Sportstainment, among other things.

Note: I have chosen a suggestion from the previous post and will be posting my mix in the coming week. I hope to make this a regular feature here at the Outré Lounge, so don't worry if I don't pick yours this time around, there will be more opportunities. And if you didn't suggest anything, you vouyeristic creep, start thinking of one for next time.

This past weekend, Adam and I attended a Harlem Globetrotters game because we are winners! You can read all about how we won this glorious prize in Adam's blog. I say "we" won the tickets even though "they" chose Adam's name out of the bucket because Adam wouldn't have won anything if I hadn't invited him to the free beer party. Okay, sure, fine, I'm justifying my winner status in life through Harlem Globetrotters tickets.

So, right, the game. "The Game".

It was an intense game, good thing there was beer to calm my nerves. On the subject of beer, way to go Hartford Civic Center for having a wide selection of beer. I appreciate your concern for me, a worldly-wise beer drinking snob. Your beer selection is the best thing Connecticut has going for it.

As I said, the game was intense...Adam can't stop biting his nails he's so nervous about who is going to win the game:

The Harlem Globetrotters who have named themselves the True Ambassadors of Goodwill or somesuch have been around for 80 years. They are currently on their Unstoppable Tour which sounds like the latest Britney Spears tour, if she were still culturally relevant. And speaking of culturally relevant, is the "bump" hairstyle still culturally relevant:

So not only are those Globetrotters stellar athletes, they're comedians too! They stole a ladies purse then made Whitey on the other team run around playing basketball with it! They also know how to dance in unison to Kanye West songs: Athletes, ambassadors of goodwill, comedians, AND boys with rhythm!

They also had a weird, dancing Globie the Inflatable Dancing Globetrotter mascot, which simultaneously thrilled, entertained, and headbutted:
Too much beer obviously had effect on my photography skillz. This photo came out upside-down!

SO IN CONCLUSION, the Globetrotters won the game and Adam and I spent too much money on beer. El Fin.

Other points of interest to me and nobody else:
I am not religious at all, nor am I Catholic and thus not required to sacrifice a comfort of my life to symbolize something that Mr. Jesus suffered through in those old timey years, however, I have decided that I'm going to be a vegetarian (for real this time) under the guise of Lent. Its a relatively short term commitment this way and if I choose, I can stick with it beyond Easter or whenever the sacrificial time ends.

And in honor of being a true blue vegetarian again, I would like to share with you all, my deeeelicious recipe for Veggie Chili:

1 small zucchini, chopped
1/2 red pepper, chopped
1/2 green pepper, chopped
1 small onion, chopped
3 stalks of celery, chopped
1 big carrot or a few baby carrots, chopped
1/4 cup of frozen corn
1 big can of diced tomatoes
3 small cans of tomato juice
1 can of kidney beans (don't drain)
1 clove of chopped garlic (small teaspoon of minced garlic is okay)
oregano
basil
chili powder
salt
pepper
garlic salt
paprika
cumin

Sauteé the celery, carrots, onions, and garlic in olive oil. While they're cooking, chop up your peppers and throw those in the pot too. Add the can of kidney beans in their beany juice, corn, zucchini, and the diced tomatoes in their juice to the mix. Stir it up. Add one can of tomato juice at a time, letting the mixture cook a bit between adding cans of tomato juice. Add a smidge of oregano, basil, salt pepper, garlic salt, paprika, and cumin. Add the chili powder to your desired chili flavor. Stir and bring to a boil. Once its boiling, turn the heat down and simmer uncovered for at least 20 minutes or to your desired thickness(I usually let simmer for about 40ish, the longer it cooks the more the flavors mesh together.). Let cool and serve with your preferred cheese (I was born in Wisconsin, so I prefer cheddar). Add chopped green onions and/or sour cream if you like. Yummy!

This freezes really well, so make extra and throw it in the freezer.

Man, that gets me so hot.
I attended a business luncheon that would make anyone who knew me in college laugh because I always said how lame business luncheons were. But I love them now because I get out of work free, free food, learning, AND networking! Today's Tourism Tuesday was about marketing research in the Berk-sheers. In related news, we have a big important meeting with our Board of Directors at work this week, so I've been preparing bar graphs and pie charts, and other statistically oriented information which I haven't had an opportunity to do since that Head Count project for the Student Center in my glorious, youthful college days. But man, I can't even tell you how much I love putting stats and charts and graphs together. LOVE IT. I'm in it for the analysis. Please don't tell my creatively-minded self that I secrely adore bar graphs and pie charts. And now that I've revealed my inner nerd...

