The earlier I try to sleep, the less I’m able to.
Why why why.
Everytime I write something here it takes me an hour or two to make a respectable post.
I can’t help but try the microblog.
I’m but a fickle, curious human being.
Just like all men.
I’m still a child in many ways even though I’m at an age that’s considered old by many. Looking at the slightly younger girls around me, they all seem very mature, much more mature than I am. They are very polite, caring in a motherly way, never acting out inappropriately… these are all actions and attributes that society has determined a mature, adult female should exhibit. But looking more closely I recognize some smaller, subtler actions that show they are still maturing, that they are still trying to assert their individuality, or “finding themselves”, to say in a very cliche way. They have yet to realize their individuality needs to shine through naturally and the harder they try to assert it the more posing they come off as. This is a very cliche topic in itself, but I see these little things girls do and it gets under my skin. I was once one of these childish girls, having done all these things that they’re doing now, and now I look back and I point and laugh at myself and I want to yell at other girls not to do these inane things. Things like developing their own “writing style”. You see this all over Facebook, where girls would tYpE LiKe tHiS and put punctuations marks in front of sentences as well as after or basically all o.v.e.r. the frickin! place! and… there’s nothing wrong with being unique, but why try so hard? Why not put your efforts somewhere else? If you see them drop their thing after a short while it means they have thought long and hard before they did it and it’s not really part of who they are. Yes I’ve done this myself before. Now I try to develop a writing style that is easy to read, clear and concise, and has a nice smooth flow to it. There are also shows and books out there these girls tend to like, such as Nylon. I used to like Nylon myself but it got annoying after a couple years. The writers themselves wrote like insecure, pretentious young women who branded everything they discovered as the best thing since the internet and again, there is the whole ideology about being different and individualistic that they must shove down your throat. And then there are shows like “Sex and the City”, which I’ve never ever ever liked and which I’ve heard someone describe as “toxic”, which is true. Not only is the acting and writing atrocious, which is beside the point, but it again indoctrinates that women must be strong and independent and confident and being in control of your life. That’s all fine and swell but it is absolutely not necessary to defend your shit by manipulating men and endlessly thinking your current relationship is not good enough for you. This is what impressionable young women start believing after watching this kind of propaganda and you see girls all over being whiny and dramatic over every little thing that happens to them. Nothing is good enough for them anymore and they must strive for what others have inspired them to believe are better. Honestly, if things were bad for them, why hadn’t they realized it before someone else pointed it out to them? Could it be because things weren’t bad in their own eyes to begin with, but only bad in other people’s eyes, and now they’re just being influenced by other people? So are they such an individual now? How are they an individual when they’re changing because of something someone else said? Also, wearing a Dior t-shirt with a giant tutu doesn’t make you an individual; it makes you ugly. There are so many more things in the world that are more important than showing off your individuality and showing others that you’re a “strong woman”. There’s nothing wrong with being strong and unique but the key is “being”, not “showing”. People say girls mature faster than boys, but I don’t know if that’s true. Boys seem immature because they screw around and make dirty jokes, but this behaviourial immaturity has more to do with their personality than their level of thinking. It probably also has more to do with the fact they are boys —boys are more carefree and risk-taking by nature. At the same time, boys can have very deep thoughts and be quite worldly in their views, whereas girls’ main thoughts are very often focused on themselves. That’s not to say I’m not self-centered myself, and in addition I’m still quite immature. But I don’t care about how I appear to others anymore. All I care about is keeping my job and improving myself and getting over this stupid cough. Attempting to be unique hadn’t gotten me anywhere and, as ironic as everything else in life, trying so hard to be different because others say you should only showed what a conformist I was. Alas. I didn’t enjoy writing this because it was so preachy and bitchy and everything I say sounds stale, but it feels good to get it off my chest.
I’ve always been lucky enough to get a window seat in most of my workplaces. Sometimes it’s only a frosted piece of glass that shows shadows. Sometimes there’s a sky blocked by an apartment building. Sometimes it’s 20 feet away and doesn’t really count. But there’s always something there that gets me to look. It’s the TV channel that only ever shows the burning log. I don’t look at it for more than few seconds at a time. But it’s there and I like it.
