Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
special ed
it seems pretty axiomatic to write but i've been thinking a lot about education and educators lately and how important a good education is. by funding schools based on property tax, the united states essentially stratifies public education: the inner city schools do poorly and continue doing poorly, while the affluent suburban schools continue to thrive. kids that attend the latter institutions go onto colleges and subsequently move into the areas where their children will be best educated -- in short, in the suburbs. charter schools are emerging (with some success) in new orleans, but i feel almost as if that system completely denies the structural problems that american education faces. problems that are, largely, economic in nature.
brown v. ed has, in some areas, reversed itself, with schools being largely 98% or more non-white. equality? no. separation? yes. separate curricula? yes. that ain't right.
brown v. ed has, in some areas, reversed itself, with schools being largely 98% or more non-white. equality? no. separation? yes. separate curricula? yes. that ain't right.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
sex and whose city?
girls love "sex(y) and the city." i think because they like long drawn-out tales. but (some) don't realize that it's...they're archetypes. the women in it. greek story archetypes.
1. samantha = vociferous nymphomaniac. slightly '80s. very empowered. very rich. but she pays for being empowered. she has to take the AIDS test and she freaks out. she fetishizes male genitalia aloud. you're not allowed to do that, as Woman. she's too manly. too many men! too much of everything. put some more clothes on, samantha.
2. charlotte = she started out with an art gallery, but that faded away. all of these women's wealth is assumed. hypothesized. she's very prim. you can tell by her collars and her ponytails and the fact that her hair naturally brown. conservative (despite the art gallery). she's looking for True Love, and, being the prettiest one, she'll sure as fuck get it. she just has to cry a lot and marry into a lot of money to get there.
3. miranda = law school. harvard mug. baby of a cat. then a real baby with someone who's...weaker than her? steve was feminized pretty badly in the show. had a drunk for a mother. miranda's mother died. she had to work for this. all on her own. and come, ginger and short hair? but then she got fat oh no. too much estrogen. get the woman a gym membership!
4. carrie = everyone wants to be carrie. think about her name! carrie. CARRY. and everyone loves her! she's not beautiful, but she has (some) luck with men. the series ends with her swooning over russian royalty! but...did she want to end up with royalty? what did she want? carrie is an enigma. everyone wants to be an enigma. except when the fashion signifies schizophrenia. which sometimes it does, but that just means she's more advanced than you, right?
1. samantha = vociferous nymphomaniac. slightly '80s. very empowered. very rich. but she pays for being empowered. she has to take the AIDS test and she freaks out. she fetishizes male genitalia aloud. you're not allowed to do that, as Woman. she's too manly. too many men! too much of everything. put some more clothes on, samantha.
2. charlotte = she started out with an art gallery, but that faded away. all of these women's wealth is assumed. hypothesized. she's very prim. you can tell by her collars and her ponytails and the fact that her hair naturally brown. conservative (despite the art gallery). she's looking for True Love, and, being the prettiest one, she'll sure as fuck get it. she just has to cry a lot and marry into a lot of money to get there.
3. miranda = law school. harvard mug. baby of a cat. then a real baby with someone who's...weaker than her? steve was feminized pretty badly in the show. had a drunk for a mother. miranda's mother died. she had to work for this. all on her own. and come, ginger and short hair? but then she got fat oh no. too much estrogen. get the woman a gym membership!
4. carrie = everyone wants to be carrie. think about her name! carrie. CARRY. and everyone loves her! she's not beautiful, but she has (some) luck with men. the series ends with her swooning over russian royalty! but...did she want to end up with royalty? what did she want? carrie is an enigma. everyone wants to be an enigma. except when the fashion signifies schizophrenia. which sometimes it does, but that just means she's more advanced than you, right?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
myths
mythology is closely connected to history, and history is closely connected to mythology, so i thought i would write about myths. when i studied them at a much younger age i didn't really pay mind to how much gravity they had, but now that i'm older i begin to see their value.
myth says that narcissus was a beautiful boy who, instead of loving someone, became enchanted with his own appearance. like the painting of dorian gray that oscar wilde wrote about centuries later, myth states that narcissus would stay young forever provided he didn't see his own reflection.
