This poor young woman is literally the New York Times’ picture of unhealthy eating
Poor, poor Elizabeth Bartels. Looks like she went out to lunch with a friend one day. Judging by the sunlight shining behind her, it was a lovely day. Her day was maybe made extra exciting because she was photographed by someone from the New York Times.
She now seems to be the face of American unhealthy eating. Not so flattering an association. I know newspapers reuse photos and variations of photos all the time, but if I were her, I’d feel horrible and immediately begin eating only lettuce springrolls filled with chopped lettuce, served alongside a lettuce smoothie. Maybe a celery stick, too, if I felt like treating myself.
The Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp
I still care about cryptozoology and I still care about things from the South. Here’s a lesser known guy who has even been made into a Yu-Gi-Oh! card. That’s big-time in the early 21st century. The Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp!
[image source]
“You agree with me, right?” It’s hard work, brainwashing a stranger.
I know I risk talking about the lunch series at my workplace too much (but since no one really reads this, can a person really talk to themselves too much?), but today’s lunch guest was Arianna Huffington. Many topics were covered, but most of the lunch centered on the idea of a civic-minded society as discussed in her latest book. Hallmarks of such a society would, presumably, include things like low inequality, excellent and affordable health care for all, more people working for the greater good, people helping other people, and other just really nice things that I think everyone would want in the society they live in.
Skipping the details of the discussion, at various points she hit on the topics of the HuffPo’s web stats, the necessity of pushing good ideas across media to change minds, and the HuffPo emulating print media bringing in an audience through the low-brow to redirect them to the high brow. The word socialism may also have been said by someone (not her).
As so often happens, whatever I would want to ask/say came to me right at the end of the discussion. I’d like to talk about some of this with someone sometime in a navel-gazey way.
1) Let’s first assume a controversial political stereotype to be true: the Senate is weak in part because low-population states (take a Wyoming or West Virginia, e.g.) exert outsized, self-interested influence on national and at times global issues. Low population states typically mean more rural areas. Rural areas have much lower access to high-speed internet than urban areas that are typically left-leaning. HuffPo is online only. How can one working online only ever reach those people in those areas? Particularly in light of:
2) The average American watches 35h34m of television per week. That’s almost a full-time job. It’s been argued that in the 21st century, literacy is more about knowledge processing rather than acquisition, and television, being a passive medium, may not be the ideal place in which to change minds and hearts. Also, to jump onto the discussion pile about what passes for news on TV “these days,” people watch TV to affirm, not inform, their opinions. With that in mind,
3) The thinking goes that with ‘the poor getting poorer,’ people are more inclined to hold onto their own. The value of living in a society that asks for sacrifice or social service might not be a priority for someone living hand-to-mouth. Furthermore, this is a country where for whatever reason ‘holding onto one’s own’ (i.e. low taxes) is tied inextricably to those social identity issues (e.g. religion, the 2nd amendment) that are wired into those deeply fundamental parts of people’s brains that yearn to be part of a self-identifying group (i.e. tribalism). So,
4) It all leads to the stupidly simple eternal question of “how do you ever change anyone’s beliefs ever?” I know that many product ads target the young to build brand loyalty for life. And yet thinking hard about politics is generally a “post-quarter-life crisis” arena of life; maybe your beliefs only become concrete when you have kids, advance enough in your career to pay high taxes yourself, or go through a long stretch of unemployment with no health insurance. Often, one’s beliefs on those issues are never truly solidified: there are people who are proud of having voted for every winning president in their lives, which sort of says they don’t have a core set of issues they’ve centered their voting behavior around over the years. So to inculcate the principles associated with a civil society: that sounds much more like a cultural or even moral battle than an intellectual one, right?
So is this how ‘people who care too much’ get jaded? From the above questions, it seems that no matter what side you’re on, you’re never going to live in your own ideal society: the fight is just too big. What can sustain you over the years? Maybe you work for your kids, or your grandkids, or just to make the country a better place. I don’t know. I’ll get back to you on that.
No barf bags at the MRI
I was given these socks and a robe yesterday at my MRI. Even though I knew that many people with a variety of maladies had worn them before me, they felt great. My feet were warm, cushioned, and the rubber nubbins of the Caresteps made walking around on the slippery tile floor really care-free.
Limping to Boston
New motivation to blog: injury.
Though I told myself I would avoid writing about my sporting life here, I have very little else on my mind. As we might sort of know, I qualified for the Boston marathon. I somehow beat the registration deadline, and now receive emails hocking Boston marathon branded goods. I also injured my knee last month.
I’ve been in PT lately and I’m getting an MRI today. Though the marathon is only three months away, I haven’t been training at all. It’ll be interesting. We’ll see what happens, and I’ll talk about it here
Speech BINGO and con(fidence)
At my current job, I’m privy to some pretty neat opportunities. Five weeks vacation, for example, and a convenient cafeteria. One of the most unique privileges, I feel, is a program called Friday Lunch. It’s a weekly speaker series, most usually hosted by a certain popular columnist, in which speakers give brief opening remarks on a topic of their choice, with the remainder of the lunch dedicated to discussion in this room full of, you know, accomplished smarty pantses.
