Oh, hi again, kids.
I know, I have been woefully neglecting my blogging responsibilities. Not for lack of material per se, because there are reviews, both bad and good, I could write, and various things that people other than I have been frothing at the mouth about on the internet that I could discuss, and philosophical conversations I've had that I could expand upon. But, y'know, I just cannot be bothered at this moment. So let's go, again, with "laziness" as an excuse. Works for me!
And in the spirit of laziness, I'm going to do what I always do when I don't actually feel like organizing my thoughts and writing something coherent: a random list of unconnected topics. Ahem.
1.) D shaved off his beard and moustache the other day, but left these long muttonchop-like sideburns curving onto his face. I was dying when I noticed. I was like, Why didn't you shave it all? What is up with the hipster facial hair? Sadly, I don't think you can carry off the whole hipster aesthetic if you aren't as skinny as a rail (like D was before the atypical antipsychotics) so this sideburn thing is a big fail in my opinion. But it is his face. No one needs their mom nagging them about their hairstyle.
2.) I just read about the nanotouch project by Microsoft, where they are attempting to circumvent the problem of people's "fat fingers" being too big for the ever-tinier buttons and touchpads on tech-y gear. The online article snarked about "giving fat people just another excuse to avoid the gym." Which pissed me off no end. First of all, I've got small hands and even I think that some of this miniaturization is at about its limit. You cannot keep making devices smaller and smaller ad infinitum and expect them to be usable. Secondly, "fat finger" syndrome has little to do with overall fatness in most people. My dad's fingers are each easily equal to two of mine, and he's been skinny-to-average his entire life. He's just got big hands. Thirdly, honestly? I disbelieve that "going to the gym" accounts for any more than 10 to 25 lbs of difference in most people. Take me, for example. If I engage in a normal amount, for me, of physical activity, I'll be at my certain set point. If I go through a period of complete inactivity, I might possibly gain 10 pounds over my set point. If I start working out a lot, a lot, a lot, I might go 10 or 15 pounds below my setpoint. It doesn't make *all that much* difference. If someone weighs 220 lbs, I don't think that going to the gym 3 or 6 times a week is going to make them 125. It might possibly make them 190. Maybe. (And I hardly think that would affect their finger size one way or the other.) So suck it, online columnist, with your cheap fat jokes. And blame *poor freaking design*, not OMG THE OBESITY CRISIS, for the reason people have trouble with their touch screens.
3.) Okay, this kind of touches on something I want to review, but I'll give it to you without context. I've realized that I have, in my mind, a very set picture of what a "bad neighborhood", slum, or "where the poor people live" should look like. And since I've lived in urban eastern Massachusetts my whole life, that picture is: triple deckers interspersed with empty lots filled with weeds and/or trash, lots of heavily-tagged railroad bridges, and mid-to-highrise projects. I can accept a certain amount of deviation--I see the bad, bad parts of Baltimore on The Wire and the fact that it's decrepit rowhouses, not triple deckers, doesn't faze me. But I remember seeing Boyz N the Hood the first time and being very discomforted at a barely conscious level by, "Wait, there's palm trees. And little single family houses. How is *that* the ghetto?" Similarly, in both the recent news (13 y.o dad story) and in some British TV I've been watching (review at some point!), I see the council estates and go, "Huh. Looks kinda not too bad. Looks kinda better than places I've lived. These people are on welfare? Really?" It sort of screws with my expectations.
Okay. That's it for now!
xoxo
3 comments:
#3--You're not the first one to make that observation on the "ghetto" in LA. I remember when I went to LA the East Coast friends I was visiting made a point of telling me that bad neighborhoods don't look anything like I was expecting bad neighborhoods to look, cause there were all these little detached houses with little lawns and gardens and such.
Interestingly, I just heard on NPR today the tail end of a piece where they happened to mention that South Central LA is now very different from the crack and violence ridden neighborhood it was in the '80s. Which probably means that Boys N the Hood makes no sense to some 15-year-old now living in South Central.
On the other hand, the council estates really might be significantly better than a lot of similar places in the US. It's all relative. Like those times I've been in the UK and people have talked about how bad the London Underground is, or how hot (or cold) the weather is, or how good the food is. Compared to the US (and the MBTA) they were all off the scale in the opposite direction.
So council flats might suck compared to other UK living conditions, but they might be more like a college dorm in the US. Not great, but not pits, either.
Another place that can surprise is Philly, where they have square miles of two storey houses that look pretty decent. You have to watch for details like whether the cars have tyres or concrete blocks...stuff like that. And whether they have authentic cheese steak, of course.
BTW I wore big burns in my hippie era, and was never, *ever*, thin as a rail. They can work; he just needs to bulk them up a bit.
Wait. Is it the presence or the absense of cheese steak that makes it a bad neighborhood?
Post a Comment