My supervisor gave me a book to read. Eek. It's a help your self help yourself book. Oh goodness. I have been trying to humour her, because she said she enjoyed it and thought I might like what the author has to say. But try as I might I cannot read more than a paragraph without the urge to launch the book across the room (Sadly it's not my book so I'm not allowed to trash it...its a good thing there are lots of pillows in my house). I'm not sure why she gave me the book to read (perhaps a favour returned as I lent her a Paulo Coelho book from my shelf). But i just don't think I can do it.
My problem with this book is not just that its a help your self help yourself but that the underlying message, the principle that drives the book is basically that old Lebeau adage that our spiritual satisfaction and our ego satisfaction are the same thing, and they are satisfied by the consumption of things. And, well, I guess I'm just too much of a communist or a socialist to believe that material things bring any sort of happiness. In fact, I'm quite certain it's the other way round: that the happier you are, the more happiness you will be able to elicit from material things (i.e. the more simple your needs for material things).
Material wealth does not equal Happiness.
Happiness equals Happiness.
At least my youthful optimism suggests to me that this is the case. Perhaps thats all it is. Youthful optimism. Perhaps my boss just doesn't know I'm not old enough to want things yet. People have never really believed I'm as young as I am. In fact lately the disparity between my assumed age and my actually age has been growing larger and larger. I try to console people "My Korean age is 25..." but this does little to cover embarrassment of people who assumed I was in my mid thirties. I don't mind, I'm a pretty serious person, not nearly as light hearted as those we assume are actually 23. And perhaps this is why I've been offered this book to read.
Still I hope that I will never benefit from this kind of help. God doesn't want you to have a bigger house. You want to have a bigger house. Learning to be honest about that sort of thing is a greater key to happiness than "just believe that God wants you to have it."
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
A New View
I just read a remarkable story, that I want to share and send out to as many people as possible. This is the story of a young woman with autism. She is non-verbal, and displays many behaviours that would upset any who are faint of heart, and lack the patience to accept someone who is different in so many ways from themselves. Check out some of Carly's writing to get a sense of this remarkable young woman.
After reading.
I think one particular lesson that Carly highlights is the power written language has for so many people who are unable (for many reasons) to express themselves. It is a way in, and out, for many of us. It is a way to stradel all sorts of language barriers. Many of my students tell me they prefer reading English than listening to it. Verbal English is very difficult, but reading you can see words, and start sorting what are the important words and what ones are less important.
In Carly's case, to be apraxic (to understand a language without being able to speak it), writing is an amazing way to see the normal in that distorting and challenging word abnormal. It is another way to find our many stigmas, to be reminded even, are once again unfairly placed to burden those who are not the same, in everyway, as us.
After reading.
I think one particular lesson that Carly highlights is the power written language has for so many people who are unable (for many reasons) to express themselves. It is a way in, and out, for many of us. It is a way to stradel all sorts of language barriers. Many of my students tell me they prefer reading English than listening to it. Verbal English is very difficult, but reading you can see words, and start sorting what are the important words and what ones are less important.
In Carly's case, to be apraxic (to understand a language without being able to speak it), writing is an amazing way to see the normal in that distorting and challenging word abnormal. It is another way to find our many stigmas, to be reminded even, are once again unfairly placed to burden those who are not the same, in everyway, as us.
It took a law 2...
A month or two ago, I wrote about a Norwegian law requiring large corporations (200 employees +) to have a 50/50 gender divide on executive boards. I applauded the move discussing the belief that it takes a law to cause change, that it is in our interests and for our benefits that we create and attempt to follow laws. Further, that laws are one of our greatest tools for social change.
Today I popped into BBC hoping to find the Asian markets had picked up overnight, and instead I see several different stories making my earlier, very simplistic view explanation of the role of law in a society seems like nonsense. The first article is about a youtube I happened to have been sent, made by Saudi women protesting laws against women drivers in their country! This is brilliant, I think, and highlights what laws are, why we have them and how they work. Laws are temporary explanations about how we agree to behave. I.e. all laws must at all times be subject to change. As a woman of western/catholic socialization I cannot really understand how barring women from driving is for their benefit, to protect them and their families or any of that. But I can imagine in a volatile country it is possible that limiting the movement of people is of benefit to the society. But now as Saudi Arabia is far more stable, it is time to let go of that and allow for a new social order.
The next article was about the reaffirmation of mortal sin by the Vatican. A move that has been made perhaps as an attempt to demonstrate to people how to interpret words like avarice or sloth. As I read, I worried about the loftiness of these new interpretations though. There are surely no more than a million billionaires, and not more than a hundred million millionaires, but that leave 5.9-6.1 billion people on the planet who need moral guidance. Which is the problem for us when we create laws. They are often almost always to narrow in their scope, leaving more people without guidance than need it.
Then there was an article about 24 hour drinking in the UK. This seems to me to highlight the UKs endemic dependence on law to order their society. Guidelines are necessary, they help us understand and interpret ways to communicate with those around us. Particularly as we have less and less of a close common history with our neighbours as we move from country to country, it is important that we have ways to open communication, to network and build community.
Which brings me to the last article, which I haven't read and don't want to read, but which is titled "STDs rife among US teenage girls." I'm assuming there are going to be some horrible statistics about the big 4 (HPV, herpes, Chlamydia, tric) and talk about vaccinating them all against cervicle cancer. No talk about guidance, about a growing desire to talk about and think about giving our kids less information and more guidence in how to behave.
So we do like laws. They do help us figure out ways to behave, but we should also keep in mind Sir Thomas More's idea: In his Utopia there were no laws, and each time it seemed an injustice had occured, it was weighed and discussed. The society debated and thought about it, and even when they came to a decision, it was only about that one case. Laws must be flexible enough to act as real and useful tools in the greater functioning of society.
Today I popped into BBC hoping to find the Asian markets had picked up overnight, and instead I see several different stories making my earlier, very simplistic view explanation of the role of law in a society seems like nonsense. The first article is about a youtube I happened to have been sent, made by Saudi women protesting laws against women drivers in their country! This is brilliant, I think, and highlights what laws are, why we have them and how they work. Laws are temporary explanations about how we agree to behave. I.e. all laws must at all times be subject to change. As a woman of western/catholic socialization I cannot really understand how barring women from driving is for their benefit, to protect them and their families or any of that. But I can imagine in a volatile country it is possible that limiting the movement of people is of benefit to the society. But now as Saudi Arabia is far more stable, it is time to let go of that and allow for a new social order.
The next article was about the reaffirmation of mortal sin by the Vatican. A move that has been made perhaps as an attempt to demonstrate to people how to interpret words like avarice or sloth. As I read, I worried about the loftiness of these new interpretations though. There are surely no more than a million billionaires, and not more than a hundred million millionaires, but that leave 5.9-6.1 billion people on the planet who need moral guidance. Which is the problem for us when we create laws. They are often almost always to narrow in their scope, leaving more people without guidance than need it.
Then there was an article about 24 hour drinking in the UK. This seems to me to highlight the UKs endemic dependence on law to order their society. Guidelines are necessary, they help us understand and interpret ways to communicate with those around us. Particularly as we have less and less of a close common history with our neighbours as we move from country to country, it is important that we have ways to open communication, to network and build community.
Which brings me to the last article, which I haven't read and don't want to read, but which is titled "STDs rife among US teenage girls." I'm assuming there are going to be some horrible statistics about the big 4 (HPV, herpes, Chlamydia, tric) and talk about vaccinating them all against cervicle cancer. No talk about guidance, about a growing desire to talk about and think about giving our kids less information and more guidence in how to behave.
So we do like laws. They do help us figure out ways to behave, but we should also keep in mind Sir Thomas More's idea: In his Utopia there were no laws, and each time it seemed an injustice had occured, it was weighed and discussed. The society debated and thought about it, and even when they came to a decision, it was only about that one case. Laws must be flexible enough to act as real and useful tools in the greater functioning of society.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Missing conversations at What the Book? Used Books Shop, Itaewon, Seoul.
1.
