So, tripleindemnity and I were listening to Oasis yesterday and I was reminiscing about how my friend L and I tried to go see them a few years ago, but the concert was cancelled. And I was hella disappointed, not just because I love Oasis--though I do love Oasis--but because I'd really been hoping to see Liam and Noel break out into a fistfight on stage or start throwing things at one another or what-have-you. (The next concert L and I went to after that was Tori Amos, which was awesome, but which just didn't contain the same possibility of mayhem.) Anyway, this led into a story about Mr Indemnity's brother meeting Liam and Noel. Mr Indemnity's brother, as I may have mentioned before, is a musician in NYC and thus gets to hobnob with a bunch of household-type names. I get a kick out of hearing these stories. Hanging with Oasis. Playing poker with Drew Barrymore. Sean Lennon's real estate habits. Etc.
I was thinking I might just enjoy playing poker with Drew Barrymore. In fact, my best hypothetical celebrity day evah might start with poker with Drew, then watching Noel and Liam get trashed and start wrestling on the coffee table. After that Anthony Kiedis could drop by to have his way with me. Flea could wait outside and practice the bass or something, and then when Anthony and I were done, all three of us could go bowling and get new tattoos.
Admit it, it sounds fabulous.
xoxo
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Friday, December 7, 2007
deep iPod thoughts
Okay! Enough with the navel-gazing. Let's talk about important shit like, for instance, my beautiful, beautiful new iPod. I've been transferring CDs for the past three days and I'm now at the point where deciding what makes the cut and what doesn't is getting hard. If I haven't listened to it in this millennium, does that mean it doesn't deserve to go on the iPod? And how many different versions of the same song by the same artist is overkill? (I kind of like that if I play my songs alphabetically, I can listen to "Stan" by Eminem three times in a row without hitting the back arrow. Shut up.)
I also am bemused by what my iPod assures me my album genres are. The Clash, Cracker, Mission of Burma, Morphine, Offspring, RHCP, and The White Stripes are Alternative/Punk but Nirvana, Oasis, The Police, The Pretenders, Soundgarden, Squeeze, and Talking Heads are Rock. Really? NIN is Electronica/Dance. Sarah McLachlan is Rock, Tori Amos is Alternative, and KT Tunstall is Pop. Again, really? Robert Rich is Electronica, but Steve Roach is New Age. It's all very, very confusing.
But Johnny Cash is still country. So that's okay then.
And, in related news, I've found the left earbud stays in much less easily than the right. If this means my freaking ear canals are asymmetric, I don't want to know. There's only so much body hatred one woman can deal with.
xoxo
I also am bemused by what my iPod assures me my album genres are. The Clash, Cracker, Mission of Burma, Morphine, Offspring, RHCP, and The White Stripes are Alternative/Punk but Nirvana, Oasis, The Police, The Pretenders, Soundgarden, Squeeze, and Talking Heads are Rock. Really? NIN is Electronica/Dance. Sarah McLachlan is Rock, Tori Amos is Alternative, and KT Tunstall is Pop. Again, really? Robert Rich is Electronica, but Steve Roach is New Age. It's all very, very confusing.
But Johnny Cash is still country. So that's okay then.
And, in related news, I've found the left earbud stays in much less easily than the right. If this means my freaking ear canals are asymmetric, I don't want to know. There's only so much body hatred one woman can deal with.
xoxo
Thursday, December 6, 2007
are you a good person?
(FYI--this is triggered by my last blog post, my bringing up of my "moral failings," and a little sidebar conversation I had about it.)
If you were to ask me, "Andrea, are you a good person?" and the definition of that was not a bad person, my answer would be "yeah, pretty much." I try my best to follow my own moral code in the ways that are important to me. I try to treat my family and my friends and my patients with kindness and respect and consideration and acceptance. I try to take good care of them in whatever ways I can see they need or want. (Sometimes I guess wrong.) I try hard not to be selfish, without going too far in the opposite direction and becoming a martyr, which is just as bad. I try to keep people's confidences, listen when they want to talk, and mind my business if they don't. I try not to lose my temper (not always successfully) and I try not to be a miserable cunt (also not always successfully.) I don't lie for nefarious purposes.
But if you were to ask me, "Andrea, are you a good person?" and the definition of that was you do good things that are hard for you, my answer would be "not so much." The whole tithing thing in "The Year of Living Biblically" is a perfect example of that. (I will say that A.J. Jacobs, the author, also found it awfully tough.) I am in awe that some people really do give ten percent of their income to charity. The amount of discipline and sacrifice involved in that blows me away. And what I see as one of my moral failings is that I'm not even close to being able to sacrifice monetarily or effortfully in that way for charity for strangers. I'll give my money and my time to the people I care about because it *doesn't* feel like a sacrifice. It feels good and right and natural. I am too selfish and too spoiled to sacrifice for strangers. Buying an overpriced (product)Red sweatshirt at the Gap so you can feel self-righteous that you're helping the poor while whipping out your credit card isn't charity. Going to parties that raise money for a cause or participating in charity fun runs and bike-a-thons with your friends isn't charity either. Those things are doing stuff you'd want to do anyway and then patting yourself on the back about how philanthropic you are.
