skeet skeet skeet. i'm sorry, i'm just not a big john legend fan. sure i was predisposed to dislike him, since he came with so much hype -- from reviewers and friends' recommendations -- but i can really say after listening to his album that i don't like him. i don't normally think super hype necessarily equates to super overrated but in this case, i'd say john stephens hardly qualifies for "legendary" status. let me preface this by saying that i'm good with "ordinary people," "used to love u," and maybe one other song. but for the most part, what sets john stephens apart from the dozens of other craptastic r&b crooners out there? a semi-unique voice? that's about it as far as i'm concerned.

actually, on second thought, i don't even like "used to love u," i only like the beat underneath. i find stephen's voice to be overly annoying. and the biggest killer? his lyrics suck. maybe kanye wrote his lyrics or something. but the lyrics on this cd, for the most part, suck. whoever said john legend was a male lauryn hill was dead wrong. lauryn has good lyrics, and her entire miseducation cd was solid all the way through. john legend's album is just confused. i lose interest about thirty seconds into all his songs. i don't doubt he's talented and dedicated but his words seem pathetically shallow to me. i haven't been this disappointed since bilal underwhelmed.

i'm also not a big kanye fan. like his production, think his lyrics are overrated. i loved "through the wire," everything else has gotten good vibes more from repetition than actual dig-worthiness. it's also hard for me to separate kanye's personality from his work. his attitude is just grating. he's an egomaniac, he's rude, he's full of himself. and that's all i can say about that.

i'm also done with beyonce. not that i was ever with beyonce, but for awhile she was bearable. then she got with jay-z. then destiny child's newest song -- soldier -- blew. it's just a terrible song. ugh. i can't get over it. while i'm on it, i'm against gwen stefani's remix of "rich girl" too. why are you remixing rich girl? maybe i'm mistaken here and it was her song before, but i feel like i've heard rich girl -- sung exactly the same way -- many years ago. why gwen why? and as much as i like alicia key's music, her hip hop posturing bothers me. sure she's got the background to be "real." but somehow her weird gyrations and arm/hand motions don't really seem natural. just a judgement call. i'd prefer alicia to be hidden behind the grand piano, and not somewhere i can see her.

beyonce all over the oscars was beyond annoying. was she really the right choice to sing a phantom of the opera song? and then to pair her with josh groban three segements later? that's not innovative, that's just dissonance. beyonce's got a decent voice but her style is not conducive to opera songs. her makeup was great, her prescence on the oscar stage was not. so sick of her.

hilary swank, i like her, but what was she wearing? a backwards bathrobe as far as i was concerned. just weird weird weird. for a young actress who has earned two best actress oscars, hilary swank is not a star. this is slightly criminal. you would think she could've leveraged her last win to get some better roles. but i'm sure she had to beg clint to do millionaire dollar baby. will hilary get her due respect and get some mega bucks and some mega roles after this win? something to keep an eye on. name another thespian who has won so many awards yet has no memorable roles to their name (aside from their winning performances)?

i lost my oscar parlay pool by a landslide. my correct pick percentage was below fifty. yes, i'm bitter. and apparently not good at agreeing with the academy. i'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing.

finally, this is the last of the hater-ade. i promise. listen up though. harold and kumar go to white castle is not good. it is not funny. not even a little bit. it's terrible! i would normally never willingly watch a movie like this but i was told by multiple sources that harold and kumar was good. i had hopes that it might be a satirical and intelligent film counched in dumb ad copy. what i got was bad acting, lame humour, and stomach churning crapness. i will never listen to anyone again about these types of movies. harold and kumar go to amsterdam? count me out. super wack. i feel like i've been betrayed. it's that serious.

that's all i've got today. oh wait, one more. i hate people who act stupid. i don't hate stupid people. i just hate people who act stupid. you know who you are. don't do it. "tis better to be thought the fool and remain silent, than speak and remove all doubt. (galileo) "

i see dead people. why do we have this need to tell people things? when we do something that we're slightly embarassed about, or exhilirated about, or something impactful happens but needs to be kept on the down low, why can't we just sit tight with our own knowledge? why do we just have to tell at least one person? it's weird. maybe because if you do something and don't tell anyone, it seems less real? if you go to the grave with your secret it seems like it never happened?