"I mean, look at our fucking society!" Standing in front of the pop culture rack this late-twenty something exclaimed to his friend, "Fucking pregnant, pregnant, suspected pregnant, just had, broke up, broke down, broke out, got engaged, got divorced; this is our generation man and it sucks."
"Yea, i know what you mean. Look at this rubbish"
[Now, I suggest you take one step to your left, take a look at the alternative culture rack, Bitch, AdBusters; or two steps to the left for The New Yorker, Time, National Geographic. Or maybe turn around and se a tiny underground bookstore in the heart of Seoul packed with 20-30 something foreigners looking for something else to read on a Sunday afternoon. Yea, you're going to get a rather skewed and depressing perspective of our culture and generation if you judge it by the tabloid section. Open your eyes a little, delay judgement a moment, get a perspective from the girl behind you.]
2.
"I can't find the book I'm looking for, and its pissing me off," she claimed, her harsh south-central American accent grating against her sinus congestion.
"What book is that?" Her friend inquired, though I'm sure the question wasn't needed for the answer to come forth.
"The Kite Runner."
"Why do you want to read it, the film is coming out soon."
"Its just interesting the way things connect. Like the Russians in the 70s and now everyone in Afghanistan. Whatever. The computer says its here, but i can't see it. This is dumb. Let's go."
[Sigh. I thought, The Kite Runner tucked under my arm with a chuckle...I should give it to her, the film is coming out soon.]
3.
"Its supposed to be really good. Man Sherlock Holmes is brilliant. Do you know why?" No pause, "He sees the things that aren't there. He sees whats missing."
"Yea, maybe."
"Com'on you can tell its good! Look at it."
Look at the book in stunned silence.
"Thats how you find a good book at a used bookstore. If its all beat up, you know its been read lots."
[Other possibilities, it was written in 1986, published on crappy paper, with weak glue, and low grade ink, and it has moved from from some English speaking country to Korea, in someones carry-on. Or its been read by people like me, with a propensity for throwing books that are upsetting, crappy, uninteresting or full of plot holes. I'm sorry to say my copy of The Kite Runner now looks like a good book to read.]
4.
"I like to pick up a bunch of books then decide which one I want, I usually walk out of here with nothing, to be perfectly honest."
[So long as you put back those "bunch of books" where you found them, so those of us who usually walk out with a months supply can find them.]
If there is one thing I really miss about living in an country where I can understand what stranger are talking about, its listening to the nonsense that we strangers say everyday.
"I mean, look at our fucking society!" Standing in front of the pop culture rack this late-twenty something exclaimed to his friend, "Fucking pregnant, pregnant, suspected pregnant, just had, broke up, broke down, broke out, got engaged, got divorced; this is our generation man and it sucks."
"Yea, i know what you mean. Look at this rubbish"
[Now, I suggest you take one step to your left, take a look at the alternative culture rack, Bitch, AdBusters; or two steps to the left for The New Yorker, Time, National Geographic. Or maybe turn around and se a tiny underground bookstore in the heart of Seoul packed with 20-30 something foreigners looking for something else to read on a Sunday afternoon. Yea, you're going to get a rather skewed and depressing perspective of our culture and generation if you judge it by the tabloid section. Open your eyes a little, delay judgement a moment, get a perspective from the girl behind you.]
2.
"I can't find the book I'm looking for, and its pissing me off," she claimed, her harsh south-central American accent grating against her sinus congestion.
"What book is that?" Her friend inquired, though I'm sure the question wasn't needed for the answer to come forth.
"The Kite Runner."
"Why do you want to read it, the film is coming out soon."
"Its just interesting the way things connect. Like the Russians in the 70s and now everyone in Afghanistan. Whatever. The computer says its here, but i can't see it. This is dumb. Let's go."
[Sigh. I thought, The Kite Runner tucked under my arm with a chuckle...I should give it to her, the film is coming out soon.]
3.
"Its supposed to be really good. Man Sherlock Holmes is brilliant. Do you know why?" No pause, "He sees the things that aren't there. He sees whats missing."
"Yea, maybe."
"Com'on you can tell its good! Look at it."
Look at the book in stunned silence.
"Thats how you find a good book at a used bookstore. If its all beat up, you know its been read lots."
[Other possibilities, it was written in 1986, published on crappy paper, with weak glue, and low grade ink, and it has moved from from some English speaking country to Korea, in someones carry-on. Or its been read by people like me, with a propensity for throwing books that are upsetting, crappy, uninteresting or full of plot holes. I'm sorry to say my copy of The Kite Runner now looks like a good book to read.]
4.
"I like to pick up a bunch of books then decide which one I want, I usually walk out of here with nothing, to be perfectly honest."
[So long as you put back those "bunch of books" where you found them, so those of us who usually walk out with a months supply can find them.]
If there is one thing I really miss about living in an country where I can understand what stranger are talking about, its listening to the nonsense that we strangers say everyday.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Smoking: I just don't get it.
A UK health advisory body "Health England" has proposed that smokers should require a permit in order to buy cigarettes. The permit could cost £10 and would need to be renewed annually. It would require completing an application form and supplying a photo. Health England suggests that the permit process would help deter first time smokers, and would aid those who want to quit smoking in quitting by making it that much more difficult to get cigarettes.
There are so many mind-boggling plot holes in this lovely idea its just wonderful. First, the people proposing it suggest the form will be highly complex, perhaps this could be seen as a form of discrimination against those of lower literacy levels. Second, you think tobacco taxation is bad in Canada, its batty in the UK. A pack of smoke that will cost $9 in Canada will cost £9 in the UK...ie $21 CDN. So on top of paying outrageous levels of tax their will be an additional annual fee, which HE claim will go to NHS, to help bolster the system, but surely the cost of developing and implementing the system, then of enforcing it will cost far more than the £10 surcharge. What about elderly people, like my grandmother, who barely can leave their houses, how will they register each year? At this time in her life, the negative health impacts of quitting might be more than her system could handle...is such a proposal discriminating against people in her situation. What about foreigners, who come for vacations in England for a week or two or three...will they have to pay ten-quid and get an id card, will their be exceptions...or will they be expected to give up smoking for the duration of their stay in England?
HE suggests that it is necessary to have tight controls on tobacco, but to be honest it seems absurd. I think many Muslim states have it right, just ban it...if its such a monstrous thing. I think a more logical step is much like the steps taken in Canada around alcohol. Take it out of stores. Don't cell cigarettes at every venue in the country. Have Tobacconists and thats the only place you can buy it, that makes it more difficult to get cigarettes, and enforces a tighter control to keep younger cohorts away from the drug. It also centralizes profits from tobacco sales, so only the government makes money from it, then the money can be appropriately directed towards NHS.
Or maybe, if we really believe that cigarettes are harmful to health, the energy should be put into putting pressure on cigarette companies, to produce less toxic products. Ban preservatives in cigarettes, ban the use of glue on the paper, enforce the use or organic locally grown tobacco, enforce the use of non-toxic filters, either cotton or recycled paper-fiber. If the government is really so concerned over the health impacts of cigarettes, then why not put effort and energy into reshaping how the drug is retailed, rather than continually punishing the consumer.
Personally, I agree there is more that can be done to help burn tobacco companies out of our lives, but i think that it has a lot to do with ignoring them. Rather than wasting money contriving new and exotic forms of punishment, create more real, tangible and realistic rewards for those who refrain. Scholarships for kids who have never had a smoke; discounts on food for people who don't buy cigarettes; taxbreaks for families that are committed to smoke free living. Why not?
There are so many mind-boggling plot holes in this lovely idea its just wonderful. First, the people proposing it suggest the form will be highly complex, perhaps this could be seen as a form of discrimination against those of lower literacy levels. Second, you think tobacco taxation is bad in Canada, its batty in the UK. A pack of smoke that will cost $9 in Canada will cost £9 in the UK...ie $21 CDN. So on top of paying outrageous levels of tax their will be an additional annual fee, which HE claim will go to NHS, to help bolster the system, but surely the cost of developing and implementing the system, then of enforcing it will cost far more than the £10 surcharge. What about elderly people, like my grandmother, who barely can leave their houses, how will they register each year? At this time in her life, the negative health impacts of quitting might be more than her system could handle...is such a proposal discriminating against people in her situation. What about foreigners, who come for vacations in England for a week or two or three...will they have to pay ten-quid and get an id card, will their be exceptions...or will they be expected to give up smoking for the duration of their stay in England?
