The Downfall of the American Economic Society
Despite the heady title, I'm not about to go into an economic lesson/tirade about the good 'ol US of A. In fact, I somehow got through 19 years of schooling without ever taking a course in economics. How the hell did that happen?
It's funny how financially hard times brings out something different in everyone and every situation. I understand that I am hardly qualified to complain like some people out there; but that's not going to stop me from pointing out strange effects these times have had on me personally (Is 'personally' unnecessary in that sentence from a grammatical point of view?).
First off, my job has become, um, strange? Whereas we used to be full all the time and could hardly keep up with all the diners hungry for cheese, now we have too many servers and not enough diners. Two easy solutions might be to fire the lesser workers thereby boosting the workload of those deserving, or playing the seniority card and giving more work to those with the longest (and best) track-record with the company. Instead, the restaurant has become, well, like this:
And that is only a slight exaggeration. We, the servers, were all informed that those who took the initiative to partake in menial tasks not in our job description, followed all the corporate rules to a T (even though they haven't cared up until this point), and basically brown-nosed, would be the servers who got shifts. So an atmosphere of at least semi-happy compatible servers has turned into a power-struggle to see who can outdo who. Since when does my choice to perform a busser's task (of course secretly hoping I'm being watched, otherwise who would care?) at the detriment of my own duties equal being allowed to work?
Secondly, the issue of food has become interesting. I start out the month like normal: make a sandwich for certain meals, cook some burgers for others, eat out occasionally, and snack on whatever's around when hungry in between. Towards the middle of the month I cut out eating out and rely on food from the freezer and fridge plus the occasional snack. By the end of the month (with rent looming) I find myself having conversations with myself like this:
G1: "Let's see, what can I have for dinner?"
G2: "You have no money, so you can't eat out."
G1: "True, and I'm out of sandwich meat and microwave burritos."
G2: *Points at something in back of cabinet* "What's what?"
G1: "A can of refried beans that's been there for 2 years."
G2: "Wrong, it's dinner!"
Third, I start making strange cutbacks that probably aren't making that much of a difference. Case in point: I need to return this movie to the store; but I am running on fumes in my truck. In order to get to the store I will have to fill up my gas tank. So....screw it, I'll return it later when I have gas and hope that I don't get fined thereby negating the savings I just made. But of course, if I were to stop and think, I would realize that I have to buy gas whether or not I go to the store today, and I will have to return the movie whether or not I do it today (unless I really want to own a copy of Baby Geniuses on BlueRay for a mere $25). This probably goes back to my lack of economic teaching; but I somehow convince myself that delayed spending is saving me money!
4, I indubitably make one or more stupid financial decisions. E.g. After adding up rent and utilities, counting how much I have in the bank, counting how much I have in my wallet, coming to the conclusion that since I only work one more day in the month I need to walk with $130 in that next shift or I will not make rent, and realizing that I haven't made that much in a shift in a long time (therefore it will be a long shot to make rent this month), I will wake up the next morning with furrowed eyebrows as to why I spent the night spending money to drink with friends <---This is, most assuredly, the longest sentence in this post, or in any recent post for that matter; which makes me want to go scan the archives to see what the longest sentence I have ever written is.
Times like this make you wish you had been smart with your savings when things were looking up. But nooooo, I needed the duplicate DVD just because it was a special edition with one added feature, the fancy name-brand headache painkillers that are 6x the price of the generics, the new digital camera with twice the megapixels (even though I have never printed anything requiring the max number of magapixels my current camera has), and the fancy foreign bottled water (my Brita filter makes the water taste like carrots!).
Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20 while current vision is like reading the bottom line of an eye exam chart from 100 yard through blue-tinted glass covered in mud.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Evolution of Understanding of Government
I have to admit that I have never been very involved (read: interested) in politics. I know, I know, if I were in some other country that did not allow at least a semblance of democracy (since that's about all we have in the U.S.) I would do anything to have a say. Call me jaded; but at least I'm aware of my condition.
The method by which I vote has gone through three stages, and I think I have finally ended up with something workable:
18 Years Old: The first stage was to go along with whatever my parents told me. I honestly put no thought into voting, registered republican, and voted along with my parents. When your biggest concern is whether your parents will let you stay out 'til 10pm on Saturday night, the next president isn't exactly on the "things I really care about list."
