| (no subject) |
[May. 12th, 2006|12:22 am] |
Fuck. I was totally against joining the Marines, but when i found out you got this sweet photo of yourself when you get killed...
 |
|
|
| probably the funniest thing i've read this month/maybe year |
[Apr. 27th, 2006|03:43 am] |
MY OBSERVATIONAL
COMEDY BITS THAT
CONTINUALLY BOMB
IN COMEDY CLUBS.
BY DAN KENNEDY
- - - -
1.
Guys, you ever do that thing where your girlfriend is out of the room, and you think she's not going to be back for a while, so you're kind of relaxing and not really thinking she'll be back anytime soon, so you start to envision the entire rest of your lives together, and you feel this huge heavy weight in your chest and you want to cry for some reason, but you also feel happy and glad to have crossed paths in this life? What's up with that? You're thinking about life and love and everything, and you can see the both of you from the point of being innocent kids, then teenagers, then adults, then middle-aged adults, then aging, then gone and only photos of your lives left behind? And you're wondering who will be there to look at the photos? Like, will you have kids? Will the photos just end up at a flea market? (Start goofing around with crowd a little bit. Do the thing where you make up a name: say, "I mean, hello? What is my name? Saddy McSadders?") Yeah, you guys in the crowd know what I'm talking about! Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about! And you feel like you're going to cry or drink or both, but then she comes back in to the room way sooner than you thought and you're, like, kinda freaking out and trying to hide it? (Point at a couple sitting in audience and say, "Yeah! Look at this guy! He knows what I'm talking about!")
2.
What's up with death? It's like: Hello? My body's going to stop working entirely at some point and nobody knows where you go after you cease to exist in this physical realm? And there may even be a chance that nothing at all happens and you don't "go" anywhere? What's up with that? Hello? (Make silly "confused" face and hold hands up like you need crowd to help you understand death.)
3.
I feel sorry for married guys. (For some reason, this opening line almost always gets a little laugh. So wait for it—and two, and three, and pick [beat] it [beat] up.) I mean, what's up with being married when you could be drinking and comparing your life to a wealthy actor's life, then going to bed and having super-vivid fantasies of what it would be like to have sex with the girl that works at the bar down the street from your apartment? (Then do this: knock on the top of the microphone with a loose fist so it sounds like somebody knocking on a door and maybe make deadpan face and say, "Bueller? Bueller?" or maybe yell in an angry voice, "Fact: Brian Wilson lost his mind when he was 28.")
4.
(Time to interact with someone in crowd a little bit.) Hello there, where are you from? Ah, New York. Born and raised? And how about your date there, the handsome gentleman you're with this evening, New York as well? Well ... you're both the kind of people I wish I could be, or could have as friends. Oddly enough, I will think about you two pretty often over the next few months from time to time, not even knowing your names, just remembering what you two look like. And I'll ascribe characteristics to each of you, values and qualities that I long for and fail to see in myself. I will, strangely enough, start to actually base my self-worth on what I think you would or wouldn't say about what I've done with my life. In some of the moments when I ponder the two of you, I'll imagine a breakup scenario that allows you (gesture to the woman) and me to start dating and reminiscing about how we met in a comedy club when I was onstage. If I think the fantasy all the way through, I'll realize that, more than making love to you, I want to simply be you. It won't figure into my sexuality at all, which is to say, it's not that I'm a man wanting to be a woman so he can make love to men.
(Ask crowd if they're having a good time tonight, and if they could make some noise. Then resume bit.)
It won't even register as some sort of fetish—it's not like I want to dress as you or anything. It's just that I'll realize I want to have these qualities that I've given you in my mind; mainly, this sort of innocent freedom of spirit without the trappings of guilt or paralyzing self-analysis. I will, for a moment, think that you were quite possibly the love of my life, and that, most likely, I missed my chance at taking the risk to tell you so. I will resolve all of this internal struggle by purchasing a modest secondhand motorcycle and riding it in the Rocky Mountains near Basalt, Colorado.
