I think bed might be the best place on Earth. Someone obviously agrees with me, and I'll bet a lot of other people do as well. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Best-place-on-Earth-is-a-warm-Bed/163328657809
I know we just kind of accept how great it is but I want to give it up for....BED. Warm, cozy, cool pillow (for me). My wife, my kid, sometimes the cat(s), maybe a little late night TV (or early morning Dora). Seriously, it's fantastic.
This link says the bed, in its current form as, well....bed, has been around for about 10,000 years. http://www.bettersleep.org/Mattressology/bed_in_history.asp
I'm calling them out on that. I'm saying beds have been around forever. Since man has slept. Even apes use beds. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1015856,00.html.
I've got to believe the earliest ancestors of modern man appreciated a good bed. A nice, branchy, leafy bed...maybe complete with a rock pillow, and mossy quilt. Mmmm.
Personally, we've got one of those big, king-size, pillow-topped beauties. It's wonderful. I equip my side with a tempurpedic pillow (just made the switch), as well as a big squishy one. I find the contrasting styles to be a pleasant mix.
I've got a light. Books. A clock with an alarm, radio, and thermometer (yeah, seriously). If I just had a refrigerator I could probably live there. Maybe John and Yoko had it right. All you need is love, and all you need is your bed.
Anyway, off to bed....
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Haiti: Social Media and Communication
The earthquake in Haiti has obviously been a true catastrophe. My heart goes out to the people of Haiti, and those who have family, friends or loved ones there. Obviously I only see what' s on TV and what's circulating the Internet. The devastation is horrible. One of the first things you notice is how poorly their buildings and infrastructure were built. It's like buildings were made of nothing more than cardboard (and I'm sure that's exactly what some of it was).
The second thing that jumps out at me is why was I watching Anderson Cooper (and Dr. Sanjay Gupta; yes, I was watching CNN) go pretty much anywhere he wants, and yet all I hear about is how no aid can get through, the infrastructure isn't up to it, ships/planes are only now arriving regularly and yet, they still can't get the supplies from the airport. What is going on? It's extremely frustrating to watch.
I have never been a part of a rescue effort - not for Katrina, or the tsunami in 2004, or anything. So it's hard to criticize. But again, it's been very frustrating to watch. From what I've read of rescue effort protocol it's a fine line between helping, and causing more chaos through unplanned and sporadic relief efforts (gangs, corruption, people hording food/water/supplies). But I've got to believe there could be better efforts to drop supplies, and equipment, to much needed areas. I mean, if absolutely necessary, can't we first drop soldiers? It just seems crazy that these supplies are stuck on a runway and can't get out to the people. I guess things are finally starting to move and the airport has been reopened, but from what I've seen looting is getting worse, as is violence. Here is a video of Anderson Cooper actually helping a boy get to safety. The job of journalism is to report, and not get in the way, but I personally think it's great what he does here. It's a bit graphic so watch if you're comfortable: http://bit.ly/6ZMDSy
Another thing I find amazing is how social media (Twitter, Facebook) and text messaging have absolutely proven what they're capable of, in terms of spreading awareness, a message, or in this case, a plea to help. A huge issue is obviously how fast that money can get to Haiti and actually help, but as I write this a quick search says nearly 2/3 of the approximate $112M in American Red Cross donations were made online, with nearly 15-20% of that through their text campaign (Text 90999 to donate $10). http://bit.ly/6z7ZHh
Ricky Gervais recently commented that he found Twitter to be for teenagers, and he couldn't understand why adults (particularly stars) would use it. I guess in that context I can see what he's talking about (though I still enjoy it. To me it's the best part of Facebook - status updates). He also commented on it as a networking tool. http://bit.ly/hOqQ
I don't agree with him. Twitter has proven very powerful. Whether or not it's used for 'good' remains to be seen, but it's clear there is a power there.
