Friday, February 23, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Have you seen this ad?
For "ClearBlue" pregnancy tests? (See here.) The ad is *totally bizarre,* and clearly marketed for MEN to buy for their girlfriends/wives, rather than for women to buy for themselves. By way of background, most pregnancy test ads have a lot of pink, and talk a lot about reassuring women during a stressful time. Most are also very family-oriented, showing some happy mother with a baby at the end, etc. And most have female voice-overs.
ClearBlue is the complete opposite. The ad, the product name, and the box it comes in are all blue and black. There's no mention of families or missed periods. The ad focuses on being "easy" and letting you know "5 days earlier," without referring to "earlier than what?" It also features a digital read-out - classic useless technological bells and whistles. No mention of babies, or families, or anything of the sort. And the dude reading the ad sounds like he could be talking about an action movie.
They might as well call it the pre-RU486 test.
ClearBlue is the complete opposite. The ad, the product name, and the box it comes in are all blue and black. There's no mention of families or missed periods. The ad focuses on being "easy" and letting you know "5 days earlier," without referring to "earlier than what?" It also features a digital read-out - classic useless technological bells and whistles. No mention of babies, or families, or anything of the sort. And the dude reading the ad sounds like he could be talking about an action movie.
They might as well call it the pre-RU486 test.
Ugh
I'm sick. I know, right? After a week of drinking after everyone I know and having everyone I know get sick. Totally unexpected. Still sucky. I feel like crap.
Here is a list of things I did to try and make myself feel better: eat yogurt, eat macaroni and cheese, shower, have two bowls of soup, take multiple cough drops, drink 4 bottles of water, 4 cups of mint tea and one hot toddie, take a vitamin/several aspirin, watch 6 hours of television, order Indian food, and not leave my house.
Now I feel icky AND fat.
Here is a list of things I did to try and make myself feel better: eat yogurt, eat macaroni and cheese, shower, have two bowls of soup, take multiple cough drops, drink 4 bottles of water, 4 cups of mint tea and one hot toddie, take a vitamin/several aspirin, watch 6 hours of television, order Indian food, and not leave my house.
Now I feel icky AND fat.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Shut up and stop being so smug
Ok, so I'm a big Dixie Chicks fan and all...but Natalie Maines is kind of a bitch. Who accepts a Grammy by shooting a Simpsons-esque "ha-ha"?
I mean for real. Also, the song is sort of preachy.
I mean for real. Also, the song is sort of preachy.
Not with a bang, but with a nipple.
I've been trying to decide whether it's okay to follow the Anna Nicole Smith story. After a lot of consideration, I conclude the answer is yes, definitely.
There has been a lot of commentary online bemoaning the amount of coverage of the Playboy Bunny's death. Some of it has been insightful, including this piece in the LATimes by Tim Rutten, who uses Smith's death to springboard into a discussion about the editorial practices of media outlets in a internet-news based world. Rutten points out that many of the editorial decisions made in the traditional media world (television and print news) are unduly influenced by the web-traffic of online news consumers - hit counts at the LATimes.com are used as "proxy Nielson ratings" to drive the content of the actual LATimes, etc. Rutten's argument is that this is false empiricism, and I think he's right - people who visit online news sources aren't (1) the same people or (2) looking for the same kind of information as people who consume traditional news sources. For instance, when I'm on CNN.com, I'm much more likely to read this story than this story, but were I to watch it on CNN.com or read it in the paper version of the NYTimes, my preferences would be reversed - mostly because I use the internet to fuck around, not get my news.
In any case, back to Anna Nicole. I agree that some of the media coverage weirds me out - but it's not the volume of coverage or the salaciousness. What really messes with my mind is the coverage that is arguably the most appropriate - the more traditional eulogizing of Ms. Smith. I can't remember which paper this was in, but I do remember it was respectable, that had a one-line topic sentence in its obituary that described Ms. Smith as a "buxom blonde." Of all the things to be most noted for - curing cancer, wife and mother, loving daughter, eater of foods - Anna Nicole's contribution to the world was paying for unusually large breasts and not keeping her hair too dark. But even more disturbing to me are the postings online - which are contrasted to the obituary above by the fact that they are so characteristically sincere. All across the internet, the previously "silent majority" of Anna Nicole Smith supporters and admirers is coming out in droves to celebrate the topless dancer's ability to come from nothing and transform herself into a multibillionaire-blow-up-doll. Frankly, it's a little shocking. I'm a big fan of the American Dream - I have a lot of respect for Bill Clinton for many of the same reasons - but I find it strange to group Anna Nicole Smith into the examples of its living embodiments. Her career, her fortune, and her noteriety were all long-shots for a small-town girl from Texas, granted...but they are all shameful and tragic - taking off her clothes, conning an old man out of his money, and being degraded on camera. I wouldn't wish her life or her "success" on anybody. I think it's really sad that she's a rolemodel.
