10 Minutes After the End of 'The Matrix' Trilogy
Really funny stuff, give it a read. Why yes, it is a Cracked article, why do you ask?
Article written by Luke McKinney, published by Cracked.com
18 July 2012
On Europe's Last Dictatorship
Belarus - A Prison For Those Who Live There
A very moving op-ed describing the situation in Belarus, written by Andrej Dynko, the editor in chief of Nasha Niva, a weekly newspaper in Belarus. The article is a poignant rebuttal to the false sense of hope regarding Belarus held by many in the EU government - Mr. Dynko points out how entrenched Lukashenko is in power. Dynko effectively criticizes the ineffectiveness of "symbolic acts" by pointing out how they fit into the dictator's methods of holding on to power. Further, Mr. Dynko makes a damning accusation by the end of the article - Belarus is merely a prison for 9 million people, with conditions in society reflecting that which political prisoners find in jail. A damning portrayal of a country which needs concerted change, quickly.
The article was written by Andrej Dynko, and translated by Julia Sherwood. Published by the New York Times.
A very moving op-ed describing the situation in Belarus, written by Andrej Dynko, the editor in chief of Nasha Niva, a weekly newspaper in Belarus. The article is a poignant rebuttal to the false sense of hope regarding Belarus held by many in the EU government - Mr. Dynko points out how entrenched Lukashenko is in power. Dynko effectively criticizes the ineffectiveness of "symbolic acts" by pointing out how they fit into the dictator's methods of holding on to power. Further, Mr. Dynko makes a damning accusation by the end of the article - Belarus is merely a prison for 9 million people, with conditions in society reflecting that which political prisoners find in jail. A damning portrayal of a country which needs concerted change, quickly.
The article was written by Andrej Dynko, and translated by Julia Sherwood. Published by the New York Times.
Israeli’s Act of Despair Disheartens a Movement
Really?
I didn't like the NYT coverage on this story - it looks like the author is purposefully misrepresenting a genuine sense of shock and moral responsibility as being "disheartened" by Moshe Silman immolating himself. The statements the respondents in the article sounds, to me, merely that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and how Mr. Silman's act ups the ante for the movement as a whole - I'd hardly say they are disheartened. If anything, they seem more determined.
What is far more intriguing about this article is the description of how the movement is receiving far less support from the Israeli press - in fact, many newspapers who were once their supporters are now fighting against them. The author gives a good deal of sympathy to the newspapers, and much less to the movement that once had the former's support. So much for unbiased reporting.
Article written by Isabel Kershner, and published by the New York Times.
I didn't like the NYT coverage on this story - it looks like the author is purposefully misrepresenting a genuine sense of shock and moral responsibility as being "disheartened" by Moshe Silman immolating himself. The statements the respondents in the article sounds, to me, merely that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and how Mr. Silman's act ups the ante for the movement as a whole - I'd hardly say they are disheartened. If anything, they seem more determined.
What is far more intriguing about this article is the description of how the movement is receiving far less support from the Israeli press - in fact, many newspapers who were once their supporters are now fighting against them. The author gives a good deal of sympathy to the newspapers, and much less to the movement that once had the former's support. So much for unbiased reporting.
Article written by Isabel Kershner, and published by the New York Times.
17 July 2012
A Glass House I Wouldn't Throw Stones At
A 8,000 sq. foot glass house
One of my hobbies is architecture - not just in a historical sense, but also in the form of daily appreciation. I really enjoy looking at unique homes and buildings, no matter the period or style of architecture - Robarts Library, of course, being a notable exception. The only thing I'd use that building for is to defend against the zombie apocalypse. But this house looks awesome - entirely glass, but in a very clever way. The architect, Tom Phifer, got around the problem of privacy with a glass house by constructing a platform-like subterranean structure built as the base of a hill, with massive floor to ceiling windows on every side, with a beautiful, entirely glass pavilion on top which gives 360 degree views.
This is the house when looked at from street level
And here's the platform on top, with skylights that blend in with the grass.
Article written by Colleen Kane of CNBC, courtesy of Yahoo! News
One of my hobbies is architecture - not just in a historical sense, but also in the form of daily appreciation. I really enjoy looking at unique homes and buildings, no matter the period or style of architecture - Robarts Library, of course, being a notable exception. The only thing I'd use that building for is to defend against the zombie apocalypse. But this house looks awesome - entirely glass, but in a very clever way. The architect, Tom Phifer, got around the problem of privacy with a glass house by constructing a platform-like subterranean structure built as the base of a hill, with massive floor to ceiling windows on every side, with a beautiful, entirely glass pavilion on top which gives 360 degree views.
This is the house when looked at from street level
Article written by Colleen Kane of CNBC, courtesy of Yahoo! News
Nothing Like Some Biting Satire To Heal Old Wounds
Freed slave who penned sarcastic letter to old master after he was asked back to farm pictured for first time
I love history for stories like this - a former slave writes a letter to his old master which is simply filled with satire, wit, and some very dark humor. Read the whole article - the research behind the letter is a story in and of itself, and the personalities involved are great. Only thing I will add is the text of the letter itself; the article puts it at the end, but I would have liked to have read it at the top:
The last line is what makes the letter. Damn.
Article written by the Associated Press (AP), and printed by the Daily Mail Online.