There is a hedge separating my window now and the parking lot. Short skinny trees grow in the hedge. It’s a nice sparse wall of fresh green. But it’ll probably be gone soon. Squirrels live outside my window during the summer. They’re always running around but never carrying anything. They’re so much leaner than the squirrels I usually see. They should see all the obese squirrels on UBC campus. I’m sure they’d get jealous and want to migrate. The chance of becoming roadkill is probably about the same. That is, not very high.
There’s a ballet school next to our office. There are always adults walking by with little ballerinas in tow. There is this particular chubby man with a belly who always wears a baseball cap with a Hawaiian shirt and shorts. He always takes this slightly chubby girl to class and then comes back to pick her up. He looks just a bit too old to be her dad. They always hold hands. And they are always chatty and look happy. It makes me teary-eyed because that little girls is going to grow up to be a teenager one day and start acting bitter and bitchy and be breaking his heart. I hope he’s her grandpa.
I see the sun, and I feel like the entire day is mine to conquer.
Then I see it pour. And there are squirrels no more.
I’ve watched a couple of documentaries on war a while ago and will continue to do because I feel like an ‘ignorant slut’ when it comes to world issues. These two I watched are more on philosophy of war though, and not so much on occurring wars which are what I need to learn more about.
The first one I watched was The Fog of War and it’s Robert S. McNamara telling us what he’s learned throughout his career and it’s the kind of thing that I like because it’s something I want to be able to do, learn lessons from everyday life. I suppose his job was always more than your everyday job but eventually you would be able to ‘think big’ from small things if you do it enough. Robert S. McNamara is also a very animated speaker and a passionate person, despite his age when the movie was made.
The second was The Art of War which was a documentary on the History Channel and has all this fancy aesthetic feel to it. The Art of War is a classic body of work and should be read (yes read, not watched) by everyone because it really pertains to many walks of life and careers, although it’s actually not as intriguing as The Fog of War because most of what is in The Art of War seems like common sense. I’m sure the movie has only covered the few most popular doctrines and is missing a lot of it though, so it’s definitely going on my to-read-list.
Sometimes people react to things in ways that I’m not used to, and I get annoyed. Eventually I realized these are nuances I should appreciate; who wants to interact with a whole world of clones that act the same way? I mean, unless they’re really annoying. But we as humans are given the ability to adapt to various environments, and the culture that arises from a given group of people is a kind of environment that we should be able to adjust ourselves to evolve in, and that culture encompasses their type of behaviour. I suppose we’re not always successful in adapting, but we should still try. Being successful doesn’t mean that we adopt their ways of behaviour and thinking, but that we are able to accept it and collaborate with them amiably without losing ourselves. Now ‘losing ourselves’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘changing ourselves’ — if we find other ways of thinking and behaving that are superior to ours, it only makes sense to embrace them. I really mean ‘losing ourselves’ by the way of us pretending to agree with the values and preferences of others when deep down we don’t, thereby deceiving others and sometimes ourselves. So the adaptive skill is what I wish to attain; most of the time I simply get visibly annoyed at others and I’m starting to annoy myself by doing so.
More documentaries (and spoilers)!
I probably wouldn’t have picked to see this film if it weren’t partly about one of my favourite bands, The Dandy Warhols. The stories about rocks bands are always pretty much the same: they party, they do drugs, they’re ridiculously talented but nobody realizes it, and when a record label finally signs them, they start selling out. OK, so what. This documentary bascially says the same thing but in relation to two similar bands that start out at the same place and end up being worlds apart in terms of fortune and popularity. Most people end up sympathize with the less fortunate and supposedly more talented band at the end of this film. I don’t feel anything because I’ve never really heard the music of that band and I still sincerely like the music of The Dandy Warhols. I can’t say I really learned much from this film except that 1) more people will dislike you inexplicably once you become more popular, and 2) talent is important, but so is likeability and stability of personality if you’re to work with other people at all.
