LOST is great! Cliffhangers and mystery abound with hints of philosophy, psychology, religion, literature, science, fate, more. Fun to theorize about! Also, a major emphasis on rich and complex characters in the past and present, and the interactions between them which often display in beautiful and compelling ways.
Plus: Kate!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
50 words? Who the hell are You?
Amazing. You, Zach, of all people would presume to limit me to fifty words on why you should watch Lost? You of the twelve page blog post and the 10 minute voice mail messages?
Nonetheless here is an attempt.
You will appreciate the litany of literary references ranging from C.S. Lewis to Stephen King. You will also like the intentional lack of clarity. It is a show worth THINKING about while still being very entertaining. Finally, it is WAY better then NCIS.
There, 42 words. I also wanted to quibble with you about Studio 60. I really liked it but I think all of the criticisms of it were completely valid. Having a sketch comedy show without funny sketches was a big problem. Like I said I enjoyed it, but it was no where near as great as Sports Night and the first four seasons of the West Wing (though it was better then the last three).
I have to get back to work, so on the matter at hand i will only say that I would definitely be open to a conversation about the pluses and minuses of unionization. It seems to me that they have become as much a part of the structure of enforcing the status quo as any other unwieldy bureaucratic organization. This is not to say that they can not be positive or necessary but I would be careful about criticizing the powers that be without criticizing many of the big unions because in some cases they have become completely integrated into the powers that be.
Nonetheless here is an attempt.
You will appreciate the litany of literary references ranging from C.S. Lewis to Stephen King. You will also like the intentional lack of clarity. It is a show worth THINKING about while still being very entertaining. Finally, it is WAY better then NCIS.
There, 42 words. I also wanted to quibble with you about Studio 60. I really liked it but I think all of the criticisms of it were completely valid. Having a sketch comedy show without funny sketches was a big problem. Like I said I enjoyed it, but it was no where near as great as Sports Night and the first four seasons of the West Wing (though it was better then the last three).
I have to get back to work, so on the matter at hand i will only say that I would definitely be open to a conversation about the pluses and minuses of unionization. It seems to me that they have become as much a part of the structure of enforcing the status quo as any other unwieldy bureaucratic organization. This is not to say that they can not be positive or necessary but I would be careful about criticizing the powers that be without criticizing many of the big unions because in some cases they have become completely integrated into the powers that be.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Saving the Blog from becoming "Lost"
Ben--thank God you won a donut! Is it too much to hope that it might be a magical spell-checking donut? Zing! Okay, I have no legs to stand on, haven't been around for a few days. But I got your "tag," so here I am. And can I just say...someone else read our blog? Holy crap! We have an audience. Well, had an audience. I can't say I am surprised it was a self-described hippie--this is a demographic I am expecting a lot of support from. (Joyce--if it was in any way advantageous to describe myself as a hippie, I would, but it's kind of frowned upon these days. I guess I'll have to call it "progressive leftist with a wardrobe barely above hippie").
First off, a big fat welcome to Mike. (Well, alright, a big husky welcome--I'm trying to be less of a self critic these days). But seriously, it was great to have another contributor get involved, even someone who wants to take cheap shots at my erudite lexicon. (And, with his use of "erudite lexicon," his fellow bloggers began to suspect that Zach was making overzealous use of a thesaurus when constructing his posts). And I appreciate that you described Isaac Brock as "a dude with a squawky scream and a terrible lisp," because it shows your capability for brutal honesty. You'll need that here.
Anyway, Mike, your extensive pop culture knowledge and musical background will make you an excellent contributor, as I have a hint that things are moving in that direction for next week, when Ben gets to choose topics. It also makes you a nice counterweight, along with Ben, to Kyle and I, whose styles tend to be, perhaps, a bit academic, overly analytical and serious. I mean, I can only speak for myself, but...oh, who am I kidding? Kyle is full of it too. This certainly isn't to say you guys are any less capable of writing the way Kyle or I do--it means you guys have way too much common sense to do it. I mean, I'm complaining that I don't know how to reach people, and then I use words that belong in the mouth of an eighteenth century English lord...it is kind of fishy on my part. Then again, I guess being a nerd is one of the few things I'm going to cling to unabashedly, so...expect more big words. It just makes me all fuzzy inside when I use them.
