What is one to do with a $481.00 non-refundable ticket that one doesn't wish to use? I suppose it could be transferred to another time and place, costing $180.00 in the process. I could take a $301.00 trip on the $481.00 ticket and it could all be fine and dandy.
And I would consider it too if it weren't for Callista. I don't want to miss her.
There is a logic somewhere in this madness; and I'm the one who has it, despite accusations that I am unreasonable and wrong.
And it may be unreasonable from one perspective. We are all, after all, subject to our positionality. And if it is unreasonable, that does not make it wrong. You can continue to 'reasonably' destroy the planet while I remain stubbornly unreasonable until I contribute to a definitive difference in the world around me. Those who aspire only to what is reasonable seldom enact positive social change.
Gandhi was unreasonable.
I am sick of being held hostage by the dominant social norm. Hegemony, I will not be your submissive.
Though I will be labeled "selfish," "bitchy," "childish," "immature," and I'm sure the list goes on, how am I more of these than those on the other side? I am not. I appear so because the common discourse is not on my side.
Baltimore public schools: Meatless Mondays. Lou Dobbs says it’s a political storm in the making. Glenn Beck says its indoctrination. Why are the "Got Milk?" posters decorating our school cafeterias not accused of the same?
Oh right, dominant social discourses . . . Meat is not murder. Milk is not theft. And these products will not cause diabetes, cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, colon problems, global warming, water shortages, world hunger, deforestation, pollution, community destruction, avian flu, swine flue, mad cow disease, E. Coli, workers' rights violations, exploitation, or death. (by the way: they already do.)
I do not want to fly across the country. Sitting on a plane for over 5 hours is not a pleasant experience. I do not want to be called "psycho" or "a brat." (I will be.) I do not want to spend my days off of work and school away from my home and my things and my cats. I do not want to have a screaming and crying match with the people I love. (I will.) I do not want this headache, these stomach cramps, these shaky hands or nervous thoughts that have been following me since Sunday night. I do not want to fly across the country.
And if I don't? Others will have leverage to refuse to do the same come January. And if I do and we resort to fighting? I will be the one at fault by hegemony's law.
Some background information: Thanksgiving is on my birthday. I prefer not to be around symbols of the fallen world on any given day. But I assumed birthdays had leveraging power. (BTW, I was wrong. People are more sentimental about Thanksgiving than Birthdays. You may need that information in the future.) I asked if we could not have a turkey, but could have other items made with animal products. This was shot down. I asked if we could have a turkey and no other items contributing to the problems outlined in a ramble above. This was also shot down, despite my offer to do the cooking. Some people were worried some other people wouldn't come unless they could indulge all their destructive sentiments. And if I am threatening not to come, that is crazy. That is unreasonable. That is unfair.
And that is your background information. This is the last time I will be using my Birthday to ask for a gift.
I will also be a brat when I refuse their birthday cake or gifts that someone may have bothered to get me. (I will accept something from Callista. Something from Chris. Everyone else needs to stop kidding themselves . . . If they ever were.)
If this wretched holiday of gluttony and greed had not fallen on the marginally less wretched (though much more vain) holiday of my birth, I never would have thought to ask for such an apparently unreasonable gift.
I think my family is harder than most. I say this not only because I've had my fair share of stepmoms, so the rules are always changing, but also because I know other people's families. I know a couple that is getting married this weekend, and they are cooking an all vegan Thanksgiving for their families on Thanksgiving. (This is something I didn't even consider asking. I know people hold deadly sentiment too dear.) I know people who have gotten family members to go completely vegan for a week or a month in honor of birthdays. My husband's extended family has gone to vegetarian restaurants to celebrate birthdays that weren't even ours just to be respectful. People have suggested I offer to cook the meal if I want it to be vegan, as if this would solve the problem . . . Because to reasonable people, it would. To a normal family, having all the sides vegan would not be a big deal . . . especially if Thanksgiving fell on a vegan's birthday and that vegan offered to do all the cooking.
(This is what is unreasonable: I wanted to spend the day doing something I don't enjoy and have that be my sole birthday present.)
Gluttony, gluttony--the deadly sin that kills (see rambling list above if you would like to know how.)
I hate this situation. I don't want to even fly across the country. This would not make things better. People would still say, "Where's Calla?" and the response would still be, said in a snarky tone, "Oh, she refused to come because we didn't make the side dishes vegan." (For the record, I didn't ask you to make the side dishes vegan. I asked you to let ME make the side dishes vegan.) So, this would not make things better in terms of call and response . . . but at least I wouldn't have to see these people. No one would come by my sister's house before or after the meal, see me there, and lecture me about how stubborn and bitchy I am.
I am stubborn. I am not bitchy. I am quite the opposite of bitchy. I care too damn much. I care about animals, and people, and the environment, and this makes me unable to take part in the dominant social discourse. I won't sit down at your selfish table of gluttonous lies. "
"Thanksgiving." Can you imagine giving thanks for global warming? For an unsustainable use of land and water? For cancer? For diabetes? For theft? I can't. And I won't. And I won't be a part of this dinner. And I will bear the brunt of, "Stop acting crazy and just COME" because I have a $481.00 ticket and a 5 year old to visit.
These nerves and shakes and pains are making it hard to get through the days. And I don't want them anymore. And I don't want to fly across the country and watch others soak up sentiment.
Too upset to find a picture.
Showing posts with label Not Logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Not Logic. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Calla's Seventy-Fifth Post
It is hard for me to fathom the way some people exist. I cannot put myself in others' shoes. Perhaps this is a bad quality. On the other hand, why would I want to exist in the limiting minds that abound so plentifully?
So, there is this man. And he is a man with whom I have never gotten along. But, I could never quite put my finger on WHY. Something was always a little off about him. He always seems to be trying just a little too hard to be fulfilled. Ya know the type of guy who still travels to India during summers even though he's well beyond the age of "finding himself." (Not that I buy into that notion to begin with.) That's the type he is. And it always irks me the wrong way. I thought it was just that we have such different values, and even the values we share we've arrived at from opposing sides. BUT I FIGURED IT OUT PRECISELY TODAY.
He is so damn anthropocentric! Know WHY he needs to backpack across Europe at the age of 40 or whatever it is that he does? He feels he is in this position of privilege. (and as he is a white, human, male living in the U.S. I suppose it would be hard to argue otherwise.) As he is a human, he can think, feel, reason, emote, express himself, etc, etc, etc. These are his God-given rights. And they are given to mankind above all other animals. THAT IS THE WAY HE THINKS. He feels he is naturally privileged above everything else. He was just born that way. He was born better than tigers, great white sharks, the poor lovely white possums (first mammal extinct because of global warming
This is what led me to my discovery. (My discovery about THE REASON WHY I don't like him.) He had a blog post about ethics, and the way the word 'ethics' is being used to express things beyond human to human relationships. He was surprised by this. Surprised that people talk about "ethical" hunting (as if killing something out of greed could ever be ethical). He thought it was just crazy how the word ethical is passing species lines.
Excuse me. . . but, what? Ethics were ever bound by human relations? Since when? I don't know if it's true that ethics come from religion, but aren't there arguments about that? In which case, wouldn't that already be man to god(s) relationships? Aren't there traditions of, say, Kosher laws, which dictate only one ethical way to slaughter something? HOW ANTHROPOCENTRIC TO THINK HUMANS CAN ONLY BE ETHICAL WHEN ANOTHER HUMAN IS INVOLVED. What about the Christian doctrine of being good stewards of the earth? Why is this a new concept to him.
So, Tabby said that this strange man might know something about the etymology of the word ethics or what not. Maybe it did originate as meaning humans duties to other humans or something. But, that's beyond the point. To honestly believe that ethics have not always been extended across species is ignorant and self-assuring. Furthermore, to believe humans are the only ones who HAVE ethics is equally absurd. People asserting such rubbish are just looking for a way to legitimize their elevated social status above other species. Science is now showing that animals beyond humans have ethics.
Experiments on rats (I know, downright evil. Not genuinely ethical on the people's part.) show that rats won't take food if it causes another rat pain. That is not some survival of the fittest, Darwinism, evolution stuff. That is quite the opposite. That is a rat making an ethical decision to put another above him/her self, possibly leading to her/his own demise. Chimpanzees don't show aggression to disabled members of their societies. Once again, an ethical decision. Dolphins and Whales alike experience empathy for the same biological reason humans do. (Something about spindle cells. . . ?)
The point is this: Even IF ethics has some etymology restricting it to human-to-human relationships, and even IF non-human animals are not capable of the same intellectual reasoning as mankind, the fact of the matter remains: humans have always held ethics that transcended inter-personal relations and animals also have their own moral codes––without all the Kantian mumbo-jumbo behind them––that do not have to do with the survival of the fittest. Ergo, the concept of ethics (perhaps not the word) has never been restricted to a discussion of human interaction with other humans. And the fact that this one man would ever surmise as much made me realize why I do not like him. He is a bad person precisely because he places so much damn stock in being a person.
