Irene Terrorizes The East Coast Leaving A Massive Trail Of Butthurt In Her Wake

Image Credit:Ron Garan at NASA

I like storms. They are fun and energetic. Sometimes Nature just wants to remind of that it's there. Sometimes nature wants to smack us in the face and say, "Don't be such jerks." And sometimes Nature is just really angry and figures we obviously haven't been getting the message.

People freak out about storms. I guess this response is warranted at times. But most of the time it's just crazy people being crazy. Thunderstorms and rain doesn't mean to stock up your bunker for a week. I think in situations like this, though, some caution is warranted. But mostly just in an "always be prepared" sort of way.

That's really all you can do.

Stressing out is never going to be beneficial, ever. And in the event there is an emergency, or severe kick you in the ass weather, you'd really want to have your wits about you.

I wouldn't evacuate though. Maybe if there were going to be an onslaught of tornadoes or a giant category 5 hurricane waltzing its way through the neighborhood picking on us like a little kid frying ants with a magnifying glass, maybe then I'd leave. But I'd rather sit back and watch what happens during a storm. As long as people aren't seriously hurt or killed and damage isn't extensive, I'm happy.

Every once in a while though, I think we need reminders to keep us on our toes. So, thanks Irene. You probably won't hear that much, but thanks.

From me and the rest of us.

Response: Why You Were Probably Expecting Too Much From Taylor Swift, Andrea Lampros

I read this article today entitled, "Parent Regrets: Why I Wish We Never Went to See Taylor Swift" and the arguments made in the article bother me. I'll go through the post little by little, but the author basically says the following: "Wah, wah, wah, I'm butthurt that Taylor Swift isn't the perfect symbol for feminists and her concerts are too flashy."

Good thing she didn't go to this concert; I imagine her son and husband would be scarred for life.

That said, here we go.

A note to moms: If you're thinking about taking your daughters to see Taylor Swift as their first concert, and maybe your first show since the Indigo Girls in 1996, please don't.

Here's your problem, Andrea. You haven't been to a concert in fifteen years. Things are different now. Concerts need to gross hundreds of millions of dollars now. Taylor Swift doesn't actually make money by selling millions of records (believe it or not). She makes money from endorsements and concert ticket sales. (Unless Tay Tay has a 360 deal, which is a possibility).

If you're thinking you'll see a sweet Southern singer/songwriter on stage with her guitar, a few pretty dresses, and simplistic but heartfelt lyrics, you won't.

If you want to see that, go to the House of Blues. You could probably see someone like Adele there. She's probably more up your alley, although not country or southern.

The overwhelming message of the Swift concert to the sea of girls ages 5 to 55: be pretty, be conventional, be quiet (well, it's OK to scream for me), and definitely put on some lipstick.

Bitch much? Considering anything I've ever seen of Taylor swift, she's hardly "conventional." She wears cute dresses instead of lingerie on stage. You ought to be happy you didn't bring your family to a Britney Spears concert where she dry humps the stage for ninety minutes.

When my 10-year-old daughter learned to belt out "A Place in this World" on her guitar a few months ago, I began to feel some affection for Swift. Country music up until the quasi-country, anti-Bush Dixie Chicks had never appealed to me, but Swift's commitment to writing her own songs and to making her own way in the music business was compelling. And she even maintained some dignity after being publicly berated by an obnoxious Kanye West.

Agreed. Taylor Swift is probably the closest I'd get to country music. She seems to handle herself with dignity and poise too, which is, well, unconventional. Plus she writes her songs, like you said.

On a recent trip to Washington, DC, my husband and I splurged on Swift tickets for ourselves and kids -- an 8-year-old boy and two girls, ages 10 and 12. We thought the young singer would be especially inspirational to our daughters who love her music and are avid musicians.

That's sweet of you. Taking your three children to a concert would be quite the outlay of cash for not just tickets, but food and souvenirs as well. And you suckered your husband into tagging along as well. You sneaky devil, you. However, I'm not sure that your reason of it "being inspirational" to your daughters was the best use of your money. But I'll give you a pass—you haven't been to a concert in fifteen years.