I love history for stories like this - a former slave writes a letter to his old master which is simply filled with satire, wit, and some very dark humor. Read the whole article - the research behind the letter is a story in and of itself, and the personalities involved are great. Only thing I will add is the text of the letter itself; the article puts it at the end, but I would have liked to have read it at the top:
Dayton, Ohio,August 7, 1865To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee
Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jordon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.
I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.
As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams's Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.
In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve - and die, if it come to that - than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.
Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.
From your old servant,
Jordon Anderson
The last line is what makes the letter. Damn.
Article written by the Associated Press (AP), and printed by the Daily Mail Online.
Denis Leary: Prophet?
U.S. Priority on Illegal Drugs Debated As Pill Use Rises
The stats are staggering - in the US, cocaine was used by 1.5 million people, and heroin by 220,000 - but over 7 million people abused prescription drugs in the past year. While this hardly qualifies as a staggering fact, the release of this new data came at the same time when many outspoken officials on both sides of the debate have condemned the War on Drugs as a failure. The article quotes NJ governor Christie as agreeing with this statement, and even Pat Robertson, who as symbol of morality (for better or for worse) has condemned the prosecution of small amounts of marijuana, and has even joined the campaign to have it treated like alcohol. Further, the newly elected president of Mexico has clearly stated that his priority will be social treatment, rather than new efforts at law enforcement; he has further stated that he dislikes the US' strategy of ending drug use through enforcement, rather than looking at their own problem.
For me, the article allowed the formation of an image in my mind - specifically, will I see the day where there is no longer a War on Drugs? I don't think it's coincidental that so many voices have joined together to condemn this war, which has so little benefit - and if anything, is only encouraging the problem.
Finally, the tagline to this post is a reference to Leary's routine regarding legal drug use - in No Cure for Cancer, he jokes about how one can abuse legal drugs and get as good as, or in some cases, a better high off the legal stuff than you can on the illegal - and it's far easier to obtain, to boot. Further, I think the number the article quotes regarding the abuse of prescription drugs is lower than it is in actuality; does that number include the abuse of drugs like ritalin and adderall, which is becoming increasingly prevalent among students, as described by a recent NYT article?
We should simply end this War, and accept the consequences of that decision. I think it is possible to transition to an actually free society, where people can utilize whatever substances they like, as people use alcohol and tobacco now - with the caveat of a high tax on your pleasure. The abuse of prescription drugs is just as bad as abusing heroin, cocaine, or marijuana; the only difference is that drug companies have legitimate representatives and lobbyists in Congress.
Article written by Damien Cave & Michael S. Schmidt; published by the New York Times.
The stats are staggering - in the US, cocaine was used by 1.5 million people, and heroin by 220,000 - but over 7 million people abused prescription drugs in the past year. While this hardly qualifies as a staggering fact, the release of this new data came at the same time when many outspoken officials on both sides of the debate have condemned the War on Drugs as a failure. The article quotes NJ governor Christie as agreeing with this statement, and even Pat Robertson, who as symbol of morality (for better or for worse) has condemned the prosecution of small amounts of marijuana, and has even joined the campaign to have it treated like alcohol. Further, the newly elected president of Mexico has clearly stated that his priority will be social treatment, rather than new efforts at law enforcement; he has further stated that he dislikes the US' strategy of ending drug use through enforcement, rather than looking at their own problem.
For me, the article allowed the formation of an image in my mind - specifically, will I see the day where there is no longer a War on Drugs? I don't think it's coincidental that so many voices have joined together to condemn this war, which has so little benefit - and if anything, is only encouraging the problem.
Finally, the tagline to this post is a reference to Leary's routine regarding legal drug use - in No Cure for Cancer, he jokes about how one can abuse legal drugs and get as good as, or in some cases, a better high off the legal stuff than you can on the illegal - and it's far easier to obtain, to boot. Further, I think the number the article quotes regarding the abuse of prescription drugs is lower than it is in actuality; does that number include the abuse of drugs like ritalin and adderall, which is becoming increasingly prevalent among students, as described by a recent NYT article?
We should simply end this War, and accept the consequences of that decision. I think it is possible to transition to an actually free society, where people can utilize whatever substances they like, as people use alcohol and tobacco now - with the caveat of a high tax on your pleasure. The abuse of prescription drugs is just as bad as abusing heroin, cocaine, or marijuana; the only difference is that drug companies have legitimate representatives and lobbyists in Congress.
Article written by Damien Cave & Michael S. Schmidt; published by the New York Times.
16 July 2012
Marriage Equality is Officially Mainstream ...
According to Pollsters and Their Respondents, Anyway
I always question polls, given how often they're off the mark, but I hope this turns out to be true - especially on election day.
The article (blog post?) brings together quotes from a Report published by the Center of American Progress and various polls conducted on the issue recently. The article is very good, I would say - both well researched and well written. I expect Savage will post it on his blog any moment now.
Article is courtesy of Fark.com; written by Katie Halper and published on Feministing.com
I always question polls, given how often they're off the mark, but I hope this turns out to be true - especially on election day.
The article (blog post?) brings together quotes from a Report published by the Center of American Progress and various polls conducted on the issue recently. The article is very good, I would say - both well researched and well written. I expect Savage will post it on his blog any moment now.
Article is courtesy of Fark.com; written by Katie Halper and published on Feministing.com
You're Doing it Wrong
Iowa teacher's aide fired for calling 'Huckleberry Finn' racist
I feel sorry for the woman in question, actually - she sounds a lot like Kevin Vaughn, someone ill-prepared for the pressure of being a visible minority in a place that is generally unaccustomed to them. I could also be making huge assumptions, that's absolutely possible.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; written by Clark Kaufmann of the Des Moines Daily Register.
