last saturday:

yeah yeah yeahs (link)
yesterday:


sleater-kinney
tomorrow:

cat power!
lisa on the sly
Spare us the self-involved moaning over the agonies of your art. Writing is no harder than anything else, and the complainers should can it.
By Garrison Keillor
May. 03, 2006 | OK, let me say this once and get it off my chest and never mention it again. I have had it with writers who talk about how painful and harrowing and exhausting and almost impossible it is for them to put words on paper and how they pace a hole in the carpet, anguish writ large on their marshmallow faces, and feel lucky to have written an entire sentence or two by the end of the day.
It's the purest form of arrogance: Lest you don't notice what a brilliant artist I am, let me tell you how I agonize over my work. To which I say: Get a job. Try teaching eighth-grade English, five classes a day, 35 kids in a class, from September to June, and then tell us about suffering.
The fact of the matter is that the people who struggle most with writing are drunks. They get hammered at night and in the morning their heads are full of pain and adverbs. Writing is hard for them, but so would golf be, or planting alfalfa, or assembling parts in a factory.
The biggest whiners are the writers who get prizes and fellowships for writing stuff that's painful to read, and so they accumulate long résumés and few readers and wind up teaching in universities where they inflict their gloomy pretensions on the young. Writers who write for a living don't complain about the difficulty of it. It does nothing for the reader to know you went through 14 drafts of a book, so why mention it?
The truth, young people, is that writing is no more difficult than building a house, and the only good reason to complain is to discourage younger and more talented writers from climbing on the gravy train and pushing you off.
Young people are pessimistic enough these days without their elders complaining about things. Shut up. Life is pretty good when you grow up. You own your own car, you go where you like, and you sing along with the radio or talk to yourself or chat on your cellphone. You pull into the drive-up window and order the Oreo Blizzard. What's not to like?
One day you get lucky and find someone who's willing to pay you to do something you do well or can fake, and on this you can build a life. You marry someone loving and sensible who makes you laugh, and you beget children, and go through the poop and puke and snot years, and somewhere around the age of 5 or 6, your kids start to fascinate you. There is nobody like them, except perhaps you. You would run into a burning building for them, and at the same time they're the cause of exquisite worry and consternation. At the age of 12, they look at you as if to say, Your replacement has arrived.
Meanwhile, you march forward and sample the pleasures of life. You read history and learn to grill fish in beer batter and find comfortable shoes. You go to Rome. You go to Montana. You come to love baseball and old jazz and the art of conversation. You admit to yourself that you don't care for Walt Whitman or Proust or Henry James, and you forgive yourself for that and pick up Elmore Leonard and J.F. Powers. You discover the pleasure of discarding stuff. You find a hairstyle that suits you. You go back to Montana.
Eventually you cross the line into your 40s, the mortgage years. And the 50s, when you stand weeping at graduations and weddings, and then, in the blink of an eye, come your 60s, and now you're on Easy Street. People who used to ignore you now treat you with reverence. There is great silence when you natter and pontificate, and people ask the secret of your success. You have become eminent. Inside you feel mischievous and jokey, but other people see you as a laureate, so you learn to harrumph.
Clarity is hard. Honesty can be hard. Comedy is always chancy, but then so is profundity. Sometimes one winds up as the other. Illness is, of course, to be avoided, and also megamalls and meetings involving vice presidents. But writing is not painful, no more so than a round of golf. Nobody was harmed in the course of writing this column. That is all I have to say at this time. Thank you.
Go ahead, call me a snob. I’ll accept this label. But I am more interested in reading and supporting new Asian American authors who are pushing past the model minority stereotypes and writing about class struggle, passion and politics in a way that doesn’t have to include discussions of brand-names and, in this case, super-elitist academic institutions. I think my critique of Viswanathan goes beyond her chick-lit genre, because this critique applies to authors like Jumpha Lahiri as well, and is more about my frustration with the lack of fiction out there about the working class South Asian community. Can we only write about first generation immigration experiences, living in the suburbs or the homeland? I don’t mean to favor subject-matter over writing quality but I think if South Asian writers continue to write about the same subjects and place their stories in the same settings, we are just limiting ourselves.























