Samhain marks one of the two great doorways of the Celtic year, for the Celts divided the year into two seasons: the light and the dark, at Beltane on May 1st and Samhain on November 1st. Some believe that Samhain was the more important festival, marking the beginning of a whole new cycle, just as the Celtic day began at night. For it was understood that in dark silence comes whisperings of new beginnings, the stirring of the seed below the ground. Whereas Beltane welcomes in the summer with joyous celebrations at dawn, the most magically potent time of this festival is November Eve, the night of October 31st, known today of course, as Halloween.
Courtesy of Robot Chicken: It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown.
31 October 2006
30 October 2006
We made it back!
Yes, we lost money. No, we didn't lose a lot of money. I played a bunch of Pai Gow Poker - always a fun time. I even got Cillic and Heathen playing too... not to mention my dad. It's just such a casual game. We had many lovely meals (as always). It was really cool to have so many people fly halfway across the country just for me :)
The view from our room at the Flamingo. Not bad eh? This is the Bellagio at sunrise.
One of these days, I plan on watching the sun rise on the real colluseum. Until then, this will have to do. We've decided that one of these years we're going to take a trip to Europe with Cillic, Heathen, the Queen of the Universe and maybe a few others. They may never allow Americans back on the continent once John and Cillic get deported, but at least we'll be the last ones to have been there. ;)
Yeah, I hate pictures of me, so this is the only one you're getting. Of course, I'm sure Cillic, Heathen and the Queen won't be as kind to me... I know they got some rather unflattering pictures.
You can't make this shit up... Yes, that's a crowd waiting for Gene Simmons to make an appearance at a Dillard's department store. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
It was a little bit on the cool side for swimming, but that didn't stop Heathen and the Queen of the Universe from basking in the sun with their femi-nazi rags. Could there be a better picture? One reading Bust and the other Bitch? Both great magazines by the way.
Our puppydog was returned to us from boarding unharmed. She does have a little bit of chaffing where her harness was on - apparently they left it on her for the whole 5 days she was there. I am going to have to call them and complain about that one - that's just stupid. Other than that, she's happy to be home and we're happy that she's in one piece.
More later.
I really don't want to go back to work tomorrow.
The view from our room at the Flamingo. Not bad eh? This is the Bellagio at sunrise.
One of these days, I plan on watching the sun rise on the real colluseum. Until then, this will have to do. We've decided that one of these years we're going to take a trip to Europe with Cillic, Heathen, the Queen of the Universe and maybe a few others. They may never allow Americans back on the continent once John and Cillic get deported, but at least we'll be the last ones to have been there. ;)
Yeah, I hate pictures of me, so this is the only one you're getting. Of course, I'm sure Cillic, Heathen and the Queen won't be as kind to me... I know they got some rather unflattering pictures.
You can't make this shit up... Yes, that's a crowd waiting for Gene Simmons to make an appearance at a Dillard's department store. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
It was a little bit on the cool side for swimming, but that didn't stop Heathen and the Queen of the Universe from basking in the sun with their femi-nazi rags. Could there be a better picture? One reading Bust and the other Bitch? Both great magazines by the way.
Our puppydog was returned to us from boarding unharmed. She does have a little bit of chaffing where her harness was on - apparently they left it on her for the whole 5 days she was there. I am going to have to call them and complain about that one - that's just stupid. Other than that, she's happy to be home and we're happy that she's in one piece.More later.
I really don't want to go back to work tomorrow.
25 October 2006
Vegas Baby!
We leave tomorrow! I'll be back soon, with pictures and stories I'm sure.
Click the picture and turn up the sound....
Click the picture and turn up the sound....
20 October 2006
Happy Birthday to Me
I am now officially old.
Actually, I know a lot of people who felt some sort of remorse at turning 30, but I don't feel that way at all. My body is about 20 years older than I am, what with all the joint and muscle problems I have, but other than that I don't feel old.
Actually, I know a lot of people who felt some sort of remorse at turning 30, but I don't feel that way at all. My body is about 20 years older than I am, what with all the joint and muscle problems I have, but other than that I don't feel old.
15 October 2006
A hard habit to break...
Ever since I can remember, I've bitten my nails. But I don't just bite my nails, I pick at my cuticles until they're shredded and pulpy and disgusting. I simply can't help it. I don't even realize I do it. John tries to draw my attention to it when he sees me, but I really need something to do with my hands.
This is particularly bad if I have nothing to do on the train or if I'm waiting at work for a query to run.
