There's some kind of crisis going on at work this week. Apparently, a big-name client wants five major projects finished by the tenth of December, a full twenty days before the original deadline. My boss e-mailed me late last night and asked if I could help. Being the model employee that I am, of course I agreed. Also, as of right now, I am completely finished with all the work that's been assigned to me up to this point, with two exceptions. In their respective cases, I don't have access to the areas of the site that I need in order to write those scripts, so getting something new to work on might be nice.
I e-mailed my boss about the site access thing. She hasn't gotten back to me yet. She also hasn't gotten back to me about helping with the crisis, so I'm just assuming that she's probably busy and she'll answer my e-mails when she gets the chance. In the meantime, I'm sitting at the computer, refreshing my e-mail browser every five minutes or so, just in case this is one of those times that it says I don't have any new e-mails but I actually do. So far, that hasn't been the case. Actually, it was once, but it was an e-mail from Charlotte Russe advertising their boot sale.
I'm not worried about getting paid next period. I have something like fourteen scripts that are in the process of being produced, and twenty-three or so that are still waiting for editing. Giving the editors a chance to work through my backlog might not be a terrible idea. Unfortunately, all of the editors are working on this crisis.
I'm flattered that my boss e-mailed me and asked for my help. I mean, I do write quickly and I have the ability to churn out scripts like nobody's business. If I were my boss and I needed a project finished quickly, I'd probably ask me also. My current project has something like eleven other writers and myself. As a group, about two hundred and forty scripts have been written. Of those, about sixty have been written by me. That means that everyone else has written on average around sixteen scripts.
Part of it is probably that I don't exactly have another job. I have this one singular job as my whole livelihood. I know a couple of the other writers personally, and at least one has another job. It would be an easy way to make some money on the side, especially if you're not in school and you have enough time to write a script or two a day. Were I to get another job, I'd probably still do this because it's decent money and it's a nice gig.
I'm always worrying that I'm going to get fired, which I know is irrational, because I work really hard and I've never gotten in trouble. It just sort of seems like it's too good to be true. I work from home writing in my pajamas and I make enough money to cover most of our major expenses.
For me, it's working really well as a full-time job. Between my husband and I, we make enough that we can pay our bills and save a little and usually have a little money left over for fun things. I mean, we don't have huge expenses, typically, so we don't usually need a whole lot of money. If we had a mortgage or a heftier car payment, then we might be in trouble. But we don't, so it's okay. Our largest expenses are generally education-related, and we've managed okay with that so far.
I suspect that it might be because I pay tithing. Despite all of my personal issues with the Church, it seems like the Lord is obligated to bless me as long as I'm a full tithe payer, so I continue to pay it and Nate and I continue to have enough money to pay our rent and go grocery shopping.
Christmas was kind of a strain, but at least we were smart enough not to use our credit card to pay for everything. Generally, we only use our credit card if we're buying something a) we were going to buy anyway and b) we get rewards for. So usually when we go to restaurants or clothing shopping we use our credit card, but not a whole lot otherwise.
We did have to start limiting the number of times per week we could order in or go out to eat. It got kind of out of control for a while there. Now, we typically order in on Tuesday or Wednesday nights because we're tired and we don't feel like cooking, and then we go out to lunch on Fridays or Saturdays as a fun and exciting date. We've had to limit it to twice per week, and we try to make at least one of those fairly inexpensive (pizza or burgers, as opposed to a sit-down place).
There are a couple really good Italian restaurants that we like to frequent, and they are within a block of each other and, more importantly, like three blocks from our apartment. The first is Gloria's Little Italy, which has excellent food and dessert and a more formal atmosphere. It's more expensive, though, so we don't go there as often. Then there's La Dolce Vita. It's smaller, less expensive, and less formal. As far as I can tell, everyone working there is related to each other and they're all authentically Italian. The server we get every time we go is named Giuseppe, and his mom owns the place.
There is also an excellent authentic Chinese restaurant that we order from all the time. It's called the Lotus Garden, and it's owned and operated by a Chinese family. We have like eighteen of their menus in our kitchen right now. They deliver (in the phone book, their ad says "We Delivery!," which is either an amusing error or an excellent marketing move. No one is sure which), and every time they bring us our food, they bring us another menu. Their menus do have coupons in them, but they never take the coupons when we use them, so our stack of menus just keeps getting larger and larger.
We have yet to be able to find a really good pizza place. There's the Brick Oven, which is okay (and less than a block away), but it isn't AMAZING.
In Phoenix, I knew all the good pizza places. I knew exactly where to order from in any scenario. Say there are four of us, we have twenty dollars to spend, we want to go out, and our starting position is at my parents house. In that case, we go to Streets of New York Pizza. You get free garlic rolls and you can order by the slice. Also, they frequently have deals so you can get pizza and wings or pizza and salad for a really good deal.
If we have like no money at all, we order Barro's. It's not mind-blowing, but it's better than Domino's or Pizza Hut, and it's significantly less expensive.
If we've got a little bit more to spend but we still want to keep it close to home, we go to Rosatti's. Delicious deep-dish pizza that's like five inches thick.
