1. In preparation for the new phone system we're installing tomorrow, I'm going through the generic online training tutorial (I mean literally right now I'm doing this, it's droning in the background as I write from the reception desk). What's fascinating me now is of course not the content but the nice gentleman speaking and operating the phones in the first-person perspective presentation. He's got a nice clean voice, which is probably why he was chosen to do it. However, he's also got a little bit of a lisp, which is utterly consuming my attention. I don't mean like a homosexual lisp but more of an adolescent lisp, where many of the words are just sloppily or lazily pronounced. It's not regional, like a dialect. For example, he just used the word "regional," and he spoke it as "reguh-nool." This is a very slight example. "The" becomes "deh," "external" becomes "etsternal," "calls" becomes "cualls." But the biggest one is row. He says "rwow." It's like how Bobby Flay talks. It's a soothing voice, but I don't know why. I also for some reason associate it with Asian people, which I why I'm assuming this gentleman is Asian. I wonder if that association comes from the l/r problem they often have with English? I wonder if my assumption is a social stereotype or if Asian people just get used to pronouncing things slightly wrong because they've heard it so much from family?
Whatever the answers to those questions, this particular guide has got my sense of perception engaged, and I haven't got much to work with. His hands aren't model hands but instead a bit lumpy, and tanned. Other than that, so far I've only gotten a quick view of his upper right forehead and his button blue sleeves. Nonetheless, I feel acquainted with him, and my reaction to this is similar to any time you meet someone new or mysterious: I want to know more, and I want to project things onto him. Why do people do that? Why does a disembodied voice and two hands cause me to want to know about the rest of him? Why does his odd speaking spark that zest to know more? We are a curious species.
2. Something more generally interesting is this next thing. I was back in Columbus this past weekend and ran into some old college friends. One person (who was really more a friend-of-a-friend, meaning I haven't talked with him and never would have known him were it not for my friend, still this is someone with whom I effortlessly communicate) asked me if I was still writing my blog. Fairly mundane question and I answered that sure I was but not prolificly. The interesting thing is that he almost instantly added: "sorry if I'm not readng it regularly," as though some mention of his reading habits were necessary.
Now, nothing in the way this person acted was remotely out of the ordinary, and naturally neither of us made any notice of anything odd occurring. Nevertheless, I find his qualifying remark (sorry if I'm not reading) to be very interesting. Why did he (or would anyone) ever feel the need to apologize there? Has our blogging society become so (im)personal that people read by requisition? Is it a personal reflection on a person if an acquaintance of that person either does or doesn't read his blog?
This is a dangerous trend, I think. To borrow Descartes: "I write therefore I am read."
I think a requirement for a valuable friendship is to find the person interesting, so naturally it would follow that you would enjoy talking with him or--back to our example--reading something he has written. Now, when we talk to someone, we share in leading the conversation; we have a say in keeping things interesting to us; however, when a person writes something they are free to go off on their own without regard to someone else's interest level. There are people who do write solely with the intent of keeping people interested, but those people are not merely writing, they are entertaining, and only using written words as a medium.
I don't blog-write like that. I write what interests me and I let myself go with a thought. It's what I love about this form of writing: it's vaguely formal but simultaneously totally personal. I feel almost as though whoever may be reading I am engaging in one of those long thoughtful conversations that seem to occur around fireplaces and involve politics or religion (since most people aren't conditioned well enough to have serious intelligent and actual free-will opinions on anything else, but that's digressing too much for now). If someone out there doesn't find a topic as interesting as I do, then don't consider it a reflection on me I consider it a reflection on us as we relate to that topic. Nothing more. Some of my best friends really get into current music, but I get no interest from it so whenever they talk about it I either drift off or find someone else to talk about something different. It's nothing personal that I don't share their interest in music.
So I wonder if apologizing to someone for not reading their blog is more meaningful than that? I know that I think it shouldn't be, but probably it is. I guess an easy way to describe my general belief is that if you are a person who would be offended by someone not reading your blog, then you probably shouldn't be blogging, or you should get new friends.