This is very intriguing. It’s also very disturbing, even more so than “Zoo”. But it’s a well-made film, and a make-your-own-conclusion one at that, which is what I like most about it. Majority of the film is composed of interviews, and the consistently conflicting testimonials and personalities make it very difficult to make a sound decision on what to believe, or even who to sympathize with. Even after an hour and half I’m still only getting more interested and more perplexed about the entire case. I think I ended up leaning more towards one side than the other, but then that leaves me wondering whether people are more willing to be tolerant of physical abuse as long as they believe that the person abusing them actually loves them and provides them the emotional support that they need.
The “man” here makes the film. He’s a lively, adventurous character who’s persistent and enthusiastic about what he does, which shows through in his story-telling. It’s revealing to see all the preparations and practicing that take place for something that you cannot practice for real; the only time you can do it for real is when you actually do it! And the most notable thing I find about his whole feat is that his friendships and relationships kind of fell apart after he has completed it.
Boring. This isn’t so much about the new world order itself; it doesn’t show any possible evidence that might support the fact that it’s happening. It just shows a bunch of people who really believe it’s happening and how angry and passionate they are about it and what they’re doing about it. I admire that these people are standing up for what they believe in and they’re going out to do something about it, but an 80 minute film about them is not necessary.
Then I watched some films about corporations:
Capitalism: A Love Story [2009]
Yes it’s a Michael Moore film which means it’s extremely biased and one-sided, but essentially all documentaries about corporations are going to appear that way, including all the ones on this list. A positive documentary about corporations would not be interesting. And Michael Moore may be sensationalizing, clownish and simple-minded but he does have the ability to make documentaries that appeal to the general public, thereby exposing to a wider audience issues that would otherwise be only known to an attentive few. There is no argument that Michael Moore has introduced the documentary ‘genre’ to a lot of people and elicited much more interest in it, and hopefully more people would have looked into other documentaries that are more encompassing and educating because of him. So this film, of course, paints a very simple and ugly picture of the way corporations have taken over the American life. It’s not bad; like his other films, it’s entertaining. You just need to keep in mind that it’s not the entire picture.
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room [2005]
A film that takes a look behind the scenes of the most well known disintegration of a large corporation in the last couple decades. It’s interesting to see how desperate people get in situations, especially rich men in predicaments that hold their immense amount of wealth at stake. Even when the situations are dire and they’re obviously flailing in their crashing waves of lies and cover-ups, they still won’t give it up. You’ve got to admire their strength and determination. Maybe that’s the only way you can get to the top. Just beware of the potential harsh, long fall that may take place afterwards.
Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price [2005]
Again this is sort of a “behind-the-scenes” type of film, but in this case the company in limelight is alive and kicking and making more money than ever. This film isn’t actually the best-made film, as at one point I was getting somewhat bored and tired of the repetitiveness of both the style and nature of content. By nature of content I mean the allegations being made against Wal-Mart were starting to all sound kind of similar, and at the end you get the feeling that they’re attacking for the sake of attacking. Not that I doubt any of the accusations are false… and there are some interesting facts and numbers that are still surprising even though it’s well-known that Wal-Mart…. is……. evil, that’s right. It’s the same story again. The richer people are, the more they want, and henceforth they’re more stingy with their money, even at the cost of others’ well-being. I’m not sure I want to marry rich anymore.
The Corporation [2003]
This is an educating, well-balanced film, and made in Canada. This film, like a lot of the others, is largely comprised of interviews with various individuals, and one of the interesting things I noticed about this is that in this film, the filmmakers chose not to display the interviewees’ names on the screen. I was miffed about this at first, but then I realized it’s possible that they wanted to present the individuals and their views as they were, without any colouring coming from their positions, identities, or possibly even recognizable names. I mean, as you listen to them speak you eventually get to know who exactly they are and what they represent, but I realize this is actually a very good way of getting to audience to really pay attention and listen to what they’re saying. On the other hand, you could almost tell right away which “side” they were on just from the way they were dressed. Anyway this is probably one of the most comprehensive films about corporations; even though it’s still essentially saying “Death to corporations!”, it interviews people from all walks and sides, and even proposes the idea that “corporations as a whole are evil, but the individuals within it (yeah, even the CEOs and big boys) probably aren’t”. I like that idea. All those guys are still human, and all humans have a good side and an evil side to them. If someone made a documentary about me that just focuses on my bad side, I’d also look like I was setting out to abolish everyone and take over the world. (Oh… but I am?)