That's my time, you guys!
I've been Dan Kennedy and you've been great!
Put your hands together and keep it going for (name of next comedian on list)! |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Apr. 21st, 2006|12:03 am] |
hmmm
woke up this mornin' and went to check my email, but was pleasently surprised by Google:::
Miro's dead... right? birthday? Either way, you gotta give google props, at least their design people.
got a new shipment of blank DVDs in from newegg and i think you know that means... time to build my pirate collection! recently burned: Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus, Repulsion, Le Notti Bianche, Grand Illusion, Metropolitan, Masculin Feminin, Deep Red.
fiery furnaces' Benton Harbor Blues = jangely as fuck. they can sure write a tune, even if their latest is some-what of a disappointment.
ciao bellas |
|
|
| the bell rings: no no no no no no no no no no |
[Mar. 25th, 2006|12:50 am] |
btw, way to blow an amazing show. YOU KNOW WHO U ARE!
new pronographers were spot (fucking) on tonight. i'd have to say they're def. one of the best acts touring these days. though i benefited from a small venue.
also, they're really down to earth (cliche, but TURE) i toasted the bassist to a great sounding show and we bonded over a whisky sour and corona.
cheers-
ajs |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Mar. 13th, 2006|08:36 pm] |
whew
i stayed up for 10+ hours straight 12am-7am, 10am-11:30am, 12pm-2pm working on a philosophy 368 which i was seriously unqualified to write. perhaps against better judgment, i chose to write on Kant's Transcendental Deduction which Dr. Hudson made clear was an extremely difficult topic, compared to writing on Kant's Second Analogy (causation). I had no idea how I going to fill 12 pages and I thought I could write a lot more on Kant's Transecendntal Deduction than on the Second Analogy. OMFG, after finishing that paper you begin to realize you really shouldn't take anything Kant says for truth, because HE SUCH A BAD WRITER/ARGUER THAT HE CAN BARELY CONVINCE HIMSELF OF WHAT HE'S SAYING. Kant admit that the Transcendental Deduction casued him more labor than any other problem he has worked on. My friends, I give you one of the most amazing exercises of BS. Yes, itis posssible for someone to write a 12 page paper on Kant's Transcendental Deduction and not have any idea what the fuck they are saying. If you can understand any of this... well, I guarentee you won't understand any of this:
In the Metaphysical Deduction, Kant gave us the logical table of judgments with the intention of showing that all of our objects of sensible intuition as well as the objects of human sensibility must conform to the four possible categories in order for us to have any knowledge of them. Kant introduces the Transcendental Deduction in both B and A editions to take care of the worry that
“[a]ppearances might very well be so constituted that the understanding should not find them to be in accordance with the Conditions of its unity. Everything might be in such confusion that, for instance, in the series of appearances nothing presented itself which might yield a rule of synthesis and so answer to the concept of cause and effect. This concept would then be altogether empty, null, and meaningless.”
That is, to say, we would be bombarded by a multitude of appearances and would not be able to make any sense of them because they would not conform to an a priori rule of thought which would allow us to have knowledge or understanding of the appearances.
The Transcendental Deduction in the B edition can be broken down into two parts so that each part yields a conclusion, that together, yield a single proof of the Transcendental Deduction. This first part will connect the categories from the logical table of judgments in the Metaphysical Deduction with the objects of sensible intuition; showing that the objects of sensible intuition must fall into those categories. The reconstruction of the first part is as follows:
1) It must be possible for the I think to accompany all my representations.
2) If (1), then [all of the manifold of intuitions has a necessary relation to the I think in the same subject as the manifold is found.](P)
3) If (P) the for each representation given to me through intuition, it must be possible for me to represent reflectively that that representation is mine.
4) This act of reflective representation is an act of pure apperception.
5) So, for each representation give to me from intuition it must be possible for me to engage in the act of pure apperception or original apperception.
