ECLIPSE

It is interesting when one has a very clear stance on a subject, a very strong position without really knowing the entire subject, and then realizes it. This happened to me the other day in anthropology class, when Ms. Hutchcroft gave us an article on arranged marriages. After seeing the whole argument, after understanding both cultural perspectives of it, I felt foolish. I felt foolish because at the beginning, I had no real reason to believe that arranged marriages were incorrect, other than the fact that it was uncommon and opposite to the marriages carried out in my culture; which just came to demonstrate how culturally subjective we are.

  One of the first arguments that I believed was key in defending free union, was the fact that one could get to know the person; know if he or she was appropriate to be a life partner. The article however, said that more people in a free marriage got divorced than those who had arranged marriages. This made me wonder… are marriages in western societies taken less seriously, or are we just blinded by a love that could fade, yet drives us into oblivion of the incompatibility between our partners and us?  What I found out later on in the article, though, is the time consuming and very precise process that parents carry out when arranging a marriage. For one, they consider the person’s parents and background. By knowing the husband’s/wife’s family, they might to some extent be accurate in judging the husband/wife himself. They also get to meet him/her and be as objective as possible in regards to the “love blinds you” situation. What I found interesting though, was the previously stated fact. Either people in cultures where arranged marriages are practiced are much more stable, or their parents are doing a good job. This however, I believed when I looked at it through the eyes of a westerner. I did not consider that maybe, in their different culture, divorce is much less accepted. The couples might be intimidated into staying together, into making it work because a divorce might not only signify the termination of the one- on – one  relationship but the relationship between the families, or tribes, and in some cases even entire villages. 

I also found in that same article a woman speaking about her own arranged marriage. Although she presented a biased cultural perspective, one was able to see why and how she justified her arguments.  At one point, the woman simply made it clear that she could not believe how unexciting it was to have a free union, that one would already know the person and that in an arranged marriage you had all the time afterwards to do that. That in an arranged marriage there was this excitement of starting something new and of learning to love a partner. Funny how we never see it this way, until someone sheds some light on how entirely different their culture is from ours. This comes hand in hand with the fact that both partners enter the arranged marriage knowing basically what is expected from them.  Both of the individuals in the couple know the reasons why their in laws have chosen them, so they know the role they will have to take more upfront, whereas western cultures are more wishy washy with this, giving rise to future conflicts.

 Finally, I still believe that free marriage is more appropriate than arranged marriage. However, I based my decision on the conclusions I could draw after knowing both perspectives. Now, I do not necessarily go against arranged marriages because I understand the many good reasons for which the cultures carry out this practice, yet it is inevitable to be a little biased. I am still biased because in western societies, a very important aspect to consider when marrying is the love-relationship between the two people, the bond, the connection. This (although it may be ideal and not always true) is emphasized by western culture, and thus an arranged marriage cannot provide this (or at least from the start). However, people who do believe arranged marriages are more appropriate may also be biased, as their own culture may emphasize other aspects in a relationship: tradition, social status, “good name”, familiarity and even alliances between the families of the couple.  Thus, there is no better or worse form of marriage, only a perspective amongst cultures and what they each consider more important in matrimonial unions.

Stereotyping is an issue that continues growing in present day societies. Promoted and emphasized all the way from media  to common day conversations, stereotypes serve to characterize a large group of people under common aspects they share. However, these so called stereotypes are usually generalizations, and they are to a large extent wrong. The problem with this, though, is not clear until one sees the impact and marginalization it creates for the stereotyped group; and what better way to truly understand the stereotype than forming part of one? Thus, the following essay will concentrate on the image contemporary societies hold of surfers.

                When I first asked my dad if I could surf, he refused. He said that surfing often came hand in hand with smoking weed. However, I continued pushing, until he eventually gave in, trusting me that I would not fall into the same pattern that he believed all surfers adhered to. After one year of surfing, I have discovered that my father was to  large extent  wrong with his generalization.  I do not smoke weed, a surfer has never offered me weed and a large part of the surfers I surf with do not smoke weed. Still, I do know that there is a common stereotype  of a surfer, and that it was the line by which my father and many other people judge surfers. They view it as a large group, and not as individuals and athletes with different values and preferences, which is why the stereotype itself affects the surfer community as a whole. Yet, to fully understand the influences that stereotyping has on surfers, it would first be appropriate to understand the stereotype itself, and how media serves to back it up.