Now, to get back to serious matters, while we still can, before you guys turn this into a blog about a show I've never watched a full episode of...okay, not just yet. People say I will love "Lost." Can someone explain to me why? I seem to be either extremely on or extremely off in my television choices. For instance: I was all over The West Wing, and people who weren't into it at first came around. I tend to be a snob about my shows and think I have pretty good taste in television. I like all the "good" shows: Arrested Development (I hate you, FOX), It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Sports Nite, Studio 60 (I hate you, NBC), Flight of the Concords, and others that most people seem to agree are in good taste. Then again, I run into people who disapprove of my taste when I explain that I am still watching Heroes, that this season of 24 is really gripping, or try to expound on the simple pleasures of NCIS. Anyway, I really don't want this to turn into a "Lost" blog, but if you could each, in fifty words or less, explain why I should get up off my couch and go rent the first season, I am open to being convinced.
Okay, NOW back to serious matters...you guys made a couple of excellent points that I wanted to throw back up here, beginning with Mike, who said "There are millions of Americans who will aggressively fight to defend the right of their bosses to take advantage of them and their neighbors and families. People with tons of money have used their resources to shape the opinions of poor people to make sure that a giant chunk of the U.S. population will look out for them and protect their every right to do whatever is necessary to make the most money possible. So the poor, in the name of patriotism and freedom, are looking out for the rich." This is just an awesome piece of analysis, and raises an important point: why are the poor protecting the rich? It's quite clear that they are--despite the resentment of the poor towards the rich that I see and hear around me occasionally in the Bronx. And your suggestion that the poor are motivated by ideals, such as "patriotism" and "freedom," is a good start--the poor have been sold those values, literally. (By the way, I was at that rally at City Hall last week...did anyone see it on the news? 75,000 strong, and mostly organized labor, union members, including, of course, my fellow teachers--it was awesome being at what was essentially a union rally...more on that later).
I think there is more to it than mere ideology, though. I'm going to suggest that in fact, the poor are not aware that they are protecting the rich, and that it has something to do with another point you made: "I think this has to do with a uniquely American sense of individualism, which sees 'strength in numbers' as another way of saying 'weakness and lack of industriousness in the self'...This spirit of the individual makes the country more conducive to capitalist competition and less conducive to its citizens getting together to solve problems in innovative ways." I believe this is most certainly the case--people do see individualism as an incorruptible value, as a vital freedom that defines our country. The common (and I would say faulty) logic--which can also be tied, I think, to the massive influx of immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century--is that if one person can make it, any of us can. We all have a "chance" to "make it." While we know, analytically, that this is more complicated--and less than true--it makes for a very nice piece of propaganda, because it is difficult to argue against without sounding like a fascist. (Just for the record, I have been called a fascist before, and also for the record, I would make an awesome benevolent dictator).
Also, the lack of industriousness point--this causes major psychological problems for me. When he was alive, I heard all of my grandfather's stories--his parents came over from Germany in 1904 and he was born here. He worked all his life, worked hard, and didn't stop working until he was dead. I respected the hell out of this at one time, and in some senses, still do--his "work ethic" was incredible. But spending so much time working can only happen at the expense of other things, like family, recreation, and spiritual fulfillment. Sometimes I think about how I wish I had less work--fewer students, really--and I regret how lazy I am, how pathetic my effort and my complaints about my work environment seem when compared with my grandfather's stories. I feel like I am somehow inferior. However, your point makes me feel slightly less crazy during those times, because I know that I'm not lazy--I just believe that humans were put on this earth to do more than work. I think the battle cry of one particular union from late 19th century America sums it up best: "Eight [hours] for work, eight for rest, and eight for what we will." I am not opposed to working hard. I am, however, opposed to being overworked, when I have other elements in my life that are of equal or greater importance to my overall wellbeing than my career. And I am diametrically opposed to people being overworked and underpaid when the sole purpose of their work, in some senses, is to make money for other people.
