Sleep Seems A Dream Away...
Lisa Williams mentions The Rhythm Track. She seems to suggest that it was hard to hear about... Maybe I should mention it every day.#
I'm blogging at The Rhythm Track as well as here. I think it's pretty good and hopefully you will too.
Molly writes about community and helping each other out.#
So, don't get me wrong: I love Seattle. It's a great town. I've really grown affectionate of this little Northwestern city in the last few years. But one thing we don't exactly have in my social circle is an overwhelming desire to be helpful. We're all kind of doing our own thing. We've got our jobs, and our own social scenes, and our bands that we play in and, man, we're too busy to help our neighbor out. I mean, I was amazed when I moved here that when friends got new apartments, they didn't call my husband and I to come help. I come from the school that when people move, everybody goes over, helps put the boxes in someone's borrowed truck, we all move the boxes into the new place, and then everybody drinks beer and eats pizza on the floor. Or, my friends who have kids are always astonished that I'd watch their kids for free if they need, like there's something weird about getting a friend to help them out without paying them off. Maybe it was my hippy parents - I don't know. I mean, my middle name is Moon. Maybe I'm fucked up.
Katherine links to Susan Estrich on the politics of hate, and how they won't beat Bush.#
The way to defeat Bush is not to advertise how much you hate him. Hard-core ideologues who hate Bush are not going to decide this election. They'll vote for the Democrat, as they do every four years, but there aren't enough of them to elect a Democrat. You need swing voters to do that. Hatred may motivate the left to contribute money, but it is hardly an effective talking point for public consumption if you want to win elections.
[...]
The people whose votes Democrats will need to defeat George Bush don't hate him. On a personal level, they like him. They need to be convinced not to vote for him, for reasons that have to do with the war, or special interests or the economy. "Hate Bush" headlines do just the opposite.
Sean Bonner tells a commenter that he doesn't want their god blessing his USA.#
I believe your view of the world, and your ideas would guide your decision making and how you communicate to the nation. You would probably spend zero time and effort on talking about the moral fiber of our nation, or however you define morality.
I think this is a big mistake a lot of people, a lot of christian people, make. Religion and Moriality are not one in the same. Someone who is religious is not automaticallly moral, I don't need to point any further than Boston to back that up. And likewise, not being religious does not make you immoral. I also think it's important to point out that "talking about" and "doing" are two totally different things. Take a look at the big picture of what Bush has done in the past few years and you'd be hard pressed to label the collection of it all "moral."
'Churches are not havens for saints, but hospitals for the sick.'
Tyler Cowen writes about an interesting idea from Brian Cannon at the College of William and Mary about compensating professors.#
He organized a student referendum, adopted overwhelmingly this week, to raise next year's student activity fee by $5, to about $80. The extra money would be used to boost the salaries of professors who might leave because state budget cuts have frozen faculty raises.
The fees are usually used to bring bands to campus and help out the debate team and other clubs. But now, three professors, to be chosen by the provost with student input, will each receive $10,000 bonuses, to be funded by the fee increases.
This is but one example of a growing gap in salaries between private and state universities. I expect that over time, for better or worse, many state universities will in effect become privatized. They will remain under nominal state control, but their finances will rely increasingly on private sources of support.
Brendan writes about the Other Minority: women with large breasts.#
Why do people think it's okay to make fun of women with big boobs?
It is not okay. You have a right to be angry. People should not make fun of you because of your ample bosom. As a white man I know what it's like when people can make fun of you without social repercussions.
Greg Goelzhauser writes about Prof. Rob Atkinson of Florida State.#
Writing in the humanist tradition, Prof. Atkinson's work often mixes literature, religion, and history as premises for expounding life philosophies that always strike me as profoundly right. He's a popular professor at FSU, appreciated for his wit and learning. Although I haven't had the pleasure of knowing these traits in person, I'm familiar with them through his writing. Moreover, through this mode, I've been introduced to something that has been doubtless missed or ignored by most who have had him--his insight.
Quoting Atkinson:
If we cannot quite affirm, in our thankfully skeptical age, "there but for the grace of God go I," we can nevertheless acknowledge a near equivalent: if we had never been given love and friendship, we would never be able to receive them, much less return them. The capacity for caring-though encoded by organic evolution in our very genes, though cultivated by every human culture, though the ontological essence of our very being -can only be awakened and actualized in any of us if others care for us individually. Without that we, like Todd, are already lost; with that, even he might yet be saved-even we might save, if not him, then others like him.
