Recently, a friend told me that she "lives in the moment". By this she means she focuses on the present—what's happening now. I took it as the foundation of her general take on life. I've heard this from a lot of people—this kind of foundation; I would assume it's a popular way to live one's life. I don't live in the moment and I don't think anyone else should either.
I like to think ahead. I envision shit. I like reflecting. Conversely to my friend, I live in all moments. Of course I leave room for spontaneity, but generally I have a plan. For me, "living in the moment" means living with tunnel vision. Imagine looking through a telescope onto a lake and spying a speed boat. You follow it along the water, skidding and bouncing. It's quite exhilarating. But you're missing the rest of the lake. In fact, you might forget that it's a lake that the boat is on because your looking at it through a telescope. That's what I imagine life to be like by living "in the moment". It's fun but the actual scope of experience is quite limited and therefore missed or forgotten.
This is exactly what Hemingway was talking about in his short story Snows of Kilimanjaro. It was about a writer who lives a decadent life and never actually wrote anything down. And in the final moments of his life, he realizes that he has nothing to show for his exceptional journey.
I imagine that people who live in the moment are always comfortable. While that's not bad at all, it can lead to complacency. I can't allow that in my life and I wouldn't want that to befall anyone else. I just can't imagine living a fulfilling life by "living in the moment". The character in Hemingway's story was a writer who didn't actually write. I see that as a metaphor for someone who didn't actually live, or at least didn't live up to any expectations.
21 May 2010
John Stossel and Rand Paul are Racist F*cks
 |
So John Stossel and Rand Paul believe that racists should be able to segregate their private business. But they also state that they "don't think they should" but they can if they want to. Basically they wipe their asses with the part in the Declaration of Independence that says people should be entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Since both these morons are liberatarians, they can argue that they are just promoting individual freedom. But they're also sanctioning racism, segregation, and attempting to take American society backwards about 60 years. Nice work. John, for the record, you can't say you want to amend the Civil Rights Act like this and say people shouldn't be racist. That's like using the "n" word with your white friends and telling everyone else that you're not a racist. You can't have it both ways. If you allow racism to exist, then you have to be racist. Now please resign and live alone in the mountains. You too, Rand.
20 May 2010
My Time at a Magazine
I want to be reflective. Right now, I'm thinking about my career so far at a city/regional magazine in the Chesapeake region of Maryland. As much as I've learned and grown during my time at the magazine, I can say confidently that I do not want to ever work for the media any longer. There are three things that are certain to happen when you work for the media and they are all bad.
When I tell people that I work for a magazine, they automatically assume that I write for the magazine. And when I tell them that I don't, they get confused and inquire "what is it that I actually do". For the general public, there is apparently no other work to be done at a magazine—other than write. If you don't write, then what could you possibly do for a magazine? Well, I produce video and I manage the website. This type of work just does not compute for most people.
The next thing that happens when someone finds out I work for a city/regional magazine, is they assume that I aspire to win a Pulitzer (because I'm there to write, apparently). I received the same expectation from the general public during college when I told others my major. "Oh, so you're going to be the next Spielberg, eh?" No, I'm not. I don't aspire to be the next Spielberg or Scorsese or Coppola or anyone else. I just want to do my job and do it well. This extra pressure from the general public grows thin very quickly.
The third thing that happens to employees of regional media companies, is the extra attention. Whether I like it or not, the local business community knows who I am. I work with them frequently on video and new media projects. A lot of these businesses are restaurants and going out to eat is very uncomfortable. Not only do the restaurants give me more attention than I want, but they give me this look like I owe them something. In their mind, because they gave me a free appetizer, I have to write a blog about them or plug them in a newsletter. When I go out to eat, I want to be a nameless, faceless patron who eats with his head down and leaves promptly. That's it. Just like everyone else.
