"Proceed With Caution," Thoughts on Funeral Processions.

In Illinois a driver should know that if another vehicle is traveling in a funeral procession it has the right of way. We don’t seem them often, but when we do a sense of respect comes about everyone surrounding it. These processions of course are not rampant, they happen and people see them. Other drivers are momentarily mesmerized for a slew of reasons.

Processions can exist without the funeral. They come from the french word meaning to proceed, or to go fourth. There are processions celebrating happy things. There are common images of military processions, from the former Soviet Union, and even modern day North Korea. Missiles, tanks and thousands upon thousands of soldiers march in a very robotic way in complete unison:

(Battle Ready for 1776)
(This Picture is showing 27 Furry Hats among tens.)

(Battle Ready for 2012)
(This picture is showing 50 Rocket Propelled Grenades among thousands)

So, as we can see, it’s a global thing. We as Americans rarely show our military might, we prefer to watch football than witness these processions.

In years past the funeral procession used to take place very much like a march. People would walk from the place of worship to the burial site. The walk could last a while if your local Church or Synagogue didn’t invest in a cemetery. Horses and carriages would be involved with participants choosing to walk or be on additional horses. The hearse on occasion had glass around it, so participants could see inside.

(You can rent this bad boy, driver included!)

In modern times the trend has seen long processions involving personal modes of transportation, that is people just drive in a line. The interesting thing here is the exceptions they have on the road. They can drive through red lights, and have the right of way every single time (with the exception of an emergency vehicle).

When drivers notice the procession they should be weary. Bill Daley of the Tribune Company did a piece on the how to’s of driving in one as well as being someone in the vicinity of a procession, “"The basic rule of thumb is just respect... One should never, ever, cut into the middle of a funeral procession."” wrote Daley.

It is to be expected in this day in age that drivers are a bit poor in their methods of actual driving. Phones, radars, radios and makeup have the real capacity to make normal drivers bad ones. So with the devolution of the modern driver some may be very confused as to what to do. Well, first off use that element of respect, just get out of the way. Do not under any circumstances enter the procession. If you do, you risk immediate shame from the surrounding drivers and you are actively disrespecting the grieving. 

(This man is aware, "Click it or Ticket.")

In some states there is a usually one escort for every 10 - 12 cars, sometimes it’s the actual police, but there is fewer and fewer departments who are involved these days. More often it is an employee of the funeral home, and it helps when one is in the front and one in the back. Illinois law requires hazard lights to be on and to drive five miles under the speed limit.

There is one element of the procession that can have a direct effect on the spectating drivers: we are all going to die. It gives one the chance to sit back, breathe and belt out a Keanu Reeves style “woah.” Not many things can do this everyday in our lives. Especially since we’re all ironically proceeding to somewhere, particularly in the car. When we are proceeding in our cars to wherever and come across a funeral procession, we stop proceeding, so the dead can proceed in its procession to wherever the dead proceed to. Complicated, but very insight worthy.

The Funeral Procession No.3 12x18 Giclee On Canvas (Google Affiliate Ad)

Chat Roulette: Contemporary Phallic Exchanges

Once every great while there is innovation in our world of super intelligent information technology. In November 2009 into that December a website called Chatroulette.com came into being. It rapidly jumped into the mainstream. In an interview with Der Spiegel, a German news publication, the founder of Chatroulette, then 17 year old Andrey Ternovskiy explained within one month the site went from 500 users to 50,000. It gained more steam after that.

The premise behind Chatroulette is a user turns on their webcam and is randomly connected to another user (hence spinning the wheel and landing on someone). The thing is this website shortly gained global attention. Many times users are paired with an individual halfway across the world, thousands of miles away. It has the capacity to enrich people in foreign cultures. One could even do sociological experiments, which just in the case I have done. I actually did do a couple of interviews to see global perspectives on the website.

There is a high potential for running into a penis on this site. These days, in 2012 there is less penis. Chatroulette got a bad wrap because as more interest was circulating around the site more individuals who practice in perversion were drawn to it. The penis’ flocked to the site, and it really served as a detriment to the clear beneficial use this site has. Just as soon as people realized how cool the site was it was dampened by the innumerable amount of penis. It got to the point that TechCrunch actually did an informal study that reported users had a 1 in 8 chance of seeing penis. That report was published in March 2010. In June 2012 it was reported that the creators of Chatroulette had created some sort of software that actually recognizes penis’ and furthermore would automatically block that individuals IP address (internet protocol, not individual penis). Now that is indeed more impressive than the idea of Chatroulette itself.

The mentioned report actually had compiled a lot of statistics, in that users were likely to be paired up with someone in the United States at just under 50% and the next likely user would be in France, here’s the graph:

The information has greatly changed since then. Although there is no tangible evidence some new conclusions can be made. First off, the number of users in Turkey, Italy and Chile have most certainly increased. All one needs to do is go on for him or herself and see. Secondly the penis phenomenon has been severely lowered. It exists but not 1 in 8, its more like 1 in 50. What has remained constant is the request to see breasts from men. The report found that the “overall pevert rate was 13% of users.” It also broke it down by country:

Also it seems more likely for a man to stop spinning if a female is on the other end. The report offered  examples of rouge actuaries, with images like the following very common:

The vast classifiable users are men. 72% of users were men, by themselves, 11% was no one in the room, and only 8% were women. This means 72% of these men were more likely to get no one instead of a female, and 13% of the 72% of men were perverts, meaning they must have been very disappointed pervs. Here is the visual breakdown the report from TechCrunch provided:

After extensive interviews with individuals across all walks of life this is what can be reported:
Girls stop at guys with pretty eyes. Clearly this statement useless to other female and gay men, but what has become clear to me is that many guys try to coerce girls into stopping for them. On occasion it is so they can try to see her boobs. Some guys will play music so girls will stop, some guys display their abs and others wear costumes. I personally was not trying to solicit any boobage, but sometimes when a girl would stop at me, she would tell me I have beautiful eyes. It happened 6 times in one sitting (which lasted approximately 90 minutes). So the thought of peacocking my eyes came to mind. I put on a shirt that extunated the color of my eyes (blue on blue) and it did nothing.

