The Plum
« July 2008 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Cute
Firestorm 2003
Fun
News
Opinion
Personal
Review
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
Monday, 23 June 2008

Thanks a lot, Congressman Phil Gramm.  Hope you enjoyed your new oil-money yacht, hookers and blow... also prepare to enjoy hell in your gasoline drawers.

The Enron Loophole is the nickname for a provision written into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) of 2000 that was drafted by lobbyists for Enron and inserted in the bill by then Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) that deregulated an aspect of the market Enron sought to exploit with its “Enron On-Line” trading program, the first Internet-based commodities transaction system.

The “Enron loophole” Gramm had added to the bill took exchanges and derivative oil contracts out of supervisory oversight and caused the California energy fiasco shortly after.

Go to http://closeloophole.org to take action! Write to your senators.

And while we're on the subject, I wish McCain would stop it with the 'gas-tax holiday' already (seriously, does that man not have an economic adviser?).  It's well past bread and circuses now.  Throwing the public a stupid bone like that doesn't get anywhere near fixing the root of the problem - speculation and unregulated trading.  Neither does drilling in Alaska; according to the Energy Information Administration, drilling in ANWR will result in additional oil production of a peak in 2024 at 870,000 barrels a day, trimming $0.75 (in 2006 dollars) off the projected cost of a barrel of oil by 2025.  That's right, less than one dollar off per barrel of oil. It'll take 10 years for production to begin & cost more than than it will benefit. It's a terrible business decision that no company with viable long-term goals would even consider.

Not only will opening up ANWR to drilling not bring us enough oil, the oil companies already have approved off-shore drilling leases for areas they're not using, and which they refuse to drill, meanwhile lobbying congress to open up Alaska.

Gasoline drawers also await the oil industry lobbyists in hell, where they can reminisce over old times with Phil Gramm.


Posted by conniechai at 11:03 AM PDT
Updated: Monday, 23 June 2008 3:32 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 20 June 2008
If you have nothing to hide, Citizen, you have nothing to fear.
Topic: Opinion

 

House approves ex post facto immunity for telecommunications companies who particiated in warrant-less wiretapping. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2041088420080620?rpc=92

Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

 


Posted by conniechai at 12:51 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink
We will not run a Gulag: On the Habeas Corpus decision at SCOTUS on 6/12/2008
Topic: Opinion
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)
As an immigrant and a naturalized American, I am pleased to find myself in this superior country; to see that the three branches of US government check each other; how unlike Venezuela under Hugo Chavez or Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf! How wonderful that we have term limits for the presidency, so unlike Cuba under Fidel Castro! How reassuring that our court system is designed to be transparent, that we are protected from extrajudicial action, unlike those poor sods in Colombia who met the Death Squad in the night.

All these things make us a great nation, a great nation of laws, where people have rights. For all these reasons I am pleased with last Thursday's SCOTUS ruling on habeas corpus. The dissenting justices (SCOTUS decision was 5-4 split) may believe that foreign citizens do not have the same legal rights as American citizens; how about those prisoners who are Canadian citizens? British citizens? Were it wrong to indefinitely detain a Canadian who is accused (but not charged) with rape-murder, were it not wrong to do same with him when accused but not charged with terrorism? And if so, does that extend to Afghans or Pakistanis? If not, why not?

The designation of "enemy combatants" allows our government to detain people indefinitely.  No charge, no trial. Kind of like how Communist China treats its dissidents (believe me, I know about this).  Kind of like how Communist USSR used its gulags. Aren't we better? Shouldn't we be? Habeas corpus is a foreign (literally) concept to dictators like Robert Mugabe or Idi Amin; it should not be foreign to our nation of laws. Violation of habeas corpus has the power to negate every other right; its exercise or suspension need to be watched more carefully than ever before.  We already have warrant-less wiretapping in place; and to those who say that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, some Chinese political prisoners who disappeared in the night would like a word with you. Except, they can't, 'cause they've disappeared.

The prisoners are suspected of, not charged with, terrorism. Our government do not recognize them as prisoners of war, and therefore exempt ourselves from the Geneva Convention; they are also not suspected criminals, exempting them from US law.  It's pat and convenient, but it creates a logical and moral hazard to deny prisoners habeas corpus on a whim. The fact that they are Muslim males do not make them guilty; if it were so, then every white disaffected Christian male in Oklahoma with a bad haircut should be locked up indefinitely with no appeal nor representation, on the grounds that they'd all want to bomb federal buildings a la McVeigh.

