A college education leaves the graduate better prepared for career and citizenship. Certainly we must believe that if we continue to value college enough to spend the time and money that goes into a four-year baccalaureate. But what precisely are the new attainments that the college curriculum makes possible for the student?
Consider sociology. There were 26,500 sociology baccalaureate degrees awarded in 2009 in U.S. universities, and certainly many times that number of students who were taking courses in sociology or pursuing a major or minor in the field. Forty three percent of those degrees were awarded to students of color — up from 30 percent in 1995. (These data are reported on the website of the American Sociological Association.) So there are a lot of sociology graduates. But why is this a good thing? In what ways is it valuable for undergraduates to major in sociology? What does this discipline contribute to the undergraduate’s knowledge and skills when it comes to preparation for a productive career and life as a citizen and leader in a rapidly changing world?
The most basic justification for a liberal education is the idea that these disciplines help students gain important qualities of mind that lay the foundations they will need for productive and innovative lives — rigor, critical reasoning, creativity, communications skills, ethical capacities, respect for human diversity, and the like. Martha Nussbaum describes these ideals in Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. So how does sociology fit into that idea? What are the qualities of mind that a sociology education cultivates?
One good way to address this question is to ask a sociology professor. What do sociology professors expect their graduates to have gained from the experience? I asked this question of Alford Young, chair of the department of sociology at the University of Michigan. Al is a talented and productive sociologist whose research concerns the experience of young African-American men. His recent book,The Minds of Marginalized Black Men: Making Sense of Mobility, Opportunity, and Future Life Chances, is an important contribution to the fields of cultural sociology and the sociology of race and poverty. (Here is a post on this innovative book.) And Al has thought long and hard about what he hopes that undergraduate sociology students will learn from the experience.
Al begins with the fact that sociology students learn some of the organized and rigorous methods that contemporary sociologists use to understand the contemporary social world. They learn about statistical reasoning, qualitative research, and sociological theory, and these skills provide them with a foundation for understanding the social world around them throughout their lives. But there is more to it than this. Al argues that the contemporary social world is one in which patterns of power and hierarchy are constantly changing, and it is very important for well educated young people to have the tools to piece together their own understandings of how these social forces work. Here is Al’s summary:
Sociology is the discipline that gives the greatest attention to social difference — social hierarchy, the relevance of social power in everyday life. Sociology allows for consideration of things that are not immediately visible in our ordinary lives, and often not neatly understandable. These things are relevant to how social life is structured and organized. We need to look beyond people’s individual motivations or their psychological foundations and gain a better understanding of how people’s social location with regard to gender or race influences their thinking and behavior. We often don’t notice those factors and how they influence us and the opportunities we have. These matter very much in ordinary life.
This comes down to several convincing points. First, sociology is a scientific discipline. It teaches students to use empirical data to understand current social realities. And sociologists use a variety of empirical research methods, from quantitative research to qualitative methods, to comparative and historical studies. Students who study sociology as undergraduates will certainly be exposed to the use of statistics as a method for representing and analyzing complex social phenomena; they will also be exposed to qualitative tools like interviews, focus groups, and participant-observer data. So a sociology education helps the student to think like a social scientist — attentive to facts, probing with hypotheses, offering explanations, critical in offering and assessing arguments for conclusions.
Second, the content of sociology is particularly important in our rapidly changing social world. Sociology promises to provide data and theory that help to better understand the human and social realities we confront. Moreover, the discipline is defined around the key social issues we all need to understand better than we currently do, and our policy makers need to understand if they are to design policies that allow for social progress: for example, race, poverty, urbanization, inequalities, globalization, immigration, environmental change, gender, power, and class. We might say that an important part of the value of a sociology education is that it gives the student a better grasp of the dynamics of these key social processes.
So sociology is indeed a valuable part of a university education. It provides a foundation for better understanding and engaging with the globalizing world our young people will need to navigate and lead. It provides students with the intellectual tools needed to make sense of the shifting and conflictual social world we live in, and this in turn permits them to contribute to solutions for the most difficult social problems that we face.
You know, I think I’ll just refer people to this article and tell them to read it everytime I get asked why I chose to be a Sociology major. [Also applicable to other peeps enrolled in Liberal Arts]
by Shaker Laurie, a Reading and English teacher in Minneapolis, escaped academic, spouse, and mom to the feistiest three-year-old on the block.