BUT I don't think it's sad for the rest of us to talk about her. The fact is, trainwreck though it was, her life was interesting to watch - or at least the last 1-2 years of it. It's not usual for one individual to have so much life and death and money and controversy in their lives in such a short amount of time. She could have been a fat dude from Alabama, and it still would have been interesting. Who marries a billionaire a year before he dies, then enters into a 10 year long legal struggle with his son that takes her all the way to the Supreme Court, only to have the son die from old age? Who, in the course of a few weeks, gives birth to a baby, has her 20 year old son die in the hospital, and then dies herself from unexplained causes at the age of 39? Who then shocks the world when no fewer than 3 men (one the husband of Zsa Zsa Gabour) claim to be that baby's father - while in reality the father may be the posthumous sperm of her 90 year old former husband? It's really insane. And it's really a good story.
The fact is, if this were a movie, we'd all be into it (well, if it weren't so unbelievable). For that reason, I don't think it's bad for us to follow it. We consume billions of dollars each year in shitty entertainment - just look at Ryan Seacrest. I think it's entirely reasonable for us to be as interested in Anna Nicole as we are in Norbitt - if not more reasonable, since that movie looks awful and Anna Nicole's story is kind of awesome.
As a side note, I'd like to be the first to predict that in 10 years, Elvis sightings will be replaced with sightings of Anna Nicole.
There has been a lot of commentary online bemoaning the amount of coverage of the Playboy Bunny's death. Some of it has been insightful, including this piece in the LATimes by Tim Rutten, who uses Smith's death to springboard into a discussion about the editorial practices of media outlets in a internet-news based world. Rutten points out that many of the editorial decisions made in the traditional media world (television and print news) are unduly influenced by the web-traffic of online news consumers - hit counts at the LATimes.com are used as "proxy Nielson ratings" to drive the content of the actual LATimes, etc. Rutten's argument is that this is false empiricism, and I think he's right - people who visit online news sources aren't (1) the same people or (2) looking for the same kind of information as people who consume traditional news sources. For instance, when I'm on CNN.com, I'm much more likely to read this story than this story, but were I to watch it on CNN.com or read it in the paper version of the NYTimes, my preferences would be reversed - mostly because I use the internet to fuck around, not get my news.
In any case, back to Anna Nicole. I agree that some of the media coverage weirds me out - but it's not the volume of coverage or the salaciousness. What really messes with my mind is the coverage that is arguably the most appropriate - the more traditional eulogizing of Ms. Smith. I can't remember which paper this was in, but I do remember it was respectable, that had a one-line topic sentence in its obituary that described Ms. Smith as a "buxom blonde." Of all the things to be most noted for - curing cancer, wife and mother, loving daughter, eater of foods - Anna Nicole's contribution to the world was paying for unusually large breasts and not keeping her hair too dark. But even more disturbing to me are the postings online - which are contrasted to the obituary above by the fact that they are so characteristically sincere. All across the internet, the previously "silent majority" of Anna Nicole Smith supporters and admirers is coming out in droves to celebrate the topless dancer's ability to come from nothing and transform herself into a multibillionaire-blow-up-doll. Frankly, it's a little shocking. I'm a big fan of the American Dream - I have a lot of respect for Bill Clinton for many of the same reasons - but I find it strange to group Anna Nicole Smith into the examples of its living embodiments. Her career, her fortune, and her noteriety were all long-shots for a small-town girl from Texas, granted...but they are all shameful and tragic - taking off her clothes, conning an old man out of his money, and being degraded on camera. I wouldn't wish her life or her "success" on anybody. I think it's really sad that she's a rolemodel.