But of course we wouldn't do that - it would be illegal.

Posted by conniechai at 12:49 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 20 June 2008 1:01 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 18 June 2008

Topic: Opinion

For those of you paying attention to something other than the Iraq War, gas prices, and Fox News' insistence that Obama is a secret Muslim who will kill us all - The California Supreme Court this week ruled that that ban on same-sex marriage is illegal, therefore gays can get married now.  Much jubilation from both the homosexual community and the wedding industry in California - "We're going to sell so much cake!" says bakery owner.

Which leads to my story.

Yesterday while driving hither and yon through Santa Ana for work meetings, I drove past the old court house in Santa Ana, in which the now legal gay weddings were taking place.  I know, just by driving past, what was going on the courthouse within, because the sidewalk without was occupied by protesters holding pickets condemning the homosexuals for their sins. One protester's sign said that he loved Jesus and that the gays were denying God.  I wonder how these self-proclaimed "Christians" finds room in their souls to hate, if their hearts are full of Christ. 

There are a lot of opportunistic jokes about gay marriage, for example Chris Rock: "Go ahead, let them get married. Let them be as miserable as the rest of us!" or my own favorite trope – "Of course gay marriage is bad! What's bad for children? Divorce. What's the leading cause of divorce? Marriage. Ergo, more people getting married, means more people will get divorced, which means more bad for the children! Please won't somebody think of the children!"

Joking aside, I guess I'm not on top of this 'Sanctity of Marriage' thing or how gays ruin it.  A lot of things make mockeries of marriage - domestic violence, spouses who can't stand one another, people who married for money or power rather than love - but I can't imagine how homosexuals mock marriage. "Nyah nyah nyah, we don't have to pay alimony to our gold-digging trophy ex-wife and you do?" (We're looking at you, Heather McCartney). Seriously, how have two women, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon,made a mockery of marriage by receiving legal recognition of their 55+ year commitment to each other? Marriage is a social contract, not a biological one; if it were a biological one, no marriage would last past when the young born of the marriage are grown.  The Los Angeles Catholic Archdiocese released a statement that says the Church holds to the view that marriage is between a man and a woman for creation of new life.  So, to all the Catholic heterosexual couples out there who suffer from infertility – a great, big 'screw you and your failed union' from your church leaders. You're welcome.

The 'slippery slope' argument posits that allowing homosexual marriages will lead to polygamy and bestiality (yes, I know…).   This is a classical fallacy that is easily addressed.

Historically, marriage has never been, in most societies, limited to one man and one woman. Biblical patriarchs had more than one wife at a time; men of means in many cultures had junior wives or concubines, which in modern society would mean mistresses.  In at least one central Asian culture, plural marriages are polyandrous rather than polygamous, through which means do the family prevent its wealth from being fractured away via its sons.  My objection to polygamy is that traditionally the concubines and mistresses were subjugated in powerless roles and were not given choices. My grandfather had a wife and a concubine, and children from both women; neither woman chose it, and both were unhappy (my grandfather was something of a jerk, apparently; he acquired a Japanese concubine after WWII but discarded the poor woman after the novelty of boinking the enemy wore off).

The key here, is INFORMED CONSENT, and it is here that the slippery slope claim falls apart. Homosexuality does not equal polygamy does not equal bestiality.  The polygamous cults in the US are wrong, because they consider 13-year-old girls as marriageable, with absolutely no informed consent; therefore it is child rape, and therefore it is wrong.  The lack of informed consent is also what makes bestiality wrong – dumb animals cannot say yes or no (or neigh, if we're talking about horses – sorry), therefore, sex with an animal is animal abuse. Now, if we're talking about adults who are capable of informed consent, and are able to agree to the arrangement and make legal contracts to protects assets and agree on support of minor children (basically, everything entailed in a marriage), then have at it, my fellow Americans!  The US Supreme court struck down bans on interracial marriages in 1967, and OMG the white race didn't get destroyed, the nation didn't disintegrate, and we're pretty much through with the anti-miscegenation nonsense by now (Most of us anyway - there will always be some mouth-breathin' coloreds-hatin' cross-burnin' slackjawed fools somewhere). One day we'll be through with this too.

