It's amazing what can be considered scholarly work in the bellies of a university such as my own. I'm currently taking a course entitled "Sex in French" where we analyze portrayals of sex in French film and litterature. Mostly shocking, somewhat arousing, often disturbing, our assignments are certainly never boring.
Although I enjoy shocking my friends with images found within the pages of these books, I feel a little guilty that my ivy league homework consists of watching X-rated movies. Surprisingly, I am learning a lot about the implications of pornography and sexual taboos on society, and how they have (or haven't) changed over time.
You are surely asking what insights I can share with you all. Well, firstly, sex is a lot more complicated than you once thought. It seems as if when it comes to discussing sex, one is automatically launched into the deep, dark secrets of the human pysche. You'd think that with a title like Sex in French, the class might have been happy. Well, maybe the operative word was French, but all the endings (and middles and beginnings, now that I think about it) were sad, depressing, disturbing, not really happy.
It served as a great contrast to the over-romanticized "Hollywoodien" movies that the US pumps out by the dozen, where man chases woman until the end, when they have passionate, romantic sex, and ride off into the sunset to live happily ever after. The film I analyzed for a paper, for instance, was called Romance, and it was the absolute opposite of a romantic film. The director, Catherine Breillat said, "For me, romance is the illusion of love." If we were to accept this French director's opinion, then it seems to me that Americans surround themselves in the illusion of love. Why watch a fictionalized illusion of an elusive emotion? Yet, I even find myself glued to the television, soaking up every fake illusory moment. Maybe it's reassuring to fool ourselves that life is so easy and uncomplicated?
But is romance really the illusion of love? why bother being romantic if there's no love? i guess that 's where sex comes in! gotta bring the chocolate cake and roses on valentine's day to get laid. well, in that sense I suppose Breillat is right. but hey, nowadays, all you need is beer to get laid! so, maybe 'they' are right in saying that romance is dead. No more illusions? can we all handle the fact that it's just all about sex?
according to dictionary.com, romance is defined as:
ro·mance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-mns, rmns)n.
1.
a. A love affair.
b. Ardent emotional attachment or involvement between people; love: They kept the romance alive in their marriage for 35 years.
c. A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something: a childhood romance with the sea.
2. A mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful: “These fine old guns often have a romance clinging to them” (Richard Jeffries).
maybe it's silly to categorize our actions and emotions with messy little human-made words. i dunno about you, but my coffee sure does have some romance clinging to it, and i intend on building my romance with my law books. So, if you'd all excuse me, I need to set the mood, light some drippy candles, put on a little Barry Manilow, and try to seduce my brain into studying. May your evening be as filled with romance as mine...
Sunday, April 24, 2005
energy bill = bad
Energy bill passed.
Is the environmental movement dead?
Are we to accept that industrial interests are more valuable to society than sustainability?
Why should any of us care about the enivronment in the first place?
Is relying on the market a reliable strategy? Maybe government intervention is innappropriate, and would only serve to interfere in the genius of the market.
Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. First of all, the government already has a huge role in subsidizing the oil industry. It, therefore, already has interfered in any potential to allow the market to self-regulate.
Secondly, it has long been acknowledged that the market has inherent failures: monopolies, commons problems, externalities, collective action coordination problems, etc. In order to correct these flaws, an over-arching body must step in to act in the good of the people-- e.g. the government. Thus, it is not an unreasonable request that policy makers do something to help the market swing in favor of the environment. For instance, to switch from gas stations to electricity-charging stations (or bio deisel stations, or whatever the 'new' energy to fuel cars might be), setting up the necessary national infrastructure could only feasibly be acheived with governmental help.
Stop subsidizing the oil industry. Start legitimately investing in alternative fuel sources. Look at the long term, not short term, in terms of energy needs. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will only put a bandaid over the wound of the dire states of our future energy supply.
It is so frustrating to read the reports of government officials making problems worse, when clear solutions are immediately available. Call me an idealist or what you will, but this is plainly unacceptable.
The Bush administration had a choice back in 2000: revamp the country's energy infrastructure or continue down the oil road.
Those that rely on market-based strategies would claim that the problem will solve itself once the price of oil becomes too high. When driving a hybrid car is significantly less expensive than driving an SUV due to oil prices, the switch will naturally follow the market.
However, one cannot rely completely on this strategy. Sure, eventually oil prices will be so high that the individual driver might make more environentally friendly decisions. However, this does not negate the fact that our policy makers are not considering the price of extending the oil regime. They too consider their individual benefits. Thus, a dinner from the oil industry will most likely have a greater impact on the way they vote on enery issues than the letter from a concerned citizen.
Is the environmental movement dead?
Are we to accept that industrial interests are more valuable to society than sustainability?
Why should any of us care about the enivronment in the first place?
Is relying on the market a reliable strategy? Maybe government intervention is innappropriate, and would only serve to interfere in the genius of the market.
Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. First of all, the government already has a huge role in subsidizing the oil industry. It, therefore, already has interfered in any potential to allow the market to self-regulate.
