Benazir Bhutto, 1953-2007

Excerpts from Bhutto's "Diary" written for Slate.com in 1997

"I shout as loud as I can over the microphone, "Sir, why do they panic every time they hear the name of a woman?" That shuts them up. At least temporarily.

When I finish, the Treasury benches start discussing my speech. Their first speaker makes sexist remarks--"She is melodramatic. She should have gone to New York and performed in the theater. She would have been a prima donna."

Bored, I sit back and begin to read the "Tasbee," the Muslim rosary. When I finally get to my office in the Parliament I am too tired to meet the press.


We go to the upstairs lounge, put on CNN, call for some green tea, and sit down to watch and chat.

Bliss.

Tomorrow is another day."



www.slate.com

Your shit bling bling, my shit bling blaow

M.I.A. and the Double Standard of MTV Censorship
Posted by Tom Breihan at 5:58 PM, December 18, 2007


M.I.A. is mad at MTV. Just recently, she wrote a MySpace blog rant, one that's since been taken down, about how the MTV-edit version of her "Paper Planes" video has fallen victim to the channel's standards-and-practices department. The gunshot noises on the track's hook are gone, replaced with, in her words, "this fucked up mess with double-tracked bullshit mess." Something similar happened when she did the song on the David Letterman show, except there the gunshot noises got changed to some weird pitch-shifted clicks that sort of sound like the gunshot noises that come from those little wartime-noisemaker toys that I drove my parents nuts with when I was nine. All this makes a difference because "Paper Planes" is probably the best shot that M.I.A. has of entering the pop mainstream in any significant way without stamping out any of the confounding, ambiguous political subtexts that her music carries. "Paper Planes" is a light and airy and bewitchingly pretty song, but it also rides on a Clash sample and has a chorus that's all gunshot noises and cash-register chings and a chorus of amped-up kids singing a double-dutch refrain about taking your money. It's a great song, and its remix is something like an epic, the guest-verses from Bun B and Rich Boy adding manifold layers of anger and desperation and swagger. Bun's verse, in particular, is a manifesto in favor of directionless violence disguised as a pearl of sage wisdom, done by a virtuoso veteran who has plenty of ideas and knows how to get them across in plain everday language. I'd rather M.I.A. release the remix as the single, but even without Bun and Rich Boy, it's a dizzying song. Without those gunshot noises, though, the meaning of the track changes massively; it loses all its tense, ominous charge. If M.I.A. is to escape the indie ghetto where she seems increasingly out of place, she'll do it through a version of her song that's been gutted of meaning (though, to be fair, it still sounds pretty amazing). On that disappeared MySpace rant, M.I.A. calls it "sabotage." Should MTV be allowed to pull that stuff?

Lately, 50 Cent has been going on and on about MTV's double standard, how they'll change the title of his single "I'll Still Kill" to "I Still Will" and change the kill on the chorus to chill (as in "I still will chill," which sounds stupid) but that they won't think anything of running a video by a band called the Killers. He's got a point. In my comments section a while back, someone floated the theory that rap sales are nosediving in part because MTV and BET and radio remove anything that sounds like it could possibly be a reference to drugs or sex or violence, and so a lot of rap verses become unlistenable, their bleeped-out silences sometimes outnumbering their actual words. Whenever a rap video wants to imply violence, it has to pull some goofy nonsense where the character's hand is outside the camera's frame or whatever. But whenever a big-budget rock band like My Chemical Romance or Green Day or whoever wants to stage a war scene, guns appear again. Maybe "I'll Still Kill" glorifies violence and that Green Day video doesn't but what qualifies MTV to make that call? And when it comes to "Paper Planes," a song with an actual meaning buried under layers of implication, the question of whether or not she's actually advocating violence gets a whole lot thornier and more ambiguous. MTV probably wants to avoid those questions altogether, so it's eliminating any possible trace of violence. But the effect ends up being weirdly racial. On the Letterman show, Dave introduced her as being an "acclaimed Sri Lankan rapper," a label that doesn't really fit her at all. But MTV is treating "Paper Planes" the way it treats all rap songs, and it's hard not to wonder how they might've handled the video if she were white or played guitar or whatever. The weird thing about all that is that MTV is totally cool with airing commercials of movies or video games that prominently feature guns. Any impressionable little kids watching MTV are learning that violence is cool anyway. So why bother removing gunshot noises from a song? Would the uncensored version of "Paper Planes" really offend anyone?

