You know how the Amish bring up their kids in the community and (16?) they let them loose to try all the evil things in the outside world so they don't have to spend their entire lives wondering resentfully about what could've been. Most of those kids go back to the Amish community afterwards, and the rest of us look on with disbelief.
I was thinking this morning that really, a lot more of us are faced with a similar choice in our young adult lives than we think. It's not as cut-and-dry as "hi, you have a year, then you must DECIDE!!! dun dun dun," of course. Still, when browsing the facebook friendlists of people I met as perfectly normal, perfectly American middle-class kids in middle school, I notice an interesting pattern. So many of my Russian-Jewish friends have friendlists populated with Bernsteins and Goldbergs, and Hazanoviches... so many of my Indian friends have friendlists populated with Patels and Guptas... et cetera!
I think middle school and high school is a trial-period of suppressing the culture you were brought up in and trying to assimilate yourself into the greater/dominant culture. Once we get to college or work, we become freer to re-immerse ourselves into our home culture. Or drawn back in...
I'm not really sure the process by which it happens, nor do I know if it is a good thing. On the one hand, I love the idea of keeping interesting traditions alive, of continuing a cultural evolution with ancient roots. On the other hand, I feel like it is limiting to focus on one culture in your life. But that's another debate for another day.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Looking at pictures of people
Recently, I had a discussion with th my friends Dustin and Andy (yes, in a chatroom), about appreciating art. I thought I would share the transcript with you guys because it felt like a productive conversation.
dsal: thegreattiny, pictures of people are weird. It's hard to look at a picture of someone I don't know and see a person.
thegreattiny: o rly? interesting
thegreattiny: is that true for photos I take of people you don't know?
dsal: Yeah. I don't think that's the best way to express it… but it's a kind of weird thing. Most pictures of anonymous people just feel kind of dead.
thegreattiny: I've heard that before
thegreattiny: but I think you are in the minority with that feeling
dsal: I have to wonder if it's similar for other people. I saw a photo for sale in a coffee shop in Seattle. It was just some old lady. Why do I want your picture of an old lady?
thegreattiny: well i haven'ts een the photo
dsal: I suppose that's good. It's my inhuman side showing.
thegreattiny: lol uh oh
thegreattiny: robotic dustin
thegreattiny: people have a really easy time connecting to anonymous people, actually
thegreattiny: most people
thegreattiny: it's sort of depressing to hear you say that, actually
dsal: I've been accused of being a robot before...
thegreattiny: because I base a lot of my artwork on making images of what are, I think, real people
thegreattiny: and that goes for people I make up when I draw
dsal: I don't think you should have any sort of emotional reaction to how I might perceive artwork. :/
thegreattiny: it's like writing a character, but more subtle
thegreattiny: well that's silly, dsal, because art is communication
thegreattiny: it's not a one-sided equation
thegreattiny: and if on my side, I think I'm creating communication, but on your side, it's not being perceived
thegreattiny: that is sad
thegreattiny: not that I'm making artwork specifically for you, but that's irrelevant
dsal: Different people respond to different media differently, though. I like to know people in more depth. A picture can tell a good story, but I just don't feel like I know enough when it's over.
thegreattiny: I would hope that that depends on the picture
thegreattiny: it's hard to imagine that no photo of a person, no matter how good, could ever communicate with you
dsal: Well, it does. It also depends on how willing to be receptive I am at that moment.
thegreattiny: alright
thegreattiny: I'm not sure why you would ever limit yourself in that way
dsal: Mostly because of time. :)
thegreattiny: well then, given enough time, would you be able to figure out why someone would want a photo of an old lady?
dsal: It's possible, but I'm not sure it'd be from looking at the picture alone. I'd want to know more about who she was.
thegreattiny: what if it's a real person, who is a stranger
thegreattiny: would you be able to know much about them, just by looking at them?
dsal: Well, there are more dimensions to a real person. I can observe movement, actions, words, etc… I can learn a lot about a person by observing. At least enough to satisfy me.
termie: dsal, i think it is less about knowing somebody and more about imagining things
dsal: termie, I would believe that. I feel like imagining is kind of lying.
dsal: I imagine things I want to build and then make them true.
termie: dsal, you're not going to actually know the person from the photo but ideally the photographer and photograph is trying to draw you to some archetypal ideal of what this person's life is like
termie: you aren't trying to know the person but rather to think about what being old is like
termie: or what being is old is like when you work in a convenience store
dsal: That makes sense.
termie: in some photographs you can infer stuff about people assuming the photographer's intent is to show you something about them, but that is usually a person you know of, either famous or an acquaintance
termie: pictures of them brushing their teeth or something
termie: so that you can infer about them whatever you would have inferred if you saw them brushing their teeth that way
thegreattiny: I agree with termie. It's really about buying into the story the photographer (and to some extent, the model) are trying to tell
termie: but again, that is usually for somebody whose outer character you will already be familiar with
termie: and whose more intimate moments are being shared
dsal: Perhaps the example I gave above was just a poor one.
thegreattiny: well there is no way of knowing
thegreattiny: well I have a photo of two people who are unfamiliar to you
thegreattiny: that I think tells a story
thegreattiny: I think it's fairly successful in that way
dsal: Where is it?
thegreattiny: you may not agree
thegreattiny: I am about to link it
dsal: *anticipates*
thegreattiny: linky!
termie: i hope it isn't in any way romantic
dsal: I hope it's NSFW
thegreattiny: nsfw?
termie: i get it, she's weary after a hard lay from the mountain man dude
dsal: kidding
dsal: hahaa
thegreattiny: um
thegreattiny: that's awkward
termie: *wins*
chiragrules: hahahahaha
thegreattiny: k well so much for the discussion on art and communication
dsal: Nah, that's a better picture. You should sell that to coffee shop patrons in Seattle.
dsal: Although I do very quickly feel that I want to know the truth. What's the real story...
thegreattiny: well
thegreattiny: what is the story you are getting from the photo?
termie: "tl; dr"
dsal: I kind of get the impression that the woman is tired/sick and the man is sad.
dsal: It just leads to ``why.'' I can't get ``why'' from the picture.
dsal: The title makes me think it's alzheimer's or something.
thegreattiny: well it's part of a set
thegreattiny: but really, I think it stands alone
thegreattiny: I don't put that much influence on titles
thegreattiny: although, your title interpretation is not incorrect :)
dsal: Right, so that changes the picture a lot for me.
thegreattiny: I think it's fair for you to process whatever information you are presented with and extrapolate from there
thegreattiny: maybe my communication isn't that clear in that instance
dsal: I'm bad at both sides of art in ways.
thegreattiny: I mean I could tell you the story behind this photo
thegreattiny: but if you're not presented with the luxury of having someone explain it you
thegreattiny: I would hope you would still be able to enjoy it
thegreattiny: in a gallery situation, for instance, you could put a piece of paper next to the work with the "artist's intent" but I think that's sort of a copout
thegreattiny: and it doesn't work out, necessarily, in a situation where you sell a work to someone and they put it up in their home
dsal: I agree with your perspective. I have to do similar things. I do feel that word count is inversely proportional to truth.
thegreattiny: hm
thegreattiny: to a point, I'd say
thegreattiny: because the fewer the words, the more is left up to interpretation
thegreattiny: and once you let people loose with interpretation... well you know, people are dumb, etc
dsal: In another channel, I'm watching a lot of discussion about an article that was written with far too many words to be understood. Too many words == "looks too complicated."
