Hello, Internet! To all who come to this happy place, welcome. The world wide web is your land. Here age relives fond memories of the past, and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. We are dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have shaped america, with the hope that it will lead to a better tomorrow.
Something I believe in. What do I believe in?
I believe in inquiry. Yes, there we go. I believe in mutual exchange of knowledge. I believe in learning from the past, the present, and that which may have yet to come.
To be more specific, I believe that we should always keep our minds open to the possibility that enlightenment may come from anywhere. When we disagree with others, we must bear in mind the often difficult possibility that they may (1) be correct, and/or (2) have some parcel of knowledge that could alter you.
Furthermore, just because someone is different, they are not inherently wrong. This, my friends, is called xenophobia. I dream of a world where there is xenophillia. People are attracted to that which is different. True, different is not always better, but there is always something that we can learn from those who have different worldly experiences.
Ladies and gentlemen, this I believe.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Ppt, Part 1
Hello, internet!
I just finished building a powerpoint, and I have a couple things to say about powerpoint making. First of all, no one puts enough effort into one.
No one. Steve Jobs, maybe. I just spent the last three hours on this one and I’m not satisfied. Three hours on the slideshow alone.
Why did I spend so much time on it? Because I custom photoshopped a whole bunch of stuff to fit in with the “motif” of the presentation. Because I double-checked every single fact. Because I took the time to look up the Kubelka-Munk formula. You’ll find out what that is in my powerpoint.
I’ve also spent the last hour and a half practicing, and I still have a run-through or two left to do. No one prepares enough for their presentation. My god, I hate it when people read verbatim off of the slides. The dude and dudette from Lilly both did that, and it drove me crazy. I can read, you know.
Why did I custom photochop everything? Because I want my presentations to have what hollywood calls “production value”. When your images are pixely, grainy, blown-out, matted, pre-multiplied, or watermarked, your audience instantly has a preconceived notion of the quality of the presentation. So I make sure all of my images look great.
And not just my images. I’ve found that talking heads and chalky slides tend to bore people, no matter how great they look. So I’ve always
I just finished building a powerpoint, and I have a couple things to say about powerpoint making. First of all, no one puts enough effort into one.
No one. Steve Jobs, maybe. I just spent the last three hours on this one and I’m not satisfied. Three hours on the slideshow alone.
Why did I spend so much time on it? Because I custom photoshopped a whole bunch of stuff to fit in with the “motif” of the presentation. Because I double-checked every single fact. Because I took the time to look up the Kubelka-Munk formula. You’ll find out what that is in my powerpoint.
I’ve also spent the last hour and a half practicing, and I still have a run-through or two left to do. No one prepares enough for their presentation. My god, I hate it when people read verbatim off of the slides. The dude and dudette from Lilly both did that, and it drove me crazy. I can read, you know.
Why did I custom photochop everything? Because I want my presentations to have what hollywood calls “production value”. When your images are pixely, grainy, blown-out, matted, pre-multiplied, or watermarked, your audience instantly has a preconceived notion of the quality of the presentation. So I make sure all of my images look great.
And not just my images. I’ve found that talking heads and chalky slides tend to bore people, no matter how great they look. So I’ve always
Ppt, Part 2
Been very careful to have some element of my presentation be physical. Tangible. Non-electronic. That’s why I threw a laptop across the stage last time I ran a morning meeting, and why tomorrow I’ll be wearing a cool hat and be playing with food coloring. Its called interactivity, and its the way of the future.
You see, the audiences we face today have a problem. Its called puny attention span disorder. PASD. As in “passed”, but different. Today’s audiences really don’t care about pie charts, bar graphs, histograms, bibliographies, previews, recaps, or bullet points. Really? We’ve already sunk past bullet points? I don’t really think bullet points ever belonged on slide shows. They should live on my grocery list and US History fact test, and no where else.
So this is the general rule of the slide shows of the past. 20 minutes of talking, 10 slides, no more than 5 points per slide.
I don’t think that applies any more. My new rule is this: 15 minutes of talking, ½ a point per slide, and as many slides as you can get through. By sparsely populating your slides and having an overall low information density, you can create the illusion of “flying through the presentation”, and finish before your audience has lost all attention. I can’t stand presentations that have some really interesting stuff to say, but the info is packed into 5 slides and we stay stuck on one slide for twenty minutes.
Good night, my friends.
You see, the audiences we face today have a problem. Its called puny attention span disorder. PASD. As in “passed”, but different. Today’s audiences really don’t care about pie charts, bar graphs, histograms, bibliographies, previews, recaps, or bullet points. Really? We’ve already sunk past bullet points? I don’t really think bullet points ever belonged on slide shows. They should live on my grocery list and US History fact test, and no where else.
So this is the general rule of the slide shows of the past. 20 minutes of talking, 10 slides, no more than 5 points per slide.
I don’t think that applies any more. My new rule is this: 15 minutes of talking, ½ a point per slide, and as many slides as you can get through. By sparsely populating your slides and having an overall low information density, you can create the illusion of “flying through the presentation”, and finish before your audience has lost all attention. I can’t stand presentations that have some really interesting stuff to say, but the info is packed into 5 slides and we stay stuck on one slide for twenty minutes.
Good night, my friends.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Stark Raving Mad
Hello, Internet! I hope all is well in the SSA. Independence day is a little rainy, but I know that this will be a day to remember. A day that will be celebrated in history. A day which your children will revere you for having experienced.
Joe. Ah, Joe. Joe has figured out how to communicate. He morse-codes by tapping his head. I was wondering if he would ever figure that out since, like, halfway through Book 1: The Dead. They ask him what he wants (they being the doctors) and he responds that he wants to go on tour, to get out of the hospital, to share his story with every church, town, school, country, smick, smack, and smoo.
This, to me, sounds like a great idea. As I see it, Joe has four options:
Ahem. I would, if I were Joe, personally ask to die. But Joe might not be groovy with that, so my second choice would be to tour and make a difference.
You see, as Joe pointed out earlier in the book, he has a unique condition. He is effectually dead, yet he still has the ability to think and reason and, now, to communicate. This has never happened before, and Joe, who by now is incredibly anti-war, has some really interesting things to say.
Whoops, went over again! Oh, well. See y’all later, and happy Independence Day. I wonder if there will be cake?
Joe. Ah, Joe. Joe has figured out how to communicate. He morse-codes by tapping his head. I was wondering if he would ever figure that out since, like, halfway through Book 1: The Dead. They ask him what he wants (they being the doctors) and he responds that he wants to go on tour, to get out of the hospital, to share his story with every church, town, school, country, smick, smack, and smoo.
This, to me, sounds like a great idea. As I see it, Joe has four options:
- Joe could die and finally be at peace
- Joe could live and tour and make a difference with what little life he has left
- Joe could live but stay in his hospital bed and do nothing, being bored and lonely out of his mind
- Joe could go completely crazy bonkers mad tipsy-turvey insane disturbed raving looney cuckoo bananas wacko loco TIMBUKTU AND KALAMAZOO
Ahem. I would, if I were Joe, personally ask to die. But Joe might not be groovy with that, so my second choice would be to tour and make a difference.
You see, as Joe pointed out earlier in the book, he has a unique condition. He is effectually dead, yet he still has the ability to think and reason and, now, to communicate. This has never happened before, and Joe, who by now is incredibly anti-war, has some really interesting things to say.
Whoops, went over again! Oh, well. See y’all later, and happy Independence Day. I wonder if there will be cake?
COMMENT GOSH DARNIT
Hello, internet! Today you shall witness the inevitable downfall of the corrupt and ineffectual representative democracy of the United States of Amerika. On this day, 6 May 2009, a new government shall emerge. One just, fair, equal, and ready to serve and protect. This government will officially mark the first notes of a new movement: the Socialist States of America, The SSA!
Preamble:
We the people of the socialist nation of America, in order to provide a more effective government, to provide and protect the natural and social rights of its citizens, establish a new and improved form of government. After witnessing and often participating in the results of a government run by a select few empowered unnaturally through the course of American history, we the people now enact a people's government, to be run by the people, for the people. With this new tentative and experimental form of government comes great responsibility, thus it is the right of the people to make changes where changes are warranted, to foster progress when will benefit the people, and to restrict outdated practices when times call for such.
Article I:
The people's government shall be divided into three branches, all with equal power to govern and equal power to moderate the other branches. There shall be a people's branch, known as the Plebicy, made up of the citizens of the nation. They shall be divided into concentric jurisdictions, so as to better handle the growing population and the proclivity of citizens to be unsuited to make decisions on matters geographically foreign or unaffecting of them. The second branch shall be composed of the executive, a series of offices and ministries or cabinets to take care of the more specific duties of government such as money and transportation. The last branch of the government shall be composed of the learned scholars of the country, so that they may be the voice of reason and consultance when matters go beyond the knowledge of the layman. So shall be the basic framework of the government.
Preamble:
We the people of the socialist nation of America, in order to provide a more effective government, to provide and protect the natural and social rights of its citizens, establish a new and improved form of government. After witnessing and often participating in the results of a government run by a select few empowered unnaturally through the course of American history, we the people now enact a people's government, to be run by the people, for the people. With this new tentative and experimental form of government comes great responsibility, thus it is the right of the people to make changes where changes are warranted, to foster progress when will benefit the people, and to restrict outdated practices when times call for such.
Article I:
The people's government shall be divided into three branches, all with equal power to govern and equal power to moderate the other branches. There shall be a people's branch, known as the Plebicy, made up of the citizens of the nation. They shall be divided into concentric jurisdictions, so as to better handle the growing population and the proclivity of citizens to be unsuited to make decisions on matters geographically foreign or unaffecting of them. The second branch shall be composed of the executive, a series of offices and ministries or cabinets to take care of the more specific duties of government such as money and transportation. The last branch of the government shall be composed of the learned scholars of the country, so that they may be the voice of reason and consultance when matters go beyond the knowledge of the layman. So shall be the basic framework of the government.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Hello, internet! Sorry I haven’t blogged in a while, but my life has been incredibly busy.
The March of the Flag is all about how America needs to expand. It needs to conquer the foreign lands, spread out, and create a great empire with which to trade. This, interestingly enough, is the exact reason why England established the American colonies in the first place.
This whole notion is very much in contradiction to Joe’s idea of life in Johnny Got His Gun. Joe believes that the only time in which people should ever go to war is if they are defending something tangible, something that personally affects them, like a person, property, etc. He states that when people begin fighting for a word, like freedom or democracy, then the war is over a bulk generalization. Its stupid, because no one is fighting for a specific reason.
Joe would probably disagree with the author of The March of the Flag because of this. Joe would ask why he couldn’t just live in his house and not worry about the Philippines or Mexico or Puerto Rico. The author of The March of the Flag would respond that Joe is an American, and he needs to act for the good of America.
Who is right? Who is wrong? I dunno.
The March of the Flag is all about how America needs to expand. It needs to conquer the foreign lands, spread out, and create a great empire with which to trade. This, interestingly enough, is the exact reason why England established the American colonies in the first place.
This whole notion is very much in contradiction to Joe’s idea of life in Johnny Got His Gun. Joe believes that the only time in which people should ever go to war is if they are defending something tangible, something that personally affects them, like a person, property, etc. He states that when people begin fighting for a word, like freedom or democracy, then the war is over a bulk generalization. Its stupid, because no one is fighting for a specific reason.
Joe would probably disagree with the author of The March of the Flag because of this. Joe would ask why he couldn’t just live in his house and not worry about the Philippines or Mexico or Puerto Rico. The author of The March of the Flag would respond that Joe is an American, and he needs to act for the good of America.
Who is right? Who is wrong? I dunno.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Chair is Actually Blue.
Hello, internet!
