(no subject)
May. 18th, 2014 12:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Picked up Practical Paleo at Whole Foods. Has to be the most useful cookbook, nutritional guide that I've seen.
Having read and reviewed various nutritional guides and sites - the one constant is:
* avoid all glutens like the plague, and grains.
* avoid refined sugars
* avoid legumes if you have digestive issues
Everything else seems to be rather controversial. Does make breakfast tough though. But I've discovered my tummy can handle poached eggs in the morning.
And a combo of chia, buckwheat, and hemp seed sprouted in almond milk.
Trying to figure out how to heal my digestive track, so I can do stuff without discomfort or pain. Learned that I am doing more or less the right things, just have to tweak a few things. Exercise wise - yoga, stretching, and walks is best. Strenuous activity would stress my system and make things worse. 30-60 minutes of jogging or biking is not recommended. Meditative activities, calm or gentle yoga, and quiet walks outside is however recommended. Goal is reduce stress. And heal.
2. Dallas Buyers Club was a better movie than expected. Had read mixed reviews. It does wander a bit, and is jagged in places, lots of filler moments with the characters doing drugs or wandering aimlessly. But overall is a rather good if not great film. I actually liked The Sessions better - it was tighter and better written. Dallas however, had two powerhouse performances, which deservedly won awards. Mathew McConaughy as Ron Woodruff was excellent. Particularly if you watched the film How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days before it. He's almost unrecognizable. And the film is at the end of the day, a character sketch. It focuses on his character, who is a bit of an anti-hero. Jared Leto, plays Raymond/Rayna, which is another powerhouse performance worthy of multiple awards. Leto is unrecognizable in the part. Both are rail thin and look like they have AIDS.
This completes my McConaughy film fest. My favorite of the films was the Lincoln Lawyer. And the best written may have been True Detective. But this was his best performance.
He plays a heterosexual rodeo rider and electrician, who contracts HIV through unprotected sex with a woman, who was a needle user. Told that he has 30 days to live, he goes all out to find a way to survive. Going to Mexico and other countries to find cures. And puts together The Dallas Buyers Club - to distribute what he's found to others with the ailment, while making money off of it. People pay 400 dollar monthly membership and get all the medication.
The film is not complimentary of either the FDA nor the pharmaceutical companies, with their drug trials, and toxic meds. But it's not preachy or sanctimonious about it. And a lot of the things it says are sort of true. The irony is Woodruff, who is making a buck, is more honest and compassionate than the FDA, hospital administrators or the pharmaceutical companies portrayed in the film.
Jennifer Garner portrays the nice doc that Woodruff flirts with.
3. This is just ...words fail me:
Student Requests For Trigger Warnings For Literary Works
Suddenly, I'm highly relieved that I did not pursue a career in academia or as an English Lit Prof.
Having read and reviewed various nutritional guides and sites - the one constant is:
* avoid all glutens like the plague, and grains.
* avoid refined sugars
* avoid legumes if you have digestive issues
Everything else seems to be rather controversial. Does make breakfast tough though. But I've discovered my tummy can handle poached eggs in the morning.
And a combo of chia, buckwheat, and hemp seed sprouted in almond milk.
Trying to figure out how to heal my digestive track, so I can do stuff without discomfort or pain. Learned that I am doing more or less the right things, just have to tweak a few things. Exercise wise - yoga, stretching, and walks is best. Strenuous activity would stress my system and make things worse. 30-60 minutes of jogging or biking is not recommended. Meditative activities, calm or gentle yoga, and quiet walks outside is however recommended. Goal is reduce stress. And heal.
2. Dallas Buyers Club was a better movie than expected. Had read mixed reviews. It does wander a bit, and is jagged in places, lots of filler moments with the characters doing drugs or wandering aimlessly. But overall is a rather good if not great film. I actually liked The Sessions better - it was tighter and better written. Dallas however, had two powerhouse performances, which deservedly won awards. Mathew McConaughy as Ron Woodruff was excellent. Particularly if you watched the film How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days before it. He's almost unrecognizable. And the film is at the end of the day, a character sketch. It focuses on his character, who is a bit of an anti-hero. Jared Leto, plays Raymond/Rayna, which is another powerhouse performance worthy of multiple awards. Leto is unrecognizable in the part. Both are rail thin and look like they have AIDS.
This completes my McConaughy film fest. My favorite of the films was the Lincoln Lawyer. And the best written may have been True Detective. But this was his best performance.
He plays a heterosexual rodeo rider and electrician, who contracts HIV through unprotected sex with a woman, who was a needle user. Told that he has 30 days to live, he goes all out to find a way to survive. Going to Mexico and other countries to find cures. And puts together The Dallas Buyers Club - to distribute what he's found to others with the ailment, while making money off of it. People pay 400 dollar monthly membership and get all the medication.