If we've got a fair amount of money burning holes in our wallets and we're really hungry but don't mind waiting, the standard, of course, is Oregano's. Oregano's might be the best restaurant in the history of the world. You pretty much have to get an appetizer, a pizza, and a dessert. Not because they make you, but because it's delicious. Getting in on a Friday or Saturday night can take a while, because the place is always packed, but it has never not been worth the wait. Other establishments sell pizookies, but Oregano's has perfected it. Not getting a pizookie at Oregano's is not just a terrible mistake, it might be a crime against humanity. They are that good.
Unfortunately, Provo has none of these places. Usually, when we order pizza, we end up ordering from Papa John's. Eh. It's fine, but it's overpriced and the quality just isn't quite there. We've tried other pizza places. Usually they're either too far away to deliver to us or they're terrible. Really, really terrible. Like, really really bad. Really, very bad pizza. Some of the worst pizza I've ever had is right around the corner from me right at this very moment.
You'd think, being a college town and all, that Provo would have some really excellent pizza joints. It doesn't. I mean, the restaurant selection isn't awful, but if you don't feel like cooking and you don't want to leave the house and you don't want Chinese, you're in trouble.
I've spent about forty minutes writing this blog post. My boss still hasn't gotten back to me. I'm hoping she does soon, because Lord knows I could use something to do.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Christmas Jitters
I'm going to be honest here. I'm a little bit nervous about spending Christmas with Nate's family. We got everyone gifts, and they're perfectly respectable. Nate and I will probably get more stuff for each other than we did for anyone else, which I feel vaguely guilty about. I mean, it's probably normal and natural for a married couple to get more stuff for each other than for their siblings, but I have an overdeveloped sense of shame. I don't know who I have to credit for that, but there you go.
Part of it is probably that I haven't spend a ton of time with any of the family-in-law. And it's somewhat unlikely that we will ever get the chance to spend any kind of extended period of time together. I mean, it'll probably be a week or two a year for the rest of our lives. Which is fine, I guess. I mean, it's not something I have any strong feelings about either way. I mean, I don't really know most of his family all that well. Plus, I don't have terrifically strong feelings about spending tons of time with my own personal family that I spent eighteen years living with. So, there's that.
I like Christmas, and this won't be the first one that I've spent away from my immediate family. I don't think I was nervous about spending Christmas in Italy. It was probably at least partly because I had already been in Italy for three months and knew each other and knew for a fact that there was going to some extremely delicious several-course lunch with the entire extended family on both sides, all of whom I knew well (with the possible exception of Mario, Andrea's dad, who I believe has Alzheimer's).
I need to remember to find a recipe for the green sauce that was supposed to be eaten with boiled meats. I ate it with bread, and it was awesome. As I recall, the entire meal was somewhere within the four to five courses range. Soup, pasta, a first meat course, a second meat course, various breads through the duration of the meal, and something like five desserts.
I'm pretty sure it was the largest meal of my life to this point, and definitely one of the best ones. Fantastic. Nella, Serena's mom, is supposed to be like a restaraunt-grade chef. We went to her house for Sunday lunch at least twice a month while I was in Italy, and I have to say, she did not disappoint.
Also, Italy was where I learned the value of having a breadmaker. Nate and I got a breadmaker for a wedding gift, and we use it all the time. We haven't bought a loaf of sandwich bread since our honeymoon.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I'm nervous about Christmas, and it's a new feeling for me. I'm sure it'll be fine and enjoyable (although we do apparently have to take a family photo, and I tend to have very negative feelings about family photos in general. Oh, and take some kind of a hike). But mostly enjoyable.
Part of it is probably that I haven't spend a ton of time with any of the family-in-law. And it's somewhat unlikely that we will ever get the chance to spend any kind of extended period of time together. I mean, it'll probably be a week or two a year for the rest of our lives. Which is fine, I guess. I mean, it's not something I have any strong feelings about either way. I mean, I don't really know most of his family all that well. Plus, I don't have terrifically strong feelings about spending tons of time with my own personal family that I spent eighteen years living with. So, there's that.
I like Christmas, and this won't be the first one that I've spent away from my immediate family. I don't think I was nervous about spending Christmas in Italy. It was probably at least partly because I had already been in Italy for three months and knew each other and knew for a fact that there was going to some extremely delicious several-course lunch with the entire extended family on both sides, all of whom I knew well (with the possible exception of Mario, Andrea's dad, who I believe has Alzheimer's).
I need to remember to find a recipe for the green sauce that was supposed to be eaten with boiled meats. I ate it with bread, and it was awesome. As I recall, the entire meal was somewhere within the four to five courses range. Soup, pasta, a first meat course, a second meat course, various breads through the duration of the meal, and something like five desserts.
I'm pretty sure it was the largest meal of my life to this point, and definitely one of the best ones. Fantastic. Nella, Serena's mom, is supposed to be like a restaraunt-grade chef. We went to her house for Sunday lunch at least twice a month while I was in Italy, and I have to say, she did not disappoint.
Also, Italy was where I learned the value of having a breadmaker. Nate and I got a breadmaker for a wedding gift, and we use it all the time. We haven't bought a loaf of sandwich bread since our honeymoon.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I'm nervous about Christmas, and it's a new feeling for me. I'm sure it'll be fine and enjoyable (although we do apparently have to take a family photo, and I tend to have very negative feelings about family photos in general. Oh, and take some kind of a hike). But mostly enjoyable.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
School Stresses
So, once again, I'm on the fence about what I want to study for the next however-long.