dsal: It's not so much interpretation as it is just saying what something is concisely.
thegreattiny: I didn't disagree with you, per se
dsal: I had a thing I built in the past where I defined three rules for its operation. People would come by and ask me all these really complicated usage questions. I'd just apply their question to my three rules hoping they'd learn to do so themselves.
thegreattiny: I was just saying that your statement was too cut/dry
dsal: I certainly agree. Sometimes things are simple, but require effort to internalize the simplicity of them.
thegreattiny: interestingly, in terms of art
thegreattiny: if you do not provide an explanation
thegreattiny: people (well, some people) tend to get quite attached to their own interpretation
thegreattiny: and that is some of the rationale behind not explaining
thegreattiny: it's a fine balance
thegreattiny: because overexplaining is boring and insulting to the viewer
dsal: Heh, yeah. I saw an explanation of the song ``Smells Like Teen Spirit'' a while back and it's a great example of that.
thegreattiny: ie, I want to show that the person in this image is creative, so I show them painting, or just hell, holding brushes or something
thegreattiny: that's like ... "shuddup"
dsal: Yeah. Sometimes you can find that someone understood what you were doing even better than you did. That happens to me sometimes. :)
thegreattiny: then there's the opposite side of that, where you don't show anything interesting about a person
thegreattiny: it's a fine balance
thegreattiny: between not giving enough and giving too much
thegreattiny: as for people understanding what you're doing better than you
thegreattiny: lol
thegreattiny: yes that does happen
thegreattiny: not sure where that fits in
thegreattiny: sometimes I get annoyed at people who overinterpret what I'm doing
thegreattiny: I show them a photo I took
dsal: It's leaving them enough room to imagine why you did something.
thegreattiny: and they go on and on about what it says to htem
thegreattiny: and I'm like "suuuureee whatever you want"
dsal: Heh. ``Can we move past the one where I dropped my camera?''
thegreattiny: ;)
thegreattiny: anyway, that's sort of the rationale behind trying to sell a photo of a stranger to someone
thegreattiny: I hope this helps :D
dsal: Hah. I'm thankful for your time spent teaching me art appreciation. :)
thegreattiny: :)
thegreattiny: time well spent, as far as I'm concerned
dsal: thegreattiny, pictures of people are weird. It's hard to look at a picture of someone I don't know and see a person.
thegreattiny: o rly? interesting
thegreattiny: is that true for photos I take of people you don't know?
dsal: Yeah. I don't think that's the best way to express it… but it's a kind of weird thing. Most pictures of anonymous people just feel kind of dead.
thegreattiny: I've heard that before
thegreattiny: but I think you are in the minority with that feeling
dsal: I have to wonder if it's similar for other people. I saw a photo for sale in a coffee shop in Seattle. It was just some old lady. Why do I want your picture of an old lady?
thegreattiny: well i haven'ts een the photo
dsal: I suppose that's good. It's my inhuman side showing.
thegreattiny: lol uh oh
thegreattiny: robotic dustin
thegreattiny: people have a really easy time connecting to anonymous people, actually
thegreattiny: most people
thegreattiny: it's sort of depressing to hear you say that, actually
dsal: I've been accused of being a robot before...
thegreattiny: because I base a lot of my artwork on making images of what are, I think, real people
thegreattiny: and that goes for people I make up when I draw
dsal: I don't think you should have any sort of emotional reaction to how I might perceive artwork. :/
thegreattiny: it's like writing a character, but more subtle
thegreattiny: well that's silly, dsal, because art is communication
thegreattiny: it's not a one-sided equation
thegreattiny: and if on my side, I think I'm creating communication, but on your side, it's not being perceived
thegreattiny: that is sad
thegreattiny: not that I'm making artwork specifically for you, but that's irrelevant
dsal: Different people respond to different media differently, though. I like to know people in more depth. A picture can tell a good story, but I just don't feel like I know enough when it's over.
thegreattiny: I would hope that that depends on the picture
thegreattiny: it's hard to imagine that no photo of a person, no matter how good, could ever communicate with you
dsal: Well, it does. It also depends on how willing to be receptive I am at that moment.
thegreattiny: alright
thegreattiny: I'm not sure why you would ever limit yourself in that way
dsal: Mostly because of time. :)
thegreattiny: well then, given enough time, would you be able to figure out why someone would want a photo of an old lady?
dsal: It's possible, but I'm not sure it'd be from looking at the picture alone. I'd want to know more about who she was.
thegreattiny: what if it's a real person, who is a stranger
thegreattiny: would you be able to know much about them, just by looking at them?
dsal: Well, there are more dimensions to a real person. I can observe movement, actions, words, etc… I can learn a lot about a person by observing. At least enough to satisfy me.
termie: dsal, i think it is less about knowing somebody and more about imagining things
dsal: termie, I would believe that. I feel like imagining is kind of lying.
dsal: I imagine things I want to build and then make them true.
termie: dsal, you're not going to actually know the person from the photo but ideally the photographer and photograph is trying to draw you to some archetypal ideal of what this person's life is like
termie: you aren't trying to know the person but rather to think about what being old is like
termie: or what being is old is like when you work in a convenience store
dsal: That makes sense.
termie: in some photographs you can infer stuff about people assuming the photographer's intent is to show you something about them, but that is usually a person you know of, either famous or an acquaintance
termie: pictures of them brushing their teeth or something
termie: so that you can infer about them whatever you would have inferred if you saw them brushing their teeth that way
thegreattiny: I agree with termie. It's really about buying into the story the photographer (and to some extent, the model) are trying to tell
termie: but again, that is usually for somebody whose outer character you will already be familiar with
termie: and whose more intimate moments are being shared
dsal: Perhaps the example I gave above was just a poor one.
thegreattiny: well there is no way of knowing
thegreattiny: well I have a photo of two people who are unfamiliar to you
thegreattiny: that I think tells a story
thegreattiny: I think it's fairly successful in that way
dsal: Where is it?
thegreattiny: you may not agree
thegreattiny: I am about to link it
dsal: *anticipates*
thegreattiny: linky!
termie: i hope it isn't in any way romantic
dsal: I hope it's NSFW
thegreattiny: nsfw?
termie: i get it, she's weary after a hard lay from the mountain man dude
dsal: kidding
dsal: hahaa
thegreattiny: um
thegreattiny: that's awkward
termie: *wins*
chiragrules: hahahahaha
thegreattiny: k well so much for the discussion on art and communication
dsal: Nah, that's a better picture. You should sell that to coffee shop patrons in Seattle.
dsal: Although I do very quickly feel that I want to know the truth. What's the real story...
thegreattiny: well
thegreattiny: what is the story you are getting from the photo?
termie: "tl; dr"
dsal: I kind of get the impression that the woman is tired/sick and the man is sad.
dsal: It just leads to ``why.'' I can't get ``why'' from the picture.
dsal: The title makes me think it's alzheimer's or something.
thegreattiny: well it's part of a set
thegreattiny: but really, I think it stands alone
thegreattiny: I don't put that much influence on titles
thegreattiny: although, your title interpretation is not incorrect :)
dsal: Right, so that changes the picture a lot for me.