is it related to how writing something down makes it far more permanent? and so sometimes you don't write things down because you're afraid that by putting thoughts to paper you'll immortalize a fleeting thought? but then we want the journal entry there to prove that this thing happened. because we want to think that everything that affects us should be recorded or noted, even if it's just by one confidant(e).

i, for one, need to tell people everything. not everyone needs to know, but i need to tell at least my brain trust. it's not even about wanting them to ask leading questions, or for the confession to lead to a conversation, but i just want someone to know. i tend to confide in people who have proven their ability to keep secrets, or to people who are so far removed from my normal social circle that nothing would ever boomerang back. but as a social circle opens up, does that compromise the barriers that you had so carefully constructed?

who would you rather have know all your secrets? one person who is really close to you, or many people who are distantly related and have no chance (or care) to call you on it?

a prodigal son returns to the emerald city. antoine walker is back. my beloved celtics aren't exactly championship caliber but they sure are interesting. i think my goal this weekend is to get the dynasty series boston celtics dvd set.

my love for the celtics knows no bounds. why? see, if you were in taiwan during the 80s, the only nba you got on tv was the celtics versus the lakers. my father was a celtics man, so i became a celtics man. something about larry legend and his team appealed more to my dad than the flashy lakers. once you get committed to a team, you should never give up that loyalty, regardless of how much success, or lack thereof, your team achieves. when you develop a loyalty to a team, it defines you. i used to like all the boston teams (even in sports i didn't follow) just because of the celtics. boston the city has always been, for me, a magical place, just because of the celtics. i like unity.

my only regret about following the celtics is that i don't like the color green. at least as a wearable color. which means i can't really wear lots of celtics related paraphernalia. it's a daily struggle for me, personal fashion versus loyalty to kin kith and clan.

and yes, it is that deep.

immortality! take it! it's yours! two giants of the american literary world recently passed away, hunter s thompson and susan sontag. who? yeah, exactly. i've never even heard of susan sontag before last year, and the only thing i knew about mr thompson was his having written "fear and loathing in las vegas." and i only know about that because it was made into a movie. so really, my combined knowledge of these two was about nil. but when someone important dies, you get a chance to read tributes to them. you hear their names in the news and you inevitably start to wonder, "who are they?"

i won't even bother trying to give my take of who they were, since i'm unfamiliar with their life's work or their literary impact. all i know is that susan sontag was some sort of culture critic and hunter s seemed like he was in the same arena as the beats -- but i could be way off on both these things.

there are influential people's names who just float around and you don't really know who or what they are. well, i'd like to know. like why is hunter thompson writing for espn? why did my snobbery book call sontag overrated? all these little bits of puzzle pieces that make no sense until you actually take the time to figure out who they are. or at least get an idea of who they are.

it's like watching a spoof on something when you don't know anything about the original source. it's not funny until you get it. and you won't get it until you know it. or it's like watching a movie based on a real person, like the motorcycle diaries. which is fine when consumed as a standalone movie but if you know who che is, then it adds another level of depth to your experience. so pretty much, that's what i need, another level to my depth of experience with writers that i hear about but have never read.

strangely, i care nothing for historical people in entertainment. politicians, leaders, artists, writers, lots of interest. entertainment, none. why is this? is it because entertainment is transient and really worth nothing in the long run? in fifty years, will my knowledge of the entire original melrose place cast be so much useless brain clutter? that would just be traumatic.

the big beautiful tour. do beautiful people get the short end of the stick? sure they're beautiful but there are many negatives that come with being beautiful. people hate on you. people get jealous. certain people may want to be around you for all the wrong reasons. one place where being a beautiful woman could disadvantageous is at work. in a corporate environment where you're trying to stay business-like and professional, you never know when you're being pushed onto projects as eye candy. or maybe you're too pretty and deemed a potential distraction. the old boys' school of thought is perhaps uncouth and misogynistic but you have to deal with it because that's who the money runs through. the generalization is that beautiful cannot also be smart. you can joke about it, dismiss it, say that we're past it as a society, but it's out there. beauty and brains are commonly (wishfully?) thought of as inversely related.

the idea is that better looking people can get by with less effort/intelligence/etc. it's an unfair stereotype, but one just as widespread as any stereotype we possess. should we discriminate against the beautiful just for being beautiful? or is there some justice in making the beautiful suffer for having something that the majority of the population do not, namely, ideal physical attributes and stunning attractiveness?

