Thursday, May 24, 2012
Timor-Leste, Ermera District
Ok, so apparently some coffee plantations are going belly-up and, as is not surprising in colonialized places, new land laws are changing the opportunity for private land ownership.
Grrls, looking for that androgynous yet well-dressed look? How about some custom made boots or shoes? or, when its really pointless to try to hide the grrl beneath, some beach wear?
Look here:
My favorites:
Esquivelshoes.com (wonderful and custom made)
Shopstyle.com (where you can find most of the names listed below)
Matthew zink (for bikinis)
Brunello cucinelli (for dress wear)
usahermes.com (for cashmere)
allegri
bottega veneta
thecorner.com
piombo
joseph abboud
isaia
church-footwear.com (for linens and bucks)
Kenneth cole
Colehaan (for shoes)
Moorer.it (for jackets and coats)
National geographic (for travel jacket)
John lobb (for shoes)
Ralph lauren black label (for jeans, cotton jackets)
Bloomingdales
Prada (for jeans jackets)
barneys.com
store.zegna.com
tods.com (for shoes)
canali.it
mrporter.com (for pants)
marios.com
Look here:
My favorites:
Esquivelshoes.com (wonderful and custom made)
Shopstyle.com (where you can find most of the names listed below)
Ubatuba brazil
Emilio pucci (for caftans)Matthew zink (for bikinis)
Brunello cucinelli (for dress wear)
usahermes.com (for cashmere)
allegri
bottega veneta
thecorner.com
piombo
joseph abboud
isaia
church-footwear.com (for linens and bucks)
Kenneth cole
Colehaan (for shoes)
Moorer.it (for jackets and coats)
National geographic (for travel jacket)
John lobb (for shoes)
Ralph lauren black label (for jeans, cotton jackets)
Bloomingdales
Prada (for jeans jackets)
barneys.com
store.zegna.com
tods.com (for shoes)
canali.it
mrporter.com (for pants)
marios.com
I see more and more that religious persons are showing less and less ability to respect and show compassion for humanity--their own and that of those around them.
They don't show respect for the expression of differences--whether expressed as thought, action, or organizing life philosophy.
They can't seem to accomodate the internal conflict that they themselves experience in their own lifes without judging it and trying to "excise" it in unhealthy ways.
They justify restricting the pursuit of happiness for those that don't show compliance or bow down to their chosen lifestyle.
They subvert a public official's duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public--not the converted, into a self-serving and unsustainable battle over "morality."
They don't show respect for the expression of differences--whether expressed as thought, action, or organizing life philosophy.
They can't seem to accomodate the internal conflict that they themselves experience in their own lifes without judging it and trying to "excise" it in unhealthy ways.
They justify restricting the pursuit of happiness for those that don't show compliance or bow down to their chosen lifestyle.
They subvert a public official's duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public--not the converted, into a self-serving and unsustainable battle over "morality."
organic stuffed animals
In an effort to honor my promise to myself to eliminate petroleum based stuff from my home, I do two things:
1. I go for the item that either has no packaging or no plastic packaging whenever possible. If I can't do this, I usually find that I can do without the item altogether. Conveniently, I get the same feeling of satisfaction from going through this analysis and putting the item back on the shelf that I get from actually purchasing the item. Pupils dilate and everything.
2. I go for the item that is not made out of some version of petroleum. I went for months without a broom because I just couldn't find one without any petroleum in it. Try to find a litterbox that is not plastic...and not pay an arm and a leg for it. Mop bucket took months to find, too. I finally had a brain storm and went into a Tractor Supply Company and got a feed bucket. Same exact f-n thing--a bucket, so why can't places like a Lowes or HEB carry the item?
So, in case there are others like me out there, let's share our sources and thereby reduce our time looking for things that meet our criteria.
Stuffed animals:
SimplyFido Ironcially, these are marketed as dog toys. Go Figure. But they are purrfect (couldn't resist) sizes for toddlers, even, and are made with organic stuffing, shell, dyes, and packaging. And, they are cute. I showed a bunch of them to my dentist's staff, and walked out without half of what I walked in with. You won't find these at PetSmart--they are pretty committed to plastic everything, it seems. I got my stash at a PetValue store. www.simplyfido.com
1. I go for the item that either has no packaging or no plastic packaging whenever possible. If I can't do this, I usually find that I can do without the item altogether. Conveniently, I get the same feeling of satisfaction from going through this analysis and putting the item back on the shelf that I get from actually purchasing the item. Pupils dilate and everything.
