Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Glad you enjoyed the meat. I still dream about it myself. It really is the best I've ever had and I've been around to a few places. Our meat, Tango, futbol, and our natural beauties (including women ) are about the best things we have. I guess that's a lot of good things. But the most important, the government, is just so disturbingly corrupt. It's sickening.
It's funny because my grandparents emigrated from both Spain and Italy to Argentina. Hopefully this is our final destination.
I'll leave you with this succulent picture of some Chivito a la estaca, yum!!! (funny how yet again a serious political discussion turns into pictures of food)
That looks like the glass show window at the front of the Restaurant Principal in Nuevo Laredo. In Mexico it's called "cabrito".
Except at the Restaurant Principal there's also a huge iron pot bubbling away with frijoles. The story is that it has been bubbling since the administration of Porfirio Diaz, who lost the election of 1910. Whenever it runs low, more beans, water, a little bacon and comino are added. The wood fire keeps burning.
RNJ
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
How come the food fetishists on the foro always post things that are fking expensive, hard to cook and unhealthy? Would be much more useful to post something you can cook easily at home in like 10 min (including all the cutting), that is not expensive and healthy. And with ingredients you can find in any supermarket. Would be also more helpful regarding procreating LOL.
Doesn't it make you want to have more kids because the world is messed up and needs more normal people?
Makes sense, Chester, but seems hard to provide. The part that you can´t accompany like social / mental level in school can ruin a lot. There seem no little examples of throughtful and engaged parents who end up disappointed or even shocked with how their kids developed. Often a times they also simply havn´t had the time needed to dedicate themselves in the way they wanted / kids would had needed. With the increase of the thumbscrews times are over when one salary sufficed to feed a family. Now, often both parents have to leave home for a job, making it almost impossible to be sufficiently parental.
Currently, I have only one case in my surrounding where I see youngsters growing up that might be turning out beneficial to their environment. They are two daughters of my cousin, - and thanks to him they even have good taste in music. Though anything but discriminate he found himself forced to switch kindergardens and school s several times, and even move homes to accomodate it. In schools of low level his kids already had started showing deficiencies in langauge and behaviour.
One of the two showed amazing already from early on. With empathical skills already at ~ 3 years she would completely reject meat. Instead she was an outright fruit junkie. Incredible with what a delectation she would suck off a whole bowl of fine fruits. - Which again made clear to my cousin how expensive even plain fruits have become in the meantime.
My cousin has not been carying for himself since when he became father. The refugium consisting of not much more than an occasional cigarette with a scarce glas of vine. His reward seems all the feedback of his kids.
Raising offspring decently obviously is fundamentally different from watering some plants. Human beings are completely depend on environment. ( Just been thinking about outcome from orthodox households yesterday, and how resulting fanatic youth notwithstanding whatever emprics in their lives do prove that humans have no free will.) And raising children in the average urban situation of today to decency appears a fully demanding task.
From there I agree on the sense of verification of qualification. It is a gross contradiction how you are required licenses for whatever vehicle and apps, but are being allowed to adapt any living being without slightest prior concession.
All those fools who believe parentship was covered genetically already. Their initial self-comforting commonly results in only just the more headaches for all involved - and the poor later effected. Like one of my aunts who once when I was mentioning some pedagogical and medical basics to her, once replied to me while treating her grandchild: "What do you want to tell me!? I have rasied 6 kids!" ... Of which, wonder why, four seem to have not developed too great though.
Mere intuition will be failing all too often for all too many. It can merely complement a factuous understanding that can only be gained by studying late of special insights.
Appreciating and gathering information in this realm is more decisive than the effects of a driving license for manouvering a car throug traffic.
The self-comforting approach also errs by fancying natural raising as plain. The raising situation in idigene tribes actually comes with heaps of particulars provided by the community who acts like dozens of parents and educating relatives to the new member. Making for ample of directing, associating and instructing input, in comparison to the sparce source of an idle urban couple.
How come the food fetishists on the foro always post things that are fking expensive, hard to cook and unhealthy? Would be much more useful to post something you can cook easily at home in like 10 min (including all the cutting), that is not expensive and healthy. And with ingredients you can find in any supermarket. Would be also more helpful regarding procreating LOL.
