These are a few of my favorite things

I don't expect people to listen to me. I babble a lot, I'm just a reporter at The Michigan Daily, I'm just a history major. Nothing special. I'm an insignificant little speck. No biggie.
I also don't expect people to share my interests (certain television shows that are really good if you give them a chance, The Bad Plus, The New Yorker, journalism in general, politics, quirkiness, food). They're not the traditional kind of hip thing most people like; they won't show up on Mtv. But within my little world when parts come together it adds a personal sweetness. In this case, David Remnick writes about The Bad Plus, a fantastic contemporary jazz band. I highly recommend them. Remnick praises some of their edgier songs: renditions of other famous songs like a techno-jazz version of Smells Like Teen Spirit. Those are okay, but at the first concert I went to my fellow fans and I agreed their original stuff is the best, like the wonderfully chaotic And Here We Test Our Abilities. Songs like that are a union of so many wonderful sounds into this fusion that's pleasurable to the ear, much like when things you like pat each other on the back.
Below is Our Abilities:

Twist

I'm swamped with school. I'm behind on my work and am overloaded at the Michigan Daily; still, I manage to squeeze in a little leisure time, which I spend reading. I'm thoroughly engaged in Jeffrey Frank's latest novel Trudy Hopedale. Want complexity, a sprinkling of humor, an engrossing story, and interesting, unique characters in a realistic environment? Then Frank's latest novel is your dream come true! I highly recommend it. Not going to spoil anything though.

Finding Me

Of interest to the editor:

There is something about summer that relaxes the mind and slows down work. Major publications have times when they put out less issues or less coverage. Bodies have night, a daily summer that rejuvenates the muscles. I need rejuvenation. With some variation I've posted a blog entry fairly regularly since its creation. This summer though, I'm smothered in a new city, at a company overflowing with intellectualism -it's a lot to take in. So I'm going to retire Of Interest until August. By then I hope to have another writer on board -a close friend who complains as much if not more than I do. Until then,

au revoir.

Paranoid Android

A profile in a recent issue of The New Yorker reported that Paul Wolfowitz, President of The World Bank, is a staunch advocate of moral relativism. Such one-sided support seems a bit arrogant. Moral relativism is the belief that ethics are decided by cultures and there is no basic moral code. In ethical philosophy, there is an argument called The Argument from Tolerance:

1. Either moral realism is true or relativism is true.
2. If realism is true, one ought not be tolerant of other culture's moral views.
3. If relativism is true, one ought to be tolerant of others
4. One ought to be tolerant of other culture's moral views
5. Realism is false and relativism is true

The Argument concludes that realism (a basic level of morals applicable to all cultures) is false and that what is ethical is decided by the culture (relativism).
It's funny for a world leader to admit favor of one idea or the other, especially an American. Diversity and acceptance are one of the most basic beliefs of the United States, which could be called relativism, but there are numerous cases of the United States meddling in international affairs in the name of right or wrong which sounds a lot like realism. The Iraq War is apparently happening to free a country from a tyrannical dictator. America's entrance into World War II could also be an act of realism (it was a far more noble one). But the idea of bringing "democracy" to a people is a dangerous one. In the 20th century American leaders felt the spread of communism warranted American intervention in Vietnam with disastrous results. The U.S. involvement in these conflicts had other motivations than bringing democracy to a people and shielding them from communism. Usually when one society attempts to "purify" the ethical foundations of another, there are intricate ulterior motives but that attempt to change a basic moral principle is itself complicated.
Unfortunately countless U.S. politicians don't see it this way. To them the antonym for democracy is terror or anarchy. That's simply not the case. No world leader, especially those representing superpowers, should fly just the banner of realism or relativism. Killing is wrong, unnecessary and pain inflicted by others is wrong (the realist argument) but beyond that societies deserve their own way even if a different ethical code works for a different society -which is kind of what makes those societies different.
It's frightening that the entirety of this superpower's world leader's don't recognize the ethical complexity of realism and relativism.