|
Tuesday, December 30 8:40 AM : : why she calls every hour. researchers say that people dating someone new have brain patterns similar to those of people with obsessive-compulsive disorder. the seven types of flirts i-don't-flirt flirt. you have a negative attitude about flirting and probably consider it manipulative. life is lonely, isn't it? insincere flirt. you try to seduce women with hokey compliments. instead, look for something nonphysical you genuinely admire about them. it's okay if it takes you a while. self-centered flirt. every comment includes the word "i." try asking more questions rather than giving replies. rejected flirt. you're a negative thinker who never gives himself a chance. you can't be that ugly, can you? pressured flirt. you rely on interrogation for conversation. relax and ask fewer questions. don't be afraid of silence. analytical flirt. your nervousness typically leads to indecisiveness. stop thinking so much and have the courage to follow your instincts. master flirt. you don't need any help. you have the charm of god. -men's health magazine- Monday, December 29 3:37 PM : : nothing yet something. so this is christmas break. it's been awhile since i've actually had a "break" squished in-between two periods of "work." i'd say since maybe sophmore year of college. this is because from then till now my entire life has been pretty much a break. but i am learning to cherish "days off from work." so what i am doing with this unique amount of time is savoring it. the days go by alternately too fast and too slow. i've been out of san diego for barely thirty hours and i feel as if i've been gone a lifetime. we came down from san jose today, after a funeral service for my cousin. the miracle of airplanes. able to transport you from the strangest feelings to the most comforting in mere hours. what is it about the holidays that begets tragedy? so far on this break i've done nothing. and there is more nothing to come. another full week of it. i will try to milk every ounce of something out of all this nothing. i've already accomplished my goal for 2003. i coerced george into getting a tattoo with me. we both got a traditional virgo sign, mine on my wrist, hers on her back. we are now bonded forever, as if a shared womb wasn't enough. i also got an ohm on my elbow. why pay for just one tattoo when it's cheaper for two? the overall experience was unpainful, although george said it hurt "more than you said jon." but i think we are both happy with our permanence and our state of being in the universe. and what to do when you receive cards, presents, and messages from others but have no significant reciprocity in sight? just say thanks i guess. there was once a time in my past when cards, presents and messages were a high priority in my life. but now i am poor. and although my time is not precious, it is squandered away foolishly. so thanks for the unexpected cards, presents and messages. in a shocking blow to my social life, hongshin gave me the warcraft expansion, which means i will soon see less real people than ever before. thanks man. greg, caroline and louis are also out here. taking a vacation from the icy ice of new york to enter the icy ice of san diego. it has been freakishly cold out here. so much so that all i can show them is the inside of a heated house and the wonders of a blanket wrap. i wish i could say we've packed exciting things into every waking moment but keep it real, this is san diego. the only real exotic thing i've been able to offer in my few days as host is the serenity of the ninety nine cent fish taco. and jamba juice. if nothing else there is always jamba juice. if you are at work right now. i feel for you. i really do. Sunday, December 28 9:41 PM : : i also cannot fail to mention a wonderous full court basketball game we engaged in on saturday night. playing in a game with nine friends is a simple joy not often experienced. the night air was so cold that during the three hours i broke nary a sweat (it could be the lack of effort on my part that led to my sweatless state but i'd like to think otherwise). it was also brick ass freezing so much that i couldn't feel my hands half the time. the game was a battle of turnover against turnover and replete with ridiculous dribbling off your foot antics. but it was a wonderous time. the night was ended by a caroming drive to the basket by the man beast known as brian babbs. as he drove through our entire defense for the winning bucket, all five of our team members screamed in fear at the barrelling monster. needless to say, he made his layup and our screams of peril were no defense against his awesome might. Wednesday, December 24 12:28 PM : : oh lord. let's not mince words here. i hated lord of the rings: return of the king. i mean, you could not pay me enough to sit through that movie again. i dubbed it "the worst movie of all time" when i left the theatre. clearly i'm going a bit overboard. drop dead fred is my worst movie of all time. keep it real. but this, this was THE worst movie of all time. in taking the equation of expectations built up through two other movies, multiplied by glowing reviews, multiplied by friends loving it, multiplied by "you'll love it!" and then dividing all that by my disappointment, you reach a big fat "return of the king is the worst movie of all time." for me it was on par with sitting through titanic. and not just because it was long. but for the last hour i was in unspeakable mental anguish over where this movie was going. not that i didn't know anyway, because i read the books. but i objected to how it was done. let me preface my ranting and raving by saying that while the books were enjoyable because they were the "first fantasy books," i was similarly disappointed with the ending of the written trilogy. i've been raised on pulp fantasy books so maybe i've lost all taste regarding this matter and i should look at lords as a classic that spawned many derivatives -- rather than as a stand alone piece waiting to be directly compared to the derivatives. because quite honestly, there are a handful of other fantasy trilogies (or just series in general) that i have enjoyed infinitely more than the lord of the rings one. off hand i would say dragonlance, icewind dale, dark elf trilogy, death gate cycle, david eddings, etc. i respect jrr tolkien's world and his creation and his dedication to language and detail but i can only handle so much walking about in the woods with what amounts to, essentially, heroes who do nothing. and yes, i realize every other fantasy writer is just building off of tolkien's creations (elves, dwarves, orcs, whatever) and his stereotypes, so his is the land that all fantasy walks in. but it still sucked. perhaps my fantasy worlds and imagination is filled with too many powerful wizards, juiced up swords and wisecracking thieves. in D&D terms, i may be a "god player" who can only enjoy a campaign when i'm 18 attributed across the board, with a sword of smite and a cleric/mage/barbarian hybrid. so instead of reveling in the magic of finding a long sword +1, i scoff at low powered adventures. you have no idea what i'm talking about. but if you do, you are my people. anyway, the point is, i read the last two books of the trilogy hoping for a big payoff and i didn't get it. same with the movie. i will refrain from objecting to the trilogy as a whole. but really, did you find frodo's quest