NPR has a story about the very last roll of Kodachrome ever produced. Kodak gave the roll to photographer Steve McCurry, who took that iconic National Geographic image titled "Afghan Girl" in 1984. The roll was dropped off at Dwayne's Photo Service, which is the last lab that can process Kodachrome. The contents of that role, according to NPR, will be the subject of an upcoming National Geographic documentary. It may seem like a lot of attention for one little roll of film, but the end of Kodachrome for photography is one of those "end of an era" moments that has come to pass. It's kind of like the shift from old Underwood typewriters to laptops--there is always something a little different with any new technology. I am by no means someone who laments the onset of digital photography. And while I was never a Kodochrome user (my favorite was probably Tri-X or maybe Agfapan 100), I can certainly attest to the fact that film absolutely had its own unique character and feel.
July 24, 2010
July 21, 2010
Another reaction to the MARXISTS
Here's the thing: I understand the fact that people all have their particular political and ideological positions. I get that. But what I don't understand is why people react so strongly to information when they THINK it's coming from their supposed ideological enemies. To me, it makes sense to look at critiques from all sides of the spectrum, regardless of what political, social, academic, or ideological position it comes from. When it comes to economics, this kind of thing is really common. And one of the catch words that will strike indignant fear in the minds of many a "free-market capitalist" is "MARX."
So, just to keep everyone up to speed. On July first I wrote about the animated video in which David Harvey talks about the "Crisis of Capitalism." That video was all over the place, and I think I saw a version of it on all of my favorite sites--Savage Minds, Sociological Images, and Maxine Udall (girl economist). In fact, Maxine wrote about the video on July 11, and I wrote about what she wrote about it--if that makes sense. Here is that post.
And here we go again:
Here is a critique of "the radical sociologist David Harvey" by some guy named Lee Doren. Doren works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is geared toward protecting "Free Markets and Limited Government." It says so right on the about page. If you want to know more about Doren, check out his bio.
Doren, who is clearly not impressed with THE MARXIST...er, I mean David Harvey, takes issue with the basic argument that Harvey puts forth. I mean, what sense could some marxist make anyway? Basically, Doren argues that nobody has to listen to a critique that comes from "marxian theory," because, it was like, well, disproved and nobody takes it seriously. That's Doren's opening salvo, and it's a beauty. Why look at information when Milton Friedman said it was nonsense? Wasn't old Milt always right? In other news, let's review a quote about this video by the ECONOMIST Maxine Udall (I already linked to this above):
But there is no reason to listen or pay attention, because Lee Doren said so. Anyway, Doren argues that he will disprove Harvey's ideas using "objective census data." It's all very scientific and dramatic. He even throws in some wonderful personal views along the way.
The real meat of the clash between these two minds begins at about 4:35 in the video. Harvey argues that the immense power of finance capital is the root of the whole problem. How did this come to be? Harvey argues that there has been a period of "wage repression" since the 1970s, in which wages have "remained stagnant" for an extended period. The stagnant wages created a problem with effective demand, and this, Harvey argues, is what opened the flood gate for massive credit debt (and the wonderful housing market of 2008).
Doren stands his ground here. He claims that Harvey has "based his entire theory on the fact that wages have been stagnant." And this is where Doren starts to get a little too excited, awaiting his chance to appeal to some good old fashioned objective statistical data. Doren exclaims, "if wages aren't stagnant his entire theory falls over like a house of cards." And then he takes off on an incredibly high tech journey* to the online US Census data, where he craftily finds his way to the page that lists all of the information about income.
And the crux of Doren's amazing argument is that if you look at the data on per capita income, the results are shocking. In 1967 Americans had a per capita income of $13,888. In 2008, the per capita income almost doubled, reaching $26,964!!! And David Harvey said that wages remained stagnant? That silly marxist! Doren does acknowledge that household incomes remained stagnant over that time period, but argues that individual income is where the truth of the matter lies. Why? Because, the average household size dropped during that time (2.89 in 1975 to 2.57 in 2008), and Thomas Sowell said that people only use household income when they're trying to make a situation look bad. Sowell does make some reasonable points about the limits of statistical data, and he does make a good point about some of the issues with household data and stats. Duly noted. But Doren uses Sowell to sidestep one very critical issue: income inequality.
