today was one of those days that feels like several days-- has several different stages, so that by the time you finally fall asleep it's like you've lived a whole week.
i'm guessing a big component to today's feel was the fact i took a mega dose of nighttime syrupy medicinal goodness last night. at 3am i woke up with pins and needles in my arm thanks to a cat sleeping on it. i remember thinking i should move, but when my alarm went off 4 hours later i was still in the same position minus sleeping cat and sleeping arm but a mouse instead. (it's like a circus in my bed. [i wish]).
the rest of my day proceeded as such:
---
Share drive/T:/Editions marketing/Jill.Katharine/ what the hell am i looking for in this folder...?
do something. at least blink or nod or head or smile or show some sort of human response in this meeting. dear god, i feel like i'm dead. maye i am dead. is it snowing outside? i thought it wasn't supposed to-- katharine, are you okay? --me?! yes! i'm fine. hey look everyone, it's snowing!
---
2:00pm- finally alert
3:00pm- extreme productivity
4:00pm- multiple paper cuts
---
the quality of the light was beautiful walking out of work. when it's overcast- not cloudy, but angry with precipitation-- for so many days in a row, you soon start considering certain types of gray skies as 'sunny'. this afternoon it was overcast, but overcast like if you were making a sky out of layers of faded tissue paper.
---
took a different route home; savored the incense burning in the el station; some small things caught my attention; ignored some big things; conversed with strangers; acquired objects
---
your shameless self-promotion on facebook and gchat status makes me sick. you're not a good writer, only a good shmoozer. not to mention you can't dress yourself and the number 1 adjective that comes to mind when describing you is smarmy.
1.29.2009
1.28.2009
lull
"i'm all for moderation but sometimes it seems
moderation itself is a kind of extreme"
and also:
sometimes i find the possibility and access and innovation a crippling creative force.
moderation itself is a kind of extreme"
and also:
sometimes i find the possibility and access and innovation a crippling creative force.
1.18.2009
random notes on revolutionary road
i'm willing to bet that revolutionary road is one of the top three films i see this year, full realizing that it's only 18 days into 2009.
when leaving the movie, a couple on the elevator was discussing the movie.
man: i don't know, i just didn't find it that interesting. a husband and wife screaming at each other for 2.5 hours just didn't do it for me.
woman shrugs shoulders
man: i get enough of that at home.
woman: oh, shut up.
in a way, i can't argue with the guy. but whereas he saw a boring story depicting two people fighting, i saw a fascinating portrayal of the turmoil that can dismantle any serious relationship. the film took something so basic and yet so universal and tailored it to a fictitious couple to whom, i imagine, anyone could relate.
beyond questioning the functionality of the couple's relationship, the film examined what it is to be *normal*, revealing exactly how subjective it is but how frequently it's asserted as something objective-- something that can be measured, something you meet or fail to meet. after the couple shares their plans to leave their current life in the suburbs with their friends, you later see the friends discussing how immature and unrealistic they felt the couple's plans were, which i felt revealed their own insecurities about the life they were living. it seems that their friend's decision to push beyond the status quo registered with them, but only enough to dismiss it as something childish because it inserted discomfort into their lives.
truth was another heavily explored element of the movie-- not just honesty with each other, but with yourself as well. the most honest character was also the man who had recently spent time in a mental institution of sorts and was labeled as "crazy" several times.
i appreciate that the movie didn't side with the husband or wife. it gave a pretty straight view of both sides and let you decide. more than letting the viewer decide, however, i think it aimed to show how two people who are seemingly so similar, in interest, in values, etc. can have inherently different approaches to life.
one scene gripped me unlike almost any other. it's one of the last of the movie and is so brilliant in how it takes the colors of the set and allows them to speak. it's subtle, undeniable, and nuanced all at once and when the camera zooms out to reveal the horrible stain on her skirt and the growing blood on the carpet it's chilling.
so much of this movie was horrific but not in a scary way. horrific in a this-could-become-my-life-so-easily kind of way. you would think one might actively have to choose a life like that but it seems like it so easily occurs. and maybe that's why-- it takes action to stay engaged and alive.
when leaving the movie, a couple on the elevator was discussing the movie.
man: i don't know, i just didn't find it that interesting. a husband and wife screaming at each other for 2.5 hours just didn't do it for me.
woman shrugs shoulders
man: i get enough of that at home.
woman: oh, shut up.