Okay, maybe it's somehow better than buying a non-charity overpriced sweatshirt, going to a party whose only aim is getting people drunk or laid, or participating in athletic events just for fun. But it isn't what I'd call true charity. True charity means doing something someone needs even at a cost to yourself and doing it anonymously (if possible) or at least without self-congratulations. And, to me, true charity is something that people are really "good" as opposed to people who are--like me--simply "not bad" do.
I've got a long way to go in my selfish and spoiled life before I'm good.
xoxo
If you were to ask me, "Andrea, are you a good person?" and the definition of that was not a bad person, my answer would be "yeah, pretty much." I try my best to follow my own moral code in the ways that are important to me. I try to treat my family and my friends and my patients with kindness and respect and consideration and acceptance. I try to take good care of them in whatever ways I can see they need or want. (Sometimes I guess wrong.) I try hard not to be selfish, without going too far in the opposite direction and becoming a martyr, which is just as bad. I try to keep people's confidences, listen when they want to talk, and mind my business if they don't. I try not to lose my temper (not always successfully) and I try not to be a miserable cunt (also not always successfully.) I don't lie for nefarious purposes.
But if you were to ask me, "Andrea, are you a good person?" and the definition of that was you do good things that are hard for you, my answer would be "not so much." The whole tithing thing in "The Year of Living Biblically" is a perfect example of that. (I will say that A.J. Jacobs, the author, also found it awfully tough.) I am in awe that some people really do give ten percent of their income to charity. The amount of discipline and sacrifice involved in that blows me away. And what I see as one of my moral failings is that I'm not even close to being able to sacrifice monetarily or effortfully in that way for charity for strangers. I'll give my money and my time to the people I care about because it *doesn't* feel like a sacrifice. It feels good and right and natural. I am too selfish and too spoiled to sacrifice for strangers. Buying an overpriced (product)Red sweatshirt at the Gap so you can feel self-righteous that you're helping the poor while whipping out your credit card isn't charity. Going to parties that raise money for a cause or participating in charity fun runs and bike-a-thons with your friends isn't charity either. Those things are doing stuff you'd want to do anyway and then patting yourself on the back about how philanthropic you are.
Okay, maybe it's somehow better than buying a non-charity overpriced sweatshirt, going to a party whose only aim is getting people drunk or laid, or participating in athletic events just for fun. But it isn't what I'd call true charity. True charity means doing something someone needs even at a cost to yourself and doing it anonymously (if possible) or at least without self-congratulations. And, to me, true charity is something that people are really "good" as opposed to people who are--like me--simply "not bad" do.
I've got a long way to go in my selfish and spoiled life before I'm good.
xoxo
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
"The Year of Living Biblically"
Great book. I laughed, I cried...
No, actually, I just laughed. And learned a bunch of stuff I didn't know. And whizzed through the book in one night. And heard about a couple of movements that I was unaware of, or only vaguely aware of, but which will, I'm sure, lead to googling and possibly future blog topics. (That's a teaser!)
I will say, here and now, that the book kicked in some guilt about what I'd consider one of my bigger moral failings, namely that I don't give enough to charity. I have a lot of mental excuses about money being relatively tight (though, obviously, much less so over the past couple months) but obviously I'm spending money on things I "need" like $2o camis and $11 cases of iced tea, when I could be giving it to people who really are in need.
xoxo
No, actually, I just laughed. And learned a bunch of stuff I didn't know. And whizzed through the book in one night. And heard about a couple of movements that I was unaware of, or only vaguely aware of, but which will, I'm sure, lead to googling and possibly future blog topics. (That's a teaser!)
I will say, here and now, that the book kicked in some guilt about what I'd consider one of my bigger moral failings, namely that I don't give enough to charity. I have a lot of mental excuses about money being relatively tight (though, obviously, much less so over the past couple months) but obviously I'm spending money on things I "need" like $2o camis and $11 cases of iced tea, when I could be giving it to people who really are in need.
xoxo
things that annoy me: consumer edition
1.) The fact that supermarkets only put Snapple on sale in the summer. The weather gets chilly and I have to pay full price for iced tea? Why? People drink cold refreshing beverages all year. Drinking Snapple in December is no more incongruous than drinking Coke, beer, or, for that matter, ice water.
2.) That something like a Jockey-for-Her cami, made of probably $1.50 worth of synthetic material, but essential for wearing under my sweaters, costs over twenty bucks. I have come to terms with fifty+ dollar bras, being as I am a weird size, and god bless Wacoal for making 'em. There's some structural engineering going on there, as well as some aesthetics. But a little rectangular bit of Tactel with straps attached? Highway robbery.