thegreattiny: I think it's fair for you to process whatever information you are presented with and extrapolate from there
thegreattiny: maybe my communication isn't that clear in that instance
dsal: I'm bad at both sides of art in ways.
thegreattiny: I mean I could tell you the story behind this photo
thegreattiny: but if you're not presented with the luxury of having someone explain it you
thegreattiny: I would hope you would still be able to enjoy it
thegreattiny: in a gallery situation, for instance, you could put a piece of paper next to the work with the "artist's intent" but I think that's sort of a copout
thegreattiny: and it doesn't work out, necessarily, in a situation where you sell a work to someone and they put it up in their home
dsal: I agree with your perspective. I have to do similar things. I do feel that word count is inversely proportional to truth.
thegreattiny: hm
thegreattiny: to a point, I'd say
thegreattiny: because the fewer the words, the more is left up to interpretation
thegreattiny: and once you let people loose with interpretation... well you know, people are dumb, etc
dsal: In another channel, I'm watching a lot of discussion about an article that was written with far too many words to be understood. Too many words == "looks too complicated."
dsal: It's not so much interpretation as it is just saying what something is concisely.
thegreattiny: I didn't disagree with you, per se
dsal: I had a thing I built in the past where I defined three rules for its operation. People would come by and ask me all these really complicated usage questions. I'd just apply their question to my three rules hoping they'd learn to do so themselves.
thegreattiny: I was just saying that your statement was too cut/dry
dsal: I certainly agree. Sometimes things are simple, but require effort to internalize the simplicity of them.
thegreattiny: interestingly, in terms of art
thegreattiny: if you do not provide an explanation
thegreattiny: people (well, some people) tend to get quite attached to their own interpretation
thegreattiny: and that is some of the rationale behind not explaining
thegreattiny: it's a fine balance
thegreattiny: because overexplaining is boring and insulting to the viewer
dsal: Heh, yeah. I saw an explanation of the song ``Smells Like Teen Spirit'' a while back and it's a great example of that.
thegreattiny: ie, I want to show that the person in this image is creative, so I show them painting, or just hell, holding brushes or something
thegreattiny: that's like ... "shuddup"
dsal: Yeah. Sometimes you can find that someone understood what you were doing even better than you did. That happens to me sometimes. :)
thegreattiny: then there's the opposite side of that, where you don't show anything interesting about a person
thegreattiny: it's a fine balance
thegreattiny: between not giving enough and giving too much
thegreattiny: as for people understanding what you're doing better than you
thegreattiny: lol
thegreattiny: yes that does happen
thegreattiny: not sure where that fits in
thegreattiny: sometimes I get annoyed at people who overinterpret what I'm doing
thegreattiny: I show them a photo I took
dsal: It's leaving them enough room to imagine why you did something.
thegreattiny: and they go on and on about what it says to htem
thegreattiny: and I'm like "suuuureee whatever you want"
dsal: Heh. ``Can we move past the one where I dropped my camera?''
thegreattiny: ;)
thegreattiny: anyway, that's sort of the rationale behind trying to sell a photo of a stranger to someone
thegreattiny: I hope this helps :D
dsal: Hah. I'm thankful for your time spent teaching me art appreciation. :)
thegreattiny: :)
thegreattiny: time well spent, as far as I'm concerned
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Vienna Succession?
Hello! So if you're unfamiliar with the Vienna Secession, it was a magnificent art and design movement in Austria, wherein a group of designers seceded from the Viennese Academy. They also succeeded, but that's beside the point. The point is that my art history prof is driving me insane.
She's this very elegant, high society New York (designer?) woman. She loves to use her expansive vocabulary and then translate for the little people. For instance:
"And this will serve as a segue, that is a transition, to..."
Agh! If you think there's nothing worse than uber-pretentiousness, how about misplaced arrogance? The worst part is that she mispronounces stuff all the time. I keep thinking she's talking about the succession of Viennese kings or something. And I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as rubication (the rubics-cubification of medieval manuscripts??) The word is rubrication.
Another thing is that she constantly makes a point of pronouncing and translating French. Except the thing is, I'm certain she doesn't speak it, because I have never, not even once, heard her pronounce a French word correctly. I've seen grammatical and spelling errors in names of pieces on her slides.
I mean, if these were the honest mistakes of an uneducated person, I think I'd be more likely to forgive them. It'd still be pitiful and annoying, but at least understandable. When a pretentious know-it-all does this, it's inexcusable.
I know I'm being petty, but it's actually interfering with my education. No matter how fascinating the material, the medium matters.
She's this very elegant, high society New York (designer?) woman. She loves to use her expansive vocabulary and then translate for the little people. For instance:
"And this will serve as a segue, that is a transition, to..."
Agh! If you think there's nothing worse than uber-pretentiousness, how about misplaced arrogance? The worst part is that she mispronounces stuff all the time. I keep thinking she's talking about the succession of Viennese kings or something. And I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as rubication (the rubics-cubification of medieval manuscripts??) The word is rubrication.
Another thing is that she constantly makes a point of pronouncing and translating French. Except the thing is, I'm certain she doesn't speak it, because I have never, not even once, heard her pronounce a French word correctly. I've seen grammatical and spelling errors in names of pieces on her slides.
I mean, if these were the honest mistakes of an uneducated person, I think I'd be more likely to forgive them. It'd still be pitiful and annoying, but at least understandable. When a pretentious know-it-all does this, it's inexcusable.
I know I'm being petty, but it's actually interfering with my education. No matter how fascinating the material, the medium matters.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Scrabble smack talk
Since I'm too lazy to write stuff lately, I'll just post some excerpts from a conversation over a game of Internet scrabble.
2:55:53 AM me: fuck I'm totally gonna set you up and this word isn't even any good
2:56:01 AM me: things were going so well
2:56:07 AM Austin: mwahaha
2:56:14 AM me: there must be another way
2:56:23 AM Austin: trade in your letters
2:56:25 AM Austin: death before dishonor
3:11:56 AM me: I really feel like we should start building left :P
3:12:16 AM Austin: already ahead of you
3:12:33 AM Austin: shazam
3:13:53 AM me: I'm afraid I'm not following suit just yet...
3:14:12 AM Austin: take your time getting on the fast train to futureville, dear
3:14:23 AM Austin: : P
3:15:02 AM me: you can go ahead to futureville
3:15:08 AM me: I'll stay back here, where the points are
3:31:41 AM me: I'm just saying
3:31:48 AM me: that was a really dumb move
3:31:51 AM Austin: mhm
3:31:52 AM me: you're fucking ruined
3:32:00 AM Austin: yeah, i know
3:32:06 AM me: Austin, meet the end
3:32:10 AM me: end, this is Austin
3:32:10 AM Austin: i was playing more to words and opportunity than any particular goal
3:32:20 AM Austin: oh shit
3:32:22 AM me: are you ready?
3:32:23 AM Austin: this is gonna hurt though
3:32:25 AM Austin: not really
3:32:30 AM me: brace yourself
3:32:31 AM Austin: could you at least say a few kind words first?