We joined the ebullient, predominantly female concertgoers in floral H&M jumpers and cowboy boots streaming into DC's Verizon Center. Many arrived holding their daughters' hands before the first two opening bands to stand in long lines for Swift t-shirts and merchandise and take photos next to the towering Swift cutouts in the lobby.

I hope people paying that much money for tickets at least saw the opening acts. Oftentimes, that's the best part of a concert. Also, those opening acts might have also served as an inspiration for your daughters. Or your son or even your husband for that matter.

The scene was sweet until you got to the CoverGirl stands (Swift is a CoverGirl) where girls of all ages sat on stools before stage mirrors to receive makeovers -- perhaps selecting the lip and eye colors that Taylor wears.

Cross promotion, baby. I'm sure that's in a contract somewhere. Maybe CoverGirl pays part of the concert expenses, or it's a part of her endorsement, either way, is this really important? Do you never wear makeup? If you do, why do you?

The message -- you're not really beautiful until you cake your tiny, pre-pubescent face with makeup -- wasn't the empowering one I had envisioned. (I later watched a five year old with ruby red lipstick pouting because the color had come off in her cotton candy. Welcome to the hardscrabble world, baby.)

This is actually complete, utter bullshit. What little girl doesn't like playing with makeup? For a child, makeup is a fun, tactile, experiment in dress up. This isn't even relegated to those without a Y chromosome; little boys enjoy make up too. This has nothing to do with empowering or belittling children. It doesn't tell them, "you're only as beautiful as the makeup you cake on your face." And if it does, you're probably not doing a very good job as their mother.

OK, I thought, that's advertising -- not Swift's fault? Actually the pre-tweens in makeup set the scene for the CoverGirl meets Disney extravaganza.

At least you seem to be giving Miss Swift the benefit of the doubt, here. Not sure what the latter half means, but I'm not to keen on the over-Disneyfication of our youth, either.

After her opening "Sparks Fly," that featured an inordinate amount of hair flipping, Swift stood on the stage for what felt like a long and awkward few minutes, taking in the screams of her girl fans, eyes wide open with feigned amazement. Glancing to the far reaches of the arena where fans paid upwards of $130 per ticket (the going rate on Craigslist), she gazed left. She gazed right. She beamed. She stood still and put her hands to her heart.

This is what she does. I've not been to a concert, but any performance I've seen, she does this. I think it's nice actually. She seems earnest in her appreciation of her fans. There aren't many concerts where the artist attempts to make a connection with the entire audience, as opposed to the front few rows. Complaining about ticket prices won't get you anywhere either. That's not something she controls; talk to LiveNation/Ticketmaster about that one. I could write entire blog posts about that, so don't get me started.

Throughout the concert, even the best songs -- "Speak Now" and "Fifteen" -- were convoluted by an elaborate stage show and a relentless multimedia set with projected live images of Swift inside a gigantic framed mirror. Hearts and words with curly-cue lettering flashed on the screens. (The most ironic image projected was of a girl's quaint bulletin board with a tacked up ticket stub for a concert that cost $10.)

I think next time you need to do a little more research, Andrea. You went to a concert at a venue that seats 20,000 and expected an intimate style show. At a place like the Verizon center where you are paying "upwards of $130" a ticket, that's not what you're going to get. You're going to get a show. There will be explosions, lights, lasers, projections, and —yes— even a little hair flipping. You can see concerts for $10, too, though I understand the irony.

Dancers swirled up and down a staircase in the middle of the set and around Swift like something out of Glee, but not as entertaining. The music and lyrics (which do speak to girls) were secondary to the sparkle and fireworks -- literally -- of the stage.

Glee is not entertaining. Glee is just a high production value karaoke run by a couple douchebags who whine anytime a band won't let them use their songs. The show is unoriginal, uninspiring, and boring. Not to mention it's just a vehicle to offload said karaoke onto iTunes. And yes there will be sparkles and fireworks at concerts now. Especially ones that take place in large venues such as the Verizon Center.

Fleshing out the princess theme, Swift even drifted just above the crowd in a floating balcony -- her eyes seemingly meeting the eyes of each concertgoer. My husband was sure she was singing just to him.

Not sure if this is a complaint or not, but perhaps you should have enjoyed the show rather than critiquing every.single.aspect of the show. I'm all for critiquing but you could have tried to enjoy the concert at least a little.