2. I go for the item that is not made out of some version of petroleum. I went for months without a broom because I just couldn't find one without any petroleum in it. Try to find a litterbox that is not plastic...and not pay an arm and a leg for it. Mop bucket took months to find, too. I finally had a brain storm and went into a Tractor Supply Company and got a feed bucket. Same exact f-n thing--a bucket, so why can't places like a Lowes or HEB carry the item?
So, in case there are others like me out there, let's share our sources and thereby reduce our time looking for things that meet our criteria.
Stuffed animals:
SimplyFido Ironcially, these are marketed as dog toys. Go Figure. But they are purrfect (couldn't resist) sizes for toddlers, even, and are made with organic stuffing, shell, dyes, and packaging. And, they are cute. I showed a bunch of them to my dentist's staff, and walked out without half of what I walked in with. You won't find these at PetSmart--they are pretty committed to plastic everything, it seems. I got my stash at a PetValue store. www.simplyfido.com
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Antiquities Loot and Humanity
Here is my solution to the current antagonism in the art/antiquities world:
Unless a country can show an outright theft of an item after it has been un-earthed and was clearly in someone's posession, stop demanding its "return." You can't have it both ways. You can't demand its return because of the loss of your nation's history that is intrinsically represented by this or that artifact that is no longer within your nation's current boundaries AND simultaneously ignore it's intellectual property value to humanity and treat it like it was an improperly mined mineral resource. Let me simplify that: you can't simultaneously argue that its intrinsic value in revealing humanity's history, or even just in revealing your geographic location's humanity's history has no value to humanity, and, thereby, belongs back in, say, Turkey, Egypt, or even Italy.
We don't even have to split the baby here. We just have to split the bundle of property rights associated with this item into an intellectual property right "stick" and a possessory stick. Here's what that may look like:
1. Nation-you provide clear and convincing evidence that the antiquity was un-earthed in an area that is today situated within your nation's boundaries and that it was surreptitiously unearthed (or dug up outside the established protocols in place at the time that it was unearthed);
2. The last entity to have made any profit from a transaction involving the antiquity will share a percentage of that profit.
3. In perpetuity, any current and future possessor will share with you a percentage of any profits that it makes from the antiquity, and that percentage may reflect your willingness to participate in the maintenance of the antiquity (a cost that may be calculated by neutral third parties).
4. The antiquity's provenance will state that the item is "on permanent loan from [your nation] and was unearthed on [date] in [location of item's "reintroduction" to humanity] by [name of excavator and his/her "boss"." The description should also clearly state how the current possessor came into possession of the object.
This is clearly a contractual arrangement, which I think all parties would prefer (as opposed to litigation). Contractual negotiations provide all parties with much greater control over the process and the subject matter. It also provides for other terms, such as reacquisition by the country of origin.
Again, I would like to re-emphasize that the more value that you claim that an antiquity intrinsically possess', the more you are admitting its value to ALL of humanity.
Let me demonstrate this in an even more esoteric way: Egypt claims the Nefertiti bust should be returned to Egypt because it represents a massively poignant part of their--Egypt's, cultural history. Well, what is this thing that we call Egypt? How do we define ancient Egypt? Did Egypt exist in a vaccuum? Is it possible to define Egypt, and its history without using any comparative terminology? By simply using the word "Egypt", aren't we necessarily relying on what the word does AND DOES NOT conjure up, represent, describe? When we say "Egypt", aren't we also saying "not Greece, not Turkey, not Africa"?
The fact is that Egypt did not/does not exist except in a context, a real and a conceptual and a cultural context. What the bust of Nefertiti may say affirmatively about Egypt it also says dispositively about all things NOT Egypt, thereby revealing much more than just what Egypt's "position" on humanity was at the time the bust was created. Nefertiti's value is elementally based on the knowledge that this type of culture and artistry and expression DID NOT EXIST ELSEWHERE, whether in time or in location. In other words, its value is based on its context--its context within all of humanity, not just Egypt's.
