The Daily Man Cat

Oh, Hey There! We've Moved!

2012-04-22T21:34:00.014-04:00

Hey There!

I've stepped out for a bit.

We make fine, hand bound albums, sketchbooks, and other awesome stuff and you can keep up with us there.

If you'd like to follow me in the interim, where I post about art, fun things, and the stuff I make, feel free to keep up on Tumblr here.

I've started a business with my wife making books, prints, cards, and other fun goodies. We blog about what interests us there, and also any projects we're in the middle of.

You can find us on Facebook as well. We appreciate likes, since that's one of the few metrics we have to gauge interest on Facebook. You can find us on Facebook here.

Also, if you'd like to visit our shop on Etsy to purchase anything, or to request a custom item, head on over to Etsy and visit us by clicking this link right here.

At some point, I look forward to blogging about milk and politics and such, but for now I mostly have my hands full with those projects. I do still blog about politics and milk on Tumblr from time to time, though, so hey, you might find us interesting over there too.

Again, if you want to get in touch with us, Facebook is an excellent way. We tend to update and check into it regularly, and it's a great way to interact with you. And if you have any ideas or commission, don't be afraid to get in touch with us through Facebook or Etsy. We're pretty easy going, and we don't bite.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Dennis (and Krissy) of Kleiner Eisbär

Cheers!

Why Michele Bachmann Is Wrong To Ask Iraq For Reparations

2011-11-13T13:00:00.001-05:00

Michele Bachmann says Iraq should pay us back for giving them freedom. They should also pay each of the 4,000+ families "million of dollars" for their loss of family members there.

Okay. Fair enough.

But then we should pay the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq the same debt.

Sounds like a wash to me. Or a pretty easy way to increase our debt exponentially.

Michelle Bachmann is not a stupid woman, but she does nothing but say stupid things.

Whitney Is A Terrible Show

2011-10-13T23:44:00.000-04:00

I'm watching Whitney.

This. Show. Is. Terrible.

I've watched all four episodes now. I wanted to like it. I've liked her on the various roasts on Comedy Central, so I was pretty optimistic about her eponymous show.

The show says it's filmed in front of a live audience. This means that every sentence is followed by a long pause, and the audience gives a very poor quality laugh track (I'm sure there is some Sweetening involved, here). I don't blame them, nothing in the show is really funny enough to laugh at. I'm not even sure there's much humor in the show at all.

The show is ostensibly about Whitney, a photographer, (who doesn't hold a camera properly, mind you) and her live-in boyfriend of five years. They are not married, because they're not the marrying folk. Or something. Whitney appears to be some sort of feminist too. Or maybe she just likes being macho; I'm not entirely sure.

The Pilot consists of Whitney going to a sex shop to buy a costume. Apparently their sex life is in a lull. She's not hot enough on her own, she needs to dress in a plastic/latex nurse costume. Her boyfriend ends up in the hospital, and they realize that their relationship isn't picture perfect, but it works for them. Gawker posted a video of Whitney saying "okay" over twenty times, or, once a minute. I suppose they needed more filler.

The next episode is First Date. Whitney realizes that she and her boyfriend have never been on an official first date. Of course, they've been on dates before, so this is a lie. She means that they didn't have a normal, romantic one. Like you see on TV and movies. On shows like Whitney. But, Whitney doesn't even seem to care about that sort of nonsense throughout the show, so it sounds like she's really just trying to make her and her boyfriends life miserable.

This is the only logical conclusion I can make since that is exactly what happens. She takes the First Date pseudo-seriously, and her boyfriend kinda doesn't take it seriously at all. She gets mad at him, and they go home. But she decides to be funny and tells him she doesn't go home with guys on the first date. Her boyfriend, Alex, takes this time to point out that, in fact, she does. She closes the door on him, and he sleeps at a friend's apartment. They spend the rest of the episode apart scheming against each other with the help of their friends. You know, like normal people. Wait, you mean you don't do this kind of crap to your significant other? Hmph, must just be them.

The next episode is called Silent Treatment and centers around Alex looking at another girl. You see, in TV world this isn't allowed. Certainly one should never gawk but what would most likely be a rather mundane part of everyday life turns into an entire episode that takes place over an entire day.

Whitney questions Alex and he lies. He figures Whitney doesn't want to hear he looked at another lady. Apparently, she's the only pretty person in the world now, all other women are ugly. I suspect that if he had looked at an "ugly" lady, she wouldn't have made an issue of it. Needless to say, she doesn't believe him that he didn't check out said lady and she gives him the silent treatment. The episode names they come up with on this show are awe-inspiring.

She soon realizes that her voice is really quite grating, and that she is actually rewarding Alex by not speaking to him. She's usually yelling and has a pretty monotonous voice, after all. Now, she ups the ante, and tortures her boyfriend by actually talking to him now. We all know that in the real world there is no greater punishment than having to listen to your significant other speak. To you. Regularly.

Right?

Whitney decides to annoy and harass Alex until he confesses that he checked the lady out, and proceeds to point out all the other good looking women at the bar-like place they always hang out. Naturally, Whitney does not approve. I don't remember how they settle this. He probably won't tell her when he sees an attractive lady, and she probably will try to ignore it. That's always the best way to solve problems--sweep them under the rug and ignore them.

Also, apparently their friend, Roxanne, wants to make her ex jealous and takes slutty Myspace pictures of herself.

This brings us to tonight's episode.

Basically Whitney and Alex try to be romantic. Again. They go on an awkward date. She deals with her friend's crisis. Her friend, Lily, is afraid that her boyfriend, Neil, is going to propose to her. She wants him to, so basically she's upset over nothing.

Alex and Whitney's date eventually takes them to where Neil is proposing to Lily. The entire time, Whitney complains and is a jerk to Alex.

That's really what makes this show terrible. Whitney is essentially about a couple that is bored and can hardly stand each other. But they love each other in some weird way for some strange reason. But they don't want to get married because Whitney's parents divorced.

Whitney is always rude to her boyfriend Alex. Alex is always pretty ambivalent to Whitney. There's nothing here to draw you in. None of the characters are even likable. I could care less what happens to the characters. This is a bad thing for a television show. The magic of shows like Friends or Community is that you care about the characters. All of them. You are interested in them and invested in them. People hoped for years that Ross and Rachel would get together. Sort of how people hoped Dawson would end up with Joey (but didn't).

The Problem With Getting Rid Of Free Checking

2011-10-11T14:09:00.000-04:00

Free Checking. It's one of those wonderful ideas of the last, oh I don't know. However long it's existed. Banks so wanted our money, they'd bribe us with things like coolers and other junk just to get us to sign up for free checking. So free checking was basically free (plus a present!) checking.

But now banks are in a tizzy because they're being "regulated." Personally, I think it's a joke, and they should be more heavily regulated, but that's neither here nor there. The problem is, they claim they can't make money, so they need to axe free checking. After all, how are the banks supposed to make money, now that overdraft fees aren't automatic? You know, I wanted that juice to cost me 35 extra dollars. I can think of very few times when overdrafting makes sense. Even being late on payments usually doesn't cost you $35, buying a soda certainly shouldn't. Then Dodd-Frank cut in half the amount of swipe fees they could charge per swipe on Debit card fees. So now they charge for the privilege of spending your own money.

So let's see. Free checking. How does it work?

In the beginning, I give a bank what money I have. Any future money I might hope to earn will also go in their vaults. I can/will do this up to $250,000.

With my money, and the money of millions of others, they make loans. They loan people my money and charge them interest. Auto loans, mortgages, small business loans, etc. These loans (I'm not a financial planner) will likely vary from 3% to 15%. Maybe even higher, who knows. Lines of Credit, I'm sure, have even higher rates. Many banks even offer credit cards with rates in the 20-30% range.

Now, they don't get my money for free. They actually pay me some interest too. It's an amazingly high rate of .01%. Basically, I could travel in time 10,000 years and I'd still be poor (not even accounting for inflation). They also give me wonderful extras like Bill Pay (oooh) and Customer Service. Also, now that I'm a "customer" I can utilize their other services, like loans and stuff.

But now, this model is apparently unsustainable. The banks just can't turn a profit anymore because of free checking. Well, actually, that's not true. They'll keep your checking account free if you have a minimum balance varying from $1,000-$15,000; utilize direct deposit; or some other stipulations (like using Bill Pay a few times a month).

I don't agree with this. Don't get me wrong, I think people should be paid for their services. But the bank isn't exactly doing anything for me here. All they do is protect my money. Well, that's not true, if they are robbed, insurance covers the loss. If they make terrible bets with my money and lose it all, the FDIC will give me what they lost, up to $250,000.

They don't give me checks, either. I don't use them, but if I want them, I have to pay for them. I want to buy something with my debit card? They get money.

The fact is, simple checking accounts should be free because they aren't worth that much; the value just isn't there. Having a checking account isn't some magical vessel that transforms my money into anything--it just lets me pay people. And 99% of the time I pay people, my bank gets money. The bank uses my money to make money.

But you know what the absolute worst part is? This is a fee for not having enough money. I literally just opened up a piece of mail stating that if I do not maintain a minimum daily balance of $100, I will be charged $15 a month. Sure, I may not be making the bank much money at that small a balance, but I'm not costing them anything either. So if I were living pay check to pay check (which I'm currently not, anyone want to hire me?) and had a balance hovering around $100, it would take five months before my balance was brought down to $10. And anyone living paycheck to paycheck with a small monthly balance could run into this problem, for example, senior citizens.

