"When we dream, we put powerful energies into motion and arrive at a place where we can no longer hide from ourselves or the true meaning of our lives."
Why can't I come up with such a cool quote? Oh yeah, I'm not Paulo Coelho.
He wrote that on a postcard to a Korean rapper, Tiger JK (from Drunken Tiger). Paulo Coelho, of course, is the author of The Alchemist.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
I haven't yet written my article about meat because there's so much to read. But reading Michael Pollan's (he's one of better known "meat" authors) quote on Sam's wall made me smile. Here's the quote if you haven't seen it yet:
“Why is it you can buy a double cheeseburger at McDonalds for 99 cents and you can’t even get a head of broccoli for 99 cents? We’ve skewed our food system to the bad calories and it’s not an accident. The reason those calories are cheaper are because those are the ones we are heavily subsidizing. This is directly tied to the kind of agriculture that we are practicing and the farm policies we have. All those snack food calories are the ones that come from the commodity crops, from the wheat, from the corn and from the soybeans. By making those calories really cheap, that is the reason why the biggest predictor of obesity is income level.”
- Michael Pollan
And of course, I agree with Mr. Pollan. Oh, and let's think about the last sentence some more. Do you think poor people eat fast food just because it's cheap? Haha, there's another dimension about fast food industry you should know. Here's what I learned from Vice President of Marketing at Telemundo & NBC (yes, he was my teacher) -
"Fast food companies specifically target lower income families. But how? It's not as if they have shows for lower income families. (class is silent). They achieve their goal by targeting Latino and African American populations. Is it legal? you bet."
They're being bombarded with messages telling them to eat fast food! Another target market often sought out by fast food companies, besides young men, is children. 96% of children in America can identity Ronald McDonald, making him the second most recognizable figure amongst children (first is Santa Claus). Did you ever wonder why McDonald's used such a cartoonish character to advertise? Along with happy meals and their playgrounds, it should be clear whom they're trying to market!
One more scary thought: Surely many of you heard about increasing cases of precocious puberty (early puberty). Well, no one is sure why, but you can be sure that there are lots and lots of growth hormones being pumped into our meats, especially poultry. What happens when children eat growth-hormone pumped meat? Who knows. Oh, and children living near factory farms tend to have 2-4 times more asthma than the regular populations, which means many of animals probably have some kind of respiratory dysfunction. What happens if we eat that meat? Who knows. Are asthma levels increasing or decreasing amongst children? Isn't it a scary thought?
Oh, and by the way, if farmers, or, corporations (since there are virtually no family farms left) had to pay water bills at the rate we did, the true price of burgers would be closer to 20 dollars. Oh and lobbyists control government subsidies all the time. GM successfully lobbied the Eisenhower administration to build massive interstate freeways (true price of cars includes costs to build and maintain the road). Whether this is good or bad, is up to you to decide. Whether farming subsidies are good or bad, is also your choice. We're all paying for it one way or another.
“Why is it you can buy a double cheeseburger at McDonalds for 99 cents and you can’t even get a head of broccoli for 99 cents? We’ve skewed our food system to the bad calories and it’s not an accident. The reason those calories are cheaper are because those are the ones we are heavily subsidizing. This is directly tied to the kind of agriculture that we are practicing and the farm policies we have. All those snack food calories are the ones that come from the commodity crops, from the wheat, from the corn and from the soybeans. By making those calories really cheap, that is the reason why the biggest predictor of obesity is income level.”
- Michael Pollan
"Fast food companies specifically target lower income families. But how? It's not as if they have shows for lower income families. (class is silent). They achieve their goal by targeting Latino and African American populations. Is it legal? you bet."
They're being bombarded with messages telling them to eat fast food! Another target market often sought out by fast food companies, besides young men, is children. 96% of children in America can identity Ronald McDonald, making him the second most recognizable figure amongst children (first is Santa Claus). Did you ever wonder why McDonald's used such a cartoonish character to advertise? Along with happy meals and their playgrounds, it should be clear whom they're trying to market!
One more scary thought: Surely many of you heard about increasing cases of precocious puberty (early puberty). Well, no one is sure why, but you can be sure that there are lots and lots of growth hormones being pumped into our meats, especially poultry. What happens when children eat growth-hormone pumped meat? Who knows. Oh, and children living near factory farms tend to have 2-4 times more asthma than the regular populations, which means many of animals probably have some kind of respiratory dysfunction. What happens if we eat that meat? Who knows. Are asthma levels increasing or decreasing amongst children? Isn't it a scary thought?
Oh, and by the way, if farmers, or, corporations (since there are virtually no family farms left) had to pay water bills at the rate we did, the true price of burgers would be closer to 20 dollars. Oh and lobbyists control government subsidies all the time. GM successfully lobbied the Eisenhower administration to build massive interstate freeways (true price of cars includes costs to build and maintain the road). Whether this is good or bad, is up to you to decide. Whether farming subsidies are good or bad, is also your choice. We're all paying for it one way or another.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Application Essay
※ Please use this opportunity to provide a clear and precise statement. Your essay will be evaluated and may influence the admission decision process. Examples of topics may include: insights about teaching/learning, your potential role as a Scholar/Teacher based on your experiences, self-introduction, family background, educational background, work experience, motive to apply, plan of service & other activities as a TaLK scholar, plans for further studies during your time in Korea, etc..
※ There is a 1,000 word limit.
My thoughts: hmmm this is one broad-as-hell topic. Whatever, I guess I'll just have fun writing one broad-as-hell response.
As I have already stated, my name is Fred Paik. My last name is noticeably Asian, but my first name is a variant of the German name “Frederick,” which I’m told, means elf or peaceful ruler. Does this imply that I am a descendent of a peaceful German ruler and like to eat bratwurst and Toastbrot? Hardly, but my name does imply divergence between my heritage and my current life.
I was born in rural Korea, but I only have faint memories of my childhood there, which includes excrement cars sucking out our biological waste with a hose every Wednesday, collecting tadpoles at nearby streams, and watching English instructional videos at school. I can sum up what I learned in one phrase: “excuse me.” After a whole year of watching videos, that was the only phrase I had learned. When I moved to America in second grade, I was effectively mute. Had a real teacher taught me, I could have known how to say phrases such as “may I use the restroom?” or at least say “bathroom.” Since I did not, I had to say “shhhhh” and charade as if I were standing behind a stall in order to communicate to my new American teacher that I really had to use the restroom. Everyone in the class laughed. I hated school and dreamt becoming a superman so I can beat up my classmates.
I believe in equal opportunity in education. I believe children should receive equal education regardless of where they are born. This, however, is not the case. I know many native English speakers who teach in Seoul, but not a single person who teaches anywhere else. Do children in rural Korea have the same opportunity to learn English compared to the urban kids? I highly doubt it. I read in multiple periodicals that proficiency in English is either required or heavily favored by nearly all major employers in Korea, which effectively discriminates against children in rural areas from obtaining jobs they desire. This is social injustice, which is why I support Talk, and why I welcome the opportunity to teach in rural Korea. Children in rural areas deserve more than an hour of instructional video every other day.
Throughout my life, I worked various jobs. I taught English and music to underprivileged kids at Mongolia without pay. I was not rich; in fact, I was destitute, but it was the most wonderful experience of my life – a job that fed me purpose than money. After 6 months of Mongolia, I traveled to China, to help a friend volunteering at an orphanage. These experiences have molded me, and gave me a vision – to work against social injustices involving education of children.
Someday, my dream is to work for UNICEF as a teacher. I cannot apply yet because I lack master’s degree, but I am planning to enroll in a graduate program, possibly in Korea after spending a year or two for TALK.