I’m sure I can’t and should not discuss what goes on behind these doors. I don’t even know if I’m allowed to say who I’ve (sort of) had lunch with. But today’s lunch could have made for a marvelous game of Speech BINGO. This is that silly game when you and bunch of friends pass out a BINGO card and you mark when an overused catchphrase is said. Today’s included “No one knows more about ___ than ___[often ‘you’], but I think…” or dropping in a question-asker’s first name sometime in the first two sentences of an answer, and the inevitable similes comparing legislative battles to football. It was a pretty standard display of someone trying to make an impersonal forum personal by making things intimately relatable.
This might sound like I’m calling the speaker out, but I’m not: how can you call someone out for doing that? It was just a very clear example of the communication strategy of bringing the conversation somewhere you’re comfortable (e.g. stalling or flattery or rehashing really really old jokes). I’m sure we all repeat patterns in our language depending on the social situation, and speaking to small room full of people eager to make salient points regarding a topic of your choice is certainly a unique one. Who could be blamed for repititiously reaching into the same box of comfortable phrases in that setting?
It’s like interviewing for jobs. If you’ve ever been in the unfortunate position to interview for jobs repeatedly, you sort of end up learning all the twists that interviewers throw at you; you “get good at interviewing” if you’re not always the most naturally charming and intelligent person in the room.
There’s no point here, other than that it’s interesting to note these dynamics in people who are advanced in their fields. There are plenty of things that separate politicians, academics, businessfolk, “the successful” from a shlub like me. But perhaps recognizing, absorbing, and emulating their reactions and patterns is fundamental to being a con man something eminently doable that just could lead one towards some path of “success” (whatever that may be).
Your wedding ceremony is boring and perfect: four lessons from a hack wedding officiant
The most significant thing I’ve written in the last few months has been the wedding ceremony for my friends Dave and Eliza. A Google search can tell you how to get certified to officiate weddings. If you want advice on how to write your own wedding ceremony, this guide on Metafilter written by Adam Savage (of Mythbusters fame) was the best advice I found for those that want to write their own ceremonies rather than just fill in the blanks on a template.
Anyway, here are some thoughts about writing a wedding ceremony that I discovered in my process.
1) It’s impossible to avoid cliches. This isn’t bad and you really shouldn’t be afraid of them. Think about it: while every couple wants to believe their relationship is the first of its kind ever, love and companionship is probably the most common and relatable thing around. If you’re going to get the audience to understand the couple on a level they can relate to personally (that’s how you get the tears flowing, right?), it’s not enough to share cute anecdotes about their relationship. So stir that up with whatever hesitation you have of Romeo-and-Julietting-it-up. Your friends’ love embodies timeless stuff. That’s not a cliche; it’s just something everyone there at the wedding already believes in.
2) Your ceremony script probably won’t be the best thing you’ve ever written, even if it’s the piece of writing you’ve cared about most. You’ll probably write in collaboration with the couple. It might go in directions neither you nor your friends expected it would go. You’ll be editing and trying to be as economical as possible while stuffing in every significant thing about love and your friends you’ve ever heard. You won’t say everything you want.
Don’t sweat it. If you and the couple take the time and care, you’ll have something amazing by the time of the ceremony. You might not feel it’s best thing you’ve written, but it could be the truest thing. That counts for a lot.
3) If you’re unmarried or have a history of being unlucky in love, you may have an existential crisis. I’ve been in a few very wonderful, loving relationships, and so consequently have had my share of incredible fuckups and moments I wish I could take back. While you find yourself spending hours writing about the greatest commitment any person is ever supposed to make, introspection might lead you to think “what the fuck do I know?” Depending on how you’ve lived your life, you might think yourself the biggest phony or hypocrite.
Suck it up. This isn’t about you. If you know enough to know your shortcomings in love, you know why the friends you’re marrying are better than you, even if you don’t know why they asked you to officiate their wedding.
4) You’re just setting them up so your friends can knock them down. Remember, your job is to get everyone there to feel present. This isn’t hard because there is no audience more eager to be pleased than the one at a wedding. Once the couple begins exchanging vows after you’ve said what you’ve prepared, it’s all over. Eyes become faucets.
Have fun officiating! It’s a blast.
Pitchfork jumping 7.8 sharks: on Kanye’s 10.0 (and why what I say doesn’t matter)
This post is two weeks too late and was supposed to be about how silly and ridiculous Pitchfork was for giving Kanye West’s My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy a 10.0. This wasn’t at all supposed to be about the album itself. Let’s see where this goes.
I guess I’d first like to say, though, that I’m no hater. I have to love Pitchfork because I’ve been reading it on a near-daily basis since 2000. There is so, so much to hate about the site, sure, we all know that, and whether or not you agree with many of the site’s ridiculous proclamations (remember how much dance punk we all listened to 5 years ago? Oh, no?), the influence has been obvious for years, and they still reign as kingmakers of the music world. Even with the rising popularity over the last few years of Pandora, Hype Machine, and especially NPR Music, Pitchfork is still tastemaking for a large segment of the self-described music-loving population.