There is a reason for these observations—I'm not just making this up. And the reasons are totally inescapable. Media is made to be consumed—magazines to be read, radio stations to be listened to, and movies to be watched. The amount of skill, expertise, and know-how to create the stories and programs is immense. But anyone can be a critic. That's the rub—I can go to film school, get a BS, go get a master's, spend $10,000 on a film and take 2 years producing it but it only takes 15 minutes for some knucklehead to tear it to pieces. I've used the term "general public" a lot in this entry for a reason. I needed to define the audience. Since anyone can (and they do) read my magazine, it is susceptible to not only the criticism but an unbreakable bond to other, most esteemed magazines. This is why people can somehow put me in the same league as Andrew Sullivan or A.O. Scott. This only happens with the media. In no other industry are two completely different circumstances compared. If I worked at Northrup Gruman, no one will ask me why I'm not working for Raytheon. No one will tell me that their missiles are better. The general public doesn't know anything about missiles. But they know a lot about media. If I was the supply manager for Target, no one would tell me to work at Wal-Mart because their supply chain is more efficient. Again, the general public doesn't know these things. But if I tell them I work for a magazine, they tell me I should freelance for the New York Times because "it's a good newspaper". If I tell them I'm a video producer, they tell me they have a cousin in Hollywood who might be able to help me. Thanks, asshole, but no thanks. The common theme behind it all is, success in the media is easily defined for the general public, i.e. you're on TV, your movie is a blockbuster, your magazine is on every newsstand, your book is on the New York Times bestsellers list, etc. No one will ask a sociology student when they'll win the Albert O. Hirschman Prize; either because no one has heard about that prize or no one cares about successful sociologists.
And since the general public "knows" the ins and outs of the media, they find it incomprehensible that other professions could lie inside. Again, using Target as an example: I could say that I was either a register clerk, a store manager, or a truck driver for Target and no one would bat an eye. But every time I tell someone I don't write for the magazine, it's like trying to explain to someone that the sky is actually purple. This is the thought processes: Magazines companies produce magazines which are read, therefore the only types of employment to be found at a magazine company are writing positions.
The media has such a hold over the American zeitgeist that everyone is an expert on the subject. Preconceptions abound. And even though I'm aware of the thought process, it still gets to me. After four years of people telling me how they "can't wait to see my name in the lights", I get really bummed out that it hasn't happened yet. And when I see someone I know who does get their name in the lights, I feel even worse. Business majors don't have to deal with that. Biology majors don't either. It's not like a biology major is constantly asked "so are you going to be the next Crick or Darwin?" But since the general public consumes more TV shows, films, and magazines than biology textbooks, they expect great things from us lowly media employees.
When I tell people that I work for a magazine, they automatically assume that I write for the magazine. And when I tell them that I don't, they get confused and inquire "what is it that I actually do". For the general public, there is apparently no other work to be done at a magazine—other than write. If you don't write, then what could you possibly do for a magazine? Well, I produce video and I manage the website. This type of work just does not compute for most people.
The next thing that happens when someone finds out I work for a city/regional magazine, is they assume that I aspire to win a Pulitzer (because I'm there to write, apparently). I received the same expectation from the general public during college when I told others my major. "Oh, so you're going to be the next Spielberg, eh?" No, I'm not. I don't aspire to be the next Spielberg or Scorsese or Coppola or anyone else. I just want to do my job and do it well. This extra pressure from the general public grows thin very quickly.
The third thing that happens to employees of regional media companies, is the extra attention. Whether I like it or not, the local business community knows who I am. I work with them frequently on video and new media projects. A lot of these businesses are restaurants and going out to eat is very uncomfortable. Not only do the restaurants give me more attention than I want, but they give me this look like I owe them something. In their mind, because they gave me a free appetizer, I have to write a blog about them or plug them in a newsletter. When I go out to eat, I want to be a nameless, faceless patron who eats with his head down and leaves promptly. That's it. Just like everyone else.
There is a reason for these observations—I'm not just making this up. And the reasons are totally inescapable. Media is made to be consumed—magazines to be read, radio stations to be listened to, and movies to be watched. The amount of skill, expertise, and know-how to create the stories and programs is immense. But anyone can be a critic. That's the rub—I can go to film school, get a BS, go get a master's, spend $10,000 on a film and take 2 years producing it but it only takes 15 minutes for some knucklehead to tear it to pieces. I've used the term "general public" a lot in this entry for a reason. I needed to define the audience. Since anyone can (and they do) read my magazine, it is susceptible to not only the criticism but an unbreakable bond to other, most esteemed magazines. This is why people can somehow put me in the same league as Andrew Sullivan or A.O. Scott. This only happens with the media. In no other industry are two completely different circumstances compared. If I worked at Northrup Gruman, no one will ask me why I'm not working for Raytheon. No one will tell me that their missiles are better. The general public doesn't know anything about missiles. But they know a lot about media. If I was the supply manager for Target, no one would tell me to work at Wal-Mart because their supply chain is more efficient. Again, the general public doesn't know these things. But if I tell them I work for a magazine, they tell me I should freelance for the New York Times because "it's a good newspaper". If I tell them I'm a video producer, they tell me they have a cousin in Hollywood who might be able to help me. Thanks, asshole, but no thanks. The common theme behind it all is, success in the media is easily defined for the general public, i.e. you're on TV, your movie is a blockbuster, your magazine is on every newsstand, your book is on the New York Times bestsellers list, etc. No one will ask a sociology student when they'll win the Albert O. Hirschman Prize; either because no one has heard about that prize or no one cares about successful sociologists.
