kittenwar.com
You know I can't go near them, but this is too cute.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God [one man's perspective]
http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God
Science can't explain it, evolution can't understand it and men can only lie there in awe
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, May 27, 2005
Women have orgasms because they can. Women have orgasms because it's the right thing to do.
Women have orgasms because by and large they refuse to launch monstrous ultraviolent illegal soul-deadening wars over oilsucking phallocentric powermad landwhoring BS powergrabs and therefore they fully deserve all the inexplicable otherworldly cosmically infused clitorally energized pleasures they can get.
Did you catch that keyword? That note of strangeness? It was right there, in the word inexplicable. Because apparently, as far as science is concerned and despite the obvious reasons I assert above, no one really seems to know exactly why women have orgasms at all.
Observe, won't you, a new book by a soft-spoken scientist named Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd, from Indiana U, that basically claims there is no justifiable evolutionary need for the female orgasm whatsoever, that it really serves no known biological purpose and that it's becoming, therefore, increasingly obsolete and redundant and more or less unnecessary.
Note how much fun Dr. Lloyd must be at parties. Or on a date.
After all, the book concludes, the clitoris merely exists to create excitement to promote reproduction, but the female orgasm is merely a weird biological afterthought, a remembrance of things past, a wisp of a hint of something that came long before that maybe only our ape ancestors could fully appreciate and make good use of, mostly for generating a more potent, primitive urge to make little furry ape babies.
But now witness, argues the book, the heartbreaking number of modern non-ape women who have tragically low or nonexistent sex drives but who still feel absolutely compelled to pop out a nice brood of offspring. The female orgasm, clearly, ain't for procreation. It has no effect on the transport of sperm. It doesn't drive maternal desire. So, if the urge to orgasm has no connection with the urge to procreate, why do women get them at all?
This is the great thing about science. It gets all flabbergasted and confounded and scrunchy when confronted with things it doesn't quite understand and that it can't quite figure out and that don't fit into neat categories, especially if said things are astounding explosive events that make women moan and writhe and gasp and grin and feel their deep inborn prelapsarian connection to just about all of eternity, in the space of about 17 seconds.
There is no room in this mode of science for, you know, mystery. There is no room for the deeply funky or the hotly mystical, the moist divine wild card. This is because stiff little science tends to cram all possibility for a given explanation into the great maw of cold beautiful logic and spits out, sadly and tellingly and almost without fail, the cosmic hunks of mystical possibility as if they were indigestible bones.
That scientific view is, of course, one way to look at it. There is, naturally, another.
Let us open up a little, go deep and explore and probe further and say, ahh yes. Because it can also be very easily argued that the female orgasm is, quite simply, the Great Mystical Link, the hot divine thing that connects and communicates and interrelates between heaven and Earth, mind and body, soul and sky, dream state and anal bead, Astroglide and God.
Maybe, in other words, the female orgasm doesn't need a purely biological purpose. Maybe it's about something more. Maybe it has -- dare we say it? -- a spiritual purpose. Vibrational. Transcendental. Gasp! Hide the children.
Well, why not? Have you seen a wild female orgasm lately? Have you borne witness? Because you really, really should. One good look and the fact comes clear: The thing is at once directly hardwired to the deep chthonic Earth while at the same time has the bright shimmering cosmos on speed dial. It's true. It's obvious. Any good and deeply felt female climax is clearly a subatomic vibrational pulse of such unusual and kaleidoscopic frequency that the only ones who can truly hear its messages are purple orchids and bright red snakes and the aliens who built the Great Pyramids. All hail.
So then. If you want to argue that anything has been lost to the mists of time and awareness, let's argue that. Let's lament the demise of that link, the great orgasmic disconnect, the massive cultural spin downward toward sexual terror and orgasmic stagnation and Laura Bush.
In other words, let's argue that the female orgasm, far from becoming obsolete and useless, is more necessary and vital than ever before, because it is the orgasm that allows us a glimpse of what lies beyond, of what we can become, of all that there is and all we want to be and all we want to become and it's all wrapped up in a white-hot moment of transcendental moaning hope. Plus, as I understand it, they're just tremendous amounts of fun.
So now, if Lloyd's book is to be believed, the fact that women are losing the orgasmic impulse, the fact that the female water slide is not worshipped and studied and taught like a joyful religion or glorious deity in this dazed and confused and Bush-ravaged culture, and the sad fact that every girl is not given a new Hitachi Magic Wand as a beautiful rite of passage when she hits 14, these are more than merely the great tragedies of our age. They might very well be the things keeping us from progressing at all.
Which is to say, deny the power of the mystico-erotic spiritual gasp at your peril. Look to science to explain away all our slick needful quiverings as mere rote mechanical factions, and watch the spirit wither and cringe and say uh, hello, over here, please, what the hell is wrong with you people?
The female orgasm is just useless fun? Just a vestigial remnant of our licentious monkey ancestors, increasingly obsolete and something that will soon be completely replaced with lots of yawning and sighing and a slow steady gaze at the ceiling as she ponders paint colors for the kitchen while the man sweats and grunts and enjoys 2.3 minutes of primitive emasculated gorilla lust? Hardly. Leave that for the Republicans and the Christian Right.
Woman's orgasm has no evolutionary purpose? Bull. Woman's orgasm is proof of evolution, baby. Spiritual, karmic, celestial evolution. It is what propels us forward, brings us light and awareness and deep laughing cosmic moan and makes much of life worth living. And if we lose our grip on that notion and insist on devolving at our current rate, we will be in deep trouble indeed.
Magic Wands all around, Dr. Lloyd. It's the right thing to do.
Female Orgasm: Proof Of God
Science can't explain it, evolution can't understand it and men can only lie there in awe
- By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, May 27, 2005
Women have orgasms because they can. Women have orgasms because it's the right thing to do.
Women have orgasms because by and large they refuse to launch monstrous ultraviolent illegal soul-deadening wars over oilsucking phallocentric powermad landwhoring BS powergrabs and therefore they fully deserve all the inexplicable otherworldly cosmically infused clitorally energized pleasures they can get.
Did you catch that keyword? That note of strangeness? It was right there, in the word inexplicable. Because apparently, as far as science is concerned and despite the obvious reasons I assert above, no one really seems to know exactly why women have orgasms at all.
Observe, won't you, a new book by a soft-spoken scientist named Dr. Elisabeth Lloyd, from Indiana U, that basically claims there is no justifiable evolutionary need for the female orgasm whatsoever, that it really serves no known biological purpose and that it's becoming, therefore, increasingly obsolete and redundant and more or less unnecessary.
Note how much fun Dr. Lloyd must be at parties. Or on a date.
After all, the book concludes, the clitoris merely exists to create excitement to promote reproduction, but the female orgasm is merely a weird biological afterthought, a remembrance of things past, a wisp of a hint of something that came long before that maybe only our ape ancestors could fully appreciate and make good use of, mostly for generating a more potent, primitive urge to make little furry ape babies.
But now witness, argues the book, the heartbreaking number of modern non-ape women who have tragically low or nonexistent sex drives but who still feel absolutely compelled to pop out a nice brood of offspring. The female orgasm, clearly, ain't for procreation. It has no effect on the transport of sperm. It doesn't drive maternal desire. So, if the urge to orgasm has no connection with the urge to procreate, why do women get them at all?