Which is partly why my first reaction before I listened to a beat of the album or read a word of the review was to roll my eyes when I saw they had given a 10.0 to Kanye’s latest album.
First, to get it out of the way, after reading the review, I thought it was one of the most lush examples of “pretentiously Pitchfork” music writing that has been up in a very long time. Yes, yes, it’s way easy to hate the reviews (and it’s been done for years), but at moments the writing is fantastic (for example, read all of the Beatles reissue reviews. I think they give tremendous context and insight into the band and the albums).
However, when I was done reading the MBDTW review, I thought it embodied the effort-fullness that makes hipsters hate other hipsters. As was written in a NYT Book Review article the other month:
“Taste is not stable and peaceful, but a means of strategy and competition. Those superior in wealth use it to pretend they are superior in spirit. Groups closer in social class who yet draw their status from different sources use taste and its attainments to disdain one another and get a leg up. These conflicts for social dominance through culture are exactly what drive the dynamics within communities whose members are regarded as hipsters. …. All hipsters play at being the inventors or first adopters of novelties: pride comes from knowing, and deciding, what’s cool in advance of the rest of the world. Yet the habits of hatred and accusation are endemic to hipsters because they feel the weakness of everyone’s position — including their own. Proving that someone is trying desperately to boost himself instantly undoes him as an opponent. He’s a fake, while you are a natural aristocrat of taste. That’s why “He’s not for real, he’s just a hipster” is a potent insult among all the people identifiable as hipsters themselves.”
I don’t want to get into the specifics of why the review makes my eyes roll, but it does, and I suspect the excerpt above is involved (that is more likely than not a self-damning admission).
Secondly, it had been a ridiculously long time since I could remember when they gave out a 10 to an album that was not a reissue. If we can assume Pitchfork has any self-awareness (and we can refer to it collectively), it certainly had to know that this was something of an “event” given that it had apparently been eight years since it had last given a 10 to a Wilco that was definitely not being played in Starbucks when YHF came out. Pitchfork’s influence has only grown since then. To give this most elusive of honors to one of the most eagerly anticipated albums of the year…
It relates to my ultimate point: bestowing this honor on an artist that’s as big a phenomenon as Kanye felt like Pitchfork’s own declaration of future irrelevance. I was reminded of the time when one, say in the 90s, might read an at-times-glowing Rolling Stone review of an album that in hindsight is totally shitty. It’s like Entertainment Weekly giving any grade at all to the Black Eyed Peas or a Justin Bieber album: what’s the damn point? Pitchfork has to know who it’s writing for, it has to know who that score would titillate, it has to be so proudly aware that giving the decade’s first 10.0 to a hip hop artist could be used as a cred in a “we’re not rockists!” discussion.
“Bitch(fork), please.”
ALL THAT SAID: the album fucking deserves the 10.0. No words I say can suffice. Maybe if you let me keep my Robyn, I’d trade all the other music I listened to this year for this one album. I spat out an email to my girlfriend when I was 2/3 of the way through the album on my first listen: “it’s a big gamechanger in ways that i can’t define b/c i don’t know how hiphop well. but i can hearsomething. it’s just so beautiful.” Sasha Frere-Jones said it better: “Good luck figuring out what kind of music this is, though it does contain rapping. West’s music is born of hip-hop, but it now includes so many varieties that it feels most accurate to call it simply Kanye.”
And that, ultimately, is why I’ve wasted my time writing this and you’ve wasted time reading. Pitchfork hasn’t gone away. They’re still doing what they do, giving another Best New Music to Robyn last week (sO eXcITed to SEE hRR IN baWlmEr in FEB!!). And in the end, they were probably right in saying the album was “Essential.” (see scale on right) Maybe the last time an artist displayed such mastery over a genre within their own considerable talents, thereby busting the game open, was Radiohead’s Kid A. It got a 10.0, natch.
Wesleyan and the indie kids
Das Racist has a hilarious interview in the latest New York Times magazine. I know the whole Wesleyan indie kid thing has been written about before, but I’m always asked whether I overlapped with any of these folks (to answer: I recognized Andrew VanWyngarden’s name from a music class or two, but he only looks vaguely familiar in photos).
What’s curious to me is that all these acts (maybe minus the slightly older Santigold) are coming out of a time when Wesleyan is supposed to be, like, totally mainstream, man (lamestream, as DannyMo would say). As a freshman I heard all about how Wesleyan was not as crazy as it used to be. The whole Keep Wesleyan Weird thing continues, I guess, and recent-grad friends say it’s only getting ‘worse.’ (i.e. fewer naked parties, more collared shirts purchased at retail prices)
But then why all these “kool kidz” coming out of the woodwork? No one from my years is all indie-kid kool. Is this a paradox?
update/answer: totally not a paradox if you think these indie kids are assholes and everyone before them was doing real work. whoops. duh.
Things are Important 