                In TV shows, cartoons, movies and even songs, surfers are portrayed basically as “burnouts”. By this I mean useless hippies who are laid back and irresponsible, who do not take life too seriously but rather spend their time smoking weed and checking waves. They are also artsy, they usually have a strong connection with nature and worry more about recycling and saving the oceans by eating organic foods and carrying out peaceful protests,  than of studying or working and overcoming themselves. In one word, surfers are lazy. To sum it all up, it is clearly noticeable how the sport itself,  is not taken seriously. It is not as “prestigious” as playing tennis, it is not as “glamorous” as dancing ballet, and not as “sophisticated” as playing golf either. The sport then loses its true meaning under the lazy stereotype that is attributed to the surfers, even if surfing requires as much, if not more, precision and technique than any of the aforementioned. However, there is another side to the surfing image. On the one hand, they are portrayed as irresponsible and laid back, consequently affecting the surfers who do not fit the stereotype by diminishing the quality and losing the essence of the sport. On the other hand though, is the stereotype of  surfers being cool. They dress in cool clothes and are usually good-looking, but this media portrayal of the “cool-surfer” is directed more to a younger audience.

Still, both images were supported as I researched and looked into media depictions of the entire surf- oriented culture. As I noticed, the surfer image is attributed mostly to movies and television shows, since surfing propaganda to promote products is very limited: it is either amongst surfers , who do not use the stereotypes but rather what they know appeals to other surfers; or aimed at said younger audience. For example, the only TV commercial that I have seen in Costa Rica which involves surfing is a Red Bull ad, which is essentially aimed at a younger, more adrenaline seeking audience. A surfer man would never be used in an insurance commercial, while a man playing golf may easily be. Likewise, the lack of the surfing image in order to promote non-surf related products comes to show the little importance that is given to surfers in society. Nonetheless, both the target that media utilizes when using surfers and the lack of surfer portrayals illustrate that the media itself not only follows, but solidifies the erroneous misinterpretations of surfing.

The  two stereotypes though (cool and lazy) do have an overall impact on the lives of surfers  when interacting with society. First off, they are likely to encounter trouble when finding a job, as  their  commonly used characterization includes irresponsibility and lack of commitment. In addition, a surfer may also be marginalized and discriminated by police officers who believe they smoke weed.  Over and over I have heard complaints of my surfer friends that police men stop cars carrying boards more often than those that do not, because having a surfboard is, according to what has already been rooted in by the stereotype, a sign that they are doing drugs.  In addition, the “cool” stereotype adds to the same image of surfers being unserious, since they serve as an image for kids.

However, after researching on the surfer stereotypes I came to the conclusion that stereotyping is utterly wrong, because it can create a misperception of an entire group. Although the media plays a major role in implementing these ideas, it is the general public which eventually accepts them. Much as any other marginalized group, surfers are individuals who cannot be classified under any common label. Every single surfer has different values and preferences and each creates their own identity. Stereotyping then becomes a social vice, in which erroneous ideas and gross generalizations are put together in a continuing cycle: the media portrays what people believe surfers to be, people believe surfers are what the media shows them to be.  Furthermore, many times the stereotypes are obsolete. They are the product of an old idea that has changed drastically through time but which has remained rooted in how we judge the groups. Thus, we should aim to remove this vicious cycle, as we can see that stereotyping applies the same principles to any group, not just surfers, and the impact it has on the individual of these stereotyped groups is to no extent fair or deserved but rather dictated by inaccurate societal standards.

What is my purpose here? I have no idea.. but I am sure that I have one.

It amazes me how language can never be neutral. Most of all, the Sperm and Egg article we read in T.o.K class shocked me in the sense that many, many times we do not even perceive the feminine degradation in those  AoK’s  we believe to be the most objective (such as Biology). However, we perceive it in other areas, such as History, where the feminine role has always been underestimated, and a secondary and worthless role in many cultures throughout the ages.

Currently, many feminist groups have arisen, many more female activists are fighting to establish and set forth a more important role for the women….

BUT HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLE BELIEVE THEY WILL SUCCEED IF THE YOUTH IS GROWING UP, LISTENING TO RAP MUSIC, WHICH PORTRAYS WOMEN AS OBJECTS!?!?

