If these four documents do not comprise the greatest corpus of a student's writing ever, I'm in the wrong profession. Some highlights:
On Walt Whitman: "He is over 3,000 years old and remembers the names of all the gods."
On US Foreign Relations: "America is now president of the world, and some people aren't cool with that. In the War of 1812, Osama bin Laden declared Jihad on the West Coast and killed Tupac."
Just read them in their entirety. Unbelievable.
2.27.2009
2.20.2009
2.18.2009
Dear Sully & Crew
I'm no longer impressed. In Chicago, we do that shit when it's frozen!
Sincerely,
cw
ps: get off my TV!!
Sincerely,
cw
ps: get off my TV!!
2.16.2009
Global Warming?
This is a rather long article, but if you have the time, it's a very interesting read. (I don't link it here because I agree with it, only because I found it interesting in its contradiction.)
There's a story to how I came upon this: Stanley Fish's blog on the NYTimes referenced this "radical" professor at the University of Ottawa. The article dealt with the definition of "academic freedom" and Fish was using this professor, Rancourt, as an example of academic freedom run amok (he refuses to give grades, teaches a course where he and the students engage in activism, etc.). Anyway, I was checking out a few of Rancourt's websites and found that James Inhofe (R-OK) used Rancourt's argument to oppose the idea of global warming (http://climateguy.blogspot.com/). I thought this was rather comical because I'm assuming that Inhofe wouldn't support Rancourt's teaching methods, despite his praise of his scientific research. Conservatives certainly love the normalizing function of education.
A complicated world. The more I read about things and hear different opinions, the more I think there is really never consensus on any single issue. EVER.
There's a story to how I came upon this: Stanley Fish's blog on the NYTimes referenced this "radical" professor at the University of Ottawa. The article dealt with the definition of "academic freedom" and Fish was using this professor, Rancourt, as an example of academic freedom run amok (he refuses to give grades, teaches a course where he and the students engage in activism, etc.). Anyway, I was checking out a few of Rancourt's websites and found that James Inhofe (R-OK) used Rancourt's argument to oppose the idea of global warming (http://climateguy.blogspot.com/). I thought this was rather comical because I'm assuming that Inhofe wouldn't support Rancourt's teaching methods, despite his praise of his scientific research. Conservatives certainly love the normalizing function of education.
A complicated world. The more I read about things and hear different opinions, the more I think there is really never consensus on any single issue. EVER.
2.10.2009
O'Reilly
A great report for those who think O'Reilly's tactics are less than fair (or perhaps even inconsistent?).
2.09.2009
Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous
So, I know I always link to articles from the NY Times, but I think this one is worth it.
I can't decide if it is supposed to be sarcastic or not. If not, I find it really hard to be compassionate toward the excessive pleasures that have found there way into the "needs" category. Are they really making the argument here that rich people need to keep up the same lifestyle because it is what's expected of them by other rich people; that image is everything and must be maintained?
Really, do you need that personal driver? Do you really need that house in the Hamptons or those two or three vacations a year? I really don't begrudge someone for taking vacations (God knows I love vacations), but to justify it as a need that is being infringed upon by these salary caps is beyond me. Also, these caps only apply now to those companies that are seeking government funding which signals to me that despite their lavish lifestyles, these corporate leaders are not doing such a great job anyways. Should they be pitied because their lives might be burdened a little bit because of what might be poor management on their own parts?
These and other questions abound. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks, especially J, the capitalist.
I can't decide if it is supposed to be sarcastic or not. If not, I find it really hard to be compassionate toward the excessive pleasures that have found there way into the "needs" category. Are they really making the argument here that rich people need to keep up the same lifestyle because it is what's expected of them by other rich people; that image is everything and must be maintained?
Really, do you need that personal driver? Do you really need that house in the Hamptons or those two or three vacations a year? I really don't begrudge someone for taking vacations (God knows I love vacations), but to justify it as a need that is being infringed upon by these salary caps is beyond me. Also, these caps only apply now to those companies that are seeking government funding which signals to me that despite their lavish lifestyles, these corporate leaders are not doing such a great job anyways. Should they be pitied because their lives might be burdened a little bit because of what might be poor management on their own parts?
These and other questions abound. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks, especially J, the capitalist.
2.06.2009
For J
Real life has jumped the proverbial shark:
"You can almost touch the sanctimony!" -- Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A
"You can almost touch the sanctimony!" -- Stephen T. Colbert, D.F.A
Incredible...
How much Hoobastank do you think these guys listen to? Watch on full-screen.
wingsuit base jumping from Ali on Vimeo.
wingsuit base jumping from Ali on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