particularly noteworthy? or the heroes particularly astounding? i know it's the theme that even small powerless hobbits (aka you, the frustrated pre-pubescent teenager) can make a difference but i found the lack of direct confrontation between frodo and sauron disappointing. he goes all this way to kill......gollum. wheeee. but i will set that gripe aside. oh wait, one more. what exactly is gandalf a wizard of? light bright and bleach? good gracious. his powers are weaker than peach schnapps. in three movies he's essentially used his all powerful "shining beacon of hope" staff and that's about it. he's an old magician who is somehow reduced to using sword and staff in order to engage in combat. what about you makes you a magician exactly? he can't even float across the grand canyon or make the statue of liberty disappear. wackalicious. and why are you sending the little hobbit to set the signal fire? perhaps i don't understand the logistics involved in the magic of tolkien's world but any world that a "wizard" cannot create or do much of anything is inconceivable to me. throw a torch, set your own damn signal fire, don't send the buffoon hobbit. but hey, every hobbit must have its time to shine. good job merry, you lit the fire without killing yourself. go you. but even here with the wizard thing, i am willing to be magnamious. perhaps the connotation of "wizard" in gandalf's case was just as a very wise man who'd been around the block a few times. and it implied no superior magic or talent outside of the ability to resist dirt. i can concede that i guess. but somehow gandalf didn't seem like the most powerful of allies - would you rather have had gandalf or saruman on your side? seriously. gandalf was very grandfatherly though and seemed like a very nice man. on to the actual movie. i won't even go into the scenes showcasing the affection between the hobbit couples. i could go there. and during the movie i did go there. but i will rise above it now. we can all read between the lines. hobbit culture is a very affectionate one apparently. that's fine. i love hobbits. they are fun and useful to have around, especially during football season. but is it entirely necessary to drag us through every crying moment and "oh i've missed you" scene? there were less cheesy attempts at tugging my heartstrings in "love, actually." i didn't realize i had signed up for a three hour romantic comedy when i took my seat three and a half hours ago. and then there's the comedy, why are you making things so blatantly comedic? hobbits are funny, use them as the foil. leave the dwarf out of it. dwarves get a bad rap in this version of the story, but you knew that. no fully bearded dwarf would hesitate to walk into a cave regardless of who was inside. crap man, crap. i even object to some of the fight scenes. blasphemy i know. but really, were the fight scenes not better pre-fight than during fight? it was much cooler to see everyone all ranked up and hurtling towards each other. as opposed to quick camera pan here, quick slash slash there (was it a bad guy or a good guy who just got killed?), quick pan out. and was there really any excellent fighting going on? outside of maybe legolas? aragorn gets his ass knocked down by a troll (more on mr king later). the rest of the heroes just ran around stabbing folk in the back. and gandalf's kinda cool two weapon usage was hard to see with the close camera angle. and please, eowyn is beheading a dragon with her five cent sword? in two swipes!!! what?!?! you can't even behead a dog in two swipes (i've tried)! shit. and then that feared dark wizard character sure sucked it up. nice armor and mace but boy, could you get a more embarassing death? oh and gee, aragorn certainly had to fight to prove his kingship. here's my sword, the elves fixed it, one parry and i'm ready to be king now. why no fight with the undead king to prove his valor and the truth of his blood? he just gave a speech? dude. and his speeches were pretty lame-o. way to inspire your new army, "the age of man will be over, but not today. we will all die soon, but not today." william wallace he's not. and why is he not running back to his lady love after the battle when he's been informed that she's dying? he's waiting around (for many days probably to get sanitized and showered and stuff) to be crowned and then gets "surprised" she's still alive? right, good luck there lover boy. have fun taking out the trash. and here, the topper of them all. the eye of sauron, the evil behind mordor is......a piss poor imitation of a searchlight. this is not a jail break here. an evil all knowing sauron can't have a more effective way of keeping track of things than using a flood light? wow. can you say that the final villain was beyond anti-climactic? and nice how the lava and earthquake drop off right at the "good" army. very good planning on gandalf the great's part. he is wise. i also didn't really feel the characters at all. i say i hated this movie because it tried to show me how to feel. it didn't make me feel. "this is an important part because hey, we said it's important." slow pans, soft music, sunshiney lights, thunderous laugh track (oh there wasn't a laugh track?). all of it was akin to an armageddon, trying to make you cry here here and here. and cheer for the hero here here and here. and oh look, the little hobbits are so brave and so wee and so cute! look at them charge into battle with their wee little helmets and equally wee swords. wheeeee! shoot me. and how convenient they have mighty might armor for merry. are so many halflings made soldiers of gondor that they have it conveniently in stock? or they had so much time that a smith was commissioned to make adjustments? but i will suspend disbelief for the purposes of this "fantasy." people said to me afterwards, "you can't compare this to other movies." but oh i can. for my money, braveheart and gladiator were far superior movies. they were also "fantasy" (with some historical accuracy) but they didn't make you go "man this is cheesy." and that's taking into account similar epic type movies. the new star wars suffers from the same problem with no real characters to feel and a penchant for cheesiness. so did matrix two and i'm assuming three (since i didn't see it). the pacing for this movie was a tad long too i'd say, but that's a minor quibble. i do admire peter jackson for the job he did. he stuck to the story as it was supposed to be and did a marvelous job of directing and pushing the project. i may have issues with the story itself but peter jackson is a stud. the acting was pretty all around great (although the dialogue just got worse and worse). the sets were amazing. the CGI is off the hook. it's great to see a fantasy movie get some respect. and i hope this leads to more fantasy movies. but overall, this conclusion to a storied trilogy was just a clunker. and i may be in the minority but i am not alone. others share my feelings and my observations. perhaps not as violently as i feel them, but they share them. i so wanted this movie to be the greatest film of all time. but it is not. it'll probably win academy awards for everything this side of middle earth but it's so not deserving. but it's the academy so what do they know? then again, it's me, so what do i know? i just know it sucked and it was so not worth staying up for. to add some more positivity to it. here's what should of happened. the