6) If (5), then [my pure apperception or original apperception has transcendental unity.](Q)
7) If (Q), then [I can become aware of the identity of my self consciousness.](R)
8) If (R), then [I can unite a manifold of given representations in one consciousness.](S)
9) If S, then there is an a priori synthesis of all my given representations.
10) So, there is an a priori synthesis of all my given representations. [5 - 9]
So far, in the first six premises, Kant has introduced a very important concept in the Transcendental Deduction; he has given us the principle of apperception. Essentially, what Kant is saying up to this point is that the parts of a complex thought must be connected so that it is possible for them to be ascribed to a single thinking subject which means that they make up a synthetic unity. The worry that comes up, however, is in the analyticity of the principle of apperception. Critics point out that the principle of apperception is synthetic rather than analytic. Guyer argues that Kant specifically refers to the principle of apperception as synthetic in a footnote of the Transcendental Deduction in the A edition which states “[t]he synthetic proposition, that every different empirical consciousness must be combined into a single self-consciousness is the absolutely first and synthetic principle of our thinking in general.” However, Allison does a good job of refuting this by pointing out that what makes Guyer’s example synthetic “is its connection with time and possible experience, not its connection with synthetic unity as such.”
Taking this into consideration with our reconstruction we must decide on how to restrict the term “representations” so that it keep its analyticity. In the first premise, Kant is trying to say that for all X’s, if X is one of my representations, then possibly, I reflectively attach the I think to X (i.e. (X)[(if X is one of my representations then possibly I reflectively attach the I think to X)] ). We must restrict the term “representations” to render what Kant is trying say analytic, otherwise, Kant will not be successful in connecting the categories from the logical table of judgments with the objects of sensible intuition. There are two ways we can restrict the term “representation” to make what Kant is trying to say analytic and we shall refer to the new definition of representation as “representation*.” The first possible restriction is that (2)all of my representations* have determinable objects and the second is: (3)all of my representations* can be thought under the concept “my representation.” Which ever one we choose, it will render the other interpretation synthetic. The worry I’m alluding to is that all of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction works off the (3) interpretation (especially in premise 3), but Kant needs interpretation (2) to successfully show the necessity of the categories with respect to the objects of sensible intuition. Keeping this in mind we shall continue our reconstruction of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction and show at the end why the (2) restriction of representation is necessary.
11) If (10), then all the manifold of my sensible intuition is subject to the conditions of the original synthetic unity of apperception.
12) These conditions are a priori concepts which unify the manifold for all my sensible intuition.
13) So, all the manifold of my sensible intuition is subject to a priori concepts through which that manifold is unified. [10, 11, 12]
14) Any concept through which the manifold of a sensible intuition is unified is a concept of an object and is objectively valid.
Here, Kant begins to link the principle of apperception with understanding. Premise (13) shows us that we can view all concepts as analytic unities. According to Allison, what connects apperception to understanding is that the “I think is itself the thought of what is common to all conceptualization, which is what makes it ‘in all consciousness one and the same’” and “the act of becoming aware of this identical I think is the form of the act of reflection, by means of which the mind grasps the identity in difference in the formation of general concepts.” The fact that one is consciously doing this synthesis is therefore consciousness of thinking and from this we can see the beginnings of a model for the analysis of understanding.
15) So all the manifold of my sensible intuition is subject to a priori concepts which are concepts of an object and which are objectively valid. [13, 14]
16) Subjecting a manifold of sensible intuition to a priori objectively valid concepts of an object consists in necessarily determining the manifold by the logical functions of judgment.
Here, Kant makes a pivotal move that allows him to connect the synthetic unity of apperception with the judgments. Allison writes that “insofar as the manifold of a given intuition is grasped as a manifold or brought to the synthetic unity of apperception, it is, by this very act, also unified in a judgment.” From here it is rather easy for Kant to hook this all up the logical table of judgments from the Metaphysical Deduction since the manifold of sensible intuition is determined by the manifold by the logical functions of judgment, it follows that premises (17) and (18) will connect the manifold of sensible intuition with the categories.