My 10-year-old girl stood rapt on her chair, taking in everything. Like most of the girls (except the 13 year old making out with her boyfriend in the row in front of me) she loudly sang along with each song.

Yeah, you're going to see people making out at concerts. Sometimes same-sex couples if that sort of thing bothers you, or if you wish to protect your children from it (though, I hope not). If kids making out bothers you, I advise you to avoid any festivals or any concert with a "lawn" section. You, your husband, and your children will be exposed to far worse. You'll thank me for it.

I didn't expect Taylor Swift to make any radical, edgy, feminist remarks, but I also didn't expect Gidget meets the Little Mermaid. What an incredible platform for Swift to say something as simple as "Girls rock!" or something even crazier like "Love yourselves!"

I'm sorry, but saying "Girls rock!" or "Love yourselves!" is as lame as Glee. Honestly, this is your job. Do you want to rely on pop stars to get your children to like and appreciate themselves? Sure, maybe it wouldn't hurt for children to receive positive messages from many sources, but—really?— "Girls Rock?" I think I saw that on a backpack. And a t-shirt. And a Trapper Keeper. It was lame every single time.

Instead, she finished each song by looking wide-eyed into the crowd and noting how "amazing" it was that so many peopled came to the show and how "beautiful" everyone looked (incredible how she could see people with all those lights in her eyes).

Are you kidding me? You want her to say "Love yourselves" but telling the crowd how beautiful they look is too chock-full-o-bullshit to you? Maybe she couldn't see the crowd; maybe she could. I have no way of knowing, but complaining that she said you're all beautiful makes you look like you're just trying to find something to complain about. And if people came to see me perform night after night, I'd still find it amazing. I'd find it amazing that anyone would spend that kind of money just to see me, no matter how talented or famous I was. To spend that kind of money is amazing and she understands that. Don't you find it amazing that 20,000 people wanted to watch her sing? Consider most of the spectators were probably so far away that they needed to look at the Jumbotron just to see her.

But people aren't paying money to see her, or even watch her perform. People are paying that money for the experience. Good and bad. Parking at a venue like that? Terrible and practically robbery. Who wants to pay that much for a ticket to a show anyway, much less for five tickets? Souvenirs are crappy and overpriced and the food is equally terrible and expensive. But this is what concerts are. This is the, dare I say, charm of a big concert. This is also why some people prefer small venues. Good luck seeing U2 at one of those, though.

Maybe my family got the vacuous experience we deserved. That would be true if it were just a benignly bad concert experience. The problem is that it was an insidious concert experience that emphasized everything but the artist's voice -- the flowing fairy dresses and saccharine monologues covering up Swift's real power. Covering up girl power.

How was the concert insidious? In what way were you or your family harmed? Maybe this was in the bad part of DC? You went to a venue that seats 20,000 what did you expect if not a flashy, explosion-filled performance. Oh right. You expected girl power.

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe this could still inspire your daughter? Maybe she will look at this and realize that women can play music or create art that tens of thousands of people would be more than happy to converge and experience together. That girls can do whatever they want. They can be wildly successful and play giant arenas like U2 or play small hole-in-the-wall pubs for 100 people. That one can be equally successful playing both places is a lesson you could teach your daughters.

The best moments were rare authentic ones with Swift's top lip a wee bit sweaty, hair oh-so-slightly disheveled, strumming "Mean" on a banjo and later "Fearless" on a ukulele. That's what we had come to see, but it was fleeting.

 That's your token mellow song most every large concert has. Sets like these allow the performer to catch their breath in addition to making a more "direct" appeal to the crowd. This is what you wanted the entire concert to be. This is not how large, high-production concerts are produced. Most people would not be happy paying $135-$500 for this type of concert—especially given that most concertgoers could barely see her on stage with just her banjo.

This isn't her fault, nor is it yours. She puts on a certain concert and you were expecting something different. Should you have maybe done a little research? Yeah, probably. Were your expectations for a super positive, "you go, girl" type experience a little out of reach? Yeah, probably. Not because you were unreasonable, though, mostly just because that's not what the other 19,995 people there wanted to hear. The girl positive messages are in her lyrics and (probably) in interviews she gives.

