This is how I feel about Chik-fil-a.
Excerpt taken from a website questioning the godliness of interracial marriage:
"according to J.D. Self, author of the site “Interracial Marriage is against God’s Law”,
races were created when the human race became arrogant towards God by
trying to build a tower so tall to reach heaven. And since God separated
the human race based on arrogance, Self believes races intermarrying
again is also “pure arrogance in the face and to the plan of God”.
(http://www.interracialdatingcentral.com/fyooz/is-interracial-marriage-shee-arrogance-to-what-god-intended/)
Did you think the language was familiar? I did too.
In a recent interview Dan Cathy, the president of Chik-fil-a spoke out:
" I think we're inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our
fist at him and say, you know, we know better than you as to what
constitutes a marriage. And I pray God's mercy on our generation that
has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would - the
audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."
(http://www.npr.org/2012/07/31/157653766/chick-fil-a-comments-still-churning-some-stomachs)
I realize some don't see this as a human rights issue, they only see it as a religious issue. But don't they remember that 30-40 years ago (and still today if you count some crazy groups on the margin) people used the Bible to attack interracial marriages? They see this in a very one-dimensional way. Being gay is sinful. Being straight is not. This is Truth with a capital T to these people because in their mind God has deemed it so. They don't realize that others don't agree, and as the United States is not a theocracy, that sometimes what they believe to be God's law will not necessarily be the law of the land. What is more problematic is that they are really only considering their own perception and interpretation of God's law. Were they to do a little simple research they would find that there are Christians in this world (including myself) who do not believe homosexuality is a sin, and who also have pretty strong scriptural references to back up that claim. As somebody who has devoted their career to the study of literature in foreign languages perhaps I'm more sensitive to the fact that original texts are subject to gross misinterpretation when translated into a different language. Then you take into consideration what the Bible is - that it is a mish mash of many many different texts, by many different authors, with many different influences, in many different languages, written over thousands of years of human history (the Genesis flood story can be traced back to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the ancient Mesopotamian text that still stands as the first piece of writing in all of civilization). Biblical scholars have concluded that scripture that is regularly used to attack homosexuality often meant completely different things in their original translations, or are at least very open to different translations. Also, if you look just at the gospels and read all of Jesus' teachings, he offered tough love and strict words to sinners, but not once did he mention homosexuality. I really would think if it were as much of an "abomination to God" as people would have you think, then Jesus would have mentioned it at least once? What he mentions more than once is his hatred of hypocrisy and sinful humans' quickness to judge the sins of others. I recall that being a fairly regular message.
Sorry, tangent.
My point being that these people don't realize that even within Christianity there are opinions that differ from their own on homosexuality and gay marriage. They don't realize this so they think we're just being purposefully evil in boycotting a fast food chicken sandwich from a righteous man who is now a martyr to the cause against those horrible gays who are corrupting our society so. It is so incredibly frustrating that they don't understand that many of us see this as a human rights violation much like the bans on interracial marriage of the generations past. Calls for bans on interracial marriage were fueled by the same one-dimensional interpretations of the Bible used to push a political agenda set on taking basic rights away from people. In this case it was based on racial discrimination which has now been so (rightfully) demonized that most churches and conservatives won't broach the subject. I just get so frustrated that they can't see that it's the same thing. It is the same thing. Same thing.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Ramblings on Gun Control
Every time a tragedy happens such as the one that struck Colorado last week the same old hyper-polarized gun control debate is reopened briefly, and after a couple weeks those of us not directly touched by a shooting forget the terror and return to our quiet lives. All debate and demand for change is quietly put by the wayside and nothing changes. Is it too much to hope that maybe this time we'll finally say "enough is enough"?
