Just got back from an evening of crepes (which is just like every other European pancakes) and juice, Anton Berg Chocolates, jam, Orengina, Nutella, baklavas, chestnut paste and REAL coffee. Yes, it was a European get together, and it was lovely. Gained much weight today, but it was worth it. 

Which brings me to these little adorable creations. Smurf sweets! Aren't they slightly indistiguable, yet cute? As for taste my guess is that they were aiming for some blueberry-esq artificial flavor, and I guess its close enough. Soft chewy, stick in your teeth consistency, and even though these candies are in no way the best of their breed of soft chewy gummy sweets I do love them because they were served by a French person in his French house: smurfs and French people go hand in hand folks, hand in smurf.


Nom nom nom!



Chocolate Skittles

Yes, yes you read me, CHOCOLATE skittles! Now this could go either way, either it could be the best thing since penecilin, no wait the best thing since water, or it could be the biggest disapointment since deep fried mars bars- don't go near them, no matter what you're neanderthal mind might tell you after a night of drunken escapades, they are disgusting. I wonder who sat down and though of chocolate skittles. "people like chocolate, right?" Yes they do.  But the question is do people like chewy sweets with artificial semi-chocolate taste?

But for the record, there wasn't a single skittle that was actually identified as "chocolate flavor" by the flavor chart on the back. There was however S'mores, Chocolate Pudding, Vanilla (what does vanilla have to do with chocolate? Isn't vanilla like the archenemy of chocolate?), Brownie Batter and Chocolate Caramel.

So the verdict: not very good. Not very tasty. At all. Sort of weird. Would avoid if I could. Not all of them were bad but like Chocolate Pudding, it just taste like creme substitute. And Brownie Batter? Brownie Batter was the worst. A stark taste of butter, and well I guess egg, 'cause it tastes very realistic. In this case that is not a good thing, I would much rather just eat real brownie batter and take my chances with catching sarmonella then chew on some piece of sweet that has an uncanny resembelence to raw egg flavor. Vanilla was actually quite nice. In the battle of chocolate vs vanilla, 0-1. But I they will meet again some day, oh they will meet again...


No makeup required

Just photoshopping.

Collapse )

The one labeled A is the one without any 'shopping, as you can tell from the dark circles and the pimples. (And yes, I know that I am not a good photoshopper. I officially do not care. I've spent two days flinging starfish and drowning.)

This is my new look:

Collapse )

I stole Bryndis' glasses.

Seriously, though: we are the same person. I tried to find a comparative photo of Bryn but I can't (and it would probably be unethical) so you'll just have to imagine me x 2.

Collapse )
Still rockin' the square jaw ...

Collapse )

... the big mouth ...

Collapse )

... and the swoop! of hair.

I really have nothing of worth to say.


Technically, retro is probably always in (in fact, I'd wager popularity is what makes retro retro - if the style is not en vogue, it's not retro; it's just old.)

Though retro is defined as that which is imitative of a style, fashion, or design from the recent past, I'd be lying to say I'm old enough to be an authority on the subject. Not that you can't make up for your insufficient seniority by studying or reading, but I'm lackadaisical about that, too ... can I just plead lack of time?

As such, my interpretation of current retro trends extends itself no longer than to a simple cat's eye, neat but defined eyebrows, and clean skin:

Also known as THE SMIRK.

It's a reasonably simple look - I used aforementioned foundation/concealer/powder, two shades of eyeshadow, a liquid eyeliner, eyebrow powder, mascara and lipstick, and was done in about ten minutes.

Collapse )

Because I tend to like a smokey eye, the eyeliner is not as defined as it could be. This is easily remedied by drawing a longer wing, or leaving it entirely unsmudged.

The skin is probably the most involved part of the process - but it's fun; it kind of feels like painting. I use the skin kit from Tarte that I mentioned at the beginning of the post - it works really well, even though the coverage of the separate products isn't necessarily heavy.

(The kit also includes primer, foundation, concealer, pressed powder - and a bronzer, but I don't know that it works on me.)

... and the good skin!

From the set Finery: 3 Coral Lips, the lipstick called Aristo-Chic and is a creamy, medium pink-nude with a great lustre. It's very wearable - both with bold eyes, as it's quite sheer, and with softer looks. It always works!