3:32:56 AM me: there there
3:32:58 AM me: *hugs*
3:33:00 AM me: it'll be ok
3:33:04 AM me: there'll be other scrabble games
3:33:09 AM me: your turn
3:33:12 AM me: *snirk*
(Austin plays the word "mule")
3:35:34 AM me: haha like a "mule" he stubbornly keeps going
3:35:39 AM Austin: lol
3:35:55 AM Austin: a mule, a beast of burden, a jackass....ladies and gentlemen, austin
3:38:21 AM me: I suppose you could still be saved by a q word on a triple word
3:38:38 AM Austin: -rolls eyes-
1:15:51 PM me: this is a freebie
1:15:52 PM me: enjoy
1:17:05 PM Austin: not even a q on triple could help me out
1:17:14 PM me: :)
1:17:17 PM Austin: and thats exactly what it was
1:17:19 PM Austin: haha
1:17:51 PM me: that's perfect
2:55:53 AM me: fuck I'm totally gonna set you up and this word isn't even any good
2:56:01 AM me: things were going so well
2:56:07 AM Austin: mwahaha
2:56:14 AM me: there must be another way
2:56:23 AM Austin: trade in your letters
2:56:25 AM Austin: death before dishonor
3:11:56 AM me: I really feel like we should start building left :P
3:12:16 AM Austin: already ahead of you
3:12:33 AM Austin: shazam
3:13:53 AM me: I'm afraid I'm not following suit just yet...
3:14:12 AM Austin: take your time getting on the fast train to futureville, dear
3:14:23 AM Austin: : P
3:15:02 AM me: you can go ahead to futureville
3:15:08 AM me: I'll stay back here, where the points are
3:31:41 AM me: I'm just saying
3:31:48 AM me: that was a really dumb move
3:31:51 AM Austin: mhm
3:31:52 AM me: you're fucking ruined
3:32:00 AM Austin: yeah, i know
3:32:06 AM me: Austin, meet the end
3:32:10 AM me: end, this is Austin
3:32:10 AM Austin: i was playing more to words and opportunity than any particular goal
3:32:20 AM Austin: oh shit
3:32:22 AM me: are you ready?
3:32:23 AM Austin: this is gonna hurt though
3:32:25 AM Austin: not really
3:32:30 AM me: brace yourself
3:32:31 AM Austin: could you at least say a few kind words first?
3:32:56 AM me: there there
3:32:58 AM me: *hugs*
3:33:00 AM me: it'll be ok
3:33:04 AM me: there'll be other scrabble games
3:33:09 AM me: your turn
3:33:12 AM me: *snirk*
(Austin plays the word "mule")
3:35:34 AM me: haha like a "mule" he stubbornly keeps going
3:35:39 AM Austin: lol
3:35:55 AM Austin: a mule, a beast of burden, a jackass....ladies and gentlemen, austin
3:38:21 AM me: I suppose you could still be saved by a q word on a triple word
3:38:38 AM Austin: -rolls eyes-
1:15:51 PM me: this is a freebie
1:15:52 PM me: enjoy
1:17:05 PM Austin: not even a q on triple could help me out
1:17:14 PM me: :)
1:17:17 PM Austin: and thats exactly what it was
1:17:19 PM Austin: haha
1:17:51 PM me: that's perfect
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Iran, shit!
I'm not even sure what to say. I'm worried and scared. I've always known Ahmedinejad is an asshole, but following @persiankiwi on twitter is giving me a new insight into just how ruthless he is. Seems like there are a lot more dead than just seven. This is just more proof that he cannot be trusted with a "peaceful nuclear program."
If I could pray, I'd pray for Moussavi supporters, their cause, and their safety. As is, I'll remain a hopeful optimist (possibly slang for "naive"). I don't have much faith in Ayatollah's "investigation." It's in his interest to keep Ahmedinejad in power. I suspect the results will be something like "Yes, Ahmedinejad's landslide victory is questionable, but we're sure he'd have won anyway, so just keep him in power." Sigh.
Good luck, Iran.
If I could pray, I'd pray for Moussavi supporters, their cause, and their safety. As is, I'll remain a hopeful optimist (possibly slang for "naive"). I don't have much faith in Ayatollah's "investigation." It's in his interest to keep Ahmedinejad in power. I suspect the results will be something like "Yes, Ahmedinejad's landslide victory is questionable, but we're sure he'd have won anyway, so just keep him in power." Sigh.
Good luck, Iran.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Absent, but still outraged
I haven't posted in a while due to the massive end-of-semester course load. But I'm not doing anything that I should be right now because I'm having trouble focusing, so I thought I'd put up something.
Here are a couple things that have upsetting me lately:
~I have trouble leaving the house, even though outside of the house is where work generally gets done. It doesn't help that the house is full of free food, ice cream, and Internets.
~Chris and I were on the train, on our way back from San Francisco the other day and both suffering from headaches and SLEEPINESS. Then, at around RWC, a huge group of EXTREMELY obnoxious LOOOOUUUUUUUDDDDD twenty-somethings got on and began yelling to each other.
A girl sat in front of us and participated in this yelling. Then she noticed us, despite it all, attempting to rest our weary heads.
she said, "Wow, it's loud in here. I can't believe you can sleep!"
I replied, "Well that's because I'm fucking tired. And damn you guys are fucking loud."
She was a little taken aback by my snappiness, but attempted to defend herself, "Well... it's a really big group. And it is a public space..."
"Yeah," I said, "it's a PUBLIC SPACE!"
That shut her up. She stopped yelling, and would periodically turn around and apologise and promise that the group would get off the train soon.
I feel a little bad about snapping at her, but at least it was one of those cases where it was worth it, because it really got the point across.
~My cat's been sick. *sigh* Poor little baby kitty. She's about a year old now, we think. Cats this young should NOT be this sick.
Coming back from the vet for the nth time, my mom's friend came inside. I asked, "how is she?"
He said, "Well that's why I came in. She's a very sick cat. It might be time to say goodbye. I'm sorry."
Then they explained that the doctor gave her new antibiotics and that we'd see how she does on those.
Dammit, then START WITH THAT! Don't start with, "we're putting your baby down." Jesus.
Ok, that's all for now. Extensive torture-themed outrage coming up in a week or so (first Obama-oriented outrage! Yeah! Take that Obama!).
Here are a couple things that have upsetting me lately:
~I have trouble leaving the house, even though outside of the house is where work generally gets done. It doesn't help that the house is full of free food, ice cream, and Internets.
~Chris and I were on the train, on our way back from San Francisco the other day and both suffering from headaches and SLEEPINESS. Then, at around RWC, a huge group of EXTREMELY obnoxious LOOOOUUUUUUUDDDDD twenty-somethings got on and began yelling to each other.
A girl sat in front of us and participated in this yelling. Then she noticed us, despite it all, attempting to rest our weary heads.
she said, "Wow, it's loud in here. I can't believe you can sleep!"
I replied, "Well that's because I'm fucking tired. And damn you guys are fucking loud."
She was a little taken aback by my snappiness, but attempted to defend herself, "Well... it's a really big group. And it is a public space..."
"Yeah," I said, "it's a PUBLIC SPACE!"
That shut her up. She stopped yelling, and would periodically turn around and apologise and promise that the group would get off the train soon.
I feel a little bad about snapping at her, but at least it was one of those cases where it was worth it, because it really got the point across.
~My cat's been sick. *sigh* Poor little baby kitty. She's about a year old now, we think. Cats this young should NOT be this sick.
Coming back from the vet for the nth time, my mom's friend came inside. I asked, "how is she?"
He said, "Well that's why I came in. She's a very sick cat. It might be time to say goodbye. I'm sorry."