Not only do you get out what you put in - you ONLY get out that which you put in. I'm putting everything in now.
Kaye Trammell writes about pitching your research topic.#
That is when it struck me that this is the major problem with cocktail party talk about research.
When you tell someone about your dissertation or your area of research, you are forced to find the most sensational tidbit of your research to begin the conversation. You start with that teaser: "I look at what celebrities write on their blogs" or "I'm trying to see what makes a fruit fly sexy." If the person you are talking to seems interested, then you can go into more detail without sounding like an arrogant academic snob. After the conversation get rolling, you can start to communicate the nitty gritty details & explain the societal impact of your research.
Kaye Trammell describes the key to making a Navy blog work.#
For the most part, the public is in love with the idea of life onboard a ship. When I was a junior Sailor in the public affairs office onboard the USS KENNEDY I would process the "fan mail." People send letters to "any Sailor" in hopes of hearing sea stories & finding about port calls.
It seems natural that an official Naval blog could serve this purpose. Each public affairs office on every ship in the fleet could assign blogging as a collateral duty. You would want to get a junior Sailor to blog. He would blog about being at sea, passing the Straits of Gibraltar, mail call, food on the mess decks & all those other things that we who have been underway cherish.
It's all about pictures as well... people think sailors are hot stuff.
Britt Blaser writes about whether governmental employees think that they are 'rulers' and about suspicious deaths in government.#
An interesting question is whether any government employees at any level believe they are rulers rather than mere employees.
The next question is whether We the People are willing to put up with those kind of employees.
Or should we ask such questions of people who decide, globally, who dies to advance our national interest?
Or whether the mainstream press should report such things?
The next question is whether we believe that there are people in our government who are capable of killing others to protect their political interests. Our presence in Iraq suggests the answer. The administration's willingness to withdraw hastily before the election is another answer.
Meteor Blades at the Daily Kos writes about government secrecy and freedom of public information.#
While it may seem trite to say that authoritarianism thrives in an environment of government secrecy, it's important to remember the reverse: Only by narrowly defining what is legitimate for our leaders to hide from us can we ensure that our interests as citizens are met and that we aren't being hoodwinked into bad policy, including the worst bad policy of all, unjustified warfare.
Politicians and generals, as well as crony contractors and other camp followers have every reason to keep as many of their doings secret as possible. T'was ever thus. Better for a ruler to hide documents than to explain them. Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing into the '80s, citizen pressure to pry open secret files had good success. The Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1966 and amended to make it truly effective in 1974 and subsequent years, has helped shine a great deal of light into shadowy government corners.
Bill Dennis gives advise to Libertarian, Jeff Trigg about running in elections.#
You need to haul you sorry ass over to city hall and pick up nominating petitions to run for an at-large seat on the Peoria City Council.
You will never win a seat in Congress of the Generally Assembly. You could and might very well win a seat on the city council. But if you do win, you will actually have to accomplish something. Sure, running for a seat you can't win gives you the right to sit back and kvetch. But, it's the cowards way out. Show some balls and try to actually score an election victory, for a change.
It would be a chance for a Libertarian to actually win office and put your principles into effect, rather than discuss them only on those rare occasions a journalist stoops to report on "fringe" candidates and parties.
If you don't believe you can do something you can't and if you are running in 'protest' or to be symbolic, why would expect anyone to vote for someone who doesn't really intend to serve?
Jason Marshall writes about Emotional Capital and managing employees.#
"Emotional Capital" is a sort of mental shorthand for the notion that a person will only endure so many personal slights before they become angry, hateful, and/or spiteful. This phenomenon can be seen easily enough in interpersonal relationships. When you meet someone, you generally grant them a certain amount of good-will, which they can use as they see fit. They get a certain number of opportunities to say something untoward about your haircut, your clothes, your significant other, so many opportunities to turn down an invitation to do something together, before you decide they're not a very nice person, and you cut them out of your life. If they do enough nice things for you, a few of these sins may be forgiven, but it's all about the give and take. If they only take, you stop giving.
