"Alone. I did it. Boy!" Here's one of the best. Start around 0:35 of the clip. (Context: His reaction to being banished by Rome despite his heroics etc.)
The actual quote itself: “You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate As reek o' the rotten fens, whose loves I prize As the dead carcasses of unburied men That do corrupt my air, I banish you; And here remain with your uncertainty!”
As most of you know, Billy Joel's landmark "We Didn't Start the Fire" used as lyrics all the major world events that happened in the first 40 years of his life till 1989. If you've never done so, listen to the lyrics and see how many of those events you can identify. It's actually quite fun.
The Youtube Video is at the bottom of the page, if you are interested.
You know what would be fun? Why not try to list the major world events that happened in YOUR lifetime? I think it's an interesting way to reflect on how the world turns. And as Harry Truman once said, "the only thing new in the world is the history we didn't know."
Try it if you have a few minutes. Let me know if you enjoyed the process! BTW, I started listing the world events in my first forty years (the ones that I can remember). I've appended them to the bottom of this post. Any that rings a bell?
Here's the video.
WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE
Here's my list (it's long, and not in order):
Suez Crisis, Elvis, Churchill died, QE II, 6-Day War, Bohpal, Beatles, The Longest Day, Rambo, Rocky, The Sound of Music, Vietnam War, Sputnik, John Glenn, Lunar Landing, Apollo 13, Challenger Shuttle, EU, NAFTA, Star Wars, Star Trek, Mt. St. Helens, Tangshan Earthquake, Hurricane Andrews, Exxon Valdez, Unabomber, Oklahoma City Bombing, Yom Kippur War, Cheronbyl, 3-mile island, Tylenol Scare, Rodney King, OJ Trial, JFK, RFK, MLK, De Gaulle kicked out of Canada, "Just Watch Me" Pierre Trudeau, Castro, Internet, Cell Phone, Laptop, Windows, Netscape, Lotus, Bruce Jenner, Olympic Boycotts, Ping Pong diplomacy, Walkman, China-Soviet Border War, Indo-Pakistan War, China invades Vietnam, Cuban Missiles, Bay of Pigs, Marines in Lebanon, Rhodesia, Apartheid, Berlin War fell, Princess DI, Deng Xiao Peng, Mao Died, Tian An Man Massacre, SARS, West Nile, AIDS, Ebola, Charles Manson, Northern Ireland Troubles, Rwanda genocide, Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, Falklands War, Shah of Iran, American Hostages in Iran, Czechkoslovakia crushed, Hungary crushed, Poland Walesa, Soviets invade Afghanistan, First Gulf War, Desert Storm, "Read My Lips, No New Taxes," Yugoslavia gone to hell, Woodstock, Roe V Wade, Bra burning, Stephen King, Leafs won Stanley Cup, Jays back to back, England World Cup, Iran-Contra, Phantom of the Opera, Cultural Revolution, USSR no more, Clinton "bimbogate," Reagan "evil empire," Tickle Down Economics, Gorbachev Glasnost, OPEC embargo I, OPEC embargo II, Pearson Noble Peace Prize, Nixon resigns, Kissinger shuttle diplomacy, Pepsi Challenge, Quebec separation, New Canadian Flag, Britain sold out Hong Kong.
Maybe you can help me rearrange them in chronological order! :)
French fries, gravy, cheese curds, any topping you can dream of (bacon, lobsters, tofu, whatever), all at just 5,000 calories per bite. What's not to like!!!
Well, actually, I am all for Social Equality. Seriously. I believe there's a lot of injustice in the world, much of it institutionalized and systemic, and especially in First World societies, we should be able and willing to tackle these problems.
Look, even little old Canada spends $25 billion a year on defense. (The US spends over $600 Billion). A small of portion of that would go a long way.
Anyway, in this sociology of social inequality class I'm taking, I get more and more fed up with the material. Why did I take it? Because I want to know more, and I want to know what can be done.
What I didn't want is inconsistent ontologies, settling for correlations, a lack of solutions, and incessant neglect of agency.
What do I mean?
Inconsistent Ontologies: these folks like to point use statistics depicting this or that social problem. A lot of that depends on using stats superficially, glossing over why there may be differences and so on. But nevermind that. Studies of Social Inequality are typically "critical theories" that reject positivism. But stats are positivist. Now you see what I mean? These morons are using positivist tools to say there's a problem, while at the same time saying positivism is bullshit. So who's the bullshitter?
Let me give you another example. Maybe more concrete. Let's look at the plight of (legal) immigrants. Why, they ask, can't migrants just do what they have always done, carry on the way they always have, practise their own language and cultural codes (e.g. dress, social etiquette, and so on), and still have the same economic outcome as "mainstream" Canadians?