exhibit a. brad pitt. probably one of the best actors around. at least according to me. here's someone who has gone out of his way to avoid pretty boy roles (given how easily he could have slipped into multiple "the mexican" territory) and the acclaim that he's received has been to be plastered all over what? people magazine? tabloids? rarely is brad nominated for any golden globes, oscars, or other major awards -- in fact, never as far as i can recall. i'm wondering what type of role will finally garner brad a coveted oscar nod. will it have to be as a director? when his pretty face and stunning looks will be hidden behind a camera? will brad have to make a serious film about a tragedy "based loosely on real life events?" will he have to make a biopic? one could say that brad's career (full of hit movies and new classics) has been unjustly ignored -- as far as recognition from critics and peers, not women of the world, are concerned. brad's "the hottest thing since toast" looks is still mentioned before he's ever graced with the honor of being a fine actor.

exhibit b. jeff gordon. pretty boy from california who just happens to be the most dominating nascar driver this side of richard petty. he should be a driving god among mortals for his accomplishments. instead, gordon is a polarizing nascar prescence. you either hate him or love him, there is slim space for tweeners on the subject of jeff gordon. why? because he's pretty. he's also rich, successful, young and has a hot wife. what gordon doesn't do is wear cowboy hats or generate the sort of folksy rapport -- through his demeanor or his background -- that is beloved by nascar fans.

this same sort of bias can be seen for actresses, who usually don't achieve critical acclaim until they get ugly prosthetics. or get fat or get old. i read an article once where the writer thought gwyneth was too pretty to ever be taken seriously as an actress, and then proceeded to ask her what she thought about it. then again, i'm gonna say that her choice of roles has something to do with not being taken as a serious actress, but my argument would collapse in on itself if i started to nit pick.

back to women in the work place. they have it tough. fending off superiors who are overly flirtatious. balancing their professionalism with a little advantageous charm. having to prove their worth, time and time again. showing everyone that they can have brains and beauty in the same demure business casual package. having to put up a defensive wall to avoid giving overzealous co-workers the wrong message. is it worse than being a work hag? probably not. but i'd say the difference is less than we'd think.

then again, nothing boosts morale more than having a hot girl(s) in the office. trust me, this has been proven to me on a daily basis at my current job. a small dark room filled with little boys and married men who spend all day fondling joysticks? any girl who comes within two miles of this place gets critiqued and sized up. you would not believe some of the things that get said here. and then whenever a girl tester gets mentioned, the second thing that's asked is "can she really play?" the first question having been, of course, "so, is she hot?"

there's something humanizing watching someone pet a subservient dog. the person reverts to a childhood state for a brief moment. you could be a moral-less axe murderer, a terrible person, but when you're sitting there, petting a dog who is just lying around, you look....wholesome. maybe it's because dogs supposedly have sixth senses about danger, so if they trust someone, that person must be okay right? then again, dogs are stupid, so what do they know?

wanna come in? this weekend, i watched hitch. valentine's day makes us do strange things, i know. what follows is not a movie review but a "what did i learn" statement. in hitch, will smith's character (alex hitchens) is a dating doctor. or rather, he's more accurately categorized as a love doctor, since he will only help clients who exhibit symptoms of true unrequited love. the bastards and dickheads who want to practice slash and burn techniques are left off his client list. the eponymous hitch has a heart of gold and a cupid/midas touch to match. he guarantees that he can get any man to the first kiss within three dates -- after that, the guy is on his own. hitch tells us that eighty percent of all women think they can spot their true love based on that first kiss. this figure seems to be a bit high, but who am i to argue with a ladies' man like the fresh prince?

the central drama, and theme, of this movie is that both hitch and his love interest -- played by eva mendes (who cares what her character's name is, eva looks great) -- are highly desireable singles who are too afraid to let themselves ever engage in any real romantic interests, out of fear of getting hurt. eva plays a jaded gossip columnist "who is a woman of such judgmental pessimism that she’ll sell out on love the minute things start to go the wrong way." sounds hot doesn't it? luckily, eva pretty much gets all the great clothes and works her attitude, so she is hot. sidetracked, but anyway.

hitch's story is that he's scarred from one experience with true love. he had a girl, lost her due to overzealousness, and now is unwilling to truly open up to anyone ever again. he's a love doctor who doesn't buy into his own concoctions. tragic isn't it? the rest of the movie doesn't matter. hitch eventually gets the girl, of course, will and eva find each other through the power of love, of course. blah blah.