It's a shame the letter just mentions regulatory changes, but doesn't actually say which. I have a feeling the changes don't affect free checking accounts.

Who Wouldn't Want These Jobs?!

2011-09-28T16:10:00.000-04:00

Seriously.

We are a growing Marketing company that is looking to hire their 4th graphic designer. We are looking for someone that wants to gain experience and grow with the company. The job opening is for part-time or full time. We are willing to train, but you must have some experience with CS3 or higher. The position will consist of design work as well as some secretarial work. Must be an out going friendly person that is willing to get their foot in the door for $8-$10.00 an hour.

I totally wish I'd went to school for graphic design so I can earn what is essentially minimum wage. What I find odd is this is either in addition to three other graphic designers, or they have burned through three already. The English is ambiguous. Maybe I'm not being totally fair. They are willing to train.

Graphic designer for print shop. Must have experience with Indesign, Illustrator, Photoshop and Fireworks. Position also requires customer contact. Must have reliable transportation.

This one pays $15-$18 an hour, but it's in Fairfield, CT. That's like getting paid $15-$18 in Manhattan. Fairfield, CT is expensive. In fact, on Craigslist, it's under New York, despite being firmly planted in Connecticut.

LOOKING FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER LOOKING TO BUILD THEIR RESUMES AND PORTFOLIOS AND WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE SHOTS OF MODELS AND MUSIC ARTIST FOR THEIR PORTFOLIO.PLEASE SERIOUS APPLICANTS ONLY

You can tell they only want serious applicants because they used all caps.

Looking for a really great pair of legs and feet to model privately for me. Please be very clean, inshape and send a pic. No Sex or Drugs. Comp.

No compensation was listed. No gender is listed. I'm intrigued by the line "Please be very clean." It makes sense though, (s)he wants to look at some legs and feet, not dirt.

Seeking an actor to play a homeless man for a very brief film shoot (30 minutes or less) to be part of a silent film segment for a music video. No experience necessary. Please reply with a photograph. If you have young children, they are welcome to join you - this is a kid-friendly project. Shooting will take place at a local park. Thank you for your time!

This casting call is for Waterbury. I'm sure they could find a real homeless person there (especially given their property taxes.) They'd get more realism that way and potentially help a person eat a meal.

On The "Rich" And The "Job Creators"

2011-09-26T20:02:00.000-04:00

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession. - Alessio Rastani

To begin with, I'm in favor of taxes, and taxing wealth. I think people deserve to keep what they earn, but earnings are not the result of a windfall, they take time to mature into wealth. My views are unorthodox, but I'd tax exceptional incomes at exceptional rates. Nobody on earth is going to try to earn less money simply because it's taxed more--especially the people who love money the most.

Short term gains should be taxed at the highest rates. Long term investments should be taxed lower. Wages, actual, honest wages should be taxed at the lowest rate since they are the most "earned." I'd still tax income progressively, though, and my top tax bracket would not be $250,000.

A lot of the rhetoric in politics lately talks about the rich and the job creators. Frankly, this gets us nowhere. There's no unilateral definition for "rich." Even job creator as a class is ambiguous. Rich in Connecticut is different than rich in Florida. Rich in Greenwich, Connecticut is different than rich in Derby, Connecticut. Most people would agree that $10 million is rich, but some wouldn't. Some people find this whole conversation irrelevant, because their money is theirs. Period.

Job creator as a title is equally ambiguous. Anyone who has hired someone is a job creator. And referring to a class of people as a job creator doesn't do anything for the national conversation. Should we tax job creators? Absolutely. Should we encourage them to create jobs? Absolutely. Does offering tiny tax cuts to businesses do it? No, not really. But cutting their taxes entirely won't either.

The logic is that if the corporations and rich have more money, they will hire more. The Job Creator Fallacy. The problem with this logic is that corporations are hoarding trillions of dollars in loans from the treasury, and they aren't using it to hire people. They are sitting on it. They are buying their competitors with it. And they are buying patents with it. This actually gets rid of jobs with things like consolidation and excessive litigating. Congress recently passed a law to "reform" patents. This did nothing to solve the problem, though. Google shouldn't be spending $12.5 billion on patents, they should reinvest it, or create jobs. The same is true for every other tech company battling over patents.

The problem with this whole conversation is how polarized and politicized it has become, however. Liberals see the rich as a bunch of assholes hoarding the wealth of this country while taking a massive dump on the rest of Americans. Conservatives see the rich as benevolent job creators who want to reinvest their money in their companies and create jobs, if only their taxes were lower. If only America wasn't such a high-taxed, terrible place to house a corporation. Lower their tax burden, and the jobs will come.

Liberals would counter that this "race to the bottom" gains nothing. Sure, there are jobs then (maybe) but what kind of job? All jobs aren't created equally. There are good quality jobs and terrible quality jobs. And wages are only a very small part of the quality equation.

Conservatives would counter that liberals in favor of taxing the wealthy and spreading their wealth constitutes socialism, and socialists are very, very bad. Why should they have to give up what they earn to lazy, incompetent people who don't want to work, they'd argue. It's a valid point, but who says the poor don't want to work? Maybe no one will give them a job. It's one big circle jerk, where the poor man on the totem pole isn't getting his, but ends up with everyone else's "egg" on their face. And I'm not exactly referring to trickle down "economics."

I don't care where you are on the map of conservative or liberal views, but people like this deserve to be taxed. This person deserves to be taxed at the standard rate up until $75,000 (and I'm being very, very generous. Anything after that should be taxed at 100%.

Some gems in case you don't want to watch the whole five minutes or so:

The governments don't rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.

The savings of millions of people are going to vanish" in less than a year

This economic crisis is like a cancer, if you just wait and wait thinking this will go away, just like a cancer it's going to grow and it's going to be too late

Personally, I've been dreaming of this moment for three years. I go to bed every night and I dream of another recession.

When the market crashes... if you know what to do, if you have the right plan set up, you can make a lot of money from this.

For most traders we don't really care about having a fixed economy, having a fixed situation, our job is to make money from it

Until next time.

Would You Like Some Cheez Whiz With That Whine?

2011-09-08T16:36:00.000-04:00

There's a storm a brewing, and the mommy/food bloggers are not happy. You see, this is what happens when you replace a longstanding professional trade or career with amateurs.

I am not a journalist. I could never hope to be one on my own. I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, nor do I have information gathering services like that of NBC. I just like the stuff. I follow it where I can and do my due diligence to verify what I read.

In this same regard, food bloggers are not professionals (in the traditional sense). You can learn to cook on your own; almost everyone learns this way. But curating a food blog does not a professional make. I'm the worst person to critique food since I can't actually, you know, eat most of it.

If you truly wanted to be a critic of anything seriously, you really have to prepare. Can I critique photographs? Sure. But my reading Strobist hardly makes me an expert. Seeing movies doesn't make me an expert capable of critiquing them either. And making dinner every night and posting about it on my blog doesn't make me a foodie or an expert on foods.

Does it matter what non experts think? Of course! That's why Adam Sandler cranks out movies that critics hate. Because the rest of america loves them. But Punch Drunk Love, Spanglish, and Reign Over Me (the last one in particular) are great movies that critics loved. And they all failed at the box office.

Recently, some food bloggers got an invitation to a dinner hosted by the one and only George Duran. You know, that guy who hosts Ultimate Cake Off. The one you want to kick only slightly less than the tool that hosts Cupcake Wars.

Photo from Food Network Canada

Yeah, that guy. Food is serious business.

Apparently, some bloggers are upset because they feel like they were lied to and duped into eating free food they would not have otherwise eaten. I don't want to sound like a douche, so here's what went down (objectively).

An invitation was sent to a select few bloggers; it looked like this:

The bloggers were told that this restaurant was essentially a pop up shop of restaurants and would be open for only five days. The bloggers were allowed a guest/date, and were allowed to have a giveaway on their blogs for dinner at Sotto Terra.

I'm not familiar with how this sort of thing works, but I'm something of a skeptic. And I research pretty much everything. I don't think I am normal like this, but I'd think anyone with a large audience would at least research places they were going to blog about.

Is it normal for a restaurant to open for only five days? Restaurant equipment is exorbitant. I'd think that five days would make very little sense for a restaurant. A pop up fashion or letterpress shop? Absolutely! The amount of overhead is much lower for those businesses. Not to mention food permits, etc.

I didn't even know George Duran was a chef, so I Googled him. Turns out, he is. Go figure. He went to NYU for Communications, worked as a producer, so on and so forth. Then, he went to France to learn how to cook. To me, this is important, we'll see why later.

Next, I'd Google Ketchum. This person I'm supposed to reply to works there (or at least has an e-mail address there). Oh, they are a marketing and PR firm. That's odd, but hey, maybe that's normal. George Duran isn't going to give you his personal e-mail. For all we know, Christine is his assistant. Or his agent or something.

The invitation states that they will be dining at an Italian eatery, learn about food trends from Phil, talk to each other, and sample George's Sangria while eating a four-course meal hosted by George Duran and Phil Lempert.

