CalJunket |
|
|
Campus personalities present and past Rebecca C. Brown and Tommaso Sciortino tackle the issues. This week on a very special CalJunket: Rebecca learns not to chew with her mouth open and Tommaso finds out his best friend is addicted to no-doze. Site feed: caljunket.blogspot.com/atom.xml
AIM Rebecca:
Archives
|
Monday, June 30, 2003
Public computers are available in the Wurster Library to facilitate this post. Boo! I have to go to class in four minutes so I can't make this post worthwhile. Yay! BlogOut comments work again. Boo! Apostrophes still show up as quotation marks. Yay! The weather cooled down. Boo! Prime tanning hours mildly reduced. Yay! A natural looking golden tan. Boo! Appearing to be made out of leather. (0) comments Beat the heat Monday, June 23, 2003
Well, I guess not really. It's just that at this point in our college careers we've all heard and read and written and said so much about the topic that it seems impossible that on this day one of us suddenly would be able to offer a new insight or perspective on the issue. I know I certainly can't. Neither can the very intelligent and well-written Paul Bruno (screw permalinks), but at least he does his darndest to iron out all his thoughts on the matter in one posting. It's lengthy, but worth reading. He brings up all the reasoning that I undertake when trying to weigh the options. Ultimately, however, I absolutely cannot support affirmative action. But I also do not think that affirmative action with race-based admission criteria or even quotas are "reversely" racist, or even necessarily discriminatory. I especially do not think it is unfair (and you might even say I think it is very fair) to offer additional resources and opportunities to individuals who, because of unfortunate economic status or poor parenting, have not been given the same chance in life as those with middle-class incomes and parents with middle-class values. Notice I didn't say anything about ethnicity? BUT it just so happens that poverty and single-parent homes and drug abuse are tragically disproportionate in African American and Hispanic (and Cambodian American and Laotian American and etcetera) communities. It also just so happens that because a good number of people within the middle and upper-class associate poverty and crime and ignorance with African Americans and Hispanics that these people might unwittingly and unintentionally make evaluations of others based on ethnicity. These evaluations may never even be acted upon in an educational or institutional setting, but to pretend that even educated, liberal, intelligent white people are entirely non-prejudiced would be silly. But I think it is equally silly to assume that affirmative action in its current state is going to "fix" our problems. If anything, it will perpetuate the racist but prevalent assumtion that an African American's success can only be aceived with the help of whitey. Affirmative action lets biggoted folks devalue the accomplishments of minorities. It lets white students look around in a lecture hall, see a few black students sitting among them, and ask themselves, "Are these people the reason my friend didn't get into Cal?" I of course think the aforesuggested attitudes about affirmative action are stupid, but I think there are answers to the ethnic disparities in higher education that would not lead to so much unfair bitterness and suspicion. My answer is primary education. Not many people here at Cal today weren't privy to an enriched primary educational environment. This doesn't mean that we all went to really good elementary or middle schools. (Jesus, I sure didn't. I grew up in the same part of Long Beach as Snoop, for god's sake.) (Wow, two blasphemes in the same parenthetical aside.) But if we didn't go to great primary schools, we most likely had very active parents who strongly valued education, which is in itself an asset that can help overcome incompetant teachers or text books that refer to the "distant future when man will walk on the moon." My point is that instead of diverting resources to fighting for affirmative action in higher education, these resources should go toward free pre-schools (like Head Start, for example), materials designed to encourage greater parent participation, after-school programs (like midnight basketball), and dozens of other programs in poor communities that give the children living there a better opportunity to excel in middle and high school. I say we should dump billions of dollars (yes, billions) into improving inner-city schools and offering easy and free drug rehabilitation to parents and giving poor children every opportunity to succeed. Billions of dollars and millions of man-hours over the course of a few years. Fuck the military, there are more important venues into which to pump money and time. Sure, it's a big cost. But imprisoning pot dealers and hiring juvenile officers is pretty expensive, too. It would be a long process, but we could help improve our "steadily declining morals" in American society, reduce crime (and the monetary costs thereof), and create more productive community members. Most importantly, we could give poor (and therefore predominantly black and hispanic) students educational opportunities similar to those of Joe M.C. (Middle Class) White Guy. In which case, in theory, we wouldn't need affirmative action. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play a match of tennis. (No, seriously. My buddy Eric just invited me.) (0) comments Pretty adorable, huh? Thursday, June 19, 2003
Within the next few months, the Canadian Parliament is expected to vote favorably on legislation regognizing marraiges between two men or two women. This has a big impact on the US, too, because American states accept Canadian marraige licenses and Canada doesn't have any residency requirements for marraiges. In other words, a gay couple from Berkeley could drive up to Canada, get married the next day, drive back to the Bay the day after that, and in theory suddenly qualify for all the benefits of legal marraige. In light of this new Canadian legislation, however, some states may consider no longer recognizing Canada's marraige licenses as legal in America. What a shame that some Americans feel so threatened by the imaginary "Gay Agenda" that they feel obligated to change existing laws just to keep their existence "morally straight." America claims to be the home of the free, and consequently we should have been the first country in the world to legalize gay marraige. Instead, I doubt if we'll progress that far in our civil rights laws before the middle of this century, if not the end of this century, if not ever. Read this article from the SFC. (0) comments Happy 61st birthday to the greatest living songwriter! Tuesday, June 17, 2003
But please check this one out first. (0) comments |
A chicken in every pot and a man running every blog
I did a quick check on the all the Cal blogs that I could find (those linked from the half a dozen or so blogs that I read daily), and I conspicuously didn't come across any pages run by females.
But it is not as though our campus is short on women who are intelligent, well-written, and most importantly engrossed in (campus-wide, national, or otherwise) politics. There is no reason that if a male student and female student had equal qualifications that the man would choose to share his ideas online while the woman would not, yet that seems to be the trend. Furthermore, if a woman does venture into the blogsphere and generates entertaining or informative material, I don't believe that her male blogging colleagues would be less likely to put links to her site on their pages simply because of her gender. If I may use myself as an example, it only took a week or so before my blog was being visited by people who had linked there from other sites. Admittedly, I did have the distinct advantage of being listed on Kevin's site because he is a friend of mine. BUT the other bloggers did not decide to omit my site from their list on links because I am a woman. And if a female who did not already have connections into the blogzone wanted to break into the scene, she could always leave comments (and a link to her site) on one of the prexisting blogs; the only condition is that her comments would have to be interesting/humorous/entertaining/incindiary enough for people to want to read more from her. But these are the same difficult conditions that face male potentials. The current male bloggers also probably have their share of intelligent female friends, and they would probably be more than willing to create a link to the woman's site if she wanted to start a blog. Though I can't say with confidence that all male bloggers always give equal creedence to women's opinions, I'm fairly certain that these men are in the small minority. I would like to very, very strongly supress the notion that the lack of females on the blog circuit is the fault of the males who currently dominate the venue.
In short, there are no real barriers between women and superblogdom. But though there may be no real barriers, there may be some self-imposed limitations.
Here's one theory. It seems to me that women feel obligated to write about "woman" topics. The same preoccupation that infiltrates females' comedy, art, poetry, prose, and politics is probably also present in blog-penning. We women are a traditionally under-appreciated and dare I say oppressed sub-group, so understandably the women in these fields would like to use their talents in the pursuit of equality. Unfortunately, it seems that many women feel the road to equality is paved with jokes about tampons instead of commentary about things everyone can understand. This focus on a more narrow set of topics might preclude someone's discussion from being of campus-wide interest.
Another potential reason women would not even attempt to start a blog is that they assume they will be discriminated against due to their gender. Because so many men out there are genuine jerks and very genuinely belive that women's opinions are less valuable than men's, many women may fear that entering blogville would subject them to this sort of discrimination. This is the same reasoning that keeps so many funny women from trying to join the Heuristic Squelch magazine team. (Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to keep all the unfunny women from submitting articles. And no force on the earth could keep horrendously unfunny men from submitting articles.)
My solution to this problem will be the same one I suggested for getting more women and minorities involved with the Squelch. There's no reason any readers should alter their standards for female bloggers, but the current bloggers/readers could encourage their witty and/or politically interested friends with fallopian toobs to enter the scene. The recruitment base could very easily be expanded, perhaps with a little extra nudging towards our writers lacking vans deferens. You don't have to pretend to like content that you actually don't, but let them know that the door is open.
Update: Eagle-eyed Jeff points out that there are some other ladies who run blogs in this town. They haven't been updated in a while, but even the best of us get preoccupied with matters more pressing than the blogs.
(0) comments
Monday, June 16, 2003
Berkeley Housing Debate, now available in new CalJunket flavor!
Over at CalStuff, Kevin's readers (myself very much included) had much to say about the current state of campus housing. I'll spare you the details because (a) if you read my site, you probably got here via Kevin's, so you are already familiar with the topic at hand; or (b) if you are oblivious to the debate to which I allude, you can go ahead and check it our for yourself under Wednesday, June 11 (or you can be smart and avoid it altogether).
My main contention on this matter is several-fold. Fist, my experience is that the "tortuous, painful, miserable, neo-Holocaust-inducing" housing conditions in Berkeley are severely exaggerated by students for some unkown reason. The commentator on CalStuff would like to believe that apartments in this town are all dirty, in crime-infested areas, overpriced, and nearly impossible to fget in to. I can't argue that rent in Berkeley isn't inflated; that's simply a byproduct of being a dense urban area that is home to a world-famous university with a 35,000 student body. But the remaining accusations are incorrect and unfounded.
On filth: most places are only as dirty as you let them become. Certainly some apartments very close to campus are unrightfully allowed to become dilapidated by the owners, which of course can't be alleviated with a mop and some Simple green; but you CAN take advantage of your renters' rights and insist that the landlords fix bad plumbing or broken windows, or you can just choose to not apply to apartments that don't appeal to you.
On crime: how many students are robbed each year, assuming they stear clear of the Eucalyptus Grove? Not a dsiproportionate number given the population of our city. (An ironic share of the crime around campus is committed by students, too.) Keep your bike inside at night. Lock your front door. Take the same safety precautions you would take anywhere.
On the availability of apartments: one fellow on CalStuff claimed he waited forty minutes to be shown a place, and once put down a deposit on a place he didn't even get. I in no way question the truth of this account. What I question are the apartment-searching skills of this young man. If you insist upon living two blocks from campus in an immaculately clean domicile, you need to get information on more than just four or five apartments (or you can move into one of the wings at BAM). It doesn't take more than an hour to send a dozen emails to posters on craigslist.org, and I can assure you that at least one will right back by the end of the day. Maybe I'm just really lucky, but I've found two apartments since moving out of the dorms in May 2002, and neither of them took me more than 3 hours to find. The first time, I waited until the end of May to start looking, so admittedly most the good places close to campus were taken. I ended living in an extraordinarily clean apartment with two friends in a cute neighborhood just one block away from Berkeley Bowl for just $400 a month. It was a long walk (20-40 mins) to campus, but the rent was very low, and walking is good for you. In my second experience, I answered about 10 cragslist postings, got 5 responses by 8pm that evening, looked at one of those apartments by 9pm, and had officially found my new place by 9:15. Now I share a great place on Delaware & Milvia with four other very attractive and friendly women. And I only pay $470 a month, which includes utilities. If you really want a great place, it's as simple as looking early and replying to 10 or more postings. Don't try to pretend that finding an apartment is this impossible or even necessarily stressful task. I found both my places in less time than it usually takes to find a parking space on Bancroft. (Though I've not once been without a parking space directly in front of my new apartment.)
The other big debate was the matter of college acting as a transition into adult life and the responsibility therein. It seems that a good number of kids in college are scared to move into apartments because all the amenities of dorm life will be stripped from them. Eventually, you will have to learn how to rinse your own dishes and pay your own water bills and wash your own undies, and college is as good a time as ever. Some of us even learned how to do this stuff in high school. Some of us even learned how to cook our own food and pack our own lunches before we became legal adults. I won't keep this rant going much longer, but if you curl up into a ball once the responsibilites of real life are gently tossed to you when you move out of the dorms, then you're a big pussy. That's right, I said pussy.
