I was such a geeky kid..

So, how's this for a random memory. I was looking on iTunes today for some good study music and I remembered how when I was little, we used to listen to Carnival of the Animals by Camille Saint-Saens (there's supposed to be an umlaut above the e, but I can't figure out how to do that). So, I looked it up on iTunes, and began listening to the previews that they offer. All of the sudden, it was like I was a kid again. I remember listening to the movements while lying on the ground, with my eyes shut, and I would make up stories to the music. And the music is so perfect for it. I was totally engrossed, as a kid, and could do that for hours. And, for a second, today, I was totally engrossed again. It was really nice to recapture that for a moment and feel completely lost in something like I used to when I was a kid. I think, as adults, we are so concerned with other meaningless crap that we forget how all-consuming something like a piece of music can be.

This makes me think of going to my mom's symphony concerts too. My mom plays the flute and piccolo in the Sheboygan Symphony Orchestra. When I was younger, it was kind of a chore to go to the concerts. I would get sleepy, because it was dark, and sometimes the music was quiet and not very exciting. But, the older I get, the more I appreciate having the opportunity to go see concerts like that. Amazingly enough I slept through Carmina Burana the first time I saw it (sorry mom!). Now, though, even if the pieces the conductor picks aren't that exciting or familiar to me, it's always worthwhile to go.

Wakey wakey, eggs and bakey..

So, today was a lazy day. Today I decided to watch both Kill Bill movies. I REALLY like the Kill Bill movies, despite the gratuitous violence and the obvious weird and creepy obsession Quentin Tarantino has with Uma Thurman (which is REALLY skeezy in my opinion). When I watched them the first time, I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. The music, of course is great. I particularily like the Nancy Sinatra song that's in Vol. 1 (Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)). So meloncholy and dark. Spectacular.

But, the music isn't why I like the movies so much. I like them because of the underlying sentiment that runs through both volumes. Not the violence. Not the comic book themes. I liked the fact that the whole story is about justice and people behaving with conviction. The main characters knew what was right and what they deserved. Uma Thurman's character was determined and she did what she knew she had to do for herself. I think the last scene between Beatrix and Bill shows exactly what I mean. (I hope you guys have seen it, or don't care if you know what the ending is, because I'm about to give it away). Beatrix had gone through hell and back to get to Bill and give him what he deserved. I love that just because she found that her daughter was alive and living with Bill, didn't mean that she decided to give up her plan. She didn't choose to live a happy family life with Bill and Bebe instead. She knew that she had a purpose, and she lived up to it, regardless of the consequences. So, she and Bill fought. And (of course) she used the five point palm exploding heart technique. And Bill knew that what was going to happen to him was deserved. And Beatrix had no reservations about loving him, but killing him. They knew that they had made choices, and they had completely accepted the consequences of their choices. Which, I believe made them good choices. Not good as in moral, because I'm not entirely sure that you can have a moral assassin. But good as in, responsible and appropriate.

I truly believe that people can make whatever choices they want to, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of their decisions. If someone wants to go rob a bank? Fine. Whatever. As long as they're willing to accept that if they get caught, they will be in a ton of trouble, I say, by all means, give it a try. If they succeed, then that's probably a consequence of someone else's decision. It's like the boys I used to work with. They made whatever choices they wanted to, but each of those choices had a consequence. I was totally honest with them. If they wanted to run, or get in a fight, or punch someone, or use inappropriate language, or whatever, that was fine with me, but they couldn't complain to me when they had to deal with the consequences of their actions. If they were willing to accept that, great. But the thing is, with decisions and choices, it's hard to know what the consequences are. And that's where forethought comes into play. If you can think of something you want to do, and think far enough ahead to predict the possible outcomes of following through with your plan, and be willing to accept those outcomes, it means that you've probably put enough thought into your decision to make it a good one.