I have also noticed that the amount of girls who are “freaky” has increased. It may be just my experiance (or my sexy eyes), but one particular individual who I stopped at was Melissa from Paris. She spoke English very poorly but more importantly she had a smile that could cure depression. Never in my life have I seen such smile. She asked me if I was horny, expecting me to say “but of course mademoiselle,” but in fact I did not. I had told her I was interested in writing a piece about Chatroulette and asked her if I could ask a couple of questions. First off I wanted to know exactly how this “getting down,” thing she wanted to do was supposed to happen. I mean, she’s in Paris and I’m in Chicago. She exaplins that she takes her clothes off while the other individual masterbates. I didn’t ask her why she does this because I knew, she gets off at men looking at her like that. She would periodically stop the conversation and just remove a certain article of clothing. the conversation lasted approximatley 20 minutes and ended with a view I’ll never forget. She asked me to request her on skype. I maybe did.

Other consistent factors is how fast one is to judge. Back in 2009 I had a huge Israeli flag in my room where I used Chatroulette, it hung in the background of the shot. Whenever I would land on someone in the Middle East, North Africa or South Eastern Europe it would immediately result in some sort of Anti-Semitic rhetoric. I don’t mind it, because I would truly be surprised if one of those people was really into the fact I’m a Jew.

There are a lot of children on the site, which is quite disconcerting. Small children who are exposed to penis are usually filled with trauma later in life. I interviewed a 14 year old. I began with asking him why such a young individual was on a site that has the capacity to be so vulgar, to which he responded: “cuz I can b.” Immediately I felt immensely out of touch with the current generation of tweens and future teens. These kids usually come in bunches and probably giggle at the mature content like all kids would do.

Other women are not attractive and perhaps are engaging in the same thing men do a little too similarly, for instance this was one of my experiences: 

(She asked twice)

Perhaps women in Argentina are like men from Arkansas (not hillbillies, but Billy Clinton’s).

I think the final most consistent thing is how balls-to-the-wall the hate is on this website. It isn’t all genuine, it is just a forum for people to get away with things they normally wouldn’t be able to in society. For instance people have no reservations to calling ugly people ugly, fat people fat and foreign looking individuals strange. It is probably a very unhealthy thing, but for every hair raising provoker, there is a person who is incredibly interested, nice and cordial. It really goes both ways with no middle. Well actually, there is a middle ground, its the split second two users see each other and simultaneously click “next.”

Chatroulette has come far. Some conclusions that can be made are: it is better to do socially, in that two or more people should be on each end. It would also be wise not to engage in arguments based on ideology, discussion is for sure warranted, but arguments will surely spoil the moods of all users. It would be wise to be open, nice, and smile. Smiling does one of two things, the first of which is nothing, the second is a moral disarming of the firewall strangers put up.

As is the cliche, only time will tell what the social trajectory of Chatroulette will be. In the meantime, I’ll keep expanding my knowledge of different cultures and people through this medium.

"Observations of a FroYo Enthusiast."

A phenomenon that has come upon the 'burbs of middle class America is Fro-Yo, also known as frozen yogurt. It has captivated the taste buds of the neighborhoods where little exists to be excited about. In Buffalo Grove, the opening of 'Yogurt-Land' has proven to be the new epicenter of community assembly. It must be said that the Yogurt-Land that is the center of this piece is located in Wheeling, but on the very edge and services more in Buffalo Grove.

In Robert D. Putnam's “Bowling Alone,” he describes how Americans are losing stock in “social capital.” In that, according to his website: “Putnam shows how we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our democratic structures– and how we may reconnect. Putnam warns that our stock of social capital– the very fabric of our connections with each other, has plummeted, impoverishing our lives and communities.” It is true, there are indeed fewer bowling leagues, and fewer places where my personal community of Buffalo Grove is incredibly fractured socially. There is no sense of Buffalo Grove pride, no sense of “Buffalo Groveness.”

I believe there has been a breakthrough in the increasing descent of that sense of community here, it lies with fro-yo, and the masses that enjoy it's magical powers.

'Yogurt-Land' is a franchise founded in Fullerton, California. They've got an assortment of flavors and toppings but we'll address this later. It's opening wasn't necessarily a big thing, like a Sonic or Hardee's in some rural town in Arkansas. It is the new iteration of Dairy Queen. The soft serve giant of Dairy Queen was coincidently founded in the 1940's in Joliet, Illinois. After years in existence it has diversified their menu and sells hot dogs and burgers now. In the 1950's and 1960's it was a really trendy place to hang out. In 2012 no one hangs out at the Dairy Queen.

When one approaches Yogurt-land in Buffalo Grove it becomes very apparent that there is no adequate seating for the amount of customers. This is a testament to the popularity of the place. The line on occasion stretches out the door yet people succumb to the rules of patience to get a taste of the of the stuff. Upon entry into the line some consistent behaviors can be noticed. In occupying a place in line, some customers are on their phones desperately trying to alter the perception of time to make it go faster. Other customers, particularly there with a companion of multiple people engage in conversation which forfeits its right to privacy because of the cozy nature of the store. Often times you'll hear fro-yo veterans suggesting flavors. There are 16 flavors to choose from, but arguably 15 aren't so good.