I think this also relates to Ben's point: "There is a pervasive sense in the Unites States that no matter what happens America is still better then everywhere else." This is most certainly true, in the eyes of most Americans, even among many of the working poor, and especially among immigrants. (This fact often gives me pause when I lament the state of things--but not for long. Yes, this country is great, but it could be so much more, and we shouldn't rest until it is). I think part of what makes it "better" in other peoples' eyes is the freedom of the rugged individualism our country offers to--or perhaps forces on--each of its citizens. What people need to be shown, in a way that is concrete and undeniable, is that individualism is not the holy grail of civic values or civil rights. We confuse "rights" with being an issue for individuals, but we have collective "rights" as well that might be better served by rethinking, or conceding, some of our individual rights. We simply can not expect to be economically strong, politically viable, and socially peaceful as a nation if we are only concerned with the rights of individuals, and we cannot expect to be considered morally principled leaders to the world when we are only concerned with these rights as they relate to our own citizens. We must also be concerned with the rights of people from other countries, of ENTIRE other countries, and of the sustainability of the human race on the planet earth. Of course, ecological sustainability and social justice, while becoming more mainstream issues, tend to remain squarely in the purview of the "elitist" and "leftist" among us.
Ben, I don't want you to feel left out. You also had several great points, but I am rambling now, so I am going to touch on one thing you said: "I think one of the problems we have (especially your generation) is that we've grown used to the idea that things happen instantly. We wonder why the institutions we have seem so impenetrable, but yet do nothing to penetrate them. We've given up getting to the heart of matters." I couldn't agree more. I think this has a lot to do, as you said, with our expectation--nay, our need--for instant gratification. (This may also be a point for the pot conversation, but I'll save that for later). I can speak for myself when I say that I am frustrated--often to the point of despair and apathy--that things seem to "never change," or that change that seems so obviously necessary to me--allowing gay marriage in EVERY state, for instance--takes so damn long to happen.
Here's a thought on why things are this way: labor unions. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during America's Gilded Age, we saw the rise of socialism and labor unions--simultaneous, not synonymous, but not unconnected. Those unions were able to make precious few gains on their demands. Certainly, for most of us in this country, or for those of us who are lucky, our workplace conditions are safer, our workday shorter, and our benefits slightly better than they would have been without the union movement. But it simply isn't enough. We, all of us, need to work less and spend more time with families and on self- and community development. Most of us need to be paid more for our work. We all deserve to have health insurance, sick days, vacation, and more. Why don't we get it?
In short: because the union is dead. Precious few unions still exist. Why? Probably because the government's response to events like the Railroad Strike, Haymarket Riot, Pullman Strike, et al was to violently repress workers' rights to protest. In several cases--and you may have forgotten this, or it may have been selectively omitted by textbook publishers--the employers and/or the federal government (thanks for nothing, Grover Cleveland) actually ordered federal troops in (or sometimes Pinkertons) to end strikes. These interventions always ended in the deaths of several protesters, and also soldiers and policeman. Workers, trying to bargain collectively, have often been replaced by "scabs" and met by the barrel of a gun. That is pretty discouraging for people who want to form unions at their workplaces, or go on strike. So, people learned that collective action often led to nothing, and was quite risky, and they internalized this. They learned, in a hard way, the price of collective action. Individual achievement, however, was rewarded and encouraged. Unions be damned! It's all about "efficiency!" Hire the best and fire the rest and never give another thought to their welfare! (Okay, it's time to stop channeling the robber barons now...in rhyme, for God's sake).
This all leads me to say that while I have neither the time, nor the energy, to take us off fully on this tangent now, expect it to come up in the future: labor unions have the potential to be the saving grace of our society and a vital structure in the reorganization of America if and when capitalism finally goes completely down the toilet. Anarchosyndicalism baby, that's the name of my game. Check it out and get back to me! Tag!
First off, a big fat welcome to Mike. (Well, alright, a big husky welcome--I'm trying to be less of a self critic these days). But seriously, it was great to have another contributor get involved, even someone who wants to take cheap shots at my erudite lexicon. (And, with his use of "erudite lexicon," his fellow bloggers began to suspect that Zach was making overzealous use of a thesaurus when constructing his posts). And I appreciate that you described Isaac Brock as "a dude with a squawky scream and a terrible lisp," because it shows your capability for brutal honesty. You'll need that here.