Don't get me wrong. Often I enjoy being a person. I tool feel privileged that I am at the top. I too enjoy the ability to use critical discernment. But I don't spend my life making sure I experience culture and the arts and grappling with impossible theoretical concepts just because I CAN and others can't. I spend my life trying to make a better place for all sentient beings with the understanding that God created us all. God created animals for his glory, and guess what else! He asked that we have just dominion over them. That means a responsibility to them to behave ethically where they are involved.
The End.
Love,
Calla and the Kitties.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Post no. 15
Some people get confused about God and free will and the question of evil. Calvinists especially bother me a lot. (They are oh so heretical.) I could go on about Calvinists forever. And I will someday probably. But for now, let me just clear this up for you.
God created free will.
God is good.
Corruption of good, is by definition, not good.
(Evil is the corruption of good.)
So, corruption of free will, our choosing evil–– a corruption of a good–– as opposed to choosing one of the multiple goods, is wrong.
Free will is not wrong.
And God is not bad.
That is all.
P.S. "The Holy Spirit is my homegirl!" [Picture cute little white-dove girl with head cocked to the side] HAHAHAHA. I made up that shirt in my head and I want it on me so bad!!! Doves are SO CUTE.
God created free will.
God is good.
Corruption of good, is by definition, not good.
(Evil is the corruption of good.)
So, corruption of free will, our choosing evil–– a corruption of a good–– as opposed to choosing one of the multiple goods, is wrong.
Free will is not wrong.
And God is not bad.
That is all.
P.S. "The Holy Spirit is my homegirl!" [Picture cute little white-dove girl with head cocked to the side] HAHAHAHA. I made up that shirt in my head and I want it on me so bad!!! Doves are SO CUTE.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Post no. 14
Mob mentality is a strange feature of humanity–– an odd collective of raw human emotion, which I am apparently currently experiencing in part. I'm not talking about this strange tea party phenomenon where people who enjoy wasting a lot of money on tea pollute waterways to symbolically protest wasteful government spending. I don't really get that one. . . at all. It doesn't seem to prove a point, or demonstrate much. And these people don't know what 'representation' means if they think they are being taxed without it. . . Unless they come from D.C.–– then that just sucks.
No, I am writing about the protests that have been raging at The New School as of late. Now, there has been, shall we say, tension, between various groups at the New School since last semester. And by "groups of the New School" I pretty much mean group a: Bob Kerrey and his henchmen vs. group b: everyone else. There was a 95% vote of no confidence by all New School staff (part-time, full-time, tenured alike) in Bob Kerrey back in December, and, around the same time, over 100 students occupied a building demanding Kerrey resign. I don't feel like getting into the details. Basically, we've had a billion and a half provosts since Kerrey's time here. When the last one left he appointed HIMSELF provost, effectively putting all the university's power in the business side of the university and none in the academia. This, on top of losing important student space, was too much. It was covered by the Times and what not. Just Google it, or Wikipedia it.
Well, so, you see, what had happened after these protests was Kerrey started operating in a MORE transparent way. He un-appointed himself as provost. He put staff on the search committee for a new one. He promised the students some more space. He started sending out a billion and a half e-mails about our financials, etc. etc. But, he didn't resign. And this is what the students wanted. So, people are still freaking the frak out.
I didn't really get it at first. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) It is clear Kerrey's contract will not be renewed in 2010. Let's all just chill and let this thing run its course. I guess you could say, after the December vote and protests, I became complacent with the mediocrity of the situation. "Eh, it could be better, it could be worse, so let's just let this all sizzle out quietly" typa attitude. So, I didn't understand the continuation of fuss.
That's why, on Good Friday, when 22 students were arrested, most for breaking and entering into a building, I kinda didn't support them AT ALL. I thought that was a completely ineffective and immature way to go about. . . I wasn't really sure what it was all about. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) [also, that sentence has just gotta end in a preposition 'cause otherwise it sounds silly.] I guess they are protesting the fact that Kerrey has not resigned. I found this an absurd reason to break into a building.
So, I then saw a video of a friend of mine being beat up by the cops. Just flat out pushed on the ground and jumped on by four cops for "obstructing." No, for real, he did not break into the building. He was chilling outside intelligently not risking (or so he presumed) the master's degree he's about to (maybe, hopefully, one can pray) earn in five weeks. He yelled "shame on you" at the police for being violent to another protester. Well, for that he was pushed to the ground and brutally beaten by four officers. I've seen him since then and he's all bruised up. He is charged with "obstructing" and "resisting arrest." This has nothing to do with the New School. He did not break any laws besides 'obstructing' and, for real, if a cop can't do his job while someone is talking to them, the NYPD needs to hire better cops. I don't see how talking to a cop obstructs anything. Furthermore, you can't exactly resist arrest if you are pushed to the ground and attacked. So, my point is, he is suspended from school, and for what? For speaking his mind to a police officer in support of fellow students. This is no reason to get suspended. And pretty much it makes me not support the administration.
Well, I was still iffy on the whole thing, leaning towards "I agree with these students but not with their methods." It seemed a bit extreme to break into a building even if the administration of our school is a sham. The first protest was successful, peaceful, and all-well-and-dandy. This more recent one seemed ineffective, unorganized, and not-oh-so-very-well-and-dandy.
HOWEVER, I am slowly being sucked into the excitement. Today I again ran into said friend who was recently beaten by the cops. I didn't even recognize him cause he was all celebrity like with sunglasses and hat. (haha) They had an emergency assembly today called by the Lang Dean, followed by a march to protest police brutality and the works. So Tabby and I were discussing the situation again, and it is just flat out getting exciting. A Teacher's Assistant he had last semester is in one of the two student groups organizing these protests. She is part of New School in Exile. The other group is The Radical Student Union. (And I am discovering the latter is the ridiculous faction and the former may actually be filled with intelligent human beings.) We watched a video (the second one) of her speaking on Monday and Tabby got excited that she was distinguishing between the protesters inside the building and those outside instead of making a blanket statement that they are all terrorists or all godsends. Also she brought up a great point about our University having some protest policy where they must be pre-approved. .. uh, that's not a protest. Tabby also said he liked her a lot.
Well, THEN I found out Reverend Billy (who I am supporting for Mayor! HURRAH HURRAY!) spoke briefly at tonight's rally. He wasn't really planning on doing that. He had to be at NYU for some Mayor thing-a-ma-bob or NYU protest or something, but the New School protesters marched over to Washington Square Park. ANYway, Rev. Billy excites me. And this is when I felt the mob mentality kick in. I was all Reverend Billy is right, "He criticized what he sees as the corporate structure of the American higher education system." Well, of course there is a problem with the corporate structure of U.S. America's higher education system! So, then I feel myself wanting to blindly support these protesters because I like REVEREND BILLY'S point. . . Not cause I know what the protesters' point exactly is. (I think it has shifted into some weird collage about having the right to protest and not liking police brutality. . . idunno.) But I'm telling you, I was all "see Rev. Billy supports us! . . . I mean them. . . I mean. . . um. . . he said something intelligent about the higher education system that may or may not be related to the protests. . . "
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting moment of mob mentality. And I like the feeling of it and don't want to let it go, even though I know that would be the conscionable thing to do. Instead I wanna be part of this movement that may tear apart my University just because it's fun when a celebrity gets involved; and movements are sometimes cool; and hey, I need some excitement in my life. Strange, huh? I mean, mob mentality is a strange result of too much team spirit, for lack of better term. You know what I mean though, all these people feel like they're on one side against something else. . . And that can breed hostility towards that something else. And I've never particularly liked team spirit, or hometown pride, or patriotism, or any of that business. So, this is an odd moment in my life. What does it say about me? Perhaps I HAVE become too emotional without enough reason. . . but then I wouldn't be reasoning this out, now would I? So, idunno. I guess it is just something to analyze and resist.
A CUTE puppy and me two summers ago. I really need a hair cut! It needs to look like that again.
No, I am writing about the protests that have been raging at The New School as of late. Now, there has been, shall we say, tension, between various groups at the New School since last semester. And by "groups of the New School" I pretty much mean group a: Bob Kerrey and his henchmen vs. group b: everyone else. There was a 95% vote of no confidence by all New School staff (part-time, full-time, tenured alike) in Bob Kerrey back in December, and, around the same time, over 100 students occupied a building demanding Kerrey resign. I don't feel like getting into the details. Basically, we've had a billion and a half provosts since Kerrey's time here. When the last one left he appointed HIMSELF provost, effectively putting all the university's power in the business side of the university and none in the academia. This, on top of losing important student space, was too much. It was covered by the Times and what not. Just Google it, or Wikipedia it.