Diverse Line Wating

In my humble opinion “plain tart,” is by far the best flavor. No other flavor is in the same position. Philosophically speaking, all of the flavors are indeed made from a base of plain tart, so everything has an additive of some kind, be it “salted pecan caramel,” or “smores.” There is a large aptitude for failure here among all the flavors except plain tart. It has no additives in the sense that it's flavor isn't tweaked unnaturally. As a base it is sour plus a kick and tastes exactly like kefir. Any other flavor one chooses is a perversion of the best flavor because all the flavors include plain, right? Furthermore customers have a choice to add toppings, from fruit, to crushed butterfingers to fruity pebbles. There is a larger variety of toppings than flavors, which would be overkill on any other flavor except for the plain tart. Getting marshmallows and chocolate on the “smore,” flavor would be overkill.

The fascinating thing about the wait is that everyone waits in line, walking past every self serve fro-yo dispenser. Line cutters are frowned upon, it makes for a poor experience on both ends. Waiting in line conjures up a hunger and excitement that is quenched upon purchase. That wait has naturally been established in the line and is subconsciously crucial to the experience. If one cuts he or she then waits less and this quench does not satisfy to it's full potential, and the person behind said cutter has to wait longer which infringes on his or her window of quenchable opportunity. It is basically incredibly distasteful for obvious reasons to cut in line.

Also sampling needs to be prompt and appropriate, There is no need for 16 samples (especially since plain is by far the best). It holds up the line and exposes ones selfishness and indecision publicly to a severe social detriment. Two samples is appropriate.

Topping selection is also something of a process. It needs to be quick, because it can hold up the line, and due to the no cutting principle it has no remedy to people who take their time. I would not prescribe a limit on selection, rather I'd suggest being able to pick those toppings as fast as possible.

The one thing to avoid is being in line behind small children. This can be a nightmare that has the very real capacity to delay fro-yo dispensing because children have an excuse to try every flavor and every topping: they're kids yo. If at any point one realizes that they may have to wait behind children it may be advisable to go outside and wait for them to finish. It is incurable obstacle to the fro-yo experience that is better dealt with by excusing oneself for ten minutes.

After purchase patrons generally like to eat outside, which has forced the fro-yo enthusiasts to invade the parking lot and surrounding sidewalks. People sitting on curbs, spooning fro-yo and socializing has brought back sentiments of that Dairy Queen hangout of yore. The demographics are not something one can categorize. Tall people, short people, skinny people, fat people, brown, yellow and purple people and some Jews all go to this place. Buffalo Grove in its entirety has been frequenting this place which shows the unique nature of it: Yogurt-Land by and large promotes real diversity in the community.

Yogurt-Land is the poppin' place these days. It's not a trendy thing either, it is really how good the fro-yo actually is. One would be fallacious to say that something better exists. The cultures and probiotics are not the only healthy thing going on with this place. It's the identifiable social capital of Buffalo Grove that's rising in stock. I'd invest and argue you should too.

Theatre of Congressional Politics, The Matisyahu Edition.

Few members of musicality exist in a world of heritage, obviously bands like Gogol Bordello, Dropkick Murphy's and any Latino playing the accordion delve into cultural foundations they represent, but usually this is not the case. It very much was, and quite possibly is a driving force in Matisyahu and in his music. He's a Jew, so are Simon & Garfunkel, Billy Joel, Amy Winehouse, Adam Levine (of Maroon 5), Bob Dylan, Jacob Dylan (of The Wallflowers), The Beastie Boys, Paula Abdul, and Adam Lambert. None of those acts are really associated with Judaism, it's not their shtick, and as such it would be difficult to find a problem with their lack of public affinity for Torah.

Matisyahu had a tour date on August 7, it was in Chicago at the Congress Theater. I debated going, I really don't like live music, it's too loud, and so many lights! It is a nightmare for any Jew in fear of having dormant epilepsy.

There exists a student Jewish population within Chicago that many Jews might be familiar with. Within this group there are many people who know of each and they can be summoned at once when it is necessary. This group was very excited for the Matisyahu concert and decided unbeknownst to each other to go. Sometimes it is unwise to attend an event with so many Jews, our people are weary and quite susceptible to travesty. The group persevered and went.

Some of the attendees there were very religious Jews. Now, in my book this is not a problem, but they came early, before Matisyahu came out which meant they were going to listen to the opening bands. The first band, Moon Taxi came out and was pretty good, it was very neutral in vulgarity. The second band, however, Dirty Heads, well they might have upset some of those more serious Jews. Whatever, they probably knew that there are other bands in the world, that swear once in a while.

Dirty Heads was not my cup of tea. I'm not much of a rap fan, but I dig Sublime, they've toured with Sublime w/ Rome and mimic the tone and style Sublime is so famous for. There were a lot of “Hey!!! Oh!!! Woah!” kind of moments, in every song. It could be a good thing to do when you have no lyrics. Toward the end of their set the Matis fans were getting anxious, including me because I did not particularly enjoy Dirty Heads. He made an appearance in their last song, with a pink shirt, jeans and blue Nike's. “Ma-Tis-Ya-Hu” chants were audible.