BUT I don't think it's sad for the rest of us to talk about her. The fact is, trainwreck though it was, her life was interesting to watch - or at least the last 1-2 years of it. It's not usual for one individual to have so much life and death and money and controversy in their lives in such a short amount of time. She could have been a fat dude from Alabama, and it still would have been interesting. Who marries a billionaire a year before he dies, then enters into a 10 year long legal struggle with his son that takes her all the way to the Supreme Court, only to have the son die from old age? Who, in the course of a few weeks, gives birth to a baby, has her 20 year old son die in the hospital, and then dies herself from unexplained causes at the age of 39? Who then shocks the world when no fewer than 3 men (one the husband of Zsa Zsa Gabour) claim to be that baby's father - while in reality the father may be the posthumous sperm of her 90 year old former husband? It's really insane. And it's really a good story.
The fact is, if this were a movie, we'd all be into it (well, if it weren't so unbelievable). For that reason, I don't think it's bad for us to follow it. We consume billions of dollars each year in shitty entertainment - just look at Ryan Seacrest. I think it's entirely reasonable for us to be as interested in Anna Nicole as we are in Norbitt - if not more reasonable, since that movie looks awful and Anna Nicole's story is kind of awesome.
As a side note, I'd like to be the first to predict that in 10 years, Elvis sightings will be replaced with sightings of Anna Nicole.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Sitrep: Parody/classes
I'm keeping busy with Parody stuff, which has been nice. It's a lot of work, having to juggle keeping a lot of different pans in the fire, but I've found the trick is to just choose to roll with it - and to enjoy it. So far, the worst we've had to deal with is having a few people drop out, which I'm hoping is just normal for the first week, as people realize what they've gotten themselves into. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened last year, at least. And we did cast 2-3 people more than we needed to, so we're still in the black. Still, I just hope we don't have to make any more changes. I guess Parody was just such a formidable experience for me last year that it's hard not to think of it as a privilege. And when people just choose to quit, after we've given them this chance, I feel insulted - because they've taken this opportunity to do something interesting and rare away from someone else. In any case, for those who remain I really hope that we can give to the cast this year what the cast last year gave to me.
Apart from that, my classes are going nutso. I chose all of them with the goal of not really having to work very hard, just to think and be entertained. So far, I seem to have gotten more than I bargained for. Dersh's Taboo Subjects is out of control - it's half undergrads who are completely (and reasonably) floored by the idea of being cold-called in a class of 400 people. One student actually tried to kiss up to Dersh by apologizing for everyone else "antagonizing" him - i.e., participating with him in the Socratic method. It was adorable and arrogant at the same time. The class takes place in the Science Center, which brings back all sorts of awkward, poorly lit memories. Second in my list of crazy classes is Entertainment Law with Bruce Hay, which is apparently going to be taught more by presentations from students than from Professor Hay. Today we spent most of the two hours watching movie clips - including clips of video game porn - supposedly to demonstrate various issues of creative control. I found it helpful. How else could I really have grasped the subtle differences between the U.K. version of "the Office" and the new American remake without seeing a side by side shot of Ricky Jervais and Steve Carell? Next is Free Speech seminar, a coup for me, since I took Free Speech lecture last term. Also, the professor is approx 800 years old, so I've got a pretty good shot at the "trauma A" if nature takes its course. (Knock on wood.) Finally, legal professions, taught by a practitioner from Philly who wears bowties and loves to wax philosophic and cancel class.
All in all, school is pretty damn cool.
Apart from that, my classes are going nutso. I chose all of them with the goal of not really having to work very hard, just to think and be entertained. So far, I seem to have gotten more than I bargained for. Dersh's Taboo Subjects is out of control - it's half undergrads who are completely (and reasonably) floored by the idea of being cold-called in a class of 400 people. One student actually tried to kiss up to Dersh by apologizing for everyone else "antagonizing" him - i.e., participating with him in the Socratic method. It was adorable and arrogant at the same time. The class takes place in the Science Center, which brings back all sorts of awkward, poorly lit memories. Second in my list of crazy classes is Entertainment Law with Bruce Hay, which is apparently going to be taught more by presentations from students than from Professor Hay. Today we spent most of the two hours watching movie clips - including clips of video game porn - supposedly to demonstrate various issues of creative control. I found it helpful. How else could I really have grasped the subtle differences between the U.K. version of "the Office" and the new American remake without seeing a side by side shot of Ricky Jervais and Steve Carell? Next is Free Speech seminar, a coup for me, since I took Free Speech lecture last term. Also, the professor is approx 800 years old, so I've got a pretty good shot at the "trauma A" if nature takes its course. (Knock on wood.) Finally, legal professions, taught by a practitioner from Philly who wears bowties and loves to wax philosophic and cancel class.