in a way, i can't argue with the guy. but whereas he saw a boring story depicting two people fighting, i saw a fascinating portrayal of the turmoil that can dismantle any serious relationship. the film took something so basic and yet so universal and tailored it to a fictitious couple to whom, i imagine, anyone could relate.
beyond questioning the functionality of the couple's relationship, the film examined what it is to be *normal*, revealing exactly how subjective it is but how frequently it's asserted as something objective-- something that can be measured, something you meet or fail to meet. after the couple shares their plans to leave their current life in the suburbs with their friends, you later see the friends discussing how immature and unrealistic they felt the couple's plans were, which i felt revealed their own insecurities about the life they were living. it seems that their friend's decision to push beyond the status quo registered with them, but only enough to dismiss it as something childish because it inserted discomfort into their lives.
truth was another heavily explored element of the movie-- not just honesty with each other, but with yourself as well. the most honest character was also the man who had recently spent time in a mental institution of sorts and was labeled as "crazy" several times.
i appreciate that the movie didn't side with the husband or wife. it gave a pretty straight view of both sides and let you decide. more than letting the viewer decide, however, i think it aimed to show how two people who are seemingly so similar, in interest, in values, etc. can have inherently different approaches to life.
one scene gripped me unlike almost any other. it's one of the last of the movie and is so brilliant in how it takes the colors of the set and allows them to speak. it's subtle, undeniable, and nuanced all at once and when the camera zooms out to reveal the horrible stain on her skirt and the growing blood on the carpet it's chilling.
so much of this movie was horrific but not in a scary way. horrific in a this-could-become-my-life-so-easily kind of way. you would think one might actively have to choose a life like that but it seems like it so easily occurs. and maybe that's why-- it takes action to stay engaged and alive.
1.15.2009
today's most beauitful encounter
...Eggers says it's like when the Incredible Hulk changes from man to monster. His vision blurs, his body tingles and he can barely hear. According to his friend Larry Gower, who often serves as a public liaison for him, in those moments, Eggers gets extremely loud. They both agree that Sadie is one of the few things keeping Eggers from snapping.
Sadie rides around town on Egger's back in a bright purple backpack specially designed to hold her cage. When he gets upset, she talks him down, saying: "It's O.K., Jim. Calm down, Jim. You're all right, Jim. I'm here, Jim." She somehow senses when he is getting agitated before he even knows it's happening. "I still go off on people sometimes, but she makes sure it never escalates into a big problem," he told me, grinning bashfully at Sadie. "Now when people make me mad I just give them the bird," he said, pulling up his sleeve and flexing his biceps, which is covered with a large tattoo of Sadie.
Soon after what he calls "the Archbishop Incident," Eggers got Sadie from a friend who owned a pet store. She'd been neglected by a previous owner and had torn out all her feathers, so Eggers nursed her back to health. He didn't initially train her as a service animal, he says; she did that herself. When Eggers had episodes at home, he'd pace, holding his head and yelling: "It's O.K., Jim! You're all right, Jim! Calm down, Jim!" One day, Sadie started doing it, too. He soon realized that she calmed him better than he calmed himself.
--Rebecca Skloot, "Creature Comforts", The New York Times Mangazine (January 4, 2009)
Sadie rides around town on Egger's back in a bright purple backpack specially designed to hold her cage. When he gets upset, she talks him down, saying: "It's O.K., Jim. Calm down, Jim. You're all right, Jim. I'm here, Jim." She somehow senses when he is getting agitated before he even knows it's happening. "I still go off on people sometimes, but she makes sure it never escalates into a big problem," he told me, grinning bashfully at Sadie. "Now when people make me mad I just give them the bird," he said, pulling up his sleeve and flexing his biceps, which is covered with a large tattoo of Sadie.
Soon after what he calls "the Archbishop Incident," Eggers got Sadie from a friend who owned a pet store. She'd been neglected by a previous owner and had torn out all her feathers, so Eggers nursed her back to health. He didn't initially train her as a service animal, he says; she did that herself. When Eggers had episodes at home, he'd pace, holding his head and yelling: "It's O.K., Jim! You're all right, Jim! Calm down, Jim!" One day, Sadie started doing it, too. He soon realized that she calmed him better than he calmed himself.
