|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I spent the snow day finally watching the finale of Glee. Liked it so much I watched it another 7 times. At least. [Also watched "Food, Inc." and "Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian on Netflix. Those are whole other blogs entries for another time.]
TV shows and movies aren't my preferred pastimes. Most of the time, I would rather read, write, play music, or facebook stalk for hours. But there's something about Glee that draws me in, and makes me feel, "wow."
I knew knew knew that I would love this show when I first saw the clip of "Don't Stop Believin'" before the Pilot episode even came out. Since starting to follow the show (btw, I love that it's available on demand online, otherwise I'd just miss it every week), there have been some shortcomings that stood out to me - amateur/awkward acting, annoying subplots that wouldn't die, boring exchanges written purely in an attempt to foreshadow/lure viewers to tune in again next season, eye-hurting editing for the fast dance numbers, etc etc. But overall, what. a. great. show.
Aside from the music and dance, which was the main draw for me initially, the writing is genius. Sue Sylvester, the character I hate to love, gets some of the wittiest lines and best zingers I've ever heard. I love the supremely fictitious diversity that exists at this random suburban high school in Ohio (though I have to try pretty hard when suspending my disbelief at the notion of Asians, blacks, Jews, whites, a homosexual, goth, and a disabled kid associating with each other even in "secret" - thanks for trying, Hollywood).
People might first think that Glee is a hackneyed idea - High School Musical, anyone? But it quickly becomes clear that Glee is so much more than HSM, because the protagonists aren't the prepubescent kids going through that "coming of age" thing. The protagonists are the youngish adults, going through that other kind of "coming of age" thing. I don't have to try too hard to suspend any disbelief when watching Mr. Schu's struggles with life direction/ambitions, his wife's crazy antics out of fear, and Emma's relationship predicaments.
There are some subplots with the HS kids that kind of keep the show going - stories about overcoming adversity, identity issues, etc. But these stories have such an overtone of, "This is how we wish high schoolers handled their issues." The Glee high school characters have a maturity that is almost impossible for 15-18 year olds. I mean, really, what high school girl wouldn't be pissed at another girl for spilling a huge secret? "I'm not mad at you. You just did what I wasn't brave enough to do - tell the truth." What??
But that is something I love about this show - the mix of the ideal and the real. So many elements of, "this is how things should be," and "this is how things are" (I am beginning to feel like one of my old IR professors). All mixed together, it makes good food for thought!
And when I don't feel like thinking, I just like watching people sing and dance. Generally, I'm becoming more appreciative of "the arts", and their importance in...well, humanity. Expressing thoughts, your being, through whatever medium, is so much more human and real than that lofty goal of "progress", whatever that word means anyway. Not that finding real solutions to real problems isn't important, but I don't think God ever cared much for "progress." He definitely was all about telling stories, and expressing Himself through His Art and Music (nature, anyone?).
The importance of "art" is sometimes diminished because it's so subjective [my friend and I had an hours long conversation after asking, "What is art?"]. Partly, it's an expression of self that comes from a person's spirit. When we can really appreciate that idea, we can start to appreciate God's character, and the expression of Spirit. And what's more important than appreciating God?
Somewhere along the way, this blog took a strange spiritual turn. HA. That is usually how my brain works...my point - I love Glee!! And Matthew Morrison. What?
| | |
| Just kidding. But there was a recent incident in the Eng household that spurred such a thought.
We were watching the Nightly News with Charles Gibson on ABC one evening last week (something of a nightly ritual). There was an 'expose' on a blueberries distributor who has been using child labor. Human Rights Watch had worked with four graduate students to uncover this story. They got the president of the company on film, walking with his head down, refusing to talk to the reporters. They interviewed the kids (probably from a migrant family, it wasn't made clear) who were working there - five, eight and eleven years old. It was all portrayed to be very egregious.
Before my parents commented on it, I was thinking,...well, now you just put those kids out of a job. What if they were being paid for it? Now they have less income.
Then my parents chime in...and boy, did they chime. They did not appreciate the spin on that piece at all. My mom asked out loud, "What's wrong with that? Kids work on farms all the time. They're picking berries with their parents. They're with their parents all the time, so what's wrong?" Then they showed the dangers of the pesticide sprays, and the kids' possible exposure to the fumes. "Oh, well that part is bad." She still insisted that it wasn't as bad as ABC was making it out to be.
Then my dad. Oh, daddy. "See? That's why I don't have sympathy for kids in the ghettos. See, at least those kids, they're working for the family. They're earning money. That's why I hate the bourgeoisie." (thus, the blog title...if you read on, you'll find that my thoughts are actually hardly Marxist) Then he goes on about how the bourgeoisie always think they 'know better,' how they're elitists, etc.