Seriously? Not shitting me? You don't want to learn the language proficiently, you don't want to act "Canadian," you want to be back in Mars, and yet you expect to have a job and income comparable to those who speak the language, eat donuts and watch hockey, (etc etc)?
I asked my fellow students one day. How is it that you guys complain about income disparity, and yet buy shit from Walmart which are all made in sweatshops in China? Why aren't you supporting local, union labour? Bunch of hypocrites. Their response? Well, we should be able to exercise our right to buy cheap stuff too. Wait a minute, you want there to be lots of jobs locally, jobs that pay well, but you are spending your money on made in China shit? Assholes.
Correlations: You know the routine. Some of you may even remember me screaming in class whenever people use correlations to pretend there's cause and effect. Does anyone remember what the most toxic substance is on earth? Water! Everyone who drinks it, dies! Fucking idiots.
No Solutions: These people identify all sorts of problems. Mostly it's there is something wrong with the system. Read, capitalism. Okay, fair enough. So what do you propose? Communism? Hell, no, then we won't get our Starbucks and all the trappings of consumerism. I mean, seriously, don't just tell me there's a problem. What can be done about it? Take an example of First Nations peoples in Canada.
One school of thought is assimilation. There should be no First Nations. Everyone should be treated the same. No special status. Well, no, they don't like that. What about my protected rights, some asked? That's why Pierre Trudeau's (Justin's father) Indian Policy never got off the ground. People wanted to keep their protected rights.
OK, what about another school of thought. Autonomy. Let the First Nations peoples live the way they did before the 18th Century (or some other ancient times). Undisturbed, in the garden of eden. Well, no, because we also want cable. And I don't really want to have to hunt for food.
Well, how about Accommodation? Well, it's neither here nor there. Not good enough on either count.
Well, fuck! Propose something then!
Neglect of Agency: People have agency, no? I mean, we make choices. And we live with the consequences. Take this example in education. It's so unfair, so they say, that I go to university for four years, incur debts and shit, and now my degree in philosophy doesn't land me a job that pays well. DUH!!!!
It's not just young people saying that, right? I remember at a Etown faculty meeting, someone said, "it's unfair that I have a PhD, and so and so has a PhD, but so and so makes double what I make." Well, the speaker had a PhD in English poetry or something. While so and so had a PhD in marketing (NOT communications). So, tough shit.
*****************************
Am I just a grumpy old man? I don't think so. I just don't have time or patience for idiots.
I hear a lot of that. Life is, well, just unfair. It sucks. And then you die. There's certainly some truth to that. But a lot of that is just a human tendency to whine.
Here in Ontario, Canadians pay about $6000 to $7000 a year on university tuition for undergrad. If you're doing "professional" undergrad degrees, like law, it could cost you 25-30K a year depending on the school.
That assumes you get no scholarship, no government grant, no nothing.
Minimum wage in Ontario is $14 an hour.
Forgive me if I don't find a lot of sympathy for whiners in Ontario who complain about how much financial hardship they have as university students.
Fuck, maybe they should STOP going to Starbucks, carrying Herschel backpacks, wearing Canada Goose jackets, using the latest iphone, etc etc. And maybe fucking WORK part time.
OK, I feel better now. I just don't particularly like whiners, that's all. (some of you might even know who that reminds me of at Etown)
Life is hard in Ontario? Maybe they should fucking move to Syria.
****************************
Recently in a history course we had a midterm. Pretty easy one, I think. But class average was 68%. WTF! How? That was quite shocking.
Then I realize that much of the time, maybe only 2/3 of the class actually come to class. So out of about 100 people, only 60-70 are there each day. Funny thing is the prof made clear that a lot of the questions will come from his lectures.
And what do people do when they are in class? Doing social media, of course.
I hope they all flunk.
You know, I am SO HAPPY I no longer teach. The level of disrespect, not just towards the instructor, but towards their role as a student, it's just mind-numbing. I guess when one teaches at a big school, and often to classes of 100 or 200 people, one simply doesn't care (and can't). But am I glad I'm on this side now...
******************************
Some of you may have heard about the recent political "scandal" in Canada. That the Prime Minister and his advisors are accused of putting pressure on the Attorney General not to press criminal charges against a very large Canadian company, but instead to allow it to settle out of court.
It's in the news here constantly. And I saw it on the NPR, WSJ, and NY Times news feed too. So, yeah, it's a very big deal here.
Not talking politics here, since that's really a personal thing, but really? THAT is a scandal? I mean, when the leader of the government discusses with the Attorney General about the economic and job implications of prosecuting one of the largest employers? Isn't that something a Prime Minister SHOULD BE DOING?
Now, of course, if the PM simply says, let's just not do a thing, and the company had killed people or something, yeah, of the company is owned by the PM's family and friends, etc etc, at least I can see something scandalous.
From my understanding, that's just how things work, no? I just don't get it.