I'm not suggesting that we ban all firearms overnight and all the people of the world will join hands and form a giant peace sign and sing camp songs around a bonfire... I'm not suggesting we ban things like hand guns, I'm not asking for the same strict gun legislation you'll find in most other countries. However, I will never understand why any civilian needs military-grade weapons, and why it's such a supposed infringement on their rights if we take them away. I don't care if you're a responsible, law-abiding collector. Some things don't belong in a collection (Biohazardous materials, for instance? Nobody's shouting from the rooftops their rights to collect dirty heroin needles). Defenders of this right claim that laws prohibiting sale of military-grade weapons to civilians will not stop crime. Of course it won't, and I think most people understand that. I think, however, that the massive impact and damage caused by military-grade weapons could be reduced when tragedy does inevitably strike. Military-grade weapons are made to inflict mass damage. If we want to prevent mass killings we need to place restrictions on access to guns designed to kill masses of people. Some also argue that criminals don't follow the law, therefore they'll still find ways to access these weapons. If we research mass killings however, the grand majority of shooters have bought their weapons legally. Every purchase the Colorado shooter made was legal. Yes, people will still be able to find these weapons illegally, but shouldn't we at least try to make it difficult for them? When it comes down to it, I feel as though the "right" to own military-grade firearms infringes on other Americans' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps it's difficult for generations before Columbine to understand, but I think that many of my generation and those currently attending school have felt the terror in a very real way. I was a freshman in high school when two young men walked into their school and opened fire, killing 12 students and one teacher. That was the moment that everything changed, and we knew it. Most adults and school administrators, in an attempt to maintain some illusion of control and perhaps thinking they were shielding us from an ugly and violent reality, chose to avoid broaching the subject with students. We noticed the changes. Survailance cameras appeared in every hallway, on every corner. The principal said it was to monitor student population increases. We knew better. Along with fire and tornado drills we suddenly had a new kind of drill to interrupt the tedium of classes. The principal announced over the intercom that teachers were to lock all classroom doors and take an inventory of their students. They always said it was a drill, and yet it happened enough times throughout the year that we students knew that was also a lie. There were bomb scares for earlier generations, only ours were so terrifyingly real. There were times the power went out on a bomb scare day and you could hear the screams echoing through the halls. We were afraid to use the vending machines because we saw bomb sniffing dogs investigate them. Police officers with bomb sniffing dogs checked our lockers. One day rumors spread so badly that the local news arrived on campus, police were everywhere, and parents arrived in droves to the school to pick their children up and take them home. The school was in total chaos. I was also personally threatened by a very troubled young man in my school who, inspired by Columbine, wore a black trench coat to school and very proudly collected all sorts of weapons. I turned him down for a date and so he showed up after school hours claiming he had a gun. I was locked in the auditorium and he was escorted off campus by a security officer. My generation also witnessed school violence enter college campuses in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. You would think our parents would remember what happened in Texas.
Our children have the right to go to school and not feel like they're walking into a war zone. We all have the right to go to work, go to dinner, go to the movies without fearing that we won't make it home. Isn't this the kind of terror we tried to fight in two wars?
Why aren't we fighting terror in our own country?
I'm not suggesting that we ban all firearms overnight and all the people of the world will join hands and form a giant peace sign and sing camp songs around a bonfire... I'm not suggesting we ban things like hand guns, I'm not asking for the same strict gun legislation you'll find in most other countries. However, I will never understand why any civilian needs military-grade weapons, and why it's such a supposed infringement on their rights if we take them away. I don't care if you're a responsible, law-abiding collector. Some things don't belong in a collection (Biohazardous materials, for instance? Nobody's shouting from the rooftops their rights to collect dirty heroin needles). Defenders of this right claim that laws prohibiting sale of military-grade weapons to civilians will not stop crime. Of course it won't, and I think most people understand that. I think, however, that the massive impact and damage caused by military-grade weapons could be reduced when tragedy does inevitably strike. Military-grade weapons are made to inflict mass damage. If we want to prevent mass killings we need to place restrictions on access to guns designed to kill masses of people. Some also argue that criminals don't follow the law, therefore they'll still find ways to access these weapons. If we research mass killings however, the grand majority of shooters have bought their weapons legally. Every purchase the Colorado shooter made was legal. Yes, people will still be able to find these weapons illegally, but shouldn't we at least try to make it difficult for them? When it comes down to it, I feel as though the "right" to own military-grade firearms infringes on other Americans' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps it's difficult for generations before Columbine to understand, but I think that many of my generation and those currently attending school have felt the terror in a very real way. I was a freshman in high school when two young men walked into their school and opened fire, killing 12 students and one teacher. That was the moment that everything changed, and we knew it. Most adults and school administrators, in an attempt to maintain some illusion of control and perhaps thinking they were shielding us from an ugly and violent reality, chose to avoid broaching the subject with students. We noticed the changes. Survailance cameras appeared in every hallway, on every corner. The principal said it was to monitor student population increases. We knew better. Along with fire and tornado drills we suddenly had a new kind of drill to interrupt the tedium of classes. The principal announced over the intercom that teachers were to lock all classroom doors and take an inventory of their students. They always said it was a drill, and yet it happened enough times throughout the year that we students knew that was also a lie. There were bomb scares for earlier generations, only ours were so terrifyingly real. There were times the power went out on a bomb scare day and you could hear the screams echoing through the halls. We were afraid to use the vending machines because we saw bomb sniffing dogs investigate them. Police officers with bomb sniffing dogs checked our lockers. One day rumors spread so badly that the local news arrived on campus, police were everywhere, and parents arrived in droves to the school to pick their children up and take them home. The school was in total chaos. I was also personally threatened by a very troubled young man in my school who, inspired by Columbine, wore a black trench coat to school and very proudly collected all sorts of weapons. I turned him down for a date and so he showed up after school hours claiming he had a gun. I was locked in the auditorium and he was escorted off campus by a security officer. My generation also witnessed school violence enter college campuses in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. You would think our parents would remember what happened in Texas.
