So we have declared 'War on Terrorism'. I am a bit confused by this. What does Bush and the whole country mean exactly when we are fighting a 'War on Terrorism'? The obvious immediate answer is 'Oh - we want to rid the world of terrorism. We are going to find every terrorist and kill them, or otherwise destroy their terrorist organization.' Sounds good, right. However, I was thinking that today, and it occured to me - wait... that can't possibly be right. Indeed Osama Bin Laden's organization based in Afganistan spread throughout 60 countries are terrorists, and nobody (except perhaps the Taliban) would have qualms, or moral objections to us boming them to hell and back again until there is no more Bin Laden or Bin Laden terrorist network. However, by my above definition of a 'War on Terrorism', this would barely have scratched the surface. Besides Bin Laden, and whatever Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist groups there may be in the middle east, what about the IRA in Northern Ireland? Or the Basque nationals in Spain? Or the Xinjiang sepratists in China? Or the Chechen rebels in Russia? Or the Quebec separatists in Canada? Or the Sikh in India? (... the list goes on) Oh dear - all of these groups use terrorist based tatics (okay, I'm not sure about Quebec). By our above definition of our war, we would have to destroy them too, or at least complete irrecoverably dismantle their organizations. Yes, with the will we might be capable of doing that, but we'd hardly get support from Britian, or Spain, or... ... For there would be huge political, and indeed moral obstacles in many of these cases. So suddenly our definition of a 'War on Terrorism' seems to be in trouble.

While I have some ideas, I don't thing this nation, having declared 'War on Terrorism' has quite defined yet what exactly this war is, what the goals are, and who the enemy is. However, I think it's essential that we clear this up in our heads before we go marching on. Otherwise, there may not be closure when we achieve the intended goal (presumibly to punish/destroy the criminals in this terrorist attack and to prevent future attacks of this kind/magnitude). Worse yet, we may achieve our intended goal and then keep going, not realizing that we\'ve accomplished what we meant to do in the first place.


How do I think this 'War on Terrorism' should be defined? For a most noble and moral war, the enemy should be 'The present and future use of terrorist acts as a method to achieve politial or other goals'. The 'War' would be conducted by increasing vigilance and security to the point that any terrorist attack would be un-accomplishable. However, this type of war, however noble, would not be feasable, and would be too costly in terms of resources and in terms of the sacrafice of civil liberties.
...
Instead, to me, the 'War on Terrorism' would be to completely and utterly destroy the terrorist organization(s) responsible for these recent attacks. Call me bloodlust, but I want the bastards who did this to our cities and our people to be punished. Beyond that, I would like to see an international, multi-lateral and permanent organization set up to monitor, protect against, and punish (if necessary) worldwide terrorism - be it in the middle east, northern ireland or elsewhere. Furthermore, this organization would attempt to provide recourse for afflicted miniority groups to express themselves and to perhaps gain political concessions, be it via international law/justice, or other means. This would not only combat the effects of terrorism, but also its causes.


In any case, the key is that there needs to be concensus around the nation about what this war is really about, and this vision must be communicated to our allies and our enemies. Then, we will be able to get something done.

Anyways, aside from my political musings, I had a extremely productive day. I sumitted over half a dozen resumes - mainly to econ research and econ consulting positions. Afterwards, I hopped on over to the library and took a complete LSAT test, although by the end I was so tired and hungry, I did little more than draw scan-tron christmas trees. After dinner, I went out with my Dallas bud, Austin Lin, to catch the dollar-movie showing of Kiss of the Dragon. That Jet Li I tell you... Overall, my most productive day in a long time, I tell you. Tomorrow going rock climbing... g'night all, and I hope everyone from SF to Boston to London are doing well. Pray for my Amherst classmate Maurita Tam. We know she's tucked away in some hospital somewhere, and that she'll be back among her family and friends in no time.

luv, HH

All things considered - not a bad day. My interview went very well. I ended up talking to 4 travelocity.com people for 4 hours. They seem to be running a pretty slick operation there. I think I made a very positive impression, so I'm hoping to hear good news. I should know sometime mid-next week.

After my interview, I went over to the Salvation Army. One of my friends here in Dallas is volunteering for them manning phones, and needed an extra hand, so I helped out. It turned out to be a pretty boring, yet satisfying experience. I only got to field one call (we were there to accept donations for a Salvation Army NY fund), but it felt good. It was a woman whose company lost a lot of people in the WTC. She seemed really disturbed - on the brink of tears perhaps - and it seemed to comfort her that she could do something to help.
...
I'm still pretty affected emotionally about this whole terrorist thing. I always have NPR playing in my car these days, and I'm overwelmed with sadness at moments when I least expect it. Then, tonight, I tried watching news on TV - I haven't really turned on the television since tuesday - getting my information instead on the internet. After half an hour I just couldn't stand it - the media has a way of pulling emotional strings... I don't know how I feel about that.

Happy Birthday Garrett Walker! You're 25 now - stop acting like a kid =)
...
I just got some pictures from my recent trip to Austin. I've been meaning to post them up, but I've been rather busy lately.
...
I've been listening to Sarah Vaughn - old time jazz singer - recently. Her smooth tone puts my soul at peace and makes me smile (when I\'m not singing along).
...
After everything that happened tuesday, I wrote and have been maintaing a webpage listing Amherst alumn who were in the NY / DC area. It's taken up a significant amount of my time these past few days, but I've receieved a lot of positive feedback on it, and it makes me happy that I can do something to help other people.

Other than that, I've been doing my normal normal - studying for school and looking for a job. Today while I was checking answers for a practice LSAT i took yesterday, I noticed by chance that 50% of my wrong answers were supposed to be answer choice 'E'. Quite a revelation, as it means that I have a tendancy to be swayed by at least one of the answers before I even get to the end of the list of possible answers. I guess it really pays to analyze in depth practice test results as well as simply taking a lot of practice tests.

On the job front - very good news. This evening I got a call, and I have an interview tomorrow (Friday) at 3pm! It's for a lead tech position at Travelocity.com in SF. Wish me luck everyone!

I hope all are doing well.

-hh