i'm a-going bellydancing tonight

i think this is my third bellydancing class, and i'm finding it kinda fun. it's an odd exploration of my hips and abdominal area, since i'm learning how to shake up those regions. i'm sure that my gym is not known for its expertise in this particular area, but the fitness instructor is nice enough to not mock me in my futile attempts to shimmy it up. generally, it doesn't seem as if i'm cut out for bellydancing as a lifelong pursuit, especially given that my hips and derriere just don't cooperate.

a lull in time

things have quieted down a lot.

or maybe i'm less dramatic.

what's fabulous right now is that i'm clinging on to my routine like no one's business. ah, routine - my newfound love. the routine of going to work, heading to the gym afterwards, and immersing myself in yahoo literati.

alas, solace in routine - that's way uh huh uh huh i like it . . .

valentine's day, shmalentine's day

bah, humbug!

on maintaining practice of participatin in nyc nightlife

after close to a month of not going out out, i allowed a friend to convince me to venture into manhattan for dessert and dancing. and, yes, it was another extremely late night - got home close to 5 am.

the post mortem on the night: sadly, i was sans contact lenses and avec my glasses. and despite hearing about how nerdy girls are attractive from some folks, i myself don't feel all that comfortable in a club/lounge scene with my glasses. on top of that i was also sporting a newly contrived clothing combo that i didn't feel 'hot' in, so that added another element of general discomfort.

as the night progressed, following a series of random conversations and lots of people watching, i got to thinking that maybe i'm just out of practice in these social situations. i mean i wasn't stuttering excessively or spitting on people or anything, but in terms of when to stop certain conversations, when to shut up and dance, and when to check out before it's 4 am (!!!)

all in all, it was a decent night on the town. although i could also convince myself that it was a borderline-should've-stayed-in-bed case : )

things to 'look forward' to in the next months

'look foward' = literally not in the happy sense

- purchasing new contact lenses (i split one of my old ones right down the middle)
- the hpv vaccination series
- a visit to a retinal specialist
- higher credit card bills (contact lenses + refurbishing of my wardrobe)

the sleep bug

bit me, and all my droopy eyes long for is . . . SLEEP!

forever and ever, ever ever, and ever ever. . .

i am for REAL

never meant to make your daughter cry

i uh-pologize a trillion times

fear of working class folks living healthy lives

the title of this post might be a misnomer for what i'm thinking about, but it comes pretty darn close to it . . . this morning, as i was doing my daily ritual of scouring the new york times, i came across a few articles that made the wheels in my head turning (more than usual, i should add.)

it's kind of weird that there's such a distinct, under-the-carpet, subversive way that people talk about non-mainstream folks. and that might be ambiguous and misleading, but i'll explain what i mean when i say 'non-mainstream.' i'm referring to what the media portrays as what the mainstream should aspire towards - being raised by nurturing, well-educated parents, going to good schools, getting 1600s on the SATs (or whatever the highest score is these days, i'm prolly dating myself here : ), shooting for the ivy league, and so on.

getting back to the point, i find that there's this whole discourse around success, and the fear of too many people succeeding. and i do not actually understand this because wouldn't it be a good thing for us to raise children in a world where people are all thinking somewhat critically and aspire to achieve great things?

these are some examples of what i've heard and am inferring based on what i've come across:

• 'well, what if all the public schools had enough resources, and were actually able to reach out to every single kid in their schools. what would that mean for the competition to get into selective high schools, colleges, and grad programs?'
• 'what about the jobs that they would take away from the middle class?'
• 'who's going to do the blue collar work, if all the working class folks get proper educations?'
• 'what'll happen to the big corporations that thrive on (or prey on, rather) cheap labor supplied to factories, franchises, and so on?'

i just find this line of questioning to be so defeatist and fatalistic. i can't really even dignify them with actual responses because they defy dignity.

ah...well for more background on this, check out this article that i posted on this blog (i'm making an effort to not flood this blog with a gazillion snippets from NYT articles : ) i find this article to be a fairly blatant example of how we try to fill up prisons so as not to disrupt job security for others. the vicious cycle continues . . . so even if crime does go down, we'll hunt people down to fill up the prisons. is it just me, or isn't that really messed up?

in addition to this article, there's also the readings i've been doing on early childhood education. clearly, if children have enough structure and support in the early years onwards, then they'd be inclined to pursue the educational pathway to where ever it is that we all think we're trying to head (i'm still trying to figure out where that is : )

but of course there are never adequate resources to do this, and there's always one study after another to prove the obvious. i can name a few of them off the top of my head:

• 'teachers need to have the political will to be in public schools.'
• 'we need to believe that all children can learn.'
• 'the study has shown that a high level of collaboration is required to . . ."

political will, belief, and cooperation. . . do we really need studies to tell us that?!?!

oh well, i guess at some point in folks' lifetimes they just might see a small, but distinguishable light, and figure out what the difference is between equality and equity. and perhaps even put an iota of thought into what we have to let go of in order to get where ever it is we're going while ensuring human dignity isn't compromised.

feel-good 'story'

On a beach strewn with starfish a boy is throwing them back in the ocean, one by one, when a man comes by and says: “What are you doing? You can’t possibly make a difference here.”

Without looking up or pausing, the boy picks up another starfish, tosses it in the ocean and says, “Did for that one.”

idle chit chat

i, for one, am not of a fan. it's hard to avoid though. most people enjoy these exchanges on a day to day basis and they do it everywhere with everyone - at work, on the way to work/home (on their bluetooths), on the subway, and so on.

the only folks that i can talk to for prolonged amounts of time are family and friends that i've known forever. and this hasn't happened in some time either because people's schedules are getting busier these days. plus, there aren't really any new significant developments in my life, so what's there to chat about anyways? significant developments in their lives, i guess : )

now the worst is having to make idle chit chat with folks who i'm not that interested in getting to know. the whole time i'm talking to them, the question of, "why am i even talking to this person?" and the awareness of the fact that "i don't even really like them" swim around in my head. i wonder what would happen if i simply stop nodding my head when these people try to talk to me, or giving them a completely blank look. or maybe i should even start saying things that have absolutely nothing to do with what they're talking about, and they'll just stop talking to me because they'll think i'm a bad listener . . .

hmmmmm. i guess i'll have to brainstorm more sane alternatives to the mind-numbing filler conversations that strangers and acquaintances expect of me!

the absurdity of this confounds me

From today's New York Times:

"Mr. Bush is also expected to propose changes in the Children’s Health Insurance Program to sharpen its focus on low-income families. The changes could reduce federal payments to states that cover children with family incomes exceeding twice the poverty level. Under federal guidelines, a family of four is considered poor if its annual income is less than $20,650."

let's see 2 x $20,650 = $41,300 = state of shock

i'd like to see a family of four in the Dubya family tree try to live off that in a place like NYC

good night and good luck

a stellar movie, i must say. when it started off in black and white, i wasn't so sure that i would take to it. but as the plot unraveled, i realized how fly it was...sadly enough the ed murrows of the world are hard to come by these days with the media industrial complex at an all-time low.