Solitude... in all its luxury and/or melancholy... depicted beautifully in this video/poem/how-to:
Also, at last, a piece of literature (a poem, at that) to share on this blog.
Enjoy, my friends.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Rhetoric 101
My google reader is a little thin today, thanks to unsubscribing from two sites that I have read regularly for a long time.
One site is a feminist blog that I used to love because they took a pretty broad-minded approach to issues, and had a much more casual tone than many (academic, boring, extreme) feminists blogs. The contributors always brought to my attention issues that were overlooked in the news, which I felt were worth knowing. And I appreciated the varying perspectives from different posters. And commenters. But, lately, it seems to me they've lost the forest for the trees. The site seems so angry. And uncompromising. And unwilling to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I don't want to mention the site specifically, because they have a large following of younger feminists, and I think its a good way for those women to be exposed to a less academic viewpoint of feminism. But, between the recent zionist-leaning posts, racism-accusations, and general navel-gazing that's been going on over there. I. JUST. CANT. TAKE. IT. ANYMORE.
It's interesting, because right after I cancelled my RSS feed to that blog, I saw a twitter update from @marionnestle about the sniping tone that many commenters have taken on her site recently. She was talking specifically about the response from raw milk enthusiasts to her support for S. 510, a new piece of legislation which aims to regulate raw milk producers. Whether or not you think people should be allowed to drink raw milk, I think her post is worth reading, as it has more to do with the fact that impassioned people (on any side) can often derail a legitimate and productive debate by crossing the line into hate-filled, over-the-top, personal attacks. When did we forget how to debate in this country? When did everyone start taking things so seriously... and personally?
As a person who loves to debate, and who does so in a loud fashion, I am particularly aware of this. I try to never cross the line (but I am not perfect, and have been guilty of doing so), as I want my ideas to be heard. And when people start yelling, the funny thing is, other people usually stop listening. But the Tea Baggers, and the GOP supporters, and, YES, even progressives, are all guilty of shifting from political debate to crazy personal attacks. It's no longer a conversation of diverging viewpoints in this country, its seems to have become an all-out war.
And I don't know the solution. Maybe everyone should be forced to take an introductory class in rhetoric. There is a way to argue, and it can even involve impassioned speech. But there is no reason for it ever to become personal. If you disagree with my viewpoints, fine by me. I would love to understand why. I would not love you to tell me that I am going to hell for believing the things I do. That, my friends, is not productive.
The other site I unsubscribed to was for very different reasons. But, it also had to do with tone. I've had a love/hate relationship with Gawker.com for many years. It used to be a NYC-based media gossip site covering magazine publishing, newspapers, books, and the revolving doors at said publications. As someone who dreamed of becoming part of the NYC media elite but was stuck in a boring job in rural California, that site was manna from heaven. Seven years later, my world has changed, and so has Gawker's. I am no longer stuck in a dead-end job, and have found a home among the Boston publishing world, and meanwhile Gawker has become a catch-all site for celebrity gossip with a tiny amount of NYC-based publishing news thrown in for old time's sake. But the snark factor, which was always high, has soared to new heights recently. And today, the thing that set me off: a blind item calling out "which tween starlet has herpes?" WTF? This is what makes for a blog post these days? Jesus christ. I don't want to know. I don't want to know that other people want to know. Cue 107 comments from assholes in their mom's basements tossing around every tween (which, btw, means 11-13 year old) starlet name they can thing of, slagging them wrongfully in the process, let alone the poor girl that actually has it (if she even does... anonymous tips are oh, so reliable). I mean JESUS. I hope you are fucking proud of yourself Nick Denton.
The sad thing is, Gawker actually has done some rather journalisty reporting, and used to be a great source for publishing/media news. They often broke stories far sooner than traditional news outlets about closings, sales, layoffs, mergers, etc. But lately its all Jersey Shore, blind items, and hateful commenter vitriol. All things I can do without.
So, goodbye Gawker. Goodbye un-named feminist blog. A bit less hate in my life is fine with me. Maybe someday we will all learn to entertain and inform without resorting to the spiteful, base snark that seems to pass as news these days.
