![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
...so much for SPANKING them!
Jun. 8th, 2004 10:29 pmi just got home about an hour ago, and on my walk to my apt from the bus stop i walked past a woman sporting a shit that said -- and i kid you not -- "high ho"
what the fuck is happening to the world? :|
i also saw some high school girl on the bus with a shirt that said "eat at kitty's." come on, kid, let's just forgo the subtle euphemisms and get right down to it, uh? "EAT PUSSY" would make a much cooler shirt, anyway.
i also discovered today that the guy at work that sucks (not the geddy-lee-loving guy that sucks--he gained back a little of what he lost yesterday when he was nice to me today when i took that wacky fall at work... the one i'm talking about is the one that says shit really loud just so everyone will hear him. -.-) oh man. that dude's name is adam.
isn't that a bucket full o'laughs, children? being named adam or april really makes you suck.
i'm also way too fucking smart to be doing this goddamn job. and some of the people i work with really concern me with the way they make decisions... like how emily goes to this one bar in town specifically because "it's mostly black guys there," "i only like black guys," "i can't handle the white fools." nice. go racism in its finest hour. fuck. fuck me.
i was telling karla my monkey story (and i'll get to that in a minute! oh boy~) today and when i started it off by telling her that i went to an art gallery this morning, she asked,
"why?"
why. what the fuck kind ov question is that? like it's such an absurd thing to want to do that--why the fuck would anybody go to an art gallery? especially an artist! i don't know why the fuck they even exist!
and then emily overheard part of the monkey story, and when i relayed it to her again after i finished, she stared at me in anticipation--looking a little like she wasn't quite sure what the fuck was going on. was i done yet? after a drawn out pause, i got an unsure "that's weird..." like she wasn't quite positive if it was even strange, let alone knowing where the punchline laid.
so. like i said--i went to a gallery this morning. the "kitchener's own renaissance" or KOR gallery. my main reason for going was to apply for a summer position they have there, but i also wanted to take a look at the current show. as far as meeting with the gallery manager, i think things went pretty well. she said "sounds great, jess!" after she finished reading my cover letter (which i spazzed the fuck out over last night as i wrote it) and underlined that i'd taught this past march break at the canadian clay and glass gallery. after schmoozing with her for a bit, i took my stroll around the display rooms. the current show was mostly an interesting collection of manipulated digital prints, but there was one piece in particular that caught my eye--a framed photo of a monkey's face, with a black box stuck over it's eyes, on top of the glass of the frame. the piece was called "bad monkey," and there was an accompanying story about a pavlovian experiment done with a group of primates:
first-there was a cage of monkeys. in order to shape a conditioned response within them, the monkey caretakers would dangle a banana from the ceiling in the top of the cage. every time a monkey reached for the banana, they'd spray it with a hose. eventually, the monkeys were very frightened of any banana they saw hanging in their cage
second step-the conditioned monkeys reproduced. their children were then taken from them, and put in a seperate cage. these monkey babies had not been included in any sort of conditioning experiment, nor had they been raised by their parents (so that they could learn from them), but they were instinctively afraid of all bananas that the monkey keepers dangled in the cage.
finally, they took another monkey baby from a pair of monkeys seperate from the initial experiment. they introduced this new baby monkey into the cage with the other baby monkeys, and dangled a banana. when the new monkey unknowingly reached for the banana, the other baby monkeys pummeled it.
---
the implications there fuck me up so bad. i read it and was like "oh wow." it kinda frustrated me that nobody else seemed to be how that would be at all interesting... but i guess to each his/her own, huh..? :/
also, i heard a really strange thing on the radio when i was showering this morning... apparently there are some weird new "tricks" job intervewers are using on potential employees... apparently now places are calling interviewees after the 'view and pretending to be telemarketers, to see how you -really- are outside of the office. so... be nice to telemarketers, guys.
doesn't that sound so intrusive? :/
when i heard this, though, i immidiately thought--but what if the person actually wants to buy whatever the marketer is selling?
what the fuck is happening to the world? :|
i also saw some high school girl on the bus with a shirt that said "eat at kitty's." come on, kid, let's just forgo the subtle euphemisms and get right down to it, uh? "EAT PUSSY" would make a much cooler shirt, anyway.
i also discovered today that the guy at work that sucks (not the geddy-lee-loving guy that sucks--he gained back a little of what he lost yesterday when he was nice to me today when i took that wacky
isn't that a bucket full o'laughs, children? being named adam or april really makes you suck.
i'm also way too fucking smart to be doing this goddamn job. and some of the people i work with really concern me with the way they make decisions... like how emily goes to this one bar in town specifically because "it's mostly black guys there," "i only like black guys," "i can't handle the white fools." nice. go racism in its finest hour. fuck. fuck me.
i was telling karla my monkey story (and i'll get to that in a minute! oh boy~) today and when i started it off by telling her that i went to an art gallery this morning, she asked,
"why?"
why. what the fuck kind ov question is that? like it's such an absurd thing to want to do that--why the fuck would anybody go to an art gallery? especially an artist! i don't know why the fuck they even exist!
and then emily overheard part of the monkey story, and when i relayed it to her again after i finished, she stared at me in anticipation--looking a little like she wasn't quite sure what the fuck was going on. was i done yet? after a drawn out pause, i got an unsure "that's weird..." like she wasn't quite positive if it was even strange, let alone knowing where the punchline laid.
so. like i said--i went to a gallery this morning. the "kitchener's own renaissance" or KOR gallery. my main reason for going was to apply for a summer position they have there, but i also wanted to take a look at the current show. as far as meeting with the gallery manager, i think things went pretty well. she said "sounds great, jess!" after she finished reading my cover letter (which i spazzed the fuck out over last night as i wrote it) and underlined that i'd taught this past march break at the canadian clay and glass gallery. after schmoozing with her for a bit, i took my stroll around the display rooms. the current show was mostly an interesting collection of manipulated digital prints, but there was one piece in particular that caught my eye--a framed photo of a monkey's face, with a black box stuck over it's eyes, on top of the glass of the frame. the piece was called "bad monkey," and there was an accompanying story about a pavlovian experiment done with a group of primates:
first-there was a cage of monkeys. in order to shape a conditioned response within them, the monkey caretakers would dangle a banana from the ceiling in the top of the cage. every time a monkey reached for the banana, they'd spray it with a hose. eventually, the monkeys were very frightened of any banana they saw hanging in their cage
second step-the conditioned monkeys reproduced. their children were then taken from them, and put in a seperate cage. these monkey babies had not been included in any sort of conditioning experiment, nor had they been raised by their parents (so that they could learn from them), but they were instinctively afraid of all bananas that the monkey keepers dangled in the cage.
finally, they took another monkey baby from a pair of monkeys seperate from the initial experiment. they introduced this new baby monkey into the cage with the other baby monkeys, and dangled a banana. when the new monkey unknowingly reached for the banana, the other baby monkeys pummeled it.
---
the implications there fuck me up so bad. i read it and was like "oh wow." it kinda frustrated me that nobody else seemed to be how that would be at all interesting... but i guess to each his/her own, huh..? :/
also, i heard a really strange thing on the radio when i was showering this morning... apparently there are some weird new "tricks" job intervewers are using on potential employees... apparently now places are calling interviewees after the 'view and pretending to be telemarketers, to see how you -really- are outside of the office. so... be nice to telemarketers, guys.
doesn't that sound so intrusive? :/
when i heard this, though, i immidiately thought--but what if the person actually wants to buy whatever the marketer is selling?
