In happy returns of the day, Interdome's own "one big step back the fuck up" Award of the day goes to: Valentine's Day!
A Brief History of Valentine's Day
Since, as some of you know, Valentine's Day is my all-time favorite holiday (yes, my favorite holiday of all of the holidays that will ever happen in time) I thought it might be fun to have a little cultural studies essayette on all of the things that you COULD be celebrating today, while you're playing footsie with your sweetie at the Macaroni Grill. Sure, this is as good a day as any to buy pink stuff and to light that "fragrance of love" scented candle ("bitch!" know the reference? answer is hidden below), but you could be getting drunk and thinking of all the other wonderful connotations that Valentine's Day has, in vague chronological order. If you have any good additions, write 'em up, and I'll stick them in (but ever so gently and respectfully). Let us begin...
Eternal Love in the Eternal City
Way back, at the beginning of time, before you even met your significant other, Feb. 15th was Lupercalia in ancient Rome. Naked people ran wild in the streets smacking each other with stuff to try and make each other more pregnant. Now a days we know better, and we hit each other to try and stop being pregnant. Wikipedia suggests maybe the holiday got its name because Romulus and Remus suckled on a (lupus) wolf-tit. Mmm. Wolf-tit. Think about that when you are heavy petting with your sweetie tonight.
Carnal Gnosticism
Sparing you the theology of gnosticism, there was this guy named Valentinus who broke with the church in the second century AD because he really wanted to read The Da Vinci Code in the original latin, but that was illegal, at least in hardcover. Because the church didn't like Tom Hanks, they called Valentinus crazy and chased him away to Cyprus or some shit. The funny part is, it seems that he made some of the first Christian associations to Platonic philosophy, and developed the notion of the three hypostases, which you know now as the "three men that Don McClean admires the most". Don McClean was never sent to Cyprus by the church. When you are getting your own slice of "american pie" tonight, remember that the father, son, and ghost are all incestuously getting off while watching you. And judging you.
The Original Valentine
The feast day of St. Valentine was originally declared in 496. Nobody knows who the Saint actually was. Maybe a Roman priest, maybe a bishop in Interamna, maybe a African martyr. So fuck him. What is cool is that the day was declared by Pope Gelasius I, who was the third African pope. (There were african popes??? Oh my god!!!) Relax though, he might still have been white, because the area of Africa he was from was not "black" at the time, but more lighter. Whew... that was close. We don't know for sure, because no one ever painted him. The wikipedia article picture of him looks just like every other pope from the period. Things that Gelasius did that were totally sweet include making wine a part of the Eucharist, in order to kill Manichaeans, because they wouldn't drink the wine, and then the Christians could find them. You can remember the awesomeness of the African popes this Valentine's Day when you are drinking yourself into body-of-christ oblivion so you don't feel bad about not having a date.
No Love for the Jews
Wikipedia speaks: "On St. Valentine's Day in 1349, roughly 2,000 Jews were burned to death by Christian mobs in Strasbourg. These mobs, led by nobles who owed large sums to Jewish moneylenders (usury being a sin for Christians), blamed the Jews for poisoning the city's wells and causing the bubonic plague." You can remember the usurers in your life when thinking about the bubonic plague while using protection during your lovemaking today. Let's here it for the mob.
Women and Men
Valentine was the name of an obscure character in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. The plot of this play was butchered into the romantic shit-comedy, She's the Man. I bet alot of people will be watching such movies tonight. I, for one, will be watching Can't Hardly Wait, which grammar notwithstanding, I feel is the best teen movie ever created. The subtitle, as it were, to Twelfth Night is or What You Will. Now, Aleister Crowley's immortal line, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law!" has been adopted by Satanism and other hedonistic belief systems. One of these belief systems that 'was, like, way into Aleister Crowley' is Led Zepplin. Led Zepplin put a fish in some woman's vagina. All of this is very weird. This is why women like the theater and men like to fish, and on Valentine's Day they probably don't listen to Led Zepplin.
Sweaty Palms
Valentine Dencausse was a famous chiromancer. What is a chiromancer, you ask? A palm reader! She made predictions for the French Ministry of War during WWI! War is Crazy! Celebrate pseudoscience today by reading your partner's hand and then deciding whether or not to go to war.
