Every Sunday Morning, a place where various things get thrown out, shot at, cut open, and dissected. Topics of interest: psychological, and medical anthropology, privatization, globalization, excess, language, humor, hip-hop culture, jazz, brain and mind, memory, urban space development, Los Angeles, the Chicago Bulls, UCLA Bruins, FC Barcelona, and mankind.
Business people seem to like talking about visiting the luxuries and "modernity" of Dubai.
Some people want to retire there.
But its a city of excess. Malls. Sprawl.
As I've learned from Heather Rodgers' Gone Tomorrow, with tons of excess combined with cleanliness comes a lot of hidden truths.
Essentially, a lot of labor gets fucked out. Mike Davis was interviewed.
Quotes of interest:
The Barksdale, Stanfield organizations essentially ran Baltimore like the ruling families rule Dubai. However, the difference is that those at the top in Dubai were handed what they got.
-"Economics in Dubai have changed dramatically since 9/11 as the U.S. Administration realized that putting all their economic and political investments in Saudi Arabia was potentially dangerous. Also since the 1970's the Gulf countries learned from their bad experience in knowing that basing the economy on vast oil profits only could mean that with quick changes to oil markets their economies could be left with nothing.
Dubai is the product of a long range investment project and Dubai has been particularly skilled perhaps if not brilliant in this regard. However it must be highlighted that this economic plan doesn't ensure jobs for people within the region, as Dubai has utilized a plantation strategy invented by the British and then copied by the U.S., now being implemented in Dubai."
With such an economy that doesn't ensure jobs, what exactly happens to labor?
-"Stefan Christoff: Concerning labor in Dubai in your article extensive article on Dubai, Sinister Paradise, you write that, "Dubai, together with its emirate neighbors, has achieved the state of the art in the disenfranchisement of labor. Trade unions, strikes, and agitators are illegal, and 99% of the private-sector workforce are easily deportable non-citizens. Indeed, the deep thinkers at the American Enterprise and Cato institutes must salivate when they contemplate the system of classes and entitlements in Dubai." So regarding this passage can you provide more details concerning labor conditions in Dubai?
Mike Davis: Now the above outlines the theory behind Dubai.s labor policies, however labor has showed that it is capable of fighting and organizing in Dubai. Labor organizing is driven by desperate labor conditions that many visitors to Dubai don't see or willingly ignore. It is estimated that upwards of one-million foreigner workers are currently in Dubai, living in conditions that multiple human rights organizations have condemned.
Hundreds-of-thousands of foreign workers live in camps, often without air conditioning, who are bused each morning to construction sites at which these workers are doing some of the hardest manual labor in the world with temperatures at times reaching 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Dubai is widely accused of covering up high numbers of workers deaths on these massive construction sites, including the Burj Dubai tower currently under construction.
Despite Dubai's friendly face and openness to western vices, people who travel to Dubai to do independent research on the conditions of workers are often deported from the country. Last year an Indian-American academic researcher who wanted to study the labor conditions for foreign workers in Dubai was detained within twenty-four hours upon arrival then deported."
Spent most of undergrad criticizing the sciences in a minor that I thought would be devoted to just that.
But here I am, 2 years later, needing to learn it...
I bought the book In Search of Memory by Eric Kandel because:
a) I had been given a 2nd Barnes & Noble Giftcard thanks to my friend Nancy b) I figured I would probably take a class in auto repair...(or just rent a book from the 'brary) c) I wanted something that would encourage my interest in memory studies d) I didn't want something that I felt comfortable with and could read in an entire day
Yes, I've figured out something specific...I like the brain...and specifically I like memory.
Memory, because of its multifacetedness.
Short-term working memory has implications for intelligence, which is what I've always been interested in. Long-term memory shows what really lies deep within ourselves. Memory is a reflection of what we give meaning to, what we place importance on. Highly emotional, highly subjective states are what we remember most, because they are packed with meaning, and ultimately that's what we go on.
Overall, I didn't understand a lot of the biological language, but certainly, I became more interested in learning about them. I was interested in the insights he had into the science profession, the mind. Generally speaking, it's stuff you've heard before in the public discourse...our brains are plastic, you can learn a lot no matter what age you are, just in more detail.
On the book's interesting points:
1) Interesting stuff he said about the work of scientists.
First was a comment on scientific research work. He often described those he held in esteem as "creative", as if they were artists, rather than neurological or molecular biologists.
"There are scientists...who are very strong technically but who do not necessarily have the deepest insights into the biological questions they are studying (68)."
Then he mentioned the motviation of scientists; they are no different than any other human beings.
"If pure scientists were motivated by curiosity alone, they should be delighted when someone else sovles the problem they are working on---but that is not the usual reaction. Recognition by their peers and esteem come only to those who have made original contributions to the common stock of knowledge.(68)"
Scientists have a need to prove and validate themselves just like any other human being. However, the specialized, high-level language they use to describe their work, their findings, etc. makes it appear as if they are disconnected from the regular world.
2) On Learning: "Different forms of learning give rise to different forms of memory." (198) I have no clue as to what he's referring to here, but it could be interesting some day.
3) On Synapses and Learning: He mentions the strength of synaptic connections as being the key to learning.
Very important chapter in the book of neuro-bio for unbelievably moronic wankers.
"We found that learning leads to a change in the strength of synapctic connections---and therefore in the effectiveness of communication---between specific cells in the neural circuit that mediates the behavior.(200)
Strength---the long-term effectiveness of synaptic connections---is regulated by experience. This view implies that the potential for many of an organism's behaviors is built into the brain and is to that extent under genetic and developmental control; however, a creature's environment and learning alter the effectiveness of the preexisting pathways, thereby leading to the expression of new patterns of behavior.(202)"
He connects the idea that we have built-in knowledge to Immanuel Kant as opposed to John Locke's tabula rasa.