Today’s blog assignment is to basically blog about something. Not anything in particular, just 250 words on some topic. So... I need a topic.
I think I’ll talk about why I like making movies so much. Yeah. That sounds like a good enough topic.
First of all, I have startling news for you. Ready? You don’t actually live in reality. You see, reality (and I know this is incredibly clichéd, but whatever) is in the eye of the beholder. What you experience is your brain’s way of interpreting the world. You experience a computer in front of you, but you have no way of knowing that it’s actually there. You assume that it is, because your brain is telling you that it is receiving tiny electrical impulses, transmitted along myelin shafts from nerve endings in your retina, your inner ear, your olfactory receivers, and your temperature, pain, and pressure nerves in your hands.
So. Your reality may or may not be accurate. We will never know.
And now, a question: How do we communicate? If I have a fantastic idea, or concept, or belief, and I really really really need to convey it to you, how do I do that? I could tell you? Sure, I could tell you. You will hear my voice, your brain will automatically transcribe it into text, and, along with cues from my visual appearance as I talk and the minute changes in pitch and timbre, your brain will decide what I’m trying to convey, and you will generate your own opinion.
Text and pitch variations. Not an incredibly efficient way to communicate. Effective, yes. The best? No.
So I need to communicate better. How do I do this? Well, the best way to communicate in theory would be to manipulate your reality so that you truly experience what I have to say.
Now, that is patently ridiculous. Not only is it practically impossible for me to take total control over your understanding of the world, it’s more than a little creepy.
So what am I to do? I really really really need to express myself.
Well, how about this? I’ll create a reality, not impose it on you, but rather present to you, and you can experience it as you wish. I’ll do this by putting you in a dark room with no distractions, and manipulate your visual and auditory experience. You can watch and listen if you want, or you can get up and walk away.
What will I present to you, if you care to watch? I will manufacture an experience, capture it, and modify it to convey my point.
Thus, we have film.
Think about it. Film, even digital video, can convey so much more information than text, mono oral audio, or still pictures. One single frame of digital video contains over 300,000 pixels, each of which can be one of over 16 million colors. Furthermore, each pixel changes its color almost 30 times a second (29.97 to be exact), faster than the human eye can detect. Furthermore, straight video is augmented by sound. Six separate speakers, each emitting a distinct separate audio track, synchronized perfectly with the video, with a range that can replicate the entire gamut of human hearing.
Pretty amazing, huh?
Video is an illusion. The illusion of motion. You see 24 or 30 pictures flashed in front of you, and you believe that the car that was on the left side of the frame actually moved to the right side. Video is the illusion of life. You perceive that what is happening
Today’s blog assignment is to basically blog about something. Not anything in particular, just 250 words on some topic. So... I need a topic.
I think I’ll talk about why I like making movies so much. Yeah. That sounds like a good enough topic.
First of all, I have startling news for you. Ready? You don’t actually live in reality. You see, reality (and I know this is incredibly clichéd, but whatever) is in the eye of the beholder. What you experience is your brain’s way of interpreting the world. You experience a computer in front of you, but you have no way of knowing that it’s actually there. You assume that it is, because your brain is telling you that it is receiving tiny electrical impulses, transmitted along myelin shafts from nerve endings in your retina, your inner ear, your olfactory receivers, and your temperature, pain, and pressure nerves in your hands.
So. Your reality may or may not be accurate. We will never know.
And now, a question: How do we communicate? If I have a fantastic idea, or concept, or belief, and I really really really need to convey it to you, how do I do that? I could tell you? Sure, I could tell you. You will hear my voice, your brain will automatically transcribe it into text, and, along with cues from my visual appearance as I talk and the minute changes in pitch and timbre, your brain will decide what I’m trying to convey, and you will generate your own opinion.
Text and pitch variations. Not an incredibly efficient way to communicate. Effective, yes. The best? No.
So I need to communicate better. How do I do this? Well, the best way to communicate in theory would be to manipulate your reality so that you truly experience what I have to say.
Now, that is patently ridiculous. Not only is it practically impossible for me to take total control over your understanding of the world, it’s more than a little creepy.
So what am I to do? I really really really need to express myself.
Well, how about this? I’ll create a reality, not impose it on you, but rather present to you, and you can experience it as you wish. I’ll do this by putting you in a dark room with no distractions, and manipulate your visual and auditory experience. You can watch and listen if you want, or you can get up and walk away.
What will I present to you, if you care to watch? I will manufacture an experience, capture it, and modify it to convey my point.
Thus, we have film.
Think about it. Film, even digital video, can convey so much more information than text, mono oral audio, or still pictures. One single frame of digital video contains over 300,000 pixels, each of which can be one of over 16 million colors. Furthermore, each pixel changes its color almost 30 times a second (29.97 to be exact), faster than the human eye can detect. Furthermore, straight video is augmented by sound. Six separate speakers, each emitting a distinct separate audio track, synchronized perfectly with the video, with a range that can replicate the entire gamut of human hearing.
Pretty amazing, huh?
Video is an illusion. The illusion of motion. You see 24 or 30 pictures flashed in front of you, and you believe that the car that was on the left side of the frame actually moved to the right side. Video is the illusion of life. You perceive that what is happening
Action!
Hello, internet! And welcome to the exciting world of technology. A wondrous realm, where dreams become reality, where the future begins, and where you and I will someday expend our entire lives. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the singularity.
Tonight I get to blog about something. 250 words. What to talk about...?
I know! Today was the Chemistry wizard show. I got to use the really cool school camera. Even though I know no one will actually read this all the way through, I’d like to take a moment to talk about why it is such a freakin’ awesome camera.
First, it comes with threaded neutral density and polarized filters, which screw in to the lens. It also comes with a crazy huge wide angle, or fisheye lens, that weights, like, two pounds. It also has built-in neutral density filters in 1, 1.3, and 2 increments. This means that you can open the aperture way up, but cut down on light without affecting exposure to decrease the depth of field. Speaking of depth of field, this thing must have at least a 1” CCD or CMOS chip. Coupled with the length of the lens, I bet you could get some pretty sweet DOF out of that thing.
I also really like how the zoom, gain, aperture, and focus are on manual analogue dials and rings. This means that there is no banding in the gradation of any of these setting, as there is on my wee little handycam. The optical image stabilization has multiple float settings, which means that I can control the amount of shake I get. Oh, and there’s a bayonet-mounted lens hood, which means that you can clamp on gels and filters.
I want that camera soooo bad.
And... Cut.
Tonight I get to blog about something. 250 words. What to talk about...?
I know! Today was the Chemistry wizard show. I got to use the really cool school camera. Even though I know no one will actually read this all the way through, I’d like to take a moment to talk about why it is such a freakin’ awesome camera.
First, it comes with threaded neutral density and polarized filters, which screw in to the lens. It also comes with a crazy huge wide angle, or fisheye lens, that weights, like, two pounds. It also has built-in neutral density filters in 1, 1.3, and 2 increments. This means that you can open the aperture way up, but cut down on light without affecting exposure to decrease the depth of field. Speaking of depth of field, this thing must have at least a 1” CCD or CMOS chip. Coupled with the length of the lens, I bet you could get some pretty sweet DOF out of that thing.
I also really like how the zoom, gain, aperture, and focus are on manual analogue dials and rings. This means that there is no banding in the gradation of any of these setting, as there is on my wee little handycam. The optical image stabilization has multiple float settings, which means that I can control the amount of shake I get. Oh, and there’s a bayonet-mounted lens hood, which means that you can clamp on gels and filters.
I want that camera soooo bad.
And... Cut.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Tree of Life
Hello, internet! It’s raining outside.
So. Gender. First of all, what the heck is gender? Gender is a point of view from which you participate in society. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are, but it seems to me that there are genders outside of the male to female gradation. Gender is how you act in the presence of others. Are you submissive? Dominant? Are you attracted to them? Do you feel awkward or threatened by their gender?
Now the tough question... My own gender. First of all, who made my gender? Who decided it?
This is a hard question to answer. I think that when I was born, I already had, encoded within me, a specific gender. I knew that I was very gender neutral, with a slight feminine side and submissive tendencies. I knew that when the time came, I would be attracted to men, and that I would have no interest whatsoever in cross dressing.
Well, I didn’t consciously know these things. When I was born all I knew was... Actually, I don’t really remember knowing anything immediately after I was birthed. But my gender was built into me nonetheless, just like the fact that I would have curly hair, a slight lisp, and greenish-hazel eyes was encoded into me as well.
But then there’s the flip side. I had all of these things built into me at the start, but I had no clue how to behave based on these things. I didn’t know what it meant to be masculine or feminine. All these things I learned through my social experiences. I learned that women generally wear dresses, makeup, earrings, stay at home and wear pearls. I learned wrong, as you can see. I also learned that men are macho, play football, don’t express their feelings, bully, and make money. I learned very very wrong.
So that is what gender is to me.
Boom.
So. Gender. First of all, what the heck is gender? Gender is a point of view from which you participate in society. Gender is how masculine or feminine you are, but it seems to me that there are genders outside of the male to female gradation. Gender is how you act in the presence of others. Are you submissive? Dominant? Are you attracted to them? Do you feel awkward or threatened by their gender?
Now the tough question... My own gender. First of all, who made my gender? Who decided it?
This is a hard question to answer. I think that when I was born, I already had, encoded within me, a specific gender. I knew that I was very gender neutral, with a slight feminine side and submissive tendencies. I knew that when the time came, I would be attracted to men, and that I would have no interest whatsoever in cross dressing.
Well, I didn’t consciously know these things. When I was born all I knew was... Actually, I don’t really remember knowing anything immediately after I was birthed. But my gender was built into me nonetheless, just like the fact that I would have curly hair, a slight lisp, and greenish-hazel eyes was encoded into me as well.
But then there’s the flip side. I had all of these things built into me at the start, but I had no clue how to behave based on these things. I didn’t know what it meant to be masculine or feminine. All these things I learned through my social experiences. I learned that women generally wear dresses, makeup, earrings, stay at home and wear pearls. I learned wrong, as you can see. I also learned that men are macho, play football, don’t express their feelings, bully, and make money. I learned very very wrong.
So that is what gender is to me.
Boom.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Ortiz Cofer writes about how her perception of her own body was shaped by outside sources. Everything from the way she defined her skin color to the weight that she perceived she should weigh. Most of it was enforced by “media images”. The best example of this was her incessant desire to have the body of Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman was feminine, yes, but she could also lift a bazillion times her own weight. Isn’t she wonderful? One of Ortiz’s body image issues growing up was her weight, and thus, her physical ability.
Let’s see... Ortiz also envied Talking Susie, the doll with those luscious locks of golden love.
Actually, almost all of Ortiz’s visions of herself were defined by the media in one way or the other. Girls should be pretty. American girls should be white. Girls should be feminine, but not skinny. They should be shapely and womanly, with bulges and curves in all the right places.
Whoa. That’s all I have to say. Aren’t you proud of me for keeping this post really short?
;-)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Speed of Silence
Hello, internet. I’m really really tired, so I’ll cut right to the chase.
I have a lot to say about gay marriage. I’ve written three papers on it, and I am also very affected by it as well. Let’s see...
First of all, I would like to lay out a situation that, luckily, I don’t believe has ever happened to anyone I know, although a few of my family members live in continuous fear of its occurance:
Let’s pick two dudes who like each other very much. How about Ted and Fred. Ted has a very nice, supporting family, who has embraced him and his 30 year relationship with Fred. Fred’s family, however, disowned him when he came out, and refuses to speak to him.