I have much love for Korea – the culture, the people and the cherry blossoms during spring. That is why I studied history with emphasis on Korea (I wrote my thesis on American missionaries in Korea), and I have worked with UNDP/GEF Wetlands project and Ministry of Environment on editing and writing various booklets and publications. I have excellent command of the English language, and in addition to having experienced teaching in classrooms with 150 students, I have also tutored college students in English composition at a local College. Up until last year, I have taught Sunday school at my church. I know what to expect, and I am passionate about teaching in Korea.
Thank you for reading my essay, and I hope you’ll remember my name. It's Fred Paik.
________________________________________________________________________
Not the best of my work, but I wanted to share it because I thought it was somewhat witty. The ending needs more work but oh well, I turned it in already.
※ There is a 1,000 word limit.
My thoughts: hmmm this is one broad-as-hell topic. Whatever, I guess I'll just have fun writing one broad-as-hell response.
Remember, my name is Fred Paik
As I have already stated, my name is Fred Paik. My last name is noticeably Asian, but my first name is a variant of the German name “Frederick,” which I’m told, means elf or peaceful ruler. Does this imply that I am a descendent of a peaceful German ruler and like to eat bratwurst and Toastbrot? Hardly, but my name does imply divergence between my heritage and my current life.
I was born in rural Korea, but I only have faint memories of my childhood there, which includes excrement cars sucking out our biological waste with a hose every Wednesday, collecting tadpoles at nearby streams, and watching English instructional videos at school. I can sum up what I learned in one phrase: “excuse me.” After a whole year of watching videos, that was the only phrase I had learned. When I moved to America in second grade, I was effectively mute. Had a real teacher taught me, I could have known how to say phrases such as “may I use the restroom?” or at least say “bathroom.” Since I did not, I had to say “shhhhh” and charade as if I were standing behind a stall in order to communicate to my new American teacher that I really had to use the restroom. Everyone in the class laughed. I hated school and dreamt becoming a superman so I can beat up my classmates.
I believe in equal opportunity in education. I believe children should receive equal education regardless of where they are born. This, however, is not the case. I know many native English speakers who teach in Seoul, but not a single person who teaches anywhere else. Do children in rural Korea have the same opportunity to learn English compared to the urban kids? I highly doubt it. I read in multiple periodicals that proficiency in English is either required or heavily favored by nearly all major employers in Korea, which effectively discriminates against children in rural areas from obtaining jobs they desire. This is social injustice, which is why I support Talk, and why I welcome the opportunity to teach in rural Korea. Children in rural areas deserve more than an hour of instructional video every other day.
Throughout my life, I worked various jobs. I taught English and music to underprivileged kids at Mongolia without pay. I was not rich; in fact, I was destitute, but it was the most wonderful experience of my life – a job that fed me purpose than money. After 6 months of Mongolia, I traveled to China, to help a friend volunteering at an orphanage. These experiences have molded me, and gave me a vision – to work against social injustices involving education of children.
Someday, my dream is to work for UNICEF as a teacher. I cannot apply yet because I lack master’s degree, but I am planning to enroll in a graduate program, possibly in Korea after spending a year or two for TALK.
I have much love for Korea – the culture, the people and the cherry blossoms during spring. That is why I studied history with emphasis on Korea (I wrote my thesis on American missionaries in Korea), and I have worked with UNDP/GEF Wetlands project and Ministry of Environment on editing and writing various booklets and publications. I have excellent command of the English language, and in addition to having experienced teaching in classrooms with 150 students, I have also tutored college students in English composition at a local College. Up until last year, I have taught Sunday school at my church. I know what to expect, and I am passionate about teaching in Korea.
Thank you for reading my essay, and I hope you’ll remember my name. It's Fred Paik.
________________________________________________________________________
Not the best of my work, but I wanted to share it because I thought it was somewhat witty. The ending needs more work but oh well, I turned it in already.
resume
On a Korean resume, you not only fill out your height and insert a picture but you must enter you WEIGHT. Your weight! Why? because... urrrr... obese people can't teach English? or may be really skinny people can't drive as well? I don't get it. I really don't understand why weight is a factor unless you're applying to become a sumo wrestler. May be they just want to work with pretty people, regardless of whether you're a stock broker or exotic dancer.
Monday, April 19, 2010
How do you feel about meat? part 1
or I should have asked, "WHAT do you know about meat?"
I understand these questions are too broad, so I'll ask some more specific questions. "How are animals treated before and after slaughter?" Well, I'm sure everyone can answer this question in a broad, generalized manner - not very well - but it's one of those things we would rather be ignorant about, since meat does, after all, taste good. And I'm sure most people understand how animals move through a conveyor belt as their heads are chopped off (after all, how often do you see a chicken with its head? You didn't think they did all this by hand did you?) as if they would in a factory, but what percentage of animals, or animals that are sold in supermarkets today, are a product of "factory farming?" Why are so many people upset about factory farming?
(I'm sure everyone, at some point, has imagined a chicken with its head on right?)
So everyone knows little about animal cruelty though most of us choose to suppress such thoughts. But really, what do you know about meat? Can you tell me what the procedure is like in detail? How long are chickens raised before slaughter? Who tests the safety of our meat? and why are there essentially only two types of chicken at the market?
I bet you anything you can name at least 10 breeds of dogs - Maltese, Yorkshire terrier, Poodles, Lillian's wiener dog, St. Bernard, Great Pyrenees, etc. Hypothetically, if you were selling dog meat, wouldn't it come in different types and shape? But if you look at the chicken at the market, there seems to be only two types - big KFC style, and small buffalo wing style. Why?
It's one thing to be ignorant about animal cruelty, but being ignorant about what you eat is a completely different matter. Shouldn't you know what you're eating? isn't this question really important?
I think it's extremely important.
I understand these questions are too broad, so I'll ask some more specific questions. "How are animals treated before and after slaughter?" Well, I'm sure everyone can answer this question in a broad, generalized manner - not very well - but it's one of those things we would rather be ignorant about, since meat does, after all, taste good. And I'm sure most people understand how animals move through a conveyor belt as their heads are chopped off (after all, how often do you see a chicken with its head? You didn't think they did all this by hand did you?) as if they would in a factory, but what percentage of animals, or animals that are sold in supermarkets today, are a product of "factory farming?" Why are so many people upset about factory farming?
(I'm sure everyone, at some point, has imagined a chicken with its head on right?)
So everyone knows little about animal cruelty though most of us choose to suppress such thoughts. But really, what do you know about meat? Can you tell me what the procedure is like in detail? How long are chickens raised before slaughter? Who tests the safety of our meat? and why are there essentially only two types of chicken at the market?
I bet you anything you can name at least 10 breeds of dogs - Maltese, Yorkshire terrier, Poodles, Lillian's wiener dog, St. Bernard, Great Pyrenees, etc. Hypothetically, if you were selling dog meat, wouldn't it come in different types and shape? But if you look at the chicken at the market, there seems to be only two types - big KFC style, and small buffalo wing style. Why?
It's one thing to be ignorant about animal cruelty, but being ignorant about what you eat is a completely different matter. Shouldn't you know what you're eating? isn't this question really important?
I think it's extremely important.
quick question
to my blog readers: what do you think about the meat industry in America? What do you know about modern day farming and animal breeding?
I thought I knew so much about modern day factory farms, but it turns out I didn't know anything. If this topic interests at least one person, I'll talk about food we eat. If it doesn't, then oh well.
I thought I knew so much about modern day factory farms, but it turns out I didn't know anything. If this topic interests at least one person, I'll talk about food we eat. If it doesn't, then oh well.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
bail bonds
I find certain things in life to be plain disgusting. Bail bonds is one of them. Since majority of my blog audience consists of college students from a middle class family and have never (I'm assuming) been arrested, I will start by explaining how bail works, and explain my disgust. And no, I have never been arrested, unless your definition of arrested includes sitting behind a police car before being released 30 minutes later.