Ok so here’s the thing, and I will center on a real life situation. In Costa Rica, most children start going to parties when they are about 12 years old. The music in the party, though, is in my opinion, inappropriate for teenagers. What are we letting the children listen to? And who, for God’s sake, is in charge of spreading this type of music?

                In Costa Rica, a regular party will be playing either of two types of music, it can be a rap/hip-hop in English, or it can be the new reaggeton movement, in Spanish. Both genres are very often bestsellers, often songs of each are on the highest demands and the best hits. Children dance to their beats, singing along. But what they are singing, be it consciously or unconsciously (which I sure hope is), are the lyrics to the image of a woman: the sexual object, the goldigger, the whore, the slut, the cold-hearted bitch. All of these stereotypes, all of the erroneous portrayals of the women, are not only degradations to the role of the women itself. They can affect society in three main ways: from the men’s point of view, women are useless, evil or object for THEIR sexual pleasure. On the other hand, women themselves believe they are inferior to men; they are the HO’s, whereas the men are the pimp’s, their managers and thus feel useless when they do not have a man around. Third but not least, women submit to these statuses, finding it so common, so normal that they begin treating each other (women to women) as these men have depicted them, and as what they are learning of themselves through this widespread, commonly accepted, media influence.

To illustrate my point, I googled the number one rap songs of 2008. There was one that continuously popped up, and it was the one which I chose because I have heard it, in fact, I have it in my iTunes library (oh and yeah, now that I think about this I am ashamed of myself). The song was “A Mille” BY Lil. Wayne. And here are the lyrics, which were no shocker for me, as I am used to the degradation in the commonly played reggeton songs:

[Verse 2:]
A million here a million there
Sicilian bitch with long hair with coke in her derriere
Like smokin the thinest air I open the Lamborghini
Hopin them crackers see me like look at dat bastard Weezy
Hes a beast hes, a dog hes, a muthfukin problem
Ok your a goon but what’s a goon to a goblin
Nothin nothin you ain’t scarin nothin
On some faggot bullshit call em dennis rodman

Muthafuka I’m ill…

[Verse 3:]
They say I’m rappin like BIG, jay, and tupac
Andre 3000 where is eryka badu at
Who dat
Who dat said dey gon beat lil wayne
My name ain’t Bic but I keep dat flame man
Who dat one dat do dat boy ya knew dat tru da Swallow
And I be da shit now u got loose bowels
I don’t O U like two vowels
But I would like for u to pay me by the hOUr
And I’d rather be pushin flowers
Then to be in the pen sharin showers
Tony told us this world was ours
And the bible told us every girl was sour
Don’t play in her garden and don’t smell her flower
Call me Mr. Carter or Mr. Lawn Mower
Boy I got so many bitches like I’m Mike Lowry
Even Gwen Stefani said she could’nt doubt me
Muthafuka I say life ain’t shit without me
Chrome lips pokin out the coupe look like it’s poutin
I do what I do and u do what u can do about it
Bitch I can turn a crack rock into a mountian
Dare me
Don’t u compare me cause there ain’t nobody near me They don’t see but they hear me
They don’t feel me but they fear me I’m illi

References

I’m a venereal disease like a menstrual bleed…
This just made me so mad, more after reading the article on the egg and the sperm:  Right here, the male artist is saying the menstrual bleed is a disease; this female characteristic portrays women as sick. The period is bad, it’s a sexual illness something that makes us sick once every month. This is what a menstrual bleed is viewed as, rather than celebrating it as the maturity level which the women reach and are then able to work together with men in order to conserve the species… Nope but no way, it’s a disease. What is this saying to teenagers?  Here we can see the stereotype of women being inferior.

Sicilian bitch with long hair with coke in her derriere

The first reference to any female being is a bitch. This term is entirely inferior, a bitch is the name given to a female dog, and this simple reference alludes exactly to that. Women are described as animals, and essentially, as inferior to the human men. In addition, this female is a coke addict, and the focus of attention in this phrase is her derriere (slang for butt). So in this simple sentence, a woman is portrayed as an animal, a drug addict and overall, a sexual object. Contextually, the portrayal given is that of a whore.