Anyway, Mike, your extensive pop culture knowledge and musical background will make you an excellent contributor, as I have a hint that things are moving in that direction for next week, when Ben gets to choose topics. It also makes you a nice counterweight, along with Ben, to Kyle and I, whose styles tend to be, perhaps, a bit academic, overly analytical and serious. I mean, I can only speak for myself, but...oh, who am I kidding? Kyle is full of it too. This certainly isn't to say you guys are any less capable of writing the way Kyle or I do--it means you guys have way too much common sense to do it. I mean, I'm complaining that I don't know how to reach people, and then I use words that belong in the mouth of an eighteenth century English lord...it is kind of fishy on my part. Then again, I guess being a nerd is one of the few things I'm going to cling to unabashedly, so...expect more big words. It just makes me all fuzzy inside when I use them.
Now, to get back to serious matters, while we still can, before you guys turn this into a blog about a show I've never watched a full episode of...okay, not just yet. People say I will love "Lost." Can someone explain to me why? I seem to be either extremely on or extremely off in my television choices. For instance: I was all over The West Wing, and people who weren't into it at first came around. I tend to be a snob about my shows and think I have pretty good taste in television. I like all the "good" shows: Arrested Development (I hate you, FOX), It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Sports Nite, Studio 60 (I hate you, NBC), Flight of the Concords, and others that most people seem to agree are in good taste. Then again, I run into people who disapprove of my taste when I explain that I am still watching Heroes, that this season of 24 is really gripping, or try to expound on the simple pleasures of NCIS. Anyway, I really don't want this to turn into a "Lost" blog, but if you could each, in fifty words or less, explain why I should get up off my couch and go rent the first season, I am open to being convinced.
Okay, NOW back to serious matters...you guys made a couple of excellent points that I wanted to throw back up here, beginning with Mike, who said "There are millions of Americans who will aggressively fight to defend the right of their bosses to take advantage of them and their neighbors and families. People with tons of money have used their resources to shape the opinions of poor people to make sure that a giant chunk of the U.S. population will look out for them and protect their every right to do whatever is necessary to make the most money possible. So the poor, in the name of patriotism and freedom, are looking out for the rich." This is just an awesome piece of analysis, and raises an important point: why are the poor protecting the rich? It's quite clear that they are--despite the resentment of the poor towards the rich that I see and hear around me occasionally in the Bronx. And your suggestion that the poor are motivated by ideals, such as "patriotism" and "freedom," is a good start--the poor have been sold those values, literally. (By the way, I was at that rally at City Hall last week...did anyone see it on the news? 75,000 strong, and mostly organized labor, union members, including, of course, my fellow teachers--it was awesome being at what was essentially a union rally...more on that later).
I think there is more to it than mere ideology, though. I'm going to suggest that in fact, the poor are not aware that they are protecting the rich, and that it has something to do with another point you made: "I think this has to do with a uniquely American sense of individualism, which sees 'strength in numbers' as another way of saying 'weakness and lack of industriousness in the self'...This spirit of the individual makes the country more conducive to capitalist competition and less conducive to its citizens getting together to solve problems in innovative ways." I believe this is most certainly the case--people do see individualism as an incorruptible value, as a vital freedom that defines our country. The common (and I would say faulty) logic--which can also be tied, I think, to the massive influx of immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century--is that if one person can make it, any of us can. We all have a "chance" to "make it." While we know, analytically, that this is more complicated--and less than true--it makes for a very nice piece of propaganda, because it is difficult to argue against without sounding like a fascist. (Just for the record, I have been called a fascist before, and also for the record, I would make an awesome benevolent dictator).
Also, the lack of industriousness point--this causes major psychological problems for me. When he was alive, I heard all of my grandfather's stories--his parents came over from Germany in 1904 and he was born here. He worked all his life, worked hard, and didn't stop working until he was dead. I respected the hell out of this at one time, and in some senses, still do--his "work ethic" was incredible. But spending so much time working can only happen at the expense of other things, like family, recreation, and spiritual fulfillment. Sometimes I think about how I wish I had less work--fewer students, really--and I regret how lazy I am, how pathetic my effort and my complaints about my work environment seem when compared with my grandfather's stories. I feel like I am somehow inferior. However, your point makes me feel slightly less crazy during those times, because I know that I'm not lazy--I just believe that humans were put on this earth to do more than work. I think the battle cry of one particular union from late 19th century America sums it up best: "Eight [hours] for work, eight for rest, and eight for what we will." I am not opposed to working hard. I am, however, opposed to being overworked, when I have other elements in my life that are of equal or greater importance to my overall wellbeing than my career. And I am diametrically opposed to people being overworked and underpaid when the sole purpose of their work, in some senses, is to make money for other people.
