Great clip, and behind it lies a great point about the social balance between men and women. On the one hand too many men are completely ignorant of the fact that physical danger is a very real part of women's daily lives, on the other hand, as demonstrated by the clip, all too many men are probably aware of this fact and its implications.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Riker Line
This is a thought that occurred to me talking to my wife, who is extremely culturally literate but not (specifically) a Star Trek fan. She would, with sufficient persuasion.
But in a general conversation about Star Trek, a basically culturally literate person will know who Kirk and Spock are. They'll probably know Data, if we're talking about the true pop culture nerds that make up just about all of my friends. Picard is played by a legendary actor, and thus carries enough cache to break through. But then, we get to: the Riker Line.
William Thomas Riker is not a famous character. If you bring up Riker, if you reference Riker, if you call him "the Riker of the West Wing," you will only be understood by Star Trek fans. If you're talking about Sisko, or Worf, or Miles O'Brien, you're past the Riker line. But you can mention the Vulcans in relative safety.
There are a few very minor moments where the line is permeable. You can refer to "Scotty," perhaps, but "Montgomery Scott" is too far. You can talk about Nichelle Nichols work as Uhura being praised by Martin Luther King Jr. for having an interracial kiss with Captain Kirk, but that's about all you can know about her. Geordi LaForge gets you only as far as the visor and the treasured name Levar Burton, but not his work as an engineer on the Enterprise. But fundamentally, anything more obscure than Commander Riker gets you across the line.
But this makes me think of what other pop culture spheres have their own Riker Lines. I'd put Harry Potter's Riker line at Neville, I think. Star Wars line is at Bobba Fett. I haven't seen Lord of the Rings through, but whoever comes after Legolas fits the bill. Any others?
But in a general conversation about Star Trek, a basically culturally literate person will know who Kirk and Spock are. They'll probably know Data, if we're talking about the true pop culture nerds that make up just about all of my friends. Picard is played by a legendary actor, and thus carries enough cache to break through. But then, we get to: the Riker Line.
William Thomas Riker is not a famous character. If you bring up Riker, if you reference Riker, if you call him "the Riker of the West Wing," you will only be understood by Star Trek fans. If you're talking about Sisko, or Worf, or Miles O'Brien, you're past the Riker line. But you can mention the Vulcans in relative safety.
There are a few very minor moments where the line is permeable. You can refer to "Scotty," perhaps, but "Montgomery Scott" is too far. You can talk about Nichelle Nichols work as Uhura being praised by Martin Luther King Jr. for having an interracial kiss with Captain Kirk, but that's about all you can know about her. Geordi LaForge gets you only as far as the visor and the treasured name Levar Burton, but not his work as an engineer on the Enterprise. But fundamentally, anything more obscure than Commander Riker gets you across the line.
But this makes me think of what other pop culture spheres have their own Riker Lines. I'd put Harry Potter's Riker line at Neville, I think. Star Wars line is at Bobba Fett. I haven't seen Lord of the Rings through, but whoever comes after Legolas fits the bill. Any others?
Monday, January 9, 2012
Crazy Boyfriends
Liking celebrities is a funny thing. We don't really know that much about them (at least I don't). Yet when a person plays a character I love on tv, I transfer a not insignificant portion of that love to the actor or actress. As a result, it can always be a bit harrowing when an actor I "love" has their opinion or life exposed in some critical way. Say, if I find out they are a terrible parent, below to a crazy pants church, or support Ron Paul. Stand-up comics are a bit more exposed than most, because they have control over what is in their routine, so it's nice when a stand up comic's routine is close enough to something that I can project as conforming to exactly what I want them to be!
Also, Donald Glover is really funny.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Violence in Sports
I understand that there was a time when football was a sport for real men. Men who played without facemasks or helmets. They were all balls, and nasty, hardworking sons of bitches. Or something to that effect. I didn't watch a lot of football in the 70s. But that's what I hear when I listen to sports radio, or read newspaper columns, or god help me, read comments on sports stories.
But I do know this: those guys are all dead. Or they're living with debilitating injuries, or severe brain damage. That's a real problem.
I don't like watching and enjoying an activity that causes a lot of harm to real people. I understand they're well compensated (although the vast majority of people who play football try to play like the pros, and they're not compensated). But I don't think that's the way to just absolve the issue that real injuries are happening to real people for the purpose of entertainment. I think there's a prerogative to make football as safe as it can reasonably be. And that's why I support Goodell in all efforts to reduce violent hits and make the game safer. Nuts to you, James Harrison.
But what really confuses me is why people are so virulently against these kinds of changes. James Harrison, at least, makes a lot of money and gains his fame on these kind of hits, so I understand his motive. But the average fan isn't getting paid for the hits. Is he paying for the hits? I doubt it - the ratings keep going up no matter what the NFL does in regards to violence in the game. I like defensive struggles as much as anyone, but I really am skeptical that anyone hates high scoring games with the passion they express. They're mostly just people whose teams are losing high scoring games. And besides, the talk is all pretty moderate around rules about pass interference or defensive holding. The talk is always about late hits and defenseless WRs and out of bounds contacts or hitting a QB in the knees. Driving to the ground. All stuff that doesn't directly affect the outcome of the play. And really, improves defense most of the time (tackle with your arms, not your shoulder!)
The fundamental issue appears to be one of sadism: a desire to see people get injured. There's a real undercurrent of sadism in American life these days - a feeling that suffering is an objective good: for people who have sex, we'll get rid of abortion so you can suffer more. Remember the cheers for Ron Paul telling those without insurance to die? Or for Rick Perry's executions? It's one thing to support those positions as necessities, but they seem to be lauded as objective goods. It's important to cause suffering.