Then they explained that the doctor gave her new antibiotics and that we'd see how she does on those.
Dammit, then START WITH THAT! Don't start with, "we're putting your baby down." Jesus.
Ok, that's all for now. Extensive torture-themed outrage coming up in a week or so (first Obama-oriented outrage! Yeah! Take that Obama!).
Thursday, April 2, 2009
My yelp review of Pasta?, a Mountain View restaurant, has been removed
Because it lacks first hand experience! Ok, that's fair. So here it is, for your reading enjoyment. :)
So, I haven't actually been here... (put your deleting hats on), but there is a reason for that. That reason is simple, and it is also the reason I'm writing this. LITERALLY, every time I pass by this place (or the Palo Alto location), I think to myself, "what a stupid name!" I get that they were going "Hey! Why not pasta tonight? :)" but what I always get from it is, "Pasta? Really? You sure?"
Others have conjectured different interpretations of this eternal question. "This is pasta? You call this pasta??" It's like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: we know the answer, but what was the question? Incidentally, no matter how you interpret the question, the answer always remains, "no."
I was lamenting this fact with a friend today, when it occurred to me that I should write this review. He agreed.
"Now," I said, "the question remains: should I write the review about the Mountain View location or the Palo Alto location?"
"They just keep making more things questionable," answered my friend. (By the way, we decided on Mountain View because we were at Amarin at the time, avoiding pasta.)
Pasta? is making me question everything? My taste? My creativity? My life choices?? MY RATING SYSTEM???
So, I haven't actually been here... (put your deleting hats on), but there is a reason for that. That reason is simple, and it is also the reason I'm writing this. LITERALLY, every time I pass by this place (or the Palo Alto location), I think to myself, "what a stupid name!" I get that they were going "Hey! Why not pasta tonight? :)" but what I always get from it is, "Pasta? Really? You sure?"
Others have conjectured different interpretations of this eternal question. "This is pasta? You call this pasta??" It's like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: we know the answer, but what was the question? Incidentally, no matter how you interpret the question, the answer always remains, "no."
I was lamenting this fact with a friend today, when it occurred to me that I should write this review. He agreed.
"Now," I said, "the question remains: should I write the review about the Mountain View location or the Palo Alto location?"
"They just keep making more things questionable," answered my friend. (By the way, we decided on Mountain View because we were at Amarin at the time, avoiding pasta.)
Pasta? is making me question everything? My taste? My creativity? My life choices?? MY RATING SYSTEM???
Friday, March 6, 2009
Streets of San Jose III -- I need to get fat
I'm walking down the street in San Jose and some creepifying dude rides up to me on a bicycle and says "nice jeans." I let him roll away without saying a word.
So that's it. I gotta get fat or start wearing sweat pants or both. Ugh.
~~~~
On the bright side, if I get fat, no one will object if I say I'm "curvy," or that I have "big hips." Hey, you know these things are relative! Just cuz I don't have extra rolls, doesn't mean I'm not curvy. Outrage.
So that's it. I gotta get fat or start wearing sweat pants or both. Ugh.
~~~~
On the bright side, if I get fat, no one will object if I say I'm "curvy," or that I have "big hips." Hey, you know these things are relative! Just cuz I don't have extra rolls, doesn't mean I'm not curvy. Outrage.
Friday, February 27, 2009
On Sarah Vowell
I first became acquainted (as in, I know some of her work, not as in we hang out) with Sarah Vowell through her contributions to NPR's This American Life. Yah, NPR, big surprise!
Whenever I'd listen to her contributions, I would always think, "what a weird voice. She should just write articles, not ever talk on the radio."
But now that I'm reading her book, The Partly Cloudy Patriot (which is painfully dated now that Bush is out of office), all I can hear is her voice, as if she's reciting these lines to me through the airwaves.
I've come to understand that Vowell's voice is what sets her apart from any other rambling girl, who feels the need to pour her bleeding heart out to the masses. (You know girls like that, don't you? *looks around nonchalantly, spots a mirror and staggers in shock*)
...
In unrelated news, I've been thinking about starting a podcast...
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Conversation with a Young Conservative
The previous post opened with a bewildered statement about the existence of young Bay Area Republicans, but wasn't actually about them. This one was sparked by a conversation I had with one such person, but I certainly am not about to restate my bewilderment.
How I understand it:
Fiscal conservatism is a philosophy that at its core is about liberty (which is why the most staunch proponents of this theory call themselves libertarians). They believe people who earn their money should be allowed to decide how it is spent rather than forced by the government to sponsor programs that don't directly benefit them.
My friend posed a question to me: how do you feel about lazy people who don't contribute to society being supported by the money of hard-working people?
It was a hard question to answer, since socialism works on the principle that people contribute bits to the society to create a greater whole. The best answer I had was a counter question: what about people who live on dividends of the money they already have, and don't do anything useful for society? In the pure free market system where they pay little in taxes, these people aren't helping the society in any way. Think: Paris Hilton.
We sort of came to a stalemate at that point, but this post is in the result of "staircase revelations" -- when you continue thinking about something, long after the conversation is over.
I guess there are holes in any philosophy. I guess "lazy people" are the downfall of any Utopian society (barring fancy sci-fi technology ^_~). The reason I'm (what some would call) a socialist, rather than a libertarian, is quite simply because I have more sympathy for poor lazy people than rich lazy people.
Because for every lazy person who's living off the system, there are probably three hundred hungry students who need health care. For every person who supposedly has another baby to receive more welfare, there is are a hundred single moms who need to feed their kids.
I could end the post there, but I just want to add this: I read an article recently that lamented the $500,000/yr salary cap Obama wants to give CEOs of financial institutions who took bail-out money. And I quote,
Would you excuse me while I find a kleenex? I feel so sorry for these guys!
Look, this is just another reason why I don't feel sorry for the rich irresonsible people: they're the ones that got us into the financial crisis that we're in. I'm not saying the irresponsible poor people didn't contribute by buying houses they couldn't afford, but the educated rich people should've known better than to give them the loans. So then why are we giving all the money to the rich people? My socialist heart is fuming with righteous indignation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. I also, in my heart of hearts, believe that when most of the lowest rung of society is living above the poverty line, the whole society does better as a whole. That's all, folks!
How I understand it:
Fiscal conservatism is a philosophy that at its core is about liberty (which is why the most staunch proponents of this theory call themselves libertarians). They believe people who earn their money should be allowed to decide how it is spent rather than forced by the government to sponsor programs that don't directly benefit them.
My friend posed a question to me: how do you feel about lazy people who don't contribute to society being supported by the money of hard-working people?
It was a hard question to answer, since socialism works on the principle that people contribute bits to the society to create a greater whole. The best answer I had was a counter question: what about people who live on dividends of the money they already have, and don't do anything useful for society? In the pure free market system where they pay little in taxes, these people aren't helping the society in any way. Think: Paris Hilton.
We sort of came to a stalemate at that point, but this post is in the result of "staircase revelations" -- when you continue thinking about something, long after the conversation is over.
I guess there are holes in any philosophy. I guess "lazy people" are the downfall of any Utopian society (barring fancy sci-fi technology ^_~). The reason I'm (what some would call) a socialist, rather than a libertarian, is quite simply because I have more sympathy for poor lazy people than rich lazy people.