One site is a feminist blog that I used to love because they took a pretty broad-minded approach to issues, and had a much more casual tone than many (academic, boring, extreme) feminists blogs. The contributors always brought to my attention issues that were overlooked in the news, which I felt were worth knowing. And I appreciated the varying perspectives from different posters. And commenters. But, lately, it seems to me they've lost the forest for the trees. The site seems so angry. And uncompromising. And unwilling to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I don't want to mention the site specifically, because they have a large following of younger feminists, and I think its a good way for those women to be exposed to a less academic viewpoint of feminism. But, between the recent zionist-leaning posts, racism-accusations, and general navel-gazing that's been going on over there. I. JUST. CANT. TAKE. IT. ANYMORE.
It's interesting, because right after I cancelled my RSS feed to that blog, I saw a twitter update from @marionnestle about the sniping tone that many commenters have taken on her site recently. She was talking specifically about the response from raw milk enthusiasts to her support for S. 510, a new piece of legislation which aims to regulate raw milk producers. Whether or not you think people should be allowed to drink raw milk, I think her post is worth reading, as it has more to do with the fact that impassioned people (on any side) can often derail a legitimate and productive debate by crossing the line into hate-filled, over-the-top, personal attacks. When did we forget how to debate in this country? When did everyone start taking things so seriously... and personally?
As a person who loves to debate, and who does so in a loud fashion, I am particularly aware of this. I try to never cross the line (but I am not perfect, and have been guilty of doing so), as I want my ideas to be heard. And when people start yelling, the funny thing is, other people usually stop listening. But the Tea Baggers, and the GOP supporters, and, YES, even progressives, are all guilty of shifting from political debate to crazy personal attacks. It's no longer a conversation of diverging viewpoints in this country, its seems to have become an all-out war.
And I don't know the solution. Maybe everyone should be forced to take an introductory class in rhetoric. There is a way to argue, and it can even involve impassioned speech. But there is no reason for it ever to become personal. If you disagree with my viewpoints, fine by me. I would love to understand why. I would not love you to tell me that I am going to hell for believing the things I do. That, my friends, is not productive.
The other site I unsubscribed to was for very different reasons. But, it also had to do with tone. I've had a love/hate relationship with Gawker.com for many years. It used to be a NYC-based media gossip site covering magazine publishing, newspapers, books, and the revolving doors at said publications. As someone who dreamed of becoming part of the NYC media elite but was stuck in a boring job in rural California, that site was manna from heaven. Seven years later, my world has changed, and so has Gawker's. I am no longer stuck in a dead-end job, and have found a home among the Boston publishing world, and meanwhile Gawker has become a catch-all site for celebrity gossip with a tiny amount of NYC-based publishing news thrown in for old time's sake. But the snark factor, which was always high, has soared to new heights recently. And today, the thing that set me off: a blind item calling out "which tween starlet has herpes?" WTF? This is what makes for a blog post these days? Jesus christ. I don't want to know. I don't want to know that other people want to know. Cue 107 comments from assholes in their mom's basements tossing around every tween (which, btw, means 11-13 year old) starlet name they can thing of, slagging them wrongfully in the process, let alone the poor girl that actually has it (if she even does... anonymous tips are oh, so reliable). I mean JESUS. I hope you are fucking proud of yourself Nick Denton.
The sad thing is, Gawker actually has done some rather journalisty reporting, and used to be a great source for publishing/media news. They often broke stories far sooner than traditional news outlets about closings, sales, layoffs, mergers, etc. But lately its all Jersey Shore, blind items, and hateful commenter vitriol. All things I can do without.
So, goodbye Gawker. Goodbye un-named feminist blog. A bit less hate in my life is fine with me. Maybe someday we will all learn to entertain and inform without resorting to the spiteful, base snark that seems to pass as news these days.
Friday, July 30, 2010
What is a Government?