3.) Friggin' iPod earbuds. I'm sure they stay put in somebody's ears, but I would not be that somebody. Thing is, I knew this before I broke down and bought the iPod and yet I hoped against hope it would miraculously not be true.
xoxo
2.) That something like a Jockey-for-Her cami, made of probably $1.50 worth of synthetic material, but essential for wearing under my sweaters, costs over twenty bucks. I have come to terms with fifty+ dollar bras, being as I am a weird size, and god bless Wacoal for making 'em. There's some structural engineering going on there, as well as some aesthetics. But a little rectangular bit of Tactel with straps attached? Highway robbery.
3.) Friggin' iPod earbuds. I'm sure they stay put in somebody's ears, but I would not be that somebody. Thing is, I knew this before I broke down and bought the iPod and yet I hoped against hope it would miraculously not be true.
xoxo
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
pretzel girl speaks
I keep saying, like for 5 years now, that I'm going to start doing yoga. But then every place I want to take a class doesn't have a beginners class at a time I can go, and it's too far, or it's too cold out, and it's expensive, and blah blah blah. So finally I broke down and bought a book with a CD and flashcards to try it at home. I actually looked at DVDs, but seriously? So many of them looked so cheesy just from the cover photos that I figured I'd just find them annoying.
The actual book/CD I finally chose was "yin" yoga, which is a very slow discipline. You hold each pose for 5 whole minutes, which works, supposedly, on your connective tissue. Which makes perfect sense to me, because that's the whole principle behind the myofascial work I learned in school: when you want to change the fascia, you're working very slowly and not forcing anything. You're hanging out and waiting for the tissue to change beneath your hands, as the fascia "melts" and loosens. A subset of my classmates hated that class, because they were too impatient/aggressive/inattentive/easily bored to just hang out and wait for the change. I loved it. So, temperamentally, I figured the yin yoga would work for me. I also know I have some fascial restriction in a spiral pattern from my left neck/shoulder down to my right hip, so I figured working on that couldn't hurt.
Well, basically, all the poses in the book/CD are focusing on your hips, low back, sacral, pelvic area, and particularly opening the psoas, so the fascia in my shoulder is shit out of luck. But I did it for the first time yesterday and, man, did I feel good afterward. If not necessarily during, when there were moments of "you want me to do what?" But even this morning, walking down the stairs, I could feel how open my hips and pelvic area were. It was like I'd gotten a massage yesterday. Cool stuff.
I have to tell you though, the instructor/writer is all about the Eastern medicine and the chakras, and in between the Western medicine explanations of what you're stretching, he says things like, "opening your first and second chakras will help you to better accept pleasure and pain." Alrighty then. Just another reason to plow on, huh?
xoxo
The actual book/CD I finally chose was "yin" yoga, which is a very slow discipline. You hold each pose for 5 whole minutes, which works, supposedly, on your connective tissue. Which makes perfect sense to me, because that's the whole principle behind the myofascial work I learned in school: when you want to change the fascia, you're working very slowly and not forcing anything. You're hanging out and waiting for the tissue to change beneath your hands, as the fascia "melts" and loosens. A subset of my classmates hated that class, because they were too impatient/aggressive/inattentive/easily bored to just hang out and wait for the change. I loved it. So, temperamentally, I figured the yin yoga would work for me. I also know I have some fascial restriction in a spiral pattern from my left neck/shoulder down to my right hip, so I figured working on that couldn't hurt.
Well, basically, all the poses in the book/CD are focusing on your hips, low back, sacral, pelvic area, and particularly opening the psoas, so the fascia in my shoulder is shit out of luck. But I did it for the first time yesterday and, man, did I feel good afterward. If not necessarily during, when there were moments of "you want me to do what?" But even this morning, walking down the stairs, I could feel how open my hips and pelvic area were. It was like I'd gotten a massage yesterday. Cool stuff.
I have to tell you though, the instructor/writer is all about the Eastern medicine and the chakras, and in between the Western medicine explanations of what you're stretching, he says things like, "opening your first and second chakras will help you to better accept pleasure and pain." Alrighty then. Just another reason to plow on, huh?
xoxo
Monday, December 3, 2007
in the interest of full disclosure
I screwed up my resolution and didn't exercise on Saturday. Just because I went out to see Beowulf in IMAX directly from work. That was more important than the state of my fat ass, right? Right? I mean, Neil Gaiman, c'mon.
Okay, enough of the lame excuses, and onto movie reviewage. I give it two thumbs up. I thought the beginning was somewhat slow, but the last 2/3rds picked up appreciably. And it's probably worth bothering to see in 3-D, if that's an option for you, if for the dragon fight alone. My inner 14-year-old boy was sated, 'k?
xoxo
Okay, enough of the lame excuses, and onto movie reviewage. I give it two thumbs up. I thought the beginning was somewhat slow, but the last 2/3rds picked up appreciably. And it's probably worth bothering to see in 3-D, if that's an option for you, if for the dragon fight alone. My inner 14-year-old boy was sated, 'k?
xoxo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)