As a bonus, it's got a beautiful gold and white tube and comes, along with its sister lipstick Ruling Class and the Lipglass Splendid!.


In short, multiply the photo of the eyeshadows with this photo of the skin things-

-and you've basically got the look.

Is it work-safe? I tend to wear even more dragqueen-y looks to school and everywhere else so it is for me! Sessa could probably wear it to art school. I don't care about anyone else. <3

Is it facebook-safe? It works great with an extra layer+gaussian blur!


Collapse )

“Why I Am Not a Painter” by Frank O'Hara

I am not a painter, I am a poet.
Why? I think I would rather be
a painter, but I am not. Well,

for instance, Mike Goldberg
is starting a painting. I drop in.
“Sit down and have a drink” he
says. I drink; we drink. I look
up. “You have sardines in it.”
“Yes, it needed something there.”
“Oh.” I go and the days go by
and I drop in again. The painting
is going on, and I go, and the days
go by. I drop in. The painting is
finished. “Where's sardines?”
All that's left is just
letters. “It was too much,” Mike says.

But me? One day I am thinking of
a color: orange. I write a line
about orange. Pretty soon it is a
whole page of words, not lines.
Then another page. There should be
so much more, not of orange, of
words, of how terrible orange is
and life. Days go by. It is even in
prose, I am a real poet. My poem
is finished and I haven't mentioned
orange yet. It's twelve poems, I call
it oranges. And one day in a gallery
I see Mike's painting, called sardines.
  • Current Music
    Siouxsie & the Banshees
  • Tags

“Sonnet LXVI” from Cien Sonetos de Amor by Pablo Neruda

I do not love you—except because I love you;
I go from loving to not loving you,
from waiting to not waiting for you
my heart moves from the cold into

the fire. I love you only because it’s you
I love; I hate you no end, and hating you
bend to you, and the measure of my changing love for you
is that I do not see you but love you

blindly. Maybe the January light will consume
my heart with its cruel
ray, stealing my key to true

calm. In this part of the story I am the one who
dies, the only one, and I will die of love because I love you,
because I love you, Love, in fire and in blood.

Maktspel i Livläkarens besök av P.O. Enquist

Två av de mest intressanta karaktärerna i fråga om makt i P.O. Enquists Livläkarens besök måste sägas vara Guldberg och Struensee. De två karaktärerna är lika i det att de använder sig av den sinnessjuka konungen som pjäs i sitt politiska spel, och mycket olika i det att deras politiska övertygelser skiljer sig vitt från varandra: Guldberg är motståndare till revolutionen och Struensee är upplysningsman.

Guldberg anställs vid hovet som “lärare och vårdare” (57) åt den unge Christian. I och med det att han är en mycket oansenlig person i fråga om utseende, har han inget påtagligt inflytande på större delen av omgivningen i bokens första delar: befolkningen förbiser honom. Dock finner han en viss styrka i sitt oansenliga yttre: “Han var den som, under den danska revolutionen, skyddades av sin obetydlighet. De betydliga gick under, och förintade varandra.” (18)

I och med det att Guldberg inser att Struensee är en upplysningsman, börjar han oroa sig för rikets utveckling, och smida planer och ränker så att Struensee inte skall få genomföra sin revolution. Vändpunkten, då Guldberg börjar få mer och mer inflytande på omgivningen allt eftersom Struensees inflytande försvagas, kommer på sidan 251 då han “med gester och miner” antyder för norska matroser att Struensee “[håller] Konungen fängslad och [avser] att döda honom”. Struensee och Drottningen Caroline Mathilde arresteras, och blir förda till olika platser, där de hotas med tortyr och således tvingas underteckna kompletta erkännanden på de brott de utfört. Det är Guldberg som överser det hela; hans inflytande på omgivningen har ökat ofantligt. Då Guldberg lyckas med konststycket att få Struensee avrättad och Caroline Mathilde förvisad, når också hans inflytande och makt sin kulmen, och boken avslutas. Guldberg har lyckats avstyra revolutionen, och blir ”i realiteten envåldshärskare, med titeln statsminister” (384).

