Many Glaciers Valley

Spent a good part of yesterday afternoon driving in Many Glacier's Valley, which is a lovely scenic 12-mile drive in Glacier National Park, which oddly enough I had never been to in spite of having lived here for nearly three years.  There were a lot of great things, many of which I photographed.  We saw some bears, from a great distance, but the scenery was far more spectacular than a couple of black dots on a hillside.  Here are some of the pictures I took; the first one is actually a composite of two pictures edited together (the sunlight was very bright so the lighting was off in some pictures) - it is now my desktop wallpaper:

This was taken about 3/4 of the way to the end of the road; the rest of the pictures following are shown in the order that they were taken, and essentially unedited aside from resizing.

This is the first place we stopped, and we probably spent more time outside of the car here than anywhere else.  This shows Lake Sheburne, near the end of the lake (the lake actually begins later on, near where our road ends); in some of the pictures below you can see the dam at the end of the lake.  Evidently the water level is extremely low now; from Google Maps it is obvious that this area (which we walked over) is normally under water.

The tower in the picture fascinated me to no end; at its base there is a place for the water to flow through, and the other side of the dam (which I unfortunately did not get any pictures of) is a high cliff where the water comes out on the other side in a little stream.

As you can see, it was quite a windy day.  A lot of my photographs did not turn out for either of two reasons: the wind, and the extraordinarily bright sunlight.  I forgot to bring my tripod, so I was unable to take any really good photos to do my editing magic on, thus any problems with exposure are basically unfixable.

I found these lake-bed patterns rather fascinating.

We were getting ready to leave at this point, and my sister borrowed my camera and snapped this photograph of me having a blast.  It's okay to laugh.

I took this picture further down the road; this is also where I took the very first photo shown, the one that is now my desktop wallpaper.  That was on the other side of the road from this one.

Further down the road, I got some pretty pictures of the lake/creek winding through the valley.  The best is yet to come, but this is pretty nice anyways.  The mountains here are awesome; it's truly a lovely day in a lovely place.  Just after taking this picture, the car in front of us (which turned around and began driving back) informed us that just before we got there, some bears had crossed the road directly in front of them.  Presumably they were talking about the same bears we saw later on, albeit from a distance.

This was probably my favorite scene (which I snapped tons of photos of); for some reason, I find the combination of the river, the rocks, and the trees stunningly beautiful.

Same location, facing the other direction.  You can see where the water comes from - the top of the waterfall, which comes down from Swiftcurrent Lake (which is where the Many Glacier Hotel is).  I had to climb down to get some better shots of the waterfall though; it was nearly invisible from the road.

Probably the best waterfall shot I have, though I have several; and another shot of my favorite scene in the trip:

The view from the road of Swiftcurrent Lake, and on the other side of the road, the beginning of the waterfall:

This is where the resort was, but most of the photographs didn't turn out that well (it's starting to get dark by now) and I prefer the nature photographs, so I didn't bother to include any of it.

On the way back from the Swiftcurrent Lake area, we came across a bunch of cars which had stopped along the road and were looking up into the hills.  We looked, and we saw first one bear, then the second one.  This is not a very good photograph; it was getting dark by now, and the bears were far away.

Half the time I wasn't taking pictures of the bears at all, because this gigantic mountain (too large and too close to fit into a single photograph) had me fairly captivated.

Another picture of the bears; they're just black dots here, not very easy to see.

The other side of the road from the bears; the moon is rising over Glacier National Park, making an interesting picture.

Looking toward Swiftcurrent Lake.  The sun has dipped down low enough now so you can see the mountains better (though unfortunately I still couldn't get the best exposure, because I didn't have my tripod) - including some patches of snow high up in the hills.

Another fantastic mountain, just to the right of where the bears were.  I took a few pictures of this one, but this is the only one that turned out very well.  The wind was pretty strong at this point, so it was hard to hold my camera steady.

By this time we're heading back home, and this is back at the beginning of Lake Sherburne, actually at an earlier point than where my first pictures were taken from.  This is right beside the dam, looking back at the lake.

The last picture I took.  This is the end of Lake Sherburne - the dam, the tower, the hills, the lake, and the moon.  Time to head home.