When you're caught breaking the law, you are required to stay in jail before seeing the judge, which can be problematic if the date of offense and date of trial are months apart. At one end of spectrum, you have a minor offense such as traffic violation where it makes no sense to keep people in jail, while the other end of spectrum includes murderers and rapists, where it makes no sense to allow them to roam around.
But what if the offense is somewhere in between, such as assault? (the difference between assault and battery: assault is reasonable physical threat, while battery involves physical contact. Therefore, battery almost always includes assault, while assault does not always include battery - i.e. waving a knife would be assault, but not battery). Remember, these people are only charged for their crimes- they may not be guilty, and some assault may be more serious than others.
So that's where bail bonds come in. Instead of staying in jail, the defendant is given a chance to pay a large sum of money. If the defendant shows up to the trial later, the money is given back - if not, the money is lost. The law has a good intention - to provide motivation for offenders to show up for trial instead of running off.
It's easy to see how bail bonds turned this whole "trying-to-make-people-come-out-to-courts" into a huge business. For example, if the amount of bail is $30,000 (which most people don't have), the bail bond company will typically charge 10% premium, or $3,000, and pay the court $30,000 bail. So far so good right? The bail bond shops charge you a huge premium while taking a huge risk - if the defendant does not show up to court, they lose 30 grand, if they do show up, they pocket $3,000. Well, here's where it gets interesting.
Shady point #1: Most bail bond companies actually won't pay the court $30,000 until you don't show up. How can they do that when individuals have to pay? Lobby of course. Laws are only as good as people who write them. "Only registered bail bonds entities shall..."
Shady point #2: In order to obtain a bail bond, you must sign a crazy shady paper (more on this later), and you have to give them a collateral in case you run off. And if it's not yours, it's even better. For example, you may sign up your mom's house or a car (with her permission of course). What does this mean? That means even if you don't show up, the bail bond shops don't really have much to lose since they can just sell your mother's house or a car and pay the court. So that 10% is not really a price for taking a risk; it's pure profit.
Shady point #3: In most states, bail bonds corporations have lobbied the government so that they don't have to pay the entire $30,000.
Shady point #4: Instead of paying the bail, many people just stay in jail (bail bond companies may reject people, they many not be able to pay the premium, etc). For such people, the county may allow them to exit jail on the condition that authorities can monitor them before the trial date (through electronic ankle bands, etc). The program, called "pretrial services" helped Broward county save millions of dollars. But wide spread of pretrial services would mean less profit for the bail bond industry, so they ruthlessly lobbied the local governments to cut funding for pretrial services. It worked.
Skim through the article, and pay attention to all the commercials as well:
http://24hourbrowardbailbonds.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/just-say-no-to-pre-trial-services-in-broward-county/
Shady point #5: Remember that shady contract I was talking about? In order to apply for the bail bonds, you must sign a waiver that pretty much waives your rights as an American citizen, and it effectively makes the bounty hunter more powerful than police. If you were to run away, bounty hunters can search your house without a warrant, go through your trash, use force to arrest you, not have to read your the Miranda rights, handcuff you, and so on. How can this be legal? You signed the paper!
Only four states have outlawed commercial bail bonds. I think more states ought to do this.
When you're caught breaking the law, you are required to stay in jail before seeing the judge, which can be problematic if the date of offense and date of trial are months apart. At one end of spectrum, you have a minor offense such as traffic violation where it makes no sense to keep people in jail, while the other end of spectrum includes murderers and rapists, where it makes no sense to allow them to roam around.
But what if the offense is somewhere in between, such as assault? (the difference between assault and battery: assault is reasonable physical threat, while battery involves physical contact. Therefore, battery almost always includes assault, while assault does not always include battery - i.e. waving a knife would be assault, but not battery). Remember, these people are only charged for their crimes- they may not be guilty, and some assault may be more serious than others.
So that's where bail bonds come in. Instead of staying in jail, the defendant is given a chance to pay a large sum of money. If the defendant shows up to the trial later, the money is given back - if not, the money is lost. The law has a good intention - to provide motivation for offenders to show up for trial instead of running off.
It's easy to see how bail bonds turned this whole "trying-to-make-people-come-out-to-courts" into a huge business. For example, if the amount of bail is $30,000 (which most people don't have), the bail bond company will typically charge 10% premium, or $3,000, and pay the court $30,000 bail. So far so good right? The bail bond shops charge you a huge premium while taking a huge risk - if the defendant does not show up to court, they lose 30 grand, if they do show up, they pocket $3,000. Well, here's where it gets interesting.
Shady point #1: Most bail bond companies actually won't pay the court $30,000 until you don't show up. How can they do that when individuals have to pay? Lobby of course. Laws are only as good as people who write them. "Only registered bail bonds entities shall..."
Shady point #2: In order to obtain a bail bond, you must sign a crazy shady paper (more on this later), and you have to give them a collateral in case you run off. And if it's not yours, it's even better. For example, you may sign up your mom's house or a car (with her permission of course). What does this mean? That means even if you don't show up, the bail bond shops don't really have much to lose since they can just sell your mother's house or a car and pay the court. So that 10% is not really a price for taking a risk; it's pure profit.
Shady point #3: In most states, bail bonds corporations have lobbied the government so that they don't have to pay the entire $30,000.
Shady point #4: Instead of paying the bail, many people just stay in jail (bail bond companies may reject people, they many not be able to pay the premium, etc). For such people, the county may allow them to exit jail on the condition that authorities can monitor them before the trial date (through electronic ankle bands, etc). The program, called "pretrial services" helped Broward county save millions of dollars. But wide spread of pretrial services would mean less profit for the bail bond industry, so they ruthlessly lobbied the local governments to cut funding for pretrial services. It worked.
Skim through the article, and pay attention to all the commercials as well:
http://24hourbrowardbailbonds.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/just-say-no-to-pre-trial-services-in-broward-county/
Shady point #5: Remember that shady contract I was talking about? In order to apply for the bail bonds, you must sign a waiver that pretty much waives your rights as an American citizen, and it effectively makes the bounty hunter more powerful than police. If you were to run away, bounty hunters can search your house without a warrant, go through your trash, use force to arrest you, not have to read your the Miranda rights, handcuff you, and so on. How can this be legal? You signed the paper!
Only four states have outlawed commercial bail bonds. I think more states ought to do this.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
I really like this picture
But judging by lack of comments, I don't think anyone else does. Haha, let me attempt to sway people towards my line of thinking.
I like this picture because of the contrast. The "caveman" picture in the background looks surreal - like a picture from a comic book while the vandalized picture of the boy in blue definitely represents a picture from reality.
The caveman's head is cut off for intensity. I also love the way how background consisting of bricks and the wall can't look any more real.
But judging by lack of comments, I don't think anyone else does. Haha, let me attempt to sway people towards my line of thinking.
I like this picture because of the contrast. The "caveman" picture in the background looks surreal - like a picture from a comic book while the vandalized picture of the boy in blue definitely represents a picture from reality.
The caveman's head is cut off for intensity. I also love the way how background consisting of bricks and the wall can't look any more real.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
from "The Little Prince"
"I am looking for friends. What does that mean - tame?"
"It is an act too often neglected," said the fox. "It means to establish ties."
"To establish ties?"
"Just that," said the fox. "To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world..."
"If you come at four o'clock in the afternoon, then by three o'clock I shall begin to be happy."
"It is an act too often neglected," said the fox. "It means to establish ties."
"To establish ties?"
"Just that," said the fox. "To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world..."
"If you come at four o'clock in the afternoon, then by three o'clock I shall begin to be happy."
Monday, April 12, 2010
Keyboards
Have you wondered why your keyboard looks the way it does today? One would presume, there is a scientific reason for placing "D" or "A" where it is - to optimize speed. Perhaps that is why seldom used keys such as "Z" or "X" have odd placing; so we can type faster? Wrong. The keyboard looks the way it does for precisely the opposite reason, to make you type slower.