As a side note, I have to say that my favorite member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad has to be Budd. I really think that he has the best lines of all the assassins. "Wakey, wakey, eggs and bakey," "Wrong brother, you hateful bitch" (which isn't as good unless you can hear the tone of voice in which he says it). O-Ren Ishii is kind of pathetic, because she has to hide behind her minions while they wear The Bride out before she fights her. Vernita Green died to soon to really have any sort of good story line. Elle Driver is just scary. I seriously will probably have nightmares of her in that nurse's outfit with that scary eye patch whistling that creepy-ass tune. Not to mention that the visual of her eye getting plucked out is just too much for me. But Budd...I liked Budd. Despite the fact that he shot The Bride full of rock salt, and buried her alive with just a flashlight (which, I guess, all things considered, was pretty thoughtful of him), he knew that she had every right to hunt him down and kill him for what he had done to her. He had some good lines and a fairly good sense of humor. I really think that he was done a disservice by getting killed by Elle. Getting bit in the face with a snake?? Ouch. At least all the others got to fight The Bride face to face. And really, it kind of sucked for The Bride too, because she never really got to deliver justice to him. Not only for aiding in the massacre, but for burying her alive with a flashlight. That's harsh.

Maybe someday, I'll be the deadliest woman in the world. But, probably not.

Props to my peeps!

So, it's late and I'm tired, but I just wanted to give a quick huzzah to something. I've just been checking friends' facebook pages and blogs, and somehow, my blog got mentioned by two different people in the course of 24 hours. So, Laura and Courtney, you guys rock my world!!!!!! It's so exciting to me that people actually find my random rants about various things worth reading. They like me! They really really like me! That made my day. And now to bed. Maybe later I'll talk about the pope. Or soap on a rope. Or dope. While I mope. Ok enough rhyming. I feel like Andre the Giant.

Worst way to get tips, EVER!

This is without a doubt the worst way ever to get tips (obviously, hence the title). I went out with my cousin Dave last night to "cause a ruckus" in his words. We went to a place that has live music, and it was a great time in general. But, at one point, someone said something to me that was completely unbelievable. I was hanging out with Dave's friends, and since one of them had bought me a beer, I owed him one, so I went to go buy him and me a beer. I went up to the bar and the bartender approached me. He saw that I had a card, so he directed me toward the ATM, since they didn't take cards. When I came back, he was causing a ruckus of his own over something. Completely upset. So, when he comes over to serve me, he says, "I'm so pissed! The other bartender is serving that girl over there, and she's cuter than you and I wanted to serve her." Ouch. For me. Not for him.

Now, I'm not arguing that the other girl at the bar was cuter than me. She was the kind of cute that the bartender would have gone for. Bleach blonde hair. Fake boobs. Revealing shirt. Whatever. Her appearance isn't the issue. The issue is, this bartender works for tips. I don't know a whole lot about working for tips, but I'm pretty sure that you don't want to insult the people that you're looking for tips from. I'm pretty sure that you don't tell the girl that you're serving that you didn't want to serve her, because there was another girl who was cuter that needed serving. I was astounded. And minorly insulted. But whatever. I'm glad that I'm not a bleach blonde, fake boobied bimbo.

Here's what I think about the Thais

Alright, so one of the main headlines recently has been the military coup that happened in Thailand. Apparently the military got sick of the corruption that Thai Prime Minister Thaksin has supposedly been involved in, and staged a bloodless coup. The majority of the Thai people support the coup. Major democratic nations, including the US have denounced the coup, and the United States is currently reviewing whether it should continue to grant aid to Thailand, since the "civilian" government has been deposed via a military coup.

Honestly, I think, more power to the Thais. The overwhelming majority of the Thai people are happy for the coup. This coup was completely non-violent. Not a bullet was fired, not a life was lost. It is becoming more and more apparent that Thaksin was indeed corrupt. And as far as the coup being undemocratic, I think that democracy is about the will of the people. Obviously this coup has been the will of the people. The military in command right now are ratifying their own constitution, instead of ruling by direct mandate. They have promised to put a civilian Prime Minister in place. Whether or not that will actually happen remains to be seen, but at least the initial gesture has been made.

As far as democratic nations denouncing the coup goes, it seems to me that we have forgotten how we got to be our own nations. If I recall my grade school history correctly (and maybe I'm not, it's been a while), we had something called the Revolutionary War here in the United States a while back. From what I remember, people took up arms against the British government, and a fairly bloody battle ensued. And we got democracy from it. And the French had their own revolution that turned awfully bloody. And they kept having them too! They didn't just stop at one. Everytime they got upset with something, they overthrew their government. But yet, there's a problem with the Thais staging a bloodless coup that the citizens support.

I, personally, support the Thai people right now for doing what they need to do.