Finally, no one should rely on dorms to make friends. Of course they're a great place to meet new people with common interests, especially during the first year. But if you find apartment life necessarily isolated or empty, then you simply aren't trying hard enough. Our campus is full of hundreds of student groups, each of which caters to a specific type of person. We also have hundreds of courses that lump 10-400 different students with at least one similar interest or ambition into the same classroom. Not to mention that Berkeley is home to Raleigh's, Blakes, the Bear's Lair, Jupiter, and Triple Rock, each a swell place to make fun of drunk smarmy dudes or even become one yourself. In short, if you find that your social life is dwinding that significantly post-dorms, you just might not be taking advantage of all the resources and opportunities that Cal has to offer.
Hope I didn't offend anyone or cheese anyone off. I just get a little disturbed at the apparant inability of my peers to make their own decisions and forge their own adult identities. I'm also fiercely jealous of anyone who's parents can afford to help them financially. Or of anyone who had friends in high school. Who's laughing now, big-shot high school kids with real-life cars, huh? Who's laughing now?
(0) comments
Sunday, June 15, 2003
Based on the tepid/nonexistant commentary on my FCC and Head Start posts, I'll assume that the 12 people who read my blog are content with current media coverage. Or just terribly bored by my analysis. Fair enough.
I'll go ahead a switch gears, and shy away from political punditism for just a moment in order to plug the man who I deem one of the five best songwriters still alive. That's right, Elvis Costello is coming to town! Saturday, July 19th at 8:00pm he and the Imposters will be down the street at the Greek Theater. Don't miss out again! (He came to Berkeley last year, and I foolishly didn't see him.) Buy your tickets at Zellerbach hall to avoid those pesky service charges. General admission a whopping $35, but I think it's worth it.
On a similar yet unrelated note, if you ever get the chance to see Ben Folds in concert, please please do. Best show I ever saw. I also saw Paul McCartney when I was 8, which was a blast, but I think Ben Folds burned more calories.
(0) comments
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Why is no one pissed off about this? Maybe because nobody told us about it.
My frustration with the television media increased that much more yesterday when my boss informed me of a shocking news story from Washington, one that I never once caught on local or national TV or on the front page of a paper. (I even had to look pretty hard to find it on the internet.)
Head Start is a pre-school program that gives children from largely low-income families the opportunity to begin their educational experience in their most fomative years: those before the age of five. It is 80% federally funded, with the balance coming from state funds. George W. Bush and his administration want to overhaul the federal control of the program and insead give that power to the states. The big problem with this decision, critics contend, is that it is the strong federal standards that keep the program strong. Furthermore, as written in the SF Gate, "nonprofit groups that run the programs are closest to Head Start, but they could lose their centers if the Bush plan goes through and states are free to contract with whomever they choose."
In short, Bush and many Republican Congresspeople are abandoning their administrative support for a program that has proven to be effective in, appropriately enough, giving its participants a head start in education. Poor students involved in Head Start perform better than their economic peers, though not as well as children from more well-off homes. Indisputably, however, Head Start offers this nation's poor a better chance to succeed in school and consequently adult life. Everybdy wins.
But Bush's lack of legislative support for Head Start, though very discouraging and indeed very indicitave of his lack of genuine support for education in general, is not the most disturbing part of the story. The shocking, sickening aspect of this mess is that Bush has stifled the First Amendment rights of American citizens in order to protect himself. Soon after Bush and Rep. Mike Castle announced their new plan for the program, and teachers and parents and school administrators began voicing public opposition to this decision, a governmental Head Start official informed the complainers that they were not allowed to openly criticize the Bush legislation. The argument is that rules in the program do not allow members to use federal resources to participate in political activity. Too bad only 80% of the money they receive is federal, and the rest can be used to be as political as they please. Consequently the Head Start leaders are filing charges against the Bush administration for violating their Constitutional rights. I've grown to expect nasty, unsavory political activity from this administration, but I'm so sad and shocked to see that they feel like they can tell citizens what and what not to say. It's disturbing to see a man who feels so comfortable playing off his constituents' sence of national pride and patriotism take an action so distinctly un-American.
The third tier of disturbance for me is that this violation of First Amendment rights (not to mention the legislative overhaul of Head Start) did not make big news. Is it that Americans simply don't care? Is it that media outlets don't like to make big news out of stories that challenge us or reveal what a gaggle of schmucks George Bush and his cronies are? Either the public inherently cares that much more about dirt on CEOs than dirt on the Commander in Chief, or (and I think this is the more likely option) the media have decided that the public will care more about business scandal than (non-sexual) presidential scandal. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not generally a suspicious person, but I genuinely believe that the media decides for us which stories we will find interesting. I genuinely believe that newspapers and TV and radio stations withold the (again, non-sexual) stories about politically scandalous conservatives because these media outlets are run by people who benefit from conservative administrations.
I never thought I'd turn into "one of those people," but I think I'm going to start being a self-important, rudely intellectual, wine-sipping NPR listener. Otherwise I'm stuck with more news on Laci Peterson and Lotto winners. Also catch Harry Shearer's "Le Show" on our local NPR station (KAWL 91.7) on Sundays at noon.
For more neato information on thie Head Start story, check out NPR or the SF Gate.
(0) comments
Friday, June 13, 2003
Only 899,999 to go!
So I have one signature (mine) already down on the petition to stop those morons from trying to run a petition to kick Governer Gray Davis out of office. And I need 900k to get my idea to the polling booths. Will you help me?
Okay, okay. I didn't vote for Gray Davis. I voted for the irreverant Peter Camejo. Can you blame me for despising the death penalty and supporting gay marriage rights and universal health care? I'm a frickin' liberal.
But could the people who are so hell-bent on ousting Davis please take the time to research their allegations, or at least try to understand that his legislative decisions are ones anyone in his situation might make? The official Davis-haters complain that public university fees have raised during his administration. Indeed, I hate that fact as much as anyone. My fees went from $6 to $166 overnight. But did they notice that Davis actually did not support the increase in fees, and that he was fighting for the cause of the universities? (Scroll down to Monday, June 2.) They complain that he has raised taxes, which no self-respecting conservative could appreciate. Well, George W. Bush lowered taxes and even started a war, and our national economy is still in the shits. They gripe that he wants to increase sales taxes and triple car registration fees. Again, is it his fault that the entire county's economy is sputtering, so less revenue is coming in from this state, so some taxes are going to have to be raised in order to fund things like education and public safety? And do you really need to have three Fords in your driveway?
What do you want Davis to do? He shouldn't raise taxes, so he should just let funding to universities and the CHP and public elementary schools drop even more. That would put a good number of government employees on the brink of losing their jobs. And would losing jobs be good for the California economy? So he's boring, and maybe a little wishy-washy, and he hasn't handled everything that has come his way perfectly. Personality was never justification for ousting a leader. And his "mistakes" are mainly byproducts of others' economic mismanagement.
If the anti-Davis team can gather these signatures, California voters will run (or more likely walk) to the polls to decide on the same day, on the same ballot (a) if we should ditch Davis, and (b) in the event of his overturn, who his successor would be. One replacement governor that has been discussed by the right is our good friend Arnie. I can only imagine what a huge tool he would be if actually elected. All his speeches to the legislature would be coyly ended with "I'll be back!"
Shudder.
(0) comments
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
So I've been meaning to write about the FCC for the last week, but didn't get around to it until now. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed. As of Monday, June 2, it is easier for large companies to wield more ownership and influence in a given market, and thus to limit the diversity of opinions in each area. Here's what the FCC decided (all this information courtesy the San Francisco Chronicle, June 3):
-A single company can now own television stations reaching up to 45% of the nation, up from 35%
-Companies could now own both a newspaper and television station in the same market, which was previously prohibited
-Companies in large markets (those containing 18 or more TV stations) can now own three stations, up from 2
So what's wrong with that? My fear is that the more the larger companies can own, the more they can flood the market, raise ownership prices through competition, and consequently drive out independent stations from voicing an independent set of opinions. I also contend that, for the most part, it is the media, not the people, who decide which news stories are most important, most interesting, and most compelling to the consumers; when fewer people control information, fewer people will decide which issues are important to the public. The public, though companies will own three stations and operate under the auspices of voicing three different opinions, will be subject to the same information, just regurgiated three slightly different ways. Independent (and let's face it, liberal) opinions cannot survive in this climate; large companies will not provide news that challenges their viewers'/readers'/listners' perceptions.
As it is, seven companies own 80% of television stations, two companies own 40%. Seven owners decide four fifths of what goes into America's homes. And yet there are seemingly so many local stations, so many news sources, so many different opportunities to get contrasting opinions. But if all these stations are controlled by the same forces, no one gets a chance to oppose the norm. Do you doubt there's some oppression of challenging news stories? Otherwise, why would this entire FCC decision be such unpopular news? How many local or even national stations aired the story for more that one day? No, instead the market is stuffed with feel-good stories about kidnapees averting their abducters and fear-inducing tales of teenagers seeing "2 Fast 2 Furious" and then street racing later that night. (By the way, no disrespect meant towards that girl's family. It's a great story.) And yet I've had to search tirelessly for information about the court's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Oh, I discovered a very swell advocacy-type website the other day when I was looking for stuff about the FCC. You should check it out. www.essential.org
And, my final word on Hail to the Thief. Very good. Any Radiohead fan ought to love it as I do. But I feel they've fallen into a formula and are content with it. Each song on the album has the same sound as the others, and could just as easily be off of Amnesiac or Kid A. I love their atmosphere, but I would love them to develop a different atmosphere. Something new, something more indicative of their creativity. I know the comparison isn't fair, but in the same duration between OK Computer and Hail to the Thief (6 years, that is), my friends the Beatles went from stupid poppy Please Please Me to amazingly different The Beatles (aka the White Album), with Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour (and five others) in between. Hail to the Thief is more of the same very good music.
(0) comments
Today's Rebeccommendations
Food:Tuk Tuk Thai. On Shattuck between Dwight and Haste. Good prices ($5.00-$6.50). Dozens of vegan options.
Film: Office Space. I can't think of any other movie from the 1990s that makes me laugh more.
Track from Hail to the Thief: Not sure yet.
Attire: Business casual.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Just for the sake of being first among the Cal blogging circuit
I'm currently listening to Hail to the Thief. I have no patience so I bought it at Rasputin at 10:34 this morning. Can you believe I waited thirty-four whole minutes after Rasputin opened before I made my inevitable purchase? I like it. I like it a lot. Unfortunately, I have to go to work soon, so I can't do a song-by-song assessment. But for now, I really like it. I'll have to listen to it several more times before I can really tell you where it ranks among Radiohead's other albums. Go buy it! Do what the internet tells you to do! Buuuuyyy Raaadioheaaaaaaad! Nooooooowwww!
(0) comments
Monday, June 09, 2003
Wacky Link
I like to use my Bravenet counter to tell how people have found my site over these past exciting few months. A good 60% are linked from other sites, 39% are direct hits, and the remaining visits are from search engine results. The one that most intrigued me today was a user who to linked to CalJunket from a Google search for, and I quote, "how many fetus are getting harmed per day." Have I ever discussed fetuses on my site? I don't think I have. Chances are, the other key words in the search led my visitor to find this site through Google. BUT, this does bring up a good question. Namely, how many fetus are getting harmed per day? Sadly, probably the same number of people who mispluralize "fetus" per day. My guess is about 12. Twelve fetus are harmed per day.
(0) comments
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Music of the Week
Most recent purchases
"McCartney," Paul McCartney. 1970. Paul's second solo work. Cute, folky, all-around enjoyable. Not terribly challenging, but who needs experimentation when you already know how to write great songs? Highlight tracks: Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. (This scale is very stringent. I'm grading these selections relative to only those albums already in my CD collection or albums I wish were in my collection. Best o' the best. I'm not giving those five star-denotations away!)
"Bellybutton," Jellyfish. 1990. First of only two albums from this poppy hybrid between Queen, the Beatles, and the Partridge Family. They broke up too soon! Highlight tracks: Baby's Coming Back, Now She Knows She's Wrong. 4 out of 5 stars.