Part of this is that the love of violence rarely seems to carry over into incidences of fair fights in sports. Boxing is getting less popular every year, wrestling is gone, and MMA is catching on, but still very peripheral. These are all sports that are violent, but are based on a set of rules, with voluntary fighters. Even hockey is the least popular "major" sport, where the fights are entered into on equal terms - the player basically agree to fight each other, punch and grapple, and stop. It's a totally different scenario than leveling a receiver over the middle. It seems to be a crucial difference.
So we get the great defenders of what are essentially dangerous cheap shots. Because people don't like seeking violence: they want to see pain.
But I do know this: those guys are all dead. Or they're living with debilitating injuries, or severe brain damage. That's a real problem.
I don't like watching and enjoying an activity that causes a lot of harm to real people. I understand they're well compensated (although the vast majority of people who play football try to play like the pros, and they're not compensated). But I don't think that's the way to just absolve the issue that real injuries are happening to real people for the purpose of entertainment. I think there's a prerogative to make football as safe as it can reasonably be. And that's why I support Goodell in all efforts to reduce violent hits and make the game safer. Nuts to you, James Harrison.
But what really confuses me is why people are so virulently against these kinds of changes. James Harrison, at least, makes a lot of money and gains his fame on these kind of hits, so I understand his motive. But the average fan isn't getting paid for the hits. Is he paying for the hits? I doubt it - the ratings keep going up no matter what the NFL does in regards to violence in the game. I like defensive struggles as much as anyone, but I really am skeptical that anyone hates high scoring games with the passion they express. They're mostly just people whose teams are losing high scoring games. And besides, the talk is all pretty moderate around rules about pass interference or defensive holding. The talk is always about late hits and defenseless WRs and out of bounds contacts or hitting a QB in the knees. Driving to the ground. All stuff that doesn't directly affect the outcome of the play. And really, improves defense most of the time (tackle with your arms, not your shoulder!)
The fundamental issue appears to be one of sadism: a desire to see people get injured. There's a real undercurrent of sadism in American life these days - a feeling that suffering is an objective good: for people who have sex, we'll get rid of abortion so you can suffer more. Remember the cheers for Ron Paul telling those without insurance to die? Or for Rick Perry's executions? It's one thing to support those positions as necessities, but they seem to be lauded as objective goods. It's important to cause suffering.
Part of this is that the love of violence rarely seems to carry over into incidences of fair fights in sports. Boxing is getting less popular every year, wrestling is gone, and MMA is catching on, but still very peripheral. These are all sports that are violent, but are based on a set of rules, with voluntary fighters. Even hockey is the least popular "major" sport, where the fights are entered into on equal terms - the player basically agree to fight each other, punch and grapple, and stop. It's a totally different scenario than leveling a receiver over the middle. It seems to be a crucial difference.
So we get the great defenders of what are essentially dangerous cheap shots. Because people don't like seeking violence: they want to see pain.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Drug Sniffing Dogs don't Work?
This article is pretty astounding. This gist of it is that studies suggest that most drug dogs are picking up on cues from their trainers, and return a huge number of false positives.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Houses are People
When you warm a house, you also warm the people inside.
If a house burns down, the people inside burn too.
If you damage a house, the people who own it pay.
Ergo, houses ARE people. Clearly.
Corporations are legal structure. A house is a physical structure. Corporations bring capital together in a common purpose and shelter individuals from liability. Houses bring people together in a home and shelter us from the elements.
Of course what we do to a corporation affects the people involved in the corporation. That is true of virtually anything in this world. But, the reality is that we recognize that vessels and structures are not, in and of themselves, people.
It would be possible to simply say that taxes on corporations are paid by people. It is similar to the argument advanced for years that taxes on merchants are paid by customers. That argument never needed to become a claim that "merchants are customers." But, the "corporations are people" argument must go further. It is because this assertion is not a simple analogy for the purposes of election politics, it is about extending to corporations fundamental rights granted to people under the law.
It isn't the same as arguing that I can put a political poster on my house because I have a right to political speech. It is saying that the house itself possesses this right. It's a fine, but highly dangerous distinction. It is a distinction that allows corporations to speak and act with the rights of a person, but keeps the wealthy individuals behind the corporation's walls sheltered and separate. It is a distinction that is not missed by highly educated, very wealthy individuals like Romney.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
How to Prevent Obesity
California has required restaurant chains to put calorie totals on their menu. But, calories are abstract, and there is a much more direct way to tell someone "this is a lot of food."
Fortune CookiesBecause nothing says "you have issues with portion control" like a treasure trove of fortune cookies in with your Chinese food takeout. It's a direct way to communicate the number of people who should be required to consume that amount of food.
The fortune cookie method of battling obesity is simple. Just require restaurants to include one fortune cookie for a set number of calories. Order a quadruple whopper with fries and a shake? That's fine, but you must face the shameful presence of five fortune cookies in with your order.
Here is a handy key to fortune cookie presence in a takeout/delivery order for one person:
1 Cookie - Yay, a fortune!*
2 Cookies - Maybe they're just being nice . . .
3 Cookies - You should google gyms in your area to temporarily alleviate shame
4 Cookies - Do you have another person hidden in your closet?
5 Cookies - Avoid eye contact with the delivery person.
6 Cookies - Jamie Oliver is currently planning a TV show based on your life.
*My most recent fortune cookie read "Eat your fruits and vegetables to strengthen your health." Americans are so fat that even an industry which critically relies on deep frying every and any animal part is worried about us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)