Sister of American Lockerbie victim visits Gadhafi

This is a bit before my time, but I was able to get the gist of it by reading the article.  This is one of those things people tend to read and think "how nice," but I doubt most people would respond this way.

The gut feeling is always to attack back - some people justify it with the logic "the best defense is offense," but more often it's a matter of revenge.  We want to hurt those who hurt us; we want to make them feel what we felt, even though this won't actually help us feel better or fix the world.  It's a very human reaction, a very normal reaction - and by some standards, a very just reaction.  Justice isn't always the best outcome.

It's not the first time a victim has met with an aggressor, but it's no less noble.  People like this inspire me, because it shows that people can overcome the base emotions of revenge and hatred, even when they have been cruelly harmed by another person.  This is how we make the world a better place; it's the only way to end terrorism.  We can never destroy hatred with hatred, and Lisa Gibson, a Christian who understands her religion better than many, has shown an understanding of this that goes far beyond the understanding of many Americans who want to solve our problems by killing all our enemies.  Lisa Gibson is a true hero.

iTunes U and OCW courses

I'm one of those people that has a hard time learning solely from a book.  I hate actually being in class, but I almost always learn better in class than when I try to learn just by reading a book.  I was homeschooled for most of my life, so I learned a great deal of things via reading alone; but I've noticed that whenever I take a class, I nearly always remember more and understand better.

I'm also one of those people who would rather be watching videos on my iPod than doing schoolwork.  Sad but true - I prefer watching a good movie to reading a deeply complicated math book.  And I love math!

I knew about iTunes U for a while (I've had my iPod for a while, after all) and I knew about OCW courses (you can take a full MIT class online for free, for example, including videos or audio, handouts, and homework/exams with answers - all available for free download online).

I only just tried it out for the first time.  I'm going through Single Variable Calculus via MIT's course.  My school only goes up to second semester Calculus, and since I'm now in my fourth semester (I took Calculus my first semester here) I'm getting kind of rusty, which could be bad when I go on to my next school and try to take Calculus III.  I've tried going back through the book again, sequentially, but it's just not the same as a regular class.  It's just reading - a class is engaging, because it's less formal.

So now that I've discovered the MIT courses (and other courses, from other universities, all on iTunes U and for free) I'm planning to go through this stuff.  It's a bit more useful than watching movies on my iPod, but it still manages to satisfy the urge to spend hours of my day staring at a little tiny electronic screen.

Simply superb.

Jury rejects FEMA trailer fumes lawsuit

This just in - the jury decided that neither the federal government nor the company they hired to provide trailers to Hurricane Katrina victims are at fault for issuing a trailer that had toxic fumes.

This is one of those things that are never as simple as they appear.  The naturalistic side of me wants to argue that they should have made a better trailer, one without toxic fumes - the reasonable, commonsense side of me point out that these people were just made homeless and got a temporary place to live for nothing.


I find it kind of funny that while at the time, people were complaining that the government didn't respond to the disaster fast enough, now people are complaining that the way the government did respond put them in danger.  So was the government too slow to help you or too fast?


The FEMA trailers are now being sold elsewhere as well, to the alarm of some.  One place they're popping up is on Indian reservations like the one I work and go to school on - leave it to the government to sell cheap, dangerous, inferior products to Indians at low prices!

 In spite of the possible danger, I have to admit I find this whole situation quite ridiculous.  I'm glad the jury was intelligent enough to throw out the claim that "Elevated levels of formaldehyde in the family's trailer... increased his risk of getting cancer."  Come back when you actually get cancer, please.  And next time you're homeless because of a hurricane, make the decision ahead of time - stay homeless, or accept the possibly toxic trailer for a limited time until you can get yourself back on your feet.  Those of us already on our feet will keep lobbying for higher quality; stop trying to get more out of this than you already did.

Is the Press Believable?

This morning I read this article by Dean Wright.  He cites the results of a new study by Pew Research which essentially says that popular belief in the media is at an all-time low right now.  His solution?  More transparency in the news reporting.