Ted and Fred are driving home one night from dinner. Wham! They get into a rather serious accident. Ted is pretty bloodied up, and Fred is out cold. The ambulances take them to the hospital, where it is discovered that Ted only had a couple of nasty cuts and a few broken ribs, but Fred has a broken arm, a fracture in his collarbone, and internal bleeding. He needs surgery right away. Of course, Ted says to the doctors “Give him the surgery!” The doctors respond that only immediate family can make decisions about major surgeries. So Ted calls Fred’s family. “Well, its just another homo we don’t have to worry about,” is the response he gets. So Ted, who has lived with Fred for over twice the length of the average marriage in America, has to sit and watch his life partner die.
A month passes, and as Ted is sadly cleaning up his house, he gets a phone call. Its Fred’s family’s lawyer. It turns out that, since Fred was responsible for their money, Fred’s family had inherited everything. The house, the car, the furniture, and, worst of all, custody of their 5 year old adopted daughter. Of course, Fred’s family hates Ted, so he will never see his property and daughter again.
Now I know that you’re saying to yourself, “This could never happen.” But it does, repeatedly, happen. Furthermore, it is a fear that lives in almost every same-sex couple’s hearts.
It seems kind of silly to me to be having a grammatical quibble over whether or not the word marriage applies to just hetero couples or to gay couples as well.
The facts, it turns out, actually support gay marriage. Gay couples who are at the point in their relationship that they would, given the chance, marry, are significantly more likely to stay together in a relationship than a straight couple. Furthermore, children raised by same-sex couples have nearly identical “success” rates to children raised in “traditional” marriages (in fact, the former are slightly less likely to engage in crime, drugs, etc).
So, before I get over 500 words, I would just like to say that I support civil marriage between same-sex couples.
Good night, and good luck.
I have a lot to say about gay marriage. I’ve written three papers on it, and I am also very affected by it as well. Let’s see...
First of all, I would like to lay out a situation that, luckily, I don’t believe has ever happened to anyone I know, although a few of my family members live in continuous fear of its occurance:
Let’s pick two dudes who like each other very much. How about Ted and Fred. Ted has a very nice, supporting family, who has embraced him and his 30 year relationship with Fred. Fred’s family, however, disowned him when he came out, and refuses to speak to him.
Ted and Fred are driving home one night from dinner. Wham! They get into a rather serious accident. Ted is pretty bloodied up, and Fred is out cold. The ambulances take them to the hospital, where it is discovered that Ted only had a couple of nasty cuts and a few broken ribs, but Fred has a broken arm, a fracture in his collarbone, and internal bleeding. He needs surgery right away. Of course, Ted says to the doctors “Give him the surgery!” The doctors respond that only immediate family can make decisions about major surgeries. So Ted calls Fred’s family. “Well, its just another homo we don’t have to worry about,” is the response he gets. So Ted, who has lived with Fred for over twice the length of the average marriage in America, has to sit and watch his life partner die.
A month passes, and as Ted is sadly cleaning up his house, he gets a phone call. Its Fred’s family’s lawyer. It turns out that, since Fred was responsible for their money, Fred’s family had inherited everything. The house, the car, the furniture, and, worst of all, custody of their 5 year old adopted daughter. Of course, Fred’s family hates Ted, so he will never see his property and daughter again.
Now I know that you’re saying to yourself, “This could never happen.” But it does, repeatedly, happen. Furthermore, it is a fear that lives in almost every same-sex couple’s hearts.
It seems kind of silly to me to be having a grammatical quibble over whether or not the word marriage applies to just hetero couples or to gay couples as well.
The facts, it turns out, actually support gay marriage. Gay couples who are at the point in their relationship that they would, given the chance, marry, are significantly more likely to stay together in a relationship than a straight couple. Furthermore, children raised by same-sex couples have nearly identical “success” rates to children raised in “traditional” marriages (in fact, the former are slightly less likely to engage in crime, drugs, etc).
So, before I get over 500 words, I would just like to say that I support civil marriage between same-sex couples.
Good night, and good luck.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Waka Waka Doo Doo... Yeah.
Hello, internet! Tahuwaiila-a tahuwaiiwaiila! Ehu hene la-a pili-ko a-loo a-lao! Pu tutui a-itito-ela! Hanu lipo ita pa-alai! Aaah-wae, taah, ho-alau!
In the beginning of “What Is Marriage?”, Wolfson spends a significant amount of page space to developing his definition of marriage. Why? I’ll tell you why.
Wolfson’s argument is that same-sex couples have just as much right to get married as straight couples do. He shows all of the benefits of marriage, and how they are denied to all gay couples, and thus, the hardships they have to go through to work around their lack of basic relationship rights.
In the beginning, though, we don’t know that this is his argument. All we know is that he is explaining what marriage is. I like his definition of marriage, although it does leave room for a few quirky situations that I haven’t yet fully developed my opinion on (such as under-age marriage, inter-generational marriage, bigamy, etc). Not that there’s anything wrong with his definition. It’s just a little loose.
Anyways, we build up to a point where we feel that we know what marriage is. Boom. Gays don’t have access to this. Why? Wolfson doesn’t go into that. The obvious question hanging in the air is WHY? WHY don’t gays get this right? In the end, because there is no logic supporting it, it seems like restricting gays from marriage is a pretty bad decision.
QED.
In the beginning of “What Is Marriage?”, Wolfson spends a significant amount of page space to developing his definition of marriage. Why? I’ll tell you why.
Wolfson’s argument is that same-sex couples have just as much right to get married as straight couples do. He shows all of the benefits of marriage, and how they are denied to all gay couples, and thus, the hardships they have to go through to work around their lack of basic relationship rights.
In the beginning, though, we don’t know that this is his argument. All we know is that he is explaining what marriage is. I like his definition of marriage, although it does leave room for a few quirky situations that I haven’t yet fully developed my opinion on (such as under-age marriage, inter-generational marriage, bigamy, etc). Not that there’s anything wrong with his definition. It’s just a little loose.
Anyways, we build up to a point where we feel that we know what marriage is. Boom. Gays don’t have access to this. Why? Wolfson doesn’t go into that. The obvious question hanging in the air is WHY? WHY don’t gays get this right? In the end, because there is no logic supporting it, it seems like restricting gays from marriage is a pretty bad decision.
QED.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Marriage-Mobile
Hello, internet!
Good golly, this article really got my goat. Not only do I disagree with just about everything in it, but the author bent fact to suit his needs. For example: “In absolute numbers, there are more white children growing up in single-parent households than black children.” Well, duh! There are more white kids overall than black kids. Percentage-wise, the very opposite is true. Santorum did this kind of thing repeatedly.
So let’s not talk about him. Let’s talk about Dr. Wade Horn, and his metaphorical airplanes. I don’t like his analogy. I think it’s totally off. The processes of raising children are not all identical trips to the same pre-defined place. Marriages aren’t “yes” or “no” things. True, there are definitely “successful” marriages, and there are definitely “failed” marriages. We call those “divorces”. But there are all other sorts of marriages. It’s not even a gradated scale from point A to point B. I think of it more as a three dimensional object that you can climb around.
Let me come up with a more accurate metaphor...
OK, got one.
Marriage to me is like two people painting a picture together: a team. Both people have to work well together and be able to cooperate. The success of their marriage is judged on the artfulness of their picture. There are some that have obviously succeeded, and some that have obviously failed. But other than those sad outliers, just about every other picture is up for interpretation. I may not like couple x’s picture, but they may love it and feel incredibly proud about it.
Furthermore, to extend my metaphor and go way over my word limit, just because I don’t like couple x’s painting or I think it’s pretty ugly doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them to never paint again. If they both really like their picture, then they’re free to hang it in their living room and look at it all the time. They may not win any awards for it, but I can’t stop them from keeping the picture.
OK. That’s the end of my rant. Good bye!
Good golly, this article really got my goat. Not only do I disagree with just about everything in it, but the author bent fact to suit his needs. For example: “In absolute numbers, there are more white children growing up in single-parent households than black children.” Well, duh! There are more white kids overall than black kids. Percentage-wise, the very opposite is true. Santorum did this kind of thing repeatedly.
So let’s not talk about him. Let’s talk about Dr. Wade Horn, and his metaphorical airplanes. I don’t like his analogy. I think it’s totally off. The processes of raising children are not all identical trips to the same pre-defined place. Marriages aren’t “yes” or “no” things. True, there are definitely “successful” marriages, and there are definitely “failed” marriages. We call those “divorces”. But there are all other sorts of marriages. It’s not even a gradated scale from point A to point B. I think of it more as a three dimensional object that you can climb around.
Let me come up with a more accurate metaphor...
OK, got one.
Marriage to me is like two people painting a picture together: a team. Both people have to work well together and be able to cooperate. The success of their marriage is judged on the artfulness of their picture. There are some that have obviously succeeded, and some that have obviously failed. But other than those sad outliers, just about every other picture is up for interpretation. I may not like couple x’s picture, but they may love it and feel incredibly proud about it.
Furthermore, to extend my metaphor and go way over my word limit, just because I don’t like couple x’s painting or I think it’s pretty ugly doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them to never paint again. If they both really like their picture, then they’re free to hang it in their living room and look at it all the time. They may not win any awards for it, but I can’t stop them from keeping the picture.
OK. That’s the end of my rant. Good bye!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Hello, internet! To assemble QuippyOpening®, insert Tab A into Slot B, folding along the dotted line. Cut off all excess, and glue in place. Let sit for at least 2 hrs, making sure it does not collapse or loose form. To use, insert at beginning of blog, and inflate to fill 250 word limit.
Yesterday, we talked about Transcendentalism. Transcendentalism is revering nature as the divine and supreme being, and experiencing life and religion personally, as opposed to being told how to experience it.
Gilbert stated that Eustace was very much a NOT transcendentalist, but I would disagree. She based her argument off of the fact that most transcendentalists sat around on their beautiful green butts all day talking about how much they love a single blade of grass. Eustace was the exact antithesis of that. He didn’t experience nature, he lived nature.
But just because transcendentalists sit on grass (and in some cases don’t even see the grass, but rather just think about how great it would be to sit on grass) doesn’t mean that sitting on grass is what transcendentalism is all about. Eustace loved nature because it was beautiful.
In the very end of the book, there’s a specifically poignant scene in which Eustace is driving at night, and he comes upon a family of deer, one of whom is standing in the middle of the street. Eustace jumps out of the car, and starts shouting at the deer, “I love you, brother!”
Eustace believes that he is a part of nature, that nature is inherently divine, and that he can directly commune with nature himself. If that isn’t transcendentalism, then I don’t know what is.
This post is non-refundable. VA / CA Refund.
Yesterday, we talked about Transcendentalism. Transcendentalism is revering nature as the divine and supreme being, and experiencing life and religion personally, as opposed to being told how to experience it.
Gilbert stated that Eustace was very much a NOT transcendentalist, but I would disagree. She based her argument off of the fact that most transcendentalists sat around on their beautiful green butts all day talking about how much they love a single blade of grass. Eustace was the exact antithesis of that. He didn’t experience nature, he lived nature.
But just because transcendentalists sit on grass (and in some cases don’t even see the grass, but rather just think about how great it would be to sit on grass) doesn’t mean that sitting on grass is what transcendentalism is all about. Eustace loved nature because it was beautiful.
In the very end of the book, there’s a specifically poignant scene in which Eustace is driving at night, and he comes upon a family of deer, one of whom is standing in the middle of the street. Eustace jumps out of the car, and starts shouting at the deer, “I love you, brother!”
Eustace believes that he is a part of nature, that nature is inherently divine, and that he can directly commune with nature himself. If that isn’t transcendentalism, then I don’t know what is.
This post is non-refundable. VA / CA Refund.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Title
Hello, everyone! I'M toy ins out a new toy 7h, & converts my han2_ri+ing 1 _ n to text. So far i t hasn't Worked Well . But We ill see hou it mLsters the entire blog .