HE suggests that it is necessary to have tight controls on tobacco, but to be honest it seems absurd. I think many Muslim states have it right, just ban it...if its such a monstrous thing. I think a more logical step is much like the steps taken in Canada around alcohol. Take it out of stores. Don't cell cigarettes at every venue in the country. Have Tobacconists and thats the only place you can buy it, that makes it more difficult to get cigarettes, and enforces a tighter control to keep younger cohorts away from the drug. It also centralizes profits from tobacco sales, so only the government makes money from it, then the money can be appropriately directed towards NHS.
Or maybe, if we really believe that cigarettes are harmful to health, the energy should be put into putting pressure on cigarette companies, to produce less toxic products. Ban preservatives in cigarettes, ban the use of glue on the paper, enforce the use or organic locally grown tobacco, enforce the use of non-toxic filters, either cotton or recycled paper-fiber. If the government is really so concerned over the health impacts of cigarettes, then why not put effort and energy into reshaping how the drug is retailed, rather than continually punishing the consumer.
Personally, I agree there is more that can be done to help burn tobacco companies out of our lives, but i think that it has a lot to do with ignoring them. Rather than wasting money contriving new and exotic forms of punishment, create more real, tangible and realistic rewards for those who refrain. Scholarships for kids who have never had a smoke; discounts on food for people who don't buy cigarettes; taxbreaks for families that are committed to smoke free living. Why not?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Touchy Subject
The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
A difficult time we are in: has been so many years since the Olympics were held in a controversial location we are not entirely sure what to do about it? Maybe we should remember the mission of the games...I know some people are leary of China, mostly out of pure ignorance, having no clue what goes on in the "Far East." [Its scary to not know] But well, these games are filling with touchy debates about things that have little to do with the games.
England is currently working on the Team Members Agreement, in which they want athletes to agree not to make politically sensitive comments or gestures during the games. Supposedly this is either because England is afraid of tarnishing its business relationships with China, or perhaps a more sinister fear that something might happen to its athletes should they speak harshly of their hosts. Of course Human Rights activists are upset about such a move, as it is their intention to use the games as a time to highlight China's human rights violations, and lack of intervention in Darfur, and suggest that moves like the possible anti-political speeche clause in the TMA is not only a violation of the freedom of speech, but also shows cowardice on the part of the UK in facing the ongoing problems in China.
Now Steven Spielberg has pulled out as an artistic advisor (i guess that means no aliens in the show this year) citing his conscience can't allow him to participate, when their are global catastorphies and human rights violations going on. [There is a little known film with animated puppets called "Team America" that sheds some interesting light on the role of actors and movie types in politics]
I'm not sure why we think that on one hand we can award the games to a country, and then think that is excuse enough to chastise and criticize the country into changing to be more like US. Who are we anyway?
While it is clear that it is probably problematic to force athletes or anyone to agree to be a-political during the games, perhaps it is an unfounded fear. The amount of physical, mental, emotional focus that an athlete needs to put into competing at an Olympic Game, should be enough, why would a government want to deliberately add more pressure to athletes by giving them reason to fear their behaviour could have them booted off the team. It's understandable, many democratic governments are nervous about what will happen when China welcomes the world this summer, but let's not forget the spirit of the games, and the motivation for reviving and for participating in them. It is not the athletes who need to be signing agreements to just play their sport... really its a move that creates unnecessary tension for athletes without doing anything to either promote open political dialogue with China about its human rights record...Further, why are we suddenly so concerned and putting all this pressure on China? Because the games are going to be there? That's silly. Human rights are an ever present and ongoing concern, YOU DON'T NEED A REASON TO BULLY SOMEONE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. They are on their own, sufficient reason.
I'm glad Mr. Spielberg has a conscience. But how does his pulling out from participating in the games in any way going to benefit those persecuted in China, or the outrage that rages on in Sudan? If anything his actions further alientate the West and close means of creating meaningful and productive paths of communication.
There was an interesting debate about Canada's business relationship with China, maybe a year ago. Canadians were up set that we were doing business with a country with human rights violations (which i think is a bit posh to begin...but anyway). In the debate, the minister said we cannot do anything about problems in another nation,if we have no relationship with that nation. If we are not friends or partners in some respect, how can we even begin to talk about a nations problems.
But then it is in the Olympic charter that the mission of the Olympic movement is to place sport at the service of humanity, and thereby promote peace, to act against discrimination. So i guess its difficult (my new favourite word). Perhaps it is right to tarnish the sport in favour of the other political agendas that are catching fire on all sides. Perhaps.
A difficult time we are in: has been so many years since the Olympics were held in a controversial location we are not entirely sure what to do about it? Maybe we should remember the mission of the games...I know some people are leary of China, mostly out of pure ignorance, having no clue what goes on in the "Far East." [Its scary to not know] But well, these games are filling with touchy debates about things that have little to do with the games.
England is currently working on the Team Members Agreement, in which they want athletes to agree not to make politically sensitive comments or gestures during the games. Supposedly this is either because England is afraid of tarnishing its business relationships with China, or perhaps a more sinister fear that something might happen to its athletes should they speak harshly of their hosts. Of course Human Rights activists are upset about such a move, as it is their intention to use the games as a time to highlight China's human rights violations, and lack of intervention in Darfur, and suggest that moves like the possible anti-political speeche clause in the TMA is not only a violation of the freedom of speech, but also shows cowardice on the part of the UK in facing the ongoing problems in China.
Now Steven Spielberg has pulled out as an artistic advisor (i guess that means no aliens in the show this year) citing his conscience can't allow him to participate, when their are global catastorphies and human rights violations going on. [There is a little known film with animated puppets called "Team America" that sheds some interesting light on the role of actors and movie types in politics]
I'm not sure why we think that on one hand we can award the games to a country, and then think that is excuse enough to chastise and criticize the country into changing to be more like US. Who are we anyway?
While it is clear that it is probably problematic to force athletes or anyone to agree to be a-political during the games, perhaps it is an unfounded fear. The amount of physical, mental, emotional focus that an athlete needs to put into competing at an Olympic Game, should be enough, why would a government want to deliberately add more pressure to athletes by giving them reason to fear their behaviour could have them booted off the team. It's understandable, many democratic governments are nervous about what will happen when China welcomes the world this summer, but let's not forget the spirit of the games, and the motivation for reviving and for participating in them. It is not the athletes who need to be signing agreements to just play their sport... really its a move that creates unnecessary tension for athletes without doing anything to either promote open political dialogue with China about its human rights record...Further, why are we suddenly so concerned and putting all this pressure on China? Because the games are going to be there? That's silly. Human rights are an ever present and ongoing concern, YOU DON'T NEED A REASON TO BULLY SOMEONE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. They are on their own, sufficient reason.
I'm glad Mr. Spielberg has a conscience. But how does his pulling out from participating in the games in any way going to benefit those persecuted in China, or the outrage that rages on in Sudan? If anything his actions further alientate the West and close means of creating meaningful and productive paths of communication.
There was an interesting debate about Canada's business relationship with China, maybe a year ago. Canadians were up set that we were doing business with a country with human rights violations (which i think is a bit posh to begin...but anyway). In the debate, the minister said we cannot do anything about problems in another nation,if we have no relationship with that nation. If we are not friends or partners in some respect, how can we even begin to talk about a nations problems.
But then it is in the Olympic charter that the mission of the Olympic movement is to place sport at the service of humanity, and thereby promote peace, to act against discrimination. So i guess its difficult (my new favourite word). Perhaps it is right to tarnish the sport in favour of the other political agendas that are catching fire on all sides. Perhaps.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Home Sweet Homeish
Wow, what an adventure. So I'm back from Japan! Totally sweet and wicked. Way better than the trip in September. I guess the stress of trying to function without being able to speak the language or communicate directly is becoming more and more apparent to me, and I guess I'm learning about being the linguistic minority (weird for an English speaker, but I must say a life lesson in patience). It's an interesting position though, working on different ways to communicate. Through infinitive verbs and gestures. Writing things down, carrying maps all these secondary communicative tools become primary. Then learning to speak in a simplified English. Shorter sentences, simpler tenses, basic adjectives, slow down, emulate Japanese pronunciation.
