“You’re not really dating until you put it on Facebook,”

I love posting essays on the facebook.


-cjfer-

My 7-8-9

-cjfer-

New Post

Been a while, eh? I think Duran Duran has sat there for long enough. It's been absorbed, I hope. It's almost as if that was the post to end all posts, and if it was, well, maybe it will go down in history as such and all subsequent posts will be forgotten about.

Anyway, here's an nytimes article about the US and NATO forces taking the last currently held Taliban town.

You know, six years after Sept. 11 and we're still fighting the Taliban. Don't most people think that war is over? We never got Osama and we're still there. Who knows.

Best of luck,
-cjfer-

I ONLY WANTED...TO BE LOVED!

DURAN DURAN: ARENA














-ccmas

I'd been unofficially looking for this for a while

poor sweater,

-cjfer-

O Superman

-cjfer-

I love this

A clip from Masculine Feminine.



I just flip over the way it's edited.

-cjfer-

Cool trailer

And it's for a remake of the omega man

welcome to EARF!

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/iamlegendawakening/large.html

-cjfer-

My Irreverent names for Red Sox Players

I thought I'd share this while the sox are still in the playoffs

Starting Line Up

1. Dustin Pedroia - P-Dwar
2. Kevin Youkilis - Flouke-al-bits - note - Kevin Millar used to be K-Bone. So Youkilis can be the new K-Bone.
3. David Ortiz - Dort - or Dorty Boy.
4. Manny Ramirez - Man-Slammy
5. Mike Lowell - M. Lowell. (Not very Creative)
6. JD Drew - DL Hughley
7. Jason Varitek - V-Tek is a Beast.
8. Coco Crisp - Coke and Nuts.
9. Julio Lugo - Skeletor

-cjfer

The Odyssey Years

About being between that youth and adulthood. Wandering... Click Here to Read.

-Cjfer-

Che, he's more than just a t-shirt

Commodify This!

-cjfer-

Darjeeling Press Conferance!

-ccmas

Bergman's Faro

Read Here.

-cjfer-

Sex for the Deaf

-cjfer-

Take that Outsourcing!

You can't find the news about outsourcing here. You'll have to go here!

-cjfer-

Ny Times article about photographing Wedding Proposals

Normally I wouldn't post this, but this is the last paragraph

One of his former students recently posted his own proposal photographs on Facebook, he noted. That site and others like MySpace “allow them to be their own publicists,” he went on. “Which ties in with the marriage thing. It really is a fascinating phenomenon. It’s almost like if it’s not on Facebook, it didn’t happen.”

click here to read

-cjfer-

Wes Wes, he is our man, if AT&T can't do it, noone can

So after worrying that "quirk" is dead" thanks to an article in The Atlantic it's good to know that even if "The Darjeeling Limited" doesn't pan out, Wes Anderson will have some other way of making money. According to the interwebz, that ever reliable medium of entertainment information, Wes has agreed to oversee/direct a new line of AT&T commercials in order to help the company appeal to a young, hip audience. Evidence can be seen...



Oh! Right there! The convenience!

Now nothing makes me happier than a good ad campaign. Anyone who knows me is well aware of my eager anticipation of ABC's adaptation of the Geico Cavemen into a sitcom, but I worry about Wes. There's something special about seeing Wes' style on the big screen. His American Express ad was a brilliant diversion, as it played with his persona, but these new ads make his style all too common. I'm not concerned about "selling out" or anything like that. I just like waiting for his movies to come out. Waiting makes his visual style that much more of a treat. Having desert for dinner negates the thrill of desert, you know?

Still, I am eagerly anticipating purchasing my ticket for "The Darjeeling Limited". Can't wait for that ride.

-ccmas

SNL

-cjfer-

This Time Tomorrow, what will we know?

-cjfer-

Pavarotti dead

Read here






-cjfer-

On Becoming and Uncle for the Frist, Second, and Thrid Time

Late last week, my brother and his wife brought into the world three beautiful little children. There are many emotions that go a long with it. Happiness, joy, and the worry that any new parents or family members might feel. Also, a sense of weirdness. My brother is now a father. My father is now a grandfather. To the new parents I have some advice.

1. Push them to excel in a lucrative sport from an early age. You have a real opportunity here. Three kids, one of them should be good at something. Harness that at a young age, and burn them out. Burn them all the way to the back. They might hate you later, but they'll hate you in a fancy car.
1a. Three kids means that you can have them be child actors. You can easily skirt child labor laws that stipulate that a kid can only be on a set for four hours. You just got yourself a 12 hour day. Think olsen twins. Boo-yeah.
2. Make sure they know that crying is for losers.
3. Give them tough nicknames. Like Mad Dog, Bone Crusher, or Scarecrow.
4. Don't force a religion on them. Instead, let them learn all religions. It'll be easier to defeat the lesser religions that way.
5. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Just make sure your stick is made out of American Steel.
6. The only thing more important that love is money.


Anyway. The best of luck to you both.

-cjfer-

He looks so young

-cjfer-

On the Road

Ny Time Read Here

-cjfer-

While I'm here

-cjfer-

Hipster Olympics

I actually think this is kind of brilliant. I'm sure non-hipster/hipster friends have seen it and ironically dismissed it in an effort to out cool me.



-cjfer-

Still one of my all time favorite music videos

I don't know why I needed the still.




-cjfer-

Keeping with the theatrical theme...

This is the monologue that made me want to write. This started it all. It's from a Sam Shepard play called Angel City. I'm not a huge fan of this guy's presentation, but it's still magic. I remember hearing this and thinking, "People can really write like that?". It blew me away, and still does.

Click To Play

-ccmas

Nice Guy? I don't give a shit.

-cjfer-

Stalker, Texas Stranger

-cjfer-

No Ewan McGreggor, Thank You

Video a day

I'm going to try to post a video a day. We'll see how long this lasts.

-cjfer

Ryan Sings the Hits

This is Ryan. He video tapes himself playing covers and then puts them on youtube.

Walk on the Ocean By Toad the Wet Sprocket.



I hope that I don't fall in love with you by Tom Waits



Ryan isn't bad. I just think what he does is really strange. I don't know why he does it.

-cjfer-

Turtle Kid

My favorite time of year

My favorite time of year is beginning. Actually it's about the time from the start of the US OPEN to HALLOWEEN. It's a great time for sports. You have the last Tennis grand slam, sometimes the ryder cup in golf, you have the MLB post season race, and the start to the NFL season. Later in October there's the start of the NHL and NBA seasons. It's like for some reason, life is returning to America. Everyone is returning home from their summer vacations, and the temperature is starting to get a little cooler. The days are getting a little shorter, and the earth, for us in the north, is tilting a little bit away from the sun. It's a time of change, of the transitory; ephemeral, and it's really the only time when there's any mystery or magic the air. It's a special time. It's back to school, back to work, back to life. There's a resurgence of human life, despite the beginning of the end of natural life (at least for another season). There's excitement as the summer ends, blurring into the autumn. It's a time when the METAPHYSICS OF NIGHT takes hold, and fills one with a spiritual tingle through the spine, when hairs on the back of one's neck stand on end. When time fleeting, when the sun sets, and when the air is magic. I can't wait.

-cjfer-

Put in In the Sauce

1. I feel like I needed to post something
2. I had this stuck in my head.
3. I hadn't come across it before recently

The First Planet 2 God Cast

-cjfer- Planet 2.0

Fake America

I like Brian Williams who hosts NBC's Nightly news. But he once said something that irked me. He said something to the effect of "I've been to South Carolina a few times. There's a lot of REAL AMERICANS there."

