September 22, 2007
~INTERMISSION~
ever settle down on the toilet bowl for a nice "sit" and let your imagination run wild? to be more specific, have you ever imagined you were one of the Independence Day spaceships taking aim over one of the world's great landmarks? there's all that suspense as the giant laser cannon lines up with its target and then the cannon starts to shift and squeeze right before the big blast? and then - boom - destruction occurs.
yeah. i've thought about it.
August 23, 2007
the theory of love & proximity
it seems to me that most people want to believe in the notion of destiny. and i can't say i'm any different. it's nice to think that there's something bigger at work in the universe. it's nice to imagine that our lives are fulfilling some greater purpose, that every day is another fallen domino playing out in the grand scheme of things.
people are especially guilty of this when it comes to a phenomenon called "falling in love." lovebirds are always destined to be together in their minds. the stars were aligned and all that crap. what's more, these Couples of Destiny are often looking for serendipitous signs to confirm their presumptions of destiny are true.
for example, there’s this mailman who has a rocky relationship with a girl. they used to date and then they broke-up. but now they’re back together again and the mailman is convinced this girl is his destiny.
heaven's way of confirming this to the pair of would-be lovers came in the form of...
dimes. as in small silver coins representative of .10 US cents.
you see, once the mailman and the girl started dating again the mailman started to find dimes everywhere he looked. dimes on the ground. dimes behind the dryer. dimes in his car. dimes in boxes, dimes with foxes. dimes here, there and everywhere. funny thing is, this happened last time the two dated. dimes. lots and lots of dimes. clearly they should get married immediately if not only for the free money their love creates.
i love this notion of destiny. it makes about as much sense as ghosts moving random household objects and slamming doors shut to make their presence known.
but i digress.
the idea of destiny is perfectly nice and all. but i do think there's a more reasonable approach to understanding why people find each other and experience the so-called "falling in love" phenomenon. dump the word "destiny" and replace it with "proximity."
do you have a favorite restaurant? you do? great. OK. now imagine you're eating at this favorite restaurant. look around the place. ask yourself: was this destiny? did fate lead me here? or am i here because it's near my house and the food tastes good?
the answer can only be one or the other. and if you had to bet your life on one of them, which one would you pick? i'm betting on proximity.
it works like this: you meet someone who lives near yourself. they offer you companionship the way a restaurant offers food. and like different restaurants offering unique menus, each person offers an individual brand of companionship. some will be appealing to you, some won't.
the thing is, just about anywhere you go you'll find at least a couple of restaurants you like eating at. and i ask you, is this not also true of people? you think if i packed up my bags and moved to nebraska tomorrow i couldn't find one decent girl there? i'm sure i could. people are "falling in love" all over the world, every day, in every time zone, and they're getting married and having kids and blah blah blah. can that be destiny at work all over the world? is cupid working over time? or is it simply that people want companionship and have plenty of options to choose from?
yes, but what about the dimes? none of this explains away the dimes.
true. very true.
all i can say is maybe there is such a thing as destiny. and maybe destiny sends us extraordinarily subtle / seemingly irrelevant clues to assure us that we are indeed following the path that was paved for us before time began. it's not at all likely that people fantasize about the notion of destiny in order to feel protected in a world that tends to be cruel and unforgiving, right? or to rid us of the pressure of making decisions for ourselves?
some people might read this and conclude that i'm too realistic, that i should cool down and not be so negative. why can't i just let people fall in love in peace? why must i suck out all the romance from such things?
well, to you i say this: my point-of-view is just as romantic as yours if not more so. because at the end of the day i'm choosing my restaurant/companion because they make me happy. simple as that. there's no illusions, no make-believe fairy tales. there's no "we were made for each other" sap. no dimes anywhere. just boring old truths such as "i enjoy your brand of companionship" and "i'm glad we live in proximity to one another." (those are free, boys. you're welcome).
so here's a final note for the lonely hearted out there: don't complain to the heavens about your plight. rather, relocate your business and revise your menu. and lastly know your clientèle. if you're a truck stop don't expect Grace Kelly or Cary Grant to walk through the door. it's okay to lower your standards if you aren't worth much.
July 29, 2007
re-run: the new holiday
note: this essay originally appeared 7/29/06
Let's just cut to the chase here. Ladies and gentlemen, Shark Week begins tomorrow night. Break out the champagne and the noisemakers, for this is no ordinary week. After 18 years, this annual summertime Discovery Channel staple has hooked itself to our hearts, and it's time that we celebrate it properly.