Just kidding. There's no way I'd use that for the entire blog. Today I have the fine honor of talking to you all about The Last American Man, why Lil Gilbert decided to write the book, and what I'm supposed to have gotten from the book.
To explain myself, I'd like to refer to a specific part of the book. Eustace Conway is talking to someone who just realized he sat through a Eustace talk when he was little. He mentions that Eustace's talk changed his life. Eustace is overjoyed to hear this. Then the other man clarifies: He now conserves water. Whoo. Eustace is rather unhappy about this. Yes, conserving water is a good thing, but that wasn't the point.
So what was the point? The point is that we should not have to worry about conserving water. We should leave our cities and go into the woods where there is no water shortage. And I think that this is very important to the point Gilbert is trying to make. Yes, reducing, reusing, and recycling is good, but it just eliminates the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. Gilbert doesn’t want us all to walk into the woods and live off of the land. If there’s anything to be learned from Eustace’s journey, it’s that NOT everyone can live off of the land. Gilbert wants us to get the sense that when we think we’re being, say, environmentally friendly, or ruffin’ it out in the wilds of Eagle Creek Park, we’re just taking baby steps. Try bigger things, like changing your life from a box to a circle, or try truly communing with nature.
Thanks for reading! I’ll See you real Soon!
Just kidding. There's no way I'd use that for the entire blog. Today I have the fine honor of talking to you all about The Last American Man, why Lil Gilbert decided to write the book, and what I'm supposed to have gotten from the book.
To explain myself, I'd like to refer to a specific part of the book. Eustace Conway is talking to someone who just realized he sat through a Eustace talk when he was little. He mentions that Eustace's talk changed his life. Eustace is overjoyed to hear this. Then the other man clarifies: He now conserves water. Whoo. Eustace is rather unhappy about this. Yes, conserving water is a good thing, but that wasn't the point.
So what was the point? The point is that we should not have to worry about conserving water. We should leave our cities and go into the woods where there is no water shortage. And I think that this is very important to the point Gilbert is trying to make. Yes, reducing, reusing, and recycling is good, but it just eliminates the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. Gilbert doesn’t want us all to walk into the woods and live off of the land. If there’s anything to be learned from Eustace’s journey, it’s that NOT everyone can live off of the land. Gilbert wants us to get the sense that when we think we’re being, say, environmentally friendly, or ruffin’ it out in the wilds of Eagle Creek Park, we’re just taking baby steps. Try bigger things, like changing your life from a box to a circle, or try truly communing with nature.
Thanks for reading! I’ll See you real Soon!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Kerfuffle-bab
Hello, internet! My name is Aladdin, and I’ll be your writer for today. I just got back from golf, and my arms really hurt. So this is going to be a short post.
In Black Boy, Richard Wright has a fairly strict set of morals. Not in that he can do this, can’t do that, must do this on Sundays, but in that he can look at something he or someone else has done and identify it as either “right” or “wrong”. Even when he was a little boy he had a very good idea of what was, in his mind, OK, and what was NOT OK. I think he even mentions, at one point, that he thought it was OK for a child to be beaten by a parent if the child has done something wrong warranting of punishment, but it is not kosher for a distant family member to randomly beat a child who, as far as he is aware, hasn’t done anything wrong.
Richard learned these morals simply through his life experiences, mostly on the street and with his family, primarily his mom. This is in a bit of a kerfuffle with what Feldman is saying. Feldman is asserting that morals are learned through a school/church environment, and only in a school/church environment can morals be learned. Richard learned next to nothing worthwhile in his school/church environment.
Ow. I’m done for tonight.
Andrew Jackson was elected in 1828.
In Black Boy, Richard Wright has a fairly strict set of morals. Not in that he can do this, can’t do that, must do this on Sundays, but in that he can look at something he or someone else has done and identify it as either “right” or “wrong”. Even when he was a little boy he had a very good idea of what was, in his mind, OK, and what was NOT OK. I think he even mentions, at one point, that he thought it was OK for a child to be beaten by a parent if the child has done something wrong warranting of punishment, but it is not kosher for a distant family member to randomly beat a child who, as far as he is aware, hasn’t done anything wrong.
Richard learned these morals simply through his life experiences, mostly on the street and with his family, primarily his mom. This is in a bit of a kerfuffle with what Feldman is saying. Feldman is asserting that morals are learned through a school/church environment, and only in a school/church environment can morals be learned. Richard learned next to nothing worthwhile in his school/church environment.
Ow. I’m done for tonight.
Andrew Jackson was elected in 1828.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Arff Arff Aroof!
Hello, internet! If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits 88 kilobytes per second, were going to see some serious shizzlewizzlebamboozlefuddlemuddle.
At the end of “Black Boy”, Wright gets hated upon by some major fail communists. It all culminates in him getting physically kneaded by two white communists he meets at a union march who accuse him of being a Trotskyite. Interestingly, I looked up Trotsky, and his theory of Marxism isn’t actually that different from that of Stalin.
After some deep internal muddling and a brisk walk around the block, Wright realizes that the men that hurt him in the march, and furthermore, the men that have excommunicated him from the Communist organization, are blind. He believes that they have been blinded by America, and the way America has treated them.
Do I agree or disagree?
I’m not really sure. I think the men were blinded, yes, but not by amerika. At least, not directly by amerika. You see, these men were living during a time of great uncertainty. Especially during the depression, people were beginning to wonder whether or not capitalism was the right course. Black men who had migrated from the south, like Wright, desperately needed something to believe in, something to be a part of. They were so starved for affection and acknowledgement of their humanity that an organization like Communism, one which feared solidarity, seemed like a godsend for them. They had become blinded by their devotion to the communistic cause. I’ll bet that if the National Communist organization had told them to never again eat pickles and shun all women with an odd number of freckles on their face, they would have complied without blinking. So, yes, they were blind, but they weren’t blinded directly by amerika, as Wright had said.
And that’s the Gertrude Song!
At the end of “Black Boy”, Wright gets hated upon by some major fail communists. It all culminates in him getting physically kneaded by two white communists he meets at a union march who accuse him of being a Trotskyite. Interestingly, I looked up Trotsky, and his theory of Marxism isn’t actually that different from that of Stalin.
After some deep internal muddling and a brisk walk around the block, Wright realizes that the men that hurt him in the march, and furthermore, the men that have excommunicated him from the Communist organization, are blind. He believes that they have been blinded by America, and the way America has treated them.
Do I agree or disagree?
I’m not really sure. I think the men were blinded, yes, but not by amerika. At least, not directly by amerika. You see, these men were living during a time of great uncertainty. Especially during the depression, people were beginning to wonder whether or not capitalism was the right course. Black men who had migrated from the south, like Wright, desperately needed something to believe in, something to be a part of. They were so starved for affection and acknowledgement of their humanity that an organization like Communism, one which feared solidarity, seemed like a godsend for them. They had become blinded by their devotion to the communistic cause. I’ll bet that if the National Communist organization had told them to never again eat pickles and shun all women with an odd number of freckles on their face, they would have complied without blinking. So, yes, they were blind, but they weren’t blinded directly by amerika, as Wright had said.
And that’s the Gertrude Song!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Cotton Eye Joe
Hello, internet! Please remain seated for the duration of your voyage, keeping your hands, arms, legs, and feet inside the vehicle. And please, no flash photography.
Today’s question is whether or not I agree with Richard Wright’s assertion that artists and politicians stand on opposite poles.
First of all, I’m going to assume that this is talking about politicians who actually are interested in the advancement of society. More and more I’m finding that there actually aren’t that many of these kinds of politicians. But if we assume that lil’ ricky is talking about altruistic politicians, then... Yes, I agree with him.
I don’t really consider the movies I make to be art, but for the moment, let’s assume that they’re art. And let’s stretch our imaginations even further and assume that I’m a moderately good artist.
I create my movies (at least the non-documentary ones) with the purpose of actually offending my audience. If not, I at least make them to be controversial. I believe that the purpose of art is to inspire independent thought in individuals, not what Wright said about conveying the meaning of life (42) and what not. I would be much happier if everyone strongly disagreed with a film that I made than if they wholeheartedly agreed with me.
Politicians, on the other hand, want to please everybody. If they offend people, then their power will be taken away from them, and they can’t improve the world. Politicians have to stay on the good side of the public, as opposed to artists, who can do whatever they want.
And that’s over my word limit. Good hat.
Today’s question is whether or not I agree with Richard Wright’s assertion that artists and politicians stand on opposite poles.
First of all, I’m going to assume that this is talking about politicians who actually are interested in the advancement of society. More and more I’m finding that there actually aren’t that many of these kinds of politicians. But if we assume that lil’ ricky is talking about altruistic politicians, then... Yes, I agree with him.
I don’t really consider the movies I make to be art, but for the moment, let’s assume that they’re art. And let’s stretch our imaginations even further and assume that I’m a moderately good artist.
I create my movies (at least the non-documentary ones) with the purpose of actually offending my audience. If not, I at least make them to be controversial. I believe that the purpose of art is to inspire independent thought in individuals, not what Wright said about conveying the meaning of life (42) and what not. I would be much happier if everyone strongly disagreed with a film that I made than if they wholeheartedly agreed with me.
Politicians, on the other hand, want to please everybody. If they offend people, then their power will be taken away from them, and they can’t improve the world. Politicians have to stay on the good side of the public, as opposed to artists, who can do whatever they want.
And that’s over my word limit. Good hat.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Shortest Post In The World
Hello, Internet! Hello! Hello... again! I’m back on familiar turf and I just can’t wait to be king. I went to STOMP over the weekend and I still can’t believe how awesome it was.
At the end of the first section of Black Boy, Richard and his family decide that the time has come to move north, to Chicagoworld. FINALLY!
I think that this move is for the better. While conditions for low-income black teenagers probably aren’t much better than they are in the south, Wright will have the opportunity to work up.
You see, in the south, Wright is hitting the upper limit of what Blacks are allowed to do with their lives. He hears about all these black doctors and lawyers and other professionals, and knows that he could never make it that high. In the north, up in Chicago, Wright will still face racism and poverty, but he will also have the opportunity to work up. I predict that he will initially live in abject poverty, but he will slowly work up from there to a fairly respectable place in life.
We shall see...
At the end of the first section of Black Boy, Richard and his family decide that the time has come to move north, to Chicagoworld. FINALLY!
I think that this move is for the better. While conditions for low-income black teenagers probably aren’t much better than they are in the south, Wright will have the opportunity to work up.
You see, in the south, Wright is hitting the upper limit of what Blacks are allowed to do with their lives. He hears about all these black doctors and lawyers and other professionals, and knows that he could never make it that high. In the north, up in Chicago, Wright will still face racism and poverty, but he will also have the opportunity to work up. I predict that he will initially live in abject poverty, but he will slowly work up from there to a fairly respectable place in life.
We shall see...
Saturday, March 7, 2009
The Biggest Post In The World
Hello, Internet! I must apologize for being somewhat negligent in the posting of my blog. I’ve been in California, and I’ve been generally overwhelmed with homework and underwhelmed with time.
So, what you see here is one... Two... Three... Five questions from the past week, answered in one big MEGAPOST.
To begin, I will tackle the question of
At this point in Wright’s life, he is a very logical being. Things happen for a reason, and he needs to understand that reason before he can accept [insert thing here]. A good example of this is religion. Wright can’t accept the religion being forced on him because he has no explanation for it. Wright can’t just do something or accept something “because I told to” or “just because”. No, Wright needs a solid reason.
