My father is doing poorly and his condition is precluding a tissue match right now– everything is on hold as far as a living donation right now, and I will give an update as soon as there is more info. I want to sincerely thank everyone who has reached out, thank you for your support and love and prayers. God bless.
I first got this
question in my inbox shortly after the first Antifa riot on the night
of Milo Yiannopoulos’s Berkeley speech, but I’ve been sitting on it for two reasons:
one, to take time to formalize my thoughts better, and two, to avoid
a “rush to judgement.” You see, it’s not Antifa specifically we
must worry about, but rather how the left wing itself reacts to them.
In my multipleresponses
to my Friendly Local Antifa, I’ve been very clear that just because
extremists exist (and
they will always exist -)
doesn’t mean that they speak or act for any larger group. To claim
they do is a classic fascist tactic,
as evidenced by Hitler’s exploitation of the Reichstag
fire as a casus belli
to round up his Communist political opponents. Letting
violent radicals act without serious efforts to stymie or punish
them, or even praising and normalizing their motivations while weakly
impugning their behavior, is also a
classic authoritarian tactic, something the left wing is quick to
note in the context of the Ku Klux Klan, but never apply to the likes
of the Earth Liberation Front. That’s why I mention “Illinois
Nazis” so much - the mere existence of some goose-stepping
retards doesn’t even establish them as a threat in and of themselves,
much less a movement with actual national political power.
applies to “Antifa” because what they really are
is pro-Communist radicals.
curious that reporting on Antifa never, ever seems to mention it,
even though ten
seconds on Google turns up some damning
images pretty fast. These people have never
shy about being Communist radicals, or advertising it to the world.
Considered in a vacuum, then, they’re just Illinois Commies brawling
with Illinois Nazis. As the Beatles
reminded us, just because they carry pictures
of Chairman Mao doesn’t mean they’re gonna make
it with anyone, anyhow. So
I waited, and watched, to see if the larger wave of hysteria,
obstructionism and outright violence would abate naturally as people
wound down from the heightened passions of the election.
haven’t. On the 15th
of April (two days ago,) yet another wave of mass protests were
staged across the country, with the theme being “Trump should
release his tax returns.” The closest one to me was only twelve
miles distant, in Ann Arbor, MI. Home of the University of Michigan,
the city’s small, wealthy, ultra-left and nestled in the middle of a
conservative, rural area - and the protest’s highlight speakers
(including a few Senators) delivered their speeches on the
University’s quad. (This
is the exact kind of campus speaking event that Antifa used violence
and thuggery to silence at Berkeley when the speaker was
Obama-appointed government officials have openly defied the lawful
orders of the sitting President, and been openly and loudly lauded
for it by the left wing. Members of our intelligence agencies have
unambiguous treason by leaking classified intelligence to a
corporate media that writes every article with malice aforethought in
a concerted and untiring effort to undermine the legitimacy of the
office of the President of the United States. The left has proudly
bragged of the multiple
municipal governments - you know, cities - swearing to defy
Federal law and law enforcement authorities, and some have even
called for left-wing enclave California to secede
from the Union. They
have scrambled to erect every possible barrier to the President’s
cabinet nominations, damn the consequences to effective governance,
and the unfolding intelligence scandal is revealing how the power of
secretive agencies was abused by Obama’s administration to undermine
and slander his incoming successor. And of course, there’s the
thuggery and violence on the street, waged by the likes of Antifa.
are the tangible consequences of
the left wing’s constant calls for “resistance” to the President
- these are not
just words, but a national policy that’s been put into action. This
cute pins to show off to your lit club buddies how “woke” you are
- it’s widespread, tangible popular support for the politicians,
bureaucrats and businessmen working towards their ends. And though
they might call that end “resistance,” they
Greenfield of Frontpage Magazine wrote a beautifully
succinct summary that you shouldabsolutely
read in full, but his most
crucial paragraphs were these:
“There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts
as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority
selectively when it controls them. But when government officials
refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their
allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the
President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or
civil disobedience; it’s treason.
