Just…shhhhh.

More delayed news! On Monday, there was an article in the Metro, my daily morning “don’t make eye-contact with the other people on the train” reading, about the fact that the T is no longer giving people a free ride when going outbound above-ground on the Green Line, and about the OUTRAGE that the poor, underprivileged BU undergrads were feeling. Not new news, as this change was announced along with all of the Charlie Card business. And I think most people shrugged it off. I used to live in Brookline and Brighton, and it was nice, the free ride, but not a huge deal, especially since I always had a T-pass. And it did seem like a giant waste of money for them to let everyone ride free going outbound, and the T needs every fare it can get. In fact, I am much more annoyed that they no longer let T-pass (or Charlie Card) holders bring a guest rider along for free on Sundays. (As MJC pointed out, it was just a nice little thing they had, that made you not hate the T so much.)

So. I knew, KNEW this would piss off the BU undergrads. When I was in law school, oh how I hated those undergrads. BU’s campus is stretched out along Comm Ave. And it is long, I’ll grant you. But the way the undergrads use the T as their own personal shuttle, you’d think it was like the Incredible Journey to get from one end to the other. A huge part of the reason I moved out of Brighton was that I could not physically tolerate taking the B line any longer. On the way to school, as soon as we got within 2 stops of the first BU stop, 200 hundred undergrads would thrown themselves at the train, shoving their way on, tripping over their Uggs, loud and rude and wearing velour tracksuits with words on the ass and legs that were 4 inches too long, so they dragged along the ground, dirty and tangled. ANYWAY. But that was mostly ok, because it was a solid 15-20 minute walk to their classrooms from there, and if it was winter it was cold, and they were paying (in theory), so whatever.

What was not ok was trying to go home. Attempting to get on the train at BU Central induced such rage, I am actually having trouble writing about it. The trains would be filled with undergrads who had hopped on one stop earlier at BU East. A stop I could SEE, with my EYES, because it was about 3 blocks away. They would ride the T for two or three stops, then hop out again. And while it is everyone’s right to ride the T, it is not your damn personal shuttle. Often, you couldn’t even get on the train, because it was already so full. I started walking over to the C line, adding a 7 minute walk to my commute, rather than face the B line ride home.

My anger was not just at the undergrads who refused to just walk down the road to their dorm or next class, it was also at BU for not providing actual shuttle service for these kids. Lazy BU. The T, while sucky, is not responsible for schlepping these kids around for free. BU is.

All of that was a long introduction to the point: There was an article in the Metro about the BU kids being mad that they could not ride the T for free any more. The story reported that undergrads are taking cabs or just (gasp!) walking rather than pay the T fare. Some quotes:

“We always used to take the T, but now I think a lot of students are going to walk instead,” Fryburn said.

“They’re going to sneak on because people aren’t used to paying for outbound. It is too expensive for when you just want to go a few stops,” Bencic said.

“I was with two friends and my cab ride was $5.85, so it was actually cheaper to take a cab. I heard other people talking about it, and a lot of students aren’t taking the T either,” Chavez said.

And, in a description that highlights what I described above:

“At the BU East stop at 10 p.m. Friday, MBTA personnel on the platform ordered students to board on the front of the train, and they stood in front of the back doors forbidding students to enter there. Despite these efforts, many students still succeeded in sneaking on because the students jammed themselves onto the train until it was so crowded, enforcing the outbound fare seemed impossible.”

You stay classy, undergrads.

1) Really? You are going to take a cab instead of just walk half a mile? You sure showed the T by throwing your money away on a cab instead. The kids don’t seem to get that the T isn’t losing anything by them not riding – the T wasn’t making any money off of them in the first place, as they were riding outbound FOR FREE. Yes, the loss of that NOTHING will surely cripple the (already mostly crippled) MBTA.

2) Yes, it is too expensive for just a few stops. You should not be taking it for just a few stops. As to the undergrad who thinks people will walk instead: YES! Yes, you should be walking, you lazy, lazy spoiled bratards.

3) Still not the T’s job to cart you around campus. Boo, your campus is big. How big? SO BIG! Whatever. I had a solid 15 minutes walk to class every day after freshman year in college. The college ran shuttles, and you could wait for a shuttle or you could walk. Or bike or skate or whatever. If you want a shuttle service, ask BU to start a freaking shuttle service. Not the T’s job. That free ride was a bonus, one of life’s extras. They didn’t take anything from you. Also, I bet your parents will buy you a T-pass, so shut your whining.

