This is what I wish happened on Glee last night between Tina and Rachel.
I MADE THAT WHEN I WAS 14 | a Nick Miller infinite playlist
(or, an indiscriminate selection of overplayed 90s alternative hits)
1. fatboy slim - praise you
2. fastball - the way
3. deep blue something - breakfast at tiffany’s
4. savage garden - truly madly deeply
5. blind melon - no rain
6. spin doctors - two princes
7. crash test dummies - mmm mmm mmm mmm
8. duncan sheik - barely breathing
9. the verve pipe - the freshmen
10. the black crowes - she talks to angels
11. eve 6 - inside out
12. paula cole - where have all the cowboys gone
13. the cardigans - lovefool
14. natalie imbruglia - torn
15. shawn colvin - sunny came home
16. no doubt - don’t speak
17. sheryl crow - every day is a winding road
18. the verve - bittersweet symphony
19. CAKE - the distance
20. new radicals - you get what you give
21. OMC - how bizarre
22. chumbawumba - tubthumping (i get knocked down)
23. semisonic - closing time
I just want to say that I love New Girl probably more than I should but I just can’t help it.
OH GOD I’M A TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC. AND I THINK I LOVE IT.
Tides are changing
Already people are saying “this isn’t enough” but you know what? This is MOMENTOUS.
I am sure that past presidents and other people in high ranking positions have personally felt that marriage equality was right but never came out and publicly stated it UNTIL they were out of power. To say something like that, I am sure but have no documented proof, was considered political suicide.
But here’s Obama, President of the United States and in an election year, finally saying what he believes. He could lose votes, he could gain votes, but you know what? I don’t care. What I care about is that he said it while he was still in power.
I don’t like that it should be a state by state case because nothing good happens when there is a majority vote on minority rights but damnit, HE SAID IT. HE SAID WHAT HE PERSONALLY BELIEVES WHILE STILL IN POWER AND IT SUPPORTS MINORITY RIGHTS.
Reason #12549089 to love The Avengers
It knows that its audience has female viewers
Skin tight catsuits were well balanced with shots like this.
Bike Helmets !=Bike Safety as Seatbelts !=Car Safety
Okay - first and foremost, I personally believe everybody SHOULD wear helmets. They protect YOUR BRAIN which you need TO LIVE. However, on their own, helmets do NOTHING when it comes to actual bike safety.
Now hear me out.
In America, at least, teenagers who want to drive first have to take a class on HOW to drive. Not just how to operate a car, but how to drive that car without killing people; themselves or others. They have to learn the laws regarding traffic and those laws are mainly there to protect people because, let’s face it, a car is a pretty efficient weapon. If you hit a person or another vehicle with your car there is a decent chance you can walk away from it, and that chance is higher if you wear a seat belt. However, the other car, people in that car, or people outside the car are pretty much toast. They show movies in class about horrible car accidents and the bloody ramifications of them (the stories of RED ASPHALT! were passed from generation to generation). Teens have to pass a test showing that they know these laws. They have to pass a test showing that they can drive a car safely. If they pass, they get a license. THIS IS IMPORTANT because if they fuck up, break the law, cause an accident through negligence, THEY ARE TO BLAME (well, idealy that is).
There is a law that states you have to wear a seat belt when driving a car or riding in a car (although the passenger seat belt law actually varies from state to state). BUT THAT’S NOT THE END OF CAR SAFETY. From what I know (and I know I need to do more research on this, it’s basically anecdotal from what my mom told me a few years ago) is that the seat belt law came into play because if a person dies in a car accident and they do not have insurance, the state has to pay for all the damages. Seat Belt laws were (from my understanding, citation needed) enacted to save states money but they were sold as a way to protect life.
There critics who feel, however, that by forcing people to wear seat belts, it gives the driver an undue sense of safety and that they’ll take MORE risks while driving and that will lead to more accidents. This has never been proven although people try. I still have friends who do not want to wear their seatbelts while driving for myriads of what I feel are stupid reasons. I had one friend who did not like it when I buckled up in his car because he thought it meant I didn’t trust him. Cue a “WTF” moment.
