Brabbel's babble

Just now I saw a repeat of the live-news reports from 10 years ago, the way the collapse of the first tower didn't really register with the reporters, and the silence and disbelief after the second came down. And again, I was hooked and felt the same shock as I did 10 years ago.

So, where was I when I first heard of the attacks?

Well, I went to get my photos of my visit in New York in July 2001, that I had magnified to put on the walls. One of them is a view of the south of Manhattan from the Empire State Building, of course, featuring the twin towers. This picture still has a special place in my heart and on my wall. I heard from the attacks in the shop, payed for my photos and I remember I rushed home just in time to see the second tower collapse.

I remember my being lost and the distinct feeling that I had just witnessed the end of the world as I knew it. And in a way I was right. The world hasn't been the same since then - wars have been fought without reason, civil rights neglected and subverted, people have been abducted and tortured without those methods really being questioned... I'm not sure that this is the way to go in order to protect the free world - in fact, I'm sure it isn't. But I guess it will take a lot of time still for the world to get back its confidence, to realize that you can't fight against fundamentalism and sheer hatred with weapons, restrictions and prejudice. Granted, you might leave yourself open to attacks, but, honestly, isn't that better than living in constant fear and anger?

As a distraction from my ongoing "West Wing"-addiction - and at some point I'm planning on writing an analysis of my dislike of Toby, based on his behaviour in "17 people" (but not only that), and the way I absolutely adore Josh and "Noel" (well, not only "Noel" but in fact every episode he's allowed to show some vulnerability and depth of character) -, I stumbled upon Navy CIS... yeah, I know, not nearly up to par with TWW but it's entertaining enough to write about it as it got me thinking about the commitment issues within my favourite programmes, or rather the problem the portrayal of serious relationships in non-soap opera-ish series seems to pose.

But let's start at the beginning...

( Read more... )

And on that note, I'll stop my outpouring thoughts for now. I think I really have to get another hobby than watching (and obsessing about) TV-shows... yeah... not likely.

What else happened in recent weeks? I got around to watching "Black Swan" and now have the incredible urge to go and see "Swan Lake". *sighs* Maybe next season it's going to be on schedule in one of the opera houses here.

And on another note, I'm in the middle of moving to my new flat and I found out how incredibly difficult the planning of a kitchen can be - do I like cream coloured cupboards, do they clash with the white walls? Does the wooden counter top work with the wooden floor? Do I want to have either my dish washer or my oven or both elevated in height? Etc. And beyond those life-deciding questions I'm actually supposed to get something done at school?!? Yeah... not likely, either.

I just watched Twilight and New Moon... and (without having read the books) I have to say that I don't quite get Bella's motivations. I think she's selfish and naive - she's asking Edward to cross the line he's built his entire existence around. And I don't think she actually understands what she's even asking for. Eternity can be a very long time, always being afraid of getting caught, always having to fight your basic nature.

I'm not sure this gets explained better in the books than in the movies, but so far I think *she*'s bad news for all around her, be they vampires or werewolves, not the other way around. She should really have a long talk with that blond "sister" of Edward's who was the only one who declined her request...

And I'm not so sure I like the way vampires and werewolves are portrayed so far. Werewolves who just change at will or when they get angry? There's no connection to the moon cycle? And vampires who show up on photos?

Well, I'm curious enough to see what happens next. (Or maybe I'll just spare me the wait and read the rest of the series. *g*)

I was most impressed by Obama's acceptance speech in November - calm, daring, reaching out his hand to those who didn't vote for him, warning his followers of difficult times ahead... And now IMO he outdid himself with the speech he gave today.

What a change from Bush's policies of the last years - and what a way to introduce that change with Bush sitting right behind him! I especially loved the bits about respect, peace vs. ideals, the offers of cooperation etc, he must have spent days, or rather weeks, cleverly putting together well known phrases and allusions to prior speeches. But I think he really managed to address everyone individually, to touch every single person, be it in Washington or in front of the TV... and that's quite a feat. That man's definitely a born leader, aware of dark times and of setbacks - I just hope, once the hysteria has vanished the people will let themselves be led even through setbacks.

Honestly, I also liked the way the Obamas accompanied the Bushs to their chopper. It sends a very interesting message, especially given the difference of opinions and attitudes... a message of respect, and I didn't get the impression that all the hugs and smiles were just for the media.

I even liked the fact that the actual swearing-in wasn't flawless. Even though it wasn't Obama's mistake (except his being too fast in repeating the first part), it put quite a human touch to the whole ceremony.

Quite a historic day - not only for the US.