Anyway. Here's a sense of where i was, in a quiet mountain town. It snowed like a bastard. about 45 cm my second day there. And how do they handle the snow...not with salt, as that would damage the rice fields, nope...they use water. Even though it snows like a bastard, the temperatures rarely go below 0 C. So they have sprinklers basically, that run water to melt the snow and wash it away.
But i went to visit Nate's host family. The father is a 5th generation vinegar maker. Amazing! The factory is attached to the house (although now he has a second factory for the fermenting and bottling processes). Really amazing tour. Then great temaki...i had temaki twice, and maki three times...now I'm super sad to be in Korea where sushi is usually with kimchi and not fish :(
Also listened to some killer jazz. Built a tobogganing hill, even though the village is surrounded by mountains on all sides, the mountains don't really have any good sled runs.
Even the lack of heating in the houses was a small trifle, it was cold...don't get me wrong, but somehow a pleasant cold. I know i couldn't stand it back in Canada, but i suppose that is the difference when temperatures don't go below 0, or maybe at night get down to -5. Anyway, anyone traveling in Japan, a strongly suggest you forgo the big cities, for little Fukui prefecture. It's just a lovely little hideaway in what I had always thought of as a country of metropolitan cities stretching across the expanses.
Anyway. Here's a sense of where i was, in a quiet mountain town. It snowed like a bastard. about 45 cm my second day there. And how do they handle the snow...not with salt, as that would damage the rice fields, nope...they use water. Even though it snows like a bastard, the temperatures rarely go below 0 C. So they have sprinklers basically, that run water to melt the snow and wash it away.
But i went to visit Nate's host family. The father is a 5th generation vinegar maker. Amazing! The factory is attached to the house (although now he has a second factory for the fermenting and bottling processes). Really amazing tour. Then great temaki...i had temaki twice, and maki three times...now I'm super sad to be in Korea where sushi is usually with kimchi and not fish :(Also listened to some killer jazz. Built a tobogganing hill, even though the village is surrounded by mountains on all sides, the mountains don't really have any good sled runs.
Even the lack of heating in the houses was a small trifle, it was cold...don't get me wrong, but somehow a pleasant cold. I know i couldn't stand it back in Canada, but i suppose that is the difference when temperatures don't go below 0, or maybe at night get down to -5. Anyway, anyone traveling in Japan, a strongly suggest you forgo the big cities, for little Fukui prefecture. It's just a lovely little hideaway in what I had always thought of as a country of metropolitan cities stretching across the expanses.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Now that's interesting
This morning when I arrived at work and did my regular peruse of different news agencies I frequent when bored at work, an startling article appeared. Now i don't really know anything about business. I wish I did (maybe i will have to learn now). Anyway, a French bank suffers from a rogue trader I suppose trading away 5bn euros of bank profits.
I didn't fully understand the article because 5bn euros seems like a lot of money, but the bank didn't seem to be too worried...at least not as it was reported. Well just now as I checked back to try and better understand the situation...one how does any one perhaps have the power to control 5bn euros, two why would someone do something like that, three what is the impact of such an act of fraud I read a headline "Bank uncovers $7bn fraud". I thought, oh the plot thickens. But no, the reporting agency (the same one I read the first article at) had just changed the original article so the amount was reported in American dollars instead of Euros. Press...that is not your job! It was Euros that were lost, report the lost Euros, don't try to inflate emotions by misleading readers. Grr it makes me upset. As a non-money type, a little help Media, would be nice. Perhaps explain what was this trader doing..."massive fraudulent directional positions in 2007 and 2008 beyond his limited authority"...what is a directional position...it sounds like a bet. but do banks bet...i guess, they must, even the weathermen bet to try and keep their inability to demonstrate and real predictive force of the weather afloat. How can you bet 5bn Euro...who would take that bet...im sure not the local bookers...
I'm worried about this, it seems like the cash system is more delicate than even i had imagined.But so what....what should we do.
Anyway, any of you businessy types, if you can suggest places to get laymans explanations on this story I would appreciate it.
I didn't fully understand the article because 5bn euros seems like a lot of money, but the bank didn't seem to be too worried...at least not as it was reported. Well just now as I checked back to try and better understand the situation...one how does any one perhaps have the power to control 5bn euros, two why would someone do something like that, three what is the impact of such an act of fraud I read a headline "Bank uncovers $7bn fraud". I thought, oh the plot thickens. But no, the reporting agency (the same one I read the first article at) had just changed the original article so the amount was reported in American dollars instead of Euros. Press...that is not your job! It was Euros that were lost, report the lost Euros, don't try to inflate emotions by misleading readers. Grr it makes me upset. As a non-money type, a little help Media, would be nice. Perhaps explain what was this trader doing..."massive fraudulent directional positions in 2007 and 2008 beyond his limited authority"...what is a directional position...it sounds like a bet. but do banks bet...i guess, they must, even the weathermen bet to try and keep their inability to demonstrate and real predictive force of the weather afloat. How can you bet 5bn Euro...who would take that bet...im sure not the local bookers...
I'm worried about this, it seems like the cash system is more delicate than even i had imagined.But so what....what should we do.
Anyway, any of you businessy types, if you can suggest places to get laymans explanations on this story I would appreciate it.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Gone with the wind on 'kite ship'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7205217.stm
Its as though, we forgot that ships used to be the greenest form of mass transport. I don't get it, check out the link for the full article, but look at the "kite" that is helping this ship...what happened to sails? Maybe i should do some research first. But I see this massive barge with a single kite to help if reduce fuel use.
I mean check out this barge from treasure planet, a remarkable ship that uses sails to catch galactic winds, the sails are made of a solar cell fabric, that catches solar radiation to supply a backup energy supply and uses a traditional furnace to keep transportation power consistent, supplying extra thrust when necessary.
And so far we have managed to add a kite.
Go team green. This is about as exciting as hydrogen cell fueled cars.
Its as though, we forgot that ships used to be the greenest form of mass transport. I don't get it, check out the link for the full article, but look at the "kite" that is helping this ship...what happened to sails? Maybe i should do some research first. But I see this massive barge with a single kite to help if reduce fuel use.
I mean check out this barge from treasure planet, a remarkable ship that uses sails to catch galactic winds, the sails are made of a solar cell fabric, that catches solar radiation to supply a backup energy supply and uses a traditional furnace to keep transportation power consistent, supplying extra thrust when necessary.
And so far we have managed to add a kite.
Go team green. This is about as exciting as hydrogen cell fueled cars.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Correctness
I received a very hurtful, but perhaps well intentioned forward today, and I'm not really sure what to do about it. Looking down the back links its been forwarded from friend to friend down a chain of born and bred Canadians. So perhaps as an immigrant I'm a bit touchy on the subject of what is and should be expected of people moving to countries like Canada, America and Australia. ie. English speaking colonies founded in the past 300 years largely by Christians and neo-Christian politicians looking to change and reshape European values. I had an easy time, having moved from and English speaking country with very close values to Canadian values, and having moved at a young age that I did most of my growing up in Canada.
The main belief supported by the forward (and alleged speech by John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia...though a quick google will show it is a highly edited shoddy fabrication of sound bites and clipped together and given under the name J.H.) is that because the colonies were founded by WASPs that it is good and right that the main moral, legal and cultural code should be that of the former WASP. It lays claims such as "We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!" and "It is immigrants, not Australians that need to adapt."
When did the rules change? Did the founding immigrants of our countries adapt? Did they learn the language of the land they came to? Did they even speak English? (in the case of Canada) Did those who wrote our constitutions and who continue to REVISE our constitutions adapt to their setting, or bring about and insist on change? Change is the most necessary and most exciting part of life. And especially for those of us who live in the new world--in countries whose cultural legacy can be remembered in its entirety, whose countries are a diverse fabric of people bringing to that table what they can--it is our identity.