I'm from New England, home of fake Americans. New York City (not in New England, but freakishly close) probably has more fake Americans per Capita than anyone else. (Actually, New York City has the lowest population of Illegal Immigrants per Capita than any other city. That number is about 150, 000. When you have a city of 8 million people, you can Per Capita the Shit out of anyone.)

I don't have an accent, I don't live on a farm. I'm educated. I don't think I'm better than someone who has an accent, lives on a farm or isn't educated. Why does everyone think I think that? Why do we romanticize one and demon-ize the other? We'd all love to live it simple, but simple kind of passed us by a while ago.

-cjfer-

Planet 1, home of Fake America.

The Semantics of Politics

I was watching CSPAN today, because I'm a nerd and I have a lot of free time. Specifically, I was watching Barack Obama talk about his views on "the issues" in front of a large outdoor crowd in Iowa. Someone asked him about the issue of Gay Marriage. His response is one that I couldn't help but agree with. Just to put it out there, if I were any more liberal I'd be Pepper Labeija. His response was this: I think that same sex couples should be afforded the same civil rights as non-same sex couples. I support civil unions. Gay couples should be treated equally under the law (as heterosexual couples.) This is important for things like hospital visitation rights and transfer of property or personal assents. "Marriage", however, has connotations that aren't just civil, they're religious. [because of the separation of church and state] It's up to the individual denominations whether or not they want to allow gay couples to "Marry." The way he describes it, it's hard to find a quarrel with it. If Marriage is a wholly religious union, shouldn't it be left up to the religions themselves, and not up to law makers? The question then arrives, is marriage a wholly religious union? When a man and woman go to a courthouse to be legally joined, don't we colloquially call them married? We don't often refer to civil unions between men and women as civil unions. We call them Married. Don't we?

So what's in a name? It seems like there's a lot of arguing over THE NAME OF THE THING. Not the thing itself. I can't speak with any real authority here, but don't most people agree that people should be afforded equal protection under the law? Is the name more, less, or equally as important as the thing (in this case being equal rights)? Anyone thinking Shakespeare at this point? What's in a name? Etc? If two people are civil-y unionized, can't they refer to themselves as being married? Is anyone really going to stop them? "oh, sorry, we're not 'married.' We're Civilly Union-ed-ed....Civilly Unionized? We get along, and we're together."

"We're married"
"I feel sorry for you"

'Cause let's face it, marriage is a good party spoiled.

So, what are we talking about? Semantics, the way we talk about the world, describe things, and define the real. Another thought. We have two issues - Pro-life, and Pro-choice. These two positions are characterized as being binary opposites. Are they? Wouldn't it seem that the opposite of Pro-life is Pro-death? Wouldn't it seem that the opposite of Pro-choice is Pro-no choice? If these weren't the set words for which to talk about this issue, would we maybe talk about it different? Again, I'm not an authority on this, but I think if given the options, people would be for life and against death. I think they would also be for choice, and against the lack of choice. I don't think anyone's cheering for death. Even us liberals.

There's no such thing as political parties. They're just names we use, but they don't really even describe anything accurately. Republicans, conservatives, seem to be for a smaller government and less government involvement in people's lives. Is it then odd to regulate something like abortion which involves direct contact with someone's person? Same with the death penalty and regulating life and death? There's something about government regulation and deregulation in there...

The phone rang, this blog is done.

-cjfer-

(planet 1 for now)

A.O. Scott on Berman and Antonioni

Click to read here

"Our Age is Retrospective. We must enjoy an original relation..."
-Emerson

The Greengrass Identity

Last Night I saw "The Bourne Ultimatum" and, well, I should have seen Sunshine. What I didn't like about "The Bourne Supremacy" is the same thing I didn't like about "The Bourne Ultimatum." The action, and story are interesting and Matt Damon is great in the role. I think. The problem is that it's so overly shaky-cam than I can't actually see what's happening. I can't tell. That was a cool fight - I think. And it's not just the fighting, it's everything. I've never seen someone so dramatically brush their teeth before. It's also interesting, isn't it, to root for an action character you know nothing about. I guess by the third movie, we've see it all done before. Or rather, I should say, we didn't really see it before.

It's not to say that there's no "there there." Because there is something there. There's something about the confusion of the modern world, about there not being "good" or "bad" guys, and about having a fractured identity in a world of ever increasing communication. The more we use machines to mediate our personal communication, the more we fracture our identities. Cjfer, Ferry140, or Prince of Space, or whichever avatar you want to put on me, is not exactly the same as chris ferrantino. They're just screennames. The third movie also has a bit of a notion of what is right, what is wrong, and how do we know. My problem isn't with these points, which I think are valid and interesting, my problem is that they're ancillary to a nonstop pace with is visually mucky. They're good ideas that never get fleshed out. The movie never slows down or lets us catch up with it. These movies have good ideas in them and it's almost as if the filmmaker thinks that if he slows down, we'll be bored because we'll be forced to "think." Oh Damn.

That said, I think that Paul Greengrass, the director of the last two Bourne films, actually knows what he's doing, sort of. I just don't think it works for me. Greengrass seems to make films that are "artless." Normally, this would be an insult, but I don't mean Artless as meaning "without art" I mean it as "without Artifice." Greengrass's 2006 film, United 93, is not a good film, it's a great film. The lack of artifice serves that film so well. You couldn't make that film look like a normal hollywood film. The Bourne movies, I'm not so sure about. So what do you think? One wants to avoid artifice, or what is artificial, right? But yet, we love movies that have "art" in them.

-cjfer-

What was the term? "Building on what Chris said..."

I think the newsman mentality gets back to something about our society. Men were different then. They were tougher, more interested in the story. They were artists, not craftsmen. Our society seemed to value the individual more, and we were less litigious. I'm not entirely sure we that we don't want to fight anymore, I just don't know that we know how to, or what we want to go after.

Because on Planet 2, Image is everything, here's a little clip of Hannity and Colmes from FOX NEWS. Guess which one is the Republican and guess which one is the Democrat. (I'll give you a hint, the Democrat looks like he's been dead for 3000 years). You could cut glass on Sean Hannity's Chiseled Conservative Jaw. That's America. Democrats aren't American, they're weak, frail, and look like Skeletor. Seriously, the only way we could fair and balance that scale is to have a man's man like Tom Seleck on the other side. Now that's news I would watch. At least it wouldn't be faking it. There's no discourse in the news. It comes down to who can do more bench presses.

Truth in Numbers, Numbers Lost Truth

When did the news media fail us? Integrity has given way to ratings, and ratings have become truth. While this has been said millions of times, I just wanted to say it here (this being a media based venture, why not, right?) More and more I wonder where the truth went, or more specifically, when did we as a public stop caring?

I blame 24 hour news, but there is more that I miss.

I miss when there was this adventurer mentality to the evening news. People would go out and chase the story down. There was risk. People would get beaten, abused, shouted at, and sometimes killed. But the story would get out there. These were hard stories that impacted people's lives. Dan Rather once spent a night in a jail cell because he wanted to try heroin in a controlled manner to gain perspective on a story. Four or five journalists were shot dead whilst investigating Jonestown. Hell, we even have reporters getting killed in Iraq trying to get the story...whatever story they're chasing.

Thanks to ratings we never hear these hard stories. They're too depressing. We hear harsh things from people who've never left the studio, from pretty boys and girls sitting in chairs. These are the acoustic folk singers to the previous generations Led Zepplin. It's watered down and really, really weak. There's no experience there. They aren't the sages from an older time who've seen it all. They're just some dudes in suits.

