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
Managing Coastal Image in La Paz
I took this photo while I was down in La Paz, Baja California Sur, earlier this summer. I was walking along the boardwalk when I saw this big tractor drive across the sand. "What the hell could they be doing with that," I wondered. Really, I did wonder. So I walked over and I saw these guys scooping up green moss from the sand and putting it into the tractor to be carted away--who knows where. It was apparently* an effort to clean up the beaches and provide the white sand that tourists, whether national or international,** expect. Ok, so I understand WHY they're doing this. This is something that is pretty common in coastal tourism areas--they're always trying to make the beaches look just like the magazine and TV ads, which all feature luxurious white sand beaches (preferably with no footprints). But I was wondering about the biological results of this practice. What does the moss do? Is it common for moss to accumulate on the beaches, or is this something that has come about because of all the harbors? How does the moss fit in with the larger ecosystem? Sounds silly to some, but these are the kinds of questions that go through my mind. Sometimes these little details matter.
*Ya, I really should have walked over and asked these guys what they were doing and why. That would have made sense. But for some reason I really didn't feel like getting in the way at that moment. Maybe there is a way to find out a little more about this.
**La Paz, unlike Cabo San Lucas, has a large percentage of domestic tourists in Mexico. I have not checked the official numbers, however.
*Ya, I really should have walked over and asked these guys what they were doing and why. That would have made sense. But for some reason I really didn't feel like getting in the way at that moment. Maybe there is a way to find out a little more about this.
**La Paz, unlike Cabo San Lucas, has a large percentage of domestic tourists in Mexico. I have not checked the official numbers, however.
A List of 1300 in Utah
Apparently someone or some group circulated a list in Utah that contains the social security numbers and other highly personal information of 1300 suspected undocumented immigrants. State officials in Utah are now investigating the origin of that list. From TPM:
*I found this via Jay Tea's post over at Wizbang.
State agencies are investigating whether any of their employees leaked Social Security numbers and other personal information after a list of 1,300 people who an anonymous group claims are illegal immigrants was circulated around Utah.This is not the way that things should be handled. There is a reason why we have a law enforcement system, and a reason why even suspected criminals have rights. The same laws that protect suspects also protects everyone else. Hopefully more information about this comes out soon.
The anonymous group mailed the list to several media outlets, law enforcement agencies and others this week, frightening the state's Hispanic community. A letter accompanying the list demanded that those on it be deported immediately.
The list also contains highly detailed personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, workplaces, addresses and phone numbers. Names of children are included, along with due dates of pregnant women on the list.
*I found this via Jay Tea's post over at Wizbang.
July 14, 2010
Putting Billboards to (another) Use
Billboard by Kerry Tribe. Photograph from the MAK Center website, by Gerard Smulevich.Jim Johnson has yet another interesting post about the social uses of imagery. This one is about billboards, and how some artists are using them in some completely different ways. Here is the basic idea behind the project:
"The philosophical proposition of the exhibition is simple: art should occupy a visible position in the cacophony of mediated images in the city, and it should do so without merely adding to the visual noise. How Many Billboards? Art In Stead proposes that art periodically displace advertisement in the urban environment."
And Jim writes:
"I think it is important to displace commercial uses for aesthetic and political ones in public spaces and so find this project appealing."
This project IS appealing. Especially when I think about all of the billboards in the LA area. If you drive along the 5 or the 101 there are tons of billboards advertising everything from morning talk shows to strip clubs to the latest Coca-Cola products. I have driven through LA for years wondering why public space isn't (or can't be) used for other reasons as well--why is it that we are always looking at commercial imagery, day after day? Don't we have something else to think about? Isn't there something else to consider? What about politics? What about local histories? What about art? Are we only concerned with losing weight and going to Disneyland? What about just putting something up in those spaces that isn't trying to sell something? I think billboards are good places to get some messages or ideas across...messages that might contribute to something more than just blatant consumerism.