22 Years Old: The second stage was to do some reading, do some thinking, and end up with a totally nihilistic view of my role in voting. My thoughts were: if California will always be a democratic state, it doesn't matter what I vote. If I voted democrat, a democrat would win; if I voted republican, a democrat would win (etc, etc). Due to this 'understanding,' I voted, not really caring or thinking it mattered. Now, there is some truth to this, but it is misguided and it led to my current thought.
26 Years Old: The third stage is to actually care enough to not go with a mob mentality. My mind still can't wrap around the idea that only someone from one of two parties will win. Why the hell is that? Why do people not even consider the other parties? Go ahead, ask someone to name candidates from a party other than the democrats or republicans and they will likely draw a blank (unless it's someone like Ron Paul who would have to be a write-in). What is my solution then? Simply to vote for someone I agree with. Screw the main two candidates, they are both bad choices. Yeah, I know that voting for a third party means that my choice will not win and that my vote will not go towards helping "the lesser of two evils." I'm sick of that phrase. Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? If more people stopped following the crowd and read into the issues and voted on something other than a big D or R, we actually might get some of the much harped on "change" this country so badly needs.
So what's the end result? I used to think voting for anyone other than D or R would result in a thrown away vote. Now I see that by voting for someone other than the main two, those candidates will look at the states they lost, ask why, and see (hopefully) a good-sized chunk of votes going to some underdog. This will (hopefully) cause them to rethink why they were not voted for and make some changes. It will also (hopefully) give some power to third parties and help the hopelessly insignificant candidates to gain some significance and actually make some change.
Anyway, I'm off my soap-box. I hate politics. I really do. But I guess trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it.
I have to admit that I have never been very involved (read: interested) in politics. I know, I know, if I were in some other country that did not allow at least a semblance of democracy (since that's about all we have in the U.S.) I would do anything to have a say. Call me jaded; but at least I'm aware of my condition.
The method by which I vote has gone through three stages, and I think I have finally ended up with something workable:
18 Years Old: The first stage was to go along with whatever my parents told me. I honestly put no thought into voting, registered republican, and voted along with my parents. When your biggest concern is whether your parents will let you stay out 'til 10pm on Saturday night, the next president isn't exactly on the "things I really care about list."
22 Years Old: The second stage was to do some reading, do some thinking, and end up with a totally nihilistic view of my role in voting. My thoughts were: if California will always be a democratic state, it doesn't matter what I vote. If I voted democrat, a democrat would win; if I voted republican, a democrat would win (etc, etc). Due to this 'understanding,' I voted, not really caring or thinking it mattered. Now, there is some truth to this, but it is misguided and it led to my current thought.
26 Years Old: The third stage is to actually care enough to not go with a mob mentality. My mind still can't wrap around the idea that only someone from one of two parties will win. Why the hell is that? Why do people not even consider the other parties? Go ahead, ask someone to name candidates from a party other than the democrats or republicans and they will likely draw a blank (unless it's someone like Ron Paul who would have to be a write-in). What is my solution then? Simply to vote for someone I agree with. Screw the main two candidates, they are both bad choices. Yeah, I know that voting for a third party means that my choice will not win and that my vote will not go towards helping "the lesser of two evils." I'm sick of that phrase. Why does it have to be the lesser of two evils? If more people stopped following the crowd and read into the issues and voted on something other than a big D or R, we actually might get some of the much harped on "change" this country so badly needs.
So what's the end result? I used to think voting for anyone other than D or R would result in a thrown away vote. Now I see that by voting for someone other than the main two, those candidates will look at the states they lost, ask why, and see (hopefully) a good-sized chunk of votes going to some underdog. This will (hopefully) cause them to rethink why they were not voted for and make some changes. It will also (hopefully) give some power to third parties and help the hopelessly insignificant candidates to gain some significance and actually make some change.
Anyway, I'm off my soap-box. I hate politics. I really do. But I guess trying to make something you hate better is better than hating it and doing nothing about it.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Hey, you, stop giving a bad name to things that describe me!
This thought is nothing new, and I have surely talked about it before; but a movie (about to be released) has re-roused my passion for the topic. That movie is Religulous.
