ASU Parking Sucks!

ASU has increased their parking substantially over the past few years with plans to continue with increased pricing. Two years ago I bought a parking pass for $200. Expensive, I admit, but necessary because I was living pretty far away from campus. The next year they increased the price of my parking lot to $500. I paid again, though I found myself working extra jobs just to pay it off. When we moved less than a mile from  campus I thought to myself "I will never have to dealing with parking again" and I avoided paying the upped rate of $700 for my lot. 

But what ASU has also done is made sure that every possible parking option around campus turns a profit. So open lots or open street parking, which in the past has been free, has know been converted into metered parking. I'm thinking that the City of Tempe is in on this as well because other open streets and parking options away from campus have also been turned into metered spaces or turned into "no parking" zones.  So no matter where you park you will either have to pay or pay a fine for illegally parking. 

All this being said, there are a select few parking spaces that not many people know about. Yesterday, I had a heavy load of books to take to campus so I could not utilize my traditional form of transportation, which is a 1969 Schwinn Supersport bicycle I figured I would just drive and park in "secret" spots. Plus, I figured since it was summer this would be pretty easy to accomplish. Less students equals more available parking. I was wrong. Really wrong. Not only was my secret spots taken, they were actually overcrowded with people double and triple parking, seemingly willing to take the parking fine. 

So I drove around for half an hour. Parked in a 20 minute loading zone just so I could unload my books. Drove around some more looking for more permanent parking (since I did have to work), then finally found some shaded parking about a mile from campus...in front of my house...where I dropped my car off, grabbed my bike, and rode back to school. Sometimes I hate ASU.

The DE-evolution of the human body

Women and men were made to stand upright and to walk upright. Most of the things we naturally do in life (except for sleeping) involve us standing in an upright position. So then what happens when the majority of our society spends a significant portion of their day sitting hunched over a computer? Most of us doing so at a workspace that is not "ergonomically correct." It's hard to believe that this unnatural position is doing anything good to our backs, legs, neck, etc. I have been experiencing some awful neck pains myself the past few years as I spend quite a bit of time, with shoulders rounded and neck protruding forward, at a small laptop. As I massage the back of my neck I have to wonder, "Is this going to hurt for the rest of my life?" And what about our children? I didn't really spend time in front of a computer until I was 18 and in college, but our children will begin in this awful seating position before they even enter school. Then what about the next generation...and the next? If you're a Christian (like me) you're probably wondering if somehow we are tampering with God's creation. If you are a Darwinist you're probably wondering if we are actually de-evolving, returning to a pre homo erectus australopithecus afarensis. 

Either way, my back and neck hurts from writing this so I'm taking off.

Who controls who?

So a few years ago I began seeing these commercials advertising smartphone, blackberry's, etc. and their pitch was "now you can work from anywhere". I took that as "now you can work all the time". I know people love their "crackberry's" but it seems as all these devices do is make you work more. How many emails are sent from these phones at 10:00pm on a Saturday night or 2:00pm on a Sunday morning? What's worse is that we are only getting paid for 40 hours a week but  because of these things (and the instant gratification of sending a receiving messages wherever you are) we are probably working much more than that, but not getting paid for it. So in reality, the "work from anywhere" slogan should really be "work all the time for me and get paid less". How did this happen?

Long story short...I ended up getting one. I bought one mainly because of the calendar and contact feature as I frequently miss meeting (something I'm not too proud of) and I have  a ton of contacts. But I also get my Outlook emails on it. So now I'm constantly struggling to keep my work and private life separate. Sometimes an email will come in from a student on a weekend and I have to will myself not to act upon it because technically I'm not getting paid on weekends to do work. But then I have to ask why I have this urge to check it? I know it's work related and I know I'm not getting paid to respond to it...but why do I want to do it so bad? It's like crack. You know you shouldn't do it but you still do (by the way, I have not done crack. I'm just connecting it back to the crackberry euphemism). You have to admit, the Matrix movie is beginning to make more sense as we seem to become more and more intricately intertwined, dedicated, and almost a slave to our own electronic vices. 

So I will sit here at my computer (which I'm at for at least 6 hours a day) and try to find a way to make technology work for me, to bring me happiness and pleasure in leisure. And I'll try to keep from becoming too controlled by an electronic device that I spent $100 on. 

Going Green - Real or a Fad?

When Walmart goes green you have to question this whole "green" movement. Don't get me wrong, I think it is very important that we find ways as individual consumers as well as corporations to conserve the natural resources of our world. But I'm wondering if companies like Walmart are dedicated to this movement because this is a part of their social mission or is it because "green" is popular and they are using it as a ploy to gain more customers. What I mean is, is this "green" movement for real or just a fad? I sure hope it's real but I'm holding my breath, especially when Walmart the uber-exploitative company it is, decides to jump on the bandwagon. 

The First Post

This one is way too easy. I know it's a little late but who cares. This is my blog. I was sent this picture a few months ago and was appalled. But I'm not exactly sure who I should be disappointed in most. LeBron or Vogue? It's obvious to be upset Vogue for this picture for the obvious reason that it emulates King Kong-like images and signifies back to a day where Black men have been associated with animalistic like characteristics (i.e. the oversexualized, hypermasculine, hyperaggressive, buck that dominated media representations of Black men post Reconstruction). However, I feel as though a magazine company like Vogue would know this and thus consciously used this image to stir up publicity. Think to what has made major headlines lately (e.g. Don Imus, Michael Richards, Jenna 6, Golf magazine and the noose, etc.). I'm also dissapointed in Vogue because LeBron is the first Black man to grace the cover of the magazine, which is known to dress all their cover models in very fashionable attire. However, they dressed LeBron up in a pretty weak looking basketball outfit. It isn't even one I would purchase and rock somewhere outside of a gym. 

I'm also a little upset with LeBron for not being a little aware of what they were doing? Did he really think a picture of him flexing muscles, roaring at the camera while curling the dainty white female model in a flowing dress would be artistic? He didn't think for one second...hey, why do I have to be in basketball clothes and she gets to be dressed up? Why am I roaring at the camera...I'm not even hungry!

Either way, it's all kind of sad and it's one more image the reproduces the subconscious construction of Black masculine identity through racist representation, whether we admit it or not. I guess everything is for sale...even your soul.