[Content Note: Racism.]
Earlier this week, National Public Radio published its “100 Best-Ever Teen Novels" list. Voted on by NPR readers/listeners from a list of 1200 nominations, also audience-submitted, the list is loaded with amazing writing—amazing writing about white protagonists. Only two—yes, two—books on the list are written about main characters of color: House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie.
As a teacher of reading and English in schools with large populations of students of color, young adult fiction about characters of color is high on my radar. Many of my students don’t see themselves as readers when they walk into my classroom. Reader identity and engagement are a huge component of the work we do as we address student reading problems, and when students are handed books full of characters that are unlike them racially, culturally, and socio-economically, the chasm between their picture of themselves and their idea of books and who books are for only widens.
The problem is not that amazing books about teens of color don’t exist. They do. My kids latch obsessively onto books about teens like them and read them voraciously because adolescents in all their self-involved glory enjoy reading texts that remind them of, well, themselves. Sherman Alexie and Sandra Cisneros certainly deserve their received accolades: The House on Mango Street is a beautifully poetic account of a Latina’s coming of age, and Absolutely True Diary poignantly tells the story of a boy who struggles with life on a reservation and his desire for a strong education. Judith Ortiz Cofer, Walter Dean Myers, Linda Sue Park, and Matt de la Peña’s work also comes to mind, so when NPR comes along and declares 100 books the “Best-Ever” and leaves nearly every single young adult title written about people of color off the list without caveat or mention, damage is done.
Clearly, audience-selected “Best Ever” lists are dangerous and problematic, but the absence of any indication of NPR’s awareness of the glaring neglect on their list is also troubling. A list of “Best-Ever” books that declares only two books about teens of color worthy keeps all of these amazing stories in the margins, and arguably marginalizes them even further. When the world of reading remains so predominantly white, children and teens of color receive the clear message that they don’t belong. It sends a message directly from readers as well as NPR that writing about people of color is not valuable or valued, that their stories aren’t as important as the trials and tribulations of Edward and Bella; theTwilight series ranks #27.
Such an exclusive list isn’t just problematic for teens of color; when white teens are told that the “good” books are all about white people, it normalizes the white experience and bolsters white privilege. For me, growing up in a community that was 99% white, reading was one of the first ways I was able to interact with narratives of people of color. Books lay a foundation on which kids can reflect on social justice and understand that the lives, conflicts, and struggles of people of color are important—that people of color are equal actors in the world. Yes, kids want to read about themselves, and that is important, but it is also critical for kids living with privilege to read about people living without those privileges, not just for some requisite “exposure to diversity,” but because, if we want them to be committed to changing the world, they have to understand it needs to change.
The walls of my classroom are covered in photos of my students—90% of whom are of color—reading books. For most of them, the visual of themselves with books is new and exciting. For most kids, reading is not inherently boring; it is a world of escape and imagination. Kids want to see themselves as smart and successful, and reading comes along with that image, so it is inexcusable that NPR publish material that screams, “Good reading=whiteness.” Those who champion literacy fight daily against the cultural message that reading is for white people, and according to NPR and its audience, it is.
This article definitely brings up some valid points, on how too often the dominant “mood” or POV is white when reading books, but specifically children’s lit and young adult. I have seen arguments made on reading male vs. female POV or perspective, but have to admit that point just wow…gets to me more, because I realize how true it is, and how I’ve never really even considered or really thought about this before when I was growing up. There were definitely some YA books like Linda Sue Park’s “A Single Shard,” and Lensey Namioka’s “Mismatch,” that I remember, but my overall experience of reading YA books from an Asian POV is pretty non-existent. [Hmm…I should really get on reading American Born Chinese and The Joy Luck Club.] My only recent exposure to to Asian POV books have been Lisa See books, Jamie King’s “On the Corner of Bitter and Sweet”, Paula Yoo’s “Good Enough” and An Na’s “The Fold.”
I mean, the list’s name itself, “100 Best-Ever Teen Novels” is somewhat problematic itself [no list should be named that if it includes Twilight as #27 on the list and half the books on the list are popular, contemporary reads that don’t have much literary merit and will most likely fade into obscurity within the next 50 years…] If the list had been named just ‘100 Best Teen Novels’ then I think I would have been fine with that. You also might want to take into account the “expert” panel [Pamela Paul, Diana Roback, Tasha Robinson, Ted Schelvan] that frankly, sound all pretty white to me.