Recently Rediscovered From My CD Collection
"All Things Must Pass," Geroge Harrison. 1970. First solo Beatle to go #1 in the UK. Amazingly emotional and gentle at times, with some good rock grooves thrown in. It's a two-disk album, but to be honest I'm not too fond of the second disk. Harrison's musicianship and songwriting are remarkable, and make you reconsider the sidelined role he played while in the Beatles. So much heart without a drop of insincerity. Positive, optomistic lyrics. One of those albums that will affect me my entire life. Highlight tracks: All Things Must Pass, Apple Scruffs, My Sweet Lord (if just for the tear-wrenching slide guitar). 5 out of five stars (!!!).
"Pink Moon," Nick Drake. 1972. Don't let those stupid VW Cabrillo ads scare you away from a great album from a very strong artist. Very folky and soft, but with a lyrical and occasionally musical edge. Romantic without being sappy. Simple acoustic accompanyment for his unaffected voice. Highlight tracks: Parasite, From the Morning. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
(0) comments
Friday, June 06, 2003
Oakland International: Home of Efficient Service and Free Tampons
I guess I should feel obligated to tackle hard-hitting topics like constitutionality and Mallory Moser, but I find it much more exciting that feminine hygiene products are available for free at a commerical establishment. (I preventatively apologize to my more sensitive readers for including the word "tampon" in today's posting. I in no way feel that I as one of the few female Cal bloggers have a duty to address these topics. It just so happens that due to my gender I am privy to certain information that is not available to my male counterparts.) On my flight back from Long Beach on JetBlue, I had the luxury of enjoying a complimentary FULL CAN of Diet Coke, free potato chips, and of course free DirecTV. (I watched an episode and a half of "Animal Rescues" on Animal Planet and a few good videos, including "Accidents Will Happen" by Elvis Costello, on VH1 Classics.) Anyhow, thanks to that full 12 ounces of sacchriney goodness, I needed to use the restroom in Oakland International when I got off the plane. I was very pleased to find the facilities were quite clean and well-stocked with the necessary paper goods. I was also very surprised to find that tampons and panty liners were available for free free FREE in the restroom machine. I didn't partake of the complimentary products, so I couldn't inform you of the quality, but I think it's just really swell that they give 'em out for free. Mind you, you have to have a boarding pass and get through security before you have access to these gratuitous cotton wares. But I was still excited.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
I’ve always wanted to invite a woman up to my apartment for a nightcap then just give her one of those little hats that flops over on the side. “That’s all. I just wanted to give you that. You can go now. If you want to go out next week, I’ll give you a short robe that matches.”
Why is it so difficult and uncomfortable to be naked?…That’s why I like to wear a belt when I’m naked. I feel it gives me something. I’d like to get pockets to hang off the belt. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate thing? To be naked and still be able to put your hands in your pockets. I think that would really help a lot.
Nothing compares with the paperweight to express to someone, “I refused to put any thought into this at all.” And where are these people working that the papers are just blowing right off their desks anyway? Is their office screwed to the back of a flatbed truck going down the highway or something? Are they typing up in the crow’s nest of a clipper ship? What do you need a paperweight for? Where’s the wind coming from?
To me, the most annoying thing about the couple of times that I worked in an office is that when you show up in the morning you say “hi” to everyone and then for some reason, you have to continue to greet these people all day every time you see them. You walk in at the start of the day, “Morning Bill, morning, Bob. You are you doing?” “Fine.”
Ten minutes later you see them in the hall, again you say, “How are you doing?” Now, I already know how he’s doing, I just saw him, he told me how he’s doing. But you’ve got to keep coming up with different little greetings. You start coming up with nicknames for them…. “Jimbo.” You do the little smile with the head raise. The almost imperceptible beneath-the-breath “Hey” with a half-smile. It it’s a narrow passageway, thank God now you can say, “Excuse me.” But it has to have a very friendly singsong quality. You kind of go up a note on the “me.” If you feel more familiar, “Tight squeeze” is popular. When walking by a group of 3 or more men, “Gentlemen” is often used to confer an air of sophistication that is always misplaced.
Day-of-the-week references are always good, especially Monday or Friday because of the obligatory emotions that are assumed to go with them. Any mention of weekend seems to comfort people. “Good weekend?” “Have a good weekend?” People like anything with weekend in it. Thursday’s good for “One more day,” which usually prompts the easy “You said it” rejoinder. Wednesday, “Humpday.”
“That is it.”
We should all agree that we’re just going to say “Acknowledge” as we pass in the halls. You know, “Acknowledge, acknowledge.” We’ll become Vulcans for four seconds and not have to wrack our brains every time we just want to go to the bathroom.
(-Jerry Seinfeld)
(0) comments
Monday, June 02, 2003
Muggy Southern California
I’m flying back to Berkeley tomorrow morning, and in all I had a great weekend in Long Beach. I had a blast seeing my mom graduate, it was really fun spending time with my extended family, and I got a chance to go to LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) yesterday with my sister (lots of neat modern art, classic art, and a section on Japanese art).
But other than my family living here, I have no compelling reason to move back to Southern California after I graduate from college. In the last two years I’ve fallen in love with the Bay Area, and Berkeley in particular. I adore the clean(ish) air, the prevalent vegetation, all the great restaurants, the ability to blend in no matter how you dress or act, and the general “liberal” atmosphere (however that may manifest itself). I simply feel more comfortable up there, even if my family lives down here.
Long-Awaited
Eight days until Radiohead’s new album Hail to the Thief comes out(!!).
Music of the Week
Oranges and Lemons by the oft-overlooked British group XTC. Easily one of my three favorite albums of the 1980s. XTC sounds like no one else (except the Beatles, the Kinks, and all the other bands of whom they shamelessly derivative).
(0) comments
Freedom of What?
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments
Over at CalStuff, Kevin's readers (myself very much included) had much to say about the current state of campus housing. I'll spare you the details because (a) if you read my site, you probably got here via Kevin's, so you are already familiar with the topic at hand; or (b) if you are oblivious to the debate to which I allude, you can go ahead and check it our for yourself under Wednesday, June 11 (or you can be smart and avoid it altogether).
My main contention on this matter is several-fold. Fist, my experience is that the "tortuous, painful, miserable, neo-Holocaust-inducing" housing conditions in Berkeley are severely exaggerated by students for some unkown reason. The commentator on CalStuff would like to believe that apartments in this town are all dirty, in crime-infested areas, overpriced, and nearly impossible to fget in to. I can't argue that rent in Berkeley isn't inflated; that's simply a byproduct of being a dense urban area that is home to a world-famous university with a 35,000 student body. But the remaining accusations are incorrect and unfounded.
On filth: most places are only as dirty as you let them become. Certainly some apartments very close to campus are unrightfully allowed to become dilapidated by the owners, which of course can't be alleviated with a mop and some Simple green; but you CAN take advantage of your renters' rights and insist that the landlords fix bad plumbing or broken windows, or you can just choose to not apply to apartments that don't appeal to you.
On crime: how many students are robbed each year, assuming they stear clear of the Eucalyptus Grove? Not a dsiproportionate number given the population of our city. (An ironic share of the crime around campus is committed by students, too.) Keep your bike inside at night. Lock your front door. Take the same safety precautions you would take anywhere.
On the availability of apartments: one fellow on CalStuff claimed he waited forty minutes to be shown a place, and once put down a deposit on a place he didn't even get. I in no way question the truth of this account. What I question are the apartment-searching skills of this young man. If you insist upon living two blocks from campus in an immaculately clean domicile, you need to get information on more than just four or five apartments (or you can move into one of the wings at BAM). It doesn't take more than an hour to send a dozen emails to posters on craigslist.org, and I can assure you that at least one will right back by the end of the day. Maybe I'm just really lucky, but I've found two apartments since moving out of the dorms in May 2002, and neither of them took me more than 3 hours to find. The first time, I waited until the end of May to start looking, so admittedly most the good places close to campus were taken. I ended living in an extraordinarily clean apartment with two friends in a cute neighborhood just one block away from Berkeley Bowl for just $400 a month. It was a long walk (20-40 mins) to campus, but the rent was very low, and walking is good for you. In my second experience, I answered about 10 cragslist postings, got 5 responses by 8pm that evening, looked at one of those apartments by 9pm, and had officially found my new place by 9:15. Now I share a great place on Delaware & Milvia with four other very attractive and friendly women. And I only pay $470 a month, which includes utilities. If you really want a great place, it's as simple as looking early and replying to 10 or more postings. Don't try to pretend that finding an apartment is this impossible or even necessarily stressful task. I found both my places in less time than it usually takes to find a parking space on Bancroft. (Though I've not once been without a parking space directly in front of my new apartment.)
The other big debate was the matter of college acting as a transition into adult life and the responsibility therein. It seems that a good number of kids in college are scared to move into apartments because all the amenities of dorm life will be stripped from them. Eventually, you will have to learn how to rinse your own dishes and pay your own water bills and wash your own undies, and college is as good a time as ever. Some of us even learned how to do this stuff in high school. Some of us even learned how to cook our own food and pack our own lunches before we became legal adults. I won't keep this rant going much longer, but if you curl up into a ball once the responsibilites of real life are gently tossed to you when you move out of the dorms, then you're a big pussy. That's right, I said pussy.
Finally, no one should rely on dorms to make friends. Of course they're a great place to meet new people with common interests, especially during the first year. But if you find apartment life necessarily isolated or empty, then you simply aren't trying hard enough. Our campus is full of hundreds of student groups, each of which caters to a specific type of person. We also have hundreds of courses that lump 10-400 different students with at least one similar interest or ambition into the same classroom. Not to mention that Berkeley is home to Raleigh's, Blakes, the Bear's Lair, Jupiter, and Triple Rock, each a swell place to make fun of drunk smarmy dudes or even become one yourself. In short, if you find that your social life is dwinding that significantly post-dorms, you just might not be taking advantage of all the resources and opportunities that Cal has to offer.
Hope I didn't offend anyone or cheese anyone off. I just get a little disturbed at the apparant inability of my peers to make their own decisions and forge their own adult identities. I'm also fiercely jealous of anyone who's parents can afford to help them financially. Or of anyone who had friends in high school. Who's laughing now, big-shot high school kids with real-life cars, huh? Who's laughing now?
(0) comments
Based on the tepid/nonexistant commentary on my FCC and Head Start posts, I'll assume that the 12 people who read my blog are content with current media coverage. Or just terribly bored by my analysis. Fair enough.
I'll go ahead a switch gears, and shy away from political punditism for just a moment in order to plug the man who I deem one of the five best songwriters still alive. That's right, Elvis Costello is coming to town! Saturday, July 19th at 8:00pm he and the Imposters will be down the street at the Greek Theater. Don't miss out again! (He came to Berkeley last year, and I foolishly didn't see him.) Buy your tickets at Zellerbach hall to avoid those pesky service charges. General admission a whopping $35, but I think it's worth it.
On a similar yet unrelated note, if you ever get the chance to see Ben Folds in concert, please please do. Best show I ever saw. I also saw Paul McCartney when I was 8, which was a blast, but I think Ben Folds burned more calories.
(0) comments
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Why is no one pissed off about this? Maybe because nobody told us about it.
My frustration with the television media increased that much more yesterday when my boss informed me of a shocking news story from Washington, one that I never once caught on local or national TV or on the front page of a paper. (I even had to look pretty hard to find it on the internet.)
Head Start is a pre-school program that gives children from largely low-income families the opportunity to begin their educational experience in their most fomative years: those before the age of five. It is 80% federally funded, with the balance coming from state funds. George W. Bush and his administration want to overhaul the federal control of the program and insead give that power to the states. The big problem with this decision, critics contend, is that it is the strong federal standards that keep the program strong. Furthermore, as written in the SF Gate, "nonprofit groups that run the programs are closest to Head Start, but they could lose their centers if the Bush plan goes through and states are free to contract with whomever they choose."