A few points. This is an Italian restaurant. George Duran studied French cuisine. His specialties are French, Armenian, and South American. I'm sure he can make a decent enough Lasagna, but I would be more excited about being served Italian food by someone who's known for cooking Italian food. In the celebrity chef scene, Mario Batali immediately comes to mind. Needless to say, this is yet another red flag.

But wait, the invitation refers to George and Phil merely as hosts. I don't think it implies that they will be cooking. In fact, the only time it mentions them in relation to food is when it says they'll be served Chef Duran's Sangria. You know, something South American.

So let's read what some of the bloggers had to say.

Over at Mom Confessionals, there's this:

Our entire meal was a SHAM! We were unwilling participants in a bait-and-switch for Marie Callender’s new frozen three cheese lasagna and there were cameras watching our reactions. I’ve got a sense of humor so I was okay with it and I had been enjoying myself up until that point, but I could tell that the rest of the participants were not. Everyone feigned weak shock and faked approval of the frozen meal.

I feel like "bait-and-switch" gets thrown around a lot. This is one of those times. This was not a bait and switch. They promised a four course meal hosted by George Duran and delivered. Also, bait-and-switch is kind of excessive considering that the food was free. It's not like Best Buy having an ad for a free monitor, then not having it and convincing you to buy something else.

All in all, this blogger seemed a bit annoyed, but mostly because her guests were duped.

Next up is the very poorly named blog of Chubby Chinese Girl (cuz she's, you know, kinda skinny).

First, I'd like to commend her for being the only one who took decent photos. The crop of the invitation came from one of her photos, in fact.

Then the focus shifted to healthy eating, fresh and local, seasonal, reading our labels, so on and so forth. Sort of like a Food Inc. panel if you will. I pointed out that the reason I ate organic, fresh and good food was because my calories are very precious to me, so I want to use them wisely.

(emphasis hers)

Okay I have some problems with this. Lasagna and Razzleberry pie don't exactly conjure up words like healthy or calorie conscious to me. I honestly can't take something like Razzleberry pie seriously. It sounds like something out of Willy Wonka or (yes) Marie Calender.

The reading labels thing throws me off, though. Eating fresh, local, and seasonal [ingredients] doesn't really involve labels. I'd hope a serious chef (or food blogger) would use as little prepared foods, except maybe ones they'd made themselves.

I'm NOT their target consumer and they were totally off by thinking I would buy or promote their highly processed frozen foods after tricking me to taste it. I'm not saying I ONLY eat/write about healthy and organic foods, but what unhealthy stuff I choose to eat/write, at least I was aware of it and it was my decision to do so.

But this is hardly new. Companies have been doing this for decades--getting people to try something they'd say they dislike (Think Coke and Pepsi).

I don't think they thought that the bloggers would do nothing but praise them either. I think they wanted to give them food they'd otherwise shun because it's processed and see what they think. If they all hated it, they'd know to change the recipe or whatever. I don't think they were thinking, "Let's woo some food bloggers with a big name like George Duran, some sangria, and free lasagna. This will get us tons of free positive publicity. Nothing could possibly go wrong." No, when giving people food, you always run the risk of a negative review. Food critics always get free food, and negative reviews abound. If a food blogger thought, "I won't say anything bad, I'll be polite" then they ought to not be reviewing food. Personally, if they found it so disgusting at Sotto Terra, they should have spoken up.

If I was a foodie and expecting a home made meal from a big name chef and it was only so-so, I'd certainly at least say something to the people around me. I wouldn't call the chef out on it because I'm just not that extroverted. But hey, if I had thousands of readers who took my opinions to heart, maybe that'd be different. Who knows. But I'm sure there was at least one loud mouth (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way) in the group. Why didn't anyone say "This Lasagna tastes like crap, who the hell taught you to cook?"

But Chubby Chinese Girl was again mostly upset at having eaten processed food. She seemed more upset than the first blogger, but seemed to take it mostly in stride.

The people over at Food Mayhem, on the other hand, were nonplussed.

To Mr. George Duran:
On behalf of the the culinary world, we hereby revoke your dodin bouffant; apron; and most of all, your right to call yourself a ‘chef’. You sir are an embarrassment to those in the culinary industry working hard to maintain and enhance a culture of food as one of the best parts of living.

hyperbole, hyperbole, hyperbole. This is the equivalent of people calling each other tea baggers, libertards, or any other sensationalist garbage. This hardly disqualifies chef Duran as being a chef. He's just doing his job as a spokesman for Con Agra Foods. Anyone who has watched the Food Network (and they all do) would see Food Network chefs promoting products during the commercial break.

Normally, I'd run down a response to an entire blog post like this, but it's so filled with sensationalist, angry bitterness that I'm not even going to bother. (some examples, just so I don't look like a sourpuss):

Let’s consider a more personal hypothetical: George, how would you feel if invited to my home, fed chicken cordon bleu, and then afterwards informed that we had secretly stuffed the cavity with entrails of rats found in the street, cleansed using various chemicals from the utility closet, such as bleach (also food safe in small quantities).

because excessive salt and food coloring is just like bleach and dirty rat innards.

After several minutes, your partner-in-crime Phil Lempert addressed the group...

Crime? What crime? Inviting you to dinner? Giving you free food?

What good P.R. teams do not do is lie to build attendance. Lying to media makes it that much harder for legitimate P.R. teams to achieve their goals. Build trust, not facades.

P.R. teams lie all the time. This is what people refer to as spin. Sure, maybe it's not really lying. But it's just like advertising. Lying wrapped with a pretty bow. And I wouldn't consider food bloggers media any more than I'd consider myself the media. Sorry, maybe it's nit picky, but no.

This line is probably the closest to a sane point made in the post and even it is pushing it:

Whether a belief is grounded in religion or science or completely random, part of your job as a chef is to support it. This is not taste preference, such as putting ketchup on steak tartare, this is what one chooses to eat. Would you feed beef to a Hindu? Swine to someone kosher? Or, chicken to a vegan? I am none of those, but would never force them to do something against their belief.

No. Seriously, no. Do not compare this to feeding beef to a Hindu. Or non kosher pig during Passover. Or even vegans. This is an insult to them.

Believing in natural products that haven't been processed is a fair belief to have. I, too, think there's way too much unnecessary shit in our food. There's absolutely no reason for high fructose corn syrup in bread, for example. But this is not an appropriate analogue.

But let's be clear here: this should not have even been a surprise. All these bloggers needed to do is a little bit of legwork. The last blogger actually referred to the group as "the media." Well, the media actually does research beforehand. What would a little research have uncovered?

George Duran is a spokesman for Imusa, selling things like pressure cookers and cookware.

At least as of January of this year, George Duran has worked with Con Agra Foods. There are even pictures of him. Seriously, this is not that hard.

Of course, not everyone who attended was as flagrantly pissed off. Kimberly Coleman took it all in stride and didn't get bent out of shape.

We were all shocked. You could have knocked us over with a feather, because we never saw that coming. Personally, I found it hilarious. I turned to my friend who came with me and said, “Oh my gosh…I feel like Justin Timberlake on Punk’d!” (I didn’t almost cry/totally lose my street cred for a minute though…but that’s another commentary.) In any event, from what I observed (and I could totally be wrong/people could have went home and had totally different reactions) the group on my night thought that it was a fun way for MC to prove their point that their new lasagna was as good as homemade lasagna. (I couldn’t stop teasing my Italian friend for not knowing the difference though…he grew up on his grandmother’s authentic Italian food!)

But you know what they say. One person's hilarious joke is another person's hellish nightmare. Or something like that.

This all kinda reminds me of this episode of Penn & Teller in a way

P.S. Don't get me started on bottled water.
P.P.S. Maybe this from Consumer Reports was just too late for some bloggers.

Irene Terrorizes The East Coast Leaving A Massive Trail Of Butthurt In Her Wake

2011-08-28T17:50:00.000-04:00

Image Credit:Ron Garan at NASA

I like storms. They are fun and energetic. Sometimes Nature just wants to remind of that it's there. Sometimes nature wants to smack us in the face and say, "Don't be such jerks." And sometimes Nature is just really angry and figures we obviously haven't been getting the message.

People freak out about storms. I guess this response is warranted at times. But most of the time it's just crazy people being crazy. Thunderstorms and rain doesn't mean to stock up your bunker for a week. I think in situations like this, though, some caution is warranted. But mostly just in an "always be prepared" sort of way.

That's really all you can do.

Stressing out is never going to be beneficial, ever. And in the event there is an emergency, or severe kick you in the ass weather, you'd really want to have your wits about you.

I wouldn't evacuate though. Maybe if there were going to be an onslaught of tornadoes or a giant category 5 hurricane waltzing its way through the neighborhood picking on us like a little kid frying ants with a magnifying glass, maybe then I'd leave. But I'd rather sit back and watch what happens during a storm. As long as people aren't seriously hurt or killed and damage isn't extensive, I'm happy.

Every once in a while though, I think we need reminders to keep us on our toes. So, thanks Irene. You probably won't hear that much, but thanks.

From me and the rest of us.