And, I haven't even broached the issue of legal title: who commissioned the piece, who was the original owner, how was that title transferred through to today's claimants....It strikes me as compounding the problem today if antiquities are treated simply as a national resource, like fossil fuel, forests, or minerals. The first logical problem is that this conceptual approach leads us right back to the situation described above: if it is a resource, then what is its "resource" value derived from? Well, if its from its representative historical value, then the position really brings up the idea that more than just one group of people derive value from the item. All of humanity derives value from the item, and it owes its value to the history of all of humanity.
Is this conflict just another pitting of tribal mentality against humanitarian mentality? And, if so, how is that working out for these countries, for their women, for their progeny, for their environment? Better yet, how is it working out for antiquities that are currently located within their national boundaries?
Post script: The position that Nefertiti and her husband played in humanity's development of monotheism is profound and interesting. And, early monotheistic cult members were responsble for much destruction of early artifacts by, for example, ripping the noses off of any other belief system's statues of gods/goddesses. Thus, the violence, self-righteousness, and narcissism of early monotheists seemed to be foundational characteristics of the monotheistic cult.
Unless a country can show an outright theft of an item after it has been un-earthed and was clearly in someone's posession, stop demanding its "return." You can't have it both ways. You can't demand its return because of the loss of your nation's history that is intrinsically represented by this or that artifact that is no longer within your nation's current boundaries AND simultaneously ignore it's intellectual property value to humanity and treat it like it was an improperly mined mineral resource. Let me simplify that: you can't simultaneously argue that its intrinsic value in revealing humanity's history, or even just in revealing your geographic location's humanity's history has no value to humanity, and, thereby, belongs back in, say, Turkey, Egypt, or even Italy.
We don't even have to split the baby here. We just have to split the bundle of property rights associated with this item into an intellectual property right "stick" and a possessory stick. Here's what that may look like:
1. Nation-you provide clear and convincing evidence that the antiquity was un-earthed in an area that is today situated within your nation's boundaries and that it was surreptitiously unearthed (or dug up outside the established protocols in place at the time that it was unearthed);
2. The last entity to have made any profit from a transaction involving the antiquity will share a percentage of that profit.
3. In perpetuity, any current and future possessor will share with you a percentage of any profits that it makes from the antiquity, and that percentage may reflect your willingness to participate in the maintenance of the antiquity (a cost that may be calculated by neutral third parties).
4. The antiquity's provenance will state that the item is "on permanent loan from [your nation] and was unearthed on [date] in [location of item's "reintroduction" to humanity] by [name of excavator and his/her "boss"." The description should also clearly state how the current possessor came into possession of the object.
This is clearly a contractual arrangement, which I think all parties would prefer (as opposed to litigation). Contractual negotiations provide all parties with much greater control over the process and the subject matter. It also provides for other terms, such as reacquisition by the country of origin.
Again, I would like to re-emphasize that the more value that you claim that an antiquity intrinsically possess', the more you are admitting its value to ALL of humanity.
Let me demonstrate this in an even more esoteric way: Egypt claims the Nefertiti bust should be returned to Egypt because it represents a massively poignant part of their--Egypt's, cultural history. Well, what is this thing that we call Egypt? How do we define ancient Egypt? Did Egypt exist in a vaccuum? Is it possible to define Egypt, and its history without using any comparative terminology? By simply using the word "Egypt", aren't we necessarily relying on what the word does AND DOES NOT conjure up, represent, describe? When we say "Egypt", aren't we also saying "not Greece, not Turkey, not Africa"?
The fact is that Egypt did not/does not exist except in a context, a real and a conceptual and a cultural context. What the bust of Nefertiti may say affirmatively about Egypt it also says dispositively about all things NOT Egypt, thereby revealing much more than just what Egypt's "position" on humanity was at the time the bust was created. Nefertiti's value is elementally based on the knowledge that this type of culture and artistry and expression DID NOT EXIST ELSEWHERE, whether in time or in location. In other words, its value is based on its context--its context within all of humanity, not just Egypt's.
And, I haven't even broached the issue of legal title: who commissioned the piece, who was the original owner, how was that title transferred through to today's claimants....It strikes me as compounding the problem today if antiquities are treated simply as a national resource, like fossil fuel, forests, or minerals. The first logical problem is that this conceptual approach leads us right back to the situation described above: if it is a resource, then what is its "resource" value derived from? Well, if its from its representative historical value, then the position really brings up the idea that more than just one group of people derive value from the item. All of humanity derives value from the item, and it owes its value to the history of all of humanity.