scene where faramir's dad is eating all those grapes and sending him off to die? that's good ass stuff right there. they are showing us how crazy and evil he is. using the screen to expand the page. most of the other times during the movie they were using the books as a crutch to lean on. sure there is a thousand pages of story but really, give us some character. use the film to give us what we can't get from the book, which is the images, the creatures, the sense of visual/audio fear. don't go to the "dial an emotion" way of film making. shit. anyway, at least i've found my new risk battle cry. for gondor! i'm done blogging about movies for now. it's just a draining experience to go off on a film when you expected it to be decent. Tuesday, December 23 8:03 AM : : love? actually, not really. i must admit, i saw the ultimate romantic comedy of the season. you know, the one starring hugh grant. no. not that one. the other one. no. the other one. the one where he plays a rakish smarmy goofy but devastatingly handsome guy? yeah, that one. the movie is supposed to be about all kinds of love. familial love, obligatory love, love between friends, backstabbing love, unrequited love, lust love, love love love. for the most part, i couldn't remove myself from the "this isn't love" mindset while watching the movie. some of the stuff on screen i couldn't argue with. laura linney's love for her brother? i can see that. liam neeson's love for his son? easily emoted. but all the romantic loves they were attempting to portray and display? totally off. laura linney throwing herself at the hot graphic designer? lust, and being in love with being in love. the secretary throwing herself at her boss? power and jewelry. the prime minister (hugh grant) falling in love with the coffee and biscuits girl? no clue. simple lust? and the worst of all, colin firth deciding he wanted to marry his house maid despite them having no verbal communication whatsoever. firth's character, jamie, finds his wife in bed with his brother so he leaves to go to his little italian cottage to write. he has a young house maid there who happens to be this side of unattractive but due to her prescence and timely stripping to her undergarments, he decides that he's in love with her. even after they have parted ways, he keeps thinking about her and during christmas is forced by the hand of love to travel to her to declare his need to marry her. this was a rousing moment in the movie. jamie being flanked by all of the house maid's family and friends. wow! they are in love! clap clap. and don't even get me started on the precocious six year old who was just too cute for words and had a little crush of his own. ridiculous. i'm so against overly intelligent six year olds at this point. except dakota fanning. she's cute. the reason i can't stand romantic comedies for the most part is that they are designed to tug on your heartstrings *here*here* and *there*. i don't like that. i don't want to know when it's supposed to be love. i don't want to see overly dramatized moments. i'd rather have it creep up on me, "oh they are in love." the only romantic comedies that i can stomach either the really funny good ones or the ones with some intelligent dialogue. one of the best in my book is my best friend's wedding. that was good. four weddings and a funeral? excellent. i need some sadness with my romantic comedies. kill off the dog or something. i'm not here to say that i didn't like the movie. well, actually i am, but it wasn't a totally unwholesome experience. movies like this just tend to set off the supreme cynic in me. actually no, i'm not that much of a cynic. but when love is contrived and pushed together and then summarily presented "wrong," i don't like it. there aren't any really "right" ways of love. but there are wrong ways. wouldn't you agree? actually i did learn something about love from this movie. i learned that i am in love with keira knightley. she is lovely. i recently saw bend it like beckham too, and pirates of the caribbean will soon be on my blockbuster rental list. ms (i hope it's a ms) knightley is quite stunning. something about the way she talks is kind of annoying but for love i can overlook these things. and really, despite her being gorgeous, she must have human flaws too. i mean, she probably has disproportionate incisors or something. i can deal with that, after all, love conquers like attila. doesn't it? and hell, since i'm here, i might as well say this too: singing along to some great "classic" song and then shaking your booty or whatever in a movie? out. very out. i need to witness a giant sing along or somebody dancing in their underwear before i can accept this movie fabrication as truth. and again since i'm here: bep doing "where is the love?" is the worst one minute of radio time ever. but you knew that. Monday, December 22 1:16 AM : : so i'm trying to get my sleep on early. because it is a work night and i am a glutton for responsibility. and i hear the wonderful soothing sounds of dave's son, aka gene, coming from the next room. i'm thinking he's just over at hotel pan playing his new tracks (new acoustic cd available soon) or listening to old stuff. then i hear babbs' voice. and i get up (at 1am no less) to say whatup. it turns out gene and babbs are on the radio! gene is playing some songs and they are just jamming away. one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. and speaking of celebrations, with jesus' birthday coming up on the twenty fifth, let's just say there is a similarly important yet vastly underrated day. the twenty second. why is this date important you ask? it's gene's birthday! yes, gene and jesus were born three days apart. you make the connection. so even though you won't get a chance to hear his musical message live on kuci now, we are still accepting applications for twelve apostles to spread the word about gene's impending stardom. beautiful virgins, please use the other application. thanks. Thursday, December 18 2:54 PM : : in support of peripateticism. say what? yeah, i had no clue what peripatetic meant either. but with the help of online dictionaries, now i know. twas not the dj, but rather the dictionary that saved my life. and that aristotle fellow, smart guy. probably ugly and unsocial, but smart guy. basically peripatetics walk and travel. i wonder why this never made it into the vernacular. what do you do? i'm a peripatetic doctor. oh that's nice, i love children. it's that time of year again. the holidays. when the celebration of christmas brings thoughts of god and religion into our lives. i know some people who avoid church on all days save the twenty fifth, which must mean it's an awfully religious day. and as we welcome christmas, we welcome the cold weather. did you know that the holidays are the time of year when the most couples break up? counterintuitive isn't it? why are people breaking up around "family time" and "man it's really cold sleeping alone" time? it makes no sense to me. but maybe it has something to do with celebrating the new year. each new calender year we must strive to change something in our lives. we have to evaluate the previous twelve months and get all reflective and thinky. and i guess what is most likely to go is our good for nothing bitchass boy/girl friend. comforting isn't it? i love the holidays. i have recently decided that not only am i great and perfect, i am also