more importantly, for me, watching these two defensive lovebirds on-screen made me realize just how boring, trite and ridiculous, defensive daters are. "i'm afraid to get hurt." boo hoo. you're gonna get hurt anyway, why not just suck it up and go for broke? girls dig the long ball right? i've decided from now on that defensive dating is no longer the in thing. dating should be conducted as if you were on special teams.

just like on special teams, you should run headlong toward love with a certain discipline but also with enough recklessness to get the job done. if you stay timid and wait for your foe, you will never make even the most basic of plays. you'll always be late getting to your target or you'll consistently be out of position once your target gets to you. you have to risk something to win something. attack attack attack. sure a kickback TD will de-moralize and deflate you, but at least you didn't just play prevent defense for twenty years of your life.

thank you hitch, thank you will smith.

four page letter, and i enclosed it with a kiss... what better day to talk about technology than valentine's day? with the advancement of technology, each new valentine's day gets ever closer to becoming a day that men will never fear again. didn't buy your lady friend something nice? amazon for something/anything and have it delivered tomorrow. forgot flowers? order remotely, pick up locally, give immediately. can't put in some face time with the love of your life? give her a memorably epic text message or email. it's the thought that counts.

what i've been doing for the past week is exploring tech fads that have already entrenched themselves in the blogging community. flickr, picasa, hello, delicous, etc. some of you may have never heard of these things, but they've been the best blog/web applications of 2004. the way i adopt new technologies is to follow in the footsteps of the pioneers. i'm not good at actually being the man with machete in hand, i'd rather wait for the path to be blazed and then casually stroll along behind the people who did all the hard work.

currently, i follow ameer in all things computer and gadget related. he got a sidekick, i got a sidekick two. he got an external hard drive, i got the exact same one, but with both firewire and usb-two ports. he's getting an ibook, i'm getting an ibook. whenever i have questions about my new items, i just ask ameer. it's weak being a two-point-oh but it's super convenient.

i've barely begun playing around with picasa, hello and flickr. i want an online photo system that will be ideal for displaying my pictures. right now i use yahoo but it's just too small. the images i mean. with flickr, you can display multiple sizes. my problem is that the interface seems a bit cluttered. time will tell if i convert to flickr. picasa is a program that organizes the pictures on your hard drive. so far, it's great. i, and the giants that walked before me, recommend it highly.

del.icio.us is my absolute favorite right now. for a few years, i've been keeping a separate blog for random links that i wanted to keep. i just tossed up links in a blog and didn't bother to organize it or anything. it was slightly messy -- as you can see -- because there was no way to categorize the links, and no efficient way to search for links when you wanted to find a site again. enter del.icio.us. it gives you tools to easily post links to your personal links page. it allows you to categorize your links in any way you wish through the use of tags. oh tags and delicious, how i love you.

tags are also the new "it" thing. cool people all over the world are talking about tags right now. by sticking keywords on your pictures, files, links, whatever, you can search for everything a gazillion times more efficiently. instead of a vertically organized hierarchy (as is the case with folders), everything tagged is organized horizontally and found through tag searches. it's amazing. it's what adding a search engine to your email does -- like with gmail -- or having a search engine for your photos. anything can be found in a few seconds if you've tagged it correctly.

so what i plan on doing in my spare time is to tag all my pictures. i don't know why. this kind of stuff just brings me joy.

happy valentine's day.

i've also decided that i need to learn about rss readers, i've been using kinja, which is fun but not fully functional and not really a rss reader. so many great ideas, so little knowledge on my part. i need a super techy geek friend, anyone got one to spare?

disclosure, remorse, and accountability (or) the curious incident of the missing burrito. sometimes in life, even when you try your best to avoid it, you come face to face with a moral dilemma. those that know me personally know that i am a man of no great honor. i squeal, i shy away from responsibility, i sell friends/family/pets down rivers, i accept no baggage that i cannot quickly shed or pawn off to another. i lie, i cheat, i swindle, i forget, i fake injury, i place blame on others. nothing of which is very admirable but let me assure you that it's always necessary.