Rise of Powerpoint = Fall of Civilization

I hate Power Point. I hate Power Point with the burning passion of a thousand suns. It is the most godawful program to ever exist as far as the world of academia goes. Power Point represents all that is evil and wrong with our society. Power Point relieves teachers and professors from actually TEACHING. Power Point relieves anyone giving a presentation from actually engaging their audience. When we were kids, in school, we were taught that in order to have a good presentation, we needed a visual aid. We were also taught to have an engaging hook and to consider our audience, etc, but it seems like all that anyone remembers is the visual aid part. Thanks to Power Point, we get visual aids, but thats IT! Professors (or at least crappy ones) take their outline notes, slap them onto 10 or so Power Point pages, throw up an unfortunate picture or two of politicians making funny faces, and there's a whole 50 minute class right there. Nevermind engaging the students. Nevermind that students remember only about 10 percent of what they hear in class, and note taking only increases that percentage by a little bit. Screw the idea of having students discuss the issues in class, and engage the material. Nope, that's hard. It's hard to steer students toward the right discussion topics, and get them to learn what you want them to learn. So, instead, professors are joining the rest of the nation in being lazy.

For example, I'm taking a comparative politics class right now. It could be SO interesting. With all of the things going on in the world nowadays, we could go to town every day discussing current events, and how they pertain to the issues that we're learning about in class. But, instead, we get a Power Point presentation with a map of Ghana and a funny picture of Bill Clinton and a professor who reads right from his Power Point notes (which by the way, are posted online). What a waste of a class!

P.S. This was the same professor who thought he was so cool, because he thought to show a clip of Monty Python in class. It was the clip where King Arthur discusses political systems with the two peons he runs across. "Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" What a creative thinker this guy is!!

Illiterate by 2025 Part Deux

Ok, so after reading that article yesterday, I was so enraged, I was inspired to write the author an angry e-mail (which I kept under 100 words, so he could extrapolate information from it). Now, usually, I don't write angry mail and even less do I write angry mail to someone I don't know, but I was so outraged (enraged AND outraged..that's a lot of rage..) that I couldn't not point out to the guy what a dumbass he was.

So, anyway, I got an e-mail response from him today, that was a form letter to everyone who wrote to him yesterday (over 500 responses apparently). According to him, he was writing the piece as satire. He was writing a doomsday scenario that COULD happen if we continue along the path of least resistance like we're doing now. Apparently, the 2025 byline should have tipped us off. He wanted it to be a satire like "A Modest Proposal" was by Jonathan Swift (which, if you haven't read it, is pretty funny in a sick, dark sort of way. Swift proposes that to stem the population problem among the lower classes in Ireland and as a way to boost the Irish economy, people should begin eating babies. Delicious... http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html read it here if you are so inclined).

Now, I feel kind of stupid for not picking up on that. I had an inkling that it was supposed to be satire, but instead of sitting down and thinking about it for a second, I jumped right into indignant outrage. How stupid of me. Although, I guess I can feel better, because everyone that I talked to about this article yesterday got upset too, and didn't quite catch that it was satire. Or they were pretending not to catch it to make me feel better. I do think he could have made it a bit more obviously satire, but that's just because I'm dense and can't pick up on things like that.

So, let's take a minute and breathe a deep sigh of relief before moving on.....ahhhhh............

And...onwards. Josh and I watched the last three acts of Spike Lee's "When the Levee's Broke" documentary last night. I saw the first one a couple weeks ago, so we just had to finish it up. If you hadn't gathered from the title, this was a documentary about New Orleans post-Katrina. It was beautifully done and left me with a feeling of deep sorrow for the victims.

Now, there are a number of socio-political factors that contriubted to the scale of the disaster. It could be hotly debated who, exactly, was supposed to take responsibility for the victims of Katrina. Was it a federal, state, or local issue? Or was it an individual issue? Is it up to individuals to provide for themselves in times of disaster? Here's what I think, and since this is my blog, and you're here, you have to listen to it:

I think that the local government did take some positive steps in issuing a mandatory evacuation before the storm hit. It gave people with the means to evacuate time to do so, as messy as it was to get out of the town. As far as people who didn't leave, I don't think an effective pre-storm plan was enacted. They provided the SuperDome as a place of last refuge for people who couldn't leave the town, but the people who didn't have a way to get there, were pretty much screwed. There was no plan for what to do with the people if they had to stay at the SuperDome for multiple days. There was no plan for how to deal with the after effects of the storm. All of this, I believe was the local and state governments job to take care of. If you are living in and governing a city and state that is close to or below sea level, and you get hit by hurricanes fairly often, I would think contingency plans would be a pretty high priority.