Secondly, it has long been acknowledged that the market has inherent failures: monopolies, commons problems, externalities, collective action coordination problems, etc. In order to correct these flaws, an over-arching body must step in to act in the good of the people-- e.g. the government. Thus, it is not an unreasonable request that policy makers do something to help the market swing in favor of the environment. For instance, to switch from gas stations to electricity-charging stations (or bio deisel stations, or whatever the 'new' energy to fuel cars might be), setting up the necessary national infrastructure could only feasibly be acheived with governmental help.
Stop subsidizing the oil industry. Start legitimately investing in alternative fuel sources. Look at the long term, not short term, in terms of energy needs. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska will only put a bandaid over the wound of the dire states of our future energy supply.
It is so frustrating to read the reports of government officials making problems worse, when clear solutions are immediately available. Call me an idealist or what you will, but this is plainly unacceptable.
The Bush administration had a choice back in 2000: revamp the country's energy infrastructure or continue down the oil road.
Those that rely on market-based strategies would claim that the problem will solve itself once the price of oil becomes too high. When driving a hybrid car is significantly less expensive than driving an SUV due to oil prices, the switch will naturally follow the market.
However, one cannot rely completely on this strategy. Sure, eventually oil prices will be so high that the individual driver might make more environentally friendly decisions. However, this does not negate the fact that our policy makers are not considering the price of extending the oil regime. They too consider their individual benefits. Thus, a dinner from the oil industry will most likely have a greater impact on the way they vote on enery issues than the letter from a concerned citizen.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
earth day at the airport
yeah, i've picked the right job...
After graduation next year, I'll be entering the class of 2006 with the environmental organizing training program called Green Corps. I'll be fighting off bad guys like polluters and dumpers that make our world a less beautiful place to live.
It's easy to forget how much I care about the environment as I get lost in my day-to-day routine of school. Especially since I'm surrounded by like-minded liberal tree-huggers, on a college campus where Earth Day is celebrated like New Year's,which is located in one of the most leftist towns in the country (move over Berkeley!). But, I can thankfully rely on our president to remind me of my passion to change things for the better of the Earth.
Yesterday was Earth Day (although, Earth Day should be everyday), and our incompetent president was obliged to discuss his environmental policies. His speech was filled with the usual BS on how much he looooves the environment. In fact, he's so into nature, that he gave his speech on a beautiful airport runway in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Oh, Mr. Bush, how I love your rhetoric.
He tried to imply that Congress was the reason his eco-friendly proposals like the policy on reducing power plant emissions, the Clear Skies Initiative, weren't coming into effect:
"The initiatives we did through executive order are important, but it would sure be helpful if Congress passed the Clear Skies legislation, as well." Gee, well, maybe they'd pass it if it didn't exclude montoring the major pollutants that come from a power plant, like mercury.
Nowadays when women who are or plan to become pregnant are told to avoid eating fish because of dangerous mercury levels, how can anyone suggest that admitting mercury into the air isn't harmful? The EPA itself said inFebruary 2003 ("America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses") that children born to women with high blood concentrations of mercury (about 5 million American women, according to their estimates) are at risk of adverse health problems, including reduced developmental IQ, problems with motor skills, and damage to the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems.
And, the source of this mercury is not so myserious. The EPA reports that U.S. electric utilities released 48 tons of mercury in 1999. This comprises about 40 percent of manmade mercury emissions in the U.S..
Now, please help me understand this next comment:
hmm...
He went on to encourage Congress to speedily approve his nominee to head the EPA, Steve Johnson. According to the president, "He comes from the ranks of the EPA, he knows the agency [sic]." Well, of course, being my skeptical self, I ran over to grist.org -- an online journal of "environmental news and commentary" -- to see what the crazy liberals had to say about this guy. Surprisingly, he might acutally care about the environment.
In short, the environment is still dying and the Bush administration is only helping its decline. Luckily for us, Bush has a lovely way of making us all think that he cares and that he's doing everything he can to help. Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Oh, the power of shallow misleading rhetoric and a media that just eats it up.
After graduation next year, I'll be entering the class of 2006 with the environmental organizing training program called Green Corps. I'll be fighting off bad guys like polluters and dumpers that make our world a less beautiful place to live.
It's easy to forget how much I care about the environment as I get lost in my day-to-day routine of school. Especially since I'm surrounded by like-minded liberal tree-huggers, on a college campus where Earth Day is celebrated like New Year's,which is located in one of the most leftist towns in the country (move over Berkeley!). But, I can thankfully rely on our president to remind me of my passion to change things for the better of the Earth.
Yesterday was Earth Day (although, Earth Day should be everyday), and our incompetent president was obliged to discuss his environmental policies. His speech was filled with the usual BS on how much he looooves the environment. In fact, he's so into nature, that he gave his speech on a beautiful airport runway in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Oh, Mr. Bush, how I love your rhetoric.
