There is another thing that I think is amazing about LOST. Despite the popularity of the show, LOST has not produced a pop culture cliche. Pop-culture has tendency to devour things that are rabidly popular and in doing so reduces that thing until all that is left is a small piece of the original that becomes a symbol of the thing. Pop culture ingests television readily and acts quickly to reduce it. There is almost always some signature phrase or icon that emerges once pop-culture has fully digested and reduced popular thing. Kit the Talking Car, from the TV show "Knight Rider" was before my time but I still know the reference when I see it. Kit is all I know of the show but I still recognize the symbol. (The usage of the symbol is another issue entirely) "Star Trek" is another example. Who doesn't know what it means to be "beamed up"? but how many people have seen a complete episode of the original "Star Trek". Up to this point LOST has resisted being reduced to anything less complex.
What happens to massively popular unsymbolized things when they are forgotten? I think that they become something akin to black holes in space. The only way that we know that they exist is because of the affect they have on things around it. If I could cite an example then it would shoot a hole in my theory. I guess the second option would be that, like electrons, they can be located only for a second before blinking off to somewhere unknown without any proof that they were there.
The conundrum for LOST is that the things that ultimately do not become symbolized are truly lost. Maybe it is only appropriate a that show about people stranded on a desert island that is disconnected from space and time is destined to be forgotten. The momentary nature of LOST, mirrored in the show and in reality, is another reason that I think LOST is amazing.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
The TSA - Or Why I am Never Flying Again
Holy %$#@! I am never flying again. My neighbor works for the Transportation Security Aministration aka the TSA. My neighbor that I loathe and despise for her domestic violence, whining cat and dirty indie kid parties that run till 3am works for f'ing TSA. HOLY F$&*ing S*&t! Seriously, only the government could create a bureaucratically bloated money pit of an agency that would hire this kind of person. Unbelievable. If you were a flying monkey HOLDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON I doubt that my neighbor would even blink an eye. Dammit.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Proponents of Climate Change = Nazis
30 seconds ago I turned my TV off because I heard Glenn Beck equate proponents of climate change to Nazis. It was something about a car commercial that involved a child that was ashamed of being dropped off in front of school in a gas guzzling SUV. Beck's comment was that using children to get to their parents was just like what the Nazis did. (Apparently the Nazis used the children to tell them what anti-Nazi things their family was doing) I don't know, maybe its just me but I have trouble seeing the similarities.
The few people that I talk politics with have often wondered why I am skeptical of the "conservative" vein of thought. The reason is on television at 9pm on CNN.
I can honestly say that I am not 100% sold on the idea that we are massively irreversibly changing the environment. But I am 100% sure that carbon monoxide is bad for you. If you don't believe me then run your car in a closed garage and call me tomorrow and tell me how it went. I am also 100% sure that I hate paying $3 a gallon. If I drive an average of 12,000 miles a year at 20mpg then approximately 5% of my after tax salary goes to gasoline. I don't want to think that GM is withholding technology that would save gas mileage but if they were.....I would hate that too.
My official political stance so far is that I hate things that are bad for me and I hate expensive fuel and I hate the possibility that I am being hoodwinked by an entire industry. Ironically, my extended political stance includes a hatred for lawmakers attempting to legislate what is good/bad for me. It's kinda funny because I also hate unnecessary government enforced corporate regulation. Who knew that regulation ironically forces corporations to be more involved in government? I hate being ironically forced to do anything. This little known equation explains why we should want less government and corporate interaction: corporation + government = hoodwinking.
The few people that I talk politics with have often wondered why I am skeptical of the "conservative" vein of thought. The reason is on television at 9pm on CNN.
I can honestly say that I am not 100% sold on the idea that we are massively irreversibly changing the environment. But I am 100% sure that carbon monoxide is bad for you. If you don't believe me then run your car in a closed garage and call me tomorrow and tell me how it went. I am also 100% sure that I hate paying $3 a gallon. If I drive an average of 12,000 miles a year at 20mpg then approximately 5% of my after tax salary goes to gasoline. I don't want to think that GM is withholding technology that would save gas mileage but if they were.....I would hate that too.
My official political stance so far is that I hate things that are bad for me and I hate expensive fuel and I hate the possibility that I am being hoodwinked by an entire industry. Ironically, my extended political stance includes a hatred for lawmakers attempting to legislate what is good/bad for me. It's kinda funny because I also hate unnecessary government enforced corporate regulation. Who knew that regulation ironically forces corporations to be more involved in government? I hate being ironically forced to do anything. This little known equation explains why we should want less government and corporate interaction: corporation + government = hoodwinking.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Cam-Pain 2008
For the record I am wearing my replica 1940's military issue Russian infantry ushanka complete with hammer and sickle emblem. Which leads me to an item I saw in the news today. I saw that Republican candidate Mitt Romney had dropped out of the race for president and given his support to John McCain. I guess that leaves us with the lesser of 3 evils to choose from for the presidency of the United States: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain. I do truly believe that voting is more than a right; it is a duty, the one and only duty, that a citizen is called upon to serve. I have researched the visions and ideals of many politicians and I would only be doing what I believe is right for this country and casting my vote for....
