Ashi

(*sighs*) The guy should have fought when the mother came. I know it's weird, but didn't make an effort to fight for his right at that point will make the court case difficult for him. I know it's hard to fight when one was feeling like dying.... Sometimes it's weird how some people can be so heartless, though the cruelty is from whom you call family.

Well have fun at the wedding. Hope the wedding dress has some sort guard to mud.... Weird weather.

The saying, "praise in public, criticize in private" is usually my policy. However, since criticism should be constructive, and some of them a little difficult to conduct in private because we're on the Internet, so a little bit of tact should be in place and it is usually a sticky issue. Not everyone take it the same way. Some takes it personally, while others don't. I think that's the most difficult thing to assess before the reviewer gives out his/her opinion, hoping it'll help the writer, rather than distressing him/her. We don't know the writer personally!!! I used to be the assistant for a photography class. My duty included criticize photos in a constructive way, to facilitate learning of course. Photography, like writing or any art form in fact, the beauty is indeed in the eyes of beholder. I understood this concern when I took my time to study the photos and gave "absolute necessary" criticism on photos that I believe could be done better. The ones that were below B grade level I simply gave no opinion (and there were plenty, because it's intro level class). I used to take that class and a photographer myself, so I do understand those photos were highly personal to the creator, even the ones that didn't make the grade. It's not my job to put the effort down, like a stereotypical snobbish art critic. That isn't helping anyone except elevate one's ego. Specifically what I did was the following: 1. Criticize in private. Since it's not possible sometimes (the photos were posted in a private Flickr groups and I commented on them, along with other lab assistants and the instructor), so my reviews had a tendency to be cryptic. I tried my best to be only understandable to the target of the review (the artist themselves). That's not always possible of course, since all other classmate could read the review and there will always some who would get it except the person him/herself.... In that case you just have to be blunt and direct. Always use a humor though. Comic relieves are sometimes mandatory to ease a grave subject. It's a pedagogy, not a preach. 2. Criticize only the technical aspect, but avoid the subjective aspect. The artist should have the freedom to exhibit his own unique style. Any stylistic recommendation is in the danger territory of making the artwork unoriginal and uninspiring: a projection of the critic's desire rather than the expression of the artist's vision. I am not interested in seeing several photos of the same scene done the same way. It's boring. The only time to give out some stylistic recommendation is to suggest the current trend in art, so the artist wouldn't be living in a bubble (and even that is a recommendation, not absolute rule). This point is only important to work that has commercial value. Someone who shot photos of their family members and pets I did not give such advice. Enjoyment is more important in such work. 3. Point out good aspects of the artwork as well as shortcomings. Point out only shortcomings can be distressing to the artist who spent so much effort in the work. Point only good points don't do anybody good. We think we all know where our strength lies, but there are a couple points to consider: 1) we may or may not know the why, 2) we don't always see the photo the same way as the next person. Knowing what other people think as the strength of our own work can be an eye-opening revelation. 4. Another thing I learned from my business discipline is when in doubt, consider making a statement into a question form and making a question into a statement form. Why use such weird, indirect communication method you might ask. Well, for lack of better words, sometimes we're full of ourselves , and we make a terribly bold assumption. As the saying goes, "assume makes an ass out of u and me". So in that case, question the artist's motive behind what we believe to be an obvious mistake may reveal some insight. Hopefully we would realize some beauty in that creative new way of doing things. It also would save both the reviewer and the artist some conflict, which distracts the real purpose of the review, which is the improvement of the artwork. I don't remember the benefit of making a question into a statement form, but if I remember, I'll post it. I think it probably has to do with allowing the artist to exhibit his/her talent and to point out why I am wrong on the matter. In any case, the purpose is to paraphrase in order to clarify. People don't come from the same background so what we said might not be what they heard (sometimes we don't even know what we just said... ), so clarify through different words can work wonders. 5. This might be common sense to most. Don't ridicule the artist and his/her effort. I know it's reviewer's job to express his/her opinion, but do listen/read the artist's comment before doing anything. There is nothing more rude than criticizing for something one doesn't understand and not making any effort to understand. When in doubt, see point 4, before we make a clown out of ourselves. 6. When you don't enjoy the food, stir the food. It's a very effective method. When my Flickr contacts exhaust every single good point about my photo except the one I am most proud of, they did their job already without saying it. I knew that part of the photo must be improved, and perhaps I should be a little more humble. They did not offend me and I didn't feel offended.