Most days, there's nothing worth watching on TV - but today, Fellowship of the Ring and House both fought hard for my attention. I hate such days... really... and to think that I've an exam coming up tomorrow (or rather today) doesn't help at all. *g*

I just spent the last hour reading over my very first entries on this lj... beginning with how much I enjoyed learning for my forensic medicine exam, drifting into the realm of law, and perhaps having an inkling as to what would happen 3 years later. I can't believe I graduated from medschool 3 years ago, time really has a way to pass by so quickly when you're not looking. And just how much experience I have gained during those 3 years, working as an assistant nurse, as a medical doctor working with drug addicts, and last but not least, back again at school as a law student. All this allowed me to grow as a person. Sometimes it's been a challenge to face the emotional challenges work in the medical sector has to offer - and it has certainly be a challenge to go back to school and attend classes among people nearly half my age. And honestly, it's been a huge reward to see I've not lost my ability to focus, to more or less instantly understand the subject matter at hand...

I'm not certain where this path will lead me - but I guess this doesn't really matter at all, as long as I'm the one choosing which path to follow and not the other way around as it was not so long ago.

Perhaps that's why I enjoy The Lord of the Rings so much... it's a very simple story about seemingly insurmountable obstacles, hope, friendship, growth and redemption. I guess there isn't anyone who hasn't faced these topics at least once in his life. And who looking back regrets facing and overcoming those obstacles? They are necessary to grow as a person, however painful they prove to be. It's up to us to embrace them... albeit a difficult and most demanding endeavour, but a very rewarding one as well.

I snatched this little quiz from derry667 who in turn got it from wpadmirer...

First, list your 6 favourite TV-shows - and don't cheat and look at the questions below the cut!! Believe me, it will take all the fun out of this! ;)

Okay, let's have it:

1. Stargate SG-1
2. Supernatural - I'm only about through with season 1... and boy, do I adore this show (as evidenced by my most recent entries after all...)
3. Stargate Atlantis
4. 24
5. House, MD
6. Gilmore Girls

All done? Then let's proceed with the questions:

( Read more... )

Now, it's your turn!

I saw this on defcons_treklit's journal and immediately went over to the Wikipedia to see what other important things, apart from my own birth, happened on October 29th. The requirement on his journal was to list 3 events, 2 births, and 1 death - and I almost meet that requirement. ;-)

October 29th

Events

1863 - Sixteen countries meeting in Geneva agree to form the International Red Cross.
1929 - The New York Stock Exchange crashes in what will be called the Crash of '29 or Black Tuesday, ending the Great Bull Market of the 1920s and beginning the Great Depression.
2004 - In Rome, European heads of state sign the Treaty and Final Act establishing the first European Constitution.

And since I'm Austrian, love Mozart's music, and this year he'd be 250 years old:

1787 - Mozart's opera Don Giovanni receives its first performance in Prague.

Births

1923 - Carl Djerassi, Austrian chemist - contributor to the invention of the oral-contraceptive pill
1971 - Winona Ryder, American actress

Death

1911 - Joseph Pulitzer, Hungarian-born newspaper publisher (b. 1847)

At least last friday I had to experience this when I found my rabbit dead in its cage, with virtually no warning beforehand. Granted, he seemed calmer in the days before, but nothing really prepared me for this. I think I still haven't realized it quite yet. I still get up in the morning to put fresh food in his cage, I still find myself wanting to let him out to run around in the afternoon, I still startle when there's no light in the room where he used to be when he was out of his cage for the last 5 and a half years... far too short a life time for a rabbit (even if longer than his brother's...).

Perhaps it's hard to understand but it's as if an important part of my life is suddenly missing. I got my rabbits during a very difficult time in my life, they suddenly gave me back a reason to get up in the morning and not just wallow in self-pity. They required my care - and I took up the challenge and gradually got my life back on track. And later on, they were just there when I came back home, no matter what happened. Again, I don't know if anyone can really relate to this - especially people who don't have pets.

And now a new part in my life has begun. At the moment I'm still feeling empty and I'm going to miss that little rabbit for quite some time still. On the other hand, I need to consider the opportunities my no longer being required to stay in Vienna has opened up for me... not yet, though... whenever I'm ready.

I have been a fan of Lance Armstrong's for quite some years, faithfully following his Tour de France efforts and cheering him on. In 2000 during a very difficult time I read his book "It's not about the bike" and while he didn't come across as a very likeable character I couldn't help but admire his open honesty, his determination and be inspired by it. Of course, I have been less and less involved with the Tour until now I'm just following it whenever I come across it instead of actually making time to watch it.

Having said that, I have to admit that I think that any sports on a highly competitive level is suspicious of performance-enhancing drugs such as EPO. I'm not that naive to believe that just because doping tests come back negative every one is clean. *But* I don't go around and accuse anyone of using drugs when I don't have solid proof to back up that claim. And that's what's happening time and again with Armstrong.

