• [ DO NOT CLICK ]
  • Copywriting+Design
    • » Overview
    • Video
    • Art and design
    • ENHERTU
    • vorvida
    • ChemoCentryx
    • BioMarin
    • Google Home
    • LONA
    • Stories Behind The Fog
    • Spec and Student Stuff
    • Skip Ads »
  • Music
  • Photography
  • Blog
Alex Basa Creative
  • [ DO NOT CLICK ]
  • Copywriting+Design
    • » Overview
    • Video
    • Art and design
    • ENHERTU
    • vorvida
    • ChemoCentryx
    • BioMarin
    • Google Home
    • LONA
    • Stories Behind The Fog
    • Spec and Student Stuff
    • Skip Ads »
  • Music
  • Photography
  • Blog

My Film Year In 2023

In 2023, I started shooting film for the first time—something I’ve wanted to get my hands on for years. I found that after college, I felt a sort of ambivalence towards photography—specifically DSLR photography. I loved making images and capturing moments, but “shutter bugging” had become a real drag. You can argue that can be solved with some better trigger discipline, but truly, the efficacy of the digital format is best expressed by “quantity will get you quality.” However, when I finally got around to buying a film SLR, it reinvigorated my love for photography. Something about not being able to constantly chimp an LCD screen really gives you the opportunity to experience the moment as a moment, instead of as someone worrying about “whether that shot looked good.” And that had really been my biggest issue with DSLR photography, frankly. It was starting to feel more like a chore than like art. And I missed making art.

That being said, here are some of my favorite shots from the Alex Basa Film Project™®©.

Hope you like ‘em.

View fullsize 000033850005.jpg
View fullsize 000047870035.jpg
View fullsize 000033850026.jpg
View fullsize 000139620036.jpg
View fullsize 000000220006.jpg
View fullsize 000000220030.jpg
View fullsize 000047860025.jpg
View fullsize 000072810013.jpg
View fullsize 000072810020.jpg
View fullsize 000072810027.jpg
View fullsize 000072810025.jpg
View fullsize 000139600014.jpg
View fullsize 000375600018.jpg
View fullsize 000139590003.jpg
View fullsize 000139590031.jpg
View fullsize 000139590036.jpg
View fullsize 000139610031.jpg
View fullsize 000139620005.jpg
View fullsize 000139620008.jpg
View fullsize 000139620029.jpg
View fullsize 000139620033.jpg
View fullsize 000139600026.jpg
View fullsize 000158160025.jpg
View fullsize 000158160008.jpg
View fullsize 000158160017.jpg
View fullsize 000158160033.jpg
View fullsize 000158160034.jpg
View fullsize 000158160029.jpg
tags: photography, art, film, camera, slr
categories: Photography
Monday 01.22.24
Posted by Alex Basa
 

The more money I make, the more pissed off I am at rich people.

I want to preface this blog post by saying that I’ve never been truly destitute. I have also never been truly rich. But I am currently approaching the “middle of the road,” and as someone breaking into the middle class from the lower-middle class (by the way, I think the “middle class” is a misnomer—I’m WAAAAAAAAY closer to $0 than I am to $1,000,000,000), I can confidently say one thing:

Fuck rich people.

And by rich people, I mean people who don’t know the price of common grocery items or people who cosplay as service industry workers. Pro tip, rich people: that shit is not cute and endearing—that shit is out of touch and infuriating.

Let me tell you why…

What it’s like being poor

Full disclosure, I also don’t have a whole hell of a lot of experience being poor as an adult. I’ve definitely spent most of my adult life living within my means, or in just ever so slight excess; I’m no stranger to the #treatyoself life. But when I was a child, I definitely remember my immediate family coming into financial hardship so badly that we had to move cities away and in with family that could keep us sheltered. By that measure, I can tell you that I remember what it means to be poor. Here’s a really short list of what being poor looks like:

  • Putting in specific, limited volumes of gasoline into your car because you don’t have the budget for gas

  • Selling or pawning treasured belongings because you can’t make rent this month

  • Keeping track of the dollar amount in your grocery store cart because you can’t afford to buy too much

  • Knowing what SNAP is

  • Keeping diligent track of which lights or appliances are on in your living place because your electric bill can bankrupt you

  • Having your electricity turned off

  • Needing a second job

  • Not going to the doctor or dentist because you can’t realistically afford it

  • Having to leave a grocery cart at the register because all of your cards were declined

Even shittier, being poor is expensive, because the penalty for not having enough money is often a fee. Being poor is often associated with escapism via substance abuse, because what else is there? There are so many barriers to escaping poverty and general poorness that people seldom do it. If you’ve never had the displeasure of experiencing any of the above bullets, count yourself lucky. But a lot of people reading this will have, and they’ll know how fucking miserable it is.

You only have bootstraps if you can afford boots

There’s a mythical anecdote about people who’ve “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps” and gotten themselves out of poverty and into the more luxurious parts of our society. While these unicorns aren’t completely fictional, they are a statistical anomaly. More commonly, the cycle of poverty is one of relapse and remission, and the longer one stays in poverty, the more likely one is to stay in it (Transitions into & out of Poverty in the United States, Ann Stevens, UC Davis). Ironically, being poor is extremely expensive.

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

—Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

When you’re poor, you buy obstacles that keep you poor. You buy subpar products, or subpar nutrition, or subpar services. These subpar purchases don’t have the longevity that “premium” products or services have, and consequently, you end up paying more frequently to compensate. When it comes to the relationship of money and problems, less means more.

Money can’t buy you happiness…but it can buy you everything else

When I graduated college in 2017, I was lucky enough to have landed a paid internship, and skilled enough that they kept me on staff after that internship ended. For someone who graduated from art school, this was the golden goose dream. I had previously been working as a morning stocker at a big box retailer, and the pay increase at the time was significant. However, by San Francisco standards, it was still considered a very low-income position. I was fortunate enough to still be living rent-free with my mother at the time, so it was mostly a liquid income as I started to come into emergent adulthood. Over the next few years, jobs, and apartments, I would teeter around that salary, typically staying within $10,000/year of it. It wasn’t until 2021 when I would finally see another significant salary increase of 25%. I kept that salary for around half a year until I jumped agencies for another 33% salary raise. Very quickly, from mid-2021 to early-2022, I was making +60% more than I’d been making for the past 4 years prior.

Let me tell you something: every time I got a raise, the walls felt a little less close—figuratively and literally. In that time, I’d moved out of my mom’s place, into a small apartment with a roommate, into a much bigger apartment with two roommates, and currently, into a reasonably sized apartment with my romantic partner. Net-net, I’ve consistently gained more personal space in wealthier areas with more a more forgiving margin of income. I seldom think about how much groceries are going to cost me anymore. I fill my gas to the brim without thinking about it. I don’t feel guilty making purchases to fuel my hobbies and interests. I am planted firmly in the middle class earning range, according to Bay Area statistics.

But friends, let me tell you this: that +60% salary increase I saw over the last year or so? It really wasn’t that much in the grand scheme of American economics. I find myself extremely comfortable and could probably find myself contented with this salary for the foreseeable future, yet my whole current salary is equal to ~0.0001282% of what Jeff Bezos made in 2020. In relative terms of my salary, that’s about $0.13.

If you could take $0.13 away from me and completely lift someone out of poverty and into the middle class of San Francisco for a year, I would be more than happy to give that to you. Hell, if you wanted to do that for 1,000 people and it only cost me $130, I’d say that I’ve bought shoes more expensive. 10,000, and it costs me $1,300? That’s a shitload of money, but I’d still probably do it because the wellbeing of 10,000 people is well worth 1.3% of my yearly salary. You know what 1.3% of Elon Musk’s revenue from 2019–2020 was? $1,643,200,000.

