So I've been somewhat lazy about getting around to posting anything. It's because I am now addicted to the game House of Dead Ninjas. Gah! So many levels!
Anyway, I'll try and post something soon. We'll see.
Cracked.com, which I love (look at my bio peeps), wrote a wonderful article a while ago that everyone in the United States (and world) should read. Here it is: http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam.html
Why should you read it? Because there is significant "literature" on the internet and in print that paints an innacurate and biased view of Islam. Every religion has faults, but it's getting ridiculous people!
Kosher and Halal are the same! The dangers of Halal? Logic people. Use it. Read, learn. It will change your life.
Why should you read it? Because there is significant "literature" on the internet and in print that paints an innacurate and biased view of Islam. Every religion has faults, but it's getting ridiculous people!
Kosher and Halal are the same! The dangers of Halal? Logic people. Use it. Read, learn. It will change your life.
So here it is. The obligatory post-State of the Union rebuttal. Not really. I'm just going to give my thoughts on Obama's speech.
Whenever Obama has an audience to connect with, he performs considerably better, and Tuesday was no exception. In fact, about 90% of Americans reacted favorably to his speech. But his oratory skills are usually superb, so there isn't anything of import there.
The meat of Obama's address was interesting. Obviously, he is supposed to reassure the nation that "the state of the union is strong!" but Obama interestingly also thoroughly mentioned all the areas in which the US is lacking. He extensively discussed South Korea and China's success, to the point where I was feeling self conscious. We can't be South Korea, Mr. President! Well, maybe we could be, if another country were financing our military, leaving us with time and money to improve healthcare, education, etc....Hmmmm....
(See, the ironic part is that the US takes care of South Korea's military interests.)
But! Obama brought it back by encouraging American's that this is merely our "Sputnik moment" - if we remain innovative and diligent we can Win The Future! That sounds like a longer slogan than "Hope" or "Change", so let's just give that an acronym. Oh...WTF....that's, um, awkward.
Nevertheless, Obama got me all excited with his plans for the future, so we can win it. There's nothing America loves more than winning things. Like fattest nation! Check, meet bank. So, what are we going to do to win the latest challenge? Time machines? Spaceships to Pluto? Money tress?
Internet. And cars. And trains! Marginally faster ones.
Is it comparable to Kennedy's speech? A true Sputnik moment? No. But then again, America doesn't have the funds to win the future with Deloreans or Spaceships. So Obama is being pragmatic. I get it. It doesn't mean I'm not disappointed, but I get it.
So all these amazing future-winning ideas are bopping around, but there were a few issues in Obama's speech that didn't make an appearance. Gun control, for example, which is a salient issue post-Tucson shootings. Or global warming. If nature kills us in hot-blooded revenge, I guess it doesn't matter if 80% of the population has amazing internet connection. But, if we could all just leave on a spaceship....
All in all, a safe and strong speech. Not complete, not extremely inspiring, but it all seemed rather doable. At least the Democrats and the Republicans were sitting together! How far we've come...
Whenever Obama has an audience to connect with, he performs considerably better, and Tuesday was no exception. In fact, about 90% of Americans reacted favorably to his speech. But his oratory skills are usually superb, so there isn't anything of import there.
The meat of Obama's address was interesting. Obviously, he is supposed to reassure the nation that "the state of the union is strong!" but Obama interestingly also thoroughly mentioned all the areas in which the US is lacking. He extensively discussed South Korea and China's success, to the point where I was feeling self conscious. We can't be South Korea, Mr. President! Well, maybe we could be, if another country were financing our military, leaving us with time and money to improve healthcare, education, etc....Hmmmm....
(See, the ironic part is that the US takes care of South Korea's military interests.)
But! Obama brought it back by encouraging American's that this is merely our "Sputnik moment" - if we remain innovative and diligent we can Win The Future! That sounds like a longer slogan than "Hope" or "Change", so let's just give that an acronym. Oh...WTF....that's, um, awkward.
Nevertheless, Obama got me all excited with his plans for the future, so we can win it. There's nothing America loves more than winning things. Like fattest nation! Check, meet bank. So, what are we going to do to win the latest challenge? Time machines? Spaceships to Pluto? Money tress?
Internet. And cars. And trains! Marginally faster ones.
Is it comparable to Kennedy's speech? A true Sputnik moment? No. But then again, America doesn't have the funds to win the future with Deloreans or Spaceships. So Obama is being pragmatic. I get it. It doesn't mean I'm not disappointed, but I get it.
So all these amazing future-winning ideas are bopping around, but there were a few issues in Obama's speech that didn't make an appearance. Gun control, for example, which is a salient issue post-Tucson shootings. Or global warming. If nature kills us in hot-blooded revenge, I guess it doesn't matter if 80% of the population has amazing internet connection. But, if we could all just leave on a spaceship....
All in all, a safe and strong speech. Not complete, not extremely inspiring, but it all seemed rather doable. At least the Democrats and the Republicans were sitting together! How far we've come...
There's been a lot of talk recently about a book written by Amy Chua called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, and you can read an excerpt of it here.