I think this also relates to Ben's point: "There is a pervasive sense in the Unites States that no matter what happens America is still better then everywhere else." This is most certainly true, in the eyes of most Americans, even among many of the working poor, and especially among immigrants. (This fact often gives me pause when I lament the state of things--but not for long. Yes, this country is great, but it could be so much more, and we shouldn't rest until it is). I think part of what makes it "better" in other peoples' eyes is the freedom of the rugged individualism our country offers to--or perhaps forces on--each of its citizens. What people need to be shown, in a way that is concrete and undeniable, is that individualism is not the holy grail of civic values or civil rights. We confuse "rights" with being an issue for individuals, but we have collective "rights" as well that might be better served by rethinking, or conceding, some of our individual rights. We simply can not expect to be economically strong, politically viable, and socially peaceful as a nation if we are only concerned with the rights of individuals, and we cannot expect to be considered morally principled leaders to the world when we are only concerned with these rights as they relate to our own citizens. We must also be concerned with the rights of people from other countries, of ENTIRE other countries, and of the sustainability of the human race on the planet earth. Of course, ecological sustainability and social justice, while becoming more mainstream issues, tend to remain squarely in the purview of the "elitist" and "leftist" among us.
Ben, I don't want you to feel left out. You also had several great points, but I am rambling now, so I am going to touch on one thing you said: "I think one of the problems we have (especially your generation) is that we've grown used to the idea that things happen instantly. We wonder why the institutions we have seem so impenetrable, but yet do nothing to penetrate them. We've given up getting to the heart of matters." I couldn't agree more. I think this has a lot to do, as you said, with our expectation--nay, our need--for instant gratification. (This may also be a point for the pot conversation, but I'll save that for later). I can speak for myself when I say that I am frustrated--often to the point of despair and apathy--that things seem to "never change," or that change that seems so obviously necessary to me--allowing gay marriage in EVERY state, for instance--takes so damn long to happen.
Here's a thought on why things are this way: labor unions. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during America's Gilded Age, we saw the rise of socialism and labor unions--simultaneous, not synonymous, but not unconnected. Those unions were able to make precious few gains on their demands. Certainly, for most of us in this country, or for those of us who are lucky, our workplace conditions are safer, our workday shorter, and our benefits slightly better than they would have been without the union movement. But it simply isn't enough. We, all of us, need to work less and spend more time with families and on self- and community development. Most of us need to be paid more for our work. We all deserve to have health insurance, sick days, vacation, and more. Why don't we get it?
In short: because the union is dead. Precious few unions still exist. Why? Probably because the government's response to events like the Railroad Strike, Haymarket Riot, Pullman Strike, et al was to violently repress workers' rights to protest. In several cases--and you may have forgotten this, or it may have been selectively omitted by textbook publishers--the employers and/or the federal government (thanks for nothing, Grover Cleveland) actually ordered federal troops in (or sometimes Pinkertons) to end strikes. These interventions always ended in the deaths of several protesters, and also soldiers and policeman. Workers, trying to bargain collectively, have often been replaced by "scabs" and met by the barrel of a gun. That is pretty discouraging for people who want to form unions at their workplaces, or go on strike. So, people learned that collective action often led to nothing, and was quite risky, and they internalized this. They learned, in a hard way, the price of collective action. Individual achievement, however, was rewarded and encouraged. Unions be damned! It's all about "efficiency!" Hire the best and fire the rest and never give another thought to their welfare! (Okay, it's time to stop channeling the robber barons now...in rhyme, for God's sake).
This all leads me to say that while I have neither the time, nor the energy, to take us off fully on this tangent now, expect it to come up in the future: labor unions have the potential to be the saving grace of our society and a vital structure in the reorganization of America if and when capitalism finally goes completely down the toilet. Anarchosyndicalism baby, that's the name of my game. Check it out and get back to me! Tag!