I want to explain, right off, that I am not in any way trying to belittle this film, start a boycott, or even say it is wrong in its message. In fact, I find the idea of the film to be a sobering one, especially for those who have faith in more than this mortal coil.
I recently watched an interview with Bill Maher, in which he explained that there are two basic kinds of religious people, 1) those who have hardcore faith, but know next to nothing about what they believe, and 2) those who know everything about what they believe, but exhibit weak faith (or blatantly admit that they're very possibly wrong). This is the common view that anyone who is smart enough will realize the stupidity of faith in the supernatural.
Something like %16 of people do not "have faith" (oh what a wonderfully vague phrase that is) according to the film, and Mr. Maher wants better representation of those people instead of religiosity being an assumed essential part of being in government, being moral, etc.
How can all the religious fanatics, the crazies, the violently zealous be the ones who control laws, set up appropriate behavior for family life, or quite literally get away with murder?
My basic problem is that (and I'll bring this close to home so as not to offend too many people) Christians are making Christianity stupid. No, I don't think that they are making it look stupid for having belief, or desiring a relationship with an invisible being, or anything of the sort. Christians are making Christianity stupid because they will jump headfirst into discussions, political positions, and alienating moral views because "that's what the Bible says." Most Christians have no ethical theory, theological training, hermeneutic understanding, etc, etc, etc.
Christians will jump on any bandwagon their pastor tells them to. They will vote for any presidential candidate who professes "Christian ideals." They will chastise those who go against biblical law, all the while committing secret sins of their own.
My point is that most people of faith are either too ignorant to show that their beliefs are not delusions of grandeur, or are too jaded to exhibit any sort of zeal for faith in something that, if true, is absolutely wonderful. Most people of faith hand people like Bill Maher a bat and say, "hit me."
What I wish (and I know this will never happen) is that people would do one of two things, either 1) actually take an interest in the thing that is supposed to be the most important part of their life, do some studying, and be ready to intelligently explain why they believe what they believe, or 2) simply admit that they are not well studied in the area, but that they have faith anyway, and therefore understand that they should not make sweeping generalizations or become fanatical about topics that they are totally ignorant in.
Don't think those are the only two options? Imagine a scientist who bases all his research on the theoretical hypothesis of string theory; but when you ask him why, he replies, "oh, I just believe it." Then imagine trying to argue that quantum theory is right and string theory is wrong, and this scientist (who has no basis or backing for his theory other than faith) becoming belligerently angry, saying you are wrong (though he can't say why), and accusing you of being ignorant.
Would you take that? No, of course not. Why? Because (despite string theory being a hypothesis) it's science, and saying, "just cuz" isn't good enough. Well the same thing goes for religion. If you are going to tell someone that they are wrong for what they believe, or that they must believe in a certain thing, you had better have some good reasons why you are right (and no, "um, because the Bible says so" is not a good enough answer.
I'm sick and tired of telling people I am a Christian and getting that look that says, "oh, heh, riiiight, let's change the subject before I offend your simple sensibilities." I almost feel like telling people, "I'm a Christian, but not one of the stupid ones."
On a final note, I'm not trying to take all faiths down a peg. I'm simply trying to point out that if you get angry by things like movies mocking your faith, take a look at yourself before accusing others. Also, no, not everyone falls into the categories of stupid with faith or smart without faith. I have, well, faith, that people will start putting a little more effort into their beliefs.
This thought is nothing new, and I have surely talked about it before; but a movie (about to be released) has re-roused my passion for the topic. That movie is Religulous.
I want to explain, right off, that I am not in any way trying to belittle this film, start a boycott, or even say it is wrong in its message. In fact, I find the idea of the film to be a sobering one, especially for those who have faith in more than this mortal coil.
I recently watched an interview with Bill Maher, in which he explained that there are two basic kinds of religious people, 1) those who have hardcore faith, but know next to nothing about what they believe, and 2) those who know everything about what they believe, but exhibit weak faith (or blatantly admit that they're very possibly wrong). This is the common view that anyone who is smart enough will realize the stupidity of faith in the supernatural.