Leavitt out.

The Outré Lounge goes interactive.

Okay friends, strangers, readers. I'm starting a new project. And little did you know that when you came to the Outré Lounge today that you'd get to participate in fun, interactive blogging!

Making mix CDs is fun, but I need to be challenged. Much like ExplodingDog.com except with music instead of words, you- yes!- YOU!, will leave a comment or email me or IM me or send me secret messages written in lemon juice which I will then iron to reveal your secret message a thought, idea, feeling, story, anything. And then I will make a mix using your suggestion and post it here in internetland. I will even upload this mix to the intraweb where you can then download it and pop it into your iTunes or for the 30% of mp3 owners who bought a not iPod- you can pop it into...whatever you use. See! You get something out of it too!

If you would prefer to post your suggestion anonymously, please do.

Its like Tiny Mix Tapes, except, you know, you'll actually be able to download the mix for real and uhhhhh...it came from me and not....someone else.

I'm taking suggestions until Monday, February 27 and then I'll choose someone's suggestion. Maybe it will be yours. Maybe it will be my granny's suggestion.

HA! You didn't really think my granny read this page did you?

Let's go to the movies!

The Washington Post have given their suggestions on how to throw an Oscar themed party for this year's festivities. Basically, its a how to of dressing like the main characters from the movie and what to drink. I was put off by their suggestion that to dress like Johnny Cash in Walk the Line, you should look like Johnny Depp impersonating Andy Warhol dressed like Neo from the Matrix. The Washington Post has their movies mixed up- gay cowboys are in Brokeback Mountain, not Walk the Line.

What my gay cowboy party would be like:
1. Disco mirror ball.
2. Madonna's The Immaculate Collection and that ABBA/disco junk she's all about these days.
3. Lassos.
4. Cowboy shirts in a print with cowboy boots. That shirt is more Midwestern Suburban Mom than gay cowboy. (And I don't care how allegedly gay you are, cowboys drink beer.)

Were I to throw an Oscar Party, I'd probably go with a Springtime for Hitler theme- I mean, Munich.

Not about art, or is it?

The subject of copyright laws, specifically as they pertain to the following: artists, visual art, the internet, and Creative Commons license has been on my mind of late as I have been thinking of getting another tattoo. Undoubtedly, the internet has given us the ability to access the world at large. The internet capabilities for social networking, marketing, and buying/selling goods and services have made some great strides for artists, musicians, etc. And this is merely the surface of the internet's capabilities. Technology has made it possible for musicians, visual artists, and writers to make a name for themselves internationally when they may have only been able to reach to a geographically local audience before.

Hypothetical: An artist uploads images of her work onto her personal website. Now that this artist has put her work into a public forum, does this mean her work is up for grabs? What is the moral framework for someone else to download this artist's work, print it out and make and sell t-shirts of her work?

Does the intention of the downloader alter the ethical compass? For example, if I want to get a tattoo of Artist X's painting he has put into the public domain on his website, is that acceptable without asking permission first? Perhaps I really admire this artist and want to immortalize their work on my body- am I within grounds to do so without asking permission?

Sure, artsists could choose not to showcase any of their work online, but in the current framework of culture, many artists can not afford to not have even a small portfolio of their work online.

From an artists' perspective, allowing strangers to take artwork (even on a personal website) and permanently engrave it into their skin without permission could potentially take away the artistic merit, intention, and artist's personal statement.

While many tattoo artists specialize in recreating artwork, there is still room for reinterpretation and error. When situations like this occur, is it the tattoo artist's responsibility to not do the tattoo or do their loyalties lie with their client and making their customer happy? If a piece has a copyright mark on the work itself, does the tattoo artist have an obligation to deny the customer's request and honor the original artist's copyright?

Especially within the visual arts, anyone with the knowledge can take someone else's photo, manipulate it, and call it their own without ever seeking permission from the orginal photographer. In an academic realm, one would consider this plagarism. Depending on the artistic context, this could be considered artistic statement. For example, the dialogue that occured in the 80s with the revolution of computers in a graphic context focused largely on this: If I take a photo of the Mona Lisa and manipulate it and make an entirely different work of art, am I stealing?