4) On Synapses: "Synaptic connections between two neurons can be...strengthened or weakened---by different forms of learning. Thus habituation weakens the synapse, whereas sensitization or classical condition strengthens it (204)."
So from this it sounds like habits make you have less synaptic connection because the synapse grows in itself, which means weaker connections between neurons, which means less likely to associate with another thing, which means that your habit becomes more engrained and exaggerated.
In contrast, being sensitized to something means stronger synapctic connections between neurons, which means more likely to associate with another thing, which means that your sensitization and association becomes more engrained and exaggerated.
In conclusion, associative and explicit learning arises from sensitization, while implicit learning arises from habituation.
5) On Neuro-bio: "Long-term memory required the synthesis of a new protein (212)." As opposed to the electrical charges that keep firing from neurons.
6) On Science and Evolution: Evolution does not have any higher purpose than its immediate adaptation for something.
"Evolution does not require new, specialized molecules to produce a new adaptive mechanism" (234).
...The Biochemical actions underlying memory did not arise apecifically to support memory. Rather neurons, simply recruited an efficient signaling system employed for other purposes in other cells and used it to produce the changes in synaptic strength required for memory storage.
7) On Evolution and Neuro-bio: The stuff that makes us what we are...our genes are ALSO subject themselves to the environment in which they live (264).
8) On Memories: A characteristic of age related memory loss is the inability to consolidate long-term memories (266).
9) On Synapses and Memory: The growth and maintenace of new synaptic terminals makes memory persist (276).
10) On Perception: Sensation is an abstraction not a replication, of the real world (Mountcastle via Kandel 302)
11) On the Hippocampus: Hippocampus is concerned with perception of the environment and represents a multisensory experience (308).
12) On Dopamine: Blocking dopamine blocks the stablization of the spatial map in an animal (313). Dopamine seems like the chemical for explicit learning and memory whereas serotonin represents the chemical for implicit learning.
13) On the Amygdala and Hippocampus: "Damage to the amygdala, which is concerned with the memory of fear, disrsupts the ability of an emotionally charged stimulus to elicit an emotional response. In contrast, damage to the hippocampus, which is concerned with conscious memory, interferes with the ability to remember the context in which the stimulus occurred. (342)"
14) Depression compromises the memory (361).
15) What science lacks are rules for explaining how subjective properties (consciousness) arise from the properties of objects (interconnecte nerve cells) (381).
Reflections:
1) On learning: As he was talking about studying analogs of learning, I was thinking about how people in general, learn. I think at the most ideal level, we learn by figuring out meanings. And then once we "learn" that it means something, we commit it to memory.
He mentioned habituation, sensitiation, and classical conditioning as the basis or most primordial form of learning.
2) On Habituation: Then I began thinking about habituation in my own world. The cycles of the world. I began thinking about the habits of people in the housing developments. What were their habits? What are the habits of the people in the middle and high classs? How did they develop them? What was the geography and environment that forced them to exhibit those habits that they did have?
3) On Sensitization: Then he mentioned sensitatization, and I began thinking about that in my own world. "After hearing a gun go off, a person will show an exaggerated response and will jump when he hears a tone or senses a touch on the shoulder (169)." Essentially, the gun going off acts as a sign and/or a symbol for someone to elicit a response.
4) On Brain studies of the past: I was curious about how this idea ever made sense in American Education in the 1950s:
"We were taught that the map of the somatosensory corex discovered by Wade Marshall is FIXED and IMMUTABLE throughout life." When and why did they think that it was fixed and mutable (216)? Was that informed by religion?
5) On Hippocampus and Spatiality: I also wondered about the hippocampus and spatial information that he mentioned(282).
6) On Intelligence: I was wondering how this fuses into Jeff Hawkins theory of brain and mind in his book On Intelligence.
7) On Fear: Fear is the easily most detectable emotion across species (339). It seems as though this is the emotion that what we give most the meaning to, and so we respond accordingly. It's really a disjointed event from anything were used to, so were likely to give a response out of the ordinary.
He brings in a dose of the breakthrough psychologit William James:
"We do not experience fear until after we have run away from the bear. We first act instinctively and then invoke cognition to explain the changes in the body associated with that action." (340)
Essentially, what he says is that emotion happens afterward, after an event. After the event is finished we build meaning off of that emotion via language expression which is then encoded into our memories.
8) On Learning: I began thinking of the social/asocial aspects of learning.
Learning is a very social activity, and that social activity is one way we build meanings. Learning in isolation is the most fruitful, but it's very difficult because we don't have the benefit of other people affirming your correctness in a belief or whatnot. You're forced to come up with your own meanings, definitions, labels for things and events which might be valid, but might not be recognized by anyone else.
Example: I watch a bunch of NBA basketball, but since I don't really have cable, it's often over the internet via international TV where they're speaking some other language other than English. So I don't watch a lot of basketball in English, which is good.
I don't have annoying commentators like Jeff Van Gundy telling me, indoctrinating me, on how unathletic, but intelligent the whiteboy Kirk Hinrich is, I just see what's on the basketball screen and make meaning out of what's happening all by myself. Therefore I learn what's happening in isolation, relatively speaking vs. other fans. I gain my knowledge of the game by my own observations, interpretations, and analysis. I "learn" what's happening basically on my own.