I think there were some individuals who made the situation worse. There were people who were just plain stubborn and wouldn't leave, which made the rescue process that much longer. There were people who were shooting at one another and looting instead of trying to do what they could to help the rescue effort.

I think the federal government was egregiously tardy in arriving at the site. G.W. didn't even fly over New Orleans until 12 days after the hurricane, much less go into the city to talk to victims. The news organizations had better information about what was happening inside the city than FEMA did. Condoleeza Rice was seen buying shoes and going to shows in New York after the hurricane hit. Michael Brown was a bumbling idiot. Troops were forcing people, at gunpoint, to stay on overpasses rather than walk to a better area. And where was Dick Cheney?? The only video footage I've seen of him in reference to Katrina was talking to a bunch of reporters and having a passerby saying "Go f*ck yourself Mr. Cheney." (which, p.s. is a reference to something Cheney himself said on the Senate floor a couple weeks earlier).

As far as the three levels of government working together, I've seen children solve squabbles better than the mayor of New Orleans, the governor of Louisiana and the president did. Apparently the governor of Louisiana was upset at the mayor of N'awlins for not backing her in the previous election, even though they were both Democrats, so she was playing political games in that sense. Also, apparently, she was attempting to present some modicum of authority over the situation and had trouble compromising with the president and the mayor.

And now?? The levees that are being rebuilt are just as shoddy as the ones that broke in New Orleans. The Dutch build excellent levees. 60% of their country is below sea level and they have levees that can withstand an event that has something like a 1 in 10,000 chance of happening. Levees are earthen structures. Levees are supposed to have 4 feet of width for every 1 foot of height. The "levees" in New Orleans are walls built with I beams that are pounded into the ground. They're, maybe, a foot wide. According to officials that Spike Lee interviewed, it is not safe for people to move back to New Orleans. Especially in the 9th ward, where most of the damage was done last year.

The insurance companies are being sued for their absolute lack of ethics regarding the policies that people took out to protect themselves from hurricane damage. There was one family who had been paying All State their premiums on time, for 50 years, and their house was completely demolished. All State initially said that they'd pay for everything that was damaged above the water line, since below the water line was apparently flood damage, which that family wasn't covered for. Then they came back and said that the damage above the water line was caused by the flood too, so they wouldn't cover that. Then they said that a shed that this family had in their back yard, which was demolished after a tree fell on top of it, was fixable, and so they would only pay for 25% of the damage. So, this family that was completely devestated by the hurricane, got a check in the mail from the insurance company for about $400. Yeah. They sure were in good hands with All State. A pretty pithy consolation if you ask me.

And now, still, a year later, people are waiting for trailers to live in while they rebuild their lives. Trailers that are sitting around, unused in lots, while these people live in tents or hotels. New Orleans still isn't cleaned up. We haven't heard anything about the massive rebuilding operation that supposedly was going to happen after the hurricane. People are still scattered to the 4 winds. Families torn apart. But yet, we still have the money to send more soldiers to Iraq to spread democracy there. I see where our priorities as a nation lie. It makes me sick.

In general, I'm becoming more and more sick at the state of affairs in our government and our society. That article about youths not reading wasn't too far off the mark. I often find myself looking around my college campus and thinking "no one here cares about anything beyond their own little bubble." The number of people who have never read anything that they weren't required to read is astounding. The number of people who don't understand references to Voltaire, or Dante, or Marlowe (to just name a few...) is depressing. And the thing is, it's not like these works are becoming less accessible! If anything they're far more accessible now than they ever have been before. I mean, before the internet, if you wanted to read "A Modest Proposal," you'd have to go to the library and look it up and check it out. Now, all I did was google "A Modest Proposal," and the first link that was on the list was a direct link to the text. But no one knows this stuff! And you know why? Because knowing the content of "A Modest Proposal" or "Lysistrata" or "Candide" isn't a directly marketable skill. If you know science, or math, or grammar and syntax, all of these things can correlate directly to a number of jobs. Knowing the reasons why the war of 1812 started is pithy and unimportant in the minds of most people. Knowing who Mephastophilis was is irrelevant. Nevermind that knowing the history of a place and reading works of certain periods of time can provide so much insight into our own place and time. Nevermind that learning how to understand texts is such a valuable skill because once you know how to read and interpret, you can learn ANYTHING you want. But no one cares. We just want to sit around and watch our stupid game shows and pretend that a world outside of our living room doesn't exist.