but the story doesn't end there.
there was a love in narcissus's life. the nymph echo fell in love with narcissus but he shunned her affections, causing her to retreat. now, when you call in a cave, you can hear echo calling back.
conclusion: love hurts, but you can't love yourself and yourself only.
myth says that narcissus was a beautiful boy who, instead of loving someone, became enchanted with his own appearance. like the painting of dorian gray that oscar wilde wrote about centuries later, myth states that narcissus would stay young forever provided he didn't see his own reflection.
but the story doesn't end there.
there was a love in narcissus's life. the nymph echo fell in love with narcissus but he shunned her affections, causing her to retreat. now, when you call in a cave, you can hear echo calling back.
conclusion: love hurts, but you can't love yourself and yourself only.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
race for racism
it's always perpetually fascinating to me that racism is actually more evident in homogeneous groups rather than in heterogeneous ones. for example, the midwest is very white white white, something i'm not used to given that there's more "diversity" (i cringe at that term) back east. i had a friend say he experienced a similar reverse culture shock -- "there are three races where i'm from [he's from LA] but here there are two." and upon that, i had to educate a cyclops that his jocular anti-semitism wouldn't fly in my area, where every second friend is jewish. i also mentioned that my high school was 40% asian, and then i started wondering about all these poli-sci designations.
education seems obsessed with classifying, labeling, and distilling. did you know that the term hispanic didn't even exist until US government-mandated censuses came up with it? and the term latino emerged as a response to the government-mandated label. so, along those lines, calling an argentinian who lives in argentina "latino" would be nonsensical -- it's a US-centric term. the government census initially classified people based on last names, then based on mother-tongue. but what about all those mexican-americans living in tejas, new mexico, nevada? the border literally crossed them early on in american history, so what category were they supposed to place themselves? this is where the chicano movement of the '60s came into play; latinos self-appropriated the term "latino" (instead of hispanic) because their existence in the americas was/is bizarre: an existence of colonization, racism, ethnicity.
the term "hispanic" refers to españa -- that glorious mother country that every "latino" from santo domingo to puerto rico purportedly strives toward. but where to place people from belize or haiti (which shares the island of hispaniola with the dominican republic) or even brazil? people speak portuguese in brazil, french-creole in haiti, english in belize. are they latino or hispanic when they come to the united states? if so, why? perhaps the question isn't so much why but how: do we continuously see civilization itself as something that always must hark back to europe? do we erase "indian" or "native" history in the process? ask a latino, because this russian has only un pocito español to answer these latino preguntas.
education seems obsessed with classifying, labeling, and distilling. did you know that the term hispanic didn't even exist until US government-mandated censuses came up with it? and the term latino emerged as a response to the government-mandated label. so, along those lines, calling an argentinian who lives in argentina "latino" would be nonsensical -- it's a US-centric term. the government census initially classified people based on last names, then based on mother-tongue. but what about all those mexican-americans living in tejas, new mexico, nevada? the border literally crossed them early on in american history, so what category were they supposed to place themselves? this is where the chicano movement of the '60s came into play; latinos self-appropriated the term "latino" (instead of hispanic) because their existence in the americas was/is bizarre: an existence of colonization, racism, ethnicity.
the term "hispanic" refers to españa -- that glorious mother country that every "latino" from santo domingo to puerto rico purportedly strives toward. but where to place people from belize or haiti (which shares the island of hispaniola with the dominican republic) or even brazil? people speak portuguese in brazil, french-creole in haiti, english in belize. are they latino or hispanic when they come to the united states? if so, why? perhaps the question isn't so much why but how: do we continuously see civilization itself as something that always must hark back to europe? do we erase "indian" or "native" history in the process? ask a latino, because this russian has only un pocito español to answer these latino preguntas.