When the first type writer was invented by Christopher Sholes in 1872, he had one problem - the keys would often stick together and jam because the typists were typing too fast. After failing to invent keys that would not stick, he had but only one option - to slow down the typists instead.
After many experiments, Sholes placed the keys in the most illogical and random fashion that it nearly guaranteed slow typing. Even after the invention of retractable typewriters eliminated key jamming, the keyboard remained essentially the same, as millions of people are forced to search for their "T's" and "N's." That my friend, is how the "QWERTY" keyboard came to be.
When the first type writer was invented by Christopher Sholes in 1872, he had one problem - the keys would often stick together and jam because the typists were typing too fast. After failing to invent keys that would not stick, he had but only one option - to slow down the typists instead.
After many experiments, Sholes placed the keys in the most illogical and random fashion that it nearly guaranteed slow typing. Even after the invention of retractable typewriters eliminated key jamming, the keyboard remained essentially the same, as millions of people are forced to search for their "T's" and "N's." That my friend, is how the "QWERTY" keyboard came to be.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Yet another excerpt from "what the dog saw"
"What accidents like the Challenger should teach us is that we have constructed a world in which the potential for high-tech catastrophe is embedded in the fabric of day-to-day life. At some point it the future - for the most mundane of reasons, and with the very best of intentions - a NASA spacecraft will again go down in flames. We should at least admit this to ourselves now. And if we cannot - if the possibility is too much to bear - then our only option is to start thinking about getting rid of things like space shuttles altogether."
- January 22, 1996
And of course, space shuttle Columbia "went down in flames" on Feb. 3, 2003 when an insulating foam the size of a brief case punctured a hole in the propelling tank.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Up until about 3 years ago, I used to read a book a week, but I stopped for some stupid reason I'm too embarrassed to talk about. I have decided to resurrect the policy, and since I had read only one book prior to this week, I decided to catch up quite a bit. I finished "Outliers" and "Stone Fox" (it's a children's book - but it's still a book), 1 1/2 more stories to go on "What the Dog Saw," and I'm halfway done with Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style," which I'm re-reading, and I've read parts of "Brief Encounters with Che Guevara."
So I'll be done with 5 books by the end of the week, which is on par with my reading during last 1~2 years of college. Oh, and, does anyone read multiple books at once? or is it just me? I don't know why but whenever I feel like reading, I usually read 3 books at once. I don't know why I do, but I do.
Another revelation I had was that I possibly can't afford to spend 70 dollars a week on books, though there are plenty of books at our house that I haven't read yet. So I decided to get a library card, and for the first time in my life, I was able to fully appreciate how wonderful public libraries are. Public libraries are like blockbuster, but free. Books and DVD's cost about the same amount, but libraries lend them for... free. Haha, I don't know why I never appreciated that before. It's probably because I had to read for sake of research, not for sake of pleasure.
Anyways, here are my thoughts about the books:
Outliers: my one sentence summary: In order to succeed big, it takes hard work (10,000 hours), some talent and most importantly, luck.
critique: Typical Gladwell; does not disappoint; fascinating stories as usual. Some people may have problems with his logic, oversimplification, and selective sampling. And I would never use this book for academic purposes, but the book is wonderfully entertaining and there are so many insightful stories in the book that it ultimately earns a two thumbs up from me.
What the dog saw: my one sentence summary: Collection of some of the most engaging essays I have ever read; my favorites were "late boomers (geniuses that bloom late), the ketchup conundrum, blowing up, trouble makers, and dangerous minds.
critique: again, typical Gladwell. I don't know whether this man has some special ability in collecting intriguing stories, or to tell mediocre stories in intriguing fashion.
Stone Fox: Children's book, where a little boy enters a race to save his ailing grandfather.
critique: Stone Fox is one of those classics in children's literature, but I actually didn't like it. May be I expected too much out of it, or may be it's because I didn't like the first page when the authors says something close to: "the life of a potato farm was hard." What? Potato farming is the easiest farming there is, and it yields more calories per acre than any other major crop in the world. If you want to know what hard life on the farm is like, you plant rice, which is probably one of the most difficult crop to grow.
And a little kid trying to make it on his own? Hello? has anyone ever heard of social service? And grandpa gets sick because he failed to pay 500 dollars worth of taxes over the past 10 years? Has grandpa ever heard of standardized deduction and child tax credit? Does he know how to check boxes on his 1040? Or is the author some crazy conservative who wants all children in America to vote for republicans?
I think I expected too much out of a children's book. But I didn't even understand the moral behind the stupid story!
The Elements of Style: A classic book that will help you write with more clarity and vigor.
critique: One of greatest book on style ever written. It helped me for sure.
I will write about Brief encounters with Che Guevara when I'm done with it. I've only read 15 pages, and it's absolutely amazing so far.
- January 22, 1996
And of course, space shuttle Columbia "went down in flames" on Feb. 3, 2003 when an insulating foam the size of a brief case punctured a hole in the propelling tank.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Up until about 3 years ago, I used to read a book a week, but I stopped for some stupid reason I'm too embarrassed to talk about. I have decided to resurrect the policy, and since I had read only one book prior to this week, I decided to catch up quite a bit. I finished "Outliers" and "Stone Fox" (it's a children's book - but it's still a book), 1 1/2 more stories to go on "What the Dog Saw," and I'm halfway done with Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style," which I'm re-reading, and I've read parts of "Brief Encounters with Che Guevara."
So I'll be done with 5 books by the end of the week, which is on par with my reading during last 1~2 years of college. Oh, and, does anyone read multiple books at once? or is it just me? I don't know why but whenever I feel like reading, I usually read 3 books at once. I don't know why I do, but I do.
Another revelation I had was that I possibly can't afford to spend 70 dollars a week on books, though there are plenty of books at our house that I haven't read yet. So I decided to get a library card, and for the first time in my life, I was able to fully appreciate how wonderful public libraries are. Public libraries are like blockbuster, but free. Books and DVD's cost about the same amount, but libraries lend them for... free. Haha, I don't know why I never appreciated that before. It's probably because I had to read for sake of research, not for sake of pleasure.
Anyways, here are my thoughts about the books:
Outliers: my one sentence summary: In order to succeed big, it takes hard work (10,000 hours), some talent and most importantly, luck.
critique: Typical Gladwell; does not disappoint; fascinating stories as usual. Some people may have problems with his logic, oversimplification, and selective sampling. And I would never use this book for academic purposes, but the book is wonderfully entertaining and there are so many insightful stories in the book that it ultimately earns a two thumbs up from me.
What the dog saw: my one sentence summary: Collection of some of the most engaging essays I have ever read; my favorites were "late boomers (geniuses that bloom late), the ketchup conundrum, blowing up, trouble makers, and dangerous minds.
critique: again, typical Gladwell. I don't know whether this man has some special ability in collecting intriguing stories, or to tell mediocre stories in intriguing fashion.
Stone Fox: Children's book, where a little boy enters a race to save his ailing grandfather.
critique: Stone Fox is one of those classics in children's literature, but I actually didn't like it. May be I expected too much out of it, or may be it's because I didn't like the first page when the authors says something close to: "the life of a potato farm was hard." What? Potato farming is the easiest farming there is, and it yields more calories per acre than any other major crop in the world. If you want to know what hard life on the farm is like, you plant rice, which is probably one of the most difficult crop to grow.
And a little kid trying to make it on his own? Hello? has anyone ever heard of social service? And grandpa gets sick because he failed to pay 500 dollars worth of taxes over the past 10 years? Has grandpa ever heard of standardized deduction and child tax credit? Does he know how to check boxes on his 1040? Or is the author some crazy conservative who wants all children in America to vote for republicans?
I think I expected too much out of a children's book. But I didn't even understand the moral behind the stupid story!