Let me reiterate: me spending $1,300 is equivalent to Elon Musk spending $1.6 BILLION dollars.

And therein lies why I’m so pissed off with rich people (read: billionaires)…

Only dragons sit on hoards of gold

How is it possible that the richest people in America sit on this vast pile of wealth when they could cumulatively eliminate food insecurity, shelter insecurity, and all types of basic needs for this country’s citizenry? Stet that, the whole world. The comparatively meager salary increase that changed my entire life could be spread around to the nation’s population with headroom to spare. That’s what I mean by “the more money I make, the more pissed off I am at rich people.” Because I don’t even make that much in the grand scheme of it all. Regular people shouldn’t be fighting each other over the crumbs we’re left off the tables of the ultra-rich. If we’re left wanting, we should be pissed off at them.

Let me put this in a way that’s easier to digest:

  • If I paid you $1,000,000 a year for 1,000 years

  • You didn’t spend a single dollar

  • You would have ONE billion dollars after ONE THOUSAND YEARS

There are people in the world who have hundreds of billions of dollars. What the fuck can you possibly do with that kind of money.

Skip to 2:52 to see the visualization. Most people reading this will make between 0.5–2 grains of rice per year.

How did we get here?

Why do we have money in the first place? Well, it can be traced back to when humans were a tribal species. We evolved to be social creatures, because belonging to a pack in prehistoric times meant you were more likely to contribute to the wellbeing of the pack and survive. It follows, then, that when a tribe would meet another tribe, those two tribes could interact to the benefit of the both (if they didn’t just try to destroy each other and take everything first). This is how bartering came about. “I’ll trade you some meat from my tribe for some clean water from yours.” For tribal species, bartering makes a lot of sense. You never know what other tribes you may come across, so a singular system of representing value doesn’t make much sense. Trade is more of a case-by-case scenario.

However, as we began to settle as a species, and tribes became villages, which became towns, which became full blown societies, the bartering system became less convenient for our non-nomadic ancestors. Eventually, we started representing the value of goods with token items (these could be anything from shiny shells to metal coins). Within a society, a token could represent a food ration you could redeem from the governing authority, for example. This was better for static societies because townsfolk wouldn’t have to try and store food that could rot. They could instead store a representation of the food, which doesn’t have a shelf life. This principle of token items standing as representations of goods could be arbitrary, and trades across societies were definitely disputable. The solution? Societies had to create a standard representation for each token. That way, a governing authority could say “one token is equal to one bread,” or whatever. This is how we got to the gold standard.

In modern society, the value of money became directly linked to the quantity of gold a society had. You have one dollar? It’s worth one unit of gold. You can use this dollar to buy things that are compared to the value of gold at the time, or you can exchange it for the gold itself—which may or may not increase in value over time.

But as we enter a global economy, the representation of a country’s currency becomes more difficult to precisely measure. It’s now measured by a nation’s gross national product, which is to say the total value of all the goods and services that a nation creates and provides to the world. How do we standardize that, you ask?

GOOD. MOTHERFUCKING. QUESTION. The shit has grown overly complicated and damn near arbitrary all over again. What does a dollar represent anymore? Nothing, really. It doesn’t really redeem for a piece of gold, anymore, and gold is sort of a meaningless standard to measure by, now. So money is basically just a bunch of arbitrary numbers decided by the people who have the most of it. It’s dumb and pointless. Money used to represent wealth and scarcity, and was useful when comparing between tribes, but the fact of the matter is, we are a global tribe, now. Money is just holding us back as a species.

Think about it this way: a member of a tribe takes what it needs from the tribe when they need it, and contributes to the tribe when they’re asked to. It’s that simple, but now make it a global scale.

…Okay, I know it’s not that simple, but you get what I mean. We’re probably too far down the gullet of capitalism to just reverse course. Nothing short of a global revolution or species extinction event will get us there. But a man can dream and be pissed off about it until then, can’t he?

Conclusion:

The world’s wealth gap has long since been outrageous, but it is especially outrageous today, when the cumulation of the world’s billionaires could collectively solve for all the world’s basic wants and needs, and then some. Full transparency, I think the system of transactional relationships is a horrifically outdated modality. We have enough global resources to simply take care of the world. Why are we still using this archaic system to represent wealth in the digital age? Perhaps my favorite expression of this, ever, comes from a scene in Star Trek: First Contact…

Capt. Picard saying "The economics of the future are somewhat different... Money doesn’t exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives.We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."
tags: money, pissed, rich people
categories: Social Commentary
Tuesday 07.05.22
Posted by Alex Basa
 

It's time to let West Side Story die...

Some facts:

  • In 2021, a White man in his 70s remade a film created in the:

  • 1960s by a White man in his 30s, which was adapted from a musical written in the:

  • 1950s by White men in their late 20s, which was based on a play written in the:

  • 1590s by a White man in his 30s.

West Side Story (2021) » West Side Story (1961) » West Side Story (1957) » Romeo & Juliet (c. 1590)

Do you see a pattern here? Besides the addition of music, there has not been an original idea for the last 430 years.

…well…that’s not the only problem, here…

West Side Story (2021) is a beautiful film plagued by a story that has aged terribly. Measurably worse, the filmmaker in charge of the 2021 remake did that whole White Progressive™ thing where he tried to retell a story that isn’t his to tell, that a bunch of White Film Critics™ absolutely gobbled up, starring an Ethnically Diverse™ cast of actors who absolutely killed it, making it even fucking harder to be critical about the movie without having to walk on brown eggshells—and I can make that joke ‘cause I’m brown. Anyway, even though no one asked, here’s my review. Oh, and spoilers ahead for an extremely familiar story that you probably already vaguely know anyway…

“Best Side” Story

Okay, before I completely eviscerate this film and its entire pretentious agenda, let me talk about its good parts: from a technical perspective, it is a pretty damn good execution. The music is fantastic. The cinematography is fantastic. The choreography is fantastic. The acting is fantastic. Everything that the eyes and ears register is absolutely fucking beautiful. Hell, I could even buy the whole tough-guy-ballet thing because Ansel Elgort (Tony) and Mike Faist (Riff) fucking killed it in their roles. The song Cool made me audibly shriek when they were wrestling with the gun that way because I was almost certain it was gonna go off accidentally. David Alvarez (Bernardo) was even believably intimidating as the head honcho of Los Tiburónes (“The Sharks,” for you Gringos).

Would I recommend giving it a watch? Sure, rent it or catch it on the streaming service of your choice. Or if you’re reading this past the year 2022, catch some of the clips of the musical numbers on YouTube. Again, comparatively to the the 1961 version, the characters are a lot more convincing in their roles. The gangsters feel like gangsters, as opposed to theater nerds wearing gang-face. The brown people are brown, there’s no holding punches with the ethnic slurs (so it doesn’t feel sanitized), and the political commentary is…there. But that’s sort of where it starts to deteriorate after you look past its gorgeously polished exterior.

La belleza es sólo superficial

West Side Story (2021) did some expert cleaning up (and by that, I mean grittifying) of the original 1961 film. Full disclosure, I’ve never seen the original in its entirety, but I know that it was mired by brown-facing, Spanglish, and the misogyny of the time. The 2021 remake tried its hardest to rectify some of the transgressions of its predecessor, but by doing that, it really only served to let the problematic parts of West Side Story’s narrative shine through. And honestly, that’s where it starts to become apparent that people need to stop romanticizing Romeo and Juliet.