Yes, per capita income went up from 1967 to 2008. But what is per capita income? It's an average. It's the total personal income divided by the total population. It is a number that tells you how much each citizen WOULD get IF all income was evenly distributed. Great. So what's wrong with using per capita income to critique David Harvey's analysis? Well, the per capita stat tells us nothing about who realized the gains in overall income during these years. And this is why per capita income can be a misleading statistic--the numbers can easily be skewed if there is any outlying data. For that reason, median income is a much better stat to look at. If you look at the same US Census site, you will see that the median income in 1974 was $21,008. By 1994--twenty years later--that amount rose to $22, 904 (that's only a 9% change). In 2008 it was $26,513. So what does that tell us? It tells us that while the overall income increased during this time period, those increases were not spread out evenly among the population. This is where stats can be misused or misunderstood quite easily. Overall, Doren's argument is both intellectually lazy and shortsighted. He should have taken the time to look more closely at the rest of the stats, but I think that he was so exasperated by Harvey's professed marxist analysis that he lost his nerve. Or maybe I am being too generous. The point: don't just overreact and criticize information based upon your personal political beliefs.
In the end, Harvey's argument was that wages remained stagnant, and they have--for a large portion of the population. Up through the mid 1990s they were REALLY stagnant before there were some increases. From that point, Harvey then proceeds to explain how credit debt became a major issue, and so on. But these are all details. Doren was overzealous on numerous counts, one of them being the idea that he could simply discount everything that Harvey is talking about with ONE STATISTICAL FIGURE. Doren was wrong about that, and he missed the whole point of actually having an open, critical debate about our current economic system. In my view, this isn't about ideology. It's about remaining open to ideas, and it's about finding ways to understand the world around us. Ultimately, it's about finding ways to improve upon our situation--at least I hope so. And that's why it's imperative to assess as much information as we can, and to be open to all kinds of ideas and perspectives, despite what we all THINK we know.
That's the end of my rant for the day.
*Sarcasm noted.
UPDATE: Here is a relevant little quote from Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. It's from November 6, 2006:
"As Figure 1 shows, from 1973 to 2005, real hourly wages of those in the 90th percentile—where most people have college or advanced degrees—rose by 30 percent or more. As I will discuss later, among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent. This includes the people who earn the very highest salaries in the U.S. economy, like sports and entertainment stars, investment bankers and venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below—where many people have at most a high school diploma—real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent."
And here is the figure that she is referring to:
UPDATE II (7/24/10): Here is another little bit of information that disproves what Mr Doren is trying to argue. On table B-47 of the President's Economic Report (which Doren cited in his video), the average hourly earnings went from $8.21 in 1967 to $7.87 in 1987 to $8.33 in 2007. In fact, for 21 years starting in 1980, wages were BELOW the 1967 $8.21 mark (all in 1982 dollars).
Doren, who is clearly not impressed with THE MARXIST...er, I mean David Harvey, takes issue with the basic argument that Harvey puts forth. I mean, what sense could some marxist make anyway? Basically, Doren argues that nobody has to listen to a critique that comes from "marxian theory," because, it was like, well, disproved and nobody takes it seriously. That's Doren's opening salvo, and it's a beauty. Why look at information when Milton Friedman said it was nonsense? Wasn't old Milt always right? In other news, let's review a quote about this video by the ECONOMIST Maxine Udall (I already linked to this above):
"This video is an excellent description of the problem."
But there is no reason to listen or pay attention, because Lee Doren said so. Anyway, Doren argues that he will disprove Harvey's ideas using "objective census data." It's all very scientific and dramatic. He even throws in some wonderful personal views along the way.
The real meat of the clash between these two minds begins at about 4:35 in the video. Harvey argues that the immense power of finance capital is the root of the whole problem. How did this come to be? Harvey argues that there has been a period of "wage repression" since the 1970s, in which wages have "remained stagnant" for an extended period. The stagnant wages created a problem with effective demand, and this, Harvey argues, is what opened the flood gate for massive credit debt (and the wonderful housing market of 2008).
Doren stands his ground here. He claims that Harvey has "based his entire theory on the fact that wages have been stagnant." And this is where Doren starts to get a little too excited, awaiting his chance to appeal to some good old fashioned objective statistical data. Doren exclaims, "if wages aren't stagnant his entire theory falls over like a house of cards." And then he takes off on an incredibly high tech journey* to the online US Census data, where he craftily finds his way to the page that lists all of the information about income.