I feel sorry for the woman in question, actually - she sounds a lot like Kevin Vaughn, someone ill-prepared for the pressure of being a visible minority in a place that is generally unaccustomed to them. I could also be making huge assumptions, that's absolutely possible.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; written by Clark Kaufmann of the Des Moines Daily Register.
Talk About Over-Achieving!
Police Remove 50 Explosive Devices From Ontario Home
Headline explains itself, really, but the article just gets more surreal from there.
Article is from Yahoo! News, via the CBC.
Headline explains itself, really, but the article just gets more surreal from there.
Article is from Yahoo! News, via the CBC.
Oh, Tourists. Yes, That Includes You.
Oh, tourists. Was walking around the Old Town today, and I came across a couple of large groups of British tourists. I'm rather happy that, due to the huge proliferation of British tourists in Europe during the last decade (thanks, RyanAir!), most people here and elsewhere have forgotten that Americans used to hold a monopoly on the "loud, obnoxious drunkards" crown. Makes going around Europe a bit easier for me. Of course, we're still the Imperialist Pigs With No Culture, but being from NYC somewhat cancels that out - except in Toronto, naturally. Envy and jealousy makes 'em meaner.
I saw the first group while at the Subway on ul. Bracka. They were talking really loudly about how difficult it was to be tourists in Krakow, and Scottish tourists in particular - here are some gems:
"The girls never paid attention to us!" Gee, I wonder why?
"That fuckin' Polish guy, he didn't know the difference between Scottish and British" You know, I could actually see that as a compliment. Though I imagine Manchester would punch me for saying that.
"And that French guy, he just dropped off the hash [we paid for] and didn't want to smoke with us, how fuckin' rude of him! Only because we're from Scotland" I had (and still have) no response to that, except to laugh hysterically. Thankfully, they didn't notice the tears running from my eyes while I tried to hold it in.
All the while two guys in their group are taking pictures constantly, especially of the ice machine, which had the trademark 'Scotsman'. Seriously, they took 5 pictures of it.
This was quite amusing to listen to, but seeing these packs of British men reminded me of conversations I had with Malgosia K. and others on the subject of tourist behavior. Specifically, why travel and eat and the same damn place you could eat at while at home?! It used to be McDonalds (and it still is), now it's Subway. I never understood that - if you're going to take the time and money to travel somewhere, why not eat the local food? Or at least try eating something that you can't get as often at home? Or just try something different? It's not like you're living there - if you live in a place, I completely understand eating at places which remind you of home. But after just a weekend away? No sense whatsoever, talk about a waste.
I saw the first group while at the Subway on ul. Bracka. They were talking really loudly about how difficult it was to be tourists in Krakow, and Scottish tourists in particular - here are some gems:
"The girls never paid attention to us!" Gee, I wonder why?
"That fuckin' Polish guy, he didn't know the difference between Scottish and British" You know, I could actually see that as a compliment. Though I imagine Manchester would punch me for saying that.
"And that French guy, he just dropped off the hash [we paid for] and didn't want to smoke with us, how fuckin' rude of him! Only because we're from Scotland" I had (and still have) no response to that, except to laugh hysterically. Thankfully, they didn't notice the tears running from my eyes while I tried to hold it in.
All the while two guys in their group are taking pictures constantly, especially of the ice machine, which had the trademark 'Scotsman'. Seriously, they took 5 pictures of it.
This was quite amusing to listen to, but seeing these packs of British men reminded me of conversations I had with Malgosia K. and others on the subject of tourist behavior. Specifically, why travel and eat and the same damn place you could eat at while at home?! It used to be McDonalds (and it still is), now it's Subway. I never understood that - if you're going to take the time and money to travel somewhere, why not eat the local food? Or at least try eating something that you can't get as often at home? Or just try something different? It's not like you're living there - if you live in a place, I completely understand eating at places which remind you of home. But after just a weekend away? No sense whatsoever, talk about a waste.
The other group I came across was at ul. Gołębia
3; as opposed to the first group, which was probably Scottish teenagers, this group was almost exclusively English professionals, and they were complaining that Poland didn't have more beers like their favorite bitters from back home. Another major point of contention for me - why go to another country if you're going to expect the same stuff that you got at home?! As Henio was saying yesterday, it's like going abroad and complaining that the toilet paper doesn't have as many different colors as your home version. That man explains these things far better than I ever will.
The Difficulties of Making Friends
Why Is it Hard to Make Friends Over 30
While a lot of this article was clearly not meant for me, nevertheless I found it illuminating, as well as enjoyable. Much of the article revolve around marriage and children - two aspects of life which don't apply to me, naturally, but given that many of my friends are either married or in relationships akin to marriage, it did help to explain some of their behavior. Specifically, the concept of having to find friends "as couples" - probably showing off some of my own ignorance, but that part made no sense to me. Why can't you find (or make) friends on your own? That said, given how often I move around, the article appealed to me personally in many ways, though I did have a number of criticisms.
What the article said about careers being all-consuming was fascinating to me, especially since I have met so many people over the years who fall into that category; I certainly don't. I suppose because of my own approach to my career, I have found it difficult to relate to people who cannot make friends due to their own careers. Ditto on people who have "set" social groups - why eschew making new friends just because you seem like you have enough? In any case, it was good to see a different perspective, and to try to understand that aspect a bit more.