Thomas Jefferson.
You might be asking yourself why I would consider voting voting for a 200 year old dead ex-president. I think that further examination of what we know about dead people will have you thinking in a different light about electing a corpse.
Things we know about dead people:
1. "Dead men tell no tales." - This can only mean that he wont play the political "game"; simply telling people what they want to hear just to get elected. An honest and straight forward politician.
2. "There are the quick and the dead." - Dead Thomas Jefferson is dead therefore not quick. His platform would be one of gradual change not drastic or revolutionary shifts in policy like his opponents in the Cam-pain 0f 2008.
3. "Sleep Like the Dead." - He will deadicate his every waking dead moment to serving the people because he will be so well rested.
4. "It is only the dead who have seen the end of war." a quote from Plato. Dead Thomas Jefferson can see an end to the war in Iraq and will bring our troops home!
5. "There are two perfectly good men; one dead and the other unborn" Ancient Chinese Proverb. The Chinese learned long ago the value of the dead. Many people may see Dead Thomas Jefferson's deadness as something that might handicap his electability, kinda like being a woman or a minority. Despite the fact that Dead Jefferson is part of the majority, (the dead out number the living by 1000 to 1 or something) he will fight for the rights of all citizens.
6. "Dead Silent" - Dead Jefferson's foreign policy. Dead Jefferson would continue to give the "silent" treatment to countries that we don't like, i.e. Cuba and Iran. I may disagree with his foreign policy but no candidate is perfect.
7. "The Grateful Dead" - Dead Jefferson does not carry grudges or hold a vendetta against people who did him or his father wrong. Dead Jefferson will pursue diplomatic solutions first and foremost before invading the Middle East.....with his army of the dead!
8. "A Dead Man's Chest" Dead Thomas Jefferson will not be a tax and spend president! He will keep the government's "chests" full of taxpayers booty and reduce the national defecit. It could also mean that Dead Jefferson supports physical fitness.
9. "Dead Nuts" Government Accountability at last! Dead Jefferson thinks that government spending needs to to be tightened up. Accurate accounting and accountability in government spending programs.
Not half bad for a dead guy.
Thomas Jefferson.
You might be asking yourself why I would consider voting voting for a 200 year old dead ex-president. I think that further examination of what we know about dead people will have you thinking in a different light about electing a corpse.
Things we know about dead people:
1. "Dead men tell no tales." - This can only mean that he wont play the political "game"; simply telling people what they want to hear just to get elected. An honest and straight forward politician.
2. "There are the quick and the dead." - Dead Thomas Jefferson is dead therefore not quick. His platform would be one of gradual change not drastic or revolutionary shifts in policy like his opponents in the Cam-pain 0f 2008.
3. "Sleep Like the Dead." - He will deadicate his every waking dead moment to serving the people because he will be so well rested.
4. "It is only the dead who have seen the end of war." a quote from Plato. Dead Thomas Jefferson can see an end to the war in Iraq and will bring our troops home!
5. "There are two perfectly good men; one dead and the other unborn" Ancient Chinese Proverb. The Chinese learned long ago the value of the dead. Many people may see Dead Thomas Jefferson's deadness as something that might handicap his electability, kinda like being a woman or a minority. Despite the fact that Dead Jefferson is part of the majority, (the dead out number the living by 1000 to 1 or something) he will fight for the rights of all citizens.
6. "Dead Silent" - Dead Jefferson's foreign policy. Dead Jefferson would continue to give the "silent" treatment to countries that we don't like, i.e. Cuba and Iran. I may disagree with his foreign policy but no candidate is perfect.
7. "The Grateful Dead" - Dead Jefferson does not carry grudges or hold a vendetta against people who did him or his father wrong. Dead Jefferson will pursue diplomatic solutions first and foremost before invading the Middle East.....with his army of the dead!
8. "A Dead Man's Chest" Dead Thomas Jefferson will not be a tax and spend president! He will keep the government's "chests" full of taxpayers booty and reduce the national defecit. It could also mean that Dead Jefferson supports physical fitness.
9. "Dead Nuts" Government Accountability at last! Dead Jefferson thinks that government spending needs to to be tightened up. Accurate accounting and accountability in government spending programs.
