Even when I lived in NYC, I always felt like I was behind in social trends such as fashion, music, technology, and slang. So the newest idiocy...er I mean idiom to catch me ear this Summer is "Lose My Number." I did some research and found a very fascinating article from The Independent, talking about how the phrase was the top Twitter trend (#losemynumber) in November 2009. Of course, our current younger generations don't have time to type such a long phrase so it has been abbreviated lmn (according to Urban Dictionary). The issue I have with this new pop acronym is the paradoxical hilarity.
Let me back up with a few definitions. Urban Dictionary defines lmn as: "If someone you really don't want to talk to, ever again, keeps calling or texting you and blowing up your phone, Tell them LMN."
***(on a side note, "blowing up your phone" is another phrase I can't stand, but that's a tangent I wont get into here.) ***
The dictionary defines lose as: "To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of." I don't know about you, but to me that translates to "accidentally." I can "unsuccessfully retain my house key" by accident, but I can't purposely lose them. I can intentionally delete or erase a phone number from my phone or address book, but I can't intentionally lose it. Do you see where I'm going with this? Now if I went to a club, got a guys number on a coaster, and then accidentally left the coaster on the table, that would be "losing his number." But if I get the guys number, go home and throw it out cause I have no interest in calling him, that's not "losing" but getting ride of his number.
It is another common misuse of a word in the English Language. What worries me most is what it says about the up and coming generations who create and perpetuate these moronic phrases. Maybe its a parapraxis that shows a deeper feeling of loss and lack of control over someone else "deleting your number." Maybe more people need to go to a college English class instead of just going to bars and hooking up. Maybe they lost their brain and I'll find it with their number somewhere. Until then, don't bother losing my number, I know you're not that talented. As Chad always says, "Peace Out, Sucka!"
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Shattered Conflict
Both Kurt Vonnegut and Margaret Atwood have written amazing essays about storytelling. I would be kidding myself if I thought I could write anything even close to that caliber. Yet I felt that some sort of comparative between plot structure and real life is inevitable for my blog so here it goes...
In high school English we were taught about plot structure. this is the classic story arc we all remember: It starts with the exposition till a major problem hits (also know as the "conflict"). From there we get the rising action, the climax, the falling action, and then the denouement. We all know this is an over simplified version of any story, and even more so of real life, but it is an easy way to section a narrative. then again, maybe we are kidding ourselves in thinking that life is not that simple.
A couple weeks ago at work I experienced a similar plot structure. It was an average day. The characters and setting were introduced via the normal evening shift change. People checked in, found out where they would be working, and standard activity commenced. that is, until Aidan dropped the glasses. It really was like out of a movie. I'm standing there doing my job and then, as if in slow motion, I see 50 glasses crashing to the floor. The dolly had hit a drain and that rut was the beginning of a negative spiral to to rock bottom. the details about the rest of the night are not really important. Simply put, one by one my fellow co workers crashed either physically or mentally. I found myself spending the night picking up the shattered pieces while trying to salvage what was still whole.
Perhaps I am over using this metaphor, but this instance made me think a lot about that initial conflict often cited in a plot narrative study. As I delved deeper into this idea, it made me wonder if I could place the initial conflict in my own life; that one instance where everything started to spiral out of control. that moment in time when my life went into the rising action that's fit for the silver screen. Did I have my own breaking glass incident that started the drama of my life or is the model truly too basic to apply to one's life? Personally, I think it is impossible to analyze a story until you've finished reading it. That being said, I myself will never be able to realize where my initial conflict occurred until my denouement is complete. Maybe it's better that way.
In high school English we were taught about plot structure. this is the classic story arc we all remember: It starts with the exposition till a major problem hits (also know as the "conflict"). From there we get the rising action, the climax, the falling action, and then the denouement. We all know this is an over simplified version of any story, and even more so of real life, but it is an easy way to section a narrative. then again, maybe we are kidding ourselves in thinking that life is not that simple.
A couple weeks ago at work I experienced a similar plot structure. It was an average day. The characters and setting were introduced via the normal evening shift change. People checked in, found out where they would be working, and standard activity commenced. that is, until Aidan dropped the glasses. It really was like out of a movie. I'm standing there doing my job and then, as if in slow motion, I see 50 glasses crashing to the floor. The dolly had hit a drain and that rut was the beginning of a negative spiral to to rock bottom. the details about the rest of the night are not really important. Simply put, one by one my fellow co workers crashed either physically or mentally. I found myself spending the night picking up the shattered pieces while trying to salvage what was still whole.