This isn't related to literature or arts, or anything else in the Lit Department wheelhouse, but dear lord, I am so angry that I can't see straight.
Check out this post at Shakesville with an excerpt from Ezra Klein's latest installment of dribble in the Washington Post.
I'll excerpt both here.
Ezra:
In order to get less Medicaid and teacher funding than we actually need, we're cutting food stamps by $6.7 billion (and closing some foreign tax loopholes, rescinding some spending decisions and changing Medicaid's drug pricing)
....
And here we are. Democrats needed to offset spending on two worthy, important programs. So they're cutting another important, worthy program. But you really can't think of a worse program to cut than SNAP. SNAP is an extraordinarily well-targeted stimulus. It goes to poor households, for something they need to buy. According to Mark Zandi's numbers, it's literally the most stimulative way to spend a dollar: Better than state and local aid, or unemployment insurance. You get more than $1.70 of economic activity for each buck you put in.
....
But this is also a question of priorities, of what gets cut. Bernie Sanders put up an amendment last month to cut about $35 billion in oil and gas subsidies. It failed. Republicans are arguing to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich with no offsets, and they may well succeed. But food assistance for poor families? You can get the votes to slash those.
And Melissa @ Shakesville:
Current Department of Defense budget, including spending on "overseas contingency operations" for Fiscal Year 2010: $663.8 billion.
If defense-related expenditures budgeted by departments other than Defense are included, the US will spend, in total, between $800 billion and $1 trillion in FY2010 on defense.
And we're slashing the budget for food stamps.
And this right here is the part where my brain near exploded. Because, in my mind, this is just so blatantly and obviously backwards. But it's not backwards to many people in this country... well, assuming they've even troubled their brain to think about it. And I think for the first time I realized that the clusterfuck is happening because Democrats and Republicans will never really agree, fundamentally, what the purpose of a state is. What is the purpose of government. What do we want it to be? I don't think most citizens can agree either.
Is the government there to support and protect citizens by providing things like education and medicine and social services, and a cushion (provided by taxes we as citizens paid into) for harder times? And to provide and maintain infrastructures like roads and highways and dams so that we as citizens can live with a reasonable level of efficiency and comfort in order to go about our daily lives?
Or is it there to support industry? To put forth a foreign policy agenda? To wage wars in order to protect that industry and that foreign policy agenda? For a political party that cries all the time about Dems ruining their "free-market" economy, we sure put a FUCKING lot of resources into protecting and aiding and abetting that fucking economy.... well, at least the major players in it.
And to my mind, none of these wars (and therefore defense spending) are about protecting or supporting U.S. citizens. None of them are about protecting and supporting foreign citizens anymore either (we are so not protecting Iraqis and Afghans at this point, if we ever were). And yet..... $1 TRILLION on defense. But sorry folks, no way to pay you that $80 in food stamps.
I hear Canada is nice this time of year.
(BTW, the definition of Government on wikipedia is woefully flawed and just about the most unhelpful thing I've ever read, so, just don't.)
Check out this post at Shakesville with an excerpt from Ezra Klein's latest installment of dribble in the Washington Post.
I'll excerpt both here.
Ezra:
In order to get less Medicaid and teacher funding than we actually need, we're cutting food stamps by $6.7 billion (and closing some foreign tax loopholes, rescinding some spending decisions and changing Medicaid's drug pricing)
....
And here we are. Democrats needed to offset spending on two worthy, important programs. So they're cutting another important, worthy program. But you really can't think of a worse program to cut than SNAP. SNAP is an extraordinarily well-targeted stimulus. It goes to poor households, for something they need to buy. According to Mark Zandi's numbers, it's literally the most stimulative way to spend a dollar: Better than state and local aid, or unemployment insurance. You get more than $1.70 of economic activity for each buck you put in.
....
But this is also a question of priorities, of what gets cut. Bernie Sanders put up an amendment last month to cut about $35 billion in oil and gas subsidies. It failed. Republicans are arguing to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich with no offsets, and they may well succeed. But food assistance for poor families? You can get the votes to slash those.