Coming round to where I started here, I still don't know why it matters to the protesters what two consenting adults do?  Doesn't matter to me.  I myself will never have a gay marriage, so none of this is really any of my business. Which, let me point out, includes a day-job that requires me to be somewhere in the middle of the morning on a workday, and not available to picket on the sidewalk against strangers doing private things that don't involve me. I would like to say that when needed, I will rise up in protest; but we all know that's not going to happen - being of an apathetic and indolent disposition, I'd just write about it in my blog, get a coffee and a cookie (you know, one of the nice ones with the macadamia nuts and not too much sugar), and call it a day.


Posted by conniechai at 12:53 PM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 18 June 2008 7:18 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Colorado River Aqueduct
Topic: Personal

Bruce and I went on an inspection tour of the Colorado River Aqueduct by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

The area near where we were staying also supported a population of burros, descendants of those who were released into the desert after the construction completed in the 1940's.  A small herd came to the camp to investigate; they were tame enough for us to feed with apples but feral enough that they would not allow too much petting, not to mention riding (Bruce's weekend ambition was to catch a burro and ride it).

 

Turbine at intake station


Posted by conniechai at 11:56 AM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:05 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 15 February 2008
Is Eating Out Cheaper than Cooking at Home? Shenanigans!
Topic: Opinion
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney/IsEatingOutCheaperThanCooking.aspx?OCID=B001MSN09N0307A

By Christian Science Monitor

By the time he's driven to the farmers market, bought the organic veggies and spent an hour cooking a meal for himself and his wife, Mark Chernesky figures he's spent $30.  That's why recently, after fighting rush hour, the Atlanta multimedia coordinator dashed in to Figo, a pasta place, for hand-stuffed ravioli slathered with puttanesca sauce. "I'll get out of here for $17 plus tip," he said.  Crunch the numbers, and across America the refrain is the same: Eating out is the new eating in. Even with wages stagnant, time-strapped workers are abandoning the family kitchen in droves.




I call shenanigans on this article.  It's a marketing piece for the restaurant industry! If that guy make a special trip for ingredients to cook one meal, then yes, it will cost more than running to his local take-away, but that's a function of his haphazard planning rather than the costs of food.  If this guy planned his dinners as carefully as he plans his work projects he'll learn that you can amortize the cost of food the way you capitalize depreciation of fixed assets.  Except in this case, the assets are not fixed but they are delicious.

The problem is that if you never cook at home and then make one special meal, you'll think it's expensive because you have to buy all of the food + all the spices. That's expensive; a good bottle of olive oil can set you back $10 at the grocery store, a container of sea salt $5 and one of good pepper another $5, so you think "OMG $20 just to get oil, salt and pepper". But once you do it for a while and have a decently stocked kitchen, it's much cheaper than eating out. No one uses a whole bottle of olive oil or a whole jar of pepper in one meal; the cost of the ingredients are all spread over the number of meals. It is much more eocnomical to eat at home if you're content with simple foods and don't need gold-sprinkled foie gras or panda steaks to be happy.

Further down in the article cited above, we get another justification that if you factor in the cost of your time then spending time cooking just isn't worth it.  One guys says "When I add my hourly rate, the time to cook at home, I can instead take my family out to dinner, and it comes out pretty even." That's a specious argument - he's essentially claiming that he is paid his hourly rate every hour of his day, which would mean that a movie will cost him 2x his hourly rate + cost of tickets and popcorn, and reading a magazine will cost him 1/2 hour of his hourly rate + cost of the magazine.  I bet he doesn't think about going to the movies or reading a magazine in terms of his hourly rate, then why does he think it applies to cooking a meal for his family? 

If someone doesn't like cooking and prefers meals from a restaurant, then they should just own up and say so; there's nothing wrong with that. Why do people need to justify it? It's hardly a sin for which you need to plead indulgence. I don't like to bake and I would no sooner make my own pie crust as knit my own damn socks, but I won't tell you that it's because it costs less to buy a pie crust than baking it once you factor in my hourly rate!