After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in
the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its
center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government
officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from
more democratic to less democratic institutions.
This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin.
Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance
to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its
Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t
just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that
their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the
Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of
those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.
That’s why compromise has become impossible.”
The ideological divide in the left wing
is nothing new - it started in earnest in 1969, when the
socialist-communist bloc of the party first gained real traction
versus the “classic” New Deal progressive Democrats. The rift has
grown steadily since then, culminating in the last election, when the
New Deal Democrats, the blue-collar union voters flipped the “blue
wall” of the Rust Belt red for the first time since Reagan. The
difference now is that the socialist-communistbased branch of
the party now control it, definitively. Their ideology and
values are completely alien to the founding principles of America,
the principles for which its laws were built to enshrine, nurture,
and protect. This is why political compromise has grown more and more
difficult in America - the common ground between parties simply
doesn’t exist, and even if it did, socialist-communist
ideology has never been based on the concept of compromise or
Communist ideology is based on
revolution - in fact it’s a cornerstone
of the ideology. Revolution, by definition, is a complete and
utter rejection of the legitimacy of the existing structure of
society. The left wing reveals their disdain for our society in
everything they say and do - their perennial crusade against every
aspect of capitalism, (“Big Whatever,” “Occupy Wall-Street,”)
their endless trust in the sanctity and flawlessness of public
institutions versus “greedy” private enterprise and, above all,
their unceasing devotion to righting the myriad “crimes” of
“social injustice.” Hell, with “social injustice” it’s right
there in the name. They reject, on every possible level, the most
basic building blocks of Western society in general.
The true significance of Antifa is the
widespread popular support their thuggery has received from the left
wing - it indicates the final abandonment of any pretense to
democracy or fair dealing on their part. This is precisely why their
language has taken on the tones of revolution and war as of late,
dividing the populace into “us” versus “Nazis.” In our
secular society, Nazis are tantamount to demons; inhuman, beneath
consideration save through a rifle scope. The label’s a simple and
effective way to dehumanize people, and that’s the first step in the
conditioning required to kill.
We have been down this road
before, more than once - the spate of anarchist
bombings back in 1919, the radical left terrorist bombings by the
Underground, and many others. But even at the height of anti-war
activism in the late 60s and early 70s, things were never this
bad. Much of it owes to new media - it’s atrophied the
once-ironfast stranglehold the corporate media had on political
discourse in this nation, which has pushed the left wing to resort to
more brutish tactics to silence their opposition - doxxing, threats,
intimidation and, of course, “de-platforming.” New media has also
allowed the classic “grassroots” organizational tactics pioneered
by Chicago machine politics to go large-scale (moveon.org et al.) The
older people, the wiser people, the experienced and the jaded - I’ve
talked to them all, and they all agree that it has never been this
bad. The battle lines have been clearly drawn and the battles are
being waged openly, vigorously and without apology.
Not every Democrat or liberal is
a leftist - far, far from it, in fact. But I fear that the Democratic
party is far too gone for the sane people to reassert control
over it. As Greenfield points out, the left has retreated to
“cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized
tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and
values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is
convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by
compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form
a permanent demographic majority for its agenda. But it couldn’t
wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that
enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what
had been a hidden transition into an open break.” These
people, long assured of their intrinsic superiority, are now
confident in their eventual supremacy - and thus they are contesting
the legitimacy of the President of the United States, and indeed our
entire government, directly. We have been down this path before, too
- it led to the Civil War.
