Author: Steve

  • Long Term Answers

    Okay. I am not going to let this turn into one of those blogs with an epic space in the middle without an update, so I am at least getting something of significance in here for March because well for readers (the few that there are), Febuary was a rather sad month for SteveRogers.info.

    Now seems to be the time of figuring out what happens next and working to achieve those happenings. The MCAT is in less than a month and could very well determine the lives of two of my best pre-college friends (No pressure there buddies). Some friends are awaiting the outcomes of graduate school applications. Others, responses to their resumes and cover letters to see if they will be gainfully employed for the next fiscal year. There are those figuring out if they want to take the year off or go straight to graduate school. Then for the year-off-ers, there is the decision of what to do with that year. For the year-on-ers, the question of where to go to graduate school.

    When writing that, I actually realized. I am not in horrible shape necessarily. The 5-Year Master’s thing has pretty much secured my life through the Fall of 2007. Therefore, I suppose, I am one of those who is sort of avoiding the real world for a little time longer (albeit, only a semester, but as long as I don’t fuck up, I am already in a graduate program). Right now, immediate toughest decision is figuring out where I am living next year, and pretty much everyone has to figure that out for themselves in some fashion or another.

    The other “future plans” situation bopping around in my head is my career. If you have talked to me in the past month, you have likely heard the about Missouri Teacher Certification in some fashion or another. Coming to GW, it was to find out whether I wanted to have a career in the world of politics or if I would rather be a teacher. Febuary was a month where the latter became more appealing. To exemplify the situation, the other night, someone brought up a Senate race in Montana. I honestly had no clue about anything regarding the race. None at all, and I was a little embarassed. In 2004, I could legitimately tell you within a point the spread for Kerry v. Bush in nearly every state. Admitedly, it is only March, and we are discussing a Senate race in Montana. However, I am not keeping tabs on politics like I did for my first two plus years of college. Could it be because it is a midterm year instead of Presidential? Perhaps. However, if I really love this stuff and want to encompass my life around the Novembers of even numbered years, I think I should be a little more enamoured by Election 2006.

    I must admit that the outcome of the Truman Application slapped down the current attractiveness level of a political career. It always sucks to be rejected, and I have been a few times this year. However, I think it was a little spoonful of reality that I am not necessarily one of the best. Within myself, and this is not a practice of humility, I know I am limitted and how I am. While these limitations are not the reason for my not being a Truman Scholar, the rejection was more of an explicit message that made me acknowledge my situation. This, combined with a list of more practical reasons (that I have learned about through my internships and actual interactions with those with politcal staffing jobs), has made me question a political career.

    Therefore, I have re-examined the teaching route to some extent. I was supposed to meet with an UMSL advisor over spring break, but the appointment was canceled on me. Therefore, now I have to do things over the phone and by e-mail, which I admitedly need to get on. Anyway…with the teacher route, as hubris as this is, probably the biggest detterant to me is my questioning of “am I just settling for this.” The practical reasons for being a teacher are much better than those for a political staffers, however would I necessarily be fulfilled teaching high schoolers about the three branches of government and Andrew Jackson when ninety percent of them honestly could care less. Then, regarding fulfillment, the question I really need answered is: “what do I want out of politics?” Is my answer vain, noble, or something else. I probably do know, the question is am I okay devoting a life to that answer.

    This then shapes what I want to do this summer. Should I bite it and commit to the teacher path. Or should I give it one more go with a political job that I haven’t tried yet. That amongst other things will determine my summer situation. So pretty much answers to long term questions could solve the short term problems. However, how often do 22 year olds have the long term answers?

  • I have had extraordinarily better weeks.

    Didn’t get the House Scholar Job
    Got Sick
    Read about 450 Pages this weekend numbing my mind
    And didn’t get Truman Finalist……….

    Fuck

  • Gore > Kerry

    From The Economist…

    Al Gore shines by comparison with John Kerry

    WHERE do Democratic presidential candidates end up? The answer, to judge from recent headlines, is that they go to global gabfests in posh skiing resorts. Al Gore was at Sundance the other week with the likes of Robert Redford, Paris Hilton and various film people who claim they are interested in “issues”. John Kerry was at Davos with the likes of Kofi Annan, Angelina Jolie and sundry slobbering journalists. The skiing was excellent in both places, we’re told; the networking was AU POINT; and the opportunities for meeting HOI POLLOI, other than as conveyors of drinks and canapes, just about zero.

    It is easy to be cynical about the keenness of Messrs Gore and Kerry to discuss “the creative imperative” and other such tosh with their peers. After all, these are men cut from the same cloth, who have spent most of their life hobnobbing with whatever passes for the elite, even occasionally marrying them. They were both bred to be politicians. Mr Gore became a congressman at the age of 28, a senator at 36 and a presidential candidate at 39. Mr Kerry, who grew up thinking that the fact that his initials were JFK proved that he was destined for high office, was a leader of the anti-war movement at 27 (Richard Nixon charitably described him as a “phoney”, but an “effective” one).