Call me what you want bitch call me on my Sidekick
Never answer when it’s private damn I hate a shy Bitch
Don’t u hate a shy bitch yea I ate a shy bitch
And she ain’t shy no more she changed her name to My bitch
Yea nigga that’s my bitch so when she ask for the Money when you through don’t be surprised bitch

Here we can see the repetition of the word bitch, which is, after a while, not so shocking anymore and we just basically in our minds trade the word bitch for woman, as we already know this is what the song is referring to. Now you can imagine how accustomed girls are to this parallel term for “woman.”Recently, I heard one of my classmates, who by the way is very feminist, say: “Oh no how can he even like her? She’s a bitch”(Translated from: cómo le va a gustar ella? Es una perra!) This just comes to show how this widespread media and artistic influences are becoming to some extent “normal”. To the extent, one could say that I feel disgusted by this song but still have it in my iTunes, to the extent that my feminist classmate referred to a female she did not like as a “bitch”.  The second part of the verse makes reference to “My bitch” so the woman, once again, is dominated by a man. She is a possession, not an individual, thinking, independent and opinionated entity but rather an object. Moreover, she is this guy’s bitch and therefore when she sleeps with another guys “she ask for the money”. So she is also a whore and a goldigger.

But u like a bitch with no ass u ain’t got shit

Yet another sexual reference. A woman with no ass is absolutely nothing, according to this song. So what are we, more than the stereotypical sexual object? We are nothing if it weren’t for those sexual characteristics that make us appealing to men.

I could keep on going forever, describing the other degradations references in this song. However, I believe that I have made my point clear. Thus, what I would like to emphasize now is how can this be so widespread? Who is allowing this?

Men are in charge of spreading it, definitely. But women are part of this spread, simply by accepting these ideals. A great majority of women are brainwashed and accept this principles because it is what they have been growing up with. So I then becomes a sick cycle, in which teenagers hear these lyrics and find them normal, only to grow up to make the stereotypes true. Why do I say this? The music videos of these songs are the why. Women shaking their booties (ha-ha) for the camera, playing the role of the slutty whores. Who is to say that they do not like this role?  Aren’t they calling attention to themselves, and aren’t they being appreciated, at least as a sexual object? Once the girls who listen to these lyrics turn into women, they will believe themselves to be macho-dependent and inferior to these machos. So they may try to seek the attention of these “pimps” because they are the providers, as women are (according to the stereotypes) the weaker sex. But instead of breaking these stereotypes, the brainwashed little girls who are the women of the future have these concepts of inferiority unconsciously settled in their heads. So they feel inferior, and they need a man. How will they find a man? Remember the song lyrics! By being a sexual object, by having an ass “cause if not you ain’t got shit”. Thus, women fall in this cycle, of becoming what their male-conducted societies dictate.  They become what the men dictate and thus the men can keep on dictating.

CONCLUSION: Feminist groups should concentrate on their teens because they are the ones who fall into the same pattern and when older, influence the younger generations to do the same.

Here’s another thought: WE NEED SONGS THAT SHINE ANOTHER LIGHT ON THE ROLE OF FEMALES, SONGS THAT ARE CATCHY AND PLAYED IN PARTIES, IN SOCIAL GATHERINGS, IN PUBLIC PLACES!!!

P.S: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3BXH0G_lEw 

The A Millie music video. Lil Wayne is still cool.

A simple X and a stronger Y,

Is that the difference

between you and I?

If you’d let me talk I’d let you know:

Is it the threat of my blooming garden

Is it the fear that my flower will grow?

Any shithead who could ever walk,

Could impose his power

With just a little luck.

But the luck is lost in her delicate flower,

Just keep in mind man,

That rose resembles power.

But the feminine flower is not watered,

It has no chance to grow

It is too often slaughtered.

Hey man open the eye,

Upon it dances the light of nature

Reflecting a power you cannot deny.

That rose is the mother.

The shadow in which it is cast,

Her power will not smother.

For the laws of nature are strongly set,

Stomp the flower once more

And you will regret.

For the rose is beautiful,

But it can harm

For she is underestimated

But her power will alarm.

Selfish, egocentric sir,

Did you forget,

that you are nothing without her?

Whether God exists or not has been an ongoing debate between agnostics, atheists and believers for a long time, and I will not attempt to settle it here. However, a different approach was established in the article on Darwinism we read in T.o.K the other day. This article, along with the debate, left me wondering… Whether we are hard wired to believe in God or not is, in fact, another argument. However, the great majority of people in the world do believe in something, some greater power or powers, regardless of their religion.