Our children have the right to go to school and not feel like they're walking into a war zone. We all have the right to go to work, go to dinner, go to the movies without fearing that we won't make it home. Isn't this the kind of terror we tried to fight in two wars?
Why aren't we fighting terror in our own country?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Ramblings on the gross inadequacy of graduate school
For the next year the title of my blog will be slightly misleading. It won't exactly be the ramblings of a 'quilled out grad student since my status as a grad student is on hiatus until August 2013. Maybe I should temporarily rename it "Ramblings of a 'Quilled out Victim of University Politics."
I can't formally file a grievance with my university at the risk of being blacklisted for life from all institutions, and since the only future I'd want to have would be in academia I have to keep my mouth shut. So I'll just impotently bitch my grievances into the blogosphere. I can't sleep and I need to get it onto paper.
Some background information: I was working toward my masters degree at a very prestigious university, and was told upon entering the program that if my class performance was satisfactory and I passed all exit exams that my place in the PhD program would be secure. In my particular program you can't do jack with a masters so the PhD is very necessary to qualify for any sort of career in my field. So you can imagine my current frustration when (1) I performed more than satisfactorily in all course work (I earned a high pass in most classes I took) and (2) passed a battery of exit exams (and was the only student in my year to do so - everyone else failed) and wasn't notified until this month that I was still not accepted into the PhD program. This is the first time my department has done this to someone in over a decade apparently. It wreaks of political bull.
I suppose what makes it so infuriating is that I feel that the university failed so completely and yet the right to complain has been taken from me and they will never accept any sort of accountability for this happening. I can't complain - I still depend on some professors to write my recommendations for other universities, and since I want to work in academia it's best not to make waves. But I remain so incredibly disturbed by what happened. Professors are supposed to teach and yet what they did to me goes against everything I know in my experience as an educator. Their reasoning for not accepting me comes across more as excuses than anything else. How is it possible that I can perform so well in classes only to arrive at the oral exam and evidently perform so badly (on questions that were in no way related to what I was told to prepare or study, by the way) that I have no place in the program? Where was this among all the 'high passes' they handed me over the past two years? Where was this "concern" for my performance when I visited professors at their office hours to discuss papers and presentations? I work from the pedagogical philosophy that you correct a problem as soon as it appears and give the student the chance to improve before casting any final judgement on their ability. I feel that this opportunity was taken from me, most likely because their reasoning is corrupt. I was supposed to work with one professor on my thesis but decided to work with another (who also knew that ultimately I would probably not be working with him on my dissertation) thus I put myself in the position where I'd created no lasting allies and had pissed off a dangerous enemy. Little did I know that this professor has screwed over many a grad student over petty slights and ego trips. Sure enough, he attacked as soon as he saw a chance. Furthermore, I feel that the university failed me in the one function it was supposed to perform - prepare me for a job and support me in securing that job after graduation. I got my masters after all this mess, but a fat load I can do with it - especially given that they didn't notify me until MAY that I wouldn't be coming back next year. I'm suddenly unemployed, no health insurance, no support, and terrified I'll be on the street by the end of the summer. Now I'm in the position where I'm overqualified for most "emergency" jobs (retail, office support, etc.) but under-qualified for any jobs I'm actually trained to do (teach). What does the university actually do, then? I've come away with the impression that it exists to coddle the deeply insecure divas of academia who somehow believe that their "research" is ultimately more important than teaching. It exists as an environment of intellectual masturbation and pissing contests - if you don't believe me just attend a conference and stick around for the Q&A sessions. Nobody even communicates or listens to each other. They just endlessly ramble on to hear their own voices and feel important as the rest stare blankly ahead, nodding their approval at words they don't listen to, slowly formulating questions that will make them appear smart (and usually don't actually relate to what the speaker is saying). In some ways I know this is applicable to me, which is ultimately why academia still appeals to me. I can be the biggest pedantic bullshitter of them all on a good day, just read this blog. I suppose that writing this just stems from such a deep frustration at what the university system was supposed to be and what it actually is. (Don't even get me started on how it really functions more as a business these days, or how its need to whore out our nation's young people for more and more money has flooded the market with holders of useless degrees, no jobs, and paralyzing student debt)...