but sometimes, a man's gotta step up for his actions. that day, for me, was today. my boss, out of the kindness of his heart, got us all burritos for lunch. the sign up sheet went around two days ago, conveniently missing me. so today, i get back from my friendly game of lunch poker (conducted under the watchful eye of the nearby FBI building) and look in the burrito box. all the burritos have names on them, except for one. this lovely lady was marked "spare." so i took it, figuring there must have been a few extra burritos flying around and that i must have been accounted for even if i hadn't specifically ordered anything.

lo and behold, the search for the spare burrito begins as soon as i take my second bite. my boss is on the warpath, thinking someone from another department took the burrito, or that someone took more than their allotment of burrito. my first instinct was to chew chew chew and throw away the evidence. my second instinct was to confess. that instinct was summarily suppressed by my mouthful of first instinct. i had no choice, i had to continue eating and toss the wrapper away as soon as possible. burrito? what burrito?

but then my boss kept getting more upset. he was swearing, he was sherlock holmes-ing, he was sending out emails looking for the culprit. my mouth burned with corn and chipotle sauce, as well as a fast settling sense of guilt.

"if anyone took the burrito marked spare it wasn't for you. please return it if you haven't eaten it yet.

this really sucks. i go out and buy everyone lunch and then someone takes one that isn't their own. everyone who wanted one should have gotten one and there should have been no need for someone to take one.

if it doesn't turn up this is the last time i do this for you guys. weak."

my inner spike lee said "do the right thing." my inner jon yang said "cower fool, cower." in situations like these, you have to weigh the consequences -- getting caught lying for a preposterous reason and never getting free food from work again -- versus the rewards -- nobody would know what i did, mum's the word and i have a full belly. guilt is not a factor in the equation, guilt is for sissies.

normally i would have just walked away and tried to play if off as if i wasn't the guilty party. aside from my bean breath and dishonest chinky eyes, how would anyone have known that i had taken the burrito? but since it was an honest mistake, i felt like i should try to be accountable in my work place. so, i made like usher and confessed.

yes, go me. the consequences of my confession were nothing really. no flaying, no iron maiden, no time outs in a corner, no pay cut, no meetings, no harsh words. just forgiveness and "thanks for telling me." if only all confessions ended on such happy notes. somehow i don't think that "by the way, i totally cheated on you yesterday" would garner the same uplifting result. but emboldened by my once a decade come clean and tell the truth moment, i may just try this honesty thing again sometime.

now that's just crazy talk.

oyster world. are spoiled kids real kids? when you grow up with a platinum spoon in your mouth, should you be hated on just because your parents give you whatever you want? just the other day i heard from a kid in high school about how he went to a dance in his date's escalade. he wasn't ecstatic about the escalade as much as he was impressed by another kid's 350z -- with suicide doors. these kids are like seventeen, and they attend a public high school in san diego. the kid i heard this from is a family friend i've known since he was born -- and he's pretty down to earth -- but you can't help but be impressed by suicide doors. i guess you can't escape the fact that at nearly every school, tales of ridiculous spoilage will abound.

or if you don't know what i'm talking about, you could watch mtv's "my super sweet sixteen." this show supposedly "takes you behind the scenes as teens prep for the party to end all parties. will jealous siblings, stressed out parents and school rivals get in the way? step into a world that isn't always as sweet as it seems." that's not what the show is about. what the show is really about is spoiled rich kids (as opposed to spoiled poor kids) throwing quarter million dollar sweet sixteen birthday parties for themselves. the only world you step into is one where parents think any amount of money is worth exchanging for their child's love and attention -- however temporarily. the kids say things like "i will never settle for anything less than a range rover." and then they pout and get upset when they don't get what they want, like a cleavage baring dress, or a tennis court party venue.

i've only seen two episodes of this show but already i'm determined to watch it whenever it's on. the extravagance is ridiculous. parents are flying with their kids to paris to shop for dresses, flying to miami for a getaway weekend. this is on private jets no less, we're not talking coach or priceline. the young man who wants to throw himself a party at a tennis court goes to look at maybachs to get himself to that party. maybachs costing above four hundred thousand grand. are you kidding me?

and i love watching the parents. they are really proud of the fact that they can afford everything for their children. and really, why shouldn't they be? if you were a gazillionaire, wouldn't you want the best for your children? sure you run the risk of spoiling them but who cares? you're rich!

the kids are of course, hilariously spoiled and utterly ridiculous. they gripe and moan about things not working out. they pretend like they rule the world, and in a sense, they do. but you can't blame the kids, they were raised this way. who wouldn't think they owned the world if they've gotten everything they've ever wanted? restraint and humility can be learned at any age, why force feed it to kids now when they don't need it? and being spoiled is really just a matter of comparison.