Oh..., the saddest movie I've ever watched is "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" Phenomenal performance by both leads (young Jane Fonda and Michael Sarrazin). Extraordinary story if not telling the bleak future in a downright unglamorous way (it was a 1969 movie, set in the first "Great Depression," and still is relevant today). The most depressing movie I've ever watched is an understatement for what it is. Tag line of the movie is "People are the ultimate spectacle." I think that line sums up the movie pretty well in many layers. And it's the only movie I watched that "flash forward" works without being gimmicky. "Jude the Obscure" of course is seriously sad (the 1971 Robert Powell version, not the modern remake trash). Any of the Thomas Hardy books will do. The final Hardy novel is however the ultimate of all Hardy tragedy, and very appropriate for our time. I am at the part of the novel which I can see why the story was controversial and brutally attacked to the point Hardy decided to quit writing novel altogether. The way of thinking was too modern for Victorian folks. Given Hardy had a religious upbringing, shaking certain Christian belief that's been unquestioned for millennia in such honest way can't make him popular.... "Ordinary People" is a depressing movie about depression.... Don't watch it unless you're in depression (actually don't watch any of the movies listed above unless you're ready for them, because you might be affected in a negative way. They make Greek tragedy looks like light-hearted slapstick). However, I think it's very relevant to people with that condition, or relatives of people affected by it.

I am going to quote a little sign posted in Berkeley's Telegraph area, "Welcome to People's Park, where everyone gets a blister." Everyone, in all age group, all get some cut. Notice what the data shows.... The percentage of networth.... When you have a percentage, assuming the statistics are collected using the correct methods with enough sample size, you need to know two thing, like all ratios: what's in the numerator, and what's in the denominator. Numerator is obviously the new networth (networth after depression) and denominator is the old networth (before depression). For people like me, who didn't have lot of networth to begin with, the number won't be very sensational. That is, if we didn't have much money to begin with, we don't have much more left to lose. The age group that the stats shows the largest slash of networth are the same people who made their fortune during dot.com bubble era. Who as long as they "gambled" on some stocks and/or work for a dot.com company and received stock options (which includes everyone, even an ex-coworker who switch job to work as a paper shredder for Google..., that's right, a person whose job is just shredding office paperwork, got some stock options) earned some money they may or may not deserve (but that's not our job to judge). So that age group will include some people who are disproportionally rich without doing anything special. So when the time that type of economic condition bust (which wasn't realistic to begin with) will get slashed the most. It's only normal. Just like here in SF Bay Area, we got boom the most, but we also got distress the most when the game ends (our job slashed dramatically, but living expense doesn't really lower that much. Trust me, you don't want to be here looking for a job, because you'll be homeless in no time). Back in the dot.com era, when I was going to a job fair, they are curious why I even asked about whether I need a degree to take a job. Lots of them got a job, didn't have qualifying degree, and merely was flying high with the wind. That's just the era. Nowadays, people with several degrees are fighting for a job that's way below their level, and they'll get one if they're lucky and/or have plenty of connection. And the most important part is, you need to have some work experience before you can get a job.... But how can you get a job without given a chance to begin with? I've been rejected to be in finance job (which is my degree, plus a half-way through accounting information system) because all my previous work experience is in retailing.... WTF was that reasoning? Trust me, they just want to reject as many people as they can during this time, because way too many applicants and all the jobs are gone. Either we lose that through outsourcing to oversea, or we lost it to computerized automation. I can talk about this issue FOREVER, and probably would get a master degree after I am done. What I am saying here is, the stats is useless. I don't think anyone here suggested that. Methodwriter was merely reading what the stat says (which is useless data, btw). Yes, it's life. Doesn't mean it's fair, but I come to understand that. There are lots of people with two college degrees who are still working for minimum wages right now, if they are lucky. Your time and our time are different, so please don't think the situation applies across the board. As I always say, "Do not complain unless you can do something about it." Or at least know some leads. Underlying issues: We're in the correction period. Unrealistic gain from dot.com era is being corrected to normal level. Over-aggressive behavior (and some unethical ones) of some companies made during that era is being reprimanded, and EVERYONE is suffering as a side effect, even the ones don't deserve it. That's life.... We got burned for someone else's fault, but what can you do about it? Can you be vengeful toward a certain group, when you don't know if some individual, belong to that group was merely lumped into that group because of certain criteria? (Are all 1% people bad? Are all IPO era people gain their wealth through gambling via the stock market? Are all homeless people merely lazy? etc. I've heard arguments attacking Greeks from certain nations who don't even know the heart of the problems.... Very unfair attack, but makes a good headline isn't it? People just need something to hate... Before it was religion, then race, then sexuality, now what?) Many top management people don't know what they're doing. If you have applied a job in the U.S., you know why they hire you are a series of legitimization, not your competence level. Once you are in the entry level job, you're unlikely to get to the top, because there is a big division between people underneath and people on top. "Up stair" people don't know what's going on in the down stair." They never will meet you, they never will never ask your advice, they never will know what's going on everyday operation directly from down stair people, if you're working in a big corporation like I was. I am mentioning this because top management people usually have never worked as a bottom fish, so they really don't know the working condition at the bottom level, so when they lay off people, they do not realize the social consequences and ripple effect of it. They really are just that ignorant, not because they're evil. Many of them don't even know if they lay off people, they're laying off their customers.... They cut their own revenue source, and increase the government's load on handing out welfare, and unless the government increase taxation, the government will have to declare bankruptcy, and those tax will in the end bite themselves in the *ss. Finance is exactly like a chemistry formula, everything must be balanced. Someone's gain is coming off someone's loss. Accounting formula Asset = Liability + Owner's Equity (networth) even looks suspiciously like a chemistry formula. The problem is everyone is selfish.... I'll end the argument here. I've said too much already. This will be my last post on the issue. My last word is, don't dismiss the other group, unless you are living through it and know the story first-handed.