Realizing that I can learn either socially or asocially kind of annoyed me. Institutions seem to have a monopoly on social learning and will charge the hell out of you just for that. If you're not learning via an institution (and paying at least 20 dollars a unit), you feel like you don't know any avenue to learning what you need to learn.
The library is there, but it's limited and you still wouldn't know where to look.
But I digress.
9) On the feelings of disjointedness vs. fluidity: From Leo Tolstoy: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" (349).
From this quote, I became concerned with the idea of disjointedness in the unhappy family and explicitness vs. fluidity and implicitness in the happy family. Everything seems to be a disruption for the unhappy family whereas, everything seems to work in harmony for the happy family.
The discourse about the unhappy family, and explicitness triggered personal memories of the kids in the housing developments yet again. What types of disjointedness have they experienced and how have they dealt with them? I would think a quality of disjointedness towards long-term ventures, not because it's innate, but because it's been learned.
10) On Working Memory: "When normal individuals are challenge by a task that requires working memory, metabolic function in their prefrontal areas increases dramatically (354)."
Working memory seems to be a tool of social moderation --- they say "intelligence" is just working memory, and prefrontal areas with which it is associated with are associated with planning and judging.
Doubts and Questions:
1) On Kandel's Observations and Reductionist Methods: I wondered if Kandel just colored in stereotypical sexist interpretations in his interpretation of results for the differences between male and female brains.
"He [Some scientist named O'Keefe] has found clear differences in the way women and men attend to and orient themselves in the space around them. Women use nearby cues and landmarks. Thus when asked for directions, a woman is likely to say, "Turn right at the Walgreen's drugstore, and then drive until you see a white colonial houe on the left with green window shutters. Men rely more on an internalized geometric map. They are likely to say 'Drive five miles north, then turn right and head east for another half mile.' Brain imaging shows activation of different areas in mean and women as they think about space: the left hippocampus in men, and the right parietal and right prefrontal cortex in women. (315-316)"
That's pretty much a hegemonically sexist thing to say: women are the fluffy, artistic, right-side thinkers, while males are the logical, left-side thinkers.
I consider myself a male and masculine and all that other shit, but I definitely don't give directions like the cold hard-cut logical male. I currently don't have the means to argue against what he says, but I just know that what he says doesn't seem to represent the truth.
2) On Kandel's Memory and Perception of this growing epidemic of "disorders of memory"...disorders of memory are more evident today than they were when I began practicing medicine fifty years ago because people are living longer now (327)"
This brings up other questions related to medical anthropology and health care that cut across time and space.
Perhaps more people are just diagnosing more, prescribing more, just to make more money, which gives off the feeling that "disorders of memory are more evident today."
After all, the guy is in the pharmaceutical biz...
Also, people probably are living longer, but how is he sure that a connection can be made between the fact that there are more memory disorders and a longer life expectancy?
He definitely knew how to deliver his language, whether it was on paper or whether he was doing one of his routines. I wondered if my friend Daniel straight ripped off part of his jokes and blunt language from him. George was such a fluid comedian that I was actually concerned about whether or not he could speak so fluidly in real life.
What separated him and other comedians was that he also kinda knew what was going on in the world. He could analyze almost anything in his routines, and he didn't always have to be funny.
by B.J. on 6/22/2008 05:34:00 AM
0 commentsPrint this post
"Dreams be the ashes burn thrashing in the wind flying from the burning bush flung from her fingers and it hung in the air in this moment of truth then it crashed into flames like the end of our youth." - Geo/Pro Brown, Blue Scholars
Michael Jeffrey Jordan.
The man when I was a kid.
Still the man for lots of other kids and men, but now he's just far and away the best player on the team that I like(d).
MJ was the equivalent of a greek god to me. The positive light to the endless tunnels of grade school. I imagined that he lived in a fantasy land where he could just almost magically make any and all things happen.
Then high school started, white kids and even some of the Filipino kids were brutal, MJ retired and un-retired, and I didn't have this hero to hang myself onto.
"...Crash into flames like the end of our youth."
Like a bad drug, 10 years after the second retirement, I find myself still addicted to the Chicago Bulls.
Along the way, I've been coming across the negative MJ files, mostly from sportswriters and fans who were adult when MJ was doing his thing. They knew what an ass MJ was, but I had no idea.
I knew he had gambling problems back then, but that wasn't hurting anyone but himself. He was a rich guy anyway.
His affairs with other women were the first thing to bring this humanness in MJ. As a player for the Wiz, he had already been slipping, but he still was a basketball legend.
The man is still overwhelmingly a positive force, but he's just proof that even positive forces have gigantic holes in their game. What am I talking about? What holes could MJ possibly have in his game?
The part about making players better. I can't believe how ultimately selfish and hubristic he ultimately was behind closed doors...or curtains. Sure, it got him 6 championships and 6 MVPs, and the title of "greatest player in the world", but it seems to breathe a lot of life into the American meme that you have to be an asshole to get results.
Maybe you are bound to a few asshole things in a highly time-pressured environment, but I can't believe that assholism correlates to success.
"You ever hear of a guy, six-eleven maybe and two hundred sixty pounds, a guy big and fat like that and he can't get but two rebounds, if that many, running all over the damn court and he gets two rebounds? Big guy like that and he gets one rebound. Can't even stick his **** into people and get more than that...Big, fat, fat guy. One rebound in three games. Power forward. Maybe they should call it powerless forward." - Michael ripping Stacey King a new one
"It's a hell of a lot easier to make Earl Monroe look good than it is Brad Sellers."
"You're an idiot. You've screwed up every play we ever ran. You're too stupid to even remember the plays. We ought to get rid of you." - Michael to Horace Grant
"If you [pass the ball to Bill Cartwright], you'll never get the ball from me."