Perhaps I am over using this metaphor, but this instance made me think a lot about that initial conflict often cited in a plot narrative study. As I delved deeper into this idea, it made me wonder if I could place the initial conflict in my own life; that one instance where everything started to spiral out of control. that moment in time when my life went into the rising action that's fit for the silver screen. Did I have my own breaking glass incident that started the drama of my life or is the model truly too basic to apply to one's life? Personally, I think it is impossible to analyze a story until you've finished reading it. That being said, I myself will never be able to realize where my initial conflict occurred until my denouement is complete. Maybe it's better that way.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Your Move...Check Mate
I was never very good at chess. Whenever someone would say "it's your move" I would tense up. So much pressure mixed with a total lack of skill for the strategy. We've all been there. I mean we can't be good at everything. So what do you do when the game you are less than confident about is the dating game? I've always been a timid one when first meeting a prospective mate. I feel awkward, self conscious, and over all clueless. But just recently I finally sat down and tried to analyze an often under discussed issue: who's job is it to make the first move?
No one wants to look like the fool; no one wants to be rejected. Yet ultimately, someone has to step up to the plate and get the ball rolling. The question is Who. So I went on a mission to discover how society felt on the subject. Most people gave me the easy, I mean generic answers: "I donno" and "depends on the situation." To me that proved that most people were just as lost on this issue as I was. So I kept probing and received a couple of interesting answers. One guy admitted his response was old fashioned, but he still put the responsibility on the guy. I had a handful of girls say the same thing but I believe that is do to their lack of nerve more than anything else. It's always easier to pass the buck. I asked people if age or experience played a factor. If someone is older, are they expected to make the first move because they've been in that situation more? When given this prompt, a lot of people agreed but since it was fed to them I consider that framing bias. When I asked my best friend who should make the first move, he gave me most interesting response. He said it is the responsibility of whomever wants it the most. While this is clearly the most logical answer, most people do not not approach the situation that way.
As always, I tried to apply this concept to my own life. I looked at my past and realized 99% of the time I waited for the other person to make the first move. I assume this stems from my lack of self esteem more than anything else. Yet, that justification did not make me feel any better about my prior actions so I looked to change this vicious cycle. Recently, I started playing the game again. A guy and I had hit the stalemate point; nether of us moving for fear of exposing our most prized piece: our king of pride. I ran through all the scenarios of my research trying to determine who's job it was to make a game changing move. Unfortunately, my findings landed me with conflicting conclusions. He was a guy so maybe it was his responsibility, but I was older so maybe it was mine. How could I determine who wanted it more? Perhaps this was the catch-22.
I wish the moral of this blog could simply be: forget the rules and take matters into your own hands. There's no time like the present. Seize the day...etc etc. But that would make me a hypocrite because I did no such thing. I told myself I would and yet I subconsciously found a a middle man to negotiate the draw. Then again, maybe there's nothing wrong with that approach. If fear of rejection is taken out of the mix, both players can relax and not care who's Queen takes King.
So lets just check and mate.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
You Know What Thomas Wolfe Says...
Don't ask me to repeat the famous quote; I've talked about it a million times on blogs and I don't want to be repetitive. Instead, I want to write something short about my newest revelation from last night.
Home
"Home is where the heart is"
"Home, is this the quite place where you should be alone?"
"Where thou art, that is home"
There are many different quotes and phrases that discuss the notion of home. But for me, I have learned that "Home" is a concept that only resides in the past. You remember what Cinderella said, right? No, not the girl who can't keep her shoes on; the band. They said "Don't know what you got till it's gone." Ignoring the obvious grammatical errors, Tom Keifer has a cliché but valid point. In my experience, I have never felt at home anywhere. It wasn't until I moved to NYC that I found myself missing "my home" (Asheville). But that home was in the past. Yet when I moved back to Asheville, I found myself missing NYC, and feeling "homesick" for it. Now that I'm gone, I think of NYC fondly as a home I once had.