As the house lights came on, my older daughter, age 12 and a half, gave me a deflated, knowing look. My younger daughter was tired but managed to quietly gush: "I loved it." My son loved his glow stick.

 It sounds like your older children know your expectations, and knew you were disappointed. I don't know if this is good or bad. On one hand, you've gotten your beliefs across, which is good. But on the other hand, they probably wished they could revel in the joy that they just saw a sweet concert with their mom instead of having to worry about your disappointment in the show. In all, you wanted to take your daughter to see a concert, to feel inspired and have fun. Did you do that? Did your children enjoy themselves? That's all that should matter.

I hope more discerning parents than us might think twice about Swift tickets. Better to have to explain the explicit sexuality of someone like Gaga and her "Born this Way" message than to have to undo the message of female powerlessness -- especially from an artist who is so fervently emulated by girls. If you have tickets already, perhaps you can prep your music lover. It's sort of like a game of I Spy: look hard and look deeply for Swift's voice. It's there, just buried in the fluff.

Speak Now tour? More like Speak softly and smile a lot.

I don't normally think of Lady GaGa as "explicitly sexual." Sure her style is a bit avant garde but I don't usually see her shoving dildos in her vagina. I think she just has fun with fashion and has a certain aesthetic she likes (Think: Alexander McQueen). I'd say pop stars like Rhianna or Britney are more sexual than GaGa.

As for "her 'Born This Way' message," what are you talking about? I really hope you're not saying this is a message you'd rather they not know or have to "explain" away. Considering all the complaints you made  about wanting your children exposed to more powerful, positive messages "Born This Way" should be the Holy Grail of positive messages for them to hear.

There's nothing wrong with loving who you are"
She said, "'Cause he made you perfect, babe"

"So hold your head up girl and you'll go far,
Listen to me when I say"

I'm beautiful in my way
'Cause God makes no mistakes
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

Don't hide yourself in regret
Just love yourself and you're set
I'm on the right track, baby
I was born this way

I can think of no more empowering a message than accepting who you are and embracing yourself—realizing that you are beautiful the way you were made. For all her quirks and fancy, Lady Gaga really is a good role model for a child. But so is Taylor Swift. If you are going to let a concert spoil her message, you might not be winning at that little game called Life.

Boobies

It's no secret that I like Scandinavia, so I often find myself reading about or looking at things that are somewhat Scandinavian. I've read a bit about Stieg Larsson's books and some of the controversy surrounding them—namely that his partner feels cheated by his estate for getting nothing. So she held the last book hostage. But now that they are turning the books, turned into Swedish movies, into American movies, there's more controvery. And it's Boobs. Breasts. Nipples. Tits. Whatever word you choose. I'll usually read comments on articles to see what people think, until I realize that humans are pretty stupid, and oftentimes I'll refute them to myself because, well, that's what I do, I guess. But I thought this might be a good topic to discuss and since it's just me here, I'll use the comments to foment a sort of pseudo-discussion. Oh yeah. But first, the picture in all it's tortured, nippled glory:

So there it is.

I've not actually read the books, nor do I know what they're about, so I won't go into that here, but the movie and books are pretty dark from what I understand. Very rated-R, which is something not many studios are willing to do: put $100 million into a rated-R movie. So this movie poster seems to fit my limited understanding of the movie and the books. But lets look at some comments, shall we?

Smoking hot? She’s flat as a board. They should have got someone with boobs.

Of course this comment shows up, I'm just surprised it wasn't first (it was second). The problem is she does have boobs. They're right there, under Daniel Craig's arm. Thankfully, several people responded with helpful comments like these:

She is supposed to be flat, it is in the book.

which makes it helpful for people like me who didn't read the book to know that the studio didn't insist on cartoonish or fake ones. I also learned that Rooney Mara's breasts are apparently much larger than those of the Swedish girl in the original movies.

This comment in particular caught my attention though.

I don’t have a problem with nudity. But I do have a problem with GRATUITOUS nudity, just I have a problem with gratuitous violence. Lisbeth Salander is fighting back from being a victim. To have her posed in such a vulnerable state (and yes, when you’re nude, you’re vulnerable, whether you’re “strong” or not) really negates the power that the Lisbeth character has earned. She is supposed to be the protector, not Blomquist. I doubt that Stieg Larsson would have approved this campaign.