Ha, it's true. I don't think that the 'bourgeoisie' tend to understand that the 'principle' of child labor isn't all wrong. I don't know that there should be laws illegalising child labor. What if the kid wants to work? In this case, it seems wrong because it's physical labor. Because hey, there are plenty of kids who 'work' but are more socially accepted - how about that American boy who started a school (or was it an orphanage) in Africa? How about that boy who was trying to change laws about restaurants throwing away food? How about kid (teen) athletes? They're technically "working" because they're preparing to become professional in their sport - many only go to school half the time, or they get private tutors. They're not getting paid for their training, but you could say that they're working.
By exposing this 'horror', HR Watch and ABC also indirectly challenge the parents' judgment. I noticed that the reporters didn't really talk to the parents of the kids - probably cuz they were embarrassed, or maybe not embarrassed enough. Yes, sometimes parents have very bad judgment, but I don't think that saying, "Hey kids, you have to help us pick some berries so we can food on our family" is the worst thing in the world. I personally have more problems with they way this couple is raising this kid, but no one's bothering them.
It's easy to go after a principle. "Child Labor" is wrong - let's make it illegal for any children under 12 to work. It's not easy to understand subtleties and circumstances and apply different consequences for different cases. That poor blueberries president - he might have understood the stories and difficulties of that family. But HR Watch, ABC reporters, and those grad students were clearly coming into this with their own opinions already formed. What use is it talking with them in front of a camera? Now we'll never know what that president guy really thought.
I'm not supporting 'child labor' here. I'm saying that stories are usually much more complicated than mass media makes them out to be. And it's our responsibility to make sure we're using our brains when we take in all this information. It is kind of sad that these kids have to go out and pick blueberries just to survive. And yes, if the kids are exposed to dangers from work, then there is a real problem that needs a real solution. But just pointing fingers and saying, 'child labor bad!' is hardly the way to go about things.
| | |
| 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBPaHA8wyvhZsKWPW8Uxp30QpfqgD99AFFEG1
Does South Carolina even border Mexico?
Mexicans aren't animals that have to be kept out by fences. What kind of message does a wall send to people?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/05/us-mexican-border/bowden-text
"There is an iron law on this border: The closer one gets to the line, the more rational the talk becomes because everyone has personal ties to people on the other side. Everyone realizes the wall is a police solution to an economic problem. The Mexicans will go over it, under it, or try to tear holes in it. Or, as is often the case, enter legally with temporary visiting papers and then melt into American communities. Of the millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States, few would have come if there wasn't a job waiting for them."
I wanted to write some long thing about the idiocy that is the securitisation of immigration and the US-Mexico border (incidentally, I wrote a paper on this in my Master's program), but I think I'll just let the articles speak for themselves. The NatGeo article is a gem I found while researching the topic,...I used it mostly for the pictures for a PPT, not so much the article itself, though it is an interesting read.
| | |
| The Alligator River Story
There lived a woman named Abigail who was in love with a man named
Gregory. Gregory lived on the shore of a river. Abigail lived on the
opposite shore of the same river. The river that separated the two lovers
was teeming with dangerous alligators. Abigail wanted to cross the river
to be with Gregory. Unfortunately, the bridge had been washed out by a
heavy flood the previous week. So she went to ask Sinbad, a riverboat
captain, to take her across. He said he would be glad to if she would
consent to go to bed with him prior to the voyage. She promptly refused
and went to a friend named Ivan to explain her plight. Ivan did not want
to get involved at all in the situation. Abigail felt her only
alternative was to accept Sinbad's terms. Sinbad fulfilled his promise to
Abigail and delivered her into the arms of Gregory.
When Abigail told Gregory about her amorous escapade in order to cross the
river, Gregory cast her aside with disdain. Heartsick and rejected,
Abigail turned to Slug with her tale of woe. Slug, feeling compassion for
Abigail, sought out Gregory and beat him brutally. Abigail was overjoyed
at the sight of Gregory getting his due. As the sun set on the horizon,
people heard Abigail laughing at Gregory.
=====================================================================
THE EXERCISE: After reading the story, rank the five (5) characters in
the story beginning with the one whom you consider as the "most offensive"
and end with the one whom you consider the "least objectionable." That
is, the character who seems to be the most reprehensible to you should be
entered first in the list following the story, then the second most
reprehensible, and so on, with the least reprehensible or objectionable
being entered fifth. Very briefly note why you rank them in the order
that you do.
...