Something like %16 of people do not "have faith" (oh what a wonderfully vague phrase that is) according to the film, and Mr. Maher wants better representation of those people instead of religiosity being an assumed essential part of being in government, being moral, etc.
How can all the religious fanatics, the crazies, the violently zealous be the ones who control laws, set up appropriate behavior for family life, or quite literally get away with murder?
My basic problem is that (and I'll bring this close to home so as not to offend too many people) Christians are making Christianity stupid. No, I don't think that they are making it look stupid for having belief, or desiring a relationship with an invisible being, or anything of the sort. Christians are making Christianity stupid because they will jump headfirst into discussions, political positions, and alienating moral views because "that's what the Bible says." Most Christians have no ethical theory, theological training, hermeneutic understanding, etc, etc, etc.
Christians will jump on any bandwagon their pastor tells them to. They will vote for any presidential candidate who professes "Christian ideals." They will chastise those who go against biblical law, all the while committing secret sins of their own.
My point is that most people of faith are either too ignorant to show that their beliefs are not delusions of grandeur, or are too jaded to exhibit any sort of zeal for faith in something that, if true, is absolutely wonderful. Most people of faith hand people like Bill Maher a bat and say, "hit me."
What I wish (and I know this will never happen) is that people would do one of two things, either 1) actually take an interest in the thing that is supposed to be the most important part of their life, do some studying, and be ready to intelligently explain why they believe what they believe, or 2) simply admit that they are not well studied in the area, but that they have faith anyway, and therefore understand that they should not make sweeping generalizations or become fanatical about topics that they are totally ignorant in.
Don't think those are the only two options? Imagine a scientist who bases all his research on the theoretical hypothesis of string theory; but when you ask him why, he replies, "oh, I just believe it." Then imagine trying to argue that quantum theory is right and string theory is wrong, and this scientist (who has no basis or backing for his theory other than faith) becoming belligerently angry, saying you are wrong (though he can't say why), and accusing you of being ignorant.
Would you take that? No, of course not. Why? Because (despite string theory being a hypothesis) it's science, and saying, "just cuz" isn't good enough. Well the same thing goes for religion. If you are going to tell someone that they are wrong for what they believe, or that they must believe in a certain thing, you had better have some good reasons why you are right (and no, "um, because the Bible says so" is not a good enough answer.
I'm sick and tired of telling people I am a Christian and getting that look that says, "oh, heh, riiiight, let's change the subject before I offend your simple sensibilities." I almost feel like telling people, "I'm a Christian, but not one of the stupid ones."
On a final note, I'm not trying to take all faiths down a peg. I'm simply trying to point out that if you get angry by things like movies mocking your faith, take a look at yourself before accusing others. Also, no, not everyone falls into the categories of stupid with faith or smart without faith. I have, well, faith, that people will start putting a little more effort into their beliefs.
Friday, September 26, 2008
So...much...happening...
Life has been crazy hectic lately; but not in a bad way. At the beginning of the month I hit NY with my family. Four days in Valley Stream and four days in the city. The prior half was filled with homemade food and grandmotherly guilt trips, and the latter half was filled with an increasingly strong desire to move to NY city.
In the city we saw three plays (though the last can hardly be described as merely a "play"). First was Xanadu. Basic premise: a rollerskating muse from Mt. Olympus intervenes in the life of a man (who is so effeminate that it's amazing the story says he's straight) who wants to open a roller-disco.
The second play was a Tony-award-winning play called August: Osage County. Basic premise: a family so dysfunctional that having having Michael Jackson as a daycare owning dad and Charles Manson as a brother would seem unremarkable in comparison. All in all, a show so depressing that despite the award-winning cast and well written story, I didn't care to even contemplate the play after it had ended.
The last "play" we saw was called Fuerza Bruta. Considering how difficult a time as I had trying to describe the Radiohead concert due to its amazing-ness, I am bound to fail at trying to describe this event. Imagine standing in a room with a couple hundred other people, fog machines blasting, giant fans, water cannons, a man on a treadmill crashing through foam-brick walls, and girls dancing in a water-filled Plexiglas cage that is being lowered over your head. That image, the one you have in your head right now, it's nothing compared to what I witnessed. If you ever, EVER have a chance to see this show, see it. I cannot explain how amazing it was. Ok, it was so good that at the end of the show, people were so hyped that they (including me) were willingly dancing in a downpour of water, not caring about the effects on electronics in pockets, or how it will affect getting home.