Right now "L'Equipe", a French sports-paper, implicates Armstrong with doping in the Tour of 1999. By then, there were no real testing methods for EPO, so apparently urine-samples were frozen to be tested at a later date when a solid testing method was found - which happened in 2000, first applied in the Tour in 2001. L'Equipe now claims that the urine-samples of 1999 were tested positive for EPO... 6 years after the event, one month after Armstrong's retirement from active sports. They also say in their article that those samples were tested in 2004... and do you really believe that such a bombshell would have been left sitting quietly in some lab for a whole year??? Again, I don't deny the possibility that their allegations are justified... I just find the circumstances highly suspicious...

I already mentioned the poor timing. Does anyone really believe that Armstrong would have been admitted to the Tour if they had published their findings earlier considering the Tour management's restrictive policy about doping? In my opinion the French media have been so involved in the witch hunt for years that they can't let up. Given their prior accusations that have been unfounded so far, they simply had to come up with something at some point. But still, why not drop the bombshell prior to the Tour, or even better during the Tour???

Then of course there's the testing method: L'Equipe writes that the samples were used for mere scientific purposes, the testers didn't know whose sample they were testing since the vials were not labeled. So there's no option of a second test to verify the first. There's not even proof beyond what l'Equipe claims that the vials really contained Armstrong's samples. And of course, let's not forget that even in frozen state biological matter changes, slowly but surely. But it's always easy to write something that the accused can't fight against. They even admit that, due to the testing methods, there's no way Armstrong can be punished according to anti-doping policies in cycling, i.e. be banned or be deprived of his subsequent victories. That doesn't mean that he can't be punished by court, though... not to mention the loss of reputation.

Another thing is that there's no official statement by the UCI yet to approve or deny the allegations. It's like a couple of years ago when Armstrong's team was officially investigated for doping. The investigation lasted for 2 years or so and then was just quietly discontinued. And let's not forget those other samples that were allegedly tested positive as well - interestingly, l'Equipe didn't publish the names of those other offenders.

Again, it's not that I think it impossible, it's not that I just close my eyes and pretend everything is alright when in fact it isn't, and I certainly don't take Armstrong's claims of never having taken performance enhancing drugs for absolute truth. It's the way a symbol, that was never quite accepted in France - well, it's always the people in second place that gain more of the public's sympathies -, is slowly being destroyed that bothers the hell out of me. They didn't have proof before, and now that they have "something" that points in the direction of doping everyone just jumps on the occasion to say that they've always known that it's impossible to defeat cancer and come back two years later to start a never thought possible winning streak at the Tour without drugs. And quite frankly, this attitude pisses me off. Reading all the headlines in newspapers today that range from "We always knew, now we have proof" to calling Armstrong liar, traitor and what not makes me so angry. This isn't objective writing, this is mere slander, a witch hunt that's based on one newspaper's article, not on solid facts. Accused, tried and convicted, all in one go, and I'm sick of this.

In dubio pro reo. Armstrong is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. And I'm appalled to see that so few newspapers and news stations all around the world are actually ready to grant him that.

I am not the most religious of persons. I haven't been to church for a year and I don't pray. But I do believe that there is "something" out there that awaits and welcomes us when we die.

To be honest, I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ" yet - and I don't plan to ever watch it. You ask why? Well, in my opinion it's one thing to show those last 12 hours of Jesus' life - but I don't think those 12 hours are the important ones in the life of Christ. However, of course, they are easy to turn into a movie, full of blood, torture, and action which is what most films nowadays seem to revolve around. But is this actually what Christianity is all about? I say no.

Christianity has always been a source for hope, why else would it spread among servants and slaves before gaining access to the ruling class? I doubt very much that if Jesus' life had only been about the crucifixion there would have been much hope to gain for those who desperately needed it. Make no mistake, I don't say that it's not important that Jesus was willing the bear the cross weighted down by humanity's sins and die - far from it. But it's not his death that's celebrated on Easter Sunday, but his life and resurrection. And both are missing in this film. I wouldn't have minded a movie about Jesus, maybe 150 minutes long, that shows *every* aspect, his life, his deeds, his death (even in all those gory details) and his resurrection. And I highly doubt such a film would have created such an uproar as this one certainly has.

I'm not opposed to violence as long as it is embedded in a story and not the story itself. For example, "Schindler's List" or "The Pianist" wouldn't have worked at all without showing the cruelty of Nazi-Germany. But the violence only served to emphasize the plot, to make it stronger, more poignant.

So, I return to the initial question: What's the point of "The Passion of the Christ"? What does Mel Gibson want to accomplish by showing 2 hours full of pain, torture, blood and suffering? The more sarcastic side of me says that he already has achieved everything he ever hoped for - no officially planned PR could have had the impact the public outcry against this film had in driving the masses into the cinemas... and the money into the pockets of Mel Gibson.