The study reveals not only that the U.S. public tends to view the news media in general with suspicion, but also that much of this suspicion is political - one organization will be viewed more favorably by one party and less favorably by the other.  Only 29% of Americans think the news reporters get the facts straight, and only 18% think they deal fairly with both sides.

Why do so many people view news reporters with suspicion?

I think the answer is actually quite simple:  we want something news reporters can't give us.

Think back on the history of news, or what little of it you might know.  News in this country began with ordinary people using printing presses to spread the word.  One of the most famous forefathers of America is Benjamin Franklin, who got his start in printing.  The job was simple:  figure out what the truth was, and spread the truth to other people.  There was no talk of political bias or unfair reporting, because the news was about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Today, of course, we're much more modern and we have become enlightened.  We know now that nothing is ever as simple as "the truth."  We've seen the power of propaganda to change people's minds and convince a whole nation that something blatantly false is true.  And unlike those earlier times, the major media outlets today have become large corporations, which are devoted to making money, in addition to whatever truth they are trying to teach us.  We know these things.  And that makes the news suspect for bias.

And why not?  Since when was anything anyone said ever not biased?

Of course, all this makes a pretty big assumption:  that bias is bad.  For centuries man has wrestled with the notion of absolute truth, of objectivity, and he is finally just discovering that if there is any absolute truth out there, he certainly doesn't possess the tools required to find it.  We're only human; we're all biased by something.  Our personalities, our religious and political beliefs, our personal philosophies - our upbringing.  We each view things through variously colored sunglasses, and we each hold on to our notion that our glasses are the right ones.  Yet as much as we know this, we still hold to the thought that behind those glasses we wear, there is still some definite truth "somewhere out there" - that behind all the glasses we wear, we're all looking at the same object, after all.

Science, religion, and the media, have always tried to teach this notion of objectivity and absolute truth.  It's a nice notion.  It's a believable notion.  If we can't all agree on something, what hope is there for humanity to ever find peace?  And so we search for absolute truth, and if we can't find it, we assume it's because we weren't looking in the right place.  When we discover something is false, we blame the source - the science which made the false discovery, the religion which made the false claim, the media which reported the false facts.  We cling to the notion that there is still some objective, absolute truth; we were just looking in the wrong place that time, and now we've learned, we're smarter, we're better, and next time we'll look in the right place.

I think the reason we're so suspicious of the news today is that we're finally starting to realize that nothing is safe - everything you read or hear is just words, just language.  Whether or not there are objective facts being covered by the news is not the issue; the issue is whether or not the news is covering those facts objectively.  Of course they aren't; they can't!  Your news reporter is no less human than yourself.  The very words they choose to describe something are biased; the very sentences they speak are based on their own ideas, seen through their glasses.  It is this ultimate realization that worries us and makes us suspicious of the press.

Can we believe the news media?  I think the answer to that question is a little bit more complex than a simple "yes" or "no."  Ultimately, unless you want to be a paranoid freak, you have to believe some things.  And you can.  When you're told that Obama presided at a UN summit for nuclear disarmament, you can believe that Obama said the things he said, and perhaps even that he actually wants to get rid of nuclear weapons.  But you're smart enough to know not to believe it until we actually do get rid of nuclear weapons, for good.  When you see that there was a clinical trial for an AIDS vaccine with some limited success, you know that this might be good for the future of medicine but you're smart enough to know it doesn't mean that one of the most devastating human diseases in existence has been cured - yet.

Most of this type of news isn't the problem; it's political news that gives the most cause for concern about bias.  But is that really anything different from a news article that is optimistic about nuclear disarmament or an AIDS vaccine, even though those things are not yet real?  What is it about political news that makes it any less believable, or more prone to bias?  And what exactly is wrong with bias?

People are afraid of corruption in the government and in corporations like the news media, and rightly so - we've seen a lot of corruption, and if there's no apparent corruption now, it's probably because they're managing to keep it hidden.  There will no doubt be more corruption scandals in the future.  Nobody is perfect, after all, and when there's a lot of money and power on the line people are tempted.  These things can be combated to some degree by the news, but people need to stop viewing the news as the place to combat corruption.  The news is limited; it needs to maintain its pristine front.  It's up to We, The People to find these things, and fight them.  This is something we've known all along, but out of laziness we blame the news when we can't - or won't - do it ourselves.  Corruption will cease to exist when We, The People end it - and as long as we expect "them" to do it for us, it will never end.