Testing

I wanted to test posting photos via Flickr, so here is a picture from Barcelona. Check it.

Distracted

I caught the first part of the President’s interview on 60 Minutes on Sunday. I started to get all worked up by his obnoxiousness (“Yeah, I was wrong about the WMDs, everyone was wrong about that!” GRARGH) when my rage was diffused by my confusion over his outfit. Particularly his shoes. He was wearing regular business casual President at Camp David attire with these brown…hiking loafers? That’s the only way I can describe them.

Point… Similar Point

Ro and I have been discussing the Middle East since the President’s address a few nights ago. What follows is the exchange so far (but stay tuned for more thoughts). Please note that while Ro’s opinions are well-informed by her reading of The Atlantic Monthly and actual books in the Middle East and Islam, mine are informed by reading the Internet and listening to Ro summarize all the interesting things that she actually takes the time to read.

Ta: Did you watch his speech? What did you think?

Ro: I didn’t watch it, I meant to, but then I got really caught up in the book I was reading and read for two hours. Hee! His wife’s a librarian, she’d approve. Anyway, the gist seems to be more troops, work hard on Baghdad, if there were mistakes I apologize, right?

Ta: Yeah, that sums it up. The whole “IF mistakes were made the responsibility rests with me” thing was annoying (which many others have pointed out on the Internets). Because he isn’t saying they were made, just that IF you people out there THINK, foolishly, that there were mistakes, fine, blame me, whatever.

Plus, he had the speech in the library, reportedly so it would feel more like a discussion with the people. Vomit.

The thing is, okay, sending 20,000 more troops. That doesn’t actually seem like enough to get anything substantive done. If you want to stick with your send more troops plan, I think you need to send a lot more. The plan is to have enough to hold neighborhoods that have been cleared, as opposed to clearing and moving on (which was one of the two actual mistakes he actually straight-out said they made, which: DUH. I mean, I am no general, but doesn’t that seem obvious, why were they even doing that in the first place?). But we already have like 130,000 troops there, and that is apparently not enough to enact this plan, so is 20,000 more going to be? Seems a little unlikely.

Ro: Well, I agree that 20% more soldiers doesn’t seem more likely to suddenly be able to handle Iraq. But, I also think we have to try something. I wanted us to talk to the other countries, Bush seems to want to go it alone. In this, as in everything else, we disagree. I think in the long run (the 20-year run) leaving now and letting a civil war get out of control would be a huge mistake. I’m not sure staying will improve that 20-year view any, but it would assuage our guilt a little.

Man, I read the most interesting article in The Atlantic today, comparing pre-WWII Eastern Europe to today’s Middle East. Check it: huge heterogeneous empires disintegrate (Austro-Hungarian / Ottoman), form little countries along ethnic lines (Romania, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran). The problem is what happened next in Eastern Europe: World War II. Oops! WWII pretty neatly drew boundaries between different ethnic groups (and where it wasn’t complete, it was finished later, as in Bosnia and Yugoslavia, which had their own wars later on).

And that’s where we are in the Middle East. The problem introducing democracy is the fearful minority – and all the Middle Eastern countries have some minority in them: there are Shiites living in Saudi Arabia, Sunnis in Iran, etc. Plus, the poor Kurds are everywhere. Basically the article was saying that WWII and the related wars only ended when the minorities got their own countries. And that means the Middle East is in for some regional troubles, so to speak.

Anyway, it was very interesting and certainly better said that I just did. I don’t like the idea that peace could only really arrive by avoiding diversity, but peace would sure be nice. Would splitting Iraq up work? There’s been some talk about making the Kurds in the north independent. But are the Sunnis and Shiites not geographically separate in a convenient way? Then again, Israel/Palestine may be proof that artificial boundaries don’t work. Hmm. I’m stuck in an infinite loop.

Remember when I asked you how long until we have the United States of Earth? Where the countries are sort of like our states, all ruled by a central government, but with some autonomy? And you said, basically never? And I still think 700 years should do it?