The rest of the trip was fantastic and wonderful and a bunch of other terms describing happiness that I don't feel like typing out right now.
::
::
Skipping a little bit of time, Megan surprised me with an early birthday present: Beck tickets. That's right, tickets to see Spoon, MGMT, and Beck at the Hollywood Bowl. The night consisted of free wine, a very tall man cracking his head open on the concrete in front of me, two great opening bands, more wine, and a machine-like Beck who pumped out around 30 songs in his set. Not only that, he had a 30-piece (or so) orchestra behind him so he could play songs from Sea Change. In other words, holy crap it was amazing. Every part of the concert was awesome.
Afterwards <---not a real word, is it? (and not a ton will be said about this) we hit Vanguard to dance the rest of the night away. All in all, a fantastic (if not early) birthday celebration.
And now? Well now there are dreams of cruise ships and new jobs and moving to new places and embarking in new enterprises. Life is fun and hectic and seriously draining all of my money...but I wouldn't trade it for all the world.
Life has been crazy hectic lately; but not in a bad way. At the beginning of the month I hit NY with my family. Four days in Valley Stream and four days in the city. The prior half was filled with homemade food and grandmotherly guilt trips, and the latter half was filled with an increasingly strong desire to move to NY city.
In the city we saw three plays (though the last can hardly be described as merely a "play"). First was Xanadu. Basic premise: a rollerskating muse from Mt. Olympus intervenes in the life of a man (who is so effeminate that it's amazing the story says he's straight) who wants to open a roller-disco.
The second play was a Tony-award-winning play called August: Osage County. Basic premise: a family so dysfunctional that having having Michael Jackson as a daycare owning dad and Charles Manson as a brother would seem unremarkable in comparison. All in all, a show so depressing that despite the award-winning cast and well written story, I didn't care to even contemplate the play after it had ended.
The last "play" we saw was called Fuerza Bruta. Considering how difficult a time as I had trying to describe the Radiohead concert due to its amazing-ness, I am bound to fail at trying to describe this event. Imagine standing in a room with a couple hundred other people, fog machines blasting, giant fans, water cannons, a man on a treadmill crashing through foam-brick walls, and girls dancing in a water-filled Plexiglas cage that is being lowered over your head. That image, the one you have in your head right now, it's nothing compared to what I witnessed. If you ever, EVER have a chance to see this show, see it. I cannot explain how amazing it was. Ok, it was so good that at the end of the show, people were so hyped that they (including me) were willingly dancing in a downpour of water, not caring about the effects on electronics in pockets, or how it will affect getting home.The rest of the trip was fantastic and wonderful and a bunch of other terms describing happiness that I don't feel like typing out right now.
::
::
Skipping a little bit of time, Megan surprised me with an early birthday present: Beck tickets. That's right, tickets to see Spoon, MGMT, and Beck at the Hollywood Bowl. The night consisted of free wine, a very tall man cracking his head open on the concrete in front of me, two great opening bands, more wine, and a machine-like Beck who pumped out around 30 songs in his set. Not only that, he had a 30-piece (or so) orchestra behind him so he could play songs from Sea Change. In other words, holy crap it was amazing. Every part of the concert was awesome.Afterwards <---not a real word, is it? (and not a ton will be said about this) we hit Vanguard to dance the rest of the night away. All in all, a fantastic (if not early) birthday celebration.
And now? Well now there are dreams of cruise ships and new jobs and moving to new places and embarking in new enterprises. Life is fun and hectic and seriously draining all of my money...but I wouldn't trade it for all the world.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Now People...
I had this fantastic philosophy teacher whose name I shall politely omit (not because I think he will stumble upon my blog -since the chances of that are less than the chances that Oprah will gain a conscience, donate all her personal belongings to charity and devote her life to feeding the poor- but because I respect the man too much to belittle him with a seemingly degrading blog post), since he has been such an inspiration to me that a humorous blog devoted to him seems mean-spirited.
Now don't get me wrong...I think naming a man and "making fun" of him is mean-spirited, however I am still doing it; but by not naming him I am merely pointing out a humorous part of my life without degrading an amazing person.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand...
