What I'm reading: 2001: A Space Odyssey
What I'm watching: The Purge
What I'm listening to: Halcyon, Ellie Goulding
Mood: energized
Smells: clean air
Sounds: pleasant Jewish chit-chat
Temperature: 40 degrees
Thoughts: I have too many ideas and no time/money/support to pursue most of them.
11.12.2013
8.21.2013
Beards.
Today we're going to talk (irreverently) about an always timely issue: the use (and abuse) of facial hair. As a woman, I won't tell a man what to do with his own face, but as a human being, and a citizen of this country, and an owner of two eyeballs, I must take a stand: ALL BEARDS ARE NOT EQUAL.
I think we can all agree that a nicely trimmed beard is universally acceptable. (This includes the several stages of stubble growth that precede an actual beard, which, probably more than any other style, is the 'sexiest') All things in moderation! It's already going to be a daunting task, heading into the post-chauvinist future that I foresee, getting men to understand that a polished appearance is not the sole purview of women, so we might as well start with something as fundamental as the beard.
Done right, a nicely trimmed beard puts a whole new spin on a familiar face and gives just an extra dash of masculine to a Romeo:
Images courtesy of telegraph.co.uk, ebony.com
A great beard can also do an Eliza Doolittle on a guy only known as a nerd:
Of course, it's easier to nerd a hot guy down than to beautify the less aesthetic. These cats don't get in the movies for no reason.
Now, some men, for probably a vast number of impenetrable reasons, prefer to grow their beards out way past the point of civility, hygiene, or aesthetics. More obvious reasons are personal style, cultural identification, and being stranded on a desert island. Regardless, a mangly, tangly, darn-near offensive beard always adds up to one thing: DEAR GOD WHY.
Images courtesy of austintownhall.com, nymag.com
Now, I realize I've posted a couple of extremes. But sometimes, that's the only way to make a point. Gentlemen, the word is maintenance.
I was going to post a photo of Zack Galifinakis, whom I hold as the standard-bearer for what an awful beard can do to an otherwise probably not-ugly guy. But Photobucket wouldn't resize it - it, too, could not bear the awfulness.
While we're on the subject, let me go ahead and proclaim the death of the ironic mustache. To keep it real, the ironic mustache was dead on arrival. It's not funny. It's not hip. It's not the seventies and you're not Tom Selleck. If I see even so much as one more, so help me. So help me.
I think we can all agree that a nicely trimmed beard is universally acceptable. (This includes the several stages of stubble growth that precede an actual beard, which, probably more than any other style, is the 'sexiest') All things in moderation! It's already going to be a daunting task, heading into the post-chauvinist future that I foresee, getting men to understand that a polished appearance is not the sole purview of women, so we might as well start with something as fundamental as the beard.
Done right, a nicely trimmed beard puts a whole new spin on a familiar face and gives just an extra dash of masculine to a Romeo:
Images courtesy of telegraph.co.uk, ebony.com
A great beard can also do an Eliza Doolittle on a guy only known as a nerd:
Of course, it's easier to nerd a hot guy down than to beautify the less aesthetic. These cats don't get in the movies for no reason.
Now, some men, for probably a vast number of impenetrable reasons, prefer to grow their beards out way past the point of civility, hygiene, or aesthetics. More obvious reasons are personal style, cultural identification, and being stranded on a desert island. Regardless, a mangly, tangly, darn-near offensive beard always adds up to one thing: DEAR GOD WHY.
Images courtesy of austintownhall.com, nymag.com
Now, I realize I've posted a couple of extremes. But sometimes, that's the only way to make a point. Gentlemen, the word is maintenance.
I was going to post a photo of Zack Galifinakis, whom I hold as the standard-bearer for what an awful beard can do to an otherwise probably not-ugly guy. But Photobucket wouldn't resize it - it, too, could not bear the awfulness.
While we're on the subject, let me go ahead and proclaim the death of the ironic mustache. To keep it real, the ironic mustache was dead on arrival. It's not funny. It's not hip. It's not the seventies and you're not Tom Selleck. If I see even so much as one more, so help me. So help me.
8.15.2013
Welcome to the lower-middle class.
So, apparently in order to help their employees learn to survive financially, McDonald's partnered with Visa to come up with a sample monthly budget based on a yearly after-tax income of $24,720; I (per the usual) read an article about it recently and found it interesting how some in the media find so many people's financial situations absurd. Here is what I mean:
The amount allotted for rent/mortgage is $600. The Washington Post article states, "When I lived in St. Louis, my roommate and I each paid $425 per month for our comfortable two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment in one of the city’s nicer neighborhoods. My then-girlfriend was paying less than $500 a month for a one-bedroom apartment." Um, this is exactly true for me! (It helps that I live in St. Louis) My roommate and I currently pay exactly $425 for exactly such an apartment in exactly such a location. And my last apartment, which was one-bedroom, never reached $500 in rent even with increases every year for five years.