I fail to understand how this is gratuitous nudity. Of course, gratuitous means something different to each individual person, but this is hardly X-rated.

But I think this person is wrong. She says being nude makes you vulnerable. This is true. And yes, Lisbeth (apparently) is fighting back. But this person is flat out wrong. This movie poster negates nothing. This movie poster does not make the character weak, nor does it portray her as such. Nothing about this poster takes away any of the power gained because, yes being nude or posing nude makes one vulnerable.. But only to the extent that they let it do so.

Instead of letting this act drain the character, Rooney Mara has embraced it and that takes a certain amount of strength, doesn't it? How many people would willingly put their half-naked bodies on display for millions of people to see and critique?

Even more importantly, I wonder how many women this picture could inspire to be happy with themselves. As some commenters pointed out, Rooney Mara has small breasts. So what? So do lots of ladies. You don't need to have giant silicone-enhanced breasts to display them. And our society would probably be better off if a  lot more people realized that.

I think this comment sums up, more or less, how I feel on the subject:

A lot of the comments here perfectly illustrate why most of the world regard American as a culturally bankrupt nation. It’s not scandalous or dirty or shocking, it’s just a topless woman. I swear, the moral majority has screwed this country up beyond repair.

Going To A Wedding Tomorrow

I'm hoping that I have fun. It should be fun. I figure any wedding with pizza as their catering certainly seems like my kind of wedding. I'll know a few people, and I'll be taking photos, too, so that should keep me busy too. Best of all, I'm Krissy's date, so that assures me I'll have fun. The wedding is in Litchfield, at the same place we went for Iceland Day.

Specifics On My Free And Open Arts Studio

Earlier today, Krissy asked me about my post from a week ago regarding an open arts studio. Her question was simple, but perplexed me nonetheless. She asked, (I'm paraphrasing) "So what do you want to do? Is this hypothetical or something you want to do?" I was taken aback because anytime she mentions reading my blog, I blush, but also because I though, "well, isn't it obvious?" But maybe it isn't. I assured her that I want to do it for reals, maybe not so seriously considering she walked in on me in my "Hipster week" look, which makes me look ridiculous.

In a future post, I'll write about fundraising ideas and other details, but this post will be more about general classes. Obviously this is merely some quick brainstorming so this will by no means be complete or final. So there's that.

I will attempt to do this in something resembling a coherent and organized manner.

There are probably an infinite manner of mediums for art. Really if something exists, you can create something with it, or on it. This is really quite fascinating that, in essence, arts is made with anything and everything. There are always barriers to entry for anything, but with art, the barrier can often be quite simple to overcome.

Golf can be fun, but if you're no good at it, the people you're playing with might not tolerate your having fun at shooting a fifteen on every hole. Then there's the cost of clubs and greens fees. Baseball, too, isn't much fun when you never, ever hit the ball. True story, in my career in little kids baseball I got two hits. Both in the same game. I'm also fairly certain it's the only two times I swung the bat. Suffice to say, I was very deliberate in everything I did whilst playing baseball.

But art can be made on cardboard or the blacktop using rocks or chalk. Art can last forever (at least, centuries) or be disposable. Art can be physically, mentally, and emotionally draining or shallow. Art can be fancy pants or accessible. In reality, everything that surrounds us is art. Sometimes art is random other times it is calculated. Art does not discriminate (though, the art world can be very discriminating); a blind person can create.

That said, I'm going to try and break down various ideas into more general sections or categories.

Textiles

The first such category of classes will be textiles. Textiles surround us everywhere, and one can improvise with them pretty easily.

Stuffies

My first idea is stuffies. Who doesn't love stuffed animals? Who doesn't have someone in their life who would appreciate stuffed animals? Stuffed animals can be created in numerous ways, in varying complexities, for people of any age. Yes, I don't believe stuffed animals are solely for children. I have at least three of them within five feet of me.

Stuffies can be made very simply in a few minutes by sewing some felt together, or planned out over months leaving you with a whale that takes up an entire room. You can make them out of felt or fabric. You can knit or crochet them. You can make literally anything out of anything resembling a fabric. In fact, I bet you could make them out of other items, but I'm not sure how most people would feel about a cardboard stuffy.