Does anyone want to have a celebration for April 20th, 2006?
Emily, will you be our ganja blossom queen?
But it's one thing for a bunch of glorified ad vehicles--or even the rampantly capitalist Wall Street Journal--to be hawking designer duffel bags and skin cream priced higher than Jack Abramoff's legal team. After all, these publications unabashedly promote--and generally cater to readers who share--a Trump-esque mine-is-bigger-than-yours attitude toward wealth and consumption. It's quite another matter, however, for the venerable Times to lend its imprimatur to a genre so awkwardly at odds with its own high-minded liberal sensibility and intellectual pretensions. This, after all, is the same paper that, last year, ran an eleven-part series on class in America, in which it described economic mobility as "the promise that lies at the heart of the American dream" and exhaustively pondered its apparent decline. Social consciousness for The Wall Street Journal may mean crushing the welfare state, but, for the Times, it means earnest editorials packed with noblesse oblige. (Classic snippet from last Thanksgiving: "There is no shame in the poverty Americans suffer today. The shame adheres to those who do nothing to change it.") Wretched consumer excess may be the American way, but is it really the paper of record's business to lend it respectability?
"Thursday Styles," by contrast, is seeking new converts, reassuring its more skeptical readers that there's really nothing wrong with showing off their good fortune. This is delicate work considering that even many ultra-affluent Times readers belong to the ambivalently wealthy ranks of the "Bourgeois Bohemians" profiled so piquantly in now-Timesman David Brooks's 2000 classic, Bobos in Paradise. A new breed of elites deeply conflicted about their material success, Bobos are morally appalled by any gaudy display that could make them look like "the vulgar Yuppies they despise." Writes Brooks: "Maybe off in Vegas there are still some rich peasants trying to conspicuously consume, buying big limousines, powerboats, and sports franchises and piling up possessions to demonstrate their net worth. But the Bobo renounces accumulation and embraces cultivation. He must show, in the way he spends his money, that he is conscientious and not crass." Unlike the typical in-your-face luxury porn, "Thursday Styles" grasps the conflicted code of the Bobo.
Similarly, complaining about the drive out to a mall well north of the city, she once quipped, "On my deathbed, I would like to be able to say I read Pushkin in the original Russian, not that I spent 12,458 hours in the pursuit of shopping." It's fine to spend absurd amounts of time and money acquiring absurd stuff, Kuczynski is assuring us, so long as you recognize the absurdity. Because the real vulgarity isn't greed, but rather a lack of self-awareness.
i've been in california for about 8 months now. i haven't really danced since i left michigan. sometimes i worry whether or not i am still capable of doing everything i used to do, all those things i was known for. the thing with personas is that they aren't fictional representations, false identities that one might play on television, then shed like dead skin when the cameras stopped rolling. they're more like different sides of the same die, numbers that turn up when the conditions are just right; they are the shards of our ideal selves, made real and public if only for a moment. when they are gone, it is as if a portion of our soul has disappeared beneath the currents of time, leaving us with the bittersweet taste of nostalgia on our tongues. not even the wine of california's napa valley can mask its flavor.
10. NIGHTSTAND READING
You will never hear a Republican say, “Let’s just cuddle and read The New Yorker tonight.” They understand you do not want reading materials in bed. You want a man.
[In Touch writer] Baer said she resorts to novel methods in her attempts to subvert the humiliating celebrity-journalist dynamic. "When I do phone interviews from the comfort of my own home, sometimes I put porn on in the background on mute for my own enjoyment, especially when artistes like Julianne Moore prattle on and on about their craft."
it was totally the american history museum. the whole thing was a lecture series focusing on korean adoptees. i think we got there a little late. to
the best of my memory, it was me, lisa, margot, and ting -- that huge (she was like "my giant") vna intern that no one really knew. there were probably more of us, but whatever.
first, it was that woman who shot that documentary about the adoption center she rolled in until she was adopted by an american family. i remember that she would have been kinda hot, except she had this crazy mole on her upper lip. she was saying some pretty heartwrenching and inspiring stuff, but the only two things that were going through my mind the whole time were, damn, her mole is fucking huge; and, boy, am i an asshole.
then it was that illustrator guy. he was funny because he didn't really talk about adoption at all. he just sort of talked about how he drew his pictures. in fact, none of his lecture actually stayed with me. i don't remember anything, other than the part when he admitted that the 10 year old boy in the picture was actually his wife, ying. his appeal came primarily from his speaking mannerisms. it was like he was telling a long, neverending joke, with each sentence on the verge of being the actual punchline.
after that, i think we all went home then met up at that place in georgetown, to drink really thick, strong coffee and smoke hookahs. my favorite part of the night was trying to get lin to make a move on candice, and lisa throwing up in the bathroom.
at least that's how i remember it.