I guess this can explain why I was the only one in my high school class that actually enjoyed reading “The House on Mango Street,” and how the students that voiced discontent over the book were the white students [Latino/a students were surprisingly silent on their opinion] - one student council candidate [also happens to be white] even made a campaign promise that he would vow to have the English department revamp their required reading, by specifically dissing House of Mango Street.
This is could also possibly explain [and something I never considered before] why I didn’t give a flying fuck for the most part, on the books I had to read during my sophomore year - considering with the exceptions of A Raisin in the Sun and Othello, featured white protagonists only.
Also, this article made me realize that I should give props to one of my high school English teachers who wasn’t only passionate as hell about teaching, but specifically always promoted literature written from a non-white perspective [she was particularly enthusiastic about Julia Alvarez, Sandra Cisneros, Jamaica Kincaid and Dai Sijie books]. I need to thank this lady profusely the next time I see her. Also, she’s cool because I introduced Fruits Basket to her and was totally okay about me writing an essay about my favorite manga, Full Moon Wo Sagashite :D
“I was just discussing this very thing a few weeks ago with a group of high-school freshmen in my English class. We were discussing homosexuality because of an allusion to it in the book we were reading, and several boys made comments such as, “That’s disgusting.” We got into the debate and eventually a boy admitted that he was terrified/disgusted when he was once sharing a taxi and the other male passenger made a pass at him. The lightbulb went off. “Oh,” I said. “I get it. See, you are afraid, because for the first time in your life you have found yourself a victim of unwanted sexual advances by someone who has the physical ability to use force against you.” The boy nodded and shuddered visibly.“But,” I continued. “As a woman, you learn to live with that from the time you are fourteen, and it never stops. We live with that fear every day of our lives. Every man walking through the parking garage the same time you are is either just a harmless stranger or a potential rapist. Every time.” The girls in the room nodded, agreeing. The boys seemed genuinely shocked. “So think about that the next time you hit on a girl. Maybe, like you in the taxi, she doesn’t actually want you to.”—
So far, while looking through my college textbook list for this semester, I realize that I have to buy a book on the social history of LSD, 7 books for my Classic Buddhist Texts class with fun names that I can’t pronounce such as “Manimekhalai” and “Holy Teaching of Vimalakirtii,” a Latin American history book called “Born in Fire and Blood,” [Why does this sound like an un-used Daenerys Targaryen/Game of Thrones tagline?] and so on.
When I first saw the LSD book as required reading, I thought I was being punk’d. But then I checked the university bookstore website, and realized it was accurate. Can’t wait to read it.
I predict that will be a fun, if not interesting semester :D
On that note, I almost done with my core curriculum. Hot damn, I never thought I would see this day…
Why Millennials aren’t buying cars or houses, and what that means for the economy
HAHA NO MONAY!!!!!
Maybe our generation aren’t buying houses and cars because EVERYTHING IS SO FUCKED
You want us to actually talk to bank people and get home loans and auto loans? They are still fucking us! Any time I go into a bank, I feel disgusted. You want me to do MORE business with the who want to charge me 5 dollars for every single swipe of my debit card? Get fucked!
You think I’m gonna buy a car? A car? Where am I gonna get the money for a car and the insurance and the insurance against the insurance company if God forbid they decide to do the same things they did to the poor Fisher family and countless others? And fucking GAS? Are you crazy? The planet is dying, and you want me to buy gas at $FUCK.YOU/gallon?
In the past 5 years since the economy fell apart, we’ve been adapting. We’ve been listening to countless horror stories of those who made the risk. Those who saved and did it right, and still ended up with an inferior product with inferior service that RUINS YOUR LIFE. It’s not like ordering a pizza, and instead of sausage, you get cheese. It’s like ordering a pizza and then your credit is ruined and you are flat broke. The pains of acquisition aren’t worth it if it can all be taken away like a bureaucratic fart in the bathtub. It would be smarter to save our money for tickets to god-damn Mars than to invest in these hideous, broken systems.
We aren’t cheap. We fucking hate doing business with you people.