Som så mycket annat gällande Struensee och Guldberg tycks utvecklingen av Struensees inflytande på omgivningen vara rena motsatsen av Guldbergs utveckling. Greve Rantzau övertalar Guldberg att anställa Struensee som livläkare åt Christian. Struensee själv är något tveksam till denna förfrågan, men tackar slutligen ja till tjänsten. Struensee beskrivs påfallande ofta som attraktiv, ung, rent utav vacker. Jämfört med Guldberg är han inte alls oansenlig, och har till följd troligen ett starkare naturligt inflytande på sin omgivning. Struensees politiska makthavande inleds dock då han anställs som livläkare vid Danmarks hov, och inser att han kan påverka Christians beslut. Struensee verkar till en början inte begagna sig av detta verktyg att inbringa revolution i Danmark, men kommer på andra tankar. Han tar med sig Christian på en rundresa i Europa för att träffa encyklopedisterna och Voltaire, och på sidan 176 skriver Enquist att Christian ”skrev under allt Struensee pekade på. Reformer vällde fram som en flod”. Reformerna gäller planer så som religionsfrihet, tryckfrihet, och upphävande av livegenskapen, alla revolutionära idéer.

Struensees inflytande inskränker sig inte till Konungen; han tar även Drottningen Caroline Mathilde till älskarinna. Detta är början på hans fall, och brottet som Guldberg till slut får honom arresterad och avrättad för. Enquist nämner dock i epilogen att trots Struensees avrättning blev Danmark aldrig sig helt likt igen ... ”upplysningens smitta hade bitit sig fast, orden och tankarna gick inte att halshugga” (385). Guldberg störtas till slut 1784.

Gällande vad syner Struensee och Guldberg har på sina roller som makthavare, måste det sägas att de än en gång är mycket olika varandra. Guldbergs syn på sin roll som makthavare är grundat i religion. Guldberg hyser en tro att han är utvald av Gud att stoppa upplysningsmännen och deras revolution och hjälpa till att bibehålla lugnet i Danmark. Överlag har han en stark tro på Gud - “Gud var den främste politikern” (28) – vilket är en drivande kraft bakom hans vilja att motstå revolutionen, där upplysningsmännens avsmak för religion är framträdande.

Struensee, å andra sidan, hyser inget annat än avsmak för religion fram till punkten då han sitter fängslad i väntan på avrättning och prästen Münter besöker honom regelbundet, och religion kan sålunda inte sägas vara en grund till Struensees syn på sin roll som makthavare. Struensee ser snarare på sin roll som makthavare som något nödvändigt för att revolutionen skall kunna ta plats – det nämns flertalet gånger att han inte egentligen åtrår den makten han har; hans ”idealism var äkta” (173). Han gör det han måste göra för att skapa vad han tror kommer att bli ett bättre liv för Danmarks medborgare.

Romanen igenom ställer Enquist ofta Struensee och Guldberg i jämförelse för att skapa kontrast. Stundvis verkar de två männen vara varandras totala motsatser, vilket gissningsvis inte är helt sent vad gäller verkligheten, men som förstärker känslan av konflikt dem emellan, liksom känslan av konflikt mellan upplysningsmännen och revolutionsmotståndarna. Detta märks speciellt i en analys av makten och inflytandet de båda besitter, och det är ett mycket effektivt litterärt stilistiskt grepp.


Describe two research studies investigating obedience.
Before attempting to describe different psychological research studies regarding obedience, it is important to determine what obedience actually is, and to differentiate it from conformity. Though conformity and obedience may sound like two similar concepts, conformity is when a person determines his actions and thoughts with regard to how his peers act and think, while obedience is when a person determines his actions and thoughts with regard primarily in regards to how his authorities act and think, or would like him to act and think: in other words, obedience occurs in a hierarchy, while conformity does not.

Having said that obedience occurs chiefly on a level between authority figures and those whom they supposedly authorize, surely Milgram's famous study of 1974 is one of the most important ones in the area of the study of obedience. Using a confederate and one participants of his study, he doled out the roles of “teacher” and “learner” - though the learner, in fact, always was Milgram's confederate. There was also the experimenter himself, who would eventually try to coerce the teacher into going on performing his task. Milgram then described the task to these two people: separated into two different rooms, the teacher would read out lists of word pairs to the learner, then give him a number of different possible responses to go with a specific word, one of them being right. If the learner would choose the wrong answer, the teacher would administer an electrical shock.