--Rebecca Skloot, "Creature Comforts", The New York Times Mangazine (January 4, 2009)
1.14.2009
phantom other
here we were all those years ago. some spinning like tops while other spun like ballerinas, hands over head in a soft arc-- an ever so slightly protected bubble. enough to shelter themselves and still let others close. (this is a range i have yet to master.) but we were there, and whether toys or dancers we were all chewing. sucking out the moment's pulp, pulling off the last bloody tendon, not caring if bone chips lodged in our throat. through the spinning and digesting came a song. a humming that was joined by one whistle and two claps and some off key singing. and for one beautiful second, or month, we were a tuning fork. struck, held steady&buzzing, held up for consideration & quiet admiration. held until silenced and put away.
that palpable clarity we held in our hot little fists. like greedy dogs we ran home and dirtied our paws digging. like guilty thieves we checked over both shoulders. like old ladies, nervous with heavy cash, we stored our treasure. to a hole-in-the-ground, we devoted our precious findings.
we abandoned. we fled. we stilled.
---
every now and then i'll hear the bees' angry whispering, or trip on an unlikely groove under foot, and pretend it's our buried treasure nudging like a phantom other.
that palpable clarity we held in our hot little fists. like greedy dogs we ran home and dirtied our paws digging. like guilty thieves we checked over both shoulders. like old ladies, nervous with heavy cash, we stored our treasure. to a hole-in-the-ground, we devoted our precious findings.
we abandoned. we fled. we stilled.
---
every now and then i'll hear the bees' angry whispering, or trip on an unlikely groove under foot, and pretend it's our buried treasure nudging like a phantom other.
1.13.2009
VaR: very absolutely relative
i read an article in the new york times magazine on risk, specifically in light the financial crisis. i found it rather intriguing, which surprised me. usually my dad and brother get going about the market, dividends, puts & calls, and you can bet they only puts and calls i'm registering are calling on them to put me out of my misery.
in this article, though, a great emphasis was placed on VaR (value at risk). if i understand it correctly, a group of really smart people came up with this collection of statistics and probabilities that, when taken together, assesses a portfolio's (and on up to the company's) risk in a 24 hour period. so, for example, if you have $50 million of weekly VaR that means that over the next week there is a 99% chance your portfolio won't lose more than $50 million.
the article goes on to discuss whether the financial blow-out was a result of the VaR not being all it was cracked up to be, or if it was (it was basically a tool formed by a group at j.p. morgan in the early 90s that turned industry standard in a decade.) wall street depending so heavily on this VaR that they lost sight and perspective of this mathematical machines capabilities.
one man called taleb warned against the VaR and the dangerous implications relying on it so heavily could cause. his main criticism is that while you can predict 99% of the time what will happen you have no idea what will happen that 1% of the time, and while that 1% is small it still exists. if there's a 99% chance the most you can lose in one week is $50m that consequently means there's a 1% chance that the least you can lose is $50m.
there's a 99% chance you will live through this week and only get a paper cut. and there's also a 1% chance that a paper cut is the least you'll endure.
in this article, though, a great emphasis was placed on VaR (value at risk). if i understand it correctly, a group of really smart people came up with this collection of statistics and probabilities that, when taken together, assesses a portfolio's (and on up to the company's) risk in a 24 hour period. so, for example, if you have $50 million of weekly VaR that means that over the next week there is a 99% chance your portfolio won't lose more than $50 million.
the article goes on to discuss whether the financial blow-out was a result of the VaR not being all it was cracked up to be, or if it was (it was basically a tool formed by a group at j.p. morgan in the early 90s that turned industry standard in a decade.) wall street depending so heavily on this VaR that they lost sight and perspective of this mathematical machines capabilities.
one man called taleb warned against the VaR and the dangerous implications relying on it so heavily could cause. his main criticism is that while you can predict 99% of the time what will happen you have no idea what will happen that 1% of the time, and while that 1% is small it still exists. if there's a 99% chance the most you can lose in one week is $50m that consequently means there's a 1% chance that the least you can lose is $50m.
there's a 99% chance you will live through this week and only get a paper cut. and there's also a 1% chance that a paper cut is the least you'll endure.
1.11.2009
the animals have turned human.
this is what i live with.
a once graceful, meek feline, matilda has now turned into ma' the beer-guzzling, tv-watching wench.
actually, it should be noted no TV is on. she's just staring into the void, contemplating when to take her next nap.
i have no idea how she got herself into this position, although i'm sure she was planning it all day.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