Because for every lazy person who's living off the system, there are probably three hundred hungry students who need health care. For every person who supposedly has another baby to receive more welfare, there is are a hundred single moms who need to feed their kids.
I could end the post there, but I just want to add this: I read an article recently that lamented the $500,000/yr salary cap Obama wants to give CEOs of financial institutions who took bail-out money. And I quote,
"Five hundred thousand dollars... seems like a lot, and it is a lot... But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast... Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard. But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue."
Would you excuse me while I find a kleenex? I feel so sorry for these guys!
Look, this is just another reason why I don't feel sorry for the rich irresonsible people: they're the ones that got us into the financial crisis that we're in. I'm not saying the irresponsible poor people didn't contribute by buying houses they couldn't afford, but the educated rich people should've known better than to give them the loans. So then why are we giving all the money to the rich people? My socialist heart is fuming with righteous indignation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. I also, in my heart of hearts, believe that when most of the lowest rung of society is living above the poverty line, the whole society does better as a whole. That's all, folks!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Better than Bush
*sigh*
So you'd be shocked to know this, but there are actually some Republican people out here in the Bay Area that are in my age range. I mean I know Cali has Republican people--look at our Governator, and our Prop 8! It's just so easy to assume they're all old people from Fresno.But as it turns out, there are young Republicans in California and some of them are even my friends.
I might be digging a hole for myself with this opening, cuz some of my Republican friends might be reading this. So this is where I underscore that this post isn't about young Republicans in the Bay Area. Just prompted by a few discussions I've had with them, here and there.
What this post is about is my ongoing relationship with our new President. (Lengthy aside: Not like, a relationship two people have, obviously, but more like when people say "I have a relationship with Christ." Wait no, not really. Cuz when people have a relationship with Christ, I'm pretty sure they have (imaginary?) direct interactions with Christ, whereas all I have are thoughts and opinions about Obama. Anyway...)
I'm pretty skeptical about Obama, and simultaneously hopeful, as outlined in the Hope post from January 21st, the day after the Inauguration. Well he's had about three weeks to show his character, and it's only fair that I respond.
What frustrates me about my Republican friends is when I say, "at the very least we can be sure he'll do better than Bush," and they respond with "nnyeeeeeeehhhhh, I dunno about that." Yes, that's the seed that prompted this whale of a post.
COME ON! WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW? Bush is like Harding and Hoover combined. How can it be worse than Bush?
You know what comforts me about Obama? It's so basic, so simple. It's how articulate he is. How often I find myself thinking, "yes, yup" whenever he makes simple sentences. It's something I find myself reveling in. I feel like that's something people in other countries must take for granted.
I grew up being confused how a bumbling idiot could make to the White House. I went through all of high school and all of college shouting to the world that dissent is patriotism, or (in my not-so-patriotic moments) that it is, at the very least, rational thinking, intelligence. Agreeing with the President is a weird feeling for me. I almost feel like I must be missing something, like I'm being unpatriotic by not feeling critical.
Does that even make sense?
So you'd be shocked to know this, but there are actually some Republican people out here in the Bay Area that are in my age range. I mean I know Cali has Republican people--look at our Governator, and our Prop 8! It's just so easy to assume they're all old people from Fresno.But as it turns out, there are young Republicans in California and some of them are even my friends.
I might be digging a hole for myself with this opening, cuz some of my Republican friends might be reading this. So this is where I underscore that this post isn't about young Republicans in the Bay Area. Just prompted by a few discussions I've had with them, here and there.
What this post is about is my ongoing relationship with our new President. (Lengthy aside: Not like, a relationship two people have, obviously, but more like when people say "I have a relationship with Christ." Wait no, not really. Cuz when people have a relationship with Christ, I'm pretty sure they have (imaginary?) direct interactions with Christ, whereas all I have are thoughts and opinions about Obama. Anyway...)
I'm pretty skeptical about Obama, and simultaneously hopeful, as outlined in the Hope post from January 21st, the day after the Inauguration. Well he's had about three weeks to show his character, and it's only fair that I respond.
What frustrates me about my Republican friends is when I say, "at the very least we can be sure he'll do better than Bush," and they respond with "nnyeeeeeeehhhhh, I dunno about that." Yes, that's the seed that prompted this whale of a post.
COME ON! WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW? Bush is like Harding and Hoover combined. How can it be worse than Bush?
You know what comforts me about Obama? It's so basic, so simple. It's how articulate he is. How often I find myself thinking, "yes, yup" whenever he makes simple sentences. It's something I find myself reveling in. I feel like that's something people in other countries must take for granted.
I grew up being confused how a bumbling idiot could make to the White House. I went through all of high school and all of college shouting to the world that dissent is patriotism, or (in my not-so-patriotic moments) that it is, at the very least, rational thinking, intelligence. Agreeing with the President is a weird feeling for me. I almost feel like I must be missing something, like I'm being unpatriotic by not feeling critical.
Does that even make sense?
San Jose Streets Outrage II
This has been happening to me a lot lately:
It's early morning, I'm tired and I'm late for class. I'm walking through the rainy streets, I can't wait to get to school and put down my stuff, get my schedule straightened out.... Some dude is sitting on his front porch (wth is he doing, anyway?), and he's like,
"Hey, you dropped something?"
I whirl around, startled. I didn't hear anything fall, so I'm looking at the ground in confusing. "Really?"
He says, "yeah, your smile!"
Or like the other day, I'm crossing the street. I'm rushing across in high heels, and some guy stops me. He's like "Smile! You're beautiful!"
I'm serious, this shit happens to me all the time. Why do people want me to be walking around smiling? Do they know what a person looks like, randomly smiling to themselves in the street? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "in" and ends with "sane."
It's early morning, I'm tired and I'm late for class. I'm walking through the rainy streets, I can't wait to get to school and put down my stuff, get my schedule straightened out.... Some dude is sitting on his front porch (wth is he doing, anyway?), and he's like,
"Hey, you dropped something?"
I whirl around, startled. I didn't hear anything fall, so I'm looking at the ground in confusing. "Really?"
He says, "yeah, your smile!"
Or like the other day, I'm crossing the street. I'm rushing across in high heels, and some guy stops me. He's like "Smile! You're beautiful!"
I'm serious, this shit happens to me all the time. Why do people want me to be walking around smiling? Do they know what a person looks like, randomly smiling to themselves in the street? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "in" and ends with "sane."
Monday, February 9, 2009
Believe in Science!!
I'm taking some science classes and listening to a lot of science-themed radio, plus associating with a lot of scientists... well, it's just got me thinking. It's got me thinking about Pascal's Wager.
Quick summary: Pascal was a haughty atheist all his life, but became religious toward the end of his life just in case. He argued that he had nothing to lose, since God's existence could not be proved or disproved. If he died and turned out to be right--heaven. If he died and nothing happened--no harm done.
Clearly, there are many things wrong with this, but that's not the point of this post, so to move on.
"Pascal's Wager" has become a term that scientists use to refer to pseudoscientists. It is essentially the idea that when there is no definite scientific explanation for a phenomenon, any other explanation will do.
Well my concern is the anti-pascal's wager that I see so often in the scientific community. I don't mean the religious version from Richard Dawkins. What I mean is when scientists proclaim, "just because science can't explain it now, doesn't mean it won't in the future!"