If I could find/grow food, find and filter water, generate electricity, build a house, maintain my own vehicle, then there would be absolutely no reason to go after any money.
by B.J. on 5/23/2008 09:02:00 PM
0 commentsPrint this post
I was just websurfing on a Friday night. Happened upon a newly wedded old Muslim friend's xanga site. Then happened upon her friend's site. This friend of a friend directed a PCN, a Pilipino Cultural Night, that I had watched at SD and even let me crash at her place for the night.
She posted something interesting about consumerism that I had been wanting to post, but I never really quite put it all together. I've wanted to talk even more about the consumer culture we live in, and explain how I try and live outside of it as much as possible. These notes she wrote about are a good springboard for me.
This is what caught my eye...particularly because Dom wrote that on my shirt, and the song by Kanye is on heavy repeat.
""American Dream": ownership, family first, white picket fence, "2.5 kids," inward focused life = protective, exclusion, money for vacations, social status, financial stability, disposable income, productivity, time equals money, focus on what you have, shopping as recreation, if you want something you should have it, more cars than drivers, having the latest of everything, kids are involved in everything and attend private/prestigious schools"
Redefinition: perhaps involving redefining what is "best," outward focused = good life for everyone (redistributing) considering all of humanity, living sustainably, rich relationships (spend time, not money), cultivate talents, stronger connection to the earth, peace of mind/contentment, self-reflection/awareness, community involvement, balance of work, play, health, conscious consuming, quality time, shared resources, freedom to pursue dreams/passions, access to nature, freedom from financial fears, quality food with friends, time for creativity, value shift out from under the burden of productivity, slowing down, living by the rhythms of life and the cycles of the seasons
Where do you get caught up? · Self-comparison · When you are at the end of your rope and need a quick fix/act of desperation
I guess this is fine cause we all fall, but not too much.
· Community reinforcement · Traditions, gifts, souvenirs · Convenience · Laziness · Wastefulness · Unconscious consuming · Societal expectations · Have to "own" otherwise your not fiscally responsible/successful
This is something I've just discovered: you don't have to own something to utilize it. I "own" lots of books, but what it's ultimately useless if those books and knowledge don't even end up being circulated in my consciousness and used by me.
· Earning more money to keep up same lifestyle
The old saying about teaching a man to fish. I'm sick of paying people to do things for me. To cut up, fry, and cook my food.
It makes me think what the hell I've really learned in 24 years. All I've learned is how to pay for things, that I'm really too dependent on others, that I'm blessed, and damn, I need to do something.
· Over-commitments/ energy spread too thin · Impulse buys
How do you break the cycle? · Setting boundaries: · Budget/limit
When you're breaking any cycle, it's important at first to set boundaries and reach goals, just to give you a bit of confidence that you can get through something. Then once you meet those goals, just slowly cut back and cut down.
For instance, Facebook and I. I made a goal to not be in it for a year. I really wanted to stop wishing, hoping, and clinging on to these fantasy people that I barely even knew. I needed to stop stalking. Goddamn it was pathetic.
I didn't reach the 1-year goal as I've joined back, but given that I initially set hard boundaries and have made it less a part of my life, it's become exactly just that: less a part of my life. I've discovered that there are a lot more interesting things outside of that reality...
· Creative ways of giving out gifts · Breaking traditions or redefining · Small steps/changes · Pulling people alongside with similar values · Being a voice to others · Curbing Media Intake!
Speaking of reality...
Reality is what you take into your world. And if all you take in is crap, your reality is crap.
· Spread awareness · Sharing: possessions, housing · Intentional community · Become an educated consumer · When you do something you love, you feel full and need less · Periodically do an internal values check to make sure your actions are line with values · Move somewhere simpler/slower · List where your time is going to see what your priorities are · Cut out things that are unnecessary · Intentionally decrease your means so that you are forced to be more intentional with what you spend (make a financial commitment, start saving, work less)
"The point of innovation is to make actual money." - says actor reading a line from IBM's marketing department.
I've had a problem with that statement for a while. I couldn't quite figure out what was wrong with it, but I know that something didn't feel right and/or true with that statement. I doubt that truly innovative people do creative things specifically for the specific purpose of making money.
I can't believe that great thinkers were motivated too much by something as temporary and transient as money.
Innovation is more spontaneous and less purposeful. It seems to be a synthesis when experiences are combined rather randomly than something people aim to do.
Could anyone picture great philosophers, thinkers, and truth-seekers like Ike Newton, Albert Einstein, Percy Julian, or Stephen Hawking doing what they did just to get rich?
"As the Coalition of Immokalee Workers prepares to deliver more than 60,000 petitions to Burger King headquarters in Miami today, the daughter of Burger King’s vice-president Stephen Grover confirmed her father is responsible for online postings vilifying the coalition."
"I think this shows a deep arrogance that a person at such a high level in the corporation would be directly involved in that type of harassment,” Stauber said. “This a huge black eye for the Burger King corporation. It’s the type of situation that lands companies in public relations textbooks on how not to engage the press, the public and your critics."
I'm going to give a weird response right about now.
Thank you Mr. Steve Grover for at least acknowledging the voice, something lots of people in your position would not even do. You went out of your way to smash people's human rights, and well, I just feel bad for you, man.
In the world that we live in Everybody wants to be so cruel To be in the in-crowd Got the hottest clothes,the hottest shoes We're reading the tabloids And we're flossing in the club But the freshest thing you can do is Give someone your love - India Arie, Sergio Mendes
I sent the link below to a friend, and talked about it with another.