The reason I love Mike Doughty is that when he sings about drugs, you can feel the pain and love in his voice. You know that he wants to shoot up, but he knows that he can never go back. That's what's missing from the news today. There is no love or passion or pain. That doesn't get viewers. We get manufactured outrage, but it just comes off as silly and uninteresting. These are the Anderson Coopers and the Nancy Graces and the Bill O'Reilly-s. They're terrible, inauthentic and trite. But people love them.

Someday the media will grow some balls. Or someday we'll start to care again. Either or. There is news out there, and people are telling their stories. It's just become a lot harder to find the ones that matter.



-ccmas
reporting from planet 2

Video from Mike Doughty's Blog - though, not made by Doughty

I found this this particularly Planet 2. I thought this was a really interesting video, and it occurs to me that not everyone reads Mike Doughty's Blog. I found it there. As he explains, it's a video of people masturbating, but shot from the shoulders up. It's called "the Beautiful Agony" and I think it's really interesting, as Mr. Doughty does, as performance art - not as porn. There's something very beautiful, honest, and particularly in the moment about the people's faces.




To read the Doughty blog, click here. He explains more about the video and it's origins.

-cjfer-

Interesting NY Times article about our Japanese Friends

Click HERE to read about Japanese couples who fly to Europe for a Western style wedding. It's weird because it's not a legal marriage, it's just a fun thing to do, apparently.

-cjfer-

Boom goes the planet 2 show

This is an old video, but I just saw it yesterday.




A Warning about drinking too much.



I thought this was well done - the fact that they're Australian makes it more Planet 2 than it would have otherwise be. Ahh, Irony.

The Planet 2 Show: Reunited/Explained

Wow. I never thought Chris would blog here. It totally gives me a renewed sense of interest in this blog. Now, all we need are readers/viewers. How the hell he posted the videos, I'll never know, but it very much impresses me. I've wanted Chris to blog for a long time, and I'm so glad that he did. I'm also glad he Planet 2'd it, as I haven't been able to.

For anyone wondering. Planet 2 is the world of video, or rather, and more appropriately, the moving image. Planet 1 is the world of text. Spoken word, like radio, sadly doesn't get a planet - it's just in a dual orbit around both planets. Feel free to disagree with that. For a long time, (roughly 1450, with the invention of movable type by Johannas Guttenberg, until the 1970's) humans only lived on Planet 1, which, might include radio. It wasn't until the shift into Post-Modernity, was it March or May or 1972? I forget the exact date - that we started the long colonization and terra-forming process of life on Planet 2. The hegemonic control of Planet 1 was over. Interestingly, and un-ironically, the only formats that we've been able to host a Planet 2 show was radio, and now the blogasphere. Man, that Radio Show was fun. Rest assured that if we had a TV SHOW called THE PLANET 2 SHOW, it would like it was produced in a basement on a local access channel somewhere in the deepest darkest part of the 80's. We'd show Talking Heads and Laurie Anderson videos.

Hopefully Chris will continue to update this blog from time to time, hopefully people will continue to read/view the blog. I'll post with my thoughts on life in California and the continuing weirdness of the world around me/us/you. But I didn't want to speak for you.

Huzzah! The planet 2 show is re-untied!

-cjfer-

Planet Two

Since Chris is in Cali, I took it upon myself to say some things.

ONE! - If you are not friends with Chris on the facebook, please seek him out. Bug him until he does something silly with it, like having a personality test. Maybe we can turn him into a zombie...

TWO! - Tom Waits. If you don't listen to him, start. This will aid in your hangover recovery. After you get into him, get trashed and wake up in a strange situation. I promise you you'll have the realization that, "God, I just woke up in the middle of a Tom Waits song..."

3 ? - The Nomi Song - a movie about the life and times of Klaus Nomi. I finally got to see it on the Sundance channel. He was a german who sang opera in a new wave band in the East Village in the late 70s and early 80s. He's most famous for singing backup for Bowie when good ol' David was on SNL.



Klaus is the one in the black singing backup. He's pretty amazing.

He was also an early victim of AIDS, or as it was horribly called then, "gay cancer". His friends didn't know if they could catch it by being around him. As a result, this wonderful artist died alone. A sad end to such a great man.



-ccmas
reporting from planet 2

Holy Crap, I feel Loved!

I now have like 12 facebook friends. I'm soo popular.

Interesting that among the many facebook messages in my inbox was this email

"See Asian babes get sucked fucked and abusied in our videos!"

Guess which one I opened first. Oh, me and my Scarlet Fever. I hope getting Abusied doesn't hurt.

-cjfer-

Planet 1

Pet Peeve

This week's Pet Peeve is when people mis-use the word "literally." The world Literal, means that something actual happened the way it was described. It is a true statement about facts. I was watching CNN headline news today and a reporter said that boxes of Simpson's themed cereal was literally flying off the shelves [at 7-11's (renamed Kwick-E-Mart for promotional purposes).] Obviously, I shouldn't have to say it - but if the boxes of cereal were literally flying off the shelves, that would mean that, of their own volition, they were actually levitating off the shelves and leaving the store or flying around the store. The boxes of cereal were actually "figuratively flying off the shelves."

-cjfer-

Manning the Planet 1 show.

A brief Treatise on Joining the Facebook

I don't think Josh Posner reads this, so I should be safe.

Yes, after many years, I have reluctantly joined the facebook. I should tell you a bit about what I plan on using it for, as I don't plan on using it like everyone else, and I should also tell you why I didn't join and why I did.

1. I am going to use the facebook as a page for contact information about myself. There will be no wall, no pictures, no frills. An address once I get one, an email address, a phone number, etc. The only people who can see are going to be my friends. There will be no quotes, no movies, no books, interests, etc. I certainly don't have anything new to offer in those departments, nor do I think quotes have any effectiveness. If I used those things, it would only be a way for me to make myself sound cool. But, I'm not cool, so why try. I like all the movies, books, quotes, and activities that you do. Leave it that. if you really want to contact me, email me, call, or show up. Don't think writing on a wall is going to seem real to me.

2. Pictures lie. So there won't be any pictures of me on my page, nor will anyone be able to see me in a tagged photo. It's important for me, as best as I can, to be able to represent my image, my person fairly and accurately. If I feel that is getting out of hand, I will resign the facebook. I think fake friends are meaningless. I think the more that technology mediates relationships, the more we need to question and rethink our lives. I don't want just anyone finding out about me - lest it be a future employer or stalker ready to take me down. If you really want to talk to me, there will be means by which you can do that.

3. I'm joining because so many people use the facebook, that if they need to contact me, or want to, they'll have an easy way of finding out that information. Mass emails of address changes can get lost and buried and deleted. So, it's an easy way of finding information. I'm not going to friend you, or write on your wall. If I need to contact you, I'll use your page as a contact page. Feel free to friend me, and if you're my friend, I'll accept.

Ultimately I'm not invested in this. I'm doing it for you, the public. If I don't get any friend requests, so be it, nothing's changed. If you'd like to keep up with me, you're free to do to so in a fairly easy way. If you just want to ask me, that's cool too. But I feel like people will do their best not to deal with people in a real way.

-cjfer-

What ever happened to retirement?