That phrase - civil war
- is the second reason I let
this post percolate for so long. I’m naturally antithetical to
hysterical “sky is falling” arguments, as they’re invariably full
of shit and trying to sway people with fear and emotion, the facts be
utterly damned. The current spate of gay,
lesbian and transgender people buying guns for self-defense
against the imaginary hordes of Right-Wing Gestapo comes as no
surprise, because I’ve watched Conservatives panic-buying AR-15s
after every shooting on the evening news for eight goddamn years. And
for eight years I called them hooting morons because
Obama’s desire to “git
all yer gunz” far, far outstripped
his ability to do so,
legally and politically. Political vigilance against gun control is
always needed, yes, but people rushing to the stores and stockpiling
(then-scarce) ammo in their basement were expecting a ban tomorrow,
despite over a decade of
Democrats losing ground on the national gun control debate, to say
nothing of the Supreme Court rulings upholding - and incorporating -
an individual right to keep and bear arms. And
the ones I scorned and mocked the most were the ones insisting they
might need to use their
new rifles in the not-so-distant future; that social unrest and even
violence was just around the corner. I held these people to be the
right-wing incarnation of the hysterical left-wing ninnies I so
loathed and spared not my scorn, because being on my
side of the fence didn’t make them any less an idiot.
day after the Berkeley riot, I decided it was about time I got off my
ass and purchased an AR-15.
For the first time in my life, I
am truly afraid for my country - and for my friends, my family, and
A sublimated murder: A Visual Analysis of Frida with Globe (1938)
Frida Kahlo sits with her arm on the table holding the head, slightly lifting her jaw, looking at us with a hint of contempt and ineffable sadness, as if losing in thoughts. There is a wooden table on her left side with a globe carefully placed on a pedestal which at first reminds me of the magic power of her paintings—the madness and extreme emotion expressed in the vibrate colors, themes of pain and death. The globe here, together with Frida herself, more or less make me relate her to the figure with magical power, which also reminds me of one of her quotes, “Take a lover who looks at you like maybe you are magic.”
The photo was taken in the photographer Manuel Alvarez Bravo’s studio, which implies that the interior is more or less arranged on purpose by the photographer. He tactfully takes advantage of the globe—whether as a prop or a metonymy to reflect the whole interior of the room without which we could not see in this photo. Now through the curve surface of the glassy globe we can tell the void interior of the room—a small door, two windows, almost no furniture, empty ceiling, empty wall, empty space, as if totally exposed to the spectators. However, we could see, through the photographer’s lens, what Frida wears—the long cotton dress with rich layers and different patterns, the shawl, assorted necklaces made of wooden beams, earrings—are the exact opposite of the “exposed”, as if she wants to wrap herself up through layers of the thick material on her body to feel secured. The surface of the table is also covered with the soft striped tablecloth so that her arm would not touch the coldness of the wooden surface, making the possible expose to the outside world out of the question.
What I read through Manuel’s photo is that Frida tries to cover herself by separating from everything in the outside world, in the attempt of protecting herself from the unknown danger and pain. He rendered her as a figure who looks vulnerable and feminine through the comparison between emptiness and fullness, the physical implications—the flowery pattern dress, earrings and necklaces, and also the gesture, which, to some extent, totally challenges the figure what Frida see herself in the self-portrait she painted. In her most famous Self-portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird (1940), she portraits herself almost looking more like a man, or to say, a king in his own kingdom through the thick coal-black eyebrows, the light moustache, the sharp eyes, and the majestic looks. By using the huge contrast between the “covered” and the “exposed”, the photographer successfully kills the figure that the artist see herself.
The photograph also reverses the spectators’ impression of the artist through most of her paintings, which always relates to madness, extreme passion, bold expressions and daring styles. Say, A Few Small Nips (1935), which was based on the most heart-broken event for Frida—her husband Diego’s affair with her young sister Christina.
In the painting, a naked woman lay on the bed, with blood and knife wounds all over her body, totally exposed to the out world. A man stands besides her, holding a knife in hand with a slightly evil smile. The blood on the scene even goes out of the painting—the shocking red deliberately being painted on the frame of the painting, which in some way suggests that the reality is equivalent to the picture, that she is a painful suffer in the real life like the woman being murdered. As she said, ”I never painted dreams. I painted my own reality.” The title of the painting A Few Small Nips originated from a news report about an unfaithful woman being murdered, and the murderer defended himself by saying “but it was just a few small nips.” The giant contrast between the subject depicted in the picture—the severed wounded woman and the ironic title A Few Small Nips intensifies her emotional wounds and pain, almost like a murder.