Touching all the Bases
Mike I would say that there is a very good chance we could turn this into a Lost blog. I mean without any contributions from the other members, I think its safe to say we can meld this blog to our own nefarious purposes. For instance after every episode we could have a running conversation, followed by a chat (which is definitely nothing like this) or even better we could turn it into some kind of all-encompassing encyclopedia of some sort, which I'm quite sure no one has thought of yet. On the Lost front, though I will be sad to see it go I'm really glad they decided to cap it at six years. The only time this show has lost its focus was in the middle of season three when they were obviously killing time (pardon the pun). But there has been no let up since the end of season three. In all seriousness if you and I end up taking this shit over, we can have a long in depth discussion about this.
I don't have much to say about the larger topic because I'm curious about Kyle and Zach's thoughts on it. I do want to back up your point about American individualism. In the U.S. we definitely do promote individualism, but I think some of the problems spring from our "melting pot" theory. When you ask someone who is a U.S. citizen where they are from they always place the "American" first. Not in the sense of American-French of American-African, but the origin they most associate themselves with is the United Stated. Comparatively, in Canada even people who are intensely Canadian still associate themselves with their country of origin first. I remember when I moved here people used to ask me where I was from. I would say "The U.S." and they would say, "But where are you FROM?". So there is an individualism America, but only as far as that individualism is part of our larger identity as a people and culture. People from the U.S. have a hard time understanding why anyone would ever leave to live somewhere else. And I think your right that the basis of that lies in our immigrant base. Whether it is because of that or something else there is a pervasive sense in the Unites States that no matter what happens America is still better then everywhere else. That collective ego often gets us in an awful lot of trouble.
Finally, I just wanted to respond to the person who commented on my post about boomers and pot (her blog is here). I certainly did not mean to lump all boomers in to one category and it is as easy and intellectually lazy as saying "gen-x" or whatever the hell our generation is. But in the collective sense I do think they set the table for us. This is not a terribly original though but there it is. The larger marijuana conversation is an interesting one and I think worth delving into in more depth at some future time. I certainly think a pot smoking ritual would be preferable to the time honored American alcohol ritual, however I am skeptical that I will be sparking up with my mother any time soon for myraid reasons.
Oh! and I won a donut so you guys don't have to put up with that nonsense any more.
Alright Kyle or Zach TAG YOUR IT
I don't have much to say about the larger topic because I'm curious about Kyle and Zach's thoughts on it. I do want to back up your point about American individualism. In the U.S. we definitely do promote individualism, but I think some of the problems spring from our "melting pot" theory. When you ask someone who is a U.S. citizen where they are from they always place the "American" first. Not in the sense of American-French of American-African, but the origin they most associate themselves with is the United Stated. Comparatively, in Canada even people who are intensely Canadian still associate themselves with their country of origin first. I remember when I moved here people used to ask me where I was from. I would say "The U.S." and they would say, "But where are you FROM?". So there is an individualism America, but only as far as that individualism is part of our larger identity as a people and culture. People from the U.S. have a hard time understanding why anyone would ever leave to live somewhere else. And I think your right that the basis of that lies in our immigrant base. Whether it is because of that or something else there is a pervasive sense in the Unites States that no matter what happens America is still better then everywhere else. That collective ego often gets us in an awful lot of trouble.
Finally, I just wanted to respond to the person who commented on my post about boomers and pot (her blog is here). I certainly did not mean to lump all boomers in to one category and it is as easy and intellectually lazy as saying "gen-x" or whatever the hell our generation is. But in the collective sense I do think they set the table for us. This is not a terribly original though but there it is. The larger marijuana conversation is an interesting one and I think worth delving into in more depth at some future time. I certainly think a pot smoking ritual would be preferable to the time honored American alcohol ritual, however I am skeptical that I will be sparking up with my mother any time soon for myraid reasons.
Oh! and I won a donut so you guys don't have to put up with that nonsense any more.
Alright Kyle or Zach TAG YOUR IT
Sunday, March 8, 2009
www.wearephoenix.com
I think I hear you Ben, sorry for misunderstanding.