In short, Bush and many Republican Congresspeople are abandoning their administrative support for a program that has proven to be effective in, appropriately enough, giving its participants a head start in education. Poor students involved in Head Start perform better than their economic peers, though not as well as children from more well-off homes. Indisputably, however, Head Start offers this nation's poor a better chance to succeed in school and consequently adult life. Everybdy wins.
But Bush's lack of legislative support for Head Start, though very discouraging and indeed very indicitave of his lack of genuine support for education in general, is not the most disturbing part of the story. The shocking, sickening aspect of this mess is that Bush has stifled the First Amendment rights of American citizens in order to protect himself. Soon after Bush and Rep. Mike Castle announced their new plan for the program, and teachers and parents and school administrators began voicing public opposition to this decision, a governmental Head Start official informed the complainers that they were not allowed to openly criticize the Bush legislation. The argument is that rules in the program do not allow members to use federal resources to participate in political activity. Too bad only 80% of the money they receive is federal, and the rest can be used to be as political as they please. Consequently the Head Start leaders are filing charges against the Bush administration for violating their Constitutional rights. I've grown to expect nasty, unsavory political activity from this administration, but I'm so sad and shocked to see that they feel like they can tell citizens what and what not to say. It's disturbing to see a man who feels so comfortable playing off his constituents' sence of national pride and patriotism take an action so distinctly un-American.
The third tier of disturbance for me is that this violation of First Amendment rights (not to mention the legislative overhaul of Head Start) did not make big news. Is it that Americans simply don't care? Is it that media outlets don't like to make big news out of stories that challenge us or reveal what a gaggle of schmucks George Bush and his cronies are? Either the public inherently cares that much more about dirt on CEOs than dirt on the Commander in Chief, or (and I think this is the more likely option) the media have decided that the public will care more about business scandal than (non-sexual) presidential scandal. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not generally a suspicious person, but I genuinely believe that the media decides for us which stories we will find interesting. I genuinely believe that newspapers and TV and radio stations withold the (again, non-sexual) stories about politically scandalous conservatives because these media outlets are run by people who benefit from conservative administrations.
I never thought I'd turn into "one of those people," but I think I'm going to start being a self-important, rudely intellectual, wine-sipping NPR listener. Otherwise I'm stuck with more news on Laci Peterson and Lotto winners. Also catch Harry Shearer's "Le Show" on our local NPR station (KAWL 91.7) on Sundays at noon.
For more neato information on thie Head Start story, check out NPR or the SF Gate.
(0) comments
Friday, June 13, 2003
Only 899,999 to go!
So I have one signature (mine) already down on the petition to stop those morons from trying to run a petition to kick Governer Gray Davis out of office. And I need 900k to get my idea to the polling booths. Will you help me?
Okay, okay. I didn't vote for Gray Davis. I voted for the irreverant Peter Camejo. Can you blame me for despising the death penalty and supporting gay marriage rights and universal health care? I'm a frickin' liberal.
But could the people who are so hell-bent on ousting Davis please take the time to research their allegations, or at least try to understand that his legislative decisions are ones anyone in his situation might make? The official Davis-haters complain that public university fees have raised during his administration. Indeed, I hate that fact as much as anyone. My fees went from $6 to $166 overnight. But did they notice that Davis actually did not support the increase in fees, and that he was fighting for the cause of the universities? (Scroll down to Monday, June 2.) They complain that he has raised taxes, which no self-respecting conservative could appreciate. Well, George W. Bush lowered taxes and even started a war, and our national economy is still in the shits. They gripe that he wants to increase sales taxes and triple car registration fees. Again, is it his fault that the entire county's economy is sputtering, so less revenue is coming in from this state, so some taxes are going to have to be raised in order to fund things like education and public safety? And do you really need to have three Fords in your driveway?
What do you want Davis to do? He shouldn't raise taxes, so he should just let funding to universities and the CHP and public elementary schools drop even more. That would put a good number of government employees on the brink of losing their jobs. And would losing jobs be good for the California economy? So he's boring, and maybe a little wishy-washy, and he hasn't handled everything that has come his way perfectly. Personality was never justification for ousting a leader. And his "mistakes" are mainly byproducts of others' economic mismanagement.
If the anti-Davis team can gather these signatures, California voters will run (or more likely walk) to the polls to decide on the same day, on the same ballot (a) if we should ditch Davis, and (b) in the event of his overturn, who his successor would be. One replacement governor that has been discussed by the right is our good friend Arnie. I can only imagine what a huge tool he would be if actually elected. All his speeches to the legislature would be coyly ended with "I'll be back!"
Shudder.
(0) comments
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
So I've been meaning to write about the FCC for the last week, but didn't get around to it until now. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed. As of Monday, June 2, it is easier for large companies to wield more ownership and influence in a given market, and thus to limit the diversity of opinions in each area. Here's what the FCC decided (all this information courtesy the San Francisco Chronicle, June 3):
-A single company can now own television stations reaching up to 45% of the nation, up from 35%
-Companies could now own both a newspaper and television station in the same market, which was previously prohibited
-Companies in large markets (those containing 18 or more TV stations) can now own three stations, up from 2
So what's wrong with that? My fear is that the more the larger companies can own, the more they can flood the market, raise ownership prices through competition, and consequently drive out independent stations from voicing an independent set of opinions. I also contend that, for the most part, it is the media, not the people, who decide which news stories are most important, most interesting, and most compelling to the consumers; when fewer people control information, fewer people will decide which issues are important to the public. The public, though companies will own three stations and operate under the auspices of voicing three different opinions, will be subject to the same information, just regurgiated three slightly different ways. Independent (and let's face it, liberal) opinions cannot survive in this climate; large companies will not provide news that challenges their viewers'/readers'/listners' perceptions.
As it is, seven companies own 80% of television stations, two companies own 40%. Seven owners decide four fifths of what goes into America's homes. And yet there are seemingly so many local stations, so many news sources, so many different opportunities to get contrasting opinions. But if all these stations are controlled by the same forces, no one gets a chance to oppose the norm. Do you doubt there's some oppression of challenging news stories? Otherwise, why would this entire FCC decision be such unpopular news? How many local or even national stations aired the story for more that one day? No, instead the market is stuffed with feel-good stories about kidnapees averting their abducters and fear-inducing tales of teenagers seeing "2 Fast 2 Furious" and then street racing later that night. (By the way, no disrespect meant towards that girl's family. It's a great story.) And yet I've had to search tirelessly for information about the court's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Oh, I discovered a very swell advocacy-type website the other day when I was looking for stuff about the FCC. You should check it out. www.essential.org
And, my final word on Hail to the Thief. Very good. Any Radiohead fan ought to love it as I do. But I feel they've fallen into a formula and are content with it. Each song on the album has the same sound as the others, and could just as easily be off of Amnesiac or Kid A. I love their atmosphere, but I would love them to develop a different atmosphere. Something new, something more indicative of their creativity. I know the comparison isn't fair, but in the same duration between OK Computer and Hail to the Thief (6 years, that is), my friends the Beatles went from stupid poppy Please Please Me to amazingly different The Beatles (aka the White Album), with Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour (and five others) in between. Hail to the Thief is more of the same very good music.
(0) comments
Today's Rebeccommendations
Food:Tuk Tuk Thai. On Shattuck between Dwight and Haste. Good prices ($5.00-$6.50). Dozens of vegan options.
Film: Office Space. I can't think of any other movie from the 1990s that makes me laugh more.
Track from Hail to the Thief: Not sure yet.
Attire: Business casual.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Just for the sake of being first among the Cal blogging circuit
I'm currently listening to Hail to the Thief. I have no patience so I bought it at Rasputin at 10:34 this morning. Can you believe I waited thirty-four whole minutes after Rasputin opened before I made my inevitable purchase? I like it. I like it a lot. Unfortunately, I have to go to work soon, so I can't do a song-by-song assessment. But for now, I really like it. I'll have to listen to it several more times before I can really tell you where it ranks among Radiohead's other albums. Go buy it! Do what the internet tells you to do! Buuuuyyy Raaadioheaaaaaaad! Nooooooowwww!
(0) comments
Monday, June 09, 2003
Wacky Link
I like to use my Bravenet counter to tell how people have found my site over these past exciting few months. A good 60% are linked from other sites, 39% are direct hits, and the remaining visits are from search engine results. The one that most intrigued me today was a user who to linked to CalJunket from a Google search for, and I quote, "how many fetus are getting harmed per day." Have I ever discussed fetuses on my site? I don't think I have. Chances are, the other key words in the search led my visitor to find this site through Google. BUT, this does bring up a good question. Namely, how many fetus are getting harmed per day? Sadly, probably the same number of people who mispluralize "fetus" per day. My guess is about 12. Twelve fetus are harmed per day.
(0) comments
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Music of the Week
Most recent purchases
"McCartney," Paul McCartney. 1970. Paul's second solo work. Cute, folky, all-around enjoyable. Not terribly challenging, but who needs experimentation when you already know how to write great songs? Highlight tracks: Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. (This scale is very stringent. I'm grading these selections relative to only those albums already in my CD collection or albums I wish were in my collection. Best o' the best. I'm not giving those five star-denotations away!)
"Bellybutton," Jellyfish. 1990. First of only two albums from this poppy hybrid between Queen, the Beatles, and the Partridge Family. They broke up too soon! Highlight tracks: Baby's Coming Back, Now She Knows She's Wrong. 4 out of 5 stars.
Recently Rediscovered From My CD Collection
"All Things Must Pass," Geroge Harrison. 1970. First solo Beatle to go #1 in the UK. Amazingly emotional and gentle at times, with some good rock grooves thrown in. It's a two-disk album, but to be honest I'm not too fond of the second disk. Harrison's musicianship and songwriting are remarkable, and make you reconsider the sidelined role he played while in the Beatles. So much heart without a drop of insincerity. Positive, optomistic lyrics. One of those albums that will affect me my entire life. Highlight tracks: All Things Must Pass, Apple Scruffs, My Sweet Lord (if just for the tear-wrenching slide guitar). 5 out of five stars (!!!).
"Pink Moon," Nick Drake. 1972. Don't let those stupid VW Cabrillo ads scare you away from a great album from a very strong artist. Very folky and soft, but with a lyrical and occasionally musical edge. Romantic without being sappy. Simple acoustic accompanyment for his unaffected voice. Highlight tracks: Parasite, From the Morning. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
(0) comments
Friday, June 06, 2003
Oakland International: Home of Efficient Service and Free Tampons
I guess I should feel obligated to tackle hard-hitting topics like constitutionality and Mallory Moser, but I find it much more exciting that feminine hygiene products are available for free at a commerical establishment. (I preventatively apologize to my more sensitive readers for including the word "tampon" in today's posting. I in no way feel that I as one of the few female Cal bloggers have a duty to address these topics. It just so happens that due to my gender I am privy to certain information that is not available to my male counterparts.) On my flight back from Long Beach on JetBlue, I had the luxury of enjoying a complimentary FULL CAN of Diet Coke, free potato chips, and of course free DirecTV. (I watched an episode and a half of "Animal Rescues" on Animal Planet and a few good videos, including "Accidents Will Happen" by Elvis Costello, on VH1 Classics.) Anyhow, thanks to that full 12 ounces of sacchriney goodness, I needed to use the restroom in Oakland International when I got off the plane. I was very pleased to find the facilities were quite clean and well-stocked with the necessary paper goods. I was also very surprised to find that tampons and panty liners were available for free free FREE in the restroom machine. I didn't partake of the complimentary products, so I couldn't inform you of the quality, but I think it's just really swell that they give 'em out for free. Mind you, you have to have a boarding pass and get through security before you have access to these gratuitous cotton wares. But I was still excited.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
I’ve always wanted to invite a woman up to my apartment for a nightcap then just give her one of those little hats that flops over on the side. “That’s all. I just wanted to give you that. You can go now. If you want to go out next week, I’ll give you a short robe that matches.”
Why is it so difficult and uncomfortable to be naked?…That’s why I like to wear a belt when I’m naked. I feel it gives me something. I’d like to get pockets to hang off the belt. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate thing? To be naked and still be able to put your hands in your pockets. I think that would really help a lot.
