Calla's Sixty-Third Post

I am writing this sentence to remind you: I don't edit this stuff. I just ramble. It's not cause I'm dumb. Its cause blogs aren't homework. They're a place to rant. I ranted A LOT below this. Consider yourself warned.

So, ignorant people ANNOY me. We were talking about Opportunity NYC in class today, ya know the Conditional Cash Transfer program currently in it's pilot stages in New York City, and my goodness me are there social conservatives at my school!! Now, Opportunity NYC has a lot a lot of problems. It can be criticized from both the left and the right, and I will criticize it from the left momentarily, but I did not expect to hear all these people criticizing it from the right in my "Making a Difference" class. Why these people went to The New School is pretty much beyond me. And why they were let in is also beyond me. But, Tabby said you have to let diverse people into a school and what not, right? And I understand the merits of diversity in institutions; I do. Especially if it is an undergraduate institution. But I think when someone is in a graduate program at the NEW SCHOOL should be somewhat more progressive. (seriously, if you don't believe me, look it up.) I mean, the stupid class I was in "Making a Difference: Global, Organizational and Individual Perspective on Social Change" was conceived as a college-wide REQUIRED class so we could all be indoctrinated on how important a progressive ideology is. (The creators of the class, of course, won't admit this. But sit in on one class and you will know it is true.) So, my point is: why are all these students with adverse ideologies accepted into a school with a mission to, and I quote FROM the New School's website, " prepare and inspire its 9,400 undergraduate and graduate students to bring actual, positive change to the world." Private Universities ARE nonprofits. They exist to serve a specific purpose. The New School's purpose is clearly stated. It seems like Mission Drift to let all these social conservatives into the University.

Well, perhaps I might maybe explain what happened. So, Opportunity NYC is SUPPOSEDLY based on Mexico's Oportunidades (formerly Progresa). These are programs which offer money, not subsidies or vouchers–– actual money, to those living in poverty as long as the program participants fulfill given obligations. Well, I'm not going to get into the merits of Oportunidades, because the program is highly successful; I mean 1 in every 4 Mexicans benefiting from it highly successful. Also, from the 2 book chapters and 3 articles I read about it, I don't see anything wrong with it. Seriously, it's not controversial. No one in my class even talked about it. Opportunity NYC is the controversial one.

I first saw mention of Opportunity NYC when CNN did it's whole "Black in America" thing and those 4th graders were getting paid to do well on tests. So, the program requires parents to stay employed, school-aged kids to go to school and DO WELL in it, + the normal things like go to the doctors regularly, go to Parent-Teacher conferences etc. Probably, if you have the least bit critical mind, you are seeing a problem with this program, because right or left, there ARE PROBLEMS. Well, I sit here, and I think about how horrendous it is that we are putting blame on children for not doing well in school instead of on the failing school systems, and how the worst possible thing a person could do is raise the stakes even MORE when it comes to tests. (I think there might be a post about this somewhere, but I don't know.) Basically, high stakes testing is a total joke already. The tests are written with an unintended bias towards white middle-class students. The tests don't prove that children can learn, but that they can memorize. The culture they create in classrooms–– one of route memorization, the banking system, irrelevant subject matter, stressful work environment, isolated subjects, lack of creativity, and no critical thinking skills–– is both detrimental and dehumanizing. Furthermore, it has been shown through studies done by Friere and the likes, that tests don't actually test aptitude. Your SAT scores don't actually reflect how well you will do in college. Oh, and the requiring parents to keep a job to get paid, that is counterintuitive. If a parent loses his/her job through no fault of his/her own and can't find another one because of a job shortage like the one we are currently experiencing, well, the last thing that individual needs is the Opportunity NYC money to stop flowing. Am I right? So, this is what I thought we would find objectionable in Mayor Bloomberg's plan. That and I thought perhaps some well-meaning individuals would find it condescending to imply poor people need extra motivation to do the right thing while middle class or wealthy people don't. (I don't think that is at all what is implied by the program, but ya know, overly-sensitive, liberal, straight, white, males who are always trying to overcompensate for their undue privilege by acting offended for everyone else's sake probably would say that.) But, much to my shock and gag-reflex people were all:

I think it's wrong to pay people for what they should be doing anyway.

Parents are supposed to be invested in their children's life without getting paid.

I understand Mayor Bloomberg is trying to force all these parents to be good parents, but you can't make people do what's right.

I don't personally understand the culture of poor people not taking care of their kids properly because I'm white and from a farm and have always had opportunities and a steady career, but since that's the way it is, I think it's good that this program is in place to inspire people to care for their children someway. (I KID YOU NOT THAT IS A SUMMARY OF WHAT SOMEONE SAID. . . he was a white male, but I'm not sure if he's straight.)