We'll see if money keeps flowing to Haiti. I imagine it'll slow down as the emotion of the earthquake starts to fade a little bit. There are many benefit shows being planned for Haiti, and I'm sure each will be a tremendous success, but nothing will prove as efficient at raising money as a simple text message. As impersonal as that sounds, it's the reality of the world we now live in.
The second thing that jumps out at me is why was I watching Anderson Cooper (and Dr. Sanjay Gupta; yes, I was watching CNN) go pretty much anywhere he wants, and yet all I hear about is how no aid can get through, the infrastructure isn't up to it, ships/planes are only now arriving regularly and yet, they still can't get the supplies from the airport. What is going on? It's extremely frustrating to watch.
I have never been a part of a rescue effort - not for Katrina, or the tsunami in 2004, or anything. So it's hard to criticize. But again, it's been very frustrating to watch. From what I've read of rescue effort protocol it's a fine line between helping, and causing more chaos through unplanned and sporadic relief efforts (gangs, corruption, people hording food/water/supplies). But I've got to believe there could be better efforts to drop supplies, and equipment, to much needed areas. I mean, if absolutely necessary, can't we first drop soldiers? It just seems crazy that these supplies are stuck on a runway and can't get out to the people. I guess things are finally starting to move and the airport has been reopened, but from what I've seen looting is getting worse, as is violence. Here is a video of Anderson Cooper actually helping a boy get to safety. The job of journalism is to report, and not get in the way, but I personally think it's great what he does here. It's a bit graphic so watch if you're comfortable: http://bit.ly/6ZMDSy
Another thing I find amazing is how social media (Twitter, Facebook) and text messaging have absolutely proven what they're capable of, in terms of spreading awareness, a message, or in this case, a plea to help. A huge issue is obviously how fast that money can get to Haiti and actually help, but as I write this a quick search says nearly 2/3 of the approximate $112M in American Red Cross donations were made online, with nearly 15-20% of that through their text campaign (Text 90999 to donate $10). http://bit.ly/6z7ZHh
The American Red Cross has raised the most money, with nearly $112 million in donations as of Monday evening, the organization said.10 years ago this would not have been possible. The scale on which technology has progressed in the last decade has been incredible. Seems like things are only going to go even quicker from here. It's hard to believe that at the turn of the millenium I did not own a cell phone.The U.S. Fund for UNICEF had raised $22.5 million as of Tuesday, a UNICEF spokeswoman said.
Catholic Relief Services had received $16.5 million in gifts and pledges as of Monday, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, rounding out the top three in the survey.
Other charities surveyed by the Chronicle of Philanthropy including Oxfam America, World Vision U.S. and Save the Children USA had all received more than $7 million as of Tuesday.
Ricky Gervais recently commented that he found Twitter to be for teenagers, and he couldn't understand why adults (particularly stars) would use it. I guess in that context I can see what he's talking about (though I still enjoy it. To me it's the best part of Facebook - status updates). He also commented on it as a networking tool. http://bit.ly/hOqQ
I don't agree with him. Twitter has proven very powerful. Whether or not it's used for 'good' remains to be seen, but it's clear there is a power there.
We'll see if money keeps flowing to Haiti. I imagine it'll slow down as the emotion of the earthquake starts to fade a little bit. There are many benefit shows being planned for Haiti, and I'm sure each will be a tremendous success, but nothing will prove as efficient at raising money as a simple text message. As impersonal as that sounds, it's the reality of the world we now live in.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Guilt Rock
Yes, another post about music, so soon after my 'review' of Vampire Weekend's new album (which I still think is great!). I was recently listening to XM/Sirius (sorry FM radio) when, gulp, Panic! At the Disco came on. If you know me, you'd probably guess I don't like that band. And I'd probably tell you the same. However, I find that whenever they come on...I don't turn them off. Again, I'd probably never admit that I actually listen to Panic! At the Disco, and in reality I don't - I don't own any of their albums and can't imagine I will. But still, I listen. WHY? I don't know. There is something about their music I enjoy, and then I feel guilty that enjoy it, and I never admit it to anyone. It's like my dirty little secret. So, I've decided to classify bands like Panic! At the Disco (I don't even know if I spell that, capitalize it, or punctuate it correctly. Whatever).