I have to say, and I might be in the minority of opinion, that I don't quite understand the devotion to old musicians who have reunited after 20 years, to play the same songs in the same ways as they did when they were first popular. It was cool to go see a band when they were first popular, before they broke up. I was watching the TV coverage of Live Earth yesterday, and all I really wanted was a glimpse of David Gray, which of course I knew I wasn't going to get. Closing some of the shows were Madonna and The Police. (Madonna is probably a different subject for a different time, but suffice it to say that she was once cool, and is no longer cool - let alone a relevant musical artist.) But the Police come on in the medowlands, and everyone cheers. There are a significant number of young people, I'm sure, whose only conception of The Police is the fact that they downloaded Roxanne from mytunes. These people never enjoyed an original relation to the band and the music and their enjoyment is purely retrospective. I have no problem with young people liking older music, it's merely the idea that they present it to you as if it's not something that's come and gone. Old folks can like the police too, and go to their concerts and hear the songs of their youth as well, but it seems weird to see them stuck in the past of their youth and to not pay attention to the wonderful music being created today. If the Police want to play, fine, but make a new record and support it. Otherwise, you're just a Police tribute band. People have come to pay money to see you play the old songs. Don't. Write a new record and support it. But let's be honest, anyone who thinks they or any other group from the past have reunited for anything less than the money are mistaken. It's cool now to dig the music of the past, and these guys are just capitalizing on it.

Don Mclean, writer and singer of "American Pie" was on CBS sunday morning this morning. Here's a guy who has one hit song, that's probably 30 years old. A woman being interviewed said "it's Don Mclean, it's bye bye Ms. American Pie, what else do you need to know?" Well, it seems odd to me to go to a concert to hear one song. To be there not caring while the other songs are being played, lest they be covers. Here's a song you can get anywhere. There's a lot of good music being created today, you just need to know where to look and where to find it. Paul Mccartney keeps making new records and then he supports them on tour. He plays his new songs and his old songs. He's not a Beatles cover band. Let's face it, the Police are just doing really good covers of Police songs.

If you can still play, go for it. Just don't ask me to keep listening to the same songs over and over again. Songs lose their effectiveness and going to see the person who wrote a song 20-40 years ago play it again merely for the money doesn't interest me.

Whatever happened to retirement? What ever happened to working at something for a long time, and then when you're old and financially secure calling it a career? Maybe you work a little on the side to keep active. Whatever happened to golf and traveling?

They say there's no good parts for older actors. That's true. Entertainment, generally, is a young persons game. I don't think anyone should discriminate based on age. But yet, we must look at movies as being, in some sense, a way of a looking at the world through new eyes, of seeing things in a new way and enjoying a new relationship to the world. I think that is why entertainment is a young person's game - also why older musicians don't write and play new songs. The songs of their youth, of the audience's youth, are what are important.

I think there's also a little something to older folks, actors included, who feel the need to be relevant, to be popular, and to experience the limelight of their younger days. We have an aging Bruce Willis in Die Hard 4, we're going to have an aging Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones 4. Do we really need sequels of things with older actors playing men who wish to continue to be action stars? It's about money. A brand promises something stable - something known. These guys can capitalize on the branding and the fact that people are going to go see it - because they want something familiar, something easy, that's not new, that's not going to be challenging.

So, you don't have to retire, but at least try to do something new. Don't let ego or money force you to keep doing the same thing year after year. Change it up, do something different. Be original.

-cjfer

Gilmore Girls says goodbye

Or Bon Voyage I suppose. Like all things that begin, Gilmore Girls came to an end tonight. While, I must admit I only started to watch the show between the sixth and seventh seasons (though did a pretty good job of catching up), it's sad to see it go. The characters, setting, tone, writing - all of it were sweet and genuine and maintained a general sense of goodness. It wasn't cynical or disparaging, but positive and though a little sad from time to time, always uplifting and empowering.

The show was unique, and though the last two or two and half seasons seemed to signal a decline in quality, from A+ material to A or A- material, it was always unmistakeably itself. I say this, because as television audience members we always want things how we want them, and while we might not have loved every direction the show turned in, we must, on level admit that our lives don't always turn out that way and sometimes we make choices that we have to live with for a long time before we can make our way clear of them. We all have our ups and downs, but without the downs we wouldn't appreciate the ups.

I wish Amy Sherman-Palladino, the show's creator and principle writer had seen the show out, and as it was on it's last season, it's only too bad it couldn't have ended favorably after the sixth (her last) season. It's also a shame that she couldn't come back for the final episode and that the CW was reluctant to help her and her husband with what they needed. She knew all along how she wanted the show to end, and while we'll be left wondering if that's true, I can almost feel certain that it didn't end the way she had planned originally - which, I think, is sadder than the show coming to an end.

Still, there's something about the created image that is moving. When you've spent some time with these characters and faces, and settings, it doesn't take much for them to move you. You know the backstory and the history, the characters. One shot or one line of dialog can affect you. It's a testament to the show that the fans feel some ownership over it, and while for us, we'll never know the ins and outs of production, the long hours, and how people's relationships really were, we'll always have the episodes, on dvd or tv reruns, and it will remain an endearing moment in our lives and will always occupy a place in our hearts.

-cjfer-

the future of the blog

is uncertain. Or rather, the future of this blog is uncertain. I may start one occasionally when I go to film school, as a way for people to keep up with me. I may also join the facebook if people think it will help. I think if I haven't proven my point by now, and the people havent' heard me, there's nothing better to be co-opted by the man. It's just that, you know, I want people to have me in their minds, 'cause when it's time to buy movie theatre tickets, they'll choose my movies over those of my peers, and foreigners. Hmm...

I've enjoyed the blog, no doubt - it's just that i started it as something to do during my job when I wasn't do anything. That job has since been discontinued. I'm now working a new job 12-4 - great hours for a summer job, not so great hours for a job I'm needing to make money from. It also entails work. 4 hours of work is more than I did in 1 week working 9-5 at my last job, boo! So, I don't know where this blog is headed. Or really what the point of doing it is. It hasn't taken off the way I had hoped, what with the advertising dollars and whatnot.

I should say - a funny thing happened at work today when I called someone to ask her what her address was and she told me 1600 beech street. I said, is that two ees or is it e-a. She said "Street?" It's two ees - s-t-e-e-t. To which I had to say "I know how to spell street. I meant beech, it could have an a - like that thing with sand and the ocean attached to it"

In a funny twist of irony - as I depart for film school in either Florida or California, caitlin takes this opportunity to move to boston. Good timing. Could have used you earlier kid.

Dreams over drinks is finished and should be on the internet in the relatively near soon. I just think i'd rather have people see it in the theatres before they catch it on home video.

So, apparently none of my friends have got stinking rich in the nearly 1 year we've been out of college. I guess I'll have to take it upon myself, to get stinking rich one day. To have a boat load of money and be able to justify it, that's my dream. And then all my friends can constantly hang out. Only that kind of doesn't work when you reach 30. Or your late 20s - or so it seems. It works when you're 17 or 19, or younger and I'll even give you until 25. It just seems like before 25 no one gets too worried about you not having your life figured out. After 25, you can't hang out at your friend's billionaire mansion with water tunnels, because it's lame - though, still nice work if you can get it. Hef. Hef can get it, and he does. That man gets it.

I guess a perfect world would be one in which you and all of your closest friends could hang out forever, without getting tired of each other or on each others nerves. It's funny because that's only the spoken dream. I say that, because it never happens. Everyone is drawn their separate ways by their life decisions - the way it should be. But there's the pang of communicating with these people and seeing them occasionally. The joy of getting older is that when you're 5 times goes by slow because every year is 1/5 of your life. Now every year is 1/23'rd of my life - so things go by faster. Hopefully we'll still remember each other when a year is nothing more than a hairsbreadth of time.

Which reminds me that my brother mike got married. It was a lovely ceremony and I'm happy for them. The little bit of drink took the edge of my best man speech - which I didn't read off a script. I spoke from the heart, and didn't' mess up. Actually I did write something down, but I forgot it. Hey, improv. What can you do. The inversely true, but you know it's true - it's easier to get up in front of 100 people than it is to get up in front of 10.

