By now we've all seen or heard of the new fashionable singer with the shocking lyrics and risque videos: Lady GaGa.
It no longer amazes me that folks like these are emerging from schools like Julliard, and they can't sing. Money talks people. If she ever could actually sing, we'll never really know. She'd much rather be muttering something about a poker face while wearing geometrically cut clothing and jerking about with asexual dancers. I can't understand a word of anything she is saying. However, I do find it amusing that her nose and song are pretty synonymous. Funny thing, the song unlikely has anything to do with her big nose but rather some connotation associated with a deadpan expression-- a face of which never hints at what's going on inside the head. Need we bother with guessing that anything at all is morphing around in that skull?
Some of us may not have heard of this stage wonder until her recent performance at the MTV music video awards. Dressed like a pornographic Goldilocks, Ms. GaGa ended her Paparazzi song with her poker and a drivelling blueberry juice face that shocked the (ever-so-intelligent) audience into the idea that she was displaying an original work of art. The fact is, like a lot us, the audience didn't know what was going on with her circus menagerie.
What's so "gaga" about this sort of entertainment?
The answer to the question is very typical. She doesn't wear a lot of clothing. Though, the clothing she is wearing is fashionably shocking (so we're told). Her fashion statements are sprinkled with well-trained vocals that robotically bleat her crass lyrics, and there you have it-- gaga. Starting a video by emerging from a pool of water and a black dog means what? Sexy? Dark and glamorous? Simply put, here comes the yellow submarine heralded by Fido to lend us some sort of helping hand to the understanding of a contemporary artsy feeling. Darling...it's sooooo...you're so...gaga.
Though most runway models look like Jack Skellington, Lady GaGa is a pygmy wearing outfits that hardly flatter her short and stalky figure. She would make a better Diva on the flying trapeze or while wearing one of those strange outfits, demonstrate her knowledge of the best golf clubs at Dick's Sporting Goods.
No doubt she fits the definition of gaga with silly, excessive, and foolish. She is a spectacle whether she believes she is glamorous or not. Either way, there is definitely some narcissism there. She does a good job of representing the nature of excessive wealth, it's grotesqueness and mundanity.
I know I've missed something very important here. I don't understand all the insider connotations, metaphors, double meanings and general nature of "performance art". This is all Lady GaGa's secret, inside joke as she skips along to cash in the money, her poker leading the way.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Pretty Easy Coffee Cake
Topping:
1/2 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup sifted, all-purpose flour
1/4 cup butter
1 tsp cinnamon
Cake:
1 1/2 cups sifted, all-purpose flour
2 1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
1 egg, beaten
3/4 cup sugar
*1/3 cup applesauce
1/2 cup milk
1 tsp vanilla extract
Topping: Combine ingredients with a fork (I use my fingers) and set aside.
Cake Portion: Sift 1 1/2 c flour with baking powder and salt. In a separate bowl, beat egg, 3/4 c sugar, and 1/3 c of applesauce. Add milk and vanilla. Stir in flour mixture.
Pour batter into a greased and floured 8 or 9 in. cake pan. Sprinkle topping over butter (I found it difficult to "sprinkle" this mixture as it was not very dry. Instead, I dropped bits of it evenly onto the top of the cake batter.
Bake @ 375 degrees for about 25-30 minutes. Partially cool in pan on rack. Cut cake into wedges or squares while still warm.
*If you'd rather use butter in the cake batter as opposed to applesauce, use 1/2 cup. I substituted the butter with applesauce to cut back on fat.
1/2 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup sifted, all-purpose flour
1/4 cup butter
1 tsp cinnamon
Cake:
1 1/2 cups sifted, all-purpose flour
2 1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
1 egg, beaten
3/4 cup sugar
*1/3 cup applesauce
1/2 cup milk
1 tsp vanilla extract
Topping: Combine ingredients with a fork (I use my fingers) and set aside.
Cake Portion: Sift 1 1/2 c flour with baking powder and salt. In a separate bowl, beat egg, 3/4 c sugar, and 1/3 c of applesauce. Add milk and vanilla. Stir in flour mixture.
Pour batter into a greased and floured 8 or 9 in. cake pan. Sprinkle topping over butter (I found it difficult to "sprinkle" this mixture as it was not very dry. Instead, I dropped bits of it evenly onto the top of the cake batter.
Bake @ 375 degrees for about 25-30 minutes. Partially cool in pan on rack. Cut cake into wedges or squares while still warm.
*If you'd rather use butter in the cake batter as opposed to applesauce, use 1/2 cup. I substituted the butter with applesauce to cut back on fat.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
My Previous Post: What's My Dilemma?
Honestly, after re-reading the post, I'm not sure what my point is concerning "cash for clunkers". I do think it was a good program. However, I was mixing it up with some other rather pointless opinions. I don't feel like editing it as of now. Maybe I'll trash it.
I was initially ranting more against the stupidity of the media and how they always run with some statistic-- that being, retail sales have jumped the most since 2006 because of the "cash for clunkers" program. I'm not sure what to do with that piece of evidence. The media almost make it sound like our economy has recovered because of this program alone and that we can all rest easy and feel better now that the recession is over.
I was initially ranting more against the stupidity of the media and how they always run with some statistic-- that being, retail sales have jumped the most since 2006 because of the "cash for clunkers" program. I'm not sure what to do with that piece of evidence. The media almost make it sound like our economy has recovered because of this program alone and that we can all rest easy and feel better now that the recession is over.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Cash for Clunkers: Cause for Retail Sales Increase!
Duh. And...duh.