Anyway, I wonder what you think the endgame of the Middle East is (the pre-USE endgame, I mean). I think it’ll all end up with separate countries based on type-of-Muslim, plus small countries for type-of-Non-Muslim. But man, to get there is going to be messy. Plus, I would obviously much prefer various democracies housing various types of Muslim and non-Muslim all in one happy bunch. But….

Ta: I agree that trying something is necessary, it just seems a little like a weird face-saving measure that isn’t making anyone happy and isn’t an actual effort to do anything to keep the situation from getting so much worse. Some former general dude was pointing out that it seems like maybe it’s a way to save face. We’re committing more troops and putting the onus on the Iraqis to step up, and on the prime minister to make all the various sects stop blocking our troops’ entry into certain areas. And when it all falls apart, he can say that he tried and that he tried to make Iraq step up, and THEY failed. I thought that was interesting. I think that fits into the assuaging the guilt idea, too.

I think that Atlantic article makes some really good points – I’d like to read that, actually. Regarding Iraq, no, you’re right – in addition to the Kurds being in the north, the Sunnis and Shiites are also split east-west, more or less, I think. So purely geographically speaking, that would work, if that was how it all shook out. One major problem is that most of the oil is in one part, I think the east, but I can’t recall. Whichever group didn’t get that part as their country would pitch a fit, since Iraq doesn’t have any industry and no other natural resources. That’s where all the value is.

I think artificially created boundaries can work, theoretically, better than the Palestine/Israel division, though of course, getting to the separate countries is usually awful (Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Macedonia, etc.) or once the separation has stablized, there are still undercurrents and rumblings and whatnot (Pakistan and India). But as The Atlantic and you pointed out, Eastern Europe is shaking out ok-ish, granted, only after a ton of devastating wars. With Israel, there is the added holy land/religious issue, mucking up the works. Oil could create the same problem in trying to divide Iraq.

One way to fix that of course is to not just have the groups in Iraq separate out, but to essentially re-draw the lines of all the Middle Eastern countries so each religious-ethnic group has their own safe place. But I think that won’t work unless it’s a decision made by the Middle Eastern countries themselves, since it isn’t anyone else’s place to do that and anti-Western sentiment would screw up even an attempt to suggest such a thing (as would be pretty approriate).

It’s not a bad idea in the abstract, if it would work. I also don’t like the idea that peace could only come through de-diversification. BUT. Maybe it goes something like de-diversify –> peace –> re-diversify. Like, maybe in another 50 or 100 years, in Eastern Europe we’ll see the countries start to become more diverse. It would probably start with people from non-Eastern European countries moving into the homogeneous Eastern European countries. Then maybe, if the people living in the separate Eastern European countries become more mobile, they will start moving around, too. And because the region will be peaceful, and the change in the ethnic makeup will be slow, it will happen and be ok. So maybe that makes it more ok to get peace through separation, if we think someday it will allow mixing, and then eventually allow for your United States of Earth.

I think your endgame scenario for the Middle East is definitely possible, and I honestly can’t think of anything else that would potentially be as stable as that. Because what’s the other option? A stable democracy in Iraq, which inspires the other countries to become stable democracies too? You just can’t have a stable democracy with all the different ethnic groups being so mad at each other, right? It seems like it’s total country boundary revision or no endgame at all, just fighting forever and ever. Which seems unlikely.

Ro: Hmm! One thing to consider in the Europe/Middle East comparison is that we had not invaded one of the Eastern European countries and tried to fix it. So while Yugoslavia seems to have turned out semi-okay in the end, it didn’t have a whole other civilization meddling around, trying to force democracy on it. Things might have been even worse, or maybe not. Who knows.

You know what would solve this whole thing? The Rapture.

This raises an interesting question about democracy – does it require homogeneity? Why would any one want to be part of any minority in a system based on majority rules? I know we have a few things in there to prevent a majority from being mean, but not really. If, say, the Methodists wanted to rise to power and mandate Methodism, I really don’t see anything stopping them. Obviously they’d need a lot of power, particularly the Court, but if they got it… You know? This isn’t a real problem here, but in a place where there are a small number of strongly divisive groups, I can see each group being completely panicked about that, and being kind of right. Minorities in democracies off the top of my head: African-American people in America (enslaves, disenfranchised, etc.), Japanese-Americans in America (put in camps), slaves in Ancient Rome (enslaved), Muslims in India (evicted to Pakistan). On the other hand, Quebecois in Canada. On the other other hand, Catholics vs Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Ta: And on the third hand, Muslims in France (really, really unhappy).