As it is, the "Paper Planes" video, with its sandwich truck and its computer-generated paper airplanes and its unnecessary Beasties cameo, is still pretty good. It might even get some early-morning airplay, since that's the only time MTV sees fit to air actual music videos. I remain unconvinced that M.I.A. really has a shot at crossover pop stardom, especially since pop stardom itself has become vastly more nebulous and meaningless over the past few years. More people will probably watch the "Paper Planes" video online than on MTV anyway, and it's not as if the uncensored version would inspire rioting in the streets even if it premiered on prime-time network TV during Lost or whatever. But "Paper Planes" is a song that deserves to start a few arguments, and it should go out into the wider world with its argument-starting potential left intact. So, I'd argue, should "I Still Kill"; that one is lifeless gangsta cliche and the other is confused capitalist critique is immaterial. Nobody expects MTV (or BET or radio) to be a stronghold of mainstream morality anyway, so what's the difference? It's not as though antisocial, dangerous ideas are disappearing from popular music, but the cultural outlets in which that music makes itself heard are increasingly afraid of offending anyone, ever, for any reason. That weird standoff between artists and gatekeepers means that we can't watch videos on TV or listen to music on the radio without a whole lot of songs being reduced to meaningless gibberish. No wonder so many of us are downloading.

Human Rights v. Cultural Relativism

A Saudi woman is kidnapped at knife-point and gang raped by seven men. A court ruling sentences her to 200 lashes and jail time because she was with a man that was not a relative. The debate from both the West and Middle East is whether the strict, patriarchal Islamic Law is an issue of the abuse of basic human rights or cultural relativism.

The international community was wholly outraged when the news of the Saudi rape case broke, sighting archaic laws and abuse of Islam. Indeed, Saudi Arabia is governed by the most strict part of the Quran, the shari'ah. Shari'ah law effects women both socially and politically. At birth, a Saudi woman is assigned a male guardian; this man (most likely her father) governs this woman's life. When she marries, her husband is her new guardian. Similarly, Saudi women are not allowed in public with men who aren't their relatives. Politically, women have essentially no chance. Shari'ah counts a woman's testimony has half a man's testimony.

The rape case exemplifies the bitter injustices Saudi women endure: lack of representation in the public and private sectors; an excessively patriarchal and conservative government; and no personal freedoms. It is poor logic to argue that because Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country based on Islamic principles, it should be devoid of basic human rights for women. There are numerous Middle Eastern countries that do not govern solely on the Quran and shari'ah law and women have similar freedoms as men. It irresponsible and inhumane for the Saudi government to hid behind Islam as an excuse for their desecration of women.

Outrage should have resonated from every single liberal country, especially the pro-democratic United States. But guess who the US gets oil from? Saudi Arabia. So guess what George Bush said regarding the rape case. Nothing.


UPDATE: The Saudi woman was pardoned today by King Abdullah. A Justice Minister told the Saudi Arabian newspaper al-Jazirah: ''The king always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair." Whatever.

Happy Birthday Merez!!

"I think we should go rehearse in a garage, call ourselves the vomit squad, play clubs and start from scratch. Not everyone's into it, but that's the only way to keep it honest."
--Frank Black

'tis the season to be final.

The history books of America and Western Europe demonstrate their people as greedy, land-obsessed conquerors, always looking for more land to claim, be it occupied or not. The readers of these history books are taught that this quest for land was necessary and good—the more land claimed in the name of England, Spain, or anywhere in the West, the better. The land was exploited and was only looked at in terms of the potential gain it could bring its owner. After all the land that was fit to claim was claimed (and then subsequently fought over and reclaimed), the people of our past carved out our ideologies and began exemplifying what would be our way of life: a white, Christian patriarchy with a strong work ethic and an emphasis on capitalism and "freedom." In her book "On the Beaten Track," Lucy R. Lippard identifies the difference between a tourist and a traveler. A tourist, she says, is more constricted in terms of experience while a traveler is freer. While both are relatively upper class (not everyone can afford a vacation), what separates the two are their views of the land upon which they set foot: the tourist, as Jamaica Kincaid points out in “A Small Place,” sees the land as his "freedom," his property, while the traveler, like Sal Paradise or Dean Moriarty in “On the Road,” views the land as full of new experiences and how this newness relates to the Self.
Jack Kerouac's "On the Road" exemplifies perfectly a traveler's views and purposes for movement. The Beats of the 1950s were concerned with environmentalism and leaving the land pure and untouched. Instead of it being there for their pleasure, the Beats allowed the strange land and different culture to affect them in a certain type of spiritual and personal growth. They were spontaneous and open to experiences not incorporated into a travel schedule (for there generally wasn’t one). The Beats espoused a traveler's prerogatives by embracing the new experiences and trying to leave as few finger prints as possible.
“Many towns are not so much potential destinations as service stops along the way to more desirable places. Considered negligible, they are unseen, recalling tourism in its innocence, when travelers were strangers, providing entertainment for locals, when the passing tourists looked out upon views that were the same before they came and after they left,” (Lippard, 14).