This is the great thing about science. It gets all flabbergasted and confounded and scrunchy when confronted with things it doesn't quite understand and that it can't quite figure out and that don't fit into neat categories, especially if said things are astounding explosive events that make women moan and writhe and gasp and grin and feel their deep inborn prelapsarian connection to just about all of eternity, in the space of about 17 seconds.
There is no room in this mode of science for, you know, mystery. There is no room for the deeply funky or the hotly mystical, the moist divine wild card. This is because stiff little science tends to cram all possibility for a given explanation into the great maw of cold beautiful logic and spits out, sadly and tellingly and almost without fail, the cosmic hunks of mystical possibility as if they were indigestible bones.
That scientific view is, of course, one way to look at it. There is, naturally, another.
Let us open up a little, go deep and explore and probe further and say, ahh yes. Because it can also be very easily argued that the female orgasm is, quite simply, the Great Mystical Link, the hot divine thing that connects and communicates and interrelates between heaven and Earth, mind and body, soul and sky, dream state and anal bead, Astroglide and God.
Maybe, in other words, the female orgasm doesn't need a purely biological purpose. Maybe it's about something more. Maybe it has -- dare we say it? -- a spiritual purpose. Vibrational. Transcendental. Gasp! Hide the children.
Well, why not? Have you seen a wild female orgasm lately? Have you borne witness? Because you really, really should. One good look and the fact comes clear: The thing is at once directly hardwired to the deep chthonic Earth while at the same time has the bright shimmering cosmos on speed dial. It's true. It's obvious. Any good and deeply felt female climax is clearly a subatomic vibrational pulse of such unusual and kaleidoscopic frequency that the only ones who can truly hear its messages are purple orchids and bright red snakes and the aliens who built the Great Pyramids. All hail.
So then. If you want to argue that anything has been lost to the mists of time and awareness, let's argue that. Let's lament the demise of that link, the great orgasmic disconnect, the massive cultural spin downward toward sexual terror and orgasmic stagnation and Laura Bush.
In other words, let's argue that the female orgasm, far from becoming obsolete and useless, is more necessary and vital than ever before, because it is the orgasm that allows us a glimpse of what lies beyond, of what we can become, of all that there is and all we want to be and all we want to become and it's all wrapped up in a white-hot moment of transcendental moaning hope. Plus, as I understand it, they're just tremendous amounts of fun.
So now, if Lloyd's book is to be believed, the fact that women are losing the orgasmic impulse, the fact that the female water slide is not worshipped and studied and taught like a joyful religion or glorious deity in this dazed and confused and Bush-ravaged culture, and the sad fact that every girl is not given a new Hitachi Magic Wand as a beautiful rite of passage when she hits 14, these are more than merely the great tragedies of our age. They might very well be the things keeping us from progressing at all.
Which is to say, deny the power of the mystico-erotic spiritual gasp at your peril. Look to science to explain away all our slick needful quiverings as mere rote mechanical factions, and watch the spirit wither and cringe and say uh, hello, over here, please, what the hell is wrong with you people?
The female orgasm is just useless fun? Just a vestigial remnant of our licentious monkey ancestors, increasingly obsolete and something that will soon be completely replaced with lots of yawning and sighing and a slow steady gaze at the ceiling as she ponders paint colors for the kitchen while the man sweats and grunts and enjoys 2.3 minutes of primitive emasculated gorilla lust? Hardly. Leave that for the Republicans and the Christian Right.
Woman's orgasm has no evolutionary purpose? Bull. Woman's orgasm is proof of evolution, baby. Spiritual, karmic, celestial evolution. It is what propels us forward, brings us light and awareness and deep laughing cosmic moan and makes much of life worth living. And if we lose our grip on that notion and insist on devolving at our current rate, we will be in deep trouble indeed.
Magic Wands all around, Dr. Lloyd. It's the right thing to do.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
t r u t h o u t - Anti-American Protests Spread through Islamic World
t r u t h o u t - Anti-American Protests Spread through Islamic World
Just in the last day or 2 I have read about anti-americanism in Germany, Russia and Afghanistan. While it certainly isn't surprising, in all my travels I have never actually encountered any. Well... that's not really true. Years ago people used to say to us, "you don't act like Americans." But then, I do introduce myself as a political refugee. Sorry, I don't really have a point.
Just in the last day or 2 I have read about anti-americanism in Germany, Russia and Afghanistan. While it certainly isn't surprising, in all my travels I have never actually encountered any. Well... that's not really true. Years ago people used to say to us, "you don't act like Americans." But then, I do introduce myself as a political refugee. Sorry, I don't really have a point.
AlterNet: Waging War on War
AlterNet: Waging War on War
This reminds of something my mother told me many years ago that I have really tried to take to heart: "It's easy to make people feel shitty about themselves. Most people do anyway. But if you can make other people feel good, now that's a real challenge." Micro-macro; big-small; think globally, act locally. Walk, eat, breath, sleep... in peace.
This reminds of something my mother told me many years ago that I have really tried to take to heart: "It's easy to make people feel shitty about themselves. Most people do anyway. But if you can make other people feel good, now that's a real challenge." Micro-macro; big-small; think globally, act locally. Walk, eat, breath, sleep... in peace.
Bill Moyers on Patriotism
Take Public Broadcasting Back
Take Public Broadcasting Back
by Bill Moyers
Closing address
National Conference on Media Reform
St. Louis, Missouri
May 15, 2005
“I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it
necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to
see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my
mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I
would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country
whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose
ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more
occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's
picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so
does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15. So
what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been
hijacked and turned into a logo — the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism.
On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the
flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of
the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No
administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the
flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official
lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on
every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.
But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in
Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running
Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They
are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance
from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate
lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as
they call for more spending on war. So I put this on as a modest riposte to
men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of
Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they
don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the
coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash.) I put it on to
remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of
Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to
the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that
war — except in self-defense — is a failure of moral imagination, political
nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government
can mean standing up for your country.”
Take Public Broadcasting Back
by Bill Moyers
Closing address
National Conference on Media Reform
St. Louis, Missouri
May 15, 2005
“I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it
necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to
see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my
mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans. Sometimes I
would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country
whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose
ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more
occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's
picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so
does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15. So
what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been
hijacked and turned into a logo — the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism.
On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the
flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of
the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No
administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the
flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official
lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on
every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.
But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in
Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running
Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They
are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance
from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate
lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as
they call for more spending on war. So I put this on as a modest riposte to
men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of
Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they
don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the
coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash.) I put it on to
remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of
Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to
the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that
war — except in self-defense — is a failure of moral imagination, political
nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government
can mean standing up for your country.”
Bee Decline May Spell End of Some Fruits, Vegetables
Bee Decline May Spell End of Some Fruits, Vegetables
Bee Decline May Spell End of Some Fruits,
Vegetables
John Roach
for National Geographic News
October 5, 2004
Bees, via pollination, are responsible for 15 to
30 percent of the food
U.S. consumers eat. But in the last 50 years the
domesticated honeybee
population—which most farmers depend on for
pollination—has declined by
about 50 percent, scientists say.
Unless actions are taken to slow the decline of
domesticated honeybees
and augment their populations with wild bees,
many fruits and
vegetables may disappear from the food supply,
said Claire Kremen, a
conservation biologist at Princeton University in
New Jersey.