Tanks for the Flowers
And... when assaulting your lover's inhibitions tonight, remember the Valentine Tank, Britain's most widely-produced tank in WWII, that fought extensively in North Africa. Charge!
I Want to Love You Like an Animal
Hilton Stewart Paterson Valentine, guitarist for The Animals, we celebrate you today! Even though many so-called fans think that your blues-inducing riffs from "House of the Rising Sun" actually belong to Jimmy Page, we know better! You don't fuck around with sea creatures in the bed room, only higher life forms! Animals! Yeah! We admire your appreciation for Skiffle Music that led you to first pick up that guitar in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, coincidentally the city where the makers of the Valentine Tank have their works. And when Eric Burdon went on to join hippie-funk band War, we're glad you were a conscientious objector and continued doing... uh... nothing... by which we really mean loving, not fighting! True to your name to the end! What the fuck is a skiffle? Anyway... take your Other to a house of ill-repute tonight, if not for our sake, for Hilton's, goddammit!
happy valentine's day, suckas...
2.14.2007
Old Man Rothstein
Today I opened a new deodorant. It's Old Spice, "regular scent", whereas the old one was Old Spice "arctic force". Now instead of smelling like a glacier, I smell like a grandfather. I'm wearing a grandfather-esque shirt today too, or at least one like my grandfather might wear (although I don't think he wears Old Spice). I don't think this is a bad thing. If I were actually a grandfather, I wouldn't mind if people referred to me as "old spice". Like, "Old man Rothstein put up quite a fuss in the deli today; that guy sure is an old spice." Maybe this should be my new fashion: Grandfather chic. Not just wearing a hat/t-shirt that identifies me as a grandfather; that is only ironic, and therefore false. I'm talking about selling not only the image, but the aesthetic. Through my clothing and mannerisms I will actually portray that my seed has been spread, I've fulfilled my genetic role, and now I can relax, build myself a skiff in the backyard, and watch the world go to hell. Forget waiting for some sort of "hill" to be gotten over, I'm wearing the bottoms of my trousers rolled now. Some young women, like [bungertn] and [walmanra], may wear clothes that say they are ready to conquer and build the world anew with humor and taste, but my clothes will say that, frankly, I've done all I can do, and now I'm going to sit back with my scotch and laugh, because I have hair growing out of the folds of my ears and I like weird pickled fishes on rye bread, goddammit.
2.01.2007
Adam without Borders
After this week I really want to work for Médecins Sans Frontières. I've done a bit of research about them and Médecins du Monde. Both are humanitarian organizations started by former French Communists that have not always maintained neutrality in the face of agression, unlike the Red Cross. They take much of the morality out of humanitarian work and focus on the people, and at least MSF seems to be very good at what they do, for what they are trying to do. But I'm not a doctor. But now I'm thinking that might be really awesome. I always felt that being a doctor would either be really lame (prescribing really fat rich people cholesterol meds) or really depressing (watching people die) but now I'm realizing that I really like taking on impossible things, because it takes the guess work out. You don't have to worry about success, you just do the best you can.
Anyway, I really like the philosophy they work with, because they are willing to take sides for the benefit of people, not just maintaining "neutrality" for their own well-being. I found this passage:
'the political positions of MDM in armed conflicts are not linked to a strictly speaking partisan ideology. In a book edited by Marie-José Domestici-Met, three MDM executives, Bernard Granjon, Michel Brugière and Pierre Pradier, say that “the organisation chooses its side”, that “of the most deprived”.'
And with the MDM, allegedly, sometimes that includes literal fighting. That's what I think the world really needs in a supra-national organization or NGO; an organization that is willing to step in and do the right thing. Humanitarian organizations are too concerned with maintaining their neutral status to be effective, other countries and national groups are too self-interested (after all, they are most often involved in the perpetration of the disaster), and the UN and other supra-nationals, as constituted by these national groups are either directed towards that national interest or given no power so as not to interfere with that national interest. I'm thinking of almost a League of Heroes sort of thing, that has no politics except to fight for the people who are being fucked up. That would really throw a wrench in international politics. The problem is, how would they be funded (Bruce Wayne?), and where would the secret lair be, because after about 20 years they probably would have had to piss off every major government on the planet at least once.
