Friday, January 16, 2009
Friday, August 29, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The West
I needed a private life. How could you have a private life in a place where all your isolated feelings are out in the open, where the tension in your heart, the thing you've been able to restrict to small closed rooms is everywhere exposed to the whitish light and grown so large and firmly fixed that you can't separate it from the landscape and the sky?
Don DeLillo in Underworld
I have never particularly liked the West Coast. Actually, that's a lie. When I was younger, and by younger I mean pre-teen, not-anything-like-who-I-am-today younger, I was a big fan of the West Coast. I figured I would go to Caltech (to study aerospace engineering of all things), graduate and work in L.A. Not even in San Francisco or Seattle or Portland or one of those cities that have some redeeming factors. I would live in L.A. with palm trees and beaches and sunshine, but without any cultural value whatsoever. That was my ideal life.
These days I don't like the West Coast. And it's not just Los Angeles that I dislike. The Bay Area certainly does not lack cultural value. Nor does the Pacific Northwest. And yet I still dislike the coast as a whole, not just that intellectual vacuum just north of the border with Mexico. I have never, until perhaps now, been able to figure out why. There is the unfortunate problem of being in the wrong time zone. Within the United States, Eastern Standard Time is the constant that unifies the world temporally. A three-hour time difference disrupts your connection to the rest of reality.
But the time zone issue does not solve the problem entirely. There is something there, in the West, that puts me on display to the rest of the world. All my insecurities and worries and doubts are laid bare. The locals are so used to it that they walk with a certain confidence that is both seductive and disgusting. It is a self-assuredness that I envy and despise. Nothing can be kept private. My soul gets projected against the landscape and the sky and it suddenly becomes public information.
I'm not comfortable with that sort of exposure, and so I'd prefer to stay back East where things can be hidden in corner parks and books and bedrooms.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
John McCain
Jia commented on my last post. That was the first time anyone has posted on here since I was angry about the people I had met while working for Grassroots Campaigns. It was nice, since I wasn't sure if anyone read this blog anymore. I knew that people visited the blog, since I get Google Analytics reports on the site's traffic. Usually there's someone who visits my blog each day. But visiting is not the same as reading. I was working under the assumption that most of the people who did visit my blog didn't actually read anything. Now, apparently, I have confirmation that at least Jia reads what I write. Cool. However, she used the word discourse in her comment. Not cool. Other than that, I generally agree with what she wrote.
I just wanted to make a note of Jia's contribution to this blog before moving on to a more pressing topic - John McCain. My politics shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who reads this. I would never have supported McCain over the Democratic nominee, but I did at one time have some respect for McCain the politician. I use the phrase "McCain the politician" to make it clear that I respect McCain's sacrifices and suffering as a prisoner of war. There was probably a time when I would have shown no respect for these things; he was just another Yankee imperialist dog, etc. But I'm really not that interested in hating on America these days.
As I was saying, I used to have some respect for John McCain the politician. I talking with Sarah Nathan before either the Democratic or Republican nominees had been decided and saying that McCain was the only Republican candidate who would not make me want to leave the country were he elected President. My basis for that was his position that global warming is a real phenomenon that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, the planhe has proposed to fight global warming is woefully inadequate, and he has constantly shown that his commitment to stopping climate change is relatively weak (gas tax holiday, offshore oil drilling, etc.) To be fair, I have concerns about Obama on this issue as well. In an interview a while ago, he identified it as what would be one of the key issues of his presidency, saying that he would be disappointed with his term(s) in office if he did not get some serious work done on the issue. But his compromises on things like FISA, the death penalty, and gun control worry me that he will compromise too much during his presidency. Still, I'd trust Obama over McCain on any environmental issue.
I have also been fairly disappointed with the way the McCain campaign has been attacking Obama recently. I shouldn't have expected anything less, but a lot of what is being peddled by them now is simply ridiculous. There is, of course, the new ad that lies about Obama visiting soldiers while incorporating footage of Obama playing basketball with American soldiers. But now there's a new commercial comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton (while also showing that McCain is on the wrong side of the climate change issue).
The McCain campaign defended the ad by noting that Obama, Spears, and Hilton are the "top three international celebrities." I don't know exactly what metric the McCain campaign is using to judge international fame, but they I suppose it doesn't much matter as long as it allows them to draw the comparison between Obama and shallow, Hollywood elites. Not only does the ad portray Obama as a candidate who emphasizes style over substance, but it allows the McCain campaign to once again attack the Democrats as the "liberal elite" which is out-of-touch with the average American. Of course, McCain accomplishes this in an incredibly childish manner. And even McCain's allies seem to agree on that last point.