I believe that this phenomenon also occurs in employment relationships. When the employee shows up the first day, and you don't have a machine set up for them, or you haven't found a place for them to sit, the clock starts counting. Every time you overlook them for a raise, force them to use shoddy tools to perform their duties, or promise them a reward and then don't deliver (which is in my opinion, among the worst things you can do to an employee), the clock counts down. Because of financial motivations, the fallout is much more subtle than with a normal interpersonal relationship. Usually, the employee cannot afford to be openly disgruntled, but this doesn't prevent them from sabotaging the company's productivity.
Nik Rawlinson writes about Love Actually.#
Love Actually should carry a government health warning: 'Not Suitable for Diabetics'. It's so sugary sweet, you can practically taste it, but at the same time it's a great two-hour escape from the world, worth seeing for Hugh Grant dancing through the rooms of 10 Downing Street if nothing else. It's his best role in years, but then that's not saying much.
[...]
The only trouble is, it's a Richard Curtis' Greatest Hits film, so if you didn't like Four Weddings, Bridget Jones or Notting Hill you certainly won't like this one, either.
MetaFilter links to Michael Wilson who writes about strange things geeks think about social situations.#
Within the constellation of allied hobbies and subcultures collectively known as geekdom, one finds many social groups bent under a crushing burden of dysfunction, social drama, and general interpersonal wack-ness. It is my opinion that many of these never-ending crises are sparked off by an assortment of pernicious social fallacies -- ideas about human interaction which spur their holders to do terrible and stupid things to themselves and to each other.
Social fallacies are particularly insidious because they tend to be exaggerated versions of notions that are themselves entirely reasonable and unobjectionable. It's difficult to debunk the pathological fallacy without seeming to argue against its reasonable form; therefore, once it establishes itself, a social fallacy is extremely difficult to dislodge. It's my hope that drawing attention to some of them may be a step in the right direction.
Lawrence Lessig writes about Declan putting words in his mouth and then fighting them to the death.#
In classic Declan style, a storm rages on Declan's list about a quote of mine that ran in the Economist. The article, Fighting the worms of mass destruction was about ways to deal with internet bads — spam, viruses, worms, oh my! — and it ranged across many viewpoints to describe a typically Economist view about how to deal with these bads.
Declan read the article and concluded from it that "Lessig wants to preserve freedom by ending anonymity" and so of course, his list, and my inbox, raged with the outrage at such a thought.
But what no one seems to have taken time to do is actually look at the article. For Declan's statement has no relation to anything the article actually says. Read on if you'd like the proof, but the bottom line yet again: Declan is a brilliant writer, and excellent pundit. But he is more a bomb thrower than a careful reader. His readers should keep this in mind.
N.H. cyber cops nab 5 seeking teen tryst.#
David Weinberger links to Samantha Shapiro writes writes about Howard Dean for NY Times magazine.#
I love Samantha Shapiro's NY Times magazine article on the Dean phenomenon. It gets a lot of the enthusiasm — and the lovely absurdity enthusiasm engenders — right. For example:
There are now 900 unofficial Dean groups. Some of the activities undertaken on behalf of Dean qualify as recognizable politics: people hand out fliers at farmer's markets or attend local Democratic Party meetings. Others take steps of their own invention: they cover their pajamas with stickers that say ''Howard Dean Has a Posse'' and wear them to an art opening, or they organize a squadron to do ''Yoga for Dean.'' They compose original songs in honor of Dean. (About two dozen people have done that; another man wrote a set of 23 limericks.) They marry each other wearing Dean paraphernalia. Overweight supporters create Web pages documenting, in daily dispatches, their efforts to lose 100 pounds in time for Dean's election. ... I saw a middle-aged man at a garden party in New Hampshire preface a question to Dean by saying he was associated with Howards for Howard. Dean nodded, as if the man had said he was with the AARP.
And this is crucial:
...they say the point is to give people something to believe in, and to connect those people to one another. The point is to get them out of their houses and bring them together at barbecues, rallies and voting booths. ... Dean supporters do not drive 200 miles through 10 inches of snow -- as John Crabtree, 39, and Craig Fleming, 41, did to attend the November Dean meet-up in Fargo, N.D. -- to see a political candidate or a representative of his staff. They drive that far to see each other.
Slashdot links to an interview with Arthur C. Clarke about the Information age.#
An interesting thing about information...
I sometimes wonder how we spent leisure time before satellite television and Internet came along….and then I realise that I have spent more than half of my life in the 'dark ages'! Satellite television, Internet, mobile phones, email — all these are technological responses to a deep-rooted human desire to communicate and access information. Having achieved unprecedented progress in the field of communications during the past half century, we now have to pause to think of social, cultural and intellectual implications of what we have created.