Showing posts with label CURIOSITIES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CURIOSITIES. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, October 17, 2008
1. I feel like shit. I'm sick of getting sick at the same time every year. Whoever heard of seasonal allergies unrelated to pollen? Bullshit. Worst part is, this was the year that I finally resolved to get my first-ever flu shot. Then, about two weeks ago, I got an email from the HR director at work announcing free flu shots given right here at my office--in three weeks, or next Friday. So I first thought, gee that's kinda late for a flu shot. Then I thought, yeah but it's free. So I saved myself maybe $20 and here I am sick. I know it's after the fact, but I don't know what's more pathetic: that I'm so cheap that I refused to spend $20 on something like this, or that I'm so cheap that even now I actually think that not spending the $20 was the right call. At least I'm leaving work early today. Going to go home at taking a fucking nap. On a Friday evening. Middle-age here I come.
2. Did you know that there are only five political parties even on the ballot in enough states to plausibly win the presidential election? That's exactly what I'd like to see change. For posterity, the three non-major parties are: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Notice that I had to say "on the ballot in enough states." This is interesting as the United States and Switzerland are the only two countries that do not have national standards of ballot access for federal elections. Laws for ballot access within each state are complex and diverse to say the least. The state of New York has slightly easier standards than some states (they allow something called electoral fusion, look it up but it basically amounts to riding the coattails of the major parties), so there are eight non-major parties on the ballot for President in NY state: Independence, Conservative, Working Families, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation, Green, Libertarian, and Populist. Seems like a lot of choices, doesn't it? Seems like we're on the right track? Only kinda. The first two I listed have nominated McCain, and the third has nominated Obama. This is the electoral fusion at work. What it amounts to is a total of seven names on the ballot for President in NY state, probably not much better than average nationally.
3. The "Independence" Party I mentioned just a moment ago? They are actually just the NY chapter of the National Independence Party of America, which could easily be misunderstood as simply the Independent Party. There is also an Independent American Party, which was founded in 1998. I, as a true independent and unaffiliated voter, find this rather deceitful.
4. We were arguing about geographical recognition of cities last night, spurred by my frequent general claim that I am from "close to Pittsburgh." It was stated that this might be somewhat disingenuous because I am of course not from Pittsburgh, but moreso because what guarantee is it that anyone who wouldn't be expected to know where Steubenville is would know where Pittsburgh is? To draw that arbitrary line of geographic recognition seemed obvious to me but is it really? How do people understand placement of national cities? Do they picture their state first then the city's position within? Or do they generally ascribe the city to a specific region and leave it at that? The city that caused me to wonder about all this was Chicago. Everyone knows Chicago, and they know it's in Illinois and the Midwest, but what does all that mean to someone not from there? Most people could think about it and know that Chicago is on a lake, but there are five Great Lakes of course. If someone had a map with state boundaries drawn, I'm confident they could point to Chicago, but without the state lines, probably not. So I think those state lines are pretty damned important. At any rate, I wonder what's the biggest city that you couldn't find within 50 miles on a blank map? For me (using Wikipedia), it would be somewhere in the 30s, with Tuscon, Oklahoma City, Fresno and/or Long Beach. But as always, I feel like my abilities in here are higher than most.
5. Now for fun, here are my NFL picks (listed first) that I'm tracking. Special picks asterisked. Incidentally, I'm not as confident in these picks in general as past weeks. In fact, if I were betting for real I wouldn't choose more than 3 games I don't think.
KC +8.5 vs TEN under 35.5
SD* pickem at BUF over 44.5*
PIT -9.5 at CIN over 35*
MIA -3 vs BAL under 36.5
DAL -7 at STL over 44
CHI -3 vs MIN over 37.5
NO* +3 at CAR over 44.5
NYG* -10.5 vs SF under 45.5
HOU -8.5 vs DET under 47
OAK +3 vs NYJ under 41
CLE +7.5 at WAS over 42
GB +1 vs IND over 46.5
SEA +10.5 at TB under 38
DEN +3 at NE over 47.5*
6. Finally, I really dislike the Boston Red Sox. And I'm still confident in the Rays. James Shields is a tough motha.
2. Did you know that there are only five political parties even on the ballot in enough states to plausibly win the presidential election? That's exactly what I'd like to see change. For posterity, the three non-major parties are: Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and Green Party. Notice that I had to say "on the ballot in enough states." This is interesting as the United States and Switzerland are the only two countries that do not have national standards of ballot access for federal elections. Laws for ballot access within each state are complex and diverse to say the least. The state of New York has slightly easier standards than some states (they allow something called electoral fusion, look it up but it basically amounts to riding the coattails of the major parties), so there are eight non-major parties on the ballot for President in NY state: Independence, Conservative, Working Families, Socialist Workers, Socialism & Liberation, Green, Libertarian, and Populist. Seems like a lot of choices, doesn't it? Seems like we're on the right track? Only kinda. The first two I listed have nominated McCain, and the third has nominated Obama. This is the electoral fusion at work. What it amounts to is a total of seven names on the ballot for President in NY state, probably not much better than average nationally.