religious and idealistic. i know, self flattery will get me everywhere. for many moons i thought that i was not very religious. i was "interested in religion", "curious about the social/psychological impacts of religion on the layman", and somewhat "inclined toward spirituality" but the word "religion" just kind of put me off. however. i've realized that being religious is really just believing in something. an organized something. some would refute me and say that to be religious would be having some sort of god, power or institution to follow. but i disagree. because i think that religion (as defined by the good book) is "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." (on a side note, look at how different the two definitions for "religion" are. wow.) and i think i have a cause, principle or activity pursued with zeal and/or conscientious devotion. sure it's not set in stone and sure it's not done right or very consistently but i'm following it just as much as any priest or monk or rabbi. actually no. i can't really equate what i'm doing to what a priest, rabbi or monk is doing. that would be conceited. and i'm not that yet. although i hope to be this time next year. and now on to idealism. i'm giving you the two cent tour about this whole religion/ideal bit. i don't have the space to go into everything. anyway. once, also many moons ago, i thought that idealism was a particular something. an "ideal relationship" looked like such and such. love was ideal if it looked like this. ideal was perfection as we -- the society in sum -- had unwittingly conformed it to be. and since i often rejected most things that this "ideal" stood for, i sided apart from those proclaiming themselves "idealists." but again i have seen that being an idealist has nothing to do with what one particular "ideal" is supposed to look like. just because i don't believe that love is the answer doesn't mean that i'm not idealistic, i just believe in another ideal. an idealist is simply someone who happens to believe in something very strongly and can envision that conception as "the ultimate." ideals are also often represented as abstract and somewhat unattainable. a popular parlour question is "will i achieve my ideals? do my ideals have any basis in reality? is he/she/it my ideal?" in fact, the dictionary definition of "ideal" pretty much says this. check out 4a and 4b under adj. it says an ideal is "existing only in the mind; imaginary" and "lacking practicality or the possibilty of realization." i have decided that these two particular definitions are bullshit. i am against the dictionary. i have just said the dictionary is wrong. wow, i am great. as much thought as i've given to religion, to ideals, to whatever else, i've decided that despite the fact that i am not religious or idealistic in the traditional (which i've proven wrong) sense of the word, i am comfortable calling myself both. or thinking of myself as both. i am woman too. hear me roar. happy thursday. 1:57 PM : : �you're a profoundly religious man, mr roark -- in your own way," a client tells the hero of the fountainhead. "i can see that in your buildings." in (rand's) "introduction to the fountainhead," she complained that "religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life." she went on to discuss the central importance in her view of life what she calls "man worship": "a spirit embodying the emotions of reverence, exaltation, nobility, grandeiur -- not directed at some supernatural realm, but at its proper object: human potential." 1:52 PM : : dagny taggart of atlas shrugged, who "never found beauty in longing for the impossible, and never found the possible to be beyond her reach." this spirit, which regarded the ideal as a possible dream, is so at odds with the zeitgeist of the past two thousand years that it is hard for people to comprehend, let alone internalize. at least since plato, the concept of the "ideal" has been defined as the antithesis to the "real." as a result, millions of people experience life as tragically sundered, torn between the loud demands of body and the quiet yearnings of soul -- between the meaningless clamor of mundane existence, and the faint, mocking call of a state of perfection ever beyond reach. Wednesday, December 17 1:21 PM : : sony has always been ahead of the times. and now, they've done it again. spider man blog templates straight from the big wigs. more companies should do this. i love the japanese. 1:17 PM : : where the surf meets the turf. i will share with you a pet peeve. i don't like it when people refer to san diego by anything other than its proper spelt out full name. san diego. it's not enough for us to be america's finest city? we need to have a cool moniker too? we are not "daygo." we are definitely not "the san d." we export sun, that is all. we are not cool. we are lacking in culture, in hip hop, in many things. we have no rap stars coming out of here giving us "street cred." san diego is suburbia people. well, most of it anyway. some cities have nice little nicknames. new york has the big apple, new yawk, zoo york, whatever. san franciso is frisco or the bay. san jose is man jose. detroit got "the D" from eminem and fifty cent (to my knowledge). san diego has yet to achieve that status. we don't need no stinking cool names for our city. the only one i'm okay with is "diego," as in "diego to the bay." but that's probably only because dr dre used it and anything dr dre says is immediately cool. so, for the record, i live in san diego. and if you live here, you live in san diego. it is not "daygo" or "san d" or "ehgo" or anything stupid like that. use san diego, use SD, use diego (only if you are rapping along). but that is all. thanks for listening. Tuesday, December 16 10:02 AM : : i can see the stars in your beautiful face. in a conversation yesterday, conducted while under the influence of recent sleep and groggy wakefulness, i was asked some god questions. mainly, "what does it mean to put god first above family/friends/relationship?" in my non-christian mindset, the answer i could come up with was "i don't know." i spouted some dirty babble about "putting god above everything is not exactly the case, it is more about including god in relationships with all of the above. when a relationship is discussed as a triangle between man, woman and god, it is good to keep in mind that all three are equal, with no one angle more important than the others." but usually god is supposed to be not just equal, but greater than. as in "put god first." this could be taken to mean to put your faith in god first, or to dedicate your life to listening to god first. but in practicality and reality, how does that work? rarely are you confronted with family on one side and god on the other. the lines of battle are never that distinctly drawn. and as creatures of earth, we are tied to our families and if god told us to smote (maybe just minorly maim) our families, would we do so? even if we believed god was number one? this was the question i was posed. it was more tied into how it all works in a relationship -- putting god first -- but it had to do with the general principle of "what exactly does it mean to put god above all else and how does that realistically apply?" i was a little surprised to get such questions. much less at one in the morning. doesn't everyone know that i'm a big important person now with a job and a strict