Knitting & Crochet

Being in Woodbury and near Southbury, which are probably the undisputed champions of the world in elderly per capita, crocheting and knitting seem like obvious areas for classes. I especially like that young people are taking these crafts that are traditionally seen as very elderly and injecting them with a youthfulness that might not exist without a marketplace like Etsy.

Knitting and crochet are also limited only by one's imagination. You can knit or crochet almost anything. Want a blanket? How about an Ottoman? Stuffies? Yup, they too can be made with yarn. A fun offshoot of knitting and crocheting would be the process in creating yarn. I know there are quite a few yarn makers nearby to partner with. Any time I've met one, they loved talking about their animals and the yarn they make from their furs.

Basketry

I don't know anything about basketry, but I think it's intriguing. I saw a guy in Hawaii making them out of, I think, palm fronds. This guy clearly just sat there all day making hats and baskets to make a living.

Weaving

This, too, I know nothing about. Weaving is one of those things that seems exceptionally simple, but I imagine is far more complex. You can create some beautiful things with weaving though. I imagine that weaving is a very practical craft as well. You can make rugs, for example. Rugs are expensive. Making your own rugs and rugs for others seems a whole lot better than heading to Target and buying one of their generic rugs. You could make your own instead of blowing a few hundred bucks at Anthropologie, too. But like I said, I don't know anything about weaving.

Making Clothes

Maybe "Seamstressing" (is that a word?) would be a better title? Either way, making clothes intrigues me. I know Krissy would do it if she could sew. I always appreciate when people wear clothes that they make themselves. Of course, I think Jemma is the only person I've been able to say this about, since she made the dress she wore to mine and Krissy's wedding. I think this could be fun, though.

Sewing

I think sewing is an extension of the previous section. Or maybe the previous section is really more of a subsection of sewing. Either way, there's promise in teaching sewing. Everybody should have a very basic working knowledge of sewing (Think: refastening buttons, etc). Then there is hand sewing, which when done right adds an entirely different look to products/items. Sewing machines can do all kinds of fancy shmancy things, too.

Needlepoint

I don't personally care much for needlepoint. It's neat in it's own way, I just don't think it's my style. Maybe this is because most needlepoint is the ballet dancer or wolf crap you see at craft stores. Also, my grandma does it, so there's that. But as far as I understand it, needlepoint is basically pixel art with yarn. In that respect, I feel like I could like pixel art, so long as the endproduct wasn't so...cliche.

Quilting

I think more people should quilt. The irony, of course, is that I've never made a quilt, but I know I will. Think of all the fun family projects that could be made and turned into a quilt. If Krissy and I had children, I'm pretty sure we'd be saving little bits and bobs of art here and there for quilting. I'm a big fan of taking artwork, especially that of children, and turning it into something more display-worthy. Quilts seem like a perfect extension of that ideal.

Printmaking

Block Prints

Linoleum, wood, metal cuts. There's a certain magic in making a block print; cutting or carving them takes a bit of time, but it's very relaxing. Sometimes carving them can be a bit confusing if you're unfamiliar with positive and negative space, or working in reverse, but the worst that can happen is going to be a flaw that adds to the final print anyway.

Screen Printing

If I had the space and money, I'd have a screen printing machine. I'd crank out stuff like you couldn't believe. But that's not exactly why you're here. Screen printing is beautiful because it's automated to a point, but still very "hand made" in a sense. Each color is applied by hand, one at a time creating generally simple (in color) prints. You can print on probably anything, but for many people paper and fabric would be clear winners. I think screen printing would be a great way to raise funds for supplies, salaries, and equipment, too. I'd really like to have a class where parents take their children's drawings and turn them into t-shirts, ideally t-shirts manufactured in the USA.

Engraving & Etching

I don't know tons about these two, but I'm especially intrigues by etchings. I imagine engravings being involved and difficult to make, whereas I bet there are many ways to create etchings—even with common household items. I'm partial to ideas that people will be able to recreate at their home without needing all manner of specialized equipment. I'd really like to offer classes centering around lithographs and stencils, too. Other options include mezzotint, aquatint, drypoint, and photo-lithography.