Response: Why You Were Probably Expecting Too Much From Taylor Swift, Andrea Lampros

2011-08-17T23:40:00.000-04:00

I read this article today entitled, "Parent Regrets: Why I Wish We Never Went to See Taylor Swift" and the arguments made in the article bother me. I'll go through the post little by little, but the author basically says the following: "Wah, wah, wah, I'm butthurt that Taylor Swift isn't the perfect symbol for feminists and her concerts are too flashy."

Good thing she didn't go to this concert; I imagine her son and husband would be scarred for life.

That said, here we go.

A note to moms: If you're thinking about taking your daughters to see Taylor Swift as their first concert, and maybe your first show since the Indigo Girls in 1996, please don't.

Here's your problem, Andrea. You haven't been to a concert in fifteen years. Things are different now. Concerts need to gross hundreds of millions of dollars now. Taylor Swift doesn't actually make money by selling millions of records (believe it or not). She makes money from endorsements and concert ticket sales. (Unless Tay Tay has a 360 deal, which is a possibility).

If you're thinking you'll see a sweet Southern singer/songwriter on stage with her guitar, a few pretty dresses, and simplistic but heartfelt lyrics, you won't.

If you want to see that, go to the House of Blues. You could probably see someone like Adele there. She's probably more up your alley, although not country or southern.

The overwhelming message of the Swift concert to the sea of girls ages 5 to 55: be pretty, be conventional, be quiet (well, it's OK to scream for me), and definitely put on some lipstick.

Bitch much? Considering anything I've ever seen of Taylor swift, she's hardly "conventional." She wears cute dresses instead of lingerie on stage. You ought to be happy you didn't bring your family to a Britney Spears concert where she dry humps the stage for ninety minutes.

When my 10-year-old daughter learned to belt out "A Place in this World" on her guitar a few months ago, I began to feel some affection for Swift. Country music up until the quasi-country, anti-Bush Dixie Chicks had never appealed to me, but Swift's commitment to writing her own songs and to making her own way in the music business was compelling. And she even maintained some dignity after being publicly berated by an obnoxious Kanye West.

Agreed. Taylor Swift is probably the closest I'd get to country music. She seems to handle herself with dignity and poise too, which is, well, unconventional. Plus she writes her songs, like you said.

On a recent trip to Washington, DC, my husband and I splurged on Swift tickets for ourselves and kids -- an 8-year-old boy and two girls, ages 10 and 12. We thought the young singer would be especially inspirational to our daughters who love her music and are avid musicians.

That's sweet of you. Taking your three children to a concert would be quite the outlay of cash for not just tickets, but food and souvenirs as well. And you suckered your husband into tagging along as well. You sneaky devil, you. However, I'm not sure that your reason of it "being inspirational" to your daughters was the best use of your money. But I'll give you a pass—you haven't been to a concert in fifteen years.

We joined the ebullient, predominantly female concertgoers in floral H&M jumpers and cowboy boots streaming into DC's Verizon Center. Many arrived holding their daughters' hands before the first two opening bands to stand in long lines for Swift t-shirts and merchandise and take photos next to the towering Swift cutouts in the lobby.

I hope people paying that much money for tickets at least saw the opening acts. Oftentimes, that's the best part of a concert. Also, those opening acts might have also served as an inspiration for your daughters. Or your son or even your husband for that matter.

The scene was sweet until you got to the CoverGirl stands (Swift is a CoverGirl) where girls of all ages sat on stools before stage mirrors to receive makeovers -- perhaps selecting the lip and eye colors that Taylor wears.

Cross promotion, baby. I'm sure that's in a contract somewhere. Maybe CoverGirl pays part of the concert expenses, or it's a part of her endorsement, either way, is this really important? Do you never wear makeup? If you do, why do you?

The message -- you're not really beautiful until you cake your tiny, pre-pubescent face with makeup -- wasn't the empowering one I had envisioned. (I later watched a five year old with ruby red lipstick pouting because the color had come off in her cotton candy. Welcome to the hardscrabble world, baby.)

This is actually complete, utter bullshit. What little girl doesn't like playing with makeup? For a child, makeup is a fun, tactile, experiment in dress up. This isn't even relegated to those without a Y chromosome; little boys enjoy make up too. This has nothing to do with empowering or belittling children. It doesn't tell them, "you're only as beautiful as the makeup you cake on your face." And if it does, you're probably not doing a very good job as their mother.

OK, I thought, that's advertising -- not Swift's fault? Actually the pre-tweens in makeup set the scene for the CoverGirl meets Disney extravaganza.

At least you seem to be giving Miss Swift the benefit of the doubt, here. Not sure what the latter half means, but I'm not to keen on the over-Disneyfication of our youth, either.

After her opening "Sparks Fly," that featured an inordinate amount of hair flipping, Swift stood on the stage for what felt like a long and awkward few minutes, taking in the screams of her girl fans, eyes wide open with feigned amazement. Glancing to the far reaches of the arena where fans paid upwards of $130 per ticket (the going rate on Craigslist), she gazed left. She gazed right. She beamed. She stood still and put her hands to her heart.

This is what she does. I've not been to a concert, but any performance I've seen, she does this. I think it's nice actually. She seems earnest in her appreciation of her fans. There aren't many concerts where the artist attempts to make a connection with the entire audience, as opposed to the front few rows. Complaining about ticket prices won't get you anywhere either. That's not something she controls; talk to LiveNation/Ticketmaster about that one. I could write entire blog posts about that, so don't get me started.

Throughout the concert, even the best songs -- "Speak Now" and "Fifteen" -- were convoluted by an elaborate stage show and a relentless multimedia set with projected live images of Swift inside a gigantic framed mirror. Hearts and words with curly-cue lettering flashed on the screens. (The most ironic image projected was of a girl's quaint bulletin board with a tacked up ticket stub for a concert that cost $10.)

I think next time you need to do a little more research, Andrea. You went to a concert at a venue that seats 20,000 and expected an intimate style show. At a place like the Verizon center where you are paying "upwards of $130" a ticket, that's not what you're going to get. You're going to get a show. There will be explosions, lights, lasers, projections, and —yes— even a little hair flipping. You can see concerts for $10, too, though I understand the irony.

Dancers swirled up and down a staircase in the middle of the set and around Swift like something out of Glee, but not as entertaining. The music and lyrics (which do speak to girls) were secondary to the sparkle and fireworks -- literally -- of the stage.

Glee is not entertaining. Glee is just a high production value karaoke run by a couple douchebags who whine anytime a band won't let them use their songs. The show is unoriginal, uninspiring, and boring. Not to mention it's just a vehicle to offload said karaoke onto iTunes. And yes there will be sparkles and fireworks at concerts now. Especially ones that take place in large venues such as the Verizon Center.

Fleshing out the princess theme, Swift even drifted just above the crowd in a floating balcony -- her eyes seemingly meeting the eyes of each concertgoer. My husband was sure she was singing just to him.

Not sure if this is a complaint or not, but perhaps you should have enjoyed the show rather than critiquing every.single.aspect of the show. I'm all for critiquing but you could have tried to enjoy the concert at least a little.

My 10-year-old girl stood rapt on her chair, taking in everything. Like most of the girls (except the 13 year old making out with her boyfriend in the row in front of me) she loudly sang along with each song.

Yeah, you're going to see people making out at concerts. Sometimes same-sex couples if that sort of thing bothers you, or if you wish to protect your children from it (though, I hope not). If kids making out bothers you, I advise you to avoid any festivals or any concert with a "lawn" section. You, your husband, and your children will be exposed to far worse. You'll thank me for it.

I didn't expect Taylor Swift to make any radical, edgy, feminist remarks, but I also didn't expect Gidget meets the Little Mermaid. What an incredible platform for Swift to say something as simple as "Girls rock!" or something even crazier like "Love yourselves!"

I'm sorry, but saying "Girls rock!" or "Love yourselves!" is as lame as Glee. Honestly, this is your job. Do you want to rely on pop stars to get your children to like and appreciate themselves? Sure, maybe it wouldn't hurt for children to receive positive messages from many sources, but—really?— "Girls Rock?" I think I saw that on a backpack. And a t-shirt. And a Trapper Keeper. It was lame every single time.

Instead, she finished each song by looking wide-eyed into the crowd and noting how "amazing" it was that so many peopled came to the show and how "beautiful" everyone looked (incredible how she could see people with all those lights in her eyes).

Are you kidding me? You want her to say "Love yourselves" but telling the crowd how beautiful they look is too chock-full-o-bullshit to you? Maybe she couldn't see the crowd; maybe she could. I have no way of knowing, but complaining that she said you're all beautiful makes you look like you're just trying to find something to complain about. And if people came to see me perform night after night, I'd still find it amazing. I'd find it amazing that anyone would spend that kind of money just to see me, no matter how talented or famous I was. To spend that kind of money is amazing and she understands that. Don't you find it amazing that 20,000 people wanted to watch her sing? Consider most of the spectators were probably so far away that they needed to look at the Jumbotron just to see her.

But people aren't paying money to see her, or even watch her perform. People are paying that money for the experience. Good and bad. Parking at a venue like that? Terrible and practically robbery. Who wants to pay that much for a ticket to a show anyway, much less for five tickets? Souvenirs are crappy and overpriced and the food is equally terrible and expensive. But this is what concerts are. This is the, dare I say, charm of a big concert. This is also why some people prefer small venues. Good luck seeing U2 at one of those, though.