you can be spoiled if you have running water. you can be spoiled if you use disposable lunch bags. being spoiled is just having more than your peers, isn't it? heck, i was spoiled for most of my life. what's the difference between demanding a range rover and a ford contour? what's the difference between thinking that european trips are de rigueur versus having yearly vacations? of course, i never conceived of myself as spoiled, because my peers in high school were private school kids who had bigger everythings. so in comparison to them, i was not spoiled at all. but in comparison to other people, i was justifiably labeled "spoiled." really, it's all a matter of degrees.

so when i watch sixteen year olds get ready to attend their ridiculous sweet sixteen parties on mtv, i'm not jealous or hateful, i just hope that someday my sweet sixteen year old can have a party which costs a comparable amount. and that one day, i can give my kids everything they want, even if it's a stupid party.

stop the talking baby, or i start walking baby... how come some people don't know when to stop talking? you ask them a simple question, sometimes out of the niceness of your boredom, and then out comes every tidbit about their lives. "so, are you in school?" "oh yeah, i'm in school and i'm majoring in blah blah but i'm only taking one class because my boyfriend left me last semester so i thought i'd take it easy. but oh my gosh, i'm taking this modern dance class on saturdays -- for no credit -- and it's just amazing!" uh gee, thanks.



there are spaces and pauses in conversation. do some people not know this? like really? when in a group discussion, some people like to take control and just go off on their own self amusing stories. nobody else is amused, or maybe one person is, but really, stop already. i love talkative people, i love when people talk about themselves, but let me ask some leading questions alright? let me show some interest before you launch into your life story. is that too much to ask?



on the flip side, people who answer mono-syllabically are annoying too. unless of course, they are trying to deter you from asking more questions, in which case, being monosyllabic is a great way to achieve that end.



people, what to do with them. we need to carry around buzzers, more buzzers all around. when is a buzzer not useful?

mimicry. why the patriot players bothered to mock TO's flapping wings touchdown celebration is beyond me. why admit that the best celebration you can come up with is to make fun of a lesser team's? why not come up with your own patriot themed touchdown celebration? it just looks stupid for you to be doing the wing flap without wings on your helmet. nobody believes you're a bird without the wings, we're not stupid you know.



gene and galvez came up with a drummer boy, military salute, rifle shot, fife player celebration. genius. if only g&g were the ones on national tv scoring the touchdowns. but then again, if they were the ones in charge of scoring the touchdowns, the patriots might not have won. but the potential celebrations would have been so much better. tough tradeoff.



do super bowl "parties" always seem like a bit of a letdown? i mean, football as a television event is an acquired taste. there are too many pauses punctuated by only a few seconds of (in)action. it's easy to lose your concentration and do something else while a game is going on. for a spectacle game like the super bowl, i'd imagine that casual fans are sort of wondering what all the hype is about. the commercials are getting worse and worse, the halftime show is an entertainment farce, there's really nothing exciting about the super bowl aside from the game itself. which could be quite boring for the non-football initiated.



and so, if i get to choose where i watch a super bowl, i always want it to be with diehard football fans. sure, maybe a few playmates here or there, a few bowls of chili and dip would be nice. but in lieu of all that, nothing beats watching a game with people who can appreciate football humor. or people who can appreciate the weird fashion sense exhibited by cris collinsworth. or people who even know who cris collinsworth is.



for the casual fan, the best way to make the super bowl exciting is to have some money on the line. bet the spread, bet parlays, bet scoring boxes, bet on weirdest commercial, whatever -- just bet on something. once you have something to cheer for, the game gets that much more intense. otherwise it pretty much just comes down to "do i want to cheer along with everyone else or root for the other team?" as a means of creating artificial interest. or i guess, there's always napping. which admittedly, i've done during a few super bowls. football games are long okay? even for the super fan.



pretty much, if you put money on anything, it can be exciting. there's a life lesson to be learned here.

rocking horse winner. you know in grade school when they haphazardly gave out medals, stars, bumper stickers, big rounds of applauses, and prizes for just about everything you did? i used to think that was just wack. why would someone get something for doing practically nothing? what is the value in getting a medal if every other kid in your class has one? nothing, right?