About ten years ago Matisyahu, then Matt Miller, started really focusing on Judaism. He adopted a more stringent lifestyle, one that adheres to the Torah. He grew a beard (something that would become a sort of trademark), payos, and wore a kippa. His dress was very conservative and traditional. As a former Phish-head he was into jamming, and a reggae style of music. He made his own, but his music praised the hallmarks and righteousness of Hashem. His music was deep, personal and highly spiritual. It also went mainstream, which is odd, because Orthodox Judaism is far from anything resembling mainstream. It doesn't mean it's bad, it's just got its own idiosyncratic mannerisms and cultural norms. The fact Matisyahu was making awesome tunes made him some sort of icon in religiosity, he served as a role model and his devotion to Judaism was something all Jews have the ability to tap into. In fact, his most recent album Spark Seeker could be inferred as a reference to 

“Pintele Yid,” meaning the Jewish Spark.

In more recent months it seems like Matisyahu has had a crisis of character, at least that is what some in orthodoxy would say. In late December 2011 he shaved his beard, but reassured his followers that he wasn't abandoning Judaism. His priories and outlook on life may have changed, and that is totally fine. Later a photo surfaced on his twitter apparently with his hair dyed blonde, next to a fellow smoking a marijuana cigarette and Matis himself wasn't wearing a kippa. Again, from my personal stance this is all good, however, it seems that I am in a certain camp of fans that loves his music more than his persona. It's true, his music has deep meaning and is very powerful, and you can't hear how he's dressed, right? Yet this religious camp of fans remains and is very frustrated with the events of the past six months of his life. This established icon, role model to yeshiva boys, and representative of the faith has seemed to abandon traditions associated with the faith. The consequences of his actions can serve to put an extra amount of doubt in those who are interested in learning about Judaism. They see a lapse in devotion which could be contracted by those who remain devoted to the faith.

This type of neurotic reasoning is validated in orthodoxy and has a very solid premise. It would certainly deviate the devoted to other disciplines. The injection of possible responsibility is necessary in such a scenario. Has Matisyahu put himself in a position where he holds responsibility of maintaining himself as a role model to certain Jews? The camp I reside in would reject the question, he is an artist and as such has the right to craft his art outside of his persona. He does have two persona's, there is the one he would like to believe is him, that would be the man who studied Torah for years and tried to share his happiness from doing so. Then there is Matt Miller, who shouldn't exist anymore, but Matt Miller's physical self is still in existence. Matisyahu sees Matt Miller everyday in the mirror with a shaved face, and dresses like Matt Miller now, and doesn't resemble Matisyahu physically anymore. So it's a battle, a battle that shouldn't be publicized and shouldn't be second guessed. The only one who knows what's going on with Matis and Matt is whoever is behind the mic.

The show Matisyahu put on was in and of itself a marvelous experience, even for the orthodox who were there. He sang about peace, Jerusalem and Kings without Crowns. The interesting thing is that all these orthodox people were in the midst of a very, very hot Congress Theater with the sheen of cannabis surrounding. I mean, I saw one of my Rabbi's, who came out of the floor area and really wondered if he had a contact high. I really did.

The good natured spirit of Matisyahu's hum, song and dance remained, although the beard was gone. At the end of his set he told the crowd that this would be his last song, much to their dismay. It was his Top 40 hit, “One Day,” and by the end of the song he sanctioned a stage rush. I have a strong feeling the majority of the folks on the stage were Jews. Regardless of the aesthetic differences, we were all really one, and the notion of Am Yisrael Chai could really be felt.

Adam Lambert's shtick is less interesting, huh? We get it bro, you're gay.

"Gossipology 101"

It is not often one can experience a celebration exactly to his liking. Generally within the populous of individuals I know as my friends a good time includes a luxurious and hedonistic trip to a place of gathering where the music makes one deaf, the lights cause seizures and the alcohol formats unwanted memories.

Yesterdays not the case. We gathered at Team Poland's place to grill and sincerely enjoy each others company. The scene was set for chillage that one can only imagine in a world involving day dreams.

It is not my intention to write a “wrap up” of the excellent time I had, but there is one thing that I noticed which is incredible: Gossipology.

Usually at such an event the mass of the entire group comes together merely once, to sing “happy birthday,” otherwise most people speak in a fractured type of way. Two people over there, four over here, its very self explanatory. But the most interesting thing was consistent observation by those who later would submit their analysis toward how they view whatever character they were talking about.

I suppose it is not generally nice to ease drop on conversations, however, but I could hear all of it without trying.

This brings to me to some general points on Gossipology and its tenets.

First in order for gossipology to occur there needs to be a minimum of three individuals involved in the process. Within this group two of the individuals need to be better friends than the factorial of 3 or whatever. When that one less friend leaves is when gossipology can begin. Yet it must be noted that gossipology need at minimum of three but most commonly it occurs with larger groups. The maximum number of participants is six, anything more and it can get complicated because there can be micro applications of gossipology and as such it would dilute the events. This meeting and discussion is known as a “hot minute,” or “hot hour.”

Now, this activity is not for the faint of heart. One must be able to suspend his or her capacity to be a good moral person. Some would call this activity “a proper analysis and/or reflection of the evening's characters,” said a good looking female last night. I would harshly disagree with that notion as it happens DURing a designated “hot” time.

The setting of such an affair can be anywhere, preferably some sort of circle is formed to create a sense of equal time to share an experience.

When the subject matter is brought up it is the proverbial ice breaker. No one wants to initiate a “hot minute” or “hot hour,” by themselves. It would inadvertently crown this person as the one who is most likely to gossip in other scenarios. Usually a silent consensus is reached when a participant says something borderline “hot,” and another participant seconds this change in direction in terms of the conversation. By doing this it validates the presumed possible gossip starter as just one in the crowd.