Now, for someone living in New York, L.A./San Francisco, Dallas, Phoenix, etc., no, you will not find great apartments on the cheap - but a McDonald's worker likely has quite a different living situation figured out that has nothing to do with renting a great condo overlooking Lake Michigan, or even living alone at all. The article says quite nicely, "Gawker’s Neil Casey calls $600 per month for rent a “laughably small” figure, but Casey should spend more time outside the Northeast Corridor."
Other items in the budget are: $100 for savings, $150 for car payment, $90 for electric, and $100 for "other." The daily spending goal is $27. Matthew Yglesias, in a Slate article, says, "your $27 dollars a day needs to cover your gasoline, and minor details like food and clothing along with entertainment."
Here's the deal: once my bills are paid, I can live on $27 a day. This doesn't mean that I won't go over or that there are never emergencies; but it's the goal. I didn't spend a dime today! Didn't need to. There's gas in my tank and food in my cupboards. I didn't need anything so I didn't buy anything. And in a few days when I see something I want, I'll feel comfortable buying it because I know I've been frugal.
And what's wrong with living within one's means? We all know that in the largest cities, the cost of living is much higher, and generally, wages reflect that. But why are clothing and entertainment and dining out always considered so important? Aren't there other ways to spend one's time? Sure there are. Read a book; watch a DVD you already own and really like; go jogging; become addicted to Pinterest; start a blog; visit your elders; tutor schoolkids; volunteer at the food pantry. And on, and on, and on. None of those things cost a cent beyond the cost of gas.
There was a time when people only ate the food they had grown, wore the clothes they had sewn, and relied on each other for conversation and diversion. None of us has ever lived such a life and so we don't realize that it's possible to be fulfilled - and make ends meet - without a really nice salary and material goods.
There is one small catch, however: this sample budget assumes that the fast food employee has another job. Because you know they're not making $13 and $14 flipping burgers. Which opens up a whole other conversation: if McDonald's knows that they don't pay livable wages, why even put on the pretense? Why insult your workers by saying, 'Here's how to live well financially - but work another full-time job.' Perhaps they're presuming their workers live in a two-income household??
Anyway, I found the sample budget (minus the second job assumption) to be quite realistic and normal, and also something that those above lower-middle class obviously find hard to comprehend. This is the reality, folks. This is the majority now. The middle class is disappearing; the depth of greed to which businesses and corporations have sunk since 2008 is absolutely mind-boggling, and affects every one of us even if not directly. It's time to simply start living within our means and learning to find fulfillment beyond the dollar, because the country's situation isn't going to change any time soon.
Editor's note (hee hee): obviously the above scenario is not ideal for those with children or those with more than their share of credit card debt. Or both. There are plenty of situations, in fact, in which the sample budget falls short, but the point of the blog post is living within one's means.
The amount allotted for rent/mortgage is $600. The Washington Post article states, "When I lived in St. Louis, my roommate and I each paid $425 per month for our comfortable two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment in one of the city’s nicer neighborhoods. My then-girlfriend was paying less than $500 a month for a one-bedroom apartment." Um, this is exactly true for me! (It helps that I live in St. Louis) My roommate and I currently pay exactly $425 for exactly such an apartment in exactly such a location. And my last apartment, which was one-bedroom, never reached $500 in rent even with increases every year for five years.
Now, for someone living in New York, L.A./San Francisco, Dallas, Phoenix, etc., no, you will not find great apartments on the cheap - but a McDonald's worker likely has quite a different living situation figured out that has nothing to do with renting a great condo overlooking Lake Michigan, or even living alone at all. The article says quite nicely, "Gawker’s Neil Casey calls $600 per month for rent a “laughably small” figure, but Casey should spend more time outside the Northeast Corridor."
Other items in the budget are: $100 for savings, $150 for car payment, $90 for electric, and $100 for "other." The daily spending goal is $27. Matthew Yglesias, in a Slate article, says, "your $27 dollars a day needs to cover your gasoline, and minor details like food and clothing along with entertainment."
Here's the deal: once my bills are paid, I can live on $27 a day. This doesn't mean that I won't go over or that there are never emergencies; but it's the goal. I didn't spend a dime today! Didn't need to. There's gas in my tank and food in my cupboards. I didn't need anything so I didn't buy anything. And in a few days when I see something I want, I'll feel comfortable buying it because I know I've been frugal.
And what's wrong with living within one's means? We all know that in the largest cities, the cost of living is much higher, and generally, wages reflect that. But why are clothing and entertainment and dining out always considered so important? Aren't there other ways to spend one's time? Sure there are. Read a book; watch a DVD you already own and really like; go jogging; become addicted to Pinterest; start a blog; visit your elders; tutor schoolkids; volunteer at the food pantry. And on, and on, and on. None of those things cost a cent beyond the cost of gas.
There was a time when people only ate the food they had grown, wore the clothes they had sewn, and relied on each other for conversation and diversion. None of us has ever lived such a life and so we don't realize that it's possible to be fulfilled - and make ends meet - without a really nice salary and material goods.
There is one small catch, however: this sample budget assumes that the fast food employee has another job. Because you know they're not making $13 and $14 flipping burgers. Which opens up a whole other conversation: if McDonald's knows that they don't pay livable wages, why even put on the pretense? Why insult your workers by saying, 'Here's how to live well financially - but work another full-time job.' Perhaps they're presuming their workers live in a two-income household??