Anyway, I really like the philosophy they work with, because they are willing to take sides for the benefit of people, not just maintaining "neutrality" for their own well-being. I found this passage:
'the political positions of MDM in armed conflicts are not linked to a strictly speaking partisan ideology. In a book edited by Marie-José Domestici-Met, three MDM executives, Bernard Granjon, Michel Brugière and Pierre Pradier, say that “the organisation chooses its side”, that “of the most deprived”.'
And with the MDM, allegedly, sometimes that includes literal fighting. That's what I think the world really needs in a supra-national organization or NGO; an organization that is willing to step in and do the right thing. Humanitarian organizations are too concerned with maintaining their neutral status to be effective, other countries and national groups are too self-interested (after all, they are most often involved in the perpetration of the disaster), and the UN and other supra-nationals, as constituted by these national groups are either directed towards that national interest or given no power so as not to interfere with that national interest. I'm thinking of almost a League of Heroes sort of thing, that has no politics except to fight for the people who are being fucked up. That would really throw a wrench in international politics. The problem is, how would they be funded (Bruce Wayne?), and where would the secret lair be, because after about 20 years they probably would have had to piss off every major government on the planet at least once.
Eat it
(discussing [blake]'s displeasure with the popularity of "organic diets")
[blake] In addition to the "dish" cooked up by [tanseybe], I have some related "appitizers", and "sides". It seems like you may be referring to one or some or all of the following ways to choose one's diet: eating healthy, eating vegetarian, eating organic, eating local. I would think that picking out a "topical" diet, one that is more often than not merely a fad of food selection, like "organic", or "with lycopene", or without "trans fats" is not much different than any other fad diet, like any number of low-carb diet plans. It takes a basic idea that may have benefits, and then applies that across the board as if it will make everything great. That said, that doesn't mean that the basic idea itself necessarily worthless. Most people probably do eat more carbs than they need, consume more chemicals than is good for them, and could probably use some extra natural vitamins and amino acids. But as you said, to act like to make this a "diet" is something of conscience is pretty lame.
However, "eating healthy" or "eating local" are not simply fads of choice, but are more along the lines of strategic food choice strategies or general maxims, like "look before you eat". I think there is nothing wrong with being proud of exercising good choice in how one takes care of oneself, or even one's ecosystem. Why else could we say that these are good choices? There are plenty of people who eat fast food all the time and have cholesterol problems. If one makes a conscious choice to avoid this, and thinks that this is the right decision for them, why shouldn't they be happy about it? Food nihilism is not a proper response to the fact that people are easily impressed by food cults.
Eating "vegetarian" may be the example that provides a comparison between the two aspects. While eating vegetarian may be nothing more than a general strategy to consume less animal fat, cholesterol, and perhaps reduce ones ecological "footprint", often it takes the nature of a food cult, to the extent that practitioners treat it as a moral proscription (and some vegetarians road to the practice is entirely moral). As you noted, eating more vegetables can have many benefits, but that does not make vegetables "good", and meat "bad". But, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't feel good about going with the eggplant parm rather than the veal.
Long story short, we all know the maxim, "you are what you eat". I think that many people in our society could vastly improve their lives if they took this to heart a little more often. And, if they do so and thereby improve their lives and society and the ecosystem, this is nothing to scoff at. Maybe this is the nature of responsibility that is different than moral alleigance?
PS: I have plenty of time to go shopping, eat my food, and have sex. Sometimes I combine all three.
[blake] In addition to the "dish" cooked up by [tanseybe], I have some related "appitizers", and "sides". It seems like you may be referring to one or some or all of the following ways to choose one's diet: eating healthy, eating vegetarian, eating organic, eating local. I would think that picking out a "topical" diet, one that is more often than not merely a fad of food selection, like "organic", or "with lycopene", or without "trans fats" is not much different than any other fad diet, like any number of low-carb diet plans. It takes a basic idea that may have benefits, and then applies that across the board as if it will make everything great. That said, that doesn't mean that the basic idea itself necessarily worthless. Most people probably do eat more carbs than they need, consume more chemicals than is good for them, and could probably use some extra natural vitamins and amino acids. But as you said, to act like to make this a "diet" is something of conscience is pretty lame.