On the surface, West Side Story is a retelling of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. This is not news to anyone, but what might be news to people is that Romeo and Juliet is not a romantic story. Categorically, it’s a tragedy, not a comedy. Like most revered storytellers, there’s usually a moral or lesson you can take away from Shakespeares works—power and corruption, in MacBeth; the fickle nature of human attraction, in A Midsommer Night’s Dream; cross examining the qualities of leadership and morality, in Henry V… Shakespeare was known for being a satirist, and extrapolating from there, we can deduce that Romeo and Juliet was not supposed to be an inspiring story about love, but rather a cautionary tale about rash judgements, feuds of allegiance, and the stupidity of young people. For fuck’s sake, the titular characters kill themselves after having known each other for less than a week.

And therein lies the satire. Shakespeare was remarking upon how quickly young people fall in and out of love, and how fucking stupid they are when that happens. They’re reckless, overdramatic, and extremely selfish. These are not qualities to be admired. Fast forward a couple hundred years, and we’re still studying this story, but too often taking away the wrong lesson. Subtlety is hard, after all.

Enter, West Side Story (1961). It’s the story of two teenagers, aligned with two opposing factions, who meet at a party and fall in love at first sight, yada yada yada, Tybalt kills Mercutio, Tony kills Tybalt, it’s all very sad. And maybe you didn’t even notice that I deliberately swapped the names of one of the archetypical characters, but that would be because they’re the same fucking dude.

Now, I’m gonna yada yada through the rest of the movie because you probably already know it, but the very ending of West Side Story is the thing that takes the horrific cake for me.

Kill it with hate

I fucking hate this ending. If you haven’t seen the 2021 reboot, it’s very similar, dialogue-wise. My problem with it is that it’s trying to serve as a cautionary tale, but it’s so goddamn pretentious about it. What’s worse, it removes the original dark consequence of the satire from Romeo and Juliet. In Shakespeare’s source material, everyone important dies. And the cautionary tale is that young people do dumbass, overdramatic, high consequence bullshit in the name of “love.”

West Side Story tries to add on top of that satirical commentary by layering on themes about race, gang violence, revenge, and “hate.” The problem is that the message gets so sloppily shoe-horned in on top of the other message that it feels unrealistic and undeserved. Whereas in Romeo and Juliet, revenge and faction are used as contextual framework to move the plot of the romantic story forward, West Side Story uses them as completely parallel narratives. That’s a problem. Try this: what is the one-sentence synopsis for Romeo and Juliet?

Two kids from rival families fall in love, death and drama ensue because of this romance, and then they hurriedly kill themselves at the end because of a miscommunication.

What’s the one-sentence synopsis of West Side Story?

Two kids from rival gangs fall in love, death and drama ensue kinda because of the romance, but mostly because of parallel gang shit, then at the end, one of the gang members kills the main guy out of revenge, and the girl “learns how to hate” because of it.

There’s one lesson in Romeo and Juliet, while West Side Story tries to have multiple. It’s unfocused. It’s trying too hard. And it falls flat because who gives a shit about this unrealistic ass story. The ending doesn’t feel impactful because the ultimate consequence and lesson tries to be: “gang violence bad.” It tries to sidecar the A storyline (Tony and Maria) by making the B storyline (The Jets vs The Sharks) the “moral of the story.” If it really wanted to stay in line with Romeo and Juliet, Maria should have shot and killed everyone and then herself when she said she could have. But the movie/play didn’t have the cajones to do it. So instead, she gets to leave all sad and shit, but still alive. We don’t learn anything new, there’s not any real consequence for the characters left living except “end on a vaguely sad note,” it’s not an effective satire, and then we fade to goddamn black. It’s not even a cautionary tale about anything. It’s just sadness fetishism.

And don’t give me no bullshit about “the moral of the story is that Maria has to live with the consequences of her actions.” That line of justification doesn’t hold up because we don’t see any of the consequences, which is just lazy writing. It’s not the same as ending a story by “leaving them wanting more.” It’s asking the viewer to finish the story for someone who couldn’t figure out how to. And if that’s the justification, where’s Tony’s “moral of the story”? ‘Cause he’s dead. And those two consequences do NOT feel equal for characters that are supposed to be equal protagonists of this story.

White Progressivism™ and self-congratulations

West Side Story (2021) attempted an act of contrition for West Side Story (1961) by casting brown people in the roles of brown people. It’s a commendable attempt at recompensing for the racist legacy that West Side Story (1961) penned into the American cultural zeitgeist. I’ll grant the 2021 execution its due credit for contributing to representation efforts in American cinema, but I think it—like with many White Progressive™ reconciliation efforts—overreached in a pretentious, self-congratulatory way.

What’s the egregious sin I think West Side Story (2021) committed?

Not subtitling the movie for non-Spanish speakers.

Here’s the justification Spielberg used for the decision. Here’s the important excerpt from the article:

“Throughout "West Side Story," Puerto Ricans are constantly told to "speak English" because the cops and Jets refuse to take the time to understand them.

By making this creative choice, Spielberg is challenging his audience to instead "speak Spanish," and no longer be ignorant of a culture that represents 19% of the United States' population (62.1 million) as of 2020.”

On the surface, this seems like a clever creative choice that makes a poignant commentary about our society. Spielberg argued that non-Spanish speaking audiences could extrapolate from “context” what the Puerto Rican characters were saying, and that Spanish speakers in the audience would basically get an extra layer of movie that non-speakers would either have to seek out or infer, highlighting a “fundamental truth” in our society: that “we’re a bilingual country.”

…This sentiment would be sweet if it were coming from a screenwriter that actually put his money where his monolinguistic mouth is. Do you see the problem with White men who don’t speak Spanish lecturing the rest of us about not being able to speak Spanish? It’s performative and toothless at best; hypocritical at worst. Bo Burnham put it best in his Netflix special, Inside:

“I'm a special kind of white guy
I self-reflected, and I wanna be an agent of change
So I am gonna use my privilege for the good (Very cool, way to go!)”
—Comedy
, by Bo Burnham

Or better yet:

“Why do you rich fucking white people
Insist on seeing every socio-political conflict
Through the myopic lens of your own self-actualization?
This isn't about you.
So either get with it, or get out of the fucking way”
—The Way the World Works,
by Bo Burnham






The problem with the type of pandering Steven Spielberg et al. did with West Side Story is that they don’t believe the bullshit they’re peddling. Otherwise they’d nut the fuck up and learn Spanish themselves. Instead, they’ve adopted an unearned “holier than thou” attitude about their uninspired hot take on the country’s linguistic demographics. What’s worse, by choosing not to subtitle the Spanish parts of the movie, they’re effectively red-taping off those parts of the narrative from the people who need exposure to that narrative the most: rich White people. If you want non-speakers to sympathize with a narrative, you give them a chance to understand it. Otherwise, they disconnect from the narrative. Brown people don’t need to told how hard it is/was to be a brown person. We know how fucked up it’s been. Having your brown characters talk about being oppressed in their native tongue, unsubtitled, removes that part of the narrative for the people who need to hear about it. It’s not “authentic” to omit subtitling. It’s not a “service to the Spanish speaking community,” you patronizing gringo. It’s just Diet Brown Face™.

Plus, if your justification includes, “non-speakers will be able to understand via context,” then just fucking subtitle the shit for the love of god. Use language disparity as a vehicle for the narrative, not as a glitter you can put on your pseudo-intellectual passion project.