If delving deeper into science has taught me anything, it is how tentative science can sometimes be. It's always changing, morphing. There are always arguments going on, so many people disagree on the "facts." Or what those "facts" prove. Sometimes it's just as hard to trust a scientific explanation, as it is to trust a supernatural one.
Okay, okay, that's a huge exaggeration. I didn't mean it, I swear. I really appreciate just how level-headed scientists are, compared to the pseudoscientists. It makes it way easier to trust them.
It's that blind faith that scientists often have. The blind faith that science will explain it all, eventually. It feels misguided and naive to me. Or egotistical. Take your pick.
Can we just get a little skepticism on both ends of the spectrum here? When someone proclaims, "God hates fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "Where in the bible does it say that?" When someone says, "Evidence shows that fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "What is the evidence for that?" You might be surprised what you find.
Quick summary: Pascal was a haughty atheist all his life, but became religious toward the end of his life just in case. He argued that he had nothing to lose, since God's existence could not be proved or disproved. If he died and turned out to be right--heaven. If he died and nothing happened--no harm done.
Clearly, there are many things wrong with this, but that's not the point of this post, so to move on.
"Pascal's Wager" has become a term that scientists use to refer to pseudoscientists. It is essentially the idea that when there is no definite scientific explanation for a phenomenon, any other explanation will do.
Well my concern is the anti-pascal's wager that I see so often in the scientific community. I don't mean the religious version from Richard Dawkins. What I mean is when scientists proclaim, "just because science can't explain it now, doesn't mean it won't in the future!"
If delving deeper into science has taught me anything, it is how tentative science can sometimes be. It's always changing, morphing. There are always arguments going on, so many people disagree on the "facts." Or what those "facts" prove. Sometimes it's just as hard to trust a scientific explanation, as it is to trust a supernatural one.
Okay, okay, that's a huge exaggeration. I didn't mean it, I swear. I really appreciate just how level-headed scientists are, compared to the pseudoscientists. It makes it way easier to trust them.
It's that blind faith that scientists often have. The blind faith that science will explain it all, eventually. It feels misguided and naive to me. Or egotistical. Take your pick.
Can we just get a little skepticism on both ends of the spectrum here? When someone proclaims, "God hates fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "Where in the bible does it say that?" When someone says, "Evidence shows that fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "What is the evidence for that?" You might be surprised what you find.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Hope?
And now, for something a bit more pertinent to Obama.
*takeitez* caught a team of change ninjas working their way through San Francisco in the early hours of January 20. (Click on the picture to look at more pictures of this phenomenon on the "Obama Street, San Francisco, CA" Flickr group.)
Cute, right?
Sure, some people (like user kgbarnett4) would say that it's immature and in poor taste, as Bush Street commemorates ... I don't know who... well anyway, it has nothing to do with the Presidential Dynasty recently dethroned. That doesn't change the fact that "Bush" carries a very strong association for most SF-dwellers (any pretty much anyone, right?), so it is perfectly applicable to put forth this gesture of support for the new President. And cute.
My issue with this is bigger than the legacy of Jonathan P Bush (or whoever). My issue is this:
I miss when Obama was about Hope. Now that Obama is President, he has to manifest the Change he promised. He has to turn our Hope into reality. When he was elected, everyone yelled "Yes we did!" and the message of Hope died. Or it changed. It changed from Hope to... Faith. I'm about as hopeful for change as a girl can be, but I don't think I'm ready to sign up for membership in the Cult of Obama yet. Because now that he's the vehicle for Change, he has to deliver. I hope he will, but I don't have faith that he will. I don't participate in preemptive hero-worship. PLZ to accomplish something first.
*takeitez* caught a team of change ninjas working their way through San Francisco in the early hours of January 20. (Click on the picture to look at more pictures of this phenomenon on the "Obama Street, San Francisco, CA" Flickr group.)
Cute, right?
Sure, some people (like user kgbarnett4) would say that it's immature and in poor taste, as Bush Street commemorates ... I don't know who... well anyway, it has nothing to do with the Presidential Dynasty recently dethroned. That doesn't change the fact that "Bush" carries a very strong association for most SF-dwellers (any pretty much anyone, right?), so it is perfectly applicable to put forth this gesture of support for the new President. And cute.
My issue with this is bigger than the legacy of Jonathan P Bush (or whoever). My issue is this:
I miss when Obama was about Hope. Now that Obama is President, he has to manifest the Change he promised. He has to turn our Hope into reality. When he was elected, everyone yelled "Yes we did!" and the message of Hope died. Or it changed. It changed from Hope to... Faith. I'm about as hopeful for change as a girl can be, but I don't think I'm ready to sign up for membership in the Cult of Obama yet. Because now that he's the vehicle for Change, he has to deliver. I hope he will, but I don't have faith that he will. I don't participate in preemptive hero-worship. PLZ to accomplish something first.
Citizen of America...
I meant to post this stuff yesterday, but my internet cut out. So here go some thoughts that were written yesterday:
"While listening to Obama speak on the meaning of citizenship today, I was reminded of a story. I'm sorry that on this momentous day, I'm not writing a story of Liberty and Hope.
It was the spring of the year 2001 and the the five year mark had just hit for us, green-card-holding residents (the previous November). We applied for citizenship and were granted it. We had a much easier time obtaining green cards than most people do (although you'd be surprised how many people I've met that won the green card lottery -- at least three families off the top of my head). We had to drive up to San Francisco for the naturalization ceremony.
So the day before, I naturally told my teachers I'd be absent from school in the morning because I had to get my citizenship.
Long story made short, we actually arrived late for the ceremony and didn't get naturalized that day. But the weird part, for me, came later. I came back to school in the middle of third period, and as I entered the room, my teacher and classmates clapped for me and congratulated me.
I guess because I never had to strive to get my citizenship, it was never this great Dream... I just didn't feel like it was a big deal. The congratulations were kind of unexpected and felt weirdly ethnocentric to me. Like ... "welcome to OUR team!" "Congrats on becoming ONE OF US! ONE OF US!"
I mean, for me, the coolest part of getting my citizenship was changing my name and getting a passport finally.
And now, eight years later I still don't feel like an American. And it's always disconcerting to me when Americans tell me I am one. "You have citizenship, right? Then you're an American." Or even better, this argument: "America is all about immigration and integration. In a way, you're even more American than I am!" Who are you to say who I am? (And by their logic, if I'm more American than they are, I'm more of an authority on the subject of what makes an American. Oh noes, a paradox!! ^_~)
I became a citizen automatically because I was a minor and both my parents became citizens. Ukraine doesn't allow dual citizenship, so I am an American citizen only. If I had had a choice in the matter, then I'd probably still pick an American citizenship (because I like to travel and I'm a pragmatist), but I wish I could have had the choice."
"While listening to Obama speak on the meaning of citizenship today, I was reminded of a story. I'm sorry that on this momentous day, I'm not writing a story of Liberty and Hope.
It was the spring of the year 2001 and the the five year mark had just hit for us, green-card-holding residents (the previous November). We applied for citizenship and were granted it. We had a much easier time obtaining green cards than most people do (although you'd be surprised how many people I've met that won the green card lottery -- at least three families off the top of my head). We had to drive up to San Francisco for the naturalization ceremony.
So the day before, I naturally told my teachers I'd be absent from school in the morning because I had to get my citizenship.