You have to expect bias, because you're going to get it.  Instead of demanding that our news be "less biased," we need to recognize that everyone - even politicians, news reporters, and wealthy corporate CEOs - are humans.  Thinking, living, breathing, conscious human beings.  We tend to forget this - we abstract people as "Republicans" or "Democrats," "conservatives" or "liberals," "bad guys" or "good guys," "them" or "us."  And when we do that, we lose sight of humanity - of all people really just being people, in the end.  We forget that we might be no different from them, in their shoes.  We forget that we are just as free as they are - that ultimately, no matter how "unbiased" and "objective" they try to be, they will always say things the way they see them, and we may see them differently.  That's exactly what it means to be human, and news reporting is no different from two men having a conversation except that one of them is given special privileges.  As long as we fail to recognize the humanity in others, we make the same essential mistake that "they" - the politicians or news reporters - make.  As long as we all continue to make that mistake, the problems we complain about will never go away, for we are all too busy blaming each other to actually fix the problems themselves!

This might seem defeatist, or like a quitter's way out, because while not condoning the evils of the world it allows for them:  it recognizes that they will always exist.  Yet if it seems like a quitter's way out, it's the only way I can see to end the problems we face - the corruption people are so afraid of.  Only by recognizing that news reporters are human too, and recognizing that there is no such thing as "no bias" can we move on to the more important aspect of reporting:  the actual facts, whatever those might be behind the tinted glasses everyone sees them through.  And I believe it's no harder to see the actual facts in a political news article than in a news article about nuclear disarmament or an experimental AIDS vaccine.  It just takes a little common sense, and a willingness to put political beliefs aside to focus on what is actually happening.

Ultimately, it's up to us to interpret the news.  They may report the facts, but they will always be biased.  We will also always be biased.  We need to recognize this:  realize that the news is inherently biased, that there is no "unbiased news" and that we can recognize the facts in spite of this.  We're smart people; we can figure these things out.

Read your news; don't rely solely on the TV for news, because the TV is especially biased.  They have to make news exciting and sensational to put it on TV, but doing so may take away from the objectivity of the news.  You may watch TV, but do some reading too.  It's good for you.

Read from several different sources, not just one - especially if it's an article about a controversial topic.  By applying your reasoning to what you read, and comparing the biased news reports from several different reporters, you are more likely to be able to identify the true facts of the matter, rather than being stuck with the single, biased article of one reporter, from one organization, in one place.  Don't expect perfection, but expect reason in what you read.  This is how ignorance and uninformed-ness are combated; this is how Americans can get their news safely.  It's the only way.

I disagree with the essential premise that news reporting agencies can be expected to provide absolute, unbiased truth to us; I also disagree with the premise that we can't determine the basic facts of a matter for ourselves, even if a news source is biased.  We need to hold the news sources accountable; we also need to hold ourselves accountable.  If we are to argue a topic, we need to be informed about it first.  It does no good to pretend to know more about something than we do.

When you see that you are able to discern fact from opinion on your own, you realize that there is nothing bad about having opinions in the news.  It's actually necessary for reporters to have opinions - just as you can't read the news without yourself forming your own opinions about what you read.  When you see the necessity of bias, you realize that even though the news is imperfect and human, just like yourself, you can trust it to give you what you need to figure out the facts on your own.

And that is exactly the kind of news we need in the 21st century.

Supper

It may interest you to know that my family is vegetarian.  I have tried meat; sometimes I like it, but because I wasn't raised with it I'm not used to it, and I generally do not eat meat simply because I do not like it.  I have nothing against eating meat, in a moral sense (though my parents do); I just don't like it because I'm not used to it.  Thus, when I cook for my family, it's always vegetarian.

I am an excellent cook, although my repertoire is fairly limited, primarily to stews and especially fried things.  I love frying things.  If I were a country and I had a national food, it would be fried vegetables.