Anyway, I found the sample budget (minus the second job assumption) to be quite realistic and normal, and also something that those above lower-middle class obviously find hard to comprehend. This is the reality, folks. This is the majority now. The middle class is disappearing; the depth of greed to which businesses and corporations have sunk since 2008 is absolutely mind-boggling, and affects every one of us even if not directly. It's time to simply start living within our means and learning to find fulfillment beyond the dollar, because the country's situation isn't going to change any time soon.
Editor's note (hee hee): obviously the above scenario is not ideal for those with children or those with more than their share of credit card debt. Or both. There are plenty of situations, in fact, in which the sample budget falls short, but the point of the blog post is living within one's means.
8.09.2013
Robert Pattinson has a black twin.
Although technically, Chiwetel Ejiofor is not black, he's British; I heard recently that 'black' is a distinctly American designation.
So, British Robert Pattinson has a twin in fellow Britsh actor Chiwetel Ejiofor. I submit the following evidence:
Images courtesy of www.collider.com and www.fanpop.com
Notice the similarity in the nose, the general face shape, the low eyebrows, and the eyes themselves. As if you have to look that hard. It's even more obvious if you see a live version of Ejiofor - which you can this fall, in the movie 12 Years a Slave.
In my long history of noticing how some people look eerily similar to other people - of different races - I typically get a response along the lines of, "No they don't!!!" Some folks, who shall remain nameless, actually appear offended at the idea. Which frustrates me. It's one thing to clear-headedly explain why they don't see the similarity, but another to have a knee-jerk reaction. In exactly what manner will the world end if a white person has to share facial features with a black person, or a Hispanic, or an Asian, etc.? Isn't race just a social construct anyway?
Besides, something like 60 billion people have lived on this planet. To assume that not a single person of one race has ever just randomly looked like a person from another race is a little naïve. You don't even need science to back that up.
My one regret is that I've never kept a list of people who I've found to look so eerily similar to each other. I just happened to be watching Love, Actually for the first time last Christmas, in which Ejiofor's character marries Keira Knightly's character (gasp), and I was all, "OMG, who does he remind me of?!"
So, when I happen upon another set of twins, I shall blog about it here. Sans rant. :)
So, British Robert Pattinson has a twin in fellow Britsh actor Chiwetel Ejiofor. I submit the following evidence:
Images courtesy of www.collider.com and www.fanpop.com
Notice the similarity in the nose, the general face shape, the low eyebrows, and the eyes themselves. As if you have to look that hard. It's even more obvious if you see a live version of Ejiofor - which you can this fall, in the movie 12 Years a Slave.
In my long history of noticing how some people look eerily similar to other people - of different races - I typically get a response along the lines of, "No they don't!!!" Some folks, who shall remain nameless, actually appear offended at the idea. Which frustrates me. It's one thing to clear-headedly explain why they don't see the similarity, but another to have a knee-jerk reaction. In exactly what manner will the world end if a white person has to share facial features with a black person, or a Hispanic, or an Asian, etc.? Isn't race just a social construct anyway?
Besides, something like 60 billion people have lived on this planet. To assume that not a single person of one race has ever just randomly looked like a person from another race is a little naïve. You don't even need science to back that up.
My one regret is that I've never kept a list of people who I've found to look so eerily similar to each other. I just happened to be watching Love, Actually for the first time last Christmas, in which Ejiofor's character marries Keira Knightly's character (gasp), and I was all, "OMG, who does he remind me of?!"
So, when I happen upon another set of twins, I shall blog about it here. Sans rant. :)
8.07.2013
Who wants to live forever?
Doesn't matter. Futurists, scientists, and multimillionaires are hard at work finding ways to ensure that a pesky thing like the life cycle becomes obsolete. I read with much interest an article on livescience.com about the Global Future 2045 International Congress held in New York this past June, during which much ado was made about uploading human brains so that our minds can live on well past our 'best by' date.
I will quote directly:
But would such a mindclone be alive? Rothblatt thinks so. She cited one definition of life as a self-replicating code that maintains itself against disorder.* Some critics have shunned what Rothblatt called "spooky Cartesian dualism," arguing that the mind must be embedded in biology. On the contrary, software and hardware are as good as wet ware, or biological materials, she argued.
I will quote directly:
[Martine] Rothblatt introduced the concept of "mindclones" — digital versions of humans that can live forever. She described how the mind clones are created from a "mindfile," a sort of online repository of our personalities, which she argued humans already have (in the form of Facebook, for example). This mindfile would be run on "mindware," a kind of software for consciousness. "The first company that develops mindware will have [as much success as] a thousand Googles," Rothblatt said.
But would such a mindclone be alive? Rothblatt thinks so. She cited one definition of life as a self-replicating code that maintains itself against disorder.* Some critics have shunned what Rothblatt called "spooky Cartesian dualism," arguing that the mind must be embedded in biology. On the contrary, software and hardware are as good as wet ware, or biological materials, she argued.
The title of her talk? "The Purpose of Biotechnology is the End of Death."