Matt's going to have children, all at once. Triplets. That's weirder than mike getting married - sorry mike. People get married all the time. At the turn of the new year, I thought to myself that 2007 was going to be a good year. I hope I'm not jinxing it - but it is a good year. For me anyway, that's who I meant it would be for, 'cause let's be honest, you gotta look out for number 1, which in my case is me - and in your case should also be me. Mike got married, matt's having healthy (fingers will remain crossed for the next 100 years on that one - sorry kids, come 2107, you're on your own) and I got into film school. I'm going to be a film maker, or make my life in film. Or something. Either way I got what I wanted. I've known for a long time what I've wanted, what the game plan was - now it's just a matter of executing, and trying not to forget the joy and blessings along the way. What did john lennon say? Life is what happens when you're making other plans? I've made up my mind.


I will take my time.

-cjfer-

Rainy Days

I like rainy days. I don't particularly care for gray days, or just misty days, but straight rain I like. I want the weather to commit to a climate and stick it out. Rain to me says confidence. Mist is some kind of uncertainty that I just can't respect.

It's rainy days like today that made me wish I could sleep in late in a hotel room in Europe somewhere. Get up, and have a long lunch under and umbrella, or next to a window. I don't want to do anything, but I want to be able to see outside.

-cjfer-

Retraction

I had wrote in my last blog entry that the guns were purchased illegally. This information is incorrect. In fact, the guns were purchased legally. So, take that for what it's worth. Oh, and don't get your info from borderline racist early morning sports djs who don't know any better themselves.

-cjfer-

The Incredible Sadness

All I can feel, in regards to the murders yesterday, is incredible sadness. It's a tragedy where, for me, there isn't the obvious hatred. With 9/11, there was a clear outlet for rage and anger - terrorists everywhere. We can be mad at the dead killers, but there's a finality to it. There's no one left to pursue. With terrorism, there are still terror cells. With acts of singular violence, such as yesterday, there is no one left to go after. It happens at a moment in time, and then it is over. There's no one to prosecute. I don't feel helpless, I just feel sad for the victims, and their families. It's an unmanageable situation. Now is a time for love, though it always is. Only love is stronger than death.

I think there will be some, not a lot, but some talk about gun laws in this country - but it's important to remember that the guns were obtained illegally. So, no tougher law could have prevented it. If anything, it should somehow further the discussion of gun violence in the country, and shed light on the murders that happen every day in every city. I'm not a supporter of guns, for any reason. I can't find a reason to justify it. Even in the case of hunting, it still seems wrong to me. I don't understand hunting. I don't understand that need to kill an innocent animal in the wild from hundreds of yards away. If you need to kill an animal for food, in order to survive, I understand that. But most hunters hunt for the prize of killing a less intelligent animal that can't defend itself. You want to kill a deer? Karate chop it, then we'll talk. While I don't support guns for any reason, it's important to remember that the vast vast majority of gun owners abide by the law. Just like the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists. Still, I don't get it. I don't get the cheap value we place on life, be it human, animal or the life of the environment.

-cjfer-

The Greenest Generation

More for David than anything, the hippie. Great NYtimes article about going green. But as Kermit Said, it ain't easy bein' green.

Read it Here

-cjfer-

I'm bored so I wrote something

whatever.

When it rained last Saturday, I thought nothing of it. Typical early spring weather. The elegant droplets, fleeting in their season, and infinite. The beauty of the thing is in the sound. That quiet reluctant simple form.

William died last October. Broken by disease and time, we sat for one final time on the cold sand of Windy Beach as we watched the sun sleep. Some sweet portrait of two lovers, false in the perception, and a promise unfulfilled. I remember the clouds made the sky low, and it got dark early. A fair sized black dog leaping in the wind, as if he’s never heard the words cancer, or aids, or global warming.

We all envy the dead – for their contributions and their sense enough to get out while they still could. They were smarter not to have lived to see such days. The agony of the future of space ships, cargo and business. The Earth cruel, the people worse.

William died last October, and the partings and quiet longings of young men have gone unnoticed as the sadness is still too near. It’s not that he’s dead, it’s that he’s gone. Like a young love, soft and malleable, now a wall. You never move on. But if you don’t move, you become a statue in a rainy Roman courtyard.

When I woke up last Saturday, the house was empty. The girls and gone out, and Marybeth flew home to Minneapolis for the weekend. I didn’t put on my contacts, and I stayed in my pajamas as I stared out the glass slider to the memory of a Japanese morning. The rain fell delicately, unintentionally. Just enough to be noticed. I’m healthy and have no allergies. But looking out that Saturday morning, made my body hurt. Why is it that such sights fill us with a sense of something lost? We need the darkness, and shadows. Yet we’re afraid of it.

I don’t know what happened to him. Where he went, where his soul flew. Whether he capitulated to emptiness and the unconscious black, or if he’s resting with a God and perfect, infinite eternity. I don’t know why I opened the glass slider. I don’t know why I walked, no shoes and socks, into the backyard. My skin tightened with the cold, my breath visible. I don’t know why I stood there, or for how long. I don’t know why I could see myself standing in the house, through the glass slider looking back. I don’t know why I disappeared.

-cjfer-

Is your car gay?

well, is it?

-cjfer-

10 What ifs - series 2

I was watching an episode of the gilmore girls online the other day and it just so happened that it was subtitled in French. Lorelei said to Luke "I'm ordering a pizza" but it was subtitled in French as "Je Commande une pizza" - which translates back into English as "I'm ordering a pizza." What's funny about it that, is that the meaning is different when translated back to English when you think about it. When someone says "I'm ordering a pizza" they mean, I'm placing an order for a pizza. When you use the word commande - which looks like it does in English, it's more like "i'm ordering my soldiers." So it sounds like "I'm ordering a pizza to get my a drink. March Pizza March!"

Now, the hit list you've been requesting. My famous list of Ten What Ifs?!!? Version 2 - TV what ifs.

1. What if Pizzas were slaves on the gilmore girls?
2. What if Jack Bauer Cried after he killed someone? Would American still embrace him?
3. What if West Wing cast members had to wear scuba equipment on the set?
4. What if the Desperate Housewives suddenly went Blind?
5. What if the CSI: Miami Cast Members melted throughout the course of an episode?
6. What if the Black Donnellys were actually black? Actually, they might be, I don't know, I don't watch.
7. What if the Lost island had a ball pit in the center? Or a Chuck-e-Cheese?
8. What if the crew of the Battlestar Galactica suddenly had claws for hands?
9. What if the cast of Grey's Anatomy had real patients? "This man's dying...why are you taking off your pants...?"
10. What if a model hosted Deal or No Deal and the cases were held up by 25 Howie Mandels?

peace in the middle east
-cjfer-

Heat Vision and Jack

Probably the greatest TV show (singular) ever created.

Heat Vision and Jack.

-cjfer-

Old Emails

I think there's always something interesting about delving through old electronic messages. What I find most interesting about it - and mine go back to August 2001 - is the writing. The writing as I see it, is the same as it is now. In other words, in casual messages such as this, I, and others tend to write in the same way - the same style, word choice, and etc. Obviously the things we're writing about now have changed. I always look back on them as an insight into the past - but although it's 5 years ago, it's interesting to see how little has actually changed.

Which brings me to my larger point. In some degree we're always changing, thinking and evolving. But also, at some point, we kind of are who we are at a certain point. I don't see the way I write, act, or talk to people casually changing in any significant way in the future. I don't see myself taking on a different style or different beliefs. I think if you looked at things I wrote when I was 18, they will look like things I write at 28. Granted - things like essays, school work, and creative writing have changed a lot, and will continue to evolve at a much steeper rate. However, the way we talk to people, at least for me, hasn't changed. I obviously know more, I've been college educated, but the general, who I was, is not different at all. Is that good or bad?