Elvis loved them and so will you:
Fried Peanut Butter and Banana Sandwich
Ingredients 1/2 cup butter, softened 3/4 cup crunchy peanut butter 3 tablespoons honey 1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon 2 to 3 ripe bananas 8 slices white bread Topping: 1/4 cup sugar 1 tablespoon ground cinnamon Directions In a frying pan, melt 3 tablespoons of the butter. Make sure butter does not burn. In a small bowl mix together the peanut butter, honey, and cinnamon. Slice the bananas into 1/4-inch thick slices. Spread the peanut butter mixture on 4 slices of bread and cover with banana slices. Top with the remaining 4 slices of bread. Spread the remaining butter on both sides of the sandwiches. Grill the sandwiches in the frying pan until each side is golden brown.
For topping, combine the sugar and cinnamon in shallow plate. Coat the grilled sandwiches with the mixture. Cut diagonally and serve hot.
But as the only contender to carry on the family name I feel obligated to leave a legacy,
you are not the only one who says that, i have heard others say that too.
my question to you guys, why do you feel obligated? by what? who cares about the family name being continued or discontinued? who cares NOW if the family name for example McDonald existed or not? doesnt make a difference, its just a name at the end.at one point any of your children can just decide to change his family name, there you go, you lost you whole "investment" and "purpose" of having a kid. unless you are saying that you think you have "superior genes or traits" in your blood that should continue surviving?? I mean we are not in a natural selection just makes no sense
I hope the "Morao's" family name keeps being perpetuated and that generations of that family keep getting nicknamed Morao.
Duh...
but why does preserving the name matter? (I understand that gitanos have thier own culture and lets not get into that) but you can label a box anything you want, the name doesnt matter at the end, its whats in the box that matters. do you get the point? it doesnt matter what your family name is preserved or not, does it make any difference really?
if you now have the option to change your family name, would you do it or not? and why or why not? If you ask me, hell ya, I would change mine, because I dont like the name.Its just the pain in the ass of going thru the process and documentation that stops me from doing it. at the end , its just a name, not worth the pain, screw it!
some people say that they want to preserve a name just because down the road they would be remembered, now do you remember your great great great great great grandpa? probably not, you probably dont even know his name
think of it like when you are solving a math equation, whether you call the variable X or Y or Z or happy face,it doesnt matter, its just a name,but its the correct value (answer) of the variable that matters at the end, THATS my point!
It's important to some families to preserve their identity through their name. In many societies a family line is important for record keeping and property and assets reasons. Some cultures are actually defined by the way they keep track of family names.
Immigrant families often want to hold onto names because the name indicates the history of the family and where they are from. It may be archaic from the times when family line determined persons status in society. Even though this aspect is a vestigial practice it is not any less valid to modern families who wish to continue their lines. Some nihilists may view this as unimportant or non essential, but for that family the pride and love that goes into continuing their bloodline is perfectly natural.
And it can be argued that anthropologically speaking this type of selection is a part of the process of natural selection. Some cultures are defined by bloodlines and for these cultures to continue the process of selecting for traits and characteristics becomes essential for the continuation of that culture.
You can't divorce cultural consideration from an argument for or against names or naming processes. In Iceland, for one example, the process of naming each successive generation is a defining part of what makes Icelandic culture. If you don't think a name is important then how does a culture have identity and cohesiveness?
Identity is important; one could call oneself Ugghluck or Korg or Rainbow Sweetcakes, and chage your name to that name, but that does not really create a culture any more than the regular family line route. It creates an identity, but the identity is not connected to a tradition, lineage of work, etc. Which for the continuation of many cultures is essential.
OK now send me your credit card number so I can charge you for the Cultural Anthropology lesson.
I hope the "Morao's" family name keeps being perpetuated and that generations of that family keep getting nicknamed Morao.
but why does preserving the name matter? (I understand that gitanos have thier own culture and lets not get into that) but you can label a box anything you want, the name doesnt matter at the end, its whats in the box that matters. do you get the point? it doesnt matter what your family name is preserved or not, does it make any difference really?
Or to summarize, those who we call "Morao", by any other name would sound as sweet.
When discussing with my children a fairly long family history, I am fond of saying, "The only real benefit I can see of knowing a long family history is the realization that, over a long enough period of time, almost every human character trait will emerge, for good or ill."
What is relevant with regard to culture is the status quo. Past and future could matter for evaluation of development.