And Melissa @ Shakesville:
Current Department of Defense budget, including spending on "overseas contingency operations" for Fiscal Year 2010: $663.8 billion.
If defense-related expenditures budgeted by departments other than Defense are included, the US will spend, in total, between $800 billion and $1 trillion in FY2010 on defense.
And we're slashing the budget for food stamps.
And this right here is the part where my brain near exploded. Because, in my mind, this is just so blatantly and obviously backwards. But it's not backwards to many people in this country... well, assuming they've even troubled their brain to think about it. And I think for the first time I realized that the clusterfuck is happening because Democrats and Republicans will never really agree, fundamentally, what the purpose of a state is. What is the purpose of government. What do we want it to be? I don't think most citizens can agree either.
Is the government there to support and protect citizens by providing things like education and medicine and social services, and a cushion (provided by taxes we as citizens paid into) for harder times? And to provide and maintain infrastructures like roads and highways and dams so that we as citizens can live with a reasonable level of efficiency and comfort in order to go about our daily lives?
Or is it there to support industry? To put forth a foreign policy agenda? To wage wars in order to protect that industry and that foreign policy agenda? For a political party that cries all the time about Dems ruining their "free-market" economy, we sure put a FUCKING lot of resources into protecting and aiding and abetting that fucking economy.... well, at least the major players in it.
And to my mind, none of these wars (and therefore defense spending) are about protecting or supporting U.S. citizens. None of them are about protecting and supporting foreign citizens anymore either (we are so not protecting Iraqis and Afghans at this point, if we ever were). And yet..... $1 TRILLION on defense. But sorry folks, no way to pay you that $80 in food stamps.
I hear Canada is nice this time of year.
(BTW, the definition of Government on wikipedia is woefully flawed and just about the most unhelpful thing I've ever read, so, just don't.)
Thursday, July 22, 2010
To LOL, or not to LOL.
So, I have a confession. I LOL. And use smiley faces (but only of the colon/open parens variety; anything else is just silly). And I do it often. But, I also judge people who do this. Because LOL is not a word, and it’s lazy and it sounds ridiculous coming from a thirty-year old woman. So I never LOL with someone I’ve just met. Because if I can be so hypocritically judgmental about it, heaven forbid anyone else judge my LOLing.I only LOL with friends who know me well. People who are past the point of judging me. Well, at least, people who have witnessed me do so many other embarrassing/lame/evil/dumb things over the course of my lifetime, that a LOL every now and then is insignificant in the grander scale of things to judge me about. Because while LOL is dumb and lazy, it’s also super convenient. It says: that was funny, I am laughing (probably on the inside) now. Hurray.
So, enter new relationship with someone, someone who texts me funny things. I want to LOL. I want to let them know I agree about the funny. But… I don’t want them to think I’m a LOLer. Not *that* kind of LOLer (think: tween girl in pigtails who says things like UR A QT). So, now, I am constantly baffled by how to respond to funny texts. Or worst yet, sarcastic texts. How do I let them know that I know that they are being sarcastic? This is killer. I don’t want them thinking that I’m a tween LOLer, but GOD FORBID they think I don’t get sarcasm. I love sarcasm. Me and sarcasm are best friends, friends with benefits even.
So, I usually just stare at my cell phone willing my hands NOT TO LOL. But, they so want to. Instead, I sometimes use Hahaha. It’s okay, kind of stilted. At least is a word (sort of...well, ok: it’s a sound, but it’s an actual sound) and is showing rather than telling (that was for you Prof. Byrd, creative writing teacher from hell). Or, there is the option of saying something equally or more funny in return. But that’s hard. And it requires that I wore my funny pants that morning, and have had enough caffeine, and that my brain will deliver the requisite amount of funny. If the text was already a funny response to a funny text I sent earlier, than I can fall back on touché. But my text software on my crappy phone doesn’t do the accent above the E, and someone recently informed me that touche (sans accent) means something else (arguably provocative) and so now then I worry that I am again being grammatically incorrect (or potentially suggestive). So if the recipient actually speaks French, touché is out.