ANYWAYS
When it comes to cycling in America, there is nothing remotely like car education. Now, I grew up in a very bike-centric city with lots of bike paths, bike lanes, and everybody pretty much was on the look out for cyclist. You would think, then, that everybody in the city would know how to use bike signals, use bike lights, wear helmets, not be douche bags, but nope. Not the case.
Bike safety and education is not taught with the same amount of importance as car education. Part of this could be because bikes are less likely to completely destroy other people besides the driver than cars are. Bike riding in America is more, for lack of a better term, offense whereas cars are defense. In America, a cyclist is responsible for their own life. In a car, the driver is responsible for the lives of others.
WHICH IS NOT TO SAY BIKES DON’T KILL OTHER PEOPLE. Just last month in San Francisco, a cyclist went barreling down Castro St and PLOWED INTO PEOPLE IN THE CROSS WALK. HE KILLED A GUY. The cyclist was taken to the hospital but basically walked away from the accident, citing the importance of his helmet for saving his life. HE DID THAT, I’M SERIOUS. HE POSTED ON A WEBSITE THAT THE LESSON WAS ALWAYS WEAR YOUR HELMET. Not, you know, don’t go plowing into a group of pedestrians who have the right of way while traveling at 35 MPH.
In America, it is common to slap a helmet on a kid, teach them how to control a bike, and then let them out on the roads with the warning of DON’T GET HIT BY CARS. It becomes engrained in the child’s head that they need only to stay away from cars in order to survive and that cars should watch out for them. I do believe that, teaching children this lesson early paves the road for a sense of entitlement that basically means they are not at fault for any wrong doing on a bike - it’s the fault of the cars around them.
In the Netherlands, there are no bike helmet laws. I feel that there are 2 main reasons for this: 1) a bike culture that provides roads, paths, and means of travel that put distance between cars and bikes and 2) EDUCATION. Kids are taught in public school how to safely ride their bikes.
I propose we do the same in America. It might not have to be as stringent as the route we take for driver education, but I think it’s damn important that we start teaching kids to: 1) Know the rules of the road, obey the laws of any moving vehicle (which a bike is), learn how to stop, signal, merge, etc correctly. 2) BE VISIBLE - have lights when it’s dawn/dusk/dark and wear reflective clothing 3) BE SAFE - you know, don’t go plowing into a group of people because you’re too committed to stop.
I honestly think that, if we teach children how to ride bikes, and how to ride them safer, then when they grow up to be drivers, they will also remember to share the roads.
If anything, I think it would be wise for bike share companies to require their members to take a bike safety class prior to enrollment.
Okay, done rambling. I am sure citation is needed for a lot of this, and I might be wrong on a lot of points, but the bottom line is this: helmets are important just as seat belts are important because IT SUCKS TO DIE. But if we end bike safety at that, then why bother teaching drivers ed?
This becomes a world without men, soft and unthreatening, and the girls become as tender as virgins. They are not whores, as they would be if they took a step outside, or as they will be when they are called downstairs again by the madame, but they are nothing else, either, They are between. Not what they used to be, and not what they have become. IN those times, they are nothing. And I am invisible, and I am nothing too. That is the true demimonde, Lucien, and the secret is, it is not always desperate and dark. Sometimes it is just nothing. No burden of potential or regret. There are worse things that being nothing, my friend.
“
| — |
Henri in Sacre Bleu (Christopher Moore) Ever read a passage and think that perhaps the whole book was written simply so the author could include it? Yeah, that happened to me last night when I read this. |
I turned today’s email exchange on the family listserve into a lesson plan
VOCABULARY LIST:
cyn·i·cal/ˈsinikəl/
Adjective:
Believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.
Doubtful as to whether something will happen or is worthwhile.