Heritance may satisfy curiousity. Like say mine in regard of possible scions of Emiliano Zapata. I would like to see if any of his family could ressemble him in the beauty of his character. ( As genetics matter little, possibility should be accordingly though.)
My old man was a man of history and a philanthropist. There will be no scion of his other than my apathetic nephew who as teenager named his dream job as "bomber pilot". ( No joke.)
His mother, hence my sister, already had about nothing in common with the old man. Her level of cognition is par with the one of boulevard press, her world view conservative, including a cynical view on the lower caste. Her passion for society game and luxury having nothing to do with her father whose estate was his literature, a venyl collection of classical music and a little suitcase with most humble of necessities.
An indicator for the reasonableness of lineages. Much too arbitrary a thing to lean on.
Ruphus
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Heritance may satisfy curiousity. Like say mine in regard of possible scions of Emiliano Zapata. I would like to see if any of his family could ressemble him in the beauty of his character. ( As genetics matter little, possibility should be accordingly though.)
Interesting that you bring up Emiliano Zapata, Ruphus. Although they were Anglos, my mother's side of the family had deep roots in Mexico. In fact, my mother did not come to the US until she was 16 years of age, as my grandfather was superintendent of the Santa Fe Railroad in northern Mexico. They had to leave in the 1930s when Mexico nationalized all the gringo rail, oil, and other interests.
Of all the major players in the Mexican Revolution--Emiliano Zapata, Francisco Madero, Pascual Orozco, Pancho Villa, Victoriano Huerta, Alvaro Obregon, and Venustiano Carranza--Zapata was the only one who allowed women to join his army and serve on the front lines as combatants. Although Zapata was assassinated, and although the Mexican Revolution succeeded without implementing Zapata's land reforms, his ideals always served as an inspiration. Of course the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) ruled Mexico for more than 60 years afterward as an authoritarian government.
I have photographs taken by my grandfather during the Mexican Revolution of armored trains with Mexican Government Federales riding in armored cars in front of the locomotive and in back of the train to provide protection. Also have photographs of rebels hanging from telegraph poles as a government warning to others in the rebellion. Part of Pancho Villa's area of operation was in the same area in which my grandfather and his family were living. And among our family's curiosities is a "safe-conduct" pass signed by Venustiano Carranza granting my grandfather safe access through the territory controlled by Carranza.
Interesting times, those.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
In the course of an adventure, I encountered a Pullman porter on the train "El Tapatio", the overnight express between Mexico City and Guadalajara. He had the quiet and dignified demeanor of an Indian, and the face to go with it. On his perfectly starched and pressed white jacket were two pins. One was for 20 years of service with the Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico. I didn'recognize the other, which appeared to be a military ribbon.
When I asked, the porter replied, "the Division del Norte": Pancho Villa's force of bandits, outlaws, cowboys and rebels. They traveled from battle to battle at high speed on hijacked trains, revolutionizing the mobility of infantry and cavalry.
When I asked whether he was associated with railroads during the revolution, he replied quietly, with a brief, steady glance, "Si. Yo era maquinista [Yes. I was an engine driver.]"
In a gone-wrong world beautiful souls are just damned to die in ways more or less like of Zapata; so it quite seems.
I vehemently oppose the stereotype according to which things would just have to be this way; and think to see in detail why not. -
Need to correct myself on the record collection of my father. Naturally, that was shellack, not venyl.
( How he would be putting Prokofjew´s "Peter und der Wolf" on the turntable for me, thinking that a little kid could be enjoying such scary blast, is still beyond me. - What terror hasn´t been made of this poor creature wolf anyway.)
The Oliver Stone movie "JFK" is a perfect example. Stone fed into the conspiracy theorists who believe that Kennedy's assassination was the result of a vast conspiracy involving the military, the CIA, and other elements of the US Government.
So I suppose you're not going to give his last work much credit. A 10 part documentary series about the "untold history of US" (that's smell conspirative narrative hey?)