As Canadian working in South Korea, helping students practice and learn to speak English, and as a Canadian who had to take those painful 10 years of French classes, I have a sence about learning a language. 1. it takes time. 2. its not easy. 3. Its not necessary to function in a society. Our three countries have the amazing benefits of having people from all countries in the world living in them, this means we may well have speakers of close to every language in the world. We have amazing knowledge in that, amazing power for communitcation and community. So how can we be so pig-headed as to insist all new immigrants be fluent in English? Especially when there are ways to function in a native language through family, friends and community. Granted, I'm only a migrant worker and not an immigrant here, but I've learned to function in a society that speaks mainly Korean, that there are many ways to function without being able to speak, or with only the most rudementary knowledge. Its a matter of support and networks.
And this question of adapting. If Australians don't want to adapt anymore thats for them to decided, I for one hope i never stop adapting, I hope that those adaptations are mostly for the better--for the improvement of my condition and of those around me--I hope Canadians and Americans and Australians and Saudi Arabians, and Sri Lankans and Koreans and Indians and Pakistanis and Mongolians and Brazillians and Europeans (as a whole and in their individual cultures) and Eritrians and Kenyans and all the rest of everyone continue to change and adapt to the many new and exciting posibilities that are presented to them.
Now the root of the problem. Sharia Law. And I agree here with the position Australia took, with the position Ontario took and with the position that you obey and follow that law of the land. WHATEVER that law is. If that means no pot in Korean, that is the law, and we must obey it. If that means I cannot enter Libya until I'm married or without my father, that is the law I must obey. If that means I must cover my body entirely in Saudi Arabia, that is the law and I must obey. If that means I can pay for sex in Amsterdam but not in Sweden, so be it. Those are the laws of that land, and I am obliged to follow them. That's what a law is, we agree to follow them, that is how they help all of us. Also that as a citizen of a country you have the right to challenge, ammend, rewrite the law, to introduce new law and to have old laws removed. A great example of this is the announcement today that women in Saudi Arabia can now stay at a hotel alone. Recognizing the great limits on women in this culture this is an exciting move towards recognizing the road to gender equity. It seems small but its how we go about making our countries better places. The government also allowed that it would consider allowing women to drive. Again, bit by bit we see who a government is moving to adapt to changing times, to better serve its citizens and to allow its citizens to better serve the government.
If there are laws in Sharia Law that can be used by all Canadians then it is for those citizens best versed in these laws to help bring them to legislation. Where we as a nation can decided if this is a law for our nation. But yes, in a country there is only one law and it applies in the same way to all citizens in that country. But that doesn't mean that we turn our backs on everything immigrants bring to their new homes.
Its scary how the rhetoric of things like this so easily sweeps us up, makes us forget to think for ourselves, to reflect on how much we owe our immigrant parents/grandparents who put up with the racist shit, so that we could have an easy life in these countries.
Which brings me to the title of this entry: correctness. Not political correctness. Political Correctness is not saying what you mean so as not to offend or exclude anyone. While its a practice that upsets many people because it reduces our ability to express our feelings and opinions, its a dangerous practice because it marrs the more important practice of correctness. That is speaking in ways that are considerate of the fact that we don't know everything, we can't take everything into account all the time, its also a way of speaking that is forgiving of difference, that helps us to recognize that we are all strangers trying to build this dream of a world that works, fully. I think it is blind, selfish and pig-headed to insist that the way things have been is the way things always will be. Instead of spending our energy writing and propegating hate speech, we should be working on solutions; rather than laying blame on the new guy, we should be working to recognize the problem; rather than engaging in empty rhetoric that affirms division of societies, that insists on the continued antagonism of different cultures, we should be opening our hearts and minds and affirming our beliefs while listening to new beliefs.
The main belief supported by the forward (and alleged speech by John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia...though a quick google will show it is a highly edited shoddy fabrication of sound bites and clipped together and given under the name J.H.) is that because the colonies were founded by WASPs that it is good and right that the main moral, legal and cultural code should be that of the former WASP. It lays claims such as "We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!" and "It is immigrants, not Australians that need to adapt."
When did the rules change? Did the founding immigrants of our countries adapt? Did they learn the language of the land they came to? Did they even speak English? (in the case of Canada) Did those who wrote our constitutions and who continue to REVISE our constitutions adapt to their setting, or bring about and insist on change? Change is the most necessary and most exciting part of life. And especially for those of us who live in the new world--in countries whose cultural legacy can be remembered in its entirety, whose countries are a diverse fabric of people bringing to that table what they can--it is our identity.
As Canadian working in South Korea, helping students practice and learn to speak English, and as a Canadian who had to take those painful 10 years of French classes, I have a sence about learning a language. 1. it takes time. 2. its not easy. 3. Its not necessary to function in a society. Our three countries have the amazing benefits of having people from all countries in the world living in them, this means we may well have speakers of close to every language in the world. We have amazing knowledge in that, amazing power for communitcation and community. So how can we be so pig-headed as to insist all new immigrants be fluent in English? Especially when there are ways to function in a native language through family, friends and community. Granted, I'm only a migrant worker and not an immigrant here, but I've learned to function in a society that speaks mainly Korean, that there are many ways to function without being able to speak, or with only the most rudementary knowledge. Its a matter of support and networks.
And this question of adapting. If Australians don't want to adapt anymore thats for them to decided, I for one hope i never stop adapting, I hope that those adaptations are mostly for the better--for the improvement of my condition and of those around me--I hope Canadians and Americans and Australians and Saudi Arabians, and Sri Lankans and Koreans and Indians and Pakistanis and Mongolians and Brazillians and Europeans (as a whole and in their individual cultures) and Eritrians and Kenyans and all the rest of everyone continue to change and adapt to the many new and exciting posibilities that are presented to them.
Now the root of the problem. Sharia Law. And I agree here with the position Australia took, with the position Ontario took and with the position that you obey and follow that law of the land. WHATEVER that law is. If that means no pot in Korean, that is the law, and we must obey it. If that means I cannot enter Libya until I'm married or without my father, that is the law I must obey. If that means I must cover my body entirely in Saudi Arabia, that is the law and I must obey. If that means I can pay for sex in Amsterdam but not in Sweden, so be it. Those are the laws of that land, and I am obliged to follow them. That's what a law is, we agree to follow them, that is how they help all of us. Also that as a citizen of a country you have the right to challenge, ammend, rewrite the law, to introduce new law and to have old laws removed. A great example of this is the announcement today that women in Saudi Arabia can now stay at a hotel alone. Recognizing the great limits on women in this culture this is an exciting move towards recognizing the road to gender equity. It seems small but its how we go about making our countries better places. The government also allowed that it would consider allowing women to drive. Again, bit by bit we see who a government is moving to adapt to changing times, to better serve its citizens and to allow its citizens to better serve the government.
If there are laws in Sharia Law that can be used by all Canadians then it is for those citizens best versed in these laws to help bring them to legislation. Where we as a nation can decided if this is a law for our nation. But yes, in a country there is only one law and it applies in the same way to all citizens in that country. But that doesn't mean that we turn our backs on everything immigrants bring to their new homes.
Its scary how the rhetoric of things like this so easily sweeps us up, makes us forget to think for ourselves, to reflect on how much we owe our immigrant parents/grandparents who put up with the racist shit, so that we could have an easy life in these countries.
Which brings me to the title of this entry: correctness. Not political correctness. Political Correctness is not saying what you mean so as not to offend or exclude anyone. While its a practice that upsets many people because it reduces our ability to express our feelings and opinions, its a dangerous practice because it marrs the more important practice of correctness. That is speaking in ways that are considerate of the fact that we don't know everything, we can't take everything into account all the time, its also a way of speaking that is forgiving of difference, that helps us to recognize that we are all strangers trying to build this dream of a world that works, fully. I think it is blind, selfish and pig-headed to insist that the way things have been is the way things always will be. Instead of spending our energy writing and propegating hate speech, we should be working on solutions; rather than laying blame on the new guy, we should be working to recognize the problem; rather than engaging in empty rhetoric that affirms division of societies, that insists on the continued antagonism of different cultures, we should be opening our hearts and minds and affirming our beliefs while listening to new beliefs.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Black Vote
I guess I'm late on this since the controversy broke days ago. But, I think my inclination to write comes from something lately inspired by the "race" issues in the Democratic campaign.
