People with a Monopoly on Cool
I (thankfully) rarely meet these type of people, but over the last little while I've met a couple of them, and it's sort of disturbing. If you're wondering, I'm talking about people who seem to think that they have a monopoly on what's cool -- those people who either berate you or give airs when you suggest that something not to their liking could actually be liked. I find they generally tend to hang on to some slightly obscure topic from which to define themselves, and when discussing that subject, no other preference other than theirs is acceptable. The whole thing can be shrouded in elitism, since clearly their views are superior (and ergo, they are) to yours (you).
Now, I know that I'm probably one of the more argumentative people out there, and I definitely have strong opinions on some subjects. What I'm talking about here is completely different. In any argument there is usually an exchange of ideas and movement in the positions. Usually in the cases I'm describing here, there's an a priori 'truth' put forward that is usually completely subjective, and therefore unarguable (unless you like, 'no it's not' 'yes it is' etc). They cling to this internal truism and act like there's something clearly wrong with you if you don't believe the same thing.
Both of the people who I met that led to this little diatribe happen to have been women, although I'm not sure I'm quite ready to extrapolate from my sample size of two. As frustrating as this whole thing is, at least it serves to spark some sort of reflection, since the first thing I thought was 'God, I hope I'm not really like this!'
Second in the things that I have issues with are people who can't take any jokes made at their expense, but that's probably a topic for another time...
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Treaties the Bush Administration has Rejected or Abandoned
In writing an essay on the opportunities presented by American involvement in Liberia, I just happened to query the number of treaties that the Bush administration has rejected, abandoned or refused to ratify. I didn't realize however, how many there were. Just remember, this (for the most part) has gone down in the last two to three years. Here's the list of what I could find:
1) The Kyoto Protocol
- An environment protocol to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses. Signed by 188 countries on July 32, 2001, minus the United States.
2) The International Criminal Court
- Creates a supernational criminal court to try war criminals. Ratified by 92 countries, including the United States by President Clinton. President Bush rescinded the agreement when he took office.
3) Small-Arms Trafficking
- The United States greatly weakened a convention to limit the sale of small arms. The President of the conference, Colombian Ambassador Carlos Reyes, singled out the United States saying, "While congratulating all participants for their diligence in reaching this new consensus, I must as President also express my disappointment over the Conference's inability to agree -- due to the concerns of one state -- on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons, and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-state groups."
4) Chemical Weapons Convention
- Unilaterally exempted itself from international inspections, greatly reducing the effectiveness of the convention.
5) Anti-Balistic Missle Treaty
- Withdrew from the ABM Treaty to pursue missile defence, even though it was opposed by Russia, China and most of the NATO allies and was historically the cornerstone of arms control for almost 30 years.
6) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
- Ratified by 170 countries in the world, excluding the United States and the former Taliban in Afghanistan.
7) Ottawa Convention on Landmines
- A convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines, this convention was signed by every nation in Western Hemisphere except the United States and Cuba.
8) Convention on the Rights of the Child
- Though one of the most ratified treaty in existence, the United States and Somalia are the only two countries not to have ratified it.
9) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- The US joins China, India, Pakistan and North Korea in not ratifying this treaty that bans the testing of nuclear weapons.
In writing an essay on the opportunities presented by American involvement in Liberia, I just happened to query the number of treaties that the Bush administration has rejected, abandoned or refused to ratify. I didn't realize however, how many there were. Just remember, this (for the most part) has gone down in the last two to three years. Here's the list of what I could find:
1) The Kyoto Protocol
- An environment protocol to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses. Signed by 188 countries on July 32, 2001, minus the United States.
2) The International Criminal Court
- Creates a supernational criminal court to try war criminals. Ratified by 92 countries, including the United States by President Clinton. President Bush rescinded the agreement when he took office.
3) Small-Arms Trafficking
- The United States greatly weakened a convention to limit the sale of small arms. The President of the conference, Colombian Ambassador Carlos Reyes, singled out the United States saying, "While congratulating all participants for their diligence in reaching this new consensus, I must as President also express my disappointment over the Conference's inability to agree -- due to the concerns of one state -- on language recognizing the need to establish and maintain controls over private ownership of these deadly weapons, and the need for preventing sales of such arms to non-state groups."
4) Chemical Weapons Convention
- Unilaterally exempted itself from international inspections, greatly reducing the effectiveness of the convention.
5) Anti-Balistic Missle Treaty
- Withdrew from the ABM Treaty to pursue missile defence, even though it was opposed by Russia, China and most of the NATO allies and was historically the cornerstone of arms control for almost 30 years.
6) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
- Ratified by 170 countries in the world, excluding the United States and the former Taliban in Afghanistan.
7) Ottawa Convention on Landmines
- A convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines, this convention was signed by every nation in Western Hemisphere except the United States and Cuba.
8) Convention on the Rights of the Child
- Though one of the most ratified treaty in existence, the United States and Somalia are the only two countries not to have ratified it.
9) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- The US joins China, India, Pakistan and North Korea in not ratifying this treaty that bans the testing of nuclear weapons.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
OK, it's official -- the GRE vocabulary is kicking my ass. Another evening at the library produced the following example of an antonym question:
ACARPOUS:
a) assiduous
b) poignant
c) fecund
d) reticent
e) prolix
I have to note that this is the worst example I've come across, but still! Who is, off the top of their heads, going to know the meaning of 'acarpous,' let alone figure out which one of the others it its antonym?!? Anyway, my desperation (and a chat with Charity today) has led me to adopt, for the first time ever, the note-card system of studying. So far I have A-C words down -- progress is being made...
ACARPOUS:
a) assiduous
b) poignant
c) fecund
d) reticent
e) prolix
I have to note that this is the worst example I've come across, but still! Who is, off the top of their heads, going to know the meaning of 'acarpous,' let alone figure out which one of the others it its antonym?!? Anyway, my desperation (and a chat with Charity today) has led me to adopt, for the first time ever, the note-card system of studying. So far I have A-C words down -- progress is being made...
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
I just picked up my Howard Dean wallpaper!! I got the 'speaking to the rally one' up now. Perfect match for my Amnesty International screensaver.
I'm so left it hurts.... :)
I'm so left it hurts.... :)
My Trip to the Library and Other Musings
Just got back from the library, where I began studying for my GREs. There's something about hanging out at the library and either studying or reading that I've always enjoyed. For some reason it has always made me feel either like I'm accomplishing something or that I'm more connected with what's going on, the latter usually stemming from reading the latest issue of The Economist. The sample GRE that I did (minus the essays) was pretty challenging. I thought I was a pretty well-read guy before taking it, but managed to find several words where I didn't have as much of a grasp on their meaning than I would have hoped. A few examples (at the risk of looking foolish to some of you out there): mansard, crepuscule, motile, lachrymose and quiescence were all words that I just looked at thinking, well, not thinking much actually -- that was the problem. Thanks to a handy (in the sense of useful, certainly not compact and available -- they were two very large volumes) Oxford dictionary, I ploughed through these words and found their meanings.
There's something academically pure about going through large dictionaries in the pursuit of the meanings to obscure words. Maybe I've seen too many lawyer (or general university) movies with characters romantically portrayed amongst piles of open books, in their passionate pursuit of knowledge. But that leads me to my other topic that I was thinking about in the last little while -- characterization.
It all sort of happened when I was reading "What Color Is Your Parachute?" -- a book prompted by countless urgings of Izzy to think about going back to school, and finally moved into action by the resignation of Charity to study law at Northwestern. There was an illustration of a small girl kneeling down by her bed, presumably saying her prayers. For some reason I connected this in my mind with a series running in the Wednesday edition of the Chicago Tribune about the stages of a woman's life, and sort of came up with the following thought. Everything that we see in the media about what it is to be a certain age is created by people likely not of that age themselves. This is more likely to happen at the extremities, of course. But it made me pause to think: What does it mean that all of the images created on what it is to be 'youth' (for instance) are created by people who aren't youth themselves, but are only looking at what it was in hindsight.
Hindsight, after all, is 20/20, and is completely different than what it is to go through it. Right now I'm 25, and I can see clearly how I'm different from when I was 20, and how I've matured, etc. But at the time, I was just me, as mature as I was going to get. Of course there are many other aspects other than maturity that I could talk about, but I think tit is the easiest example. But what the whole thing means is that we have people creating the media with a representation of the age completely in hindsight, but which is being consumed by people of that age as 'representative' of what it is to -be- that age. Needless to say there has to be some interaction between what it is to be that age and what it is represented (in hindsight) as, otherwise the youth would not accept it as valid. But still it follows that the injection of the representation will change what it is to be that age, or at the very least, the expectations of what it is -- and I think that's where some problems lie.
I really haven't got much past that point, but I thought it was an interesting mental toy that I'd share since I've been playing with it off and on for the last week or so. Have a response or comment? Send me an email or sign my guestbook! :)
(I have to plug the guestbook from time to time...)