Even though the study was applied to children and adolescents, I don't see why it wouldn't be applied to adults as well.
With one friend, I was hinting at something, which I wonder how she will take it.
With the other friend, I was talking about it in relation to a person in her life whom she saw as insecure.
My view is this: materialism is a desire for concrete objects. Concrete objects by their nature are things you either have or you don't. If you were to desire a concrete object, you would just lament the fact that you don't have it.
I think from there, this attitude that you don't have something is where the self-esteem begins to sink.
The "don't have" is the operative in the statement: the fact that you "don't have", you don't possess something just manifests this view that ONLY if you HAD an object, you could do something. It follows that if you don't have something, you're useless. If you're useless, you then build this dependence, this fetish, likely on things which most of human history and human societies today have and still live WITHOUT.
Check India Arie's second verse to the same song:
"The clothes that your wearing It will one day be out of style The car that your driving One day will vax out in miles Your hair and your makeup And the time that it takes up It will take the same care of Ya give someone ya love"
This verse is stuck to my rib, and it's been dawning on me: Stuff doesn't last. Stuff are tools, not ends in themselves. They don't mean anything unless we give it meaning.
In context, assuming you don't have a view of cultural superiority, we probably wouldn't care that there's a certain elaborate clothing in one culture to show the high status of a person, just as they wouldn't care about our need for the hottest kicks, the most souped up cars.
Clothes and shoes you wear cause its almost human nature. The car is a thing to take you places. The house is a place where you store your stuff. I don't understand the status signs in them, nor do I really care.
He lives in an Frisco apartment, gives tons away without telling anyone, and went to a meeting with an international figure wearing glasses he had taped together.
That guy is hip-hop to the max.
BTW, over the weekend, interestingly enough there were links on ScienceDaily that described how money actually CAN buy happiness...if it's for others. Food for thought.
Fuck a bank; I need a twenty-year water tank Cause while these knuckleheads is out here sweatin they goods The sun is sitting in the treetops burnin the woods And as the flames from the blaze get higher and higher They say, "Don't drink the water! We need it for the fire!" New York is drinkin it (New World Water) Now all of California is drinkin it (New World Water) Way up north and down south is drinkin it (New World Water) Used to have minerals and zinc in it (New World Water) Now they say it got lead and stink in it (New World Water) Fluorocarbons and monoxide Push the water table lopside Used to be free now it cost you a fee Cause oil tankers spill they load as they roam cross the sea Man, you gotta cook with it, bathe and clean with it (That's right) When it's hot, summertime you fiend for it (Let em know) You gotta put it in the iron you steamin with (That's right) It's what they dress wounds and treat diseases with (Shout it out) The rich and poor, black and white got need for it (That's right) And everybody in the world can agree with this (Let em know) Consumption promotes health and easiness (That's right) Go too long without it on this earth and you leavin it (Shout it out) Americans wastin it on some leisure shit (Say word?) And other nations be desperately seekin it (Let em know) Bacteria washing up on they beaches (Say word?) Don't drink the water, son they can't wash they feet with it (Let em know) Young babies in perpetual neediness (Say word?) Epidemics hopppin up off the petri dish (Let em know) Control centers try to play it all secretive (Say word?) To avoid public panic and freakiness (Let em know) There are places where TB is common as TV Cause foreign-based companies go and get greedy The type of cats who pollute the whole shore line Have it purified, sell it for a dollar twenty-five Now the world is drinkin it"
This is where I put those lessons of act locally, think globally from my high school freshman classes into action, I guess.
I'm lucky to be in a place where practically stolen resources come together for a very cheap price. It's never been lost on me after every run, every game of b-ball, hoop takraw, how lucky I am to have CLEAN water on the cheap.
Yet, even though we have so much clean water available via tap, I'm still trying to break my and my family's psychological dependence on bottled water.
However, before I complete my utter refusal of bottled water, there's still a few things taking grip of my mindset: 1) a meme passed to me by one of my teachers turned sister's godmother: that the tapwater was colored in a certain way 2) the appearance of brownish water in my bathroom sink --- our own pipes seem really dirty and our apartment is pretty old. Dirty pipes in slums in India are what actually make the water dirty. 3) we, meaning my family, don't have any knowledge of filters 4) the fact that the Silver Lake Reservoir (which we don't get our water from, but the residents of South LA, Compton, do...of course) got emptied out because they found some type of chemical that's bad for you.
The bigger issue behind bottled water however is not bottled water itself, but the privatization of human needs.
They say that water issues will be the oil issues of the 21st century.
There was a great academic video, which is embedded below.
PBS had a great documentary on these issues back in 2K4 called Thirst. I like that they highlighted how privatized water promised to provide clean water, but just ended up fucking things up even more --- right in Stockton, CA.
It's quite disturbing to see water bottling companies trying to strengthen its grip on folks and build this dependence on them. It's business based on fear and scare tactics, which seems to be getting more desperate nowadays cause cities like Frisco and Seattle are countering their crap with anti-water bottle legislation.
This is why I sort of want to be a water filtration expert, and they wouldn't have shit on me.
Anyhow, it's interesting seeing the mother Archipelago being a place of Water Aid.
"Fifteen percent of the all families in the Philippines do not have access to safe drinking water, and 28 percent do not have sanitary toilets. Waterborne diseases are a major cause of infectious disease in the Philippines, and include bacterial diarrhea, hepatitis A, and typhoid fever. Even in the capital of Manila, clean water is difficult to obtain and some Filipinos must pay five to ten times more than what a New Yorker would pay."
My mom also said that there was a certain time of the day where the water would be shut off...something else that sticks to my rib.