For example, a complete dinner for four:

1.5 lb beefsteak $15.00 (gourmet organic grass-fed)
4 young potatoes $0.60 (from a bag @ $2.50)
1 box mushrooms $2.50
1 med onion $0.50 ($1.00 per lb)
1 head garlic $0.25 (from 4-head sack @ $1.00)
½ stick butter $0.50 (from 4-stick pack @ $4.00)
2 tablespoons flour $0.05 (from 1 lb bag for $2.00)
1 frozen pie crust $1.50 (from 2-pack @ $3.00) Of course I buy frozen. What do I look like, Laura Ingalls?
Pinches salt and pepper $0.02 (from 1 lb sea salt @ $5 and medium jar pepper @ $5)
1 loaf French bread at grocery store bakery $1.00
½ butter, softened, for bread $0.50
a little crushed rosemary to add to butter $0.02
½ gallon ice cream $2.50
1 box seasonal berries $2.00
Wine: $20 (restaurant markup'd make this $40 or more)
Gas for cooking meal $0.02

Total ingredients when purchased at store in multi-packs: ~$67.
Sounds like a lot? Those multi-packs (box of butter with 4 sticks, a sack of garlic that has 4 heads, bag of 16 potatoes, etc) will go for more than one meal.
Actual cost for meal: ~$47
Serves 4 at less than $12 each -
  • gourmet beefsteak pie with mushroom and onions
  • warm bread with rosemary butter on side
  • a glass of wine to go with
  • ice cream with berries for afters
Where in a restaurant anywhere can you get this deal?
This might take 20 minutes prep and 20 minutes bake, plus 20 minutes cleanup = 1 hour that I wasn't going to be paid anyway.

Not expecting company?

½ lb large shrimp $5.00
sprig of dill-weed $0.05
sprig of basil $0.05
pinch salt and pepper $0.02
1 cup cream $0.50
1 cup stock $0.50
2 tablespoon olive oil $0.10
1 tablespoon vinegar $0.10
1 box pasta $0.50
1 bag store salad $1.50

Feeds 2 @ less than $5 per person, sautéed shrimp with herb and cream sauce served over pasta, plus salad with oil and vinegar dressing.  Cheaper than any restaurant anywhere.

Posted by conniechai at 3:19 PM PST
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
Banjo Patterson, cowboy poet Down Under.
Topic: Fun

Clancy of the Overflow

I had written him a letter which I had, for want of better
    Knowledge, sent to where I met him down the Lachlan, years ago,
He was shearing when I knew him, so I sent the letter to him,
   Just on spec, addressed as follows, “Clancy, of The Overflow”.

And an answer came directed in a writing unexpected,
    (And I think the same was written with a thumb-nail dipped in tar)
’Twas his shearing mate who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it:
    “Clancy’s gone to Queensland droving, and we don’t know where he are.”

In my wild erratic fancy visions come to me of Clancy
    Gone a-droving “down the Cooper” where the Western drovers go;
As the stock are slowly stringing, Clancy rides behind them singing,
    For the drover’s life has pleasures that the townsfolk never know.

And the bush hath friends to meet him, and their kindly voices greet him
    In the murmur of the breezes and the river on its bars,
And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,
    And at night the wond’rous glory of the everlasting stars.

I am sitting in my dingy little office, where a stingy
    Ray of sunlight struggles feebly down between the houses tall,
And the foetid air and gritty of the dusty, dirty city
    Through the open window floating, spreads its foulness over all.

And in place of lowing cattle, I can hear the fiendish rattle
    Of the tramways and the buses making hurry down the street,
And the language uninviting of the gutter children fighting,
    Comes fitfully and faintly through the ceaseless tramp of feet.

And the hurrying people daunt me, and their pallid faces haunt me
    As they shoulder one another in their rush and nervous haste,
With their eager eyes and greedy, and their stunted forms and weedy,
    For townsfolk have no time to grow, they have no time to waste.

And I somehow rather fancy that I’d like to change with Clancy,
    Like to take a turn at droving where the seasons come and go,
While he faced the round eternal of the cash-book and the journal—
    But I doubt he’d suit the office, Clancy, of The Overflow.


Waltzing Matilda

Oh there once was a swagman camped in the Billabong,
    Under the shade of a Coolabah tree;
And he sang as he looked at his old billy boiling,
    “Who’ll come a-waltzing Matilda with me.”

Who’ll come a-waltzing Matilda, my darling,
     Who’ll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?
Waltzing Matilda and leading a water-bag—
     Who’ll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?

Down came a jumbuck to drink at the water-hole,
    Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him in glee;
And he sang as he put him away in his tucker-bag,
    “You’ll come a-waltzing Matilda with me!”