What the teacher – the actual participant in the experiment – would not know was that the learner was, of course, a confederate of Milgram and would therefore deliberately pick the wrong word at times. Since the teacher and the learned were separated into different rooms, they could not see each other, though hear each other, and in the learner's room, there would be a record player playing specific sound samples at specific volt intervals – samples such as, “I can't stand the pain!”. Milgram's goal was to find out how far a participant would go in administering these shocks when coerces by authority – in this case, the experimenter; a man in a white laboratory coat. The learner would also make sure to make note to the teacher that he had a heart condition, prior to them entering different rooms.

There were 60 participants, all of them men of different social classes and between 20 and 50 years old. They had been requited through a newspaper ad, offering four and a half dollars for taking part in the experiment. Out of these 60 participants, an entire 65% would proceed to give the learner electrical shocks of maximum voltage – 450 volts – through being coerced by the experimenter. No participant at all stopped before reaching 300 volts, though some expressed concern for the learner.

Milgram theorized that the participants acted the way they did care of two different causes: one would be the fact that they were ordered by an authority figure to take part in the experiment, thereby not being responsible for the learner's pain themselves while the second would be that, in general, people have been thought that authority figures are legitimate and trustworthy.

Another important study is that of Hofling et al (1966), where the researchers applied Milgram's findings on obedience to a more realistic situation. Hofling et al selected 22 nurses at a specific hospital in America. They created a fictional doctor whom they named “Dr. Smith”. This Dr. Smith would then call the nurses at the hospital and ask them to look if a fictional drug named Astroten was available in the medical stores. The nurses would report back that it indeed was, supposedly checking the maximum dosage of the medication as they did so. Following this, Dr. Smith would ask them to administer the drug to a patient at twice the maximum dosage – 20 mg as opposed to the 10 mg regulated.

Of course, this would have endangered the patient in question, had the medication not been a placebo. Giving the patient this dosage of medication would therefore be an extremely unethical action for the nurse to take. Still, out of the 22 nurses asked by Dr. Smith to administer the medication, only one disobeyed his orders.

Though it was only a psychological experiment and nobody came to harm, none of the nurses should have obeyed Dr. Smith's orders: for one, because both Dr. Smith's name and his voice were unknown to them, and two, because the dosage could have been lethal to the patient – the nurses obviously did not have prior knowledge of the drug in question, since it was fictional and a placebo, so for all they knew, it might have been as dangerous as giving twice the maximum dosage of morphine.

Hofling et al theorized that the high rate of obedience may stem from the fact that doctors have always naturally been authority figures to nurses – they have been through further years of medical school, they have earned their M.D., and therefore they “know better”. They also thought that the nurses' training at nursing or medical school may simply have taught them that obeying doctors and physicians was the right thing to do, in any given situation – again, because they would know what was right.

Discuss ethical and methodological considerations that may occur in the research described in part (a).
In both Milgram's and Hofling et al's studies, the obvious ethical considerations is that the participants were lied to: they did not give their informed consent, which is today required in psychological studies. Of course, since the two experiments differ some, the ethical considerations also do so.

Milgram's participants were led to believe that they were causing undue pain to a fellow human being, and additionally being coerced into doing so by the experimenter. One of the lines the experimenter would use in trying to get the participant to remain and go on with the experiment included that they were not allowed to go – that they did not have a choice. Though as many as 65% of the participants went all the way up to 450 volts, many were showing signs of stress, internal conflict, and asking to leave – though there was no physical pain inflicted on the learner, much psychological stress was inflicted on the teacher, or the participant. The participant was also given a real, 45 volts electrical shock prior to the start of the experiment, in order to allow them to experience what the learner would ostensibly go through. Again, though no such pain was inflicted on the learner, and 45 volts is not too high an amount of voltage, inflicting such mental and physical pain on the participant is not considered ethically correct.