I had a teacher who had, shall we say, a quirk. He would constantly interject the phrase "now people," or the word, "people," into his sentences. For example:
"Now people, don't get me wrong; but Kant didn't think this through..."
Or...
The only problem with this, people, is that existentialism ignored modern logic."
I'm not so sure you get my point. He said this phrase/word a LOT. As in a whole-friggin-lot.
I had taken a previous class with him and knew this quirk, so I decided, in one particular class, to take a tally of how many times he said it. I started out as a lone gunman, marking tallies between furious note-taking. Soon enough, my neighbors noticed something odd about my habits and asked what I was doing. When I informed them of my task, they gladly lended helping hands...pointing out "now people"s when I didn't notice.
The following picture is my tally sheet. I apologize for the poor quality:
It's not easy to see (click to enlarge), but he hit a max of 63 "now people"s on 3-28-05.
I considered making a nice laminated version of the tally sheet and giving it to him at the end of the semester; but I had this horrible vision of him feeling so much self-doubt about himself that he would fold into the fetal position in the middle of a class and never be able to teach again for fear that he would utter that god-forsaken phrase yet again. So I held on to it. And tonight I happened to stumble upon it and felt the insatiable need to share it with someone...even if that "someone" is the faceless internets that I stare into so many nights.
So enjoy, oh internets, and revel in the glory that is quirky teachers.
I had this fantastic philosophy teacher whose name I shall politely omit (not because I think he will stumble upon my blog -since the chances of that are less than the chances that Oprah will gain a conscience, donate all her personal belongings to charity and devote her life to feeding the poor- but because I respect the man too much to belittle him with a seemingly degrading blog post), since he has been such an inspiration to me that a humorous blog devoted to him seems mean-spirited.
Now don't get me wrong...I think naming a man and "making fun" of him is mean-spirited, however I am still doing it; but by not naming him I am merely pointing out a humorous part of my life without degrading an amazing person.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand...
I had a teacher who had, shall we say, a quirk. He would constantly interject the phrase "now people," or the word, "people," into his sentences. For example:
"Now people, don't get me wrong; but Kant didn't think this through..."
Or...
The only problem with this, people, is that existentialism ignored modern logic."
I'm not so sure you get my point. He said this phrase/word a LOT. As in a whole-friggin-lot.
I had taken a previous class with him and knew this quirk, so I decided, in one particular class, to take a tally of how many times he said it. I started out as a lone gunman, marking tallies between furious note-taking. Soon enough, my neighbors noticed something odd about my habits and asked what I was doing. When I informed them of my task, they gladly lended helping hands...pointing out "now people"s when I didn't notice.
The following picture is my tally sheet. I apologize for the poor quality:
It's not easy to see (click to enlarge), but he hit a max of 63 "now people"s on 3-28-05.
I considered making a nice laminated version of the tally sheet and giving it to him at the end of the semester; but I had this horrible vision of him feeling so much self-doubt about himself that he would fold into the fetal position in the middle of a class and never be able to teach again for fear that he would utter that god-forsaken phrase yet again. So I held on to it. And tonight I happened to stumble upon it and felt the insatiable need to share it with someone...even if that "someone" is the faceless internets that I stare into so many nights.
So enjoy, oh internets, and revel in the glory that is quirky teachers.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"Wait, she's doing what?!?
I just got back from an amazing trip to NY and have some fun stuff to share; but it's late and I'm tired and you'll have to wait for that (if you can!).
In the meantime, I wanted to take a minute to brag about my little sister Ashley. She has put many years and countless hours into her dance and performance arts knowing full well that it might never pan out quite the way she hoped it would.
Well, it has started to pay off.
First off, keep an eye out for the commercial for the next season of Nip/Tuck. Ashley is one of the dancers playing the parts of Twiggy and some queen who I can't recall at the moment.
Second, and even more exciting, she just danced backup for Rihanna at the MTV Video Music Awards! Sorry for the horribly pixelated picture. It seems that even with all our advances in technology we still can't get a clean screen-capture of TV events (then again I'm complaining about something I'm relying on other people to do for me...how American!). She was chosen to be one of the few core dancers for Rihanna's performance and she got some great screen time. If you want to see the whole thing, Click Here.
