My new year's resolutions are mutually motivating. In about about fifteen minutes I need to be tucked into bed so I can wake up early enough to go jogging.

I've also been looking for a place to start taking dance lessons, preferably contemporary, with a friend. Looking at a place in Pasadena. I love my job, but hopefully I can learn to scale back work enough to have a life.

Jason and I went to see some apartments this weekend. We were looking for apartments either close enough to a Chinese supermarket so that at I least I won't starve, or based on Jason's criteria, close to an LA Fitness, which theoretically will ensure that we don't get fat.

Most of the apartments we saw were maybes and ehs and one too many had those weird dutch awnings as part of their interiors -- seems like those apartments were built in the same era and picked out of the same catalog. I think we saw those awning things in three different apartments.

At one apartment complex called Casa Madrid, I chatted it up in broken Mandarin with the manager who was showing us around - despite some stains in the carpet, I liked the amount of space for the price, but alas the sink and oven were lying on the floor and paint chips were scatter all around. I also think the whole apartment was leaning to one side. We were not ready to plop down a deposit for that. The guy was nice though -- told us to do some comparison shopping, haha.

Another place we saw was in the back of a house, and it was ridonkulously small - almost loft-like and probably better for a student. It was being rented out by Jason's mom's friend, so we backed out of it as honestly and tactfully as we could. I grew up sharing a room with family members in a small apartment -- that's enough for me!

I was about to chalk up the weekend as a practice run in apartment hunting when of course, that's when we found it. It was our last scheduled viewing, and I really was not expecting much from the exterior of the place. One cool thing was that I noticed some figs on the floor - there was a tree - favorite! I love fig newtons! The landlord first showed us the laundry room (2 bucks a load and a patio area for socializing with neighbors) and parking spots -- which I guess was the lead up. When we got up there, though, lo and behold -- hardwood floors, two spacious rooms, and a yellow-tiled kitchen. Sort of like the one I imagined in my head all along. Haha, my hands reached for my check book immediately. Before I knew it I had handed the guy $1100. Jason was about to walk out of there after that, with no lease signed -- he said he'd take a look at it for a few days. I was like, "Hello! I just gave him money!" though not out loud. The landlord did say, "I could tell you were getting nervous, there."

And the more I thought about it, the more nervous I got. We signed the lease, I know the guy lives in a fancy house in Sierra Madre, but we didn't get the keys because we weren't moving in until the end of the week. What if we're getting totally scammed and the apartment disappears by the end of the week? Ahhhh! It's too good to be true, so it's bound to be all fake! Am I crazy?

Anyway, after waking up in a cold sweat a few times, I think I've finally calmed down. So now we're rounding up some cardboard boxes and indexing the contents of our lives into neat little categories. I'm fantasizing about grilling watermelon slices and baking rainbow cheesecake in my new kitchen. Still a little nervous, but I think I'll just try to focus on the cheesecake baking...

Let's feed the scantron into machine and see how Obama and Clinton scored in this democratic race.

Clinton is supposed to be the candidate that gets things done, while Obama is supposed to be the great rhetorician and inspirer. During this democratic nominee race, Obama has proven himself on both things, while Clinton has failed on both.

Barack Obama has taken the opportunity of the democratic race to prove that he has the ability to get things done, as well as the ability to lead and inspire.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has used this opportunity to not only show that she can't get things done, but also that she is contemptuous of key leadership skills.

Both candidates had their own advantages and disadvantages going into the race. Obama overcame his disadvantages and capitalized on his advantages. Clinton has failed not only because of her disadvantages, but also because she couldn't seem to substantiate her much vaunted experience.

Hillary Clinton cannot keep insisting that she has meaningful experience and know-how to get things done, when all the proof she has to offer to us is a badly conceived and badly run campaign. Bitches get things done, but apparently not this one.

I'm sick of Hillary being praised for being smart, capable and experienced just because of the way she gives her speeches and what people say about her. I'm guilty of this myself. I wanted to assume the best about her, but nothing she has done in this race seems to reflect that she has used those qualities, nor that she has them in larger quantities than does Barack Obama.

I'm looking at the actions of both candidates in the democratic race, and it turns out Obama is not the one who is all talk. The fact that we have to assume that Hillary Clinton is able to get things done, without expecting much proof, is astounding to me.

I've been thinking about weddings and marriage lately. I'm sort of working on an opinion about it that I can convey to other people. The first time I really began thinking about it was when a few of my girlfriends asked me if I wanted my long-time boyfriend to propose. They asked if I wanted a ring. At first I played along with it, because it doesn't seem quite right to say "No, I don't want one. I don't want him to propose." Saying that sort means something specific--it's like saying no, I don't like my boyfriend enough to want him to do that, which is untrue.

But after kind of playing along and thinking over it a bit, I came to a realization that I sort of didn't care one way or the other. I don't wear jewelry, nor do I have any particular fascination with diamonds or rings or gems. And marriage doesn't seem like something that would intensify or solidify any feelings that I already have for someone. Weddings have always seemed like either a business-like affair or a ridiculous grown-up fairytale "playing house" kind of activity (which I don't mind, but does it always have to have such a Martha Stewart vibe to it?). The third option would be to make the institution of marriage your own. But then, that just makes me think of a scene from Xena the Warrior Princess, the particulars of which I've forgotten. Anyway, the institution is too huge to be beaten down so easily by soft lighting and made-up gobbledygook spoken next to a lake with a lady inside of it.

What I also sort of don't get is that the public contract aspect makes no sense. I think marriage was abolished when divorce was invented. I just don't see the difference between a committed relationship and a committed marriage. Well, I guess there's the matter of joint accounts and money, but there we go with the whole marriage as business transaction thing. I know that's why traditionalists argued against divorce, but I think just the fact that divorce was invented goes to show that the marriage contract is just a bunch of BS. All I can say is that marriage has the added advantage of letting the world police your love life, so that you stick to the plan, all in the effort to keep your offspring clothed, fed, and sheltered in a stable family unit. Marriage has never seemed to be about love to me, so unless I can make that connection, a connection that the rest of society seems to have no trouble making, I'm going to be forever apathetic about the whole thing.

I do however, have this fear that marriage would impart a particular identity to people. I know most people don't think marriage changes people overnight (I certainly don't), but I just feel real finicky about the fact that a small part of us as a society thinks of marriage as a shorthand for certain behaviors and philosophies about life. And not just philosophies, but also aesthetics of how it should look.

I also don't like that it's this public announcement. Why do I need to shout to the world about it? Why should anyone care? I mean, I don't mind hearing announcements about other people's weddings--it's not like a pet peeve of mine, or anything... but I mean... whatever?

I'm okay with it being an excuse to throw a big party, I guess. I'm okay with it on a general happy vibes level. But it's sort of taken so seriously, it's kind of expensive (unless you go the taco truck route...), and it's kind of an escapist unreal ritual. But I like parties, so I'm okay with it overall.

So yeah, there's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I'm sure by now my friends have long stopped trying to engage me in girl talk or in some other silly girl bonding thing, but yeah, I do sometimes think about stuff like this.

Today...

I read an essay about why Chinese is so damn hard to learn.

Worked.

Stood around under white tents watching a drug prevention drama unfold.

Read a book in my car while eating a ham cheese sandwich.

Spaced out for many hours watching Californication, which makes me giggle. "It's either a staggering work of heartbreaking genius or a piece of shit." "What the difference?"

There are a lot of eye-opening bits in this New York Times article on why poor people tend to be obese (and that's just the least of it): You Are What You Grow

Some excerpts:

"A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
...
"For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy...
...
"The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.)"

-----

Also, recently several Congress members took on the Food Stamp Challenge by restricting themselves to just $21 a week for food. They also found it difficult to buy fresh food and produce.

"The McGoverns bypassed chicken breasts and got a cut-up chicken for $7.32. They skipped the lean ground beef they usually buy for a cheaper, fattier cut.

Should they get the bag of brown rice for $2.79 or the white for $2.19? They splurged on the brown. Should they buy butter? No, they could not afford it."

-----
Also, I found a guide to shopping and eating on the cheap: The Hillbilly Housewife.

Here's a major pet peeve of mine:

I have never understood, at least taste-wise, why there is so much sugar in food. For instance, sugar is added to orange juice during processing so that it is practically as bad as drinking soda. I don't understand that because oranges already have sugar in them. Maybe this is for preservation purposes right? But some companies now have "light" orange juice which has no added sugars, but use artificial sweeteners instead. I don't get why they couldn't just leave the extra taste of sugar out! Or at least come out with a version like that for people like me. Personally, I'm not going to miss the sugar, because it tastes better with whatever sugar was already there.

Also, there is maybe a few measly brands of iced tea on the market now that has no sugar in them, like Tejave. I like Brisk Iced Tea, Arizona Green Tea, all that stuff, but sometimes it's more refreshing to drink plain tea. Sometimes, I want to buy those carbonated waters with just a little bit of fruit flavors, but the ones with no sugar in them have artificial sweeteners instead. Completely misses the point.

Sugar does not taste good in everything! Artificial sweeteners don't always help! And apparently the reason food companies add so much sugar (or high fructose corn syrup, in America) is because they think it helps their food sell better, and they are right. More people enjoy sweet food than not, and I'm probably in the minority. But that doesn't mean it should be this way.

The reason I bring all this up is because there is an interesting article in the Guardian about how sugar gets into our foods. It gives some specific reasons why companies use them -- for instance, to mask fruits and foods that are poorly produced and as a result have no flavor. What is more, the article contends that sugar is addicting. And maybe it's not dangerous like tobacco--or maybe it is, considering that obesity can have dangerous effects in the long run. The article also talks about how sugar in baby food causes people to grow up with a warped sense of how much we really need the taste of sugar. I don't mean to hate on sugar, but what I find so ignominious about this is that it is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of how businesses seem to function. Here's the article in question, if you want to read it:

Sugar Rush

Excerpt:

"For the food industry, cutting back on sugar is far tougher than dealing with salt. Sugars have so many functions, quite apart from sweetening. They add cheap bulk. They draw off moisture, prolonging shelf life. They are so valuable to the economics of the business, in fact, that far from reducing sugars, a new class of additives has been developed to disguise them. "Sweetness modifiers", which may be labelled as "flavouring", prevent the taste receptors in the mouth registering sweetness. They are recommended in trade catalogues for processed foods such as cheese, meat and salad dressings where sugars are being added at levels that "taste wrong", even to our bamboozled senses."

I'm sorry about this boring post about a really cool web service, so long story short - if you like independent and international films that are actually really really good, you should try Jaman.com.

The rest is just for my own record:

( Read more... )

I got a little lightheaded the other day thinking about how I am finally working in a field that actually interests me. Granted, I'm just starting out -- everything could turn to crap at any moment (I could go to work late one day and get fired suddenly, what about that?) and the pay is either very low or I'm not getting paid at all. At least for once I don't feel like a retarded monkey at work. I'm starting to feel like myself again.

I'd rather not announce what it is I'm doing, not really because it's hush hush. It's not like I'm making any money, but I don't want to sound stupid if it all doesn't work out. For all the excitement I have for it, I think most people will find my goals sort of foolish, maybe even regressive or stunted. It's all Jason could do not to explode sometimes, though he's very supportive. All I could say is that I have at least three different jobs right now and sometimes I can't keep track of what I'm doing. But I'm trying.

That was a pointless entry, but I didn't want to leave my previous entry up for so long.

The crowds were not too bad at the close of H&M's first Southern California weekend. All you munchkins can come back out now. It took about ten minutes to park, and about half an hour in line before I could get into Southern California's first H&M store in Pasadena. Once you get in however, you have to get in line again just to get to the upper floor. Somewhat ridiculous.

Some people really take H&M seriously. There was a lady out front who was venting her indignation to the store manager about not being allowed in immediately. The store has a 322 person capacity, so I think they are already being reasonably generous about letting people in.

The line was not too bad, surprisingly. There were people there who came from West LA and even Ventura County, so it was a nicely diverse crowd. Also, if you're into fashion conversation, this would the right crowd for you.

The clothes themselves are pretty blah. Don't get me wrong, because they are all very chic and apparently well-cut (I didn't bother trying anything on, though). Everything is very basic with a bit of trendy, runway flair. If I were to wear any of the clothes I don't think anybody would even lift an eyebrow. They are so perfectly socially acceptable, that well, it really took the fun out of shopping. To me, this whole H&M phenomena is equivalent to going gaga over reasonably priced groceries.

This store is a major improvement over almost anything around though. First, for people who need clothes for work, this place is a godsend. Up until now, I have searched vainly in Forever 21 to find cheap work-friendly clothes, while places like Banana Republic and Ann Taylor are way over budget, limited in selection, and sometimes just very dowdy. Second, it is way better than the Gap because the selection is huge and ever-changing, so it's less likely that you'll see people wearing the same thing as you (one good thing about Gap clothing, which always seems kind of block-shaped to me, is that they are virtually indestructible). And third, it really is cheap. You won't find much over $50, including sweaters, dresses, slacks, and blazers. It's about half the price of other moderately priced places that keep trying tell us they are cheap. The feeling you get is exactly the same feeling as going to ikea - you feel like you are paying exactly the right price for what you're getting, which is very rare everywhere else. Makes you wonder about the Swedes, a little.

So I'm glad we finally have an H&M around here, and I'll come back when I need some essentials. However, there really is no point in window-shopping at H&M because nothing is particularly eye-catching. I hope the frenzy dies off soon, because it's a little overblown. It's as though we have been so starved for a common sense clothing shop that this seems like an incredible miracle. It's not, but then again, it really is.