The exhibition is called How Many Billboards. The MAK Center for Art and Architecture in LA is the sponsor. If you're in the area, check it out. I know that many of the billboards have already come down, but I think some might still be up.
"The philosophical proposition of the exhibition is simple: art should occupy a visible position in the cacophony of mediated images in the city, and it should do so without merely adding to the visual noise. How Many Billboards? Art In Stead proposes that art periodically displace advertisement in the urban environment."
And Jim writes:
"I think it is important to displace commercial uses for aesthetic and political ones in public spaces and so find this project appealing."
This project IS appealing. Especially when I think about all of the billboards in the LA area. If you drive along the 5 or the 101 there are tons of billboards advertising everything from morning talk shows to strip clubs to the latest Coca-Cola products. I have driven through LA for years wondering why public space isn't (or can't be) used for other reasons as well--why is it that we are always looking at commercial imagery, day after day? Don't we have something else to think about? Isn't there something else to consider? What about politics? What about local histories? What about art? Are we only concerned with losing weight and going to Disneyland? What about just putting something up in those spaces that isn't trying to sell something? I think billboards are good places to get some messages or ideas across...messages that might contribute to something more than just blatant consumerism.
The exhibition is called How Many Billboards. The MAK Center for Art and Architecture in LA is the sponsor. If you're in the area, check it out. I know that many of the billboards have already come down, but I think some might still be up.
David Coates on Immigration Politics
Debates about immigration seem to crop up during times of financial and political crisis. This is not a new trend here in the United States--just take a look back into history for your answer. Often, when the economy takes a turn for the disastrous, people turn the blame toward migrants, whether or not there is actually any valid reason for doing so. This is also known, simply, as scapegoating.
The political economist David Coates writes:
Coates' post is absolutely worth a read. The rest is here.
*I found Coates via Maxine Udall, who writes that he is on of her "favorite political economists."
The political economist David Coates writes:
Immigration by foreign-born workers, and unemployment among native-born ones, may go together in modern America, but the relationship between them is neither simple nor directly causal. On the contrary, three things at least are very clear in the data on contemporary trends in employment and wages – at least very clear to those not subsumed in Arizona-type hysteria. (1) Immigration, legal or otherwise, is not the main cause of the current recession. (2) The overall impact of immigration on employment, productivity and income in the contemporary US economy is broadly positive; and (3) the very forces triggering migration from the global “south” are the same ones creating unemployment and falling wages in the global “north”.There are some interesting points to be made here, especially since many pundits and politicians are hanging on to the idea that immigration is one of the main problems of the US economy. Is it really? One of the most interesting points that Coates brings up is the idea that the same "forces" that are pushing people to migrate away from places like Mexico are also creating unemployment in places like the United States.
Coates' post is absolutely worth a read. The rest is here.
*I found Coates via Maxine Udall, who writes that he is on of her "favorite political economists."
July 12, 2010
A Reaction to THE MARXISTS
Not too long ago I posted this animated video which features David Harvey's explanation of "The Crisis of Capitalism." It's well done, and does a good job of summing up some incredibly complex issues in a really interesting way.
Anyway, economist Maxine Udall has posted her reaction to this video on her site. Here is my favorite part:
"I pretty much hate it when Marxists make sense. All those years growing up among the bourgeoisie have ruined me, I fear. But I tend to pay attention to them because they're very good at noticing that there is a problem. This video is an excellent description of the problem. I was relieved that no (Marxist) solution was offered so that I could entirely agree that more informed, broader, more open discourse is needed as well as new perspectives."
I like Udall's site. She has all kinds of greats posts with tons of insight into contemporary economics. But I think her reaction to Harvey's ideas (he's the marxist, you know) is a little odd. I am not quite sure why it matters where explanations or critiques come from. Does it matter? Should it matter? In the comments section, The Barefoot Bum writes:
"I'm a revolutionary communist, and I don't ever "hate it" when liberal capitalists such as yourself make sense, even concerning the flaws of revolutionary communism. I'm grateful for the insight, and if you really are correct, it's dumb to spend a single instant getting over some "hatred" and incorporating and responding to legitimate criticism."