I wonder how the Pasig River is doing nowadays. It was declared biologically "dead" in 1994 despite being a place where my mom swore she saw people swimming there when she was a kid.
I'm hoping it has another life in it. Apparently, they're running marathons in it, they're trying to rehab it, and people can actually stomach the stench to take a boat ride on it. It's interesting that she points out that there are squatter folks who live along the dead river --- it's how I got interested in the river in the first place.
Los Angeles' Skid Row from Pras Perspective and the Society that Buries Useful Information
by B.J. on 1/25/2008 05:19:00 AM
1 commentsPrint this post
Pras from the Fugees finished a documentary last summer that highlights a very important issue. The documentary featured him living first-hand as an actual, walking, breathing homeless person in some of the roughest streets of LA (some say its as bad as Calcutta, whatever that looks like). He filmed with hidden cameras and crew for 9 days, sleeping on the sidewalk, panhandling, and assorted other homeless people stuff.
This is the sort of thing that piques my interest.
When I went to go watch it within 6 days of its stated limited release, it was fucking gone, probably due to lack of interest and uh...lack of marketing.
It really irks me that for issues like this aren't being heard at all. Instead, it's pretty sick that we pay lots of attention to utter bullshit. I don't give a shit if American Idol were canceled tomorrow. I wouldn't die crying knowing that I haven't seen anyone Dancing with the Stars. I shouldn't give a shit about NBA basketball, but I guess that's my form of alcohol.
Part of its on us, but then part of it is that marketers do quite the job...
The know how to saturate and engage, which is why most of them would probably be effective teachers. Teachers are basically just entertainment (least that's what my co-worker told me, and I think that's true too). Wish that talent would devote its time towards more worthy causes than choices of cereals, choices of cars, iPhones, credit cards.
Its sad that the information that would probably be more useful to know is buried underneath the tons of crap thrown at us. I'm glad that we have the internet (unless some corporation goes out and buy this too) to try and change that.
In this age of hyper-globalism and consumerism, with super-marketing (that is the taking over of television, radio, billboards, buildings, the built environment) with all our basic needs (relatively) fulfilled from water, food, shelter, heat, clean air, clean environment, electricity, its as if our only ultimate objective is...to find entertainment for ourselves. Can't we do something more? If we can learn to saturate ourselves with "useless" stuff, can't we learn to saturate ourselves with better, more useful information?
Can't we find a way to market information such as the number of people who die from water-related illnesses or information about the number of people living with electricity or the number of things we consume?
Can't we find a way to market this type of humanistic media, these movies about the human condition so it becomes THE thing to see?
"I experienced everything - panhandling, sleeping on the sidewalk, the rats trying to get into my tent, defecating, urinating on the sidewalk. Because you know when you're homeless, you can't go into restaurants and use the facilities.
So it was just actually seeing the reality. We have this misconception that oh yeah, people who are homeless are usually lazy or they're on drugs, and that's not actually the case at all. People who are chronically homeless - that means where they need assistance to get out of their situation - only make up about 20 percent of the homeless people (unintelligible). The rest are just regular people (unintelligible) just misfortunes."
Commenting on a scary experience he had during his "stay" at Skid Row
"One was when I think I was sleeping in the tent, it was raining real hard and the rats was coming in. I was, like, man, I need to get out of here. But see, what happened is - see, it's like we as human beings, we adapt, and I started to adapt to my environment. So then, like, on the fourth or fifth day I got comfortable and now I'm trying to figure out exactly how I'm going to maneuver.
So I forgot about going back to my other world. Because see, when you get trapped in that world, you've got to find the best way to make it fit for you, you know what I mean?"
American Health Care System: Were Last in Preventable Deaths!
by B.J. on 1/08/2008 03:52:00 PM
0 commentsPrint this post
Not anything people don't already know, but nonetheless still scary. I got this in an email and thought I should post it in its entirety.
"U.S. Ranks Last Among Industrialized Nations for Preventable Deaths, Study Finds (1/08/08)
The United States places last among nineteen industrialized countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, a new report funded by the Commonwealth Fund ( http://commonwealthfund.org/ ) finds.
Published in the latest issue of Health Affairs, the study, Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis, finds that while other nations dramatically improved their preventable death rates between 1997-98 and 2002-03, the United States rate improved only slightly. If the United States had performed as well as France, Japan, and Australia -- the top three countries in the survey -- there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year by the end of the study period.
Authored by Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the report, which looked specifically at deaths "amenable to health care before age 75," found that while other countries saw these types of deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States experienced only a 4 percent decline. "It is difficult," Nolte and McKee noted, "to disregard the observation that the slow decline in U.S. amenable mortality has coincided with an increase in the uninsured population."
While the United States ranked fifteenth out of the nineteen countries on the "mortality amenable to health care" measure in 1997-98, it had fallen to last place by 2002-03, with 109 deaths amenable to health care for every 100,000 people, compared to 64 in France and 71 in both Japan and Australia.
"It is startling to see the United States falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund senior vice president Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the United States lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference."
"New Study: U.S. Ranks Last Among Other Industrialized Nations on Preventable Deaths." Commonwealth Fund Press Release 1/08/08.
by B.J. on 11/22/2007 07:31:00 AM
0 commentsPrint this post
"most trends in their earliest form are distinctly . . . they'll never make it outside . . . they need to be altered and have their edges smoothed. They need to be repackaged for the rest of us.