On top of all of that, she recently modeled clothes at a celebrity function, tried out for a new Cirque Du Soleil show, and is being considered to be a model for a high-end jean company.
It's funny that it's my sister, because I usually get to tell stories that start off with, "Oh, I know this guy whose sister..." and now I get to say, "Hey, guess what my sister just did?" I'm incredibly proud of her and just thought I'd share.
Oh, and if you see her walking down the street, don't be shy, she only charges $10 for an autograph.
I just got back from an amazing trip to NY and have some fun stuff to share; but it's late and I'm tired and you'll have to wait for that (if you can!).
In the meantime, I wanted to take a minute to brag about my little sister Ashley. She has put many years and countless hours into her dance and performance arts knowing full well that it might never pan out quite the way she hoped it would.
Well, it has started to pay off.
First off, keep an eye out for the commercial for the next season of Nip/Tuck. Ashley is one of the dancers playing the parts of Twiggy and some queen who I can't recall at the moment.
Second, and even more exciting, she just danced backup for Rihanna at the MTV Video Music Awards! Sorry for the horribly pixelated picture. It seems that even with all our advances in technology we still can't get a clean screen-capture of TV events (then again I'm complaining about something I'm relying on other people to do for me...how American!). She was chosen to be one of the few core dancers for Rihanna's performance and she got some great screen time. If you want to see the whole thing, Click Here.On top of all of that, she recently modeled clothes at a celebrity function, tried out for a new Cirque Du Soleil show, and is being considered to be a model for a high-end jean company.
It's funny that it's my sister, because I usually get to tell stories that start off with, "Oh, I know this guy whose sister..." and now I get to say, "Hey, guess what my sister just did?" I'm incredibly proud of her and just thought I'd share.
Oh, and if you see her walking down the street, don't be shy, she only charges $10 for an autograph.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
"The only way I can describe it is 'transcendent.'"
Late last month Megan and I went to see Radiohead at the Hollywood Bowl. I had never seen them before so I was asking around to see which friends had seen them. You know, to get an idea of what I was in for. Without fail, every person who had seen them raved about how amazing they were. Now, I'm a pretty big fan of Radiohead, but I assumed that people were getting caught up in the hype of a band they adored. I never assumed I would experience what I did.
Without a doubt, Radiohead was the best live show I have ever seen. In fact, I don't even want to call it a "live show" since it was so much more. The strange thing is, I can't figure out why. I dissected each individual part of the night to see if I could understand better. Here's the closest I could come to a formula:
Amazing light show that must be seen to be understood (see picture at top)
+
As close to perfect of a performance from the group as possible
+
Almost every song I hoped to hear
+
Not too many completely annoying people around to ruin the experience
=
The perfect concert experience
But wait, that doesn't make sense. I've been to shows before that have all those elements and I still walked away from those shows thinking, "that was fun"...not, "that was the most amazing thing I have ever experienced."
It makes even less sense when you consider how many negatives surrounded the experience:
-We were sitting 3 rows from the very back of the Bowl (that's REALLY far away)
-I had had multiple alcoholic beverages (dulling the senses)
-The people in front of us spent the first part of the show talking quite loudly, as if they were at a party with friends and the music was just coming from the radio (though thanks to our seat-neighbors they were quieted)
-Megan had to work the next morning (at 8:30am) and the show was going late
-Etc, etc, etc
I look at the positives (which seem very generic), and I add in the negatives (which seem pretty annoying/distracting), and my first thought is that the end result should not be so great. So what is it that made that particular show so incredible?
It has to be soul.
Thom York (even from the back of the Bowl) exudes such passion for what he is doing that you can't help but be sucked in and entranced by every vocal utterance and musical sound. Watching him sing and play makes me think that if he was not making music, he would die. He puts so much of himself into every second of the show that it is no longer like watching a concert...it is more like watching a performance piece where the main character is bearing his every emotion for all to see.
I saw this show over a week ago and have stalled writing about it since then. I have a really hard time writing about something so meaningful when I know that my words will hardly convey how I feel or how the experience actually was. Imagine reading a blog about how amazing skydiving is. No matter how perfect the word choice is, you are not going to understand what skydiving is like...unless you do it.