Bee Decline May Spell End of Some Fruits,
Vegetables
John Roach
for National Geographic News
October 5, 2004
Bees, via pollination, are responsible for 15 to
30 percent of the food
U.S. consumers eat. But in the last 50 years the
domesticated honeybee
population—which most farmers depend on for
pollination—has declined by
about 50 percent, scientists say.
Unless actions are taken to slow the decline of
domesticated honeybees
and augment their populations with wild bees,
many fruits and
vegetables may disappear from the food supply,
said Claire Kremen, a
conservation biologist at Princeton University in
New Jersey.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Critical Mass in Kyiv
Suzahna may not know it, but she is one of my most interesting contributors:
> www.velo.kyiv.in.ua
>
> ***********
> Hey guys--
>
> Check out this announcement for the next mass in kyiv. Xerocracy in
> action:
> you can download your own flyer, even if you can¹t read it. They
> are aiming
> for 1,000 riders for the may ride.
>
> Nice.
>
> Suzahna
> www.velo.kyiv.in.ua
>
> ***********
> Hey guys--
>
> Check out this announcement for the next mass in kyiv. Xerocracy in
> action:
> you can download your own flyer, even if you can¹t read it. They
> are aiming
> for 1,000 riders for the may ride.
>
> Nice.
>
> Suzahna
RUSSIAN LAKE DISAPPEARS, BAFFLING VILLAGERS
MOSCOW (Reuters) A Russian village was left baffled Thursday after its
lake disappeared overnight. NTV television showed pictures of a giant
muddy hole bathed in summer sun, while fishermen from the village of
Bolotnikovo looked on disconsolately. 'It is very dangerous. If a
person had been in this disaster, he would have had almost no chance of
survival. The trees flew downwards, under the ground,' said Dmitry
Zaitsev, a local Emergencies Ministry official interviewed by the
channel. Officials in Nizhegorodskaya region, on the Volga river east
of Moscow, said water in the lake might have been sucked down into an
underground water-course or cave system, but some villagers had more
sinister explanations. 'I am thinking, well, America has finally got to
us,' said one old woman, as she sat on the ground outside her house...
Source: http://tinyurl.com/744z7
lake disappeared overnight. NTV television showed pictures of a giant
muddy hole bathed in summer sun, while fishermen from the village of
Bolotnikovo looked on disconsolately. 'It is very dangerous. If a
person had been in this disaster, he would have had almost no chance of
survival. The trees flew downwards, under the ground,' said Dmitry
Zaitsev, a local Emergencies Ministry official interviewed by the
channel. Officials in Nizhegorodskaya region, on the Volga river east
of Moscow, said water in the lake might have been sucked down into an
underground water-course or cave system, but some villagers had more
sinister explanations. 'I am thinking, well, America has finally got to
us,' said one old woman, as she sat on the ground outside her house...
Source: http://tinyurl.com/744z7
Monday, May 16, 2005
Incensed
You've heard me discuss in past blog entries about the outrageous shift of the Regional Rideshare Program from a local non-profit organization to a huge, multinational private engineering firm (PB) after 27 years. PB has been interviewing RIDES (the NPO) staff for employment in the new office, and I just heard some interesting news. Not only is the program costing about the same amount of your tax payer dollars to employ fewer people, but... One existing staff member said she turned down their offer because it was ridiculously low. She said she could not live on the amount of money they offered her. This is like the Wal-Mart of public projects. Talk about corporate welfare.
I think I need to sit in the corner and do my breathing for a while before my head blow off.
I think I need to sit in the corner and do my breathing for a while before my head blow off.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Alice Sux
So, I don't listen to Alice (a mainstream, large radio station described as contemporary rock or hot adult contemporary on the internet) usually. I mean I have before when I was painting my apartment and had already killed enough brain cells (before they'd had time to regenerate) with paint fumes and couldn't make any more decisions among my CDs and the other mainstream rock stations were either not as close on the dial or annoying me more. But, I certainly won't admit it.
Our friend Damon, who is marrying my grad school classmate Rachel, is a film maker. He just moved to SF from Ireland, where there is a film industry, to be with Rachel. So, he's peddling his wears and trying to build his career here, where we have no film industry. As part of that process, he enters his films into local contests and one of these was last night's Alice’s 3-minute film festival at Bimbo’s (I love Bimbo’s).
The films were good and certainly entertaining but most of them rather amateur. Damon is a professional film maker, and his entry, Aroma, in the comedy category, was gorgeous. You also can't really argue with the premise: farting grandmas. But alas, this was an Alice event, where cute dogs knocking over trash cans (and it WAS a very cute dog) made into non-beautiful films win over gorgeous farting grandmas. As Marshall said, "this is so un-San Francisco." I know we were all embarrassed for our city.
Damon agreed. In fact, he lost to that same dog flick in San Diego. Of course, you know that Southern California (Spanish architecture, plastic surgery, suntans), and all of its aesthetics, are infinitely inferior (lower class) to Northern California (redwood trees, rainbows, dope smokers). Unless, of course, you're coming from the perspective of mainstream rock radio stations. We do still house the Marina after all (a mainstream-type of neighborhood where the women are all blond and perfect and the men all drive nice cars and everyone works out all the time and the craziest thing anyone ever did was get drunk and dance on a bar in the Mission, the gentrified-artsy-Latino neighborhood where I live).
So, I don't know. I am done being snooty for today. I think Damon should be more selective about where he submits his films. That said, he probably got some excellent exposure at least among the judges. (Plus, we got them! We stole the flowers off the table when we left.) And only one film can win.
What is quality anyway? The half time band totally sucked (we all agreed) in a sort of lacking originality kind of way. They sang about how women shouldn't wait around for Mr. Right, which I was personally offended by. They were tight, but sort of Hooty-and-the-Blow-Fish kind of boring (I don't know Hooty -- someone else said that). But someone liked them enough to select them. What I am trying to say is, we don't all have to agree, but we should at least all try to get along (e.g., Rodney King).
Our friend Damon, who is marrying my grad school classmate Rachel, is a film maker. He just moved to SF from Ireland, where there is a film industry, to be with Rachel. So, he's peddling his wears and trying to build his career here, where we have no film industry. As part of that process, he enters his films into local contests and one of these was last night's Alice’s 3-minute film festival at Bimbo’s (I love Bimbo’s).
The films were good and certainly entertaining but most of them rather amateur. Damon is a professional film maker, and his entry, Aroma, in the comedy category, was gorgeous. You also can't really argue with the premise: farting grandmas. But alas, this was an Alice event, where cute dogs knocking over trash cans (and it WAS a very cute dog) made into non-beautiful films win over gorgeous farting grandmas. As Marshall said, "this is so un-San Francisco." I know we were all embarrassed for our city.
Damon agreed. In fact, he lost to that same dog flick in San Diego. Of course, you know that Southern California (Spanish architecture, plastic surgery, suntans), and all of its aesthetics, are infinitely inferior (lower class) to Northern California (redwood trees, rainbows, dope smokers). Unless, of course, you're coming from the perspective of mainstream rock radio stations. We do still house the Marina after all (a mainstream-type of neighborhood where the women are all blond and perfect and the men all drive nice cars and everyone works out all the time and the craziest thing anyone ever did was get drunk and dance on a bar in the Mission, the gentrified-artsy-Latino neighborhood where I live).