Maybe my family got the vacuous experience we deserved. That would be true if it were just a benignly bad concert experience. The problem is that it was an insidious concert experience that emphasized everything but the artist's voice -- the flowing fairy dresses and saccharine monologues covering up Swift's real power. Covering up girl power.

How was the concert insidious? In what way were you or your family harmed? Maybe this was in the bad part of DC? You went to a venue that seats 20,000 what did you expect if not a flashy, explosion-filled performance. Oh right. You expected girl power.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe this could still inspire your daughter? Maybe she will look at this and realize that women can play music or create art that tens of thousands of people would be more than happy to converge and experience together. That girls can do whatever they want. They can be wildly successful and play giant arenas like U2 or play small hole-in-the-wall pubs for 100 people. That one can be equally successful playing both places is a lesson you could teach your daughters.

The best moments were rare authentic ones with Swift's top lip a wee bit sweaty, hair oh-so-slightly disheveled, strumming "Mean" on a banjo and later "Fearless" on a ukulele. That's what we had come to see, but it was fleeting.

That's your token mellow song most every large concert has. Sets like these allow the performer to catch their breath in addition to making a more "direct" appeal to the crowd. This is what you wanted the entire concert to be. This is not how large, high-production concerts are produced. Most people would not be happy paying $135-$500 for this type of concert—especially given that most concertgoers could barely see her on stage with just her banjo.

This isn't her fault, nor is it yours. She puts on a certain concert and you were expecting something different. Should you have maybe done a little research? Yeah, probably. Were your expectations for a super positive, "you go, girl" type experience a little out of reach? Yeah, probably. Not because you were unreasonable, though, mostly just because that's not what the other 19,995 people there wanted to hear. The girl positive messages are in her lyrics and (probably) in interviews she gives.

As the house lights came on, my older daughter, age 12 and a half, gave me a deflated, knowing look. My younger daughter was tired but managed to quietly gush: "I loved it." My son loved his glow stick.

It sounds like your older children know your expectations, and knew you were disappointed. I don't know if this is good or bad. On one hand, you've gotten your beliefs across, which is good. But on the other hand, they probably wished they could revel in the joy that they just saw a sweet concert with their mom instead of having to worry about your disappointment in the show. In all, you wanted to take your daughter to see a concert, to feel inspired and have fun. Did you do that? Did your children enjoy themselves? That's all that should matter.

I hope more discerning parents than us might think twice about Swift tickets. Better to have to explain the explicit sexuality of someone like Gaga and her "Born this Way" message than to have to undo the message of female powerlessness -- especially from an artist who is so fervently emulated by girls. If you have tickets already, perhaps you can prep your music lover. It's sort of like a game of I Spy: look hard and look deeply for Swift's voice. It's there, just buried in the fluff.

Speak Now tour? More like Speak softly and smile a lot.

I don't normally think of Lady GaGa as "explicitly sexual." Sure her style is a bit avant garde but I don't usually see her shoving dildos in her vagina. I think she just has fun with fashion and has a certain aesthetic she likes (Think: Alexander McQueen). I'd say pop stars like Rhianna or Britney are more sexual than GaGa.

As for "her 'Born This Way' message," what are you talking about? I really hope you're not saying this is a message you'd rather they not know or have to "explain" away. Considering all the complaints you made about wanting your children exposed to more powerful, positive messages "Born This Way" should be the Holy Grail of positive messages for them to hear.

There's nothing wrong with loving who you are"
She said, "'Cause he made you perfect, babe"

"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

I can think of no more empowering a message than accepting who you are and embracing yourself—realizing that you are beautiful the way you were made. For all her quirks and fancy, Lady Gaga really is a good role model for a child. But so is Taylor Swift. If you are going to let a concert spoil her message, you might not be winning at that little game called Life.

Boobies

2011-08-16T23:16:00.000-04:00

It's no secret that I like Scandinavia, so I often find myself reading about or looking at things that are somewhat Scandinavian. I've read a bit about Stieg Larsson's books and some of the controversy surrounding them—namely that his partner feels cheated by his estate for getting nothing. So she held the last book hostage. But now that they are turning the books, turned into Swedish movies, into American movies, there's more controvery. And it's Boobs. Breasts. Nipples. Tits. Whatever word you choose. I'll usually read comments on articles to see what people think, until I realize that humans are pretty stupid, and oftentimes I'll refute them to myself because, well, that's what I do, I guess. But I thought this might be a good topic to discuss and since it's just me here, I'll use the comments to foment a sort of pseudo-discussion. Oh yeah. But first, the picture in all it's tortured, nippled glory:

So there it is.

I've not actually read the books, nor do I know what they're about, so I won't go into that here, but the movie and books are pretty dark from what I understand. Very rated-R, which is something not many studios are willing to do: put $100 million into a rated-R movie. So this movie poster seems to fit my limited understanding of the movie and the books. But lets look at some comments, shall we?

Smoking hot? She’s flat as a board. They should have got someone with boobs.

Of course this comment shows up, I'm just surprised it wasn't first (it was second). The problem is she does have boobs. They're right there, under Daniel Craig's arm. Thankfully, several people responded with helpful comments like these:

She is supposed to be flat, it is in the book.

which makes it helpful for people like me who didn't read the book to know that the studio didn't insist on cartoonish or fake ones. I also learned that Rooney Mara's breasts are apparently much larger than those of the Swedish girl in the original movies.

This comment in particular caught my attention though.

I don’t have a problem with nudity. But I do have a problem with GRATUITOUS nudity, just I have a problem with gratuitous violence. Lisbeth Salander is fighting back from being a victim. To have her posed in such a vulnerable state (and yes, when you’re nude, you’re vulnerable, whether you’re “strong” or not) really negates the power that the Lisbeth character has earned. She is supposed to be the protector, not Blomquist. I doubt that Stieg Larsson would have approved this campaign.

I fail to understand how this is gratuitous nudity. Of course, gratuitous means something different to each individual person, but this is hardly X-rated.

But I think this person is wrong. She says being nude makes you vulnerable. This is true. And yes, Lisbeth (apparently) is fighting back. But this person is flat out wrong. This movie poster negates nothing. This movie poster does not make the character weak, nor does it portray her as such. Nothing about this poster takes away any of the power gained because, yes being nude or posing nude makes one vulnerable.. But only to the extent that they let it do so.

Instead of letting this act drain the character, Rooney Mara has embraced it and that takes a certain amount of strength, doesn't it? How many people would willingly put their half-naked bodies on display for millions of people to see and critique?

Even more importantly, I wonder how many women this picture could inspire to be happy with themselves. As some commenters pointed out, Rooney Mara has small breasts. So what? So do lots of ladies. You don't need to have giant silicone-enhanced breasts to display them. And our society would probably be better off if a lot more people realized that.

I think this comment sums up, more or less, how I feel on the subject:

A lot of the comments here perfectly illustrate why most of the world regard American as a culturally bankrupt nation. It’s not scandalous or dirty or shocking, it’s just a topless woman. I swear, the moral majority has screwed this country up beyond repair.

Going To A Wedding Tomorrow

2011-08-12T18:37:00.001-04:00

I'm hoping that I have fun. It should be fun. I figure any wedding with pizza as their catering certainly seems like my kind of wedding. I'll know a few people, and I'll be taking photos, too, so that should keep me busy too. Best of all, I'm Krissy's date, so that assures me I'll have fun. The wedding is in Litchfield, at the same place we went for Iceland Day.

Specifics On My Free And Open Arts Studio

2011-08-11T21:09:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, Krissy asked me about my post from a week ago regarding an open arts studio. Her question was simple, but perplexed me nonetheless. She asked, (I'm paraphrasing) "So what do you want to do? Is this hypothetical or something you want to do?" I was taken aback because anytime she mentions reading my blog, I blush, but also because I though, "well, isn't it obvious?" But maybe it isn't. I assured her that I want to do it for reals, maybe not so seriously considering she walked in on me in my "Hipster week" look, which makes me look ridiculous.

In a future post, I'll write about fundraising ideas and other details, but this post will be more about general classes. Obviously this is merely some quick brainstorming so this will by no means be complete or final. So there's that.

I will attempt to do this in something resembling a coherent and organized manner.

There are probably an infinite manner of mediums for art. Really if something exists, you can create something with it, or on it. This is really quite fascinating that, in essence, arts is made with anything and everything. There are always barriers to entry for anything, but with art, the barrier can often be quite simple to overcome.

Golf can be fun, but if you're no good at it, the people you're playing with might not tolerate your having fun at shooting a fifteen on every hole. Then there's the cost of clubs and greens fees. Baseball, too, isn't much fun when you never, ever hit the ball. True story, in my career in little kids baseball I got two hits. Both in the same game. I'm also fairly certain it's the only two times I swung the bat. Suffice to say, I was very deliberate in everything I did whilst playing baseball.

But art can be made on cardboard or the blacktop using rocks or chalk. Art can last forever (at least, centuries) or be disposable. Art can be physically, mentally, and emotionally draining or shallow. Art can be fancy pants or accessible. In reality, everything that surrounds us is art. Sometimes art is random other times it is calculated. Art does not discriminate (though, the art world can be very discriminating); a blind person can create.