Retail sales are being deemed as the best since 2006! Why? Here was an opportunity for many Americans, who've been deprived for a year or so now and hungry for a new car and wanting to feel good about it, to cash in on something stale for something fresher. What sort of car-lovin' American is gonna pass the rattle of that one up? And, what other choice for the dying car industry than to roll over and partner up with such a active course of action?
Four parties are getting a little booster here: 1) The consumer; 2) The car industry; 3) The economy, and 4) dare I say such an irrelevant thing? Yikes! THE ENVIRONMENT.
It amazes me the kind of news we get spoon-fed by the media. It gets presented to us in a way that treats all of us as though we are sitting in high-chairs and whimpering in our poopy diapers. Granted, "cash for clunkers" was a very good incentive for several reasons. The most important, in my opinion, is the environment. Exchanging one's older, less environmentally-friendly car for a more cost-effective, fuel-efficient one makes a lot of sense. However, with our greedy record, I find it difficult to believe that that's the main reason everyone was interested in this government-created program for the dying car sales market. The exchange for the "clunker" came with a check to be put toward a new/er car than the car one already owned.
The program is a thoughtful one, but once again, while thinking of the consumer end of it, I can't help but imagine the type of tantrum-throwing consumers who benefit the most from such a program as being those greedy Americans whose identities continue (despite these hard economic times) to be caught up in their cars as well as the homes and everything else they can't afford. And while the eyes of the car industry remain teary-eyed and pitiful, it too, benefited from the exchange.
Pardon my cynical tone. I simply can help but get out my wooden spoon when I see news reports with their pat-on-the-back idealism that tries to misconstrue a good thing as the beginning of the return to potty training. What does it say about us when after months of economic drudgery this program seemed to have really boosted the retail industry? I think it suggests that we need cars more than pants or shoes. No doubt we're still getting plenty to eat-- maybe that's why, tight-fisted, we continue to latch onto our cars-- the new wave of clothing that seems to fit better. Anyway, now what? The funds for this program have been sucked dry. I'm curious to see what the next cup of milk will do for our now thumb-sucking, insecurity complexes when it comes to spending a "little" money.
From my own perspective, one size does not fit all. What about those of us who don't need or even want a car? How about those of us who've decided that a car is simply an unnecessary luxury that we can do without in urban America? If Dave and I had been given an opportunity to cash in our old car and use the money toward debt, food, rent or something else practical-- it too would have had its own kind of retail/financial boost. Alas...such practicality does not exist for reasoning individuals who have long since handed their baby teeth over to the tooth fairy.
Regardless of the positive economic boost, I can't help but look at it as a feed the greed notion while doing a little something extra for the environment, for once. Though Obama may have unintentionally left some of us out (on a larger scale the thought of "I don't need a car types" probably never crossed his mind), it is quite obvious he is no dummy.
Retail sales are being deemed as the best since 2006! Why? Here was an opportunity for many Americans, who've been deprived for a year or so now and hungry for a new car and wanting to feel good about it, to cash in on something stale for something fresher. What sort of car-lovin' American is gonna pass the rattle of that one up? And, what other choice for the dying car industry than to roll over and partner up with such a active course of action?
Four parties are getting a little booster here: 1) The consumer; 2) The car industry; 3) The economy, and 4) dare I say such an irrelevant thing? Yikes! THE ENVIRONMENT.
It amazes me the kind of news we get spoon-fed by the media. It gets presented to us in a way that treats all of us as though we are sitting in high-chairs and whimpering in our poopy diapers. Granted, "cash for clunkers" was a very good incentive for several reasons. The most important, in my opinion, is the environment. Exchanging one's older, less environmentally-friendly car for a more cost-effective, fuel-efficient one makes a lot of sense. However, with our greedy record, I find it difficult to believe that that's the main reason everyone was interested in this government-created program for the dying car sales market. The exchange for the "clunker" came with a check to be put toward a new/er car than the car one already owned.
The program is a thoughtful one, but once again, while thinking of the consumer end of it, I can't help but imagine the type of tantrum-throwing consumers who benefit the most from such a program as being those greedy Americans whose identities continue (despite these hard economic times) to be caught up in their cars as well as the homes and everything else they can't afford. And while the eyes of the car industry remain teary-eyed and pitiful, it too, benefited from the exchange.
Pardon my cynical tone. I simply can help but get out my wooden spoon when I see news reports with their pat-on-the-back idealism that tries to misconstrue a good thing as the beginning of the return to potty training. What does it say about us when after months of economic drudgery this program seemed to have really boosted the retail industry? I think it suggests that we need cars more than pants or shoes. No doubt we're still getting plenty to eat-- maybe that's why, tight-fisted, we continue to latch onto our cars-- the new wave of clothing that seems to fit better. Anyway, now what? The funds for this program have been sucked dry. I'm curious to see what the next cup of milk will do for our now thumb-sucking, insecurity complexes when it comes to spending a "little" money.
From my own perspective, one size does not fit all. What about those of us who don't need or even want a car? How about those of us who've decided that a car is simply an unnecessary luxury that we can do without in urban America? If Dave and I had been given an opportunity to cash in our old car and use the money toward debt, food, rent or something else practical-- it too would have had its own kind of retail/financial boost. Alas...such practicality does not exist for reasoning individuals who have long since handed their baby teeth over to the tooth fairy.
Regardless of the positive economic boost, I can't help but look at it as a feed the greed notion while doing a little something extra for the environment, for once. Though Obama may have unintentionally left some of us out (on a larger scale the thought of "I don't need a car types" probably never crossed his mind), it is quite obvious he is no dummy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
.png)
.png)