So, I don't know. I am done being snooty for today. I think Damon should be more selective about where he submits his films. That said, he probably got some excellent exposure at least among the judges. (Plus, we got them! We stole the flowers off the table when we left.) And only one film can win.
What is quality anyway? The half time band totally sucked (we all agreed) in a sort of lacking originality kind of way. They sang about how women shouldn't wait around for Mr. Right, which I was personally offended by. They were tight, but sort of Hooty-and-the-Blow-Fish kind of boring (I don't know Hooty -- someone else said that). But someone liked them enough to select them. What I am trying to say is, we don't all have to agree, but we should at least all try to get along (e.g., Rodney King).
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Many-to-Many: Redefining friendship
Many-to-Many: Redefining friendship
I plan to continue the friend string, partly because I like it, and partly bc I received overwhelming positive feedback (yes, like 3 people said something nice about -- all 3 people who read my blog). The will be a good time to discuss this topic further, but for now, off the top, I have some initial reactions:
* I am comforted by the fact that David, and his commenter, all define friendship how I did: quality one-on-one time, and the effort to spend it.
* The big bear hug is problematic for me. As a Californian, I am prone to the big bear hug when seeing friends esp if I haven't seen them in a while. However, I have a bony chest without much padding to protect me there. Invariably, someone (often myself) has something in that general area that stabs my chest. Can we all agree to transition to a less intense hug and a kiss on one cheek? (My chest is still sore from when Forest was in town earlier this week and I stabbed myself with my own hoody.)
* My friends never take off their shoes and stink up the room with their feet. My friends are perfect (and astoundingly beautiful) and never have stinky feet.
* Friendster: I still don't get it. Of course I have friends who I keep in touch with mostly thru Friendster, but that's just cuz we aren't organized enough to keep track of each other’s emails. On the other hand, why do people I don't know keep asking me to be their Friendster? I might correspond with you if you say something interesting, but I am certainly not going to commit to a friendship with someone I know only thru their profile. That would be disrespectful to my real friends and entirely miss the point (as I see it). Same goes for Tribe.
* This issue about prefering to be with your family watching TV scares me a little. I mean, I am glad this David character likes his family, but doesn't he also want friends? What happens if his wife dies or leaves him (goddess forbid)? Is it wrong to spread yourself around a little just to avoid pain? Hmmm. Ok, maybe that's not the issue. Maybe I am happier when I have a variety of inputs, and when I am happier and more interesting, I have more to offer the people I am closest to.
I plan to continue the friend string, partly because I like it, and partly bc I received overwhelming positive feedback (yes, like 3 people said something nice about -- all 3 people who read my blog). The will be a good time to discuss this topic further, but for now, off the top, I have some initial reactions:
* I am comforted by the fact that David, and his commenter, all define friendship how I did: quality one-on-one time, and the effort to spend it.
* The big bear hug is problematic for me. As a Californian, I am prone to the big bear hug when seeing friends esp if I haven't seen them in a while. However, I have a bony chest without much padding to protect me there. Invariably, someone (often myself) has something in that general area that stabs my chest. Can we all agree to transition to a less intense hug and a kiss on one cheek? (My chest is still sore from when Forest was in town earlier this week and I stabbed myself with my own hoody.)
* My friends never take off their shoes and stink up the room with their feet. My friends are perfect (and astoundingly beautiful) and never have stinky feet.
* Friendster: I still don't get it. Of course I have friends who I keep in touch with mostly thru Friendster, but that's just cuz we aren't organized enough to keep track of each other’s emails. On the other hand, why do people I don't know keep asking me to be their Friendster? I might correspond with you if you say something interesting, but I am certainly not going to commit to a friendship with someone I know only thru their profile. That would be disrespectful to my real friends and entirely miss the point (as I see it). Same goes for Tribe.
* This issue about prefering to be with your family watching TV scares me a little. I mean, I am glad this David character likes his family, but doesn't he also want friends? What happens if his wife dies or leaves him (goddess forbid)? Is it wrong to spread yourself around a little just to avoid pain? Hmmm. Ok, maybe that's not the issue. Maybe I am happier when I have a variety of inputs, and when I am happier and more interesting, I have more to offer the people I am closest to.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Couples and silence (part 3 of the series)
Another respondent said: “Each day brings new events, issues, topics to discuss and share. However, there are times when we just don't feel like talking. We could have an evening where we're puttering or reading or something and not talking. I never feel like we've run out of things to talk about.”
The inspiration for this research said: “Compatibility of brains is important. I think that can be developed, though…. But, of course, you have to be compatible to want to spend enough time for that to develop. I think I'm talking in circles.
”After thinking about it some more yesterday, I think relationships probably all come back to trust and communication. Which are heavily interlinked. You need to be able to trust your partner enough to be able to say what you need and want out of the relationship, and vice versa. Because otherwise you're both going to end up angry and dissatisfied and resentful. And then what's the point, really. It's hard to trust another person and be totally honest and open with them, though…. Because (you might) worry about hurt feelings and saying the wrong thing and being too selfish.”
(To which I said:) “Yeah, back in the day when unrequited love was more common, I used to think that what made a relationship work was the commitment (of both parties) to making it work. Now that I am older and have a better understanding of myself and who I want to be in the world (and who others might want to be too), I realize that the non-lover was picking up on a lack of compatibility that would have reared his ugly head eventually.
“Trust and communication are huge. But I think it's more complicated than that. I mean trust and communication will get you from point A to point B, point B has to work for both parties (a.k.a. prescriptive context). That said, I recognize a lot of my strange behavior has been the result of some perverse attempt at self-protection. I've messed up loads of things that way.
“On the other hand, when you articulate your needs, your partner is more likely to want to meet them if his/her needs are already being met. It's another cyclical thing. So, really the bottom is that at some point someone's needs are being met naturally without anyone having to ask or adjust their behavior or anything. Then you can negotiate all those other things from that solid foundation.”
To bring this conversation back to talking, that “solid foundation” may be based in part of the relevant parties “chattiness” and tolerance/desire for talking (for example). Because I feel like I know many of my respondents pretty well, I can say with some authority that I don’t think the respondent at the beginning of this post would be happy with someone who either talked all the time or expected constant banter. On the other hand, I feel confident that my respondent from the original post who wrote the little conversation and her partner would probably not be as happy with quieter people.
There’s an additional complication: what you’re yammering on about. You’ve both got to be interested in it. But, then, I kind of already covered that in my previous post on this topic (common interests/how much you like each other/the way you both think).
And to sum up with as many clichés as possible… different strokes for different folks. One woman’s trash is another’s treasure. You only have to impress 2 people, your partner and yourself. Or, as my friend Bill quoted from last Sunday night’s Desperate Housewives (a TV show) in a recent email: "The vow is simple, but finding someone worthy of it is the hard part. But if we can, then begins the start of living happily ever after." And we’re back to compatibility. (cue music)
The inspiration for this research said: “Compatibility of brains is important. I think that can be developed, though…. But, of course, you have to be compatible to want to spend enough time for that to develop. I think I'm talking in circles.
”After thinking about it some more yesterday, I think relationships probably all come back to trust and communication. Which are heavily interlinked. You need to be able to trust your partner enough to be able to say what you need and want out of the relationship, and vice versa. Because otherwise you're both going to end up angry and dissatisfied and resentful. And then what's the point, really. It's hard to trust another person and be totally honest and open with them, though…. Because (you might) worry about hurt feelings and saying the wrong thing and being too selfish.”