The concept isn't startlingly new; in this summer's Man of Steel, Jor-El is no longer a hologram in the Fortress of Solitude by way of a crystal - he is his actual consciousness uploaded into a ship's mainframe (via pretty much a flash drive). The father that Clark Kent interacts with is a three-dimensional digital clone, with Jor-El's memories, personality, and love.
Further:
By 2045, "based on conservative estimates of the amount of computation you need to functionally simulate a human brain, we'll be able to expand the scope of our intelligence a billion-fold," [Ray] Kurzweil said.
[Dmitry] Itskov and other so-called "transhumanists" interpret this impending singularity as digital immortality. Specifically, they believe that in a few decades, humans will be able to upload their minds to a computer, transcending the need for a biological body. The idea sounds like sci-fi, and it is — at least for now. The reality, however, is that neural engineering is making significant strides toward modeling the brain and developing technologies to restore or replace some of its biological functions.
So, if someone wishes to surpass their mortal limitations - or even if perhaps they are paralyzed and somehow medical science is not quite up to par yet - they can upload their mind and live in a computer. Or something.
I'm no Luddite; this stuff sounds pretty cool. But I do have two main contentions.
Regardless of the speed and complexity that computers achieve in the future, how can we leave biology out of the picture and still believe that total replication of the human mind is possible? It has been incredibly helpful to describe brains in computational terms, but brains are not only computers, and they are not digital, and they certainly weren't created by man. Any mind clone will only ever be a cold calculation, a shadow of the person it claims to be. If people are okay with that, fine; pull up that creepy avatar of your grandmother and shoot the breeze.
Shakespeare's Hamlet said that death is the undiscovered country "from whose bourne no traveler returns." Ultimately we fear death because we have no idea what truly comes next - or because the idea of total annihilation is unacceptable. We will always try to find ways to cheat death, but is that really the answer? Sometimes things are the way they are because that's the way things are. Death is awful - but it also gives live all of its meaning. Perhaps if we focused more of our energy on living correctly and preparing for the end, facing it instead of running from it, we wouldn't be so scared.
But, I could be wrong. In 2045, or later, mind clones might be beautiful digital copies of loved ones we otherwise would never speak to again. In the year 2525 my consciousness just may be tooling around in a digital neighborhood with my digital consciousness friends, reminiscing on the days when most of the population still lived on Earth instead of scattered across the Milky Way.
Only time will tell.
*as opposed to, say, an unborn child
8.03.2013
You can only pick 2 books.
I was cleaning out my inbox the other evening when I came across an old article that I'd saved, entitled "What Two Books Would You Donate to Classrooms?" Of course I love a good challenge, and it reminded me of the end of The Time Machine, when the main character (named H. George Wells) returns to the far future with just three books.
I think with such a short list, you have to think less about 'what are the classics?' or 'how can I be as subtly subversive as possible?' and more about, what is it that I want schoolchildren to learn, and which books embody those lessons best?
I'll go ahead and get my first selection out of the way, because it's so automatic for me: The Giver, by Lois Lowry. I first read it as part of the curriculum in my ninth grade English class, and since then it has been my number one favorite book. Sure, it's for kids - but see, it's not. No other books outside of the philosophy and sociology books in my collection have given me so much to think about. Utopia is a tricky business that can't exist without a dark side, and Hollywood depictions, especially, mainly focus on the dark side ('see what evil lurks beneath the facade?!'); unfortunately that wipes away any chance of wrestling with a concept that we, tellingly, keep coming back to.
As contemporary readers, older schoolchildren can ask, what things in my world were done away with to create the Community, and why? Do I agree that they were negative enough to warrant this, or not? What would the Community be like if they had allowed just this one extra thing, or that one? Is it possible to achieve utopia without prohibiting individuality, spontaneity, choice? Why or why not?
Ultimately I think the world of The Giver opens up the opportunity to think about the realities of today, and what is and isn't good and/or necessary for a society that benefits everyone.
(It's highly likely this book is already on the shelves, but...oh well. Just in case)
My second choice has been more difficult. I've been on a kick lately wherein I'll lament to the nearest person that 'kids these days' don't read books that are even half as difficult as the ones I read growing up, or the ones my parents read; really, the print just gets smaller and smaller as you go back, contrarily the books actually get longer, and the prose is more complicated. George Orwell convinced me years ago that language is the key to human reasoning, and the more complex the language, the greater one's ability tonot be stupid use reasoning to elevate her or himself.
So I can't very well then go and pick an easy book as my second choice.
It will, then, be Great Books, by David Denby. I ran across this book in a summer college course on teaching literacy in the content area, headed by a great old guy who encouraged us to bring a few books to class each morning to share. This is one that he actually brought, and I borrowed it and devoured it, and then bought my own copy later on.
Succinctly, Denby took two classic literature (Western Civilization) courses at Columbia as research for his book, and his observations coupled with commentary from the actual professors and students make for fascinating reading. The works range from Homer to Sophocles to Machiavelli, to Locke and Hume, to Shakespeare, Nietzsche, and Woolf.