Thus, my argument is based on the theory that we could indeed be hard wired to believe in some sort of greater being. This is my own personal point of view and agreeing that this should be studied more in depth, I do believe it to be a plausible argument. So, I have centered on the implications that accepting such a theory could bring. What would happen to religion?

                I first started to think in what I believed in, which is neither one thing nor the other. My family is catholic and I am baptized, yet there are several things of this religion that I do not like. For instance, accepting Catholicism and its principles would mean believing that all other religions are wrong. Although this is not stated anywhere it is essential when we believe in something. Moreover, the unlikely and supernatural stories in the bible that Catholics are supposed to believe such as women being made of Adam’s rib (eww. And why isn’t he made of our rib rather than us from his? HA! Even the creators of the bible were machistas!) take a lot of blind faith. They are dogmas, things that devout Catholics do not even question.

                When I was younger, about 10 or 11; my grandma took me too church. Since I did not stop asking her questions, and since she was a friend of the priest, she told me to ask him and so she left me alone to talk to the priest in a small room on the back of the church. At the beginning I was definitely intimidated. However, he was pretty nice and I soon started a set of questions flowing. I asked him “How come only our religion is right and all the other religions are wrong?” “They Are not wrong” he said “they are just not right”. To this day, I still wonder how most human beings can believe in something with so little proof, so wholeheartedly. However, if we are hard wired to be believers, this could be explained.

                On the other hand, the priests answer left me little but satisfied. How could there be so many different religions but only one right? Moreover, we know that religions are manmade, and dictated by humans. Take for example the Bible, which was written by humans. Couldn’t these humans be biased in their recollections of what they perceived as God? Not only could they have been culturally biased, but limited in perceiving, as we know we are human transducers and information is changed into something graspable before we even have time to process it raw.

After thinking about this I wondered, how can we even believe in something that we know is man created, knowing the implications that human limitations could have? This was something that I had always pondered, but it grew deeper once I read that we are hard wired to believe, and it did because of one main reason:

If God built this system inside of us, for us to believe in him, then who says that there is one way we can use this system? The many religions could explain the different uses for a same machine, the machine of believing. And so if we really are hard wired, then how can we even believe in something if believing in something would mean believing the others are wrong and that a specific religion is “more right”, and how can we believe we are more right if we know God hard wired us to believe?  This superhuman power that made us this way made the system compatible with many different religions!

If this is so, then how can religions even exist if believing one could contradict another? And if they were all right, then what would this imply for the parts in which religions clash and disagree? 

The question can then become one of: Are we using the hard wire correctly?

The priest taught me that Catholicism was right, whereas every other religion was, essentially, incorrect.  This is what many religions do. Religion is a form of believing that molds us into what we should be, and how we should act, in accordance to a set of rules that God or whatever supernatural entity, passed on. But, are priests, monks, and religious leaders using our system of believing to their advantage? I was definitely intimidated by the priest, and to this day, I am still sort of intimidated to state that I do not believe in Jesus, because I have been taught to believe that if I don’t, I will go to hell. So I wonder if what we believe is dictated by the culture around us, or if this system of being hard wired eventually develops into what we are destined to believe.

The fact that many people grow up to be whatever religion they have been taught and raised up with can certainly account for the idea that our belief system is molded by our surroundings and what our Wok’s grasp as we grow up. Take for, for example, the large concentrations of Hindus in India, Catholics in Costa Rica, and Muslims in Palestine.  But what happens with people like me, whose parents are Catholics but I just cannot force myself to believe in something so contradictory and biased as what my religion dictates? I do believe there is a supernatural, greater power. Does this mean that my hard wiring was predetermined to believe in something else?  The morals of our religion, what we find right and wrong, are basically established by some sort of order; because this order does work in maintaining a more stable world.  However, I am an intermediate case, because I believe in something, just not in religion. What would happen then with the people who do not believe in anything, with let’s say, the agnostics?

Merely the connotation of the word agnostic has a negative idea attached to it. Religion or faith in something (which are socially widespread and therefore accepted as “correct”), have always dictated that being an agnostic is utterly wrong.  They are the non believers (a.k.a the bad guys).But, if this theory of humans being hard wired could be proven right, then this would mean that agnostics simply do not come with the system ( at first I was going to write malfunction in the system, then I realized that this would imply they come with a defection, still the outcasts).  So, it would be wrong for religion to criticize and set apart those who are built differently, who are just not wired to believe. It is not their fault they do not do so, so why would they be the bad guys? Criticizing agnostic would then become analogous to criticizing someone who is different (lets say, color-blind) for being colorblind.