Sometimes I do that too! I would sing song like "You're Beautiful" when I was driving (driving aimlessly is another one of my pastime..., though gas price has been risen, so not something I could do much) and that would make me feel better. So please don't carpool with me if you noticed I am down, unless you're in karaoke mode, then you're fine.

Okay, those movies are added to my Netflix queue now.... I'll try to space them out with some silly, no-production value, badly made gay movies with cute boys so I can have some laugh in between. BTW, I just noticed there are two versions of My Sister's Keeper. 2009 version or 2002 version? Wow, that bad huh? BTW, I usually avoid using the word "depressed" when I was just down. Not sure if you really are/were depressed, because I really hope you don't have it. It kinds of piss me off when people use that word frivolously when they have no idea how serious it has to be before one would be diagnosed with depression (properly, I don't mean when a doctor wants to sell you anti-depressant, so when you say you're depressed, they automatically prescribe you the legal version of cocaine without proper diagnosis, which should last for a year). BTW, I can't read a story when I am seriously down.... It usually makes me angry when I am reading things absent-minded and start to skip paragraphs, because I would go back and re-read the whole segment. I am a VERY slow reader because of that. When I am down, I don't want to get angry.... I really hated it when I was in high school with a reading schedule I could not keep up. Not saying the college level reading was easier, but at least my English level was significantly improved, so I had one less issue to deal with. That's one reason I watch many classics, but read few of them.... Back to the response to yours. I think watch really sad movies did the same job for me as skip-reading is for you.... I would say it's almost therapeutic.... Nice to know what other channels one can do to feel better. A Home at the End of the World? Regretful maybe, but not sad.... To Bobby, it's not his first time to face an experience that's "the end of the world." When his brother died, that was the end of the world for him already, and he built a new home for himself, so the worst was over. I thought he was very very positive and optimistic. Very well-acted, good script, very relatable characters are all worth it for me. I hate it when I finish (or stop) a movie, I felt time wasted.... That movie isn't, so I actually felt pretty good when it ended (I do hope Bobby find a new home that he fits in). The Line of Beauty..., similar theme (one guy trying to find a place he fits in), but that movie/mini-series left me a really really sad note (also well written, by Andrew Davies, based on a Booker Prize winning novel by Alan Hollinghurst). Don't want to spoil it.... The last spoken line is a classic. Not sad, per se.... But it's a mixture of complex feelings punched through the heart in one line. If I were Nick Guest, I would feel my life so far has been pointless. I am adding Mambo Italiano to my queue. EDIT: Of course the tragedy writers are meanies! I went to a screenwriter seminar, and speaker (Michael Arndt, love him) quoted a famous saying, to write a good drama, the writer has to be a sadist. Can't be truer than that! That's why we watch tragedy right? Because we are..., well... masochists. LOL.