Chapter 1: World War II Chapter 2: Roosevelt, Truman & Wallace Chapter 3: The Bomb Chapter 4: The Cold War: 1945–1950 Chapter 5: The 50s Eisenhower, the Bomb & the Third World. Chapter 6: JFK: To the Brink Chapter 7: Johnson, Nixon & Vietnam: Reversal of Fortune Chapter 8: Reagan, Gorbachev & Third World: Revival of Fortune Chapter 9: Bush & Clinton: Squandered Peace - New World Order Chapter 10: Bush & Obama: Age of Terror
There's also a companion book Stone wrote in collaboration with an Historian
quote:
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev wrote approvingly of the book:[14]
"Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick provide a critical overview of US foreign policy during the past few decades. There is much here to reflect upon. Such a perspective is indispensable at a time when decisions are being taken that will shape America's role in the global world of the twenty-first century. At stake is whether the United States will choose to be the policeman of a "Pax Americana", which is a recipe for disaster, or partner with other nations on the way to a safer, more just and sustainable future."
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
So I suppose you're not going to give his last work much credit. A 10 part documentary series about the "untold history of US" (that's smell conspirative narrative hey?)
Though I am aware that both are out there, I have neither seen the film series nor read the book, Mezzo, so I am in no position to comment. I will only say that Oliver Stone's usual approach to portraying American history and historical events ("JFK" for example) is to amplify the malevolence of the United States and elements of the US Government, while minimizing, or omitting altogether, any facts and evidence that would call into question his arguments and conclusions.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
Oliver Stone as repeatedly proven himself to be a sensationalist and an unreliable narrator. Howard Zinn is an author who is considered one of the best in developing a narrative that takes on the darker side of US history. Gore Vidal is also a historian who's works are questioning, but well thought out and researched.
Stones use of historical themes and ideas have been subject to his own biases and dramatizations without having been vetted by real good historians, for the purpose of creating fictional movies. His works about the Vietnam war are especially off base and grandiose. These kind of sweeping works can be good surveys of swaths of history, but I feel Stone always tampers with important details by way of omission.
I personally have no interested watching anything he has made, but if I were assigned to watch it for a class, I would cross reference his sources and details as much as I could if nothing else for the sport of picking him apart. I would not call him a dirty commie revisionist, but he's not been a reliable historian, and besides that he is shockingly boring.
And to be an effective revisionist, or to read a revisionist text critically and not get lost in the typical mirrors and reversal strategies that type of history writing utilizes, you have to know the canon inside and out. In that sense Howard Zinn is far better, like him or not. Zinn's book was written prior to this recent spate of conspiracy mongering and is just more reliable because he was not working for an agenda other to offer this; instead of looking at all the issues that are in the light of day, we will peer under a few of the darker rocks. He was not a conspiracy pusher as Stone often is, which elevates Zinn, in my opinion above the myriad and sundry self styled "historians" today.
Explaining things by focusing always the same end of the lorgnette is not a good attitude imo. Facts that were argumented and theorized once and for all...No thanks!!
Facts are facts. Our understanding, decryption and articulation of them vary. They vary with time coz the focus change, the declassified material become available, connexions are made with others social sphere of knowledge.
Focusing the narrative on those who not have power, money or suffer discrimination is also important. More important I'd say that simply replicate the 'official' version already in place that mainly serve the interest of the privileged.
Statu quo means intellectual sclerosis. And it's not a very democratic posture. But I could understand why some people are very reluctant to admit alternative viewing. Descretiding everything they perceive as going against their power.
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
Focusing the narrative on those who not have power, money or suffer discrimination is also important. More important I'd say that simply replicate the 'official' version already in place that mainly serve the interest of the privileged.
If that is your interest then Howard Zinn is your guy. Although I can't get you to believe that. You're not really understanding what I just handed you, which is the best dissident US historian.
The Oliver Stone movie "JFK" is a perfect example. Stone fed into the conspiracy theorists who believe that Kennedy's assassination was the result of a vast conspiracy involving the military, the CIA, and other elements of the US Government.
So I suppose you're not going to give his last work much credit. A 10 part documentary series about the "untold history of US" (that's smell conspirative narrative hey?)
Chapter 1: World War II Chapter 2: Roosevelt, Truman & Wallace Chapter 3: The Bomb Chapter 4: The Cold War: 1945–1950 Chapter 5: The 50s Eisenhower, the Bomb & the Third World. Chapter 6: JFK: To the Brink Chapter 7: Johnson, Nixon & Vietnam: Reversal of Fortune Chapter 8: Reagan, Gorbachev & Third World: Revival of Fortune Chapter 9: Bush & Clinton: Squandered Peace - New World Order Chapter 10: Bush & Obama: Age of Terror
There's also a companion book Stone wrote in collaboration with an Historian
quote:
Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev wrote approvingly of the book:[14]
"Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick provide a critical overview of US foreign policy during the past few decades. There is much here to reflect upon. Such a perspective is indispensable at a time when decisions are being taken that will shape America's role in the global world of the twenty-first century. At stake is whether the United States will choose to be the policeman of a "Pax Americana", which is a recipe for disaster, or partner with other nations on the way to a safer, more just and sustainable future."