                But if religion managed to take in these agnostics, these people who are simply built differently, then they would lose a certain sense of order, as they would be accepting even those non believers, accepting that they would not go to hell for not believing, because they were born with a different or a nonexistent mechanism. Would the world be ready to take this? Probably not. One could expect the certain moral order that is currently established to change.  Many people could justify unmoral actions by saying that they do not believe anything will happen to them for acting this way. Or to a larger, scarier, extent:  if the hard wiring was some sort of evolutionary psychological aspect, we could even lose it! If human beings believed that they could have no system in them, such as the agnostics, then wouldn’t many believers believe that they are unwired, rather than in a belief itself?

So if we really really truly are built-in believers, I’d rather have the scientists who will discover this keep it secret until the world will be ready to handle it (I don’t know when that will be though) but I don’t think the world, nor me personally, are ready to have this new possibility opened, as for me it would unlock so many questions….. That even only thinking about it leaves me wondering… why should I believe in Jesus and not in say, elves? (Like the Irish).

PS: My grandma, and her priest friend would probably kill me (or at least try to brain wash me) if they ever read this.

Group: Glori Sojo, Glory Ordoñez, Ana Vic

• Does the possession of knowledge carry an ethical responsibility?

Definitely. As we had previously discussed in this class, the shapers of our contemporary cultures are those who have had the power of history and knowledge in their hands. Possessing the knowledge, thus implies a very great ethical responsibility, as one can spread this knowledge just as one has learnt it (which is most probably already biased or filtered by the transducer through which one has learnt it), change it to his or her own advantage, decide to keep it to oneself, or mold it to create different consequences.  The power of knowledge is a very great one, and these previously stated consequences include a lot of ethical aspects. First handedly, if one possesses knowledge and decides to spread it, the first ethical implication would raise the question who is it going to affect? However, knowledge might indeed affect an individual or group negatively, but have an overall impact that is more important than that of the certain individual or group. This is when morality becomes blurry, and who is to decide when the knowledge being spread will affect positively more than negatively? Take, for example, the case of Omayra the young Colombian image of the volcanic eruption. One might say that is unethical to spread a picture of a kid who died three hours after the picture was taken. But the picture transmits a larger message: the inability of the government to help their civilian population, and raising the awareness of this case (as harsh and unethical as the image may be) might usher and pressure an improvement in the government, thus saving more lives. What is more ethical, respecting the morality of the individual, or that of the society? Deciding is hard as the individual is, in fact, part of the social organization and will most probably have the same moral principles than those of its society, so what makes it right to spread the knowledge and violate these ethical principles of the individual for a hopefully “better good”?

        On the other hand changing the knowledge also has ethical implications. There are several ways in which changing information can have ethical consequences. On a larger scale, one can take history. Those with the power of knowledge shaped history into one favorable for their own societies, was this morally correct? From the point of view of those in the society being favored, probably yes.  However, the unfavored would probably disagree. By hiding knowledge one can change circumstances of the future and it would be most unethical to portray the facts in a way that they provide advantage to the ones who possess the knowledge.  “White Lies” by contrast, can be exception to this knowledge misinformation. In the case of white lies, they try to mold the situation in what would have a better, more ethical outcome for most of the parties involved.  I have heard of cases when a mother dies and the son is studying in the United States. A relative calls the son, and (although the mom has already died) he will say that the mother is sick and that he better come back to Costa Rica. Obviously, the relative does change or hide the knowledge in order to save the son the pain on his trip back: is it ethical?

        Moreover, there are cases in which having information, and not sharing it at all may have better results than actually spreading it. There are certain degrees of morality and variations of these in regards to the management of knowledge, and sometimes the ethicality of these may be individual or social, and may vary from culture to culture, or in the different contexts the situation is placed at.

Very cool-interesting-random news!

I think many people would looooove to be like this tiny dude!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090130-immortal-jellyfish-swarm.html

I found this on the internet, i thought it was really interesting…

Its kind of random but I liked it… hope you enojy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U