(To which I said:) “Yeah, back in the day when unrequited love was more common, I used to think that what made a relationship work was the commitment (of both parties) to making it work. Now that I am older and have a better understanding of myself and who I want to be in the world (and who others might want to be too), I realize that the non-lover was picking up on a lack of compatibility that would have reared his ugly head eventually.
“Trust and communication are huge. But I think it's more complicated than that. I mean trust and communication will get you from point A to point B, point B has to work for both parties (a.k.a. prescriptive context). That said, I recognize a lot of my strange behavior has been the result of some perverse attempt at self-protection. I've messed up loads of things that way.
“On the other hand, when you articulate your needs, your partner is more likely to want to meet them if his/her needs are already being met. It's another cyclical thing. So, really the bottom is that at some point someone's needs are being met naturally without anyone having to ask or adjust their behavior or anything. Then you can negotiate all those other things from that solid foundation.”
To bring this conversation back to talking, that “solid foundation” may be based in part of the relevant parties “chattiness” and tolerance/desire for talking (for example). Because I feel like I know many of my respondents pretty well, I can say with some authority that I don’t think the respondent at the beginning of this post would be happy with someone who either talked all the time or expected constant banter. On the other hand, I feel confident that my respondent from the original post who wrote the little conversation and her partner would probably not be as happy with quieter people.
There’s an additional complication: what you’re yammering on about. You’ve both got to be interested in it. But, then, I kind of already covered that in my previous post on this topic (common interests/how much you like each other/the way you both think).
And to sum up with as many clichés as possible… different strokes for different folks. One woman’s trash is another’s treasure. You only have to impress 2 people, your partner and yourself. Or, as my friend Bill quoted from last Sunday night’s Desperate Housewives (a TV show) in a recent email: "The vow is simple, but finding someone worthy of it is the hard part. But if we can, then begins the start of living happily ever after." And we’re back to compatibility. (cue music)
My horoscope for the week
Would you like to transform yourself from being a slave of your desires into being a master? It's a perfect time to work on that worthy project. Here's what you should do: 1. Keep talking yourself out of being attached to trivial goals and keep talking yourself into being thrilled about the precious few goals that are really important. 2. Whenever you are overwhelmed by a desperate longing to be loved, transform the feeling into a fierce determination to give love lavishly.
http://freewillastrology.com/horoscopes/scorpio.html
http://freewillastrology.com/horoscopes/scorpio.html
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Interstate Highway System
"Thanks to the interstate highway system, it is now possible to travel across the country from coast to coast without seeing anything."
-Charles Kuralt, As quoted in Katie Alvord's "Divorce Your Car"
-Charles Kuralt, As quoted in Katie Alvord's "Divorce Your Car"
Demand for Organic Foods Soaring
Demand for Organic Foods Soaring
I'm not surprised. I noticed it throughout Europe among most of the people I visited. Likewise, nearly all of my American friends who recently bought cars (from grown ups my parents age to "kids" my age and younger) bought hybrids. I sometimes wonder if the people I know are outside the norm, but I'm starting to learn that we're just ahead of the curve (hopefully).
Viva!
I'm not surprised. I noticed it throughout Europe among most of the people I visited. Likewise, nearly all of my American friends who recently bought cars (from grown ups my parents age to "kids" my age and younger) bought hybrids. I sometimes wonder if the people I know are outside the norm, but I'm starting to learn that we're just ahead of the curve (hopefully).
Viva!
Monday, May 09, 2005
More on couples and talking
I received another follow-up reply from one of my previous respondents that pretty much gets to the main point (again, names are changed):
"Ben loves talking about political science - actually, he likes sharing his knowledge about pretty much everything he knows about, so it's pretty easy to engage him in conversation. I guess people do run out of things to say to each other, but both Ben and I are always coming across something or other that we want to share, or that we know the other person will be interested in. We also talk about our day, what I did at work, what he and our baby did (which is often more interesting than what I did at work). It also seems to me that, if you feel really comfortable sharing your thoughts with someone, it's almost impossible to run out of things to say unless you run out of thoughts. I think the underlying issue is not so much that you have nothing to say, but that you're no longer interested in talking to that person."
As we discussed in the comments to my first entry on this topic, I am not dogging on silence. I live alone. I am an introvert. I am a huge fan of silence.
That said, I think another potential problem might be that if you are spending a huge amount of time with one person, at the detriment of time spent on yourself and your own reflection and learning, and time with your friends, you might end up feeling frustrated that they are not able to fill in where you haven't been able to take time for your own thoughts. In my experience, anyway, this results in my frustration with them, when the frustration should really be with myself for not setting boundaries that work for me.
Comparing that experience with the experiences of my friends in good relationships, I wonder if it is a matter of maturity. None of us is perfect, and maybe those of us who get bored with our partners are really just saying, "I am not ready to be in a relationship this serious (and time intensive)." On the other hand, I think a huge component of compatibility and, really, love is being totally excited about the other person's brain -- how they think, what they think, the way their mind works. And I think over the years you might start to understand them but you might also continue to be surprised by the other person's creativity and ingenuity. I see that happen between my happily coupled friends, and I think to myself "what a wonderful world."
"Ben loves talking about political science - actually, he likes sharing his knowledge about pretty much everything he knows about, so it's pretty easy to engage him in conversation. I guess people do run out of things to say to each other, but both Ben and I are always coming across something or other that we want to share, or that we know the other person will be interested in. We also talk about our day, what I did at work, what he and our baby did (which is often more interesting than what I did at work). It also seems to me that, if you feel really comfortable sharing your thoughts with someone, it's almost impossible to run out of things to say unless you run out of thoughts. I think the underlying issue is not so much that you have nothing to say, but that you're no longer interested in talking to that person."
As we discussed in the comments to my first entry on this topic, I am not dogging on silence. I live alone. I am an introvert. I am a huge fan of silence.
That said, I think another potential problem might be that if you are spending a huge amount of time with one person, at the detriment of time spent on yourself and your own reflection and learning, and time with your friends, you might end up feeling frustrated that they are not able to fill in where you haven't been able to take time for your own thoughts. In my experience, anyway, this results in my frustration with them, when the frustration should really be with myself for not setting boundaries that work for me.
Comparing that experience with the experiences of my friends in good relationships, I wonder if it is a matter of maturity. None of us is perfect, and maybe those of us who get bored with our partners are really just saying, "I am not ready to be in a relationship this serious (and time intensive)." On the other hand, I think a huge component of compatibility and, really, love is being totally excited about the other person's brain -- how they think, what they think, the way their mind works. And I think over the years you might start to understand them but you might also continue to be surprised by the other person's creativity and ingenuity. I see that happen between my happily coupled friends, and I think to myself "what a wonderful world."
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Couples and talking
Earlier this week someone told me that he broke up with his last girlfriend because they ran out of things to talk about. My initial reaction was that that sounds pretty reasonable. Then I thought about it some more, and I realized that I’ve run out of things to talk about in all my LTRs. Possible reasons for this were:
· Me being an undeveloped person at the time of the relationship,
· Him working to much, or
· Us not having enough in common.