I just wanted to make a note of Jia's contribution to this blog before moving on to a more pressing topic - John McCain. My politics shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who reads this. I would never have supported McCain over the Democratic nominee, but I did at one time have some respect for McCain the politician. I use the phrase "McCain the politician" to make it clear that I respect McCain's sacrifices and suffering as a prisoner of war. There was probably a time when I would have shown no respect for these things; he was just another Yankee imperialist dog, etc. But I'm really not that interested in hating on America these days.
As I was saying, I used to have some respect for John McCain the politician. I talking with Sarah Nathan before either the Democratic or Republican nominees had been decided and saying that McCain was the only Republican candidate who would not make me want to leave the country were he elected President. My basis for that was his position that global warming is a real phenomenon that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, the planhe has proposed to fight global warming is woefully inadequate, and he has constantly shown that his commitment to stopping climate change is relatively weak (gas tax holiday, offshore oil drilling, etc.) To be fair, I have concerns about Obama on this issue as well. In an interview a while ago, he identified it as what would be one of the key issues of his presidency, saying that he would be disappointed with his term(s) in office if he did not get some serious work done on the issue. But his compromises on things like FISA, the death penalty, and gun control worry me that he will compromise too much during his presidency. Still, I'd trust Obama over McCain on any environmental issue.
I have also been fairly disappointed with the way the McCain campaign has been attacking Obama recently. I shouldn't have expected anything less, but a lot of what is being peddled by them now is simply ridiculous. There is, of course, the new ad that lies about Obama visiting soldiers while incorporating footage of Obama playing basketball with American soldiers. But now there's a new commercial comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton (while also showing that McCain is on the wrong side of the climate change issue).
The McCain campaign defended the ad by noting that Obama, Spears, and Hilton are the "top three international celebrities." I don't know exactly what metric the McCain campaign is using to judge international fame, but they I suppose it doesn't much matter as long as it allows them to draw the comparison between Obama and shallow, Hollywood elites. Not only does the ad portray Obama as a candidate who emphasizes style over substance, but it allows the McCain campaign to once again attack the Democrats as the "liberal elite" which is out-of-touch with the average American. Of course, McCain accomplishes this in an incredibly childish manner. And even McCain's allies seem to agree on that last point.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Brands
In an unfortunate mishap involving a water bottle, my cell phone was damaged beyond repair yesterday. I had had the phone for a few years; I think I've had it since at least the summer before my junior year of high school, since it contained quite a few numbers of people I met at CTY that year. Today I went out to buy a new phone, which is essentially a larger, sleeker version of my old phone with a camera. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to create a Facebook group to restore my numbers, and luckily I didn't, since my old phone functioned well enough for me to transfer, person-by-person, each contact, including those for people I will likely never call again, people like Jill Turner or Suchi from CTY 2005.
Before I got the new phone, however, there was a bit of confusion over whether or not our family would remain AT&T customers. We were debating switching over to Verizon or T-Mobile, but eventually decided that we would stick with what we had since we currently pay for a plan that no longer exists with any carriers and is a good deal cheaper than anything else available. For a while, though, there was a strong possibility that we would end up being Verizon customers, and this possibility distressed me.
Over the years I have somehow formed a brand loyalty to AT%T. Perhaps this is yet another sign of the anti-consumerist, left-wing radical I once was selling out to the man. But I really not interested in trying to figure out whether I have sold out. I think it depends on what the definition of "selling out" is. Many would certainly think I've sold out, but I am not so sure I have. In any case, I am more interested in brand loyalty. How did I become so attached to AT&T that I would be so agitated to have another company provide my wireless phone service?
I do not fully understand exactly how a brand operates at a psychological level. There's probably some very interesting anthropology/sociology/psychology involved in brands, but I don't have the time now to read up on that. I do have a sense that brands operate well when people trust them and are familiar with them. This, however, does not seem to be the root cause of my brand loyalty towards AT&T. I certainly trust Verizon as much and am familiar with the Verizon brand. Nor do I think my loyalty to AT&T is derived from the brand's personality, if there is one. Certain brands certainly do have a personality, a distinct identity. My abandonment of Microsoft (to whom I was extremely loyal for many years) for Apple is largely a result of the identities and personalities of the brands.