What does that have to do with Uncle Tom? Well, Uncle Tom wakes Wright one morning, asks him a question, and when he doesn’t like Wright’s answer, he attempts to punish Wright. This is all well and good (not), but Wright doesn’t understand why he is in trouble. And without an explanation, Wright gets mad at his uncle for hurting him unprovoked. So much of Wright’s life is “accept that you’re inferior to whites”, or “you’ll never be a writer”, or “accept jesus as your personal valet” that demanding cause from his uncle is just about all Wright can do to get around this dilemma.
Well, yes and no. Let’ tackle these one at a time. Like groundhogs!
Yes, Wright is justified in refusing the speech. The problem, as Wright sees it, is that blacks do whatever the whites tell them. They have no control over their own actions, for fear of getting hurt, and when they submit, they simply push themselves farther down the poop-pit. By not reading the principal’s speech, but rather reading his own, Wright is breaking this vicious cycle. He is not doing what the whites (through the principal) are telling him to do, and he is trying to further his own position by acting in accordance to his personal set of beliefs (rather than living his life to someone else’s beliefs, namely the whites).
And then there’s the no. Sure, Wright is doing the ‘morally good’ thing, the ‘warm fuzzy’ thing, but from a practical standpoint, by refusing the principal’s speech, Wright is making his own condition worse. He is attracting the negative attention of the whites, speaking out against a system which he needs (the educational system), and he is marking himself as a future muck-raker/shit-kicker. Whoo.
So I would argue that Wright is morally justified in refusing the principal’s speech, but rather than read his own speech, I think he should have just refused to speechify at all. Eat a frog and misplace your voice.
Wright was brought up with very little contact with the white world. As he said in an earlier chapter, waaay back at the beginning of the book, the white kids stayed on their side and the black kids stayed on their side, and if any crossed the line, they would be beaten up. So Wright’s view of the magically terrifying racial line is that if the two sides respect the boundaries, no one gets hurt.
But the problem, as he finds out, is that the world doesn’t quite work like that. Wright finds that there really isn’t a “black side” where he can go about his business however he wants. He is always having to adjust his behavior to fit the white’s expectations. That’s not good, but even worse is the fact that he was never taught how to do this. Other people he meets along his way grew up with it and are OK with it; they just accept things for the way they are. Wright doesn’t do that, he can’t do that. He needs a rock-solid reason for these things, and can’t find one. He wasn’t as exposed to the racial divide as a kid, and thus can’t adjust his demeanor to the white world.
I’m not really sure how to answer this question. Partly because it’s so vague, partly because I grapple with this very question every time I get mad at society (which is happening more and more often now, I’m getting a little concerned).
In the perfect world, subservience is bad. Bad bad bad. In the perfect world, all things are equal, and all things respect that. We can do as much as we can to live in the perfect world, and for the most part subservience is something we should avoid.
The however: However, this won’t get you anywhere. I could completely NOT do all the things my teachers tell me to do, all the things my parents tell me to do, the government, the road signs along I-465, airplane flight attendants, because that’s all a form of subservience. They’re telling me what to do because they’re higher up on the authoritative ladder.
But I’m pretty sure I should do all those things. And here’s the conundrum: Subservience can get you ahead. If Wright didn’t obey the white dudes and dudette’s instructions, he would likely be dead by now. Well, he is dead now, but you know what I mean.
So subservience is one of those contradictory notions you must hold in your head at all times. It should be avoided as much as possible, but often you need to be “sub” to get ahead.
So, what you see here is one... Two... Three... Five questions from the past week, answered in one big MEGAPOST.
To begin, I will tackle the question of
Why is Wright so angry with his Uncle Tom?
At this point in Wright’s life, he is a very logical being. Things happen for a reason, and he needs to understand that reason before he can accept [insert thing here]. A good example of this is religion. Wright can’t accept the religion being forced on him because he has no explanation for it. Wright can’t just do something or accept something “because I told to” or “just because”. No, Wright needs a solid reason.
What does that have to do with Uncle Tom? Well, Uncle Tom wakes Wright one morning, asks him a question, and when he doesn’t like Wright’s answer, he attempts to punish Wright. This is all well and good (not), but Wright doesn’t understand why he is in trouble. And without an explanation, Wright gets mad at his uncle for hurting him unprovoked. So much of Wright’s life is “accept that you’re inferior to whites”, or “you’ll never be a writer”, or “accept jesus as your personal valet” that demanding cause from his uncle is just about all Wright can do to get around this dilemma.
Is Wright justified in refusing to say the speech?
Well, yes and no. Let’ tackle these one at a time. Like groundhogs!
Yes, Wright is justified in refusing the speech. The problem, as Wright sees it, is that blacks do whatever the whites tell them. They have no control over their own actions, for fear of getting hurt, and when they submit, they simply push themselves farther down the poop-pit. By not reading the principal’s speech, but rather reading his own, Wright is breaking this vicious cycle. He is not doing what the whites (through the principal) are telling him to do, and he is trying to further his own position by acting in accordance to his personal set of beliefs (rather than living his life to someone else’s beliefs, namely the whites).
And then there’s the no. Sure, Wright is doing the ‘morally good’ thing, the ‘warm fuzzy’ thing, but from a practical standpoint, by refusing the principal’s speech, Wright is making his own condition worse. He is attracting the negative attention of the whites, speaking out against a system which he needs (the educational system), and he is marking himself as a future muck-raker/shit-kicker. Whoo.
So I would argue that Wright is morally justified in refusing the principal’s speech, but rather than read his own speech, I think he should have just refused to speechify at all. Eat a frog and misplace your voice.
What does Wright mean when he says he had ‘begun coping with the white world too late’? How does that manifest itself in these next chapters?
Wright was brought up with very little contact with the white world. As he said in an earlier chapter, waaay back at the beginning of the book, the white kids stayed on their side and the black kids stayed on their side, and if any crossed the line, they would be beaten up. So Wright’s view of the magically terrifying racial line is that if the two sides respect the boundaries, no one gets hurt.
But the problem, as he finds out, is that the world doesn’t quite work like that. Wright finds that there really isn’t a “black side” where he can go about his business however he wants. He is always having to adjust his behavior to fit the white’s expectations. That’s not good, but even worse is the fact that he was never taught how to do this. Other people he meets along his way grew up with it and are OK with it; they just accept things for the way they are. Wright doesn’t do that, he can’t do that. He needs a rock-solid reason for these things, and can’t find one. He wasn’t as exposed to the racial divide as a kid, and thus can’t adjust his demeanor to the white world.
Is subservience a necessary part of living?
I’m not really sure how to answer this question. Partly because it’s so vague, partly because I grapple with this very question every time I get mad at society (which is happening more and more often now, I’m getting a little concerned).
In the perfect world, subservience is bad. Bad bad bad. In the perfect world, all things are equal, and all things respect that. We can do as much as we can to live in the perfect world, and for the most part subservience is something we should avoid.
The however: However, this won’t get you anywhere. I could completely NOT do all the things my teachers tell me to do, all the things my parents tell me to do, the government, the road signs along I-465, airplane flight attendants, because that’s all a form of subservience. They’re telling me what to do because they’re higher up on the authoritative ladder.
But I’m pretty sure I should do all those things. And here’s the conundrum: Subservience can get you ahead. If Wright didn’t obey the white dudes and dudette’s instructions, he would likely be dead by now. Well, he is dead now, but you know what I mean.
So subservience is one of those contradictory notions you must hold in your head at all times. It should be avoided as much as possible, but often you need to be “sub” to get ahead.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Ambient Occlusion and Ray-traced Radiosity
Hello, internet! And welcome to the most spirited season of them all. March. Whoo.
At the end of chapter 4 in Black Boy, Richard writes a rather morose piece of poetry about a girl who commits suicide. He loves the feeling of writing it, but doesn’t really knwo what to do with it after he is finished. So he does what any hormonal boy in the midst of puberty and emotional isolation would do. He pulls it out and shows it to the girl across the street.
But of course you already know all that. The question is why does he feel tingly and warm after pulling it out and showing it to the girl across the street? By the way, this is as far as I’m going to go with my half-baked innuendo.
As I said before, Richard is emotionally isolated. His mother is not capable of “being there for him”, his grandma and creepy aunt hate his guts for being a heathen, and his classmates in school are emotionally gum and blah. Richard has not really been allowed to create, and when he does no one cares.
So when Richard creates something moderately nifty (the piece of writing), he NEEDS to show it to someone. And he does. The girl across the street. She thinks it’s weird and all, and is a little stunned that malnutritioned, boring little Ricky has created something cool. She shows this, and Richard is happy. Someone appreciates his creation. He is recognized for making. That is why he feels good.
End of line.
At the end of chapter 4 in Black Boy, Richard writes a rather morose piece of poetry about a girl who commits suicide. He loves the feeling of writing it, but doesn’t really knwo what to do with it after he is finished. So he does what any hormonal boy in the midst of puberty and emotional isolation would do. He pulls it out and shows it to the girl across the street.
But of course you already know all that. The question is why does he feel tingly and warm after pulling it out and showing it to the girl across the street? By the way, this is as far as I’m going to go with my half-baked innuendo.
As I said before, Richard is emotionally isolated. His mother is not capable of “being there for him”, his grandma and creepy aunt hate his guts for being a heathen, and his classmates in school are emotionally gum and blah. Richard has not really been allowed to create, and when he does no one cares.
So when Richard creates something moderately nifty (the piece of writing), he NEEDS to show it to someone. And he does. The girl across the street. She thinks it’s weird and all, and is a little stunned that malnutritioned, boring little Ricky has created something cool. She shows this, and Richard is happy. Someone appreciates his creation. He is recognized for making. That is why he feels good.
End of line.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Inner Space
Hello, internet! And now, we present to you yet another exciting journey beyond the comprehension of mere mortals... Into my unrestrained consciousness...
Hmm, seems awfully empty in here.
Today I am going to talk about Wright’s response to his mother’s illness, so get your pillows ready. Here we go!
Wright relies on his mother almost entirely. She gets the money, she makes him food (sometimes), and she provides an (inconsistent) roof over his head. She is the source of good in his life, and every time he goes away, whether to school, the store, or to the orphanage, he misses her. So his reaction when she suddenly stops... Being, is not too surprising to me.
What happens is Wright’s world stops. He can’t eat. He has difficulty sleeping. When he is brought to his granny’s house, he can’t really function. All he does is play in the backyard half-heartedly.
When he is sent to his uncle’s house, his brain and body basically shut down. He can’t eat well. His mind starts playing tricks on him. He can’t sleep. He begins picking fights at school. Everything kind of shatters.
Yeah. That’s basically what happens.
Wow. I don’t have anything more to say about this. This is a world first. A blog that came in under 250. Well, good night ladies and gentlemen. I think I’ll go eat a cow now.
Hmm, seems awfully empty in here.
Today I am going to talk about Wright’s response to his mother’s illness, so get your pillows ready. Here we go!
Wright relies on his mother almost entirely. She gets the money, she makes him food (sometimes), and she provides an (inconsistent) roof over his head. She is the source of good in his life, and every time he goes away, whether to school, the store, or to the orphanage, he misses her. So his reaction when she suddenly stops... Being, is not too surprising to me.
What happens is Wright’s world stops. He can’t eat. He has difficulty sleeping. When he is brought to his granny’s house, he can’t really function. All he does is play in the backyard half-heartedly.
When he is sent to his uncle’s house, his brain and body basically shut down. He can’t eat well. His mind starts playing tricks on him. He can’t sleep. He begins picking fights at school. Everything kind of shatters.
Yeah. That’s basically what happens.
Wow. I don’t have anything more to say about this. This is a world first. A blog that came in under 250. Well, good night ladies and gentlemen. I think I’ll go eat a cow now.