As the conversation descends further into detail and description the predatory need for subject matter is salacious. This is where the gloves come off and emotional feel of the conversation sometimes subconsciously reverberates from a pejorative sentiment of insecurity. This is what I think the “hot minute” or “hot hour,” does, it deflects the shortcomings and pitfalls of the gossiper to the gossipee.

Beneath the this veil of “rational discourse,” is some seriously detrimental, treacherous, maniacal analysis of ones peers and it is not good for people. Some would posit that this activity can shine light on an injustice, such as a boyfriend treating his girlfriend like a piece of shit. Yet would it not be better to simply state your grievance to the couple? Rather than watching it and allowing it to happen call the boyfriend out on his inability to emote loyalty and his wandering eye. Don't wait and simply call him a slimy, booty staring douchebag during your meeting.

The problems of this hot activity expand far beyond itself. One participant can mimic something like inception and put the idea into someones head that the individual who is the subject matter is something he or she is really not.

Take for instance if you would a situation where you've known a person for a couple of years and it was a relationship a bit north of acquaintance but south of full blown friendship, and this individual suddenly becomes the main course of hot hour restaurant. Now, you personally have known this individual and thought of him as a stand up guy or girl. They've never done anything wrong to you nor are you aware that they have burned anyone else. One participant mentions him or her, and then another blindly seconds the motion. They begin to rain shit on this individuals overall true persona. You're in an awkward place, to defend this person would mean to undermine the “hot minute/hour,” and to submit to the tendency to the group would make you feel highly disingenuous and probably guilty. What you would be experiencing during this dilemma is your higher consciousness begging you to be the better person.

Gossipology is a tough field. To get involved means you're going to get dirt on your face, shit in your mouth, tears on your cheeks and a tolerance for disrespect so potent it burns a hole in your soul.

Alright, lets watch some Entertainment Weekly, I've heard Jennifer Aniston uses cut baby foreskin to clean up her pores! Or does she?

Intermediate Whispering 221

The art of whispering is perhaps one that is often overlooked. It requires quite an amount of focus to do properly, as well as a basic set of situations in which the proper whisper is necessary.

First off, this notion of removing the voice box capability does not mean one is whispering. What happens when one is to whisper is the disabling or suppression of the vocal chords to emit something akin to a hissing noise. Now this action is particularly easy especially for a novice. Anyone can simply do this hissing type of whispering. On many occasion, if not more, I've experienced a situation where that very whispering was louder than just speaking very softly.

Why do people whisper? The larger common denominator of why people whisper is most likely because the words he or she is speaking is either a secret OR being heard would mean being caught or something like that. Before the action of whispering perhaps the parties need to decide on what the situation is. If it is for secret motives then it becomes implicit: “shh, we don't want them (the person you're talking about) to hear!” Whereas if you're outside with friends or something at 2 a.m., in somewhat of a populated area, and in the suburbs the motivation should be to be quiet out of respect.

When whispering the normal way it is important to deduce your output to the lowest optimal level, so only the peers around you can hear and absolutely no one else can. The goal I usually make is trying to be quiet than the next loudest thing. It usually guarantees no one else can hear because the louder thing serves as cover. An accompanying tactic to serve this technique is to provide a close proximity to the other parties participating within the dialogue.

It is my experience that people in general are incapable of whispering properly. It is always either a really loud hiss, or a faulty attempt as speaking softly. Often times the worst whispering, or rather attempted whispering is that of an individual who is intoxicated. Those who are intoxicated seems to believe (a) they can whisper like there's no fucking tomorrow, and (b) anyone who insists they are not whispering usually and eventually screams “I'm whispering, shut up!” This statement comes in tandem with a very audible burst of pure voice. Truly its a shame.

[Demonstration of fundamental technique]

If you're thinking you might need help at whispering, then I would recommend a quick practice. Begin with not speaking at all, and slowly increase the intangible dial in your throat, but only very gently, once only your ears can her your voice is when you need to stop increasing the volume. The notion of a “six inch voice” is stupid, judging your sound frequency is difficult when trying to determine its distance. It is much easier to know you're whispering when your own ears can just barely hear your own voice.

The worst is when an individual who knows how to whisper is I surrounded by people who don't know how to as well as reject the notion that they are whispering improperly. As if it is an insult for a fine whisperer to explain the difference between a poor whisper and one that is well done. It is like a wine connoisseur being told Franzia is by far the best wine on the market with Manishewitz in close second. Really, take notes when a master whisperer is in your presence, it is good.

My honest suggestion is avoid places where whispering is necessary OR deviate away from people who can't, that is that.

A Brief Cultural & Anthropological Analysis of "The Hipster."

In high school the lines of genre personalties were quite defined. People can remember off hand which one they possibly belonged in, for instance perhaps you're a former jock, a former band geek, a former fencer, or even a former student journalist. The key here is the term “former.” People could not consider themselves any of these because it lacks the proper setting and environment: high school. Those persona's graduate with an individual and change post high school.

Once an individual enters the post high school years his or her persona has the very real capacity to morph and shift in ways that would not have been so in high school. Jocks can turn into frat guys, band geeks turn into cool members of marching bands, fencers can turn into Olympic athletes and student journalists... well, I suppose that continues. In some cases these people may fit into a certain persona but are not advocates of a certain lifestyle (excluding the frat guy). There are cliques, but they are less defined and the barriers of entry into a group are very porous. You want to be a frat guy in college, go ahead! You want to be involved in PETA, go ahead! These qualities and backgrounds of people also graduate with a college degree or passage of time.