But there is no real personality or identity behind wireless service providers, or at least none that I can consciously perceive. I think this sort of brand loyalty has a lot more to do with a simple desire to identify with a brand, almost to belong to it as if it were a social group. Verizon and AT&T are largely indistinguishable at an objective estimation. But I am loyal to AT&T because I have been for many years, ever since they were Cingular Wireless and were sponsoring my middle school's engineering team. I suspect that even without that personal connection, I would still be as loyal to AT&T because for these years I have partially defined myself as an AT&T customer. That has become part of my own identity. I cheer internally when I see an AT&T ad on TV and secretly scoff at Verizon commercials. At the same time, I feel a member of a greater whole that has become part of my identity, and to switch to Verizon would be to betray myself.
It is not just traditional "brands" that are able to accomplish this feat. Sports teams seem to operate in largely the same manner. I recently become a Mets fan, largely to annoy Phil Myers. There was not a good reason for me to become a Mets fan, except that I do slightly identify myself with New York now that I go to school there. Maybe I just like the colors orange and blue. (This would explain my AT&T as well.) But I think more of has to do with wanting to feel part of a larger group or idea - the Mets - and allowing that to simultaneously become part of myself. It is a strong human attraction visible not only in brand names and sports, but in nationalism and the creation of social groups.
A few months ago I had a discussion with some people at Columbia. They were probably Jia, Thomas, Rob, etc. One of them (Jia) was arguing that Columbia was a brand or that at least the Ivy League was. The rest seemed to agree, but I wasn't so sure. On further reflection, it does seem that universities do function in a similar manner in the way people form loyalties towards them. It is this same impulse manifest once again - to both be a member and allow that membership to define your personal identity. But that hardly makes it a brand. Maybe I'll think about this some more.
Before I got the new phone, however, there was a bit of confusion over whether or not our family would remain AT&T customers. We were debating switching over to Verizon or T-Mobile, but eventually decided that we would stick with what we had since we currently pay for a plan that no longer exists with any carriers and is a good deal cheaper than anything else available. For a while, though, there was a strong possibility that we would end up being Verizon customers, and this possibility distressed me.
Over the years I have somehow formed a brand loyalty to AT%T. Perhaps this is yet another sign of the anti-consumerist, left-wing radical I once was selling out to the man. But I really not interested in trying to figure out whether I have sold out. I think it depends on what the definition of "selling out" is. Many would certainly think I've sold out, but I am not so sure I have. In any case, I am more interested in brand loyalty. How did I become so attached to AT&T that I would be so agitated to have another company provide my wireless phone service?
I do not fully understand exactly how a brand operates at a psychological level. There's probably some very interesting anthropology/sociology/psychology involved in brands, but I don't have the time now to read up on that. I do have a sense that brands operate well when people trust them and are familiar with them. This, however, does not seem to be the root cause of my brand loyalty towards AT&T. I certainly trust Verizon as much and am familiar with the Verizon brand. Nor do I think my loyalty to AT&T is derived from the brand's personality, if there is one. Certain brands certainly do have a personality, a distinct identity. My abandonment of Microsoft (to whom I was extremely loyal for many years) for Apple is largely a result of the identities and personalities of the brands.
But there is no real personality or identity behind wireless service providers, or at least none that I can consciously perceive. I think this sort of brand loyalty has a lot more to do with a simple desire to identify with a brand, almost to belong to it as if it were a social group. Verizon and AT&T are largely indistinguishable at an objective estimation. But I am loyal to AT&T because I have been for many years, ever since they were Cingular Wireless and were sponsoring my middle school's engineering team. I suspect that even without that personal connection, I would still be as loyal to AT&T because for these years I have partially defined myself as an AT&T customer. That has become part of my own identity. I cheer internally when I see an AT&T ad on TV and secretly scoff at Verizon commercials. At the same time, I feel a member of a greater whole that has become part of my identity, and to switch to Verizon would be to betray myself.
It is not just traditional "brands" that are able to accomplish this feat. Sports teams seem to operate in largely the same manner. I recently become a Mets fan, largely to annoy Phil Myers. There was not a good reason for me to become a Mets fan, except that I do slightly identify myself with New York now that I go to school there. Maybe I just like the colors orange and blue. (This would explain my AT&T as well.) But I think more of has to do with wanting to feel part of a larger group or idea - the Mets - and allowing that to simultaneously become part of myself. It is a strong human attraction visible not only in brand names and sports, but in nationalism and the creation of social groups.