The Elements of Style: A classic book that will help you write with more clarity and vigor.
critique: One of greatest book on style ever written. It helped me for sure.
I will write about Brief encounters with Che Guevara when I'm done with it. I've only read 15 pages, and it's absolutely amazing so far.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
What the Dog Saw
Here is an excerpt from "What the Dog Saw," a collection of short essays by Malcolm Gladwell. The story is entitled "Late Bloomers: why do we equate genius with precocity?" The story can be found on page 295.
Picasso was the incandescent prodigy. His career as a serious artist began with a masterpiece, Evocation: The Burial of Casagemas, produced at age 20. In short order, he painted many of the greatest work of his career - including Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, at age of twenty-six. Picasso fit our usual ideas about genius perfectly.
Cezanne didn't. If you go to the Cezanne room at the Musee d'Orsay, in Paris - the finest collection of Cezannes in the world - the array of masterpieces you'll find along the back wall were all painted at the end of his career.
The freshness, exuberance, and energy of youth did little for Cezanne. He was a late bloomer - and for some reason in our accounting of genius and creativity we have forgotten to make sense of the Cezannes of the world.
...Prodigies like Picasso, Galenson argues, rarely engage in open-ended exploration. They tend to be "conceptual," Galenson says, in the sense that they start with a clear idea of where they want to go, and they execute it. "I can hardly understand the importance given to the word research," Picasso once said in an interview with the artist Marius de Zayas. "In my opinion, to search means nothing in painting. To find is the thing." He continued, "the several manners I have used in my art must not be considered as an evolution or as steps toward an unknown ideal of painting... I have never made trials or experiments."
But late bloomers tend to work the other way around. Their approach is experimental. "Their goals are imprecise, so their procedure is tentative and incremental," Galenson writes in "Old Masters and Young Geniuses," and he goes on:
When Cezanne was painting a portrait of the critic Gustave Geffroy, he made him endure eighty sittings, over three months, before announcing the project a failure. (The result is one of the string of mastgerpieces in the Musee d'Orsay.) When Cezanne painted his dealer, Ambrose Vollard, he made Vollard arrive at eight in the morning and sit on a rickety platform until eleven-thirty, without a break, on 150 occasions - before abandoning the portrait. He would paint a scene, then repaint it, then paint it again. He was notorious for slashing his canvases to pieces in fits of frustration.
Mark Twain was the same way. Galenson quotes the literary critic Franklin Rogers on Twain's trial-and-error method: "His routine procedure seems to have been to start a novel with some structural plan which ordinariloy soon proved defective, whereupon he would cast about for a new plot which would overcome the difficulty, rewrite what he had already written, and then push on until some new defect forced him to repeat the process once again."
Twain fiddled and despaired and revised and gave up on Huckleberry Finn so many times that the book took him nearly a decade to complete. The Cezannes of the world bloom late not as a result of some defect in character, or distraction, or lack of ambition, but because the kind of creativity that proceeds through trial and error necessarily takes a long time to come to fruition.
__________________________________________________________
Are you a Picasso? or are you a Cezanne? Are you a conceptual person? Conceptual people know there is a specific way their art is to be presented, (whether it's writing, painting, etc) and strive to "find" that answer. Or are you an experimental person, where you have a vague idea that you play around with forever yet you're rarely, if ever, satisfied?
What do I seem like?
Picasso was the incandescent prodigy. His career as a serious artist began with a masterpiece, Evocation: The Burial of Casagemas, produced at age 20. In short order, he painted many of the greatest work of his career - including Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, at age of twenty-six. Picasso fit our usual ideas about genius perfectly.
Cezanne didn't. If you go to the Cezanne room at the Musee d'Orsay, in Paris - the finest collection of Cezannes in the world - the array of masterpieces you'll find along the back wall were all painted at the end of his career.
The freshness, exuberance, and energy of youth did little for Cezanne. He was a late bloomer - and for some reason in our accounting of genius and creativity we have forgotten to make sense of the Cezannes of the world.
...Prodigies like Picasso, Galenson argues, rarely engage in open-ended exploration. They tend to be "conceptual," Galenson says, in the sense that they start with a clear idea of where they want to go, and they execute it. "I can hardly understand the importance given to the word research," Picasso once said in an interview with the artist Marius de Zayas. "In my opinion, to search means nothing in painting. To find is the thing." He continued, "the several manners I have used in my art must not be considered as an evolution or as steps toward an unknown ideal of painting... I have never made trials or experiments."
But late bloomers tend to work the other way around. Their approach is experimental. "Their goals are imprecise, so their procedure is tentative and incremental," Galenson writes in "Old Masters and Young Geniuses," and he goes on:
The imprecision of their goals means that these artists rarely feel they have succeeded, and their careers are consequently often dominated by the pursuit of a single objective. These artists repeat themselves, painting the same subject many times, and gradually changing its treatment in an experimental process of trial and error. Each work leads to the next, and none is generally privileged over others, so experimental painters rarely make specific preparatory sketches or plans for a painting. They consider the production of a painting as a process of searching, in which they aim to discover the image in the course of making it; they typically believe that learning is a more important goal than making finished paintings. Experimental artists build their skills gradually over the course of their careers, improving their work slowly over long periods. These artists are perfectionists and are typically plagued by frustration at their inability to achieve their goal.Where Picasso wanted to find, not search, Cezanne said the opposite: "I seek in painting."
When Cezanne was painting a portrait of the critic Gustave Geffroy, he made him endure eighty sittings, over three months, before announcing the project a failure. (The result is one of the string of mastgerpieces in the Musee d'Orsay.) When Cezanne painted his dealer, Ambrose Vollard, he made Vollard arrive at eight in the morning and sit on a rickety platform until eleven-thirty, without a break, on 150 occasions - before abandoning the portrait. He would paint a scene, then repaint it, then paint it again. He was notorious for slashing his canvases to pieces in fits of frustration.
Mark Twain was the same way. Galenson quotes the literary critic Franklin Rogers on Twain's trial-and-error method: "His routine procedure seems to have been to start a novel with some structural plan which ordinariloy soon proved defective, whereupon he would cast about for a new plot which would overcome the difficulty, rewrite what he had already written, and then push on until some new defect forced him to repeat the process once again."
Twain fiddled and despaired and revised and gave up on Huckleberry Finn so many times that the book took him nearly a decade to complete. The Cezannes of the world bloom late not as a result of some defect in character, or distraction, or lack of ambition, but because the kind of creativity that proceeds through trial and error necessarily takes a long time to come to fruition.
__________________________________________________________
Are you a Picasso? or are you a Cezanne? Are you a conceptual person? Conceptual people know there is a specific way their art is to be presented, (whether it's writing, painting, etc) and strive to "find" that answer. Or are you an experimental person, where you have a vague idea that you play around with forever yet you're rarely, if ever, satisfied?
What do I seem like?
Music I listen to, part 2
Two days have passed, and I have lost the motivation to continue with the post. It's sad how quickly enthusiasm for an idea can dissipate.
I think I wanted to write about the trend of feminizing Korean male celebrities - but I wouldn't know where to take the topic. I wouldn't judge (is it good or bad?), nor would I conclude. I mean, they're obviously presenting themselves to maximize popularity and profit but what does that say about Korean teenage subculture? I don't know, but I will show you the trend:
The group HOT - they debuted when I was in 8th grade.
G-Dragon from Big Bang
Group MBlaq, made by this man:
Bi.
What makes the above picture so interesting is the contrast between mascara and the six pack.
But the interesting question is, will future of K-pop look more like Japanese visual rockers?
