“One trend we have noticed, with growing apprehension, is the ease with which the language of decolonization has been superficially adopted into education and other social sciences, supplanting prior ways of talking about social justice, critical methodologies, or approaches which decenter settler perspectives. Decolonization, which we assert is a distinct project from other civil and human rights-based social justice projects, is far too often subsumed into the directives of these projects, with no regard for how decolonization wants something different than those forms of justice. Settler scholars swap out prior civil and human rights based terms, seemingly to signal both an awareness of the significance of Indigenous and decolonizing theorizations of schooling and educational research, and to include Indigenous peoples on the list of considerations - as an additional special (ethnic) group or class. At a conference on educational research, it is not uncommon to hear speakers refer, almost casually, to the need to “decolonize our schools,” or use “decolonizing methods,” or “decolonize student thinking.” Yet, we have observed a startling number of these discussions make no mention of Indigenous peoples, our/their struggles for the recognition of our/their sovereignty, or the contributions of Indigenous intellectuals and activists to theories and frameworks of decolonization. Further, there is often little recognition given to the immediate context of settler colonialism on the North American lands where many of these conferences take place.”—Decolonization is not a metaphor (via leibor)
"The greatest work of art George W. Bush ever took part in was in 2008, when an Iraqi journalist threw two shoes at his head. “This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog,” screamed the journalist, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who had been arrested twice by U.S. forces during the occupation. Bush dodged the shoes with the same ease with which he’d had dodged consequences all his life; those for drunk driving, for ruined companies, stolen elections, war crimes, the destruction of Zaidi’s country. After he dodged the shoes, Bush joked about free countries. Meanwhile, guards beat Zaidi bloody. Police tortured him during the nine months he served in jail. Bush’s first art exhibition, “The Art of Leadership: A President’s Personal Diplomacy,” lacks the apt metaphor of Zaidi’s shoe throw. Bush’s 30 oil-on-board portraits of world leaders will hang at the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas through June 3. As artifact, they’re fascinating, even if as art they’re not."
“The worst thing you can do for your partner and your relationship is believe that you know how to make intimate unions work. In reality, there’s no way that any of us could know. Biology, which takes many, many generations to change, has not prepared us for love’s special challenges in our rapidly changing culture. Tradition is hopelessly outdated – the old socialized roles and norms have broken down almost completely – and pop-psychology gives little more than platitudes or oversimplified and contradictory advice. But don’t despair: The human brain is amazingly adaptive and capable of learning. The only thing that blocks us from being able to learn how to love better is the ego; we simply don’t want to admit that we don’t know how to do it right. To be relieved of the awful burden of ego, repeat the following out loud, three times: I don’t know what the hell I’m doing when it comes to making a modern intimate relationship work! Once relieved of the burden of defending our egotistical preconceptions and prejudices about how relationships should be – and how our partners should see themselves and the world – we’re free to apply our intelligence and creativity to learning how to love the unique persons we come to love. The most loving thing you can say to your partner is: Teach me how to love you, and I will teach you how to love me."
Has your relationship with New York changed since those days? I mean, there are days when I love it. And then there are times—like on the way here when I was smushed against a stranger’s armpit—when I fucking hate it here.
In my years here, I’ve seen it being sold out, sold out, sold out. To real estate, to corporate stuff. I must say that I don’t like the noise of the city anymore. And I don’t like how a lot of young people are just into money and status. Going out becomes less interesting. But New York is about change and it’s about hustle. It’s about Money-Making Manhattan. I don’t have nostalgia, like, Oh, if only New York was like 1978. But I’m kind of sick of New York.
Back in ‘81 you said that your main aspiration is to be able to pay your rent and not have to worry about money. But that was a long time ago. What’s your main aspiration now? My ambition is to keep making things, and to do it my own way. That’s my priority, I guess. To make music and movies that I believe in and keep doing it, and not be too concerned with how many people it reaches. Keep input and output. [chuckles]
"Beauty is a game that does not permit those who can compete to retire as champions. What do you do when you’re faced with a game that no one can win, but which everyone feels compelled to play? What’s the point of squeezing yourself for the rest of your life in order to contribute your several drops to the ocean of human knowledge? Or culture? Duchamp was in Buenos Aires when his sister was married and he wrote a letter about how any game a person felt compelled to play was also a game whose rules anyone could change."