I just want to teach. I don't want to be a brain surgeon or an astronaut or the CEO of a big company. I'm good at teaching, my students love me. When I teach I accomplish things and have touched people's lives in a positive way. No single other thing in my life has felt as right as teaching does. And thanks to university politics and a saturated market of high school teachers with PhDs I can't even do that. I am just so damn frustrated.
I can't formally file a grievance with my university at the risk of being blacklisted for life from all institutions, and since the only future I'd want to have would be in academia I have to keep my mouth shut. So I'll just impotently bitch my grievances into the blogosphere. I can't sleep and I need to get it onto paper.
Some background information: I was working toward my masters degree at a very prestigious university, and was told upon entering the program that if my class performance was satisfactory and I passed all exit exams that my place in the PhD program would be secure. In my particular program you can't do jack with a masters so the PhD is very necessary to qualify for any sort of career in my field. So you can imagine my current frustration when (1) I performed more than satisfactorily in all course work (I earned a high pass in most classes I took) and (2) passed a battery of exit exams (and was the only student in my year to do so - everyone else failed) and wasn't notified until this month that I was still not accepted into the PhD program. This is the first time my department has done this to someone in over a decade apparently. It wreaks of political bull.
I suppose what makes it so infuriating is that I feel that the university failed so completely and yet the right to complain has been taken from me and they will never accept any sort of accountability for this happening. I can't complain - I still depend on some professors to write my recommendations for other universities, and since I want to work in academia it's best not to make waves. But I remain so incredibly disturbed by what happened. Professors are supposed to teach and yet what they did to me goes against everything I know in my experience as an educator. Their reasoning for not accepting me comes across more as excuses than anything else. How is it possible that I can perform so well in classes only to arrive at the oral exam and evidently perform so badly (on questions that were in no way related to what I was told to prepare or study, by the way) that I have no place in the program? Where was this among all the 'high passes' they handed me over the past two years? Where was this "concern" for my performance when I visited professors at their office hours to discuss papers and presentations? I work from the pedagogical philosophy that you correct a problem as soon as it appears and give the student the chance to improve before casting any final judgement on their ability. I feel that this opportunity was taken from me, most likely because their reasoning is corrupt. I was supposed to work with one professor on my thesis but decided to work with another (who also knew that ultimately I would probably not be working with him on my dissertation) thus I put myself in the position where I'd created no lasting allies and had pissed off a dangerous enemy. Little did I know that this professor has screwed over many a grad student over petty slights and ego trips. Sure enough, he attacked as soon as he saw a chance. Furthermore, I feel that the university failed me in the one function it was supposed to perform - prepare me for a job and support me in securing that job after graduation. I got my masters after all this mess, but a fat load I can do with it - especially given that they didn't notify me until MAY that I wouldn't be coming back next year. I'm suddenly unemployed, no health insurance, no support, and terrified I'll be on the street by the end of the summer. Now I'm in the position where I'm overqualified for most "emergency" jobs (retail, office support, etc.) but under-qualified for any jobs I'm actually trained to do (teach). What does the university actually do, then? I've come away with the impression that it exists to coddle the deeply insecure divas of academia who somehow believe that their "research" is ultimately more important than teaching. It exists as an environment of intellectual masturbation and pissing contests - if you don't believe me just attend a conference and stick around for the Q&A sessions. Nobody even communicates or listens to each other. They just endlessly ramble on to hear their own voices and feel important as the rest stare blankly ahead, nodding their approval at words they don't listen to, slowly formulating questions that will make them appear smart (and usually don't actually relate to what the speaker is saying). In some ways I know this is applicable to me, which is ultimately why academia still appeals to me. I can be the biggest pedantic bullshitter of them all on a good day, just read this blog. I suppose that writing this just stems from such a deep frustration at what the university system was supposed to be and what it actually is. (Don't even get me started on how it really functions more as a business these days, or how its need to whore out our nation's young people for more and more money has flooded the market with holders of useless degrees, no jobs, and paralyzing student debt)...