I had not thought of that, the broader question of what it says about democracy, but, well, yeah, good point. I supposed if you have enough smaller groups, so there isn’t one giant majority, then it is sort of ok, because even if people still vote their ethnicities, there are enough different groups that maybe ethnic groups A, C, and F all end up voting the same way one stuff. But it can take a country a long time to get to that place, and obviously most countries are fairly homogenous, and minorities are totally subject to the good old tyranny of the majority.

You can build in protections, in theory – not letting people vote on things like basic rights, having various checks and balances and branches and structures and whatnot. Of course, that doesn’t always work either.

In clichèd conclusion: Things in the Middle East are going to get worse before they get better, I suppose.

Requisite Resolution Post

Warning: In this entry, I say lame things.  I also talk about myself, and maybe, a little bit, about my feelings.

A few years ago now, I wrote a “101 things” list – 101 things to do in 1001 days (or about 3 years). I did many of them, as many of them were easy. And while I still have some time left on the list, I want to start over with that. Life is pretty different now than it was when I was in law school. I don’t want to look at the list til I’ve drafted the new one (I don’t want to bias my new list), but once I do, I’ll do a wrap up on the old. I suspect we’ll just create a new page for these 101 entries.

But that got me thinking about New Years’ resolutions. Actually, what got me thinking about resolutions was going to the gym on Tuesday night to find it totally and annoyingly packed. I know it’s not fair to begrudge others’ use of the gym, because it’s Good For You and they are trying to start the New Year off well, and all that. But it was CROWDED. Like, I couldn’t find room to put down a mat to stretch, crowded. So that did sort of suck. And it made me glad I decided to start working out back in October, so I didn’t have to make ot a resolution.

I haven’t made resolutions at all the past few years. This is in part because it is somewhat likely that if I had wanted to do something, I already started doing it (see: gym). But also, of course, it just seems like a silly artifice, this forced making of a promise to yourself. You feel like you have to resolve to do (or not do) something, so you rack your brain to come up with something. And if you have to try that hard to think of a resolution, you probably aren’t going to keep it.

I didn’t try to come up with anything this year either, but there are two things that have presented themselves as things I want to do in this New Year. Because last year, it was a bit rough. Obviously, not that rough; I’m lucky and I know I am lucky. But I’ve had more fun in a year before. And less freaking out. Recently though I feel like I’vebeen making healthier choices for myself, and I really want to continue doing that.  That’s lame, right? But really, I do.

The second, somewhat less-lame resolution is to be friendlier to people. Talk to more people out in the world, smile at them, make the small-talk. Partly because that seems like one potential avenue for meeting people (and by people I do mean boys, cute ones, even though CB says if I do this thing I have to be nice to everyone, not just cute boys) and partly because when I do chat with someone out in the world, I often come away from that feeling a little tiny bit better about said world. Not always (see: cabbie who thinks we should have just dropped a bomb on all the attendees at an Al Queda leaders’ recent funeral and then made a joke about . . . sheep? It was very confusing). But often.

So there it is. I resolve to be more friendly. I’ll let you know how that works out.

Ow!

Guys! I was just doing a little yoga, as I do, and I was trying out a new DVD. The very first thing is standing on your knees and leaning back. This doesn’t sound hard, and also it’s the first thirty seconds of the DVD, you know? Easy! So I do it a few times, and on the fourth lean back, both my quad muscles cramped up. A lot. I made a noise not unlike a scream. Now I can barely walk, I’m kind of shuffling around. I have two questions:

1. Please try standing up on your knees (that might not be clear – kneel, but don’t drop your butt onto your heels) and leaning back. Is it hard for you…at all? Is it just me? Ironically, it’s supposed to work your stomach, not your legs. Maybe I just did it really, really poorly?

2. What am I supposed to do now? My legs hurt A LOT. What’s the proper procedure here – heat? ice? elevate? check the pulse? CBC and chem-7? lidocaine drip? (Thanks, ER!)