The internet's greatest asset and hinderance is anonymity: we can be whomever we choose, we can project ourselves in whatever light we decide. Ultimately, there is no punishment for stealing another's work online. I won't be thrown out of university, I won't be fired from my job for lifting a photo from a photographer's website. Unless the work being stolen is used for personal profit, what retribution can an artist seek?

Tangentially, where is the line between a person taking your work and using it on their website or in some other internet context and viewing this as publicity for an artist's work?

While program such as iTunes have attempted to mainstream downloading of music in line with copyright laws, the beauty of programs such as Napster (when it was free), Limewire, etc. have reframed music as a stream of information, as an artistic expression and not a financial commodity. At the very core, this is why the RIAA is fighting against illegal downloading and not artists (except Lars Ulrich and he hasn't been culturally relevant in at least a decade...).

So why are musicians more in favor "illegal" distribution of their music, whereas visual artists are much likelier to oppose illegal distribution of their work? One notion is that musicians stand to gain more from their live performances, merchandise, and even though their music may be illegaly distributed- ultimately, they still receive credit for their work in that the users know who created the work and in many cases, the musician's name still appears on the file. For artists who rely upon their art as a source of income, someone taking their work without permission rarely gives them the credit and when the art IS the merchandise being sold, you are no longer making money for your work.

And then there's the entire issue of creative commons. Briefly, creative commons allows ANYONE to distribute their work for noncommercial purposes with the understanding that others may share the work for free without any risk of being sued. For example, writers can share the text of their novel, but sell the print copies. Creative commons actually protects the audience more than the artists. Why would anyone share their work under a creative commons license? Some see it as a way to maintain art as shared information not a capitalistic venture for others outside of the artist to gain financially. Some artists have actually been quite financially successful with their use of creative commons. Initially, Wilco released their album, Yankee Hotel Fox Trot under a creative commons license when their record label refused to distribute the album. When the album became popular, a label decided to distribute it and the record become one of their most popular. The issue of creative commons is a complex one, one that is especially hard for one to wrap their head around having been raised in a capitalistic society. How can giving your work away for free be profitable?

That being said, if you didn't stand to gain financially from your artistic work, would you consider distributing under a creative commons license? Is this a way to help get your name out there as a writer, a poet, a musician? Again the fine line of sharing work on the internet and publicity comes into play. With creative commons though, it seems that the integrity of the artist's work is preserved as the work can only be reproduced exactly.

A few summary thoughts: Once an artist has released his or her work into the public domain (internet or otherwise), that the work is no longer their own? Do artists who do not care about the sharing or copyrights of their work hurt other artists who do take great care to copyright their own work? If a person takes an artists work from the internet and reuses it (but not for financial gain), is this still within the limits of copyrights AND how does this fit within a moral framework? With the vastness of the internet, how would an organization police the use and re-use of other's art work? Will we ever get to a point where it will be possible and/or necessary to police the free flow on information on the internet or is it happening already?

And now, tips on naming your pets, with Jen:

1. Human names are always acceptable. People personify their pets. Why not give your pet a person's name? Try to avoid naming your pet after somebody your know, like your Great Aunt Mildred or your Uncle Nancy. Try names like Barry, Norman, and Steve.

2. Names of food are cute when your pet is a baby, but are you really going to be comfortable calling your kitty, Kitten Burrito, or your puppy, Tuna, forever?

3. Racial slurs are generally not very cute. Jewie the kitty, I'm looking at you. Jewie, one day you'll grow up and you'll have to be an accoutant because of your "heritage". Blame it on your human parents.

4. Mr. or Mrs. anything is fucking funny and I don't care what anybody says. A dog named Mr. Wiggles? A hamster named Mrs. Noodles? Hilarious.

5. When all else fails, name your pet after a random object in the room. Examples: Ball, Lamp, Panasonic 2-in-1 Combination DVD and VCR.

6. Movie and literary characters and musical references are always a good option. My fighting beta fish was named Mugatu. Frankenstein, Lloyd Dobler, and Sting (not Stung and not Stinging, but Sting) would all make excellent names for your animal friend.

7. If your animal has a distinguishing trait, you can always go that route. One eye, the pirate puppy or Sir Diddles-a-Lot would be nice names.

8. And for the love of Pete, don't name your animal, Fffffffffffffffffff! That's a terrible name. (Thanks Jeffrey!)