Season 5, Episode 2 of Bojack Horseman: The Dog Days Are Over

Season 5, Episode 2 of Bojack Horseman: The Dog Days Are Over

A show that did no-subtitling profoundly better was the Bojack Horseman episode titled “The Dog Days Are Gone.” For those of you who haven’t seen the show (side note: shame on you; go watch Bojack Horseman), Diane—the character pictured above—is a Vietnamese American who doesn’t speak any of her ethnic tongue. She goes through a bit of an existential crisis wherein she decides to “go back to the homeland.” A homeland in which she realizes: she’s actually a tourist. She has no ties to her ethnic heritage besides her genealogy, and when she goes to Vietnam on a whim, she finds herself clueless and lost in an unfamiliar land. Main characters are often felt as surrogates for the viewer, so her loneliness is punctuated for us by deliberately choosing to exclude the translation subtitles, which has the effect of reinforcing that feeling of exclusion and unknown. The choice to not subtitle serves the narrative; it doesn’t prevent us from engaging in it. And if the viewer so happens to speak Vietnamese, their experience is enriched by that ability.

Comparatively, whenever Spanish is spoken in West Side Story (2021), it’s always by main characters (who are, again, surrogates for the viewer). So by not having subtitles, it alienates the viewers from the cast with whom we’re supposed to be sympathizing. And, like, rule number 1 in storytelling is to sympathize your main characters to your audience, not alienate them from them.

Conclusion:

West Side Story is a story we should all just collectively let retire. Everyone knows it. We can stop remaking it. And by proxy, we can never ever try to remake Romeo and Juliet ever again. Sure, let it be performed in theater settings. Let high schoolers study it via the Leonardo DiCaprio adaptation. But we’ve had enough “fresh takes” on this worn-out ass narrative. And if you’re going to do it at all, just stick to the script.

Here’s an itemized list of problems in West Side Story

  1. Too many parallel themes and narratives

  2. Takes itself too seriously to be satirical, doesn’t change enough from Romeo and Juliet to move away from its satirical roots

  3. The B story conclusion becomes the moral of the story, while the A story serves as contextual framework to justify the final message

  4. The Diversity and Inclusion™ initiative was half-baked, and the omission of subtitles was a performative, hypocritical virtue signal

tags: movies, west side story, musicals
categories: Entertainment, Movies
Monday 05.09.22
Posted by Alex Basa
 

Short Story: The Race

It was the day of the Company-sponsored Relay Race, and your team was called The Reluctants. Your team was filled with people like you: people who didn’t want to participate in The Race, but were coerced into it by the The Company and the reigning team from years’ past, called The Supervisors. They said that participating in The Race would be “good for Company morale.”

Your team just wanted to stay home and be with their families.

But The Company and The Supervisors insisted, so your team of The Reluctants were dragged from your homes and onto The Field to participate in The Race. There were 12 of you per team, and the rules were simple enough: the 12 Runners from each team were spread out along the track and the first Runner was given a Baton. Each subsequent Runner was to run to the next Runner and pass them the Baton, at which time, that Runner would continue the race and pass the Baton, et cetera, et cetera, until the race was through. The winning team was promised first pick of the new offices, supplies, chairs, and other comforts that would make working for The Company much more leisurely. The losing team would get whatever was left over—or in most cases, use whatever dilapidated paraphernalia was handed down from previous years of The Company’s existence. Suffice to say, said supplies and paraphernalia were not coveted by many, and savored by even fewer.

On the day of The Race, your team of The Reluctants were issued your uniforms by The Company via The Supervisors—Black Shorts and Black tank tops and whatever running shoes you happened to have in your possession. Some of you did not own running shoes, so you ran in loafers. The Supervisors also had uniforms issued by The Company. Their uniforms were made from polyester and had an emblem of a White Lion embroidered on their backs. Their shoes were manufactured by the luxury athletic division of The Company. Your team were told that the stronger runners were with you, so this division of resources was considered fair.

At the start of The Race, your runner lined up with their runner, and The Referee from The Company raised his starting gun to the sky. Just before The Referee pulled the trigger, the runner from The Supervisors shackled your runner’s ankles together, shortening the distance of their step. The Referee saw this and paid no mind: he fired the gun and the runner from The Supervisors tore off at a leisurely pace. Very swiftly, he closed the gap between himself and the second runner on their team. Your runner from The Reluctants shuffled as fast as possible to hand off their baton, but by the time they’d passed it off, the third runner from The Supervisors was already halfway through the leg of his race.

As your team’s second runner proceeded along the track, they noticed that The Supervisors had placed obstacles on your side of the race track, slowing your runner down as they climbed, jumped, and crawled through their leg of the race. Your second runner finished, and by now, The Supervisors had a very comfortable lead on your team. In fact, The Supervisors’s runner was merely walking; sauntering happily towards the next baton recipient in this 12-person relay race.

This continued until The Race concluded, and to no one’s surprise, The Supervisors finished first. As The Anchor of The Reluctants, you protested to The Supervisors saying that they had cheated at the start of The Race and very much throughout the course of The Race itself. The Supervisors pointed to your later racers and to you, saying that The Supervisors had stopped cheating and your later racers had every opportunity to catch up. More, you protested and shouted to The Referee that The Race was rigged from the start. The Referee shrugged his shoulders and unenthusiastically asked The Company what he should do. The Company shrugged their shoulders and enthusiastically awarded The Supervisors with the promised prize. They said to you, “Better luck next time.”

You pointed to your racers—tired, broken, shackled—and demanded a do-over of The Race, this time with fair stakes. The Company told you that there was nothing they could do. The Anchor from The Supervisors came over and extended his hand to you, saying that he was sorry that the first racers from The Supervisors cheated. You refused to shake his hand, saying that it wasn’t just the first racers that had cheated. All but the last two had interfered with their opposite racers’ progress, and just because the last two Supervisors hadn’t cheated, it didn’t make the race fair. The Supervisors told you that everyone should just try to get along and move forward from the results of The Race. They told you that the next one would be fair.

But for the next year, your team of The Reluctants had to deal with broken equipment, cubicles instead of offices, and the scraps of whatever supplies could be handed down to you from the bottom of the barrel. Over time, you and the former members of The Reluctants were chastised by The Company for having poor work performance. You reminded The Company that you and your colleagues were members of The Reluctants, and therefore were working under worse working conditions than that of The Supervisors.

The Company told you that they there were no teams anymore. The Race was over. Why did you keep bringing up The Race? They called you lazy. They called you entitled. They pointed to the air-conditioned offices and told you that the coworkers in those areas simply tried harder and if you tried as hard as they did, you could have an air-conditioned office, too. You reminded The Company that the only way they got there was because they were from the The Supervisors’s team. The Company told you to stop talking about The Race. They told you it was an unproductive conversation.

You started to tell others about the unfairness of The Company. You told them about how you were reprimanded for having a harder time than the people from The Supervisors. You told them about The Race. You showed people how your team was set up to fail from the start, and when you did fail, The Company told you it was your fault. Some people agreed with you. Some people rejected your ideas. You didn’t ask for much. You didn’t ask for The Supervisors to be kicked out of their offices. All you asked for was that The Company recognize the results of The Race and maybe build some more offices for your team members. You were told that it was logistically too expensive. You were told that what you had was enough. And when some of The Reluctants finally worked their way into the offices of The Supervisors, The Company pointed at them and said, “See? Why can’t you do it?”