I know earlier I said my criteria was not going to include 'what are the classics?' I will clarify and say that I was not interested in choosing one classic book. With that said, Great Books is a perfect choice for two main reasons: it helps direct the reader toward thinking more critically about not only literature but life, which is my wish and goal for all students; and it's an excellent survey of the classics if you haven't read them and a course is not available. (Also, the print is small and it's almost 500 pages)
All right then. There you have it. Now what two books would you choose?
I think with such a short list, you have to think less about 'what are the classics?' or 'how can I be as subtly subversive as possible?' and more about, what is it that I want schoolchildren to learn, and which books embody those lessons best?
I'll go ahead and get my first selection out of the way, because it's so automatic for me: The Giver, by Lois Lowry. I first read it as part of the curriculum in my ninth grade English class, and since then it has been my number one favorite book. Sure, it's for kids - but see, it's not. No other books outside of the philosophy and sociology books in my collection have given me so much to think about. Utopia is a tricky business that can't exist without a dark side, and Hollywood depictions, especially, mainly focus on the dark side ('see what evil lurks beneath the facade?!'); unfortunately that wipes away any chance of wrestling with a concept that we, tellingly, keep coming back to.
As contemporary readers, older schoolchildren can ask, what things in my world were done away with to create the Community, and why? Do I agree that they were negative enough to warrant this, or not? What would the Community be like if they had allowed just this one extra thing, or that one? Is it possible to achieve utopia without prohibiting individuality, spontaneity, choice? Why or why not?
Ultimately I think the world of The Giver opens up the opportunity to think about the realities of today, and what is and isn't good and/or necessary for a society that benefits everyone.
(It's highly likely this book is already on the shelves, but...oh well. Just in case)
My second choice has been more difficult. I've been on a kick lately wherein I'll lament to the nearest person that 'kids these days' don't read books that are even half as difficult as the ones I read growing up, or the ones my parents read; really, the print just gets smaller and smaller as you go back, contrarily the books actually get longer, and the prose is more complicated. George Orwell convinced me years ago that language is the key to human reasoning, and the more complex the language, the greater one's ability to
So I can't very well then go and pick an easy book as my second choice.
It will, then, be Great Books, by David Denby. I ran across this book in a summer college course on teaching literacy in the content area, headed by a great old guy who encouraged us to bring a few books to class each morning to share. This is one that he actually brought, and I borrowed it and devoured it, and then bought my own copy later on.
Succinctly, Denby took two classic literature (Western Civilization) courses at Columbia as research for his book, and his observations coupled with commentary from the actual professors and students make for fascinating reading. The works range from Homer to Sophocles to Machiavelli, to Locke and Hume, to Shakespeare, Nietzsche, and Woolf.
I know earlier I said my criteria was not going to include 'what are the classics?' I will clarify and say that I was not interested in choosing one classic book. With that said, Great Books is a perfect choice for two main reasons: it helps direct the reader toward thinking more critically about not only literature but life, which is my wish and goal for all students; and it's an excellent survey of the classics if you haven't read them and a course is not available. (Also, the print is small and it's almost 500 pages)
All right then. There you have it. Now what two books would you choose?
2.16.2011
Whether you like it or not...
...Natalie Munroe is right. (Updated: the article no longer exists, because Yahoo is stupid) As usual, I will attempt to keep this brief.
Many kids today are exhibiting negative behaviors that result from poor (or lack of) parenting, school systems that have backed away from accountability, and a media that feeds them the most assanine ideas about social relationships and gender roles.
If you raise a child to believe that the most important thing is what they want in the moment - by tolerating temper tantrums instead of controlling them, by being overly apologetic, by coming across indecisive and weak, by giving them everything they demand - then that child will, really through no fault of their own, grow up with a distorted sense of their place in the world, and with little coping ability when their wishes are denied.
If you raise a child in avoidance of all pain, they will be unable to handle most forms of physical and emotional pain and struggle, they will become angry when confronted with situations that lower their level of contentment, and they will be incapable of doing those things which bring them greatest success - because great success is very difficult.
Children. Need. Standards. They need a bar that is set in plain view and they need to be told that it is their job, with parental guidance, to reach or exceed it.
Parents. Need. To. Discipline. If therapy is required for you to overcome the trauma of a light spanking when you were three, then get therapy. Only through limits, expectations, and correction will your children have a chance at being the best they can be, at contributing to our great society in beneficial ways, at having a single hope of maintaining functional, loving, other-directed relationships.
If you want your kid(s) to be angry, resentful, impatient, disrespectful, and distant, then go ahead and ignore standards and discipline and excellence. They will never truly be able to love you, and I can only believe they will accuse you of being a poor parent when they are finally grown (however long that now takes).
School districts need to equally respect the students and support the teachers, be an example and a guide for parents who may not have made the best choices, and always, ALWAYS expect the best from everyone involved. The only way to truly leave a child behind is to let them believe they're still in the race.
The media needs to stop portraying all kids as entitled brats and parents as impotent bystanders; I firmly believe that when this began, the most impressionable adults fell for it, and the disease spread from there.
