As for breaking news, it's raining again. It's raining a bit harder today than it has in the past few days. Oh well, I guess it's a good thing that I have two classes today, and therefore, I really don't have to go outside much.
Tuesday
I woke up about 9:30 in order to shave and take a shower. For the lecture, Dr. Kewley talked about globalization ("globalisation" depending on where you are), but he focused mainly on economics and trade organizations. It seems as though globalization has become a hot word these days, especially in academia. The thing that gets me is that it's not new. Dr. Kewley made the statement that it began in the 1930's, but by the definition of globalization, we have been globalizing for about 5,000 years or so. First, we started off in our little clans rummaging around for food. Then, we learned how to farm. Then, we learned that other people had cool stuff that we didn't have in the village over, so we traded what we had for what they had. Then, we invented the wheel, domesticated animals to pull the wheels, invented boats, invented trains, invented cars, and now we have the internet. I think you see my point. The only reason we can freak out about it now is that we are possibly becoming more integrated faster. Honestly, globalization really takes the form of a cooperative empire. For example, the British had a worldwide empire before the 1930's where they spread their beliefs, sports, customs, religions, and economics to all sorts of places. Now, we don't take over territories, but as a result of globalization, we are still spreading all of those things, but peacefully (well ... not necessarily, but at least, we are less overt about it). Anyway, that was a rant, and I apologize. He actually gave a lot of good information on GATT, ITO, WTO, and the IMF, but I still think it's wrong to say we started globalization in the 1930's. After that, I went to lunch where I am increasingly realizing that getting things from the cold line that probably should be cooked is not a good idea. It was probably cooked the night before for dinner (the same food from dinner turns into tomorrow's lunch), but maybe they should reheat it. Soon thereafter, I went to the Social Sciences library to research my perestroika and glasnost paper. Glasnost seems to be easier to understand. Gorbachev allowed criticism and clarity in government decisions, and that allowed newspapers, books, art, and the media to disseminate information without repercussions. The main problem comes with that Gorbachev was not for freedom of speech, per se. He would not allow news on the space program or the environment, among others. So it wasn't a complete break. About perestroika, it is an economic restructuring supposedly combining socialism and capitalism, but I'm confused about what exactly changed. Actually, it seems as though that was the main problem with it and why it failed, so maybe, I should be confused. So, I was at the library for about 3 and half hours, and I brought two more books back to my room which I will probably read tomorrow afternoon. Hopefully, I can finish the paper by the end of Saturday. After dinner, a few of us went to the Quarrell Room to watch Hamlet because Laura, Ashley, and John J needed to for their class. Matt and I went along because we had nothing better to do. We watched the Lawrence Olivier version. I thought I wasn't going to make it. Hamlet isn't my favorite Shakespeare play, but the movie really dragged on and on and on. Anyway, we had fun making fun of it. Hamlet's father talked like Darth Vader, Polonius was hilarious (which is his purpose anyway), Ophelia had a really weird cry (a little overacting perhaps?), and Laertes' henchman was odd (fabulous was the more appropriate term we decided) and he fell down the stairs towards the end in a terribly acted fashion (we wonder if he didn't mean to fall, but the directors decided it was good comic relief and decided to keep it). Honestly, it wasn't terrible, but I'll never watch it again. Afterward, we sat around and talked until about 12:30 about random things and me wearing glod, knee-high boots with stars on them (you probably don't want to ask).
Observations:
- "Dodgy" is a popular word here, and I think I am going to start using it.
- Australians find Crocodile Dundee good but painful because it's a bit too close to the truth.
- Texas is the only state with the ability to succeed from the Union and could split into 5 countries thereafter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The whole "Texas is allowed to seceed" thing is a bit of a misnomer. Texassecede.com, a pro-secession website, concedes the point.
However, the concept could be covered under a provision in their constitution that allows them to "alter their government in such a manner as they might think proper." My guess is that TX is not the only one that has such a provision, though.
The base consideration here is whether or not the Declaration of Independence is considered a document of law or not. Some "States Rights" folks typically use it as basis for some of their arguments in the grayer areas of the Constitution (and Bill of Rights). Federalists don't consider it law, just a "memo" to England -- a document of symbolism.
The reason I mention this, is that both sites I found use the statement (paraphrased) "it is the right and duty of the governed to throw off a government who is destructive to life, liberty, or property." The Constitution does not have such language.
It's funny that you brought this up, as it was something that we were discussing at lunch one day not too long ago.
Texas is a terrible state considering I have to go visit it next week.
This is what Matt said, and being from Texas, I defer to him. I honestly have no idea.
yea, i have noticed your using dodgy in these posts. Are you guys getting a Hermione-Harry-Ron-Neville thing going on? I think we know which one you are, Longbottom.
--LL
Oh, you have no idea how accurate you are in so many ways. Yes, I am Longbottom in the group, but remember, I save everyone in the end.
Post a Comment