The part that really appealed to me was simply the challenge of making new friends when everyone around you already seems like they're set for friends. This was the experience I had in Toronto when I first moved there, and to say that I didn't like it would be an understatement. It was a similar experience for me in college also; it was difficult to make new friends (outside of the Polish Club) after the first year because everyone had their friends already made. My first year in college was a catastrophe in many ways, and I was keen to move on from it. Since I was walking around with not nearly as many friends, however, I stood out, or at least felt that I did. I also haven't held on to most of the friends I made in college; sure, I'm in contact with many of them, but they were definitely what the article called "situational friendships". Going away for a year from Toronto also revealed some of my close friends as instead being somewhat situational, but after Rochester I expected that.
This brings me to a major criticism I had of the article; it does not dwell nearly enough on how people make it hard for themselves to make new friends. In my experience, making friendships is a conscious choice, and what the article does is create excuse after excuse. Only once does it address the issue of people changing as they get older, and becoming less patient with people who are very different. For me, that is the key barrier to friendship - people are often lazy when it comes to making friends, or simply unwilling. That is the key problem in Toronto, and NYC also - people become so set in their ways that they are unwilling to change. Their lifestyles, whether unconsciously or by design, become so crowded that they cannot fit anyone new in. That sort of static lifestyle is dangerous, in my opinion - we need to be able to change. You never know when the life you've carefully crafted for yourself will come crashing down. The article addresses that, but only through divorce, and even then doesn't offer many alternatives.
My friends and friendships are really important to me, and from the article, it sounds like marriage makes it truly difficult to make new friends. I wonder if all marriages are so hostile to making new friends as the ones described in the article - if so, count me out! To be fair, I don't think marriage as a concept is to blame for this - I think how people approach their marriage and how it should impact their social life is the culprit. For me, a successful marriage is between two people with (close to) independent social spheres, in addition to the one they share together.
The article is courtesy of Rabbi Tyson's facebook feed. It was originally written by Alex Williams and published in the New York Times.
While a lot of this article was clearly not meant for me, nevertheless I found it illuminating, as well as enjoyable. Much of the article revolve around marriage and children - two aspects of life which don't apply to me, naturally, but given that many of my friends are either married or in relationships akin to marriage, it did help to explain some of their behavior. Specifically, the concept of having to find friends "as couples" - probably showing off some of my own ignorance, but that part made no sense to me. Why can't you find (or make) friends on your own? That said, given how often I move around, the article appealed to me personally in many ways, though I did have a number of criticisms.
What the article said about careers being all-consuming was fascinating to me, especially since I have met so many people over the years who fall into that category; I certainly don't. I suppose because of my own approach to my career, I have found it difficult to relate to people who cannot make friends due to their own careers. Ditto on people who have "set" social groups - why eschew making new friends just because you seem like you have enough? In any case, it was good to see a different perspective, and to try to understand that aspect a bit more.
The part that really appealed to me was simply the challenge of making new friends when everyone around you already seems like they're set for friends. This was the experience I had in Toronto when I first moved there, and to say that I didn't like it would be an understatement. It was a similar experience for me in college also; it was difficult to make new friends (outside of the Polish Club) after the first year because everyone had their friends already made. My first year in college was a catastrophe in many ways, and I was keen to move on from it. Since I was walking around with not nearly as many friends, however, I stood out, or at least felt that I did. I also haven't held on to most of the friends I made in college; sure, I'm in contact with many of them, but they were definitely what the article called "situational friendships". Going away for a year from Toronto also revealed some of my close friends as instead being somewhat situational, but after Rochester I expected that.
This brings me to a major criticism I had of the article; it does not dwell nearly enough on how people make it hard for themselves to make new friends. In my experience, making friendships is a conscious choice, and what the article does is create excuse after excuse. Only once does it address the issue of people changing as they get older, and becoming less patient with people who are very different. For me, that is the key barrier to friendship - people are often lazy when it comes to making friends, or simply unwilling. That is the key problem in Toronto, and NYC also - people become so set in their ways that they are unwilling to change. Their lifestyles, whether unconsciously or by design, become so crowded that they cannot fit anyone new in. That sort of static lifestyle is dangerous, in my opinion - we need to be able to change. You never know when the life you've carefully crafted for yourself will come crashing down. The article addresses that, but only through divorce, and even then doesn't offer many alternatives.
My friends and friendships are really important to me, and from the article, it sounds like marriage makes it truly difficult to make new friends. I wonder if all marriages are so hostile to making new friends as the ones described in the article - if so, count me out! To be fair, I don't think marriage as a concept is to blame for this - I think how people approach their marriage and how it should impact their social life is the culprit. For me, a successful marriage is between two people with (close to) independent social spheres, in addition to the one they share together.
The article is courtesy of Rabbi Tyson's facebook feed. It was originally written by Alex Williams and published in the New York Times.
13 July 2012
Ctrl + V
Today I applied for a couple of vacant TA positions at the history department, so I had to update the CV ... I just hope I (and my colleagues) aren't as bad as Slackenerny! The comic has made a number of jokes about just how much Ph.D. students copy and paste over the years, and most of them are uncomfortably accurate. Being a PhD means that half the time you're recycling old material; most of this recycling is expected, like re-using old lectures or using old papers as the basis for lectures, study guides, and so on; sometimes, though, the recycling heads into areas we don't want to talk about.