There are some who pay attention to the persona they emulate and meticulously edit and photoshop the perception others have of them. There exists a subculture of post-modern contemporaries known as hipsters (if you're a hipster and want to sound cool call yourself a PMC). Now it is important to suspend all prior notions and bias against the hipster. It is agreeable that making fun of one is amusing, but this remains to be a harsh and empirical analysis on the

cultural anthropology of the “Hipster.”

The following will be an attempt to garner some sort of stable and thought worthy conclusion about the components and tenets of the post-modern contemporaries. It will cover the history, emergence, behavior systems and fashion sense of these individuals.

What exactly is a hipster? It is a broad noun that covers multiple groups and sub-groups. Hopefully the general description will be accurate, and if not changes will promptly be made. There have been little studies into the subculture of hipsterdom. It has served as an obstacle to being taken seriously. In 2003 Robert Lanham of Williamsburg, Brooklyn, wrote a book called “The Hipster Handbook.” It was then when the term became more popular in the modern sense. Obviously being “hip,” is nothing new. In the 1940's one who was hip to the jazz times was known as a “hipster.” The hipster of 1940's is far different from the ones of 2012, much like how the Indians of the American continent are different than the ones from India. It should be treated as such.

In a piece for the Huffington Post, Julia Plevin said “the definition of "hipster" remains opaque to anyone outside this self-proclaiming, highly-selective circle. I'm sure the hipsters like it that way.” It seems the definition is indeed opaque, but if one were to see a hipster one would know. There are many who exist in the subculture of hipsterism, but some constants include the embrace of skinny jeans, tight shirts and always, always cool sunglasses. Is there anything here in the aesthetic than can have any derived meaning? Probably not. One would next notice endorsement of counter-culture as a whole, which makes the meaning of the word “cool,” remarkably confusing. It's application is used in great caution of the hipster and is central to the total idea of the hipster persona. Knowing what's cool means the world. Here lies the central constant among all hipsters: if something is deemed cool by a majority of individuals it is then not cool among hipsters. Expression of self is something that is cool because the vast majority of people are very reserved in dress and mind. There is nothing that is overstimulating about the average person. As such the hipster needs to express his or her self in a way that is uniquely their own. The question here is “why.” Hipsterdom is above all else a response to something, as emerging sub-cultures often are. In the '60's counter-culture was the hippie movement (this is different from being a hipster), in the '80's some people embraced the role of being a “yuppie,” or a “young upcoming professional.” These responses were large and could be seen in social settings. Hipsters are responding to a world full of supposed blandness and plain aesthetics, however, this response is full of hypocrisy, and hey, that's okay.

A theme in hipsterdom is the tattoo. Ink is something that can set oneself apart from others. Hipsters don't get regular tattoo's though, some of them are really ironic and witty. Irony is a big thing in the subculture. A textbook definition of irony is “the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning,” yet there is no real way to describe irony in a way that satisfied. All one can do is give examples into instances of irony, like how Germany lost two very costly world wars and conquered Europe in 2012 by means of capitalism and finance (without bloodshed), that is ironic. The embrace of irony stems from an umbrella like system where wit is king. Irony is a tool of wit, and one who exercises this wit will never openly say something is ironic, they will merely suggest the notion. It's not cool to call something ironic, but rather cooler to know it. Tattoo's are part of this cultural embrace of irony. An example of hipster tattoo irony would be the finger mustache, in that a hipster will get a tattoo of a mustache on his or her index finger, and display this mark in ironic photos by holding it to the upper lip.

The shirt a hipster wears also varies. On men a sleeveless shirt with each side of the torso fully cut is popular. It ends up that a third of the fabric needs to be removed in order for the shirt to be in style. Also the witty graphic on the shirt is often appropriate. Instances of witty shirts would be located on www.BustedTees.com where “Binford Tools,” is a popular graphic as well as “Don't Tase Me Bro.” The size of said shirt needs to be tight, and not in a way that extenuate muscles, because the majority of male hipsters have a very, very lean body, not muscle lean, but more cartilage pasty lean, sickly child lean. The end of the shirt is supposed to reach only the beginning of the belt line, in order to display the belt. It is important to wear this because it is a method of displaying one's hipster persona, and how witty they are.

Beyond the aesthetics the most controversial aspect of the hipster is an apparent attitude that is unbearable to the mainstream. It is a mixture of absent sincerity and desperate approval. Hipsters have a carefree attitude about anything real, and if they do it is often irrelevant banter that they heard while listening to another hipster spill verbal garbage from a place of non-existence in the brain. The goal of a hipster is to impress his or her peers with an amount of coolness that culminates in jealousy. If Hipster A is cooler than Hipster B then they Hipster A generates jealousy felt by Hipster B. In a normal society Hipster A ought to be generating respect and reverence from Hipster B. There is also a minimal amount of apathy for people who are not hipster as they are not cool at all. This lack of apathy is what perhaps angers the mainstream most. The amount of perceivable disrespect is sickening to the mainstream and fuels the negative connotation of the hipster.

