Yesterday I photographed the Vagina Monologues. I was a bit skeptical. It was hosted by the women's studies department and is a project for the feminist thought class. Though I have not read up much on feminism, I've yet to hear much that I agree with from the camp. I expected a lot a man bashing. But it wasn't what I thought at all. True, there were some strong feminist themes behind it. But it did promote body awareness, and sexual understanding, which I'm for. It was truly entertaining. And hilarious.
I'd recommend going to see it.
And please stop by my photo blog for photos from the night.
P.S. I wonder if anyone ever thought about doing penis monologues. Granted, vaginas are a bit more complicated, but there's gotta be similar stories from guys.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Tax Day Tea Party Protest
On April 15 there will be a Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party to protest the government's overspending and the economic stimulus bill. The event is a followup to the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party on Febraury 27th, which attracted about 30,000+ people in various cities. I plan to head out to the Nashville protest to grab photos and possibly some audio for a multimedia piece.
The Nashville protest guest count of Facebook is around 45 right now. I didn't hear or see much from the last Nashville Tea Party, so I hope this won't be a bust.
If anybody is interested in going with, I've got room in my car. :)
The Nashville protest guest count of Facebook is around 45 right now. I didn't hear or see much from the last Nashville Tea Party, so I hope this won't be a bust.
If anybody is interested in going with, I've got room in my car. :)
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Faith Day in Nashville Capitol
Umm, have we suddenly forgotten the separation of church and state?
State Representative Brenda Gilmore held Faith Day on Capitol Hill in Nashville. Members of all religions were invited to "pray that God may protect, guide and grant wisdom to Tennessee legislators throughout the year". The group of religious leaders held a prayer in the House Chamber!
And through all my digging on the internet, I have yet to find any editorial or article criticizing the event for blatant mixture of religion and government. And this isn't the first one!
Oh, I plan to write to the Tenessean.
State Representative Brenda Gilmore held Faith Day on Capitol Hill in Nashville. Members of all religions were invited to "pray that God may protect, guide and grant wisdom to Tennessee legislators throughout the year". The group of religious leaders held a prayer in the House Chamber!
And through all my digging on the internet, I have yet to find any editorial or article criticizing the event for blatant mixture of religion and government. And this isn't the first one!
Oh, I plan to write to the Tenessean.
Ayn Rand on Children
I posted this up on a discussion on Facebook about Rand's view on children. None of her main characters ever have children, and they are rarely mentioned in her fiction, leaving the question why she omitted that part of life, which is central to many people. Hope my comment shed some light, though there were some great comments before.
Ayn Rand doesn't give the main characters of her novels for several reasons:
1. It would distract from the plot. Most of the characters are very business oriented and have to fight to stay afloat in a largely irrational world. Throwing a child into the mix would do nothing to add to those themes, if anything it would detract.
2. The goal of Rand's fiction was to portray the ideal man, the hero. the ideal man (or woman) does NOT need children. They are optional values, despite the fact that many people decide to have children. They are not essential to living a full and happy life, though they can greatly add to one's happiness. Raising children can become one's central purpose, and Rand shows this in Atlas Shrugged when Dagny meets the mother in Galt's Gulch. "They represent my particular career" she says, referring to her kids. Rand effectively shows that humans can live happily with or without children, and that one does not have to develop a career to have a central purpose.
The Objectivist ethics allow for each person to shape their lives in accordance to their particular values. Just because the main heroes of the novels are without children, doesn't mean Rand expects this of everyone. Mankind would obviously go out of existence.
Instead of looking at the details of the heroes' lives (their particular career field, whether or not they have children), focus on HOW they approached their lives. Look at how the rationally and selfishly pursue their values, and then apply that to your own, whether it be an education, a career, or a family.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Amputee Dancers
Wow. Talk about overcoming obstacles. Two dancers, one missing a leg, the other missing an arm. And they pull it off.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Elementary Economics and the Bailout
In second grade, my teacher Mrs. Serikawa developed a long-term project to help us understand economics. Throughout the year we were all able to earn or lose "money" by our actions in class. Behaving well, turning in homework, acing spelling tests, and obeying classroom rules all earned a kid "money". Behaving badly, missing homework, and disobeying the teacher all resulted in "money" being taken away.
At the end of the year, we were to use the "money" we had to open a business for one day. We were free to partner up with other students or go solo. We had to pay for a business site (so many dollars per 12" by 12" tile in the classroom), equipment (chairs, tables), and advertising (posters). We had to come up with a name for our business, figure out what we would sell, and how much our products would cost. Parents were allowed to supply "products" for our businesses (baking cupcakes or buying cheap toys), but we had to do all the planning.
After a few weeks, maybe months of preparation (9-year-old time can be so unreliable), we had our Business Day. All classes for that day were suspended as we set up shop, sold our products, and even went shopping among other businesses with our "money". Parents came to see our work and even shop (they got a small stipend of "money"). The sixth graders were also doing the project, so there were lots of businesses to pick from.
My group's store was oh-so-cleverly named "The House of Things", since we sold many different items. Other students sold food, Pokemon cards, pogs, posters, art tools, etc. One sixth grader offered a substantial sum if you could beat him in Connect Four, which I couldn't.
