Perhaps I liked it because I'm a 30 year old woman with a tatoo, a piercing, an advanced degree, and a "real" job that requires me to wear fancy clothes to the office. Perhaps I liked it because I'm just a whiny navel-gazer. But my "take home" from the article was a series of questions: Do I think 'individuality' is important? Do the trappings that I've chosen to express my 'individuality' have any independent meaning (see above re: tat, piercing, etc)? And what does it take to live a meaningful life-- as an individual?

I liked some of the answers above-- for sure, creativity is important to living a meaningful life. Still, the art/music/literary world is not in the least immune to commodification and the trappings of fame. So what is the answer? Where can we find a meaningful life as an individual in a commodified culture?

When I really sat down and thought about it, I found that the activities and ideas that give my life the most meaning are the ones that go the furthest towards negating my individuality. I sing in a really great local choir, something that gives me immense pleasure despite its lack of "cool." Strangely, what I love most about singing is those moments when I am so involved with the music that I forget where and who I am. I imagine that artists may feel that way when they paint, and maybe my Buddhist sister feels that way when she meditates-- the pure joy of leaving mind and body behind, living so completely in the moment that there is no individual ego. To my mind, that feeling is worth living for.

On another level, there's also the relationships I have with other people. My relationship with my partner isn't about me as an "individual"-- it's about my emotional interactions with another person, a person whose needs I sometimes put before my own. My volunteer work is also about other people's needs rather than my own (I haven't been doing enough of that recently-- maybe I've been spending too much time non-conforming at the local hipster bar?) These relationships give my life meaning-- hopefully more meaning than the fact that I attended three dates on the Pixies reunion concert tour (and bought the t-shirt).

In short, perhaps "individuality" isn't the answer at all-- perhaps the answer is to try to leave that individual (with its sticky neuroses and heavily commodified tastes) behind as much as possible.

On that note, I'm off to sign up for a couple of hours at the community food pantry. Good luck to the rest of you!

Why the hell did Reuters post the breastfeeding story under "Oddly Enough"? Given that diarrhea caused by dirty water is the second leading cause of death for children world wide, this story should be posted under health.

I was a grad student at Duke from 1997-2002, so I was able to observe the nuttiness of Duke undergrad social life fairly close up. Yes, there was a lot of emphasis on money and trends (girls carrying their $300 purses to a 9 am class), but there were nerdy students, and feminist students, and politically active students-- the Students Against Sweatshops group was an amazing force through all my 5 years there. Duke overall is probably more greek-heavy, more moneyed than even most private schools, and Duke sororities are even more so. Therefore, the journalist's sample is not representative-- but it's still interesting to see a group of women, given all the choices in the world w/r/t money, class, and education, choose to be so ignorant of the world around them-- or is that the point?

I don't have the Food Network, but this article made me want to get one of Rachel Ray's cookbooks. Quick, easy, and easily converted to vegetarian? I'm there. I love to cook fancy sometimes, but when I get home from work at 8:15 I just want something fast, nutritious, tasty, and brainless.

I just wanted to say to "so there"-- since when are celery, peanut butter, and raisins bad for children? Hell, *I* still eat ants on a log-- crispy, creamy, and sweet all at once, with a good dose of fiber and protein (and low in sugar if you use natural peanut butter.) More people should eat that for snack instead of chips or pretzels.

Yes, No Name Given, Ebonics is technically a code or a variety, not a language, but it is not slang. Ebonics a) is generally learned in infancy from native speakers, and b) has systematized and standardized grammar (although the grammar varies from locality to locality). These factors distinguish it from slang.

Of course, Standard American English (SAE) is the primary mode of communication in the US-- but why sneer at people who choose to use language varieties that reflect their upbringing? Should my Southern mother-in-law stop saying "you might could do"? Should my grandmother stop calling people "meshugah" when they're acting crazy? These liguistic choices might mark them as less sophisticated in some circles, but most Americans would recognize these choices as a reflection of their heritage, not their intellect or educational status.

Why does Ebonice evoke so much scorn from people like you? Your comment that speaking Ebonics "makes everyone of intelligence perceive you as less intelligent or educated" is telling. Linguists have a saying: a language is a dialect with an army to back it up. In other words, what sounds educated and intelligent is defined by who has the power. Ebonics speakers are perceived as less educated because black people are perceived as having low status. Your comment is a tacit approval of that arrangement: that people who grow up speaking "low" forms of language, and continue to use these varieties in everyday speech, deserve our scorn. And that is, in a word, racist.