Well the Queen of the Universe has this spinner ring that I saw this weekend and I think that might help my fidgitey fingers to have something other than picking my nails to do. So I figured out my ring size for my thumb and ordered this one.
I can't stand that bitter crap that you paint on your nails, I tried that when I was younger and it rubs off on everything, including food. Painting them doesn't help - I just pick off the polish - it's like it adds a layer of fun.
Anyone else have success stories for stopping fingernail biting?
And for all you Peanuts fans... Happy Halloween: It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown
This is particularly bad if I have nothing to do on the train or if I'm waiting at work for a query to run.
Well the Queen of the Universe has this spinner ring that I saw this weekend and I think that might help my fidgitey fingers to have something other than picking my nails to do. So I figured out my ring size for my thumb and ordered this one.
I can't stand that bitter crap that you paint on your nails, I tried that when I was younger and it rubs off on everything, including food. Painting them doesn't help - I just pick off the polish - it's like it adds a layer of fun.
Anyone else have success stories for stopping fingernail biting?
And for all you Peanuts fans... Happy Halloween: It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown
12 October 2006
Brrrrrr
OK, so apparently Autumn is over in Chicago - all two weeks of it. Two weeks ago we still had the air conditioner in the front window. Now it's snowing.
Some things to look forward to at least:
Tomorrow is our monthly meeting of the women's group I'm a part of. The Queen of the Universe is going to lead us in a session on Oracles and Scrying - on Friday the 13th no less. Hee.
Then Saturday I am meeting Donna and The Queen of the Universe and we are going for fondue. Nothing like Wine, cheese and chocolate to brighten up the day, huh?
Oh, and I have been working tirelessly over the past several months to arrange to bring Irshad Manji to Chicago for a speaking engagement. I am happy to report that I have succeeded. We're partnering with another institution in Chicago and she'll be here in February! I'm so excited!
You want a prediction about the weather, you're asking the wrong Phil. I'll give you a winter prediction: It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life. -Bill Murray, Groundhog Day
Some things to look forward to at least:
Tomorrow is our monthly meeting of the women's group I'm a part of. The Queen of the Universe is going to lead us in a session on Oracles and Scrying - on Friday the 13th no less. Hee.
Then Saturday I am meeting Donna and The Queen of the Universe and we are going for fondue. Nothing like Wine, cheese and chocolate to brighten up the day, huh?
Oh, and I have been working tirelessly over the past several months to arrange to bring Irshad Manji to Chicago for a speaking engagement. I am happy to report that I have succeeded. We're partnering with another institution in Chicago and she'll be here in February! I'm so excited!
08 October 2006
There were no children here
Though I do not lament the passing of the Robert Taylor Homes on Chicago's South Side, I do question the tactics of gentrification the city is using to displace thousands of poor people. I've seen what the did with Cabrini Green. "Mixed Income" communities means a few lucky poor people getting to live next door to $500,000 town homes. But their children can't go to the new Walter Payton College Prep School that was just built down the street. That's a magnet school. You have to test to get in. It's a private school funded by public money. What of the other thousands of families whose only sin was being poor? They're all being displaced to the far out suburbs, creating new ghettos. Wherever poor people move, businesses move out. Schools get less funding (because property values decline), and the cycle starts anew.
What happens when you stack families of poor people on top of one another, concentrated in one area of a city with no jobs, no services, no grocery stores and no decent schools? Literally segregated from the white communities by the Dan Ryan Expressway? Chicago's (and America's) largest failed social experiment: Public Housing Projects.
What happens when you stack families of poor people on top of one another, concentrated in one area of a city with no jobs, no services, no grocery stores and no decent schools? Literally segregated from the white communities by the Dan Ryan Expressway? Chicago's (and America's) largest failed social experiment: Public Housing Projects.
06 October 2006
So, what is equality?
I've been trying to find a way to create a clear and concise post about this book we finished in class a few weeks ago called Justice and the Politics of Difference by Iris Young. I found it a pretty thought-provoking book. It's an extremely dense theoretical read, but many of the points she draws out make a great deal of sense. I won't get into everything here since, well, that would be just too damn long. If you find this interesting, I highly recommend picking up her book.
She starts off by critiquing what she calls the distributive paradigm of justice. In short, she argues that most theories and policies dealing with inequality and justice attempt to rectify the situation by distributing something to the disadvantaged - money, goods, services, political power, etc... She says that this is inadequate for several reasons. One is that it does not address the overall imbalance of power that leads to inequality - it only attempts to rectify inequalities after the fact, not prevent them from happening in the first place.
