This is my final post. It has been fun, but I don't have the time nor inclination to continue being a member. To what few friends I had, take care. 
I guess I haven't updated in some time so, here goes. College life is good. Work is actually good also, takes my mind away from class and vice versa. The girls are cute but too bloody young. No hockey, Jabberowk sad. I like my new apartment, not quite a swinging batchelor pad but that wouldn't really fit my idiom anyway. That's all.
Nothing to say. No job, no money, no future?
Here's some song lyrics:
"And you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?"
"One day you feel quite stable, the next you're coming off the wall. But I feel that you should warn me if you start heading for a fall."
"Standing in the pouring rain, waiting for the last train; thinking, wishing, hoping that you'd never feel the same again."
Here's some song lyrics:
"And you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?"
"One day you feel quite stable, the next you're coming off the wall. But I feel that you should warn me if you start heading for a fall."
"Standing in the pouring rain, waiting for the last train; thinking, wishing, hoping that you'd never feel the same again."
"Children by the millions scream for Alex Chilton...to come running."
Though I constantly profess my devotion to The History Channel, I have to admit that I am getting into "We Are The 80's" on VH1Classic. In the past day or so, I've seen videos from Peter Murphy, The Wonder Stuff, Iggy Pop, Red Ryder and, get this, The Bolshoi (remember them?!?). Ah youth, wasted on the young.
Think J-Lo would get hot for a guy in a kilt?
I suppose the reason I like this show is that it does remind me of my younger days. I mean, I'm not ancient or anything, but I did used to be cool. I had my little circle of hip, cool friends. It is nice to reminicse.
Y'ever notice that The Cure circa Disintegration looked like Winona Ryder in "Beetlejuice?" Hmmmmmm.
I guess that is the cool thing about "80's" is the fact that they do play some of the more popular dreck that came out then, but they also play the other stuff. They do dig deep. It certainly brings a smile to my face. Haw Haw.
"You fucked me four times last night David; you've been inside me. I swallowed your cum."
The first hour of "Vanilla Sky" is actually rather watchable, bordering on enjoyable. Then it goes to shit. Those are great lines, made all the better coming from Cameron Diaz. Not bad looking, but not really my fantasy-type girl.
Though I constantly profess my devotion to The History Channel, I have to admit that I am getting into "We Are The 80's" on VH1Classic. In the past day or so, I've seen videos from Peter Murphy, The Wonder Stuff, Iggy Pop, Red Ryder and, get this, The Bolshoi (remember them?!?). Ah youth, wasted on the young.
Think J-Lo would get hot for a guy in a kilt?
I suppose the reason I like this show is that it does remind me of my younger days. I mean, I'm not ancient or anything, but I did used to be cool. I had my little circle of hip, cool friends. It is nice to reminicse.
Y'ever notice that The Cure circa Disintegration looked like Winona Ryder in "Beetlejuice?" Hmmmmmm.
I guess that is the cool thing about "80's" is the fact that they do play some of the more popular dreck that came out then, but they also play the other stuff. They do dig deep. It certainly brings a smile to my face. Haw Haw.
"You fucked me four times last night David; you've been inside me. I swallowed your cum."
The first hour of "Vanilla Sky" is actually rather watchable, bordering on enjoyable. Then it goes to shit. Those are great lines, made all the better coming from Cameron Diaz. Not bad looking, but not really my fantasy-type girl.
Finals are over. I have to beg and plead w/a professor to try to get into a history class for next semester. Probably won't have any luck but, what can you do. So I watched "Eternal Sunshine" a few weeks ago. It was interesting. Not bad. Most critics loved it, and rightfully so. My biggest problem was that it was formulaic. What I mean by that is the fact that Charlie Kaufman pretty much followed the template in the creation of his characters. Jim Carrey, playing against type, was a buttoned-down shy type. Kate Winslet (so hot!) played the free-spirit. That was what I meant by somewhat formulaic. This matching of the uptight male/carefree female is a universal cinematic archetype. It is an inversion on the proper female/roguish male set-up. You see it in everything from "Pretty In Pink" to "Something Wonderful". These are just two examples, but you get the point. I must admit some fascination with this though. I wouldn't say that I am like the Carrey character, but I am not exactly the extroverted life-of-the-party. I can't imagine what it would be like to be with a girl like that. That sense of whimsy and joy. Remarkable.
Not much too add. Well, that's not true, someone stole my cellphone a couple of weeks ago, I finished my big paper on Pushkin's Onegin, and school is just about done for the semester. Playing lax has been fun. Appears that I will be admitted to grad school. Yipee. I won't even begin to mention the debacle that was Fountain Day here at SUNY. Glad I was just a dispassionate observer. Damn fool drunk students, can't hold their liquor. Hockey will be over soon. That's all, nothing substantial.
Now for part II of my treatise. In this section I will discuss what I believe are the trenchant reasons for people who wish to become celebrities.
In my jaded worldview, people have the desire to become famous (i.e. celebrity) out of both narcissism and insecurity.
I postulate that it is narcissism in that they have a supreme sense of self-love and and unbinding belief in their own sense of self.
Now here is the conundrum. Accompanying this is the insecurity. The person in the public eye needs to be there because of the overwhelming need for approval and validation.
"Wait a minute," you say, "that doesn't make sense!" You're right, it does not. That is what has troubled me. How can you reconcile these two divergent traits occurring within a single entity? I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible. This is the oxymoron illustrated at it's finest.
I don't this applies to people like writers, or musicians, or painters or the like. My reasoning for this goes back to my belief that there is a difference between the creative community and what I call "The Reactive Community." This includes actors, models, and other dramatis personae.
The creative sort I think would be perfectly content composing or painting or what have you in the privacy of their own lives. They do not need to splash themselves all over the cultural landscape.
The "Reactive Community" on the other hand, has no other option. Without
making themselves known and such, they would not have an effect or acknowledgement, and that is an anethma to them.
One caveat and that is politicians.
They are more interested in power than anything else. I am far too cynical to believe that these people are in it for the "Common Good." This goes for anybody, all shades of the ideological spectrum, e.g. from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore. They are, in my estimation, buffoons and cads; a pox upon them all.
As always, I welcome all questions, comments and slanderous diatribes. Have a day.
In my jaded worldview, people have the desire to become famous (i.e. celebrity) out of both narcissism and insecurity.
I postulate that it is narcissism in that they have a supreme sense of self-love and and unbinding belief in their own sense of self.
Now here is the conundrum. Accompanying this is the insecurity. The person in the public eye needs to be there because of the overwhelming need for approval and validation.
"Wait a minute," you say, "that doesn't make sense!" You're right, it does not. That is what has troubled me. How can you reconcile these two divergent traits occurring within a single entity? I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible. This is the oxymoron illustrated at it's finest.
I don't this applies to people like writers, or musicians, or painters or the like. My reasoning for this goes back to my belief that there is a difference between the creative community and what I call "The Reactive Community." This includes actors, models, and other dramatis personae.
The creative sort I think would be perfectly content composing or painting or what have you in the privacy of their own lives. They do not need to splash themselves all over the cultural landscape.
The "Reactive Community" on the other hand, has no other option. Without
making themselves known and such, they would not have an effect or acknowledgement, and that is an anethma to them.
One caveat and that is politicians.
They are more interested in power than anything else. I am far too cynical to believe that these people are in it for the "Common Good." This goes for anybody, all shades of the ideological spectrum, e.g. from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore. They are, in my estimation, buffoons and cads; a pox upon them all.
As always, I welcome all questions, comments and slanderous diatribes. Have a day.