About now is when my brain gives up—can’t take the pressure. So, I just don’t respond. Or I change the subject. And take the chance that the person on the other end of the texting either a) is hurt that I did not give the funny it’s appropriate fanfare, b) thinks I’m a droll, humorless being, or c) does not give a shit because who put this much thought into their stupid text messages.
Lesson? I guess don’t judge the judicious use of LOL. Because I only use it when I really mean: hey, if that was a line in a movie that I was watching in a theater, I probably would have laughed out loud.
Monday, July 12, 2010
No, none of this is your money.
So, something pissed me off the other day. I went to the bank to cash my paycheck and they wanted $5 to cash it because I didn’t have an account with them (keep in mind this was the bank which actually cut the check). GRRR. I cash my paychecks nowadays because they have developed the bad habit of occasionally bouncing, and this tends to make my checking account overdrawn. Apparently, some employers will cover the cost of their employees cashing their paychecks, but not mine. $5 is not a lot of money to most people, but to someone making $8/hour plus tips it’s worth not just giving away. What did I do? I quickly snapped the check off the counter, quickly snapped “Thanks” to the bank clerk and drove to my bank and deposited the check (hoping my employer had the available funds to clear the check). While at my bank I asked if most banks charge to cash paychecks they had issued. Her answer was “Yes” and “Most banks do this,” which just served to piss me off even more. Now this was a universal issue! Not just little ol’ me getting screwed by the financial system.
Imagine for a second you are making minimum wage, and because of your horrid financial history (likely partially caused by unregulated and predatory lenders) a bank will not allow you to open an account with them. Every two weeks you take your paycheck to the issuing bank and pay a fee to access your hard-earned money. This SHOULD NOT be legal. Banks handle money, they cut checks, this is what they do. A clerk spending 30 seconds to cash a check does not justify a $5 service fee. Am I to believe a clerk’s time is worth $600/hour? Fuck that.
And this whole fucked-up notion of charging to access your own money has created a whole industry of shady check cashing establishments that ostensibly charge a poor tax on people that wish to access their hard-earned money. Once more, FUCK THAT!
Imagine for a second you are making minimum wage, and because of your horrid financial history (likely partially caused by unregulated and predatory lenders) a bank will not allow you to open an account with them. Every two weeks you take your paycheck to the issuing bank and pay a fee to access your hard-earned money. This SHOULD NOT be legal. Banks handle money, they cut checks, this is what they do. A clerk spending 30 seconds to cash a check does not justify a $5 service fee. Am I to believe a clerk’s time is worth $600/hour? Fuck that.
And this whole fucked-up notion of charging to access your own money has created a whole industry of shady check cashing establishments that ostensibly charge a poor tax on people that wish to access their hard-earned money. Once more, FUCK THAT!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Relevant to my interests
Whenever Hulu.com runs an advertisement during a video, it asks if it’s relevant to me. Almost always the answer is no. But what if all ads I saw WERE relevant to my interests? Would watching ads really be that bad?
Advertisers are wasting advertising dollars when they show me a Tampax or Lexus commercial. Clearly, it is in advertisers’ best interest to show me ads for things I may actually want or need to buy. Google AdWords already does this, but very clumsily (browsing a page about craters on the moon may spur ads about acne cream). But what if ad personalization was done well? The reality is IT WILL be done well, and this means some interesting things for consumers.
Imagine in five years every single force-fed video advertisement you saw, whether on the web or on television (and in five years you will get the web through apps for your television) gave you the opportunity to rate it - a sort of hotornot.com for ads. Over time advertisers will use this data to decide if you’re a good target for their advertisement.
For the user, this means slightly more bearable commercial breaks, and a higher frequency of ads he or she may actually be interested in watching. Taken to the furthest extreme, advertisements may cease being an annoyance and become another bit of input as interesting to the user and the programming he or she is watching. This is dreadfully frightening to someone wary of the existing consumer culture, but it seems an unavoidable future.