17) The logical functions of judgment are the categories.
18) So, all the manifold of my sensible intuition is necessarily determined by the categories.
What the first part of the Transcendental Deduction shows is that understanding is connects representations* to an object by employing understanding. “[S]ince this functions consists in determining what is given in intuition in a fixed manner for judgment, it also shows that the logical functions, considered as functioning in this way, are categories.” However, the first part of the Transcendental Deduction does not connect human sensibility with these categories and thus, the second part of the Transcendental Deduction in the B edition tries to connect the categories with human sensibility and its objects (i.e. show that all objects of human sensibility will conform with the categories of the logical table of judgments given in the Metaphysical Deduction). The formal argument for this is given in the following form:
1) Space and time are not only forms of intuition, but also formal intuitions (i.e. determinable objects of knowledge).
It must be noted that what Kant is trying to do—by using space and time in conjunction with the Transcendental Aesthetic—is to link the categories with apprehension which he assumes is occurring when perceptions are made in the manifold of time and space. Allison notes that “[r]ather than arguing that perception involves an imaginative synthesis…Kant simply assumes this to be the case and devotes his efforts to showing that it, like the transcendental synthesis of the imagination, is subject to the categories.”
2) If (1), then a restriction to the spatio-temporal manifold is that it is subject to a synthetic unity.
3) So, a restriction to the spatio-temporal manifold is that it is subject to a synthetic unity. [1, 2]
4) If something is presented in the spatio-temporal manifold, then it must conform to all the restriction of the spatio-temporal manifold.
Though it is not mentioned by Kant, he is referring to a perception that would thus be restricted by the restriction on the spatio-temporal manifold. This perception would simply be perceiving something’s shape or its location (in the case of space).
5) All of my intuitions (representations and representations*) are presented in the spatio-temporal manifold.
6) So, all of my intuitions (representations and representations* alike) must conform to a synthetic unity.
7) “This synthetic unity can be no other than the unity of the combination of the manifold of a given intuition in general in an original consciousness in accordance with the categories.”
Allison notes that in premise (7), Kant makes an important assumption that “the unity required for apprehension is an application to human sensibility of the unity of the manifold of an intuition in general that is required for apperception.” This assumption would connect perception and experience in the spatio-temporal manifold to the categories.
8) So, all of my intuitions (representations and representations* alike) must conform to the categories.
To take a bit of a detour, I would like to go back to why we chose representation* in the (2) sense over representation* in the (3) sense. Now that we’re done with—at least—the reconstruction of the Transcendental Deduction in the B edition, we can see why restricting the term “representation” to representation* in the (2) sense (i.e. all of my representations* have determinable objects) is better than in the (3) sense of the term. Without restricting representations to mean representations* in the (2) sense, we would be host to an infinite regress of representations. A formal proof to that effect is as follows:
1) Necessarily, for all X’s, if X is one of my representation*’s, then possibly I reflectively attach the I think to X (i.e. □(X)[ if X is one of my representation*’s, then possibly I reflectively attach the I think to X] ) (towards reductio).
2) I have an intuitive representation* whose name is I-1 who takes as its object my cat Shadow.
3) Hence, this is the same world in which I think I-1 under the concept “my representation.”
4) If (3), then (5).
5) Hence, in world 1 I am the subject of at least two representations*: I-1 and I-2.
6) Hence, there is some world, W-2, in which I think I-2 under the concept “my representation.”
7) If (6), then (8).
8) Hence, in W-2 I can be the subject of at least three representations*: I-1, I-2 and I-3.
9) The pattern of reasoning in (1) - (8) can be extended for that any number, n, there is some world, W-n, in which I am the subject of at least n+1 distinct representations*.
10) If (9), then (11).
11) Hence, there is no limit to the number of distinct representations* of which I can be the subject.