That said, I'm going to try and break down various ideas into more general sections or categories.

Textiles

The first such category of classes will be textiles. Textiles surround us everywhere, and one can improvise with them pretty easily.

Stuffies

Knitting & Crochet

elderly

Basketry

Weaving

Making Clothes

Jemma

Sewing

Needlepoint

Quilting

Printmaking

Block Prints

Screen Printing

Engraving & Etching

Photography

Camera: Basics & Intermediate

Portraiture

Lighting

Landscapes

Darkroom & Film

Book Arts

Bookbinding: Beginner Through Advanced

Altered Books

Making and Using Book Cloth

How To Make Books Out Of Anything

Making Boxes

In Conclusion...

Well, I think that's a good start. Obviously this is just a very general outline of avenues worth exploring. Not knowing most of these arts and crafts myself, I'd need to get in touch with an awful lot of people who share in the same idea I have of a wonderful, free, and open art studio and would be willing to teach to their respective expertise. I know that I've left out plenty of worthy arts and crafts (painting; drawing) worth teaching too, so this list will be pretty heavily amended over time; but like I said, it's a start.

More to come!

On Being Told How To Use A Product You've "Bought"

2011-08-10T17:56:00.001-04:00

I don't own a smartphone. But I know more or less how they work, and the way in which they work (at least in a fundamental sense for the latter point). I don't think it's any secret that the various telecoms run their businesses in some pretty shady ways, and I think they feel like they have to. Like most other large scale, global conglomerates, they've failed to innovate when they needed to the most.

One of the ways people use their smartphones is as a mobile hotspot. This is called tethering, which basically uses your phone's data plan as a means to connect to the internet on another device, such as a laptop or a tablet. The name comes from "tethering" your laptop or tablet to your smartphone.

Verizon and AT&T are essentially a duopoly; sure there's T-Mobile, but AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile (which is another post entirely). But when a company sells you a product and a service and then forces you to use it in only the way they intend (which can change at any time, taking away a necessary or beloved feature) because they realize they can make additional profits from said feature.

Tethering is one such example. There are apps that allow you to tether on Apple iPhones and Android phones. AT&T and Verizon don't allow these applications to run. In the past, Apple even took apps out of the app store because they'd take away potential profit (Think: Shype).

To me this seems bizarre. AT&T and Verizon are offering a service to a customer. In this case, they are selling us phone service. This is not new; they've been selling us phone service for a very long time. What bothers me is that this is an unprecedented smack in the face to customers.

Imagine back when you had a landline if the phone company blocked you from using your modem to connect to the internet because you didn't use them as your portal or ISP. Or, imagine having to use their modem to even connect.

Or imagine they tried to disable the use of modems to connect to the internet entirely, demanding you use their DSL (or cable) internet instead.

This is basically the same thing. Back then, this kind of crap wouldn't be tolerated. Sometimes, regulation is a good thing.

Except of course when regulations are written by the corporations we're supposed to be protected from by regulations. (Think: Making a mixed CD, or backing up a movie you ~~purchased~~ licensed).

What The Fuck, New York City

2011-08-09T21:18:00.000-04:00

So I'm reading this article about the new World Trade Center. The mammoth monument to celebrate America's ability to bounce back. Obviously, we're not that good at bouncing back since, you know, the building isn't built yet and it's been nearly ten years. I'm intrigued by it because it's architecture, and architecture fascinates me. I don't particularly care that it's a monument, nor do I feel like a monument means people will "remember" that bad shit went down that day. Really, it just reminds me of bureaucracy. And architecture. I prefer to think of the positive aspects-- you know, the architecture.

But of course, that is nearly impossible when reading about the defense of the not-yet-built milestone that is a giant penis the length equal to this nation's incorporation.

If you want to go visit this monument when it opens, this is what you have to contend with:

670 police officers devoted solely to the defense of the structure. Think of how many police officers your town or city has compared to this one building.

400 closed circuit cameras monitored by even more NYPD officers and software designed to detect things like unattended bags and other threats.

Any vehicle will be screened before entering the site. Tour buses, deliveries, cars, trucks-- they are all screened. I imagine if you walked up in a wheel barrow or a jet ski they'd screen them too. You won't be able to escape screening by walking in either, because walk-ins will be screened as well. I imagine this will be similar to the joyous occasion that is boarding an airplane. By the way, this screening happens before getting into the building.

Police plan to use a vehicle security center to screen tour buses, trucks and cars before they enter the site and park or makes deliveries using an underground roadway. Pedestrian traffic, including visitors to the museum, also will be screened before they can enter the central plaza.

Ticketed visitors to the memorial will be funneled into a security screening room with airport-style metal detectors and X-ray machines. Employees and frequent visitors will be pre-screened so they can bypass regular checkpoints.

Sounds like potential terrorists just need to try and get a job at the future world trade center if they really, really want to be persistent.

This is all mostly fine to me. I understand why they do this kind of crap. I personally find it to be a waste of resources and pointless, but I get why they do it. Throwing money at a problem makes people feel good, and what they're doing has a very "we're taking it seriously" feel to it. But how far is too far? Is there a point where you lose something with extra security?

Once upon a time, people dressed up to go on a plane. You basically wore your Sunday Best. Now, that'd be asinine because you'd have so much to worry about. Take off your shoes, your belt, empty your pockets, so on and so forth. At this point, flip flops and sweats are the best option for flying, in my opinion. (For convenience purposes only, of course).

But then there's this nugget:

Final touches are also being put on another ambitious piece of the plan: Screening every car, truck and other vehicle for radioactive materials – evidence of a possible dirty bomb – and other potential threats as they enter lower Manhattan. To achieve that, police are installing cameras, radiation detectors and license-plate readers at the 16 bridges and four tunnels going in and out of Manhattan.

Not only is the NYPD attempting to "secure" the building that will become the world trade center, nor just the surrounding area, but they are also attempting to secure essentially the entire island of Manhattan from anything resembling a threat.

So what happens when a camera or detector detects something? I'd hate to have the FBI busting down my door because some sensor detected something it didn't like. Generally the response to these types of things is to act first and ask questions later.

I feel bad for the New Yorkers whose toll costs are about to double to help pay for this surreptitious screening. (Approximately $2 billion out of $33 billion over a 10-year plan)

More selfishly, I'm disappointed that it will now cost even more to visit my brother; I may not be able to put a price on it, but it's worth $15 to New York.

Adventures In Advertising - The Camera Store

2011-08-06T14:00:00.000-04:00

I read a fair amount of photography blogs (when I'm not reading about politics or the news, natch.) As such, I end up being snookered into watching a lot of videos that are, well, lame. Granted, a lot of them are actually inspiring to watch, and can be quite educational. But more than a few are lame.

This isn't anyone's fault, really. If my camera did video, I'd be contributing to this trend. But you know what? I bet I'd think that my videos were awesome. Others, of course, would think they are lame. The important thing is that people are creating videos that they want to, others be damned. I like this mentality.

This video has all the makings of being lame, but it isn't. Well, to me at least. If you don't like photography, you'd probably hate any photography video, since they are either a) extremely dry; or b) extremely lame. This video I think manages quite well to capture my attention. Though, I couldn't watch it too many times in a row.

As for being an advertisement for a camera store? It's amazing and works really well. Someone who likes cameras will appreciate it. Someone who doesn't know what they want will probably be amused enough to check them out. And I bet they had a blast filming this, so it's win-win-win all the way around.

It really makes you realize though just how similar camera equipment is to various articles of war.

Camera equipment is often put into waterproof, airtight, crush-proof containers. I imagine guns are put into similar containers. Some of them are even shiny and metal making them look extra illicit.

I like that these guys took advantage of the similarities and did so in a fun way.

Besides, my favorite way to make Krissy laugh is to hold down the shutter release; she can't resist the click click click click.

A Grand Plan

2011-08-04T08:00:00.002-04:00

I don't know about most people, but I always have ideas popping into my head. Most of them are what I'd consider insignificant in terms of their scope. Over the last couple years, Krissy and I have bantered about on varying ideas like selling pictures, crafting things, and so on, while others have suggested we do other things--namely open a bakery or go into construction.

Most of my ideas are not very organized. Krissy would probably disagree, thinking I can come up with a pretty organized plan off the bat, but my idea of organized and hers can be a bit different at times (which is great).

I think that there's a lack of accessible, free and open education; namely in the arts. College really shouldn't bankrupt people, and it hardly guarantees employment. Arts degrees, I suspect, are becoming even less worthwhile since it seems like funding for the arts is always getting cut.

I don't know what it's like now, but I really never took an art class. There were the normal arts and crafts type things in elementary school, but nothing that really encouraged a desire for the arts. I seem to recall cutting construction paper into circles and making a chain out of it. Now that's inspiring! Middle school actually got worse, if you can believe it. In Middle School we had this bizarre system where every single "elective" shared a period. This essentially meant that you spent two weeks in each class: Phys Ed., Health, Library, Art, Wood Shop, Computers, Spanish, French (and more that I'm sure I'm forgetting). This is a terrible "solution" for a mountain of reasons, but that's my exposure to art class as I remember it. My high school, as awesome as it is, did not require art classes and, having never been given the chance to want to like art, I skipped it.