However, "eating healthy" or "eating local" are not simply fads of choice, but are more along the lines of strategic food choice strategies or general maxims, like "look before you eat". I think there is nothing wrong with being proud of exercising good choice in how one takes care of oneself, or even one's ecosystem. Why else could we say that these are good choices? There are plenty of people who eat fast food all the time and have cholesterol problems. If one makes a conscious choice to avoid this, and thinks that this is the right decision for them, why shouldn't they be happy about it? Food nihilism is not a proper response to the fact that people are easily impressed by food cults.
Eating "vegetarian" may be the example that provides a comparison between the two aspects. While eating vegetarian may be nothing more than a general strategy to consume less animal fat, cholesterol, and perhaps reduce ones ecological "footprint", often it takes the nature of a food cult, to the extent that practitioners treat it as a moral proscription (and some vegetarians road to the practice is entirely moral). As you noted, eating more vegetables can have many benefits, but that does not make vegetables "good", and meat "bad". But, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't feel good about going with the eggplant parm rather than the veal.
Long story short, we all know the maxim, "you are what you eat". I think that many people in our society could vastly improve their lives if they took this to heart a little more often. And, if they do so and thereby improve their lives and society and the ecosystem, this is nothing to scoff at. Maybe this is the nature of responsibility that is different than moral alleigance?
PS: I have plenty of time to go shopping, eat my food, and have sex. Sometimes I combine all three.
Rwanda
I added another article to the Rwandan genocide thingy, which much Butrous-Ghali expressing his displeasure at the US complacency in Rwanda. Incidentally, it has be spawning some thoughts for me about statehood, international politics, supranational organizations (and the futility thereof), NGOs, and humanism in general. Depending how my afternoon goes I might write that up.
Does anyone in the NGO humanitarian field know how well Médecins Sans Frontières stands up? I've always felt that they were a pretty solid organization, and after just transcribing a speech by Rony Brauman, one of their former presidents, about Arendt's influence on his work, I like them even more. Any other knowledge?
So in conjunction with the talk that I'm transcribing, I've been reading alot of wikipedia on the 1994 Rwandan genocide. It is really interesting, and very horrible. I think the main article is actually very good, it describes numerous different theories about why the genocide occurred, from social, historical, economic, and psychological perspectives. The event and the history leading up to it are maybe the most stark history lessons I've ever heard, pulling all kinds of issues in, including racism, nationalism, colonialism, class conditions, modern international politics, issues of "west vs. east", humanitarian campaign issues, and much more. It frankly makes me even more sick to my stomach regarding the actions of western governments (US, France, UK, Israel, the Catholic Church?) than the Iraq war.
Wikipedia articles on the subject worth reading:
Rwandan Genocide
Tutsis
Hutus
History of Rwanda
The so-called "Hamitic" race
A much more opinionated article on US complacency and the possibility that the CIA was involved in the catalyst to the genocide here.
Does anyone in the NGO humanitarian field know how well Médecins Sans Frontières stands up? I've always felt that they were a pretty solid organization, and after just transcribing a speech by Rony Brauman, one of their former presidents, about Arendt's influence on his work, I like them even more. Any other knowledge?
So in conjunction with the talk that I'm transcribing, I've been reading alot of wikipedia on the 1994 Rwandan genocide. It is really interesting, and very horrible. I think the main article is actually very good, it describes numerous different theories about why the genocide occurred, from social, historical, economic, and psychological perspectives. The event and the history leading up to it are maybe the most stark history lessons I've ever heard, pulling all kinds of issues in, including racism, nationalism, colonialism, class conditions, modern international politics, issues of "west vs. east", humanitarian campaign issues, and much more. It frankly makes me even more sick to my stomach regarding the actions of western governments (US, France, UK, Israel, the Catholic Church?) than the Iraq war.
Wikipedia articles on the subject worth reading:
Rwandan Genocide
Tutsis
Hutus
History of Rwanda
The so-called "Hamitic" race
A much more opinionated article on US complacency and the possibility that the CIA was involved in the catalyst to the genocide here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