And the crux of Doren's amazing argument is that if you look at the data on per capita income, the results are shocking. In 1967 Americans had a per capita income of $13,888. In 2008, the per capita income almost doubled, reaching $26,964!!! And David Harvey said that wages remained stagnant? That silly marxist! Doren does acknowledge that household incomes remained stagnant over that time period, but argues that individual income is where the truth of the matter lies. Why? Because, the average household size dropped during that time (2.89 in 1975 to 2.57 in 2008), and Thomas Sowell said that people only use household income when they're trying to make a situation look bad. Sowell does make some reasonable points about the limits of statistical data, and he does make a good point about some of the issues with household data and stats. Duly noted. But Doren uses Sowell to sidestep one very critical issue: income inequality.
Yes, per capita income went up from 1967 to 2008. But what is per capita income? It's an average. It's the total personal income divided by the total population. It is a number that tells you how much each citizen WOULD get IF all income was evenly distributed. Great. So what's wrong with using per capita income to critique David Harvey's analysis? Well, the per capita stat tells us nothing about who realized the gains in overall income during these years. And this is why per capita income can be a misleading statistic--the numbers can easily be skewed if there is any outlying data. For that reason, median income is a much better stat to look at. If you look at the same US Census site, you will see that the median income in 1974 was $21,008. By 1994--twenty years later--that amount rose to $22, 904 (that's only a 9% change). In 2008 it was $26,513. So what does that tell us? It tells us that while the overall income increased during this time period, those increases were not spread out evenly among the population. This is where stats can be misused or misunderstood quite easily. Overall, Doren's argument is both intellectually lazy and shortsighted. He should have taken the time to look more closely at the rest of the stats, but I think that he was so exasperated by Harvey's professed marxist analysis that he lost his nerve. Or maybe I am being too generous. The point: don't just overreact and criticize information based upon your personal political beliefs.
In the end, Harvey's argument was that wages remained stagnant, and they have--for a large portion of the population. Up through the mid 1990s they were REALLY stagnant before there were some increases. From that point, Harvey then proceeds to explain how credit debt became a major issue, and so on. But these are all details. Doren was overzealous on numerous counts, one of them being the idea that he could simply discount everything that Harvey is talking about with ONE STATISTICAL FIGURE. Doren was wrong about that, and he missed the whole point of actually having an open, critical debate about our current economic system. In my view, this isn't about ideology. It's about remaining open to ideas, and it's about finding ways to understand the world around us. Ultimately, it's about finding ways to improve upon our situation--at least I hope so. And that's why it's imperative to assess as much information as we can, and to be open to all kinds of ideas and perspectives, despite what we all THINK we know.
That's the end of my rant for the day.
*Sarcasm noted.
UPDATE: Here is a relevant little quote from Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. It's from November 6, 2006:
"As Figure 1 shows, from 1973 to 2005, real hourly wages of those in the 90th percentile—where most people have college or advanced degrees—rose by 30 percent or more. As I will discuss later, among this top 10 percent, the growth was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent. This includes the people who earn the very highest salaries in the U.S. economy, like sports and entertainment stars, investment bankers and venture capitalists, corporate attorneys, and CEOs. In contrast, at the 50th percentile and below—where many people have at most a high school diploma—real wages rose by only 5 to 10 percent."
And here is the figure that she is referring to:
UPDATE II (7/24/10): Here is another little bit of information that disproves what Mr Doren is trying to argue. On table B-47 of the President's Economic Report (which Doren cited in his video), the average hourly earnings went from $8.21 in 1967 to $7.87 in 1987 to $8.33 in 2007. In fact, for 21 years starting in 1980, wages were BELOW the 1967 $8.21 mark (all in 1982 dollars).