bedtime? did you not get the memo? excuse me, the mission statement? and not being christian and not pretending to front like i know what's going on, my answers were more a reflection of what i think would be said, as opposed to what i really think. which would of been something along the lines of "god is first but that's more of an idealized thing, he's never going to come in-between your family/friends/relationships and if he does, he is not doing you any good service." but i did not say that because i don't think i was approached to give my cynical "what would jon do" views. so. the question is. what's your take on all this? how does god being number one work in reality when faced with loved family and friends? i need perspectives, not answers. and no "jesus/god loves you so it's all good." i need specifics. the amoeba response (thursday). Sunday, December 14 1:11 AM : : and a partridge in a pear tree. this weekend, as a celebration of democracy and consumerism and all things great about america, i bought things that i don't really need. and i bought them in mass quantities. by the way, nobody should ever use "partridge in a pear tree" when ending a list of things. like "3 etcs, 2 etcs and a partridge in a pear tree." it's been overdone. no more damn partridges, please. even if it's christmas and it sounds awfully clever. it's not that clever. having said that, this weekend i bought two pairs of pants, two jackets, a hat, a wrist accessory, socks and something else i forgot. i have not bought this much stuff in a long time. i felt like i "deserved" it after a month of working. or rather, three and a half weeks of working. cry me a river overprivileged young adult says, i know. to all those to whom i owe money, it is in my conscious that i owe you serious amounts of money. don't worry, i am AIMing and emailing at work and accruing relative wealth in order to pay you back asap. but these things, these clothes, i needed. nobody wants to see me wearing the same thing over and over, much less me. sometimes you just have to go out and get your shop on. nothing beats walking into a store and going, "man, i like that, i'll take it." christmas is the gifting season. but to put a damper on this shopping joy, there is such a thing as a "shopping budget." even outfitted with cash in pocket, there is a limited amount that you can buy. so i very carefully budgeted my money before shopping. i had x amount of dollars to spend and i promised not to go over it. guess what? budgeting works. hello government, are you listening? sure i didn't purchase the work pants i was originally shopping for, sure i didn't buy any work shirts i needed, but i've decided that for my two days of non-work, i needed casual clothes. who cares if i wear the same thing to work day after day? it's not a fashion show, it's work! the worst part of shopping is deciding if you really need something. it's like a relationship i suppose. do i really need this? can i live without it? is it worth it? will something better (and cheaper) come along tomorrow or at the next store? all very important questions. luckily there is the buy and return policy. stretching back for many decades and possibly centuries, this uplifting social program has single handedly saved many people from poor purchases. go green peace. if only relationships/friendships/-ships came with this policy. doesn't fit? exchange it. not the person you thought you were buying? refund with no questions asked please. simple, breezy, and altogether satisfying. there should really be a thirty day money back guarantee on all things in life. we make mistakes, let's not be punished for choices made in the heat of battle or in front of a warped mirror. ok? Friday, December 12 10:46 AM : : in this journey, you're the journal, i'm the journalist am i eternal, or an eternalist? "more specifically rakim embodies what grant farred describes as a "vernacular intellectual" in his new book what's my name?: black vernacular intellectuals. according to farred, the "vernacular is defined by an immersion in the language of the popular, the particularities, idiosyncrasies, and distinctiveness of vernacular speech; the vernacular is marked by its ability to speak popular resistance and popular culture to power." [article] Thursday, December 11 10:26 AM : : it takes a nation of billions. made in taiwan. made in china. always the butt end of jokes. never seen as a standard for quality. taiwan makes cheap useless trinkets and china makes even cheaper even more useless trinkets. well heck, at least we got "made in mexico" beat. the distinction between taiwan and china is sometimes overlooked by those not in the know. chinese is chinese right? asian is asian right? sex you long time right? the relations between taiwan and china have always been chilly, especially after chiang kai-shek withdrew to taiwan after his defeat at the hands of the communists. since then, native taiwanese have greatly resented the chinese and pretty much hate everything about china and communism. they have a good point of course. run over by millions of refugees and perpetually crapped on by stronger nations, taiwan hasn't exactly had much alone time. and really, taiwan would have been an afterthought -- it is a tiny little island after all -- if not for the economic tiger that it became. praise "made in taiwan!" the united states used to staunchly support and defend taiwan but in the past decade or so, support has waned as china has emerged as a player on the world stage. and now taiwan and china are staring at each other across the strait. china wants its little republic back, taiwan says "hells no." taiwan's president chen recently declared that he would hold a referendum about removing chinese missiles aimed at taiwan. this action is seen as the precursor to taiwan pushing for independence (or alternately, a desperate reelection manuever). china's prime minister wen jiabo visited president bush two days ago and the white house stepped out from behind its veil of ambiguity to directly warn taiwan to "back that independence truck up!" not their exact wording. while the united states has said that it will defend taiwan from a forceful takeover, it is also supportive of china's one china policy -- different than china's one child policy, don't get those two confused. one is about making more chinese citizens, one is about making less. so pretty much the US wants a peaceful assimilation of taiwan into china. guess how happy the taiwanese are about all this? and with bush's recent comments, the taiwanese feel like bush is selling them out. perhaps a valid point. for me, i have some basic knowledge of the history and events leading up to this situation but i can't pretend that i have an intelligent opinion about it all. i'm open to both sides, china and taiwan. i know some people are all life or death about taiwan versus china but you gotta separate the emotional ties from it all. i was born and raised in taiwan but i'm a foreigner, a descendent of one of the millions who fled with the nationalists. so in that respect i am not taiwanese. so maybe i don't understand things because my blood is different than yours (meaning "native" taiwanese) but really, we both have chinky eyes and no hops so keep it real. i worry for taiwan, who seems like a small gnat next to the swoll land mass that is china. taiwan is drawing attention to itself in order to force the issue but as wise