Instead of the Liberal view where people are first and foremost individuals, Young argues that we are first and foremost members of social groups - either by our own identification with such groups or because we are defined by others as members. What is a social group? A social group is more than just a random group of people. She defines it as a group of people with some set of shared experiences, traits, and beliefs. For example women, black men, Jews, elderly people, disabled people can all be social groups. People belong to many social groups, and the groups sometimes overlap and conflict. But her argument is that the group identifications are an integral part of the formation of our identities.
From these two points - the distributive paradigm and the unavoidable existence of social groups, she develops her main arguments. Her main argument revolves around the the impossibility of impartiality - which calls into question our entire concept of America as a meritocracy. She questions the morality of Liberalism (in the traditional sense of the word, not the current one used to describe anyone left-of-center). Historically, Liberalism came out of the Enlightenment movement and was a reaction against the current aristocratic systems. It focused on individual rights and equal opportunity regardless of a persons' social status at birth. We like to believe in this myth that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed - it's the basis of the American psyche. She argues that our so-called meritocracy has simply replaced aristocracy and instead of birthrights, we have socially and culturally advantaged groups. Iris Young argues that our unquestioning acceptance of this system of merit, in itself, causes inequality because someone still sets the standards for evaluating merit. There is no such thing as an impartial person.
She says that assuming equal (i.e. same) treatment for all people, for instance a color- or gender-blind society, is unrealistic and impossible. There is no such thing as complete objectivity, as everyone views the world from a certain biased point of view. The idea of formal impartiality, that everyone be treated by the exact same rules, actually perpetuates and reproduces inequality because the ideals and norms used to create those rules come from the point of view of the dominant social groups. Anyone who does not meet those criteria is at an automatic disadvantage. Furthermore, because the dominant views are so pervasive, they are often invisible and therefore taken as "normal" or "universal" thus automatically casting any other view as "other" and "inferior." For example, white is usually not considered a "race" just as male is not considered a "gender". Women are gendered, and non-whites are 'ethnic' or racialized. White, male, heterosexual, and usually christian views are purported to be the "universal human" view.
She uses a lot of workplace analogies, which I found odd. I wish she would have taken some other examples, like power structures within the family. But, it is what it is right? One example is the differing points of view on Affirmative Action. Young does not deny that it is a form of discrimination - but she also does not define discrimination as an automatically negative thing. Discrimination is what people do to tell each other apart. Discrimination that results in the further oppression of people - i.e. denying someone a job because they are black or a woman - is oppressive discrimination. Discrimination that results in rectifying these inequalities - giving a certain number of positions of power to disenfranchised groups - is not the same thing. If, for instance, certain people are socialized to work better in groups and to value community over individuality (i.e. women and people of color) then they are at an automatic disadvantage if the person hiring for a job thinks that individual achievements are more important than teamwork (typically seen in white men). It all depends on who sets the standards.
She instead calls for a more democratic, less hierarchical structure of equality where everyone, democratically, is involved in deciding the criteria used to evaluate people. The criteria for job positions should be clearly articulated and defendable, and everyone involved with working with whomever is hired should have an equal say in the qualities they are looking for in that person. Rather than a top-down hierarchical structure, she thinks we would be much better off valuing difference rather than attempting to force "others" to assimilate to the "norm."
What do you all think about this? I'm curious.
She starts off by critiquing what she calls the distributive paradigm of justice. In short, she argues that most theories and policies dealing with inequality and justice attempt to rectify the situation by distributing something to the disadvantaged - money, goods, services, political power, etc... She says that this is inadequate for several reasons. One is that it does not address the overall imbalance of power that leads to inequality - it only attempts to rectify inequalities after the fact, not prevent them from happening in the first place.
Instead of the Liberal view where people are first and foremost individuals, Young argues that we are first and foremost members of social groups - either by our own identification with such groups or because we are defined by others as members. What is a social group? A social group is more than just a random group of people. She defines it as a group of people with some set of shared experiences, traits, and beliefs. For example women, black men, Jews, elderly people, disabled people can all be social groups. People belong to many social groups, and the groups sometimes overlap and conflict. But her argument is that the group identifications are an integral part of the formation of our identities.