Exhausted by your lamentations, you conceded defeat. You lost any hope of seeing the damage to your career repaired. But you did seek to teach your children about The Race. You wanted to leave them with a cautionary tale so that they might understand the critical injustice and try to make The Company better, in time. And by the time word got out that The Supervisors’s children were learning about your Critical Race Theory, The Supervisors were the ones running The Company.

tags: critical race theory
categories: Short Stories
Monday 03.07.22
Posted by Alex Basa
 

A completely batshit gun control solution that pleases no one (which makes it objectively perfect)

Growing up as an American, the gun control debate has been as ubiquitous as water (and even moreso, sometimes, seeing as I grew up in drought-stricken California). It’s a conversation that is mired by lobbying, uninformed outrage, and general propaganda on behalf of both sides of the aisle. It’s also a desperate one, since almost everyone agrees that there’s a problem, it’s just that no proposal has ever been satisfactory. Personally, I think it’s because any proposal only goes as far as satisfying one swath of the political spectrum; the others are left disgruntled by this or that. They’re all half measures wherein someone always feels like the other person came out on top, and no one likes to lose when they feel like someone else won. As someone who both identifies as pretty staunchly liberal, but is also fascinated by guns from a hobbyist perspective, I’ve thought about this a lot and have had to reconcile two different parts of my ethos: guns are bad, and guns are interesting.

Then what’s my solution? How do you devise federal legislation that possibly satisfies every ideology across the contiguous United States, knowing full well that even across county lines, the politics surrounding gun legislation are vastly contentious? Well, Aesop’s The Donkey and His Masters tells us “He who tries to please everybody pleases nobody.” So how about we try to please nobody?

Displeasing The Liberals

Alright, the first step in pleasing nobody is to get the Liberals pissed off. Should be pretty easy. Here’s why: I propose that we remove all restrictions on firearms and their paraphernalia, with the exception that RPGs, HMGs, LMGs, and any fully automatic firearms should still NOT be accessible to civilians. Open carry? Legalize it. Concealed carry? Legalize it. What about the sneaky subject of bump stocks? Good question. Legalize ‘em. And here’s the kicker…

…because…

Displeasing the Conservatives

…We should hold every single person and entity legally liable for anything and everything that happens with and because of that gun and its accessories. Up to and including the death penalty (depending on the state).

“Even the seller and manufacturer?”

Even the seller and manufacturer, yes. Especially the gun manufacturer.

“How would the death penalty work for an entire corporation?”

You fucking kill them.

“That is batshit fucking crazy”

I’m a man of my word.

But seriously, the implications are extreme on both sides for a reason. Think about it: if everyone in the chain of purchase was held legally liable for all incidents involving that firearm, gun sellers and manufacturers would be a lot more choosy about who they’re selling these instruments of death to. I bet they do diligent background checks and implement stringent training courses before finalizing the transactions.

“All that would do is increase the black market sale of guns.”

The black market sale of guns is doing just swimmingly on its own. And are you implying that “law abiding citizens” who have nothing but legal intent to do with their guns would suddenly turn to the black market if all regulations on their guns and attachments were made easy and legal to purchase? If the answer is yes, then I would posit to you that such gun buyers should not be buying guns in the first place, and that they were probably already looking at illegal ways to acquire their guns, anyway.

And if a gun store or manufacturer is caught evading the rules, they get felony persecuted. Up to and including the death penalty.

Okay, wise guy, how would it work?

Here’s a scenario for you:

Gun Manufacturer (GM) makes a gun > GM sells gun to Gun Retailer (GR) > GR sells gun to Gun Owner (GO) > GO’s adult offspring steals it and uses it to murder their significant other.

GM and everyone working in it (inclusive of the manufacturing facility and corporate headquarters), GR and everyone involved in the sale (inclusive of the salesperson, the manager-on-duty, and any supervisory staff), and GO are all personally liable for the murder of the offspring’s spouse, to the furthest extent of that state’s law—up to and including the death penalty.

This would create a chain of accountability that would reeeeeeaaaaaaally make every single person involved very cautious and deliberate about to whom they sell and store their guns. After all, the Second Amendment is sacred, right?

Conclusion:
I don’t a see a problem with this solution. If there are so many law-abiding citizens being held hostage by senseless gun regulation, then it shouldn’t be a problem if they’re all held ultimately responsible for whatever happens with that gun. It would encourage better storage of those guns via safes, lock boxes, etc…, and it would even bolster the sales of previously inaccessible firearms and accessories to states where gun legislation is too “extreme.”

…Unless there’s a bigger, more cultural problem surrounding the gun control debate, and really, gun manufacturers are complicit, compassionless, capitalist leeches feeding off the bloated corpse of their fear mongering propaganda and lobbying.

But that’s not it, right? Right.

tags: guns, gun control
categories: Social Commentary
Tuesday 03.01.22
Posted by Alex Basa
 

Subtleties in the language of racism: why you shouldn't call neighborhoods "good" or "bad"

Tell me if this sounds familiar: “Don’t go to [XYZ neighborhood] at night. It’s a bad/rough neighborhood.”

It wouldn’t surprise me if everyone reading this has heard some permutation of this advice in their lifetime. As someone with a hobbyist perspective about linguistics, let me tell you the short version why I’ve stopped calling neighborhoods “good” or “bad,” and have instead elected to make the conscious decision to call them either “richer” or “poorer,” respectively: it’s because the language of racism is also subtle.

Yes, I am implying that calling a neighborhood “bad” is accidentally and incidentally racist. Some of you might have the knee-jerk reaction of rejecting the idea as “too sensitive” or “too woke.” Hear me out: I’m not calling you racist for calling a neighborhood “bad.” But that doesn’t mean you’re not susceptible to learned racist language. Remember that once, not long ago, the “n word” was just a way to describe Black people. Once, not long ago, it was normal to call women “broads.” Once, not long ago, it was considered appropriate to call all people of Asian descent “Orientals.” Just like we know better about those words now, I hope we can learn to be better about the language of today.

“Those are words that describe people, so of course they’re racist. How can calling a high-crime neighborhood “bad” be considered racist? Crime is bad. If the neighborhood is a high-crime neighborhood, it’s a bad neighborhood. That’s not racist.”

I presume the above logic is based on the idea that a “neighborhood” is not a person, and therefore does not have an ethnicity. While that may make sense on the surface, it’s a little more complicated than that when you drill down a bit.

A brief history of American economics and race

We don’t have to go back very far to realize that American economics has historically favored White people. Some counterpoints to this observation will insist that “everyone today has a fair and equal access to everything; it doesn’t matter what your race is.” Speaking strictly on paper, sure, there isn’t as much obviously racist legislation. In the 1950s–1960s, we had the Civil Rights Movement, punctuated by political figures in the Black community such as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr…

…And everyone lived happily ever after.

…Just kidding.

I bring up the Civil Rights Movement because it happens to be the talking point that anti race-equity pundits point at and say, “See? We did it. We fixed the problem of legislative racism in America 70 years ago.” And while it’s true that we don’t have segregated water fountains, or “Whites only” pool hours, or “No Coloreds” diners, it’s a little disingenuous to call American politics “fixed.” Think of it this way: if you’re running in a relay race, and the other team happens to put your first runner in shackles from the start, of course your team will be behind the whole time. And that’s Critical Race Theory in America.

The effects of racist legislation have meant that people of color in America were historically prevented or denied access to a lot of the things that White America had from the very beginning, or haven’t you ever wondered why HOA suburbs are overwhelmingly White?

Put simply: White people have had first dibs on all the economic power since the beginning of the country. And if you’ve ever heard the saying “you gotta spend money to make money,” then it’ll make logical sense that if you don’t start with any money, it’s really fucking hard to make any money.

Here’s a question for you: of the top 10 richest people in America, how many do you think are White? Better yet, how far down the list do you think you have to go before you hit a non-White person? Even better, how far down the list until you hit a Black person? I’ll let you click that link and look for yourself. Spoiler alert: he’s definitely not in the top 100 (if you want to know his exact position, check the link after the conclusion).