People sometimes act as if you go to the epicenter of cool, the idea comes straight and unchanged from that place and spreads everywhere. It never happens that way. The earliest of the early adopters takes that idea and uses it in a form that the rest of us would never use, because we're not interested in the extreme embodiment of some new idea. We're interested in something that fits much more into our lifestyle." --- Dee Dee Gordon, coolhunter
If I wear my old baggy cargo pants flanked with its share of tatters and worned-outness, someone usually tells me that I'm a slob. A dumb, fashionless, slob.
If I wore some store-bought ripped jeans, I'm at the apex of a trend and somehow I morph into "respectable." If I chose this brand of cotton, somehow women would suddenly want to hop into my equally trendy black steel-framed 12-year old bunk bed and engage in acts meant for kid-making in the apartment that I live in with my parents.
Basically, the ripped cotton I normally wear is somehow not as good as the new ripped cotton they sell you for 32 dollars. Double 'U', Tee, Eff (I won't be surprised if I see this on a trendy T-shirt soon).
I'm amazed at how people buy these mass-produced ripped jeans. Is there something fascinating about the pattern of its rips? Looks about as random as the rips on my real worn out pants. Seems like the mass production makes these rips more palatable for lots of people. Mass production almost makes it a social norm. It gives it a credibility acceptable for "middle-class" consumption. I would imagine that ripped jeans isn't something that some young hoity toity fashion designer who grew up in the OC and went to FIDM thought up.
No, this probably came from poor working people or their kids. Baggy pants, T-shirts, you can bet that it probably came from a working class thing, but of course it wasn't acceptable for people en masse to digest at first. Usually it's some rebellious artist type who picks up on these trends and then adapts them in diametric opposition to what they perceived their life was or against another tide which they feel is strong.
And it doesn't stop at clothes. The cool artists pick up their music (see Jazz, and Hip-hop), pick up their neighborhoods (see Gentrification), and even the way they speak. They pick up everything that the lower class does. Then somehow their usage of something in the lower-class appropriates its mass usage and consumption.
I don't think these artists mean for all these changes to happen, but their presence and influence in a trend then opens the gate to palatability for people en masse. People en masse who pick up on the trends but not necessarily the origins of a trend or what the lower class is about. Those inherent connections to the lower-class are lost in the mass production of things.
Nowadays I see Anti-Bush or Anti-war slogans taking the forms in bumper stickers, T-shirts least from the view here at 34 degrees Latitude and 118 degrees Longitude in the Lake of Silver. The "Make Love Not War" slogan printed is a great way to avoid getting too involved in politics and is available at $15.99 for 16 year old girls everywhere. This was a slogan dating back to Vietnam and now some corporations seized on it and are making a killing on such rhetoric.
But perhaps if we are going to keep consuming for these types of causes, there is some hope. You could look at is a start.
The efforts to green just about everything from the grass you walk on to the food you eat might be a start. I say 'might' because I don't have a grasp on all the greening issues and history has shown that everything that has looked like such a great idea in the past became a bad idea a generation later (see the automobile vs. the horse and the bike and the creation of sprawl).
If advocating against war can achieve a semblance of mass popularity, perhaps someday action towards progressive social justice in the form of the re-humanization of immigrants, reverse deforestation, the engaging education, the re-organization of homelessness can be the same way.
I can't think of any other way I'd like to re-focus our energies, our consumption patterns.
As India Arie says, kindness is timeless and giving someone your love is the freshest thing you can do.
If were going to be continuing consuming something en masse, why not respect for the fellow human?
Piense que ese y tenga un feliz el dia de gracias.
Why do we have to remember marketing pitches from Tony the Tiger or Ronald McDonald? Why can't it be fun to remember stuff like the 1862 Homestead Act or stuff like the eviction of residents from what is now Dodger Stadium? Why can't history be fun?
by B.J. on 10/08/2007 09:59:00 AM
0 commentsPrint this post"You know why we have houses? It’s so we can keep all our stuff in them. And when we buy a new house and we have to buy more stuff to fill our house" - George Carlin
Born. Breathe. Eat. Drink. Shit. Fuck. Die.
I guess that sums up human existence in 7 words or less. I'm not really sure what else is supposed to happen afterwards, but from visual, auditory, and other sensory cues, it looks like that's about it.
Often times I have this craving to buy something to make myself feel better.
If I get this McDonalds' Sundae and consume it, my life will be much more complete.
Even though I will have added an unnecessary 400 calories to my diet. And will probably function at a slower rate.
But at least my taste buds will have experienced a temporary positive stimulation.
If I buy and spend time playing FIFA 08, even though there are approximately 34,734,833,743,829,347,384,323 things that I could do that would lead to something more useful.
These are amongst some of the most difficult issues I must deal with on a daily basis.
I take the perspective that I have been given a lot while others not so much. I juxtapose that belief with the classic maxim pressing my mind: with much power comes much responsibility.
The result? I've been trying not to give into excess and temptation. No dollar donuts, no eating out, no traveling or using the car if I could help it, limit computer and technology use outside of "work" to about 3 hours a day.
I call these things "excess" and "temptation" because they aren't really "needed" in the sense of the sustenance that simple water and food give me.
Giving into those temptations usually only temporarily satisfies some decidedly shallow desires.
It seems like when I do give in, it's only to make myself "feel better," as if some sort of balance will be achieved if I give into the temptation.
But then I realize something. Kids from Brazilian favelas playing soccer with home-made balls don't have this luxury.
In all likelihood, they don't have this similar temptation because they aren't exposed to it. In other words, they probably don't need to play FIFA 07 to restore some sort of balance to their lives. It probably isn't a part of their world, so it's not going to help restore some kind of balance for them. For that matter, they probably also don't need an In-N-Out cheeseburger, a Diddy-Reise chocolate chip cookie, a bottle of Heineken, thai BBQ chicken, an iPhone or iPod, 20-inch rims, to restore a feeling of balance. Parents from these favelas probably aren't taking their kids to Disneyland or even movie theatres to elicit a sense of "fun."