And some experts believe that men who want to be women also tend to be what Larry Wachowski appears to be: a guy with a jones for technology. In 1974, Donald Laub, a plastic surgeon, and Norman Fisk, a psychiatrist, conducted a study at the Stanford University School of Medicine of 769 patients considering sex reassignment. Of the male patients, Laub and Fisk discovered an interesting predisposition: "Observation of the male-to-female group showed them . . . to be interested in mathematics and computer sciences."


" When do the designers eat? We never see them eat!" they queried. "They have dinner breaks," he calmly replied.
"But does that time get taken out of the time that they have for the challenges," they specified. "No it does not - they can eat at their stations if they like," he calmy replied.
"Yes but WHAT do they eat and do they go out to eat?" they attacked! "The food is always brought in for them and it is different every meal," he calmly replied.
"Yes but WE DON'T SEE THEM EAT!!!! The show needs to be 2 hours! We want to see them eat!" the wolves cried.
...
Liza called this morning with a confession. "I DID dress for Tim last night. I was praying he'd say something about my shirt. I got it at a store called "forever 21" because I wanted to be hip and cool. I took a risk, which the judges seem to respond to. When I first saw him he put his hand up to his chin, paused, and I thought he was going to say 'I don't know about this - I'm concerned' but he said nothing, thank God. I was actually relieved. I am absolutely in love with him. I don't want him to ever be upset or anything to happen to him. If I heard from you that he was ever in a bad mood or if I ever see Santino give him grief, I swear - I'll start crying."
MJ: Just one more question I have to ask. Everyone is wondering, did Dre fall off?
BB: Did Dr. Dre what?
MJ: Well, years after his success, in the early 90s, with NWA and his massive solo album The Chronic, Dre wrote a track, "Forgot About Dre,"about how people were saying he'd lost his touch—that he'd fallen off.
BB: Why would he write that? Dre never went anywhere. Never been gone. The guy is so present. He's one of the great record producers of all time.


2. Are Women Necessary?
Not in Hollywood, it seems. Once again, prize givers are struggling to come up with standout female performances — Carla Gugino flaunting her rack in Sin City? Judi Dench playing Judi Dench, yet again? But the problem isn’t the studios’ alone. When Warners brought out North Country, a stolidly worthy film about sexual harassment, reviewers clobbered it for being just like like Norma Rae — as if the problem with Hollywood is its insistence on churning out feminist dramas. (The same thing happened to Mona Lisa Smile.) When Fox released In Her Shoes — a touching, beautifully made film with wonderful performances — it got written off as just another “chick flick,” a fate that never seems to befall “guy flicks,” even when (like Sin City) they wallow in the most sophomoric and masturbatory male clichés. Which isn’t to say that the media don’t like so-called women’s pictures — Brokeback Mountain left reviewers weeping. They just don’t want them to be about women.
Annual Anagrams
America + Iraq = CIA REAM IRAQ
Rumsfeld = DR. FLUMES
Rumsfeld + Iraq = ALFRED SQUIRM
Bush + Rumsfeld = BLUSHED SMURF
Bush + Rice = U.S. BE RICH
Katrina = ANTI ARK
Gov. Arnold = VALOR DONG
Antonio Villaraigosa = A VAGINA SALON OIL RIOT
Mayor Antonio = AMATORY ONION
Tom LaBonge = A BONG MOTEL
Brad + Angelina = BAGEL AND RAIN
Tom Cruise = MR. SO CUTIE
Katie Holmes = LAME HOSE KIT
Tom Cruise = I, SO RECTUM
Katie Holmes = TOES LIKE HAM
Heath Ledger = THE LARGE HED
Kanye West = SWEET YANK
Conor Oberst = BORN TO SCORE
Arcade Fire = A DIRE FARCE
Sufjan Stevens = JESUS FAN VENTS
Fiona Apple = A POP FINALE
White Stripes = HE WRITES SPIT
= HER PIES TWIST