Comic is courtesy of Jorge Cham of PHD Comics.
Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close
Milos Forman, director of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Amadeus”, responds.
"Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism"
An excellent rebuttal to the rhetoric used by Obama's detractors. Their tactics are cheap, and merely serves to reinforce the weakness of their own arguments; this is unfortunate, mostly because there are good arguments to use against Obama, but by using this rhetoric they diminish their own chances of success.
Forman goes further to say:
"Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism"
An excellent rebuttal to the rhetoric used by Obama's detractors. Their tactics are cheap, and merely serves to reinforce the weakness of their own arguments; this is unfortunate, mostly because there are good arguments to use against Obama, but by using this rhetoric they diminish their own chances of success.
Forman goes further to say:
"What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice — which never
existed and never will — but for social harmony. Harmony in music is,
by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different
players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall
melody.
Today, our democracy, a miraculous gathering of diverse players,
desperately needs such unity. If all participants play fair and strive
for the common good, we can achieve a harmony that eluded the
doctrinaire socialist projects. But if just one section, or even one
player, is out of tune, the music will disintegrate into cacophony."
Well said.
This opinion piece was written by Milos Forman,and published in the New York Times.
This opinion piece was written by Milos Forman,and published in the New York Times.
On Being Offended
Jim Norton On Offending People, Apologizing To Steve Martin & Why He Likes Westboro Baptist Church
I hate the culture of being offended that is developing in the States, and exists full-blown in Canada. It's stifling our discussions and our creativity. Which is why I love quotes like this:
"Here’s what being offended is, it’s a phony sense of empowerment. People have lost this ability to go, “Wow, I didn’t like that, that bothered me. I won’t watch that again.” People have lost the ability to just not like something and walk away. People now feel that if they object to something, nobody else should enjoy it either. It’s because we’ve seen enough people say they’re sorry, we’ve seen enough people fired where people now feel that, “if I’m offended, I voice my offense, people have to listen to me.”
It’s a really weird self-centered attention-seeking device people use. So I never buy the offense. … I think 90% of it is a lie. People say, “I don’t like stereotypes.” Bullshit. You don’t like negative stereotypes. People don’t mind positive stereotypes. People don’t mind positive assumptions. It’s only negative assumptions about them. So their outrage is so arbitrary. And I’m embarrassed for us as a free society that we actually want people punished for saying things we don’t like. The liberals are bad and the conservatives are bad. The liberals say things like “Well, that’s homophobic, that’s racist.” And the conservatives say things like, “You’re attacking our religion. You’re attacking family values.” Both sides are equally fraudulent when it comes to supporting unpopular speech. It’s easy to support popular speech. We’re supposed to stick up for things that do bother people. The rest of us are supposed to rally around and defend people’s rights to say what they want to say. That’s why I like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they’re repulsive people. I think their message is repulsive. But I think they are good for society because it shows exactly what we will tolerate in a free-thinking society. Even pigs like that, and they are pigs."
Walking Away is a concept which is rapidly disappearing, as is supporting free speech in all its forms, even when you don't like it; especially when you don't like it. Hence why Canada and the UK don't have free speech, and the US is losing it, if it hasn't lost it already.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; Interview was between Jim Norton and Carol Hartsell, and published by the Huffington Post.
I hate the culture of being offended that is developing in the States, and exists full-blown in Canada. It's stifling our discussions and our creativity. Which is why I love quotes like this:
"Here’s what being offended is, it’s a phony sense of empowerment. People have lost this ability to go, “Wow, I didn’t like that, that bothered me. I won’t watch that again.” People have lost the ability to just not like something and walk away. People now feel that if they object to something, nobody else should enjoy it either. It’s because we’ve seen enough people say they’re sorry, we’ve seen enough people fired where people now feel that, “if I’m offended, I voice my offense, people have to listen to me.”
It’s a really weird self-centered attention-seeking device people use. So I never buy the offense. … I think 90% of it is a lie. People say, “I don’t like stereotypes.” Bullshit. You don’t like negative stereotypes. People don’t mind positive stereotypes. People don’t mind positive assumptions. It’s only negative assumptions about them. So their outrage is so arbitrary. And I’m embarrassed for us as a free society that we actually want people punished for saying things we don’t like. The liberals are bad and the conservatives are bad. The liberals say things like “Well, that’s homophobic, that’s racist.” And the conservatives say things like, “You’re attacking our religion. You’re attacking family values.” Both sides are equally fraudulent when it comes to supporting unpopular speech. It’s easy to support popular speech. We’re supposed to stick up for things that do bother people. The rest of us are supposed to rally around and defend people’s rights to say what they want to say. That’s why I like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they’re repulsive people. I think their message is repulsive. But I think they are good for society because it shows exactly what we will tolerate in a free-thinking society. Even pigs like that, and they are pigs."
Walking Away is a concept which is rapidly disappearing, as is supporting free speech in all its forms, even when you don't like it; especially when you don't like it. Hence why Canada and the UK don't have free speech, and the US is losing it, if it hasn't lost it already.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; Interview was between Jim Norton and Carol Hartsell, and published by the Huffington Post.
Can Hybrid Identities Work in Israel?
Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
Should a Scandal Invalidate a Legacy?