I agree, even though I don't place myself in any particular ideological camp. From my perspective there is no need for everyone to retreat to their respective political or ideological corners in order to address and critique contemporary problems. Should we only listen to views from "our" own camp? Or should we be open to different perspectives? Should "capitalists" be irritated when "marxists" are on point? Should "marxists" cringe when "liberal economists" have something to add to a discussion? Is this about political ideologies, or about finding ways to address some of these issues? Sometimes it seems that we will never get past the starting gate, and what holds us all back the most is nothing more than an ideological blind spot.
Anyway, economist Maxine Udall has posted her reaction to this video on her site. Here is my favorite part:
"I pretty much hate it when Marxists make sense. All those years growing up among the bourgeoisie have ruined me, I fear. But I tend to pay attention to them because they're very good at noticing that there is a problem. This video is an excellent description of the problem. I was relieved that no (Marxist) solution was offered so that I could entirely agree that more informed, broader, more open discourse is needed as well as new perspectives."
I like Udall's site. She has all kinds of greats posts with tons of insight into contemporary economics. But I think her reaction to Harvey's ideas (he's the marxist, you know) is a little odd. I am not quite sure why it matters where explanations or critiques come from. Does it matter? Should it matter? In the comments section, The Barefoot Bum writes:
"I'm a revolutionary communist, and I don't ever "hate it" when liberal capitalists such as yourself make sense, even concerning the flaws of revolutionary communism. I'm grateful for the insight, and if you really are correct, it's dumb to spend a single instant getting over some "hatred" and incorporating and responding to legitimate criticism."
I agree, even though I don't place myself in any particular ideological camp. From my perspective there is no need for everyone to retreat to their respective political or ideological corners in order to address and critique contemporary problems. Should we only listen to views from "our" own camp? Or should we be open to different perspectives? Should "capitalists" be irritated when "marxists" are on point? Should "marxists" cringe when "liberal economists" have something to add to a discussion? Is this about political ideologies, or about finding ways to address some of these issues? Sometimes it seems that we will never get past the starting gate, and what holds us all back the most is nothing more than an ideological blind spot.
July 7, 2010
Conspicuous Dogs
"Joey Chestnut is declared the winner in an overtime 5 hot dog tie-breaking chow down. first time since 1919. His total for the day was 64 hot dogs." From Flickr user dietrich.Sometimes with a little creativity and a certain perspective, many things that humans do on a day to day basis can look pretty strange and fascinating. Sometimes the things humans do are just plain bizarre, and it doesn't take a lot of effort to make that realization. The annual Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, which was on TV this past weekend, is a case in point. In fact, I saw highlights from this year's competition on ESPN. Is this a sport? For some people, it is. I understand the basic point of the competition, but what are the deeper meanings? Are there any deeper meanings? Why would it be appealing to consume massive amounts of cheap food in front of a crowd--what kind of status or social prestige is gained from this?
If this isn't a perfect example of conspicuous consumption, I don't know what is. Eating food can only be categorized as competitive entertainment in a society that has a surplus of accessible food. Right? It would actually be interesting to look further into this and find out why people participate in this event, why spectators watch it, and why it has become associated with the Fourth of July, of all things.
For a little more about competitive eating, check out Horsemen of the Esophagus: Competitive Eating and the Big Fat American Dream by Jason Fagone.