Some people believe that the "disengaged, lazy whiners" Ms. Munroe lets off steam about in her blog will be hit with the hard reality of the capitalist workforce and true self-sufficiency once they become adults. Some will; some will adjust, however grudgingly. But I believe that enough of them will fight back against this sudden influx of rules and standards and rigidity to stage a quiet revolution. To bring an already crippled economy and social structure to its knees and then a painful, irreversible death.
I hope I am wrong. The comments on the article linked to above show that there are many, many people who recognize the problem, understand its roots, and feel the time has come to do something before it's too late.
My question is - will we?
Many kids today are exhibiting negative behaviors that result from poor (or lack of) parenting, school systems that have backed away from accountability, and a media that feeds them the most assanine ideas about social relationships and gender roles.
If you raise a child to believe that the most important thing is what they want in the moment - by tolerating temper tantrums instead of controlling them, by being overly apologetic, by coming across indecisive and weak, by giving them everything they demand - then that child will, really through no fault of their own, grow up with a distorted sense of their place in the world, and with little coping ability when their wishes are denied.
If you raise a child in avoidance of all pain, they will be unable to handle most forms of physical and emotional pain and struggle, they will become angry when confronted with situations that lower their level of contentment, and they will be incapable of doing those things which bring them greatest success - because great success is very difficult.
Children. Need. Standards. They need a bar that is set in plain view and they need to be told that it is their job, with parental guidance, to reach or exceed it.
Parents. Need. To. Discipline. If therapy is required for you to overcome the trauma of a light spanking when you were three, then get therapy. Only through limits, expectations, and correction will your children have a chance at being the best they can be, at contributing to our great society in beneficial ways, at having a single hope of maintaining functional, loving, other-directed relationships.
If you want your kid(s) to be angry, resentful, impatient, disrespectful, and distant, then go ahead and ignore standards and discipline and excellence. They will never truly be able to love you, and I can only believe they will accuse you of being a poor parent when they are finally grown (however long that now takes).
School districts need to equally respect the students and support the teachers, be an example and a guide for parents who may not have made the best choices, and always, ALWAYS expect the best from everyone involved. The only way to truly leave a child behind is to let them believe they're still in the race.
The media needs to stop portraying all kids as entitled brats and parents as impotent bystanders; I firmly believe that when this began, the most impressionable adults fell for it, and the disease spread from there.
Some people believe that the "disengaged, lazy whiners" Ms. Munroe lets off steam about in her blog will be hit with the hard reality of the capitalist workforce and true self-sufficiency once they become adults. Some will; some will adjust, however grudgingly. But I believe that enough of them will fight back against this sudden influx of rules and standards and rigidity to stage a quiet revolution. To bring an already crippled economy and social structure to its knees and then a painful, irreversible death.
I hope I am wrong. The comments on the article linked to above show that there are many, many people who recognize the problem, understand its roots, and feel the time has come to do something before it's too late.
My question is - will we?
1.27.2011
Crack a book.
Well, I hate for my first post of the year to be a rant, but what can you do. I'll keep it short.
"Just because you graduated college and make 30k/yr doesn't mean you're intelligent. Memorizing information on a page and spitting it back is intellect a monkey could be trained for - don't flatter yourself." -- some idiot on a message board
I realize that dumping on the act of getting a college degree is the new black, but once again I find my feathers ruffled by the overwhelming illogic of "arguments" like these. I hear them more and more. Before I continue, I of course have to qualify all this by saying that not going to college does not mean you're not smart or successful. Or a good person, or anything like that. It's not for everybody. I understand.
But it's pretty obvious to me that statements such as the one above are just the pathetic whining of a growing populace who either did not go to college or did but couldn't hack it, and is now using muddled postmodern feel-good tactics to ease their self-perception and bolster a tarnished self-esteem. And really, is this new? How often do we hear others bring someone down not in spite of, but because of their achievements?
Every single person who goes through the gilded gates of higher learning may not be brilliant, or come out brilliant, but does that mean they should not take advantage of the opportunities that exist to better themselves? I'm sorry if the person you work with is just a bum with a degree--it happens. But idiots like the one quoted above are simply vicious, lazy thinkers who assume (likely unwittingly) that if they bark loud enough about how stupid everyone else is, no one will realize just how much they themselves are lacking.
And don't even get me started on what kind of person actually thinks monkeys sit around reading books and reciting them back to their trainers.
Anyway--if people continue to tear down the value of continued learning (so they can feel better about how much they don't know), where does it end? What's next, high school's unimportant? Junior high? School in general? Because just going to school doesn't mean you know anything!
Basically, these kinds of "arguments" can most likely be traced back to a desire to eliminate standards, so that those who don't fit the status quo can manufacture their own prominence using faulty logic and wishful thinking, rather than skills or wisdom. Expect this to continue for a while.
"Just because you graduated college and make 30k/yr doesn't mean you're intelligent. Memorizing information on a page and spitting it back is intellect a monkey could be trained for - don't flatter yourself." -- some idiot on a message board
I realize that dumping on the act of getting a college degree is the new black, but once again I find my feathers ruffled by the overwhelming illogic of "arguments" like these. I hear them more and more. Before I continue, I of course have to qualify all this by saying that not going to college does not mean you're not smart or successful. Or a good person, or anything like that. It's not for everybody. I understand.