I'm going to get off my soapbox for now, but I can't guarentee another rant shortly. There seems to be a lot going on right now to rant about.

Welcome to a waste of my time and money

So, I don't know who doesn't know this yet, but I am currently wasting a bunch of money on a semester of school full of gen-ed classes that I don't need. This sucks. I'm 23 years old, and I'm in 100 and 200 level classes. It just doesn't make sense. I want to thank Winona state personally for not transferring my credits. It's awesome. So, now I'm taking classes with course content that I already know, and spending my time in classes with people that are 5 years younger than me. Hooray.

Yup, we don't need to read. Wait..WHAT?!?!

Ok, so American's are officially fat, lazy and stupid. And here is proof http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14823087/?GT1=8506 . This is an article that I stumbled across on MSNBC this morning while checking the news. The title is "What is the worth of words?" and the columnist talks about advanced reading skills and how necessary they are in the modern world.

Currently, according to this article, about 31% of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. This information is from Michael Gorman, who is the president of the American Library Association. He is definately presenting this information in a negative light. The columnist who wrote the article, on the other hand, thinks that it's not necessarily negative that college grads are becoming less able to extrapolate information from books. He thinks it's an inevitability. Michael Rogers is the guy who wrote this. He argues that by 2025, less than 5% of college grads will be able to extrapolate information from complex books. And this isn't a bad thing.

Rogers' argument is that in a world of advancing technology, it's becoming less and less necessary to know how to read a book and get information from it. When most information is transmitted in easy to process text messages and soundbites (bytes??), what's the use in knowing how to read a book, argues Rogers. He's not saying that complete illiteracy is what's going to happen. People are going to need basic reading skills in order to read signs and labels, and the quick, grammatically incorrect text messages that fly from person to person every day. He's just saying that being able to sit down and actually read a book is going to be a skill that's not necessary even to most people that have advanced to higher eduation levels. He argues that only a few elite are going to need to know how to read books, including scientists, senior managers, and screenwriters. He also says that just like people shouldn't be forced to enjoy classical music, he thinks people shouldn't be forced to see reading as an enjoyable and worthwhile activity. His argument is that reading isn't a natural skill for people to have, and thus, isn't necessary.

And to all of this, I say, WHAT?!?!?! This is a journalist saying this. This is a man that has gotten a four year degree, at least, and must be relatively good at his job, since he's writing for MSNBC. This is a guy who relies on words for his livelihood. And he's advocating for us to not read??? Oh my god, I think my head is going to explode I'm so astounded and upset about this. Give me a second to breathe before I start arguing against this outrage..........

There are so many errors in judgement here...I think I'll just have to go point by point and explain why this guy is completely absolutely wrong.

Number one, he says that it won't be necessary for most college grads to know how to extrapolate information from complex books. Now, I don't know exactly what "complex books" means, but I know that I've read some books throughout my college career that have been pretty complex. As far as I'm concerned, being able to extract information from complex documents is a skill that EVERY college grad should have. It shows a higher level of thinking, which is valuable not only in reading, but in analyzing siutations at work, and in every day life. Information is not always going to be presented in easy to understand bytes. Not all information is easily interpreted and the ability to do so is important in a multitude of situations.

Number two, he says that most young adults, by the year 2025, won't have any need to be able to read or process more than about 100 words at a time. Now, unless I'm completely misreading how colleges educate their students, that's a complete falsity. I have no idea how it would be possible to educate students without having them read long texts and interpret them. I have no idea how it would be possible for students to be expected to do their jobs without being able to read reports and studies and books.

Just in general, I think this guy is a complete hack. I can't imagine a life where the general population is unable to read and write complex thoughts. That ability is so basic to self-determination and exchange of ideas. He also compares reading skills to being able to enjoy classical music. I think this degrades both disciplines here. I don't think it's important to enjoy classical music, but being able to appreciate it and understand how it has a place in history and how it influences current music, and the theory behind it, is VERY important. Just like I don't expect everyone to enjoy reading, but knowing how to read, and how to get information from books is absolutely vital. What kind of future as a culture are we going to have with a young adult population who doesn't understand or appreiate Charles Dickens, or Greek tragedy, or Thomas Payne?? What kind of future are we going to have as a progressive nation, if our youth aren't taught to read and understand past progressives and radicals?