The film is not complimentary of either the FDA nor the pharmaceutical companies, with their drug trials, and toxic meds. But it's not preachy or sanctimonious about it. And a lot of the things it says are sort of true. The irony is Woodruff, who is making a buck, is more honest and compassionate than the FDA, hospital administrators or the pharmaceutical companies portrayed in the film.
Jennifer Garner portrays the nice doc that Woodruff flirts with.
3. This is just ...words fail me:
Student Requests For Trigger Warnings For Literary Works
Should students about to read “The Great Gatsby” be forewarned about “a variety of scenes that reference gory, abusive and misogynistic violence,” as one Rutgers student proposed? Would any book that addresses racism — like “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” or “Things Fall Apart” — have to be preceded by a note of caution? Do sexual images from Greek mythology need to come with a viewer-beware label?
Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as “trigger warnings,” explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.
Suddenly, I'm highly relieved that I did not pursue a career in academia or as an English Lit Prof.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-05-22 03:58 pm (UTC)Everyone in these articles about trigger warnings mentions Huckleberry Finn, but what are they assuming a first time reader is coming to the book with? How much knowledge of American history? How much awareness of Twain's reputation as a liberal thinker and social critic? Have they been raised to see characters using racial slurs as villains? What we think of as common knowledge changes, values change. Even the most unique piece of art exists as part of a larger story or history, helping a student to see that big picture has to help them understand the work better.
(It's fun having longer discussions than twitter though! Thanks for providing a forum.)
no subject
Date: 2014-05-23 02:42 am (UTC)I think our disagreement regarding the whole "trigger warning bit" isn't so much regarding the need to provide context, but when to provide it and whether it should be provided in "all" instances. Which I think was the issue the NY Times and the educators had with the rule. When do we need to provide this information and to what degree?
I think there's something to be said about the importance of coming to a work of art - raw, or blind. Not knowing anything about it. And discovering it for yourself. Example? Fault in Our Stars. Or even,
Pride and Prejudice. Or various mystery novels, suspense thrillers, and
fantasy epics.
Granted, that's sort of impossible for some of the books we mentioned above. Since our media has referenced them to death. If you don't know anything about Huckleberry Finn or Lord of The Rings - I'd wonder if you were born under a rock. Also, there is something to be said about providing context for a book like Huck Finn - since it is filled to the brim with dialect. Not sure you need to provide much context for Lord of the Rings - what the reader reads into that novel, the reader brought with him/her. It's highly metaphorical.
And admittedly, when I read Ulysses by Joyce, I had a professor who provided us with some context or idea of what to expect. And I knew going into it - that the novel had been banned in the US for sexual content and that it was about a man's life in the space of one day.
Also, I'd read or at least was familiar with the Odyssey, upon which the narrative was loosely structured. This undoubtedly aided me in my interpretation of the text.
But I don't think the rule regarding context or background should be applied in all instances. Sometimes, I think, human beings are extremists or view the world in "black" or "white", this or that. Not realizing that both is possible or it should be on a case by case basis. You can't apply rules to every instance. It's impossible. Doesn't matter what the law or rule is. Sooner or later you will run across an instance that falls outside the box, and trying to apply that rule is a bit like forcing a square peg into a round hole - it won't fit.
I remember in creative writing class - being ordered not to say anything will people read and commented on my work. I was not permitted to provide the context or what my intent was. The work had to stand on its own. And for a few of my stories - that was actually necessary - because I wanted the reader to interact with the story.
Sometimes - the intent of the work is to repel, to offend. Art is after all a reflection of society. We attack the work or writer, as opposed to what it is reflecting - in ourselves or our society. Mainly because that is so much easier and safer. Coming to the work raw - provides the ability to have that reaction, lose that innocence, which in some cases is necessary. I say this, knowing full well that I have a tendency to read spoilery reviews and like to be spoiled on most books that I read, but it depends on the book.
no subject
Date: 2014-05-23 04:36 am (UTC)In an academic setting we aren't reading for pleasure, we aren't self-selecting beyond choosing the classes, it's important to know why certain works are being studied, who chose them and why - that's part of critical thinking, and that's a big part of what I mean when I talk about providing context.
When you say that someone who doesn't know about Huckleberry Finn or LoTR must be living under a rock, you're making a huge assumption about that person's background - that they say grew up in an English-speaking country with similar pop culture references to you. For a lot of university students that's not the case. And things that read one way to you may strike them as very different. Giving them some preparation and background, and even warning that the author's viewpoint may be very different from their own, can help them understand what they're studying and why.
no subject
Date: 2014-05-23 02:46 pm (UTC)I read it prior to the hype. ;-) And I'm glad I wasn't warned - the warnings from my perspective would have been spoilers. And yes, I've lost loved ones to cancer.
And in some cases, the item that they want to be "warned" about is in fact a "spoiler". Example? Seeing Red, BTVS S6. To this day, I wish I had not been "warned" about that episode prior to watching it.
So, I think we are both erring on the side of generalization and assumption here?