But it's pretty obvious to me that statements such as the one above are just the pathetic whining of a growing populace who either did not go to college or did but couldn't hack it, and is now using muddled postmodern feel-good tactics to ease their self-perception and bolster a tarnished self-esteem. And really, is this new? How often do we hear others bring someone down not in spite of, but because of their achievements?
Every single person who goes through the gilded gates of higher learning may not be brilliant, or come out brilliant, but does that mean they should not take advantage of the opportunities that exist to better themselves? I'm sorry if the person you work with is just a bum with a degree--it happens. But idiots like the one quoted above are simply vicious, lazy thinkers who assume (likely unwittingly) that if they bark loud enough about how stupid everyone else is, no one will realize just how much they themselves are lacking.
And don't even get me started on what kind of person actually thinks monkeys sit around reading books and reciting them back to their trainers.
Anyway--if people continue to tear down the value of continued learning (so they can feel better about how much they don't know), where does it end? What's next, high school's unimportant? Junior high? School in general? Because just going to school doesn't mean you know anything!
Basically, these kinds of "arguments" can most likely be traced back to a desire to eliminate standards, so that those who don't fit the status quo can manufacture their own prominence using faulty logic and wishful thinking, rather than skills or wisdom. Expect this to continue for a while.
12.31.2010
My 2010 music picks.
It's a tradition, you know.
"John Wayne," Sons of Sylvia
The first track on their album drew me in more than any of the others I previewed, and I love it for the epic heights they strive for, from the lead singer's unexpected vocal leaps into the stratosphere, to the audacity to tell a woman he's going to come save her just like John Wayne would. Before all the American Gothic ticks were smoothed out of their creativity, this song slipped through, a little dusty, a little dangerous, and all heart.
"It Is What It Is," Lifehouse
Though the height of their fame came ten years ago, Lifehouse is still one of the best groups around. Their latest album felt a little more uneven than the others, but this song, with its slightly R&B flourishes and seriously effortless melody, is mellow and earnest at the same time, and really never gets old.
"You Lost Me," Christina Aguilera
I raved about this after she performed it at the AI finale, and the recorded version proves that sometimes nothing can match the raw emotion of a live song. Still, it's out of place on a mostly throwaway album for its simplicity and haunting arrangement, and I have to give props once again to Sia for writing this song out of the depths of her totally eccentric and fascinating soul.
"Paris (Oo La La)," Grace Potter and the Nocturnals
This band does vintage rock 'n roll and blues and does them well. I saw this performed on the Tonight Show and was blown away. It's gritty, it's got swagger, and it even feels a little dirty though it's not (I think). Grace's voice is captivating. I love it when a group creates a guitar and rhythm lick that's completely infectious and makes me want to dance to it, which I should not be doing.
"God Willin' and the Creek Don't Rise," Ray LaMontagne and the Pariah Dogs
The title song from his fourth studio album is the best one, and again, I've raved about it here. Ray is just a genius. That's it. It's like he has access to this place juuuuust beyond our own dimension, and he just reaches in and pulls out melody after gorgeous melody, and sets them to perfect lyrics. You need to own all of his albums, but if you're wary, start with this song.
"Islands," Shakira/The xx
Everything Shakira does is fabulous, but that's beside the point; this song off her latest Spanish-language album (but sung in English) is particularly fabulous, and I was surprised to find out it was a cover of an original by The xx. It's just that the lyrics sound exactly like what she normally writes herself. Anyway, her version is breezy, summery, yellow, danceable; the British group's version is low-key, a little brooding, and obviously very hip. I think they wrote a great song, and you should check them out.
"Straight to You," Josh Groban
Unfortunately in our current society, an un-ironic man singing un-ironic lyrics is a strange thing, to be held at bay and regarded suspiciously. This is why Josh will always just kind of be on the outside, doing what he does. (Well, that and he got famous singing classical crossover in other languages) His latest album is a much better reflection of him. This song is beautiful. That's all, it's just beautiful, and as it's a cover of a song from 1991, it was reworked to be this kind of ethereal moment in time. (The original? Not so much) And the words just slay me. "And the sky will throw thunderbolts and sparks/Straight at you/But I'll come running/Straight to you..."
"Roll Away Your Stone," Mumford and Sons
So I just got their album two days ago. Typically when some band is poised to be the next big thing, I shy away; can't explain it, I just do. But I also want to support real music, and they obviously have it in spades. They're a London-based folk group, guys in their twenties, who create very earnest and tightly-drawn songs; some are boot-stompers, some are more delicate. My favorite so far is "Roll Away Your Stone," but I kind of get the feeling this is an album where my favorite will keep changing, until I love 'em like a Ray LaMontagne.
Any good music to share? ;-)
"John Wayne," Sons of Sylvia
The first track on their album drew me in more than any of the others I previewed, and I love it for the epic heights they strive for, from the lead singer's unexpected vocal leaps into the stratosphere, to the audacity to tell a woman he's going to come save her just like John Wayne would. Before all the American Gothic ticks were smoothed out of their creativity, this song slipped through, a little dusty, a little dangerous, and all heart.