Findings Stun Even Paterno’s Ardent Supporters
The outcome of the investigation isn't what I'm thinking about; rather, what I am considering more is the idea, referenced often in this article, that Paterno's legacy is being actively undermined for his role in the scandal. My question is, does that legacy deserve to be brought down? It sounds like Paterno was a really good guy, a great symbol as well as a philanthropic figure. I merely find it sad that his legacy would (or maybe should?) be limited because of his role in this scandal.
I honestly don't know what to think - the vindictive part of my personality wants to see this guy pay for what he did. He knowingly covered up the sexual molestation of young boys, on what seems to be a regular basis. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was going on; this article and the other article in the NYT today makes that clear. He knowingly covered up for sexual molestation, so maybe he deserves to have his legacy torn asunder.
The other part of me argues for forgiveness, even of crimes like this. One aspect of this is a question of loyalty, and also the culture in which these men lived. We have forgotten that it used to be very common to cover up these kinds of acts, and that it wasn't part of American culture at all to report these sick crimes to the police. Further, it's obvious that Paterno felt a great degree of loyalty to Sandusky; far greater men than he have been blinded by loyalty before. Honestly, however, the idea of forgetting this crime, even in the face of his many accomplishments, sickens me.
I simply find it truly unfortunate that this scandal is going to destroy a man's legacy; everything else that he did over the course of his career is now going to be questioned or viewed through the prism of the Sandutsky scandal. And maybe it deserves to be. I would much prefer, however, a more nuanced view of a man; can we selectively salute someone's accomplishments, even in the face of their failures? We do that a lot in history - look at Andrew Jackson, or any American president, for that matter - but does that work in the present day?
Article written by Bill Pennington and Tim Rohan, published in the New York Times.
The outcome of the investigation isn't what I'm thinking about; rather, what I am considering more is the idea, referenced often in this article, that Paterno's legacy is being actively undermined for his role in the scandal. My question is, does that legacy deserve to be brought down? It sounds like Paterno was a really good guy, a great symbol as well as a philanthropic figure. I merely find it sad that his legacy would (or maybe should?) be limited because of his role in this scandal.
I honestly don't know what to think - the vindictive part of my personality wants to see this guy pay for what he did. He knowingly covered up the sexual molestation of young boys, on what seems to be a regular basis. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was going on; this article and the other article in the NYT today makes that clear. He knowingly covered up for sexual molestation, so maybe he deserves to have his legacy torn asunder.
The other part of me argues for forgiveness, even of crimes like this. One aspect of this is a question of loyalty, and also the culture in which these men lived. We have forgotten that it used to be very common to cover up these kinds of acts, and that it wasn't part of American culture at all to report these sick crimes to the police. Further, it's obvious that Paterno felt a great degree of loyalty to Sandusky; far greater men than he have been blinded by loyalty before. Honestly, however, the idea of forgetting this crime, even in the face of his many accomplishments, sickens me.
I simply find it truly unfortunate that this scandal is going to destroy a man's legacy; everything else that he did over the course of his career is now going to be questioned or viewed through the prism of the Sandutsky scandal. And maybe it deserves to be. I would much prefer, however, a more nuanced view of a man; can we selectively salute someone's accomplishments, even in the face of their failures? We do that a lot in history - look at Andrew Jackson, or any American president, for that matter - but does that work in the present day?
Article written by Bill Pennington and Tim Rohan, published in the New York Times.
Toronto Deputy Mayor channels Cat Stevens ...
“Downtown not the place to raise kids, says Toronto Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday”
Believe it or not, Holyday actually says " ... but where do the children play?" at one point. I love that song, but it's a seriously dumb idea. Of course kids can grow up downtown, they should grow up downtown. Are they going to learn about life living in the suburbs? I think not. Raising a kid at King & John is kind of like raising a kid on Herald Square; I wouldn't do it, but I can see the kid having a grand 'ol time.
Living downtown is a challenging, exciting place for a kid to grow up, and I see them learning a lot from the experience - if the parents are up to the task, naturally. You have to be much more engaged with your child if you choose to raise them in an urban environment. Not all parents like being that engaged, though. Sucks for their kids, really.
I'm thinking, though, about exactly why people would be so convinced that you can't raise kids in an urban setting - and here's the funny thing. To raise a kid in the city, you have to trust yourself, trust your kid (when they get to that point), and trust the people you live around. People don't like doing that - they don't want to watch their kids, they don't want to trust their kids, and they definitely don't want to trust the people around them.
Article courtesy of Randy McDonald over at A Bit More Detail; original written by Daniel Dale and published in the Toronto Star.
Believe it or not, Holyday actually says " ... but where do the children play?" at one point. I love that song, but it's a seriously dumb idea. Of course kids can grow up downtown, they should grow up downtown. Are they going to learn about life living in the suburbs? I think not. Raising a kid at King & John is kind of like raising a kid on Herald Square; I wouldn't do it, but I can see the kid having a grand 'ol time.
Living downtown is a challenging, exciting place for a kid to grow up, and I see them learning a lot from the experience - if the parents are up to the task, naturally. You have to be much more engaged with your child if you choose to raise them in an urban environment. Not all parents like being that engaged, though. Sucks for their kids, really.
I'm thinking, though, about exactly why people would be so convinced that you can't raise kids in an urban setting - and here's the funny thing. To raise a kid in the city, you have to trust yourself, trust your kid (when they get to that point), and trust the people you live around. People don't like doing that - they don't want to watch their kids, they don't want to trust their kids, and they definitely don't want to trust the people around them.
Article courtesy of Randy McDonald over at A Bit More Detail; original written by Daniel Dale and published in the Toronto Star.