All these pieces on Millennials are so mired in confusion since we don’t even trust journalists any more. The news, our entire lives, has been scary. Think about being 8 and processing the deaths of abortion doctors or homegrown terrorism. Now try to process the news when every asshole on camera just lies. The news hasn’t had an ounce of truth in it for 10 years. Can you not understand how much we don’t trust anyone who is older than us? How can you trust anybody when the president and vice-president of the United States lied to the Secretary of State so they could START THE WRONG WAR!
Also, that graphic? Is that what you think we all look like? Are you fucking kidding me, Atlantic?
I hope they never find out how to market to us. I hope we splinter so much that companies like Ford will have to make a decent product instead of asking the Vomit Spouts that created Jersey Shore how to create MORE fantasies about how great THINGS will make your life. We don’t attach to things because things break. We saw everything break.
But, that’s just me.
Hope for the future. I have it.
Oh and I found this lovely gem of a comment in the comments section:
“You mean the generation that paid three times as much for college to enter a job market with triple the unemployment isn’t interested in purchasing the assets of the generation who just blew an enormous housing bubble and kept it from popping through quantitative easing and out-and-out federal support? Curious. “
Interesting article Vanity Fair ran back in 2009, where the author argues for the importance of couture collections “among gloom and disaster.” Raises some interesting points on the existence/purpose of couture culture, general extravagance in culture, consumption, and ultimate standards of beauty and exclusivity [though notably from a Western point….] And I suppose this partially explains my fondness for period dramas…
It’s one of the great metaphysical mysteries of our equal-opportunity, post-feminist, oh-god-is-that-the-time lives—Why do men’s and women’s buttons do up differently? Or, rather, why do women wear their buttons the wrong way round? Well, a long time ago, in a land far away, it was decreed that men’s buttons should do up the easiest way for a right-handed chap on the inside of a shirt, but women’s should do up for the convenience of a right-handed girl on the outside of a shirt. It was assumed that all ladies would forever and always be dressed by their maids. (Who dressed the maid?) And the silent, servile, pursed mouth of a girl’s buttonhole still judges her a fingers-and-thumbs failure for having to do herself up. It is a ghost of couture, a reminder that once all clothes were bespoke, handmade.
This season’s couture shows bloomed like gardenias in the monastery of the new austerity. The collections blew kisses at our plastic-belt-tightening in these dressed-down, hard times. Couture laughed extravagantly at the bonfire of banking, the end of ostentatious consumption. It was, let’s be frank, a let-them-eat-cake moment, and we asked, Who on earth is going to wear this stuff? Who has the gall? Where is the ball? The galas, the dinners, the soirées? Where are these yards of elegant swank going to be appropriate? Where is all this expensive good taste going to look tasteful? These were the wrong questions. We should have asked: Do we really and truly want a world without couture? Are we willing to throw away what we have on top of what has already been lost? Is there no place for the exclusive and the beautiful? For the hysterically indulgent? And the superbly crafted? You have no idea how sensational a couture frock is until you’ve held one, or worn one, as Emily Blunt does with Victorian insouciance here. The skill in making them, the satisfaction of the stitching, the delicacy of the beading and the lacing, the softness and the stiffness, the fall and the rustle and the silhouette. It is the perfect detachable cosmetic surgery. The ateliers that fabricate these clothes are the repositories of centuries of prestidigious patience and acute, minute observation passed from thimbled, nimble fingertip to fingertip. Couture is a promise to the future from the past: There will be entrances and orchestras again, carriages and candelabra again, parties and seasons again. There will be glamour again. Throughout the history of civilization, doom, doldrums, depression, and disaster have descended to paint the town gray. But they will also recede, leaving little but a shudder. What is left, what abides, is beauty.
The button thing. Of course, it also means that a lady is more easily undressed by a right-handed man. Need you ask? It was probably all instigated by the French.
"In times like these, couture is a bet on the future, on galas, grand entrances, and extravagant gestures. With Emily Blunt as muse, Michael Roberts photographs the winners from the Paris collections."
Ughhh. Emily Blunt, why are you always so damn flawless?
Emily Blunt, in Dior Haute Couture, photographed in Le Raincy, outside Paris. Bracelet by Mikimoto. Styled by Jessica Diehl.
A Gaultier Paris corset and blouse.