I'm trying to lock down a major, and I keep changing my mind. Currently, I'm leaning toward Anthropology with a Sociocultural emphasis (the options are sociocultural or archeological, and I think sociocultural sounds more interesting) with a minor in either French or Italian. I really don't know. I'd minor in Comparative lit, but it doesn't look like BYU offers Comparative lit as a minor.
I considered majoring in Comparative lit for a while, but while it would be interesting, I don't think it would be as interesting as Anthropology.
A few years ago, I met a date at Borders. We didn't know each other; I was working in a restaurant at the time, and he came in, decided I was cute or something, and asked me out. We decided to meet each other at Borders. The date itself was kind of a bust (I cannot now even remember his name), but while I was there, I found an extremely interesting book. It offers potential answers to societal and cultural questions, ie why some cultures revere pigs and some cultures view pigs as horrifically unclean.
Now, I don't by any means think that the theories posited are 100% correct. There is a segment dealing exclusively with the Christ myth, and the author bases many of his conclusions on "probablies." One of the basic tenants of his arguments is that the historical Christ was "probably" not as peace-loving as he is portrayed in the Gospels or as popular opinion would suggest, but that he was "probably" an anti-Roman radical zealot.
Complete conjecture. The author doesn't try to back up those particular claims with anything other than "it doesn't really make sense for Christ to have been as peace-loving and tolerant as he was portrayed." And then he drew all of his conclusions from that piece of erroneous conjecture, which I found annoying. It seemed like he wouldn't or couldn't believe that any person could have based a ministry on genuine altruism. That sort of skepticism is pretty representative of that found within the scientific community, but I think it was more detrimental than beneficial in this case. Rather than base his conclusions on any actual evidence, he based them on his personal feelings.
But his personal biases against Christ aside, I found his work fascinating. I still do. His anti-relgious biases are pretty prevalent, but I felt they were only problematic when he attempted to come up with an alternate explanation for the accounts of Christ's ministry. I believe that the Lord has good reasons for any commandment he gives his children, so I am willing to believe that the Lord's commandment to the Jews not to eat pork could have been because pigs and humans compete directly for food sources, so keeping pigs may have been a luxury the early Jews could not afford. The ancient Hebrews are pretty well-known for being a hard-headed people, so maybe branding pigs as unclean was the only way the Lord could keep them from giving food that should have gone to their children to their pigs.
Those of us who practice Christian religions and believe that the Jews were our predecessors do not currently believe that there is any inherent harm in eating pork or bacon once in a while, which would imply that something changed so that commandment would no longer be necessary. I don't necessarily believe that Christ's atonement cleansed the pigs of their impurities and made them okay to eat or keep as adorable pets.
I'm not saying that the solution put forward in this book is the only possible solution. I'm just saying that I think it's a valid hypothesis, and that the author's anti-religious bias wasn't an issue when trying to answer that particular question.
Much of his research comes from studying indigenous tribes of South America and the Pacific Islands and deals with power hierarchies within these primitive cultures. Societal power structures fascinate me, and frequently make me incredibly angry. For example, the book tackles the issue of the unequal balance of power between males and females that exists almost ubiquitously. Theoretically, women's collective ability to have children and their generally increased involvement in their raising would give women the ability to root out any way of life that is threatening to them via positive reinforcement and selective neglect. Yet women continuously raise children who grow up to perpetuate the power imbalance between sexes.
In my husband's family, his mother is the primary breadwinner. His father does the majority of the child-rearing. As a result, my husband has a greater respect for women in general and a greater belief that women can be equally capable providers as men, and men can be equally capable child-raisers as women. By seeing the opposite of the stereotype perpetrated successfully in his home as a child, his entire perspective on male/female relations is substantially different than the norm. And then he married what some people might call an angry feminist*, so his opinions are reinforced in our marriage relationship, and it is likely that any children we have will share his opinions as well.
In this family dynamic, it is pretty clear that gender is irrelevant to personal strengths. Some men are naturally nurturing. My husband is that way, as is his father. Some women are not naturally nurturing. His mom seems to do fine with kids (I'm certainly not going to call her out that way in a public forum. Or any kind of forum, for that matter), but I don't mind admitting that they scare the hell out of me. My husband's mother does, however, seem to be extremely well-suited to being the family breadwinner. I currently make roughly twice as much money as my husband does, and I don't think either of us are at all bothered by it.
I once read a study in Psychology Today that said that women who make more money than their husbands tend to view them as less masculine and have less respect for them in the long run. I certainly don't feel that way. Then again, not even the tiniest bit of me believes that it is solely Nate's responsibility to be the primary breadwinner. Most women, I think, even if it's just subconsciously, think that their husbands should be responsible for the financial security of the family. Women are groomed to want to feel taken care of. Another Psychology Today study said that men tend to feel loved when they feel respected by their partners, but women tend to feel loved when they feel secure in their relationships.
I've been freakishly independent since I came out of the womb. The only reason I got married at all was because I love Nate and moving in together and seizing tax benefits seemed like a good idea (still does, by the way). I didn't marry him so he could take care of me. I certainly didn't marry him so he could be my meal ticket. I didn't marry him because I thought it would bring stability to my life.