3. The "Independence" Party I mentioned just a moment ago? They are actually just the NY chapter of the National Independence Party of America, which could easily be misunderstood as simply the Independent Party. There is also an Independent American Party, which was founded in 1998. I, as a true independent and unaffiliated voter, find this rather deceitful.
4. We were arguing about geographical recognition of cities last night, spurred by my frequent general claim that I am from "close to Pittsburgh." It was stated that this might be somewhat disingenuous because I am of course not from Pittsburgh, but moreso because what guarantee is it that anyone who wouldn't be expected to know where Steubenville is would know where Pittsburgh is? To draw that arbitrary line of geographic recognition seemed obvious to me but is it really? How do people understand placement of national cities? Do they picture their state first then the city's position within? Or do they generally ascribe the city to a specific region and leave it at that? The city that caused me to wonder about all this was Chicago. Everyone knows Chicago, and they know it's in Illinois and the Midwest, but what does all that mean to someone not from there? Most people could think about it and know that Chicago is on a lake, but there are five Great Lakes of course. If someone had a map with state boundaries drawn, I'm confident they could point to Chicago, but without the state lines, probably not. So I think those state lines are pretty damned important. At any rate, I wonder what's the biggest city that you couldn't find within 50 miles on a blank map? For me (using Wikipedia), it would be somewhere in the 30s, with Tuscon, Oklahoma City, Fresno and/or Long Beach. But as always, I feel like my abilities in here are higher than most.
5. Now for fun, here are my NFL picks (listed first) that I'm tracking. Special picks asterisked. Incidentally, I'm not as confident in these picks in general as past weeks. In fact, if I were betting for real I wouldn't choose more than 3 games I don't think.
KC +8.5 vs TEN under 35.5
SD* pickem at BUF over 44.5*
PIT -9.5 at CIN over 35*
MIA -3 vs BAL under 36.5
DAL -7 at STL over 44
CHI -3 vs MIN over 37.5
NO* +3 at CAR over 44.5
NYG* -10.5 vs SF under 45.5
HOU -8.5 vs DET under 47
OAK +3 vs NYJ under 41
CLE +7.5 at WAS over 42
GB +1 vs IND over 46.5
SEA +10.5 at TB under 38
DEN +3 at NE over 47.5*
6. Finally, I really dislike the Boston Red Sox. And I'm still confident in the Rays. James Shields is a tough motha.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
on chaos (ruminative dissonance)
i wish i had more time to just think while at work.
have i mentioned that i really love the little tv thing we have in our elevators here at 90 park ave? they aren't actually tvs but more just a small screen that scrolls news items which are sometimes general and sometimes quirky. it's a perfect form or low-key "entertainment" for the 30 second ride to/from the 18th floor, and the brief bits of info quite often get me to thinking.
such as the one i noticed yesterday remarking that oil hit an all-time inflation-adjusted price of $103.95 per barrel. this alone as business news is of zero interest to me (perhaps it would disgust me an vague anti-capitalist way but nothing more), but the info that accompanied it--that the previous high was $38 in 1980--i found to cause great thoughtfulness.
$38 in 1980 equals $103.95 today, in 2008. that's 28 years. that's a 274% increase, or you could say a 274% decrease in the value of our dollar. again, on their own, these numbers might not be overly exciting, but put them in context and they become more and more illustrative.
I'm still fairly young and so should be immune to hang-wringing relating to how the world is going to hell and how nothing is worth a damn anymore, but i was alive in 1980. this isn't like those dumb-ass little books you can buy at bob evans or cracker barrel that are full of shit about what a gallon of milk cost in 1906, and how there were still only 46 states or whatever back in the golden days.
i was alive in 1980 for chrissakes. $38 then is the same as $104 now. or, take the somewhat arbitrary symbols away and put it a different way: 38 then is the same as 104 now.
i'll roundly admit i don't know enough about economics to get into anything remotely resembling an intelligent discussion thereof (about all i do know on this matter is that inflation of this magnitude is bad news for the u.s.), so i'll stick to the existential bits.
so what does it mean when something presumably stagnant (a number) and empirical (a value) proves dynamic over time? i should say how does this affect us?