Arthur says something that I said a few days ago inspired by something that Harold Bloom said:
The Information Age offers much to mankind, and I would like to think that we will rise to the challenges it presents. But it is vital to remember that information — in the sense of raw data — is not knowledge; that knowledge is not wisdom; and that wisdom is not foresight. But information is the first essential step to all of these.
Faré writes about learning and truth and how they will lead to the wider realization that Government is Black Magic.#
Well, one way to summarize it would have been to recall this scientific saying (originally by whom?): "I don't know who discovered water, but it sure as hell wasn't a fish." In other words, your conditioning makes some things so obvious, evident, implicit, that you can't conceptualize their real nature. And this applies to people's conditioning as slaves of the State as well as to anything else. Indeed, subjection was deemed as "natural" by most slaves of all time, except for those who had been recently subjected; but if these new recruits didn't adapt they would quickly die. Thus, you mustn't imagine slaves of esclavagist societies (or women of patriarchal societies) as unhappy and disquieted, but as resigned and subservient.
[...]
Ideally, education is a series of epiphanies; but epiphanies are deeply personal, and grow only by planting the right seed into the right soil; by telling the right joke at the right moment for each student. I enjoyed undergraduate mathematics so much, back when I was in classes préparatories, because I was ready for it, whereas most other pupils of similar classes I know think it was a torture.
In conclusion, Arthur Schopenhauer once said: "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed. In the second, it is opposed. In the third, it is regarded as self-evident." Well, every superstition goes through the same three stages in reverse order: First, it is regarded as self-evident. Then, it is opposed. Finally, it is ridiculed. Hence, the revolution will be won, not, as the authoritarians would claim, when the last political boss is hanged with the bowels of the last black magic propagandist, but, as the libertarians know, when the ever-repeated attempts to lure people into subservience are systematically greeted with laughter and drowned in ridicule.
Amy has a party: "I obviously, yet again, was entirely not drunk enough for this party or maybe I am just too old."#
Chris Bertram writes about Michael Otsuka's Libertarianism Without Inequality, particularly Chapter 5 which is about political volunteerism and legitimate authority.#
3. It does lead on, though, to a worry about legitimate authority and existing states. Since, in real life, the exit conditions Otsuka advocates as conditions for the inferral of tacit consent don't obtain, we might want to draw the conclusion from his discussion that no actual state has legitimate authority over its citizens. But if we take what Otsuka says about the authority of the supranational adjudicating bodies on board, and we also believe both that some co-ordinating function by states and laws is necessary and that implementing the conditions for inferring consent is impractical, then it looks like we are entitled to override political voluntarism and ascribe authority to many actual states as a matter of practical necessity. I doubt, though, that Otsuka would endorse such a conclusion.
4. Finally, I found myself wondering whether this Lockean approach to authority isn't just misguided. On a different view of things — perhaps one influenced by Joseph Raz — my being subject to authority doesn't rest on my consent in the sense of some agreement to be bound by laws or directives, but rather in the more tentative and conditional thought that I'm likely better to comply with the reasons that apply to me, to co-ordinate my actions with others, and so on, if I acknowledge the claims of laws to pre-empt my own evaluation of what I have reason to do. Whether a person is actually subject to an authority, on this view, depends on an evaluation of whether, as a matter of fact, they will generally act better by acknowledging that authority or not. That gives us a sort of acknowledgment of authority that is much weaker that states have wanted or that the law has claimed for itself — but it may be the best we can get
Lisa Williams writes blog monogamy - why people think they should do it and why they really shouldn't.#
Being human is not off-topic.
Blogs give you an opportunity to challenge this limited idea of what is important and to say, The rest of my life is important too. I am not a brain in a jar that emits 700 word screeds. I have a family and I have interests and I have favorite foods and a dog, and I am going to place these on the same web page as my essay about Kierkegaard and my instructions for how to crack open the case of my X Box, because that is a more truthful and honest representation of my life, and because I trust and respect other people to appreciate me as a person and not as a narrow pipe spewing bits on a narrow subject that has been narrowed for the reader's convenience but not neccessarily for the reader's good; for who would not prefer a human connection to a robotic one? (Well, okay, I admit that I sometimes go to the No Human Interaction Gas Station on purpose). It is unneccessary to narrow yourself down to a particular topic or word-length (short or long) on your blog -- and if you do, you're just bringing the old-media limitations to the new media for no reason.