I feel really bad for the girls who feel or felt compelled to always be in a romantic relationship. I mean, there were males I went to school with who felt the same way, and that sucks for them, but, and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong, I never saw society put pressure on guys the way it does on girls. In LDS society, you're a freak and an outcast if you're under thirty, unmarried, and not going on a date or two a week, but even in non-LDS society, the pressure to find someone who you can pretend to like and who will pretend to like you too is incredibly high.
From what I've seen, many relationships in the high school and college age groups are based on not sharing any interests or values. The girl pretends that she doesn't know that he's a jackass, the boy pretends he doesn't know that she's a harpy shrew, and their farcical relationship continues until one or both of them realizes that they have nothing in common except vanity and self-involvement, and then it all dissolves in a mess of tears and delusion.
Not all relationships are like this, obviously. But enough of them are that I fear for any people, of any gender, who are in this age group and are trying to navigate the tempestuous seas of dating. Avoiding jackasses and harpy shrews is a good start, I feel.
But, and this brings me back to my point, girls and women frequently feel so much pressure to look like they're in the perfect relationship that they overlook the jackassishness that's seeping out of these guys pores. It's often less about actual happiness, and more about appearance. Being happy is irrelevant as long as you look happy to your peers.
Is there a major in teaching people not to be stupid?
*In my defense, it's not just male/female inequality that gets me fired up. I'm deeply opposed to social inequality of any kind, except the sort that favors smart, hard-working people (regardless of their age, race, gender, religion, or social status) over not-so-smart, lazy people (regardless of their age, race, gender, religion, or social status).
I'm trying to lock down a major, and I keep changing my mind. Currently, I'm leaning toward Anthropology with a Sociocultural emphasis (the options are sociocultural or archeological, and I think sociocultural sounds more interesting) with a minor in either French or Italian. I really don't know. I'd minor in Comparative lit, but it doesn't look like BYU offers Comparative lit as a minor.
I considered majoring in Comparative lit for a while, but while it would be interesting, I don't think it would be as interesting as Anthropology.
A few years ago, I met a date at Borders. We didn't know each other; I was working in a restaurant at the time, and he came in, decided I was cute or something, and asked me out. We decided to meet each other at Borders. The date itself was kind of a bust (I cannot now even remember his name), but while I was there, I found an extremely interesting book. It offers potential answers to societal and cultural questions, ie why some cultures revere pigs and some cultures view pigs as horrifically unclean.
Now, I don't by any means think that the theories posited are 100% correct. There is a segment dealing exclusively with the Christ myth, and the author bases many of his conclusions on "probablies." One of the basic tenants of his arguments is that the historical Christ was "probably" not as peace-loving as he is portrayed in the Gospels or as popular opinion would suggest, but that he was "probably" an anti-Roman radical zealot.
Complete conjecture. The author doesn't try to back up those particular claims with anything other than "it doesn't really make sense for Christ to have been as peace-loving and tolerant as he was portrayed." And then he drew all of his conclusions from that piece of erroneous conjecture, which I found annoying. It seemed like he wouldn't or couldn't believe that any person could have based a ministry on genuine altruism. That sort of skepticism is pretty representative of that found within the scientific community, but I think it was more detrimental than beneficial in this case. Rather than base his conclusions on any actual evidence, he based them on his personal feelings.
But his personal biases against Christ aside, I found his work fascinating. I still do. His anti-relgious biases are pretty prevalent, but I felt they were only problematic when he attempted to come up with an alternate explanation for the accounts of Christ's ministry. I believe that the Lord has good reasons for any commandment he gives his children, so I am willing to believe that the Lord's commandment to the Jews not to eat pork could have been because pigs and humans compete directly for food sources, so keeping pigs may have been a luxury the early Jews could not afford. The ancient Hebrews are pretty well-known for being a hard-headed people, so maybe branding pigs as unclean was the only way the Lord could keep them from giving food that should have gone to their children to their pigs.
Those of us who practice Christian religions and believe that the Jews were our predecessors do not currently believe that there is any inherent harm in eating pork or bacon once in a while, which would imply that something changed so that commandment would no longer be necessary. I don't necessarily believe that Christ's atonement cleansed the pigs of their impurities and made them okay to eat or keep as adorable pets.
I'm not saying that the solution put forward in this book is the only possible solution. I'm just saying that I think it's a valid hypothesis, and that the author's anti-religious bias wasn't an issue when trying to answer that particular question.
Much of his research comes from studying indigenous tribes of South America and the Pacific Islands and deals with power hierarchies within these primitive cultures. Societal power structures fascinate me, and frequently make me incredibly angry. For example, the book tackles the issue of the unequal balance of power between males and females that exists almost ubiquitously. Theoretically, women's collective ability to have children and their generally increased involvement in their raising would give women the ability to root out any way of life that is threatening to them via positive reinforcement and selective neglect. Yet women continuously raise children who grow up to perpetuate the power imbalance between sexes.
In my husband's family, his mother is the primary breadwinner. His father does the majority of the child-rearing. As a result, my husband has a greater respect for women in general and a greater belief that women can be equally capable providers as men, and men can be equally capable child-raisers as women. By seeing the opposite of the stereotype perpetrated successfully in his home as a child, his entire perspective on male/female relations is substantially different than the norm. And then he married what some people might call an angry feminist*, so his opinions are reinforced in our marriage relationship, and it is likely that any children we have will share his opinions as well.