I started to wonder, should being bored with your partner be part of a person’s long-term relationship expectations? (Ick.)
I am a research manager. So, it’s easy to approach this issue from that angle. It’d be hard to get a random sample, but I have enormous resources among my many brilliant and fabulous friends. I also thought about posting the question to craigslist, but I have observed that those people are mostly bitter, psycho, and stupid. So, on second thought…. I made some calls and sent some emails and cornered some people at a Birthday party, and here’s what they said (names have been changed):
No, but I repeat myself a lot. Or we just snuggle. Seriously, it hasn’t been a problem.
***
No, couples don't run out of things to say to one another...they talk when they want to talk. If they have nothing to say, they get drunk and screw. Then they have more to talk about.
***
I’m afraid that I’m too chatty ever to run out of things to talk about -- although Miranda might wish that I did from time to time! (A statement she absolutely denied.)
***
I never run out of things to say, but Graham is sometimes quiet, which bothers me but that just means I have to call one of my girlfriends.
***
There have definitely been quiet moments over dinner (especially when we go out, since when we're at home we'll often read the paper or a magazine while we're eating). Lately, though, we don't seem to run out of things to talk about since I think we have less time where it's just the two of us together, and there's now more to talk about (i.e., our baby). We often talk about things that we've read (news, magazines, books, internet), so I always have less to talk about when I'm reading less.
***
Sometimes we have trouble thinking of things to talk about other than work. We have similar jobs and we’re both really obsessed with them. But at the end of the day over dinner we kind of want to talk about other things. So, it takes us some time to decompress.
***
Me? Run out of things to talk about? It's more like trying to get better at realizing when Jack is already asleep and I'm still blabbing. Seriously, though, no. We talk about work, which a lot of couples probably can't do for as long as we do, but I also feel like friends and family and co-workers and pets and neighbors all do enough crazy shit that there's always something to talk about.
"And then Lilia sent that crazy email where she asked if the couples run out of things to talk about. That was crazy."
"Yeah, do you think she worries that after a few dates, she'll get bored with someone?"
"Or vice versa."
"It must have been weird when she dated that French guy: what do you think it's like to not share a native language with your 's.o.'?" (No, that wasn’t the problem.)
"Oh, and, speaking of 's.o.', how do you think Miranda knows so much about what's going on in prison?" (A reference to a previous e-conversation….)
etc.
In sum, one can keep entertained with one’s partner the following ways:
· Having sex
· Reading
· Calling your friends
· Having a baby (which seems a bit of an extreme solution)
Most of my respondents are serious talkers (and women), which not all of us can be. One might even observe that talking too much may also be a problem. But I fear that the introverts of the world are “doomed” (as my conservative-when-it-comes-to-gender-roles-and-relationships Midwestern mother calls women who never couple).
I’ve always been very interested in the details of things: the turn of a hand, the intonation of a voice, the order of steps, light. And I have learned some self-consciousness about talking endlessly about the things that interest me. Not everyone cares. (A while back on a different issue) Christine said that that’s how you choose your friends – they’re the people who want to listen to you talk endlessly about the shadow of an ant because they like you (and vice versa). Maybe that’s a chemical thing.
This research may not have taught us anything. I still believe that what makes a relationship work is 2 things:
1. The ability to create a life with the other person that makes you happy, and
2. Being completely in love with each other.
With that in mind, and as a reformed serial monogamist (many years ago), anyone ever finding a suitable partner seems nearly impossible. And yet somehow it happens all the time....
· Me being an undeveloped person at the time of the relationship,
· Him working to much, or
· Us not having enough in common.
I started to wonder, should being bored with your partner be part of a person’s long-term relationship expectations? (Ick.)
I am a research manager. So, it’s easy to approach this issue from that angle. It’d be hard to get a random sample, but I have enormous resources among my many brilliant and fabulous friends. I also thought about posting the question to craigslist, but I have observed that those people are mostly bitter, psycho, and stupid. So, on second thought…. I made some calls and sent some emails and cornered some people at a Birthday party, and here’s what they said (names have been changed):
No, but I repeat myself a lot. Or we just snuggle. Seriously, it hasn’t been a problem.
***
No, couples don't run out of things to say to one another...they talk when they want to talk. If they have nothing to say, they get drunk and screw. Then they have more to talk about.
***
I’m afraid that I’m too chatty ever to run out of things to talk about -- although Miranda might wish that I did from time to time! (A statement she absolutely denied.)
***
I never run out of things to say, but Graham is sometimes quiet, which bothers me but that just means I have to call one of my girlfriends.
***
There have definitely been quiet moments over dinner (especially when we go out, since when we're at home we'll often read the paper or a magazine while we're eating). Lately, though, we don't seem to run out of things to talk about since I think we have less time where it's just the two of us together, and there's now more to talk about (i.e., our baby). We often talk about things that we've read (news, magazines, books, internet), so I always have less to talk about when I'm reading less.
***
Sometimes we have trouble thinking of things to talk about other than work. We have similar jobs and we’re both really obsessed with them. But at the end of the day over dinner we kind of want to talk about other things. So, it takes us some time to decompress.
***
Me? Run out of things to talk about? It's more like trying to get better at realizing when Jack is already asleep and I'm still blabbing. Seriously, though, no. We talk about work, which a lot of couples probably can't do for as long as we do, but I also feel like friends and family and co-workers and pets and neighbors all do enough crazy shit that there's always something to talk about.
"And then Lilia sent that crazy email where she asked if the couples run out of things to talk about. That was crazy."
"Yeah, do you think she worries that after a few dates, she'll get bored with someone?"
"Or vice versa."
"It must have been weird when she dated that French guy: what do you think it's like to not share a native language with your 's.o.'?" (No, that wasn’t the problem.)
"Oh, and, speaking of 's.o.', how do you think Miranda knows so much about what's going on in prison?" (A reference to a previous e-conversation….)
etc.
In sum, one can keep entertained with one’s partner the following ways:
· Having sex
· Reading
· Calling your friends
· Having a baby (which seems a bit of an extreme solution)
Most of my respondents are serious talkers (and women), which not all of us can be. One might even observe that talking too much may also be a problem. But I fear that the introverts of the world are “doomed” (as my conservative-when-it-comes-to-gender-roles-and-relationships Midwestern mother calls women who never couple).
I’ve always been very interested in the details of things: the turn of a hand, the intonation of a voice, the order of steps, light. And I have learned some self-consciousness about talking endlessly about the things that interest me. Not everyone cares. (A while back on a different issue) Christine said that that’s how you choose your friends – they’re the people who want to listen to you talk endlessly about the shadow of an ant because they like you (and vice versa). Maybe that’s a chemical thing.
This research may not have taught us anything. I still believe that what makes a relationship work is 2 things:
1. The ability to create a life with the other person that makes you happy, and
2. Being completely in love with each other.
With that in mind, and as a reformed serial monogamist (many years ago), anyone ever finding a suitable partner seems nearly impossible. And yet somehow it happens all the time....
Happy Mother's Day
Kathleen teaches ESL in Oakland. Here's her Mother's Day story:
Here's a little essay from one of my students---he's a
very cute 18 year old Chinese boy with spikey hair; he
loves to sing and listen to his IPOD.
"My mother is very beautiful. She is a good mom
She has two brother She live in Oakland with me and
family She don't English. She works in San Fancisco.