251 Words of Wonder
Hello, internet! So, looking over the past few posts that I’ve done, as well as the accompanying comments, it seems that I’ve been unduly cynical lately. Please forgive me for being a poopface. I’ve been going through a crazy lot of stress lately, and it appears that I’ve failed in my attempts to keep it out of my school life.
Anyways, today I’m going to talk about how Wright says that it’s his “cultural heritage” to hate jews. I’m not entirely sure what that means, but I can give you the basic run-down of why I think he’s so hard on them.
Growing up, Wright was always spit upon. He was the lowest of the low, a poor black with a single mother and no education. Everywhere he went he had been the victim of hate and detestment... That’s not a word. People didn’t like him. And, according to that dude we read last semester with the weird name-- Vincent Parillo or something like that, people who are at the bottom of the rack need a vent, someone to hurt or to blame. It just so happened that Wright was raised Christian, so he naturally had the Jews to hate for killing Christ.
Or something like that. Of course, now we have the interesting question of what if Wright hadn’t been raised Christian. Would he still have hated someone? Would he have teased them so much? I think yes, but let me know what you think in the comments below.
One word over 250. Yes!
Anyways, today I’m going to talk about how Wright says that it’s his “cultural heritage” to hate jews. I’m not entirely sure what that means, but I can give you the basic run-down of why I think he’s so hard on them.
Growing up, Wright was always spit upon. He was the lowest of the low, a poor black with a single mother and no education. Everywhere he went he had been the victim of hate and detestment... That’s not a word. People didn’t like him. And, according to that dude we read last semester with the weird name-- Vincent Parillo or something like that, people who are at the bottom of the rack need a vent, someone to hurt or to blame. It just so happened that Wright was raised Christian, so he naturally had the Jews to hate for killing Christ.
Or something like that. Of course, now we have the interesting question of what if Wright hadn’t been raised Christian. Would he still have hated someone? Would he have teased them so much? I think yes, but let me know what you think in the comments below.
One word over 250. Yes!
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Welcome to the Hotel California
Hello, Internet! I'm crazy stressed right now, so no promises about the quality of this post. Now, if only I didn't have to worry about lawns...
In Black Boy by Richard Wright, the main character (Richard as a kid) complains a lot about being hungry. Today I'm supposed to talk about why he is hungry.
Richard is hungry because he has no food. Duh. He has no food because his dad left his mom and they can't afford food. He is malnutritioned, getting only tea and bread, not real food.
But there's possibly a deeper meaning to this. Richard's biggest problem, apart from malnutrition, is neglect. His mother loves him, but his mother has to work long hours and can't really take care of him. His father left his family and doesn't support him. When he went to school he learned language that made his mother mad at him. When he got put in the orphanage, the creepy beldam in charge cared for him, but in a weird way. Richard lived in fear and loneliness his entire life, and he is hungry for affection.
You can believe that if you want to. I personally think that it's BS. I know that it's what our educator wants us to write about, but common. This is non-fiction. An AutoBiography. Cool nifty little literary devices like metaphors and symbolism don't happen in real life. If Richard ate an apple in the book, it's not because he was becoming smarter, it's because a hundred years or so ago, Richard Wright actually picked up a granny smith and took a big bite out of it.
OK, so that's enough for this week. Still over the 250 word limit, but I'm getting better. See y'all later!
In Black Boy by Richard Wright, the main character (Richard as a kid) complains a lot about being hungry. Today I'm supposed to talk about why he is hungry.
Richard is hungry because he has no food. Duh. He has no food because his dad left his mom and they can't afford food. He is malnutritioned, getting only tea and bread, not real food.
But there's possibly a deeper meaning to this. Richard's biggest problem, apart from malnutrition, is neglect. His mother loves him, but his mother has to work long hours and can't really take care of him. His father left his family and doesn't support him. When he went to school he learned language that made his mother mad at him. When he got put in the orphanage, the creepy beldam in charge cared for him, but in a weird way. Richard lived in fear and loneliness his entire life, and he is hungry for affection.
You can believe that if you want to. I personally think that it's BS. I know that it's what our educator wants us to write about, but common. This is non-fiction. An AutoBiography. Cool nifty little literary devices like metaphors and symbolism don't happen in real life. If Richard ate an apple in the book, it's not because he was becoming smarter, it's because a hundred years or so ago, Richard Wright actually picked up a granny smith and took a big bite out of it.
OK, so that's enough for this week. Still over the 250 word limit, but I'm getting better. See y'all later!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
50th Post!
hello, world. Blah. I just read a really depressing article.
It was about how schools in amerika are designed to turn us into mindless zombie-children who do nothing but degrade and consume. And I have some issues with consuming.
When I first picked up the article, I thought “there’s no way someone could present a good case to stop learning!”
Now I’m totally won, and I have half a mind to drop out of high school.
One of the things that bothers me so much about being a student is all I do is what others tell me to do. For example, let’s look at the AP test. I take the AP test because a bunch of people who I’ve never met tell me to answer a bunch of boring questions that are designed so that they can figure out how my brain works, and, oh yeah, the grading system is totally arbitrary. Why do I take the AP test? So that after I “graduate” from high school, sorry, College Preparatory School, I can spend another four to life at yet another fine educational establishment that I have to pay through the nose to attend.
University High School states that “classes here aren’t about passing a test or getting the grade, they’re about true learning. Then why is the purpose of this very AP lit class, as stated in the class syllabus, for us to get a good grade on the AP exam. Oh, wait sorry, we also study rhetoric, but only because the state of indiana requires us to.
What am I doing in school right now? I want to be a film maker. I try to make films in my free time, but school is my current “occupation”. Nothing, NOTHING I learn at You-Achh-Ess will help me make better films. Yes, I’ll be well versed in ancient roman history, yes I’ll be able to deal with differential equations, and yes, I’ll be able to pass the stupid AP exam, but I won’t be able to make movies any better than I can right now. What am I wasting my time for?
In short, I now completely and totally believe that school is 100% useless to most people. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some things that school does help with (I love computers, therefore I take Apple Help Desk), but those are all things that I could take as a separate class, like how some people sit in on college-level classes.
I write these blogs in Apple Pages, and this is the first time one has ever wrapped around to the second page. I guess I’ll go do my math homework... Or not.
End of line.
It was about how schools in amerika are designed to turn us into mindless zombie-children who do nothing but degrade and consume. And I have some issues with consuming.
When I first picked up the article, I thought “there’s no way someone could present a good case to stop learning!”
Now I’m totally won, and I have half a mind to drop out of high school.
One of the things that bothers me so much about being a student is all I do is what others tell me to do. For example, let’s look at the AP test. I take the AP test because a bunch of people who I’ve never met tell me to answer a bunch of boring questions that are designed so that they can figure out how my brain works, and, oh yeah, the grading system is totally arbitrary. Why do I take the AP test? So that after I “graduate” from high school, sorry, College Preparatory School, I can spend another four to life at yet another fine educational establishment that I have to pay through the nose to attend.
University High School states that “classes here aren’t about passing a test or getting the grade, they’re about true learning. Then why is the purpose of this very AP lit class, as stated in the class syllabus, for us to get a good grade on the AP exam. Oh, wait sorry, we also study rhetoric, but only because the state of indiana requires us to.
What am I doing in school right now? I want to be a film maker. I try to make films in my free time, but school is my current “occupation”. Nothing, NOTHING I learn at You-Achh-Ess will help me make better films. Yes, I’ll be well versed in ancient roman history, yes I’ll be able to deal with differential equations, and yes, I’ll be able to pass the stupid AP exam, but I won’t be able to make movies any better than I can right now. What am I wasting my time for?
In short, I now completely and totally believe that school is 100% useless to most people. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some things that school does help with (I love computers, therefore I take Apple Help Desk), but those are all things that I could take as a separate class, like how some people sit in on college-level classes.
I write these blogs in Apple Pages, and this is the first time one has ever wrapped around to the second page. I guess I’ll go do my math homework... Or not.
End of line.
Now You See Me...
hello world. I’ve had a tough day, so work with me tonight.
My assignment is to talk about how I value the “non-academic” education I get from school.
Wow. I don’t really know where to begin. In middle school, I was an outcast. I still am, but I now know how to be good outcast. Going to school has taught me everything from how to be a good friend to methods of interrogation (long story) to organizational skills... The list goes on and on.
I think the best way to put this into a frame of reference is to examine people who don’t get the “non-academic” benefits of high school: home-schoolers. I know that I’m making a lot of generalizations here, and I know that not all that I’m saying is entirely true, but this is my general impression.
People who are home-schooled are just as nice and smart as you or I... Excuse me, you or me. But they tend to lack a lot of important skills. Things that you need experience for.
Like, for example, freshman year I had a great friend who I would often say the “wrong thing” in front of. I had no idea how it would happen, but I would just let something slip, and BLAH! poopsickle. Textbook high school drama. After a while, I realized that when I was saying something and they said “I see...”, it was a subtle warning: stop now. So I did. And it helped a lot.
Now I’m able to pick up on small non-verbal clues like that. I gained that skill in high school, and it’s just one of the many things I’ve gotten out of hallway interactions. High School isn’t just about 1492 and √(-1) and Appeal to Ethos and La Langue du Français...
Opp, over the word limit again. See you later.
I see.
My assignment is to talk about how I value the “non-academic” education I get from school.
Wow. I don’t really know where to begin. In middle school, I was an outcast. I still am, but I now know how to be good outcast. Going to school has taught me everything from how to be a good friend to methods of interrogation (long story) to organizational skills... The list goes on and on.
I think the best way to put this into a frame of reference is to examine people who don’t get the “non-academic” benefits of high school: home-schoolers. I know that I’m making a lot of generalizations here, and I know that not all that I’m saying is entirely true, but this is my general impression.
People who are home-schooled are just as nice and smart as you or I... Excuse me, you or me. But they tend to lack a lot of important skills. Things that you need experience for.
Like, for example, freshman year I had a great friend who I would often say the “wrong thing” in front of. I had no idea how it would happen, but I would just let something slip, and BLAH! poopsickle. Textbook high school drama. After a while, I realized that when I was saying something and they said “I see...”, it was a subtle warning: stop now. So I did. And it helped a lot.
Now I’m able to pick up on small non-verbal clues like that. I gained that skill in high school, and it’s just one of the many things I’ve gotten out of hallway interactions. High School isn’t just about 1492 and √(-1) and Appeal to Ethos and La Langue du Français...
Opp, over the word limit again. See you later.
I see.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Still over 250 words
Hello, internet!
So, my assignment is to blog about the picture presentations we just saw. Woo. So. What did I just see?
What I saw was interesting. There’s a lot of visual rhetoric out there, but very little of it was shown today. In other words, I was kind of disappointed. Now, don’t get me wrong, there were some really good images, but think about it.
America is the land. The land of nudity (not really, but as much skin as we can legally show without giving you the full turkey). The land of child manipulation (most ads are designed to make kids throw tantrums to get what they want). The land of commercial exploitation of credibility (I trust Tiger Woods because he’s smart, so he must really like that brand of cars. They must be really good).
I know for a fact that there’s a heck of a lot of visual rhetoric out there to be photographed. I admit that I didn’t do such a good job myself. I focused almost entirely on architecture. I could have gone to Starbucks, they always have some sort of sumatra super double venti macciato thingy they’re promoting. I could have gone to the mall, and taken pictures of the ads there (you know, the ones for the jeans where they show a hot 20yo with no shirt and a ripped bod and only the top few seams of the jeans they’re trying to get me to buy). In all fairness, I didn’t want to waste gas and I had to be home by dinner. Most people probably did. But I think this would have been a lot better if we all had more time to work on it, and made it into a much bigger project. Good bye!
So, my assignment is to blog about the picture presentations we just saw. Woo. So. What did I just see?