I agree, my blog is my voice and sometimes I talk about one thing and at other times I talk about another. I do think that, as Lisa mentions, there are technical limitations that make it essential to have multiple blogs these days, but those be short lived.
Michael Feldman writes about blog content being King and making sure your visitors are comfortable when viewing your blog.#
It could be argued that if you want to get the full impact of another's site, just go there, see it in its full and authentic glory, and then click back to where you started. This works and is part of what makes cruising around the 'sphere so much fun. But the initial impact and sweeping success of RSS and aggregators shows there is a real desire to grab disparate information streams and synthesize something new from them. It can be news, finding unobvious connections. It can be art, utilizing harmonic echoes and cognitive dissonance. It can be literature, in ways we are just beginning to understand.
Yet another of the revolutionary ideas embodied in Channel Z is its incorporation of multiple content access and display modes. This can be seen on Scripting News in a brand new but inconspicuous pull down menu near the top of the home page. Its current entries are: nightly email, recent cats, all cats, weblog.com and on this day in history. Now, nightly email is just a way to sign up for Scripting News by email, and weblog.com is the main blog hosting site for Userland, but the other three are distinct ways of looking at the content Dave has posted to his site over the years.
Richard writes about blog-replying versus commenting as a means to keep the conversation decentralized.#
Robert Scoble: "Personally, I really rather people get their own weblogs and point to me. I'll point back and continue the conversation. That way the whole thing is decentralized".
Another vote for not having comments on a weblog. Scoble actually seems to like the discussions he has on his site (and I don't blame him, there have been some pretty good conversations in his comments), but he points back when people disagree with him or of he disagrees on the interpretation people have of what he says. I've been pointing back to people lately (1, 2, 3), but I suspect that's unusual. And it's not consistent—there are people who point to me but whom I feel no need to point back to—but consistency is overrated anyway. I will say that the best way to get me to read your site, though, is to link to me. That may be why referrer spam is sometimes effective. I'll see a site in my referer log and wonder "what's this site all about?" only to find it's for something I don't need, don't want, or can't afford anyway. But I still bothered to check it out.
He also mentions the Rule of Win Win.
The problem with that is if you comment about something written on a weblog post on your own weblog, and you link to it (a good practice, so that your readers can judge for themselves), then aren't you doing that person a favour? If you agree or disagree with what they say, you increase their hits by linking to them, and isn't blogging partly about getting more attention? Some people do it because they love it, sure, but it's naïve to think that the number of people who do it for the attention is few.
I don't feel that it is a problem to do as many people favours as I can. If I read something that made me think and want to reply I can't think of any good reason not to encourage other people to think about the same thing. I'm opposed to intellectual sloth and ignoring dissent and disagreement.
MovableBlog comments on my reasons for thinking Channel Z is great.#
Jay thinks Channel Z is powerful for 3 reasons Brief response to the reasons: 1) MT can do multiple categories at once, just not hierarchically. 2) Can't respond to that, an outliner for MT would be cool (it either exists or is coming soon, but not, granted, from Six Apart). 3) It's easy to assign categories in MT. If even does it with—gasp!—a left-click! (Many "features" of Channel Z seem just to be copied from already existing tools. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Well, Andrew Grumet is doing some of the work to make sure the MT can be a backend for the Channel Z front end.
Also, the idea that Channel Z is not completely new is true. Each feature has been tried before in various different systems but no system has taken them all together and put them into such an easy to use, powerful package. We really need to make a screen-capture movie showing the demo working.
The other important thing about Channel Z is not that it can categorize, but why it supposes categorization is a good thing. The taxonomy idea assumes that it will be useful and desirable to compose taxonomies and get a bigger sense of what a particular weblog or weblog post is about. Currently category systems don't really do anything, they are there but that's about it. Channel Z turns them into a something to talk about.
Findlay Dunachie writes about Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest.#
However, as Sterelny says, these disagreements are not adequate to explain the antagonism and in Chapter 12 (p. 123) he gets down to the more philosophical ones. "Dawkins is an old-fashioned science worshipper" he states (and lines up with him), while "Gould's take on the status of science is much more ambiguous. ... In Gould's view, science is irrelevant to moral claims. Science and religion are concerned with independant domains."