Maybe this is just me. Maybe you are saying to yourself "I've lived in this house, in this town for 5 years. I'm married, with kids, a good job, and a settled life here. Of course I call this my home, and that's in the present tense." I'm not going to argue with you because I've never felt that way so maybe I can't relate. But, I do think this idea is rooted into our culture somewhat. Take Facebook (or any networking site) for example. One of the fields you're asked to fill in is "Hometown." Does anyone actually know what this means? Although people may differ in the definition, I think everyone will agree that this field is populated by a city you used to live in. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that there is another field titled "Current City." So here we see society reaffirming my notion that a home can only be in the past; or at least a hometown.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it is impossible to realize I feel at home somewhere until I've moved on. "Now I know what I got, It's just this song, And it ain't easy to get back, Takes so long." Cinderella knew you could never go home again. Oops, there I go being repetitive....
Home
"Home is where the heart is"
"Home, is this the quite place where you should be alone?"
"Where thou art, that is home"
There are many different quotes and phrases that discuss the notion of home. But for me, I have learned that "Home" is a concept that only resides in the past. You remember what Cinderella said, right? No, not the girl who can't keep her shoes on; the band. They said "Don't know what you got till it's gone." Ignoring the obvious grammatical errors, Tom Keifer has a cliché but valid point. In my experience, I have never felt at home anywhere. It wasn't until I moved to NYC that I found myself missing "my home" (Asheville). But that home was in the past. Yet when I moved back to Asheville, I found myself missing NYC, and feeling "homesick" for it. Now that I'm gone, I think of NYC fondly as a home I once had.
Maybe this is just me. Maybe you are saying to yourself "I've lived in this house, in this town for 5 years. I'm married, with kids, a good job, and a settled life here. Of course I call this my home, and that's in the present tense." I'm not going to argue with you because I've never felt that way so maybe I can't relate. But, I do think this idea is rooted into our culture somewhat. Take Facebook (or any networking site) for example. One of the fields you're asked to fill in is "Hometown." Does anyone actually know what this means? Although people may differ in the definition, I think everyone will agree that this field is populated by a city you used to live in. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that there is another field titled "Current City." So here we see society reaffirming my notion that a home can only be in the past; or at least a hometown.
Maybe it's just me, but I think it is impossible to realize I feel at home somewhere until I've moved on. "Now I know what I got, It's just this song, And it ain't easy to get back, Takes so long." Cinderella knew you could never go home again. Oops, there I go being repetitive....
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Born in the USA
Sorry readers, it has been a while since my last post. Part of it is because I haven't been inspired. The other part is because blogging is a dangerous activity that people try to use against you. But rather than live in fear of what I say, I am back blogging about my newest quandary: "American Idol"
The name alone sparks issues. It is said that more people vote for "American Idol" than president of the United States. Whether or not that's true, the concept of the show brings about one main assumption: the public votes for who they want to see as the new Music Star. Although this sounds simple, the concept itself is very flawed. the idea is that people are voting for the next big thing. As history has proved, it doesn't work out that way. I am not trying to say that Idol winners have not reached a level of fame otherwise unachievable. Yet I do think it is hard to argue that they have become the "Idols" that you would think with the amount of votes/American support they receive. The easy example is Ruben Studdard. He beat out Clay Aiken whom we all know has become way more successful. Even people like Fantasia have had to resort to VH1 reality TV shows to keep her fame and payroll. I am not denying that each and everyone of these Idols are talented. I am trying to make an observation about the voting public
Remember high school elections? Remember how the most popular person won, rather than the best qualified? I think that is sort of the case here. The contestants of Idol are not allowed to compete with their own music. Instead, week after week, they are told to sing a song that fits the day's theme. Therefore, the voting public never gets a real sense of the singer's music, but rather how they sound singing other genres and classic tunes. Once an artist gets out into the recording world, his/her sound differs greatly from the famous music they were forced to sing on Idol. Quickly, the American public realizes they have no interest in this singer's "sound" and record sales decrease. This has nothing to do with the talent of the artist, but rather the design of the system that has propelled them to fame. People aren't voting for the musician they like best, but rather the singing voice and personality that appeals to them. How many people go into a record store (or iTunes for this day and age) and base there purchases solely on those 2 criteria?
Maybe I'm bias cause I don't watch the show but I really don't see the logic in it. I spend 3 days a week riding around in my best friend's car with the radio blasting. Can you guess how many times I've heard a Taylor Hicks song? And in case you think I've been living under a rock, I just youtubed him and more videos from American Idol showed up than his actual singles. What does that tell you? But let me know how you think.