I think it skews people's values. People need to value education for what it is, not because it pays. What are these kids gonna do when they graduate and aren't getting paid to go to college, are they going to go?

Since in poor communities education isn't valued properly, I think it works to put a monetary value on it, so individuals can tell what it's worth.

Alright, two of those weren't even criticisms, they were praises of the program but for DISGUISTING reasons. THESE PEOPLE ARE MORONS. Here is what I gathered their opinions are: poor people don't care about their kids, we must pay poor people to do the 'proper' thing, poor people don't understand the value of education. Alright bitches, I bet all of them can understand the value of education better than you can because you probably took it for granted your whole life where these parents, who are struggling to pay bills, pay the rent, keep their kids out of trouble, WISH they could have what you have so that life WOULDN'T be so hard. Not to generalize because I'm sure some people in my class are from low income families and communities, but, my gods, these people in class blabbing about how poor people don't know the value of education most likely don't understand the value of it themselves because they've never had to struggle without one. Furthermore, how DARE they accuse parents of not wanting what's best for their children because they don't have time to go to a frakken PTA meeting. I mean really, if you are a single parent working multiple jobs and you have the choice between going to work to make money so your electricity doesn't get cut off or going to a Parent-Teacher conference, well, I guess that's up to you what you would do. But I'm damn sure gonna make sure my babies have electricity and running water and a safe place to come home to before I'm gonna sit down and chat with their teachers. My babies can tell me themselves how they're doing in school, and we won't end up in transitional housing or a homeless shelter, thank-you-very-much! But, if you pay me $25 for that hour of my time, hell ya! That's more than I'd be making at work anyway, and yes I'd gladly be MORE involved in my child's life if I had the means to do so. . . And, maybe I already WAS making every effort and going to these meetings, but at the cost of less nutritional meals 'cause all I could afford after missing that hour of work was HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP filled food. Oh and now we all have diabetes.

OK, you get my point. These people are not ok with me. I don't know outa what world they fell, but they need to go back. . . NOW. And Tabby and I were talking about how probably they are not Republican. Probably they do not consider themselves conservative. Maybe they consider themselves fiscally or socially liberal. BUT they are, in part, social conservatives. You saw all that "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" bullshit, did you not? Somehow, because these parents don't have time to go to conferences, don't have the resources to make annual doctor's appointments, they are bad parents? They don't CARE about their kids? bullshit. You know its bullshit. We aren't necessarily talking about abusive crack-head parents, and even if we were I bet I could make a case for them caring about their kids anyway. We are talking about people who grew up in the ghetto, and who are raising their kids in the ghetto, who have no hope of getting out of the ghetto because that's where their moms were raised too. We are talking about multi-generational poverty brought on by unfortunate and despicable social problems and failed policy solutions. Living in poverty does not make you a bad parent. It makes you damn busy. PLUS, a lot of these parents probably already WERE doing these things. It's not like Bloomberg targeted people who weren't doing these things. He targeted poverty-stricken families who may or may not have been doing these things, but why should that matter? Why NOT redistribute the wealth in their favor? They are working harder than all those damn morons in the financial sector who make millions and billions.

BTW, my parents DID have the means and time to take me to the doctor's and dentist and they still didn't. I have been to the dentist 3 times in my life and once was after I had already graduated high school. This has nothing to do with not caring. It has to do with certain a level of organization that many people lack. So yes, I understand most children are covered by health insurance, but if people don't have basic organizational skills, and why would they necessarily have ever gained these skills if they themselves did not have the opportunity to finish school and balance college and a job at the same time (Most people who do finish school and finish college still come out lacking in the organizational department), why should they be expected to remember to make a doctor's appointment when they are worried about how they're gonna get their next meal? THEN, how should they find the time to get their child to it? I am so rambly. I am repeating myself a lot, I know. It just really really bothered me.

Love,
Calla and her Kitties. (MEOW)


(I need to take more pictures)

Post no. 11

So, I have never read The Omnivore's Dilemma. I am not an omnivore, so I assume I have no dilemma. (haha. Most of you have a dilemma and I don't!!) OK, well today I was with a fellow vegan at virgin megastore who happens to be insecure about all of his/her beliefs. (Not just to do with food. This particular person has the tendency to NEED to be right about everything, so if s/he reads something which goes against his or her beliefs s/he freaks out that s/he may be wrong and needs reassurance.) So, this friend was browsing Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, and s/he demanded that I read about two pages of it and then justify my position on veganism and animal rights.