It should be said that Gould is as much an atheist as Dawkins, but whereas Dawkins sees religions as erroneous explanations of the world with usually unfortunate consequences, "Gould … interprets religion as a system of moral belief" and seems to think that science is in danger of being contaminated by its social milieu. Sterelny does not quite make the point that Gould is scared that science will lead him where he doesn't want to go, but this is certainly implied by his statement, "Gould hates sociobiology."
Evan Kirchhoff links to an interview with Quentin Tarantino about Kill Bill, Vol 1.#
F&V: Looking back, do you feel the huge success of Pulp Fiction was a double-edged sword?
Look, I'm really fortunate. Pulp Fiction did so well I don't have to work for the rest of my life. But that's interesting, as on the one hand I could say, "I wish Pulp Fiction had done worse so I'd have to work more." You'd be forced to, and even if you had to take a studio job, it'd be interesting to see how you'd tackle it and twist it and make it yours. I have to tell you, there are definitely directors out there where their stuff I don't like is the stuff they care about, and the films that are really fun are the ones they were forced to take and tame and make work for them. But I don't look at it that way for me at all. I want every movie I do to mean everything to me! When I did Reservoir Dogs I would have died for it, to get a shot off, alright? If I was asking someone to risk life and limb, I'd have laid down next to them, so if the car runs over the cameraman it's going to run over me too. And it was all good as we're being passionate artists. And I feel that way about Kill Bill. And I want to feel that way about the last film I do. I don't want to make a film to pay for my pool or the fuckin' house in Barbados. I don't want to do that and work for a living. When I'm there I want everyone to know that I'm meant to be there, man, and it's the most important thing in my life.
Dave and I talked to other day about how when you are passionate about something and are doing it for you it becomes the best it can be and often great for other people as well. He said that he wrote Frontier because he wanted to create the programming environment he wanted to program in for the rest of his programming life. That's passion like Kill Bill is for Tarantino.
catseye at Kuro5hin.org writes about lying and Christmas.#
What is it about the holidays that inspires deception? I am, of course, speaking of the millions of parents that lie to their children about Santa Claus.
I tried very very hard not to be one of those parents. Up until the time our child was 3, we never mentioned Santa Claus around Christmas time, and he was really too young to pay much attention anyway. Last year, however, he started asking so we told him, in terms that a 3 year old could understand, that Santa Claus was a myth and that there were legends all over the world about a man that gave toys to children on Christmas (or whatever the appropriate cultural holiday was) and that now that's represented by Santa Claus. We explained that lots of men dress up as Santa Claus to help celebrate Christmas and have fun, like dressing up on Halloween. We also explained that presents did not come from Santa, but from other people in the family and if he saw a tag that said "From Santa" is was just someone having fun and getting into the holiday spirit. At three, he seemed alright with that and thought it was a lot of fun.
[...]
I really do not understand how parents (or anyone else for that matter) can feel that it's right to systematically lie to their children for years, assuming they'll just figure it all out later when they get older. Santa Claus... the Easter Bunny... the Tooth Fairy... why is it alright to lie to children about these things but not others? How can parents expect their children to trust them once they're caught in the lie? I was about 6 or 7 when I stopped believing in Santa Claus and his ilk, and kept pestering my mother until she finally admitted that they were make-believe. Then I asked her what else she was lying to me about. Oddly enough, our relationship went downhill from there.
I've been trying to explain how I felt this way to my friends for a long time and haven't been able to spell it out so succinctly. I will definitely be referring to this in future conversations.
Michael Feldman links to lookism.#
Two ex-sales managers say Abercrombie & Fitch were after a certain "look" for their sales force, and the less a salesperson had of this look, the less they worked.
" I was sick of getting my schedule back every week with lines through names," says Mandrick. "I can't look the people that work for me, that want to be there, in the eye and...lie to them and say 'Oh, we don't have hours,' when, really, it's because they weren't pretty enough."
Krystal writes about living a confusing life.#
I also feel like I've kind of lost my sense of myself. If that makes any sense. I have no idea what I want, where I'm going, or what I like anymore. I don't know what kind of a person I am. All that I know is that things have drastically changed in my life. Whether this is good or not I have yet to learn. I have so much to learn. I know I'm naive. I am only 19. I relate to sappy indie rock songs.