for me--someone who fancies himself above (or below, depending on your opinion of me) the fray most of the time--i think it certainly produces a further kind of chaotic dissociation from what i've been exposed to throughout my life. how can i take seriously emphatic claims, even those seemingly backed by scientific processes, when the world proves itself to be hardly consistent?
i'd call myself a kind of skeptic, so it's in my nature to doubt, but this doesn't mean that i'm necessarily comfortable with the idea that all is anarchic, that nothing simply is what it is. on the contrary, i rather strongly need to have certain parts of my world to simply exist as themselves, to be something that i understand or at least something that i think i could understand: i need to have a general framework of sturdiness within which i may question, ponder, muse, deliberate and epiphanize.
so you can see that when oil does not equal oil and 38 is the same as 104, it can have a sky-is-falling type of effect on me. no, "effect on me" is not the right descriptor. what i'm forced to do in response to these anomalies could be called ruminative dissonance.
something ain't right and i'm not comfortable with what it is or isn't.
have i mentioned that i really love the little tv thing we have in our elevators here at 90 park ave? they aren't actually tvs but more just a small screen that scrolls news items which are sometimes general and sometimes quirky. it's a perfect form or low-key "entertainment" for the 30 second ride to/from the 18th floor, and the brief bits of info quite often get me to thinking.
such as the one i noticed yesterday remarking that oil hit an all-time inflation-adjusted price of $103.95 per barrel. this alone as business news is of zero interest to me (perhaps it would disgust me an vague anti-capitalist way but nothing more), but the info that accompanied it--that the previous high was $38 in 1980--i found to cause great thoughtfulness.
$38 in 1980 equals $103.95 today, in 2008. that's 28 years. that's a 274% increase, or you could say a 274% decrease in the value of our dollar. again, on their own, these numbers might not be overly exciting, but put them in context and they become more and more illustrative.
I'm still fairly young and so should be immune to hang-wringing relating to how the world is going to hell and how nothing is worth a damn anymore, but i was alive in 1980. this isn't like those dumb-ass little books you can buy at bob evans or cracker barrel that are full of shit about what a gallon of milk cost in 1906, and how there were still only 46 states or whatever back in the golden days.
i was alive in 1980 for chrissakes. $38 then is the same as $104 now. or, take the somewhat arbitrary symbols away and put it a different way: 38 then is the same as 104 now.
i'll roundly admit i don't know enough about economics to get into anything remotely resembling an intelligent discussion thereof (about all i do know on this matter is that inflation of this magnitude is bad news for the u.s.), so i'll stick to the existential bits.
so what does it mean when something presumably stagnant (a number) and empirical (a value) proves dynamic over time? i should say how does this affect us?
for me--someone who fancies himself above (or below, depending on your opinion of me) the fray most of the time--i think it certainly produces a further kind of chaotic dissociation from what i've been exposed to throughout my life. how can i take seriously emphatic claims, even those seemingly backed by scientific processes, when the world proves itself to be hardly consistent?
i'd call myself a kind of skeptic, so it's in my nature to doubt, but this doesn't mean that i'm necessarily comfortable with the idea that all is anarchic, that nothing simply is what it is. on the contrary, i rather strongly need to have certain parts of my world to simply exist as themselves, to be something that i understand or at least something that i think i could understand: i need to have a general framework of sturdiness within which i may question, ponder, muse, deliberate and epiphanize.
so you can see that when oil does not equal oil and 38 is the same as 104, it can have a sky-is-falling type of effect on me. no, "effect on me" is not the right descriptor. what i'm forced to do in response to these anomalies could be called ruminative dissonance.
something ain't right and i'm not comfortable with what it is or isn't.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
invariability
i'm going to relate something for you which probably isn't remotely surprising or shocking to anyone, but that doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy. it got me to thinking, at least.
you see, it pretains to stereotypes--what they are and what they mean to both us as a populace and them as the -typed. is it justification for the generalization when it manifests itself, often repeatedly? is it condemnation of the generalization when it does the same, because maybe that's just an inherent way of life, a wholly natural action that happens to be propagated by a marginalized group? is it in any way deductive to even define these "stereotypes," any more than it is to attempt to divine understanding simply from a person's diction or his hair color or his waist size? am i, as a member of a majority, often looking down my nose at the subjects, actually the one being manipulated--fooled into rejecting the presence of individuality by the recognition of a shared trait that is really in no way inherent but actually ascribed by me upon them? or are they unfortunate and unknowing actors in a play that's been scripted for them by someone else, relegated through time, circumstance, and repetition to merely doing what's expected of them? are they ignorant byproducts or are they beautiful naifs? am i an ugly definer or an enlightened discerner?
