Coffee with A&F’s CEO

The recently resurrected quotes by Abercrombie’s CEO are merely the spoken Unspokens about the fashion industry. If you’re upset about the marketing strategy, then you ought to be upset at the whole industry because A&F is not an isolated incident. A&F will thrive despite the hateful comments because sex appeal wins and we are her oblivious teammates. If you want to boycott A&F, transform your mind instead–it is the only way you will ever truly protest the blatant hate: Desist from shallow thoughts and comments, rise above and rethink “sex appeal”, and begin to believe that EVERY person is beautiful.

As a heterosexual Christian male that has bought into the sex appeal industry, I especially make these appeals to my brothers for the sake of our sisters and women globally. I think we can appreciate beauty, but it quickly becomes sex appeal and lust.

“because beauty it fleets and charm: it deceives. but a real woman for the lord is the one i can keep.” – proverbs 31:30 as paraphrased by Gowe in his track “Coffee Tables” as above (0:50)

love to you

Taken by my friend, Amanda, probably after we finished Biochemistry lecture for the day. I’m sitting in front of the St. Joan of Arc chapel at Marquette University.

I keep a diary. That’s no secret. Nearly every single entry in my diary (which dates back to January 1, 2005) ends with a salutation addressed to myself: “Love to you,”.

I first saw that salutation on Jason Mraz’s (now defunct) blog. I thought it was very clever. In the first place, it’s not the typical salutation like, “Sincerely,” or, “Love,”. Secondly, it reminds me that love is something that is sent which necessitates that it is an active action. I cannot love you if I do not do anything. Further, I cannot love you if my impetus to love does not come from within. I must first love you in abstract before I can love you in some material or tangible manner.

I also anticipate that love is something we never grow tired thinking about (says the single man). The other day I was driving home after work thinking about a patient that had come in for a pre-surgery evaluation. As the doctor and the patient began to discuss the surgery, the dramatic phrase came up: “Money is not an issue. In this situation, we have to do it.”

In my car, I began to think about that phrase and the relationship of cost and security. Generally, we pay a premium for goods we desire. Then I thought about how I and others buck the trend by taking pleasure in cheap goods. An example is the marriage proposal with a plastic ring purchased from a 25 cent vending machine, or eating McDonald’s on date night instead of a steak at a steakhouse. Then I thought about expressing love through the purchase of material goods. I think I show my little siblings my love for them when I buy them movies that we can watch together. Those movies aren’t expensive which indicates that spending a lot of money isn’t proportional to the amount of love expressed.

OK, good. Seal the deal. More money doesn’t mean more love. But for some reason that idea lingers. For some reason we seem to romanticize expense. If I may flaunt my (7+ years of) German, we romanticize the Teuer (expensive) and not the Billig (cheap). Is there merit to this idea? Let me suggest yes and use Christ as my example.

Christ paid an incredible expense to demonstrate his love for us. At the risk of being brief, let me put it clearly: Christ loved me and died for me even though I didn’t love him (Romans 5:8). What greater expense is there than giving up our lives for those that we love? Isn’t this what parents do for their children? Isn’t this what the brothers in Tae Guk Gi demonstrated? We rarely give up ourselves to the extent that Christ did for us, but we do give away parts of ourselves in different ways when we love each other.

So the next time you end a letter remember that your “Love,” actually means “Love to you,”. And when you think about “Love to you,”, remember that you are loving by sending some part of you.

And if you are a Christian, the next time you say that you love Jesus, pray that you mean it to the extent that Christ meant it. “Christ, I love you,” seeks the company of those desiring to pay the greatest expense.

And remember that a single man once told you to always think about (Christ’s) love–because that’s all single people ever think about.

Weather

Oscar Wilde is quoted as commenting, “Conversation about the weather is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”

At my local church, we often hear our pastor and prayers start with a remark about the weather. If it’s pleasant outside, we’ll thank God for appeasing to our desires (sarcasm). If it’s rainy, we’ll make a cute comment about how we wish it were warmer, yet nonetheless are thankful for the nourishment of the rain. If it’s snowy outside–well, I’m not sure what we say about snow.

My point is that conversation about the weather is so superficial. As Wilde says, it is the last refuge of the imaginative. It takes no skill or thought to make a comment about the weather. I always think it as a conversation killer because what else can you say after a, “It’s such a nice day outside”? Only, “Yes. It is,” because if you express a contrary opinion, you are breaking rule one of small talk: Avoid conflict and/or confrontation.

By the time someone begins to utter something the weather, I am thinking two things: 1) Golly, I’m going to have work extra hard to resuscitate this conversation. 2) I hate small talk, and now I’m pigeon-holed into talking about outdoor activities or missing my chance to engage in outdoor activities–way to put a choke hold on small talk–UGH I hate small talk.

Weather-talk is superficial and shallow. I will rarely evoke that subject unless I have every intention to elaborate and pursue an imaginative conversation about the weather. Perhaps I’ll talk about a particular cloud–like the cumulonimbus. Now that’s a tasty conversation.