And since the general public "knows" the ins and outs of the media, they find it incomprehensible that other professions could lie inside. Again, using Target as an example: I could say that I was either a register clerk, a store manager, or a truck driver for Target and no one would bat an eye. But every time I tell someone I don't write for the magazine, it's like trying to explain to someone that the sky is actually purple. This is the thought processes: Magazines companies produce magazines which are read, therefore the only types of employment to be found at a magazine company are writing positions.
The media has such a hold over the American zeitgeist that everyone is an expert on the subject. Preconceptions abound. And even though I'm aware of the thought process, it still gets to me. After four years of people telling me how they "can't wait to see my name in the lights", I get really bummed out that it hasn't happened yet. And when I see someone I know who does get their name in the lights, I feel even worse. Business majors don't have to deal with that. Biology majors don't either. It's not like a biology major is constantly asked "so are you going to be the next Crick or Darwin?" But since the general public consumes more TV shows, films, and magazines than biology textbooks, they expect great things from us lowly media employees.
10 May 2010
We Are So Smart
After taking an object-oriented programming class and a PHP/MySQL class, I have this new and incredible respect for the human brain. In PHP (which, if you're not familiar with, is a standard web programming language), syntax is very important. If you forget a semicolon or a curly bracket, your webpage will not work. The web server is very unforgiving when it comes to syntax. And it got me to thinking how incredible the mind is and how unnecessary syntax is in human language (well at least in English). This is because our brain focuses on semantics, or the actual meaning of strings of characters, rather than the individual placement of characters. So I can write:
As frustrating as it is to purchase a computer in the zenith of the Information Age and not have it be all that you want it to be, it does highlight how incredible the human brain is. I think we should appreciate much more how incredibly smart we all are. The ability for our mind to just make sense of complete nonsense (like the high school text message above) is nothing short of extraordinary.
Ths pzza is rlly awsm.And everyone who reads this blog will be able to understand it. Our brain is somehow able to extrapolate meaning out of this extremely grammatically incorrect sentence. But if I were to write this inside a PHP block:
$x=10;It wouldn't work because I didn't put a semicolon behind "$Sum=$x+$y". It can't just understand what I'm trying to do, like my brain would (coincidentally, this makes programming very difficult). This is really interesting (and kind of scary) because even after 50+ years of computing, we have not even scratched the surface of the capabilities of the human brain. You'd think that we'd be somewhere close to having some kind of relative AI functionality. Most of the web is focused on syntax rather than semantics, which can make searching for things difficult. Facebook recently "linked" everything in it's users profile pages to either an existing fan page or to a newly created page that pulls form Wikipedia and related user-created examples. But it's very flawed in it's execution because of this syntax problem. For example, one of my favorite books listed in my profile is Choke by Chuck Palahniuk. And when I click the link on Facebook, all the user-generated results have nothing to do with the book—these users are using "choke" to define the physical action or the sports term. Facebook doesn't know what I mean by "choke". It just sees it as a five-character string and it compiles a list of people who have mentioned the same string (c-h-o-k-e).
$y=12;
$Sum=$x+$y
echo $Sum;
As frustrating as it is to purchase a computer in the zenith of the Information Age and not have it be all that you want it to be, it does highlight how incredible the human brain is. I think we should appreciate much more how incredibly smart we all are. The ability for our mind to just make sense of complete nonsense (like the high school text message above) is nothing short of extraordinary.
06 March 2010
Horror in an HD World
The profiteers of the motion picture industry decided to reboot A Nightmare on Elm Street. Despite the fact that narrative canon really is obsolete at this point, I've decided I will go see it. I like Jackie Earle Haley and I think he'll be good in the role of the iconic killer. Though something has me a little concerned, something that no writer could have predicted—especially a horror writer. How will high definition affect the film and other horror films?