I just want to teach. I don't want to be a brain surgeon or an astronaut or the CEO of a big company. I'm good at teaching, my students love me. When I teach I accomplish things and have touched people's lives in a positive way. No single other thing in my life has felt as right as teaching does. And thanks to university politics and a saturated market of high school teachers with PhDs I can't even do that. I am just so damn frustrated.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
A Short Rambling on "Sexual Sin"
So there are countless conservatives, fundamentalists and other members of the "Religious Right" who rant against the gay community, claiming that homosexuality is a sin that threatens the well being of American families. Some have even compared it to pedophilia, etc...
If these people are so concerned about sexual sin then why don't they rally against porn and the destructive nature of the sex industry? Whereas all arguments against homosexuality I've heard usually include a very fragmented interpretation of famous biblical quotes about Sodom and Gomorrah but no real concrete reasoning or proof that shows me that homosexuality destroys families, I see endless proof of the sex industry spreading physical disease and glamorizing the sexual slavery of men and women while promoting violence (including monstrosities like actual pedophilia) and actually breaking up homes and families. And yet nobody speaks out against it. Only on occasion I've heard people speak about it, but typically demonizing the women who perform in the sex industry as "sluts" and bemoaning the difficulties of the poor, defenseless men who "fall victim" to their wiles. To me this is just as backwards as saying the laborers in a sweatshop are evilly tempting me to buy the goods they make for two cents a day because the prices are so cheap!
Men I've known my whole life, men from my childhood church, ones who claim to be men of God, sit around the kitchen table saying things like "If they beat gay kids up the way they did when we were kids, we wouldn't have so many fags running around." They claim that it's evil, that it's against the Bible, that it's against God. They claim that it's just as evil as pedophilia. But they claim that it's okay that they themselves buy into the porn industry because as men "they have weaknesses" or "needs." Yet this porn industry has actually lobbied to pass laws to make virtual child pornography - and other equally evil, despicable things that actually do harm people - 100% legal in our country. There is never an excuse for two adults of sound mind to love each other, and yet there are a million excuses for porn.
Just a last thought: The times that Jesus mentions homosexual sin in the Gospels - 0. The amount of times that Jesus blasts hypocrisy - I can't even count. (But just a couple pertinent examples could be from Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" or the famous John 8:7 "He who is without sin cast the first stone" -- yes, I know that last one is often misused, but I'm actually speaking about violence regarding what's deemed "sexual sin" therefore I think it actually applies here. In other words, instead of saying we should "beat the gay out of people" maybe you should stop patronizing an industry that capitalizes on slavery and violence toward women and children).
If these people are so concerned about sexual sin then why don't they rally against porn and the destructive nature of the sex industry? Whereas all arguments against homosexuality I've heard usually include a very fragmented interpretation of famous biblical quotes about Sodom and Gomorrah but no real concrete reasoning or proof that shows me that homosexuality destroys families, I see endless proof of the sex industry spreading physical disease and glamorizing the sexual slavery of men and women while promoting violence (including monstrosities like actual pedophilia) and actually breaking up homes and families. And yet nobody speaks out against it. Only on occasion I've heard people speak about it, but typically demonizing the women who perform in the sex industry as "sluts" and bemoaning the difficulties of the poor, defenseless men who "fall victim" to their wiles. To me this is just as backwards as saying the laborers in a sweatshop are evilly tempting me to buy the goods they make for two cents a day because the prices are so cheap!