Nothing compares with the paperweight to express to someone, “I refused to put any thought into this at all.” And where are these people working that the papers are just blowing right off their desks anyway? Is their office screwed to the back of a flatbed truck going down the highway or something? Are they typing up in the crow’s nest of a clipper ship? What do you need a paperweight for? Where’s the wind coming from?
To me, the most annoying thing about the couple of times that I worked in an office is that when you show up in the morning you say “hi” to everyone and then for some reason, you have to continue to greet these people all day every time you see them. You walk in at the start of the day, “Morning Bill, morning, Bob. You are you doing?” “Fine.”
Ten minutes later you see them in the hall, again you say, “How are you doing?” Now, I already know how he’s doing, I just saw him, he told me how he’s doing. But you’ve got to keep coming up with different little greetings. You start coming up with nicknames for them…. “Jimbo.” You do the little smile with the head raise. The almost imperceptible beneath-the-breath “Hey” with a half-smile. It it’s a narrow passageway, thank God now you can say, “Excuse me.” But it has to have a very friendly singsong quality. You kind of go up a note on the “me.” If you feel more familiar, “Tight squeeze” is popular. When walking by a group of 3 or more men, “Gentlemen” is often used to confer an air of sophistication that is always misplaced.
Day-of-the-week references are always good, especially Monday or Friday because of the obligatory emotions that are assumed to go with them. Any mention of weekend seems to comfort people. “Good weekend?” “Have a good weekend?” People like anything with weekend in it. Thursday’s good for “One more day,” which usually prompts the easy “You said it” rejoinder. Wednesday, “Humpday.”
“That is it.”
We should all agree that we’re just going to say “Acknowledge” as we pass in the halls. You know, “Acknowledge, acknowledge.” We’ll become Vulcans for four seconds and not have to wrack our brains every time we just want to go to the bathroom.
(-Jerry Seinfeld)
(0) comments
Monday, June 02, 2003
Muggy Southern California
I’m flying back to Berkeley tomorrow morning, and in all I had a great weekend in Long Beach. I had a blast seeing my mom graduate, it was really fun spending time with my extended family, and I got a chance to go to LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) yesterday with my sister (lots of neat modern art, classic art, and a section on Japanese art).
But other than my family living here, I have no compelling reason to move back to Southern California after I graduate from college. In the last two years I’ve fallen in love with the Bay Area, and Berkeley in particular. I adore the clean(ish) air, the prevalent vegetation, all the great restaurants, the ability to blend in no matter how you dress or act, and the general “liberal” atmosphere (however that may manifest itself). I simply feel more comfortable up there, even if my family lives down here.
Long-Awaited
Eight days until Radiohead’s new album Hail to the Thief comes out(!!).
Music of the Week
Oranges and Lemons by the oft-overlooked British group XTC. Easily one of my three favorite albums of the 1980s. XTC sounds like no one else (except the Beatles, the Kinks, and all the other bands of whom they shamelessly derivative).
(0) comments
Freedom of What?
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments
My frustration with the television media increased that much more yesterday when my boss informed me of a shocking news story from Washington, one that I never once caught on local or national TV or on the front page of a paper. (I even had to look pretty hard to find it on the internet.)
Head Start is a pre-school program that gives children from largely low-income families the opportunity to begin their educational experience in their most fomative years: those before the age of five. It is 80% federally funded, with the balance coming from state funds. George W. Bush and his administration want to overhaul the federal control of the program and insead give that power to the states. The big problem with this decision, critics contend, is that it is the strong federal standards that keep the program strong. Furthermore, as written in the SF Gate, "nonprofit groups that run the programs are closest to Head Start, but they could lose their centers if the Bush plan goes through and states are free to contract with whomever they choose."
In short, Bush and many Republican Congresspeople are abandoning their administrative support for a program that has proven to be effective in, appropriately enough, giving its participants a head start in education. Poor students involved in Head Start perform better than their economic peers, though not as well as children from more well-off homes. Indisputably, however, Head Start offers this nation's poor a better chance to succeed in school and consequently adult life. Everybdy wins.
But Bush's lack of legislative support for Head Start, though very discouraging and indeed very indicitave of his lack of genuine support for education in general, is not the most disturbing part of the story. The shocking, sickening aspect of this mess is that Bush has stifled the First Amendment rights of American citizens in order to protect himself. Soon after Bush and Rep. Mike Castle announced their new plan for the program, and teachers and parents and school administrators began voicing public opposition to this decision, a governmental Head Start official informed the complainers that they were not allowed to openly criticize the Bush legislation. The argument is that rules in the program do not allow members to use federal resources to participate in political activity. Too bad only 80% of the money they receive is federal, and the rest can be used to be as political as they please. Consequently the Head Start leaders are filing charges against the Bush administration for violating their Constitutional rights. I've grown to expect nasty, unsavory political activity from this administration, but I'm so sad and shocked to see that they feel like they can tell citizens what and what not to say. It's disturbing to see a man who feels so comfortable playing off his constituents' sence of national pride and patriotism take an action so distinctly un-American.
The third tier of disturbance for me is that this violation of First Amendment rights (not to mention the legislative overhaul of Head Start) did not make big news. Is it that Americans simply don't care? Is it that media outlets don't like to make big news out of stories that challenge us or reveal what a gaggle of schmucks George Bush and his cronies are? Either the public inherently cares that much more about dirt on CEOs than dirt on the Commander in Chief, or (and I think this is the more likely option) the media have decided that the public will care more about business scandal than (non-sexual) presidential scandal. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not generally a suspicious person, but I genuinely believe that the media decides for us which stories we will find interesting. I genuinely believe that newspapers and TV and radio stations withold the (again, non-sexual) stories about politically scandalous conservatives because these media outlets are run by people who benefit from conservative administrations.
I never thought I'd turn into "one of those people," but I think I'm going to start being a self-important, rudely intellectual, wine-sipping NPR listener. Otherwise I'm stuck with more news on Laci Peterson and Lotto winners. Also catch Harry Shearer's "Le Show" on our local NPR station (KAWL 91.7) on Sundays at noon.
For more neato information on thie Head Start story, check out NPR or the SF Gate.
(0) comments
Only 899,999 to go!
So I have one signature (mine) already down on the petition to stop those morons from trying to run a petition to kick Governer Gray Davis out of office. And I need 900k to get my idea to the polling booths. Will you help me?
Okay, okay. I didn't vote for Gray Davis. I voted for the irreverant Peter Camejo. Can you blame me for despising the death penalty and supporting gay marriage rights and universal health care? I'm a frickin' liberal.
But could the people who are so hell-bent on ousting Davis please take the time to research their allegations, or at least try to understand that his legislative decisions are ones anyone in his situation might make? The official Davis-haters complain that public university fees have raised during his administration. Indeed, I hate that fact as much as anyone. My fees went from $6 to $166 overnight. But did they notice that Davis actually did not support the increase in fees, and that he was fighting for the cause of the universities? (Scroll down to Monday, June 2.) They complain that he has raised taxes, which no self-respecting conservative could appreciate. Well, George W. Bush lowered taxes and even started a war, and our national economy is still in the shits. They gripe that he wants to increase sales taxes and triple car registration fees. Again, is it his fault that the entire county's economy is sputtering, so less revenue is coming in from this state, so some taxes are going to have to be raised in order to fund things like education and public safety? And do you really need to have three Fords in your driveway?
What do you want Davis to do? He shouldn't raise taxes, so he should just let funding to universities and the CHP and public elementary schools drop even more. That would put a good number of government employees on the brink of losing their jobs. And would losing jobs be good for the California economy? So he's boring, and maybe a little wishy-washy, and he hasn't handled everything that has come his way perfectly. Personality was never justification for ousting a leader. And his "mistakes" are mainly byproducts of others' economic mismanagement.
If the anti-Davis team can gather these signatures, California voters will run (or more likely walk) to the polls to decide on the same day, on the same ballot (a) if we should ditch Davis, and (b) in the event of his overturn, who his successor would be. One replacement governor that has been discussed by the right is our good friend Arnie. I can only imagine what a huge tool he would be if actually elected. All his speeches to the legislature would be coyly ended with "I'll be back!"
Shudder.
(0) comments
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
So I've been meaning to write about the FCC for the last week, but didn't get around to it until now. Frankly, I'm a little disturbed. As of Monday, June 2, it is easier for large companies to wield more ownership and influence in a given market, and thus to limit the diversity of opinions in each area. Here's what the FCC decided (all this information courtesy the San Francisco Chronicle, June 3):
-A single company can now own television stations reaching up to 45% of the nation, up from 35%
-Companies could now own both a newspaper and television station in the same market, which was previously prohibited
-Companies in large markets (those containing 18 or more TV stations) can now own three stations, up from 2
So what's wrong with that? My fear is that the more the larger companies can own, the more they can flood the market, raise ownership prices through competition, and consequently drive out independent stations from voicing an independent set of opinions. I also contend that, for the most part, it is the media, not the people, who decide which news stories are most important, most interesting, and most compelling to the consumers; when fewer people control information, fewer people will decide which issues are important to the public. The public, though companies will own three stations and operate under the auspices of voicing three different opinions, will be subject to the same information, just regurgiated three slightly different ways. Independent (and let's face it, liberal) opinions cannot survive in this climate; large companies will not provide news that challenges their viewers'/readers'/listners' perceptions.
As it is, seven companies own 80% of television stations, two companies own 40%. Seven owners decide four fifths of what goes into America's homes. And yet there are seemingly so many local stations, so many news sources, so many different opportunities to get contrasting opinions. But if all these stations are controlled by the same forces, no one gets a chance to oppose the norm. Do you doubt there's some oppression of challenging news stories? Otherwise, why would this entire FCC decision be such unpopular news? How many local or even national stations aired the story for more that one day? No, instead the market is stuffed with feel-good stories about kidnapees averting their abducters and fear-inducing tales of teenagers seeing "2 Fast 2 Furious" and then street racing later that night. (By the way, no disrespect meant towards that girl's family. It's a great story.) And yet I've had to search tirelessly for information about the court's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Oh, I discovered a very swell advocacy-type website the other day when I was looking for stuff about the FCC. You should check it out. www.essential.org
And, my final word on Hail to the Thief. Very good. Any Radiohead fan ought to love it as I do. But I feel they've fallen into a formula and are content with it. Each song on the album has the same sound as the others, and could just as easily be off of Amnesiac or Kid A. I love their atmosphere, but I would love them to develop a different atmosphere. Something new, something more indicative of their creativity. I know the comparison isn't fair, but in the same duration between OK Computer and Hail to the Thief (6 years, that is), my friends the Beatles went from stupid poppy Please Please Me to amazingly different The Beatles (aka the White Album), with Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour (and five others) in between. Hail to the Thief is more of the same very good music.
(0) comments
Today's Rebeccommendations
Food:Tuk Tuk Thai. On Shattuck between Dwight and Haste. Good prices ($5.00-$6.50). Dozens of vegan options.
Film: Office Space. I can't think of any other movie from the 1990s that makes me laugh more.
Track from Hail to the Thief: Not sure yet.
Attire: Business casual.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Just for the sake of being first among the Cal blogging circuit
I'm currently listening to Hail to the Thief. I have no patience so I bought it at Rasputin at 10:34 this morning. Can you believe I waited thirty-four whole minutes after Rasputin opened before I made my inevitable purchase? I like it. I like it a lot. Unfortunately, I have to go to work soon, so I can't do a song-by-song assessment. But for now, I really like it. I'll have to listen to it several more times before I can really tell you where it ranks among Radiohead's other albums. Go buy it! Do what the internet tells you to do! Buuuuyyy Raaadioheaaaaaaad! Nooooooowwww!
