|
damiani
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Jon
Country: United States
State: California
Metro: Pasadena
Birthday: 10/21/1979
Gender: Male
Interests: First, there's the love of my life, my beautiful wife Nikki. I am very interested in her... and then there's Music, movies, tv, pretty much anything that wastes time... Let's see... Golf, skirmishes during which my favorite sports team scores a goal unit...
Expertise: Salad shaking, which I invented
Occupation: Student
Message: message me
Member Since:
4/5/2006
|
|
| movingalrighty, I'm moving this fun fest over to blogspot. So FYI: no more blogs here, but they will be here: jddamiani.blogspot.com.
Banana!
| | |
| diversity and sodaI think diversity (in terms of racial/ethnic/cultural/etc diversity) is a lot like soda. Think about how many different kinds of soda are out there: Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Mt. Dew, Cherry Coke or Pepsi, Fresca, Grape, Birch/Root Beer, and on and on. And each kind has a diet version. In some cases, there are kinds that have extra caffeine versions. So the possibilities are endless.
But in terms of color, there aren't very many sodas: brown, clear, yellowish, purple, maybe a few more. So if we look at the diversity of soda in terms of appearance, we are really looking at it in a limited sense. But when we consider flavors, the possibilities become endless. Sure, Dr. Pepper and Diet Coke might both be brown, but they have very different flavors. Sprite and Sierra Mist Free (or whatever it's called) may both be clear, but one has a ton of sugar and the other has caffeine (at least I think...). So to just talk about the color of soda really limits the discussion of diversity.
I'm sure you figure out where I'm going here. A lot of people may look at a group of people and say, "I see a lot of white people. That's not very diverse." But is this really fair to say? Pick any two of the white people from that crowd and you will find two very different cultural backgrounds. And really, isn't that what diversity's all about? Or should we just limit it to color?
So the question could become, "What is diversity, really?" Is it different skin colors? Or is it different cultural backgrounds. Think of it like this: there are many families that have adopted children of a different race when they are very young. These children then grow up in a certain culture that may be very different than the culture of their specific ethnicity. Say a family has one child and adopts another of a different ethnicity. Are those two children very different from each other just because of skin color? Or does the culture in which they were raised determine who they are?
I guess what I'm getting at is that we have really limited the discussion on diversity by making it about color. In one sense, you could say this actually works against diversity since it limits it to a kind of stereotype. It may cause someone to look at a group of people who appear to be the same "color" and consider them all to be pretty much the same.
I guess I'm not ok with that.
| | |
| Deal, No Deal, or No More?I think I speak for all of us when I say, "That's enough, Howie Mandel." What a painful television experience this show is! It's like, "Enough with the fabricated drama. Show us the dang case!" This show could be 6 minutes long if they just hurried up! I'm over it.
| | |
| mainstreamAlright, I know it's been a while since I blogged... sorry about that. But I just have to get on my mini soapbox for a minute. I know a lot of people will disagree with this, but I gotta say it.
This whole train of thought was just triggered today when Fuller's student newspaper came out and the top 10 movies of 2007 were highlighted. 1 of the top 10 have I seen (Ratatouille). A few more I have heard of (only one of which I actually want to see), and the rest I have never heard of. These are the best of 2007? No American Gangster? No 3:10 to Yuma? Now, I don't expect Alien vs. Predator to make the top 10. It may have been mildly entertaining to those who like the characters, but it was pretty bad if we're being honest.
Last time the newspaper came out, it highlighted the top 10 albums of 2007. Not one album was anything close to mainstream. I was curious so I checked out iTunes... most of them were pretty bad. Sure, they were artsy, but they were pretty crappy.
So why is everyone so anti-mainstream? Is John Mayer really a sellout? Is Justin Timberlake just a shill for the executives? Are they just really uncreative because someone signed them and their music is on the radio?
I have a radical theory: they are mainstream because their music is good and appealing. It seems that in many cases, the mainstream bands or the people who are "signed" are the ones that are actually making good music. And as for the independent or unsigned bands? Most of them are unsigned or not mainstream for a reason. They're not that good.
Granted, there are a lot of great bands that aren't mainstream, and there are a lot of really crappy mainstream bands. But to say a group is great because they are not mainstream is ridiculous... and vice versa.
Anyway, I could just have no idea what I'm talking about. You can let me know.
| | |
| Barak O'ClintonI want to tread very lightly here as I type out the following thoughts... This is just a theory, and I don't want anyone to be too offended. But here's what I'm thinking:
I haven't really decided on which Presidential hopeful is the best choice for '08, but I'm a little concerned at this point. My general thought lately has been that, if we're being honest, the first non-white, non-male president does not necessarily have to have been the best of the candidates. The fact that such a person is non-white and non-male already gives him or her a head start. My fear is that we will be too eager to break the ol' white male only presidential mold to pick the most capable candidate.
I'm not sure if I'm being clear. Let me preface by saying that I believe the day this country has a female or non-white President will be a great day! It will be a beautiful display of the amount of progress we have made as a country, and will also most likely bring the amount of work we have left to do to the surface. It truly will be no small thing when we have this person as our leader.
But I'm afraid the desire to hasten that day will be strong enough to influence any one of us to choose an inferior candidate because of race or sex. That would really be a mistake.
Now I'm not saying anything against the two candidates who fit the above profiles running in the current election. It may be that one of them is really the best person for this country. But if that is not the case, I'm worried one of those people would be elected hastily in order to break the mold and prove to the world we're not as racist and sexist as they all think.
But wouldn't it be equally as racist or as sexist to vote FOR a candidate simply because of the color of his or her skin or the sex she so happens to be? If racism can be partially defined as judging the quality of a person by the color of his or her skin, then shouldn't that go both ways, whether they are judged to be less qualified or more qualified simply by that standard?
Am I making sense or am I just sounding like a white male?
Marsha will let me know ;)
| | |
|