political leader jay-z said: the takeover, the break's over nigga i doubt jay z was referencing the republic of china but i think he makes a good point. taiwan, without outside support, is gonna get busted "in a gunfight." and we don't want that. i got family there. i got street markets with my future outfits there. don't do it man, save the fake brand names. mike, ducci, prama, adibas and kelvin clein needs to live! but at least no matter how this all shakes out, "r.o.c. we running this rap shit." history of taiwan: 1, 2, 3. articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Wednesday, December 10 3:25 PM : : give me all the amazing people. give me all the amazing, people. of late it's been difficult to engage in conversations with "new" people. new people as in people i didn't know before such and such a time. actually rewind. this is not what i'm trying to talk about. what i'm saying is, when you talk to people -- as in having a conversation -- what are the topics you talk about? most of the ones that come up are the same things that have to be said in the process of getting to know someone. basic stuff too boring to even list here. after that you may or may not go into topics that reveal a little more personality or intimacy. and then at that point, can you say "yeah, i know that person." some of these topics might be relationships, drugs, sex, rock n roll, lies, videotape, family, opinions on abortion (or some other seemingly "deep" topic), insecurities, and my ex-favorite, religion.. and after having said conversation you feel closer, like you are now friends and you can greet each other next time with genuine warmth. so this process is getting a bit staid. it's nice of course and often wanted on both sides but i've come to believe that conversation is overrated. at least for now. it had it's time to shine, now the fad has passed. conversation is out. silence is in. DDTing is also still in however. it's contradictory i know. but see, with these topics, it's like you can kinda get to know someone, or you really do get to know someone, but what do you really know about them? what they think? how they think? why they think? it's all very interesting of course to hear other people speak but sometimes after awhile all that talking gets jumbled up and you could care less (in the nicest way possible of course). and anything amazingly interesting is not really there because half the people you already know about and the other half you don't want to know about. i'm speaking of the world at large -- i love everyone i already know -- or just the people i don't know, or are more...peripheral? bad word choice. i was supposed to be doing some sort of analysis about how people got to know each other. i don't know where this bitter social diatribe came from. in a pathetic attempt to redeem this post, i will list the things that i think get discussed in a getting to know people situation. in order of most likely to be talked about to least likely. if you follow this path, you will be guaranteed friends. guaranteed. basics. name. age. occupation. what do you do on weekends. members of family. pets. location history. preferences of movies, music, television, video games. food tastes. more info. interests (sports, books, cooking, whathaveyou). do you get along with mother/father/brother/sister. occupational goals. likes/dislikes. drink/drug experiences. religious preference. social deviancy. growing up stories and experiences. relationships: past and present. middle name. quirks. oh so deep. insecurities. relationship ideals. religion. morals. convictions. prejudices. sex. tragedies. motivations. self analysis. fears and sadness. thoughts on other people and the world around you. evil. notice that thoughts and the things that one thinks about are construed as deep. because our minds are supposedly more "us" and supposedly more "private". also, this list is more or less my own take on it. and sometimes you jump between the lists as opportunity presents itself. say you happen to have a great conversation about religion off the bat with someone, you kind of feel close to them without even knowing the basics. but then oftentimes i find you go back to fill in the more rudimentary stuff to get a fuller picture of who they are. this is my rubrick. use it for good. Monday, December 8 3:27 PM : : hey, nice banjo. celebrate. i bought some new cds this weekend. with the downloading phenomenon in full effect the last cd i bought is beyond my memory. i think maybe the new gangstarr album awhile back. but this weekend i splurged and went to an actual music store and purchased actual cds. incredible. usually i can't justify spending ten to twelve dollars on "a hobby." it's either food or gas. and music is food for the soul but surprisingly it won't keep you alive. and the next time music makes my car go will be the first time. but on the other hand, you need music to live, you need it to stay alive. and so with that justification and more money in my pocket than usual i got four albums: the roots come alive, erykah badu's world wide underground, res and floetry live. that last one i was sucked into. it was hanging out near the front and although i've never heard floetics, i heard it was either really good or just a knock off neo-soul thing. but i figured if it was live it must be decent. and the first track i listened to had mos on it so i was sold. the problem of going into the used/new record store is that i want to buy all this stuff that i used to have but lost. tribe, mos, talib, jill scott, janet, lucy pearl, lyricists lounge, digable...someone is stealing this stuff. stuff that i really really want back but can't imagine buying again. but then some albums are just so worth the eight dollars for the real copy. i was also torn between what to limit my purchases to. my original intent was to get three used cds at the price of twenty five dollars but somehow i ended up with four at fifty. my math is fuzzy. i think i overspent my budget. it also kills me that maybe i should of had these albums before. but i'm so out of the music loop that the only way i can be back in is to buy my way back in. my life goals are everest-like, i know. on the flip side of wanting to buy old albums lost, i wanted to get new albums i'd never heard before. but when i actually buy a cd i want to know that it is classic, that it is something great i can enjoy over and over. therein lies the problem of trying to reach out to find some cd that i want to try but nobody can tell me if it's good or not. alternately, it would help if all my friends had my musical tastes so i could just copy their cds but sadly, most of my friends (in san diego) have totally different musical tastes. actually, it's a bit incredible that you could get all of us together and we barely have any musical tastes that cross over. anyway. so the experience of having four cds i'd never heard was kinda great. yes, it's the simple pleasures but really, listening to a cd for the first time, without any knowledge of the contents is kinda great. so far the roots come alive is ridiculous as i knew it would be. erykah is nice as i was sure she would be (although i kinda wanted her live album). res seems to be something that will conquer me with time. and floetry i'm sold on in the early tracks but i need to listen to it more to see if it's an album that will really stand out. i'm on a female neo-soul r n b