The cyclical nature of the trend is what the hipster thrives on. Trendiness is something that is crucial in identifying as a hipster, as it is hip to be trendy. Indeed it is, and as such the moment something trendy seeps into the larger culture of hipsterdom then it immediately loses its trend belt and becomes very uncool (which is why tattoo's are sort of a problem, y'know?). As soon as something new and cutting edge is brought upon the hipster then it's embrace begins. The incubation period is very sporadic. In the case of road bikes the trend is only increasing, and it is unlikely that trend will go out of style, yet the moment a huge corporation gets word of something hip then it loses stature among the “real” hipsters. Urban Outfitters and American Apparel are very involved in marketing hipster chic. Once they begin selling random products related to hipster chic strands of hypocrisy begin to seep in and the identification of hipsters becomes very, very confusing. If one shops at these stores then he or she is on the down slope of a popular trend. They are willing to buy jeans at exorbitant prices to emulate the hipsters who buy the same jeans and shirts from Goodwill. This component is another issue among the mainstream, because what is cool yesterday is really stupid the next, and trend-setting hipsters are the ones who regulate this nonsense. There will not be a stop to this trend cycle, and as such it fuels the evolutionary character of hipsterdom. Examples of the early common evolutionary ancestor would be those kids who were known as “Emo,” in the middle of the prior decade. Dead trends include Von Dutch hats, studded belts, My Chemical Romance and a warehouses full of eyeliner. When this persona was finally identified, the mainstream (at least from this writers personal high school experience) laughed off at the ridiculous nature of the Emo crowd. Those kids graduated, and along with that so did their persona's.

The future of these individuals is uncertain. Perhaps the kryptonite that exists in hipsterdom is that it may become trendy not to be a hipster, and as such a ubiquitous and total shedding of unique individualism will occur and be replaced with a bland and monotonous aesthetic persona.

The central conclusion can include many factors but one is for sure: if the majority of people adopt a persona that encourages individual expression and uniqueness then to conform would be to be unique and not being unique would be a non-conforming aspect. Wal-Mart and Gap clothing will be the minority and as such, it will be cooler to be in that crowd (by way of hipster logic). If everyone is unique then everyone is in effect the same in that each person is different... like them. Very confusing, I know, but the mental exercise will reveal the idiocy of the formula. In the end, if this proposed conclusion is correct, then it would be really ironic, and I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying you might know it is.

"Escapades into Sociological Components of "The Russian Banquet.""

It may be clear that each and every culture has a set of traditions and unique characteristics that set itself apart from any other culture. For instance, Jews have Bar Mitzvah's, American's love Football and Cuba loves it's classic cars.

[Proper Table Length is Crucial]

In some sort of strange and undocumented beginning, the growth of extravagance in Russian culture is fascinating. In no way is that meant to have a negative connotation, in fact, the following will be an apt sociological report, as such, it is crucial to suspend any notion or positivity and negativity. We're going to look at hard evidence, try to derive meaning from it and hopefully come to some sort of conclusion here.

There seem to be five integral components to the Russian Banquet event, and in no particular order they concern: attire, consumption of alcohol, the gossipology element, consensus of standards and finally gift giving procedure.

Prior to anything the women who attend these events are perhaps most interested in what they will wear. This is not scandalous nor surprising, obviously the dress a woman chooses needs to highlight the best of their physical features. In no way would a female attendee wear something that would showoff any of her shortcomings (these shortcomings are usually deemed by the greater group of participants, in that if, for instance, you have scars or something on your back you're going to hide them). It is unfortunate that this is the case, but then again we're strictly focusing on what goes on. There is a spectrum of dressdom. One could have an over the top type of dress. One that has attachments and phallic extensions and perhaps feathers. This type would most certainly be the easiest to identify due to the very provocative nature of the dress. People talk about it for days, perhaps weeks afterwards until of course, the next banquet. Then there are choices of attire among women that may be provocative for the lack of fabric. In this case the goal is to extenuate the blessings offered by genetics, such as a displaying breasts (much to the favors of every man) or the rear in a manner that is skin tight and leaves male segment with their mouths on the ground. Of course there is the neutral dress, which does not cause any intrigue but at the same time remains respectfully reserved. Hair is perhaps also an accessory to attire. It is not enough to leave the hair in its natural state. At one of these events it is clear that there has been some sort of treatment to the hair and/or some sort of product. One would be hard pressed to find an individual whose got nothing in their hair except of course, for those with no hair. The men are also just as immersed in the realm of extravagant attire. The choices a fellow man makes can reveal something about his personality. If he wears bright colors he may indeed be a flamboyant individual. In some cases it can denote a femininity of the male, but its masked by an arcane desire for “pussy.” So in effect a man can be wearing more colors, have more product in his hair, more moisturizer in his skin and cleaner nails than some girls and yet be the ones who are getting the “pussy.” It is a backwards way that perhaps redefines what “masculinity,” actually is. It is important to note that a minority of the males are dressed in a manner that begs attention, most go neutral and fulfill the natural tendency of male attire: traditional neutrality in an effort to maintain traditional masculinity. The one accessory that man gets to toy around with is facial hair. Most men are cleanly shaven, unless the slight shadow of the beard is there. In this case, masculinity is indeed being displayed. Mustaches are a rarity and only seen on old men and very brave, masculine, intelligent, funny, brilliant men. All of these factors serve to form an integral component of the Russian banquet. It has its roots in superficial one-up-manship, but has evolved into a silent beauty contest among the women. Some men choose to enter this contest among the men, but the majority of the men do not care. If one chooses to ignore this component then they are truly disregarding the foundation-less notion of “dressing to impress.” It is not customary to ignore this rule.