but you do get something. you get confidence. you get to look at your room, emblazoned with ribbons for "not last in the spelling bee," "almost potty trained," "superior usage of twenty of the twenty six letters" and you swell with pride. giving kids the sense that they're winners is a key to their healthy development. i mean, at least until they realize that the jig is up and that getting a star for attending school is actually not anything worth commending.



but everyone needs to feel like a winner once in awhile, even when you're old. we may not need to be the best, but we need to feel like we're above average at something. even if it's winning a game of street fighter against a blind man, winning feels good. there is no replacement for winning. there are always bigger pots and higher stakes but winning always produces the same results: joy, pride, uplifted spirits.



so forget leaving no child behind, let's make every child a winner instead -- flowers, medals, stars, trophies, t-shirts, buttons, my little ponies, anything -- and then they'll be confident mature adults, even if they can't read.

goodwill hunting. really, what is the difference between talking to a complete stranger versus talking to a person who is essentially a stranger? say you lost a good friend and found them again five years later. you have the conversation that is labeled the "catch up conversation." is any of it different than the "getting to you know you conversation?" nope. minus a few names from the past and a few "oh who do you still talk to's" and "do you still do these's," there's really no difference.



or actually there is a difference but it's all mental. the difference between talking to complete strangers and essentially strangers is goodwill. for essentially strangers, you're opening up to them and receiving them warmly because you have some measure of goodwill towards them. they may have become your mortal enemy in the last five years but until you figure that out, you treat them with a certain degree of friendliness.



but really, the actions that you're undertaking with essentially strangers will be the exact same ones that you take with complete strangers. so why not treat complete strangers the same? at least the ones that seem to give off a positive vibe?



if you go to a gathering and some seemingly complete stranger comes up to you and says that they know you from back in the day -- and you barely remember them at all -- the mere fact that they say they know you and you kind of know them changes the whole dynamics of the thing. suddenly it's like you're almost friends, for no good reason other than some vague recollections.



should we be treating essentially strangers like complete strangers? or maybe the other way around, treating complete strangers as essentially strangers and give everyone the benefit of goodwill? is that just too dangerous? is the issue at hand not goodwill but actually intent? do we treat complete strangers differently because they possibly have malicious intent while essentially strangers probably have nothing worse in mind but some forced catching up?

i went from ashy to nasty to classy, and still... words like "elegant," "graceful" and "classy" are used to describe people far too infrequently. is this because there's a shortage of elegant, graceful and classy people out there? quite possibly. how many of your peers would you assign any of these attributes to? when we describe elegant and graceful we're more often talking about buildings, objects, decorations, and things -- rarely people. and who among us could be construed as classy?



usually when i hear elegant and graceful, i think of girls. men aren't really particularly elegant or graceful. directed towards a woman, it makes me think of long clean lines, non-trashy attire and a sense of exquisite style. and slim wrists. for some reason i feel like you can pull of elegant and graceful better when you have slim wrists. someone refute me on this if they can.



basically i think of hollywood when i hear elegant and graceful because that's all i ever see the words used in conjunction with, starlets at awards ceremonies. can you be elegant and graceful in sweats and a t-shirt? yes, because gwyneth could certainly pull it off. as well as nicole. so it's obviously a person's aura that makes them elegant. however, the right clothes can make an inelegant person elegant, but it cannot make them graceful.



grace is just something you have. the way you walk, the way you hold your hands, the way you sit, maybe even the way you talk. it's similar to being lady-like but not exactly. you basically just ooze breeding and refinement. that's grace.



grace is a trait, elegant is a look. and classy? classy is an action. for guys, it's being a classy competitor, a classy loser, a class act. what does that mean? that they conduct themselves well? that they carry themselves with a certain aplomb? that they know the right things to say and when to say them? something like that i suppose. classy is also about tastes to an extent. if you're above mcdonald's and denny's you might be classy -- or just stuck up. maybe more the latter.



is age a factor in finding graceful, elegant and classy people? i think so. most kids -- anyone under the age of thirty -- don't really have the experience (if that is even the right word) to pull off classy. grace is in-born so you're either hit or miss with that one. elegance you can temporarily fake. but classiness, i think, has to come hand in hand with some maturity, and we all know how long that takes to acquire.



actually, i think i'm totally mucking up the definitions for each term. i'll have to keep my eyes out for elegant, graceful and classy people before i can categorize it all. oh well, back to staring.