I still remember John Roethlisberger from way back, and he cried during one of the Olympics with his team mates. That was really a sentimental moment. Can't believe it, it's been more than ten years. I feel old....

Hmm..., no one answered this, I guess there isn't a lot of Texan around. No I didn't watch it. I am not near the area. It's a shame some landmarks are going history though. Thanks for the post.

I am not completely sure how to properly phrase this question, so I am going to use an example. There was a period when I was really really down (not sure I'd call it depression, but it does feel like it, but I am not a psychiatrist, so I don't want to wrongly diagnose myself). I don't know, my Netflix queue was mounting with tragic movies, because they were my narcotics (I don't do drug, though I did drink a lot...). A classmate asked me why I watched those really sad movies, I told her, "When I feel down, I want to keep going lower, so it'll rebound." I don't know, it's a weird explanation, but it does work that way. It's sad at the time, but I always feel slightly better afterward (I guess they made me feel I wasn't alone). I also own some of those really well-written ones on DVDs, so I could watch them over and over again. I usually get sad over the same scene every time I watch the same movie.... Sounds kind of sick I know.... But that's how I got past my days back then. Nowadays, I feel quite a lot better (btw, I got out of that slum without medication, ooh hoo!). And then the other day, it's one of those downer time again, so I thought it's time for a dose of sad sad movie.... I can't say I am happy nowadays, but I guess I am so far away from the worse days of my life, I couldn't finish the movie anymore. I don't know, I would start watching it, feel my heart twisted into a knot, and then I couldn't bear it anymore so I push that stop button and go to sleep. Before, I could watch several tear jerkers back-to-back without any problem. I realize some people when they're down, they prefer to watch comedy. So I am very curious, when do you watch a tragic drama? Do you watch it when you're down, or do you watch it when you are happy and have energy to spend on such taxing recreation?

Interesting. Milk was also written by Dustin Lance Black. Which I forgot to include in my list. For those who'd like to be a screenwriter, I think the featurette on DVD might be worthwhile. I just wonder how did he get the job! Did somebody really just tell him, "Hey we want to make a film about Harvey Milk and please write a script"?

Happy Birthday! :-)

Oh no. One Direction is showing up on my Amazon Gold Box deal....

Barber. Sometimes I even cut my own....

.

Some people have never been bullied or didn't get into a situation where they're ganged up might say something like that. Anyways, I hope one day Karen will learn to stand up for herself. She probably has some self image issue also.... But then I am not a trained psychologist, so I should refrain from talking too much on the issue. No. One Direction only.

You're such a unruly child. Even if your mom doesn't whip your *ss, I'll do it (for free!). LOL! (I am joking) Anyways, it's not an appropriate subject for joking. She is under some duress.... Whether she needs all that 578K is another matter, but we shouldn't mock the victim of a bully. Hmm..., I wonder if we posted a video of me whipping your *ss, how many YouTube subscribers we could get.... More importantly, are we going to be more famous than One Direction? LOL! (mandatory comic relief)

You were what? A jerkwad...? OMGsh. I don't believe you. Seriously (wait..., I was serious), I was like the most talkative person in the entire kindergarten and then I grew up to be this quiet Asian type.... Nurture has a lot to do with it. (not necessarily the parents though). But.., but..., I wasn't a jerkwad.... Hmm..., parenting skill audited.... I wonder how that works. What's the audit formula for that? And what's the audit risk? Seriously though (wait..., I was just kidding ), I see a generation of Clockwork Orange if bully problem isn't addressed and acknowledged. I think most of the people are still in denial stage....

Can I have a cookie?