(All of them are guys... I think. Honestly, I don't know enough about visual rock to tell anyone who the groups are, if they are even celebrities, or if their music sounds any good. I just know that the genre exists, and what they look like. The emphasis of visuals in visual rock is as important to the music itself. In a way, K-pop really should be called visual-pop)
In the past (or in the present), was/is fashion used to oppress women? If the answer is yes (which I'm assuming it is, or at least in the past), would rise of visual rock and their (hypothetical) acceptance in popular culture signify movement towards gender equality, at least in fashion? Or is that a stupid question since equality can exist despite segregation? Is it possible to ignore biology while discussing fashion?
Would girls actually like this? Would girls feel threatened, or invaded? What kind of underwear do visual rockers wear?
I don't have answers to any of these questions. Most of these questions are probably stupid or pointless because I am ignorant. I initially did not want to write this entry because upon contemplating about it, I realized my ignorance - about fashion, gender, visual rock, existence of feminine underwear in their closet, etc. But I wrote it, and there, the world knows about my ignorance now. Whatever - I feel secure about androgynous Japanese rockers, and frankly speaking, I don't mind them. Who am I to say what people should wear when my own views have been conditioned and shaped by the culture I live in?
But here is what truly fascinates me - fashions of primitive tribes (is primitive offensive?). Is there anything innate about fashion? Do virtually every culture have a "uniform?" Is the need to visually categorize within our primitive instincts? If yes, is that why people repel against the idea of androgynous clothing?
I think I wanted to write about the trend of feminizing Korean male celebrities - but I wouldn't know where to take the topic. I wouldn't judge (is it good or bad?), nor would I conclude. I mean, they're obviously presenting themselves to maximize popularity and profit but what does that say about Korean teenage subculture? I don't know, but I will show you the trend:
The group HOT - they debuted when I was in 8th grade.
G-Dragon from Big Bang
Group MBlaq, made by this man:
Bi.
What makes the above picture so interesting is the contrast between mascara and the six pack.
But the interesting question is, will future of K-pop look more like Japanese visual rockers?
(All of them are guys... I think. Honestly, I don't know enough about visual rock to tell anyone who the groups are, if they are even celebrities, or if their music sounds any good. I just know that the genre exists, and what they look like. The emphasis of visuals in visual rock is as important to the music itself. In a way, K-pop really should be called visual-pop)
In the past (or in the present), was/is fashion used to oppress women? If the answer is yes (which I'm assuming it is, or at least in the past), would rise of visual rock and their (hypothetical) acceptance in popular culture signify movement towards gender equality, at least in fashion? Or is that a stupid question since equality can exist despite segregation? Is it possible to ignore biology while discussing fashion?
Would girls actually like this? Would girls feel threatened, or invaded? What kind of underwear do visual rockers wear?
I don't have answers to any of these questions. Most of these questions are probably stupid or pointless because I am ignorant. I initially did not want to write this entry because upon contemplating about it, I realized my ignorance - about fashion, gender, visual rock, existence of feminine underwear in their closet, etc. But I wrote it, and there, the world knows about my ignorance now. Whatever - I feel secure about androgynous Japanese rockers, and frankly speaking, I don't mind them. Who am I to say what people should wear when my own views have been conditioned and shaped by the culture I live in?
But here is what truly fascinates me - fashions of primitive tribes (is primitive offensive?). Is there anything innate about fashion? Do virtually every culture have a "uniform?" Is the need to visually categorize within our primitive instincts? If yes, is that why people repel against the idea of androgynous clothing?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Music, feminine K-pop stars, and more
So the question on Lillian's blog reads, "what kind of music do you listen to?" Personally, the best way to answer this question would be to say, "I listen to various music," and list the genres. This, however, is problematic. I have trouble classifying the type of music I listen to. May be you can help (and please do!)
Why I dislike (listening to) K-pop
First of all, I do not enjoy listening to Korean pop; I enjoy looking at Korean pop. I do not enjoy listening to Korean pop due to its simplicity and banal construction. Listening to K-pop after Miles Davis's On Green Dolphin Street is like reading Goosebumps after The Great Gatsby. I thought Goosebump series were an insult to the English language when I was in fourth grade, and I couldn't even speak English back then.
But I do enjoy watching K-pop. Let's be frank. I'm a heterosexual male in my twenties watching half-naked girls dance for three minutes. Does anyone really expect me not to be aroused? How could it not capture my attention for at least a little bit? I can't help it, like I can't help gravity.
(Lee Hyolee, one of the most popular female singers of all time)
Today's marketing is more than an advertisement. Clever marketing assigns identity. Laker fans often use the pronoun "we" as if they were the sixth member of team who contributed to the win. Apple zealots enthusiastically boast new products, unconsciously carrying out false transitive property: Apple is cool; I use Apple; therefore, I am cool. Same can be said about Manolo Blaniks, BMW, etc. A huge reason why people buy these products is not because of their infallible quality but to be associated with certain image.
K-pop executives are masterminds at creating images, and apparently, they seem to care much more about image than sound. I saw a schedule of fledgling K-pop trainees couple weeks ago. The schedule includes nearly 8 hours of dance practice, and may be 2 hours of singing every other day. Clearly, visual presentation is prioritized over anything else, and no wonder nearly all Korean stars have perfect bodies after such a gruesome work out. These people are professional at looking good, not at making sound, as if they were talking/ walking Barbie dolls. And to add a irrelevant point, they heavily photoshop their pictures and present false impression of beauty. There is no way an average 14 year old girl can compete - they can only admire.
So why listen to groups that were made to present? I would rather listen to K-pop celebrity in a talk show rather than hear them sing. At least they're not out of tune in a conversation.
But I do like (some) Korean Music
Let's go back to the original topic - music I listen to. Please listen (or at least parts of it)
How would you categorize this? All musicians are Korean, so it can be Categorized as a Korean Music. It is a 007 medley, so it can be included in the category of movie sound tracks. But as you can see, they start to improvise in the middle of the song, so it has elements of jazz as well. You can categorize it as an instrumental but I find that category misleading since any genre, such as hip-hop, can have an instrumental. What about the instruments? Which genre ever uses Spanish guitar, normal guitar, harmonica, and a contra bass (and no drums)? Please tell me, for I am curious.
(How did I find out about these guys? The dude on contra bass is my cousin)
It is a common stereotype that Korean music only consists of bunch of boys wearing lipsticks with a six pack, but Korean music is not equivalent to K-pop, though K-pop does have a lion share in the music industry. Korean music by no means is diverse but there are respectable artists. I like respectable artists.
Is categorization really all that important?
(so tell me, is this hip hop or jazz?)
In most cases, categorizing music into genres work, and they work fairly well. Tupac, for example, is clearly a hip-hop artist, as Miles Davis is the epitome of cool jazz. Beatles revolutionized rock & roll, and Nirvana was the front runner in the alternative revolution. But certain songs are slightly harder to categorize, such as the song above. It's not quite jazz, but it's not quite hip hop either. It actually has elements of both, which is what makes the song so unique. Most people would categorize this as jazz-hip hop, and put it in the same category with sound providers and jazzkantine - difficult to categorize, but possible.
But from time to time, it's impossible to categorize a song, period. Take the next song for example:
The song starts off with a Mongolian man simultaneously singing multiple notes (how this is done I do not know). Then Bela Fleck starts to play an unknown instrument, along with an Indian drummer. Up to here, this song is really just a strange mixture of world music (not to mention the African Steel Drums that I do not hear). But after everyone takes a solo (4:08 is my favorite), the song at 4:54 suddenly sounds like a "normal" 70's pop song! Without coining a new genre, I cannot categorize this song; it is impossible.
But does the inability to categorize this song add or take away from the qualities of the song? Absolutely not. So does a need to categorize every single piece of music exist? Not really if you asked me - though it may be important to marketing executives and record store owners.
_________________________________________________________
I will continue tomorrow, since I need to sleep soon.