Take some carrots, peel and slice them, and begin them frying.  Add some ginger (believe me, this is one of the best things in my cooking), one or more zucchini (I only had one, or I would have added more) and/or summer squash, peppers, and onion.  Make the noodles.  When the vegetables are done, mix them with the noodles, add some salt and perhaps seasonings (I added some basil), mix up, and serve.  It's always best hot; leftovers are so blah.

If this looks good to you, believe me - it tastes even better.

Superb!

Yesterday

New Mika album released.  It made me happy, much as did the first one when I first heard it earlier this summer.

Some people don't like him; too flamboyant, too happy, too girly (is he gay? they ask)  I don't care if he's gay, or bi, or just a bit loopy.

I like him because he's like when I was a kid.  Gosh, I miss being a kid.  And the music is spectacular.  So much more artistic than your ordinary flavor of pop.  So different from the packaged, scripted bands we're so used to.

If you haven't heard him, give him a try.  If you don't like him, this blog entry can safely be ignored.  If you do like him, get the album if you haven't already.  Comment in any case.

tl;pranikdbuyahfom (Too Long; Please Read Anyways - Naw I'm Kidding, Don't Bother Unless You're A Hardcore Fan Of Mine)

I'm too much of everything and too little of any one particular thing to put me into a category. That may sound trite and cliche, and it is, but it's also true. I do a bit of programming as a hobby, but I'm not a programmer - yet. I go to school full time, but I don't consider my occupation in life to be "student" (though in some ways we all are - and that also sounds trite and cliche). I do a lot of reading, but not as much as some people; some writing, but not as much as some people. I'm pretty good at math, but I'm anything but a genius. I don't actually like science as much as the nerd stereotype might indicate. I like creativity, but I haven't tried enough things yet to find out if I'm really talented at any of them. I think I'm better at writing than most other creative skills, but lots of people think that (and it probably sounds trite and cliche for me to say that).

Ultimately, I suspect there's no way to describe myself that won't sound trite and cliche. Everyone is an interesting person once you get to know them; until then, no one is. We're all pretty much the same person until we get to know each other. I console myself with the intelligence and careful thoughts of my writing, but some people might decide I'm not for them.

Perhaps I'm tl;dr (I do that a lot, sorry); perhaps I think too much. Perhaps I'm young and brash and stupid, and don't think enough. Perhaps I'm too passionate; perhaps I take life too seriously; perhaps I don't take life seriously enough. Perhaps I'm stark raving mad; perhaps I'm trying too hard to impress (I do that a lot, sorry). Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough; perhaps I'm not real. Perhaps I'm too real. I like Nietzsche, but that's not saying very much; so does everyone else. Perhaps I'm human, all too human, and perhaps I'm just trite and cliche.

Hope I don't disappoint everyone by saying this, but I'm writing for the sake of writing. Not for fame, or money, like some bloggers, nor because I'm bored and have nothing better to do. I'm writing because I think writing is good, important, and helpful to myself and also to society at large. So call me names or ignore me, or stay along for the show. I'll try to avoid being boring, if you'll just try me - you might like me ;)

And just so we're clear up front, I'm a nerd, and a pretty good-looking one if I say so myself. I'm also somewhat arrogant at times, if my last comment didn't reveal that to you. I'll say what I think, regardless of what other people think, and sometimes I'll get in trouble for it. My thoughts aren't always perfectly thought out, so I'll think something out, write it, then get flak for saying something stupid. I'm human, all too human.

With that, I introduce you to myself; more will no doubt leak out through the writing as we get to know each other, you through reading my blogs and me through reading your comments. Who knows, maybe some of us will become good friends some day.

I'm a conscious human being, just like you. Hi. Did you notice the phrases I repeated ad nauseum in this first blog entry? If so, I like you. You're probably a perfectionist, just like me.

I'm 18 years old and I believe I should have started blogging long before this. It's about time.

Superb!

Disclaimer: This should not be taken as a sample of my general writing ability; only my ability to write a first blog entry. If I've done poorly, don't mind me- I haven't done very many of these before. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the only one I ever have done before. Chalk my imperfection up to inexperience, please!