I will now call this music Guilt Rock. I think we've all got bands we can put into the Guilt Rock category. For me, it's bands like Panic! At the Disco, My Chemical Romance, and Bush. I don't mean to insult anyone if they like those bands. Again, I listen to them - that's the whole point. But I'd never admit it to you! Does that make me shallow? Does that make me insincere? I don't know, maybe it does.
I think Guilt Rock has come about because we all have a vision of what we think we're supposed to like. My early music 'discovery' days consisted mainly of Classic Rock - Rush, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, more Rush, the Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, and more Rush (I have my brothers to thank for this). Yes, I like Rush (and I still do. I saw them twice last year. Yes, twice!). Growing up with those bands spawned a bit of a 'holier than thou' attitude towards music. I wouldn't listen to 'new' bands. I didn't think anyone could make better music than already existed.
How sadly wrong I was. It wasn't until college that I got into Radiohead. It wasn't until I left college and moved to San Francisco that I discovered probably my favorite band of all time, Pavement. I was 22. Soon after I found Built to Spill and Modest Mouse. Wilco (and Uncle Tupelo) and Whiskeytown. The Pixies started blasting from my stereo. Blur became a regular in my car. Since then it's been a constant flow of 'discovering' new bands and new music. It's been wonderful. One of my favorite things now is finding a new band I think deserves my attention. I love The National. Iron & Wine is fantastic. Vampire Weekend has, I feel, earned my attention for 2010.
And yet, I still find my way back to Guilt Rock. Who doesn't love something that just 'sounds' good? Something you can sing along to? Panic! At the Disco sounds good to me. Bush, much as I can't stand saying it, has found a place in my musical heart. Every time I hear "Welcome to teh Black Parade" I sing like some 10 year old schoolgirl. Others I put in MY Guilt Rock file: Robbie Williams, John Mayer, and Nickelback.
Still, some bands don't make it to the Guilt Rock category. They just get turned off. Candlebox, I hate you. I blame FM radio back in the day. 30 Seconds to Mars? If your song "Kings & Queens" sounded anymore like Kings of Leon you'd have to change your name to the Queens of Leon.
So, enjoy ALL your music, and don't feel bad if you catch yourself singing along to "Angels" by Robbie Williams (though you should feel a little guilty).
I will now call this music Guilt Rock. I think we've all got bands we can put into the Guilt Rock category. For me, it's bands like Panic! At the Disco, My Chemical Romance, and Bush. I don't mean to insult anyone if they like those bands. Again, I listen to them - that's the whole point. But I'd never admit it to you! Does that make me shallow? Does that make me insincere? I don't know, maybe it does.
I think Guilt Rock has come about because we all have a vision of what we think we're supposed to like. My early music 'discovery' days consisted mainly of Classic Rock - Rush, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, more Rush, the Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, and more Rush (I have my brothers to thank for this). Yes, I like Rush (and I still do. I saw them twice last year. Yes, twice!). Growing up with those bands spawned a bit of a 'holier than thou' attitude towards music. I wouldn't listen to 'new' bands. I didn't think anyone could make better music than already existed.
How sadly wrong I was. It wasn't until college that I got into Radiohead. It wasn't until I left college and moved to San Francisco that I discovered probably my favorite band of all time, Pavement. I was 22. Soon after I found Built to Spill and Modest Mouse. Wilco (and Uncle Tupelo) and Whiskeytown. The Pixies started blasting from my stereo. Blur became a regular in my car. Since then it's been a constant flow of 'discovering' new bands and new music. It's been wonderful. One of my favorite things now is finding a new band I think deserves my attention. I love The National. Iron & Wine is fantastic. Vampire Weekend has, I feel, earned my attention for 2010.