Sal and Dean “passed through” places physically, as travelers, but allowed each place to affect them much more than that. They left things relatively how they were found, untouched (except for the women) with a yearning to understand and, if permissible, participate in the culture of their location. “There’s no suspicion here, nothing like that. Everybody’s cool, everybody looks at you with such straight brown eyes and they don’t say anything, just look, and in that look all of the human qualities are soft and subdued and still there,” Dean said of the people in Mexico. “Dig all the foolish stories you read about Mexico and the sleeping gringo and all that crap—and crap about the greasers and so on—and all it is, people here are straight and kind and don’t put down any bull. I’m so amazed by this,” (266). During their time in Mexico, neither Sal nor Dean had any expectations of the people or the land—only that it would be different. “Now, Sal, we’re leaving everything behind us and entering a new and unknown phase of things. All the years and troubles and kicks—and now this! so that we can safely think of nothing else and just go on ahead with our faces stuck out like this, you see, and understand the world as, really and genuinely speaking, other Americans haven’t done before us—they were here, weren’t they? The Mexican war. Cutting across here with cannon,” (264). Sal and Dean do not exploit their new surroundings in the way that Kincaid’s “tourist” exploits the land, but instead hold the differences in high regard and with and immeasurable respect: “the sun rose pure on pure and ancient activities of human life,” (266).
While Sal also exemplified the post-tourist in his constant struggle of how the land and the experience of being there related to the Self, he also had more respect for the land, recognizing that he did not own anything he experienced throughout his travels, except what he rarely bought with his own money. The Beats were known for being environmentalists and for being conscious of their influences. They were largely against popular consumerism and would instead trade or work for their necessities. After meeting and falling for Terry, she and Sal planned to pick grapes in Bakersfield, California to earn some money before moving back to New York. “We arrived in Bakersfield in late afternoon. The plan was to hit every fruit wholesaler in town. Terry said we could live in tents on the job. The thought of living in a tent and picking grapes in the cool California mornings hit me right. But there were no jobs to be had, and much confusions, with everybody giving us innumerable tips, and no job materialized,”(83). Because Sal and Dean only had limited resources, they were not vital to the San Francisco or Mexican life or economy. In fact, Sal finds that young women cotton picking in Mexico can accomplish more picking than he, a white male, can. Displaying an idealist attitude, Sal tried wherever he went to be incorporated into the everyday lives of the natives. In this sense, Sal and Dean were the antitheses of the modern day tourist who, in places such as Belize, Jamaica and Mexico, provides the main economic industry—his exploitation of the strange land and its people is vital to the economy of these places through his incessant consumerism and need for “all-inclusive packages” and souvenirs for friends and family back home.
Jamaica Kincaid addresses the tourist in all his ugliness in “A Small Place.” She points an unremorseful finger at “the tourist,” a position in which many of us, as Westerners have been. Ignorant of other cultures, the tourist has high expectations for a good time, and there are many factors that could ruin this: rainy or cold weather, unfriendly people, bad food, illness, etc. But, for the natives, this is another day. Kincaid explains the motives for a tourist’s movement “because being ordinary is already so taxing, and being ordinary takes all you have out of you, and though the words ‘I must get away’ do not actually pass across your lips, you make a leap from being that nice blob just sitting like a boob in your amniotic sac of the modern experience to being a person visiting heaps of death and ruin and feeling alive and inspired at the sight of it,” (16).
In Larry Krotz’s “Tourists: How Our Fastest Growing Industry is Changing the World,” he explains the drastic effect that tourism is having on the world, mostly poorer places in the world, places to which Westerners attempt their “escape”:

“What the marauding army of tourists primarily leave behind is a radically American culture. Riding in the travelers’ suitcases, western, basically American culture—sporting its other self-appointed guise as world or global popular culture—intrudes everywhere. It is both cart and horse, in advance of and as a result of, tourism. In some ways, the culture precedes the tourists in order to welcome them, to make them feel ‘at home.’ If it is believed, for instance, that the American traveler will only go where he or she can watch CNN, as the British masses earlier would only go where they could get chips with their meals, CNN will certainly (and quickly) find a way to be there… This has two effects, the first being that it changes the culture of the places visited. The second effect is that for the visitor, it becomes increasingly impossible to get away. If you are American, it is more and more difficult ever to leave America behind,” (195).
Ultimately, tourism to poverty-stricken nations is exploitation in its most extreme.
“A tourist is an ugly human being. You are not an ugly person all the time; you are not an ugly person ordinarily; you are not an ugly person day to day,” (14) Kincaid says of the tourist. He is only ugly when he comes to places like Kincaid’s homeland, Antigua, with the expectation that the land is at his disposal. When a tourist is on “holiday,” he tends to forget that there are natives of this strange land. He seems to forget that it is a strange land in general, coming with the expectation and assumption that commodities like television and T-shirts will be waiting for him. In the film “Life in Debt,” Kincaid narrates, reading an excerpt from “A Small Place”:

“For every native of every place is a potential tourist, and every tourist is a native of somewhere. Every native of everywhere lives a life of overwhelming and crushing banality and boredom and desperation and depression, and ever deed, good and bad, is an attempt to forget this,” (18).

This idea is juxtaposed over images of crispy, sunburned faces lounging on a beach. That’s what beaches are for, right? These same Westerners are pleasantly surprised upon exchanging their American dollars for some funny new coin and doubling their currency. With this instant increase in capital, tourists buy and spend and treat themselves nonstop. They stay at luxury suites, which were only built in these countries to please the tourists. They spend hundreds of dollars on cheap goods to help them remember that time they got away from it all in the tropical heat on a white sandy beach.
“Every native would like to find a way out, every native would like a rest, every native would like a tour,” Kincaid continues. “But some natives—most natives in the world—cannot go anywhere. They are too poor. They are too poor to go anywhere. They are too poor to escape the reality of their lives; and they are too poor to live properly in the place where they live, which is the very place you, the tourist, want to go—so when the natives see you, the tourist, they envy you, they envy your ability to leave your own banality and boredom, they envy your ability to turn their own banality and boredom into a source of pleasure for yourself,” (19).

But where are these natives of the foreign lands? They do not all work as tour guides. “Wednesday is the day everything changes over. On Wednesday the big chartered airliners from North America…make their turnarounds at Phillip Goldston International Airport [in Belize], where they pick up the seasoned veterans, holidayed-out, and leave behind new groups of fresh, pale, eager new faces,” writes Krotz (65). In places like Belize, destination locations that Krotz calls “flavors of the month,” the main industry is tourism. Businesses cater to these strangers and put a tremendous emphasis in making their patrons feel anything but “home.” At these destinations, tourists take advantage of the dry season that can have devastating effects on the local crops. They take for granted the bilingual locals who have learned to speak the language of the Other. The fact that all-inclusive luxury suites are not the lives that the locals lead does not even cross the mind of the tourist; they protect themselves from stepping foot into the ghettos of Kingston, Jamaica or Oaxaca, Mexico and only remain sunning in the beach or buying pieces of coral reefs to take home and show people back at the office. Ignorance plays a large part in tourisms popularity. The culture of the land is never taken into account (except, of course, for the food). Once a certain location catches on in terms of its paradise-like feel, the escaping tourists must move on like a herd in search of a watering hole. They feed the economy briefly and then bring their money elsewhere, to exploit a lesser-known tropical paradise.
While the difference of the views on land is largely different between tourists and travelers, views can be seen as equally selfish. While the Beats acknowledged the other cultures and their different ways of life, they still used them to relate to themselves, involving these differences in their personal and spiritual growth. However, if tourism were to come to a halt, many countries would be even more impoverished than at present and would have to rely on an entirely new mode of production. But perhaps if these people were made aware of the Other that they are visiting, the true nature of how these people live, they would spend their money in more pertinent ways: through shopping at farmer’s markets, experiencing both the city life and the relaxed beach life, and staying outside of the ritzy, Americanized resorts. If tourists, with all of their money, took the points of view of the traveler, much good could be done with a mutual respect: the money helping the economy and the appreciation of differences amongst how people live day to day. For, Jamaica Kincaid was not placing the blame on Sal or Dean, who neither helped nor harmed their destinations; she places the blame on the ugly tourist with expectations of perfection that the natives are forced to achieve for the traveler’s pleasure. Just as a tourist stops being ugly when they stop being a tourist, according to Kincaid, a tourist becomes a traveler when they stop expecting the foreign lands to provide for them an all-inclusive experience.

More Proof

that the world bank is evil. http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
This article details how the WB wanted to impose free-trade regulations on the impoverished nation and cut its fertilizer subsidies. They also suggested that Malawi grow cash crops for export and then import all their food. (logic that wouldn't get past a 6-year-old's bullshit detector.)Malawi ignored the "experts" and grew lots of corn thanks to subsidies on fertilizer.

The NYT says: "The country’s successful use of subsidies is contributing to a broader reappraisal of the crucial role of agriculture in alleviating poverty in Africa and the pivotal importance of public investments in the basics of a farm economy: fertilizer, improved seed, farmer education, credit and agricultural research."

And the US's role?
"The United States, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, excephttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gift for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the United States Agency for International Development has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort."

Everything you ever wanted to know about globalization but were afraid to ask.
Lots of bias!

Race, Gender and Labels

Here's an article about Obama versus Hillary as far as progressive/ feminist values go-- which apparently aren't the same thing, as the article notes-- some woman had to trade in her "feminist" ideals in favor of her "progressive" ones in deciding on Obama rather than Hillary. Not only does the article treat "feminism" like it's the man-hating plague, but acts shocked that Obama, as a man, may actually be a more "feminist" figure than Hillary. Didn't know we were still stuck in the 60s.

Re: Hillary

Two great articles on the Hillary/ Women in Power topic!

Although Maureen Dowd usually makes me sad to share a gender with her (youtube her appearance on Colbert for evidence of her gag-worthiness), this is a great article.

Also, here's one from Slate which is a really interesting read.

dunday sinners international

Saudi Arabia, one the the least democratic nations in the world, has a budding blogsphere. There are over 600 Saudi blogs, a relatively large number in a country where personal freedoms are strictly limited. The blogs are run by both men and women, although women are less likely to publish under their real names. This however does not stop women and men from writing about sex and religion, although often such blogs are blocked. One day, this very blog may be blocked and we'll all be killed by the CIA. Apparently, the Saudi government already had that idea. Recently, bloggers were sent to jail for rumouring that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was dead. They remain in jail. However, I pose this question: How long can even a government silence the youth who are desperate for a voice?

An excerpt from "Rantings of an Arabian Woman" by Saudi blogger Mystique:

I am born - a man chooses my name,
I am taught - to appreciate that he did not bury me alive,
I learn - what he wants me to know,
I marry - who he wants me to marry,
I eat - what he wants me to eat,
If he dies - another man controls my life
A father, a brother, a husband, a son, a man am born - a man chooses my name,
I am taught - to appreciate that he did not bury me alive,
I learn - what he wants me to know,
I marry - who he wants me to marry,
I eat - what he wants me to eat,
If he dies - another man controls my life
A father, a brother, a husband, a son, a man

(http://www.mystiquesa.blogspot.com/)

Too Much Information

We are too free. Our generation has choices, options, knowledge, access, and freedom galore. We are (generally) not predestined for any specific future (no arranged marriages or farms to inherit for us), and have been told since childhood that we can be/do whatever we want when we get older. The internet has opened our eyes to possibility, travel has allowed us to explore the world, education is available for everyone and gives us the opportunity to study any single thing we want. Literally ANYTHING, just think about those Gallatin kids studying puppies!

Our parents envy our freedom. Grandma bemoans our opportunities compared to what they were "back in her day." We have the chance to do this, to not do that, to do everything and nothing, and that is the problem: we are frozen in possibility. How are we ever supposed to choose anything? Especially knowing that whatever comes as a result of our choices, we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves. We can never say that we couldn't do something, only that we didn't do it.

Our freedom has taken away our purpose. We have nothing and everything to fight for. We have the luxury of thinking about everything, debating and discussing the world as a whole, and do not have to be preoccupied with ensuring our own survival and interests—after all, we don't really have to worry about starving to death or being shipped off to war. While our parents were united in protesting Vietnam, we have the option of protesting any one of the 30 wars that, according to Wikipedia, are currently taking place. We can click those little blue links and read up on all of them (drug wars in Mexico, civil war in Somalia, etc), but once again we're faced with the same issue: which one do we choose? Not one, even the one we're fighting, really effects us anyway.

So here we are: life is too good, and we’re left, like Xaté said, Jihad-less and lost in possibilities.

-Penamé

lose your luggage

Most travel is best of all in the anticipation or the remembering; the reality has more to do with losing your luggage. ~Regina Nadelson

Mrs. Clinton?