What I saw was interesting. There’s a lot of visual rhetoric out there, but very little of it was shown today. In other words, I was kind of disappointed. Now, don’t get me wrong, there were some really good images, but think about it.
America is the land. The land of nudity (not really, but as much skin as we can legally show without giving you the full turkey). The land of child manipulation (most ads are designed to make kids throw tantrums to get what they want). The land of commercial exploitation of credibility (I trust Tiger Woods because he’s smart, so he must really like that brand of cars. They must be really good).
I know for a fact that there’s a heck of a lot of visual rhetoric out there to be photographed. I admit that I didn’t do such a good job myself. I focused almost entirely on architecture. I could have gone to Starbucks, they always have some sort of sumatra super double venti macciato thingy they’re promoting. I could have gone to the mall, and taken pictures of the ads there (you know, the ones for the jeans where they show a hot 20yo with no shirt and a ripped bod and only the top few seams of the jeans they’re trying to get me to buy). In all fairness, I didn’t want to waste gas and I had to be home by dinner. Most people probably did. But I think this would have been a lot better if we all had more time to work on it, and made it into a much bigger project. Good bye!
Monday, February 9, 2009
FEED me
Hello, internet!
Does the media shape reality? Well, of course it does!
I’m not really sure how to answer this question. It seems kind of obvious. I turn on the TV, and I am given the rare opportunity to see what it is like to be wealthy. I am served up depictions of what being poor is like. I am exposed to reasons to want to be wealthy, like them.
Do you know who Billy Mays is? He’s the OxyClean dude. He shouts at me to buy buy buy buy buy. So does Tiger Woods. So does Miley Cyrus. Sorry, Hanna Montana. Wait...
My point is that consumerism is an advertisey thing. Let’s see... What about racism? I don’t want to be friends with any black people because they’re always the ones getting on the 11:00 news. Oh, and I need to look pretty, because you see all those happy people, you know, the ones who have perfect lives and donate to dolphin-whatevers? They are all really well dressed. The Jonas Brothers have no acne. Brad Pitt has that busty blonde babe. I should be like that, too. Then I’ll be happy.
What else? I guess the classic example of the media changing reality is Disney. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love Disney. But they are an evil empire. How have they changed reality? Oh, I dunno. Everyone believes that if they wish hard enough, and try, their happily-ever-after will come true. Oh, and high school is full of preppy hot jocks who are perfect singers, dancers, and have a 4.0 GPA. It isn’t actually like that? Then my life sucks. Good bye!
Does the media shape reality? Well, of course it does!
I’m not really sure how to answer this question. It seems kind of obvious. I turn on the TV, and I am given the rare opportunity to see what it is like to be wealthy. I am served up depictions of what being poor is like. I am exposed to reasons to want to be wealthy, like them.
Do you know who Billy Mays is? He’s the OxyClean dude. He shouts at me to buy buy buy buy buy. So does Tiger Woods. So does Miley Cyrus. Sorry, Hanna Montana. Wait...
My point is that consumerism is an advertisey thing. Let’s see... What about racism? I don’t want to be friends with any black people because they’re always the ones getting on the 11:00 news. Oh, and I need to look pretty, because you see all those happy people, you know, the ones who have perfect lives and donate to dolphin-whatevers? They are all really well dressed. The Jonas Brothers have no acne. Brad Pitt has that busty blonde babe. I should be like that, too. Then I’ll be happy.
What else? I guess the classic example of the media changing reality is Disney. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love Disney. But they are an evil empire. How have they changed reality? Oh, I dunno. Everyone believes that if they wish hard enough, and try, their happily-ever-after will come true. Oh, and high school is full of preppy hot jocks who are perfect singers, dancers, and have a 4.0 GPA. It isn’t actually like that? Then my life sucks. Good bye!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Hello, internet!
I just spent two hours driving in circles and pissing people off by taking pictures of their buildings. Whoo.
What did I find? Well, the first thing that I noticed was that Zionsville and Carmel have no black people or asian people or mexican people… or anyone that’s not caucasian. It bothered me a bit. I took the two street sign pictures in “Historic Zionsville”. They were one street apart. You can guess which street sign was on Main Street.
I also found an interesting pregnancy ad. It is obviously an anti-abortion ad, but it never states that. It just says “Thou Shalt Not Kill. Pregnancy Help”.
Let’s see. I also came upon the “You are Now Entering Carmel” sign. It’s much better than the one for Indianapolis. I’ve posted it here.
Overall, what I found was a lot of people want you to think their store, product, or service is “high class”. Of course, I took these pictures mostly in Zionsville and Carmel, but there weren’t any instances of visual rhetoric advertising “coolness” or “hipness”.
Other things I found… Restaurants are really into exterior decorating. Abuelo’s, which is a restaurant but advertises itself as a Mexican Food Embassy, looks like they hired some rich italian dude from the fifteenth century as their architect. Chile’s looks like a mexican restaurant, even though it isn’t, and Panera is painted yummy green, bread tan, and plum purple. The building almost looks edible.
Whoa! I came in a t 500 words. Awesometastic!
I just spent two hours driving in circles and pissing people off by taking pictures of their buildings. Whoo.
What did I find? Well, the first thing that I noticed was that Zionsville and Carmel have no black people or asian people or mexican people… or anyone that’s not caucasian. It bothered me a bit. I took the two street sign pictures in “Historic Zionsville”. They were one street apart. You can guess which street sign was on Main Street.
I also found an interesting pregnancy ad. It is obviously an anti-abortion ad, but it never states that. It just says “Thou Shalt Not Kill. Pregnancy Help”.
Let’s see. I also came upon the “You are Now Entering Carmel” sign. It’s much better than the one for Indianapolis. I’ve posted it here.
Overall, what I found was a lot of people want you to think their store, product, or service is “high class”. Of course, I took these pictures mostly in Zionsville and Carmel, but there weren’t any instances of visual rhetoric advertising “coolness” or “hipness”.
Other things I found… Restaurants are really into exterior decorating. Abuelo’s, which is a restaurant but advertises itself as a Mexican Food Embassy, looks like they hired some rich italian dude from the fifteenth century as their architect. Chile’s looks like a mexican restaurant, even though it isn’t, and Panera is painted yummy green, bread tan, and plum purple. The building almost looks edible.
Whoa! I came in a t 500 words. Awesometastic!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Monkey's Uncle
Hello, InterNet! I’m not feeling too great tonight, so this is going to be a short post (yeah right).
First of all, let’s get our facts straight. Disneyland in Anaheim, CA is “The Happiest Place on Earth”, not WDW in Florida. And it’s not Disney World, contrary to popular belief. It’s WALT Disney World. The name was changed when it opened, a couple years after Uncle Wally’s death. Gosh Golly!
OK, so tonight’s post is about what Gitlin is saying about the mounds of rhetoric Amerika exports.
Amerika, for all it’s inability to “make stuff” (ie make cars, make electronics, make cellphones, make food, etc.) is a great content machine. What is content, you ask? Content is intellectual. This blog is content. Slogans are content. Logos are content. Music is content. Movies are content. tShirts are not, but whatever is on the tShirt is content (this makes sense, then, that Americans order more custom tShirts per capita, yet almost none of the tShirts people order are physically made here in Amerika.
How can I say this in the least amount of words? Thinking… Got it!
Remember, way back when, in the fall of 2001? Something momentous happened that rocked the world to the core. That’s right. I’m talking about the release of the iPod®. What was the iPod®? Nothing too new. PMPs (portable music players– try and keep up with the acronyms) existed before this. The iPod® was just a really good one (with a poopbucket of money to advertise it and over thirty years of company credibility behind it).
Now look where we are. There are– literally– hundreds of MP3 and WMA pocket players out there right now. And the vast majority of them are iPod® knock-offs. Everyone wants to have an iPod®, and owning a ZUNE (what some consider to be the worst iPod® knockoff) is taboo among “geeky people”. Is the iPod really that great? Does your music sound better on an Apple, Inc. product? No. An iPod® is a ZUNE in a white painters suit.1
So… wait. What does this have to do with the Gitlin dude? Well, imagine that we’re not talking about iPods. We’re talking about culture. Everyone wants to be part of the Amerikan culture. Why is our culture “better”? Here in Amerika you can be entertained. You can have fun. America offers no better (in fact quite worse) cars than the rest of the world, but these aren’t just any cars. They’re fun, Amerikan cars. They have silly SuperBowl ads. They have catchy theme songs. They’re entertaining.
Wow, I went way over my word limit again. So, to finish, Amerika produces and exports content, everyone wants to have fun and be like us, and I’m tired. Good night!
1Except for the iPod Touch®/iPhone®, which is a crazy kickass product that no one, not even the Palm Pre, can approach in coolness.
First of all, let’s get our facts straight. Disneyland in Anaheim, CA is “The Happiest Place on Earth”, not WDW in Florida. And it’s not Disney World, contrary to popular belief. It’s WALT Disney World. The name was changed when it opened, a couple years after Uncle Wally’s death. Gosh Golly!
OK, so tonight’s post is about what Gitlin is saying about the mounds of rhetoric Amerika exports.
Amerika, for all it’s inability to “make stuff” (ie make cars, make electronics, make cellphones, make food, etc.) is a great content machine. What is content, you ask? Content is intellectual. This blog is content. Slogans are content. Logos are content. Music is content. Movies are content. tShirts are not, but whatever is on the tShirt is content (this makes sense, then, that Americans order more custom tShirts per capita, yet almost none of the tShirts people order are physically made here in Amerika.
How can I say this in the least amount of words? Thinking… Got it!
Remember, way back when, in the fall of 2001? Something momentous happened that rocked the world to the core. That’s right. I’m talking about the release of the iPod®. What was the iPod®? Nothing too new. PMPs (portable music players– try and keep up with the acronyms) existed before this. The iPod® was just a really good one (with a poopbucket of money to advertise it and over thirty years of company credibility behind it).
Now look where we are. There are– literally– hundreds of MP3 and WMA pocket players out there right now. And the vast majority of them are iPod® knock-offs. Everyone wants to have an iPod®, and owning a ZUNE (what some consider to be the worst iPod® knockoff) is taboo among “geeky people”. Is the iPod really that great? Does your music sound better on an Apple, Inc. product? No. An iPod® is a ZUNE in a white painters suit.1
So… wait. What does this have to do with the Gitlin dude? Well, imagine that we’re not talking about iPods. We’re talking about culture. Everyone wants to be part of the Amerikan culture. Why is our culture “better”? Here in Amerika you can be entertained. You can have fun. America offers no better (in fact quite worse) cars than the rest of the world, but these aren’t just any cars. They’re fun, Amerikan cars. They have silly SuperBowl ads. They have catchy theme songs. They’re entertaining.
Wow, I went way over my word limit again. So, to finish, Amerika produces and exports content, everyone wants to have fun and be like us, and I’m tired. Good night!
1Except for the iPod Touch®/iPhone®, which is a crazy kickass product that no one, not even the Palm Pre, can approach in coolness.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Let's get together
Hey, internet! I’m back! Today, we get to talk about S. E. X… sex! I should warn you all that I’m all pumped up on Tylenol and TheraFlu and I’m feeling a little woobily right now, so if I start rambling or not making sense, please forgive me. :)
According to Kilbourne, the objectification of women and men as sex objects is bad because it enables rape, battery, and sexual assault. Just as with almost all other forms of violence, it is easier to hurt an object than a person. The media, by showing us what it is to be sexually successful and likening it to being successful in life, tells us that we need to have sex. If I have sex, and drink beer, I’ll be in charge of my life. If I have sex, and buy this really cool watch, I’ll be the happiest man in the world. Actually, what the media does is it gives us enablers. I’ll be able to have sex BECAUSE I drank Miller Light. If I buy that really seductive pair of jeans (and get a six-pack) I’ll sleep with four really pretty girls tonight. Men aren’t responsible for their actions because they are drunk, or attracted by that arousing cologne. Kilbourne even gives us an example where that’s happened: in the lawsuit in Canada against the guy who raped a girl. He got off because she was wearing seductive Victoria’s Secret underwear.