It may be a stupid question that has no relevance at all. HD might not have any effect on the horror genre. But for some reason, I feel like it's counter-intuitive to shoot a horror film in high definition.
The reason the great horror films of our time are so terrifying is because they don't show a lot. It's not the details in the monster that make them scary, it's the opposite—it's what you don't see. But with high definition and 4K resolution cameras, you will see everything.
The one word that I can think of that every horror film needs is grit. There must be a degree of grittiness in order for a horror film to be effective. Dim lighting, shadows, gritty film stock—all of these are essential. But the technologies that everyone is clamoring for completely contradict the need for grit.
Fundamentally, HD seems like the wrong choice for horror. A perfect example of this is The Blair Witch Project. I would attribute more than half of the success of that film to the fact that it was shot on shitty DV cams and 16mm. Even the more recent Paranormal Activity realized that grit is necessary. Most of the film was shot in "night vision" to lessen the effects of a crystal-clear picture.
02 February 2010
Lady Gaga: Artist
I don't want to talk about her music. I want to talk about her identity. What does she mean to the image industry or the celebrity industry? I was looking at photos of her from the Grammys that premiered a few days ago. It's gotten a lot of press for how odd it was. But I don't think anyone has really spent time to look at it from an artistic perspective. And I think there is a lot to say about her dress.
First of all, it's not just her dress—it's everything from her make-up, her obvious wig, the star she carried around, and her performance. Let's start with her make-up: really heavy, over-done, clownish. She looks like someone who's never really worn make up. Her wig, as I mention, is an obvious fake. You can see the seam line go down her face. The wig itself is contoured to look like a typical blond bombshell from the 80s—big, platinum, over-the-top—reminds me of Morgan Fairchild. Her face looks like Prostitute Barbie and the thin stocking-like material that covers her arms, hands, legs, and feet make her look like she is wrapped in plastic.
Her dress has little ringlets wrapped around, like a celestial gas-giant with orbiting bits of debris. The star is like a ninja weapon with pointy ends. I'm sure sitting next to her was a pain in the ass.
I mentioned a performance—by this I mean her overall countenance for posing for the photos. Her eyes are vacant, mouth usually ajar, as she genuflects on the red carpet.
In the end, what we have is an fake, hollow, painted shell of a human that is so self-centered that the properties of astrophysics no longer apply.
I applaud Lady Gaga for her bravery. To reflect the narcissism and emptiness of Hollywood is one thing but to do it and then attend an event that honors them, well, that takes huge balls. Unfortunately I don' t think anyone really knew what she was trying to get at. She remains simply "an eccentric". I think she's brilliant.
Lady Gaga's examination of depravity in Hollywood is very interesting. I plan on exploring her music and fashion in later entries. There are so many interesting things about her. Even her name is genius to her artistic sensibilities. Gaga which means crazy is an obvious nod to the realm in which she lives. She is the crazy lady. Everyone knows her as this but really, she's just a mirror. The crazy ladies and gentlemen surround her. She understands this dynamic. It's become a part of her psyche. In some ways, her "character" is similar to that of the Comedian from Watchmen. The Comedian was called such because he saw the "true nature" of humanity—it's just a joke. Lady Gaga sees the human nature through a different lens—she thinks we're all bat-shit crazy.
Lady Gaga's examination of depravity in Hollywood is very interesting. I plan on exploring her music and fashion in later entries. There are so many interesting things about her. Even her name is genius to her artistic sensibilities. Gaga which means crazy is an obvious nod to the realm in which she lives. She is the crazy lady. Everyone knows her as this but really, she's just a mirror. The crazy ladies and gentlemen surround her. She understands this dynamic. It's become a part of her psyche. In some ways, her "character" is similar to that of the Comedian from Watchmen. The Comedian was called such because he saw the "true nature" of humanity—it's just a joke. Lady Gaga sees the human nature through a different lens—she thinks we're all bat-shit crazy.
31 December 2009
2000 - 2009
CONS
- September 11th Terrorist Attack, and countless others
- Hurricane Katrina
- The War in Afghanistan
- The War in Iraq II
- October 2008 Financial Crisis
- Patriot Act
- Secret CIA prisons found in Germany
- Abu Ghraib
- Torture/Waterboarding
- Global Warming consensus reached, US refuses Kyoto
- Crash winning Best Picture
- MySpace
PROS
- First Black US President
- iPhone
- iPod
GOOD RIDDANCE.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)