Long story made short, we actually arrived late for the ceremony and didn't get naturalized that day. But the weird part, for me, came later. I came back to school in the middle of third period, and as I entered the room, my teacher and classmates clapped for me and congratulated me.
I guess because I never had to strive to get my citizenship, it was never this great Dream... I just didn't feel like it was a big deal. The congratulations were kind of unexpected and felt weirdly ethnocentric to me. Like ... "welcome to OUR team!" "Congrats on becoming ONE OF US! ONE OF US!"
I mean, for me, the coolest part of getting my citizenship was changing my name and getting a passport finally.
And now, eight years later I still don't feel like an American. And it's always disconcerting to me when Americans tell me I am one. "You have citizenship, right? Then you're an American." Or even better, this argument: "America is all about immigration and integration. In a way, you're even more American than I am!" Who are you to say who I am? (And by their logic, if I'm more American than they are, I'm more of an authority on the subject of what makes an American. Oh noes, a paradox!! ^_~)
I became a citizen automatically because I was a minor and both my parents became citizens. Ukraine doesn't allow dual citizenship, so I am an American citizen only. If I had had a choice in the matter, then I'd probably still pick an American citizenship (because I like to travel and I'm a pragmatist), but I wish I could have had the choice."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Confession II
*stands up*
Hi, my name is Sasha. I've been living in Northern California for 13 years and... *sigh* I say "hella."
And I will own it in all its tacky glory.
Hi, my name is Sasha. I've been living in Northern California for 13 years and... *sigh* I say "hella."
And I will own it in all its tacky glory.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Warm, delicious caffeine in the morning
I was listening to Radiolab, as I so often do these days. I've been downloading all the episodes and podcasts they've ever put out and listening to them while I draw. (I wonder if this adversely influencing my drawings.... or maybe not adversely? Eh who knows? Too many factors to test this properly, I fear.)
Anyway here is a segment of their show entitled "Choice," which explores how and why we make choices.
To summarize the pertinent bit: Lawrence Williams is a researcher who conducted a very simple experiment. He asked people to look at a photo of a man ("Joe") and asked them if they (in a gut-reaction, off-hand sort of way) like the guy. But before he asked them this question, he'd cunningly ask them to hold a cup of coffee for him for a second. Just a second. They didn't even take a sip or anything, simply held it in their hands. He tried to different cups: one with hot coffee and one with cold coffee. Overwhelmingly, the people who held the hot coffee liked "Joe" more than the people who held the cup with the cold coffee.
Look, I've been drinking hot tea every morning since I was like 3. Could that have played a major role in predisposing me to like people more? Would I have been a more hateful person if I had ice-cold orange juice every morning?
Anyway, I'm going to go with yes and keep drinking tea, with a new justification for it =). Of course it's not about caffeine at all, but about warmth. So I know I'm fooling myself, but I don't really care.
The question is, if I'm aware that I'm being "primed," will it negate the effect?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
IPOD OUTRAGE!!!!!!!
This was supposed to be an outrage-themed blog, but it turned it to a regular blog of thoughts and musings instead. So here, to take us back to the origins, is a bona fide outrage:
It used to be that I could just drag-and-drop things onto my iPod. Oooh I want my System of a Down albums on my iPod, but certainly not these recordings of myself singing! *hides.*
Then, one fine day,
*POP* Would you like to update your iPod software?
*scratches head* well why not? Updating seems like a good thing...
What the hell? I have to sync my library with my iPod to get anything on there? What about this music that I have stored on my other computer?.. What about?...
Ok I get it. It's pretty simple: to prevent people from sharing music they make it so that if you put an iPod into a computer and download its library, next time you put it into a diff. computer, it deletes all that music.
But look, even if all my music and podcasts on my computer were legally purchased and ALL I had on my computer were music and podcasts, my computer still only has 60 gigs of memory. And my iPod has 80. So I can NEVER EVER EVER fill it up. Why did I buy this damn thing then? This makes NO sense.
I want my iPod to store my music. I don't really care about sharing music, but of course I could find different ways to share music if I needed (o look vhat a nice lil flash drive I have here). In fact, I want my iPod to be my musical storage device. I'd be happy to delete all my music from my computer and JUST keep it on my iPod. But I can't, can I?
GrrRrrRrr.
Anyone have any thoughts on how to fix this?
It used to be that I could just drag-and-drop things onto my iPod. Oooh I want my System of a Down albums on my iPod, but certainly not these recordings of myself singing! *hides.*
Then, one fine day,
*POP* Would you like to update your iPod software?
*scratches head* well why not? Updating seems like a good thing...
What the hell? I have to sync my library with my iPod to get anything on there? What about this music that I have stored on my other computer?.. What about?...
Ok I get it. It's pretty simple: to prevent people from sharing music they make it so that if you put an iPod into a computer and download its library, next time you put it into a diff. computer, it deletes all that music.
But look, even if all my music and podcasts on my computer were legally purchased and ALL I had on my computer were music and podcasts, my computer still only has 60 gigs of memory. And my iPod has 80. So I can NEVER EVER EVER fill it up. Why did I buy this damn thing then? This makes NO sense.
I want my iPod to store my music. I don't really care about sharing music, but of course I could find different ways to share music if I needed (o look vhat a nice lil flash drive I have here). In fact, I want my iPod to be my musical storage device. I'd be happy to delete all my music from my computer and JUST keep it on my iPod. But I can't, can I?
GrrRrrRrr.
Anyone have any thoughts on how to fix this?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Confessions of a compulsive self-portraitist
I do take a lot of pictures of myself, it's true. I'm not sure why I do it, necessarily. It's a weird compulsion and I've tried to explain it away in various artsy or psychological ways... none of which really seem to fit. I really want to excuse it away because taking countless photos of yourself isn't really accepted in my circles. But honestly, I don't really care why I do it.
What is interesting to me, however, is that sometimes I scroll through the photos, taking in these reflections of myself (this almost becomes literal with the MacBook cam because it takes mirror image photos of me while I stare at myself... only difference is that I can't look myself in the eyes). That's the interesting part--looking back on those moments in time. It's not an exercise in vanity. If I had to compare it to anything, I'd say it's a bit like repeating a word over and over until the meaning of the word becomes disassociated with the sound of it. I don't really see the photos as images of me, but simply as... well, images I guess. But because I cerebrally know that it is, in fact, me, the act of scrolling through a log of my hair, clothes, tilts of the head.... but more importantly, thoughts and emotions.... well, it's a bit like having an out of body experience.
And well... sometimes getting out of my body is a feeling I want to chase.
But not today. I didn't scroll through my photos today.
What is interesting to me, however, is that sometimes I scroll through the photos, taking in these reflections of myself (this almost becomes literal with the MacBook cam because it takes mirror image photos of me while I stare at myself... only difference is that I can't look myself in the eyes). That's the interesting part--looking back on those moments in time. It's not an exercise in vanity. If I had to compare it to anything, I'd say it's a bit like repeating a word over and over until the meaning of the word becomes disassociated with the sound of it. I don't really see the photos as images of me, but simply as... well, images I guess. But because I cerebrally know that it is, in fact, me, the act of scrolling through a log of my hair, clothes, tilts of the head.... but more importantly, thoughts and emotions.... well, it's a bit like having an out of body experience.
And well... sometimes getting out of my body is a feeling I want to chase.
But not today. I didn't scroll through my photos today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