Oliver STONED makes some entertaining films IMO. I liked JFK, doors etc...I think he is just your typical mushroom eating paranoid hippy type. No harm done, except to people who take it as factual info instead of entertainment. If that documentary is taken as like stuff to study for real, knowing that it paints US gov in a bad light, well, again its just proof how free our country is to let that thing happen. Logically, if we had such deep mafia type covert stuff, then they (US gov) should have killed STONED long ago, for letting such sensitive info out in public no?? As americans we know its entertainment, but if foreign folks want to take it as scary fact stuff, that's their problem. But every once in a while, people taking advantage of the freedom to talk **** about this country DOES get on the nerves...but only every once in a while.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
you labelled him as revisionnist in another thread.
Is there a difference between this 2 adjectives in your discrediting spectrum?
Revisionism can be taken pejoratively or positively. I was not trying to discredit Howard Zinn, but I was using idea that he as more a reshaper of the canon of US history than simply a person who added detail and nuance to the canon of the established narratives.
The difference is that Oliver Stone is not a vetted historian who could teach the canonized version of US history and I was pointing out that in order to revise history, one must actually know history or the institutional canon in the first place. Revisionism has to have a context in order for it to have meaning as a counter narrative. So essentially I would argue Howard Zinn is a better source for looking at the darker aspects of US history because he understood the largely accepted narratives, but asked questions based on thorough knowledge of the canon. The kinds of questions he asked were about the issues that are usually known by historians, but are glossed over in favor of facts and events which put the US in a better light.
The idea that he looked at darker parts of history in detail and had a different methodology paints him as a dissident within the field of US history in academia. Even though his books are taught in US colleges, he is still considered an important figure in that his books are still at the cutting edge of displacing the bigger narrative.
As Bill, Ricardo and I are trying to point out as natives and good students of history, Oliver Stone has little credibility. If I wanted to paint a seamless glorious picture of the US and make us look faultless, I would not mention Howard Zinn at all. We're trying to help show the difference, as we Americans say, between ****t and Shinola.
In high school I had a history teacher who said if you can't put up a critique that is backed by your alternate idea that expresses a divergent yet thought out point of view, you don't have a platform to launch a critique on the ideas of others just because you don't like it. He said it's not good enough to just call someone a commie, and this teacher was a conservative which means this country he was anti communist, you have to be able to refute the ideology logically. He actually did not care if his students were liberal or conservative or both or none. He was concerned with backing up your logic and also understanding how to choose your texts and compare them to reach your conclusions.
Most of us growing up here had high school history teachers like mine. Most of them encouraged the questioning of each side of argument. I think I see a growing discomfort in these threads about history because it gets inferred that the Americans are not willing to face up to facts. Much to the consternation of the the boys from the US the "facts" that are thrown around on these threads are not really facts. Perhaps the people from the US might know a thing or two about which of our historians have done better work than others.
no need to Assassinate Oliver Stone. Look at all the facts that are freely available, and yet no outrage from the masses. No need to assassinate anyone, when the herd has no concern. So many examples.
When it became available because of FOIA in 1997 and 2001, there was no outrage. We should have been outraged that Kennedy got any blowback for refusing to attack america and blame Cuba. The plans include painting planes to look like commercial airliners, faking the passenger list, and making it look like it was shot down by Cuba. Other plans like carrying out terror attacks and making it look like Cubans did it.
Or how about the Iraq war? No WMD. and no outrage.
Or how about the Project for a New American Century's famous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document which is public for anyone to see. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf where they detail plans to get America into a war in multiple theaters, and call for a 'new Pearl Harbor' which is the only way that the american people will accept such massive expenditures and loss of liberty.
probably the only assassination necessary was Senator Paul Wellstone since he was the main opponent of the Iraq war. but that's conspiracy. There's no need for assassination or to be very secretive when all you have to do is steer the herd. Its not like the Mafia.