Grrr...I think everyone should write a letter to this guy and explain to him exactly how much of a jerk he is.

Oh Garrison Keillor..you so smart...

So, after being reminded this afternoon how much I enjoyed the movie "A Prairie Home Companion," and how much I love to hear what Garrison Keillor usually has to say, I decided to check out the website for the radio show. He has a feature called "post to the host" or something to that effect, which is basically an online question and answer forum for fans of the show to ask Garrison something. Now it sounds boring, but he ends up making his replies so insightful and wise that it's hard to not sit and read archives of this feature for hours. So, I've decided to dedicate this post to Garrison Keillor quotes that I liked.

"My advice is: be patient and make a plan and keep searching for your truest self. Don't become an indentured servant. That's somebody who hates work and so he spends his money, and borrows more, in order to alleviate his suffering, thereby becoming a prisoner of the job.....
....There is no better way to find out who you are than to sit down and write about what's happening to you and what you think."

"Children are durable and don't necessarily wilt under adversity, just as our own children don't necessarily thrive under luxury and comfort."

"Your upbringing was MEANT to hamper your life, in the sense of directing you in a certain way and making you reluctant to go in other ways. Now you're on your own, making your own choices, but still with those voices in your head. Don't worry about it. Take the truth wherever you find it, including the past, and move forward bravely, and keep in mind that God loves you."

"I believe that faith and prayer can accomplish almost anything, but not within the church. Change within the church takes cutthroat politics and masterful passive-aggressive strategy. Don't go there."

Apathetic young people and the theory of relativity

Ok apparently lately, Sarah = bored, because you're getting more posts than you know what to do with. Or maybe not. Maybe you know exactly what to do with all of these posts.

So anyway, I was shown an article the other day on Slate magazine (which is apparently where I get a lot of my post-fodder....and as a side note, post-fodder sounds like something you'd find on a farm). This article (which you can find here http://www.slate.com/id/2149368/) discusses a New York Times article that analyzes a 9/11 photograph that hadn's been released until recently. (So, to get all of you guys straight, this is a post that discusses an article, that discusses another article, that analyzes a photograph...got it?).

The photograph (which is shown on the Slate article) shows the World Trade Center burning in the background, while five 20 or 30 somethings sitting on the Brooklyn waterfront, seemingly chatting nonchalantly. At first blush, this photograph seems to show how completely callous my generation has become in the face of tragedy. Here is possibly the worst national tragedy that has happened since any of them have been born, but they're just hanging out and chatting as the whole thing is going on.

Now, the first thing that I thought when I saw this photograph and read the article was not, "god, these guys look like they're having a great time." To me, it didn't look like these five people were out on a stroll and just happened to sit down to discuss the latest in fashion, or music, or whatever people my age talk about. The first thing I wondered was, "I wonder what they're talking about?" To me, it looked like they were seriously discussing something, and given the backdrop to their conversation, I could only assume that they were analyzing what was going on. And I guess, given the situation, what else should they be doing? In their situation, I don't think I'd be running toward the buildings to help. And, I don't know, but I'd be willing to guess that most of NYC was pretty nonfunctional that day. What else would there be to do, other than observe, and discuss? Exactly like these people were doing.

So anyway, I found another article on Slate today (http://www.slate.com/id/2149508/?nav=tap3) that mirrors exactly the way I felt about this picture. (In summary, now I'm talking about an article that analyzes another article that discusses another article that analyzes a photograph.) So, I feel vindicated. Hooray for me. Other people agree with me.

And now for something completely different. It seems to me like there is a prevailing philosophy among the faculty here at Winona. At least among the faculty that I've had (which is a whopping 4). At least two or three times so far this week, I've heard a faculty make reference to the idea that just because something hasn't been proven yet, doesn't make it untrue. As simple as this idea is, I love that academics are willing to admit this. I feel like I've encountered so many "intelligent" people that are so stoic as far as what they hold to be true, and they won't admit that something that hasn't been proven has even the possiblity of being true. So many people say "prove it to me" in reference to wanting to know if something is true or not. So many people are skeptics about EVERYTHING. Now, I understand the value of a healthy dose of skepticism. Without skeptics, who would be around to question things as we know or believe them to be? But at the same time, 200 years ago, people knew, without a doubt, that time was fixed and constant. Now, with relativity, we know that time slows down, the closer someone gets to moving at the speed of light. 600 years ago, people knew that if they got sick, it was punishment from God for something bad they did. Now, we know about germ theory, and that sickness is caused by bacteria, or fungi, or viruses.