My Gemstone team participated in this exercise in our sophomore year of college. There were ten of us, and after reading the story, we each came up with our own rankings. It was a team building exercise meant to encourage us to share our ideas and values and come up with a common ranking. I don't remember our final ranking as a group was, but I remember who I ranked as the "most offensive."
In my five minutes of thinking about the story, I was convinced that Ivan was the worst because he could have done something to help, but he chose not to. I was so convinced that there might have possibly been a happy ending, if Ivan, Abigail's so-called friend, had tried to help in some way. They could have built a boat! He could've told her to wait til the bridge was rebuilt! He could've volunteered to distract the gators! I don't know. In that moment, I was just convinced that Ivan was terrible for not wanting to help.
The reaction of all my teammates - disbelief. "What?!" They all probably thought I was joking. It was strange, because it seemed such the obvious answer to me. I wasn't trying to be controversial. It just made sense. While I got some people to understand why I chose Ivan ("Yeah, I hate when people don't care and don't want to help"), we didn't end up saying that he was the worst.
It's interesting, because stepping back, I can see that the other characters really did some pretty terrible things. The exercise, more than anything, reveals my own assumptions and values. I could actually argue any ranking of the people, as long as I come up with some good justifications. But my eventual ranking is based on what I choose to believe are the problems/motivations behind everyone's actions.
Ivan - because he had the most potential to change things, but chose not to do anything.
Gregory/Abigail - why didn't Gregory try more to assure Abigail that he loved her? and why couldn't you forgive Abigail? why didn't Abigail just wait til the bridge was rebuilt? just a little more patience, woman! and why did you laugh after your man got beat?
Slug - he chose violence instead of mediation/reconciliation. (war instead of diplomacy)
Sinbad - he could've helped out,...and he would have for a price. maybe the price didn't seem so high to him.
| | |
| Blargh. That's how I feel about the layer of fat that is slowly but steadily forming around my middle. I will soon post pictures of all the yumness in which I've been partaking here in HK. The first week here, when my parents were still here, we were eating out for pretty much every meal. Thankfully, now that they've gone, I'm eating at home (at my relo's apt) more. But for the first week...there was not really a moment when I felt hungry. We would go from breakfast to lunch to afternoon tea (which is not the simple British tea & biscuits, but HK-style butter & syrup on toast with a bowl of noodles, and maybe a BBQ chicken wing with a big cup of milk or lemon tea) to dinner to dessert. There just wasn't enough time in between to digest all the food that had been consumed at the previous meal. Freakin' living like hobbits.
I'm a big believer in physical, earthly things being a shadow or representation of the spiritual. So when I think about physical hunger, I think about spiritual hunger.
It's quite common to hear the word "hunger" thrown around in Christian culture (I wonder if it's the same in Jewish, Muslim, or other religious cultures),...wanting to be hungry, hungering for God's word, etc. Do you find it weird that we would WANT to be hungry? The way that I hear it used makes it seem like being hungry is a good thing. That's probably not an accurate way of understanding 'hunger.' Isn't hunger just a feeling that signals us to eat something? It's not really about wanting or not wanting to be hungry. It's weird to ask God, "Make us hungry." If anything, it should be more like, "God, help me to realise when I'm hungry." Sometimes, if I'm in my zone (whether it's reading, working, playing, etc), I won't realise that I'm hungry. Or I'll ignore the hunger. But it's there - I just won't do anything about it.
There is some good to being hungry - it makes regular food taste even better. But this also could be 'dangerous,' because our senses are distorted by extreme hunger. Mmmm, maybe that's taking the analogy too far. Nevermind, I won't get into this.
But going back to spiritual hunger...and more importantly, spiritual FOOD. What in the world is spiritual food? Well, a quote that I have loved for a long while...
"In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."
It doesn't outrightly say what spiritual food is. But it pretty clearly tells us what spiritual food is NOT. It is not simply the elementary truths of God's word. The writer suggests that solid food is about righteous actions, distinguishing good from evil in this confusing mess that is called life.
So it's not about just being hungry. Perhaps "feed me" doesn't quite have the same ring when it comes to Christian songs, but I think it's equally important. And actually, I don't think it's "feed me," it's about being aware that we need to eat, and then eating. The food is in front of us. The challenges and problems in our lives, the news we read, the TV we watch, the music we listen to. That's there for us to 'eat,' 'digest,' and 'excrete.' The stuff that is good nourishes and grows our spirit. The junk should get flushed down the toilet. The spiritual toilet.
Physical food is for our body to have energy to move. Maybe spiritual food is for the spiritual Body to have energy to move?
Mmmmm spiritual dimsum...
| | |
|
