That's right, I went to a party. Shocking, I know. And there's another party this weekend! The Heritage Party 2: These colors don't run. Anyway it was a birthday party for Ms. M. My first thought (and one of my last of the night) when I entered her apartment was "this chick has some nice stuff". Her apartment will make any thrifter jealous. And just when I was ogling all her dinnerware I spied the best thing of all, which was a picture of the young lass with a smiling (of course) Luis of Luis'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One of the best things I've ever seen. Other than that things are pretty blurry. There was a game going on in the kitchen with a world map where some geography dorks would turn their back to the map and someone would yell out a country and they'd have to find it. I didn't do too well at this game even though I was given my favorite country, Uzbekistan. It's right under Kasakhstan, so I should have been able to get it. G-bomb was sporting a very flattering makeover courtesy of Midtown Monthly (check the new issue on november 1st). I blurred my way home around midnight and woke up crying from the headache pain. Red wine: my worst enemy and best friend.
Other than that I took a thrifting trip to Stockton this weekend and totally scored! Thrifting there is so fun and you see about as many thrift stores as there are Starbucks in midtown. And Mexican restaurants everywhere! And Vietnamese and Korean ones, too. And it's not as far as you think.
p.s.-has anyone seen shortbus? is it worth going to?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(546)
-
▼
October
(30)
- yay-DVS
- I got crabs at my house last night.
- Lynette "dont' call me Squeaky" Fromme
- fine, I'll just link it
- This video rules!
- Tip from the Armeniac
- No one has commented so...
- TGIF
- Yes, I am bored today
- Nilsson
- sausage
- musselman in hot water
- something cool from J. Greenberg
- Boneriffic
- party report
- The Kabinet is back!
- city council watch
- boooring sorry
- spaghetti factory article
- totally wired
- cameltoe contest hopes dashed again
- Dan and Pedro
- leave the theater alone!
- Tower district in trouble
- lahmajoon!
- R.I.P. Tower
- food post
- that's supposed to be a vibe-o-meter
- chez panisse article
- I'm baaaaack!
-
▼
October
(30)
18 comments:
As one of those "geography dorks" ,as you so ruefully tell it, I can tell you the kitchen party was where it was fuckin' at. Maybe Heckasac is just a litle jealous cause it took said blogger upwards of 30 seconds to find Uzbekistan ,while we "geography dorks"could've found any of the Stans within 7-8 seconds easy! You looked at Western Asia/The Levant first! C'mon everybody knows the Stans are in Central and Southern Asia. Gawd!
Uzbekistan. Pfft. Poser. Everyone knows the best 'stan, and the spookiest, is Turkmenistan.
EVERYONE I'VE SEEN HAS WALKED OUT OF SHORTBUS WITH A HUGE SMILE ON THEIR FACE...INCLUDING JOHN PRINE(YES I HAVE JOHN PRINE'S FUCKING ICE CREAM) I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET BECAUSE I NEEDED TO SEE ME SOME WOMEN ON THE VERGE, WHICH IS TOTALLY "BRIL"!!!
SORRY ABOUT THIS CAP-LOCK BUT I CAN'T GET IT OFF
HOMZEE
P.S. HAVE YOU BEEN THRIFTIN' IN WOODLAND LATELY...ITS SCORE CITY!!!
Really? Woodland is back to being good? DeeAnn and I went some years back after hearing the ranting (from Good Donna) and didn't find nuttin' - we did salvage the trip by wandering into the smelly guy's comic/vintage toy shop (now long gone) and buying a ton of great stuff after initially almost leaving from the stench, but the thrift stores kinda blew then. Guess I have to make another Wland trip... That was quite awhile ago that we last went. *Quite* awhile ago.
I think that everywhere is back to being good. The thrifting Renaissance has returned. Well, if you like stuff from the 70's. 60's and 50's stuff is never coming back (except in the boutique section of the thrift store, which everybody hates).
The 50's can stay gone!! It seems to me that the records at thrift stores have been getting better again. The baby boomers are getting old so there's more Joni Mitchell, less Mitch Miller.
I'd like to ask everyone who likes thrifting to please, when you're in the book section, take all the copies of Snow Falling On Cedars, Memoirs Of A Geisha, We Were The Mulvaneys, & Divine Secrets Of The Ya Ya Sisterhood & put them all next to each other. Thank you.
-miller
Becky, I want you to know my basketball team lost our championship game at Arco on Sunday. I'm not saying it's your fault for not coming, per se, but you did promise me a sign with a slogan that rhymes with my name. I guess what I'm saying is, can I still have the sign?
Jana.
It was supposed to have your number, like number 13-she's a bad mamma-jana. You probably would have taken one look at that and magically been able to dunk the ball. Sorry I screwed everything up.
I don't know if Shortbus is good, but from what I've heard, it might be. It just bothers me when people make a huge deal about breakthroughs like this. If we're hoping for the day when nobody bats an eye when there's sex in movies, then maybe you should start behaving that way now.
I know very little about this movie other than about the content that it's famous for. The content doesn't bother me, it's the premise. I'm not supposing that Shortbus must have this premise, so I'm not criticizing Shortbus, because I haven't seen it.
However, if you make a movie for no other reason than to challenge people's ideas about things like on-screen sex, then you've already failed at that very goal. You don't set out to make a movie with no other purpose than to suppose what the audience is likely or not likely to think of it. I think some people might see Shortbus as a movie with that exact premise, and I've heard one person say that they didn't want to go see it based on that. Now, I think it's unfair for them to make that assumption without seeing the movie, but I imagine that there are also people who assume the same thing about it, but who are of the opinion that that premise alone automatically makes the movie great, and that's what bothers me.
I think in order for a movie that contains such a challenge to be successful, is that it has to have something specifically good about it. Everybody likes to be horny and have sex, but that's not a good enough reason to film people having sex. Or I don't know, maybe it is, but we already have pornography for that. And I'm not condemning pornography (definately not), and I've also seen pornographic movies that were supposed to be artistic and pornographic at the same time. Usually, though, you end up with either boring porn, or bad art, or both. Porn doesn't need to be art. It's porn.
Now, all that said, I'm still not harping on Shortbus, because for one, I haven't seen it, and secondly, I'm actually eager to see it, because I'm hopeful that it will be pretty good. I just don't get the hypocrasy of people who rave about this movie and how good it is, but when I try to take my junk out in public, then I'm suddenly stigmatized. Phillestines.
- Geography Dork, 2nd Runner Up
California Geography---Montezuma Hills???anyone??anyone???First answer gets seaweed(nori)flavored doritos..
Thriftin` in japan can be awesome especially when folks put a ton` of punk 45` in 40 yen pile(the local snob record store closed it`s 2nd floor)..Also scored a sst Sonic Youth Lp for 100 yen.Some stores are called junk stores noticable because of unwanted things pile`d high outside(japan laws are no existent with garbage).lookin` for a yukata???or some geta`s....take care jay
Shortbus is pretty much a regularly plotted movie with sex integrated into it. Some of the people (not all) have sexual problems, so their lives revolve around sex more than people who don't have those problems, but there is no gratuitous sex in the movie (unlike plenty of other pg-13 or R rated movies). One of the characters is a sex worker, but her real problem is with relationships, not sex. I don't know exactly what I'm trying to say except that the point of the movie wasn't people really having sex. In fact, they could have easily simulated the sex for the most part cuz there's no penetration close-ups (which is why I asked for my money back only to have Charles remind me I got in free)
From what I had heard, Beckler, I thought that was the case. It sounds like a good flick. I'm not against them filming real sex, even if it wasn't necessary, unless it made the actors uncomfortable for any reason. Of course you can't really regulate that kind of thing, but it'd be nice to know that it didn't happen (people being asked to have real sex, and doing it anyway because they felt pressued to for the sake of some artistic principle that really isn't worth it), and if that didn't happen, and they really are having sex, then hey man...good for them!
Correct spelling: Philistines. This just bolsters my case for "bonerific".
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Inablity to spell one word does not preclude ability to spell any other word.
If I had argued that one should spell Philistines another way than it is, that would be entirely different. I didn't, I just failed to reference the correct spelling before spelling it on a blog post. Even if you've never done that before in your entire life, which I doubt, but could possibly be persuaded to beleive, it does not, however, qualify you as an an authority on how to spell amalgamated words, even if you profess to have coined them.
I could similarly argue that Filliztineriphik should be a proper spelling of the combination of "Philistine" and "Terrific" because I made it up and printed it first.
You've heard from the rest, make way for the best!
I was somehow excluded from the geography geek contest. Or was it that you were playing for SECOND place? Zing.
Anyway, Jay, there are 2 Montezumas in CA, but I didn't find Montezuma Hills. One is south of New Melones Reservoir in Tuolumne county and one is about a mile north of Broad Slough in the delta which borders antioch on the north. I think you mean the second one because it looks hard to get to and when you look it up on google maps (38.09056 -121.87167) there is a grayed out box just to the north. Hmm? You can see the area on the satellite photo though.
Please send my Seaweed doritos c/o Dave Smith.
gbomb
Spelling one word wrong doesn't preclude your ability to spell any other word, just your ability to spell MY word. Hello, it was IN PRINT, folks! Show me an earlier printed version of that word and I'll give up my authority. The fact that it was mistakenly hyphenated in print (thank you very much, Jackson Griff-ith!) only underlines the necessity for me to step in and set the record straight. Thus: bonerific.
Mission accomplished.
Imagine Dan delivering this speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier, in a flight suit, with a banner that says "bonerific-mission accomplished". I think you see what I'm getting at-pride goeth before the fall.
Okay, this is getting absurd, but I'll keep going with it. You didn't make up a word. You were (as far as anybody has bothered to check) the first to amalgamate two words. You did not make up the words "boner" or "teriffic".
You also did not create the precident of sticking the tail end of the word "teriffic" at the end of another word, and usually when I do see it in print, it is hyphenated. I've seen print of examples like this for at least twenty years. To cite an example; In "The Late Night With David Letterman Book of Top Ten Lists", which was first pressed in 1990, a good 16 years ago, the word "Cher-riffic" is used. It's not pertaining to a boner, but it's the same amalgamation; noun+teriffic.
I will even go so far as to argue that you don't have a real claim for having made up a new word, unless you insist that your "bonerific" is an entirely different word, but it coincidentally has a remarkably similar spelling to boner-rific and happens to mean the exact same thing. You can have that one, if you want it, but it sure looks like you "created" that word following an established de facto template, and you kinda didn't follow the rules of that template.
Post a Comment