The last two paragraphs are my biggest concern right now. First, I didn't want to write about this because I knew that my experience would never be fully conveyed in words. Second, I didn't want to start writing about the "oh-my-gosh-it-was-magical" aspect of the show because I knew it would start to sound pretentious. There seems to be no easy way of writing about a band like Radiohead. In one respect, they are just a band; in another, they are the mouthpiece for a generation that feels full of despair and hopelessness over the prospect of the future. They are some amazing conglomeration of the wholly physical and secular and wholly metaphysical and spiritual.
And in the end, I feel as if I should have kept all this to myself...like that kid you see cupping something in his hands and peeking at whatever it is he has while he smiles a smile that reads: I am the luckiest person in the world. At the same time, if I don't at least attempt to share experiences like this one, I will end up conveying that my life is uninteresting dross not worth your time. But just like I feel that my friend's stories and experiences are enlightening and life-enhancing, so I hope mine are.
Late last month Megan and I went to see Radiohead at the Hollywood Bowl. I had never seen them before so I was asking around to see which friends had seen them. You know, to get an idea of what I was in for. Without fail, every person who had seen them raved about how amazing they were. Now, I'm a pretty big fan of Radiohead, but I assumed that people were getting caught up in the hype of a band they adored. I never assumed I would experience what I did.Without a doubt, Radiohead was the best live show I have ever seen. In fact, I don't even want to call it a "live show" since it was so much more. The strange thing is, I can't figure out why. I dissected each individual part of the night to see if I could understand better. Here's the closest I could come to a formula:
Amazing light show that must be seen to be understood (see picture at top)
+
As close to perfect of a performance from the group as possible
+
Almost every song I hoped to hear
+
Not too many completely annoying people around to ruin the experience
=
The perfect concert experience
But wait, that doesn't make sense. I've been to shows before that have all those elements and I still walked away from those shows thinking, "that was fun"...not, "that was the most amazing thing I have ever experienced."
It makes even less sense when you consider how many negatives surrounded the experience:
-We were sitting 3 rows from the very back of the Bowl (that's REALLY far away)
-I had had multiple alcoholic beverages (dulling the senses)
-The people in front of us spent the first part of the show talking quite loudly, as if they were at a party with friends and the music was just coming from the radio (though thanks to our seat-neighbors they were quieted)
-Megan had to work the next morning (at 8:30am) and the show was going late
-Etc, etc, etc
I look at the positives (which seem very generic), and I add in the negatives (which seem pretty annoying/distracting), and my first thought is that the end result should not be so great. So what is it that made that particular show so incredible?
It has to be soul.
Thom York (even from the back of the Bowl) exudes such passion for what he is doing that you can't help but be sucked in and entranced by every vocal utterance and musical sound. Watching him sing and play makes me think that if he was not making music, he would die. He puts so much of himself into every second of the show that it is no longer like watching a concert...it is more like watching a performance piece where the main character is bearing his every emotion for all to see.
I saw this show over a week ago and have stalled writing about it since then. I have a really hard time writing about something so meaningful when I know that my words will hardly convey how I feel or how the experience actually was. Imagine reading a blog about how amazing skydiving is. No matter how perfect the word choice is, you are not going to understand what skydiving is like...unless you do it.
The last two paragraphs are my biggest concern right now. First, I didn't want to write about this because I knew that my experience would never be fully conveyed in words. Second, I didn't want to start writing about the "oh-my-gosh-it-was-magical" aspect of the show because I knew it would start to sound pretentious. There seems to be no easy way of writing about a band like Radiohead. In one respect, they are just a band; in another, they are the mouthpiece for a generation that feels full of despair and hopelessness over the prospect of the future. They are some amazing conglomeration of the wholly physical and secular and wholly metaphysical and spiritual.
And in the end, I feel as if I should have kept all this to myself...like that kid you see cupping something in his hands and peeking at whatever it is he has while he smiles a smile that reads: I am the luckiest person in the world. At the same time, if I don't at least attempt to share experiences like this one, I will end up conveying that my life is uninteresting dross not worth your time. But just like I feel that my friend's stories and experiences are enlightening and life-enhancing, so I hope mine are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