12) There is some limit to the number of distinct representations* of which I can be the subject. [Contradiction]
What this proof shows is that the interpretation of representation* in the (2) sense is preferable to the one in the (3) sense because if we chose to argue with the interpretation in the (3) sense, then it would leave us with an infinite regress where we would subject to an infinite number of representations*. One could argue for the interpretation of representations* in the (3) sense by claiming that it is entirely possible that we can be subject to an infinite number of representations*, but I strongly disagree with this claim because I would challenge anyone to try to hold a mere 100,000 intuitions at any one time. This cannot be done and there is no reason to believe that it can be done infinitely as well.
With that out of the way, we can return to analyzing the whole of the Transcendental Deduction as completed by the second part. While seemingly fluid, there is a problem with the connection of perception to experience which Kant makes no argument for. This essentially boils down to whether or not we think Kant has completed what he has set out to prove. In one reading, if he can show that “from the way in which the empirical intuition is given in sensibility that its unity can be none other than the one that the category prescribes to the manifold of an intuition in general” then the connection of perception and experience is not necessary and Kant has successfully argued for the Transcendental Deduction and avoided the “gap problem” by showing that presentable perception is also categorically determined perception. However, if we read Kant’s goal in the Transcendental Deduction as explaining “the possibility of cognizing a priori though categories whatever objects may come before our senses…as far as the laws of their combination are concerned, thus the possibility of as it were prescribing the law to nature and even making the latter possible,” then he must defend his connection of perception with experience. As usual, the conclusion that Kant draws is not the one that gets him the Transcendental Deduction, but the second one which requires further support.
Allison also points out that whether Kant has successfully argued for the Transcendental Deduction also depends on his definition of “experience.” If experience is taken to have perception as a necessary component, then it becomes clear that if Kant has shown that the categories are conditions of experience then he would, in this sense, have completed the same goal if he had concluded the Transcendental Deduction according to the first reading given above. However, if one takes the view that perception and experience are two entirely different phenomena (which is how Kant defines experience), then showing that the categories are conditions of experience would not hook perception (which happens before experience) with the categories and fail to take care of the “gap problem.” Kant tries to salvage what he has by giving us two examples in hopes of clarifying either one of the two aforementioned ambiguities. The first basically states that “only as the result of such a determination as time, which is presumably accomplished by the transcendental synthesis of the imagination, is it possible to apprehend a determinate sequence of perceptions in time.” The second comes from a conclusion based on the first which parallels the functions of the categories of quantity (quantity of time in the first case) and causality. What is unexpected is that Kant never mentions anything about experience which would directly relate to the problem at hand. Instead he argues about apprehension and perception which allows him to merely hook rules of apprehension to the categories. Allison states it best when he admits that the Transcendental Deduction is “at best only partly successful, establishing merely a role for the categories as rules of apprehension or…that Kant himself was unclear about both the nature and the scope of his argument.”
With that said, there are two other ways one might try to rescue the Transcendental Deduction from its disappointing implications. One way would be to claim that showing the categories as conditions of experience was already demonstrated in the first part of the Transcendental Deduction and that the leaving the second part of the deduction to deals merely with perceptions. Another advance at saving the Transcendental Deduction argues the point of the Transcendental Deduction is just to confirm the validity of each category and that solving the “gap problem” is left for later parts of the Critique. Allison denies both of these attempts by pointing out that, in the first case, Kant still has not proven the categories as conditions for experience in the first Deduction and, in the second case, Kant doesn’t even manage to confirm the validity of each category.