She is very like cook. I like she cooking the food.
Any day she cooking I ate very full."
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY! Kathleen
Here's a little essay from one of my students---he's a
very cute 18 year old Chinese boy with spikey hair; he
loves to sing and listen to his IPOD.
"My mother is very beautiful. She is a good mom
She has two brother She live in Oakland with me and
family She don't English. She works in San Fancisco.
She is very like cook. I like she cooking the food.
Any day she cooking I ate very full."
HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY! Kathleen
Friday, May 06, 2005
May 5
Alt title "What is wrong with me." (not ?)
So, about 3 weeks ago, my French conversation buddy, Tim, and I planned to meet next last night. We usually meet on Mondays, but he's going to Europe soon, and his schedule is getting all crazy. Then about 2 weeks ago I was alone at an art gallery opening (66 Balmy, one of my favorites) as usual and ran into this artist, whose name I'll add later since I don't remember how to spell it (Phil Dv...) and has a class at the same time as mine and also rides a bicycle. (He does these figures, usually female, very contour based, but sometimes with nice smudges and other times he abstracts the figures, meshing them all together and nipples end up on the tops of feet, etc. It's cool stuff. Usually erotic, but sometimes grotesque. I esp like it when the figure is wearing nail polish.) Anyway, we were having a conversation slightly less awkward than usual (why is that?) bc I had had 3 cocktails at the Monkey Club bf arriving. Turned out he was opening a solo show, and the reception party was May 5.
It took me a few days to cross check my calendar, but when I did, I emailed Tim to ask if we could meet earlier, later, or at the gallery. (Are you sobbing from boredom yet?) He said he wanted to meet at the gallery. Fast forward another week or so, Jess sends out on the listserv for our group of friends (the planners) an announcement of another gallery reception at the office/gallery of someone who does stuff like what we do. I reply that I can probably come at the end, forward it to Tim, and call it a day.
Well, you know how I am always winning things? Then I win tickets to one of the Big House theaters shows that night. Obviously I can't go. Until Tim emails back that his gf needs his assistance at a book signing, and he can't make it. But let's see, who to invite? The planners are all at the gallery (it's rude to propose a competing event). I'm seeing Elizabeth the previous night. Jay has Kung Fu. (The list goes on like this.) The only person I can think of is Tam, who I'm dying to see but, it turns out has house guests she can't get away from.
Back to the gallery plan. I send an email to the planners saying that I will go and not be late.
But I'm so tired. I feel like I should at least make an appearance at Phil's reception. At the same time, I'd prefer to stay home and watch TV. Ugh! Then Gabe calls. We have a funny relationship for me anyway. Maybe he's like this with all his friends. But he calls me, usually about 2 hours bf he wants to do something, usually involving free tickets that someone gave him. This time he's got tickets to the closing film at the film fest and the closing party. He says he calling around and whoever says yes first gets to be his "fun date for the night". The movie is at the Castro Theater.
I figure I can go to Phil's at 6 (when it starts) then take the underground (which is faster than biking) up to Castro and meet him just in time for the film, 7. I say yes, and email the planners that now I am not coming at all. I sit down for a wholesome meal of cheese and crackers and wonder if I am getting sick. My bladder feels funny. So, I drink about a gallon of water and read my alumni magazine while prone on the couch. Gabe calls back; have I had any second thoughts?
Me: You got a better offer?
G: no....
This continues, and finally I learn that this woman he has a crush on finally called back and can go. I bow out gracefully, seeing as what I really want to do is stay home and watch TV, and let them have their "fun date". Plus, now he owes me big time.. I decide the send my alum magazine an update and photos from Sara's wedding last year. This takes much longer than it should, and the photos are too big, and I can't seem to open Photoshop to make them smaller.
It's almost getting dark, which is a bit of a drag on a bike, and I head downtown towards the galleries. I talk with Phil about finger smudges and then he passes me off to this artist woman he'd been talking to. We chat pleasantly for a few minutes. She's obsessed with selling art (I have the luxury of never having to think about this). I can't decide if she's very young or annoying or nice and interesting. "Well, it's been nice talking with you." She says but doesn't move. I am thinking that she's leaving. She says something to her husband. He leaves. We chat a bit longer, and she makes some comment about how many interesting people there are to talk with and how she'd like to mingle. I agree. She doesn't move. Anyway, this happens a few more times until finally I walk away, thinking she has some kind of brain damage from her paint fumes or something. I look at a few more pieces and she'd back talking with Phil. Maybe she's one of his groupies?
I swung by the other gallery. It's pretty dead and the planners are gone. The art is OK; some of the pieces nice, but just not really my aesthetic. I have another glass of wine and some broccoli. I speak with no one. I go home and watch TV.
So, about 3 weeks ago, my French conversation buddy, Tim, and I planned to meet next last night. We usually meet on Mondays, but he's going to Europe soon, and his schedule is getting all crazy. Then about 2 weeks ago I was alone at an art gallery opening (66 Balmy, one of my favorites) as usual and ran into this artist, whose name I'll add later since I don't remember how to spell it (Phil Dv...) and has a class at the same time as mine and also rides a bicycle. (He does these figures, usually female, very contour based, but sometimes with nice smudges and other times he abstracts the figures, meshing them all together and nipples end up on the tops of feet, etc. It's cool stuff. Usually erotic, but sometimes grotesque. I esp like it when the figure is wearing nail polish.) Anyway, we were having a conversation slightly less awkward than usual (why is that?) bc I had had 3 cocktails at the Monkey Club bf arriving. Turned out he was opening a solo show, and the reception party was May 5.
It took me a few days to cross check my calendar, but when I did, I emailed Tim to ask if we could meet earlier, later, or at the gallery. (Are you sobbing from boredom yet?) He said he wanted to meet at the gallery. Fast forward another week or so, Jess sends out on the listserv for our group of friends (the planners) an announcement of another gallery reception at the office/gallery of someone who does stuff like what we do. I reply that I can probably come at the end, forward it to Tim, and call it a day.
Well, you know how I am always winning things? Then I win tickets to one of the Big House theaters shows that night. Obviously I can't go. Until Tim emails back that his gf needs his assistance at a book signing, and he can't make it. But let's see, who to invite? The planners are all at the gallery (it's rude to propose a competing event). I'm seeing Elizabeth the previous night. Jay has Kung Fu. (The list goes on like this.) The only person I can think of is Tam, who I'm dying to see but, it turns out has house guests she can't get away from.
Back to the gallery plan. I send an email to the planners saying that I will go and not be late.
But I'm so tired. I feel like I should at least make an appearance at Phil's reception. At the same time, I'd prefer to stay home and watch TV. Ugh! Then Gabe calls. We have a funny relationship for me anyway. Maybe he's like this with all his friends. But he calls me, usually about 2 hours bf he wants to do something, usually involving free tickets that someone gave him. This time he's got tickets to the closing film at the film fest and the closing party. He says he calling around and whoever says yes first gets to be his "fun date for the night". The movie is at the Castro Theater.
I figure I can go to Phil's at 6 (when it starts) then take the underground (which is faster than biking) up to Castro and meet him just in time for the film, 7. I say yes, and email the planners that now I am not coming at all. I sit down for a wholesome meal of cheese and crackers and wonder if I am getting sick. My bladder feels funny. So, I drink about a gallon of water and read my alumni magazine while prone on the couch. Gabe calls back; have I had any second thoughts?