Perhaps the most notable aspect is the copious consumption of alcohol in a mechanical, meta-human type of way. One does not simply not drink at a Russian banquet, unless they're working, and even then some would bet these waiters are sneaking some (which is totally cool). There are certain procedural steps within this component, in that words of wisdom and experience is repeated. First of all it is unwise to mix beverages. One does not simply go from tequila to whiskey to vodka, no they stick with the initial brand and do not deviate. If one does deviate then there will almost certainly be issues ranging from vomiting to crying. Most attendees are well aware of the duty to drink as much as possible, its universally acknowledged among the collective but there is no real clear reason. Is the point of drinking the birthday or the point of the birthday to drink? It works very much as a cycle and it's inexplicable adoption is bewildering. It serves as the catalyst for good times and bad times, but certainly not “meh,” times. Attendees are taking a bet that is 50/50 in either direction of good or bad. The overall group generally has the good time and isolated incidents of too much are a stark and minimal concern. It is unlikely everyone gets too drunk. The drinking schedule is also quite severe and punishing. There exists a type of attendee who encourages or initiates a given shot. Often times this person is the consistent director and purveyor of the drinking. It is necessary for this person to use his (and sometimes her) better judgment on the drinking. This individual is pours the shots and commences toasts. Without him or her the drinking could be in disarray. He or she is also not responsible for the groups drunkenness in its entirety, they're responsible for his or her own designated quadrant, specifically the two people to his or her left, right, and the two people sitting directly across. There are visitors from other quadrants and this individual pours a shot when he or she usually recognizes that his or her glass is empty. The choice of this individual to pour a shot is quite important, too much and the quadrant gets fucked up too fast and if the re-pouring is too infrequent then the events are very boring. The resulting circumstances of this consumption lead the way to the final components of the Russian banquet.

There is a large element of gossipology to the Russian banquet. It just so happens that there is fodder before the event, during and after. It can only be a result of the magnitude of hype revolving the said event. The gossipology does not necessarily need to be negative. It is conglomeration of all the issues into a slow whining and discussion of elements surrounding who is going. Often times people will invite their friends, for instance the host will invite person A and person B and those persons are are at odds with each other, but not with the host. In this scenario shit can get ugly,especially, if the drink pourer is poor at pouring. Luckily, this writer has not experienced such a scenario. The real gossipology starts post party, and it is perhaps entirely unavoidable. For instance this particular written piece can be seen as a form of gossipology. This writer would personally disagree with that, but the fact remains: this can be called gossipology. It is unknown if said gossipology is necessary, however, it does indeed occur almost every time. A good example of positive gossipology would be a banquet I recently attended, which was fantastic, there was literally no drama and arguably everyone had an awesome time, the only gripe was that people had to go home at the end of the night. It is less interesting and less talked about. The type of gossipology that occurs when something negative happens has the capacity to last years, from broken showers to ex-boyfriends. It really develops itself. Also, it may seem that the adults at the event, and even some of the younger folk are actively judging you. They stare and do not make an effort to hide the fact they are staring. One who is being looked at can feel the judgment by the onlookers and can feel how wrong they are about you. It is akin to a girl looking at people magazine and judging “who wore it best.” The feeling of judgment is so strong, so pure, so authentically putrid it can actually induce vomiting. Soon some issues come up regarding standards and procedural elements, which in and of itself is a whole other issue.

To the individual who does not frequent these banquets it is crucial to know some ground rules. One of which is time of arrival. I personally make this mistake time and time again, but no one else does. The time that is given in the invitation is incorrect, and it is knowingly given as the incorrect time by the host and somehow is translated without explanation as the incorrect time to the attendees. For instance if one is invited for 7:30 p.m. it would be proper to arrive around 8:15 p.m. for no discernible reason. Perhaps it stems from an inability for guests to arrive on time, so the host provides a time that is earlier to ensure people get there at the appropriate 8:15 p.m. It can get complicated because apparently everyone knows this, and as such may delay his or her arrival past the 45 minute leeway given by the host. There is an overlooked variable in this scenario: the individual who is not clued in. What is this person to do? Well, they wait, they came on time and were penalized for not being clued in to the standards and procedures. The conclusions of this components are treacherous in that people cannot be trusted by the host to be on time (with good reason), and attendees show their level of respect by way of what time he or she arrived. Yet it should be clear that circumstances like work, or prior engagements would be excused from criticism. Other procedural variables come in many forms, like if one smokes he or she (but usually he) must make sure he or she has enough for themselves and roughly an equal amount to give away. One does not simply go outside to smoke by themselves at a Russian Banquet. There is an undefined buddy system. Often times a cigarette is needed by smokers after a shot or two. The resulting effect is roughly 33.33% of attendees are hanging around outside. Some would say the cool people are outside, but that is up for opinion. Also the benefit of somewhat fresh air helps dilute the amount of dancing that occurs.

The final and perhaps most controversial component to the Russian banquet is the gift one gives. This issue goes into the pre-event gossipology and is rooted in ethics and politics and no one wants to be on the wrong side of the gift because then he or she will be the conversation of the post-event gossipology. First off there is no actual tangible gift, one must only give cash, anything otherwise would be a violation of the unspoken standards and procedures. The next issue is how much cash to give. Here lies the the topic of most internal mind conversation. The goal by most (and this “most” would never admit it) would be to give as little as possible without being the one person who gives the least. Speculation is at its highest right before the event. Attendees will call each other in an effort to gain a consensus of what people are giving, then the attendee will make a decision and once that cash is sealed in the envelope the decision cannot be overturned. It is highly important and relevant to keep this subject as taboo as fucking possible, because one may never know if he or she was the person who contributed least. If word gets out about a frugal patron then a reputation can be at stake. It can be supposed that attendees may enjoy a lower number, but then again some consistent factors will remain. Everyone knows that the event is expensive, everyone knows that it could be an issue and everyone knows that they don't want to really give but have to.

The Russian banquet is something of sociological lore. People who are not immersed in that particular culture are prone to confusion, ethnocentrism and a sentiment of senseless hedonism that goes on for hours. Hopefully this little inquiry into the operational components of the Russian banquet have allowed for cleared up any issues for those who have yet to attend one.