11 July 2012
And Finally, a Man Stood Up
Heiny blasted as the Olympic Beer
I am so happy about this, you cannot imagine. Finally, someone stands up to Heineken because of the horrible beer it is. The article emphasizes the British-European divide, and his desire for a truly 'British Olympic Games', but we know it's because Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland simply cannot stand bad beer.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; written by Neil Gerrard and published by Caterer and Hotelkeeper.
I am so happy about this, you cannot imagine. Finally, someone stands up to Heineken because of the horrible beer it is. The article emphasizes the British-European divide, and his desire for a truly 'British Olympic Games', but we know it's because Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland simply cannot stand bad beer.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; written by Neil Gerrard and published by Caterer and Hotelkeeper.
10 July 2012
Thoughts About Moment, and Accusations of Racism
Everyone is still talking about what happened at Moment Sunday night, and likely will be talking about the incident for a while. At this point I support Moment, and am willing to cut the place a bit of slack. Talking about the issue in recent days, though, has brought up some considerations about incidents like this, and how I'm affected by the mere accusation of racism.
Personally, I was annoyed at myself at how quickly I initially rushed to judgment about Moment. I read von Steltmann's statement on the matter Monday morning, and I was ready to accept not only his word on the incident, but also ready to accept that an establishment I have patronized for a year was anti-Semitic. I was ready to never go to Moment again, and it wasn't for a few hours until I started really thinking about why I had made that judgment.
Let's think about that for a second - I was ready to jump ship and abandon Moment after only reading the word of some guy I never met, which was seconded by someone who I don't know particularly well. The mere accusation of anti-Semitism was enough to set me off - I didn't care about details, nor the other side of the story. For me, this is a problem - and I know I wasn't alone in jumping to this conclusion. In the end, I only opened my mind to other possibilities because I was prompted by friends, and thinking about the prospect of never going to Moment again.
This really got me thinking about how damaging a mere accusation can be - if the charge of anti-Semitism sticks to Moment, it could end as a business. At the very least, this would be greatly unfair. It also happens all the time. How many times has a business or a location been accused of anti-Semitism, and how often did I simply accept the charge? Many, many times - especially if it was seconded by the New York Times. Doing so was easy for me, because I didn't know the business in question. Now that it's hit so close to home, however, I thinking more about the ramifications of doing so, and I hope that, in the future, I engage in a bit more critical thinking before rushing to judgment.
It also got me to thinking about what constitutes anti-Semitism. Specifically, what makes an establishment anti-Semitic? I think we need to be far more careful with how we use that word, especially as Jews. One of the amazing things that has happened to Jews since WWII is that the societies in which we live fight along with us against discrimination and anti-Semitism, especially in the U.S. and Canada. This has not happened often in history, and I fear we might be taking this for granted. We also have to recognize the power this label has, and not to use it lightly - especially since in many places, when it comes to this issue our word is accepted so readily, by non-Jews and Jews.
So no, one incident does not make an establishment anti-Semitic. In the case of Moment, it's continuous support of minorities needs to be taken into account. For others without such a reputation, I think we need to think twice before throwing around such a label. We have power in this field, and I think we're in danger of abusing it - if we haven't done so already. Lord knows way too many Jews play the "Jew Card". But that's a whole other post entirely.
Personally, I was annoyed at myself at how quickly I initially rushed to judgment about Moment. I read von Steltmann's statement on the matter Monday morning, and I was ready to accept not only his word on the incident, but also ready to accept that an establishment I have patronized for a year was anti-Semitic. I was ready to never go to Moment again, and it wasn't for a few hours until I started really thinking about why I had made that judgment.
Let's think about that for a second - I was ready to jump ship and abandon Moment after only reading the word of some guy I never met, which was seconded by someone who I don't know particularly well. The mere accusation of anti-Semitism was enough to set me off - I didn't care about details, nor the other side of the story. For me, this is a problem - and I know I wasn't alone in jumping to this conclusion. In the end, I only opened my mind to other possibilities because I was prompted by friends, and thinking about the prospect of never going to Moment again.
This really got me thinking about how damaging a mere accusation can be - if the charge of anti-Semitism sticks to Moment, it could end as a business. At the very least, this would be greatly unfair. It also happens all the time. How many times has a business or a location been accused of anti-Semitism, and how often did I simply accept the charge? Many, many times - especially if it was seconded by the New York Times. Doing so was easy for me, because I didn't know the business in question. Now that it's hit so close to home, however, I thinking more about the ramifications of doing so, and I hope that, in the future, I engage in a bit more critical thinking before rushing to judgment.
It also got me to thinking about what constitutes anti-Semitism. Specifically, what makes an establishment anti-Semitic? I think we need to be far more careful with how we use that word, especially as Jews. One of the amazing things that has happened to Jews since WWII is that the societies in which we live fight along with us against discrimination and anti-Semitism, especially in the U.S. and Canada. This has not happened often in history, and I fear we might be taking this for granted. We also have to recognize the power this label has, and not to use it lightly - especially since in many places, when it comes to this issue our word is accepted so readily, by non-Jews and Jews.
So no, one incident does not make an establishment anti-Semitic. In the case of Moment, it's continuous support of minorities needs to be taken into account. For others without such a reputation, I think we need to think twice before throwing around such a label. We have power in this field, and I think we're in danger of abusing it - if we haven't done so already. Lord knows way too many Jews play the "Jew Card". But that's a whole other post entirely.