Why I dislike (listening to) K-pop
First of all, I do not enjoy listening to Korean pop; I enjoy looking at Korean pop. I do not enjoy listening to Korean pop due to its simplicity and banal construction. Listening to K-pop after Miles Davis's On Green Dolphin Street is like reading Goosebumps after The Great Gatsby. I thought Goosebump series were an insult to the English language when I was in fourth grade, and I couldn't even speak English back then.
But I do enjoy watching K-pop. Let's be frank. I'm a heterosexual male in my twenties watching half-naked girls dance for three minutes. Does anyone really expect me not to be aroused? How could it not capture my attention for at least a little bit? I can't help it, like I can't help gravity.
(Lee Hyolee, one of the most popular female singers of all time)
Today's marketing is more than an advertisement. Clever marketing assigns identity. Laker fans often use the pronoun "we" as if they were the sixth member of team who contributed to the win. Apple zealots enthusiastically boast new products, unconsciously carrying out false transitive property: Apple is cool; I use Apple; therefore, I am cool. Same can be said about Manolo Blaniks, BMW, etc. A huge reason why people buy these products is not because of their infallible quality but to be associated with certain image.
K-pop executives are masterminds at creating images, and apparently, they seem to care much more about image than sound. I saw a schedule of fledgling K-pop trainees couple weeks ago. The schedule includes nearly 8 hours of dance practice, and may be 2 hours of singing every other day. Clearly, visual presentation is prioritized over anything else, and no wonder nearly all Korean stars have perfect bodies after such a gruesome work out. These people are professional at looking good, not at making sound, as if they were talking/ walking Barbie dolls. And to add a irrelevant point, they heavily photoshop their pictures and present false impression of beauty. There is no way an average 14 year old girl can compete - they can only admire.
So why listen to groups that were made to present? I would rather listen to K-pop celebrity in a talk show rather than hear them sing. At least they're not out of tune in a conversation.
But I do like (some) Korean Music
Let's go back to the original topic - music I listen to. Please listen (or at least parts of it)
How would you categorize this? All musicians are Korean, so it can be Categorized as a Korean Music. It is a 007 medley, so it can be included in the category of movie sound tracks. But as you can see, they start to improvise in the middle of the song, so it has elements of jazz as well. You can categorize it as an instrumental but I find that category misleading since any genre, such as hip-hop, can have an instrumental. What about the instruments? Which genre ever uses Spanish guitar, normal guitar, harmonica, and a contra bass (and no drums)? Please tell me, for I am curious.
(How did I find out about these guys? The dude on contra bass is my cousin)
It is a common stereotype that Korean music only consists of bunch of boys wearing lipsticks with a six pack, but Korean music is not equivalent to K-pop, though K-pop does have a lion share in the music industry. Korean music by no means is diverse but there are respectable artists. I like respectable artists.
Is categorization really all that important?
(so tell me, is this hip hop or jazz?)
In most cases, categorizing music into genres work, and they work fairly well. Tupac, for example, is clearly a hip-hop artist, as Miles Davis is the epitome of cool jazz. Beatles revolutionized rock & roll, and Nirvana was the front runner in the alternative revolution. But certain songs are slightly harder to categorize, such as the song above. It's not quite jazz, but it's not quite hip hop either. It actually has elements of both, which is what makes the song so unique. Most people would categorize this as jazz-hip hop, and put it in the same category with sound providers and jazzkantine - difficult to categorize, but possible.
But from time to time, it's impossible to categorize a song, period. Take the next song for example:
The song starts off with a Mongolian man simultaneously singing multiple notes (how this is done I do not know). Then Bela Fleck starts to play an unknown instrument, along with an Indian drummer. Up to here, this song is really just a strange mixture of world music (not to mention the African Steel Drums that I do not hear). But after everyone takes a solo (4:08 is my favorite), the song at 4:54 suddenly sounds like a "normal" 70's pop song! Without coining a new genre, I cannot categorize this song; it is impossible.
But does the inability to categorize this song add or take away from the qualities of the song? Absolutely not. So does a need to categorize every single piece of music exist? Not really if you asked me - though it may be important to marketing executives and record store owners.
_________________________________________________________
I will continue tomorrow, since I need to sleep soon.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Pastors, dumb bitches, and batches of unrelated topics.
Mediocre pastors outnumber exceptional pastors. That is the nature of the bell curve.
This is obviously not a scientific conclusion but rather a conjecture. Plus mediocre and exceptional are subjective traits anyway. Heck, even my sample of pastors are limited since I only know few pastors. But from my experience of teachers and people of similar stature, I would presume, without any evidence, that population of pastors would resemble something close to a standard deviation.
*as I'm writing this, a somewhat cute girl, along with two of her company, sat in front of me. She blurted out, "have you guys ever tried Carl's Jr.?" and began to compare popeyes to Carl's. I'm slightly annoyed for no apparent reason, though I shouldn't be. anyways...
The nature of bell curve is a depressing one... Or is it? May be I am being overly pessimistic, for mediocre people far outnumber the incompetent as well. Plus, not everything in the world has a standard distribution - wealth for one, is skewed.
No, no, it is depressing. The reason is, I read somewhere that 70~80% of drivers believe they are better drivers than average drivers, while 80~90% of people believe they are better workers than their co-workers. No one wants to...
Now, there are four girls sitting on another table. One of the girl is talking about how she wants to go on a road trip for her birthday, and she started to bounce up and down on her chair like a dumb ditz while screaming. I know I shouldn't look at people with contempt, but sometimes I just can't help it.
Let it be known - screaming while jumping up and down on a chair at a cafe in no way indicates your intelligence - but regardless, I hate dumb bitches.
I lost my train of thought. May be I should talk about dumb bitches. Don't get me wrong, I hate dumb guys too, but I really hate dumb bitches right now. They're probably not really dumb, but it's just so much more convenient to label them in such a way.
Anyways, I was supposed to be talking about pastors. I think pasto... I really don't understand how four people could talk simultaneously, especially at such a loud volume. God I'm annoyed. What was I writing about? Oh yeah, what I wanted to say in the beginning was that we will all run into bunch of mediocre pastors, so don't be let down when you do. If you meet great ones, which is not likely, cherish them. Oh, and since most of my audience is quite young, here's another one of my unproven theories - I think pastors are like music. You like them so much better when you're young.
Let me finish with quote from a man whom I look highly upon - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
A chief is a man who assumes responsibility. He says "I was beaten," he does not say "My men were beaten".
This is obviously not a scientific conclusion but rather a conjecture. Plus mediocre and exceptional are subjective traits anyway. Heck, even my sample of pastors are limited since I only know few pastors. But from my experience of teachers and people of similar stature, I would presume, without any evidence, that population of pastors would resemble something close to a standard deviation.
*as I'm writing this, a somewhat cute girl, along with two of her company, sat in front of me. She blurted out, "have you guys ever tried Carl's Jr.?" and began to compare popeyes to Carl's. I'm slightly annoyed for no apparent reason, though I shouldn't be. anyways...
The nature of bell curve is a depressing one... Or is it? May be I am being overly pessimistic, for mediocre people far outnumber the incompetent as well. Plus, not everything in the world has a standard distribution - wealth for one, is skewed.
No, no, it is depressing. The reason is, I read somewhere that 70~80% of drivers believe they are better drivers than average drivers, while 80~90% of people believe they are better workers than their co-workers. No one wants to...
Now, there are four girls sitting on another table. One of the girl is talking about how she wants to go on a road trip for her birthday, and she started to bounce up and down on her chair like a dumb ditz while screaming. I know I shouldn't look at people with contempt, but sometimes I just can't help it.
Let it be known - screaming while jumping up and down on a chair at a cafe in no way indicates your intelligence - but regardless, I hate dumb bitches.
I lost my train of thought. May be I should talk about dumb bitches. Don't get me wrong, I hate dumb guys too, but I really hate dumb bitches right now. They're probably not really dumb, but it's just so much more convenient to label them in such a way.