And yet, I still find my way back to Guilt Rock. Who doesn't love something that just 'sounds' good? Something you can sing along to? Panic! At the Disco sounds good to me. Bush, much as I can't stand saying it, has found a place in my musical heart. Every time I hear "Welcome to teh Black Parade" I sing like some 10 year old schoolgirl. Others I put in MY Guilt Rock file: Robbie Williams, John Mayer, and Nickelback.
Still, some bands don't make it to the Guilt Rock category. They just get turned off. Candlebox, I hate you. I blame FM radio back in the day. 30 Seconds to Mars? If your song "Kings & Queens" sounded anymore like Kings of Leon you'd have to change your name to the Queens of Leon.
So, enjoy ALL your music, and don't feel bad if you catch yourself singing along to "Angels" by Robbie Williams (though you should feel a little guilty).
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Vampire Weekend - Contra
I am currently listening to Vampire Weekend's new album, Contra. I think it's amazing. I realize I haven't written a post about music yet, and considering it's pretty late (for me), maybe this shouldn't be the first. However, I feel compelled to write. Give it a listen here:
http://www.myspace.com/vampireweekend
I believe the album comes out on Jan 12 so I am currently streaming it on MySpace (though NPR has it too). I honestly did not think it would be this good. There is a richness and depth to every song which I don't remember from their first album. And I liked that first album - a lot. I realize a lot of bands get hyped for 'new' sounds, 'mixing' sytles, etc. Who cares? If I think it sounds good and my ears like it, I'll listen. I like listening to this.
I don't think it's for everyone and can see how some people won't take to it. It's an often fast-paced, almost frantic race through songs. It's also powerful and tight.
I'm not a musician (though I pretend sometimes) and I'm not a critic (we've got enough), I'm just someone who likes music, and I've now listened to this twice.
Vampire Weekend has made the first great album of 2010 (at least, that I've heard). Thank you, sirs, thank you.
http://www.myspace.com/vampireweekend
I believe the album comes out on Jan 12 so I am currently streaming it on MySpace (though NPR has it too). I honestly did not think it would be this good. There is a richness and depth to every song which I don't remember from their first album. And I liked that first album - a lot. I realize a lot of bands get hyped for 'new' sounds, 'mixing' sytles, etc. Who cares? If I think it sounds good and my ears like it, I'll listen. I like listening to this.
I don't think it's for everyone and can see how some people won't take to it. It's an often fast-paced, almost frantic race through songs. It's also powerful and tight.
I'm not a musician (though I pretend sometimes) and I'm not a critic (we've got enough), I'm just someone who likes music, and I've now listened to this twice.
Vampire Weekend has made the first great album of 2010 (at least, that I've heard). Thank you, sirs, thank you.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Online Traffic School
In mid-November I received a ticket for entering a crosswalk while a pedestrian was still crossing. I didn't really think about it at the time (obviously). It came while driving through a school zone, one in which I drive through every day on my (short) drive to work. I've driven this route for approximately 4 years and never had an issue.
For awhile I thought maybe I'd fight the ticket. I wasn't positive the crossing guard was still in the crosswalk (Officer's word vs. mine), but more than that I found the signs confusing. She had lowered her stop sign. The sign in the middle of the road reads "Stop for Children". All was clear and I thought it safe to proceed (I was clocked going 10mph). Nevertheless the law is the law and I thought I'd lose if I went to court.
Soooooo...tonight I decided to suck it up and do online traffic school. Just get the pain over with. I must say, while not fun it's been a revelation compared with 'live' traffic school. My memories of the live version consist of sitting in some cramped, generic hotel conference room with 40 strangers, none of which want to be there. The instructor seemed to thrive on and enjoy his 'power' over the class. No questions unless I call on you. No checking phones. No food. No breathing (ok, I made that up). So, you sit there while he (or she) talks about whatever they want - actual education be damned. It was ridiculous. I can honestly say I learned maybe 2 things. Which brings me back to...