(0) comments
Monday, June 09, 2003
Wacky Link
I like to use my Bravenet counter to tell how people have found my site over these past exciting few months. A good 60% are linked from other sites, 39% are direct hits, and the remaining visits are from search engine results. The one that most intrigued me today was a user who to linked to CalJunket from a Google search for, and I quote, "how many fetus are getting harmed per day." Have I ever discussed fetuses on my site? I don't think I have. Chances are, the other key words in the search led my visitor to find this site through Google. BUT, this does bring up a good question. Namely, how many fetus are getting harmed per day? Sadly, probably the same number of people who mispluralize "fetus" per day. My guess is about 12. Twelve fetus are harmed per day.
(0) comments
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Music of the Week
Most recent purchases
"McCartney," Paul McCartney. 1970. Paul's second solo work. Cute, folky, all-around enjoyable. Not terribly challenging, but who needs experimentation when you already know how to write great songs? Highlight tracks: Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. (This scale is very stringent. I'm grading these selections relative to only those albums already in my CD collection or albums I wish were in my collection. Best o' the best. I'm not giving those five star-denotations away!)
"Bellybutton," Jellyfish. 1990. First of only two albums from this poppy hybrid between Queen, the Beatles, and the Partridge Family. They broke up too soon! Highlight tracks: Baby's Coming Back, Now She Knows She's Wrong. 4 out of 5 stars.
Recently Rediscovered From My CD Collection
"All Things Must Pass," Geroge Harrison. 1970. First solo Beatle to go #1 in the UK. Amazingly emotional and gentle at times, with some good rock grooves thrown in. It's a two-disk album, but to be honest I'm not too fond of the second disk. Harrison's musicianship and songwriting are remarkable, and make you reconsider the sidelined role he played while in the Beatles. So much heart without a drop of insincerity. Positive, optomistic lyrics. One of those albums that will affect me my entire life. Highlight tracks: All Things Must Pass, Apple Scruffs, My Sweet Lord (if just for the tear-wrenching slide guitar). 5 out of five stars (!!!).
"Pink Moon," Nick Drake. 1972. Don't let those stupid VW Cabrillo ads scare you away from a great album from a very strong artist. Very folky and soft, but with a lyrical and occasionally musical edge. Romantic without being sappy. Simple acoustic accompanyment for his unaffected voice. Highlight tracks: Parasite, From the Morning. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
(0) comments
Friday, June 06, 2003
Oakland International: Home of Efficient Service and Free Tampons
I guess I should feel obligated to tackle hard-hitting topics like constitutionality and Mallory Moser, but I find it much more exciting that feminine hygiene products are available for free at a commerical establishment. (I preventatively apologize to my more sensitive readers for including the word "tampon" in today's posting. I in no way feel that I as one of the few female Cal bloggers have a duty to address these topics. It just so happens that due to my gender I am privy to certain information that is not available to my male counterparts.) On my flight back from Long Beach on JetBlue, I had the luxury of enjoying a complimentary FULL CAN of Diet Coke, free potato chips, and of course free DirecTV. (I watched an episode and a half of "Animal Rescues" on Animal Planet and a few good videos, including "Accidents Will Happen" by Elvis Costello, on VH1 Classics.) Anyhow, thanks to that full 12 ounces of sacchriney goodness, I needed to use the restroom in Oakland International when I got off the plane. I was very pleased to find the facilities were quite clean and well-stocked with the necessary paper goods. I was also very surprised to find that tampons and panty liners were available for free free FREE in the restroom machine. I didn't partake of the complimentary products, so I couldn't inform you of the quality, but I think it's just really swell that they give 'em out for free. Mind you, you have to have a boarding pass and get through security before you have access to these gratuitous cotton wares. But I was still excited.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
I’ve always wanted to invite a woman up to my apartment for a nightcap then just give her one of those little hats that flops over on the side. “That’s all. I just wanted to give you that. You can go now. If you want to go out next week, I’ll give you a short robe that matches.”
Why is it so difficult and uncomfortable to be naked?…That’s why I like to wear a belt when I’m naked. I feel it gives me something. I’d like to get pockets to hang off the belt. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate thing? To be naked and still be able to put your hands in your pockets. I think that would really help a lot.
Nothing compares with the paperweight to express to someone, “I refused to put any thought into this at all.” And where are these people working that the papers are just blowing right off their desks anyway? Is their office screwed to the back of a flatbed truck going down the highway or something? Are they typing up in the crow’s nest of a clipper ship? What do you need a paperweight for? Where’s the wind coming from?
To me, the most annoying thing about the couple of times that I worked in an office is that when you show up in the morning you say “hi” to everyone and then for some reason, you have to continue to greet these people all day every time you see them. You walk in at the start of the day, “Morning Bill, morning, Bob. You are you doing?” “Fine.”
Ten minutes later you see them in the hall, again you say, “How are you doing?” Now, I already know how he’s doing, I just saw him, he told me how he’s doing. But you’ve got to keep coming up with different little greetings. You start coming up with nicknames for them…. “Jimbo.” You do the little smile with the head raise. The almost imperceptible beneath-the-breath “Hey” with a half-smile. It it’s a narrow passageway, thank God now you can say, “Excuse me.” But it has to have a very friendly singsong quality. You kind of go up a note on the “me.” If you feel more familiar, “Tight squeeze” is popular. When walking by a group of 3 or more men, “Gentlemen” is often used to confer an air of sophistication that is always misplaced.
Day-of-the-week references are always good, especially Monday or Friday because of the obligatory emotions that are assumed to go with them. Any mention of weekend seems to comfort people. “Good weekend?” “Have a good weekend?” People like anything with weekend in it. Thursday’s good for “One more day,” which usually prompts the easy “You said it” rejoinder. Wednesday, “Humpday.”
“That is it.”
We should all agree that we’re just going to say “Acknowledge” as we pass in the halls. You know, “Acknowledge, acknowledge.” We’ll become Vulcans for four seconds and not have to wrack our brains every time we just want to go to the bathroom.
(-Jerry Seinfeld)
(0) comments
Monday, June 02, 2003
Muggy Southern California
I’m flying back to Berkeley tomorrow morning, and in all I had a great weekend in Long Beach. I had a blast seeing my mom graduate, it was really fun spending time with my extended family, and I got a chance to go to LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) yesterday with my sister (lots of neat modern art, classic art, and a section on Japanese art).
But other than my family living here, I have no compelling reason to move back to Southern California after I graduate from college. In the last two years I’ve fallen in love with the Bay Area, and Berkeley in particular. I adore the clean(ish) air, the prevalent vegetation, all the great restaurants, the ability to blend in no matter how you dress or act, and the general “liberal” atmosphere (however that may manifest itself). I simply feel more comfortable up there, even if my family lives down here.
Long-Awaited
Eight days until Radiohead’s new album Hail to the Thief comes out(!!).
Music of the Week
Oranges and Lemons by the oft-overlooked British group XTC. Easily one of my three favorite albums of the 1980s. XTC sounds like no one else (except the Beatles, the Kinks, and all the other bands of whom they shamelessly derivative).
(0) comments
Freedom of What?
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments
-A single company can now own television stations reaching up to 45% of the nation, up from 35%
-Companies could now own both a newspaper and television station in the same market, which was previously prohibited
-Companies in large markets (those containing 18 or more TV stations) can now own three stations, up from 2
So what's wrong with that? My fear is that the more the larger companies can own, the more they can flood the market, raise ownership prices through competition, and consequently drive out independent stations from voicing an independent set of opinions. I also contend that, for the most part, it is the media, not the people, who decide which news stories are most important, most interesting, and most compelling to the consumers; when fewer people control information, fewer people will decide which issues are important to the public. The public, though companies will own three stations and operate under the auspices of voicing three different opinions, will be subject to the same information, just regurgiated three slightly different ways. Independent (and let's face it, liberal) opinions cannot survive in this climate; large companies will not provide news that challenges their viewers'/readers'/listners' perceptions.
As it is, seven companies own 80% of television stations, two companies own 40%. Seven owners decide four fifths of what goes into America's homes. And yet there are seemingly so many local stations, so many news sources, so many different opportunities to get contrasting opinions. But if all these stations are controlled by the same forces, no one gets a chance to oppose the norm. Do you doubt there's some oppression of challenging news stories? Otherwise, why would this entire FCC decision be such unpopular news? How many local or even national stations aired the story for more that one day? No, instead the market is stuffed with feel-good stories about kidnapees averting their abducters and fear-inducing tales of teenagers seeing "2 Fast 2 Furious" and then street racing later that night. (By the way, no disrespect meant towards that girl's family. It's a great story.) And yet I've had to search tirelessly for information about the court's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance.
Oh, I discovered a very swell advocacy-type website the other day when I was looking for stuff about the FCC. You should check it out. www.essential.org
And, my final word on Hail to the Thief. Very good. Any Radiohead fan ought to love it as I do. But I feel they've fallen into a formula and are content with it. Each song on the album has the same sound as the others, and could just as easily be off of Amnesiac or Kid A. I love their atmosphere, but I would love them to develop a different atmosphere. Something new, something more indicative of their creativity. I know the comparison isn't fair, but in the same duration between OK Computer and Hail to the Thief (6 years, that is), my friends the Beatles went from stupid poppy Please Please Me to amazingly different The Beatles (aka the White Album), with Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour (and five others) in between. Hail to the Thief is more of the same very good music.
(0) comments
Today's Rebeccommendations
Food:Tuk Tuk Thai. On Shattuck between Dwight and Haste. Good prices ($5.00-$6.50). Dozens of vegan options.
Film: Office Space. I can't think of any other movie from the 1990s that makes me laugh more.
Track from Hail to the Thief: Not sure yet.
Attire: Business casual.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Just for the sake of being first among the Cal blogging circuit
I'm currently listening to Hail to the Thief. I have no patience so I bought it at Rasputin at 10:34 this morning. Can you believe I waited thirty-four whole minutes after Rasputin opened before I made my inevitable purchase? I like it. I like it a lot. Unfortunately, I have to go to work soon, so I can't do a song-by-song assessment. But for now, I really like it. I'll have to listen to it several more times before I can really tell you where it ranks among Radiohead's other albums. Go buy it! Do what the internet tells you to do! Buuuuyyy Raaadioheaaaaaaad! Nooooooowwww!
(0) comments
Monday, June 09, 2003
Wacky Link
I like to use my Bravenet counter to tell how people have found my site over these past exciting few months. A good 60% are linked from other sites, 39% are direct hits, and the remaining visits are from search engine results. The one that most intrigued me today was a user who to linked to CalJunket from a Google search for, and I quote, "how many fetus are getting harmed per day." Have I ever discussed fetuses on my site? I don't think I have. Chances are, the other key words in the search led my visitor to find this site through Google. BUT, this does bring up a good question. Namely, how many fetus are getting harmed per day? Sadly, probably the same number of people who mispluralize "fetus" per day. My guess is about 12. Twelve fetus are harmed per day.
(0) comments
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Music of the Week
Most recent purchases
"McCartney," Paul McCartney. 1970. Paul's second solo work. Cute, folky, all-around enjoyable. Not terribly challenging, but who needs experimentation when you already know how to write great songs? Highlight tracks: Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. (This scale is very stringent. I'm grading these selections relative to only those albums already in my CD collection or albums I wish were in my collection. Best o' the best. I'm not giving those five star-denotations away!)
"Bellybutton," Jellyfish. 1990. First of only two albums from this poppy hybrid between Queen, the Beatles, and the Partridge Family. They broke up too soon! Highlight tracks: Baby's Coming Back, Now She Knows She's Wrong. 4 out of 5 stars.
Recently Rediscovered From My CD Collection
"All Things Must Pass," Geroge Harrison. 1970. First solo Beatle to go #1 in the UK. Amazingly emotional and gentle at times, with some good rock grooves thrown in. It's a two-disk album, but to be honest I'm not too fond of the second disk. Harrison's musicianship and songwriting are remarkable, and make you reconsider the sidelined role he played while in the Beatles. So much heart without a drop of insincerity. Positive, optomistic lyrics. One of those albums that will affect me my entire life. Highlight tracks: All Things Must Pass, Apple Scruffs, My Sweet Lord (if just for the tear-wrenching slide guitar). 5 out of five stars (!!!).