Advertisers are wasting advertising dollars when they show me a Tampax or Lexus commercial. Clearly, it is in advertisers’ best interest to show me ads for things I may actually want or need to buy. Google AdWords already does this, but very clumsily (browsing a page about craters on the moon may spur ads about acne cream). But what if ad personalization was done well? The reality is IT WILL be done well, and this means some interesting things for consumers.
Imagine in five years every single force-fed video advertisement you saw, whether on the web or on television (and in five years you will get the web through apps for your television) gave you the opportunity to rate it - a sort of hotornot.com for ads. Over time advertisers will use this data to decide if you’re a good target for their advertisement.
For the user, this means slightly more bearable commercial breaks, and a higher frequency of ads he or she may actually be interested in watching. Taken to the furthest extreme, advertisements may cease being an annoyance and become another bit of input as interesting to the user and the programming he or she is watching. This is dreadfully frightening to someone wary of the existing consumer culture, but it seems an unavoidable future.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Welcome to the Lit Department, and how's Brazil?
I think people sometimes forget how truly global society has become thanks to technology. Here we are, this small blog posting articles on Sesame Street and Pabst, which are mostly read by friends and family, yet we have visitors to our site from literally all over the world.
Check out our latest site stats (click to enlarge):
Twelve visits from Brazil isn't really that much in the bigger picture, but I still love the fact that total strangers from all over the globe are finding their way to our strange little corner of the web (no, I don't think web should be capitalized, it's become a thing like the ocean, or the sky, it's far too common to capitalize).
And, people of New Zealand, get your shite together. Don't let Sweden make you look bad. Kiwis, TLD is calling on you!
Check out our latest site stats (click to enlarge):
Twelve visits from Brazil isn't really that much in the bigger picture, but I still love the fact that total strangers from all over the globe are finding their way to our strange little corner of the web (no, I don't think web should be capitalized, it's become a thing like the ocean, or the sky, it's far too common to capitalize).
And, people of New Zealand, get your shite together. Don't let Sweden make you look bad. Kiwis, TLD is calling on you!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Can you tell me how to get, how to get to...
Since we here at TLD owe our literacy to Sesame Street, I thought we should honor the show's 40th birthday. On this week's Fresh Air, they played a compilation of interviews Terri Gross has done with various writers, actors, and musicians from Sesame Street (including Frank Oz). The entire episode is worth a listen, but her interview with Chris Surf triggered the most visceral memories. He was the musician behind the Beatle parodies Letter B and Hey Food, among others. In the interview he explains that to avoid copyright laws they tried to suggest the words and the tune, without completely copying it (something that finally explained to me why the tune is not quite right to Letter B... not that its been bothering me for 25+ years or anything). But Rebel L has got to be own of my favorites, hands down. SESAME STREET ROCKS. Enjoy.
Rebel L:
Cookie Monster steals the show in this one:
And because of this song, I thought the Beatles really were singing Letter B, not Let Her Be (and for much longer than I care to admit):
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Syllabus, November 10th, 2009
Every now and then we feel the need to recommend things that we've been enjoying lately. Think of it as The Lit Department's syllabus to life. Only less academic. And less oppressive.
"Watching the Planets" by Flaming Lips (music)
This song sounds not a thing like the Flaming Lips. The low-fi vocals are vaguely reminiscent of Joy Division, and the overall feel is at once industrial and tribal and less futuristic and psychedelic than what we've come to expect — no robot wars here. But, oh, that drumming. The jury is still out on the rest of their new album, but do yourself a favor and download this song immediately. - CM
Pomplamoose (music)
They're a band, a collaboration between two YouTube sensations (Nataly Dawn and Jack Conte), and you should buy their album on iTunes. Their cover version of the late, great Jacko's "Beat It" blew up thanks to Digg.com (some Digg users strangely reacted with anti-hipster hate, which leads me to believe nerds aren't very skilled at telling the difference between hipsters and indy musicians... and yes, there's a difference), but it's Pomplamoose's cover of Beyonce's "Single Ladies" that really is the gem in their musical treasure trove. Their original tunes are lovingly crafted as well, and remind me of a cross between Feist and LCD Soundsystem, as sung by a pretty girl with a degree in French Literature. - EB
Glee (television)
If you like musicals, stories about the underdogs, pop music, country music, classic rock, mash-ups, teenage angst, flashy dance numbers, or if you ever sang in a choir, had a gay friend, fell for someone already married or dating someone else, had doubts about your career, future, or current partner, ever got slammed into a locker by the cool kids, or basically, if you went to high school ever in your whole life, you will like this show. - CM
(EB's note: I've never watched this show, but I did catch the clip of a bunch of football players performing the dance routine to Beyonce's "Single Ladies," which was mildly entertaining; also, I promise no more "Single Ladies" references for the rest of the article).