Again, Hofling et al's participants were lied to – there was no Dr. Smith and the drug the participants were asked to administer was fictional. Though write-ups of the studies do not indicate either way, it is likely to believe that being ordered to administrate a drug unknown to them and at twice the maximum dosage would cause both stress and internal conflict to the nurses in question – much like the administering of electrical shocks did to Milgram's participants, though perhaps not as much so, as the patient did not appear to be a confederate and so likely did not pretend to suffer as Milgram's confederate did. Additionally, there was no physical pain inflicted on the nurses. Still, the knowledge that the medicine they were giving to a patient at such a high dosage would most likely have caused the nurses a lot of tension, obedient though they were. Much like Milgram's experiment, this experiment would not today be considered ethically correct, since there was no actual informed consent given, and there was undue mental stress caused to the participants.

From a methodological standpoint, Milgram's and Hofling et al's experiments differ a little bit more: Milgram's experiment was carried out in a laboratory, while Hofling et al's experiment was a field study – it was carried out in a realistic situation.

Since Milgram's experiment was, as mentioned, carried out in a laboratory, ecological validity is rendered null. It is very unusual that a person, expect for in an experiment situation, would be asked to administer shocks to another person for giving the wrong answer to simplistic question in a laboratory setting: it is simply not like real-life. One could theorize that, had it been carried out in a more realistic situation, participants would have reacted in entirely different manners, and Milgram would have gotten entirely different results. Additionally, the participants knew that they were taking part of an experiment. They were still deceived, of course, given that the learner would always be a confederate and the participant would always be a teacher, though the participants were led to believe otherwise, but the very fact that they knew that they were taking part in an experiment at all may have affected results.

Another limitation of Milgram's experiment is the fact that the experiment was carried out on individuals and not groups – though he proves that authority figures can produce high obedience rates in individual persons, there is no evidence that the same is true for persons in groups. Again, one could theorize that in groups, conformity may have played a part: individuals – peers – may have influenced one another to act a certain way instead of allowing authority figures to pressure them into doing things.

When there is no ecological validity, there is usually a cause-and-effect relationship to be studied – one of the major strengths of the experimental study. In Milgram's case, he could study what effect coercion from an authority figure would have on the participant, as well as what effect the confederate's plight would have on said participant. From this, he could draw conclusions which would not be possible to draw from a mere observational study – useful though those are in terms of ecological validity.

Hofling et al's study suffers less from lack of ecological validity, as it takes place in a hospital, with (though unwitting) nurses as the participants, and a (though fictional) doctor as the authority figure. The drug was fictional, as was the doctor, but it could still be said to be a study with some amount of ecological validity, which is one of its strengths. This also shows in how the results differ from Milgram's results: where Milgram's rate of obedience seemed astoundingly high at 65%, none will disagree that 21/22 participants obeying their authority figure in question is much higher than that. This might very well be because the participants were not aware that they were taking place in an experiment, which Milgram's participants were. Of course, this makes Hofling et al's study all the more dubious ethically speaking.

Much like Milgram's experiment, Hofling et al's nurse study suffers in that it focuses on the individual and not the group. Though the nurses could have questioned another nurse or another doctor about the wiseness in administering an unknown drug at such a high dosage, there is no indication that they did so, seeing as how they seemingly needed no coercion from Dr. Smith in order to fulfill what they were asked to do, and how an entire 21 out of 22 participants did what they were told. Had Hofling et al conducted an experiment in which they asked a group of nurses together, instead of one nurse alone, to administer the drug in question to a number of different patients, results might have differed from the ones they got.

In conclusion, one can say that both Milgram and Hofling et al suffer some from methodological errors, though not nearly as much as they suffer from lack of ethical considerations. The experiments they performed would never have been allowed to be performed today. However, the results begat by the both experiments are valuable, and speak their clear language: an individual is very likely to obey an authority figure, known or unknown, no matter what the consequences may be to a fellow human being.



IOC: Into the Wild, Jon Krakauer, 1996

The most notable aspect of this passage from Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer is not its relevancy to the story itself, but its style and, furthermore, what its style reveals of the text's author.

Krakauer, a journalist by trade, has clearly employed the style of writing most commonly associated with his occupation in penning this passage: the 44 lines are mainly made up of four interviews, or rather four men's responses to questions presumably posed by Krakauer, concerning Chris McCandless' possible involvement in the destruction of three cabinets.