"Pink Moon," Nick Drake. 1972. Don't let those stupid VW Cabrillo ads scare you away from a great album from a very strong artist. Very folky and soft, but with a lyrical and occasionally musical edge. Romantic without being sappy. Simple acoustic accompanyment for his unaffected voice. Highlight tracks: Parasite, From the Morning. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
(0) comments
Friday, June 06, 2003
Oakland International: Home of Efficient Service and Free Tampons
I guess I should feel obligated to tackle hard-hitting topics like constitutionality and Mallory Moser, but I find it much more exciting that feminine hygiene products are available for free at a commerical establishment. (I preventatively apologize to my more sensitive readers for including the word "tampon" in today's posting. I in no way feel that I as one of the few female Cal bloggers have a duty to address these topics. It just so happens that due to my gender I am privy to certain information that is not available to my male counterparts.) On my flight back from Long Beach on JetBlue, I had the luxury of enjoying a complimentary FULL CAN of Diet Coke, free potato chips, and of course free DirecTV. (I watched an episode and a half of "Animal Rescues" on Animal Planet and a few good videos, including "Accidents Will Happen" by Elvis Costello, on VH1 Classics.) Anyhow, thanks to that full 12 ounces of sacchriney goodness, I needed to use the restroom in Oakland International when I got off the plane. I was very pleased to find the facilities were quite clean and well-stocked with the necessary paper goods. I was also very surprised to find that tampons and panty liners were available for free free FREE in the restroom machine. I didn't partake of the complimentary products, so I couldn't inform you of the quality, but I think it's just really swell that they give 'em out for free. Mind you, you have to have a boarding pass and get through security before you have access to these gratuitous cotton wares. But I was still excited.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
I’ve always wanted to invite a woman up to my apartment for a nightcap then just give her one of those little hats that flops over on the side. “That’s all. I just wanted to give you that. You can go now. If you want to go out next week, I’ll give you a short robe that matches.”
Why is it so difficult and uncomfortable to be naked?…That’s why I like to wear a belt when I’m naked. I feel it gives me something. I’d like to get pockets to hang off the belt. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate thing? To be naked and still be able to put your hands in your pockets. I think that would really help a lot.
Nothing compares with the paperweight to express to someone, “I refused to put any thought into this at all.” And where are these people working that the papers are just blowing right off their desks anyway? Is their office screwed to the back of a flatbed truck going down the highway or something? Are they typing up in the crow’s nest of a clipper ship? What do you need a paperweight for? Where’s the wind coming from?
To me, the most annoying thing about the couple of times that I worked in an office is that when you show up in the morning you say “hi” to everyone and then for some reason, you have to continue to greet these people all day every time you see them. You walk in at the start of the day, “Morning Bill, morning, Bob. You are you doing?” “Fine.”
Ten minutes later you see them in the hall, again you say, “How are you doing?” Now, I already know how he’s doing, I just saw him, he told me how he’s doing. But you’ve got to keep coming up with different little greetings. You start coming up with nicknames for them…. “Jimbo.” You do the little smile with the head raise. The almost imperceptible beneath-the-breath “Hey” with a half-smile. It it’s a narrow passageway, thank God now you can say, “Excuse me.” But it has to have a very friendly singsong quality. You kind of go up a note on the “me.” If you feel more familiar, “Tight squeeze” is popular. When walking by a group of 3 or more men, “Gentlemen” is often used to confer an air of sophistication that is always misplaced.
Day-of-the-week references are always good, especially Monday or Friday because of the obligatory emotions that are assumed to go with them. Any mention of weekend seems to comfort people. “Good weekend?” “Have a good weekend?” People like anything with weekend in it. Thursday’s good for “One more day,” which usually prompts the easy “You said it” rejoinder. Wednesday, “Humpday.”
“That is it.”
We should all agree that we’re just going to say “Acknowledge” as we pass in the halls. You know, “Acknowledge, acknowledge.” We’ll become Vulcans for four seconds and not have to wrack our brains every time we just want to go to the bathroom.
(-Jerry Seinfeld)
(0) comments
Monday, June 02, 2003
Muggy Southern California
I’m flying back to Berkeley tomorrow morning, and in all I had a great weekend in Long Beach. I had a blast seeing my mom graduate, it was really fun spending time with my extended family, and I got a chance to go to LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) yesterday with my sister (lots of neat modern art, classic art, and a section on Japanese art).
But other than my family living here, I have no compelling reason to move back to Southern California after I graduate from college. In the last two years I’ve fallen in love with the Bay Area, and Berkeley in particular. I adore the clean(ish) air, the prevalent vegetation, all the great restaurants, the ability to blend in no matter how you dress or act, and the general “liberal” atmosphere (however that may manifest itself). I simply feel more comfortable up there, even if my family lives down here.
Long-Awaited
Eight days until Radiohead’s new album Hail to the Thief comes out(!!).
Music of the Week
Oranges and Lemons by the oft-overlooked British group XTC. Easily one of my three favorite albums of the 1980s. XTC sounds like no one else (except the Beatles, the Kinks, and all the other bands of whom they shamelessly derivative).
(0) comments
Freedom of What?
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments
I'm currently listening to Hail to the Thief. I have no patience so I bought it at Rasputin at 10:34 this morning. Can you believe I waited thirty-four whole minutes after Rasputin opened before I made my inevitable purchase? I like it. I like it a lot. Unfortunately, I have to go to work soon, so I can't do a song-by-song assessment. But for now, I really like it. I'll have to listen to it several more times before I can really tell you where it ranks among Radiohead's other albums. Go buy it! Do what the internet tells you to do! Buuuuyyy Raaadioheaaaaaaad! Nooooooowwww!
(0) comments
Wacky Link
I like to use my Bravenet counter to tell how people have found my site over these past exciting few months. A good 60% are linked from other sites, 39% are direct hits, and the remaining visits are from search engine results. The one that most intrigued me today was a user who to linked to CalJunket from a Google search for, and I quote, "how many fetus are getting harmed per day." Have I ever discussed fetuses on my site? I don't think I have. Chances are, the other key words in the search led my visitor to find this site through Google. BUT, this does bring up a good question. Namely, how many fetus are getting harmed per day? Sadly, probably the same number of people who mispluralize "fetus" per day. My guess is about 12. Twelve fetus are harmed per day.
(0) comments
Sunday, June 08, 2003
Music of the Week
Most recent purchases
"McCartney," Paul McCartney. 1970. Paul's second solo work. Cute, folky, all-around enjoyable. Not terribly challenging, but who needs experimentation when you already know how to write great songs? Highlight tracks: Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. (This scale is very stringent. I'm grading these selections relative to only those albums already in my CD collection or albums I wish were in my collection. Best o' the best. I'm not giving those five star-denotations away!)
"Bellybutton," Jellyfish. 1990. First of only two albums from this poppy hybrid between Queen, the Beatles, and the Partridge Family. They broke up too soon! Highlight tracks: Baby's Coming Back, Now She Knows She's Wrong. 4 out of 5 stars.
Recently Rediscovered From My CD Collection
"All Things Must Pass," Geroge Harrison. 1970. First solo Beatle to go #1 in the UK. Amazingly emotional and gentle at times, with some good rock grooves thrown in. It's a two-disk album, but to be honest I'm not too fond of the second disk. Harrison's musicianship and songwriting are remarkable, and make you reconsider the sidelined role he played while in the Beatles. So much heart without a drop of insincerity. Positive, optomistic lyrics. One of those albums that will affect me my entire life. Highlight tracks: All Things Must Pass, Apple Scruffs, My Sweet Lord (if just for the tear-wrenching slide guitar). 5 out of five stars (!!!).
"Pink Moon," Nick Drake. 1972. Don't let those stupid VW Cabrillo ads scare you away from a great album from a very strong artist. Very folky and soft, but with a lyrical and occasionally musical edge. Romantic without being sappy. Simple acoustic accompanyment for his unaffected voice. Highlight tracks: Parasite, From the Morning. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
(0) comments
Friday, June 06, 2003
Oakland International: Home of Efficient Service and Free Tampons
I guess I should feel obligated to tackle hard-hitting topics like constitutionality and Mallory Moser, but I find it much more exciting that feminine hygiene products are available for free at a commerical establishment. (I preventatively apologize to my more sensitive readers for including the word "tampon" in today's posting. I in no way feel that I as one of the few female Cal bloggers have a duty to address these topics. It just so happens that due to my gender I am privy to certain information that is not available to my male counterparts.) On my flight back from Long Beach on JetBlue, I had the luxury of enjoying a complimentary FULL CAN of Diet Coke, free potato chips, and of course free DirecTV. (I watched an episode and a half of "Animal Rescues" on Animal Planet and a few good videos, including "Accidents Will Happen" by Elvis Costello, on VH1 Classics.) Anyhow, thanks to that full 12 ounces of sacchriney goodness, I needed to use the restroom in Oakland International when I got off the plane. I was very pleased to find the facilities were quite clean and well-stocked with the necessary paper goods. I was also very surprised to find that tampons and panty liners were available for free free FREE in the restroom machine. I didn't partake of the complimentary products, so I couldn't inform you of the quality, but I think it's just really swell that they give 'em out for free. Mind you, you have to have a boarding pass and get through security before you have access to these gratuitous cotton wares. But I was still excited.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
I’ve always wanted to invite a woman up to my apartment for a nightcap then just give her one of those little hats that flops over on the side. “That’s all. I just wanted to give you that. You can go now. If you want to go out next week, I’ll give you a short robe that matches.”
Why is it so difficult and uncomfortable to be naked?…That’s why I like to wear a belt when I’m naked. I feel it gives me something. I’d like to get pockets to hang off the belt. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate thing? To be naked and still be able to put your hands in your pockets. I think that would really help a lot.
Nothing compares with the paperweight to express to someone, “I refused to put any thought into this at all.” And where are these people working that the papers are just blowing right off their desks anyway? Is their office screwed to the back of a flatbed truck going down the highway or something? Are they typing up in the crow’s nest of a clipper ship? What do you need a paperweight for? Where’s the wind coming from?
To me, the most annoying thing about the couple of times that I worked in an office is that when you show up in the morning you say “hi” to everyone and then for some reason, you have to continue to greet these people all day every time you see them. You walk in at the start of the day, “Morning Bill, morning, Bob. You are you doing?” “Fine.”
Ten minutes later you see them in the hall, again you say, “How are you doing?” Now, I already know how he’s doing, I just saw him, he told me how he’s doing. But you’ve got to keep coming up with different little greetings. You start coming up with nicknames for them…. “Jimbo.” You do the little smile with the head raise. The almost imperceptible beneath-the-breath “Hey” with a half-smile. It it’s a narrow passageway, thank God now you can say, “Excuse me.” But it has to have a very friendly singsong quality. You kind of go up a note on the “me.” If you feel more familiar, “Tight squeeze” is popular. When walking by a group of 3 or more men, “Gentlemen” is often used to confer an air of sophistication that is always misplaced.
Day-of-the-week references are always good, especially Monday or Friday because of the obligatory emotions that are assumed to go with them. Any mention of weekend seems to comfort people. “Good weekend?” “Have a good weekend?” People like anything with weekend in it. Thursday’s good for “One more day,” which usually prompts the easy “You said it” rejoinder. Wednesday, “Humpday.”
“That is it.”
We should all agree that we’re just going to say “Acknowledge” as we pass in the halls. You know, “Acknowledge, acknowledge.” We’ll become Vulcans for four seconds and not have to wrack our brains every time we just want to go to the bathroom.
(-Jerry Seinfeld)
(0) comments
Monday, June 02, 2003
Muggy Southern California
I’m flying back to Berkeley tomorrow morning, and in all I had a great weekend in Long Beach. I had a blast seeing my mom graduate, it was really fun spending time with my extended family, and I got a chance to go to LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) yesterday with my sister (lots of neat modern art, classic art, and a section on Japanese art).
But other than my family living here, I have no compelling reason to move back to Southern California after I graduate from college. In the last two years I’ve fallen in love with the Bay Area, and Berkeley in particular. I adore the clean(ish) air, the prevalent vegetation, all the great restaurants, the ability to blend in no matter how you dress or act, and the general “liberal” atmosphere (however that may manifest itself). I simply feel more comfortable up there, even if my family lives down here.