Kilbourne says that the objectification of women is worse than the objectification of men. She backs this up with the logic that women are objectified to become submissive erotic fetish toys for men to enjoy at will, while men are objectified to become powerful, dominant, sex machines. This is a big problem for women because it puts them into an environment of fear and harassment, where they are either beautiful chesty bitches or ugly slutty whores.
I agree that this is a problem, but I’m concerned about the objectification of men as well. As Kilbourne points out, boys as young as eight are beginning to turn into the power-hungry lust machine that the media portrays them to be. From my point of view (and keep in mind that I live a horribly sheltered life), it’s just as bad that men are being made into sex objects (or should I say subjects? Grammatically speaking, men are the subject and women are the object; those who receive the action of the subject). A friend of mine who went to elementary school and middle school with me once had a science project in which he, along with a partner, had to test some product. He almost chose to test condoms. Needless to say, he had a very pretty female partner for the project. This was sixth grade. Locker room conversations in middle school shouldn’t be about women’s body parts. That’s something that I always assumed happened in high school locker rooms, but middle school? Really? With the constant strive for young boys to have as many sexual experiences as possible, people like me (the exact opposite of what the media wants me to be: passive, submissive, not horny 24/7, gay, and not ripped in the least bit) get left behind. I got teased in middle school for my lack of… everything just as much as most girls did at my school. So yes, it is a vicious cycle, but men don’t necessarily get the long end of the stick.
Wow. 600 words. OK, so this has come to a premature and maybe disappointing end. Yet another thing the media has told me to avoid in sex. Oh well. Until next time… stay paranoid!
According to Kilbourne, the objectification of women and men as sex objects is bad because it enables rape, battery, and sexual assault. Just as with almost all other forms of violence, it is easier to hurt an object than a person. The media, by showing us what it is to be sexually successful and likening it to being successful in life, tells us that we need to have sex. If I have sex, and drink beer, I’ll be in charge of my life. If I have sex, and buy this really cool watch, I’ll be the happiest man in the world. Actually, what the media does is it gives us enablers. I’ll be able to have sex BECAUSE I drank Miller Light. If I buy that really seductive pair of jeans (and get a six-pack) I’ll sleep with four really pretty girls tonight. Men aren’t responsible for their actions because they are drunk, or attracted by that arousing cologne. Kilbourne even gives us an example where that’s happened: in the lawsuit in Canada against the guy who raped a girl. He got off because she was wearing seductive Victoria’s Secret underwear.
Kilbourne says that the objectification of women is worse than the objectification of men. She backs this up with the logic that women are objectified to become submissive erotic fetish toys for men to enjoy at will, while men are objectified to become powerful, dominant, sex machines. This is a big problem for women because it puts them into an environment of fear and harassment, where they are either beautiful chesty bitches or ugly slutty whores.
I agree that this is a problem, but I’m concerned about the objectification of men as well. As Kilbourne points out, boys as young as eight are beginning to turn into the power-hungry lust machine that the media portrays them to be. From my point of view (and keep in mind that I live a horribly sheltered life), it’s just as bad that men are being made into sex objects (or should I say subjects? Grammatically speaking, men are the subject and women are the object; those who receive the action of the subject). A friend of mine who went to elementary school and middle school with me once had a science project in which he, along with a partner, had to test some product. He almost chose to test condoms. Needless to say, he had a very pretty female partner for the project. This was sixth grade. Locker room conversations in middle school shouldn’t be about women’s body parts. That’s something that I always assumed happened in high school locker rooms, but middle school? Really? With the constant strive for young boys to have as many sexual experiences as possible, people like me (the exact opposite of what the media wants me to be: passive, submissive, not horny 24/7, gay, and not ripped in the least bit) get left behind. I got teased in middle school for my lack of… everything just as much as most girls did at my school. So yes, it is a vicious cycle, but men don’t necessarily get the long end of the stick.
Wow. 600 words. OK, so this has come to a premature and maybe disappointing end. Yet another thing the media has told me to avoid in sex. Oh well. Until next time… stay paranoid!
A really short post
OK, so right now I’m on Hulu.com watching all of the Superbowl ads since I slept through the actual game. I’ve only watch about ten so far (I want to watch ALL OF THEM!), but there’s definitely a pattern emerging:
We don’t need to tell you how great our product is, because you already know. If you don’t already know, or if you dare question it’s awesomeness, your an IDIOT!
That’s what almost all of them are basically saying. Let’s watch some more…
OK, fifteen later, there’s been a lot of boobies. Female boobies. I’ve only seen one pair of male boobies. Lots of underwear, too. I’m also noticing that there’s more tv show and movie commercials than in past years. I’m not sure what that means, but Transformers II looks good.
I’m done now. So, maybe I didn’t get to watch all of them. But most of them are the same. They assume that you already know OF their product, so they can tell you how great their product is. If you don’t already know about whatever their commercial is about, then you’re an idiot.
I feel like an idiot.
I give you: THE TRUTH
Hello, internet! First of all, I have to apologize for the lateness and simplicity of this post. I’ve been sick for the past five days, and I’m just now able to sit up in bed and feebly type this out on my laptop. I’ll do my best to make it interesting, but humor me if I don’t.
Neil Postman’s article “The Bias of Language, The Bias of Pictures” was about how we must watch the news on tv critically. Postman, along with Steve Powers, talk about how the news is simply an approximation of what really happened, not a true representation. The news anchors have many goals in mind, only one of which is presenting the news as it happened. News people must also take into consideration the fact that they must retain audiences, their news must fit between commercials, and that it all has to fit within a one hour block.
This is related to our conversations about language at the beginning of the semester. For example, look at the following situation:
I just went to go see this new movie, “Hours Over”, starring Faraday White, Brad Kane, and Kevin Daille (not a real movie, this is another of those hypothetical situations I like to use). You ask me what it was about.
Well, in the beginning, Sarah (played by White) is working at her step mom's restaurant. She has a crush on the popular kid, Chad (played by Daille), who doesn’t notice her. Mr. Reslie (played by Kane) is the principal at their high school, and is being investigated for embezzlement of school budget (by the way, they’re all in high school). In the end, Reslie is arrested, Chad falls in love with Sarah, and the step mom’s restaurant burns to the ground.
Sounds like a fairly detailed description of the movie, right? How about this movie?
This movie is about a school for blind children run by a man who may have mob connections. When two students band together to discover the truth about the faculty, they discover the truth: the principal has been accepting bribes from the mob to cut down enrollment at the school through arson and pocket the budget for the missing student’s school supplies.
So you probably realize that these are two descriptions of the same movie, just from a different angle. The first focused on characters and made the movie seem like a chick-flick with a weak “b” plot. The second made the movie seem like an action adventure film about blind people.
This is similar to how the news works. There is no “true” description of what happens, only representations of the truth. And because truth isn’t something that can be conveyed through words, each news story has a spin on it, just like the two plot summaries above. When we watch the news, we must keep in mind that we are only hearing one person’s attempt at conveying the truth.
Neil Postman’s article “The Bias of Language, The Bias of Pictures” was about how we must watch the news on tv critically. Postman, along with Steve Powers, talk about how the news is simply an approximation of what really happened, not a true representation. The news anchors have many goals in mind, only one of which is presenting the news as it happened. News people must also take into consideration the fact that they must retain audiences, their news must fit between commercials, and that it all has to fit within a one hour block.
This is related to our conversations about language at the beginning of the semester. For example, look at the following situation:
I just went to go see this new movie, “Hours Over”, starring Faraday White, Brad Kane, and Kevin Daille (not a real movie, this is another of those hypothetical situations I like to use). You ask me what it was about.
Well, in the beginning, Sarah (played by White) is working at her step mom's restaurant. She has a crush on the popular kid, Chad (played by Daille), who doesn’t notice her. Mr. Reslie (played by Kane) is the principal at their high school, and is being investigated for embezzlement of school budget (by the way, they’re all in high school). In the end, Reslie is arrested, Chad falls in love with Sarah, and the step mom’s restaurant burns to the ground.
Sounds like a fairly detailed description of the movie, right? How about this movie?
This movie is about a school for blind children run by a man who may have mob connections. When two students band together to discover the truth about the faculty, they discover the truth: the principal has been accepting bribes from the mob to cut down enrollment at the school through arson and pocket the budget for the missing student’s school supplies.
So you probably realize that these are two descriptions of the same movie, just from a different angle. The first focused on characters and made the movie seem like a chick-flick with a weak “b” plot. The second made the movie seem like an action adventure film about blind people.
This is similar to how the news works. There is no “true” description of what happens, only representations of the truth. And because truth isn’t something that can be conveyed through words, each news story has a spin on it, just like the two plot summaries above. When we watch the news, we must keep in mind that we are only hearing one person’s attempt at conveying the truth.
Friday, January 9, 2009
OK, so thoughts on what happens after a big disaster. From all the footage I’ve seen, all the books I’ve read, and the actual events that have happened in my lifetime, I have come to a conclusion on what happens after a major tragedy. What happens is as follows:
Oddly, major disasters seem to happen when people are the most confident that they either won't happen, or that they will have little or no effect on the people. Immediately after the SF Earthquake and fire, SF inhabitants were very cautious about fires. Buildings were build above and beyond the specs for earthquake-proof buildings. I distinctly remember both of my parents attaching all large pieces of furniture (e.g. bookcases, headboards, tall cabinets) to the walls with screws. The idea was that should we experience an earthquake, we wouldn't be crushed by falling bookshelves or cabinets. Rooms were carefully organized so that no one could stand under the chandelier. And we had a annually updated "emergency plan" should something happen.
Today I seriously doubt many people in the bay area have a similar plan, although most are convinced that should there be an earthquake, they will be just fine. The worst always happens to those who least expect it.
- People try to downplay the event as the event happens. For example, if you listen to many of the audio recordings of people on the phone or on the radio as the event is happening, they sound calm, almost serene. There is rarely any shouting, screaming, or pandemonium. That comes
- afterwards, as soon as the disaster is over. Often, unnecessary precautions are taken, such as stuffing one's shirt with as much money as possible, or trying to stuff all personal belongings into a trunk.
- An attempt to rebuild follows, which almost always fails due to the lack of organization. This often happens in the hours following the disaster.
- Anarchy follows, usually with those who should be enforcing the law extenuating the confusion. In the Frisco Fire, that would have been the police and the impromptu militia looting stores and shooting innocent people.
- Eventually, a leader figure will emerge (the president, mayor, head of the police force, ruthless dictator, etc.) and begin to sort methodically through the confusion. This is around the time that foreign aid arrives, and slowly but surely the city and inhabitants will rebuild.
Oddly, major disasters seem to happen when people are the most confident that they either won't happen, or that they will have little or no effect on the people. Immediately after the SF Earthquake and fire, SF inhabitants were very cautious about fires. Buildings were build above and beyond the specs for earthquake-proof buildings. I distinctly remember both of my parents attaching all large pieces of furniture (e.g. bookcases, headboards, tall cabinets) to the walls with screws. The idea was that should we experience an earthquake, we wouldn't be crushed by falling bookshelves or cabinets. Rooms were carefully organized so that no one could stand under the chandelier. And we had a annually updated "emergency plan" should something happen.
Today I seriously doubt many people in the bay area have a similar plan, although most are convinced that should there be an earthquake, they will be just fine. The worst always happens to those who least expect it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)