kick. there's just not enough good hip hop flying about that i have to get (outside of old albums i've never owned). so i'm turning to alternative options. actually the real moral of the story is that i need more money to buy cds. then again, i could use all that money on clothes, which is almost as important as music. then again i could eat, gas up, pay debts and conserve money for tomorrow's tomorrow. hum, what a idea. Sunday, December 7 4:04 AM : : for the record, this is about the worst tattoo i've ever seen. maybe not the worst. but pretty bad. and this is just cool. and this is just "why demi why?!?" okay, after looking through a lot of celebrity tattoos i've decided that girls should never get: hearts, butterflies, wings or angels. guys should never get: arm bands, skulls, daggers or dragons. nobody should ever get the chinese symbol (or kanji) for strength. ever. although mary j's one on her hand is okay. but she's the queen of hip hop soul and you probably ain't the royalty of shit so... likes: simple numbers, stars, words on forearm, arm sleeves. key placement areas that are not the lower back or shoulder (for girls): wrist, ankle, neck line, foot. and the whole cast of lords getting the same tattoo is way cool. i wish i had eight friends willing to permanently place the exact same thing on their bodies in a show of togetherness and solidarity. i wish i had eight friends. "we live in a disposable society and tattoos are decidedly permanent. that's what makes them scary, and that's what makes them powerful. making an irrevocable choice is good for the soul." -tattoo article- Friday, December 5 11:12 AM : : "we will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds...a nation of men will for the first time exist, because each believes himself inspired by the divine soul which also inspires all men." sagacious beast. i have always admired emerson from afar. snippets of his writings have sunk to me and i've read them, processed them and sometimes shared them with others. and now i have discovered the rest of his writings and the world of the transcendentalists. but jon you say, are you not an accredited philosophy major? complete with infinite knowledge of all things philosophical? surely you've touched upon transcendentalism in some of your classes. to those people i say "look, do i ask you econ majors about supply and demand when we wait in line at the drive through? no." i don't know shit okay? actually, i don't really contest the infinite knowledge part, although that might seem contradictory. but the point is, i am a philosophy major on paper only. and remember that i studied to regurgitate, i did not study to soak. but now in my own spare time, i'm ready to soak. this is what happens with most of my philosophy books: i read them only once to get the highest grade possible in the shortest time possible (hello Cs and Ds, welcome welcome, make yourself comfortable) and then keep everything for afterwards knowing full well that i will somehow, someway, somewhere down the line, need them again. whoever said foresight was not in my bag of tricks was lying. anyway. on to transcendentalism. what i am about to say is gleaned from a very very once over of the ideas behind transcendentalism so as i read more, i could gain a better understanding. or i could just read more, fall asleep, and miss the final i already failed three years ago. either way. transcendentalism is really tricky to spell by the way. it's taking a herculean effort to make sure i'm spelling it right. "asserting the existence of an ideal spiritual reality that transcends the empirical and scientific and is knowable through intuition." that is the dictionary definition of transcendentalism. the important word for me here is "intuition." we often hear the phrase "i have a woman's intuition" or the more honest but less impressive "i have a retard's intuition." in my simple world i have always associated intuition with spiderman's spider sense -- if i have to tell you what a spider sense is, we are not having this conversation. intuition should be something that sets your mind a-tingling and leads you to do the right thing. this sounds like emotion to an extent but there is a big difference. i am a big critic of emotion but i try to trust intuition. intuition is not emotion and it should lead you to safer planes without the benefit of actual documented experience. emotions can lead you every which way, sometimes good, sometimes bad. boo emotion. still, this faith in intuition is in direct contrast to what i believe since intuition is defined as: the act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. no rational processes? kill me with a spoon. the transcendentalists value the intuition above reason (i'm unsure about the validity of my statement). they think that there are some things that you can learn without the benefit of experience first. they believe that ideas can come directly from the mind and not from the senses. these ideas are intuitions. i am not sure if i agree with this idea. however, when i read the ideas stemming from this idea, i agree wholeheartedly with the way emerson thinks. if you follow. so i'm not really in agreeance with the premise, but all the conclusions make sense. which leads me to believe that either my premises are wrong, or their premises are wrong. or that we're both right. seeing as he's an accredited genius and i am barely accredited, i'm willing to open my mind to his side. for now. because there are definitely many times when you just feel like something is right. and what do you attribute that to? experience or spider sense? and heavens, if we trust intuition, what if we happen to have a misguided or faulty spider sense? then doc oc and sandman might actually kill us. and then we would lose mary jane forever. 9:00 AM : : every spirit builds itself a house; and beyond its house, a world; and beyond its world, a heaven. know then, that the world exists for you. for you the phenomenon is perfect. what we are, that only can we see. all that adam had, all that caesar could, you have and can do. adam called his house, heaven and earth; caesar called his house, rome; you perhaps call yours a cobbler's trade; a hundred acres of ploughed land; or a scholar's garret. yet line for line and point for point, your dominion is as great as theirs, though without fine names. build, therefore, your own world. -nature, ralph waldo emerson- it�s certainly not enough to simply have an idea. we must live by our ideas and promote them if they are to have any real worth. of what value is �freedom� if we choose to live like slaves or are forced to submit to other�s whims? it�s only when such an idea is put to the test, when, for instance, we allow those we disagree with to express their ideas publicly that we can test the worth of such a concept. when we can actually see that the best ideas emerge from the free exchange of ideas, then we see the true worth of freedom, and not until. emerson argues that thinking and acting interact with each other, reinforcing each other: the mind now thinks; now acts; and each fit reproduces the other. when the artist has exhausted his materials, when the fancy no longer paints, when thoughts are no longer apprehended, and books are a weariness, -- he has always the resource to live. character is higher than intellect. thinking is the function. living is the functionary. -uses of great men, ralph waldo emerson- yet