Long-Awaited
Eight days until Radiohead’s new album Hail to the Thief comes out(!!).
Music of the Week
Oranges and Lemons by the oft-overlooked British group XTC. Easily one of my three favorite albums of the 1980s. XTC sounds like no one else (except the Beatles, the Kinks, and all the other bands of whom they shamelessly derivative).
(0) comments
Freedom of What?
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments
Most recent purchases
"McCartney," Paul McCartney. 1970. Paul's second solo work. Cute, folky, all-around enjoyable. Not terribly challenging, but who needs experimentation when you already know how to write great songs? Highlight tracks: Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. (This scale is very stringent. I'm grading these selections relative to only those albums already in my CD collection or albums I wish were in my collection. Best o' the best. I'm not giving those five star-denotations away!)
"Bellybutton," Jellyfish. 1990. First of only two albums from this poppy hybrid between Queen, the Beatles, and the Partridge Family. They broke up too soon! Highlight tracks: Baby's Coming Back, Now She Knows She's Wrong. 4 out of 5 stars.
Recently Rediscovered From My CD Collection
"All Things Must Pass," Geroge Harrison. 1970. First solo Beatle to go #1 in the UK. Amazingly emotional and gentle at times, with some good rock grooves thrown in. It's a two-disk album, but to be honest I'm not too fond of the second disk. Harrison's musicianship and songwriting are remarkable, and make you reconsider the sidelined role he played while in the Beatles. So much heart without a drop of insincerity. Positive, optomistic lyrics. One of those albums that will affect me my entire life. Highlight tracks: All Things Must Pass, Apple Scruffs, My Sweet Lord (if just for the tear-wrenching slide guitar). 5 out of five stars (!!!).
"Pink Moon," Nick Drake. 1972. Don't let those stupid VW Cabrillo ads scare you away from a great album from a very strong artist. Very folky and soft, but with a lyrical and occasionally musical edge. Romantic without being sappy. Simple acoustic accompanyment for his unaffected voice. Highlight tracks: Parasite, From the Morning. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
(0) comments
Oakland International: Home of Efficient Service and Free Tampons
I guess I should feel obligated to tackle hard-hitting topics like constitutionality and Mallory Moser, but I find it much more exciting that feminine hygiene products are available for free at a commerical establishment. (I preventatively apologize to my more sensitive readers for including the word "tampon" in today's posting. I in no way feel that I as one of the few female Cal bloggers have a duty to address these topics. It just so happens that due to my gender I am privy to certain information that is not available to my male counterparts.) On my flight back from Long Beach on JetBlue, I had the luxury of enjoying a complimentary FULL CAN of Diet Coke, free potato chips, and of course free DirecTV. (I watched an episode and a half of "Animal Rescues" on Animal Planet and a few good videos, including "Accidents Will Happen" by Elvis Costello, on VH1 Classics.) Anyhow, thanks to that full 12 ounces of sacchriney goodness, I needed to use the restroom in Oakland International when I got off the plane. I was very pleased to find the facilities were quite clean and well-stocked with the necessary paper goods. I was also very surprised to find that tampons and panty liners were available for free free FREE in the restroom machine. I didn't partake of the complimentary products, so I couldn't inform you of the quality, but I think it's just really swell that they give 'em out for free. Mind you, you have to have a boarding pass and get through security before you have access to these gratuitous cotton wares. But I was still excited.
(0) comments
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
I’ve always wanted to invite a woman up to my apartment for a nightcap then just give her one of those little hats that flops over on the side. “That’s all. I just wanted to give you that. You can go now. If you want to go out next week, I’ll give you a short robe that matches.”
Why is it so difficult and uncomfortable to be naked?…That’s why I like to wear a belt when I’m naked. I feel it gives me something. I’d like to get pockets to hang off the belt. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate thing? To be naked and still be able to put your hands in your pockets. I think that would really help a lot.
Nothing compares with the paperweight to express to someone, “I refused to put any thought into this at all.” And where are these people working that the papers are just blowing right off their desks anyway? Is their office screwed to the back of a flatbed truck going down the highway or something? Are they typing up in the crow’s nest of a clipper ship? What do you need a paperweight for? Where’s the wind coming from?
To me, the most annoying thing about the couple of times that I worked in an office is that when you show up in the morning you say “hi” to everyone and then for some reason, you have to continue to greet these people all day every time you see them. You walk in at the start of the day, “Morning Bill, morning, Bob. You are you doing?” “Fine.”
Ten minutes later you see them in the hall, again you say, “How are you doing?” Now, I already know how he’s doing, I just saw him, he told me how he’s doing. But you’ve got to keep coming up with different little greetings. You start coming up with nicknames for them…. “Jimbo.” You do the little smile with the head raise. The almost imperceptible beneath-the-breath “Hey” with a half-smile. It it’s a narrow passageway, thank God now you can say, “Excuse me.” But it has to have a very friendly singsong quality. You kind of go up a note on the “me.” If you feel more familiar, “Tight squeeze” is popular. When walking by a group of 3 or more men, “Gentlemen” is often used to confer an air of sophistication that is always misplaced.
Day-of-the-week references are always good, especially Monday or Friday because of the obligatory emotions that are assumed to go with them. Any mention of weekend seems to comfort people. “Good weekend?” “Have a good weekend?” People like anything with weekend in it. Thursday’s good for “One more day,” which usually prompts the easy “You said it” rejoinder. Wednesday, “Humpday.”
“That is it.”
We should all agree that we’re just going to say “Acknowledge” as we pass in the halls. You know, “Acknowledge, acknowledge.” We’ll become Vulcans for four seconds and not have to wrack our brains every time we just want to go to the bathroom.
(-Jerry Seinfeld)
(0) comments
Monday, June 02, 2003
Muggy Southern California
I’m flying back to Berkeley tomorrow morning, and in all I had a great weekend in Long Beach. I had a blast seeing my mom graduate, it was really fun spending time with my extended family, and I got a chance to go to LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) yesterday with my sister (lots of neat modern art, classic art, and a section on Japanese art).
But other than my family living here, I have no compelling reason to move back to Southern California after I graduate from college. In the last two years I’ve fallen in love with the Bay Area, and Berkeley in particular. I adore the clean(ish) air, the prevalent vegetation, all the great restaurants, the ability to blend in no matter how you dress or act, and the general “liberal” atmosphere (however that may manifest itself). I simply feel more comfortable up there, even if my family lives down here.
Long-Awaited
Eight days until Radiohead’s new album Hail to the Thief comes out(!!).
Music of the Week
Oranges and Lemons by the oft-overlooked British group XTC. Easily one of my three favorite albums of the 1980s. XTC sounds like no one else (except the Beatles, the Kinks, and all the other bands of whom they shamelessly derivative).
(0) comments
Freedom of What?
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments
Why is it so difficult and uncomfortable to be naked?…That’s why I like to wear a belt when I’m naked. I feel it gives me something. I’d like to get pockets to hang off the belt. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate thing? To be naked and still be able to put your hands in your pockets. I think that would really help a lot.
Nothing compares with the paperweight to express to someone, “I refused to put any thought into this at all.” And where are these people working that the papers are just blowing right off their desks anyway? Is their office screwed to the back of a flatbed truck going down the highway or something? Are they typing up in the crow’s nest of a clipper ship? What do you need a paperweight for? Where’s the wind coming from?
To me, the most annoying thing about the couple of times that I worked in an office is that when you show up in the morning you say “hi” to everyone and then for some reason, you have to continue to greet these people all day every time you see them. You walk in at the start of the day, “Morning Bill, morning, Bob. You are you doing?” “Fine.”
Ten minutes later you see them in the hall, again you say, “How are you doing?” Now, I already know how he’s doing, I just saw him, he told me how he’s doing. But you’ve got to keep coming up with different little greetings. You start coming up with nicknames for them…. “Jimbo.” You do the little smile with the head raise. The almost imperceptible beneath-the-breath “Hey” with a half-smile. It it’s a narrow passageway, thank God now you can say, “Excuse me.” But it has to have a very friendly singsong quality. You kind of go up a note on the “me.” If you feel more familiar, “Tight squeeze” is popular. When walking by a group of 3 or more men, “Gentlemen” is often used to confer an air of sophistication that is always misplaced.
Day-of-the-week references are always good, especially Monday or Friday because of the obligatory emotions that are assumed to go with them. Any mention of weekend seems to comfort people. “Good weekend?” “Have a good weekend?” People like anything with weekend in it. Thursday’s good for “One more day,” which usually prompts the easy “You said it” rejoinder. Wednesday, “Humpday.”
“That is it.”
We should all agree that we’re just going to say “Acknowledge” as we pass in the halls. You know, “Acknowledge, acknowledge.” We’ll become Vulcans for four seconds and not have to wrack our brains every time we just want to go to the bathroom.
(-Jerry Seinfeld)
(0) comments
Muggy Southern California
I’m flying back to Berkeley tomorrow morning, and in all I had a great weekend in Long Beach. I had a blast seeing my mom graduate, it was really fun spending time with my extended family, and I got a chance to go to LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) yesterday with my sister (lots of neat modern art, classic art, and a section on Japanese art).
But other than my family living here, I have no compelling reason to move back to Southern California after I graduate from college. In the last two years I’ve fallen in love with the Bay Area, and Berkeley in particular. I adore the clean(ish) air, the prevalent vegetation, all the great restaurants, the ability to blend in no matter how you dress or act, and the general “liberal” atmosphere (however that may manifest itself). I simply feel more comfortable up there, even if my family lives down here.
Long-Awaited
Eight days until Radiohead’s new album Hail to the Thief comes out(!!).
Music of the Week
Oranges and Lemons by the oft-overlooked British group XTC. Easily one of my three favorite albums of the 1980s. XTC sounds like no one else (except the Beatles, the Kinks, and all the other bands of whom they shamelessly derivative).
(0) comments
Freedom of What?
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments
One of the fantastic things about America’s constitution is that it protects freedom of religion for all of its citizens (or at least it does so in principle). One component of this freedom that makes it fair for everyone is that it does not protect religious practices that are in violation of preexisting laws. Sultaana Freeman does not seem to understand this. Simply enough, the law states that in order to receive a legal Florida driver license, your identification needs to have a full facial photograph. As generally suspicious I am of mandates that might interfere with a person’s personal freedom, I think this issue addresses public safety as much as an individual’s rights. States do not demand photo IDs for the purpose of alienating or embarrassing people; they are there as an efficient and effective form of identification that (in theory) cannot be easily falsified. A photograph of a pair of eyes just isn’t enough to make a complete identification.
Freeman argues that her photo ID only needs to show her veiled face because, in the event of an altercation with the law, she will still be wearing her veil. (It is harong, forbidden, for her to show her face to men who are not in her family, and it is also forbidden for her to let her entire face be captured by a photograph.) The problem with this argument is that, if in fact she is pulled over, it is necessary to determine positively that the driver of the car is the owner of the license, and it will be necessary for her to reveal her entire face to the officer anyway. In the event of a health emergency, it would also be best if the photo could be indisputably matched to her face. Furthermore, for her own security, it is in her best interest to show her entire face on her identification; it is much easier to fraudulently use a veiled ID than a full-face photo.
Fairly enough, some might perceive that forcing Freeman to lift her veil is an unfair target at Muslims, especially given America’s recent increase in fear of all things Middle Eastern. I can’t deny that American legislation doesn’t discriminate against people from that region (see Patriot Act, for example), nor can I deny that Americans in general harbor unwarranted fear and hatred towards Middle Easterners. I can say, however, that not showing your face on a photo used for official purposes is a breach of positive identification, regardless of what reasons might prompt you to conceal your face.
This is not a matter of a basketball player refusing to stand for the Star Spangled Banner, or Jehovah’s Witness parents refusing to let their student participate in Halloween celebrations at school. Those choices are protected by our constitution because they do not interfere with safety or law enforcement. Freeman should not enjoy such protection.
(0) comments