Anyway, I meant to get deeper into that, but I don't really want to ramble on anymore now. More random thoughts and ridiculousness later.

Becky's questions answered by me :)

So, my friend Becky posted a list of questions on her blog months and months ago and answered them. She called them 'Life Searching Questions.' I figure, now is as good of a time as any to do some life searching. And you, my lucky readership, get to read about it. Don't you feel priviledged? I didn't think so. Anyway, let the Life Searching begin.

1) What is your biggest fear?
My biggest fear is becoming a societal zombie, instead of sticking by what I value and believe.

2) What is your proudest moment/achievement?
I'm not sure I have a proudest moment. I remember being very proud when I saw how proud my dad was of me the first time I left the country on my own. I'm very proud of the work I've done at the Ark. But, I don't really have one proud moment. I guess, I'm proud of who I am.

3) What is your most embarassing moment?
Again, I'm not sure I have a most embarassing moment. It's been embarassing to transfer schools again, and be 23 and still not have a bachelor's degree. But, I can deal with that. Any embarassment that I've felt about certain situations, I've gotten over by now I think.

4) What is your dream job/career?
I would love to be an aid worker, or something. Travelling the world and giving aid to people. Realistically, I'm working towards being a guidance counsellor, but ideally, I'd love to travel the world and see as many people and help as many people as possible.

5) Who is your biggest role model/who inspires you?
My parents definately have been my biggest role models. They are the best people I know, and have taught me more as far as integrity, responsibility, compassion, and thirst for knowledge than anyone else. As far as who inspires me, my friends, the kids I work with, my family...everyone I love inspires me.

6) Describe the best day of your life thus far:
Hmm...I'm not sure I've had a best day of my life. One of my favorite days so far was when I was in Colorado, and me and two of my closest friends spent all day together, watching movies and talking and hanging out. That was really great. I had some awesome days in Germany and Ireland. Most of my best days are days that I've been able to bond with someone, or spend time with people I love.

7) What is the most beautiful place you've ever been to?
The cathedral in Galway, Ireland was the most beautiful building I've ever been in. Munich was so full of history and beautiful buildings. But, at the same time, one of my favorite places to be is on the beach in Sheboygan when the sun is rising.

8) What do you want people to remember you for?
I'd like people to remember me for my compassion. And that I was who I was, regardless of what everyone else thought.

9) Have you ever regretted anything that you've done? Or that you've not done?
There are some things that weren't necessarily the most pleasant to go through in my life, because of things that I've either done or not done, but I don't regret any of my choices. My life is what I've made of it, and I'm happy with everywhere I've been in life, and what I've taken from it.

10) What is your favorite childhood memory?
I don't really have one favorite memory. If I picked a favorite, it means I'd have to leave out so many other wonderful memories. In general, just remembering the environment of creativity and music and love that my sisters and I grew up in, is the best memory.

So, there you have it...I've searched my life via these questions. Did you learn anything? Did I? Hmm...its a mystery....

It's raining music!

So, I've been promising a music review of Gnarls Barkley for a while. After living your lives in suspensful anticipation, I am finally going to deliver (plus Bright Eyes, and maybe some other brief cameos). Because I know that you guys don't have anything better to do with your lives than sit around and wait for me to post about an artist that half of you probably have never heard of and the other half don't care about. Anyway, moving forward

I went out and bought Gnarls Barkley's album St. Elsewhere a week or so ago after much internal debate in my head. Gnarls Barkley is a collaboration between Danger Mouse and Cee-Lo Green. I've really enjoyed Danger Mouse's work on other discs such as the Danger Doom collaboration between MF Doom and him, and the work he did with Gorillaz last album, so I finally decided to give it a whirl. After listening through it a couple times, I've decided that it's good, but not phenomenal. Crazy, the single that's been released off the disc, is ok, but it doesn't really stand up to multiple listenings. That's kind of how I feel about the whole album, though. It's fun. It's cool to listen to. But, if I were to really listen to it with a critical ear, it wouldn't become one of my favorites. Some songs that have stood out to me are, Smiley Faces and The Last Time. Also, they did a cover of the Violent Femmes song Gone Daddy Gone, which was kinda cool, but didn't really do anything new for the song. So, in review, I'd give St. Elsewhere maybe 3 out of 5 stars. Fun, cool, but not classic at all.