Me: You got a better offer?
G: no....
This continues, and finally I learn that this woman he has a crush on finally called back and can go. I bow out gracefully, seeing as what I really want to do is stay home and watch TV, and let them have their "fun date". Plus, now he owes me big time.
It's almost getting dark, which is a bit of a drag on a bike, and I head downtown towards the galleries. I talk with Phil about finger smudges and then he passes me off to this artist woman he'd been talking to. We chat pleasantly for a few minutes. She's obsessed with selling art (I have the luxury of never having to think about this). I can't decide if she's very young or annoying or nice and interesting. "Well, it's been nice talking with you." She says but doesn't move. I am thinking that she's leaving. She says something to her husband. He leaves. We chat a bit longer, and she makes some comment about how many interesting people there are to talk with and how she'd like to mingle. I agree. She doesn't move. Anyway, this happens a few more times until finally I walk away, thinking she has some kind of brain damage from her paint fumes or something. I look at a few more pieces and she'd back talking with Phil. Maybe she's one of his groupies?
I swung by the other gallery. It's pretty dead and the planners are gone. The art is OK; some of the pieces nice, but just not really my aesthetic. I have another glass of wine and some broccoli. I speak with no one. I go home and watch TV.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Life Goals 1998
My 1998 life goals (composed with Elizabeth and Florence):
* find true love
* get a Master’s degree
* have the knowledge necessary to initiate positive change
* initiate positive change
* learn to swim
* play guitar, sing and write songs
* travel the world (in short pieces), climb the Himalayas
* publish stuff (poetry in the New Yorker)
* paint good watercolors
* have a beautiful house with trees (magnolia, fruit), a garden, a family, kids, oriental carpet(s)
They've changed a little. Even got more ambitious. And I got that Master's.
* find true love
* get a Master’s degree
* have the knowledge necessary to initiate positive change
* initiate positive change
* learn to swim
* play guitar, sing and write songs
* travel the world (in short pieces), climb the Himalayas
* publish stuff (poetry in the New Yorker)
* paint good watercolors
* have a beautiful house with trees (magnolia, fruit), a garden, a family, kids, oriental carpet(s)
They've changed a little. Even got more ambitious. And I got that Master's.
The small paper says
I've been listening to a lot of Janis Joplin lately for unknown reasons. She's phenominal. So, quote #1 for today is:
"It's all the same fucking day, man."
True that.
I paraphrase, as usual, from the radio: Anti-intellectualism is a problem in the black community bc it is a problem in America. For example, President Bush (not my president, oops, that's not the point) got clout for being an every day guy even tho he went to Yale and Harvard. (KQED May 3, 2005 12:45 PM)
I am totally down with colloquialisms, but there is no reason to be stupid, or to have stupid leaders.
"It's all the same fucking day, man."
True that.
I paraphrase, as usual, from the radio: Anti-intellectualism is a problem in the black community bc it is a problem in America. For example, President Bush (not my president, oops, that's not the point) got clout for being an every day guy even tho he went to Yale and Harvard. (KQED May 3, 2005 12:45 PM)
I am totally down with colloquialisms, but there is no reason to be stupid, or to have stupid leaders.
Laura's 1998 Dating Criteria
You know that I am writing a self-help book, right? Well, I notice that I blog, and I do not work on my book. Therefore, it makes sense that I should blog about my book. Here are some notes I took a long time ago from a conversation with one of my best friends for my book:
1. Smart
Fairly self-explanatory and total subjective
2. Funny
That is to you. Laura believed that she would spend her life with the person who can make her laugh so hard she pees in her pants, since laughter is very important to her and she has never peed in pants from it.
3. Attractive
Including any physical requirements you may have for height, fitness, basic good looks and that animal thing.
4. Passionate about something you can relate to
This one has two operatives: 1) Passionate about something – this screens out the dysforic and people who don’t know what they’re doing here (alive that is) and 2) something you can relate to – since if you’re, say, a transit activist you may not be very happy with someone whose passionate about fancy cars for very long.
5. Committed to the Bay Area
Or as committed as you are to where ever you want to be. This Includes both the short and long term: you can’t hangout unless you’re in the same place and you need to agree about where you’re going to raise your kids.
6. Good Values
This includes social justice and environmentalism or whatever your religion involves.
7. Carries Kindness as a Value
You deserve to be with someone nice. You can decide what to do about snails latter.
8. Listens to You
You can enforce this one even if you talk constantly about nothing. It’s still important.
9. Comparably educated
This only applies if it is going to bother you when your spouse does not have an opinion about Remembrance of Things Past or know where the Peter Brady was when he almost got bit by a tarantella – a legitimate grievance. But seriously, the type of preparation for the world one receives greatly influences one’s view of the world and one’s role in it, so carefully consider this aspect of potential companions.
10. Crazy about you
This one is not always immediately apparent. However, it does need to be closely considered. You deserve to be with someone with this characteristic, so screen for it assiduously. This screening includes, but is not limited to, making certain your potential companion makes ample effort to be with you as often as you desire.
Secondary criteria (to think about):
* Willing/Able/Inclined to incorporate travel into his/her Lifestyle. Or at least has a similar tolerance for it as you do.
* Enjoys similar daily activities, i.e. able to party as needed, likes active outdoors activities, etc.
* Not freaky about money
* Does the dishes, cleans house, cooks
1. Smart
Fairly self-explanatory and total subjective
2. Funny
That is to you. Laura believed that she would spend her life with the person who can make her laugh so hard she pees in her pants, since laughter is very important to her and she has never peed in pants from it.
3. Attractive
Including any physical requirements you may have for height, fitness, basic good looks and that animal thing.
4. Passionate about something you can relate to
This one has two operatives: 1) Passionate about something – this screens out the dysforic and people who don’t know what they’re doing here (alive that is) and 2) something you can relate to – since if you’re, say, a transit activist you may not be very happy with someone whose passionate about fancy cars for very long.
5. Committed to the Bay Area
Or as committed as you are to where ever you want to be. This Includes both the short and long term: you can’t hangout unless you’re in the same place and you need to agree about where you’re going to raise your kids.
6. Good Values
This includes social justice and environmentalism or whatever your religion involves.
7. Carries Kindness as a Value
You deserve to be with someone nice. You can decide what to do about snails latter.
8. Listens to You
You can enforce this one even if you talk constantly about nothing. It’s still important.
9. Comparably educated
This only applies if it is going to bother you when your spouse does not have an opinion about Remembrance of Things Past or know where the Peter Brady was when he almost got bit by a tarantella – a legitimate grievance. But seriously, the type of preparation for the world one receives greatly influences one’s view of the world and one’s role in it, so carefully consider this aspect of potential companions.
10. Crazy about you
This one is not always immediately apparent. However, it does need to be closely considered. You deserve to be with someone with this characteristic, so screen for it assiduously. This screening includes, but is not limited to, making certain your potential companion makes ample effort to be with you as often as you desire.
Secondary criteria (to think about):
* Willing/Able/Inclined to incorporate travel into his/her Lifestyle. Or at least has a similar tolerance for it as you do.
* Enjoys similar daily activities, i.e. able to party as needed, likes active outdoors activities, etc.
* Not freaky about money
* Does the dishes, cleans house, cooks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