Is this conflict just another pitting of tribal mentality against humanitarian mentality? And, if so, how is that working out for these countries, for their women, for their progeny, for their environment? Better yet, how is it working out for antiquities that are currently located within their national boundaries?
Post script: The position that Nefertiti and her husband played in humanity's development of monotheism is profound and interesting. And, early monotheistic cult members were responsble for much destruction of early artifacts by, for example, ripping the noses off of any other belief system's statues of gods/goddesses. Thus, the violence, self-righteousness, and narcissism of early monotheists seemed to be foundational characteristics of the monotheistic cult.
Mexican and Immigration
It seems again that our political system is throwing another red herring at us and trying to dupe our vote out of us. As with a woman's right to her private relationship with her doctor and with a person's right to choose the details of his/her personal, most private intimate relationship, immigration appears to be another such example of our government splashing irrelevant arguments at us in order to appeal to some hormonal response that guides our vote, rather than a reasoned response that is intrinsically based on the principals of our american government.
The Pew Hispanic Center recently published a study that shows that net immigration (between US and Mexico) has dropped to net zero or below. Now, whether that is due to the recent changes in US immigration policies is irrelevant: it can be argued that their success led to the net zero flow, just as it can be argued that the changes are really a waste of money and resources because there just aren't the numbers anymore. So, any current politician or political candidate spouting an affirmative position in relation to immigration policy changes is just blowing smoke up our asses.
And, wasting our resources and money...
I heard that California spent millions on a program to facilitate the employment of US citizens in harvesting and farming work to only have about 10 persons apply and about three even try the work. Uhhmm, money well spent? I think not. So there it is, the truth: the truth is that we just don't want to do the work that immigrants are willing to perform and we are so miserable about it when we do show up for the job that we lose the job or quit.
The California experiment is supported by my middle class neighbors' experiences, as I suspect is also most of our experiences. My neighbor's nephew was the laziest fuck of a lawn maintenance guy--my neighbor even had to buy his equipment for him and pay the HOA fines because of his poor work. His Hispanic replacement, on the other hand, was on time, provided his own equipment, and met the HOA's standards. The non-immigrant US citizen guy hired by another neighbor to do drywall work called her a "cunt" when she told him to follow her directions while on her property (she told him at the beginning of his day use the ladders and scaffolding and not to reach. Within an hour, she caught him standing on the 120 year old fireplace mantle and reaching above the fireplace). The Hispanic crew left her a perfectly mudded house in just two days and didn't use one single expletive. Non-mexican US citizens simply don't want to do the work, and, quite frankly, we don't want you to do it either. This is ample demonstration that our recent attitudes towards immigration have led to exceptionally stupid policy decisions and expenditures that really only end up making us look like total asses.
If a politician had any real concerns about this immigration flow and its impact on our culture and country, there are at least two OTHER issues that he/she should be discussing.
The first issue is that a significant percentage (20%) of the flow from US to Mexico that helped get us to net zero are actually US citizens--children born in the US. Children--persons that are a US citizen in exactly the same way that makes me, and likely each politician, a US citizen. Can there be found any other emigration of US citizens in such a large number that we, as a country, as a nation, have approved of? I challenge any politician to find that example.
Further compounding the ethical challenges with this particular issue is that our own government is hiding from us--its constituency and funders, the actual numbers of US citizens that it forcibly and constructively deports to Mexico each year. The US Dept. of Homeland Security may provide some numbers on its acitivies, but it fails to provide numbers on how many US citizen-children that it has forced to relocate from the US to Mexico. Why hide that from us? And why do we tolerate this kind of lack of transparency in our own government?
The second issue that politicians keen on immigration issues should be discussing is how to effect and achieve the maximum beneficial characteristics of a society that is diverse and includes immigrants. How many times have we heard a politician define the "problem" of Mexico-to-US immigration as being one of immigrants failing our society some how. This seems very much like picking on the people who can't defend them selves--and who don't vote. And, more importantly, it seems to be an overly narrow view, since many immigrants provide necessary services that go unprovided without them. Their performance of domestic, farming, construction, and gardening services are just a few examples of their obvious and helpful contribution. Has anyone seen "The Help"....see any similarities?