Regretsy.com (web)
There are people in this world who make gorgeous crafts with their own two hands: jewelry, sweaters, wall art, sculptures, knick-knacks, plush robots, and on and on. These people sell their wares on Etsy.com and have managed to eek out a living based on their handiwork. There are also people in this world who think your water-bottle needs a crocheted pink vagina cozy, or that you are dying for hand-painted converse sneakers depicting Bella and Edward from twilight, or that your backyard would be incomplete without a taxidermied unicorn. These people can be found at Regretsy, along with site creator, Helen Killer’s ruthless commentary. - CM
Black Adder (television)
Before seeing Black Adder the 2nd, I had no idea that Rowan Atkinson (better known as Mr. Bean) was capable of not acting like a complete idiot. And beyond that, that he was capable of portraying someone with devious intentions, moral depravity, or even wit. But that he is. The BBC series follows Mr. Atkinson, as the Black Adder throughout British history (well, a loose tie in with some historic events anyway), joined by Stephen Frye, Hugh Laurie, Tony Robinson, and a variety of other standout English actors. And, the complete series is now on iTunes, so you have no excuse for not watching it. - CM
"Watching the Planets" by Flaming Lips (music)
This song sounds not a thing like the Flaming Lips. The low-fi vocals are vaguely reminiscent of Joy Division, and the overall feel is at once industrial and tribal and less futuristic and psychedelic than what we've come to expect — no robot wars here. But, oh, that drumming. The jury is still out on the rest of their new album, but do yourself a favor and download this song immediately. - CM
Pomplamoose (music)
They're a band, a collaboration between two YouTube sensations (Nataly Dawn and Jack Conte), and you should buy their album on iTunes. Their cover version of the late, great Jacko's "Beat It" blew up thanks to Digg.com (some Digg users strangely reacted with anti-hipster hate, which leads me to believe nerds aren't very skilled at telling the difference between hipsters and indy musicians... and yes, there's a difference), but it's Pomplamoose's cover of Beyonce's "Single Ladies" that really is the gem in their musical treasure trove. Their original tunes are lovingly crafted as well, and remind me of a cross between Feist and LCD Soundsystem, as sung by a pretty girl with a degree in French Literature. - EB
Glee (television)
If you like musicals, stories about the underdogs, pop music, country music, classic rock, mash-ups, teenage angst, flashy dance numbers, or if you ever sang in a choir, had a gay friend, fell for someone already married or dating someone else, had doubts about your career, future, or current partner, ever got slammed into a locker by the cool kids, or basically, if you went to high school ever in your whole life, you will like this show. - CM
(EB's note: I've never watched this show, but I did catch the clip of a bunch of football players performing the dance routine to Beyonce's "Single Ladies," which was mildly entertaining; also, I promise no more "Single Ladies" references for the rest of the article).