In this family dynamic, it is pretty clear that gender is irrelevant to personal strengths. Some men are naturally nurturing. My husband is that way, as is his father. Some women are not naturally nurturing. His mom seems to do fine with kids (I'm certainly not going to call her out that way in a public forum. Or any kind of forum, for that matter), but I don't mind admitting that they scare the hell out of me. My husband's mother does, however, seem to be extremely well-suited to being the family breadwinner. I currently make roughly twice as much money as my husband does, and I don't think either of us are at all bothered by it.
I once read a study in Psychology Today that said that women who make more money than their husbands tend to view them as less masculine and have less respect for them in the long run. I certainly don't feel that way. Then again, not even the tiniest bit of me believes that it is solely Nate's responsibility to be the primary breadwinner. Most women, I think, even if it's just subconsciously, think that their husbands should be responsible for the financial security of the family. Women are groomed to want to feel taken care of. Another Psychology Today study said that men tend to feel loved when they feel respected by their partners, but women tend to feel loved when they feel secure in their relationships.
I've been freakishly independent since I came out of the womb. The only reason I got married at all was because I love Nate and moving in together and seizing tax benefits seemed like a good idea (still does, by the way). I didn't marry him so he could take care of me. I certainly didn't marry him so he could be my meal ticket. I didn't marry him because I thought it would bring stability to my life.
I feel really bad for the girls who feel or felt compelled to always be in a romantic relationship. I mean, there were males I went to school with who felt the same way, and that sucks for them, but, and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong, I never saw society put pressure on guys the way it does on girls. In LDS society, you're a freak and an outcast if you're under thirty, unmarried, and not going on a date or two a week, but even in non-LDS society, the pressure to find someone who you can pretend to like and who will pretend to like you too is incredibly high.
From what I've seen, many relationships in the high school and college age groups are based on not sharing any interests or values. The girl pretends that she doesn't know that he's a jackass, the boy pretends he doesn't know that she's a harpy shrew, and their farcical relationship continues until one or both of them realizes that they have nothing in common except vanity and self-involvement, and then it all dissolves in a mess of tears and delusion.
Not all relationships are like this, obviously. But enough of them are that I fear for any people, of any gender, who are in this age group and are trying to navigate the tempestuous seas of dating. Avoiding jackasses and harpy shrews is a good start, I feel.
But, and this brings me back to my point, girls and women frequently feel so much pressure to look like they're in the perfect relationship that they overlook the jackassishness that's seeping out of these guys pores. It's often less about actual happiness, and more about appearance. Being happy is irrelevant as long as you look happy to your peers.
Is there a major in teaching people not to be stupid?
*In my defense, it's not just male/female inequality that gets me fired up. I'm deeply opposed to social inequality of any kind, except the sort that favors smart, hard-working people (regardless of their age, race, gender, religion, or social status) over not-so-smart, lazy people (regardless of their age, race, gender, religion, or social status).
Friday, November 19, 2010
I Could Be Your Loving Fender
Continuing with the theme of things that I think are awesome that other people think are terrible, let's talk about 70's and 80's era pop music as sung by sassy black women and nordic pop bands.
Everyone who has been my facebook friend for more than fifteen minutes knows how much I love this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPnGPIMUnus
When my older brother Zack showed this video to me for the first time, it started out as an ironic affection. It's not anymore. The more I watched it, the more I realized we were soulmates. It has everything I love: generic pop music with badly translated lyrics, terrible dancing, and awesome belts.
Also, since going through the temple, this video has altered how I picture heaven entirely, because I'm about 90% sure that's the same set. I now pretty much envision God as that guy, and I have to say, if God looks like the guy from that music video, congratulations to them both. In all seriousness, good for everyone involved, especially me. And them.
It should, then, come as no surprise that I'm a huge ABBA fan. Again, something that started out ironic. Actually, that's probably a lie. When I was maybe ten or eleven, a nordic pop group called the A*Teens catapulted out of Sweden and started releasing ABBA covers in the US. Then it turned out that my mother had an ABBA: Gold record, and I discovered that I liked the originals better. Then the A*Teens made the disastrous career move of recording original stuff. Not a good call on their part, I feel. I mean, I still bought their CDs, but I don't think anyone else did.
Moving on, I spent a significant portion of this morning listening to Donna Summers and Tina Turner and dancing around the apartment in my underwear. Nate had to go take a test, and that's pretty much what I do when he's not here and I'm done with work. I recently purchased a Carmen Electra Aerobic Striptease workout DVD, and I got the dances down pretty quickly (it was the first DVD in the series, so I think it's supposed to get harder from there). But there were a bunch of moves and suchlike that are both highly enjoyable and make my muscles burn when I repeat them several times. So now, instead of exercising like any kind of real person, I practice my pliés (I can almost plié in first position without falling over) and gyrate around the apartment for an hour or so. It turns out that Donna Summer and Tina Turner are both very good for that kind of thing. Not that you care, but I think my waistline and hips are slightly smaller than they were.
This doesn't fall into either of the aforementioned categories, but I'm listening to Sonny and Cher's "I Got You Babe" for like the third time today, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I realize that it's just me and some weird middle aged people who like this song, but I don't care.