I don't understand how there is a black vote, but not a woman vote. Maybe because there are women ...well everywhere. We are innocuous even...but that doesn't change the fact. Why is Obama forced to run the campaign as a Black man relying on the Black vote, when Hilary doesn't have to run as a woman, or Edwards as a White man, relying on the White vote...its dumb. They are each running as a Democrat...that's all. Get over it America, Martin Luther King Jrs dream did come true when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Accept it, the law is made, now get over it and move onward and upward. The only thing that has stopped this dream coming true is the US's ass backwardness about laws.
It seems in the US a law is not made to affirm the desire to change; its made to scapegoat, deny and avoid; its made to be a place where US citizens can claim their rights are being infringed (uhh...hello, without laws you wouldn't have anything to claim you have rights beyond an instinct inside yourself that somehow you deserve something for stumbling upon this planet); a law is a thing that someone off in some hidden place invents and magically appears one day and disappears the next as the people with money decide it will make making money more difficult, as it will raise the price of ink for fabricating bills.
I don't understand how there is a black vote, but not a woman vote. Maybe because there are women ...well everywhere. We are innocuous even...but that doesn't change the fact. Why is Obama forced to run the campaign as a Black man relying on the Black vote, when Hilary doesn't have to run as a woman, or Edwards as a White man, relying on the White vote...its dumb. They are each running as a Democrat...that's all. Get over it America, Martin Luther King Jrs dream did come true when Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Accept it, the law is made, now get over it and move onward and upward. The only thing that has stopped this dream coming true is the US's ass backwardness about laws.
It seems in the US a law is not made to affirm the desire to change; its made to scapegoat, deny and avoid; its made to be a place where US citizens can claim their rights are being infringed (uhh...hello, without laws you wouldn't have anything to claim you have rights beyond an instinct inside yourself that somehow you deserve something for stumbling upon this planet); a law is a thing that someone off in some hidden place invents and magically appears one day and disappears the next as the people with money decide it will make making money more difficult, as it will raise the price of ink for fabricating bills.
Monday, January 14, 2008
It took a law...
I was just thinking about this line from that film. "It took a law to get seat belts into cars. It took a law to get airbags too." I don't think we should doubt that. Particularly when you look at countries without those laws...are they going along...for the fun of it...no. They have seatbelt free air bag free cars. So lets not get to fussy about a law to force corporations to employ more women on their boards. It won't come about any other way, i think that it is almost wise too...it takes a law to instigate change...at least it does now. Lets hope we have the balls to stand by this law, to not let those with the money corrupt our desire to change. Okay maybe it isn't all of our desire, but its mine. and i think its also the desire of some of the norwegian law makers, which makes me think there are some norwegian taxpayers who agree. So some of us desire it. And feel its time has come. Let support this law...and not try to hack it down. It may, like seatbelts make us a little uncomfortable, maybe chaif our necks a bit...but its for our overall good...i think.
i wonder...want to reduce obesity...would a law with strict enforcement work? or stop alcohal abuse, or increase donations to those with less money than ourselves? Dunno...but its a brilliant move by norway to prove it true and possible. We like laws, we like to follow them, we like to have and to hold them in our hearts and minds...at least it keeps things orderly...
i wonder...want to reduce obesity...would a law with strict enforcement work? or stop alcohal abuse, or increase donations to those with less money than ourselves? Dunno...but its a brilliant move by norway to prove it true and possible. We like laws, we like to follow them, we like to have and to hold them in our hearts and minds...at least it keeps things orderly...
New virus, old tricks
I find it interesting, I made a silent note maybe three months ago, because i now work on two computers. It never occured to me before that all systems get the same updates at the same time, till I had to update at work, only to arrive home to find my laptop wanted some too. But having gone through the update twice, i guess it stuck in my mind maybe a week later when i first read "new virus warning" on BBC. I though smuggly to myself, i know im updated and patched; i had to do it last week...twice. Then again last month, patches came in, my two machines burbled, a week later i read "new virus warning" and again today, a week since the update warnings started here it is the Mebroot stealth virus that installs other programs on your comp and steals banking information.
I think its nice BBC is watching out for us, but it still makes me feel a bit spooky. Is there an agenda of reminds that the BBC has, don't forget we need to remind our readers to update, but we don't want to nag them, just keep them aware that patching is important. maybe.
Still, the culture of scaring us into action is getting a little old. And so i'm trying, perhaps a little resolution, not to act out of fear. I watched "Who killed the electric car last night" and while i usually have a fairly predictable knee jerk reaction to these sorts of docudramas, i found myself strangly calm. Not all excited about some new threat, some new possibility, some new project. Just, thanks for the information. I still prefer to travel in self propelled vehicles anyway.
Although, i must slithly say i do remember the ads for electric cars (i loved them, they were so stark and unusually, that was a time i considered advertising as a nice thing to do with my time) i do also remember the swing away from them, the sudden villanous turn on the poor machines as no better than the gas guzzler. I think i had a debat on it in highschool. i remember especially my indignation when the hummer came out. THinking, could we have gone any further in the other direction, even if the electric car is as bad as a regular car this monster is worse that 10 of them together. [i admit i was insulted by the tax breaks for the hummer, that is sick]
Two things the docudrama did highligh for me: More disappointment has come out of california than any other state. They have, it seems, always had the best brightest most progressive ideas, and they have also managed to mangel destroy and booby trap everyone of those ideas with extreme efficiency. Second, that Detroit is i think the most let down city in the world. I think infact as a place a collective of people Detroit has been cheated out of more than anyone (including younger siblings taken as a whole, the people of cambodia, very child who has ever been hungry, and people who expected X3 to live up to its prequels).
I don't think there is an american docudrama that doesn't highlight the every way Detroit has be given more false candy than any other city in the country. How it has time and again be forced to remain in its pseudo slum nearly big city way it was while i lived so close. (i'm now regretting not taking more advantage of the gifts that city has to offer...except that it is still part of America...a place im not to fond of...in the way lots of people just aren't to keen on visiting Pakistan)
If California has been the hub of great ideas, Detroit has been the home of the reality of their suppression.
how did i get into this film review...sorry. Anyway, this fear stuff is i don't know...is it getting old? It works clearly. or maybe it doesn't, maybe i had already updated my computer when i got the warning. Maybe i had already switched to self-propelled transport when the electric car died. Maybe i already had a deep skepticism for the US when two planes lost track of time in the side of two towers. Maybe no one tried to scare me into doing anything, the scare came after the fact...after the act...after the attack i was already prepared for...maybe.
I think its nice BBC is watching out for us, but it still makes me feel a bit spooky. Is there an agenda of reminds that the BBC has, don't forget we need to remind our readers to update, but we don't want to nag them, just keep them aware that patching is important. maybe.
Still, the culture of scaring us into action is getting a little old. And so i'm trying, perhaps a little resolution, not to act out of fear. I watched "Who killed the electric car last night" and while i usually have a fairly predictable knee jerk reaction to these sorts of docudramas, i found myself strangly calm. Not all excited about some new threat, some new possibility, some new project. Just, thanks for the information. I still prefer to travel in self propelled vehicles anyway.
Although, i must slithly say i do remember the ads for electric cars (i loved them, they were so stark and unusually, that was a time i considered advertising as a nice thing to do with my time) i do also remember the swing away from them, the sudden villanous turn on the poor machines as no better than the gas guzzler. I think i had a debat on it in highschool. i remember especially my indignation when the hummer came out. THinking, could we have gone any further in the other direction, even if the electric car is as bad as a regular car this monster is worse that 10 of them together. [i admit i was insulted by the tax breaks for the hummer, that is sick]
Two things the docudrama did highligh for me: More disappointment has come out of california than any other state. They have, it seems, always had the best brightest most progressive ideas, and they have also managed to mangel destroy and booby trap everyone of those ideas with extreme efficiency. Second, that Detroit is i think the most let down city in the world. I think infact as a place a collective of people Detroit has been cheated out of more than anyone (including younger siblings taken as a whole, the people of cambodia, very child who has ever been hungry, and people who expected X3 to live up to its prequels).
