So upon reading Harper's for the first time in some time, I confess I find it horribly horribly pretentious. It has the post-visceral taint of well-fed white liberalism, if that makes sense. The extended essay on dissent is more rambling than a drunken me. Maybe I am allergic to higher-quality paper, or the pooh-poohness of it all: this is simply not muscular prose, it is too upholstered in a florid print. I guess it's also already long-obvious the things pointed out: the similarities between the present American imperialism and that of a century ago. So maybe I'm jaded: I guess I'm curious as to what the demographic for this magazine is, as well as what the further-left reception is (not great, I'd imagine). To think that I'd once wanted to work for these guys...
Ah, yes: the Post, which I read as my daily dose of right-wing nonsense, and also for signs of cracks in the Bush edifice, which is actually happening blessedly more and more often, today has a second headline of "Gay High," which is apparently just good ol' Harvey Milk given a head. Hrmm... I guess it would be nice to be able to bring Joephet to school, but at the same time, I feel as if I am ill-equipped to deal with quite so much high school bujiiness. Still, one must give some thought to the Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long's query, "Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math?"
Well, I can say from personal experience that in gay math, combinatorics (how many outfits?) is much more important. And your word problems tend to be set at Sephora. But that is an inside joke. And I am a terribly dressed gay math teacher, hehe, so I was famous for the (illustrative) question, "Mr. Hu has five dress shirts and one pair of pants. How many outfits does he have?" It's great to be able to deflect your students' accusations of buggery with a simple, "Not with these shoes..."
<< Home