Anyways, I was supposed to be talking about pastors. I think pasto... I really don't understand how four people could talk simultaneously, especially at such a loud volume. God I'm annoyed. What was I writing about? Oh yeah, what I wanted to say in the beginning was that we will all run into bunch of mediocre pastors, so don't be let down when you do. If you meet great ones, which is not likely, cherish them. Oh, and since most of my audience is quite young, here's another one of my unproven theories - I think pastors are like music. You like them so much better when you're young.
Let me finish with quote from a man whom I look highly upon - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
A chief is a man who assumes responsibility. He says "I was beaten," he does not say "My men were beaten".
Friday, April 2, 2010
coke, pepsi
Drinking lots of cola may reduce fertility rate, according to researchers: http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Nutrition/Food/cola_may_lower_sperm_counts_3103100905.html
According to the Danish study, men who drank a quart or more of cola had 30% less sperm count than men who did not drink cola.
This may explain why polars bears are nearly extinct.
According to the Danish study, men who drank a quart or more of cola had 30% less sperm count than men who did not drink cola.
The men who drank more than one liter per day of cola had only 35 million sperm per mL compared to 50 million sperm per mL for those who did not drink cola.
Caution needs to be exercised when the study results are interpreted as the study is not a trial and it did not reveal any causal relationship between drinking cola and reduced sperm counts.
Many things can be involved in the association, but the researchers told Reuters that caffeine may not be one of them. Lifestyle may be a determinant as those who did not drink cola tended to follow a healthier lifestyle.
This may explain why polars bears are nearly extinct.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Asking the wrong questions
I have a photography blog with a medium sized traffic of roughly 8,000 unique visitors per month. As you can expect, I receive quite a few questions from random people all the time. The sad part is, they always ask the wrong questions - questions about equipment. What camera should I buy? Nikon or Canon? Prime lenses or zoom lenses? and so on. What's wrong with questions about equipment? Well, there is really nothing technically wrong with an equipment question. I even ask questions about equipment from time to time, but people need to understand two related issues. For one, the choice of equipment is a highly subjective matter, similar to choosing a spaghetti sauce (more to be explained). As for the second issue, equipment does not enhance one's skills as a photographer. Practice does.
(Picture of death valley, taken with Nikon D40x and 18-55mm kit lens. Both the lens and the camera are cheap and outdated, but the picture is not)
Camera and the Spaghetti Sauce
According to Howard Moskowitz, a psychophysicist who revolutionized America's food industry, there is no such thing as the perfect spaghetti sauce; there are only perfect spaghetti sauces. When Campbell's soup came to Moskowitz in an effort to revitalize their struggling Prego spaghetti sauce during the 80's, Howard told Campbell's that there was no such thing as the perfect spaghetti sauce. He went on to gather mountains of data from all over the United States and came to a conclusion that Americans like their spaghetti sauce in one of three varieties: plain, spicy, or extra chunky. Out of the three, extra chunky was the most significant for no one sold it during that period. Following Moskowitz's advice, Campbell's began to manufacture extra chunky spaghetti sauce, which resulted in a net profit of $600 million throughout the next decade. Indeed, there was no such thing as "the perfect sauce," but only "perfect sauces."
Camera equipment, just like spaghetti sauce, is highly subjective. I understand how people are drowning in the sea of over-information, but that does not change the nature of the question; large part of choosing a camera equipment involves an opinion.
Let's look at a very typical question I receive: the prime vs. the zoom lens question. Prime lens, also known as the fixed focal lens, deliver higher quality picture but lacks the ability to zoom. Zoom lens, though slightly lacking in quality most of the time, tends to be more convenient due to its ability to zoom. Which one is better? Lens that delivers quality? or lens that delivers convenience? The answer is, it depends. Even professionals are split on the matter. There is no perfect lens; only perfect lenses. My opinion has nothing to do with other people's taste in camera equipment.
(understanding lighting, not equipment, will help people enhance their photography skills)
Practice, Practice, Practice
Cameras do not take pictures. People do. Instruments do not play music. People do. Whether Joshua Bell uses a multi-million dollar Stardivarious or some cheap $300 violin, it will have no effect on his skills. Michael Jordan did not become the greatest player of all time because he had nice equipment. He became the greatest through practicing countless hours. In order to enhance photographic abilities, people should practice, not buy another lens. Let's face it. Practice is boring. Practice involves endless repetition of a task one cannot perform well. Practice, however, improves.
(batch of pictures from my earlier days. People often say I have talent, but they do not realize I practiced by taking 200~500 pictures of the exact same subject everyday, to improve my composition and understanding of lighting.)
Christopher Andersen of Magnum Photos only shoots with an outdated point and shoot camera yet his still takes some of the best pictures in the world. Clearly, his camera does not give him the edge against other photographers. His skills do. How people always ask about equipment but not technique bedazzles me.
The right questions
So what is the "right" question then? Obviously, there is no such thing as a single right question. But, I believe people should start with questions that may help improve their ability. A question about composition would be a great place to start. How about questions about lighting or the subject? Those would be great too.
(Picture of death valley, taken with Nikon D40x and 18-55mm kit lens. Both the lens and the camera are cheap and outdated, but the picture is not)
Camera and the Spaghetti Sauce
According to Howard Moskowitz, a psychophysicist who revolutionized America's food industry, there is no such thing as the perfect spaghetti sauce; there are only perfect spaghetti sauces. When Campbell's soup came to Moskowitz in an effort to revitalize their struggling Prego spaghetti sauce during the 80's, Howard told Campbell's that there was no such thing as the perfect spaghetti sauce. He went on to gather mountains of data from all over the United States and came to a conclusion that Americans like their spaghetti sauce in one of three varieties: plain, spicy, or extra chunky. Out of the three, extra chunky was the most significant for no one sold it during that period. Following Moskowitz's advice, Campbell's began to manufacture extra chunky spaghetti sauce, which resulted in a net profit of $600 million throughout the next decade. Indeed, there was no such thing as "the perfect sauce," but only "perfect sauces."
Camera equipment, just like spaghetti sauce, is highly subjective. I understand how people are drowning in the sea of over-information, but that does not change the nature of the question; large part of choosing a camera equipment involves an opinion.
Let's look at a very typical question I receive: the prime vs. the zoom lens question. Prime lens, also known as the fixed focal lens, deliver higher quality picture but lacks the ability to zoom. Zoom lens, though slightly lacking in quality most of the time, tends to be more convenient due to its ability to zoom. Which one is better? Lens that delivers quality? or lens that delivers convenience? The answer is, it depends. Even professionals are split on the matter. There is no perfect lens; only perfect lenses. My opinion has nothing to do with other people's taste in camera equipment.
(understanding lighting, not equipment, will help people enhance their photography skills)
Practice, Practice, Practice
Cameras do not take pictures. People do. Instruments do not play music. People do. Whether Joshua Bell uses a multi-million dollar Stardivarious or some cheap $300 violin, it will have no effect on his skills. Michael Jordan did not become the greatest player of all time because he had nice equipment. He became the greatest through practicing countless hours. In order to enhance photographic abilities, people should practice, not buy another lens. Let's face it. Practice is boring. Practice involves endless repetition of a task one cannot perform well. Practice, however, improves.
(batch of pictures from my earlier days. People often say I have talent, but they do not realize I practiced by taking 200~500 pictures of the exact same subject everyday, to improve my composition and understanding of lighting.)
Christopher Andersen of Magnum Photos only shoots with an outdated point and shoot camera yet his still takes some of the best pictures in the world. Clearly, his camera does not give him the edge against other photographers. His skills do. How people always ask about equipment but not technique bedazzles me.
The right questions
So what is the "right" question then? Obviously, there is no such thing as a single right question. But, I believe people should start with questions that may help improve their ability. A question about composition would be a great place to start. How about questions about lighting or the subject? Those would be great too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