From these two points - the distributive paradigm and the unavoidable existence of social groups, she develops her main arguments. Her main argument revolves around the the impossibility of impartiality - which calls into question our entire concept of America as a meritocracy. She questions the morality of Liberalism (in the traditional sense of the word, not the current one used to describe anyone left-of-center). Historically, Liberalism came out of the Enlightenment movement and was a reaction against the current aristocratic systems. It focused on individual rights and equal opportunity regardless of a persons' social status at birth. We like to believe in this myth that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed - it's the basis of the American psyche. She argues that our so-called meritocracy has simply replaced aristocracy and instead of birthrights, we have socially and culturally advantaged groups. Iris Young argues that our unquestioning acceptance of this system of merit, in itself, causes inequality because someone still sets the standards for evaluating merit. There is no such thing as an impartial person.
She says that assuming equal (i.e. same) treatment for all people, for instance a color- or gender-blind society, is unrealistic and impossible. There is no such thing as complete objectivity, as everyone views the world from a certain biased point of view. The idea of formal impartiality, that everyone be treated by the exact same rules, actually perpetuates and reproduces inequality because the ideals and norms used to create those rules come from the point of view of the dominant social groups. Anyone who does not meet those criteria is at an automatic disadvantage. Furthermore, because the dominant views are so pervasive, they are often invisible and therefore taken as "normal" or "universal" thus automatically casting any other view as "other" and "inferior." For example, white is usually not considered a "race" just as male is not considered a "gender". Women are gendered, and non-whites are 'ethnic' or racialized. White, male, heterosexual, and usually christian views are purported to be the "universal human" view.
She uses a lot of workplace analogies, which I found odd. I wish she would have taken some other examples, like power structures within the family. But, it is what it is right? One example is the differing points of view on Affirmative Action. Young does not deny that it is a form of discrimination - but she also does not define discrimination as an automatically negative thing. Discrimination is what people do to tell each other apart. Discrimination that results in the further oppression of people - i.e. denying someone a job because they are black or a woman - is oppressive discrimination. Discrimination that results in rectifying these inequalities - giving a certain number of positions of power to disenfranchised groups - is not the same thing. If, for instance, certain people are socialized to work better in groups and to value community over individuality (i.e. women and people of color) then they are at an automatic disadvantage if the person hiring for a job thinks that individual achievements are more important than teamwork (typically seen in white men). It all depends on who sets the standards.
She instead calls for a more democratic, less hierarchical structure of equality where everyone, democratically, is involved in deciding the criteria used to evaluate people. The criteria for job positions should be clearly articulated and defendable, and everyone involved with working with whomever is hired should have an equal say in the qualities they are looking for in that person. Rather than a top-down hierarchical structure, she thinks we would be much better off valuing difference rather than attempting to force "others" to assimilate to the "norm."
What do you all think about this? I'm curious.
04 October 2006
Even I didn't think they'd stoop this low...
Is there any question now as to the biases of Fox news? Either that, or their total incompetence to report a major story. Either way you look at it, it's just sickening.
You know folks, creeps come in all shapes, sizes, colors and political ideologies. My major problem with the moralizing of the Christian Right is that they think they have a monopoly on morality, and yet time and time again they bully their opponents with dirty, childish tactics.
Now it's coming out (no pun intended) that Foley is gay. Just remember people, as they're spewing their moralizing crap that heterosexual men are much more likely to be pedophiles than gay men and that gayness and pedophilia are NOT the same thing. Far too many people have this view and you know the Right is going to exploit that in their anti-gay adgendas this year.
03 October 2006
Cheaters
So I'm playing the online version of Pai Gow Poker at Gamehouse during lunch today - you know, to brush up for the Vegas trip at the end of October. It TOTALLY cheated me.
I've noticed it before, but decided it must have been my imagination or some weird rule I didn't understand, but this time I caught it red handed.
Check out the picture below (click on the photo to play the game)
See where it says "Lose"? That hand TOTALLY beats the dealer's hand. Show me a poker rule where that doesn't beat the dealer's hand? Incidentally, in Pai Gow, a Joker can only be used as an Ace or to complete a straight or flush.
Now, this is only for fun and I'm not playing for money or anything, but come on!
I've noticed it before, but decided it must have been my imagination or some weird rule I didn't understand, but this time I caught it red handed.
Check out the picture below (click on the photo to play the game)
See where it says "Lose"? That hand TOTALLY beats the dealer's hand. Show me a poker rule where that doesn't beat the dealer's hand? Incidentally, in Pai Gow, a Joker can only be used as an Ace or to complete a straight or flush.
Now, this is only for fun and I'm not playing for money or anything, but come on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)