I don't think there is an american docudrama that doesn't highlight the every way Detroit has be given more false candy than any other city in the country. How it has time and again be forced to remain in its pseudo slum nearly big city way it was while i lived so close. (i'm now regretting not taking more advantage of the gifts that city has to offer...except that it is still part of America...a place im not to fond of...in the way lots of people just aren't to keen on visiting Pakistan)
If California has been the hub of great ideas, Detroit has been the home of the reality of their suppression.
how did i get into this film review...sorry. Anyway, this fear stuff is i don't know...is it getting old? It works clearly. or maybe it doesn't, maybe i had already updated my computer when i got the warning. Maybe i had already switched to self-propelled transport when the electric car died. Maybe i already had a deep skepticism for the US when two planes lost track of time in the side of two towers. Maybe no one tried to scare me into doing anything, the scare came after the fact...after the act...after the attack i was already prepared for...maybe.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Book Review
I guess I can write a book review. I like books. I read them, when I think i should be doing something better. I just read possible the most depressing book i will ever read in 2008. We need to talk about Kevin by Lionel Shriver. I can't really decide. I think i may have enjoyed it. But also i think it may have been a surreptitious waste of time. Though hiding out in my flat for a day and a bit to get through it before i committed suicide was fun.
I don't want to say "it was one of those books that makes you want to kill yourself." It was no Cam Jansen mystery, or SVH serial novel. It was horribly depressing, wholly traumatizing. But a bit like facing Jim Lahey's shit-void. "Yeh hear that boys, those are the shit winds. You are facing here, the shit-void.It's opened wide in front of you. I did think if i didn't finish it before bed i might just have to kill myself rather than face sleep with such a painful and possible un-resolution so fresh in my mind.
So i suppose it is with caution that i highly recommend this novel. Of course you probably aren't as prone as i am to nightmares. But i think those with the most well ordered dreams should be careful to give reading a sleeping a wide berth.
The story unfolds an amazing play with the temporal obsession of most people with being happy. The obsession with finding and filling our lives with things to "make us happy." Its not that it particular warns against, or challenges the practice. it skirts around and affirmation of anything really. A 400 page affirmation of "i don't like that."
For the protagonist her amazing writing of the average American, of what we hate about them and of what makes us fear to be them. Telling of the vast span between what we think we desire and what we have that fills that desire. Calling us out for projections, blaming, and complaining about...well ourselves in the third person.
It starts slow. And only gets slower until you are too deep in the shit pool to climb out, and must wade across to the other end. At which point you paddle fervently to escape the sense of drowning in the despair of being in the life you planned, exactly as you planned it (whether you want to admit it or not).
Though it is lovely to feel like shit before 2001. The book set entirely before April 9th 2001. When there was still life. Its so easy to forget, as though the great divide that failed to materialize when the computers all still worked on January 1st, 8 years ago, later manifested as something we actually had to care about (not that it effected me much. But others felt the shockwave, and im still stuck in the world where we can't remember what life felt like on April 9th 2001).
So read it, i guess. if you want. or don't. Now, i'm not really sure. not sure which.
I don't want to say "it was one of those books that makes you want to kill yourself." It was no Cam Jansen mystery, or SVH serial novel. It was horribly depressing, wholly traumatizing. But a bit like facing Jim Lahey's shit-void. "Yeh hear that boys, those are the shit winds. You are facing here, the shit-void.It's opened wide in front of you. I did think if i didn't finish it before bed i might just have to kill myself rather than face sleep with such a painful and possible un-resolution so fresh in my mind.
So i suppose it is with caution that i highly recommend this novel. Of course you probably aren't as prone as i am to nightmares. But i think those with the most well ordered dreams should be careful to give reading a sleeping a wide berth.
The story unfolds an amazing play with the temporal obsession of most people with being happy. The obsession with finding and filling our lives with things to "make us happy." Its not that it particular warns against, or challenges the practice. it skirts around and affirmation of anything really. A 400 page affirmation of "i don't like that."
For the protagonist her amazing writing of the average American, of what we hate about them and of what makes us fear to be them. Telling of the vast span between what we think we desire and what we have that fills that desire. Calling us out for projections, blaming, and complaining about...well ourselves in the third person.
It starts slow. And only gets slower until you are too deep in the shit pool to climb out, and must wade across to the other end. At which point you paddle fervently to escape the sense of drowning in the despair of being in the life you planned, exactly as you planned it (whether you want to admit it or not).
Though it is lovely to feel like shit before 2001. The book set entirely before April 9th 2001. When there was still life. Its so easy to forget, as though the great divide that failed to materialize when the computers all still worked on January 1st, 8 years ago, later manifested as something we actually had to care about (not that it effected me much. But others felt the shockwave, and im still stuck in the world where we can't remember what life felt like on April 9th 2001).
So read it, i guess. if you want. or don't. Now, i'm not really sure. not sure which.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Temperance
Just give it some time. If it still seems important in five minutes of five hours or five days or the next time when the time folds in such a way that we are here again, the decided how to act. Take in the knowledge. Read. Breathe, in through my nose, into my belly, into my pelvis, into my thighs, into my knees, breathe. Out my physical self, out my spiritual self, out my intellectual and sexual and social and political and egotistical self. Go on and call me out, and face the reality. There is still a world. Until I die, I am still alive. Whether I am in or called out, I am in existance. You are. In love.
Just give it some time. It will still be important in five minutes or five hours or five days ot the next time the time folds in on itself and I find myself here...again. Its like a breath that travels in and is exchanged, it is different what comes in and what goes out. And I am still free. I am still important. Still alive. Still breathing. Still. The stillness of myself is the certainty that I can be on top again. I can get down again. I can. and time won't tell me anything.
But it is, still.
So here is a little gift of temperance. Let the worry be something else, let it turn into a plant, and water it, and give it love, and then the worry will be beautiful instead of troubling. And it can be part of my forest. There the boredom bush, my worry vine. This is my friendship flower, and my shyness shrub. Here i have just a plant, and that one is a power plant. This one is my frustration and this one beside it my hate plant. But i love them all, and care and nuture them because they are all ppaprt of my world. They are all real, they exist and i believe they exist, and besides...they are beautiful.
Just give it some time. It will still be important in five minutes or five hours or five days ot the next time the time folds in on itself and I find myself here...again. Its like a breath that travels in and is exchanged, it is different what comes in and what goes out. And I am still free. I am still important. Still alive. Still breathing. Still. The stillness of myself is the certainty that I can be on top again. I can get down again. I can. and time won't tell me anything.
But it is, still.
So here is a little gift of temperance. Let the worry be something else, let it turn into a plant, and water it, and give it love, and then the worry will be beautiful instead of troubling. And it can be part of my forest. There the boredom bush, my worry vine. This is my friendship flower, and my shyness shrub. Here i have just a plant, and that one is a power plant. This one is my frustration and this one beside it my hate plant. But i love them all, and care and nuture them because they are all ppaprt of my world. They are all real, they exist and i believe they exist, and besides...they are beautiful.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
One fifth of Canadians Immigrants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7128172.stm
That right...actually about 95% of Canadians are immigrants...in fact all Canadians are in some what immigrants as that possible margin is of our First Nations, who are only Canadian by merit of living on the land that has been named Canada.
But the article is interesting. It talks about the changing "traditional" face of the Anglo-European Canadian. Let's be honest, that was the traditional face in like the 16th or 17th century...and then Canada wasn't in existence. But anyway. I like the article because it expresses no surprise about the diversity of Canada, no frustrations about immigrants "over loading our system," no hard feelings that bilingualism is on the rise, but not in French and English, or worry that over 20% of Canadians have neither English or French as their first or second languages.