In Dior Haute Couture. Necklace by Mikimoto. Men’s clothing by Number Nine.
In Valentino Haute Couture. Vintage earrings from Lydia Courteille, Paris. Men’s clothing by Number Nine.
In Givenchy by Riccardo Tisci.
In Christian Lacroix Haute Couture. Men’s clothing by D&G.
In Chanel Haute Couture. Shoes by Roger Vivier. Fan from Defrise, Paris. Men’s clothing by John Galliano.
In Armani Privé. Men’s clothing by Ann Demeulemeester.
So I downloaded the ‘Arm Joe’ Les Miserables fighting game, and after figuring out the moonspeak - I must say, I’m terrible at it (but then again the game is pretty so-so itself) but Enjorlas dropped a barricade on me in the first fight, and it was amazing….I also play as Javert, and I’m still trying to figure out how to do their super-special attacks.
I know that Marius raises a zombie hoard of Enjorlas and co. - but I’m wondering what Javert does because I haven’t seen his attack on any videos posted. Here’s hoping he brings down like, a meteor or something.
They decided to make Dr. Watson an asian female and everybody subsequently lost their shit, despite the fact that Watson has also been a mouse, Gareth David-Lloyd, and a tomato. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has gone on record as saying absolutely nothing because he is dead and does not care about this.
How the Logic of "Friendzoning" Would Work If Applied in Other Instances:
*Man walks into a store and finds employee*
Man:Alright, I've had enough. Why haven't you guys hired me?!
Employee:Uh...well sir, when did you put in your application?
Man:I never filled out an application.
Employee:Well sir, we can't consider you for employment if you've never filled out an application.
Man:No, that's bullshit, because I've been coming here for years now, and every single time I tell you all how much I love this store and how much I appreciate your customer service, unlike some of your other customers might I add!
Employee:Well, but that doesn't-
Man:AND I even told you that I didn't have a job!
Employee:But sir, that doesn't indicate to us that you would like a job at our store. And again, if you've never filled out an application, we can't consider you. Besides, we're not hiring.
Man:OH! Not hiring, HA! What a laugh. I see your store go through seasonal workers all the time. They come and go like nothing, but you won't consider me as a part-time employee even though I KNOW you've been looking for workers to fill positions? That's insane!
Employee:Sir, we've been looking to hire a few people for management positions. Do you have any management experience?
Man:Well no, but what does that matter?
Employee:...Well sir, that's what we're looking for. You won't be suitable for the position without management experience.
Man:Oh that's such a load of crap. You know, you'll be waiting around a long time for a manager if you don't lower your standards a little. Who cares if someone knows how to manage a store? I LOVE this store and I'm willing to work here, that's all that should matter to you.
Employee:That...doesn't make any sense.
Man:NO! I'm done. This is over. From now on, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
“The (500) Days of Summer attitude of “He wants you so bad” seems attractive to some women and men, especially younger ones, but I would encourage anyone who has a crush on my character to watch it again and examine how selfish he is. He develops a mildly delusional obsession over a girl onto whom he projects all these fantasies. He thinks she’ll give his life meaning because he doesn’t care about much else going on in his life. A lot of boys and girls think their lives will have meaning if they find a partner who wants nothing else in life but them. That’s not healthy. That’s falling in love with the idea of a person, not the actual person.”—
Ugh, I’m sorry to double post with two quotes, but he’s dropping another truth bomb here. I hate when people misinterpret 500DOS and think of Summer as some kind of bitch, or, alternately, as a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. That’s only how his character saw her. To me, this movie was basically about Nice Guy Syndrome: A guy who thinks he’s just so nice that he’s entitled to the woman he wants, and when she decides she doesn’t want him back, she becomes a bitch, or a whore.
Virginie Ledoyden and Diane Kruger in Farwell, My Queen
Finally got around to seeing Farewell, My Queen (Les Adieux a la reine) after missing it at the Rendez-Vous with French Cinema festival. Directed by Benoit Jacquot) and based on the original historical fiction novel by Chantal Thomas, Farwell, My Queen gives a fictional account of the last days of Marie Antoinette (Diane Kruger) in power through the eyes of Sidonie Laborde (Lea Seydoux) a young servant tasked with reading to the queen.