Monday, January 12, 2009
"natural" means shit
companies have been dying to show their consumers that they're "green" lately. apparently, green is the new black. every company from starbucks to walmart wants to brag about how "sustainable," "green," and "all natural" it is. hey, with the economy in this state, they gotta peddle something besides lies.
here's an unhappy little dose of reality, folks: the term natural don't mean shit. don't believe me? let's think of the reciprocal for a second. what is the inverse of natural? i guess artificial. what exactly is artificial on this earth? i guess plastic and partially-hydrogenated oils and diamond rings made out of old pets. but economy is weird; companies know that in this neo-treehugger world, everyone wants to do their part and be green through buying power. so they tout how natural they are.
the sad part about this great capitalistic country of ours is that companies reign supreme; they'll spend thousands on ad campaigns after they've donated a fraction of that to charity. it's sort of like that exercise to test true philanthropy -- would you donate a huge sum of money to something anonymously? if not, you're a douchebag. but i'm not really surprised that corporations and trusts and companies are douchebags: part of capitalism is sleaziness.
in the 20s and 30s, when consumerism in the way we know it now was on the rise, "planned obsolescence" was the premiere marketing strategy. what does it mean? it means that to hide the true cost (or lack thereof) of a product's value, companies purposefully design products that are meant to be in a landfill. so you buy a new product, planning the obsolescence of what you buy from the start. pragmatic example: think of all the shit college kids buy and then throw out after the semester is done, only to re-purchase the same exact plastic junk three months later -- when another semester begins. plastic mops, buckets, dishes -- nearly everything in the current market is designed under the pretext of planned obsolescence.
what does that mean for the environment? bad results, people. the world is dying precisely because of predatory capitalism. my biology textbook says that 1/4th to half of ALL biodiversity will die in the next fifty years. you know what this means? this means benevolent plants in the rainforest won't be discovered, it means polar bears and panda bears and all sorts of insects will share the same fate as the dodo bird, and it means more sickness for your children and their children. why? because all the stuff we have has literally dug us an early grave.
you can't be in the red forever, especially when it comes to biology. so be an economist when you move: analyze your needs and wants. and if this means saving a mop so you don't re-buy one in another three months, so be it.
ps. "organic" means government regulation. "natural" means shit. buy organic, and buy local. or, better yet, start a compost heap and grow your own garden. just know what's in that soil before you do.
here's an unhappy little dose of reality, folks: the term natural don't mean shit. don't believe me? let's think of the reciprocal for a second. what is the inverse of natural? i guess artificial. what exactly is artificial on this earth? i guess plastic and partially-hydrogenated oils and diamond rings made out of old pets. but economy is weird; companies know that in this neo-treehugger world, everyone wants to do their part and be green through buying power. so they tout how natural they are.
the sad part about this great capitalistic country of ours is that companies reign supreme; they'll spend thousands on ad campaigns after they've donated a fraction of that to charity. it's sort of like that exercise to test true philanthropy -- would you donate a huge sum of money to something anonymously? if not, you're a douchebag. but i'm not really surprised that corporations and trusts and companies are douchebags: part of capitalism is sleaziness.
in the 20s and 30s, when consumerism in the way we know it now was on the rise, "planned obsolescence" was the premiere marketing strategy. what does it mean? it means that to hide the true cost (or lack thereof) of a product's value, companies purposefully design products that are meant to be in a landfill. so you buy a new product, planning the obsolescence of what you buy from the start. pragmatic example: think of all the shit college kids buy and then throw out after the semester is done, only to re-purchase the same exact plastic junk three months later -- when another semester begins. plastic mops, buckets, dishes -- nearly everything in the current market is designed under the pretext of planned obsolescence.
what does that mean for the environment? bad results, people. the world is dying precisely because of predatory capitalism. my biology textbook says that 1/4th to half of ALL biodiversity will die in the next fifty years. you know what this means? this means benevolent plants in the rainforest won't be discovered, it means polar bears and panda bears and all sorts of insects will share the same fate as the dodo bird, and it means more sickness for your children and their children. why? because all the stuff we have has literally dug us an early grave.
you can't be in the red forever, especially when it comes to biology. so be an economist when you move: analyze your needs and wants. and if this means saving a mop so you don't re-buy one in another three months, so be it.
ps. "organic" means government regulation. "natural" means shit. buy organic, and buy local. or, better yet, start a compost heap and grow your own garden. just know what's in that soil before you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