#IntrovertOnConversation

Expletive

I promised a friend that my next blog would be on this subject. This isn’t to say that I’ve gated myself from blogging otherwise; I just thought you would like to know. In fact, I haven’t really had the impetus to write about anything–personal, thoughtful, or otherwise.

But now I am ready to write about profanities–once again. I will introduce two ideas that I find to be very persuading, and then I will provide one counter-argument. I have no idea what I will conclude. This is total stream-of-consciousness-esque.

Idea 1) My friend suggested that, within Christian circles, we have become legalistic in banishing profane and “unwholesome talk” from our lips, that we have become shallow with legalism. What sorts of Pharisees have we become, demanding that our youthful ears nary receive bombs of the f- and s- variations? Are we basing our righteousness or practice of it on those terms? As my friend suggested, we ought to be questioning whether our language is “wholly glorifying to God” instead of questioning, “Can I use this word?” (See this link for part of our Twitter exchange) Consider and reference Romans 14:17 which reads, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit…”.

It is certainly an interesting thought to entertain because it really does feel like our parents tell us not to say bad words because… they’re just bad. We’ve adopted the anti-Nike sentiment: Just Don’t Do It. What of the logic behind that command? Why don’t we do it? Where my friend would point you back to his question about wholly glorifying God, I might take this chance to segue into the cultural formation of expletives and profanities.

I don’t know much about the etymology of these words. There is internet-lore that FUCK stood for “Fornication Under King’s Consent” which I think is complete hogwash (or bullshit). Ass is an archaic name (used in a number of Bible translations) that identified the Equus africanus asinus, more commonly known as the ass–I mean, donkey. I don’t know man. These words have a history, and I think we’d be remiss in banishing these words without a stronger knowledge of their origins. Which leads to…

Idea 2) If we knew the etymology of these profanities, we would be better informed on how to use them. This is to say that my second idea is that these words have a proper use. Certainly, we’ve appropriated some of (if not all, I suppose) these words for more demeaning intentions, but I’m persuaded that we might be able to return them to their glory days. I imagine a day in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. could have added a well placed “fucking” in any of his righteously upset speeches and texts because that’s what the word was supposed to do.

Plainly, my second idea might be imaged as such: In order to describe the size of an elephant, a child might claim that the elephant is “really big”, whereas I might claim that the elephant is “outrageous in stature”. In order to describe the defecation of a mammalian species, a child might name the feces “poopoo”, whereas I might call it “shit”. Thus, words are specific to the author’s desire and intentions, which is to suggest that these profanities had a more innocent origin than their current usage suggests.

Also related to my Idea 2 is that I once suggested to a friend that these words have power and are powerful tools for the rhetorician. I now understand his argument when he pointed out that profanities only have this power (in my estimation) because of their cultural taboo. His maxim: Remove the taboo, remove the power. This is yet a curious idea to pursue within my second idea. Suppose we return to a proper usage of expletives. Would they retain rhetorical power and emphasis, or would they become just like any other word?

Counter-Argument) Profanities simply have acquired socially negative connotations and it would be moot to desire change. As Christians, perhaps we are allowed to use them (much to the chagrin of my friend, we are still stuck in the mode of “Can I use this word?”), but they ultimately serve for a bad witness.

I don’t know how I feel about this counter-argument. I mean, to me, the argument boils down to “Be holy by not swearing.” And then that reverts back to my friend’s idea about shallow legalism. Additionally, I might take the liberty in assuming that God is in the business of redemption and reconciliation, and argue that as workers of God’s Kingdom part of our duty (however minuscule or “trivial”) is to redeem the meaning of these profanities (Idea 2). Yet, as formidable of an intellectual and theoretical foundation as I have set out here, I still feel weird saying profanities. Why is that?

Conclusion?

I guess my stream-of-consciousness ends here. Our ultimate goal as Christians is to glorify God in whatever we do (1 Corinthians 10:23-33), and the rub isn’t necessarily in whether we can use expletives, but rather in how we use them.

Civilly Discontent

I saw this on my Tumblr dashboard and I had to make a few comments. Let me start off by saying I have no idea who to vote for in this upcoming election. I don’t identify myself with either (or any) political party, though I might often tell others that I have liberal tendencies with a moderate bend of conservatism. Of course, all of that hog wash is just elitist rhetoric to provide myself with another label. #hashtag

In all seriousness, I continue to be astounded at the measure of politics in America. As I watched the Olympics, I was guaranteed to see a commercial vilifying Obama as a means to winning my vote for a conservative Wisconsin Senator. Moreover, these candidates were attacking each other, claiming the other wasn’t conservative enough. This sounds like, I don’t know… “You’re not skinny enough to be pretty,” or “You’re not normal enough to warrant my attention or friendship.” When is there ever a time to vilify someone? I’m not saying we have to be pushovers and accept everyone as they are. What I am saying is that there are more mature and productive ways in which we can rebuke someone in order to correct them. If a candidate running for Senator claims to be conservative but has voted otherwise, then point that out. Don’t cloud it in some ridiculous and horribly acted pathos and pay hundreds of dollars to air it on television. Get out of my face, I’m not voting for you because of that.