I really liked the project because we learned about economics from experience, which made it stick better than a lecture. We learned to make "money" by being good, and that being bad would lose us "money". We learned that people wouldn't buy our products if prices were too high, but we wouldn't make any money if they were too low. We learned how to look for good deals (one kid might have cheaper and better tasting cupcakes than another). We learned that once our "money" was spent, it was gone, thus learning to spend it wisely. I personally learned not to get into gambling too much, since the odds are generally against you (sixth graders are smarter than second graders).
The exercise was a great way for us to learn about how economics work as well as fiscal responsibility, all without serious consequences we might have suffered later in life.
But what if there were bailouts in this exercise? What if today's socialist economic theory was applied?
By that theory, Mrs. Serikawa would never have taken "money" away from kids who misbehaved. In fact, she probably would have given them "money", to keep them from falling behind the other kids who had been good. In order to support misbehaving kids, some "money" would have to be taken from everybody else or the teacher would have to print more "money".
On Business Day, those who did not plan their businesses well, would not have suffered, but would have been bailed out by the teacher. Rather than let them fail for poor planning, they would be given ample amounts of "money" to offset their losses. If the businesses continued to fail, the teacher would just take them over herself, despite it not being her responsibility.
The whole concept of "money" would have been made meaningless. Students wouldn't have worked as hard to get "money", since they would have received it anyways. Good students would have been robbed of incentive and bad kids would have never felt the consequences of their actions. Nobody would have worked hard on planning their business, because success was guaranteed. The interference of the teacher in our experiment would have been destructive to all.
Now, if a second grader could understand that, why can't the government?
At the end of the year, we were to use the "money" we had to open a business for one day. We were free to partner up with other students or go solo. We had to pay for a business site (so many dollars per 12" by 12" tile in the classroom), equipment (chairs, tables), and advertising (posters). We had to come up with a name for our business, figure out what we would sell, and how much our products would cost. Parents were allowed to supply "products" for our businesses (baking cupcakes or buying cheap toys), but we had to do all the planning.
After a few weeks, maybe months of preparation (9-year-old time can be so unreliable), we had our Business Day. All classes for that day were suspended as we set up shop, sold our products, and even went shopping among other businesses with our "money". Parents came to see our work and even shop (they got a small stipend of "money"). The sixth graders were also doing the project, so there were lots of businesses to pick from.
My group's store was oh-so-cleverly named "The House of Things", since we sold many different items. Other students sold food, Pokemon cards, pogs, posters, art tools, etc. One sixth grader offered a substantial sum if you could beat him in Connect Four, which I couldn't.
I really liked the project because we learned about economics from experience, which made it stick better than a lecture. We learned to make "money" by being good, and that being bad would lose us "money". We learned that people wouldn't buy our products if prices were too high, but we wouldn't make any money if they were too low. We learned how to look for good deals (one kid might have cheaper and better tasting cupcakes than another). We learned that once our "money" was spent, it was gone, thus learning to spend it wisely. I personally learned not to get into gambling too much, since the odds are generally against you (sixth graders are smarter than second graders).
The exercise was a great way for us to learn about how economics work as well as fiscal responsibility, all without serious consequences we might have suffered later in life.
But what if there were bailouts in this exercise? What if today's socialist economic theory was applied?
By that theory, Mrs. Serikawa would never have taken "money" away from kids who misbehaved. In fact, she probably would have given them "money", to keep them from falling behind the other kids who had been good. In order to support misbehaving kids, some "money" would have to be taken from everybody else or the teacher would have to print more "money".
On Business Day, those who did not plan their businesses well, would not have suffered, but would have been bailed out by the teacher. Rather than let them fail for poor planning, they would be given ample amounts of "money" to offset their losses. If the businesses continued to fail, the teacher would just take them over herself, despite it not being her responsibility.
The whole concept of "money" would have been made meaningless. Students wouldn't have worked as hard to get "money", since they would have received it anyways. Good students would have been robbed of incentive and bad kids would have never felt the consequences of their actions. Nobody would have worked hard on planning their business, because success was guaranteed. The interference of the teacher in our experiment would have been destructive to all.
Now, if a second grader could understand that, why can't the government?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Congress on You Tube
Well would you look at that. Congress has opened its own You Tube channels, one for the Senate and House each.
Hard to tell if this is a good thing or not. Is it more connection with federal government or a platform for propaganda. Not sure, though it might be interesting to check up on occasionally.
My first thought when I saw this was "Good way to voice opinions via video comments," though I doubt Nancy Pelosi and others will watch every single one and respond (sounds like an intern's job). I expect there will be a lot of immature responses to some things, as You Tube is bound to produce, but it could be an excellent platform for consistent commentary by Objectivists. Continual video comments on each video could garner a lot of attention and hopefully some followed links to blogs or the ARI.
Hard to tell if this is a good thing or not. Is it more connection with federal government or a platform for propaganda. Not sure, though it might be interesting to check up on occasionally.
My first thought when I saw this was "Good way to voice opinions via video comments," though I doubt Nancy Pelosi and others will watch every single one and respond (sounds like an intern's job). I expect there will be a lot of immature responses to some things, as You Tube is bound to produce, but it could be an excellent platform for consistent commentary by Objectivists. Continual video comments on each video could garner a lot of attention and hopefully some followed links to blogs or the ARI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