My ticket. At it's core, I'd forgotten an important rule of driving - you cannot enter a crosswalk while a pedestrian is in it. Now, I'm not sure how many people are really aware of this. Truth be told, there are a lot of other rules I could use a refreshing on...and that's exactly what the online version has done. Sign review, safe distances, driving in rain, snow, fog. THIS is what drivers need to learn. If indeed the point is educating drivers I must say I think online has succeeded where the live version has failed. It requires more attention and maybe even a little more time, but in the end I think it's been far more valuable in terms of the $200 donation I've had to make to the state of Arizona.
Anyway, be safe out there. And don't drive through a crosswalk even if a pedestrian has almost exited.
For awhile I thought maybe I'd fight the ticket. I wasn't positive the crossing guard was still in the crosswalk (Officer's word vs. mine), but more than that I found the signs confusing. She had lowered her stop sign. The sign in the middle of the road reads "Stop for Children". All was clear and I thought it safe to proceed (I was clocked going 10mph). Nevertheless the law is the law and I thought I'd lose if I went to court.
Soooooo...tonight I decided to suck it up and do online traffic school. Just get the pain over with. I must say, while not fun it's been a revelation compared with 'live' traffic school. My memories of the live version consist of sitting in some cramped, generic hotel conference room with 40 strangers, none of which want to be there. The instructor seemed to thrive on and enjoy his 'power' over the class. No questions unless I call on you. No checking phones. No food. No breathing (ok, I made that up). So, you sit there while he (or she) talks about whatever they want - actual education be damned. It was ridiculous. I can honestly say I learned maybe 2 things. Which brings me back to...
My ticket. At it's core, I'd forgotten an important rule of driving - you cannot enter a crosswalk while a pedestrian is in it. Now, I'm not sure how many people are really aware of this. Truth be told, there are a lot of other rules I could use a refreshing on...and that's exactly what the online version has done. Sign review, safe distances, driving in rain, snow, fog. THIS is what drivers need to learn. If indeed the point is educating drivers I must say I think online has succeeded where the live version has failed. It requires more attention and maybe even a little more time, but in the end I think it's been far more valuable in terms of the $200 donation I've had to make to the state of Arizona.
Anyway, be safe out there. And don't drive through a crosswalk even if a pedestrian has almost exited.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Avatar - 3D IMAX
Lizi and I went to see Avatar at the 3D IMAX tonight. Uh.....WOW! Say whatever you want about the story, acting, characters, etc but it does look absolutely amazing. I actually thought all the above were pretty good and with a running time of approximately 2:40 it flowed pretty well. I tend to think most movies nowadays are too long (keep it under 2 hours, please) but I could certainly see why this had to be longer.
The 3D was quite cool but I'm not sure it added all that much, to be honest. You get used it after a few minutes and there were times I thought maybe I'd enjoy it more without glasses on my face (not that they bothered me but for some reason my eyes did seem a little more tired than after a 2D picture). IMAX was cool but I remember the screen being wider? Maybe I'm just older now.
What can you really say about James Cameron? The guy has some vision. Maybe he doesn't have the aesthetic chops of a Scorsese, or the polish of a Michael Mann, but the guy makes GREAT movies. I'm not sure there's a better all-around director than him. at least nobody comes to mind.
Best movie ever? No. Entertaining and fun to watch? Absolutely, and for that I applaud.
The 3D was quite cool but I'm not sure it added all that much, to be honest. You get used it after a few minutes and there were times I thought maybe I'd enjoy it more without glasses on my face (not that they bothered me but for some reason my eyes did seem a little more tired than after a 2D picture). IMAX was cool but I remember the screen being wider? Maybe I'm just older now.
What can you really say about James Cameron? The guy has some vision. Maybe he doesn't have the aesthetic chops of a Scorsese, or the polish of a Michael Mann, but the guy makes GREAT movies. I'm not sure there's a better all-around director than him. at least nobody comes to mind.
Best movie ever? No. Entertaining and fun to watch? Absolutely, and for that I applaud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