Down came the Squatter a-riding his thorough-bred;
    Down came Policemen—one, two, and three.
“Whose is the jumbuck you’ve got in the tucker-bag?
    You’ll come a-waltzing Matilda with me.”

But the swagman, he up and he jumped in the water-hole,
    Drowning himself by the Coolabah tree;
And his ghost may be heard as it sings in the Billabong,
    “Who’ll come a-waltzing Matilda with me?”


The Man From Snowy River

There was movement at the station, for the word had passed around
    That the colt from old Regret had got away,
And had joined the wild bush horses — he was worth a thousand pound,
    So all the cracks had gathered to the fray.
All the tried and noted riders from the stations near and far
    Had mustered at the homestead overnight,
For the bushmen love hard riding where the wild bush horses are,
    And the stock-horse snuffs the battle with delight.

There was Harrison, who made his pile when Pardon won the cup,
    The old man with his hair as white as snow;
But few could ride beside him when his blood was fairly up—
    He would go wherever horse and man could go.
And Clancy of the Overflow came down to lend a hand,
    No better horseman ever held the reins;
For never horse could throw him while the saddle-girths would stand,
    He learnt to ride while droving on the plains.

And one was there, a stripling on a small and weedy beast,
    He was something like a racehorse undersized,
With a touch of Timor pony—three parts thoroughbred at least—
    And such as are by mountain horsemen prized.
He was hard and tough and wiry—just the sort that won’t say die—
    There was courage in his quick impatient tread;
And he bore the badge of gameness in his bright and fiery eye,
    And the proud and lofty carriage of his head.

But still so slight and weedy, one would doubt his power to stay,
    And the old man said, “That horse will never do
For a long and tiring gallop—lad, you’d better stop away,
    Those hills are far too rough for such as you.”
So he waited sad and wistful—only Clancy stood his friend —
    “I think we ought to let him come,” he said;
“I warrant he’ll be with us when he’s wanted at the end,
    For both his horse and he are mountain bred.

“He hails from Snowy River, up by Kosciusko’s side,
  Where the hills are twice as steep and twice as rough,
Where a horse’s hoofs strike firelight from the flint stones every stride,
    The man that holds his own is good enough.
And the Snowy River riders on the mountains make their home,
    Where the river runs those giant hills between;
I have seen full many horsemen since I first commenced to roam,
    But nowhere yet such horsemen have I seen.”

So he went — they found the horses by the big mimosa clump —
    They raced away towards the mountain’s brow,
And the old man gave his orders, ‘Boys, go at them from the jump,
    No use to try for fancy riding now.
And, Clancy, you must wheel them, try and wheel them to the right.
    Ride boldly, lad, and never fear the spills,
For never yet was rider that could keep the mob in sight,
    If once they gain the shelter of those hills.’

So Clancy rode to wheel them—he was racing on the wing
    Where the best and boldest riders take their place,
And he raced his stock-horse past them, and he made the ranges ring
    With the stockwhip, as he met them face to face.
Then they halted for a moment, while he swung the dreaded lash,
    But they saw their well-loved mountain full in view,
And they charged beneath the stockwhip with a sharp and sudden dash,
    And off into the mountain scrub they flew.

Then fast the horsemen followed, where the gorges deep and black
    Resounded to the thunder of their tread,
And the stockwhips woke the echoes, and they fiercely answered back
    From cliffs and crags that beetled overhead.
And upward, ever upward, the wild horses held their way,
    Where mountain ash and kurrajong grew wide;
And the old man muttered fiercely, “We may bid the mob good day,
    No man can hold them down the other side.”

When they reached the mountain’s summit, even Clancy took a pull,
    It well might make the boldest hold their breath,
The wild hop scrub grew thickly, and the hidden ground was full
    Of wombat holes, and any slip was death.
But the man from Snowy River let the pony have his head,
    And he swung his stockwhip round and gave a cheer,
And he raced him down the mountain like a torrent down its bed,
    While the others stood and watched in very fear.

He sent the flint stones flying, but the pony kept his feet,
    He cleared the fallen timber in his stride,
And the man from Snowy River never shifted in his seat—
    It was grand to see that mountain horseman ride.
Through the stringy barks and saplings, on the rough and broken ground,
    Down the hillside at a racing pace he went;
And he never drew the bridle till he landed safe and sound,
    At the bottom of that terrible descent.