“I hadn’t felt a touch like that since my mother died - friendly, steadying in the midst of confusing events - and , like a stray dog hungry for affection, I felt some profound shift in allegiance, blood-deep, a sudden, humiliating, eyewatering conviction of ‘this place is good, this person is safe, I can trust him, nobody will hurt me here’.”—
- The Goldfinch, Donna Tartt
How can one book contain so many perfect sentences?
“I say this is a wild dream—but it is this dream I want to realize. Life and literature combined, love the dynamo, you with your chameleon’s soul giving me a thousand loves, being anchored always in no matter what storm, home wherever we are. In the mornings, continuing where we left off. Resurrection after resurrection. You asserting yourself, getting the rich varied life you desire; and the more you assert yourself the more you want me, need me. Your voice getting hoarser, deeper, your eyes blacker, your blood thicker, your body fuller. A voluptuous servility and tyrannical necessity. More cruel now than before—consciously, wilfully cruel. The insatiable delight of experience.”—Henry Miller, in a letter to Anaïs Nin, August 1932 (via booksmatter)
"Cryptocurrencies will create a fifth protocol layer powering the next generation of the Internet. Humans don’t *need* math-based cryptocurrencies when dealing with other humans. We walk slowly, talk slowly, and buy big things. Credit cards, cash, wires, checks – the world seems fine. Machines, on the other hand, are far chattier and quicker to exchange information. The Four Layers of the Internet Protocol Suite are constantly communicating. The Link Layer puts packets on a wire. The Internet Layer routes them across networks. The Transport Layer persists communication across a given conversation. And the Application Layer delivers entire documents and applications. This chatty, anonymous network treats resources as “too cheap to meter.” It’s a giant grid that transfers data but doesn’t transfer value. DDoS attacks, email spam, and flooded VPNs result. Names and identities are controlled by overlords – ICANN, DNS Servers, Facebook, Twitter, and Certificate “Authorities.” Where’s the protocol layer for exchanging value, not just data? Where’s the distributed, anonymous, permission-less system for chatty machines to allocate their scarce resources? Where is the “virtual money” to create this “virtual economy?” Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are already trustless – any machine can accept it from any other, securely. They are (nearly) free. They are global – no central bank required, and any machine can speak the language. And they’re one to two steps from being quick, anonymous, and capable of authentication. Suppose we had a QuickCoin, which cleared transactions nearly instantly, anonymously, and for infinitesimal mining fees. It could use the Bitcoin blockchain for security or for easy trading in and out. SMTP would demand QuickCoin to weed out spam. Routers would exchange QuickCoin to shut down DDoS attacks. Tor Gateways would demand Quickcoin to anonymously route traffic. Machines would bypass centralized DNS and OAuth servers, using Coins to establish ownership. Why stop at one Coin? Let’s posit a dozen new Appcoins. Using application-specific coins rewards the open-source developers with a pre-mined quantity. A TorCoin can be paid to its developers and gateways and by Tor users, achieving consensus via proof-of-bandwidth. We can allocate any scarce network resource this way – i.e., BoxCoin for Storage, CacheCoin for Caching, etc. Lets move on to other networks. Can a completely distributed grid of small generators trade power with each other, using a decentralized and trustless cryptocurrency? Can a traffic jam of self-driving cars clear itself as the computerized vehicles bid for right of way? Can a mass of people crossing a street take priority over a single car waiting at the traffic light, as their phones vote, trustlessly and reliably, for their presence? Can we efficiently route networks of assets like water and power, and liabilities like pollutants and sewage, across a distributed grid? Can we trade stocks and financial assets with no brokers, custodians, or agents?"