Just got back from the library, where I began studying for my GREs. There's something about hanging out at the library and either studying or reading that I've always enjoyed. For some reason it has always made me feel either like I'm accomplishing something or that I'm more connected with what's going on, the latter usually stemming from reading the latest issue of The Economist. The sample GRE that I did (minus the essays) was pretty challenging. I thought I was a pretty well-read guy before taking it, but managed to find several words where I didn't have as much of a grasp on their meaning than I would have hoped. A few examples (at the risk of looking foolish to some of you out there): mansard, crepuscule, motile, lachrymose and quiescence were all words that I just looked at thinking, well, not thinking much actually -- that was the problem. Thanks to a handy (in the sense of useful, certainly not compact and available -- they were two very large volumes) Oxford dictionary, I ploughed through these words and found their meanings.
There's something academically pure about going through large dictionaries in the pursuit of the meanings to obscure words. Maybe I've seen too many lawyer (or general university) movies with characters romantically portrayed amongst piles of open books, in their passionate pursuit of knowledge. But that leads me to my other topic that I was thinking about in the last little while -- characterization.
It all sort of happened when I was reading "What Color Is Your Parachute?" -- a book prompted by countless urgings of Izzy to think about going back to school, and finally moved into action by the resignation of Charity to study law at Northwestern. There was an illustration of a small girl kneeling down by her bed, presumably saying her prayers. For some reason I connected this in my mind with a series running in the Wednesday edition of the Chicago Tribune about the stages of a woman's life, and sort of came up with the following thought. Everything that we see in the media about what it is to be a certain age is created by people likely not of that age themselves. This is more likely to happen at the extremities, of course. But it made me pause to think: What does it mean that all of the images created on what it is to be 'youth' (for instance) are created by people who aren't youth themselves, but are only looking at what it was in hindsight.
Hindsight, after all, is 20/20, and is completely different than what it is to go through it. Right now I'm 25, and I can see clearly how I'm different from when I was 20, and how I've matured, etc. But at the time, I was just me, as mature as I was going to get. Of course there are many other aspects other than maturity that I could talk about, but I think tit is the easiest example. But what the whole thing means is that we have people creating the media with a representation of the age completely in hindsight, but which is being consumed by people of that age as 'representative' of what it is to -be- that age. Needless to say there has to be some interaction between what it is to be that age and what it is represented (in hindsight) as, otherwise the youth would not accept it as valid. But still it follows that the injection of the representation will change what it is to be that age, or at the very least, the expectations of what it is -- and I think that's where some problems lie.
I really haven't got much past that point, but I thought it was an interesting mental toy that I'd share since I've been playing with it off and on for the last week or so. Have a response or comment? Send me an email or sign my guestbook! :)
(I have to plug the guestbook from time to time...)
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Just had a conversation with my sister about the old canada heritage commercials. We can't seem to remember many of them, and I haven't been able to find them on the internet anywhere (which is sort of amazing given their pop culture value in Canada). We could only remember a few:
The Halifax Explosion one -- this was the one with the guy trying to warn the train not to come into Halifax because the Imo and the Mont Blanc had collided and the latter was about to do its thing (as far as creating the largest non-nuclear explosion ever can be considered 'doing its thing'). Can't remember the guy's name though.
The Canada one -- This is the one where the senior French guy thinks that 'Canada' is the name of the country, with his sidekick politely stating, "I think they're talking about the group of villages over there." Guess who was right?
The Irish/French Immigrants -- This is the one I remember the best. Orphaned Irish kids are being taken in by French-Canadian parents (good 'ol Catholic connection) and when they talk about taking the patronyms of the French, one of them says, "Ma mère me l'a dit juste avant de sa mort: We have to keep our Irish names!!" At least I think that's what the French was. Correct me if I'm wrong.
There was also one about a female doctor, but we couldn't remember that one well. If you know of more (or if we blew one of them), send me an email or tell me in the guestbook.
The Halifax Explosion one -- this was the one with the guy trying to warn the train not to come into Halifax because the Imo and the Mont Blanc had collided and the latter was about to do its thing (as far as creating the largest non-nuclear explosion ever can be considered 'doing its thing'). Can't remember the guy's name though.
The Canada one -- This is the one where the senior French guy thinks that 'Canada' is the name of the country, with his sidekick politely stating, "I think they're talking about the group of villages over there." Guess who was right?
The Irish/French Immigrants -- This is the one I remember the best. Orphaned Irish kids are being taken in by French-Canadian parents (good 'ol Catholic connection) and when they talk about taking the patronyms of the French, one of them says, "Ma mère me l'a dit juste avant de sa mort: We have to keep our Irish names!!" At least I think that's what the French was. Correct me if I'm wrong.
There was also one about a female doctor, but we couldn't remember that one well. If you know of more (or if we blew one of them), send me an email or tell me in the guestbook.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)