All in all, school is pretty damn cool.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
An Open Letter on Being an Open Book
This is something that has been developing for me for some time, but I think that I'm going to make it more of a rule than a guideline. I think I'm going to be less of an open book. Although it doesn't make a ton of sense to write "I resolve to be more private" in a post on an online diary, accessible to millions worldwide, I think it's an interesting thing to think about. How much of your personal life, your thoughts, or your history should you reveal in daily conversation?
When I was a kid, there used to be no limit on what I would tell other people. Because my family moved frequently (about once every 1-2 years), and because I was completely oblivious to pop culture, in most cases all I had to talk about was myself and my history. So I was sort of an information whore. I'd tell anyone almost anything, just to see if we could be friends. Since college, I've become progressively less open - at least with the general public. The reason is that I've now found my real, lifelong friend base. I have a lot of people I trust, and I know exactly how much I can trust all of them. Having them around makes it unnecessary to confide in people I don't know as well. Plus, I read celebrity blogs, so I have plenty of other bases for conversation.
The problem with this, however, is that it makes it harder to become close to new people. One of the associates at my firm this summer remarked to one of my friends that I had been very guarded during the course of my internship - always friendly, but that I had never let my real personality show (until one night when I apparently let my hair down). I don't think that what he said is fair - I was always perfectly frank and personable. What I wasn't was open about my personal life. I kept that stuff at home.
I think, generally, it's good to be selective about the people you let get close to you. But I think the danger is that in being protective of yourself, you can be exclusive of people who you should let in. It's pretty rare these days that I will find intimate, spontaneous connections with new people. It takes me getting to like someone on a much more superficial level first before I'll even get to the point where I'll be comfortable having a conversation with any sort of depth. I feel like maybe this means that I've erred on the side of over-caution with keeping to myself. Which is sort of a funny conclusion to reach in a blog post about how I feel like I need to keep my mouth shut more.
I think perhaps the real issue is not that I blab about myself too much. I think, actually, this post has made me realize that I've really been keeping most people out, for quite a long time. I think the issue is that I've felt really vulnerable the last few weeks, mostly due to a bad falling out with a friend, and the aftermath of having to explain the situation, my feelings, and updates to all of my friends who want to keep tabs on how I'm doing. So I've got this tender spot, and a number of people know about it. The result is that quite frequently in casual conversation I find myself feeling, well, vulnerable and exposed. Vulnerable because I'm still tender about the underlying situation, and exposed because I'm not sure how much of that vulnerability I want other people to see, even my friends. I don't like letting these people see me this way. I like just being the funny one, who is considerate, who has her shit together, who is a good quality person that people would want to know or be like. It's hard to pull off.
So maybe the solution is threefold. Open myself up a little more to other people, so that I can make better friends, so that I won't care so much if I look like an ass in front of them. And get over this tender spot.
And stop publishing it all on the internet.
When I was a kid, there used to be no limit on what I would tell other people. Because my family moved frequently (about once every 1-2 years), and because I was completely oblivious to pop culture, in most cases all I had to talk about was myself and my history. So I was sort of an information whore. I'd tell anyone almost anything, just to see if we could be friends. Since college, I've become progressively less open - at least with the general public. The reason is that I've now found my real, lifelong friend base. I have a lot of people I trust, and I know exactly how much I can trust all of them. Having them around makes it unnecessary to confide in people I don't know as well. Plus, I read celebrity blogs, so I have plenty of other bases for conversation.
The problem with this, however, is that it makes it harder to become close to new people. One of the associates at my firm this summer remarked to one of my friends that I had been very guarded during the course of my internship - always friendly, but that I had never let my real personality show (until one night when I apparently let my hair down). I don't think that what he said is fair - I was always perfectly frank and personable. What I wasn't was open about my personal life. I kept that stuff at home.