In response to this blatant abuse of animal attributes, Erika Christasis of CNN decided to take the high road and...no wait; She calls herself a "dolphin mother" and goes on to argue that this style of parenting is more advanced using the longest, most awkward metaphor ever invented.
Well, just so we're clear, though I am not currently a mother, I can firmly state that my totem would be the hamster, due to my tendency to viciously cannibalize my own young.
Anyway, moving on to her argument:
Chua declares that her "tiger" attitude (e.g. Forcing children to excel in specific academic and musical areas through intimidation, insults, and squashing rebellion) is what produces the math whiz or the musical prodigy. And perhaps it is. But does this produce happy, well-adjusted, innovative members of society? In addition, are these children really as perfect and obedient as their parents believe? Is there even an honest, healthy relationship between parent and child?
Most evidence says no, on all accounts.
The creation of flawless student automatons may yield excellent grades, but the society places more value on individuals who are well rounded, have many interests, and have social skills. Sports, creative outlets beyond piano and violin, relationships, sleep, individuality, happiness - all of these aspects of a child's life only serve to enrich it, and in addition promote a lasting relationship with a parent unmarred by bitterness or private rebellion.
In fact, society (including the President of China during his visit to the United States!) has recognized that the next great artist, novelist, or entrepreneur won't be emerging from these Chinese households. Even Ivy Leagues are no longer admitting to as many students who demonstrate robotic perfection - they prefer amazing individuals who were allowed to blossom.
Of course, that doesn't write off Western parenting as perfect or even the best option, but we do live in a melting pot; is it really so impossible to encourage our children to pressure themselves and strive for greatness while still maintaining healthy and active social lives and hobbies?
One of my good friends Raja actually wrote Ms. Chua an email, which is on facebook, and he received an email back! She defended herself by stating that the article I linked earlier wasn't a good depiction of the whole novel. He responded by asking whether she regrets allowing herself to be misrepresented by said article, to which she did not respond. Intriguing!
Anyway! This is definitely open for discussion, and I know people have many differing opinions on this, so let me know what you're thinking!
In response to this blatant abuse of animal attributes, Erika Christasis of CNN decided to take the high road and...no wait; She calls herself a "dolphin mother" and goes on to argue that this style of parenting is more advanced using the longest, most awkward metaphor ever invented.
Well, just so we're clear, though I am not currently a mother, I can firmly state that my totem would be the hamster, due to my tendency to viciously cannibalize my own young.
Mmmmmm.......motherhood IS delicious.
Anyway, moving on to her argument:
Chua declares that her "tiger" attitude (e.g. Forcing children to excel in specific academic and musical areas through intimidation, insults, and squashing rebellion) is what produces the math whiz or the musical prodigy. And perhaps it is. But does this produce happy, well-adjusted, innovative members of society? In addition, are these children really as perfect and obedient as their parents believe? Is there even an honest, healthy relationship between parent and child?
Most evidence says no, on all accounts.
The creation of flawless student automatons may yield excellent grades, but the society places more value on individuals who are well rounded, have many interests, and have social skills. Sports, creative outlets beyond piano and violin, relationships, sleep, individuality, happiness - all of these aspects of a child's life only serve to enrich it, and in addition promote a lasting relationship with a parent unmarred by bitterness or private rebellion.
In fact, society (including the President of China during his visit to the United States!) has recognized that the next great artist, novelist, or entrepreneur won't be emerging from these Chinese households. Even Ivy Leagues are no longer admitting to as many students who demonstrate robotic perfection - they prefer amazing individuals who were allowed to blossom.
Of course, that doesn't write off Western parenting as perfect or even the best option, but we do live in a melting pot; is it really so impossible to encourage our children to pressure themselves and strive for greatness while still maintaining healthy and active social lives and hobbies?
One of my good friends Raja actually wrote Ms. Chua an email, which is on facebook, and he received an email back! She defended herself by stating that the article I linked earlier wasn't a good depiction of the whole novel. He responded by asking whether she regrets allowing herself to be misrepresented by said article, to which she did not respond. Intriguing!
Anyway! This is definitely open for discussion, and I know people have many differing opinions on this, so let me know what you're thinking!
Ok! It's post number one, and the saga of stress relief begins! My first proclamation as a new blogger is as follows: I shall not mention Sarah Palin for the entire month of February.
Even though talking about Governor Palin might both relieve stress and improve my self-esteem, I am so thoroughly sick of hearing about a woman who adds about as much to political discourse as Kate Gosselin, so I am joining the call of Dana Milbank of the Washington Post by refusing to pump her giant, inflated head with any more hot air.
Actually, the amazing people over at Skippy (which you should all read) created a wonderful logo to start us off:
Even though talking about Governor Palin might both relieve stress and improve my self-esteem, I am so thoroughly sick of hearing about a woman who adds about as much to political discourse as Kate Gosselin, so I am joining the call of Dana Milbank of the Washington Post by refusing to pump her giant, inflated head with any more hot air.
Actually, the amazing people over at Skippy (which you should all read) created a wonderful logo to start us off:
Hopefully, more people will ignore the tingling of their comedic spidey senses and realize that if we stop devoting so much time discussing Sarah Palin's statements as if they hold any real value, perhaps she will become less important (much like Kate Gosselin).