Anyway, I guess the nutshell of my post is this: It’s so easy to poke fun at Republicans, and I often find myself doing that. However, this doesn’t mean I esteem the Democrats. I’m actually very disappointed that Obama appealed to such a metaphor in that speech. It’s incredibly creative and very appropriate for him. But it vilifies the Republicans. I can’t stand for that. I can’t vote for that.

I just don’t know what to do. I want America to be a good country, a virtuous country. I want to cast my vote toward that end. If, somehow, we’ve decided that this mini-celebrity/tabloid-gossip route is the best way to secure our civic leaders, then maybe it’s best if I boycott my vote in an attempt to voice my opinion. After all, that’s what a vote is, isn’t it?

Last thought: Is it ironic to anyone that we call ourselves a united country? Never have I been more aware of the rift in the United States of America because of political ideologies. I’m convinced that if we are to progress from this hole, we have to abandon the generalizations and vilification of “the other party”. If we continue to have this “they vs. us” mentality, there will never be unity. In fact, the only thing we really are united on is the military. That’s a scary foundation.

UPDATE: I was just reviewing my entry and decided to watch the clip again. I couldn’t finish it. I cringed right when Obama said, “They…”

Indie! Dr. Jones!

This post has nothing to do with Indiana Jones and everything to do with supporting indie projects pursued by my friends. In the spirit of unfounded associations, the above photo is of me my freshman year in college.

———-

1) I met Quoc Quan Le through a mutual friend and discovered that we shared similar interests–namely our invincible romance for Taylor Swift and all things Taylor Swift. “Coco” is also a Vietnamese American student studying film at UWMilwaukee and is about to start his senior project. When I did my senior project (a 12+ page paper–of course my paper was just barely 12 pages), I didn’t ask for money because I didn’t need it… o at least I couldn’t justify someone giving me money so I could feed my finals week habits which would ideally include lots of “Chinese” takeout and many cubic centimeters of juice. Quoc Quan and I were supposed to film a short miniseries about two roommates (i.e. us) and their love for Taylor Swift. We never came around to filming it, though we did meet once or twice to brainstorm some ideas. Maybe we’ll be able to get to that someday–preferably before Taylor has to tell Coco that she’s marrying me and not him. Coco, she belongs with meeeeeee, can’t you seeeeeeee?

If you’re interested in learning more about Coco’s project and his bell and white motif he plans to use, check out his IndieGoGo page and consider helping out! http://www.indiegogo.com/taleofwomaninwhite?c=home

———-

2) Joseph Taylor was my RA my sophomore year at Marquette University. The first weekend during school (or something like that), Jay invited me to go to a campus-sponsored (this way you know I didn’t drink nor did Jay) event. I politely declined, claiming I would probably go meet other friends AKA my roommate. He did give me his number though, so I guess I got that without asking. Jay, my roommate, and I also shared a mutual connection through Taylor Swift. One day, after dinner with those two guys, we went into the basement of our dorm hall and recorded a cover of Love Story. I played melody on my cello. I don’t know how to differentiate the two guitars between my roommate and Jay, save for the fact that Jay played the intro to Love Story and my roommate learned the chords on the spot (like any good hobby guitarist). We never recorded anything after that, but Jay did say he imagined me playing something else for him.

To my knowledge, Jay has recently been experimenting with music making. The tracks on his Soundcloud (lost the link) were actually quite pleasing; I would listen to them as I studied. I’m not sure if he meant for this to be study music, but Jay is one of the most eclectic individuals I’ve known and he got me into skinny jeans (he wears slim fits). If you want to check out Jay’s music and support his just-released album for $2.00 (or more), check out his…. spitbubble? http://spitbubble.com/

My Michael Jackson LPs

Off the Wall, Motown Superstar Series (an anthology of sorts), and the original Thriller (a gift from my roommate)

I’d hate for this to turn into a “What’s Nate up to today?” sort of blog since this is supposed to be the representation of my left brain, but I wanted to pull out the DSLR and snap some shots as well as check out what this Image Post Format on WordPress is all about. UPDATE: It appears that the Image Post Format turns the rest of the text in the post grey–a means of drawing attention to the image, I suppose. Accordingly, I’ve turned this into a Standard Post Format.

I haven’t shot photos on my T2i in a long time. I’ve been using the 50mm 1.8 (nifty fifty!), but I’m growing very upset with it. The crop factor is just immense and it is annoying having to back up and hold the camera in awkward positions to get the shot I want. On the other hand, though, I don’t want to go back to using a zoom lens since that just feels tacky–and of course I can’t get the apertures I want with zooms. Perhaps I just have to develop an intuition for my 50mm.

Michael Jackson’s birthday is coming up. I have an idea for a tribute. I wasn’t able to prepare for one adequately for his death anniversary, but I’m hoping that this idea is good enough to celebrate and recognize: 1) His 3rd death anniversary 2) His 54th birthday 3) The 25th anniversary of BAD.