"It Is What It Is," Lifehouse
Though the height of their fame came ten years ago, Lifehouse is still one of the best groups around. Their latest album felt a little more uneven than the others, but this song, with its slightly R&B flourishes and seriously effortless melody, is mellow and earnest at the same time, and really never gets old.
"You Lost Me," Christina Aguilera
I raved about this after she performed it at the AI finale, and the recorded version proves that sometimes nothing can match the raw emotion of a live song. Still, it's out of place on a mostly throwaway album for its simplicity and haunting arrangement, and I have to give props once again to Sia for writing this song out of the depths of her totally eccentric and fascinating soul.
"Paris (Oo La La)," Grace Potter and the Nocturnals
This band does vintage rock 'n roll and blues and does them well. I saw this performed on the Tonight Show and was blown away. It's gritty, it's got swagger, and it even feels a little dirty though it's not (I think). Grace's voice is captivating. I love it when a group creates a guitar and rhythm lick that's completely infectious and makes me want to dance to it, which I should not be doing.
"God Willin' and the Creek Don't Rise," Ray LaMontagne and the Pariah Dogs
The title song from his fourth studio album is the best one, and again, I've raved about it here. Ray is just a genius. That's it. It's like he has access to this place juuuuust beyond our own dimension, and he just reaches in and pulls out melody after gorgeous melody, and sets them to perfect lyrics. You need to own all of his albums, but if you're wary, start with this song.
"Islands," Shakira/The xx
Everything Shakira does is fabulous, but that's beside the point; this song off her latest Spanish-language album (but sung in English) is particularly fabulous, and I was surprised to find out it was a cover of an original by The xx. It's just that the lyrics sound exactly like what she normally writes herself. Anyway, her version is breezy, summery, yellow, danceable; the British group's version is low-key, a little brooding, and obviously very hip. I think they wrote a great song, and you should check them out.
"Straight to You," Josh Groban
Unfortunately in our current society, an un-ironic man singing un-ironic lyrics is a strange thing, to be held at bay and regarded suspiciously. This is why Josh will always just kind of be on the outside, doing what he does. (Well, that and he got famous singing classical crossover in other languages) His latest album is a much better reflection of him. This song is beautiful. That's all, it's just beautiful, and as it's a cover of a song from 1991, it was reworked to be this kind of ethereal moment in time. (The original? Not so much) And the words just slay me. "And the sky will throw thunderbolts and sparks/Straight at you/But I'll come running/Straight to you..."
"Roll Away Your Stone," Mumford and Sons
So I just got their album two days ago. Typically when some band is poised to be the next big thing, I shy away; can't explain it, I just do. But I also want to support real music, and they obviously have it in spades. They're a London-based folk group, guys in their twenties, who create very earnest and tightly-drawn songs; some are boot-stompers, some are more delicate. My favorite so far is "Roll Away Your Stone," but I kind of get the feeling this is an album where my favorite will keep changing, until I love 'em like a Ray LaMontagne.
Any good music to share? ;-)
11.26.2010
A very special Domesticated Friday.
It's special because 1) it's basically my Thanksgiving post, and 2) it involves actual cooking. O_O
So today, let's talk dressing.
Although Stove Top dressing really is good, it obviously pales compared to dressing made from scratch. And, I think it's important for younger generations - not just old folks - to know how to make staples such as this, because tradition is crucial and knowing how to do something yourself is becoming an increasingly lost art. I'm not a cook by any means, but I understand the importance of the skill. (The real skill. Not just microwaving Hot Pockets. Which I just did)
Please note: the recipe is for Thanksgiving, and presumes that you will be feeding at least 10 hungry people; there will be enough left over to freeze and use for Christmas, too! You're welcome. =)
P.S. You also may want to have an assistant.
So, here's what you'll need:
6 eggs
1 1/3 cup milk
4 tbsp butter
1 bottle of sage
3 loaves white bread
4 boxes Jiffy cornbread
1 full stalk of celery
2 onions
1 jar chicken bouillion cubes
2 packages Italian sausage (five links/pckg)
Salt, pepper
1 mixing bowl
1 large bowl
1 ginormous roast pan
So today, let's talk dressing.
Although Stove Top dressing really is good, it obviously pales compared to dressing made from scratch. And, I think it's important for younger generations - not just old folks - to know how to make staples such as this, because tradition is crucial and knowing how to do something yourself is becoming an increasingly lost art. I'm not a cook by any means, but I understand the importance of the skill. (The real skill. Not just microwaving Hot Pockets. Which I just did)
Please note: the recipe is for Thanksgiving, and presumes that you will be feeding at least 10 hungry people; there will be enough left over to freeze and use for Christmas, too! You're welcome. =)
P.S. You also may want to have an assistant.
So, here's what you'll need:
6 eggs
1 1/3 cup milk
4 tbsp butter
1 bottle of sage
3 loaves white bread
4 boxes Jiffy cornbread
1 full stalk of celery
2 onions
1 jar chicken bouillion cubes
2 packages Italian sausage (five links/pckg)
Salt, pepper
1 mixing bowl
1 large bowl
1 ginormous roast pan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)