Knowing how many parents behave, I'll second Krista on this. The reason not only this bus monitor but also school teachers are reluctant to give these brats a piece of their fists is because of the parents. If they yelled at the brats, guess what, the parents will complain to principal and these people will lose their jobs, because of these brats and brats' parents. If you guys haven't read, there was a six-year bully story going on. The parents complained the teacher acted. Though I don't completely agree with the teachers' reprimanding method (she consulted other teachers, and the other teachers told her to let the victims of this bully to take a strike at the bully, so she encouraged 24 students to hit the bully back), but if you read the comments on the story, mix feelings are there, and some are sided with the parent of the bully, and think the bully is a victim.... Bullies are not built in one day. It's both in their nurture and nature. If no action is taken, tragedy will arise. The most correct authority to handle this is parents. Unfortunately most parents today think their children's upbringing is the teacher's job, but if the teacher takes any action, they threat to get them fired. Last words: If parents don't want to do parenting, use a condom.

I thought that name sounded familiar. Didn't know he was gay though. Cool piece of gay history.

LOL! If you read the comments of other videos featuring her, actually quite a few guys (presumably straight) liked her (allegedly).

Can't disagree with that (nor was I disagreeing with it in the first place). If you would like to see the perpetual suffering broken, starts with oneself, the little revolution within. If you'd like to see more honesty in the world, start leading by example. Nobody stole my sunglasses I left in the fitting room because that's the way it's always been. It gives you a second thought next time you saw someone left their belongings in a fitting room and how terrible it would be if they couldn't find it where they left. If one day someone's violate that unwritten law/social convention, you bet some of them will take it as if it's his/her right to in turn steal other's sunglasses because the society owes them and all that legitimizing cr@p. "The world isn't fair to me" or "everyone is doing it" are too much of a convenient excuse.... Maybe one day "honesty" will be a largely forgotten concept, much like "honor" is today.... Won't stop me from trying to revive some good virtues though. I think it's wonderful we have this topic. The bottom line is, some younger folks are introduced with the concept of honesty box, which they didn't think could exist or work.

This is a good cover. Most of the YouTube cover sort of miss the mark for me. The original song was only okay for me YMMV, so the magic is really the original Fun.'s music video. And this is the rare one that's different from the one he's cover and yet creative enough to make it worthy to compare it with the original. Very nice smile, this guy....

I think that's one reason why modern life is so stressful, because we assume people aren't honest or good things they do must have some "ulterior motive," or they're out to get us. Honesty/trust/whatever good virtue starts with us. If some bad apple decided to take the advantage of our trust in them, that's their problem. We cannot let them hurt us. My car got broken in once (in a supposedly good area of the town), and it's really hard to trust anything anymore after that, but sometimes some selective life lessons should be unlearned.... Critical is good, too cynical is not. How can anyone trust you if you are out to double guess if they're out to get you? It's similar in concept as "smile and the world smile with you." However, do "trust but verify." Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Ever since I was a kid, I am very good at catching lies. Sometimes I catch lies purely via coincidence. I really don't go out to catch lies for sport..., because I know there is no point finding out the truth, if we are only going to get hurt in the process. Besides, some of those supposedly lies are really misunderstandings. I'd look like an *ss if I confront the person if that's the case. Eventually, I learned to hear no evil, because I don't want to live miserably. Some of those liars even will gloat behind my back (they probably didn't think I know). I just ignore those petty feelings inside me. Besides being around someone who is always suspicious about your nature is very stressful. I am not even sure I want to befriend with someone like that, so I won't become like one. Story time.... Before the eventual, "Sorry, I am not gay" break up, that guy had asked me what I thought about liars (or something similar). I pondered a little bit, and I told him people don't lie to hurt people. They lied to protect themselves. He kind of laughed and thought I was naive about the world. Was I hurt when he said that forever-etched-in-my-heart line to break up with me? Of course. However, he really was a nice guy, so I can only imagine he only said that because it's easier to hate him and therefore, make the whole thing less messy. And maybe he was bisexual or bi-curious, so he wasn't lying (completely...). Anyways, I just mean I don't want to hold a grudge against him, purely because I was inexperienced with love. I just want a well-adjusted life after him, so I trust he has his own reasons, and believe his words are true. Don't know if that makes sense....