Everyone who has been my facebook friend for more than fifteen minutes knows how much I love this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPnGPIMUnus
When my older brother Zack showed this video to me for the first time, it started out as an ironic affection. It's not anymore. The more I watched it, the more I realized we were soulmates. It has everything I love: generic pop music with badly translated lyrics, terrible dancing, and awesome belts.
Also, since going through the temple, this video has altered how I picture heaven entirely, because I'm about 90% sure that's the same set. I now pretty much envision God as that guy, and I have to say, if God looks like the guy from that music video, congratulations to them both. In all seriousness, good for everyone involved, especially me. And them.
It should, then, come as no surprise that I'm a huge ABBA fan. Again, something that started out ironic. Actually, that's probably a lie. When I was maybe ten or eleven, a nordic pop group called the A*Teens catapulted out of Sweden and started releasing ABBA covers in the US. Then it turned out that my mother had an ABBA: Gold record, and I discovered that I liked the originals better. Then the A*Teens made the disastrous career move of recording original stuff. Not a good call on their part, I feel. I mean, I still bought their CDs, but I don't think anyone else did.
Moving on, I spent a significant portion of this morning listening to Donna Summers and Tina Turner and dancing around the apartment in my underwear. Nate had to go take a test, and that's pretty much what I do when he's not here and I'm done with work. I recently purchased a Carmen Electra Aerobic Striptease workout DVD, and I got the dances down pretty quickly (it was the first DVD in the series, so I think it's supposed to get harder from there). But there were a bunch of moves and suchlike that are both highly enjoyable and make my muscles burn when I repeat them several times. So now, instead of exercising like any kind of real person, I practice my pliés (I can almost plié in first position without falling over) and gyrate around the apartment for an hour or so. It turns out that Donna Summer and Tina Turner are both very good for that kind of thing. Not that you care, but I think my waistline and hips are slightly smaller than they were.
This doesn't fall into either of the aforementioned categories, but I'm listening to Sonny and Cher's "I Got You Babe" for like the third time today, and I'm enjoying it immensely. I realize that it's just me and some weird middle aged people who like this song, but I don't care.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
You Know What Movie I Totally Unironically Love?
Okay, so, I tend to lose points in many people's books because I don't really separate my guilty pleasures from my non-guilty pleasures. Quite frankly, I think my guilty pleasures tend to be more fun than my non-guilty pleasures anyway, so what's the point of pretending?
A few months ago, a couple friends and I watched Jennifer's Body, with the lovely and nuanced Megan Fox and that broad from Mean Girls who looks like she has Down's Syndrome who is now some kind of a legitimate romcom leading actress for some reason.
I love it. I love that movie. Part of the reason is that it was written by Diablo Cody, who I have a massive, massive girl-crush on. People criticize her writing style for being completely ridiculous and unrealistic, but I love her satirical, tongue-in-cheek style. It's film, people. Let's not sit here and say that Eraserhead was supposed to be some kind of documentary.
One of the reasons that I love it is the soundtrack. It's exactly the kind of angsty, whiny, chick-rock I love. Not Cranberries style. More like Hole, which is actually featured on the soundtrack. Yes, yes, I know, Courtney Love sucks and is trashy, I understand. What if I like things that suck and are trashy?
Because I do. I really do. Things that suck and are trashy are pretty much my favorite. That's why I'm such a Tyra Banks fan.
But I digress. Jennifer's Body. Megan Fox plays a chick who gets possessed after a rock band, with frontman Adam Brody of the OC, tries to sacrifice her to Satan in return for making it big. After that, she has to demonically eat people every so often, there's lesbian subtext, and that Down's Syndrom-ey girl eventually kills Megan Fox and goes to some kind of psych ward, and then breaks out to murder the entire band. The END!
It's excellent. And by excellent, I obviously mean ridiculously trashy, which to me is the same as excellent.
Things I Learned:
- I totally finally got where everyone was coming from when they were freaking out about how hot Megan Fox is.
- Her fingernails start growing right at the tops of her fingers, and it is SO WEIRD. It's really weird.
- I'm listening to Cher right now, and she's so awesome. Who's excited for Burlesque? I know I am!
- That one girl really looks like she's slow in the head. Why does she keep getting cast as a romantic lead?
A few months ago, a couple friends and I watched Jennifer's Body, with the lovely and nuanced Megan Fox and that broad from Mean Girls who looks like she has Down's Syndrome who is now some kind of a legitimate romcom leading actress for some reason.
I love it. I love that movie. Part of the reason is that it was written by Diablo Cody, who I have a massive, massive girl-crush on. People criticize her writing style for being completely ridiculous and unrealistic, but I love her satirical, tongue-in-cheek style. It's film, people. Let's not sit here and say that Eraserhead was supposed to be some kind of documentary.
One of the reasons that I love it is the soundtrack. It's exactly the kind of angsty, whiny, chick-rock I love. Not Cranberries style. More like Hole, which is actually featured on the soundtrack. Yes, yes, I know, Courtney Love sucks and is trashy, I understand. What if I like things that suck and are trashy?
Because I do. I really do. Things that suck and are trashy are pretty much my favorite. That's why I'm such a Tyra Banks fan.