The name alone sparks issues. It is said that more people vote for "American Idol" than president of the United States. Whether or not that's true, the concept of the show brings about one main assumption: the public votes for who they want to see as the new Music Star. Although this sounds simple, the concept itself is very flawed. the idea is that people are voting for the next big thing. As history has proved, it doesn't work out that way. I am not trying to say that Idol winners have not reached a level of fame otherwise unachievable. Yet I do think it is hard to argue that they have become the "Idols" that you would think with the amount of votes/American support they receive. The easy example is Ruben Studdard. He beat out Clay Aiken whom we all know has become way more successful. Even people like Fantasia have had to resort to VH1 reality TV shows to keep her fame and payroll. I am not denying that each and everyone of these Idols are talented. I am trying to make an observation about the voting public
Remember high school elections? Remember how the most popular person won, rather than the best qualified? I think that is sort of the case here. The contestants of Idol are not allowed to compete with their own music. Instead, week after week, they are told to sing a song that fits the day's theme. Therefore, the voting public never gets a real sense of the singer's music, but rather how they sound singing other genres and classic tunes. Once an artist gets out into the recording world, his/her sound differs greatly from the famous music they were forced to sing on Idol. Quickly, the American public realizes they have no interest in this singer's "sound" and record sales decrease. This has nothing to do with the talent of the artist, but rather the design of the system that has propelled them to fame. People aren't voting for the musician they like best, but rather the singing voice and personality that appeals to them. How many people go into a record store (or iTunes for this day and age) and base there purchases solely on those 2 criteria?
Maybe I'm bias cause I don't watch the show but I really don't see the logic in it. I spend 3 days a week riding around in my best friend's car with the radio blasting. Can you guess how many times I've heard a Taylor Hicks song? And in case you think I've been living under a rock, I just youtubed him and more videos from American Idol showed up than his actual singles. What does that tell you? But let me know how you think.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
If you can’t beat them, join them?
The question today is do you play the game and win or stick to your morals and loose? Sometimes, is it better just to win even if that win seems hollow and empty? Are you really winning? And even if it doesn’t really feel like a win to you, maybe playing along for that battle will allow you to ultimately win your own war. Of course, can you feel okay about how you won the war knowing you sold yourself to win a few battles? For example, does a successful and ethical CEO ever feel truly happy knowing he cheated a bit in college to get where he is now? I mean, we all play the game a bit, it’s a given. The question is how far are you willing to bend over backwards to get where you want to be. And when you get there, can you ever really enjoy it while your ass is still hurting from all the times you were screwed?
I don’t believe in regrets but I’ve been looking at my life and I’m upset with how I handled a lot of conflict situations. Often, I didn’t stand up for the people or ideas that I believed in. These were the minority and I always figured not ruffling feathers or getting involved was the best approach. Looking back I am appalled that I took the easy way out and have been focusing on not making that mistake in the future. I don’t want to appear argumentative, but I also don’t think staying quiet is really helping anyone. Of course, it is always about comparing the size of the win with the casualties of the battle. Some battles really aren’t worth fighting. But sometimes, I just feel like we all get too complacent, too tolerant of others negative behavior. By not causing a commotion, we are condoning their harmful and narcissistic actions and allowing them to continue. Do we passively go along with the notion that the son revolves around us so we don‘t look like the bad guy? Or do we chose to appear like raving idiots, standing up and exclaiming that we are not the center of the universe. For me, I think standing by my convictions is the most important thing because at the end of the day I have to live with myself. Well the battle is about to begin so I should go get my weapons ready for attack. You know what they say is the best defense.bb..
I don’t believe in regrets but I’ve been looking at my life and I’m upset with how I handled a lot of conflict situations. Often, I didn’t stand up for the people or ideas that I believed in. These were the minority and I always figured not ruffling feathers or getting involved was the best approach. Looking back I am appalled that I took the easy way out and have been focusing on not making that mistake in the future. I don’t want to appear argumentative, but I also don’t think staying quiet is really helping anyone. Of course, it is always about comparing the size of the win with the casualties of the battle. Some battles really aren’t worth fighting. But sometimes, I just feel like we all get too complacent, too tolerant of others negative behavior. By not causing a commotion, we are condoning their harmful and narcissistic actions and allowing them to continue. Do we passively go along with the notion that the son revolves around us so we don‘t look like the bad guy? Or do we chose to appear like raving idiots, standing up and exclaiming that we are not the center of the universe. For me, I think standing by my convictions is the most important thing because at the end of the day I have to live with myself. Well the battle is about to begin so I should go get my weapons ready for attack. You know what they say is the best defense.bb..