Krakauer begins by letting the initial discoverer of the cabin ruins describe his initial reactions to them – a decision which may seem obvious in its logic but is also a clever narrative trick on the author's part, letting the reader of the passage first discover the wreckage through the eyes of its first surveyor. The first interview also establishes the time frame - “... it was clear that the vandalism had occurred many weeks earlier” (10-11) – and the fact that the damage was caused by a human being - “It was obviously not the work of a bear ... This looked like somebody had gone at the cabins with a clawhammer and destroyed everything in sight.” (5-9)

The second interview – lines 12 through 19 – further describes the damage done to one of the cabins, this time by the cabin's owner himself. It is worded passionately, with “ceiling boards yanked down” (15-16) and “[a] big carpet hauled out to rot” (17) which definitely will have an effect on the reader, as it is powerful imagery and suggests a great force. Krakauer may not be responsible for the words themselves, as the speaker is Will Forsberg, but he has certainly included these particular words in order to convey a certain tone.

What the second paragraph also introduces is the thought of McCandless as the main suspect in the destruction of the cabins, and the author's bias, respectively. Judging by previous events in the text, it does not seem a baseless accusation that “[McCandless] flew into a rage over the intrusion of civilization on his precious wilderness experience and systematically wrecked the buildings.” (21-24) Krakauer, however, seemingly dismisses this suspicion by countering it with the observation that McCandless did not wreck the bus, which would have been an intrusion of civilization as much as the cabins were. What is interesting here is not whether McCandless wrecked the buildings or why, but the fact that the author of the passage, hitherto disguised by omitting his questions from the recountings of the interview, voices his opinion for the first time: McCandless is innocent.

After the third interview (Carwile, who “also suspects McCandless” [26]) Krakauer begins the following paragraph on the note that the authorities do not consider McCandless a viable suspect. In a stylistic context, it is amusingly juxtaposed with Carwile's conclusion that McCandless may have destroyed the buildings due to anger with the government: “[he] decided to strike a blow against Big Brother” (32) is immediately succeeded with “The authorities, for their part, don't think McCandless was the vandal.” (34) By juxtaposing the two statements, Krakauer not only creates an ironic contrast, but also attempts to invalidate the former statement, rendering the prospect of McCandless' guilt less likely in the reader's eyes. It is a subtle narrative device, but one which not only affects the reader's perception of McCandless' possible role in the crime, but also further confirms the author's desire to prove McCandless' innocence; indeed, his inclination to think the best of McCandless at nearly all times. This can also be seen earlier in the text where Krakauer discusses whether McCandless would be “dumb” enough to mistake a caribou for a moose, or fail to distinguish between very similar-looking plants. The author's bias in favor of McCandless seems to extend beyond mere admiration; Krakauer seems to think of McCandless as almost unable to commit the simplest mistake.

All of this is cemented in the final lines, where Krakauer thoroughly explains that nothing was ever found to prove the assumption that McCandless might have been the one to vandalize the buildings: “In fact, there is nothing in McCandless's journal or photographs to suggest that he went anywhere near the cabins" (38-39) and “his pictures show that he headed north ... [in the] opposite direction of the cabins” (40-42). This might very well be true; however, the author's final line seems both defiant and defensive: “And even if he had somehow chanced upon them, it's difficult to imagine him destroying the buildings without boasting of the deed in his diary.” (42-44) Though he does consider that he may be wrong, Krakauer quickly leaps to McCandless' defense based only on his own perception of the man, confirming the bias.

The very fact that Krakauer feels somehow close enough to McCandless to imagine what he may or may not do when faced with a specific situation attests the fact that he is not an unbiased writer. Though one would be hard pressed to find an entirely objective writer of biographies, Krakauer's bias is interesting in the context of this text and, especially, this specific passage, since it is written in a journalistic style to which objectivity is commonly attributed. It produces a contrast, and a style which is particular to this text: not as seemingly subjective as most biographies, and not as seemingly objective as most journalistic texts. Not all authors could employ this unusual style to their advantage, but Krakauer manages to do so, and it successfully makes the text distinct from other texts in its genre.