Regretsy.com (web)
There are people in this world who make gorgeous crafts with their own two hands: jewelry, sweaters, wall art, sculptures, knick-knacks, plush robots, and on and on. These people sell their wares on Etsy.com and have managed to eek out a living based on their handiwork. There are also people in this world who think your water-bottle needs a crocheted pink vagina cozy, or that you are dying for hand-painted converse sneakers depicting Bella and Edward from twilight, or that your backyard would be incomplete without a taxidermied unicorn. These people can be found at Regretsy, along with site creator, Helen Killer’s ruthless commentary. - CM
Black Adder (television)
Before seeing Black Adder the 2nd, I had no idea that Rowan Atkinson (better known as Mr. Bean) was capable of not acting like a complete idiot. And beyond that, that he was capable of portraying someone with devious intentions, moral depravity, or even wit. But that he is. The BBC series follows Mr. Atkinson, as the Black Adder throughout British history (well, a loose tie in with some historic events anyway), joined by Stephen Frye, Hugh Laurie, Tony Robinson, and a variety of other standout English actors. And, the complete series is now on iTunes, so you have no excuse for not watching it. - CM
Monday, September 7, 2009
Maybe the Navy
Recently, I got the idea that possibly, just maybe, it would be a good idea for me to join the Navy. Admittedly, I know little about life in the military, and I would be among the first to hightail it to Canada if the draft was ever reinstated (I've often said the only scenario in which I'd pick up a firearm for this country was if our shores were in eminent danger of invasion, and I use eminent in the oh-shit-they-are-off-the-coast-in-battleships way, not the threat-level-orange way). Let go from an absurdly idiosyncratic sales job in Boston that takes nearly as much energy to explain as it does to perform, and faced with the prospect of moving back home broke and unemployed (which seems to be the default state for any wide-eyed English major adverse to teaching and wholly incapable of the moral flexibility entry-level sales jobs require), I realized I had obtained for myself a decidedly ungrownup existence.I ventured in all earnestness to Navy.com, took the online personality test and found I was considered, brace yourself, creative. The suggested Navy careers were limited. I could either become a combat photographer (no thank you, if I am in combat I want the thing in my hand to go BANG, not CLICK), or I could become a Public Affairs Officer. That I could do! I imagined myself in a plain room with wood paneling and crisp blinds (think Top Gun) editing a two-paragraph press release about jet fuel, doing the sort of menial, vaguely creative task reserved for English majors unafraid of getting yelled at and doing an inordinate amount of push-ups. I did more research about becoming a Public Affairs Officer and the training involved, and in all honestly, I was interested. Besides the duty-specific instruction given by the Navy, I would have the opportunity to earn my Masters in Communications at San Diego State while a Navy officer. Not too bad, I thought.
I was directed to call 1-800-USA-Navy and speak to a recruiter if I had more questions, which I did. The conversation went something like this:
Me: Hello, I have possible interest in becoming a Public Affairs Officer.
Navy Guy: Okay, do you have any experience doing that?
Me: Um, no. I took the online personality test and that type of job was suggested.
Navy Guy: No you have any hours in marketing or public relations?
Me: Not really.
Navy Guy: [incredulously] Well, you'll be rubbing elbows with heads of state, and you'll need that kind of experience.
Me: I didn't know that.
Navy Guy: [more incredulously] Yeah, usually people applying for that have tons of public affairs experience, like working in a congressman's office.
Me: Oh, I... wasn't aware.
Navy Guy: What's your degree in?
Me: English.
Navy Guy: Where'd you go to school?
Me: University of California at Santa Cruz.
Navy Guy: Ha, really?
Me: [stunned] Is that a problem?
Navy Guy: Well, it's like saying you went to Cal.
Me: Well... I don't have... I don't have a problem with the military.
Navy Guy: [something about hippies and protests].
Me: So... you're saying I need public affairs experience before I apply?
Navy Guy: Yes.
Me: Well, thanks for your time.
So, it was quite the experience. First off I was made to feel like an idiot for not knowing anything about being a Navy Public Affairs Officer, even though I was calling a fucking informational line which I was directed to contact with more questions. Secondly, the whole University of California thing is absurd. I can't believe the guy laughed at me over the phone when I said where I went to school, and then went on to imply that not only was UC Santa Cruz somehow defective, but so was UC Berkeley, which quite possibly is the most prestigious public university in the world. Needless to say, my interest in joining the Navy has passed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)