While in Manuel Alvarez Bravo’s Frida with Globe, Frida seems strangely calm and introverted out of the way, with a kind of detached look on her face, covered heavily with rich layers of clothes, with one hand on the knee and resting her chin on the other hand. A woman just likes a typical middle-class madame, mild and normal, who we would probably feel quite comfortable to sit with, without feeling any threat, roughness or aggressiveness, which is actually penetrated in her paintings. Again, the photographer challenges the figure of Frida in audiences’ minds by portraying her as a harmless, mild, and gentle woman.
These two gaps—one between the subject which the photographer captured and the figure Frida see herself, and the other between what photographer try to shoot the artist and what the third part—audiences see the artist—reminds me of the famous words in Susan Sontag’s On Photograph, “ To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as them never see themselves, by having knowledge of them they can never have…Just as the camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a sublimated murder.” (Sontag, P11-12)
Here, Manuel Alvarez Bravo successfully completes the duel “sublimated murder” by capturing the artist in his own words through constructing contrast between the “exposed” and the “covered” and other detailed implications, killing both the figure artist see herself and the image of the artist in our mind. He “intervenes” the picture rather than simply served as a recorder. (Sontag, P10)
And I, as a third-person narrative, also achieve this “sublimated murder” by deconstructing the photograph through my visual analysis, trying to interpret something may or may not intended in my own words.
Written by: Mo Zhang
Works Cited: Susan Sontag, One Photograph. London : Allen Lane, 1978. Print.
The Reverend Horace Holley from Boston was elected the president of Transylvania University in Kentucky in 1817. In the following years the University grew in stature and was compared to Harvard, Yale and Princeton, its grand reputation as a higher seat of learning reaching to Europe. Before ten years had passed however, Holley’s Christian persuasion, being a Unitarian, cost him his position and he resigned in March of 1827. After this, the great university declined. Holley went from Kentucky to Louisiana, where he attempted to re-organize the College of New Orleans. Late in the summer Horace and his wife Mary took passage for New York, but he contracted yellowfever, and passed away on July 31, 1827. Transylvania University existed until the Civil War, after which time it was never really revived as a University.
The minister was well connected, being friends with previous Presidents. He wrote to Mary: “Mr. Jefferson is a plain looking old gentleman, draped in a blue coat with yellow buttons, a buff jacket, a pair of snuff colored corduroy pantaloons, blue and white cotton stockings and black slippers up at the heels.” Holley’s papers include several letters from James Monroe. On his way to take up his position at the University, Mr Holley visited with the Monroes at the White House-he then wrote his wife a long letter describing the event, indicating each speaker in the conversation:
“There is a full length portrait of general Washington in the parlour, painted by Stewart. This led me to ask Mr. Monroe about the portrait of himself by Stewart. But I think I will give you the conversation as it happened…
[Holley] That is a painting by Stewart I perceive.
[Mrs. Monroe] Yes, and it is a very good one.
[Holley] He is the best portrait painter in our country, and probably not inferior, in regard to the face, to any artist in the world. But he paints hands, limbs, and drapery badly. He spends the force of his genius on the characteristic expression of the countenance, and cares little for the other parts of the picture.
[Monroe] He ought to paint nothing but the head, and should leave the rest to such artists as Copely, who was said to be the painter of collars, cuffs, and button holes.
[Holley] Stewart is not ambitious of the distinction acquired in that way. His favorite expression in regard to his portraits, to show that he does as little as possible in the way of drapery, is “that picture has never been to the tailor’s” …Have you ever received your portrait from Stewart yet?
[Monroe] No Sir. It is not his habit to finish a picture and send it home. Have you ever seen it at his room?
[Holley] Yes, Sir, several times.
[Monroe] How far is it finished?
[Holley] Nothing but the head.
[Mrs. Monroe] Is it a good likeness?
[Holley] A remarkably good one. It is the general opinion that it is one of the artist’s happiest efforts with his pencil. You will be pleased with it, but will observe immediately, when you see it, that your husband was sun-burnt as a traveller ought to be, and that the artist has been so long in the habit of copying faithfully what he sees that he has given this in the shading of the picture.