I think when you read about things like the "alpha girls" or you see 17 or 18 year old kids who are very smart, it might cause one to be a little depressed. Certainly I was smart, but not as well versed as some of these kids today are at their age. I didn't know the facts that they knew at that point. Or, I did, but I forget now. But I don't think I did. I like this saying, whether it's true or not. In high school I learned facts, in college I learned ideas. In trying to recall the facts I learned in college, I'm hard pressed to name too many. Granted, I took humanities courses. But I think, in terms of my education, I certainly learned better how to think effectively, and how to approach different situations analytically.

I think one of the biggest things about college is the emotional education. So, in terms of things changing, the joy of getting older, in some respect, is that fewer new emotional experiences happen to you. Not that I mean that in a negative way, I mean that as a positive. It's easier to deal with things if it's your second time or third time dealing with it, rather than it being the first. I don't have any useful skills, but I have a well-built infrastructure.

not my first rodeo
-cjfer-

Life Watch

As it turns out, I might actually survive this job until its natural conclusion. I'm off life support baby!

-cjfer

Death Watch

All right sports fans - it seems that my time in my present job is limited and that I will soon be getting the axe. Canned, 86'd - again. It's time to start the death watch. We can take bets (for entertainment purposes only) as to when my last day will be. It could be any day now, though I feel like it'll be sometime late next week. Any takers?

-cjfer-

Interesting misspelling

go to http://www.theplanet2show.blogpsot.com/

it's sot not spot. Freaky

-cjfer-

Happy Terror and Boredom

I know this is a little late - Those of you have seen Terror and Boredom know that it takes places some time in the future. Well, now, it takes places sometime in the past. The dates that it is set over - March 13, 14, 15 2007 have passed. Whooo! No blowed up! So, here we are, alive, making connections, etc. Just thought that was interesting.

-cjfer-

One Ring to Rule them All

Interesting new phone service. Read about it here.

-cjfer-

On reading an abridged version of "the work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction"

I just finished reading a shortened, abridged version of Walter Benjamin's 1935 Essay - "The work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction." It's a wonderful essay, and I encourage anyone who can to read it.

Some of the things I took away from the essay were:
1. Art, unlike in the old days was made for ritualistic/spiritual reasons, and wasn't necessarily made for "art's sake." The mechanical reproduction of art allows for, and destroys the connection between the original use of the piece of art, and how we use it today. We don't necessarily take the same meaning out of ancient Greek art as the ancient Greeks.

2. The mechanical reproduction of art destroys authenticity or "aura." Because the event of viewing a piece of artwork is no longer singular, because you can buy a picture of the Mona Lisa anywhere, it destroys whatever value there was in the authenticity or aura in that piece of art. Insofar as those pieces of art are connected to the traditional, their meaning seems to change.

3. Fascism is bad. If someone wants to go more in depth on that front, I'd be interested.

Anytime something can be reproduced on a mass level, I think it has the possibility to destroy whatever meaning or value there was in the original art. It also is a way of comparing. You can have 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa and 1000 copies of a Thomas Kinkade. In this light, because anything can be reproduced so easily, it seems to equate the things and put them on the same level, when, perhaps they shouldn't be.

I would argue that people actually have a sense of history and aesthetics and they know, at least in some part, that Michelangelo is better than a cheap watercolor. I think giving people access to works of art that they wouldn't have otherwise - if they couldn't get to the work of art - but it also creates a reverences for the original object. Because of the mechanical reproduction of art, we know that the Mona Lisa has some sort of meaning. If we were to see the this painting in person, it would be a revered thing and it would engender an aesthetic if not emotional response from us. These pieces of art become things to be seen - and the actual object, the authentic object can retain it's aura because people know, to some degree, it's value. I don't think anyone actually mistakes a reproduction for the real thing, and it becomes an event to go out and see the real thing in person. Works of art become famous. They are important. Someone might not know about them otherwise, and if they didn't have a particular sense for art, they might not notice them the way they're supposed to be noticed. Without historical context, the David is just a statue, but it is people who give it meaning. While the context is different from the original context and perhaps we don't get the same meaning we might get out of these pieces of art as we would if were there when they were created (the David is no longer representative of a culture) they still do have some context and meaning and the thing itself, while not having cultural meaning, does represent something that is beautiful and therefore perfect. It's not like these famous works of art don't tell a story or have their own reasons for why they look the way they do. The David's ability to represent a figure at the moment before a great event (or after I forget) and insofar as it represents a reinvigorated sense of the human body is something that is always cool.

Don't let the bed drugs fright

-cjfer-

Downright Freaky

I just had a conversation - well, I'd hardly call it that - with an automated voice machine. I called 1800-pick-ups - and a woman's voice comes over the phone. She asks you to say what you want. So i said "order supplies" to which she says, what kind of supplies, gives me options, and I tell her. Then I tell her the fax number, which she repeats back, and tells me that she'll fax me an order form.

What a world we live in where you don't even have to talk to actual people. You can talk to fake people, who are just as helpful and not belligerent.

It reminds me of a conversation when someone said that the Mcdonald's drive through window voice job was outsourced. Can you imagine talking to a guy who says his name is "Brian" in India, and telling him your order?

"Hello. This is Brian. Welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order?"
"I'd like a number 2, three number 3s, a number six...do you cheese on that...and a number 4 without cheese"
Pause
"How about you buy me a hamburger, fatboy. I'm starving here in India!"

-cjfer-

what are u in 2?

Yes, Fine, Fine! I admit it. I write about what I read on the nytimes, because who cares about sports or movies...wait...we'll see. It's this.

Calvin Klein is trying to figure out what the next hip fragrance is to market to youth culture. They had fragrance and cultural hits in the early 90s - we may remember if only through some ancillary back of the head notion - the CK ads of marky mark if not the Lolita-esq Brooke shields of the late 80s. Back then, they were cool because they created, or at least tapped into something about the blow up - now they're trying to recreate that success by contriving a new fragrance meant to do the same thing it did 15 years ago. The difference is that instead of being on the leading edge of that culture, they're trying to hitch on the bandwagon. Calvin Klein, not even owned by Calvin Klein, is trying it's latest fragrance in2u. Because yup, that's how we talk and write. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering with sentences. Bro, r u crazy? Deh. Roo crazy? What bothers me about this, is two things.

1. The co-opting of youth culture by big corporations. Yes, youth culture is flawed and amorphous. Everyone has different likes and experiences, and no, it's not hard for us to imagine the CK brand marketing to urban 20 somethings, in the same Manhattan that hosts the CK offices. This generation, that the article lovingly describes as the millennials, or the technosexuals, is self described as being resistant to advertising. Yes, finally, out post modern senses allow us to resist ideology - corporate or otherwise. Back up a minute, Have we named our generation? Truly, the name technosexual was coined by the company to describe us. It's a marketing name that seems to have little to do with the reality. So, there's something weird about marketing to young people who describe themselves as being resistant to marketing. There's also something odd about a company that is not only trying to be in step with youth culture so that they can sell to youth culture - but at the same time is creating youth culture. Is it that out of the realm of possibilities - i have no sources here - to see a CK party hosted in a posh Manhattan loft, and featuring a lot of young, hipster, indie urbanites. The powers at be, be contriving a culture that young people are so resistant to - yet not totally unwilling to accept. After all, we're powered by coin.
1a. Do people even buy fragrances anymore? I mean, really? Especially young hipsters?

2. Problem 2 is that we actually talk like that. Well, you don't, and I don't - but the people of this generation - described as 1982-1995 do talk like that. The problem is that it gets worse the younger you get. There wont' even be language in 20 years. It will be like mike judges "idiocracy" - not a great film about the dumbing down of America in the future.