Not half bad for a dead guy.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Lost
My absolute favorite thing about "LOST" is that there is no opening. Each episode simply begins where the other leaves off. There is no theme song or seizure inducing montage. At the first commercial break there is black screen with the words "LOST" in white text coming into focus and moving towards the viewer for a couple seconds and then straight to commercial. Simply Brilliant.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Weasel Words
I was watching conservative tv host Lou Dobbs in an ugly debate/argument with Janet Muguira , an activist leader of a Hispanic civil rights organization. This was just about the nastiest extended exchange between two people I have seen on television. The debate was an outgrowth of the larger issue of how to handle illegal immigration. Particularly Muguira was objecting to the appearance of guests on Lou Dobbs' show that spoke strongly against illegal immigration and had ties to racist organizations. Further more, Muguira connected the repeated appearances of anti-immigrant speakers to a 23% increase in hate crimes against hispanics. Dobbs claimed absolution under freedom of speech and that he was little more than a facilitator for discussion. Maguira asserted that Dobbs needed to be responsible and stop having people who used 'hate-speech' on his show.
I saw where Dobbs was coming from in his defense and I can see why Maguira was on the offense. I have heard people using the kind of speech that Maguira objects to but I have trouble finding the adjectives to describe it. In architecture, similar words would be called 'weasel words'. They are words that architects use to cover their ass, or shift/ deflect direct responsibility away from themselves. "Verify in Field" for example. I think the situation is also somewhat similar to the scenario of the bartender and the drunk driver. If a man gets drunk, goes driving and kills someone, how responsible is the bartender who served the man his drinks? (In some states I think that the bartender is open to some responsibility) We have all heard "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This is one of the slickest pieces of propaganda that has ever been created. It sells the idea that guns really aren't that bad. And people bought it. 2005 Gun stats: 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. there were more than 16,500 murders in 2005 and 66% were done with a firearm (actually that's impressive. I would have bet it was much higher) If people didn't have guns would they still kill people? or atleast 66% less people? Just to be clear, my personal opinion is that people should have the right to bear arms as long as it is in a manner that is in accordance with the state and federal laws which i think are too lenient.
Is contributing to/building a negative 'stereotype' on national television 'hate-speech'? Or creating an atmosphere where it is 'okay' to degrade other people?
How responsible is Lou Dobbs if at all? Maybe it is a simple case of irresponsible reporting. You need a background check to get a gun but they will put almost anybody on national TV. Who really wants to do the homework or ask the 'hard' questions about a person's affiliations?
I ask plenty of questions but I don't really have any answers, just opinions. I apologize if anyone reading was expecting me answer any of the questions. Personally, I think that the general media and their puppets needs to be held accountable for what they say. Taking responsibility is one of the great weights of being an architect. It is a large part of what makes us professionals and one of the first things that an architect learns is that their decisions have profound effects on people. If a journalist wants to claim to be professional then I expect them to approach their 'profession' with that same degree of rigorous understanding of the responsibilities and consequences that my profession places on me.
I saw where Dobbs was coming from in his defense and I can see why Maguira was on the offense. I have heard people using the kind of speech that Maguira objects to but I have trouble finding the adjectives to describe it. In architecture, similar words would be called 'weasel words'. They are words that architects use to cover their ass, or shift/ deflect direct responsibility away from themselves. "Verify in Field" for example. I think the situation is also somewhat similar to the scenario of the bartender and the drunk driver. If a man gets drunk, goes driving and kills someone, how responsible is the bartender who served the man his drinks? (In some states I think that the bartender is open to some responsibility) We have all heard "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." This is one of the slickest pieces of propaganda that has ever been created. It sells the idea that guns really aren't that bad. And people bought it. 2005 Gun stats: 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm. there were more than 16,500 murders in 2005 and 66% were done with a firearm (actually that's impressive. I would have bet it was much higher) If people didn't have guns would they still kill people? or atleast 66% less people? Just to be clear, my personal opinion is that people should have the right to bear arms as long as it is in a manner that is in accordance with the state and federal laws which i think are too lenient.
Is contributing to/building a negative 'stereotype' on national television 'hate-speech'? Or creating an atmosphere where it is 'okay' to degrade other people?
How responsible is Lou Dobbs if at all? Maybe it is a simple case of irresponsible reporting. You need a background check to get a gun but they will put almost anybody on national TV. Who really wants to do the homework or ask the 'hard' questions about a person's affiliations?
I ask plenty of questions but I don't really have any answers, just opinions. I apologize if anyone reading was expecting me answer any of the questions. Personally, I think that the general media and their puppets needs to be held accountable for what they say. Taking responsibility is one of the great weights of being an architect. It is a large part of what makes us professionals and one of the first things that an architect learns is that their decisions have profound effects on people. If a journalist wants to claim to be professional then I expect them to approach their 'profession' with that same degree of rigorous understanding of the responsibilities and consequences that my profession places on me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)