Men I've known my whole life, men from my childhood church, ones who claim to be men of God, sit around the kitchen table saying things like "If they beat gay kids up the way they did when we were kids, we wouldn't have so many fags running around." They claim that it's evil, that it's against the Bible, that it's against God. They claim that it's just as evil as pedophilia. But they claim that it's okay that they themselves buy into the porn industry because as men "they have weaknesses" or "needs." Yet this porn industry has actually lobbied to pass laws to make virtual child pornography - and other equally evil, despicable things that actually do harm people - 100% legal in our country. There is never an excuse for two adults of sound mind to love each other, and yet there are a million excuses for porn.
Just a last thought: The times that Jesus mentions homosexual sin in the Gospels - 0. The amount of times that Jesus blasts hypocrisy - I can't even count. (But just a couple pertinent examples could be from Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" or the famous John 8:7 "He who is without sin cast the first stone" -- yes, I know that last one is often misused, but I'm actually speaking about violence regarding what's deemed "sexual sin" therefore I think it actually applies here. In other words, instead of saying we should "beat the gay out of people" maybe you should stop patronizing an industry that capitalizes on slavery and violence toward women and children).
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Ramblings on patriotism and dead celebrities
As I'm preparing for both a thesis and graduate exams this month I will have to make this short. I can't help it, some things just make rant.
I noticed this trend before, when Michael Jackson died...also when Amy Winehouse died, and now Whitney Houston... Facebook posts by very angry people. Why are they angry? Not because another life is lost, but because - how dare famous people go and die, and how dare we know about it when so many people gave their lives in the war?!
Yeah, you read me correctly and no, I haven't had any of the 'Quil today. Before you point and spit and call me "un-American" (don't even get me started on that phrase)... I agree that celebrities get way too much attention, money, and perks, and I also agree that it's kind of weird for the nation to go on melt-down when one of them dies. I also agree that we should pay respect to the people who have served our country at war, and we should pay homage to fallen soldiers. I agree, they deserve our respect, and they definitely deserve more respect than, say, a coke-addled rockstar/movie star/pro ball player who's done nothing for our country short of making films about farting or violating a pie... but I really don't understand the argument here. Death is death is death, and everybody has the right to grieve a death - whether it's the death of a hero or a drug addict. My mother was addicted to cigarettes, she died of lung cancer. Are you going to get angry with me for grieving her death? Do I have less of a right to feel sorrow for her passing because vice (which all human beings are subject to) killed her rather than heroism? And who says that we've forgotten our veterans and those who died at war? I think most Americans have been touched by the events following September 11th. Those in my generation went to school with at least one person (more likely several people) who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. So many of us who haven't served have loved ones who have. I just don't see how tabloid shows obsessing over Amy Winehouse or Whitney Houston have anything to do with that. I don't see how this is an "either/or" situation as people like to show it. I think whining about attention being paid to other dead people is kind of petty and selfish, to be honest...quite the opposite to giving your life so that people here could have rights like freedom of speech...
Just a final thought - These celebrities also make more money and enjoy all these perks while nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others who serve the country barely scrape by every day. If you want to whine about celebrity news trumping news about the war, then why don't you stop going to movies, paying for cable, netflix, itunes, internet, season tickets? Stop stuffing these coke-heads' pockets with your dear entertainment money, save it, and donate it to the V.A. - which actually needs the money. Oh yeah, that's right, you were only "saying." (Your heroes are still out there "doing.")
I noticed this trend before, when Michael Jackson died...also when Amy Winehouse died, and now Whitney Houston... Facebook posts by very angry people. Why are they angry? Not because another life is lost, but because - how dare famous people go and die, and how dare we know about it when so many people gave their lives in the war?!
Just a final thought - These celebrities also make more money and enjoy all these perks while nurses, teachers, firefighters, police officers, and others who serve the country barely scrape by every day. If you want to whine about celebrity news trumping news about the war, then why don't you stop going to movies, paying for cable, netflix, itunes, internet, season tickets? Stop stuffing these coke-heads' pockets with your dear entertainment money, save it, and donate it to the V.A. - which actually needs the money. Oh yeah, that's right, you were only "saying." (Your heroes are still out there "doing.")
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Ramblings on economy
On a side note - I realize maybe I shouldn't have let so much time lapse between the last post and this one, especially given what I said in the last post. I didn't kill myself, nor do I want to, moving on...