Follow up question, why do you think that is? I won’t give you my opinion. But you should speculate for yourself.

Economics and crime (aka Mo’ money, less problems)

Now that we’ve discussed race and economics, let’s discuss economics and comfort. In the opening number of the musical Les Misérables, Jean Valjean is shown in chains, working as a slave to pay off a debt for stealing a loaf of bread.

Javert:
Follow to the letter your itinerary
This badge of shame
You shall show until you die
It warns you’re a dangerous man

Valjean:
I stole a loaf of bread!
My sister's child was close to death
And we were starving.

Javert:
You will starve again
Unless you learn the meaning of the law

Valjean:
Or the meaning of those 19 years
A slave of the law

If you’ve never been destitute, I’m sure you’ve never thought about stealing a meal to survive. When you go to the grocery store, do you haphazardly place whatever items you want in your cart without thinking about it much? Do you play the “guess the total” game when you approach the checkout line? Do you think about how many calories are in a box of plain spaghetti, and do the math on the spot to see if you can realistically hit 1500 calories in a day if you sit still and try to expend as little energy as possible while still being able to afford rent? Do you have a rent statement?

The closer you push someone towards the lower end of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the closer you push them towards desperation and a “do anything” type of will to survive.

“Just get a job! There are so many places hiring right now; it’s not that hard to survive.”

Sure, but when the only job that’ll hire you pays $10 an hour, after taxes, your take home pay is less than $400 a week. What happens when your rent is twice that, plus utilities? Not to mention the price of gas to fuel your car, which has a registration, insurance fee, and the cost of maintenance. And even if you eliminate the car, there’s the cost of everything else. The fact of the matter is that in America, escaping the cycle of poverty is fucking next to impossible. And just like generational wealth gets handed down, so does generational poverty. If it takes one person two jobs just to sustain themselves, while another person had the privilege of going to college while on their parents’ dime, that’s inherently not fair. I’m not saying the college grad needs to feel bad about themselves, but they should never claim it’s “easy” to do anything.

Whew, sorry, that got a little ranty. The point is that if you’re wealthy, odds are you’re comfortable. And if you’re poor, odds are it’s much harder to be comfortable. And when it’s a choice between stealing or starving, you bet your ass you’d steal to survive.

Economics and drugs

Picture this: you have no TV. No internet. You’re too hungry to have energy to play a sport. You’re cold because you’re living out of a car with an expired registration and no gas. You’re struggling to get a job because you don’t have a mailing address and you haven’t showered in a week. You’re fucking miserable. All you have is some scavenged leftovers and a few dollars you found in an old jacket pocket.

Then someone comes along with a way to make that misery just…go away.

Poverty is the biggest gateway to street drugs. And once you’re addicted to street drugs, your margins for getting out of poverty get extremely slim. And that’s pretty much all I have to say about that. It’s that simple, but it’s excruciatingly complicated at the same time. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of heroin or crack in HOA suburbs, and it’s because they don’t need them to feel good or comfortable.

Economics, crime, drugs, and race

I want to take a moment to note that nowhere in the last two sections of this blog posting did I mention race. But if you happened to picture any specific demographic of person when I used any of the words above, there’s probably a reason for that. When I say “marginalized people,” what type of person do you think of? When I say “ghetto,” what type of person do you think of? Maybe you’re seeing a pattern by now. Here’s the one I see:

Rich = comfortable = less street drugs and street crime
Poor = uncomfortable = more street drugs and street crime

Note that I said “street drugs and street crime.” I’m aware that rich people do boutique drugs and engage in corporate crime (which—importantly—are both expensive). Also note that I still haven’t mentioned any race or ethnicity. But now I will:

Neighborhoods in metropolitan America are characteristically segregated by race/ethnicity. Not by modern legislation, mind you. But by the legacy of racist legislation that kept people of color marginalized into the slums and ghettos of America. This is why rich areas are mostly white, while poor areas are more ethnically diverse.

Back to square one

So a poor, high-crime, high-(street)-drug-use neighborhood is more likely to be populated by black and brown folks, while a rich, low-crime, low-(street)-drug-use neighborhood is more likely to be populated by White folks. That’s just a description of reality. But what’s the common denominator? Are Black and brown folks in these poor neighborhoods worse than their rich, White counterparts?

Are Black/brown folks bad and are White folks good?

That, my friends, is racist.

Conclusion:
If you truly believe that White folks and their neighborhoods aren’t better than people of color and their neighborhoods, then consider making the conscious decision to change your language around descriptions of those places. Honestly, even if you don’t think this idea has any merit, calling neighborhoods “richer” and “poorer” is frankly more accurate and paints a more nuanced, historically informed picture. Because being poor isn’t bad. But poverty incentivizes bad things. After all, money (and lack thereof, in many cases) is the root of all evil.

It just happens that generally, White people have more money than POC do.

Btw, as of this writing Robert F. Smith—an investor—is the first Black person to show up on the Forbes Top 400 Richest People list, sitting comfortably at position #141. The first non-white person is Jensen Huang (sitting at position #34), the CEO and president of Nvidia.

tags: racism, neighborhoods, good vs bad
categories: Social Commentary
Wednesday 02.23.22
Posted by Alex Basa
 

5 Tips for achieving positive self-esteem

Mirror mirror in my hand, who’s the fairest in the land? (Spoiler, it’s you)

Mirror mirror in my hand, who’s the fairest in the land? (Spoiler, it’s you)

Full disclosure: this is just the opinionated rambling of a straight, cis-gendered, Asian male—fairly high up on the privilege totem pole. I am not academically educated in the subject matter, nor am I certified as a life coach or anything. All I know is that I rate myself as having a pretty high measure of self-esteem, and these are the tips I’ve gathered along the way to get me there. Starting with perhaps the least obvious, but most intuitive:

1) Self-esteem, like most things, is a skill.

Like riding a bike, self-esteem is something you have to practice. I imagine there are few people who are born with the innate ability to ride a bike. Similarly, we have to learn how to keep ourselves in high self-esteem. If you feel more comfortable, start small: tell yourself—out loud—that you were proud of something you did. Maybe you sent an email you’ve been dreading. Maybe you made your bed after not having done that for weeks. Maybe you did your laundry when it felt like an insurmountably daunting task just yesterday. It might sound silly, and you might sardonically congratulate yourself by saying, “Wow, you did something all normal functioning humans can do. Good job.” But I urge you to fight that reflex and genuinely congratulate yourself with sincerity: “I did good.”

The thing that’s hard to break away from (and the thing that probably takes the most time to do) is the imposter syndrome of self-esteem. You may feel like you don’t “deserve” congratulations or praise. And that might be because you were never externally validated for doing things in your past. Or maybe you were always expected to “do better,” no matter how proud of yourself you happened to be in the moment. The problem with not getting enough external validation as a young person is that we develop into grown ups without the verbal tools to know how to self-validate. And if this sounds like you—if B+ was never a good enough grade for your parents—then you’ll need to learn how to be proud of yourself. Remember: we all deserve to feel proud of ourselves.

2) If small self-congratulations don’t feel right, self-aggrandize.

So, maybe you’re not the type who feels good about genuinely congratulating yourself for something “normal people should be able to do” (your words, not mine). That can be a pretty hard hump to get over. If that’s the case, then try dialing it up to 11 and use self-aggrandizing language with yourself. I picked up this trait by accident, but I’ve noticed that it’s a really helpful one for increasing one’s self-esteem in a silly, but fun, way. Here’s an example:

You’re walking up some stairs with some friends, and as you come to the last step, you stumble and fall to the ground. You might feel a bit embarrassed in the moment. But then you say, “I am truly the most graceful person on the planet,” as you get up and dust yourself off.