July 20, 2010
Details
This is one of my favorite photographs that I have taken at Monte Alban in Oaxaca. Sometimes, it's the details that I find really interesting in a photograph.* Sure, the archaeological structure is definitely impressive, as is the scope of this site. But what I really like about this picture had a more contemporary provenance:
I think that the little path in this picture is extremely interesting, since it's the result of who knows how many people walking through this site. I wonder if the path is made and remade every year before and after the rainy season. The fascinating thing is that this is a line that is made out of collective behaviors and habits--and there are some small details that stand out to me. One really obvious aspect of this path is the distance from the structure...notice how there is enough space to look at it without getting subsumed by the walls. Practical, yes. But it also reflects certain collective decisions and predilections, right? Maybe. Or maybe it just reflects the path where tour guides generally take groups--and where everyone else decides to follow. Next time I'll pay more attention while I'm actually there...
*I also like the fact that there is one tiny little person standing on the top of the structure at the other end of the plaza.
*I also like the fact that there is one tiny little person standing on the top of the structure at the other end of the plaza.
July 19, 2010
Sidewalk, Valladolid, Mx 7/2010
This one's for all of you archaeologists out there who like to see the ways in which man-made objects break down. I remember some pretty cool photographs along these lines over at Colleen Morgan's site a while back, but I'm feeling too lazy to go find the link. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow. You know, all of this talk about photography and degradation makes me think that a lot of archaeologists should really like the work of Brett Weston, one of the masters of photographing old, worn down, and broken stuff.
July 18, 2010
The Desert to the East
Four summers ago I was working on an archaeological survey project in the deserts of eastern California. It was mid July, probably the hottest time of the year to be trudging through that area. We woke up at 4:30 in the morning to get started as early as we could, before the sun rose high enough to starting pulling the water and salt out of our systems.
We walked for miles and miles looking for remnants and signs of people who once lived in those deserts--or passed through them. But sometimes we found evidence of more recent travelers. The above photograph was taken on one of my many days out in the field that summer. Overall, there wasn't exactly a ton of evidence of the migrants who crossed into the US by way of these harsh, hot, bleak desert routes. But there was some. This backpack was just sitting there, partially open, a frozen reminder of a recent event. Alongside, there was a plastic sleeve with some photographs of young children inside--home. I doubt someone would leave those memories willingly.
In a broad historical or archaeological sense, people have been crossing through these kinds of places for thousands of years. Maybe some of the reasons have remained the same in one way or another. I'm sure some of the concerns are similar: finding water, food, a place to stay for the night. The heat. The cold at night. But the specifics of each migration change--they always change. What were the primary issues that people faced 1000 years ago when they walked through these places?
Today, many people cross these deserts to find work in the United States. They cross to make a living, to send money back to family, to find a way. Each individual story, each personal desire is interwoven with larger political machinations: immigration politics and policies, trade agreements, agricultural subsidies. Larger political forces ebb and flow, of course. The politics of international agreements and state power manifests in these kinds of places, these margins. ICE vehicles patrol looking for tracks in sand. Officers check water stations. It's their job to police the edges of the political boundaries of the state--it's as simple as that. They find the social edges of the body politic. Out here there are no man-made fences. There are the sharp distant mountains. There is the bright, infernal sand. And the patient cholla cacti, waiting between gusts of oven hot air. Still, people cross, step by step.
We walked for miles and miles looking for remnants and signs of people who once lived in those deserts--or passed through them. But sometimes we found evidence of more recent travelers. The above photograph was taken on one of my many days out in the field that summer. Overall, there wasn't exactly a ton of evidence of the migrants who crossed into the US by way of these harsh, hot, bleak desert routes. But there was some. This backpack was just sitting there, partially open, a frozen reminder of a recent event. Alongside, there was a plastic sleeve with some photographs of young children inside--home. I doubt someone would leave those memories willingly.
In a broad historical or archaeological sense, people have been crossing through these kinds of places for thousands of years. Maybe some of the reasons have remained the same in one way or another. I'm sure some of the concerns are similar: finding water, food, a place to stay for the night. The heat. The cold at night. But the specifics of each migration change--they always change. What were the primary issues that people faced 1000 years ago when they walked through these places?
Today, many people cross these deserts to find work in the United States. They cross to make a living, to send money back to family, to find a way. Each individual story, each personal desire is interwoven with larger political machinations: immigration politics and policies, trade agreements, agricultural subsidies. Larger political forces ebb and flow, of course. The politics of international agreements and state power manifests in these kinds of places, these margins. ICE vehicles patrol looking for tracks in sand. Officers check water stations. It's their job to police the edges of the political boundaries of the state--it's as simple as that. They find the social edges of the body politic. Out here there are no man-made fences. There are the sharp distant mountains. There is the bright, infernal sand. And the patient cholla cacti, waiting between gusts of oven hot air. Still, people cross, step by step.