That's right! Feel the glory of diversity, of itchy stitching of diverse peoples together. I wish we could talk about it more. Nobody really cares though, I guess its just me, so proud of my status as a "New Canadian," to be an immigrant to such a great place.
England fears the lure of the 2012 games for human traffikers
And rightly they should be anxious. Maybe not fearful, but alert and aware of the reality. Here is some things that make me doubt that there is any awareness however, about what it means to traffik a person, what it means to force someone into prostitutions
"He [Mr Croaker] said prostitutes' clients could face prosecution for rape: "If we have got a situation where a man knowingly has sex with a woman he knows is not freely consenting to that, then I think that that could be considered as rape."
What does that man's knowing have to do with it. The woman is not freely concenting to sex. Therefore, SHE IS NOT FREELY CONCENTING TO SEX. I don't understand where the
possibility lies. That would be rape.
This is the same debate that happens when women "cry" rape against sexual partners who use drugs or alcohal. When stats came out in 1994 that 1 in 4 women have been raped, people balked at the statistic, because a flirtatious girls is "asking for it" evn if they are "technically" to drunk to say either way.
this is exhausting me. Which makes me think i need to reflect more on the topic of prostitution. sex. concent. immorality...and i probably shouldn't do it while knee deep in the SCUM manifesto.
"He [Mr Croaker] said prostitutes' clients could face prosecution for rape: "If we have got a situation where a man knowingly has sex with a woman he knows is not freely consenting to that, then I think that that could be considered as rape."
What does that man's knowing have to do with it. The woman is not freely concenting to sex. Therefore, SHE IS NOT FREELY CONCENTING TO SEX. I don't understand where the
possibility lies. That would be rape.
This is the same debate that happens when women "cry" rape against sexual partners who use drugs or alcohal. When stats came out in 1994 that 1 in 4 women have been raped, people balked at the statistic, because a flirtatious girls is "asking for it" evn if they are "technically" to drunk to say either way.
this is exhausting me. Which makes me think i need to reflect more on the topic of prostitution. sex. concent. immorality...and i probably shouldn't do it while knee deep in the SCUM manifesto.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Im loosing grip on my English
What is a "brizzial girl"? Im sure i was trying to write Brazilian... i dunno, but my ability to write in comprehensible english is rapidly eroding...i want to go back to school.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Assault, assualt a salt on a piece of toast
Okay, this is a weird thing to wonder, but I wonder anyway, do you think ...well first i should explain where the wonder came from. There is a nwes article today that says a 15 year old brazillian girl was left in a cell with 20-30 men for a month, and repeatedly raped for the duration of her time in the cell. I wonder though with that level of abuse if the body would reject any possibly conceived child. Of course it is possible this girl is still premenstrual. But i wonder because i recently read a very stupid article about a study that concluded women walk less sexily when they are fertile (ie ovulating); the researchers concluded that this may be to reduce likelihood of a sexual attack during the fertile period (further it may be a mechanism promoting monogamy because the signals of fertility are more subtle and could only be detected by a close regular partner...right).
I found the articles conclusion outrageous, but its got me thinking about the possibility that we have biological mechanisms that prevent unwanted pregnancies...or no thats not right... that prevent pregnancies as a result of a violence/sexual assault/ sexual act carried out without concent or from a non-commensal relationship.
The article about the brizzial girl made no comment about weather the girl was pregnant, although, judging by the severe emotional and physcial trauma she underwent coupled with the fact that she may not have been getting food (as the article stated the men would take her food and only return it for sex etc.
anyway. i wonder a bit about the world.
On a lighter note...well no its still pretty macarbre, if she is sentenced of a crime in the end im sure her lawyers can argue she has already more than served the prison time due for her original offence.
I found the articles conclusion outrageous, but its got me thinking about the possibility that we have biological mechanisms that prevent unwanted pregnancies...or no thats not right... that prevent pregnancies as a result of a violence/sexual assault/ sexual act carried out without concent or from a non-commensal relationship.
The article about the brizzial girl made no comment about weather the girl was pregnant, although, judging by the severe emotional and physcial trauma she underwent coupled with the fact that she may not have been getting food (as the article stated the men would take her food and only return it for sex etc.
anyway. i wonder a bit about the world.
On a lighter note...well no its still pretty macarbre, if she is sentenced of a crime in the end im sure her lawyers can argue she has already more than served the prison time due for her original offence.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
The challenge of being Canadian...we just don't get it.
"This is not a racist party. It is a German party. We want Germany to stay German and we do not want to be overwhelmed by invaders or intruders"
That quote comes from a troubling article on BBC today, and its funny how as a Canadian I think I am ill-prepared to face these sorts of issues. For me I don’t understand how any land, any area cannot be anyone’s area. It is almost as if the confusion/complexion by the Natives when the Europeans first arrived and tried to buy the land has become ingrained in my Canadian sentiment and understanding of the world. In Canada, everyone—except terrorists (and sometimes even terrorists)—is welcome. And they aren’t just welcome with certain conditions. They are welcome with open arms New Canadians aren't welcome to fill jobs old(er)-Canadians don’t want to do (as if there is such a thing); they aren't welcome to bolster some part of our economy; they aren’t welcome because our birthrate is low and we need someone to take care of us as we grow older; they are welcome to come be Canadian, to come join the quilt. If that is to be a factory worker, so be it; a cab driver, so be it; a doctor, so be it (I wish it were easier for them too); a carer for a family member...the world is welcome, with the only condition that you come and join us in what ever facet you are capable of. So when I read statements like the one above, made by a German MP, I just don't know how to understand, I am ill prepared to understand that some places I guess aren't open. As if new people will change what it inherently is. As if by living in Korea I somehow make this place less Korean. Or by living in Germany or Japan i some how dilute the history and traidition of the place. But i chuckle, because by living in Canada I, and everyone like me, make that place more Canadian.
A similar phenomenon is being reported about in Japan. That they see their birthrate is low so they want to bring in foreigners to fill low-wage, low-skill jobs. Korea as well, believes that foreigners can only come to fill an economic role in society, but not to really join in. It’s as if we are only welcome on a short term contract. So for example the only way I would really be welcome to stay in Korea would be to marry a Korean man. I couldn’t marry another foreigner and live here…it would just be too weird. I would be invading, intruding where I am not really that welcome.
So, how to face this? I’m not really sure. But I suppose recognizing it is a first step.
That quote comes from a troubling article on BBC today, and its funny how as a Canadian I think I am ill-prepared to face these sorts of issues. For me I don’t understand how any land, any area cannot be anyone’s area. It is almost as if the confusion/complexion by the Natives when the Europeans first arrived and tried to buy the land has become ingrained in my Canadian sentiment and understanding of the world. In Canada, everyone—except terrorists (and sometimes even terrorists)—is welcome. And they aren’t just welcome with certain conditions. They are welcome with open arms New Canadians aren't welcome to fill jobs old(er)-Canadians don’t want to do (as if there is such a thing); they aren't welcome to bolster some part of our economy; they aren’t welcome because our birthrate is low and we need someone to take care of us as we grow older; they are welcome to come be Canadian, to come join the quilt. If that is to be a factory worker, so be it; a cab driver, so be it; a doctor, so be it (I wish it were easier for them too); a carer for a family member...the world is welcome, with the only condition that you come and join us in what ever facet you are capable of. So when I read statements like the one above, made by a German MP, I just don't know how to understand, I am ill prepared to understand that some places I guess aren't open. As if new people will change what it inherently is. As if by living in Korea I somehow make this place less Korean. Or by living in Germany or Japan i some how dilute the history and traidition of the place. But i chuckle, because by living in Canada I, and everyone like me, make that place more Canadian.
A similar phenomenon is being reported about in Japan. That they see their birthrate is low so they want to bring in foreigners to fill low-wage, low-skill jobs. Korea as well, believes that foreigners can only come to fill an economic role in society, but not to really join in. It’s as if we are only welcome on a short term contract. So for example the only way I would really be welcome to stay in Korea would be to marry a Korean man. I couldn’t marry another foreigner and live here…it would just be too weird. I would be invading, intruding where I am not really that welcome.
So, how to face this? I’m not really sure. But I suppose recognizing it is a first step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