As I read the entire literary canon of both Spain and Latin America for my master's exam I am constantly struck with questions and ideas...none of which, unfortunately, have anything to do with my actual exam. One such question came to me recently as I've been reading through many of the chronicles of the "discovery" and conquest of the Americas. (I say "discovery" for lack of a better word. Yeah, I'm one of those hippy post colonial studies people who think this word is problematic.) Many explorers writing about their adventures in the Americas mention that many indigenous populations did not value gold or silver. The Spanish explorers were shocked by this, and of course very excited to find an incredible source of virtually untapped wealth. But reading this, I kind of see things by the indigenous perspective -- what's so great about gold?
And then it really hit me -- really, what is so great about gold? Why is it the basis for our entire nation's currency? I'm no economy major (in fact, I took it in high school and hated it) but like any good grad student I'll just pretend that my uninformed opinion will suffice for now. I just don't understand why gold is so valued still. I know, it's rare. It's pretty. People like it. But what purpose does it serve? Can gold, by itself feed you? Clothe you? Build a house? (Ok maybe but you know that's stretching it) Can it protect you? Can it power a vehicle? I understand that it's necessary to put some sort of monetary value on things, and that we have to also place a value on trades. There has to be an intangible value to services such as those offered by educators, doctors, police officers, fire fighters, etc. etc. etc.
But when you really think about it, it's so ridiculous. There are people in our country who are starving to death, or suffering homelessness, living in the most abject conditions, and why? Because they don't own a sufficient quantity of green paper. And what's the value of this green paper? A bunch of shiny, useless metal sitting under lock and key at Ft. Knox. It's just sitting there, it's not even doing anything, and yet every day millions of people live and die by it? And if the entire world's economy were to collapse tomorrow and the world were plunged into chaos, what use would any of that be? What use is any of it now? I'm not necessarily promoting communism here (at least I don't think I am), but it just really weirds me out when I start to think about those shiny, useless little stones, and how much the world has lived and died for them - of how many civilizations have had to die to provide this strange, meaningless wealth to the West (the same can be said about diamonds in Africa, etc.)...I suppose it just puts a lot of things into perspective.
As I read the entire literary canon of both Spain and Latin America for my master's exam I am constantly struck with questions and ideas...none of which, unfortunately, have anything to do with my actual exam. One such question came to me recently as I've been reading through many of the chronicles of the "discovery" and conquest of the Americas. (I say "discovery" for lack of a better word. Yeah, I'm one of those hippy post colonial studies people who think this word is problematic.) Many explorers writing about their adventures in the Americas mention that many indigenous populations did not value gold or silver. The Spanish explorers were shocked by this, and of course very excited to find an incredible source of virtually untapped wealth. But reading this, I kind of see things by the indigenous perspective -- what's so great about gold?
And then it really hit me -- really, what is so great about gold? Why is it the basis for our entire nation's currency? I'm no economy major (in fact, I took it in high school and hated it) but like any good grad student I'll just pretend that my uninformed opinion will suffice for now. I just don't understand why gold is so valued still. I know, it's rare. It's pretty. People like it. But what purpose does it serve? Can gold, by itself feed you? Clothe you? Build a house? (Ok maybe but you know that's stretching it) Can it protect you? Can it power a vehicle? I understand that it's necessary to put some sort of monetary value on things, and that we have to also place a value on trades. There has to be an intangible value to services such as those offered by educators, doctors, police officers, fire fighters, etc. etc. etc.
But when you really think about it, it's so ridiculous. There are people in our country who are starving to death, or suffering homelessness, living in the most abject conditions, and why? Because they don't own a sufficient quantity of green paper. And what's the value of this green paper? A bunch of shiny, useless metal sitting under lock and key at Ft. Knox. It's just sitting there, it's not even doing anything, and yet every day millions of people live and die by it? And if the entire world's economy were to collapse tomorrow and the world were plunged into chaos, what use would any of that be? What use is any of it now? I'm not necessarily promoting communism here (at least I don't think I am), but it just really weirds me out when I start to think about those shiny, useless little stones, and how much the world has lived and died for them - of how many civilizations have had to die to provide this strange, meaningless wealth to the West (the same can be said about diamonds in Africa, etc.)...I suppose it just puts a lot of things into perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)