Photography

Camera: Basics & Intermediate

Classes focusing on how to use camera and their many, many peripheral devices. What various functions are for and what everything on your camera and in the menus means. May also teach photography basics such as composition, understanding expose, when to listen to your camera and, more importantly, when not to.

Portraiture

Classes focusing on photographing living beings—namely people and animals. Certainly classes centering on photographing children, and allowing children to photograph will be offered too. Discuss various styles of portraiture from classic posed portraits to a more documentary style. Classes on using natural light and studio light would also be a given, which leads me to...

Lighting

Light is amazing and integral to all photographs. Classes on this topic would discuss how to understand and work with light in a natural, intuitive way. Topics would cover how to use the light to your advantage in any situation and also how to use strobes when you're looking for something different.

Landscapes

Landscape classes would be no fun inside, so these classes would head out into the natural beauty of Connecticut for some sweet hands-on training. I can think of plenty of places both near and far that a landscape shooter would love. Could be interesting to organize trips to places that are, ahem, a bit more exotic, too.

Darkroom & Film

Want to develop your own black and white film with household materials? Want to know how to set up your own darkroom in your home? Do you want to make prints from your negatives, or scan them into your computer for touch ups and printing? Really anything pertaining to film could be covered here.

Book Arts

Bookbinding: Beginner Through Advanced

I love making books! Making books by hand takes some time, but is really very relaxing. There are many types of bindings and ways to create books and all will be covered here. Hardcover, softcover, perfect binding, stab bindings, and longstitch are just the beginning. Book repair and conservation could also be covered under this section.

Altered Books

Classes here would focus of using books to create new pieces of art through, you guessed it, alteration. While I'm a bit undecided on whether I like seeing books destroyed, I have to admit that the end result can be pretty unique. In a good way. Altered books can take a flat, almost two dimensional object and turn that into something very sculptural and dynamic. Where bookbinding is the physical act of creating a book, altered books are those books turned into something new. Art books could probably fall under the purview of altered books as well.

Making and Using Book Cloth

Book cloth is great for keeping your finished book together since it resists tears far better than paper, but you're often limited to solid colors at your local store. This class would show various ways to turn any fabric into book cloth and various ways to use said bookcloth.

How To Make Books Out Of Anything

Books really can be made out of anything. My first was made out of a USPS mailing box and some dried acrylic paint. I think this class would be more child-friendly since the class is inherently more down to earth and less erudite. I have some craft foamy stuff in a drawer that would make an excellent children's book cover.

Making Boxes

Making boxes is sort of an extension of making hardcover books. Both use the same materials, just in slightly different ways. Making your own boxes, say for jewelry, photos, or books is far easier than you'd think. What are the odds you'll find a box the exact size you'll need anyway? Make it yourself and you can be certain it's perfect. Boxes are a great way to present books, gifts, or portfolios, too.

In Conclusion...

Well, I think that's a good start. Obviously this is just a very general outline of avenues worth exploring. Not knowing most of these arts and crafts myself, I'd need to get in touch with an awful lot of people who share in the same idea I have of a wonderful, free, and open art studio and would be willing to teach to their respective expertise. I know that I've left out plenty of worthy arts and crafts (painting; drawing) worth teaching too, so this list will be pretty heavily amended over time; but like I said, it's a start.

More to come!

On Being Told How To Use A Product You've "Bought"

I don't own a smartphone. But I know more or less how they work, and the way in which they work (at least in a fundamental sense for the latter point). I don't think it's any secret that the various telecoms run their businesses in some pretty shady ways, and I think they feel like they have to. Like most other large scale, global conglomerates, they've failed to innovate when they needed to the most.

One of the ways people use their smartphones is as a mobile hotspot. This is called tethering, which basically uses your phone's data plan as a means to connect to the internet on another device, such as a laptop or a tablet. The name comes from "tethering" your laptop or tablet to your smartphone.

Verizon and AT&T are essentially a duopoly; sure there's T-Mobile, but AT&T wants to buy T-Mobile (which is another post entirely). But when a company sells you a product and a service and then forces you to use it in only the way they intend (which can change at any time, taking away a necessary or beloved feature) because they realize they can make additional profits from said feature.

Tethering is one such example. There are apps that allow you to tether on Apple iPhones and Android phones. AT&T and Verizon don't allow these applications to run. In the past, Apple even took apps out of the app store because they'd take away potential profit (Think: Shype).