Well, so, you see, what had happened after these protests was Kerrey started operating in a MORE transparent way. He un-appointed himself as provost. He put staff on the search committee for a new one. He promised the students some more space. He started sending out a billion and a half e-mails about our financials, etc. etc. But, he didn't resign. And this is what the students wanted. So, people are still freaking the frak out.
I didn't really get it at first. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) It is clear Kerrey's contract will not be renewed in 2010. Let's all just chill and let this thing run its course. I guess you could say, after the December vote and protests, I became complacent with the mediocrity of the situation. "Eh, it could be better, it could be worse, so let's just let this all sizzle out quietly" typa attitude. So, I didn't understand the continuation of fuss.
That's why, on Good Friday, when 22 students were arrested, most for breaking and entering into a building, I kinda didn't support them AT ALL. I thought that was a completely ineffective and immature way to go about. . . I wasn't really sure what it was all about. (Honestly, I'm still not sure I do.) [also, that sentence has just gotta end in a preposition 'cause otherwise it sounds silly.] I guess they are protesting the fact that Kerrey has not resigned. I found this an absurd reason to break into a building.
So, I then saw a video of a friend of mine being beat up by the cops. Just flat out pushed on the ground and jumped on by four cops for "obstructing." No, for real, he did not break into the building. He was chilling outside intelligently not risking (or so he presumed) the master's degree he's about to (maybe, hopefully, one can pray) earn in five weeks. He yelled "shame on you" at the police for being violent to another protester. Well, for that he was pushed to the ground and brutally beaten by four officers. I've seen him since then and he's all bruised up. He is charged with "obstructing" and "resisting arrest." This has nothing to do with the New School. He did not break any laws besides 'obstructing' and, for real, if a cop can't do his job while someone is talking to them, the NYPD needs to hire better cops. I don't see how talking to a cop obstructs anything. Furthermore, you can't exactly resist arrest if you are pushed to the ground and attacked. So, my point is, he is suspended from school, and for what? For speaking his mind to a police officer in support of fellow students. This is no reason to get suspended. And pretty much it makes me not support the administration.
Well, I was still iffy on the whole thing, leaning towards "I agree with these students but not with their methods." It seemed a bit extreme to break into a building even if the administration of our school is a sham. The first protest was successful, peaceful, and all-well-and-dandy. This more recent one seemed ineffective, unorganized, and not-oh-so-very-well-and-dandy.
HOWEVER, I am slowly being sucked into the excitement. Today I again ran into said friend who was recently beaten by the cops. I didn't even recognize him cause he was all celebrity like with sunglasses and hat. (haha) They had an emergency assembly today called by the Lang Dean, followed by a march to protest police brutality and the works. So Tabby and I were discussing the situation again, and it is just flat out getting exciting. A Teacher's Assistant he had last semester is in one of the two student groups organizing these protests. She is part of New School in Exile. The other group is The Radical Student Union. (And I am discovering the latter is the ridiculous faction and the former may actually be filled with intelligent human beings.) We watched a video (the second one) of her speaking on Monday and Tabby got excited that she was distinguishing between the protesters inside the building and those outside instead of making a blanket statement that they are all terrorists or all godsends. Also she brought up a great point about our University having some protest policy where they must be pre-approved. .. uh, that's not a protest. Tabby also said he liked her a lot.
Well, THEN I found out Reverend Billy (who I am supporting for Mayor! HURRAH HURRAY!) spoke briefly at tonight's rally. He wasn't really planning on doing that. He had to be at NYU for some Mayor thing-a-ma-bob or NYU protest or something, but the New School protesters marched over to Washington Square Park. ANYway, Rev. Billy excites me. And this is when I felt the mob mentality kick in. I was all Reverend Billy is right, "He criticized what he sees as the corporate structure of the American higher education system." Well, of course there is a problem with the corporate structure of U.S. America's higher education system! So, then I feel myself wanting to blindly support these protesters because I like REVEREND BILLY'S point. . . Not cause I know what the protesters' point exactly is. (I think it has shifted into some weird collage about having the right to protest and not liking police brutality. . . idunno.) But I'm telling you, I was all "see Rev. Billy supports us! . . . I mean them. . . I mean. . . um. . . he said something intelligent about the higher education system that may or may not be related to the protests. . . "
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting moment of mob mentality. And I like the feeling of it and don't want to let it go, even though I know that would be the conscionable thing to do. Instead I wanna be part of this movement that may tear apart my University just because it's fun when a celebrity gets involved; and movements are sometimes cool; and hey, I need some excitement in my life. Strange, huh? I mean, mob mentality is a strange result of too much team spirit, for lack of better term. You know what I mean though, all these people feel like they're on one side against something else. . . And that can breed hostility towards that something else. And I've never particularly liked team spirit, or hometown pride, or patriotism, or any of that business. So, this is an odd moment in my life. What does it say about me? Perhaps I HAVE become too emotional without enough reason. . . but then I wouldn't be reasoning this out, now would I? So, idunno. I guess it is just something to analyze and resist.
A CUTE puppy and me two summers ago. I really need a hair cut! It needs to look like that again.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Calla's Sixty-Fourth Post
I am now officially on Spring Break. . . But I have so much a lot to do:
1) by Sat the 14th a have one midterm due
2) by Fri the 20th I have another midterm due
3) by Sun the 22nd I have an outline thing-y due.
4) I need to do all the interviews for my senior work, and don't even know how to go about it all
5) I need to start a draft (and preferably finish a draft) of my senior work.
Oh, I never even told you what my senior work was. I'll put it up in a minute. I'll put up the proposal and initial outline or something. It'll be swell (and probably boring to everyone who is not me.)
So, this is not a spring break. This is a spring I-have-more-to-do-now-than-I-do-when-it's-not-spring-"break." That is stupid. For real and for sure stupid.
Aw well. C'est la vie. (that is probably not how you spell that phrase. I don't know any French at all.)
It turns out I am really tired. I have a sort-of-flu thing going on. I wanted to write about all sorts of amazingly interesting things, like:
Revelation
LGBT - marriage?
Filet of Fish
Stupid Quote From a Yogi Tea Bag
More Michael pollan
37% divorce thingy
real life gataca
That is a list I was keeping for myself on Text Edit. Probably it means nothing to you. But it means something to me. So that is a list of 7 and I will talk about one right now and then go to sleepy-time-bed-time and put up the papers tomorrow as well.
I am going to tell you that in a poll 37% of marital/divorce lawyer people said they have seen fewer divorces since the recession. OK, this statistic is the dumbest statistic I maybe ever heard. It tells you (and me) nothing about the divorce rate. It tells you (and me) nothing about what the majority of those divorce lawyer people think. For all I know, after hearing that pointless stat, 63% of those people reported MORE divorces. Do you see the NOT LOGIC here? We are supposed to assume that the recession is keeping people from getting divorced. But the statistic doesn't even imply as much, and I don't know why everyone in this nation is so so dumb.
The end for now.
Love,
US PEOPLE AND ANIMALS
These are animals. But they're not my cats unfortunately. They are also made of metal.
1) by Sat the 14th a have one midterm due
2) by Fri the 20th I have another midterm due
3) by Sun the 22nd I have an outline thing-y due.
4) I need to do all the interviews for my senior work, and don't even know how to go about it all
5) I need to start a draft (and preferably finish a draft) of my senior work.
Oh, I never even told you what my senior work was. I'll put it up in a minute. I'll put up the proposal and initial outline or something. It'll be swell (and probably boring to everyone who is not me.)
So, this is not a spring break. This is a spring I-have-more-to-do-now-than-I-do-when-it's-not-spring-"break." That is stupid. For real and for sure stupid.
Aw well. C'est la vie. (that is probably not how you spell that phrase. I don't know any French at all.)
It turns out I am really tired. I have a sort-of-flu thing going on. I wanted to write about all sorts of amazingly interesting things, like:
Revelation
LGBT - marriage?
Filet of Fish
Stupid Quote From a Yogi Tea Bag
More Michael pollan
37% divorce thingy
real life gataca
That is a list I was keeping for myself on Text Edit. Probably it means nothing to you. But it means something to me. So that is a list of 7 and I will talk about one right now and then go to sleepy-time-bed-time and put up the papers tomorrow as well.
I am going to tell you that in a poll 37% of marital/divorce lawyer people said they have seen fewer divorces since the recession. OK, this statistic is the dumbest statistic I maybe ever heard. It tells you (and me) nothing about the divorce rate. It tells you (and me) nothing about what the majority of those divorce lawyer people think. For all I know, after hearing that pointless stat, 63% of those people reported MORE divorces. Do you see the NOT LOGIC here? We are supposed to assume that the recession is keeping people from getting divorced. But the statistic doesn't even imply as much, and I don't know why everyone in this nation is so so dumb.
The end for now.
Love,
US PEOPLE AND ANIMALS
These are animals. But they're not my cats unfortunately. They are also made of metal.
Monday, March 9, 2009
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)
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)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Calla's Sixty-Second Post
Do you know what H2O is? No, I am not talking about water. I am talking about this Australian TV show I saw the other day (being yesterday) that is so funny, I laughed like a ghost band! OK, the show itself isn't funny. The concept is hilarious, and thus the theme song is funny like a ghost band. SO, these three teenagers turn into mermaids anytime they get wet! HAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't GET IT. I don't get it AT ALL!!!! They are already made of 70% water, and what? they don't sweat or cry or even BREATHE on themselves. NO SENSE. It is so funny. This is what wikipedia said, and we all know wikipedia has quite a way with words (trying to be all serious about non-serious subjects so that I just crack the frak up!) Ok, this is what it said, "The show's premise revolves around three teenage girls facing everyday teen problems with an added twist: they're mermaids with powers over water." HAHAHAHA. Can you believe that? Oh, too great for words! Really, too too great.
The bad news, the show is filmed at SEA WORLD! EWWWW. Now, here's the thing with sea world. . . I've been an animal lover my whole entire life. So, when I was little I loved to go to the zoo and to Sea World (the one that used to be in Cleveland, which was right near where I used to live.) This is because I did not realize how evil Sea World is. They train animals, we all know that entails beatings and starvation. The animals live in areas too small to engage in their natural, God-given behaviors (ie: use sonar in the case of dolphins). They live in CHLORINE, which is horrendous for their health. Well, also, I'm not sure the Australian Sea World is connected to the U.S. chain, but nonetheless, it is a marine park with abused animals. This is sad to me. It hurts my heart a bit (as all animal abuse does.) I'm kind of a bad person, in that, I feel pretty vindicated (I don't know if that's the right word. I don't think it makes sense. I guess I feel vindication on the animal's behalf. ? .) any time a trainer of a wild animal (ie: someone who abuses God's creation at a circus or a marine park) gets attacked, mauled, or even killed. I'm not kidding. I'm a bad person. I think, "well, you shouldn't've been fucking around with wild animals asshole!" Firstly, it was just a mean thing to do. Secondly, it was just a dumb thing to do. Even house cats can rip holes in your flesh if(when) they want to. Why do you think a lion, whom you are pissing off by shoving a metal rod done his throat, won't one day snap and do the same!? And, probably, you deserved it, because you shoved a metal rod done an innocent animal's throat.
K, so that was the animal rant of the day. Today, for the animals, I wrote Trader Joe's about offering more vegan options. Probably that won't actually do anything. But I also resent the e-mail to the humane certified people because the one I sent yesterday got sent back to me because I typed the e-mail address wrong. So, that mighta been good. Perhaps I will make these people think more about these issues. And if they already consider them strongly, I will be better informed when I am recommending the products which are certified humane to other people.
So, know what else I want to mention? Short Bus. Man, I am one harsh movie critic. What is with all these so-called sex positive messages that turn out to be NOT sex positive!? Just a question. So, Short Bus was a'ight. It was not nearly as good as Hedwig (and how could it be if it wasn't a musical, right?), but it didn't completely suck upon first viewing. Some of the characters were quirky in a non-annoying way, their lives interwove in a believable fashion, all of the actors were good at acting, the ending wasn't so corny, though it was predictable, that you wanted to puke or anything horrible like that. So, it wasn't bad. It was just another hum-drum movie that I probably wouldn't watch ever again, but it didn't bother me on any level. It was only upon further contemplation that the movie got to me.
So, John Cameron Mitchel (if that's at all how you spell any of his names) started off wanting to make a sex-positive movie with real sex. That was seriously the goal. Something about how all the real sex in movies coming out of Europe represents something bad, and sex is something good. His movie, however, wasn't about sex. It was about human connection. And sex was used as a metaphor. So, he is still not positing a positive message about sex, rather he is positing a positive message about human connection. Additionally, in this world, where sex is equivalent to connection, there is no place for the asexual individual. I think I have talked about asexuality before on this blog in regards to the Kinsey Institute adding a 7 to Kinsey's 0-6 scale. (This is dumb. There should be two scales one for homo-hetero and one for a-hyper, if you are a 0 on the a-hyper one, you don't need to fit on the homo-hetero scale. However, people who are like a 1 [mostly asexual] still deserve another number.) Anyway, I think my point is about marginalizing a whole group of people who are currently misunderstood. I am not myself asexual, but I cannot STAND how people don't acknowledge that asexuality exists! In the world of Short Bus, they cannot exist, for if they did, they would have no way of connecting to other people.
Next: what is with the story of the woman not being able to cum!? This has been done so many other times. And it has been done WELL. (see: coming soon. Haha. It's brilliant) So, there is nothing inherently wrong with the story. But John Cameron Mitchel, as a gay male, does not know how to pull this one off. Additionally, to make the entire movie hinge on this one fact, which I admit is an important one in the life of the character, to the point where the FINAL moment is of her cumming, and then only show it for a split second! Like show the gasp and the "about to scream" and then cut to New York City's lights coming back on (Yeah, apparently her orgasm was so great it fixed the blackout) is just cheap. It is still as though, though this is the most important part of the film, the climax if you will (pun attended, hahaha!), you still cannot show it in all it's glory even though we've seen multiple males ejaculate. ANNOYING. Also, to equate it with the power coming back on makes it something special, as opposed to something a woman has every right to experience everyday the same way a man does.
And maybe I am reading too much into the woman cumming thing. And I think perhaps I don't even understand completely what I didn't like about it, but there was something that didn't sit right. If you are a womanist, a feminist, a sex-positive individual, a woman's rights activist, whatever, and you have seen this movie, perhaps you can share your opinion with me.
The other thing I didn't like was how it was such a male dominated cast. This is to be expected of a white, liberal, gay, male I suppose. (If you need me to explain that statement, chances are you wouldn't understand what I mean even after the explanation.) But it still bothered me. I am one of those annoying people who is always keeping score. (i.e.: whose name was shown first in the credits when the male and female lead had the exact same amount of screen time and shared equally in the role of protagonist?) I can't help it. I feel like the majority of people in this country like to assume and pretend that sexism is over, that women have equal rights, and equal treatment. This is not the case. And it is DEFINITELY not the case that women have equal representation in government jobs or high-end corporate positions. Forgive me for wanting to see them represented equally in Indy-Flicks.
Also, what is with the whole idea that this movie is not supposed to turn you on because it is not porn!? Now, it didn't really turn me on, that's most likely because I am probably only a 1 or 2 on the whole asexual to hypersexual scale that I invented. But, I can't see how it is not supposed to turn other people on. There is mad sex right in your face. And why is John Cameron Mitchel all opposed to porn in the first place!? You can't objectify all of these people's bodies for "art" and then say it's a crime against humanity that people are objectifying their bodies for the sake of sex and sex alone. (I did a whole post on this once. Go find it if you care.) If this was designed to be sex-positive, he should be happy to be showing sex for the sake of sex. (That should be a new movement, right? Sex for Sex's sake like Art for Art's sake, only we must be on a closer guard against venereal disease in this new movement I am proposing.) Am I wrong? Should he be showing sex for art's sake instead? Is that sex positive, or just art positive?
So, other than that, it WAS your run-of-the-mill Indy-Flick. Some "deep" movie with grand symbolic gestures that actually seem kind up shallow and useless when one puts on his/her analytical reasoning hat. Except it has real sex; this is how it is different. So, if you can't stomach that for one reason or another, don't see it. Otherwise, probably still don't see it 'cause you could spend that hour and a half or whatever watching actually meaningful things like Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men, My So-Called Life, or Wonderfalls. (Yes, these are all TV shows, not movies. But it stands that they are all better than most movies.)
OK.
That's all for now. I still don't have new kitty pictures, so I think I'll put up this bat picture from Halloween. See, 'cause I told you all about this bat, but I don't think I ever pasted up an image. And if I already have, forgive me for the re-run.
Love, Calla and her kitties.
The bad news, the show is filmed at SEA WORLD! EWWWW. Now, here's the thing with sea world. . . I've been an animal lover my whole entire life. So, when I was little I loved to go to the zoo and to Sea World (the one that used to be in Cleveland, which was right near where I used to live.) This is because I did not realize how evil Sea World is. They train animals, we all know that entails beatings and starvation. The animals live in areas too small to engage in their natural, God-given behaviors (ie: use sonar in the case of dolphins). They live in CHLORINE, which is horrendous for their health. Well, also, I'm not sure the Australian Sea World is connected to the U.S. chain, but nonetheless, it is a marine park with abused animals. This is sad to me. It hurts my heart a bit (as all animal abuse does.) I'm kind of a bad person, in that, I feel pretty vindicated (I don't know if that's the right word. I don't think it makes sense. I guess I feel vindication on the animal's behalf. ? .) any time a trainer of a wild animal (ie: someone who abuses God's creation at a circus or a marine park) gets attacked, mauled, or even killed. I'm not kidding. I'm a bad person. I think, "well, you shouldn't've been fucking around with wild animals asshole!" Firstly, it was just a mean thing to do. Secondly, it was just a dumb thing to do. Even house cats can rip holes in your flesh if(when) they want to. Why do you think a lion, whom you are pissing off by shoving a metal rod done his throat, won't one day snap and do the same!? And, probably, you deserved it, because you shoved a metal rod done an innocent animal's throat.
K, so that was the animal rant of the day. Today, for the animals, I wrote Trader Joe's about offering more vegan options. Probably that won't actually do anything. But I also resent the e-mail to the humane certified people because the one I sent yesterday got sent back to me because I typed the e-mail address wrong. So, that mighta been good. Perhaps I will make these people think more about these issues. And if they already consider them strongly, I will be better informed when I am recommending the products which are certified humane to other people.
So, know what else I want to mention? Short Bus. Man, I am one harsh movie critic. What is with all these so-called sex positive messages that turn out to be NOT sex positive!? Just a question. So, Short Bus was a'ight. It was not nearly as good as Hedwig (and how could it be if it wasn't a musical, right?), but it didn't completely suck upon first viewing. Some of the characters were quirky in a non-annoying way, their lives interwove in a believable fashion, all of the actors were good at acting, the ending wasn't so corny, though it was predictable, that you wanted to puke or anything horrible like that. So, it wasn't bad. It was just another hum-drum movie that I probably wouldn't watch ever again, but it didn't bother me on any level. It was only upon further contemplation that the movie got to me.
So, John Cameron Mitchel (if that's at all how you spell any of his names) started off wanting to make a sex-positive movie with real sex. That was seriously the goal. Something about how all the real sex in movies coming out of Europe represents something bad, and sex is something good. His movie, however, wasn't about sex. It was about human connection. And sex was used as a metaphor. So, he is still not positing a positive message about sex, rather he is positing a positive message about human connection. Additionally, in this world, where sex is equivalent to connection, there is no place for the asexual individual. I think I have talked about asexuality before on this blog in regards to the Kinsey Institute adding a 7 to Kinsey's 0-6 scale. (This is dumb. There should be two scales one for homo-hetero and one for a-hyper, if you are a 0 on the a-hyper one, you don't need to fit on the homo-hetero scale. However, people who are like a 1 [mostly asexual] still deserve another number.) Anyway, I think my point is about marginalizing a whole group of people who are currently misunderstood. I am not myself asexual, but I cannot STAND how people don't acknowledge that asexuality exists! In the world of Short Bus, they cannot exist, for if they did, they would have no way of connecting to other people.
Next: what is with the story of the woman not being able to cum!? This has been done so many other times. And it has been done WELL. (see: coming soon. Haha. It's brilliant) So, there is nothing inherently wrong with the story. But John Cameron Mitchel, as a gay male, does not know how to pull this one off. Additionally, to make the entire movie hinge on this one fact, which I admit is an important one in the life of the character, to the point where the FINAL moment is of her cumming, and then only show it for a split second! Like show the gasp and the "about to scream" and then cut to New York City's lights coming back on (Yeah, apparently her orgasm was so great it fixed the blackout) is just cheap. It is still as though, though this is the most important part of the film, the climax if you will (pun attended, hahaha!), you still cannot show it in all it's glory even though we've seen multiple males ejaculate. ANNOYING. Also, to equate it with the power coming back on makes it something special, as opposed to something a woman has every right to experience everyday the same way a man does.
And maybe I am reading too much into the woman cumming thing. And I think perhaps I don't even understand completely what I didn't like about it, but there was something that didn't sit right. If you are a womanist, a feminist, a sex-positive individual, a woman's rights activist, whatever, and you have seen this movie, perhaps you can share your opinion with me.
The other thing I didn't like was how it was such a male dominated cast. This is to be expected of a white, liberal, gay, male I suppose. (If you need me to explain that statement, chances are you wouldn't understand what I mean even after the explanation.) But it still bothered me. I am one of those annoying people who is always keeping score. (i.e.: whose name was shown first in the credits when the male and female lead had the exact same amount of screen time and shared equally in the role of protagonist?) I can't help it. I feel like the majority of people in this country like to assume and pretend that sexism is over, that women have equal rights, and equal treatment. This is not the case. And it is DEFINITELY not the case that women have equal representation in government jobs or high-end corporate positions. Forgive me for wanting to see them represented equally in Indy-Flicks.
Also, what is with the whole idea that this movie is not supposed to turn you on because it is not porn!? Now, it didn't really turn me on, that's most likely because I am probably only a 1 or 2 on the whole asexual to hypersexual scale that I invented. But, I can't see how it is not supposed to turn other people on. There is mad sex right in your face. And why is John Cameron Mitchel all opposed to porn in the first place!? You can't objectify all of these people's bodies for "art" and then say it's a crime against humanity that people are objectifying their bodies for the sake of sex and sex alone. (I did a whole post on this once. Go find it if you care.) If this was designed to be sex-positive, he should be happy to be showing sex for the sake of sex. (That should be a new movement, right? Sex for Sex's sake like Art for Art's sake, only we must be on a closer guard against venereal disease in this new movement I am proposing.) Am I wrong? Should he be showing sex for art's sake instead? Is that sex positive, or just art positive?
So, other than that, it WAS your run-of-the-mill Indy-Flick. Some "deep" movie with grand symbolic gestures that actually seem kind up shallow and useless when one puts on his/her analytical reasoning hat. Except it has real sex; this is how it is different. So, if you can't stomach that for one reason or another, don't see it. Otherwise, probably still don't see it 'cause you could spend that hour and a half or whatever watching actually meaningful things like Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men, My So-Called Life, or Wonderfalls. (Yes, these are all TV shows, not movies. But it stands that they are all better than most movies.)
OK.
That's all for now. I still don't have new kitty pictures, so I think I'll put up this bat picture from Halloween. See, 'cause I told you all about this bat, but I don't think I ever pasted up an image. And if I already have, forgive me for the re-run.
Love, Calla and her kitties.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Calla's Fifty-Ninth Post
This is just really quick to say that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to talk. For God knows what reason, Tabby is listening to a "Galactica Water Cooler" podcast. The people talking are complete morons. The clearly don't watch this show closely. The one guy was talking about how Tory and Anders had guides (see: Head Six and Head Baltar) but Anders got interrupted before he could say what Chief had in his head. Um, he didn't use his ears. Anders said "you thought you had a chip in your head." He didn't even imply that Chief had a head person. And may be he did, but who cares if it was male or female. And then the chick was all, wait how come Baltar has a head guide if it's a cylon thing? And the two guys couldn't answer her question. But they're dumb. Starbuck had a head Leobon and Roslyn had a head Leosha. It can be argued that Romo Lampkins had a head kitty-meow-face (and I have argued that, by the way.) These are just spiritual guides that appear to people (human and cylon and goddess alike) who are involved in the mythology of the universe. So, these people are dumb. Then they were talking about Six's dresses and one guy said that her most recent dress "implied" skank. And the girl was all "there's no in between, it's either skank or it's not." And so they asked if the red dress was skank and she said "sort of." Dude, "sort of" is in between. And you're dumb. They were also trying to figure out if Baltar fathered that kid named Gaius. NO WHERE WAS THAT IMPLIED! It was implied he is NOT the kid's father. It was an opportunity for Baltar to make a bumbling fool of himself because, clearly, that child was not named after him. Additionally, what kinda idiot would name a child after a one night stand!? Galactica doesn't write characters that unrealistic. Oh, also that girl was all "I accidently stumbled upon Tricia Helfer's playboy pictures. . . " Bullshit. You looked them up just like the rest of us did. I made Tabby put in his headphones cause I can't handle it.
Love,
Calla and her cats MEOW
P.S. It makes me so sad that no one can ever see how green Mama's eyes are! They are green like a Russian Blue kitty. (Her face is also shaped like a Russian Blue, and she is small like a Russian Blue. . . So I'm pretty sure she is part Russian Blue.)
Love,
Calla and her cats MEOW
P.S. It makes me so sad that no one can ever see how green Mama's eyes are! They are green like a Russian Blue kitty. (Her face is also shaped like a Russian Blue, and she is small like a Russian Blue. . . So I'm pretty sure she is part Russian Blue.)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Calla's Fifty-Third Post pt. 3
I'm mad they're not dead. I hope his wife divorces him, but he can't figure out why because he has no memory of the ugly chick. OH, even ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is better than this. They do the "erasing my loved one" thing so much more effectively.
So, NOTHING happened in this film. . . great. What is this stupid song? It sounds like Coldplay. Probably it is. OH, I'm so so sorry you don't exist annoying girl. The desert isn't so bad anyway, right?
They ALL have boring sex. That girl needs to move on. The empathy virus probably WAS affecting his judgement. . .I don't need to stare at your lonely face for 10 minutes. He wants to have boring sex with his wife. . .and he doesn't miss you and you have no reason to miss him. . . What, you were looking for him in your dreams for 19 or 20 years or something!? Since you were like 6!? THAT'S dumb. This movie is pointless. The credits are running. . . and that movie sucked. It was as bad as that movie Roz made us watch one time where the dying woman cheats on her husband and refuses to tell him she's dying.
So, here's a list.
Bladerunner= does the atmosphere and mood better
1984 = does the surveillance better
Eternal Sunshine = does the memory erase of loved ones better
Being John Malkovich = does the mind control way better (that movie made me want to puke it was so effective. I can never watch it again.)
1984 = does the mind control better in the same way this movie was trying to do it.
Gattaca = does the genetic stuff better.
This movie did nothing good. NEVER WATCH IT. It will be the biggest waste of your time. You mi'swell watch some good movies.
So, NOTHING happened in this film. . . great. What is this stupid song? It sounds like Coldplay. Probably it is. OH, I'm so so sorry you don't exist annoying girl. The desert isn't so bad anyway, right?
They ALL have boring sex. That girl needs to move on. The empathy virus probably WAS affecting his judgement. . .I don't need to stare at your lonely face for 10 minutes. He wants to have boring sex with his wife. . .and he doesn't miss you and you have no reason to miss him. . . What, you were looking for him in your dreams for 19 or 20 years or something!? Since you were like 6!? THAT'S dumb. This movie is pointless. The credits are running. . . and that movie sucked. It was as bad as that movie Roz made us watch one time where the dying woman cheats on her husband and refuses to tell him she's dying.
So, here's a list.
Bladerunner= does the atmosphere and mood better
1984 = does the surveillance better
Eternal Sunshine = does the memory erase of loved ones better
Being John Malkovich = does the mind control way better (that movie made me want to puke it was so effective. I can never watch it again.)
1984 = does the mind control better in the same way this movie was trying to do it.
Gattaca = does the genetic stuff better.
This movie did nothing good. NEVER WATCH IT. It will be the biggest waste of your time. You mi'swell watch some good movies.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Calla's Fourty-Seventh Post
This is just really quick to put forward a complaint. This has been bothering me since 10th grade, which may have been the time I realized this was even a twisted concept. What is this debate between the emotional and rational minds? By even having the debate you are already assuming the superiority of rationality, because you are having the debate with your rational mind. Therefore, the conversation is impossible.
Furthermore, why is there an assumption that our rational reasoning is the "real" us and we are always working to control our thoughts or something. Well, see what brought this up was this guy on the Colbert Report a few seconds ago. He wrote some book about decision making and said we are all sitting on top of an elephant (representing emotion) and it's hard to control that elephant. Now, the metaphor implied that "we" are rational. Bullshit. I don't know how brains work, and I don't claim to know how they work (duh), but I'm pretty sure my emotions and my reason both come from my brain. So, if I am my brain (which I am not sure that I am. Is the soul in the brain? Does the soul impact our earthly beings? Or are all souls created equal and our minds create the individuality?) Anyway, for the sake of science-talk, I'm pretty sure I am my brain. My brain, I am told is the only reason I can think, feel, act, etc. So I'm pretty sure my brain is what makes me. . or something. So that would include the emotional and the rational sides. So you see, I don't get this argument.
And in 10th grade, I forget my teacher's name. She was old and looked like Ursula the seawitch in the Disney cartoon of The Little Mermaid. Well, I don't remember why. We musta read something or other because it was an English class, and she made us discuss rationality vs. emotionality or something. And in that debate I could not help but feel completely at a loss about how a debate is even possible without given creed to reasons supremacy. And it isn't. So someone needs to explain this to me because that guy, who didn't know how to take a joke or interact successfully with Colbert, just reminded me of this weirdness.
There are other things to discuss. . . but I don't remember exactly what they are. Except now I remember one. . . and then when I was typing that I remembered the other! YAY!
So one of the others is this whole scale of 0-6 the Kinsey people made. Well, the institute later added a 7 for asexuality. This is dumb and a half. If there are varying degrees of hetero/homosexuality why wouldn't it stand that there are also varying degrees of asexuality? There, I'm sure is a spectrum from 100% asexuality to hypersexuality (nymphomania). Now, I understand the good intention. If we make TWO scales, that means everyone is judged on two scales, and people who are asexual simply don't fall on the other scale. Well, I'm not a sex researcher or, for that matter, a person who knows anything about science. But, I'm not even sure that would be true. People who are not at all interested in sex may still find bodies attractive to varying degrees, so they still might fall on the other scale. If not, and I'm not sure which way it is, but if asexual people are not attracted to other people at all, then it would stand to reason that if on the asexual scale of 0 to 6 you were on the extreme of the asexual side, you would simply be exempt from the other scale. Someone needs to write the Kinsey institute a letter. Maybe I will. I would be willing to bet if a whole group of asexual people read this post some would say they aren't attracted to people and others would say they were attracted to people, but had no interest in any sexual act. So, that hypothetical would prove my case. There is definitely a scale.
The other thing is about the catnip mouse! Well, as soon as I finished that post staring our mousey friend I removed the catnip and stuffed him up with cottenballs and put him with our friends upstairs. So, then I just had loose catnip that I would give the kitties every now and again, but there was no catnip toy with which to play. TODAY I FOUND VEGETABLES. From the same company that made Pintac (that's his name) I found a pack of 3 catnip toys stuffed with organic-grown-in-the-U.S.A. catnip. Know what they are? I shall tell you. They are a carrot, a chili pepper and a miniature eggplant. (Cause a life size eggplant would not work with the other two vegetables.) So, now my kitties have vegetables! haha! It is so funny because they are carnivores. (I know, it is sad, but it is a fact of life. My kitties eat dead chickens.) So, it is funny to see the carnivores trying to eat vegetables! I love vegetables.
Mama is sitting on the couch with me because she likes the blanket I am using. . . and one would think she is so small that she shan't take up too much space. WRONG. She is intentionally cramping my legs I think. (Maybe not.)
Love, Calla and her kitties.
P.S. Guess what's happening tomorrow? Gaeta is totally going down!!
My kitties went to jail!? or something!?
Furthermore, why is there an assumption that our rational reasoning is the "real" us and we are always working to control our thoughts or something. Well, see what brought this up was this guy on the Colbert Report a few seconds ago. He wrote some book about decision making and said we are all sitting on top of an elephant (representing emotion) and it's hard to control that elephant. Now, the metaphor implied that "we" are rational. Bullshit. I don't know how brains work, and I don't claim to know how they work (duh), but I'm pretty sure my emotions and my reason both come from my brain. So, if I am my brain (which I am not sure that I am. Is the soul in the brain? Does the soul impact our earthly beings? Or are all souls created equal and our minds create the individuality?) Anyway, for the sake of science-talk, I'm pretty sure I am my brain. My brain, I am told is the only reason I can think, feel, act, etc. So I'm pretty sure my brain is what makes me. . or something. So that would include the emotional and the rational sides. So you see, I don't get this argument.
And in 10th grade, I forget my teacher's name. She was old and looked like Ursula the seawitch in the Disney cartoon of The Little Mermaid. Well, I don't remember why. We musta read something or other because it was an English class, and she made us discuss rationality vs. emotionality or something. And in that debate I could not help but feel completely at a loss about how a debate is even possible without given creed to reasons supremacy. And it isn't. So someone needs to explain this to me because that guy, who didn't know how to take a joke or interact successfully with Colbert, just reminded me of this weirdness.
There are other things to discuss. . . but I don't remember exactly what they are. Except now I remember one. . . and then when I was typing that I remembered the other! YAY!
So one of the others is this whole scale of 0-6 the Kinsey people made. Well, the institute later added a 7 for asexuality. This is dumb and a half. If there are varying degrees of hetero/homosexuality why wouldn't it stand that there are also varying degrees of asexuality? There, I'm sure is a spectrum from 100% asexuality to hypersexuality (nymphomania). Now, I understand the good intention. If we make TWO scales, that means everyone is judged on two scales, and people who are asexual simply don't fall on the other scale. Well, I'm not a sex researcher or, for that matter, a person who knows anything about science. But, I'm not even sure that would be true. People who are not at all interested in sex may still find bodies attractive to varying degrees, so they still might fall on the other scale. If not, and I'm not sure which way it is, but if asexual people are not attracted to other people at all, then it would stand to reason that if on the asexual scale of 0 to 6 you were on the extreme of the asexual side, you would simply be exempt from the other scale. Someone needs to write the Kinsey institute a letter. Maybe I will. I would be willing to bet if a whole group of asexual people read this post some would say they aren't attracted to people and others would say they were attracted to people, but had no interest in any sexual act. So, that hypothetical would prove my case. There is definitely a scale.
The other thing is about the catnip mouse! Well, as soon as I finished that post staring our mousey friend I removed the catnip and stuffed him up with cottenballs and put him with our friends upstairs. So, then I just had loose catnip that I would give the kitties every now and again, but there was no catnip toy with which to play. TODAY I FOUND VEGETABLES. From the same company that made Pintac (that's his name) I found a pack of 3 catnip toys stuffed with organic-grown-in-the-U.S.A. catnip. Know what they are? I shall tell you. They are a carrot, a chili pepper and a miniature eggplant. (Cause a life size eggplant would not work with the other two vegetables.) So, now my kitties have vegetables! haha! It is so funny because they are carnivores. (I know, it is sad, but it is a fact of life. My kitties eat dead chickens.) So, it is funny to see the carnivores trying to eat vegetables! I love vegetables.
Mama is sitting on the couch with me because she likes the blanket I am using. . . and one would think she is so small that she shan't take up too much space. WRONG. She is intentionally cramping my legs I think. (Maybe not.)
Love, Calla and her kitties.
P.S. Guess what's happening tomorrow? Gaeta is totally going down!!
My kitties went to jail!? or something!?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Post no. 12
Maybe this should be titled "Calla's Fourty-Third Post." I'm not sure yet, but oh well. "Calla's Fourty-First Post" also had an ambiguous title nature. This frustration is born out of the same class as said post. This man has us read stupid readings. I can tell you that after one day of class.
OK, so let me just tell you about the article "African American Males' Reported Involvement in the Criminal Justice System: A Descriptive Analysis," by one Ron Stewart. Stewart admits many flaws in his study, and for that I respect him. However, there are about a dozen more he didn't notice. And for that I ask why he has A Ph.D. and I don't? And how come if I catch all these flaws, I can't even get a job as a research assistant?
So, I'm not gonna summarize the article. You can get the jist from the title, and you can look it up yourself on JSTOR or something.
Alright first flaw: Two of the characteristics of the survey respondents had to do with "Religious Preference" and "Church Attendance." The possible responses for the former were "Christian" and "Non-Christian." Alright, I am willing to accept this widely limited category if, for no other reason, I have been trained to accept these as fixed categories from all the protestant, college-educated, straight, white males who choose to marginalize the rest of the nation. So fine, Christian v. Non-Christian. (Not really fine, did you catch my sarcasm a minute ago?) Well 38% of the respondents were Non-Christian. The next variable is "Church Attendance." Not "Religious Service," nor "Place of Worship." Nope "Church Attendance." Excuse me for not being shocked that 69% of respondents attend church "infrequently" since 38% ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. Only 19 less people answered the question about church attendance than answered the question about religious preference. That means Non-Christians were answering it. STUPIDITY on Stewart's part.
OK NEXT: "Employment Status." There are two options here Employed or Unemployed. Anyone else catch two flaws with this right off the bat? (1) Underemployed is not an option. (2) There is no follow up to determine whether the employed people are part of the mainstream economy or the "underground" (for lack of better phrase) economy. If I am selling crack full time, and you are selling crack full time I may answer that I am employed and you may answer that you are unemployed. . . FLAWS. Furthermore, if I am selling crack part time and still can't earn enough to support myself, I dang sure feel underemployed, but there is no way for me to express this. So that is two more flaws and we are up to 3 flaws and one really annoying factor.
Flaw 4: The item "getting along with police" as measured by "an item asking respondents how well they and the people in their neighborhood get along with the police." May I emphasize the article "an". . . AN. . . ONE. One question which asks two different things. Well, first off, maybe I'm anti-social and I don't very well KNOW how my neighbors get along with the police, get off your lazy ass and go ask them yourself. Secondly, this is a study focusing on black males. If I am a black male who lives around a lot of people who aren't black, how my neighbors get along with the police is really pretty irrelevant to your study, now isn't it? Thirdly, and here is the really stupid part, TWO QUESTIONS WITH ONE ANSWER. If I hate the police and we fight with each other on a daily basis but my neighbors are all cousins of a police officer whom they love to no end. . . well, I can't answer that question truthfully no matter what I say. So actually that is flaw 4-6. . . and one really annoying factor.
Now, this man chooses to quote another study that I really know nothing about EXCEPT "They found that approximately 50 percent of the non-white, non-Hispanic population reported dissatisfaction with the police." Well, I hate to break it to you AGAIN Ron Stewart. . . non-white non-Hispanic ≠ black. Last I checked my boyfriend was half-Asian. Oh I just checked again, and he still is. He is non-white and non-Hispanic. How he feels about the police should be of no interest to you whatsoever. So, this may be a flaw in the other study. But why is he quoting flawed studies? Or not explaining these studies thoroughly so I don't think it is a flawed study if it is not. So this is flaw # 7 no matter how you slice it.
No let's get to the question on gang membership. Those respondents saying they had been (and one can only assume "or still are" though it is not written into Ron Stewart's report) in a gang got the opportunity to report on in what TYPE of gang activity they were involved. The problem is, it appears they could only answer ONE type of activity. Stewart's number add up to 100%. This means if I were involved in a burglary and an armed robbery I would get to report only one. . . and I could report which ever I so chose. So if I had been involved in like 7 burglaries but they were all a year ago and one armed robbery, which happened last week. . . well, I may very well report the armed robbery because that's the one fresh in my head. (no. 8)
So, I guess that is only 8 flaws and not a dozen. But I have one more flaw with the writing. I can't tell what Stewart's POINT is. It seems to be that black man are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system. However, he keeps pointing out over and over again that there is a difference in criminal involvement. So I'm sorry. WE DO NEED TO FIX THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. This is true. But in the mean time, you can't go around pretending like all these men are in prison for crimes they didn't commit when you then admit they're mostly low-level drug offenders. Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't punish people so harshly if they're low-level drug offenders and we should end this "war on drugs" sooner than later. . . BUT THERE ARE STILL JUST MORE BLACK MEN COMMITTING CRIMES. So, since he constantly admits that, I don't know what his point is.
Oh, but may I also remind you he admits flaws in his own research. So maybe there are 12 flaws.
Or maybe he just writes poorly. Maybe all these flaws would be explained if I discussed his research with him in person. Maybe he just had trouble articulating some things in his article. Either way, remind me again WHY he has a Ph.D. if he either can't write or can't do research.
And that's all. And I'm frustrated that people get paid to publish this shit when I've done stronger research during my undergraduate career!!!!!!! AHHHH THE WORLD SUCKS.
(I wonder if Ron Stewart is protestant, straight and white. . . )
Guest Cat IV I know it's strange to have 2 guest cats in a row. . . but Christin was sad that Baby Broder was on display without Titty Tat aka Titters. This is Titters. He lives with my sister and he is a little cuddle love!!!
OK, so let me just tell you about the article "African American Males' Reported Involvement in the Criminal Justice System: A Descriptive Analysis," by one Ron Stewart. Stewart admits many flaws in his study, and for that I respect him. However, there are about a dozen more he didn't notice. And for that I ask why he has A Ph.D. and I don't? And how come if I catch all these flaws, I can't even get a job as a research assistant?
So, I'm not gonna summarize the article. You can get the jist from the title, and you can look it up yourself on JSTOR or something.
Alright first flaw: Two of the characteristics of the survey respondents had to do with "Religious Preference" and "Church Attendance." The possible responses for the former were "Christian" and "Non-Christian." Alright, I am willing to accept this widely limited category if, for no other reason, I have been trained to accept these as fixed categories from all the protestant, college-educated, straight, white males who choose to marginalize the rest of the nation. So fine, Christian v. Non-Christian. (Not really fine, did you catch my sarcasm a minute ago?) Well 38% of the respondents were Non-Christian. The next variable is "Church Attendance." Not "Religious Service," nor "Place of Worship." Nope "Church Attendance." Excuse me for not being shocked that 69% of respondents attend church "infrequently" since 38% ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. Only 19 less people answered the question about church attendance than answered the question about religious preference. That means Non-Christians were answering it. STUPIDITY on Stewart's part.
OK NEXT: "Employment Status." There are two options here Employed or Unemployed. Anyone else catch two flaws with this right off the bat? (1) Underemployed is not an option. (2) There is no follow up to determine whether the employed people are part of the mainstream economy or the "underground" (for lack of better phrase) economy. If I am selling crack full time, and you are selling crack full time I may answer that I am employed and you may answer that you are unemployed. . . FLAWS. Furthermore, if I am selling crack part time and still can't earn enough to support myself, I dang sure feel underemployed, but there is no way for me to express this. So that is two more flaws and we are up to 3 flaws and one really annoying factor.
Flaw 4: The item "getting along with police" as measured by "an item asking respondents how well they and the people in their neighborhood get along with the police." May I emphasize the article "an". . . AN. . . ONE. One question which asks two different things. Well, first off, maybe I'm anti-social and I don't very well KNOW how my neighbors get along with the police, get off your lazy ass and go ask them yourself. Secondly, this is a study focusing on black males. If I am a black male who lives around a lot of people who aren't black, how my neighbors get along with the police is really pretty irrelevant to your study, now isn't it? Thirdly, and here is the really stupid part, TWO QUESTIONS WITH ONE ANSWER. If I hate the police and we fight with each other on a daily basis but my neighbors are all cousins of a police officer whom they love to no end. . . well, I can't answer that question truthfully no matter what I say. So actually that is flaw 4-6. . . and one really annoying factor.
Now, this man chooses to quote another study that I really know nothing about EXCEPT "They found that approximately 50 percent of the non-white, non-Hispanic population reported dissatisfaction with the police." Well, I hate to break it to you AGAIN Ron Stewart. . . non-white non-Hispanic ≠ black. Last I checked my boyfriend was half-Asian. Oh I just checked again, and he still is. He is non-white and non-Hispanic. How he feels about the police should be of no interest to you whatsoever. So, this may be a flaw in the other study. But why is he quoting flawed studies? Or not explaining these studies thoroughly so I don't think it is a flawed study if it is not. So this is flaw # 7 no matter how you slice it.
No let's get to the question on gang membership. Those respondents saying they had been (and one can only assume "or still are" though it is not written into Ron Stewart's report) in a gang got the opportunity to report on in what TYPE of gang activity they were involved. The problem is, it appears they could only answer ONE type of activity. Stewart's number add up to 100%. This means if I were involved in a burglary and an armed robbery I would get to report only one. . . and I could report which ever I so chose. So if I had been involved in like 7 burglaries but they were all a year ago and one armed robbery, which happened last week. . . well, I may very well report the armed robbery because that's the one fresh in my head. (no. 8)
So, I guess that is only 8 flaws and not a dozen. But I have one more flaw with the writing. I can't tell what Stewart's POINT is. It seems to be that black man are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system. However, he keeps pointing out over and over again that there is a difference in criminal involvement. So I'm sorry. WE DO NEED TO FIX THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. This is true. But in the mean time, you can't go around pretending like all these men are in prison for crimes they didn't commit when you then admit they're mostly low-level drug offenders. Yeah, you're right, we shouldn't punish people so harshly if they're low-level drug offenders and we should end this "war on drugs" sooner than later. . . BUT THERE ARE STILL JUST MORE BLACK MEN COMMITTING CRIMES. So, since he constantly admits that, I don't know what his point is.
Oh, but may I also remind you he admits flaws in his own research. So maybe there are 12 flaws.
Or maybe he just writes poorly. Maybe all these flaws would be explained if I discussed his research with him in person. Maybe he just had trouble articulating some things in his article. Either way, remind me again WHY he has a Ph.D. if he either can't write or can't do research.
And that's all. And I'm frustrated that people get paid to publish this shit when I've done stronger research during my undergraduate career!!!!!!! AHHHH THE WORLD SUCKS.
(I wonder if Ron Stewart is protestant, straight and white. . . )
Guest Cat IV I know it's strange to have 2 guest cats in a row. . . but Christin was sad that Baby Broder was on display without Titty Tat aka Titters. This is Titters. He lives with my sister and he is a little cuddle love!!!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Calla's Fourty-First Post
Probably that's supposed to say "forty-first" but I don't understand why, so it says "fourty-first."
OK, I have to go to school in about 20 minutes, but I need to get this off my chest before I go. I am about to go to a class entitled "Crime, Incarceration and the City." I had to read the first chapter or the introduction or something to a book by some person entitled "Crimes against logic." It was a few pages about how people do NOT have rights to their own opinions. This person goes through some complex argument about how rights require that other people have duties or they aren't really rights in the first place, and about how people do not want to know the real truth.
Well, here is where I take issue. This man or woman is an idiot. I don't think s/he knows what the word opinion means. All of the examples in the text happen to be MATTERS OF FACT not MATTERS OF OPINION. They're two entirely different things. So, people can argue about the reason Bush went into Iraq or whether or not God exists or if a car is coming or not. . . and those people are not arguing about opinions at all. They are arguing about facts. And someone is indeed wrong in every case.
A matter of opinion is something that can be true for one person and not another. For example, are ghosts bands funny? There is no wrong answer. The answer FOR ME, is yes. The answer for you can be yes, no, sometimes, only on Fridays. . . whatever. It is a matter of opinion.
The reason Bush went into Iraq has the same answer no matter who is asked. Now, I think this author is confused because some of these are facts which are not easily distinguishable as true or false, wrong or right. People can argue about God, both present arguments, and maybe you are an agnostic, and cannot tell who is right and who is wrong. This does not mean it is a matter of opinion whether or not God exists. This means someone is stupid. Someone is wrong
So, if someone pulls a "I have the right to my own opinion" bullshit during an argument that is a matter of fact, it does not make logical sense to go through a series of explanations about why s/he does NOT have a right to that opinion. No, it makes sense to say, "this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact. And the facts that you are presenting are wrong because of A,B,C, and D." Then here is where you present your argument about why YOUR FACTS (not your opinions) are correct. And maybe you will never come to a conclusion about who is right and who is wrong. But at least we won't be pretending we are offering opinions.
Green is pretty. Blue is ugly. - Those are my opinions.
Eating meat is immoral. - That is a fact. And if you want to argue against it and present a varying view, it will not be an opinion. You will simply be trying to make me understand meat the way you see it. But, bottom line, one of us is right, and one of us is wrong. (also, I'm right. I will argue with you and prove your facts false! Meat is murder.)
Sometimes fallacies are just that. . . not opinions, but fallacies. . .
Maybe this post should be titled differently. I don't really know.
Love,
Calla and her kitties.
I will add the picture later.
OK, I have to go to school in about 20 minutes, but I need to get this off my chest before I go. I am about to go to a class entitled "Crime, Incarceration and the City." I had to read the first chapter or the introduction or something to a book by some person entitled "Crimes against logic." It was a few pages about how people do NOT have rights to their own opinions. This person goes through some complex argument about how rights require that other people have duties or they aren't really rights in the first place, and about how people do not want to know the real truth.
Well, here is where I take issue. This man or woman is an idiot. I don't think s/he knows what the word opinion means. All of the examples in the text happen to be MATTERS OF FACT not MATTERS OF OPINION. They're two entirely different things. So, people can argue about the reason Bush went into Iraq or whether or not God exists or if a car is coming or not. . . and those people are not arguing about opinions at all. They are arguing about facts. And someone is indeed wrong in every case.
A matter of opinion is something that can be true for one person and not another. For example, are ghosts bands funny? There is no wrong answer. The answer FOR ME, is yes. The answer for you can be yes, no, sometimes, only on Fridays. . . whatever. It is a matter of opinion.
The reason Bush went into Iraq has the same answer no matter who is asked. Now, I think this author is confused because some of these are facts which are not easily distinguishable as true or false, wrong or right. People can argue about God, both present arguments, and maybe you are an agnostic, and cannot tell who is right and who is wrong. This does not mean it is a matter of opinion whether or not God exists. This means someone is stupid. Someone is wrong
So, if someone pulls a "I have the right to my own opinion" bullshit during an argument that is a matter of fact, it does not make logical sense to go through a series of explanations about why s/he does NOT have a right to that opinion. No, it makes sense to say, "this is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of fact. And the facts that you are presenting are wrong because of A,B,C, and D." Then here is where you present your argument about why YOUR FACTS (not your opinions) are correct. And maybe you will never come to a conclusion about who is right and who is wrong. But at least we won't be pretending we are offering opinions.
Green is pretty. Blue is ugly. - Those are my opinions.
Eating meat is immoral. - That is a fact. And if you want to argue against it and present a varying view, it will not be an opinion. You will simply be trying to make me understand meat the way you see it. But, bottom line, one of us is right, and one of us is wrong. (also, I'm right. I will argue with you and prove your facts false! Meat is murder.)
Sometimes fallacies are just that. . . not opinions, but fallacies. . .
Maybe this post should be titled differently. I don't really know.
Love,
Calla and her kitties.
I will add the picture later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