OK, so this guy is either a complete moron or I am missing A LOT. What I gathered was his argument against veganism from the 2 pages I read (and I am admitting I only read two pages. . . but I don't care to read the rest because, like I said, I am not the one with the dilemma.): point 1: Vegans are just crazy idealists who can't actually make a difference because people will always eat meat.
point 2: We would kill more animals if everyone stopped eating meat because of all the field mice that die during the harvest of crops, all the birds that die from ingesting pesticide laced grains, and all the earth we would have to turn into fields thus stripping other animals of their habitat.
point 3: In parts of the world where people rely on meat because their land is not conducive to growing crops, the amount of food which would need to be imported would cause mass pollution.
point 4: We would be ever further removed from nature if we stopped eating flesh.

Alright, so I am sure there is more that he wrote that is interesting. Additionally, I have been told his main overarching point is that everyone should eat locally grown or raised organic food and that everyone who eats meat should be willing to kill the animals him/herself. And also, he does not like factory farming. So, it turns out I agree with him on all these points. (Though I am guilty of buying bananas and some food that is not organic. I prefer to buy organic and I buy all other fruits/veggies and my bread from the local farmer's market. Also, I eat at restaurants that do not buy local.) But, I still think he is a moron because:

My response to point 1: Most likely child molestation, murder, rape, theft, abuse, etc. will not ever be eradicated in my lifetime. So, should I just engage in these practices because I am being too unrealistically idealistic if I don't participate in the evils of the world? Um, last I checked, no. Just because I choose not to participate in something I deem immoral doesn't mean I am naive. It means I am living what I perceive to be an ethical lifestyle.

I am reminded of a conversation that took place before class one day. I was talking to this other vegan and she was telling me about the "chicken" salad sandwich she had just bought that she would soon proceed to eat. She said, "It actually tastes like chicken, which I personally like." Her friend interrupted us to respond with, "If you like the taste of chicken, why don't you eat a chicken?" To which the said vegan rejoined, "hmm, crack tastes good. . . I better go smoke it. UM NO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS." (ok, this is a little off topic, but I love love the anecdote. She responded so quickly it was so funny.)

But basically, my point is that I shouldn't be unethical because "everyone else is doing it." How old are we? Oh I forgot we must be 13 year olds and we must be talking about nicotine use.

My response to point 2: Does anyone else think this is just stupid? Last I checked, (and maybe things have changed since then. . . maybe we feed cows more dead cows than we used to. . .) it takes ten pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. If we simply stop raising animals for food, milk and eggs and stop breeding them, we have more than enough fields in place to feed the nation. We don't need new fields. We need to remove some of that government subsidized corn for shizzle and diversify the fields. . . But we don't need anymore fields! Thus, no excess birds and field mice need die. Seriously. I was just downright confused by this argument. He neglected to mention we must FEED the animals that omnivores proceed to eat. I don't get why he thinks there aren't enough fields if the population of farmed animals is dramatically decreased.

Now, this was, thankfully, not one of the points that I read in the two pages of Michael Pollan's book. However, it is worth mentioning because the argument I just made will naturally lead some people to this point that I have heard reiterated mindlessly more times than I can count. That is, farmed animals only exist because humans eat them. If humans ceased to eat them, they would go extinct. And isn't it better to exist than to not exist? I have a response to this which I feel I must share in case someone who reads this jumps to that conclusion.

OK, so firstly, I don't think it's fair to assume farmed animals would go extinct if we stopped breeding them. Many people have grown to feel about pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, etc. the way people feel about dogs and cats. Naturally, some people who have room for chickens or cows will want chickens or cows. (Consider that farm sanctuary is always finding homes for their animals with loving vegetarians and vegans.) Thus, the argument that they will cease to exist is void.

Secondly, I don't get it. Farmed animals are not a necessary part of our ecosystem, why do all these people care so much about their potential extinction but I don't see them trying to conserve animal habitats elsewhere or trying to prevent global warming which is wiping out many species of plants and animals. This is clearly just a (really crappy) excuse. "I eat the animals to save them. . . drrrr." WEIRDOS.

Thirdly, animals ARE INDIVIDUALS. If an individual chicken isn't ever born, guess what there is no way for the nonexistent chicken to care about not existing. Think about this, something that doesn't exist DOESN'T EXIST. There are no feelings. There is nonexistence. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS AN ARGUMENT. There is not like a mass chicken consciousness just as there is not a mass consciousness for humanity. When a person is not conceived because a couple was intelligent enough to use a condom, YOU DON'T KNOW AND YOU DON'T CARE. Chickens will not care if they go extinct. They will have no way to know because they will not exist. I don't know how else to explain this to you. If farmed animals went extinct, which they wouldn't even if people stopped using their flesh for personal gain, it wouldn't matter. The ecosystem wouldn't be effected and also the animals wouldn't be around to care.

That has nothing to do with Michael Pollan as far as I know. (just in case you forgot.)