The movie takes place under the span of three days after the storming of the Bastille, and primarily focuses on the relationship between three women: Marie-Antoinette, Gabrielle de Polastron, duchesse de la Polignac (Virginie Ledoyden) and the fictional Sidonie. It should be noted that by the late 1780’s, several porographic pamplets were disturbed, alleging that the Duchess de la Polignac, the Queen’s favorite was secretly her lesbian lover, though there was no evidence to back up these accusations.
I love, love period drama films and this one is no exception. The cinematography, setting, costume & wardrobe, and ughh just everything about it was so, so lush and beautiful. But first, let’s talk about this lady:
Lea Seydoux as Sidonie Laborde
Ahhh Lea Seydoux had so much charm and mystique in this movie! Love, love her. Her character Sidonie is definitely a bit of a mystery, a bit cold and aloof [don’t even get me started about Lea’s eye-piercing gaze that like can stare directly into your soul….] but at the same time, has her own charm. I liked how you never truly knew what she was thinking, and somewhat not that reliable narrator, even though she was the main protagonist of the film.
Next is this lady:
Virginie Ledoyden as Gabrielle del Polastron, Duchesse de la Polignac
It was my first time seeing Ledoyden in this movie, and would say she did a solid job. She didn’t have quite as enough screen time compared to Seydoux or Kruger, she definitely had a commanding presence whenever she was on-screen.
Diane Kruger as Marie Antoinette
Ohmigod Diane Kruger, you are flawless. Just flawless. Prior to this, I already knew that Kruger was fluent in German and English, but had no idea that she was also fluent in French as well. Her French was impeccable! [well according to me anyway, a person who’s only taken four semesters of it] and I can’t get over how good it was. I think she played the role of Marie Antoinette to the tee with this film, and I actually might have preferred this portrayal over Kirsten Dunst in the Sofia Coppola version back in 2006, though I have to note that these two films are very, very different from one another and kind of hard to compare. [Farwell, My Queen is more of a serious, drama film while Marie Antoinette’s been classified as more of a comedy-drama biopic…] But in any case, Diane Kruger: you-are-a-stunning-amazing-acting-goddess-plz-make-more-films-in-French.
Against the tumultuous backdrop of the French Revolution, Farwell, My Queen is surprisingly a rather intimate movie, focusing on themes of devotion, loyalty, love, desire and, obsession. At one point does blind devotion become solely an obsession? Can you truly calculate the length of one’s loyalty? How do you tread the fine line between obsessive desire and earnest love?
Make no mistake, this is definitely a slow movie at times, but Jacqout actually does a pretty decent job of keeping us suspenseful and alert, even know we already know the historical outcome of it. So yeah, I would say that this is definitely worth a watch for any patient, French period drama film lovers out there [you’ll be treated to a visual treat] but fans of Sofia Coppola’s film might not enjoy this one quite as much…
When I say I ship something, I don’t care about the happily ever after. I don’t care about romantic comedies or princess movies with a seamless love arc and a fairytale ending. That isn’t what I’m in it for.
I’m not a sucker for love stories. I’m a sucker for for character stories.
I want to read a story in which the characters don’t fit perfectly. Where they complement each other when they’re happy but tear themselves apart in desperate situations. Where their relationship is healthy but not always, equal but not always, happy but not always.
I want to see characters suffer because that’s how I know they’re real.
I don’t ship to be happy. I ship to feel real. I ship because I love relationship dynamics, not relationships themselves. That’s why I don’t just have otps. I have brotps and dream teams and favorite family dynamics and favorite characters alone.
I ship because I like to see how a given character will respond to another given character in any given situation. I like to see how they mesh together, how their personalities match and mismatch, how they push and pull at each other and then come together or fall apart.
I don’t ship for the what of the situation. I ship for the how and the why. Don’t give me characters waywardly thrown together for the perfect puzzle-piece ending. Give me the two people who would seemingly never fit. Make it work. I don’t want fireworks or fairytales. I want realism. Passion and lack thereof. Heat and coldness and love and hate.
Don’t give me love. Give me character. Don’t just tell me. Convince me.
SWEET JESUS. THIS ACCURATELY SUMS UP ALL MY SHIPPER FEELS AND WHAT I LOOK FOR WHEN SHIPPING. Thank you eloquent person for expressing these thoughts in a coherent manner.