[Mrs. Monroe] I shall not like it the less for that. I think Stewart generally makes the color of the cheeks too brilliant, especially in the portraits of men, as in that of general Washington.
[Holley] The painting of Mr. Monroe then will meet your taste precisely.“
So basically that one Gilbert Stuart painting done during Monroe’s first year of his presidency was down while he was sun-burnt and Gilbert Stuart is bad at drawing hands.
"He is the best portrait painter in our country, and probably not inferior, in regard to the face, to any artist in the world. But he paints hands, limbs, and drapery badly. [He spends the force of his genius on the characteristic expression of the countenance, and cares little for the other parts of the picture.]"
Holley was describing his encounter with the Monroes at the White House (1817), and all were discussing Stuart’s commission for James Monroe’s portrait. (The President’s hands were not included.)
The letter is quoted from “Gilbert Stuart” by Barratt and Miles, p 312, it is taken from the Horace Holley Papers, letter L40, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
i think it’s too often glossed over that erin gilbert, canonically, is considered “an asset to modern physics.”
she got her undergraduate education at the university of michigan - ann arbor which has the #1 ranked nuclear engineering, #11 ranked physics and #11 ranked particle physics departments in the country. she then spent a brief time at MIT which is the #1 physics department in the country before finishing up her graduate and post-graduate education at princeton, the #2 physics department in the country.
she’s up for tenure at columbia university, tied with michigan as the 11th best physics department in the U.S. getting to the point where any teacher is up for tenure isn’t easy. and being up for tenure at such a prestigious university? erin has worked more than hard, and there’s no understating that not only has she worked hard but her contributions have been recognized as valuable enough to be a tenure candidate.
in the movie, erin has at least 5 framed awards from the american physical society on her office wall. the only name i was able to catch is the apker award. the leroy apker award is given, yearly, to two (only two!) young physicists who exemplify high achievement in undergraduate physics and have demonstrated “great potential for future scientific accomplishment.” the other awards are likely to be just as prestigious.
so let’s just all really appreciate that high-strung, awkward, sometimes emotionally maladjusted erin gilbert went into a STEM field dominated by men, thrived in the soul-gutting world of professional academia and essentially made it her bitch before peacing out to pursue her real, fulfilling passion, and she almost immediately contributes to legitimizing a fringe science. she’s ambitious. she’s dedicated. she’s goal-oriented. and she’s friggin’ brilliant.
What is the best college for Psychology majors? and how does your GPA affect your chances of getting into graduate school
Your GPA is pretty important when applying to grad school.
Some grad schools only look at the last 60 hours, which can help or hurt your chances.
Graduate programs also look at GRE scores,your application essay, and letters of recommendation.
My best advice is to go to the websites of the schools you want to apply to and look at the grad school admissions requirements. Then look up the schools on the Princeton Review or BigFuture to get a better idea of their acceptance rates.
Language can even affect how quickly children figure out if they are male or female. In 1983 Alexander Guiora of he University of Michigan at Ann Arbor compared three groups of kids growing up with Hebrew, English or Finnish as their native language. Hebrew marks gender prolifically ( even the word “you” is different depending on genders ), Finnish has no gender marking and English is somewhere in between. Accordingly, children growing-up in a Hebrew speaking environment figure out their own gender about a year earlier than Finnish-speaking children; English-speaking kids fall in the middle.
View of the University of Michigan Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Printed on front: “Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.” Printed on back: “Published by F.M. Kirby & Co. Made in U.S.A.” Handwritten on back: “Howell, Nov. 16, 1911. Dear May, the stove is allright. Dear child, Ma is never so busy but she is good to see her friends but I don’t want to put you to any trouble. Uncle Andrew [undecipherable] was yesterday afternoon. Jesse would have gone but we did not learn it in time I have a card from Aunt telling us about his sickness. Aunt Mary sent me a birthday card. Mother.” Card is postmarked November 16, 1911.
Courtesy of the Burton Historical Collection, Detroit Public Library