William Shakespeare once wrote, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Such is not the case for presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton. Throughout the extensive coverage of the presidential preliminaries, Hillary Clinton is referred to as “Mrs. Clinton.” Hold up. A prospective presidential candidate, not to mention first viable female candidate in history, is a Mrs.? In this, our post-women’s liberated world?
Throughout their lives, men are referred to as “Sir” and “Mr.” regardless of their age or martial status. Women, however, do not have the same simplistic luxury. Young girls are referred to as “Miss” and sometime between college and menopause, we graduate to “Madam.” However, there is an unappealing age stigma attached to “Madam.” For example, my fifty-year-old mother detests being called “Madam” by grocery cashiers, retailers, and the like. But can you really call a middle-aged professional woman “Miss” either?
During the after effects the 1970’s Women’s Lib movement, the prefix “Ms.” was born into the national dialogue. “Ms.” allows a woman of any age to remain ambiguous regarding martial status. For example, Ms. Melissa Robinson could either be single, or Mr. Robinson’s wife. Thus, women gained equal ground with men if only nominally.
Enter Hillary Clinton. This woman is perhaps the most prominent women in American politics to date. In the current presidential polls, she leaves misters Barack Obama and John Edwards in the Iowa caucus dust. The fact that Hillary is a “Mrs.” shouldn’t matter, right?
Clinton began her married life as Hillary Rodham. However, things changed for Ms. Rodham when husband Bill Clinton ran for office in Arkansas. When political advisors persuaded the new First Lady of Arkansas to take her husband’s surname, Rodham conceded and was addressed as Mrs. Bill Clinton. Wouldn’t want to offend the housewives of Arkansas with such progressive nonsense like keeping your name.
In her efforts to court the traditional housewives of middle-America, Clinton seeks camaraderie (read: votes) with the women she may have alienated during her quest for power in Washington and what these particular women feel is a departure of the traditional role of the First Lady (read: nothing). The title “Mrs.” is safe for Americans because we don’t want our women to be too independent or too successful. Simply, we want them to stand by their man, a lesson Hillary knows too well.
Hillary will continue to encounter criticism based solely on her gender. However, she is a Senator, a mother, wife, and now presidential candidate. A woman of that stature deserves to be addressed as Ms. because she embodies all opportunities and choices available to women today. Perhaps one day we’ll be calling her Madame President.

by elsa quaint

Strangers on this road we are on
We are not two
We are one

[the kinks]

Here come the poop jokes

I've been noticing that we're pretty whiny. Now I like to bitch and moan as much (well, probably even a little more) than the next person, but I thought I'd take a moment to acknowledge some of the good points of all this modern technology, and also have a little laugh at the same time. So here's a little something that I dug up from the archives of my gmail account. Just think of all the nonsense and weird stuff that's saved up from your past in e-mail archives. These are not the memories that will find their way into a journal or photo album (god, I hope it wouldn't end up in a photo album!), and yet it is a a part of our past, recorded in its real and original form. For example, here is an e-mail from my sister from 2003:

i just got back from an unserendipitous trip to the bathroom.

i was sitting at my desk, and just needed a quick pee. simple enough, you may think. not with my luck...

i walk into the bathroom and almost keeled over at the stench; someone had a little too much chow mein at the staff lunch....but my bladder was ready to burst so i just stopped breathing through my nose, and went in for a quickie. right away i knew i started having second thoughts. sitting in a stew of someone else's poosmell, i hurried as fast as i could, sensing that somehow things were about to go terribly wrong.

sure enough, just as i walked out of the still-stinky stall, my arch-work-enemy Katja walked in... DAMMIT! trying for a lastditch save, i said, "hmm, i wouldn't go in there if i were you...someone before us really ruined it." she laughed an evil laugh and is going to torment me for the rest of my days here because she thinks she has somethign on me. but i swear, that poo was not mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Penamé

Social Tact Anyone?

Social tact seems to be a thing of the past. I walk around thinking mostly the best of people, hoping that this notion can be recognized and solidified. Instead I seem to be shot down left and right, making it a bit hard to have faith in the people that are supposed to be fellow members of my generation. It’s amazing to think that people will one, steal from a house party (drunkenness is not an excuse), and speak to people any which way they feel like (again drunkenness is not an excuse). I like to think of myself as an optimist when it comes to people and their nature, I have always thought the best of people I meet and don’t consider myself to be a cynic when it comes to people. Unfortunately this has changed a lot and it all comes from contact with people I meet day to day thinking that acting any which way is appropriate. I am in support of doing what you want to do and taking advantage of the fact that at this point in time responsibility is looming but not necessarily ever present. However, I think this mentality is enforced much too much and leads to this lack of social tact. It is easy to forget how to act in college and condoned even. But that is the exact problem; people have begun to numb themselves to the importance of interactions with people. Instead of acting like normal human beings and creating a social bond with someone, we vomit up whatever comes to mind, the filter is gone (but it is okay because we’re drunk/high/messed up etc). I am starting to wonder whether I have been lucky to be involved with fairly kind people, people that do not act on any whim but keep in mind the people around them.