Solnit on migrants, barriers, and borders
"Throughout this century, various bracero programs have brought in Mexicans to do the work citizens don't want--namely, to toil in the garden, not only the gardens of the wealthy, but the agricultural fields. Despite all the rhetoric depicting immigrants as assailants of the economy, the vast agricultural economy of California and much of the rest of the country is propped up by farmworkers from south of the border, documented or not (including many fleeing the post-NAFTA economic collapse of small farms, brought about by the sale of cheap U.S. corn in Mexico; NAFTA opened the borders to goods but not people).
-Rebecca Solnit, Landscapes for Poltics (93).
-Rebecca Solnit, Landscapes for Poltics (93).
Quote of the Day: Science and Education
This comes from "Why I am Not a Scientist," by Jonathan Marks:
"If science is a process of knowledge production, then is science education best expressed as teaching students the process or as teaching them the knowledge itself? If we focus on teaching students the accumulated knowledge, the facts of science, then we are not actually teaching them science. Rather, we are teaching them science's products, and indeed we are misleading them by substituting the teaching of scientific facts, as if it were the teaching of science itself."*
Marks' statement about teaching science applies to all kinds of teaching, if you ask me. The facts (dates, times, results) are less important than knowing how to get to the facts. Knowing how to solve problems, find information, and challenge assumptions is more important than knowing superficial content. There is a substantial difference between jamming information into students heads and teaching them how to go about finding information according to particular scientific (or other) methodologies. I think that part of the reason why I was continually bored in high school was because it was more about making me memorize information (and subsequently get a good score on the SATs) than anything else.
How about a little more from Marks, hmmm? Here you go:
"[L]et us focus on science as a method of knowledge production. Then learning science in not principally about learning what scientists think but how scientists think."
Yep, I like that. This means that if a student happens to not know a thing about a particular foundational text, or a particular experiment, all is not lost. Information can always be located, as long as people know how to find it. So when a student comes up to me in class and hasn't heard anything about Homo erectus, I can either lament the general knowledge of students these days or I can work on teaching them how to go about filling in the gaps of knowledge. The overall goal, I think, is teaching and inspiring people to learn how to go about answering particular questions.
*That's on page 22 for those of you following along at home. The second quote is on the next page.
"If science is a process of knowledge production, then is science education best expressed as teaching students the process or as teaching them the knowledge itself? If we focus on teaching students the accumulated knowledge, the facts of science, then we are not actually teaching them science. Rather, we are teaching them science's products, and indeed we are misleading them by substituting the teaching of scientific facts, as if it were the teaching of science itself."*
Marks' statement about teaching science applies to all kinds of teaching, if you ask me. The facts (dates, times, results) are less important than knowing how to get to the facts. Knowing how to solve problems, find information, and challenge assumptions is more important than knowing superficial content. There is a substantial difference between jamming information into students heads and teaching them how to go about finding information according to particular scientific (or other) methodologies. I think that part of the reason why I was continually bored in high school was because it was more about making me memorize information (and subsequently get a good score on the SATs) than anything else.
How about a little more from Marks, hmmm? Here you go:
"[L]et us focus on science as a method of knowledge production. Then learning science in not principally about learning what scientists think but how scientists think."
Yep, I like that. This means that if a student happens to not know a thing about a particular foundational text, or a particular experiment, all is not lost. Information can always be located, as long as people know how to find it. So when a student comes up to me in class and hasn't heard anything about Homo erectus, I can either lament the general knowledge of students these days or I can work on teaching them how to go about filling in the gaps of knowledge. The overall goal, I think, is teaching and inspiring people to learn how to go about answering particular questions.
*That's on page 22 for those of you following along at home. The second quote is on the next page.
July 16, 2010
A Message for Tourists
From the Cancún airport last Tuesday. I noticed this just after my lunch at "Margaritaville," a well-known traditional Mexican restaurant.