My response to point 3: I would just like to point out that, according to most studies, people who do not eat meat and do not buy locally do more for the environment than people that both eat meat and buy locally. Additionally, how many people do you know that buy locally? I am not going to say it doesn't happen. I know a few who only buy local. But most people ALREADY buy a mix of local and non-local. (Like I said, we buy bananas.) So, I don't really get the argument. You are not going to have a sudden surge in people who were buying strictly local buying only imported foods. It's just not going to happen.

Furthermore, uh, CHINA. How many people who "only buy local" buy everything that is not food from ACROSS THE WORLD? (A lot.) If Michael Pollan is so worried about people needing to import items why isn't he lobbying to bring industry back to the United States so we can stop polluting the earth with things made in China? That would probably be more beneficial than arguing we should eat meat. (Do you know how many resources go into raising animals for meat!?)

My response to point 4: So what? That is honestly my response. Go on a nature retreat. Lobby for community gardens so more people can experience growing their own food. Push for green space in cities. Go apple picking and berry picking. Eat raw food. I dunno; go get chased, and potentially mauled, by an abused tiger trapped in a circus act. There are better ways to "get in touch with nature" than eating innocent and abused animals. That's it. That is all I have to say.

So, that is my response to the two pages. The guy seems ignorant for sure. I can only imagine what I would have to write if I read the whole book. It woulda been yucky for positive.



Now, this is unrelated. It has recently been brought to my attention that most people EDIT their blogs! They like write rough drafts of things and proofread and weird things. Well, I don't do that. That doesn't sound like fun. I mean, what is this? School? No. It's not school. BUT just so you don't think I am a complete moron, I would like to point out that I do have some school papers as blog posts on here. If you don't believe me that I can write well, you should read one.

Another unrelated. There is a commercial with cute little monster friends!! They are small and little! And I want one to be my friend. I would kiss her/her facey for sure!! Tabby said s/he would be named Lizardo. (The commercial is for some job search website called ladders or something.)

That's it. That is all. The end.

Calla's Thirty-Third Post pt. 2

In 2008 there was one post per week on average. That was the plan from the get go, in case you were curious about that.

Calla's Third Post

I am not lying about the Ghost Bands. . . (That is what this post should be titled. Instead it is titled Calla's Third Post.)

So really, I thought you might like to know about the Ghost bands. . . (Not that there is a you since no one reads this.) John Allison made the ghost band. The ghosts are orange and they sing about stealing ambulances and crashing them into lakes. One of them looks depressingly sad in a humorous sort of way. I am not lying. This is all for real. You can even ask John himself. John@scarygoround.com is his e-mail address. Basically this ghost band is one of three things that are the funniest things ever. I will break out in hysterics when I see this orange band on my dark green shirt.

I will also laugh a lot a lot a lot from something I once read on wikipedia. Since wikipedia is all the time edited, I saved this sentence from it in a text edit titled "funny like a ghost band" so that it would always be safe. This is what it says: This was the first game created by Bradley, a successful lithographer, whose major product until that time was a portrait of Abraham Lincoln with a clean shaven face, which did not do very well once the subject grew his now-famous beard. Right now I am laughing so hard. Oh my Oh my Oh my. That is the strangest sentence!! AH I love it! It is in reference to (ASIDE: Tabby is telling me to stop laughing. He gets annoyed when I laugh like this unstoppable.) the Game of Life.

The third thing that is funny is lost forever. It is a picture my younger brother drew when we was in eighth grade. It is supposed to be a business card for his occupation as a painter. (ASIDE: This SAVES ALL THE TIME. WOW!) He had to do it for art class. Basically it is a picture of what appears to be a short man of Mexican heritage with the words "Tu Necesitas Un Pintor?" "Yo Soy Pintor!" The man in the picture was wearing an oversized sombrero. As I think about it now, maybe he wasn't short. He just looked short in his giant giant hat. Basically that is beside the point. The point is I pictured a midget running around on the street pulling at people's shirts to get their attentions and yelling, "Tu necesitas un pintor!? YO SOY PINTOR!" –– yelling like he was a superhero or something unfathomably amazing like that. Seriously. . . this picture made no sense. For years to come my brother only had to do so much as look at me, raise a fist in the air, and calmly say, "I am painter" for me to lose it. I don't know where the picture is. . . but man that memory is thoroughly great.

Hmmm. . . what else? Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is full of highly entertaining songs. You should watch it on the internet.

Love, Calla and YES MY KITTIES ARE BOTH IN THE ROOM!!

This picture is funny too! She's saying, "Get your butt outa my face please!!!"











SURPRISE!!!!! This is what the ghost band looks like. . . Look at the sad frowny-face on the left!!