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.