He tried to imply that Congress was the reason his eco-friendly proposals like the policy on reducing power plant emissions, the Clear Skies Initiative, weren't coming into effect:
"The initiatives we did through executive order are important, but it would sure be helpful if Congress passed the Clear Skies legislation, as well." Gee, well, maybe they'd pass it if it didn't exclude montoring the major pollutants that come from a power plant, like mercury.
Nowadays when women who are or plan to become pregnant are told to avoid eating fish because of dangerous mercury levels, how can anyone suggest that admitting mercury into the air isn't harmful? The EPA itself said inFebruary 2003 ("America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses") that children born to women with high blood concentrations of mercury (about 5 million American women, according to their estimates) are at risk of adverse health problems, including reduced developmental IQ, problems with motor skills, and damage to the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems.
And, the source of this mercury is not so myserious. The EPA reports that U.S. electric utilities released 48 tons of mercury in 1999. This comprises about 40 percent of manmade mercury emissions in the U.S..
Now, please help me understand this next comment:
One of the initiatives I announced on Earth Day last year was to restore, improve and protect 3 million acres of wetlands over a five year period of time. The policy used to be no net loss. I thought we needed to be more aggressive on wetlands. And so the new goal is to restore, improve or protect 3 million acres of land [emphasis added].
hmm...
He went on to encourage Congress to speedily approve his nominee to head the EPA, Steve Johnson. According to the president, "He comes from the ranks of the EPA, he knows the agency [sic]." Well, of course, being my skeptical self, I ran over to grist.org -- an online journal of "environmental news and commentary" -- to see what the crazy liberals had to say about this guy. Surprisingly, he might acutally care about the environment.
He ascended the agency ladder swiftly under the watch of Carol Browner, whoI am flabbergasted that someone who even likes the environment was appointed, but I'm not entirely convinced of this guy's commitment. Clearly, if he's on board with Bush adminstration policies, he can't be all that green. And if Carol Browner is right, and he is green, then he'll only have to shut off his ideals while he's in his new visible political position.
headed the EPA during the Clinton administration. "I don't know if Johnson is a Democrat or Republican, but he's a very green guy, a truly committed environmentalist, from my experience." He didn't shy away from enforcing tough standards, safeguarding public health, and taking action against chemical companies when needed, said Browner. "One is almost left to wonder," she added, "if the Bush administration knew just how deep his commitment is to these issues when they decided that he was their man.
In short, the environment is still dying and the Bush administration is only helping its decline. Luckily for us, Bush has a lovely way of making us all think that he cares and that he's doing everything he can to help. Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Oh, the power of shallow misleading rhetoric and a media that just eats it up.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Tentative steps into the world of blogs
Call me Pippi or Pip, just don't call me late for dinner!
It might make me a Neanderthal in your eyes, but truth is, this my first ever blog entry. I must have been absent from life the day the blog craze came by, but even the hairy ape has to encounter modernity at some point. So, lucky for me, the blogging bandwagon has returned to the past for a fleeting moment, to let me jump on. Hope there's still some room!
This blog-o-mine will serve as a recycling bin for the clutter in my head. And, I am in definite need of some Spring Cleaning! It wil be a humble blog of thoughts that will most likely be seen as unimportant and unimpressive to anyone other than myself. But hey, I'm always up for a new adventure, especially if it consists of long voyages on the great sea of political commentary, philiosphical ramblings, and day-to-day musings.
Hope you all enjoy!
It might make me a Neanderthal in your eyes, but truth is, this my first ever blog entry. I must have been absent from life the day the blog craze came by, but even the hairy ape has to encounter modernity at some point. So, lucky for me, the blogging bandwagon has returned to the past for a fleeting moment, to let me jump on. Hope there's still some room!
This blog-o-mine will serve as a recycling bin for the clutter in my head. And, I am in definite need of some Spring Cleaning! It wil be a humble blog of thoughts that will most likely be seen as unimportant and unimpressive to anyone other than myself. But hey, I'm always up for a new adventure, especially if it consists of long voyages on the great sea of political commentary, philiosphical ramblings, and day-to-day musings.
Hope you all enjoy!
If only I had something interesting to say. I've noticed that the library is much quieter on Thursday night, although it probably doesn't take a heightened sense of observation to notice. I feel almost intimidated by writing my thoughts on the internet, for all willing surfers to peruse as they will. It's as if my own ideas aren't good enough for other people to waste their time reading. Perhaps if I made them politically relevant, they'd be more interesting. Unfortunately, talking about Politics largely depresses me. There is no political party in which I have any trust. The political system in general is so flawed, I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't all be better off romping in the woods, like Hobbes depicts.
I am in a generally cyncial mood about most things at the moment. Have I been reading too much existentialist crap? Graduation looms around the corner and life is about to hit me smack in the face.
I am in a generally cyncial mood about most things at the moment. Have I been reading too much existentialist crap? Graduation looms around the corner and life is about to hit me smack in the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