It would be interesting however to find out what they do actually need to live balanced lives, and how the powers that be has probably limited access to it.
In conclusion, if it's simply this feeling of balance that needs to be achieved whenever one needs to consume and engage in their brand of 'fun", can't the American human middle-class mind find a way to self-engineer it without spending money? Or are we hard-wired to consume?
The freegans are a group of people who attempt to live off what people throw away, be it abandoned buildings in your city, food, or electronics. What strikes me is that they are independent people, somewhat free from the system. It seems that they get their enjoyment out of "foraging"/finding things and making something out of it.
To me it seems like the feeling of balance is achieved when you are in a similar situation and do exactly that --- independent and making something out of nothing (or whatever is perceived as nothing). The balance seems to happen you are free from the need to sustain a string of short-term pleasures like buying a new car or even consuming a chocolate bar, and keep control of your mind.
by B.J. on 8/21/2004 04:55:00 AM
0 commentsPrint this post
The first paragraph is my review of the movie, and from there on, I use talking points from the movie to generate this entire post.
On a scale of 1-10, it would be a 7.8, despite its lengthiness (2 1/2 hours), it's crappy editing (too much talking and the narrator sounds like the woman who does tells us about the Philip Morris programs to quit smoking), it's utter lack of creativity (again, too much talking done, I could listen to talk radio), it's crappy beginning (if you're expecting a Michael Moore Bowling for Columbine infotainment documentary, you'll definitely fall asleep within the first 30 minutes cause it's a bunch of talking trying to introduce this topic of the corporation). By the way did I mention that they talk a lot ? However, if you get past all those minor irks, you'll see a movie packed with a major dose of content outlining every angle on the societal staple that is the corporation.
The institution that is the corporation is what is running things right now and no one really cares. Ever hear of the saying, with great power, comes great responsibility ? Well, they have the great power down pat, but the responsibility, not so much. If it continues its dominance unchecked by government and law, we are headed for some bad things.
The corporation’s dominance starts in that the corporation establishes itself as a person: it is legally a person and it has a personality that hooks people into buying their products distracting the fact that it is legally a person.
As a person, the corporation is entitled to do whatever the hell it wants without respect to anyone's welfare. For example it can sue, and thus win monetary damages. Remember that it's a group of people, and usually a group of people is more powerful than some white middle-aged middle-class stiff from the suburbs. As a group of people however, it can afford the best lawyers there are, while some unlucky Joe Schmo has nothing to compete with that. Corporation stomps the Joe again ! And in the event that a corporation makes changes in its practices, they do so only when people come together against it, by protesting them, and more importantly, simply not buying anything from them.
But let's remember that the corporation's ills are neglected because they present themselves they inject personality and subsequently invoke a feeling of family into their advertisements, masking the negative aspects of the corporation. . The corporation's personality is derived from the commercials --- Nike = Quick, to the point, Coke = strong, classic. Never mind that people in sweatshops work long and hard for peanuts to string together those needlessly expensive $150 Air Divacs or Coke helped support Nazi Germany, and that once World War II came and the company in Germany couldn't get Coke syrup from the United States, they mixed a few ingredients, called themselves Fanta, and propelled themselves back into business. They focus on what they can do for you, You, YOU !
But as almost every adult human being knows, people have many different sides to them. The movie makes the point that if were going to attach personalities to them besides what they present in their commercials, psychotic would be one of them.
If you were to diagnose it's personality in terms of what it actually does rather than what it seems like it does when it tries to gain your attention, a corporation has a drive for power and profit unrivalled by any human. It's nuckin futs.
Along that drive, it also constantly harms actual individual people, namely usurping their rights. Be it underpaying the workers at the bottom of the "corporate ladder", disrupting environmental ecology to the point where natural resources are getting depleted. Of course there are a lot of corporations that try to be conscious of the individuals around them, but those societal concerns are almost always secondary to power and profit and those concerns are half-assedly addressed.
But what happens to other people is immaterial right ? Just as long as it doesn't affect you ! One of the things the movie failed to address was that point of view that sees corporations as practical.
Most older, wiser Americans probably know about corporations constantly screwing people but ignore them regularly so that they could get their desired service and/or product. They already know that these corporations aren't nice cuddly individuals.
In their mindset, they most likely think: people always get screwed and that it's just a fact of life and/or them simply not buying something won't really do much to damage to the corporation. To them the idea of fighting a corporation, any corporation, seems like yet another abstract fight against ideals that will go in vain as opposed to a concrete fight against actual corporations. And even if you bring up repercussions to these people’s inaction, you’ll most likely get a response that things won’t change all that dramatically in their time.
But you gotta remind them, if you thought government had an agenda, what more with corporations who make no secret of their agenda and thrive on both hypnotizing you into getting their product/service ?
Biotech companies already own species of life. How can you own species of life ? The folks who uncovered the human genome also want to "own" the chemicals that make up the human body. What's more is that they're thinking of owning air space sometime too. Hey they already got bottled water. So look to be charged for breathing sometime in the future. Dominated by a bunch of nuts.
Add me to your reading list.
|
Sports Two |
Big Soccer |
Basketball Forum |
|
Michael Moore |
Onion |
Entertaining News |
Questions for God |
E-Baums World |
Stupid Videos 
|
So You Wanna... |
Medical Anthropology |
|
Websites' Archives |