The Second Question
The first question people always ask me when I tell them that I am working on a PhD in anthropology is, "What IS anthropology again?" That's such a common response that I think I have developed a stock answer along the lines of "It's about humanity in all times and all places." I know, I should probably revise this auto-response, but sometimes it's not easy.
Anyway, the SECOND question that inevitably follows is "Well, how are you going to make any money with that?" And that's the one that really bites into my soul, because it's actually a really good question. A lot of people give me a consoling look, and they tell me that it's a good time to be in grad school right now since the market is so bad.
This "second question" is certainly something to think about. I have plenty of friends who are jobless, and who aren't having much luck finding any prospects. There are a lot of people out there with PhD's in anthropology--but how many job possibilities actually exist? Throw in all of the freshly minted graduates with shining new degrees and titles who come out each year, and, well, it's certainly not like it was back in A.L. Kroeber's day, is it?
When used to ask me a utilitarian or practical question like "What the hell are you going to do with anthropology?" I used to cringe and get a little irritated. Of course anthropology is useful and valid, I thought to myself. But the more I think about it, the more it is an important question to really think through. What exactly am I going to do with this knowledge, and with this training? What is the plan?
Anthropology is what anthropologists make of it, myself included. There is no reason to assume that it has automatic intrinsic value to anyone--and this comes across pretty clear when about 90% of people that I meet have a very limited understanding about what it is that contemporary anthropologists ACTUALLY DO. And whose fault is that?
For me, anthropology has immense value and potential. The goal, then, is to put that value to use in various ways. I'd ALSO like to be able to actually find a way to make a living, but maybe that's asking too much. When I get done with this PhD (someday), I will have to keep a pretty open mind. Yes, I love teaching. I really do. In fact, I think that the classroom is one place where applied anthropology really comes into play. Teaching is applied anthropology, as I see it.
When it comes to teaching, I have to keep my options open. I am definitely not just going to count on getting some university position. I would be perfectly happy teaching in a community college, especially since I learned so much from my local community college (including photography, archaeology, and an introduction to anthropology). And that's why I am looking at several directions that I could take this whole thing--a mix of anthropology, photography, and journalism is another possible route. But I need to keep developing these options, because I have a feeling that the wonderful job market isn't going to get any more wonderful in the coming years. Hopefully it will, but I'm not going to plan on it.
Anyway, the SECOND question that inevitably follows is "Well, how are you going to make any money with that?" And that's the one that really bites into my soul, because it's actually a really good question. A lot of people give me a consoling look, and they tell me that it's a good time to be in grad school right now since the market is so bad.
This "second question" is certainly something to think about. I have plenty of friends who are jobless, and who aren't having much luck finding any prospects. There are a lot of people out there with PhD's in anthropology--but how many job possibilities actually exist? Throw in all of the freshly minted graduates with shining new degrees and titles who come out each year, and, well, it's certainly not like it was back in A.L. Kroeber's day, is it?
When used to ask me a utilitarian or practical question like "What the hell are you going to do with anthropology?" I used to cringe and get a little irritated. Of course anthropology is useful and valid, I thought to myself. But the more I think about it, the more it is an important question to really think through. What exactly am I going to do with this knowledge, and with this training? What is the plan?
Anthropology is what anthropologists make of it, myself included. There is no reason to assume that it has automatic intrinsic value to anyone--and this comes across pretty clear when about 90% of people that I meet have a very limited understanding about what it is that contemporary anthropologists ACTUALLY DO. And whose fault is that?
For me, anthropology has immense value and potential. The goal, then, is to put that value to use in various ways. I'd ALSO like to be able to actually find a way to make a living, but maybe that's asking too much. When I get done with this PhD (someday), I will have to keep a pretty open mind. Yes, I love teaching. I really do. In fact, I think that the classroom is one place where applied anthropology really comes into play. Teaching is applied anthropology, as I see it.
When it comes to teaching, I have to keep my options open. I am definitely not just going to count on getting some university position. I would be perfectly happy teaching in a community college, especially since I learned so much from my local community college (including photography, archaeology, and an introduction to anthropology). And that's why I am looking at several directions that I could take this whole thing--a mix of anthropology, photography, and journalism is another possible route. But I need to keep developing these options, because I have a feeling that the wonderful job market isn't going to get any more wonderful in the coming years. Hopefully it will, but I'm not going to plan on it.
July 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)