Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Down time has fortunately come upon me, so I think I’ll share some thoughts with all three people who might bother to read this. Unfortunately, however, I’m realizing that I don’t have much to say. Other than the occasional Boondocks-inspired giggle (“The Free Huey”! That’s great!), the newspapers online haven’t done much to make me laugh, and hence want to talk about it. Expecting Marjorie (if you consider Slate.com a newspaper), which I find to be a hoot. If I could pick a landlord/lady, she’d be it. What a shame that current events don’t make me laugh! I guess Neil Postman (via Amusing Ourselves to Death) would point me out as another example of Sesame Street education. But with people like Gore and “Dub-yuh” taking center stage, you’d expect some smart-ass to make a funny comment. Maybe I’m just not reading enough. Heard at the office yesterday: “This job kills the right brain.” My addendum: It does a good job at making you borderline illiterate as well. Reading is fundamental? FUNdamental? Why is Neil Postman rearing his ugly head in my head this afternoon? I think I’ve just realized why Blogger, along with every other posting service on the web, is such a hit: Pump Up the Volume. Millions of Gen X kids who wanted to blast their own voice, own ideas, over the airwaves can finally live out that dream without the huge infrastructure associated with radio communication. With a Pentium-powered PC, 500 free hours of AOL, and a few half-baked ideas, anyone (take for example myself!) can blast their mental ramblings—angst-filled or not—to the entire frickin’ World Wide Web. We can finally be Christian Slater, anonymity and all. The downside of this is, obviously, being drowned out by every other voice being broadcast over broadband. When everyone talks as loud as they can, no one ends up listening to the ensuing mumbling and jumbling of the masses speaking. Maybe the masses should just shut up—to be seen rather than heard, like little children, the way the bourgeoisie likes to treat us. Questions: do the masses have anything important to say? Follow-up: Does it matter? (“Does it matter” can be meant in two ways: (1) “People should have the freedom to say whatever the fuck they want to say (poignant expletive intentional), so who cares if it’s important or not?” Or (2) The low, dirty, and uneducated masses shouldn’t be allowed to speak in the first place, so whether it’s important or not doesn’t mean a great deal.” Obviously the second is by far the less politically correct thing to say these days, but if you want to side with the first, you have to allow the second. Ooo, the vicious cycle of free speech. Believers in the “I may not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it” please raise your hands. And I don’t mean “in theory”. Be honest.) I think it’s time for a revolution. I just haven’t decided on what kind. Send me suggestions.
“….You'll note that I subliminally used the word "subliminal" above. It's the rats-factor, no doubt. (By the way, is there a Republican candidate's dictionary somewhere in preparation, with entries under "subliminable," "potatoe," etc.?) I wonder if the Bush-Gore teams have tumbled to the fact that RATS is actually STAR, backward and that STAR WAR(s) is thus a palindrome for RAW RATS? The poet Anne Sexton was fascinated with the rats/star palindrome, inspired by an expanded version that she saw on the side of a barn: "Rats live on no evil star." (Live/evil is not bad, either, when you come to think of it.)” --Marjorie. Something about English professors strikes a chord with me. Tuesday, September 12, 2000
“I can't watch news clips of the Aryan Nation or any other hate group or militia without feeling the stirrings of hating-back. Sentiments are always reciprocated, as one of my favorite psychoanalyst-philosophers put it. Except for infatuation, this seems to me by and large true.” --another clip from Marjorie Monday, September 11, 2000
"Landlady/landlord is one of those odd dissymmetries that makes the history of the language so intriguing. The primary cultural association of "landlady" is with lodging houses or boarding houses, whereas landlords, who can equally well be hosts (jolly or unjolly) were once upon a time also literally lords, or owners, of land. It's not quite so stark as the (oft-cited) difference between a "public man"--a statesman--and a "public woman"--a whore--but it's suggestive." --Marjorie Garber, www.slate.com Thursday, September 07, 2000
ever want to leave the daily humming and drumming and head on out to the Burning Man festival? If i can't afford to go, maybe i'll make myself an exhibit, and get someone else to ship me out there. i'll be Migum's exhibit, titled "feminist revolution: the submissive man". =) who would have thought nevada was such a strange place. vegas. i take that back. my apologies. http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/090500burn-festival.html Wednesday, September 06, 2000
|