Using the reconstruction we came up with in class and integrating it with Allison’s insights into the problems and successes (but mostly problems) of the Transcendental Deduction, the fact arises that Kant only partially “fills the gap problem” in the Transcendental Deduction. He is able to connect apprehension or perception to the categories of quantity and causality, but these connections do not guarantee that every appearance that is presentable is necessarily determinable under the categories of logical judgment from the Metaphysical Deduction. It’s a little disappointing that Kant and his most faithful commentators (i.e. Henry E. Allison) go through large amounts of trouble to create and reconstruct the Transcendental Deduction only find that it comes up short (I myself kept up hope even until the bleakest of moments that Allison would rescue the Transcendental Deduction from Kant’s impenetrable jumbling). However, at the risk of sounding extraordinarily trite (I’m new to the whole Kant thing so I deserves at least one pass), in the words of The Rolling Stones: “you Kant always get what you want.” |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 14th, 2006|04:46 pm] |
Everyone should check this out! |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Feb. 14th, 2006|03:13 pm] |
A few things:
---Just downloaded the new Flaming Lips LP, 'At War With the Mystics' and I haven't had a lot of time to get into it but, it just sounds OK. Also downloaded a recent Jeff Tweedy show where he played some new Loose Fur (which I regret to admit is also "just OK") and explains what the hell a 'cherry ghost' is (check the song Theologians from A Ghost is Born). Tweedy is amazing live and Theologians and Spiders really lend themselves well to Tweedy's solo acoustic treatment.
---Waited forever for a Netflix dvd and when i get it in the mail it looks like this:
WTF!?
I doubt Netflix would send it in the mail like that. Doesn't the Dept. of Homeland Security have better things to be doing than checking my Netflix rentals? I looks like someone spent some time patching it up with scotch tape though and the DVD was in good shape. File it under 'Unsolved Mysteries...'
---LJ icon Q&A:
Q: Alex, what's goin on in your icon?
A: That's a photo taken in broad daylight of the sub-machine gun wielding bandits stealing Edward Munch's 'Madonna' and 'The Scream' from a museum. Apparently, the scream has been stolen twice before in the past by this guy who is obsessed with it. On the second occasion he had it stolen but let the people that did the job keep it because he just wanted it stolen.
---Google's form spell check is a lifesaver even if it probably sends whatever i write to a central database to be subpoenaed (spelled correctly with the assitance of Google!) by the DHS some day. |
|
|
| okay, here me out... |
[Feb. 5th, 2006|02:02 am] |
Recently, the voters of WA state--en masse--decided to ban smoking in public/business places. this was truly a moment of the majority exercising their democratic right to say a big 'Fuck You' all the pricks who think its their right to blow carcinogens into our faces and take part in a truly disgusting habit that any person with an IQ over 50 would abstain from.
BUT, little bitches like CASA QUE PASA think they over ride our democratic system and publicly exhibit their flagrant disregard for our democracy AND the general good of the public by denouncing the smoking ban, and hence, not enforcing it.
OH MY LORD WERE THEY IN A WORLD OF PAIN
that's right
i strolled in to C.Q.P. and low and behold there's a type A fuck-up taking up an entire table to himself and smoking away in the face of the very glue that holds our country together. BAD IDEA!!!!!
that's right
I fuckin' called Bellingham PD and had his bitch-ass thrown out of C.Q.P. and the very establishment that made possible his terroristic behavior was given a big ol' fine for fuckin' with the wrong bad ass (i.e. ME!).
C.P.Q.: 0
Alex "Fucking" Sanchez: 1
---end of story--- |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 9th, 2006|12:28 am] |
| [ | mood |
| |  anxious | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Akron/Family - I'll Be on the Water | ] |
Slash and burn agriculture (also known more neutrally as shifting cultivation or swidden-fallow agriculture) is an agricultural system widely used in forested areas.
Agricultural plots are selected and the vegetation is cut and allowed to dry. Large trees are often girdled and allowed to die standing. After some period of time (a week to a few months) the dry vegetation is burned. Plots are cultivated for a few seasons (usually 1-5 years) and then abandoned as fertility declines and weeds invade.
Burning removes the vegetation and releases a pulse of nutrients which fertilize the soil. Ash also increases the pH of the soil, a process which makes certain nutrients (especially phosphorus) more available.
For my sake, we'll call it shifting cultivation. Although, "swidden-fallow" has an almost aristocratic flair to it.