Instead of talking about putting money into things that make us an antagonistic, pugnacious, and uncaring society, why not talk about putting resources into making sure all elements of our society are educated, have a way to provide for themselves, and have a way to contribute to their chosen society. When you shore up your society's provision of education, you achieve direct and indirect benefits for everyone. When you shore up a truly robust free market economy where everyone--especially the wealthy and the incorporated, pay their way instead of sucking our backbones out of us, everyone benefits.
The Pew Hispanic Center recently published a study that shows that net immigration (between US and Mexico) has dropped to net zero or below. Now, whether that is due to the recent changes in US immigration policies is irrelevant: it can be argued that their success led to the net zero flow, just as it can be argued that the changes are really a waste of money and resources because there just aren't the numbers anymore. So, any current politician or political candidate spouting an affirmative position in relation to immigration policy changes is just blowing smoke up our asses.
And, wasting our resources and money...
I heard that California spent millions on a program to facilitate the employment of US citizens in harvesting and farming work to only have about 10 persons apply and about three even try the work. Uhhmm, money well spent? I think not. So there it is, the truth: the truth is that we just don't want to do the work that immigrants are willing to perform and we are so miserable about it when we do show up for the job that we lose the job or quit.
The California experiment is supported by my middle class neighbors' experiences, as I suspect is also most of our experiences. My neighbor's nephew was the laziest fuck of a lawn maintenance guy--my neighbor even had to buy his equipment for him and pay the HOA fines because of his poor work. His Hispanic replacement, on the other hand, was on time, provided his own equipment, and met the HOA's standards. The non-immigrant US citizen guy hired by another neighbor to do drywall work called her a "cunt" when she told him to follow her directions while on her property (she told him at the beginning of his day use the ladders and scaffolding and not to reach. Within an hour, she caught him standing on the 120 year old fireplace mantle and reaching above the fireplace). The Hispanic crew left her a perfectly mudded house in just two days and didn't use one single expletive. Non-mexican US citizens simply don't want to do the work, and, quite frankly, we don't want you to do it either. This is ample demonstration that our recent attitudes towards immigration have led to exceptionally stupid policy decisions and expenditures that really only end up making us look like total asses.
If a politician had any real concerns about this immigration flow and its impact on our culture and country, there are at least two OTHER issues that he/she should be discussing.
The first issue is that a significant percentage (20%) of the flow from US to Mexico that helped get us to net zero are actually US citizens--children born in the US. Children--persons that are a US citizen in exactly the same way that makes me, and likely each politician, a US citizen. Can there be found any other emigration of US citizens in such a large number that we, as a country, as a nation, have approved of? I challenge any politician to find that example.
Further compounding the ethical challenges with this particular issue is that our own government is hiding from us--its constituency and funders, the actual numbers of US citizens that it forcibly and constructively deports to Mexico each year. The US Dept. of Homeland Security may provide some numbers on its acitivies, but it fails to provide numbers on how many US citizen-children that it has forced to relocate from the US to Mexico. Why hide that from us? And why do we tolerate this kind of lack of transparency in our own government?
The second issue that politicians keen on immigration issues should be discussing is how to effect and achieve the maximum beneficial characteristics of a society that is diverse and includes immigrants. How many times have we heard a politician define the "problem" of Mexico-to-US immigration as being one of immigrants failing our society some how. This seems very much like picking on the people who can't defend them selves--and who don't vote. And, more importantly, it seems to be an overly narrow view, since many immigrants provide necessary services that go unprovided without them. Their performance of domestic, farming, construction, and gardening services are just a few examples of their obvious and helpful contribution. Has anyone seen "The Help"....see any similarities?
Instead of talking about putting money into things that make us an antagonistic, pugnacious, and uncaring society, why not talk about putting resources into making sure all elements of our society are educated, have a way to provide for themselves, and have a way to contribute to their chosen society. When you shore up your society's provision of education, you achieve direct and indirect benefits for everyone. When you shore up a truly robust free market economy where everyone--especially the wealthy and the incorporated, pay their way instead of sucking our backbones out of us, everyone benefits.
Dream
So last night I dreamt that my small shirt-pocket notebook had pages in it with video and audio. These pages were a little shorter at the bottom and were nearly completely filled with a picture that was somewhat lighter or was greyer/foggier than a simple printed picture would be, and, if you put it next to your ear, like you would an earbud, you could hear the audio created at the time of the picture. I remember only thinking how did these pages get bound with the other pages in the little metal spiral--not, "how did I get this stuff on these pages?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)