To me this seems bizarre. AT&T and Verizon are offering a service to a customer. In this case, they are selling us phone service. This is not new; they've been selling us phone service for a very long time. What bothers me is that this is an unprecedented smack in the face to customers.

Imagine back when you had a landline if the phone company blocked you from using your modem to connect to the internet because you didn't use them as your portal or ISP. Or, imagine having to use their modem to even connect.

Or imagine they tried to disable the use of modems to connect to the internet entirely, demanding you use their DSL (or cable) internet instead.

This is basically the same thing. Back then, this kind of crap wouldn't be tolerated. Sometimes, regulation is a good thing.

Except of course when regulations are written by the corporations we're supposed to be protected from by regulations. (Think: Making a mixed CD, or backing up a movie you purchased licensed).

What The Fuck, New York City

So I'm reading this article about the new World Trade Center. The mammoth monument to celebrate America's ability to bounce back. Obviously, we're not that good at bouncing back since, you know, the building isn't built yet and it's been nearly ten years. I'm intrigued by it because it's architecture, and architecture fascinates me. I don't particularly care that it's a monument, nor do I feel like a monument means people will "remember" that bad shit went down that day. Really, it just reminds me of bureaucracy. And architecture. I prefer to think of the positive aspects-- you know, the architecture.

But of course, that is nearly impossible when reading about the defense of the not-yet-built milestone that is a giant penis the length equal to this nation's incorporation.

If you want to go visit  this monument when it opens, this is what you have to contend with:

670 police officers devoted solely to the defense of the structure. Think of how many police officers your town or city has compared to this one building.

400 closed circuit cameras monitored by even more NYPD officers and software designed to detect things like unattended bags and other threats.

Any vehicle will be screened before entering the site. Tour buses, deliveries, cars, trucks-- they are all screened. I imagine if you walked up in a wheel barrow or a jet ski they'd screen them too. You won't be able to escape screening by walking in either, because walk-ins will be screened as well. I imagine this will be similar to the joyous occasion that is boarding an airplane. By the way, this screening happens before getting into the building.

Police plan to use a vehicle security center to screen tour buses, trucks and cars before they enter the site and park or makes deliveries using an underground roadway. Pedestrian traffic, including visitors to the museum, also will be screened before they can enter the central plaza.

Ticketed visitors to the memorial will be funneled into a security screening room with airport-style metal detectors and X-ray machines. Employees and frequent visitors will be pre-screened so they can bypass regular checkpoints.

Sounds like potential terrorists just need to try and get a job at the future world trade center if they really, really want to be persistent.

This is all mostly fine to me. I understand why they do this kind of crap. I personally find it to be a waste of resources and pointless, but I get why they do it. Throwing money at a problem makes people feel good, and what they're doing has a very "we're taking it seriously" feel to it. But how far is too far? Is there a point where you lose something with extra security?

Once upon a time, people dressed up to go on a plane. You basically wore your Sunday Best. Now, that'd be asinine because you'd have so much to worry about. Take off your shoes, your belt, empty your pockets, so on and so forth. At this point, flip flops and sweats are the best option for flying, in my opinion. (For convenience purposes only, of course).

But then there's this nugget:

Final touches are also being put on another ambitious piece of the plan: Screening every car, truck and other vehicle for radioactive materials – evidence of a possible dirty bomb – and other potential threats as they enter lower Manhattan. To achieve that, police are installing cameras, radiation detectors and license-plate readers at the 16 bridges and four tunnels going in and out of Manhattan.

Not only is the NYPD attempting to "secure" the building that will become the world trade center, nor just the surrounding area, but they are also attempting to secure essentially the entire island of Manhattan from anything resembling a threat.

So what happens when a camera or detector detects something? I'd hate to have the FBI busting down my door because some sensor detected something it didn't like. Generally the response to these types of things is to act first and ask questions later.

I feel bad for the New Yorkers whose toll costs are about to double to help pay for this surreptitious screening. (Approximately $2 billion out of $33 billion over a 10-year plan)

More selfishly, I'm disappointed that it will now cost even more to visit my brother; I may not be able to put a price on it, but it's worth $15 to New York.