Yeah, Andersoon Cooper Waited Too Long
Love Among the Spuds: Tammy Baldwin's Senate Run in Wisconsin
Great article giving a vignette of Tammy Baldwin's campaign for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin. If she is elected, she will be the first openly gay Senator in history - and what is remarkable about her run is just how little the "issue" of her sexual orientation matters. This is fantastic - of course, you expect that from a state like Wisconsin, who has had both openly gay Democrat and Republican legislators at the state and federal level. But I liked what the article had to say about how the times are changing, that sexual orientation is becoming increasingly seen as a non-issue.
Really, this is the best thing to expect from rising tolerance - you don't need people dancing around with Rainbow stickers everywhere, you just need a person's background to become a non-issue, to be accepted without question. It'll be a long time before this attitude extends beyond states like Wisconsin, but it's a good start nevertheless.
It also brought to mind something that Malgosia said to me last week, when I was talking about Anderson Cooper's article about officially coming out. She didn't understand why it was a big deal, and here the article's author, Frank Bruni, echoes her sentiment - it wasn't a big deal, because you have Ellen DeGeneres as a J.C. Penny spokesman. Cooper waited far too long.
But I can see why Dan Savage hasn't picked up on Baldwin's run - she isn't a gay rights activist. Savage does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to supporting openly gay politicians; if they're not loudly outspoken on the issue of gay rights, he doesn't hear about them at all.
Even if Baldwin loses, I find it remarkable and heartening that her sexual orientation doesn't mean a damn thing.
Article written by Frank Bruni and published in the New York Times.
Great article giving a vignette of Tammy Baldwin's campaign for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin. If she is elected, she will be the first openly gay Senator in history - and what is remarkable about her run is just how little the "issue" of her sexual orientation matters. This is fantastic - of course, you expect that from a state like Wisconsin, who has had both openly gay Democrat and Republican legislators at the state and federal level. But I liked what the article had to say about how the times are changing, that sexual orientation is becoming increasingly seen as a non-issue.
Really, this is the best thing to expect from rising tolerance - you don't need people dancing around with Rainbow stickers everywhere, you just need a person's background to become a non-issue, to be accepted without question. It'll be a long time before this attitude extends beyond states like Wisconsin, but it's a good start nevertheless.
It also brought to mind something that Malgosia said to me last week, when I was talking about Anderson Cooper's article about officially coming out. She didn't understand why it was a big deal, and here the article's author, Frank Bruni, echoes her sentiment - it wasn't a big deal, because you have Ellen DeGeneres as a J.C. Penny spokesman. Cooper waited far too long.
But I can see why Dan Savage hasn't picked up on Baldwin's run - she isn't a gay rights activist. Savage does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to supporting openly gay politicians; if they're not loudly outspoken on the issue of gay rights, he doesn't hear about them at all.
Even if Baldwin loses, I find it remarkable and heartening that her sexual orientation doesn't mean a damn thing.
Article written by Frank Bruni and published in the New York Times.
09 July 2012
Hellboy Returns?
He Does!
Nah, not really, but Ron Perlman does use the character to show how he's a pretty classy guy. Here's a preview, ya can't help but smile.
Article is courtesy of Fark.com; written by Sean O'Neil and published by the Onion A.V. Club.
Nah, not really, but Ron Perlman does use the character to show how he's a pretty classy guy. Here's a preview, ya can't help but smile.
Article is courtesy of Fark.com; written by Sean O'Neil and published by the Onion A.V. Club.
Greetings and Salutations!
Welcome to my blog, glad you could make it. I'll be posting whatever random links I come across during my daily procrastination from writing and research, as well as the ideas that rush into my brain while reading them. Definitely not promising that you'll get any earth-shattering revelations or great ideas from this blog, but if at the very least you're entertained, or better yet, provoked to think about the topic a bit more, then I'm happy.
Not gonna lie - I kvetch. A lot. A seemingly endless series of kvetching, in fact. Many people I know see it as my defining character trait, which I'm pretty sure isn't meant as a compliment. But here's the rub - in my own estimation I'm actually a pretty happy person, and I really enjoy my life. My attitude behind my kvetching is this: if this is what I'm complaining about, then I have it pretty damn good.
That's where the blog title comes from, by the way - back in college, when I really was an unhappy person (and worse, I kinda knew it), I would refer to myself as "A Brooklynite in Exile", which I liked then (as now) as a moniker. But things have changed quite a bit since I was a mopey freshman, so if I were to write a response to my 18 year old self, it would be this: "If I am in fact a Brooklynite in exile, then I gotta say ... its been a damn fine exile."
Enjoy!
Not gonna lie - I kvetch. A lot. A seemingly endless series of kvetching, in fact. Many people I know see it as my defining character trait, which I'm pretty sure isn't meant as a compliment. But here's the rub - in my own estimation I'm actually a pretty happy person, and I really enjoy my life. My attitude behind my kvetching is this: if this is what I'm complaining about, then I have it pretty damn good.
That's where the blog title comes from, by the way - back in college, when I really was an unhappy person (and worse, I kinda knew it), I would refer to myself as "A Brooklynite in Exile", which I liked then (as now) as a moniker. But things have changed quite a bit since I was a mopey freshman, so if I were to write a response to my 18 year old self, it would be this: "If I am in fact a Brooklynite in exile, then I gotta say ... its been a damn fine exile."
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)