So, as I am working to defeat Emo, the question is, what do we do? Are we so resistant to any ideology that we ignore everything, or do we get sucked in and become patsies for the man? It's sad to think that there's no culture that exists anymore that can't be co-opted by a corporation. Ironically, even being resistant to being advertised to/being co-opted by someone, seems to be co-opted. If they can make some money off of it, they will sell it to masses. I think ultimately if you like something you buy it, if you don't you don't. It's a tough world we live in, where it's harder and harder to make what increasingly becomes a morally right choice. There seems to be a moral value in what you buy. Is the thing pro-environment, is it anti-corporate, is it green, free trade, is it trendy, is it anti-trendy, is it because you need it or because you want it, and whose side are you on? Hybrid drivers are liberal, gas powered car drivers are conservative.


There might have been more to this, but I was interrupted, so i don't remember.

-cjfer-

God I love America

This nytimes article - if you read the times online, you've probably seen it - its great. It's about about a Chinese girl, adopted from China to two New York Jewish Lesbians.

I f'n love this country.

-cjfer-

Funny - thanks tim

Pure Dlyan. Funny video

And now you're in the New York Times

Gob bless the new york times for something to blog about. That's right. I wrote Gob.

This article is about three girls who were suspended for using the "V" word during a school forum - and I don't mean Valedictorian. It seems to me that if left unsuspended, the story would be what it should be - a non story. But, now you, Mr. Principle are in the New York Times.

The girls were told not to say the word, vagina, during the school forum because it is vulgar. They were suspended for insubordination, for dissent. Not only it not a vulgar word, as it is the actual word for something - it's not a euphemism, like fucking would be for sex - it's the actual biological, medical, term - it's the freaking dictionary. So, vulgar? It was what it is. Is the word Penis any less vulgar? It seems that it's not, although ask yourself if a male principal would have as much a problem with that word.
The second idea is that the students were insubordinate. There's something that doesn't sit right with me with that term. Insubordination is a term used in the military. These students signed no contracts. Not saying certain medical terms is not, it seems, part of the established school rules. The idea that we should use words like disobeying a directive, which is an order, seems wrong to me. You shouldn't be ordering students to do things. You should ask them to do things, and if they don't do them, then I think there needs to find a better term than insubordination.
The reason they weren't allowed to say the word that there could have been children in the audience. The last we want is children knowing words like vagina or earlobe.

Just let Kevin Bacon dance. You only get controversy when you don't let Kevin Bacon dance. There's certainly a gray area between what we should allow and we shouldn't allow - but then you need to think about it and make a decision. Harmless things like dancing and saying legitimate words aren't things we need to police. You only make a bigger deal out of it by prohibiting it. You only get kids more willing to dance.
A word is a signifier that represents a signified thing. The relationship between the thing and the word for the thing is completely arbitrary. So, who cares? Imagine if the word vagina was reversed with the word Rose.

"These vaginas smell lovely"

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


There might have been more, but I gotta scoot.

-cjfer-

Jean Baudrillard Dies...I think

Jean Baudrillard, French Postmodernist and critic, who was admired by those who've studied his crazy thoughts has died. At least, if he was even real to begin with.

Click here to read

Sad news, yo.

-cjfer-

Can you imagine a world without your favorite celebrity?

I know I can't. But think about it. Any movie staring your favorite celebrity, is made in a world without your favorite celebrity. In a movie like Mr and Mrs Smith for example, we would have to say that that world doesn't contain a Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. If it did, there would have to be two people who looked and sounded exactly a like. In that world, you need a different celebrity culture. It's possible to say that that world does have a Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but they don't look or sound like the Brad Pitt and Angelia Jolie that we've come to know and tolerate. Weird.

-cjfer-

Internet Fakery and thoughts about Surveillance

Hi,

When reading an nytimes page, as I often do, and as I often blog about, I came across what may or may not be some sort of opinion page (I'm not sure, I wasn't paying attention) about public shaming. Ahh public shaming. I'm glad it's back in action. It's the idea, that video sites like youtube are places where people post videos of their friends or others in order to publicly same them These people are often drunk, but sometimes they're not. So, while I'm rarely if ever drunk, I am slightly protective of my image being recorded and put on youtube for whomever to laugh at and make fun of without my permission. I'll do the blog, because I can control and regulate the blog, and it doesn't exist as a public forum for people to make fun or shame other people. But things like facebook or myspace or any sort of picture or image website is scary to me, for one reason, is that you don't have control over your image. Who is to stop someone from creating a false identity on that site? Yes, it's scary if it's someone you don't know, but it's also scary if someone you do know recreates them self, or represents them self falsely on an internet site.

Which brings me back to the my original point. This video a college student breaking up with his girlfriend in public. By all accounts, he advertised a public breakup on the face book, and had a girls a capella group sing a break up song to the girl as hundreds of students came out to see it. They had a public fight and the video was broadcast on youtube. You can read all about it. The video is a bonafide Internet hit. The problem is that it was represented as being real, but it wasn't. The whole thing was staged and became an internet hit. Question...If everyone knew it was staged, would they all have turned out to see it? Would it be as popular on youtube if people didn't think it was real? There's something terrible and mean about breaking up with your girlfriend publicly, but something downright nasty about posting it on the Internet. Yet, if the thing was staged, does that make it better? This type of video doesn't bother me, but the implications of it can be far more dangerous. If we can't tell which images and which videos are authentic and which ones are false, we're going to be in trouble.

With the far reaching scope of cameras and surveillance equipment, we have to be more cautious as to letting ourselves be photographed and letting the government and others invade our privacy. There's a theory, I'm thinking of Michel Foucault's panopticon - pan meaning everywhere, opticon from optics meaning to see - that says that if people are constantly being watched, then they will not act out or commit crimes. Now, say someone isn't watching you. Say it's a video camera. Now, say that that video camera takes a picture of you doing something illegal. But what if it's not you? There's something dangerous about being able to fake images and convince people that they're real. When internet shaming stops becoming funny and starts becoming about controlling people by discouraging behavior, things get messy.

Keep you ear to the grindstone

-cjfer-

click for some sweet public shaming

Interesting NY TImes Article about recent discussion

Click here!

That sounds like it's going to be a virus, I know. It's not.

The Planet 2 show reunited

I've extended an invitation to Chris Mastellone to be a contributor to this blog. It'll be like our radio show "the Planet 2 show" in the print medium. He'll be CCMAS, so pay attention to who's blogging what. If you're upset, make sure it's me your upset at.

-cjfer - the planet 2 show.

Holy Shit a Comment!

It was either that as a title, or holy cock, a shomment! I think it's better to discuss this in the form of a post instead of having it be relegated to the backlogs of comments that no one's going to read anyway. It's also a way of me saying that I value your opinion and I'm not trying to say what I think is right. Actually that's wrong, I am trying to organize the world in my mental image of myself. Think combination of Nathan Fillion and Brad Pitt. So, here's what David had to say:

Well, let's get some things out there first:
The 1950s.
Nazism.

Okay, now that you've got the requisite hyperlinks.... ;)

Consider this comment points of clarification from the perspective of someone ... who has been on the other side (dun dun dunnnn)..

People don't tend to dates multiple people at once, a la the 1950s. They tend to hook up with multiple people at once. Or openly date one person and hook up with others -- which is not cheating unless you've agreed to be exclusive.

That's more the 2007 norm. Let's see if I can go more in depth through some massive if-then statements. (Yeah, I'm going there.)

If people have been seeing each other for a while, or dating, then there usually follows a discussion between said people about whether they are exclusive or not. Once that discussion is held, you know where you stand.

If you are exclusively dating someone, then it's more of a trial run (like a 30 day free trial of Netflix). It can quickly (or slowly) lead into a serious (i.e. committed) relationship (like when you pay Netflix a monthly fee), or you can realize the other person is not for you. (Netflix can be cancelled at anytime.)

If you're not exclusive, then there's nothing insidious about going and hooking up with other people. It's your right in what is typically called an "open relationship". Granted, these types of relationships don't usually last long and probably aren't the healthiest, but they're out there. Note that I think it's much more the norm to hook up with others in an open relationship than it is to actually date others.

Also, it is understood that if you don't have aforementioned discussion, then you are not exclusive. You're innocent because there are no agreed-upon rules! Only when there are rules can you be guilty!

And yes, I most certainly agree that labels have gotten out of hand. But that's a whole separate conversation about how we, as an American society, have a difficult time just being with anything and have to classify it in a hierarchical way. It's probably derivative of the Newtonian worldview... but that's all tangential.

I know this is all your opinion, but here's my question, especially given that you concede towards the end: Do you just not like the idea of hooking up with multiple people, or do you not think that it works?

March 1, 2007 11:30 AM

(it should be noted that is a post - and the "You" is not David, at least not all time time.)

Dear reader, in response to your question - (I say that as if I have readers and as if I don't know David).

Indeed, this is my opinion and not the opinion of the large men standing behind me. Let me start by saying that I don't know what you mean by "do you not think it works?" Hey, if you can get it to work for you, do it. Let's just put out there that hugh hefner is perhaps the ultimate mac daddy when it comes to this. He can make it work for him, so why not? I think that it happens, but I'm not sure it's best for America.

My larger point, which was really just to discuss the issue and give some ideas on it is this: I ultimately think that there's something unnatural about it. Another way of thinking about it is...and don't faint, but I think hooking up with multiple people in adult or even semi-adult environment is something that runs contradictory to what is absolutely good. Bear with me because I have another point to make in a minute. If we're going to exclude the social phenomenon known as college - and we can include it later (this might need two parts) - I think there's just something immoral and inconsistent with decency about multiple sexual partners in a short span of time/at once (ain't nothing wrong that that, slap it). It seems to run contrary to whatever social value seems to be valued as good. We can say this because it requires taking an unnatural step out of the normal flow of life (thinking stepping out of a river, or even a lazy river) and into a different world, that I think generally there's something about it that we, in the larger social context, can call "wrong." It's like murder. Well, not it's not at all, but bear with me. (It's my typing and you can't chime in.) In order to murder, unless you're clinically insane - it takes a part of you to cross a certain line. Once you cross that line, it becomes easier to live with. Sometimes you get so far past the line, that you can't see it anymore and everything in the world is as it is for you, and there's no higher ideal to aspire to. So, if you can do it, do it - but I'm saying be prepared for a part of you to have to change as a result.

I think there's something good about saying I'm going to give this person (alone) a shot. If I like them, I like them, if I don't, I'll give the next person a shot. I like the netflix example, but it's more like having netflix, and blockbuster and say a third internet video rental company - we'll call it intervidtalcompy - all at once. If I'm Netflix, might I be justified in saying "hey, give me the 30 day trial period before moving on to blockbuster? I would think so. If I was that other guy, who decided to put out my goods (we all what that means), I might say give me a shot to impress you first. It just strikes me as something that seems...not how I would do things. I'm not gonna say wrong, people don't like that word. In an adult world, it just seems immature. There also seems to be something cheap (I need new words) about hooking up with multiple people. (what will you look like when you're 35 and still at it?) Because then you place no value on your sexuality, or yourself emotionally. Seriously who wants to date Paris Hilton? (Fewer people have been in Fenway park) They just use her for her sexuality. And even if you want to make the argument of she uses them too - don't we have to deal with the larger issue of being used? Sex and sexuality just seems like something that can't be easily thrown around. It seems to take a lot from a person to be able to make those choices. (Except porn stars). Maybe I'm too respectful of it, but I'm not sure we live in the world where sexual choices don't impact people emotionally. Therefore, I don't support hooking up with multiple people because I don't think it's possible to make it work. I think in the end, it creates more problems than it solves. I don't think people are really ready emotionally for that kind of thing, so I think people get hurt when they say they're not going to. Just because you agree on something, doesn't mean that that's a fixed thing. You can't stop people from feeling. I'd love to live in the other world, where sex was free and didn't carry moral or emotional repercussions, but it does. Why make a commitment if you don't have to, though? It's a question of the things you value.

I'm not advocating one thing or the other. I'm just trying to figure out if, as John Mayer says "we're living it right" or not.

A note about words. First of all, you don't get anywhere by calling people dumb, or idiots, or saying that their lifestyle is wrong, or you disapprove it, even if it it might be the case (this could be a fox news blog) . I'm not saying I disapprove of your lifestyle and I'm not saying it's wrong and I'm right. I'm saying two things.
1. I don't care about your lifestyle. I really don't. What I mean by that is that if you're doing something that I wouldn't do, or you believe something that I don't believe, I don't care. I think we need to get out of this mindset. Do what you do. People can have differences and still get along. Curt Shilling is a conservative republican, I'm not. I don't care. I love the guy. I love his pitching and I love his outspoken views. I support people in their choices and beliefs, and I think I sometimes get a bad rap because I have different choices and beliefs. Or wait, ideas. Kevin Smith says beliefs are bad. I could care less that I think different things than other people on certain subjects. Put in a days work, be good to the people around you, don't hit dogs. We need to celebrate our disagreements and be open about them instead of being distrustful or moving on from those people because we think differently. Hello, we're people, it happens, get over it, drink your milk. PS. I don't care if you think my ideas are wrong. That is possible when you've thought about your ideas and the alternative and come to a personal thought. If you've really done the thinking, you'll be fine. If you have to question something you've never questioned before and accepted as true, you might get discombobulated. Case and Point, Malcom X's belief in Elijah Muhammad.
2. Words hurt don't they? Sticks and stones may break my bones...yeah right. Don't words hurt? You're wrong, your lifestyle is wrong. Hey man, back off. Yeah, it hurts, and those are just words. If that hurts, I can't help but thinking that being disingenuously involved with someone emotionally or sexually can hurt too.
2a. Don't worry about words. Everyone has some scope of right and wrong, and if you fall into the wrong category, so be it. If I think something is right, and you do something opposite of that, you then, by the associative property, fall into the category of wrong. It has to be that way, it's logic. But, going back to point one - I don't care!

Let me say this too. If you're reading this, you disagree with me. That's fine with me. Is it fine with you? If it's not, why not? 5 paragraph essay please, or one of your own topic.

The larger discussion to be had is. "What are our values?" Now, I don't think you can just lay out 10 things that everyone can agree on. And, I don't think those values need to conform to social or cultural tradition. They just have to be thought out, and, yes, they can be contradictory. That's what's so great about life. That's drama. It's contradiction. Don't we love TNT? Doesn't TNT know drama? So, what are you values? What is good? What are your highest ideals? And honestly, I wouldn't have a problem if you smoked that fictional cigarette and said "ideals, values, morals...ha! All of this is bullshit! These terms are archaic and immoral!" But I thought "moral" was archaic? Is moral...immoral? (Shakes head). How much thinking do you do about yourself and what you believe, and is it time for more?

Our generation is inheriting America, and we have to figure out what to do with it. Personally, I don't want to sell it, I want to fix it/continue to work on it. We can either unite everyone under a certain set of ideals and values or we can diversify into enclaves of independent thought. I don't care, but we have to do some thinking about it first. Break's over.

Big Sky Montana
-Brad Fillion/Nathan Pitt