all his adult life he fought furiously, in the best transcendental spirit, to maintain his independence, and applied himself to working away from abstract doctrine toward passionate appropriation of the concrete. -written about henry david thoreau- Thursday, December 4 3:34 PM : : the answer lies somewhere in there. it isn't about the guys no more. it's all about me. so i talked to my people, surrounded myself with words from good friends. and by suggestion of rey, today i went to build a bear workshop for the first time and made myself a lion. i stuffed her with eleven brave hearts cause eleven is my lucky number and i wanted to make sure she'd survive through all the mending every time she got her heart broken. i wanted to make sure she still had enough hearts to love the folks who deserved it, even while a few of her hearts could be recuperating. i dressed her up in a blue cheerleader outfit cause blue's my favorite color and i needed a tangible cheerleader i could take around everywhere i went. and i gave her some shell toes to keep it old school. the cheerleader accessories say BABW all over them so i'm making them stand for the following: be a brave woman, be a beautiful woman, be a badass woman, and build a beautiful world. i gave her two names: malaya to honor my tattoo which means "free," and soledad to honor my grandmother which happens to mean "solitude." -girlsareweird.com- 10:25 AM : : bag lady you gone hurt your back dragging all them bags like that i guess nobody ever told you all you must hold on to is you, is you, is you one day all them bags gone get in your way so pack light pack light pack light -erykah badu, bag lady- my eyes are green cause i eat a lot of vegetables it don't have nothing to do with your new friend i don't care, i swear i'm too thru with you i am you don't mean nothing to me so go ahead and be with your friend -erykah badu, green eyes- i picks my friends like i pick my fruit my ganny told me that when i was only a youth i don't walk around trying to be what i'm not i don't waste my time trying to get what you got i work at pleasin' me cause i can't please you, and that's why i do what i do my soul flies free like a willow tree doo wee, doo wee, doo wee -erykah badu, apple tree- Wednesday, December 3 2:14 PM : : me tarzan, you jane. in taking yet another personality test, this time the enneagram one, there were some questions that caught my eye. in particular number 153 was interesting. question 153 stated: when i enter a new group, i know immediately who the most powerful person is. you are supposed to answer: always, sometimes, never. now what i want to know is what kind of question is this? do you know who the most powerful person in the room is? what if you say "always"? what does that mean? that you are in tune with social structure and power? and if it's "never" then you are unaware of how people are connected? i answered "always" because i figured i'm the most powerful person in any group so i of course know immediately who that person is. convenient no? now this could be useful i suppose. walk into a group setting, identify the leaders, the sheep, the clinger oners. the whatevers. and then act accordingly. but it makes me wonder about how often people actually think about this. do you meet people, or meet a group, and immediately try to identify the lords and masters? this seems kind of sick to me. smacks of some type of insecurity or manipulation. but maybe not, it could just be something we all do. a remnant of being brutal social animals who judge based on powerful physical or intellectual traits. thank god we evolved out of that phase. supposing we had this knowledge, this knowledge of who was the most powerful person, what would we do with it? in reading life of pi, there are many sections that talk about animal behavior. the key to training animals (specifically tigers in this case) is to make them believe that you are the alpha person. once you have established that, you try to train the tigers at the bottom of the social ladder. these omega tigers are more likely to want to "kiss up" and be obedient to the alpha person. the beta and not quite so low status tigers will chafe under authority. so in thinking about this question, it occured to me that maybe it means that by identifying the most powerful person, you are really a sucker for trying to get their attention. for trying to kiss up to them to gain acceptance into the group as a whole. and that is....disgusting.....smart......what? there is for sure something positive to be said for recognizing who the big shot (wo)men are, but it's such an interesting question to appear on a personality test don't you think? Tuesday, December 2 1:14 PM : : apparently there are a number of people at work who already know me. or know someone who knows me. besides the ai-yi who helped me get the job there is a cousin of a friend, a mother of a friend (i'm not sure about this one) and the head boss guy of my department used to play golf with my dad. could there be more? who knows. the thing with socializing at work is that i'm against it. my work personality is plain, staid and boring. don't confuse this with my regular personality please. i try to say hi and bye and how are you but oftentimes i work actively to avoid social situations. walk with my head down, talk on the cell phone, use the coffee maker with nobody else in the room. i feel coolest with the warehouse guys, with whom i exchange friendly head nods and "what's up man." nothing further is exchanged but somehow i feel much more comfortable with them. veteran worker friends tell me that having friends at work is a good thing because it makes the day go by but most of the time, quite frankly, i'm not particularly interested in other people at work. i ask them questions, they give me answers, that's the extent of our relationship. all this makes me wonder what it would be like to have "friends" at work. would the internet cease to be my sanctuary? would my lunches be filled with conversations about work? what would it be like? would my walks to the copier be filled with smiles and hi's as opposed to occupied silences? i dunno. but i'm not entirely eager to find out. i like just going in, doing my eight hours and walking out. i felt the same way about class too. something about the work/class environment makes me just want to shut down and not say anything. and can we talk about avoiding company gatherings and parties? i have no inclination to ever to go to any of those. not just because of the not knowing anybody or the inevitable small talk but i feel like there should be a barrier between real life and work life. work life is filled with "how was the traffic this morning? how was your weekend?" no details or explanations needed. i might be taking the "don't mix business with pleasure" statement the wrong way. Monday, December 1 9:42 AM : : big question of the day. what is a slambook? i feel like it's a thing girls know about. or maybe it's a thing that happened in middle school or high school. what is it? a diary? a book of slams? what? i feel so inadequate. it never fails. christina knows all. from her: a slambook is a notebook that you pass around (usually in jr high) to have ppl fill out and "vote" for best looking, biggest flirt, hottie, etc. they usually have "a very special episode" on sitcoms dedicated to the meanness and cattiness that is a slambook. and now i know. |