decide for yourself. what follows is as truthfully as i can relate something i witnessed on an F train this morning.
i was standing in the closed entrance well of the subway car when several people entered through the opposite door, including one black woman, perhaps 28-30, who stood in the other half of the entrance well to my left. also boarding the train was one large black man of similar age who ended up directly opposite the woman after the doors shut behind him. the woman was wearing a black overcoat and some kind of skirt/dress that left her whole black-stripe-stockinged lower leg exposed, and below that a rather garish pair of black, red, and excessively silver heels. it was this silver which briefly caught my eye. what caught the man's eye was neither silver nor brief. i'm not sure how long it took me to notice that this gentleman was doing some serious perving on the woman, but to say that he was "checking her out" is akin to saying that the bomb we dropped on hiroshima did "a little damage." the woman wasn't leaning against the doors like i was, instead standing about a foot in front of me, so i couldn't get her reaction to the man's leerish affrontery, but i can assure you that while i am in no way prudish, it was surely making me uncomfortable. of course, just as i had about reached my limits with his slow up and down rape-eyed stares, what did the man do but start to slowly lick his lips. i'm not sure how i kept myself from laughing. thankfully by this time we'd nearly reached bryant park and i didn't have to ponder if i'd have to intervene in a felonious assault by the time we got to queens. then, to my surprise both the woman and the man exited in front of me at my stop. here i became truly curious and lagged behind slightly to see what would transpire. of course, if you've been reading this whole thing, you can probably guess: the woman reached into her purse, scribbled what can only be assumed was her number on a card, and handed it to the man. sufficiently amused by this resolution, i passed them on the stairs went about my business, smirking and philosophizing.
you see, it pretains to stereotypes--what they are and what they mean to both us as a populace and them as the -typed. is it justification for the generalization when it manifests itself, often repeatedly? is it condemnation of the generalization when it does the same, because maybe that's just an inherent way of life, a wholly natural action that happens to be propagated by a marginalized group? is it in any way deductive to even define these "stereotypes," any more than it is to attempt to divine understanding simply from a person's diction or his hair color or his waist size? am i, as a member of a majority, often looking down my nose at the subjects, actually the one being manipulated--fooled into rejecting the presence of individuality by the recognition of a shared trait that is really in no way inherent but actually ascribed by me upon them? or are they unfortunate and unknowing actors in a play that's been scripted for them by someone else, relegated through time, circumstance, and repetition to merely doing what's expected of them? are they ignorant byproducts or are they beautiful naifs? am i an ugly definer or an enlightened discerner?
decide for yourself. what follows is as truthfully as i can relate something i witnessed on an F train this morning.
i was standing in the closed entrance well of the subway car when several people entered through the opposite door, including one black woman, perhaps 28-30, who stood in the other half of the entrance well to my left. also boarding the train was one large black man of similar age who ended up directly opposite the woman after the doors shut behind him. the woman was wearing a black overcoat and some kind of skirt/dress that left her whole black-stripe-stockinged lower leg exposed, and below that a rather garish pair of black, red, and excessively silver heels. it was this silver which briefly caught my eye. what caught the man's eye was neither silver nor brief. i'm not sure how long it took me to notice that this gentleman was doing some serious perving on the woman, but to say that he was "checking her out" is akin to saying that the bomb we dropped on hiroshima did "a little damage." the woman wasn't leaning against the doors like i was, instead standing about a foot in front of me, so i couldn't get her reaction to the man's leerish affrontery, but i can assure you that while i am in no way prudish, it was surely making me uncomfortable. of course, just as i had about reached my limits with his slow up and down rape-eyed stares, what did the man do but start to slowly lick his lips. i'm not sure how i kept myself from laughing. thankfully by this time we'd nearly reached bryant park and i didn't have to ponder if i'd have to intervene in a felonious assault by the time we got to queens. then, to my surprise both the woman and the man exited in front of me at my stop. here i became truly curious and lagged behind slightly to see what would transpire. of course, if you've been reading this whole thing, you can probably guess: the woman reached into her purse, scribbled what can only be assumed was her number on a card, and handed it to the man. sufficiently amused by this resolution, i passed them on the stairs went about my business, smirking and philosophizing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