Which takes me to now, where I have a vested interest in art and in a most bizarre turn of events: education. I'm not going to go into detail, but growing up I really did not like school. I think I prefer a more hands-on, learn at your own pace type of environment, rather than the standard approach that treats everyone the same and teaches, primarily, to standardized tests. Creativity is often a casualty in these methods.

Please excuse my rather rapid and poor graphic:

Perhaps I should explain. I'll try to do that in a reasonably coherent way, but I make no promises. My brain tends to go off on tangents.

Some Basics And Background

I've long been a proponent of free stuff. I understand the basic tenets of capitalism and respect the great wealth it has infused into this country. But I can't help but think that that's a bit selfish. Should Exxon-Mobil be rolling in the dough while your average Saudi is dirt poor. Or while Somalia is stricken with the most atrocious bouts of poverty and malnourishment-- far worse than I could possibly begin to fathom.

Or how musicians make little money while the organizations that purport to represent them are filthy filthy rich.
But that's not what this is about. What I want is an unrestricted. accessible place where people can (and will) come together. Not merely in the physical sense either, I want people to come together emotionally and intellectually because I believe that's the backbone of art. And I want this space to invite and encourage anyone to teach, and teach often.

Much has been written that information wants to be free; this is an old debate. but whether or not information wants to be free doesn't matter, it deserves to be free. Modern Science or mathematics would not exist if this basic idea didn't hold true.

The Basics

Don't mind the sentence fragments, this is a pseudo list.

I want to create a community-driven, free, and open space for arts education. I would certainly be open to other types of education as well, but the emphasis would focus on the arts, both arcane and modern.

Small classes, because no thirty people learn the same way, and no instructor ought to be stretched that thin.
I want to create a focus on children, but without alienating adults. I'd like to see children and parents working together. But there'd also be plenty of programs for adults. too.

Really fun informal events like open dance studio where kids and adults can dance together to some sweet jams. Well, the little tykes will probably dance while the parents watch from the perimeter waiting for some other brave adult to make the first move.

Something A Wee Bit Different

I'd like to have a user-friendly and intuitive website that makes all the information and lessons available to anyone, for any use.

I'd really like to encourage the premise of the open exchange of ideas. I feel that by giving away the information and allowing others to see and use it, that they can also improve upon it. This is a good thing. Not everyone is the best teacher in the world (it's statistically impossible) but the simple desire to teach should be celebrated. By teaching in a cooperative community-driven way, any idea can turn into something much bigger.

In a more technical sense, everything released by the "school" would be under a Creative Commons license. Specifically a non-commercial Share-Alike license. It might sound like gobbledygook, but this is the general idea:
We release something (a lesson plan, artwork, a template, et cetera). Someone can take that and share it with whomever they like. But, they cannot do so commercially. They are also free to create a derivative work. But this derivative must also be shared under the same license, ad infinitum. This kind of piracy is encouraged.

Crazy Talk

I'm not going to actually put a price on any of this. Art classes are typically expensive. Between tuition and course supply fees, art classes have a certain barrier to entry that most might find intimidating.

Instead, I'd institute a pay what you can model. I don't want someone to choose between art classes for their child or dinner. No one should ever have to make such a choice. (More on this in a future post.)

I understand there are a lot of kinks to work out, and that creating a non-profit is incredibly complex and that this hardly scratches the surface of what would need to be done, but this is just one post, and I think blogs with lots of words and few pictures can be, well, a bit wordy.

How do I hope to achieve this craziness and what are some more details? We'll just have to wait and see.
More to come...

BREAKING NEWS: Michelle Obama Eats A Hamburger! And A Shake Too!

2011-07-12T15:38:00.000-04:00

It's sad but true The Washington Post reports that the only thing worth reporting about Michelle Obama's visit to a newly opened diner was that she ate a burger, shake, fries, and a diet coke. That's right, not just one sugary sweet drink, but two!

The headline of this story? Seventeen hundred calories of gastrointestinal goodness that Michelle Obama has been campaigning against with her Let's Move Campaign. Maybe she went for a run afterwards? We'll never know because, sadly, WaPo left out any other details.

Of course she did say this to ABC news over a year ago:

I love burgers and fries, you know? And I love ice cream and cake. So do most kids. We're not talking about a lifestyle that excludes all that. That's the fun of being a kid. That's the fun of being a human.

The article also doesn't mention whether she ate the whole meal or not. Maybe she wrapped up a good portion of it and gave it to a homeless person. And then encouraged that person to exercise.

I like what David Katz had to say:

I invite only those whose diets are housed with no walls of glass to hurl a burger in the first lady's direction on the basis of this one lunch

Or, there's this comment by Kitchendragon50:

Burger, fries, Coke, and a shake? I'd bust with that much food.

Unlike multi-mansion Al Gore, the first lady needs to set an example rather than an exception. Let's hear about her daily exercise routine, assuming she has one. No more "do as I say, not as I do" from our national leaders.

First, lots of people can eat varying amounts of food. We're all unique. Second, nowhere does it say how much she ate, just what she ordered. Also, I don't understand what Al Gore has to do with anything. Are they suggesting that the First Lady does not lead by example?

Why do people freak out every time Michelle Obama eats ice cream or something? She isn't saying eat only fruits and vegetables; she's saying be reasonable. As far as I can tell, she looks like she's in fairly decent shape so I don't see how anyone can possibly complain. She hardly looks like your typical practically morbidly obese American.

Good Job, Washington Post!

What Is Art To You?

2011-07-08T21:55:00.000-04:00

Everyone has their own version of Art.

Some people believe Picasso to be a genius, others find their children can draw just as well as he.

He did say it took him his whole life to draw like a child, after all.

But what is art to you? Personally?

Is art visceral or intellectual? Certainly it can be both.

Is art tactile or abstract? Again, it is certainly both.

Art is constantly evolving and yet staying the same.

My views on art have varied wildly over the last couple years, starting with being essentially nonexistent. Two years ago, to me, art merely existed. I didn't understand it because I never thought to try. Art was an enigma because I kept it in the dark. I think everybody does this, to some extent, saying to themselves that they just don't get art. But what's their to get?

Sure, when an artist creates something, they may have a very specific idea of what that art means and what they want you to feel. But what if you look at that art and see something different.

Take The Swing, for example.

There's a few things going on, but most people would not likely draw the same conclusion. Nor would I expect them to feel the same way about this painting. In the middle you have a lady swinging. She stands out, wearing pink, from the otherwise dismal colored painting. How does this make you feel? Look at the man pulling her from the back; he is smiling. Why? Should he be? Who is he? What about the man in front of he in the bushes. She is clearly looking at him and her cheeks are flushed. And she's kicking up her leg (losing her shoe) to let the man below her look up her dress. Considering all the clothing she's wearing, this is probably a very naughty thing to do during a time when, I imagine, modesty is best. Also, consider that they are, essentially, in public. Now how does this painting make you feel?

At first, this painting feels kind of happy. Sure, the painting is mostly dark, but the light casting through the shadows onto the woman adds a certain brightness to the painting; almost like there is something to look forward to.

But really this painting is a giant fuck you.

The painting was commissioned by a man for his mistress. He's the one on the ground up front; she's the one on the swing. Her husband is in the shadows (literally and figuratively) unaware of this affair. Is he pulling her back or Is he pushing her into it?

Art has a way of taking what you think you know and flipping it upside-down.

Now That That's Out Of The Way...

Now my personal journey through art hasn't focused so much on the minutiae of looking at and understanding art. My journey, short as it may be, has focused more on the process. I've long been intrigued by process more than meaning with art.

In particular, I've become more interested in more traditional, process-oriented arts. I feel like the process of creating and binding a book by hand is more rewarding than drawing a picture. That is not to say that drawing isn't rewarding, I just find that personally, for me, the tactility of an art encourages me to continue it.

I'm really intrigued by letterpress right now. I want to learn it. The process from beginning to end blows my mind. Letterpress seems like the perfect blend of old-school art form and new digital technology culminating in an amazing product that itself, too, is tactile.

Source:Gestalten.tv

I think that's all for now.

The Future Calls...

2011-07-08T02:24:00.002-04:00

Everyone has dreams, right? Sadly, I think most of us never realize them.

I think I know what I'd like to do with myself, and with my life.

Unfortunately, it will take a lot of money. Actually, this may be one case where an alot of money will come in handy, only I am unsure of how to snare the elusive beast. His or her ever-replenishing coat of Jacksons or Benjamins could certainly come in handy.

Of course there are things like Kickstarter but I think that would be better put to use later in this dream.

I have a place in mind for this fantasy to take place in too.

I even have ideas of some people to involve in it, maybe some people I know would like to be involved in it. I'm not much of a networker though.

I suppose I could qualify for grants, but I don't know the beginning of that sort of thing. I see people hiring grantwriters from time to time--that must be what they are for.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to worry about finding accountants to help with things, but I think the type of plan I have requires lawyers. Well at least one, probably not more than that.

Its funny because I haven't really felt excited about anything job-related. like, ever, but for once I do. I just don't know where to begin. Unfortunately, I don't think the Internet adage of

Step 1: Dream Project
Step 2: Start project
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!

applies here.

Especially since what I have floating in my head is anything but a for-profit mega-conglomerate. No, it'd be local and very community and art-driven.