That’s self-aggrandization. Whenever you fumble something, use humor to say the opposite of how you feel and go even further. It usually gets a laugh from your friends, and that can be a huge alleviator on all the social stress of looking silly. When you get the hang of saying something like “I’m truly the most careful person alive,” after spilling a soda at the dinner table, try self-aggrandizing with positive things, too. Here’s another example:

You’ve just finished learning how to cook a new dish. You plate it, eat it, and it was actually pretty damn good. You say out loud, “Eat your heart out, Gordon Ramsay.”

Self-aggrandization is a great pathway to positive self-esteem because you and people around you know you’re kidding, but you’re also practicing saying something nice about yourself. Which is better than the alternative, and leads us to the next tip…

3) Don’t say anything about yourself that you wouldn’t want people to agree with.

Self-deprecation is the opposite of self-aggrandization. And it’s what most people find themselves leaning into, unfortunately. See if any of these things sound like you:

I’m sorry I’m late; I’m the worst.

Sorry for forgetting your birthday; I’m literally trash.

God, why did I wear this outfit? It’s so extra.

Does my makeup look stupid?

I wish I was prettier.

I’m such an idiot.

The thing about self-deprecation is that it can often start as a defense mechanism: we’ll say the bad things first because, well, everyone’s already thinking it, right? So if I say it first, they can’t say it, and then it won’t hurt me as bad. We think that “acknowledging our flaws” makes us “humble,” or that it “gives us permission” to be flawed, or that it shows we’re aware and contrite about something. But the truth is that self-deprecation just hurts us. People who care about you will never say things to hurt you on purpose. And above all others, we should want to care about ourselves the most. So don’t say bad things about yourself.

If you need a different kind of motivation, consider that self-deprecation not only makes us get used to hating ourselves; it also makes those around us uncomfortable. When you self-deprecate, you often socially force others to externally validate you, which can get exhausting if done too much. You’ll sometimes hear people lament that “So-and-so is always fishing for compliments,” and you don’t want people to view you that way. This is why self-validation is such an important skill to learn.

4) Practice gratitude.

This one is actually pretty vogue in the social landscape lately, and I’m actually quite thankful for it (see what I did there?). Conceptually, gratitude is a no-brainer. But it’s a skill that can be difficult to master, probably for evolutionary reasons. I think Heath Ledger’s Joker said it the best in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (albeit in a more macabre way than I’m saying):

“Nobody panics when things go according to plan.”
—Joker, The Dark Knight

Humans generally expect things to go right. It’s our default. And because of that, we tend to take things for granted. But when something bad happens, it consumes us.


“You’re such a self-pitying masochist that I could say 10 nice things and 1 mean thing, and you would only hear the 1 mean thing.”

—Princess Carolyn, Bojack Horseman

Kinda related: you should definitely watch Bojack Horseman if you haven’t already. Anyway, when you practice gratitude, you start to see things for how good they are rather than how good they aren’t. It’s deceptively simple, but it goes something like this: list 5 unique things you’re thankful for a day. Eventually, you’ll be able to do it in real time. And if you need help keeping track of it, try this gratitude journal from Munich-based educational YouTube channel, Kurzgesagt (I am not sponsored by them in any way. I’m just a really big fan).

How does this help with your self-esteem? Well, by being grateful about things at large, you’ll also naturally end up listing things about yourself. Maybe you’re grateful that you have a roof over your head, which means you’re grateful that you have a job that’s sustaining you, which means you have a skill that you’ve learned, which means you’re probably good at something. There’s a lot to be thankful about you being you. You just have to teach yourself how to be good at recognizing it.

5) Be patient and forgive yourself.

Seldom few people get this right from the get-go. And the older we are when we start this stuff, the harder it becomes to internalize and make habitual. So it’s okay if you slip up sometimes. If one day, you’re feeling extra low and you can’t seem to stop beating yourself up, it’s not going to help if you then also beat yourself up for beating yourself up. Let yourself feel bad sometimes. Tell yourself that it’s okay. Forgive yourself for being mean to yourself. Low self-esteem is a bitch and a half to get over. But when you feel like you’ve gotten through it, get back to telling yourself how fucking awesome you are.

Conclusion:

If you want to track towards positive self-esteem in the way I did, try these five things:

  1. Practice it a lot, and start small

  2. Self-aggrandize both your mistakes and successes

  3. Don’t self-deprecate

  4. Practice being grateful

  5. Forgive yourself

Positive self-esteem is a learning game, and different people start out with different measures of self-esteem. Also, you may need more help than some random kid’s blog post on the Internet. So if you’ve been struggling with feelings of self-loathing for a while, it might be a good idea to consult a professional like your doctor. It could be a sign of clinical depression. Your brain, just like your kidneys, is a vital organ—arguably the most vital organ—in your body. And just like you’d take care of your kidneys in the case of a hepatic event, you should also check in on your brain if you feel like your brain chemistry isn’t normal. Good luck, and I love you ❤️

tags: self esteem
categories: Personal Reflection, Social Commentary
Wednesday 07.07.21
Posted by Alex Basa
 

My favorite ice-breaker: The Four Stages of Knowing

8K4A8969_1.JPG

Today, I'd like to share my favorite ice-breaker with you all (one that also has some introspective utility for people like me—professional creatives who also provide freelance services):

The Four Stages of Knowing (or the Four Stages of Competence, depending on who you ask). It starts with an explanation of what “the stages of knowing” are:

1) Unconscious unknowing
2) Conscious unknowing
3) Conscious knowing
4) Unconscious knowing

- Unconscious unknowing is exactly what it sounds like: not knowing that you don't know something (or being uninterested in it). The example that I use for myself is playing guitar. Before I wanted to know how to play guitar, I had no interest in it.

- Conscious unknowing is the next stage. It's where you have an interest in something, but you're aware that you don't have the skill to a measure of fidelity. In my guitar example, it's the point where I first picked up a guitar and started fretting my first chords (very terribly, mind you). This is also the stage that creates a fork: either people continue forward, or quit altogether out of disinterest/frustration.

- Conscious knowing is the stage where you have a pretty good grip of the skill, but you have to actively think about it to use it. For me and guitar, I'm in-between this stage and the next stage. Some aspects I have to think very deliberately about, but some are...

- Unconscious knowing. Also known as a "second-nature" skill. This is a skill where you don't really have to think about it to perform it. This is also the hardest type of skill to identify for most people. After all, it's an "unconscious" skill. Everyone has them. For me and guitar, a lot of the time when I'm making up a guitar solo on the spot, I'm not really thinking about the scale shapes, what key I'm in, which notes are which intervals of the diatonic... I'm sort of just making noises. But the thing is, all of the previous stages of knowing have fed into the fourth stage.

So back to the ice-breaker: what's your unconscious knowing (or second-nature) skill?

I talked to a Spanish speaking friend about this recently, and—expectedly—he had a hard time placing a skill, even though I could think of one for him immediately. After he pondered for a bit, I said to him: language, bro. It hadn’t occurred to him that being bilingual was a skill he’d developed basically over the course of his entire life. He doesn’t have to think in order to switch back and forth between languages, and he doesn’t have to translate the words from either language in his head in order to understand what’s being said. Since I have an incredibly rudimentary grip on the Spanish language, I have to constantly think (conscious knowing) about what I am saying or what is being said to me.