A few months ago I had a discussion with some people at Columbia. They were probably Jia, Thomas, Rob, etc. One of them (Jia) was arguing that Columbia was a brand or that at least the Ivy League was. The rest seemed to agree, but I wasn't so sure. On further reflection, it does seem that universities do function in a similar manner in the way people form loyalties towards them. It is this same impulse manifest once again - to both be a member and allow that membership to define your personal identity. But that hardly makes it a brand. Maybe I'll think about this some more.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
1477380106/Chicago
I came home from Chicago yesterday. I realized at some point early in my trip that I forgot to mention on here that I was going to go away for a while, which is why I haven't been posting anything. Of course, I think mostly everyone who reads this blog knew that I was going to Chicago, so it wasn't really all that important.
The trip was rather underwhelming. I only had three real days in Chicago, as the other four days were mostly spent driving. Chicago itself was a nice city, but there really isn't much for me to comment on. It had some nice buildings, was pretty large, etc. I really didn't get much of a feel for the culture there since most of the time was spent traipsing around to see various landmarks that my brother wanted to take pictures of. The Art Institute and Field Museum were both excellent, and it was definitely worth traveling to Chicago to see their collections. I was hoping we would get to stop by the University of Chicago campus (I have a thing for college campuses) and the Museum of Science and Technology (which is in the same area and is said to be quite a great attraction), but we never got around to it. At least my appetite for college environments was partially satiated when we stopped by Notre Dame on our second day. That was a very nice campus with very nice giant Jesus murals.
I was hoping to run into someone from GCI (the company I was just working for) in Chicago. A number of the people at the Philly office had originally come from Chicago. Tim, who is there now, is a Chicago native, as is Victor, who was in Philly back in early June but left my second (or third?) week to head back to the Chicago office. I was looking forward to running into some DNC street canvassers (they stand on busy corners rather than going door-to-door) but ended up just finding to a lot of people who wanted to save puppies.
That is Chicago in a nutshell. That does nothing to explain the number 1477380106 in the title of this post. So what is the significance of 1477380106? It is apparently my "public search listing" on Facebook. I have no idea what that means, but if you Google it, you'll see what I'm talking about. I discovered my number when trying to log on to Facebook about twenty minutes ago. As the main page loaded, the number 1477380106 inexplicably appeared in the E-mail field on the left side of the page. I don't know what Facebook is playing at, but it probably involves a sinister conspiracy to steal my identity.
The trip was rather underwhelming. I only had three real days in Chicago, as the other four days were mostly spent driving. Chicago itself was a nice city, but there really isn't much for me to comment on. It had some nice buildings, was pretty large, etc. I really didn't get much of a feel for the culture there since most of the time was spent traipsing around to see various landmarks that my brother wanted to take pictures of. The Art Institute and Field Museum were both excellent, and it was definitely worth traveling to Chicago to see their collections. I was hoping we would get to stop by the University of Chicago campus (I have a thing for college campuses) and the Museum of Science and Technology (which is in the same area and is said to be quite a great attraction), but we never got around to it. At least my appetite for college environments was partially satiated when we stopped by Notre Dame on our second day. That was a very nice campus with very nice giant Jesus murals.
I was hoping to run into someone from GCI (the company I was just working for) in Chicago. A number of the people at the Philly office had originally come from Chicago. Tim, who is there now, is a Chicago native, as is Victor, who was in Philly back in early June but left my second (or third?) week to head back to the Chicago office. I was looking forward to running into some DNC street canvassers (they stand on busy corners rather than going door-to-door) but ended up just finding to a lot of people who wanted to save puppies.
That is Chicago in a nutshell. That does nothing to explain the number 1477380106 in the title of this post. So what is the significance of 1477380106? It is apparently my "public search listing" on Facebook. I have no idea what that means, but if you Google it, you'll see what I'm talking about. I discovered my number when trying to log on to Facebook about twenty minutes ago. As the main page loaded, the number 1477380106 inexplicably appeared in the E-mail field on the left side of the page. I don't know what Facebook is playing at, but it probably involves a sinister conspiracy to steal my identity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