But I digress. Jennifer's Body. Megan Fox plays a chick who gets possessed after a rock band, with frontman Adam Brody of the OC, tries to sacrifice her to Satan in return for making it big. After that, she has to demonically eat people every so often, there's lesbian subtext, and that Down's Syndrom-ey girl eventually kills Megan Fox and goes to some kind of psych ward, and then breaks out to murder the entire band. The END!
It's excellent. And by excellent, I obviously mean ridiculously trashy, which to me is the same as excellent.
Things I Learned:
- I totally finally got where everyone was coming from when they were freaking out about how hot Megan Fox is.
- Her fingernails start growing right at the tops of her fingers, and it is SO WEIRD. It's really weird.
- I'm listening to Cher right now, and she's so awesome. Who's excited for Burlesque? I know I am!
- That one girl really looks like she's slow in the head. Why does she keep getting cast as a romantic lead?
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
X-Mas Cheer
In what may be a terrible shock to some people, I really like Christmas. It's alright, be surprised. It surprises me too, when I think about it.
I don't especially think it's necessary for people to be listening to Christmas music pre-Thanksgiving, but it's a free country. People can do what they want, even if what they want is kind of obnoxious. I get the appeal in stretching out the experience for as long as possible.
Nate and I finished our Christmas shopping last night. Well, pretty much. This morning, I remembered that there was a member of the family that we'd forgotten, so whoopsies there. In my defense, this person has only been a member of my family for a couple months, and I'm purchasing twice the number of presents I normally do. Maybe more than that; Zack and I teamed up and got joint presents for everyone most years, and more often than not, we gave Spencer and Elijah something to share. I don't know what Nate's excuse is, this person has been a member of his family for way longer than that. Fortunately, there's more than a month until Christmas, so I'm sure we'll figure something out.
Of course, this morning was also the morning that his mother sent out a list of suggestions of things to get for everyone. Had it happened earlier, or we had started gift-buying later, we probably wouldn't have ignored it. As it is, everyone is getting what we already got them and they're going to like it. Or, at least, they'll pretend to like it until we leave, at which point they can say disparaging things behind our backs. But, for the most part, they're THEME gifts. Theme gifts, people, and everything we got was either useful, pretty, or delicious. And we didn't get anyone giant cutlery, and let me tell you, we seriously considered it. We found a spoon that was three feet long at Pier 1 Imports. It had a corresponding fork, as well. That one was nixed because a giant fork could be potentially dangerous, but we considered the giant spoon for a good while before it turned out to be seventy dollars.
It's not that we don't like our family members seventy dollars worth, it's that we in no way have seventy dollars times fifteen or so people, and if we got somebody that we aren't married to a huge expensive gift, we'd have to get huge expensive gifts for everybody.
I still have to figure out a gift for Nate. I got him pretty awesome gift for his birthday in October, but it was like the one thing I had on a list of gift ideas for him. Except for carbonite soap. It's a little bar of soap that looks like carbonite and has a tiny Han Solo action figure inside. I strongly suspect that he would probably like something like that. But I also have no idea what he's getting me, and I don't want to get him something really small and simple, and for him to get me something big, or vice versa. Not because it would effect the dynamic of our relationship, but we're going to be opening our gifts in front of our family members and we don't want them making...inferences.
I don't especially think it's necessary for people to be listening to Christmas music pre-Thanksgiving, but it's a free country. People can do what they want, even if what they want is kind of obnoxious. I get the appeal in stretching out the experience for as long as possible.
Nate and I finished our Christmas shopping last night. Well, pretty much. This morning, I remembered that there was a member of the family that we'd forgotten, so whoopsies there. In my defense, this person has only been a member of my family for a couple months, and I'm purchasing twice the number of presents I normally do. Maybe more than that; Zack and I teamed up and got joint presents for everyone most years, and more often than not, we gave Spencer and Elijah something to share. I don't know what Nate's excuse is, this person has been a member of his family for way longer than that. Fortunately, there's more than a month until Christmas, so I'm sure we'll figure something out.
Of course, this morning was also the morning that his mother sent out a list of suggestions of things to get for everyone. Had it happened earlier, or we had started gift-buying later, we probably wouldn't have ignored it. As it is, everyone is getting what we already got them and they're going to like it. Or, at least, they'll pretend to like it until we leave, at which point they can say disparaging things behind our backs. But, for the most part, they're THEME gifts. Theme gifts, people, and everything we got was either useful, pretty, or delicious. And we didn't get anyone giant cutlery, and let me tell you, we seriously considered it. We found a spoon that was three feet long at Pier 1 Imports. It had a corresponding fork, as well. That one was nixed because a giant fork could be potentially dangerous, but we considered the giant spoon for a good while before it turned out to be seventy dollars.
It's not that we don't like our family members seventy dollars worth, it's that we in no way have seventy dollars times fifteen or so people, and if we got somebody that we aren't married to a huge expensive gift, we'd have to get huge expensive gifts for everybody.
I still have to figure out a gift for Nate. I got him pretty awesome gift for his birthday in October, but it was like the one thing I had on a list of gift ideas for him. Except for carbonite soap. It's a little bar of soap that looks like carbonite and has a tiny Han Solo action figure inside. I strongly suspect that he would probably like something like that. But I also have no idea what he's getting me, and I don't want to get him something really small and simple, and for him to get me something big, or vice versa. Not because it would effect the dynamic of our relationship, but we're going to be opening our gifts in front of our family members and we don't want them making...inferences.