And No, I'm actually not an internet Troll as Estabanana claims, I'm a guitarist (and drummer), Software Developer from Seattle and plan on contributing to the community tools like Ron's Flamenco Master but in HTML5. But stating what I just did, makes me a 'conspiracy theorist' and a Troll who hates america. whatever shakes your boat.
No one assassinated Oliver Stone, it was pointed out that he was not a great historian, in my opinion. Second, I gave the name of Howard Zinn, one the best US historians who has written about parts of history that others don't want to look at.
I basically traded out a so-so filmmaker and gave them the name of the best of the leftist historians and social critics.
If that is radical enough for you Sir.
__
There's a difference between knowing how to point web browser at the Freedom of Information Act website and being a historian with a read on history that helps elucidate raw data and writes in way which makes it come alive and makes it salient to a reader. The way historians work with data is what counts. The methods and view points of good historians put forth story lines which fuse facts and actions into a narrative that can inspire people to move on cultural, political and social issues.
Just knowing where the raw information is, is not enough, we have to cultivate a judicious approach to how the information is written about read once it's mined. That is where a good historian comes in. Just regurgitating facts and raw data is unrefined and generally unproductive to establishing narratives that can be discussed. It is the comparisons between those different narratives which actually change hearts and minds.
ORIGINAL: Ricardo If that documentary is taken as like stuff to study for real, knowing that it paints US gov in a bad light, well, again its just proof how free our country is to let that thing happen.
No. The question whether something gets censored or not, hasnt got anything to do with the question whether what gets censored or not is a true statement or a correct criticism of something. Or would you say that the censorship during the anti-communistic hysteria days automatically proves that those critics were right? Of course not. Killing Stone would be an option, only if he had more influence than he has now. Once he becomes a threat to the Government, i will guarantee you he will get harmed in some way. 100%. As long as he is no threat, and just perceived as an entertainer, there is no real reason to kill him anyways, so its not really an act of humanity to let him make these movies...
Revisionism can be taken pejoratively or positively.
ok it seems that I misunderstood you.
I understand what you guys said about O. Stone. But I don't think he considers himself as an authority. Discretiding this 10 part series and the book just coz he's involved in, it's a little harsh.
What about the co-author. He's an PhD Historian who teachs in a University. So eventually he's a reliable intellectual. Maybe you might not agree with his argumentation but he's still part of the establishment. Basically what you guys are saying it's that P. Kuznick is a JOKE (?). I'd give him the benefice of the doubt and believe in the first place that what's writing on his book is something he works on and adhere with, and not just a narrative that O. Stone dicted to him.
And talking about education...
_____________________________
"The most important part of Flamenco is not in knowing how to interpret it. The higher art is in knowing how to listen." (Luis Agujetas)
I understand what you guys said about O. Stone. But I don't think he considers himself as an authority. Discretiding this 10 part series and the book just coz he's involved in, it's a little harsh.
Mezzo,
Just to clarify, I did not discredit his film series or the book. I clearly stated that I had neither seen the film nor read the book and, thus, was in no position to comment on either. What I did comment on was Oliver Stone's reputation for cherry-picking facts and events and exaggerating them when they support his position, while minimizing or omitting altogether facts that would undermine his position. Stone is a film-maker, and while I consider him smarter than someone like, say, Michael Moore, both Stone and Moore create fables about the United States that conform to their preconceived agendas. Neither Stone nor Moore allow historical facts to deter them from their ideological message. Not for them a recalibration of their positions when those positions are at variance with reality. When reality does not conform to their positions, they recalibrate reality to fit their positions.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
I like Giroux very much. He is one of thousands of teachers and professors who have been speaking about the deeper involvement of corporations college, high school and elementary school campuses for the last 20 years.
Right now at U.C Berkeley, 7 miles away, there is a project funded by British Petroleum on campus in which a 500 million dollar research facility is being constructed. The majority of faculty, students and community opposed it for the same reasons Giroux states in that video, but the board of regents approved it.
I used to work on the staff of a college in the mid 1990's in the graduate dept. as a assistant to graduate chair. The school was training teachers. The Coca-Cola company came in and did things in the college..I have my own stories like Giroux's.
Printable Version
lol 
) are about the best things we have. I guess that's a lot of good things. But the most important, the government, is just so disturbingly corrupt. It's sickening. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread