So we are back from NYC. Wow was that an expensive trip! But now I have some truly cool clothes to share with you all. This week’s outfit is something I have ALWAYS wanted. A real Goth girl shirt and petticoat. I wore this outfit to work, plus my Atsuro Tayama cost to hide the cleavage, and got tons of compliments. Our department manager said when she isn’t a manager anymore, which she predicted as being soon, she would start dressing like me. See everyone, there is nothing wrong with the way I dress, as long as you don’t want to be management. Anyhow, I just feel so romantic and giggly when I wear something like this. Sexy too. Of course the giggly goes right against being a Goth and this is why I never owned one before. I think I will wear it with my leather corset at some point, though obviously not to work. Patrick and I will have to find a really weird party to go to!
Besides all the clothes, NYC was great. I mean we mostly shopped and ate and baked cookies and slept, but it was great. A lot of people were really nice. Some sales people were as I expected, German. I baked cookies for our wonderful friend Janet, who kindly slept on the couch and gave us her bed for the weekend. As I said in my last coffee talk, we have been so busy we haven’t really gotten any time for us lately. We didn’t press ourselves in NYC to really do anything so it was very relaxing. When I think about it, I guess there weren’t many tourists. It was plenty busy for me though. I’d live there. Janet had a wonderful flat that she shares with 2 others. Both her roommates, Jan and Lisa, were very cool. Jan’s girlfriend was really cool too. We had sushi twice, yum. Bacon, egg and cheese biscuits! The simple things in life! We went to a store across from the WTC and was actually more moved by the cool graveyard across the street. There were so many contractor trailers surrounding the site, you can’t actually see anything. One of the buildings across the street was missing a bunch of its windows and stuff, but it all looked like construction. Though I have seen pictures, I think because I had never really seen the WTC in person, I wasn’t very moved. If the facade were still there I think it would have meant more. Lots of cops, the city was decently clean. Didn’t any rats caring off infants in the subway. The subway cars look like flying bricks only silver. Patrick was impressed. I think I would really like to go again and do some real site-seeing. It would probably help to stay at a hotel to do that though. Don’t know why, but staying at Janet’s made it less touristy. Oh, almost forgot, Patrick bought himself some Vivienne Westwood pants. They look fabulous! They are so cool. I think maybe I will put a picture of him in them on my web site they are so cool. His is such a label whore. Cute though. Fabulous ass. I got a Vivienne Westwood from a store that sells consignment for, essentially models. Everything is sized pretty small and very high-end. Think Prada, Christian Dior, etc. All at reasonable for who it is prices. I was satisfied. I have changed my perfume to ‘Boudoir’ by Vivienne Westwood as well.
On a building, thought it was a Fed building but now I can’t remember, was the following inscription, ‘Credit – man’s confidence in man’ – Daniel Webster, Senate Speech 1834. I thought that was really cool. Of course it is man’s confidence in man with a little thrown in for risk.
At a class this week I heard the following idea…’you can’t argue with how someone feels…only the reason they feel that way’. I thought that was cool. It’s true and an important distinction, I think. My feelings, or yours or theirs, are right for them. One has every right to feel they way they want. No one can tell you how you should feel because they have not had he cumulative life experiences that you have, leading you to feel the way you do. But let’s say you feel angry about the way someone has said something. It is entirely reasonable for that person to work to change the how you view what they said. If you are angry because you though what they said was callous, they can explain what they meant and how it wasn’t intended to be callous, and then maybe you will change the way you feel because it is something different now. Maybe not. I am not explaining this well. I like the idea though.
Did you know the Lou Reed and Laurie Anderson are ‘partners’. Have been for many years. I was surprised to read that, though not surprised by it. They seem perfect for each other.
Where does the word ‘Urban’ come from. Yes, I could look it up on the Webster’s web site but, I’d like to know what you all think. It has such a negative connotation to it these days. Doesn’t seem fair. I’ll look it up and get back to you if I don’t hear from anyone.
I saw a flier for a very amusing thing while in NYC. It is a ‘Philosophy’ Competition. It is like a Robot, or Bridge or Band competition only it is for thinking. You can find our more about it by going to http://www.think-off.org . I’d love to go and watch that. I’d also love to go to a debate between those who think art is a way of saying something and those that think one creates art for art’s sake. Just the tit for tat examples would be incredibly entertaining. I love watching people.
I just finished reading ‘The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay’ by Michael Chabon. He did ‘The Wonder Boys’. It was really good, except the ending. It was too ‘there is going to be a sequel’. It all worked out too well too. Sure no one was completely happy and everyone is worried about whether they will make it in the future, but it was all neat and tidy. Everyone ended up with who and what they should. They interesting this was the talk about the Golem and golems. I know about The Golem from visiting Praha but in the book they use it as an adjective almost. That really confused me. Merriam-Webster says:
Main Entry: go·lem –
Etymology: Yiddish goylem, from Hebrew gOlem shapeless mass
Date: 1897
1 : an artificial human being in Hebrew folklore endowed with life
2 : something or someone resembling a golem: as a : AUTOMATON b : BLOCKHEAD
Can anyone explain to me how it is used in regular speech? What does it mean exactly?
Here are some other words I have come across too:
in·vec·tive – 1. Pronunciation: in-‘vek-tiv.
Function: adjective.
Etymology: Middle English invectif, from Middle French, from Latin invectivus, from invectus, past participle of invehere.
Date: 15th century
: of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse
invective – 2
Function: noun.
Date: 1523.
1 : an abusive expression or speech
2 : insulting or abusive language : VITUPERATION synonym see ABUSE
an·i·mad·ver·sion
Pronunciation: “a-n&-“mad-‘v&r-zh&n, -m&d-, -‘v&r-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin animadversion-, animadversio, from animadvertere
Date: 1599
1 : a critical and usually censorious remark — often used with on
2 : adverse criticism