Does anybody else notice that it is really windy outside? |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jan. 8th, 2006|07:53 pm] |
Tork also hates that gay emo shit. |
|
|
| Shameless Self Promotion (but isn't that the whole point of LJ?) |
[Oct. 24th, 2005|10:13 pm] |
I've been deficit spending my time on art hobbies. I made a semidecent collage from a couple NY Times newspapers and I plan on painting over them with encaustic paints--Jasper Johns style. Usually, encaustic paint is expensive because it takes a lot of "gear" to melt the wax and keep it from exploding and killing everything, but my Art History prof. told me that the cheap way is to melt crayons as use that as the medium. I bought some tinfoil from Fred Meyer and I'm gonna impovise a double boiler by putting the crayons in the foil over a boiling pot of water. I also have 6 boxes of crayons just waiting to be liquified.
About a week ago I remixed the Deerhoof song RRRRRRIGHT, from their new album. You can download it from their Kill Rock Stars website (mine's the ALEX SANCHEZ REMIX. I know, not very creative of a title). I also got my LSAT scores back and I'm satisfied with the results (scoring in the top 20%). It's a gamble applying to UW, Berkely or NYU, but Seattle University is a fall-back.
MUSIC:
Silver Jews - Tanglewood Numbers (enlightening, often quotable)
Animal Collective - Feels (primal)
Deerhoof - The Runners Four (joyride)
Having ANIMAL COLLECTIVE and DEERHOOF songs stuck in your head = public embarassment when you get caught reciting silly melodies.
MOVIES/MOVERS:
Junebug - Great characters and acting. Look out for Will Oldhamn (Bonnie 'Prince' Billie) as the Civil War artist.
Grizzly Man - duh
Paris, Texas - Recommended by ANDREW. Chilling/exceptional ending.
Found a VICE magazine at KATIE'S apartment, was brought back to when VADIM first showed me one in NY. She also had the latest copy of THE BELIEVER, which looks really good.
Looking forward to kickstarting my modeling career (THAT'S RIGHT!!)
EVERYONE SHOULD BE LISTENING TO: O'Malley, Former Underdog |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 2nd, 2005|07:22 pm] |
One summer night Andrew, his friend Joe and I decided to visit WA states most haunted sites according to a few internet websites. We were prepared to document any paranormal activity with my brother's DV camcorder. Short story is that we didn't across anything supernatural, but we all bonded a little and even managed to find some time to gamble at three in the morning.
Anyways, with what little, unfocused, and shakey footage we gleaned, I put together a small tribute to that night worthy of a French title! <-- (allusion) It's best viewed with the lights turned off for effect and so you can see more.
Cimetière
P.S. I excluded the scenes with the creepy old big band songs on the radio. I'm really disappointed about that so, I might make another version. |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Oct. 1st, 2005|09:49 pm] |
Wow, look at our troops invading that sinister looking... Mosque. Way to go Boeing for having the most inept advertising. It still shocks me how culturally unaware our country is. UNLESS, that is, the new Boeing Osprey helecopter is designed to neutralize Muslem holy sites. In that case, BRING IT ON! |
|
|
| HAAHAHAHAHHAA BITCHES!!! |
[Aug. 30th, 2005|11:13 pm] |
Right now U R reading the LJ of ROYALTY!!!!!!
A few weeks ago we challenged ourselves with the goal of a Red Hook Trivia Night Championship and who slaughters the competition???? TEAM I (heart) PBR!
In other news:
I LOVE how black people "LOOT" from stores while whites simply "find" from stores. God bless our liberal media! |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Aug. 29th, 2005|10:37 pm] |
the Wit
(71% dark, 34% spontaneous, 15% vulgar)
|
your humor style:
CLEAN | COMPLEX | DARK
You like things edgy, subtle, and smart. I guess that means you're
probably an intellectual, but don't take that to mean pretentious. You
realize 'dumb' can be witty--after all isn't that the Simpsons'
philosophy?--but rudeness for its own sake, 'gross-out' humor and most
other things found in a fraternity leave you totally flat.
I guess you just have a more cerebral approach than most. You have the perfect mindset for a joke writer or staff writer.
Your sense of humor takes the most thought to appreciate, but it's also the best, in my opinion.