    And yet something extraordinary has happened over the past few years: the two men have started to become distinguishable. Mr Kerry remains a professional politician–the perpetual junior senator for Massachusetts, playing the pale thin man to Teddy Kennedy’s florid fat man. Conversely, he has also retained his tin ear for politics. Last week, he not only made the mistake of calling for a filibuster of Samuel Alito that had no chance of succeeding (to have any chance of making this archaic senatorial device work with a Supreme Court nominee, you first need to have demonised your victim); he also made the mistake of making that call from Davos.

    From the perspective of Davos Man, this was doubtless an impressively global stunt (how Ms Jolie must have purred on the chairlift). But in the real world of American politics, it was disastrous. Scott McClellan, George Bush’s normally lacklustre press secretary, joked about it being “pretty serious yodelling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps”. The WALL STREET JOURNAL sniped that Mr Kerry had been “communing with his political base” in Davos. Democrats were furious. They saw it as a transparent play for support from the party’s over-excited activists, the insider turned calculating insurgent (Mr Kerry even wrote about the filibuster on a left-wing blog). Barack Obama, a newcomer to the Senate, said it was silly to oppose a nominee unless you’ve won the hearts and minds of the country. Mr Alito has now been confirmed for the Supreme Court, blue-collar America has been reminded why Democrats are not like them and Mr Kerry has confirmed his position as one of the perennial losers in American politics.

    Mr Gore, by contrast, has morphed into a more interesting figure. The youngest presidential candidate from a major party since William Jennings Bryan, he has now abandoned the life of a professional politician for a portfolio career as part-time businessman and part-time tub-thumper. He calculates that he spends three-quarters of his time running his cable television project, Current TV, a sort of “Wayne’s World” for the digital age. Mockers may point out that most of Mr Gore’s original backers were big Democratic donors, that he had to give up his original idea of founding a liberal alternative to Fox News and that the channel now relies on help from Mr Gore’s political nemesis, Rupert Murdoch. But Current TV has developed into a genuine business rather than a political front.

    It is ironic that a man who was once famous for his stiffness has embraced one of the most fluid forms in media; and rather odd that a man who was robbed of a normal youth by his father’s political ambition (the older Senator Gore boasted of raising his son for the White House) has plunged into youth television. But he has loosened up. Al the politician was wound up almost beyond endurance. (“How can you tell Al Gore from a roomful of Secret Service agents?”, went a popular joke. “Gore is the stiff one.”) The new Al is letting it all hang out. The evidence of this is partly physical: a man who was described as a “fantasy man” by FITNESS magazine in 1992 has ballooned. But it is more than that: Mr Gore is now quite a performer, a man who is no longer frightened of sweating and hollering.

    LET IT ALL OUT, AL
    Mr Gore now delivers no-holds-barred broadsides against the Bush administration for everything from Abu Ghraib to warrantless wiretaps. But the former vice-president is at his most impressive on his old passion–the environment. Wrongly or rightly, Mr Gore believes that humanity has only about a decade to fix a “planetary emergency”; and he has spent the past few years roaming the world perfecting his lecture-cum-slideshow on the dangers of global warming, much as Ronald Reagan spent the 1950s roaming America perfecting his speech on the evils of government. Mr Gore was at Sundance to promote a documentary based on his speech.

    Which points to an interesting paradox: Mr Gore is generating far more political capital by breaking the political rules than he did by obeying them. Mr Kerry’s Alito ploy looked brazenly political. But Mr Gore’s new persona (or perhaps, more accurately, his rediscovery of his hidden self) is causing something of a buzz. The party’s cash-rich Hollywood wing increasingly sees him as a liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton; and he is persuading all sorts of people to take a fresh look at Dudley Do Right. None of this means that he is a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2008. But it does mean that he is far better placed than the junior senator from Massachusetts.

  • Well..

    Truman is done (Pending Francis DuVinage edits and becoming a finalist (which is probably doubtful)
    GW beat Xavier at Xavier for the first time in 10 years and is in first place in the A-10
    And right behind them is a little team called the Billikens in 2nd Place

    Who woulda thunk it?

  • Gore Watch

    I haven’t been good about Gore updates, but with the speech last week and book deal this week….People should be watching.

    A book tour is a great way to fake campaign. Perhaps his Global Warmning book will suggest alternative fuels….Iowa may like to hear about that.

  • Quick Notes

    I got these from a longer essay found here

    Prestige is especially dangerous to the ambitious. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, the way to do it is to bait the hook with prestige. That’s the recipe for getting people to give talks, write forewords, serve on committees, be department heads, and so on. It might be a good rule simply to avoid any prestigious task. If it didn’t suck, they wouldn’t have had to make it prestigious.

    Don’t decide [what do to with your life] too soon. Kids who know early what they want to do seem impressive, as if they got the answer to some math question before the other kids. They have an answer, certainly, but odds are it’s wrong.

    A friend of mine who is a quite successful doctor complains constantly about her job. When people applying to medical school ask her for advice, she wants to shake them and yell “Don’t do it!” (But she never does.) How did she get into this fix? In high school she already wanted to be a doctor. And she is so ambitious and determined that she overcame every obstacle along the way– including, unfortunately, not liking it.

    Now she has a life chosen for her by a high-school kid.