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Age Discrimination
So lately I've been looking into the dating websites. I sincerely believe they are incapable of doing what they advertise and their only use is to find weird people to talk to. But this blog is not about the inefficiency of those dating sites but about age. Where should I start?
After scavenging a handful of dating websites I noted a pretty common feature. When searching for people/matches/dates you are asked to put it a short list of criteria: male/female, how far away they live, must have a photo (yes or no), when they were last online, and an age range. Obviously, I'm going to talk about the latter.
I'm not sure how many of you reading this have used sites like this before, but it has really made me think a lot about where you draw the age line. Ok, let's back up. When you are in high school it is a big deal if a senior dates a freshman. But when you look at your parents, it is not at all unacceptable for them to be 10 years apart. So where does that leave those of us (like me) in the middle? I sit there, staring at my screen, wondering what is too young or too old to date.
Well, I know anyone under 18 is a no but what about the odd 18-20 range. They can't drink yet so that can be messy but still not a deal breaker. But what about maturity? I met a really sweet 18 year old but it was more than apparent of his innocence. So if not 18, what about 19, or 20? I once heard a rule about dating younger. It says take half you age and add 7. Hmm..(24/2) + 7 = 19. Well, I guess that solves that??
So what about the question "how old is too old?" Is 30 too old? Well surely 30 isn't too old because I met a 31 year old the other day and he didn't seem much older than me. So if 31 is okay, then what about 32? 33? 34? 35?....I mean where do you cut it off? How can anyone be expected to go to a dating site and say "no one older than 33; that's my cutoff."
I understand that age is just a number and it has much more to do with what stage your are at in life and maybe your overall maturity. I also think it has to do with your personality. For example, my friend Stephen has a thing for older women. I believe it is because he is VERY intelligent for his age and he is used to his "peers" being people who were older than him. As for me, I've always had a thing for younger guys. Whether it be an old high school boyfriend who's 2 years younger, or rocker who's 21. Granted, that's not a huge age difference, but I think it's important to note my motherly personality is naturally attracted to boys younger than myself.
Overall, my point of of all of this is to make YOU think about your own age range. How easily could you come up with definitive caps to your age requirements? Can you really just sit down and say: "39 is ok, but 40 is too old." I know you can't so don't even lie to yourself. Seriously, spend a few minutes thinking about it. I think you will realize that it's an interesting quandary.
After scavenging a handful of dating websites I noted a pretty common feature. When searching for people/matches/dates you are asked to put it a short list of criteria: male/female, how far away they live, must have a photo (yes or no), when they were last online, and an age range. Obviously, I'm going to talk about the latter.
I'm not sure how many of you reading this have used sites like this before, but it has really made me think a lot about where you draw the age line. Ok, let's back up. When you are in high school it is a big deal if a senior dates a freshman. But when you look at your parents, it is not at all unacceptable for them to be 10 years apart. So where does that leave those of us (like me) in the middle? I sit there, staring at my screen, wondering what is too young or too old to date.
Well, I know anyone under 18 is a no but what about the odd 18-20 range. They can't drink yet so that can be messy but still not a deal breaker. But what about maturity? I met a really sweet 18 year old but it was more than apparent of his innocence. So if not 18, what about 19, or 20? I once heard a rule about dating younger. It says take half you age and add 7. Hmm..(24/2) + 7 = 19. Well, I guess that solves that??
So what about the question "how old is too old?" Is 30 too old? Well surely 30 isn't too old because I met a 31 year old the other day and he didn't seem much older than me. So if 31 is okay, then what about 32? 33? 34? 35?....I mean where do you cut it off? How can anyone be expected to go to a dating site and say "no one older than 33; that's my cutoff."
I understand that age is just a number and it has much more to do with what stage your are at in life and maybe your overall maturity. I also think it has to do with your personality. For example, my friend Stephen has a thing for older women. I believe it is because he is VERY intelligent for his age and he is used to his "peers" being people who were older than him. As for me, I've always had a thing for younger guys. Whether it be an old high school boyfriend who's 2 years younger, or rocker who's 21. Granted, that's not a huge age difference, but I think it's important to note my motherly personality is naturally attracted to boys younger than myself.
Overall, my point of of all of this is to make YOU think about your own age range. How easily could you come up with definitive caps to your age requirements? Can you really just sit down and say: "39 is ok, but 40 is too old." I know you can't so don't even lie to yourself. Seriously, spend a few minutes thinking about it. I think you will realize that it's an interesting quandary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)