He was right among the horses as they climbed the further hill,
    And the watchers on the mountain standing mute,
Saw him ply the stockwhip fiercely, he was right among them still,
    As he raced across the clearing in pursuit.
Then they lost him for a moment, where two mountain gullies met
    In the ranges, but a final glimpse reveals
On a dim and distant hillside the wild horses racing yet,
    With the man from Snowy River at their heels.

And he ran them single-handed till their sides were white with foam.
    He followed like a bloodhound on their track,
Till they halted cowed and beaten, then he turned their heads for home,
    And alone and unassisted brought them back.
But his hardy mountain pony he could scarcely raise a trot,
    He was blood from hip to shoulder from the spur;
But his pluck was still undaunted, and his courage fiery hot,
    For never yet was mountain horse a cur.

And down by Kosciusko, where the pine-clad ridges raise
    Their torn and rugged battlements on high,
Where the air is clear as crystal, and the white stars fairly blaze
    At midnight in the cold and frosty sky,
And where around the Overflow the reedbeds sweep and sway
    To the breezes, and the rolling plains are wide,
The man from Snowy River is a household word to-day,
    And the stockmen tell the story of his ride.


Brief biography of Andrew Barton ‘Banjo’ Paterson, 1864-1941

 

 


Posted by conniechai at 9:22 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 29 January 2008 9:56 PM PST
Post Comment | Permalink
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
Kentucky Countryside
Topic: Personal

http://chaischoll.org/mckenney50/id2.html

 


Posted by conniechai at 12:23 PM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Tuesday, 22 May 2007

Topic: Personal

Bruce and I took Austin to the San Diego Zoo on Saturday. I took some videos of the animals being active (the polar bears one is the best IMO) on the visit and posted them to YouTube.


Polar Bear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRnoETK9sxU

Hippopotamus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDpRaUfGJDw

Panda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwoPbjLhj4k

Peacock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI5wDQqlphw


Posted by conniechai at 1:27 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 29 June 2007 8:05 AM PDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 7 May 2007
Footbinding in China
Topic: Opinion

This, and other body-modification schemes humanity has heaped upon our women over the centuries and across the continents, were never about 'beauty'. They were always about control

In spirit, foot-binding is no different from the European corsets that broke the ribs, crushed the organs, and stunted the growth of women for hundreds of years; no different than the burkhas hard-line modern Islamists use to cover and anonymitize their women; a woman with a bound foot cannot walk far out of the family home, and a woman in a burkha can hardly go anywhere at all. These were measures put in to control women's movements and consequently subjugate their lives.  Sure, you read literature about how 'golden lillies' were considered beautiful in old-time China, but such literature were always written by men, who determined a woman's worth through a standard that can only be achieved through artifice. Pallid, weakened women with artificial (not to say dangerous) 18" waists were also considered beautiful in old-time Western societies, but who determines these standards of beauty anyways, and why do we women perpetually fall for it?  Why do I wear spiky high heels and think I look fantastic when barely able to hobble perilously from the curb to a restaurant door?

Speaking as a Chinese-American woman, I can tell you that foot-binding is no longer done (note the extreme age of the woman in the pictures) in China.  My grandmother had feet that were bound by her mother, but she came of age shortly after the revolution in 1911 and her feet were 'liberated' and allowed to return to a more natural form.  They did straighten back out, but never grew to normal adult size, instead remained small enough to wear child-size shoes all her life.  Feet on Chinese girls were bound starting at about age 6-7, and were ostensibly a sign of affluence (the whole reason of 'control' notwithsanding and certainly unspoken) - a girl with bound feet will do no hard work, and certainly no peasant work like farming.  In this, food-binding shares another commonality with European corsets - a corseted woman can't bend at the waist, run fast, or even turn around quickly; thus only ladies wore corsets, starting with 'training corsets' when pre-adolescents, and their servants did not. In modern ages, our equivalent might be tanning, or eating disorders; they are beauty-regimens of the affluent, and just as the olden days, such beauty can kill us so easily, much more galling because we do it to ourselves.

NPR Story on footbinding in China: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8966942&sc=emaf

 


Posted by conniechai at 12:40 PM PDT
Updated: Wednesday, 6 February 2008 11:28 AM PST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older