It is proving to be very frustrating to filter out the, what seems like, few socially apt people in the bunch. Has it really come to the point where even when we are faced with a common relationship of student-teacher we forget our bounds? Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote about self-reliance, the core to any person in his opinion. However, if it really were the case that human nature was to be the thing that guided us in our everyday lives, would it be safe? Then on the other hand, Emerson seemed to have the right idea, at the end of the day, who can you really count on other than yourself, number one, if you will? Unfortunately it is also human nature to be accepted to be validated by others around you. People take this to a level where in an environment like the college bubble, the drunken principle, so to speak, is the principle to live by. This slowly dissipates into our social interactions in their entirety. It is becoming increasingly difficult to sit in class and listen to people spout opinions that they claim to be the be all end all, with an in one ear out the other attitude towards the opinions of others. Henry David Thoreau can sum up my thoughts better then I can:

“To speak impartially, the best men that I know are not serene, a world in themselves. For the most part, they dwell in forms, and flatter and study effect only more finely than the rest. We select granite for the underpinning of our houses and barns; we build fences of stone; but we do not ourselves rest on an underpinning of granite truth, the lowest primitive rock. Our sills are rotten. What stuff is the man made of who is not coexistent in out thought with the purest and subtilest truth? I often accuse my finest acquaintances of an immense frivolity; for, while there are manners and compliments we do not meet, we do not teach one another the lessons of honesty and sincerity that the brutes do, or of steadiness and solidity that the rocks do. The fault is commonly mutual, however; for we do not habitually demand any more of each other."

-soma

Child In Red

Sometimes she walks through the village in her
     little red dress
all absorbed in restraining herself,
and yet, despite herself, she seems to move
according to the rhythm of her life to come.

She runs a bit, hesitates, stops,
half-turns around...
and, all while dreaming, shakes her head
for or against.

Then she dances a few steps
that she invents and forgets,
no doubt finding out that life
moves on too fast.

It's not so much that she steps out
of the small body enclosing her,
but that all she carries in herself
frolics and ferments.

It's this dress that she'll remember
later in a sweet surrender;
when her whole life is full of risks,
the little red dress will always seem right.

-Rilke

L'art

"They thought I was a Surrealist, but I wasn't. I never painted dreams. I painted my own reality" -frida kahlo

malcontents, listen up!

This is an excerpt from an email I received entitled "foreigners" . It sheds light on the motivation many celebrities have for taking part in pathetic publicity stunts which happen to involve real people (i.e. international politicians)...perhaps "real people" is too generous. regardless...the real question is: why the hell bother? Isn't it all bullshit with a cherry on top? Decide for yourself....do actors and models merit a turn of the head for their interest in politics or are they just like the rest of us, looking for recognition because of our incredible foresight in political opinion (believe me, you are not now, nor were you ever the only Bush-hater out there) and should suffer there indignity in silence like the rest of us who are at the mercy of big oil and the electoral college? Read and may your indignation fester:

"In fact, for the malcontents of Hollywood, academia, and the catwalks, Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention, and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome the frustration John Reed once felt—the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. For all his brilliance, Reed could not bring socialism to America. For all his wealth, fame, media access, and Hollywood power, Sean Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions.

As for Venezuelan politics, or the Venezuelan people, they don't matter at all. The country is simply playing a role filled in the past by Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua—a role to which it is, a! t the moment, uniquely suited. Clearly, Venezuela is easier to idealiz e than Iran and North Korea, the former's attitude to women being not conducive to fashion models, the latter being downright hostile to Hollywood. Venezuela is also warm, relatively close, and a country of beautiful waterfalls.

Most of all, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president—so do most other heads of state—but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman," and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? Ninety years after the tragedy of the Russian revolution, Venezuela has become the "kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer" for a whole new generation of fellow-travelers. As long as the oil lasts."

Anne Applebaum

If you crave more:

http://www.slate.com/id/2177484/

and by all means, make your opinion heard, it's likely to be more coherent than naomi campbell's.

My Computer, My Love, My God

Are we really in control of our technology? This is a nice little head-line grabber that people can read when they're spending time with their computers rather than people.

