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