I have started on a documentary binge and these are some of the more unique ones I’ve seen so far (possible spoiler alerts):
The Bridge [2006]
Seeing footage of people committing suicide is definitely disturbing, as I’d expected, but in the end it turned out to be more sad than anything else. This is not a film to watch when you’re down. The interviews with friends and families don’t reveal anything too surprising, but it’s still interesting to hear how people were before they decided to take that final step. Some people were mentally sick, some people had fun personalities but were always talking about death, and some people you just couldn’t see it in them at all. The interviewees themselves were also interesting; while many of them seemed sad, some of them just seemed relieved or even chirpy. And of course there is the innocent kid who doesn’t know yet the concept of death and is unperturbed by the experience of witnessing someone take their own life.
Helvetica [2007]
A film that is actually about a single typeface. However it is not dull and a pleasure to watch (especially after “The Bridge”). Of course from this study of one font we are able to generalize on the topic of design, and learn how typography and graphics affect how we see and interpret things. There are lots of intricacies behind the design of a typeface. I didn’t realize this before but now that I see all the signs and logo’s shown in this film, my favourite font is Helvetica. This film is educational, clean, and has some nice eye candy.
Zoo [2007]
I thought it would be a much more interesting film, but the TV-movie style simply ruined it all. I did not like the style of this film and I did not enjoy it. Considering the topic, it could have been much more interesting; maybe the film-maker didn’t want to sensationalize it. Also I didn’t think the topic would bother me that much but after seeing some split-second footages of it I became really disgusted. Why do people do this?? And how do they get the animals to do it?? What the radio-host says is true: how could they get the horse to do it if it doesn’t consent. It is completely baffling and not something I’d like to think about anymore. I don’t recommend this film; not for the topic, but because it’s very mediocre.
It wasn’t until I was talking to my friend that I realized a small 30-persons company is just as clique-y as a small colonial-sized company. When you’re working in a 1500-people company it’s impossible to know everyone and it’s inevitable that you’d only hang out and become good friends with your teammates. But even in a smaller company where you know everyone by name, you pick and choose your friends, and be picked and chosen by. Usually you hang out with the people you sit close to, but it only works out if your personalities, age and background are close enough. It’s unfortunate if you don’t happen to sit close to people you could mesh well with because you’re destined to be a loner in the office. There isn’t really any other opportunity to make friends unless you bump into people in the kitchen and start having an awesomely deep conversation with them… and even then you couldn’t really sustain it unless you continue the connection in some other way, such as asking them to lunch, which is difficult to do naturally if you don’t sit near one another. So what I’ve gathered is, there will always be cliques, sometimes even with as few as 3 or 4 people, and the geographical location is one of the primary determinants even though it’s one of those that should matter least.
My contribution for the 12th day of Christmas gluttony.
Whole Wheat Ginger Snaps
Ingredients
- 1 cup butter or margarine
- 1 1/2 cups white sugar
- 2 eggs, beaten
- 1 cup molasses
- 4 cups whole wheat flour
- 1 tablespoon baking soda
- 2 teaspoons baking powder
- 1 tablespoon ground ginger
- 1 1/2 teaspoons ground nutmeg
- 1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
- 1 1/2 teaspoons ground cloves
- 1 1/2 teaspoons ground allspice
- 1 cup white sugar for decoration
Directions
- Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Grease cookie sheets.
- In a large bowl, cream together the butter and 1 1/2 cups of sugar until smooth. Mix in the eggs, and then the molasses. Combine the whole wheat flour, baking soda, baking powder, ginger, nutmeg, cinnamon, cloves, and allspice, heaping the measures if you like a lot of spice. Stir the dry ingredients into the molasses mixture just until blended.
- Roll the dough into small balls, and dip the top of each ball into the remaining white sugar. Place the cookies about 2 inches apart on the cookie sheets.
- Bake for 10 to 15 minutes in the preheated oven, until the tops are cracked. Bake longer for crispy cookies, less time for chewy cookies. Cool on wire racks.
(From allrecipes.com)
WordClusters 