Monday, November 15, 2010
You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?
I understand that this entire blog up to this point has been me complaining about things in a cranky manner. Continuing with that theme, I absolutely detest it when people integrate Bible verses into otherwise normal occurrences.
You love the Lord. That's fantastic. Really, very sincerely, I'm glad that some people feel like they have a close and personal relationship with God that's not completely dysfunctional. It's probably also a positive thing that these people choose to integrate this relationship into their daily lives. I integrate my relationship with the Lord into my daily life, but I don't think he and I have the best relationship right now, so it tends to manifest itself as anger and confusion, rather than light and joy, or what have you.
What I don't necessarily love is the proclivity that people who feel that they are very close to the Lord tend to have: the proclivity to shoving their personal beliefs down other people's throats. I guarantee that if someone is at a baseball game, he or she is not there looking for a spiritual awakening. I can also guarantee that if I come to a friend looking for advice or emotional support, telling me to read a scripture is not going to do the trick. I read the Scriptures on my own time. Quoting a Bible verse to me, unless the issue at hand is legitimately spiritual, is not going to do anything except annoy me.
It comes across as terrifically sanctimonious. There are a few people that I trust have made religion such a huge part of their lives that them referencing scripture as a part of a normal conversation might not come across as such, but those people occupy a tiny, tiny minority.
You see, that's why I tend not to like really religious people: they tend to be self-righteously pious and they feel like their personal relationship with their Savior gives them a free pass to be as intolerant and narrow-minded as they want to be. I don't feel like that's always the case, but frequently, it is.
Over the summer, I was working at Macy's. I was alone on the floor; I think the other girl I worked with was at lunch at the time, and a woman came in. She said she hadn't been shopping in like seven years or something like that, and she really heavily relied on my help and advice in picking things out and deciding what looked good. It was really obvious that she was a very nice, sweet woman, and I think she assumed that I was fashionable because I worked in a retail store. As she was checking out, after like two hours shopping in the tiny, tiny Petites department, she gave me a little pamphlet from her church. She said that once, someone gave one to her and it changed her life for the better, and she wanted to give one to me so I could at least have the option to learn about it if I wanted it.
I do not mind people like that in the slightest. In fact, I love people like that, because I knew that she was being 100% sincere with me. She was not trying to shove her beliefs down my throat, she legitimately wanted to share something that had improved her life in the hopes that it would improve other people's lives as well. I feel like she was a perfect example of how religious people should be. She didn't try to sell me on it, she didn't try to make me feel stupid or inferior for not subscribing to her particular brand of Protestantism. It was a very simple delivery, but it's stuck with me because of her obvious sincerity. If everyone felt about their religion the way this woman obviously felt about hers, I feel like Christianity would not have the terrible reputation it currently has.
You love the Lord. That's fantastic. Really, very sincerely, I'm glad that some people feel like they have a close and personal relationship with God that's not completely dysfunctional. It's probably also a positive thing that these people choose to integrate this relationship into their daily lives. I integrate my relationship with the Lord into my daily life, but I don't think he and I have the best relationship right now, so it tends to manifest itself as anger and confusion, rather than light and joy, or what have you.
What I don't necessarily love is the proclivity that people who feel that they are very close to the Lord tend to have: the proclivity to shoving their personal beliefs down other people's throats. I guarantee that if someone is at a baseball game, he or she is not there looking for a spiritual awakening. I can also guarantee that if I come to a friend looking for advice or emotional support, telling me to read a scripture is not going to do the trick. I read the Scriptures on my own time. Quoting a Bible verse to me, unless the issue at hand is legitimately spiritual, is not going to do anything except annoy me.
It comes across as terrifically sanctimonious. There are a few people that I trust have made religion such a huge part of their lives that them referencing scripture as a part of a normal conversation might not come across as such, but those people occupy a tiny, tiny minority.
You see, that's why I tend not to like really religious people: they tend to be self-righteously pious and they feel like their personal relationship with their Savior gives them a free pass to be as intolerant and narrow-minded as they want to be. I don't feel like that's always the case, but frequently, it is.
Over the summer, I was working at Macy's. I was alone on the floor; I think the other girl I worked with was at lunch at the time, and a woman came in. She said she hadn't been shopping in like seven years or something like that, and she really heavily relied on my help and advice in picking things out and deciding what looked good. It was really obvious that she was a very nice, sweet woman, and I think she assumed that I was fashionable because I worked in a retail store. As she was checking out, after like two hours shopping in the tiny, tiny Petites department, she gave me a little pamphlet from her church. She said that once, someone gave one to her and it changed her life for the better, and she wanted to give one to me so I could at least have the option to learn about it if I wanted it.
I do not mind people like that in the slightest. In fact, I love people like that, because I knew that she was being 100% sincere with me. She was not trying to shove her beliefs down my throat, she legitimately wanted to share something that had improved her life in the hopes that it would improve other people's lives as well. I feel like she was a perfect example of how religious people should be. She didn't try to sell me on it, she didn't try to make me feel stupid or inferior for not subscribing to her particular brand of Protestantism. It was a very simple delivery, but it's stuck with me because of her obvious sincerity. If everyone felt about their religion the way this woman obviously felt about hers, I feel like Christianity would not have the terrible reputation it currently has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)