I also bought a disc by Bright Eyes called I'm Wide Awake It's Morning, a little bit ago. I've heard most of the music on this disc before, because Marvin had it, but I never really gave it much critical attention. I just liked it. Bright Eyes comes from Omaha, Nebraska, and the guy behind the music, Conor Oberst has been hailed as this generation's Bob Dylan. Now, I don't think that's a fair comparison, because it gives people a preconcieved notion of what his music is going to sound like. Granted "I'm Wide Awake It's Morning" does have the folksy sound that much of Bob Dylan's music did, but it also goes in a completely different direction. The music is simple and straightforward, but at the same time, completely unexpected. It sweeps you through a gamut of emotions, from jubilant to hopeless, lovelorn to raging. Oberst proves that simplicity can be much more poignant than complicated melodies and harmonies. This is definately a classic.

Speaking of the Violent Femmes, I bought a live disc of theirs a while ago called "Viva Wisconsin." I'd been exposed to their standards a while ago, like "Blister in the Sun" and "Gone Daddy Gone," but hadn't really listened to much else. A friend of mine, though, really liked them, so I decided to pick up their live album, and see what I thought. Now, until recently, I thought that the Femmes were just a local Wisconsin band, that no one outside of the vicinity of Milwaukee had really heard of, except for maybe Blister in the Sun. Apparently I was wrong. As much as I enjoyed the songs of theirs that I knew already, some of the others were so much...darker and more intruiging. My personal favorite though was "Dahmer's Dead," celebrating Jeffery Dahmer's death. Weird, dark, but kind of funny. Anyways, I loved "Viva Wisconsin."

So, now I've gotten my music critic tendencies out. You'll probably be spared my opinions of music again for a little while.

You're not cool!!

So, just a quick note. I hate history/poli sci/humanities/(any other field of study) professors or teachers who try to prove that they're cool by showing clips of Monty Python and the Holy Grail in class and then relate it to class work. It's been done before. Just because they piggy backed on someone else's equally stupid idea of showing that movie in class does not make them "hip and cool with the kids." We've all seen it by now. We all know it's funny. And we all know that there is some historical relevence. Get over it. You're not cool. Just desparate.

So, I visited Liz today, and we ended up talking about a topic that's been nagging at me for quite some time. It seems like so many people in our parents generation are either miserable in their marriages, or divorced. How does this happen? How can we, the next generation, prevent that exact same thing from happening? None of us want to believe that we'll grow old with someone and be miserable with them.

Liz and I talked a lot about generational differences and how things were when our grandparents got married, versus our parents, versus us. When our grandparents' generation got married, it was a very quick process. You met someone. You "courted" or whatever for a while, you got engaged and then you got married. There were very specific, defined gender roles for what the wife and husband were supposed to do. It was simple, and you knew what to expect. They didn't expect to find a "soul mate" or a best friend for life, or anything like that. They just found someone that they thought would be suitable and then learned to deal with whatever challenges they had.

Our parents generation was kind of in a rough place now that I think about it. They had the example from their parents about what a marriage was. At the same time, they were experiencing the women's rights movement, and the gender roles weren't quite as defined. I'm sure it was very confusing, because people still didn't spend a whole lot of time searching for "the one." Most people were married by the time they were my age. But yet, they didn't have the security of knowing exactly what to expect from their spouse.

My generation, on the other hand, is waiting longer and longer to get married. Which has its own set of confusions. We don't have very specific gender roles. The challenge lies in finding someone whose idea of what a husband and wife should be matches yours. So many people my age are caught up with finding the "right one," and believe that when they do, everything is going to be happy and wonderful and easy. I think we could learn something from our grandparents, by learning how to deal with what we've got and learning to be happy with what we chose. At the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to delay marriage to meet a wide variety of people and to develop a sense of self before getting married. I think it's a pretty good idea to do so actually. I mean, really, can someone really know themselves and know what they want out of life at 21? 21 is a lot younger than it used to be. If that makes any sense.