Though my biggest regret about my post is that I didn't address your mentioning LOST! Maren and I are super-serious about the show. We actually review the entire series to date before each new season premiere (for Season 5, we started before Thanksgiving). And this season has definitely been satisfying. Sounds like you feel the same way. What would it take to make this into a LOST discussion blog? I'm not sure anyone else on the Internet is discussing the show yet; we could be the first to the party.
I would like to point out how much I appreciate clicking through a content warning each time I visit this blog.
I would additionally like to point out that if there is any justice in the world (and there may not be), "1901" by Phoenix is going to make the band stupidly famous. You can download it for free at their site. It's shaping up to be one of my favorites of 2009.
So I don't completely lose the plot, a couple more comments on Comrade Z's central post for the week:
"why does the status quo of social inequality persist?"
I think this has to do with a uniquely American sense of individualism, which sees "strength in numbers" as another way of saying "weakness and lack of industriousness in the self." America is full descendants of people who came here to break from the traditions of their native countries. Those who came here out of necessity landed in that individual-based social structure anyway and had to make due. This spirit of the individual makes the country more conducive to capitalist competition and less conducive to its citizens getting together to solve problems in innovative ways.
With our country's unique capacities, we're really good (or at least we WERE really good, until the rest of the world starting educating their kids better than us) at being creative on the individual level - coming up with visionary people who can often outperform groups of people in many ways. Henry Ford, Brian Wilson, Steve Jobs, etc. But we're really bad at thinking beyond that level, which is where a lot of heavy-duty problems come into play. And never mind that the vast majority of Americans don't have the capacity to operate on that super-innovative level and end up completely relying on systems they don't control or understand just to eke out a living. Still, individualism represents how pride is experienced by many people in this country and changing that would mean a massive cultural shift.
Also, we've seen from within our two party perspective that if you wait around long enough, someone you basically agree with will become the president. You don't even have to get out of you chair to see this happen. It's a depressing thought. But then again, I'm very happy to have Barack Obama in office. Someday, a bunch of people will be very happy to see him gone.
Okay, I'll let someone else talk now.
Michael
Though my biggest regret about my post is that I didn't address your mentioning LOST! Maren and I are super-serious about the show. We actually review the entire series to date before each new season premiere (for Season 5, we started before Thanksgiving). And this season has definitely been satisfying. Sounds like you feel the same way. What would it take to make this into a LOST discussion blog? I'm not sure anyone else on the Internet is discussing the show yet; we could be the first to the party.
I would like to point out how much I appreciate clicking through a content warning each time I visit this blog.
I would additionally like to point out that if there is any justice in the world (and there may not be), "1901" by Phoenix is going to make the band stupidly famous. You can download it for free at their site. It's shaping up to be one of my favorites of 2009.
So I don't completely lose the plot, a couple more comments on Comrade Z's central post for the week:
"why does the status quo of social inequality persist?"
I think this has to do with a uniquely American sense of individualism, which sees "strength in numbers" as another way of saying "weakness and lack of industriousness in the self." America is full descendants of people who came here to break from the traditions of their native countries. Those who came here out of necessity landed in that individual-based social structure anyway and had to make due. This spirit of the individual makes the country more conducive to capitalist competition and less conducive to its citizens getting together to solve problems in innovative ways.
With our country's unique capacities, we're really good (or at least we WERE really good, until the rest of the world starting educating their kids better than us) at being creative on the individual level - coming up with visionary people who can often outperform groups of people in many ways. Henry Ford, Brian Wilson, Steve Jobs, etc. But we're really bad at thinking beyond that level, which is where a lot of heavy-duty problems come into play. And never mind that the vast majority of Americans don't have the capacity to operate on that super-innovative level and end up completely relying on systems they don't control or understand just to eke out a living. Still, individualism represents how pride is experienced by many people in this country and changing that would mean a massive cultural shift.
Also, we've seen from within our two party perspective that if you wait around long enough, someone you basically agree with will become the president. You don't even have to get out of you chair to see this happen. It's a depressing thought. But then again, I'm very happy to have Barack Obama in office. Someday, a bunch of people will be very happy to see him gone.
Okay, I'll let someone else talk now.
Michael
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)