shakespeare play, yikes), and the over-eagerness of Dr. Pry (since he kept silent through most of Cabaret) to insert his input didn't help matters at all.  If I had eight weeks, I think I would have been fine.  But, the concept I had developed for the show had to be implemented in six weeks.  That was simply not enough time, ESPECIALLY with the crazy ass schedules my cast had as a whole.  In addition, the end of the school year syndrome struck some cast members, and some just weren't pulling their full weight in terms of analyzing their lines before rehearsal or were creating unncessary schedule conflicts (some of which were never passed to me in writing).  Between my ambitious concept, which I was unprepared to implement fully (I really should have planned a couple things out better), and the wavering mood and habits of some of the cast (which affect the unit as a whole), we ended up with a show that was almost literally put together at the last minute.  That tech week was hellish, probably the most hellish tech week I've experienced (baring The Crucible).  The show pulled together at the last minute, and the finished product was rather polished and enjoyable to watch.  Funny how those things worked out.  I still stand by the fact that if I had eight weeks, the show would have come together smoothly and without the stress experienced by the entire cast and crew.

There is another wrinkle to this late Much Ado time period.  The thoughts from earlier made a re-appearance right before tech week, and they persisted until the conclusion of college.  I kept telling myself to just ride the storm out, and for the most part, that's what I did.

So what's become of all this?  As I predicted, time away from college has done wonders for my personal issues.  My problems were ultimately connected to the college experience, and being away from that environment has really helped me recollect my wits and begin to pick up the pieces.  In due time, any issues will become mere memories, and no longer a present concern.  I realize now that I'll be fine, and I'll move on, like I always have.  If nothing else, this season of depression made me re-evaluate many portions of my life.

The second semester was not a complete loss.  My Oppenheimer and the Atomic Bomb class was fascinating, and it convinced me that history, well, at least modern history, is worth knowing, since it is connected to the events of today.  As a result, I am now reading a book that gives a great overview of the 20th century, from a world perspective.  It's quite the illuminating read.  In addition, I got into graduate school, which I will start in August.  My roommates became a source of solace during this period too, and we had many good times in that room, despite the initial breakdown by the Annville police.  I wouldn't trade those memories for the world.

So, that's my senior year in length.  Oh yeah, I was president of both Sinfonia and Wig and Buckle too.  It was generally uneventful on my end though, most of my drive behind those positions was dissipated by the events of February.  I truly regret not making more of those positions in my last semester.  Funny to say that although I still consider myself a leader, I'm quite ready to be a follower for a while.  I'm kinda sick of being in charge and trying to be the one to motivate others.  Thankfully, in grad school, I WON'T be the one in charge, at least, not right away.  I'll instead be a motivated follower.  I need to recharge, and this is the best way in which to do that.

Graduation itself wasn't as surreal as I expected it to be.  It was just another day, just like any other.  Actually, the brunt of everything didn't hit me until after I returned from Nebraska and was back at Eckerd (more on that in another post).  It was there that I realized I missed my friends and the comfort of LVC.  I know I must move on, but it's funny that it took until then for it to actually even sink in.

So, can I sum up senior year in a paragraph, like I did for the other three years?  Let's try:

Senior Year: A year of conflict and extremes.  At one end, I found myself being inspired by philosophy and modern history and having good times down at the bar, and at the other I found myself in the depths of depression and self-imposed isolation.  I really had to evaluate the person I had become, and see if my current self was worth anything.  I struggled with difficult thoughts and emotions.  Conflict seemed to permeate every aspect of the second half of my senior year, from my emotions, to the constant bullet-dodging I had to do on a PR level, to my experience as director for Much Ado About Nothing, and even towards where I should devote the majority of my energies.  This year was a battle between my old self (high school to sophomore year) and my new self (up to present) caused by a strong catalyst beyond my control.  I toughed it out, and in the aftermath, I see that it was my new self that eventually won.  The parallels between this year and my senior year of high school are in high evidence, and I'm glad that I didn't regress as a result.  I know I'll look back on this and see it as another defining moment in my life.

Going off that tangent, I really wonder how all this will carry into my graduate experience.  I'm emotionally worn, and have a cynicism about many things that initially did not exist, even at the beginning of my senior year of college.  I'm more moderate now in my outlooks (after my very liberal junior year), and I refuse to take second-hand information with anything but a grain of salt.  I saw what spreading myself too thin can do.  If nothing else, the emotional challenges I faced will make it easier to move on to a new environment.  It seems like that is always the impetus behind my new directions in life, emotional fatigue.  I have a feeling my interactions in graduate school with my peers will be quite unlike my undergrad years.  I doubt I can ever relive those moments.  I need to move on, I need to change gears and progress.  I've never been one to stick with the familiar for too long.  So, now I am at my next chapter of life.  Who knows where it'll lead me? 

Anyway, I really ought to go to bed.  It's 2 AM, and I have to work at 8:30 AM.  Blech...

Later.

I want to write a longer entry, but I'm too tired to attempt it right now.  Here's the basic news right now.

I graduated from LVC, and have my B.S. in physics.  I got into graduate school, and I am attending the University of Nebraska - Lincoln in the fall with full paid tuition and a stipend.  I just got back from a three day visit out there, and now I'm really excited to go and start earning my Ph.D.

I'm currently working at Eckerd, after a five year hiatus.  I'm not too thrilled at the moment with it.  It's going to be a long summer due to this job, but I do need the money, and it was the only thing open to me.  I'll learn to cope, I'm sure.

I need to study over the summer months for graduate school, which in particular means preparing myself for the Elementary Entrance Exam.  I want to pass that thing on the first shot.

I'll be getting another used car in better condition relatively soon, before I drive out to Nebraska in August.  I need something reliable.

And, most of all, I miss my friends from college already.  I haven't really kept in touch with anyone in Oxford aside from occasional facebook messages and such, so I'm kinda on my own for the moment.

That's the abbreviated version of everything.  I'll try and post something more detailed another day.

Later.