You probably loved the Office. If you don't know what I'm
talking about, check it out here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/.
PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Jon Stewart - Woody Allen - Ricky Gervais
The 3-Variable Funny Test!
- it rules -
If you're interested, try my latest:
The Terrorism Test
|
|
My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: | You scored higher than 92% on darkness | | You scored higher than 19% on spontaneity | | You scored higher than 5% on vulgarity |
|
|
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Aug. 17th, 2005|11:41 pm] |
The iPod Shuffle has 1/40 the capacity of the original iPod, but i still get that same old feeling. This thing is awesome and therefore, Melissa is awesome for dontating loaning it to me!
What's on tap:
1. Joy Zipper
2. Spoon
3. Yo La Tengo
4. Smog
5. Fiery Furnaces
6. Sam Prekop
7. The Anamoanon
8. Out Hud
(plus space to spare)
top 5 impacts the iPod Shuffle will have on my life:
1. fuck, now i don't have an excuse not to go running
2. +10 points to my social hierarchy index (i wear this like a rosery and make people bow before me and kiss it. priest style.)
3. i can wear it everywhere and when people say something to me i can sigh loudly, remove one earbud and ask "what the fuck do you want?"
4. the ladies get hella hot for me when they see me listening to my iShuffle and quietly rapping along to DMX's "Niggaz Done Started Something" under my breath WITH accompanying hand motions.
5. it doubles as a pregnancy test! |
|
|
| (no subject) |
[Jul. 20th, 2005|05:25 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | accomplished | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Out Hud | ] |
Hey, I actually have stuff to say!
1.) Registered for LSATs today and I take my exam on Oct. 1. Next step is to start prepping for it and collecting letters of recommendation. Anyone wanna write me one?
2.) Over the past week I painted my room and even installed some mountless shelves (see pictures below). I felt like Bob Villa with my drill, leveler, beard. Anyone wanna hire me to put shelves in their room?
 
3.) About four months ago I put together a little video using postcards from the PostSecret blog and an older but really good Belle and Sebastian song that just got reissued. I thought the video was pretty cool, but didn't really know what to do with it so I just let it sit on my hard drive. Flash to two nights ago: I'm flipping thru channels and stop at MTV2 which was playing the new All American Rejects video. Those cream puffs totally used my idea and featured the little postcards in their video 'Dirty Little Secret.' The beginning even uses quick cuts just like I used in my video! I guess those postcards were fair game, but I stole them first!!!
I wasn't gonna show anyone my video, but since my secret's blown... have a look for yourself:
Dirty Little Secret, Slow Graffiti (aka, my video)
My video starts almost halfway into the B&S song and in case there's still any confusion, my video is the one sans all the pretty-boys. Anyone wanna hire me to make music videos for them?
4.) I started a new blog to catalogue my adventures while reading both translations of Swann's Way parallelally! (as well as other literary feats)
5.) I got a haircut. |
|
|
| Eco on Micros |
[Jul. 15th, 2005|01:03 pm] |
The following excerpts are from an English translation of Umberto Eco's back-page column, La bustina di Minerva, in the Italian news weekly Espresso, September 30, 1994.
...."Insufficient consideration has been given to the new underground religious war which is modifying the modern world. It's an old idea of mine, but I find that whenever I tell people about it they immediately agree with me.
"The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers. I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant. Indeed, the Macintosh is counter-reformist and has been influenced by the 'ratio studiorum' of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach--if not the Kingdom of Heaven--the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.
"DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revellers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment.
"You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counter-reformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions; when it comes down to it, you can decide to allow women and gays to be ministers if you want to.
"And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is talmudic and cabalistic..." |
|
|
| wow |
[Jul. 14th, 2005|10:38 am] |
|
Truth has it that Karl Rove was fired by George H.W. Bush (the elder) during his re-election campaign for leaking campaign info to none other than Robert Novak. Our country is being run by seventh graders. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
wildlifetrade's journal