So what's an effective response? We cannot force being to change— everything that occurs from here on out will be a sort of positive feedback loop in reaction to technology—for example, when it becomes the case as it is now, that people spend more time with their computer than with other humans, perhaps this is an explicit indication that human to human relationships are debased in favor human-machine relationships. Will this bring about a new level of consciousness? This has many implications, not least of all that “we could turn ourselves into monsters, not happier humans.” This suggests that happiness is the goal of humans, but is it? Is isolation, or the construction of an individual world for each person, the new end of humanity? Computers listen to and remember everything we say and never tell us we're wrong or annoy us with their own views. Also, if it breaks, you can get a new one that's even prettier and smarter than your old one.

All techno-fetishism aside, I have to admit that sitting here in the library, I check my email/blog/whatever else for some sense of connectivity with the outside world, but especially a connection with other people. I don't necessarily want to read the news, I want someone to have contacted me. So that even hooked up to this machine, (literally) I can still communicate with other humans. But I still wouldn't think of talking to the person at the computer next to me. I'd rather get an email from someone 3,000 miles away. And, I'd rather search for that other ear than sit here and type a paper into the grand canyon. So is this technology good then? Perhaps its the opposite of isolating, and instead a source of real connection between people.

Also, have you heard about this? Great, so kids in developing countries can have cheap laptops. These are kids who might not get dinner or an education after they reach 9 years old. I think this is a perfect example of 1) our sense of self as personal Jesus to the "developing world" and 2) technology as God. What is this if not mission work? Basically, what the fuck. Sure, these kids can learn to type and go on the internet. Sweet. Soon the world will be fully virtual and everyone can hole up with their computers. It would be really fun and satisfying to watch this project completely fall apart and some douchey billionaire lose all of his money if it wasn't guaranteed to take so many small communities with it.
.e

thought for to-dunday.

Isn't funny that there are some places where change can just sit on the ground? No one picks up free money. It's not like as college students we're going to do something more lucrative with that .05 seconds it takes to bend over and pick it up.

Jump on your Jihad!

I know some of you are silently gasping out there at my flippant use of the loaded “j” word. Just hold on to your Hanes and Fruits o’ Loom…get over the not so subtle brainwashing job the media has obviously pulled on you.
Honestly, according to every online dictionary I’ve checked so far has associated jihad with a holy struggle of Muslims against infidels (in so many words). Frankly, I’m sorry if I offend most of the world (not that I am implying that a majority, or even large portion of humanity is reading this shit) …but I want a Jihad too!
This is the point at which you’ve either stopped reading; now overwhelmed and offended or are just bored of reading crazy ranting but if you bear with me, I have a coherent, non-violent point.
What is it that defines individual existence? Isn’t that what we’re all supposed to be fervently uprooting, living each waking moment as if it is the One which will uncover some shrouded truth that gives us our purpose? Well, I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell haven’t found mine and hope to Christ (accept my apologies for my continued irreverence or stop reading) that it has nothing to do with the make of car I have when I’m forty-whatever.
In this sense I envy those with their jihads laid out before them like a well-groomed A.T. They’ve got a jump on all of us, already taking action while we fumble around looking for purpose in our designer handbags and Kelty packs.
Do not misunderstand; I see no courage in self-detonation. Jihad, as its true term is a sticky one. I do not desire a destiny of detonation; only the great passion (be it disillusioned, naïve or otherwise unrealistically idealistic) which compels a select few to ascend the passive stupor which permeates every aspect of being one unremarkable among billions. I wait because as a great man once said…”let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolution is guided by great feelings of love.” Because momma always said: you can’t hurry love.
~xate

Quote of the Dunday

You men of authority,
We do not speak your language,
Please act accordingly
[state radio]

big brother is watching

ok, so i was about to type a reply to the discush about how second life is fucked up, soon we will all be physically connected with our machines, will evolve into them, but then I noticed the side advertisements on our gmail account.
They include:
"understanding gen y"
"raise your child jamaican" holy shit
"bob dylan concert shirts"
"why mommy is a democrat" (good to know the "left" can brainwash too)
"dylan memorobilia"

Coincidence? Does everyone who uses gmail get treated to this little niche-market of rasta/dylan fetishism? Or is it just us, who have probably mentioned how we are proud members of gen Y and consume accordingly.

Ok, so there's the bullshit calling, what do we do about it?

La Revolucion

Agnes Montgomery


"It is crazy not to celebrate whatever reconciles us to life. The craziness suggests either stubborn grievance-- an unhappiness with life that turns people against notions of reconciliation to it-- or benumbed insensibility."
-- Schjeldahl