Cynical Humor: http://www.reference.com/motif/society/cynical-humor
Cynical humor is usually dark and negative, and can be directed at anything. Cynicism itself is derived from a group of ancient Greek philosophers, who believed virtue was the only way to gain happiness. That formed the understanding of cynicism today, focusing on negative aspects of things. Cynical humor reflects that. For more on this topic, visit: en.wikipedia.org
amuse: http://thesaurus.com/browse/amusing?s=t
Part of Speech: verb Definition: entertain; make laugh
Synonyms: break one up, charm, cheer, crack up, delight, divert, fracture, gladden, grab*, gratify, interest, kill*, knock dead, make roll in the aisles, occupy, panic*, please, put away, regale, slay, tickle, wow*
Notes: the first meaning of amuse was ‘to divert the attention of in order to mislead,’ ‘delude, deceive’ and now means ‘entertain, make smile or laugh’; bemuse means ‘confuse, bewilder, puzzle’
strange: http://thesaurus.com/browse/strange?s=t
Part of Speech: adjective Definition: deviating, unfamiliar
Synonyms: aberrant, abnormal, astonishing, astounding, atypical, bizarre, curious, different, eccentric, erratic, exceptional, extraordinary, fantastic, far-out, funny, idiosyncratic, ignorant, inexperienced, irregular, marvelous, mystifying, new, newfangled, odd, oddball, off, offbeat, out-of-the-way, outlandish, peculiar, perplexing, quaint, queer, rare, remarkable, singular, unaccountable, unaccustomed, uncanny, uncommon, unheard of, unseasoned, unusual, weird, wonderful
Let us explore today’s various email exchanges:
First
Paul’s joke: I saw a clip and swore I heard Barack say, Kind of like he did with Putin….when Obama leaned in to whisper to Fallon he said ” shhhh keep it under wraps until after I am elected, don’t tell these students I cannot really do anything about rising tuition costs, their just kids, they will believe anything and I need their votes.”
B responded - “I’m disappointed that you are feeling so cynical on the possibility of reducing the cost of higher education for students.”
To which Bill responded - “There appears to be a failure of your educational system when people cannot tell the difference between humor and cynicism. Now this was cynicism.”
Second:
Bill’s statement: I find it amusing that a senior political figure such as the POTUS would select a venue such as a late night comedy show to make important policy points. I believe his intent was to gain voter support. I appoligize if I misinterpeted Paul’s intent.
I don’t appoligize for the amusement.
Tom’s response: Why does anyone find it weird that the president might go on television and talk with a populist figure like Fallon, or Leno or Stewart? Why is that strange?
Bill’s response: Who said strange?
I said amusing. I do not at all find it “strange” that a pouplar, poupulist president such as Obama would appear on such programs.
I find it amusing that these venues are where people become aware of “serious policy points”
Amusing in that this is not the way things have usually been done.
Amusing in that are these points that “serious”
Amusing in that it is a changing world.
Amusing in that humour regarding this POTUS is not allowed.
NOT STRAGE
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT:
Please respond with at least one full sentence, but no more than five.
ASSIGNMENT ONE
a) Based on the included definition, is Paul’s joke “cynical humor”?
b) Based on the above definition, was B incorrect in assuming that Paul, himself, was being cynical?
c) In regards to Paul’s joke and Bill’s response, is cynicism and humor mutually exclusive in this context?
ASSIGNMENT TWO:
a) Using the supplied synonyms for Amusing and Strange, please list the similarities between the two words and then contrast them with their definitions.
b) Rewrite the dialog between Bill and Tom but replace the words Amusing and Strange with their respectful synonyms.
BONUS ASSIGNMENT:
Tom wrote that “The fact that we’re talking about the issues underscores the point that we need to be seeing more of our President in situations outside of his usual places. What made the Fireside chats so interesting in the 1930s and 1940s was the disruptive effects of appearing outside the usual places.” The Fireside Chats he is referring to is a series of radio speeches given by the president FDR.
Please write an essay (five paragraph minimum, must included a thesis statement and a bibliography) answering the question: Does President Obama’s appearance in public entertainment media have the same effect on the public as FDRs fireside chats did during his presidency?
Assignments are due by the end of the week and will be graded and returned by Monday.
