I have been told the Egyptian desert is in fact littered with garbage and far from the pictorial waves of sand we so often see on television and postcards.

And I have been told it looks like this:






Not this:

Herb Lubalin typography...

"What was lacking was not so much conviction, as an ability to translate that conviction into form." - William J. Curtis on the Coventry Cathedral

"And as long as you have no realistic alternative to industrialization based on low wages, to oppose it means that you are willing to deny desperately poor people the best chance they have of progress for the sake of what amounts to an aesthetic standard--that is, the fact that you don't like the idea of workers being paid a pittance to supply rich Westerners with fashion items.

In short, my correspondents are not entitled to their self-righteousness. They have not thought the matter through. And when the hopes of hundreds of millions are at stake, thinking things through is not just good intellectual practice. It is a moral duty."


So this guy basically makes a case for industrialization through the export of western companies as the best option-- in other words, though he admits "entrepreneurs' only motivation is cheap labour", he insists that it creates a positive effect in third world countries:

Ignoring the fact that, yes, if you set up foreign factories and essentially open up new jobs, there will eventually be a competition in wages, and an eventual rise in the standard of living, what is dead wrong is yet another old assumption: the ends justify the means. And in this case, someone didn't really take a look at the "end" game well enough either!

Although foreign aid is negligible, and although labour rights could possibly create a greater rift between those who have jobs and those who do not, it is more about the means through which a country becomes industrialized. It's about time we define "industrialization by means of cheap labour" and draw the line between a truly productive, self-sustaining community, and a community dependent on competitive wages and western shoe companies. Honestly. You risk a high degree of stagnancy, and the argument for the potential development of "better" jobs is obsolete. Yes, I can just imagine it now-- a country that makes a living by sewing together shirts and shoes is going to magically develop a competitive market for the cheap manufacturing of jet engines and cheap bioengineering research. Clearly, we do not define progress by how quickly and cheaply a country can manufacture t-shirts. So why does that not apply to other countries?

"Suppose that the “fair traders” succeed in eradicating international differences in production costs, so that a given product cost precisely the same to make in different countries. In that case, no country would have a comparative advantage, and hence there would be no trade. Rich-country workers, who are also consumers, would lose."


What a selective example. Yes, so in the rare case that EVERY country in the world produces the EXACT same goods at precisely the same amount of time and labour, we're screwed. Even that's flawed, because consumption values would be obsolete-- there would be no PURPOSE to comparative advantage because no one would NEED to consume more in the first place. Secondly, in the realistic case that countries DO produce different goods, and in the case that they are of equal cost, does not mean that countries stop trading altogether. Just because productivity levels off, doesn't mean trade stops-- after all, trade isn't exclusive to specialization and efficiency in its purpose. Trade also means the ability to trade one good for another; so why wouldn't those countries trade? I think if country A produces x amount of good A for every y amount of workers, and country B produces x amount of good B for every y amount of workers, people in country A would still want good B, and vice versa-- unless it's assumed that they produce the same good, and that every country in the world produces the exact same goods, which is absurd. OR unless somehow, country A hates goods from country B, which would make trade non-existent in the first place.

I hate how "fair traders" are put right in the middle of this when they address differing topics. The main assumption made here is that somehow, if world A comprising of countries 1,2 and 3 produce the EXACT same goods in each country at the EXACT same cost, that spells disaster. But what is disastrous about countries that are all equally efficient in costs?...

You tell me.

"how are these skills transferable, not for just a job, but for life?"

they aren't!

we're screwed.

Whoever, if anyone, reads this entry: when I speak of women and architecture, I do not speak of femininity or objectification, or the natural rights of women everywhere. Nor am I a feminist, as I do not believe in segregating my beliefs to satisfy some 'universal', historical misdemeanor of mankind. But let it also stand that: I do not deny sexism as a past and present issue. However, and however this may be taken, when all is said and done, both sexes have amazing and proportionately atrocious attributes-- distinct natures are present in both the male and female- and however varied they are, there are still things which make us who, or rather what, we are.

The long list of architects I study are widely male. The first thing that comes to my mind isn't "employers of architects have been sexist" or: "architecture programs have been widely discriminatory towards women", or: "socially, women have not been regarded as people capable of producing good architecture."

Hell no. Instead:

This made me think of the fine details in expressions of grandness and/or brilliance: notions or conceptions of masculinity, versus conceptions of humanity. Every building is made as a testament to and representation of humanity: but how many of these would we consider to be a testament to man, versus a testament to mankind? Especially, if masculine versus human buildings exist, what is the relevance to modern architecture and modernist philosophy? Modern architecture has continually been symbolic of progressiveness and, even more so: the natural, the organic. Although, somehow, why is it that I feel the grandeur, the cryptic qualities of our most celebrated works of art are masculine? Is it because for so long, present society (ie. my environment) has associated the celebration of the human being to be largely masculine in its qualities? Has mankind always been viewed as masculine in strength? Or do I simply misunderstand, or have come to believe that 'masculine' qualities are exclusively masculine? If I begin to think of qualities that come to mind when masculinity comes to mind, I think: Strength, solidity. I imagine le corbusier's man: The harmonious man. I imagine Michelangelo's thinking man: Representing progress, beauty, strength, intelligence. And then I think: this is most certaintly applicable to the feminine:

But I begin to wonder. When constructing in the image of man, the image of humanity: How much, if any, of WHAT we are influences our works of art? And how will I, if given the chance, build something? How, if at all, will my femininity materialize? Why this seems to be more of a fear, than just a simple question... Is another matter.