I'd actually had a different plan months ago that was related to this, but I think that was more fanciful (and selfish). This non-plan-plan is much better because instead of (potentially) fattening my wallet, it would fatten the collective spirit of a community.

Most people give up on dreams, and I understand why; it's hard. I don't want mine to end up in the same place as most others. I want others to reap the benefits of what I want to sow.

Drawing is pencil and charcoal pencil on paper.

What's Wrong With Calling The President A Dick?

2011-07-01T20:15:00.000-04:00

Don't get me wrong, I like President Obama, and I don't think he's a dick. I like his press conferences, especially when he has a little spunk (as he did the other day). Do I agree with all of his policies? No. Most of them? Ehh, I don't know. But I think he does a solid job in the current climate. Frankly, I'm surprised he ever gets anything done, because congress certainly tries their damndest to stop anything resembling progress.

This, of course, warrants the obvious but necessary Philosoraptor reference.

But I really don't understand what the issue here is.

Mark Halperin called the president a dick. He is a journalist. Journalist speak and write, presumably, quite freely. I really don't like that MSNBC has suspended him indefinitely and backed off from his remarks.

Obviously they want to appear fair and balanced, but seriously, he's an analyst. I wouldn't expect Michael Moore to appear as a centrist. Or Matt Taibbi. Sure, Mark Halperin is Time magazine's Editor-At-Large and being in that position and saying what he said is controversial.

But who cares. Everyone has made a big deal out of this. The White House disapproves. MSNBC disapproves. Time disapproves. I bet Fox News disapproves, even though they're saying basically the same thing.

Congress seems to basically agree with Mark Halperin, since they've said the same thing, if not worse, suggesting the president take a Valium and calling his press conference "disgraceful" and disrespecting the office of the presidency. I wonder how Senator Cornyn has disrespected the office of the Senate? I imagine the founding fathers would be pretty pissed off and use words far worse than "dick" (though sounding far more refined) to describe our current political climate.

I understand that calling the president--any president a dick is "inappropriate" but not once did I read or hear anyone say anything in his defense. But don't worry Mark, I've got your back. I know you don't think the president's a dick. I know your reaction to his conference was reactionary, and that you probably meant that the president was perhaps more combative than you'd like. But you shouldn't have to apologize. Journalists should really never have to apologize for their opinions--so long as they're not purporting them as facts.

How many people have called Dubya stupid? Do I think he's stupid? No, of course not, and I think he'd be pretty amazing to spend a few hours with. He seems like a really charming guy. But as a president I think he did a terrible job. For my interests. But to the people who he "represented," he did an amazing job.

You know the press conference the other day? Yeah, you probably missed it. I don't blame you at all for not watching it. No one watches C-SPAN either. (I do sometimes. For reals.)

Well, President Obama was kind of a dick during it.

But that's okay, because I loved it. The president doesn't have to be a stuffy pushover, or a quiet diplomat. Sometimes, people need a firecracker shoved up their asses and the fuse lit.

Happy Fouth of July, 112^th Congress; you've earned it.

Making Books For Dirty Looks

2011-06-30T18:55:00.002-04:00

I made some books. It's fun.

Here are some small books. They are pretty good for notes or small sketches, so they're kind of ike a mini Moleskine. The one on the right I made for Krissy and gave to her yesterday.

This is the Guestbook I made for our wedding. It was the first book I made so parts of it bother me, but overall it came out well, and no one seemed to notice it was wonky, even the people who didn't know I made it. The endpaper is a cream color with blue bird feathers on it. The paper on the cover and the back is actually banana leaves laid flat and pasted together and backed with something like mull. It doesn't fold well (especially against the grain) so I cut it to size and covered the whole book in book cloth underneath it.

A sampling of books made. The one underneath them all will likely turn into a scrapbook of sorts. It's covered in ivory book cloth with a blue fabric covering the remainder (as you can see). It's about 240 pages, so it's quite large compared to the others.

A view of the books from the side. Krissy likes this angle. You can see all the imperfections, but that's okay. If you want a perfect book, go to a book store and pay $1.95. Hand made has more character--and character comes at a price.

A text block in progress. The paper is from a thrift shoppe. It's old accounting ledger paper. I'm honestly not sure where this paper went or if it made it into a book or not.

The Tools

This is an awl. You poke holes into paper and binder's board with it. They are sharp and pointy.

This is thread. You might recognize it. This thread is coated in beeswax though and made of linen.

This is a bone folder. It make folding paper super easy. You can also score things with it too. Like free beer. Okay, maybe not. Maybe just paper and stuff.

This is binding tape. It's not really "tape" but it works in a similar fashion. Combined with the mull this holds the text block to the outer case (cover) and makes the book much sturdier. Otherwise you'd only have glue and paper holding it together.

PVA. This is the glue for making books. It dries fast and clear and holds extremely well. White glue or mod podge might work, but PVA is also acid-free which won't obliterate your book and turn your paper yellow over time.

I also made this sweet card (and ten others like it) from a linocut I made. It's basically a bird flying in the clouds over the ocean. One cloud looks like Italy. Or a dolphin. Another looks kinda like a shoe. One looks like a Salvador Dali-esque middle finger. I think he'd approve. What do you see?

Adventures In Advertising

2011-06-16T17:00:00.000-04:00

I don't think anybody denies the fact that Disney knows how to advertise (or cross promote), but their ads don't usually jump out at me. Yes, they are executed flawlessly and look perfect; but that doesn't really do anything for me. Generally, ads (and theirs are no exception) seem flat. Too perfect, not enough panache.

I'm not saying this ad is particularly ballsy, but there's a certain subtle emotion playing through it that isn't the usual overtly happy that Disney tends to go with.

Star Tours has always been one of my favorite rides. I like simulators, but this one had something special to it. Needless to say I was rather disappointed that it'd be closed for Krissy and my post-wedding vacation at Disney.

And the feeling Darth Vader gets when he sees the "Coming Soon" sign is exactly how I felt.

Of course, the rest of the ad is fun and quirky too, which is great, but what makes it for me is how jarring the commercial is. Everything stops. Drama.

I approve. It get's a stamp.

Babies Are Probably A Nuisance

2011-06-15T21:57:00.000-04:00

Awhile back, I read this book. A lot of people read it, actually. I'm not going to lie, most people read it because of its name. And I'm not going to lie, it drew me in, too.

But anybody can write a book with a clever name. And a great many people could write a great book with a clever name.

But for people to deny this book its accolades because of a minor gripe they have with it is absurdist thinking. The art in this book is beautiful. I'm not going to spoil it and post a bunch of pictures, so you get just the one (and that is a crop, too, that is a small part of a two-page spread. You should buy this book to see the rest. It may not be the best to read to your child, but you can always read it to your significant other if the night is going as planned. It should brighten things up a tad.

Or you could give it as a gift to a newly preggers person with a sense of humor. Despite what you may read, I don't think this is a book for hipsters; I think it's a book for everyone. Well, everyone who has had, or is having, kids.

If all else fails, you could listen to the one and only Samuel L. Jackson narrate it:

On Terrible Ironies

2011-06-15T20:25:00.000-04:00

There is currently a movement in New York for a living wage. I wrote about Minimum Wage and how as a system it's full of fail twice back in December, and it's refreshing to see people fighting against it, even if the war isn't being won, small battles won are nice.

The problem with minimum wage goes far deeper than it's name suggests. Seriously, how has no one given this a nice sounding euphemism by now? Nothing about "Minimum Wage" connotates good feelings. Where is the pro-business lobby on this one? Oh right, they were trying to eliminate the minimum wage entirely, almost forgot.

What they are fighting for in New York is livable wages, though, not just the bare minimum. And this is why the battle, and the war, are ultimately foolhardy. You see, they are fighting and protesting over, not a livable wage, but ten dollars an hour. Could you live in NYC for ten bucks an hour? Remember, that's just over twenty grand a year, before taxes or any kind of expenses--like healthcare for example. The answer is obviously no. No one can.

Minimum wage should be abolished, and replaced with a system that scales based on location and average expenses.

Unfortunately, this won't happen because Big Business has lots and lots of money to lobby with, and Republicans (and conservative democrats) really like that money, which is why so little progress has been made for regular folks in the wage department over the years.

You know what the worst part about this nonsense is though? It's not that it won't happen; I think we've resigned ourselves to that (as sad as that fact may be). No, it's that the people who fight against minimum and livable wages are the same people who fought for the Bush tax cuts being extended for uber rich people and for keeping executive pay high (and keeping "golden parachutes") "because we need to entice them to stay as CEOs, even if they are running the company into the ground" or something.

The message they're sending?

You only deserve the money if you earned it by running a business poorly, but those people who are now out of work, because that douchebag doesn't understand how to run a profitable company, sorry you're going to need to take a pay cut or lose your job. Don't worry though, with luck, you'll be able to find a job with another company-- and that same douchebag might just be running that one into the ground, too.

Advertising: Utilizing Obnoxious Customers To Your Advantage

2011-06-07T16:02:00.001-04:00

I approve of this type of advertising.

What would be even better is if they had these play before the movies instead of the regular canned "don't text" ones. But this will certainly do.

Nice use of Shut Up And Let Me Go by The Ting Tings