can I describe this?
I feel compelled to write an entry. Something that Judy wrote interested me:
anyway, after some coaxing and some guilt and some boredom last night, I told dave I'd come over. well, I don't know why I'm writing so much. it felt very much like portnoy's holiday with pumpkin's family. you know, they don't cook white bread through all the way. I'm not really dissing the st. germain clan really. it just felt weird. a social group.
I guess this is the context she was referring to. It's an nice bit of writing, and it got me thinking about how "outsiders" perceive my family. I wonder if the average outsider would see our family as anything but dysfunctional if the only experience he or she had with us was like the christmas eve gathering. I wonder if Judy's perception was genuine and if others would have the same experience.
But I think we in my family know that all the holiday glee (what little there is) is a facade. Gatherings like christmas, thanksgiving, and easter are only ephemeral cease-fires. And even those don't always last the whole day (witness Lea's meltdown on christmas).
Reading Judy's comment induces two conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I feel a sense of pride that the family is able to put aside any differences for a brief time and at least create a semblance of harmony. On the other hand, I feel a great disappointment knowing that the truth is not nearly as sugar coated as we would like others to believe.
good morning, sunshine
I went to bed a little before 4am only to have my grandfather wake me up 2 and a half hours later so that I could go outside and shovel the driveway with Nathan. hooray for snowstorms.
Of course, I can't go back to sleep now because I'm weird like that. I'll probably pass out some time later.
christmas?
Christmas just wasn't that eventful this year. As a result, I won't write about it.
As more and more information concerning the September 11th government bungling, I came across this site which has a very detailed, down to the minute timeline of what happened that day (and yes, I read the whole thing...). If anyone has the patience to read it, it's interesting. Among other points, this one stands out as particularly bizarre:
9:05 A.M. Bush is still reading to 18 Booker Elementary School second-graders a story about a girl's pet goat. His chief of staff Andrew Card, whispers into his ear, "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] He says nothing in response, but continues reading the goat story after a brief pause. Then, in an event noticeable in its absence, as one newspaper put it, "for some reason, Secret Service agents [do] not bustle him away." [Globe and Mail, 9/12/01] At some point shortly after, reporters ask him if he is aware of the two crashes and explosions. He nods and says he will talk about the situation later. [CNN, 9/12/01] Bush continues to read about goats for the next 20 minutes or so. The reason given is that they didn't want to scare the children.
I really hope the upcoming investigation into what went wrong will do some good and bring to light all of the obvious lapses that happened in the days prior to the 11th. It seems pretty clear to me that either there was some conspiracy to let the hijackers complete their scheme, or our government is incredibly inept. It may be a little of both. who knows? Either way, there are definitely people in the government who should be held accountable for the things that went wrong instead of being promoted for their efforts in the "war on terror".
humbug
I'm not really in the festive mood. After all, there's no snow on the ground.
My car failed the safety inspection and needs repairs that I can't afford.
Jobs are scarce.
Friends are scarce.
I miss someone.
people and categories
I haven't done much photography lately.
What is it with people who want to compare a picture to one by some other photographer? Why can't they resist the urge to compare? I used to think it was a compliment if someone said that a picture of mine reminded them of a Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Garry Winogrand, Weegee, or some other photographer's picture. But I don't see it as much of a compliment anymore. What it says to me is that the person can't overcome their preconceptions. I'm not just speaking from my own experiences with such people. I see it on photo.net and elsewhere. People will say, "what a great picture! It is reminiscent of a Steiglitz...blah blah" What it amounts to is hero worship. So, instead of having a great picture stand for itself, you have a picture that is great because it emulates some dead photographer....
I also tend to think that many of those "arm-chair art critics" are trying to impress us with their knowledge of dead artists.
It also makes me cringe when people really get into the spirit of hero worship when they say things like "Ansel Adams could take 1000% better pictures than mine if all he had to use was a pinhole camera, and his arms were tied behind his back!" I mean, give me a break. A salseman in a bike store once said that even if all he had was a tricycle with flat tires, Lance Armstrong could still kick everyone's ass. Hey, that's great. Maybe Lance Armstrong and Ansel Adams could be some kind of Superhero Duo that fights crime, wins bike races, and takes outstanding photographs. Maybe they could also round up all the art critics and hero worshippers, carry them up into space (riding a tricycle with flat tires), and hurl them into the sun.