Human Landscapes
This photograph was taken in late May of this year, over near La Brea avenue in Los Angeles. I took it after stopping by to visit the Fahey/Klein gallery right around the corner. For some reason I really like taking pictures of landscapes that have been heavily shaped by humans. Maybe this comes from my archaeological background...who knows. But the whole idea that there can be such as a thing as a "natural" and an "unnatural" landscape is absolutely fascinating. What makes something unnatural or fake? It seems the general idea is that human-altered landscapes are somehow unnatural, but there is really no reason why this actually makes any sense, especially since plenty of species alter their habits/environments. I tend to agree with David Harvey when he writes that there is nothing unnatural about urban environments such as New York City: "The circulation of money and of capital have to be construed as ecological variables every bit as important as the circulation of air and water" (in Spaces of Global Capitalism, 2005: 88).
This moves beyond mere architecture and creative hedge trimmings (although these are of course elements of human socio-ecological systems). The human environment includes practices, ideas, buildings, habits, and tendencies that cannot simply be seen as unnatural intrusions upon some idealized natural human state.
This moves beyond mere architecture and creative hedge trimmings (although these are of course elements of human socio-ecological systems). The human environment includes practices, ideas, buildings, habits, and tendencies that cannot simply be seen as unnatural intrusions upon some idealized natural human state.
July 5, 2010
Apolitical War?
This one is going to be short and sweet. Check out this post over at Savage Minds. Now, I have two questions (and I wrote this in the comments section over there):
How is the military in any way apolitical? How is going to war apolitical?
How is the military in any way apolitical? How is going to war apolitical?
July 1, 2010
Joe Deal, 1947-2010
The photographer Joe Deal recently passed away. I had never heard of him or his work until I came across this post over on Jim Johnson's blog. Deal took part in a project called "The New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape." This was in the 1970s (read more about this project/show here). I had heard of some of the photographers who were also part of the whole New Topographics exhibit, such as Stephen Shore and Robert Adams. Here is the photograph that Johnson posted:
Here is a little more about Deal. I am especially interested in some of the subtle images that investigate the ways in which humans have changed the landscapes they live in, and the traces those changes leave in our everyday lives. Pretty anthropological stuff if you ask me.Maxine Udall: Rethinking Economics
Another great post over at Maxine Udall's site. There are some pretty good discussions around the blogosphere about the direction(s) of the discipline of economics...and part of this discussion revolves around methodology. This is something that I admittedly do not know much about; I really do not have a solid grasp of the actual methods of economists, although I am reasonably well-versed in their general theoretical tendencies.* Here's the ending of Udall's post:
"New eyes, untrained and unbiased by indoctrination into the hard core of economic theory and its accompanying heuristics and corollaries, may well be exactly what economics needs to become a true and more useful science."
Now go read the beginning and the middle.
*From what I have read, it seems pretty clear that economics and anthropology are quite opposed in many senses. These differences often revolve around ideas about human nature--is there such a thing as a universal human nature? Do certain economic principles apply in all times and all places? Or is human behavior highly contextual and historical? Do humans make "economic" decisions that have to be understood and analyzed within particular situations?
I have written about this subject a few times on some earlier posts. What I am not sure about is to what extent economics are even interested in what anthropologists are doing. Who knows? So yes, I tend to disagree with many ideas that I see presented by economists, but I also realize that not all economists think alike. While there are some pretty strong differences between anthropology and economics, I still think that there is something to be gained from a little conversation between the two.
"New eyes, untrained and unbiased by indoctrination into the hard core of economic theory and its accompanying heuristics and corollaries, may well be exactly what economics needs to become a true and more useful science."
Now go read the beginning and the middle.
*From what I have read, it seems pretty clear that economics and anthropology are quite opposed in many senses. These differences often revolve around ideas about human nature--is there such a thing as a universal human nature? Do certain economic principles apply in all times and all places? Or is human behavior highly contextual and historical? Do humans make "economic" decisions that have to be understood and analyzed within particular situations?
I have written about this subject a few times on some earlier posts. What I am not sure about is to what extent economics are even interested in what anthropologists are doing. Who knows? So yes, I tend to disagree with many ideas that I see presented by economists, but I also realize that not all economists think alike. While there are some pretty strong differences between anthropology and economics, I still think that there is something to be gained from a little conversation between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)