I think, generally, it's good to be selective about the people you let get close to you. But I think the danger is that in being protective of yourself, you can be exclusive of people who you should let in. It's pretty rare these days that I will find intimate, spontaneous connections with new people. It takes me getting to like someone on a much more superficial level first before I'll even get to the point where I'll be comfortable having a conversation with any sort of depth. I feel like maybe this means that I've erred on the side of over-caution with keeping to myself. Which is sort of a funny conclusion to reach in a blog post about how I feel like I need to keep my mouth shut more.
I think perhaps the real issue is not that I blab about myself too much. I think, actually, this post has made me realize that I've really been keeping most people out, for quite a long time. I think the issue is that I've felt really vulnerable the last few weeks, mostly due to a bad falling out with a friend, and the aftermath of having to explain the situation, my feelings, and updates to all of my friends who want to keep tabs on how I'm doing. So I've got this tender spot, and a number of people know about it. The result is that quite frequently in casual conversation I find myself feeling, well, vulnerable and exposed. Vulnerable because I'm still tender about the underlying situation, and exposed because I'm not sure how much of that vulnerability I want other people to see, even my friends. I don't like letting these people see me this way. I like just being the funny one, who is considerate, who has her shit together, who is a good quality person that people would want to know or be like. It's hard to pull off.
So maybe the solution is threefold. Open myself up a little more to other people, so that I can make better friends, so that I won't care so much if I look like an ass in front of them. And get over this tender spot.
And stop publishing it all on the internet.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Week in Review
It's been a good week. We cast the Parody, which was heartbreaking and exciting at the same time. Heartbreaking because some people I really liked didn't make the cut, but exciting because the people who are in the show all seem to be really cool. Also heartbreaking because it means the writing process is basically over (apart from our last scene). I keep feeling the need/desire to re-write things.
Following casting, we had our read-through, and everyone laughed at the right parts (so I guess re-writing isn't as necessary as I want to think it is). No one seemed to get offended (Lexi, the official Parody cast conscience, actually came up after and assured me she thought everything was cool), EXCEPT for one dude, who quit the show. But, he's a religious dude, so I'm just going to assume that means it's funny.
Hooray!
Apart from that, I managed to convince myself that I was going to die alone and lonely no fewer than 3 times in the last 36 hours. Why, you ask, would I do this to myself? Because like 4 or 5 people I know went out of town yesterday and today, and I started to feel like a loser. Not because I had no one else to hang out with, but because I would have to make an effort to hang out with new people. This is something I need to change about myself. I mean, my friends are great, but I need to get over not wanting to talk to new people. It's really just a confidence thing. I never feel like I can't talk to someone - I'm not afraid of approaching people. I'm afraid of engaging in conversation. I always feel the need to steer the convo, and when I don't know the person very well, I don't know where to steer it to. Then I start judging myself for being a lousy conversationalist, and start thinking, dude, if someone else said to me what I just said to this guy, I would think I was a loser. Which then makes me paranoid on top of uninteresting.
In any case, I'm excited for my first string friends to get back.
Following casting, we had our read-through, and everyone laughed at the right parts (so I guess re-writing isn't as necessary as I want to think it is). No one seemed to get offended (Lexi, the official Parody cast conscience, actually came up after and assured me she thought everything was cool), EXCEPT for one dude, who quit the show. But, he's a religious dude, so I'm just going to assume that means it's funny.
Hooray!
Apart from that, I managed to convince myself that I was going to die alone and lonely no fewer than 3 times in the last 36 hours. Why, you ask, would I do this to myself? Because like 4 or 5 people I know went out of town yesterday and today, and I started to feel like a loser. Not because I had no one else to hang out with, but because I would have to make an effort to hang out with new people. This is something I need to change about myself. I mean, my friends are great, but I need to get over not wanting to talk to new people. It's really just a confidence thing. I never feel like I can't talk to someone - I'm not afraid of approaching people. I'm afraid of engaging in conversation. I always feel the need to steer the convo, and when I don't know the person very well, I don't know where to steer it to. Then I start judging myself for being a lousy conversationalist, and start thinking, dude, if someone else said to me what I just said to this guy, I would think I was a loser. Which then makes me paranoid on top of uninteresting.
In any case, I'm excited for my first string friends to get back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