This exercise is great as an ice breaker because it not only helps you get to know people, but it helps them get to know themselves. Be wary, however… in order to use this ice-breaker effectively, you’ll have to invoke a skill of your own: conversation leading. It takes a bit of explanation, and you might have to push the conversation along if people get stuck. There have been several occasions when I’ve used this ice-breaker and have had to give examples to inspire some introspective thinking.

So how does this apply to creatives in the freelance space? Well, something I’ve noticed about creatives is their tendency to feel guilty about “charging too much” for something when they produce work. I hear this most often when it comes to photographers. They tend to forget that since they’ve been shooting for a while and have built up an intuitive understanding about the relationship between composition, color, ISO, aperture, and shutter speed, that it “must not be that hard.” But truthfully, that shit can be hard as fuck. Photographers, here’s an experiment: set your camera to manual, screw the settings up so that it’ll take an objectively terrible picture (I’m talking wonky white balance settings, ISO 100, shutter speed 8000, f/22) and hand it to any lay person who wants to “pay you in exposure.” Then remember that you’ve built up a skill that has more worth than you probably realized because you don’t think of it as a skill anymore. It’s just a part of who you are.

This revelation first occurred to me when I was considering what I should charge as a writer. Everybody writes, right? So it would be absurd to charge someone $80 an hour to write something for them. Well, that’s simply not true. While it sounds like a lot of money, the truth of the matter is: what would take me an hour to write, would take others days to write, if they could do it at all. Writing is definitely my unconscious-knowing skill. I’ve been doing it with the specific intention to get good at it for most of my life. I remember sitting next to someone who was having trouble figuring out how to send an uncomfortable text message in a diplomatic way, so I took their phone, asked them what they wanted to say (without censorship), and I transcribed it into something concise, diplomatic, and exactly what they wanted to say. They were shocked and impressed. For me? It was barely a thought.

But only because I didn’t know I knew how to do it.

Wednesday 09.16.20
Posted by Alex Basa
 

Navigating Heartbreak Series 5/5: The Finish Line

I’m certain that the “finish line” is a different definition for every person, and it’s been a real struggle even just finding the words to articulate what I wanted to say about it in this blog. But I want to take the time to document the fact that I think I’ve crossed the finish line of my big heartbreak this year, and have entered into an entirely different territory of love and adventure. More on that later. But for now, let me tell you how I know I’ve crossed the first finish line:

I no longer think about my ex every day.
The thought of her used to torment me. Dreams, physical reminders, sounds, smells…all of these things would conjure mental images of what she and I were in the past. But as the days went on and I healed the wound she left, things stopped reminding me of her. In fact, even when I do happen to find myself thinking about her, it’s never coupled with the feeling of longing that used to come, say, 5 months ago.

I can talk about her without it hurting anymore.
When I used to talk about my ex, it was usually in the effort of venting a frustration or other emotional angst to somebody—anybody—who would listen. But today, I can talk frankly about the things we were. I can analyze my thoughts and feelings about who and what we were to each other from a less emotionally charged place, and seeing those things objectively has a measured amount of “huh, holy shit. We were kinda just going through the motions, weren’t we?” And THAT was a wildly enlightening experience to have.

I was able to go through and delete pictures of us from my personal libraries.
I remember one night, I went through the over 8,000 pictures in my phone and indiscriminately deleted pictures of her and us. And there were A LOT. But it wasn’t a “I’m forcing myself to let go of this person” type situation. I legitimately just went through my phone and was like, “You know, this is no longer something I need to have visual records of anymore.” It was the same with my social media accounts. Well, for the most part. If it was more of a hassle than it was a benefit, then I haven’t made the effort to take them down, lol. There are a LOT of tagged photos on Facebook that I really just don’t have the time or energy to spend deleting.

Perhaps most importantly, I was able to feel love for someone else.
I think a big reason I was never really interested in “rebounding” like people insisted I needed to was because I spent a decade of my life jointly associating physical intimacy with emotional intimacy. Tash Palmer has a lyric in a song called “On The Fence,” where she says “See my soul before you see my skin.” And that’s sort of how I feel, too. For some reason, this is an especially difficult concept to grasp for men, in particular. Almost unequivocally, my male friends have told me that I should “get out there and get laid” as a form of recovery. Often, it was hard for them to grasp that I was very disinterested in something like that. I think it was because I spent a decade of my life being physically intimate with only one person, so my mental association between sex and love are sort of inseparable. I don’t really find myself sexually attracted to people if I’m not first emotionally attracted to them. That being said, I recently found myself very emotionally attracted to someone. And that emotional attraction escalated to physical attraction, which escalated to the first physical intimacy in which I’d engaged since December of last year (which was almost a full year). I loved this person. And there was a time where I didn’t think I had the capacity to feel that way about any one else ever again.

Conclusion:
Truly, the experience of moving through heartbreak is a marathon, not a sprint. It’s one of the most taxing things I’ve ever had the displeasure of experiencing in my short life thus far, but it’s also something I wouldn’t trade back for the relationship I once had. This whole experience has made me a stronger person, a wiser lover, and has equipped me to be a better friend. When I was heartbroken and lost, close friends were there to catch me as I fell. And someday, a close friend of mine will be heartbroken and lost—and I will be there to support them through the harrowing saga that is heartbreak. Thanks for reading.

tags: heartbreak, finish line
categories: Personal Reflection
Saturday 12.07.19
Posted by Alex Basa
 

Navigating Heartbreak Series 4/5: The First Crush

If only it was that uncomplicated

If only it was that uncomplicated

It’s been a tiny bit over 7 months since my girlfriend of 9 years broke up with me. In that time, I’ve done my best to work on myself. I’ve learned what it means to be whole on my own—not reliant on another person to feel complete. It hasn’t always been easy. In fact, I would say that it mostly hasn’t been easy. But I made it. And I wanted to share the most encouraging development in this journey thus far with you: I think I have my very first crush since my ex left.

I don’t know if anything will happen with this girl. Though I would consider us friends, I would be pretty shocked if it evolved much past that. Even though I like her a lot, I sort of feel like…she’s out of my league? Maybe I’m just being insecure. She’s like, intimidatingly cute. Not in the sense that she’s unapproachable by any sense of the word—she’s SUPER approachable. I just think I’m intimidated by the prospect of non-reciprocity; she might not be interested in me the way I am interested in her; she might not even be looking to be involved with anyone at all; she might already be involved with somebody, and that fact has yet to come up in conversation. And I’m afraid that if I tell her how I feel about her, it’ll freak her out and screw up the friendship we’ve developed in such a short period of time. The list of unknowns that I should probably just simply ask her about are what intimidate me. But that’s all sort of adjacent to the point that I really want to focus on, here: I have a crush on a girl.

Just that fact alone is a very welcome reprieve from the exponential gravity that has been yanking at my soul for most of this year. It’s not even necessarily about this girl in specific, but the very idea that I am still capable of crushing at all that excites me so. Of course, that doesn’t lessen the fact that I have this huge, insurmountable crush on this specific girl right now, lol. But that sort of insurmountable is far better than the insurmountable dread I was feeling in January. So I’m going to try and allow myself to feel this crush without thinking about the implications too much. Because it feels good. It feels nice. It reminds me that I’m going to be okay—no, that I am okay.

And it reminds me that I actually mean that this time. I’m not just saying it to try and convince myself of it.

I have a crush. Oh boy, do I have a crush. Lol.

Continue to Navigating Heartbreak Series 5/5 »

tags: heartbreak, crush
categories: Personal Reflection
Friday 07.05.19
Posted by Alex Basa
Comments: 1
 
Newer / Older