When else are we given the excuse to openly worship the carnage-driven bloodmongers that lurk under the sea? Obviously never. You see, the shark is unlike any other villainous animal on the planet. Take another hated creature - like the spider - for example. Although we all fear spiders, we would never participate in Spider Week. Why? Because spiders are too ugly, frankly. They are undoubtedly fascinating beasts, what with their calculating and secretive ways. And those webs; how could such an ugly creature knit such a beautiful thing? Yes, spiders are probably our most beloved animal to hate. But perhaps they are too scary?
Sharks, on the other hand, are the lions of the sea. When they aren't killing, they're sleek and sort of appealing to the eye. Of course at other times they are fierce aggressors who kill with a pathological lack of concern for their victims. It's what they do. They just kill stuff until their stomachs are full.
And who knows? They might kill you or me someday. That's what makes Shark Week so great. We get to study one of our most beloved villains up close, like watching Hannibal Lecter work in "Silence of the Lambs."
The Discovery Channel has done such a nice job with Shark Week over the years, crafting it into the institution it's become, that I believe the annual tradition must be recognized as a national holiday. I mean honestly, Shark Week would instantly be more popular than a majority of our national holidays. Let's take a closer look:
National Holiday Power Rankings:
1. Christmas - still the undisputed champ. gifts and lots of time off work. what more do you want?
2. Halloween - there's something for everyone. kids get candy. men get to wear funny costumes. women get to show off cleavage. and it's all about paganism, which gives it that extra oomph of something.
3. Thanksgiving - lots of eating good food, followed by watching football and playing cards. great holiday.
4. The Fourth of July - the great mid-summer holiday. oh America, i wish i knew how to quit you.
5. St. Patrick's Day - an excuse to drink beer, wear green, sing irish songs and pinch people.
6. Shark Week - this seems a perfect fit. a little lower than those five, a little higher than struggling Easter and all the other disastrous holidays.
7. Easter - sorry Jesus, but Easter is weak. coloring eggs, hiding eggs, hiding baskets, the Easter Bunny? Somebody try to rationalize for me the absurdity of these so-called traditions alongside the observance of Christ's big comeback? i know not everyone believes in/ gives a crap about JC. but Easter, nonetheless, needs a face lift. there's nothing for adults here. nothing. maybe bumping Shark Week to #6 will act as a wakeup call.
8. Valentine's Day - i mean, in theory there's nothing wrong with taking your girl out on the town and having a romantic evening together. but to quote Homer Simpson, "In theory, communism works." this holiday always feels like an inconvenience, like "Oh $#!#, I forgot, Wednesday is V-Day. Sorry dude, I can't make it." and what about all the Eleanor Rigbys out there? What do they do?
9. Mother's / Father's Day - I don't know anyone who takes these seriously.
10. Labor Day - It marks the end of summer. That's strike one. and it stands for nothing. that's two more strikes. i hate holidays that don't stand for anything.
I'm probably forgetting some holidays, like Memorial Day and Columbus Day. But whatever. You see my point. Shark Week would be an instant hit, even as a rookie holiday. And don't worry. We still have time to work out the details. Like, for instance, although it's a week long series on TV, does the celebration need to go for seven days when one day might suffice? Should there be anything as random and absurd as a yule log? Should there be a mysterious figurehead, like Saint Nick?
I don't have all the answers yet. But here's what I do know: there must be at least one major gathering between friends where sea food is consumed and a movie about sharks is watched. Preferably this is done to kick-off Shark Week. Consider attending the party in makeup and attire that gives the illusion that you've been attacked by a shark. And we should all begin working on a song that could compete with any Christmas carol. "Beyond the Sea" or "Under the Sea" will do in a pinch.
In the days that follow, maybe you visit aquariums, maybe you go fishing, maybe you play games in a pool where someone plays the shark and everyone else plays potential victims. I don't know yet.
What I do know is that Shark Week begins tomorrow and I'm excited. Perhaps I'll celebrate by having an entire shark lowered into the roof of my home via a crane.
July 15, 2007
america is no longer a superpower (or why i hated "transformers")
now let me make my point, plain and simple: if you truly enjoyed "transformers" and you're over the age of 18, kill yourself. you're worthless and brainless.
you're the kind of person who regards your childhood toys with awe and reverence, like somehow plastic ninja turtles and he-men and transforming cars are somehow profound objects worthy to be praised. i hate to be a buzz kill, but uh, they're just toys. for children.
but you people just couldn't wait to watch your little elementary school fantasy become reality on the big screen. WOW! the transformers are in a real live-action big budget movie!! i mean they're cars and they can switch into giant robots! and they fight each other! in a big summer movie!!
stop.
just stop.
please.
this all must end. really. i mean, really. it's time, boys. it's time for us to grow up. let me say it again:
it's time for us to grow up. it's time for us to become men.
it's time for us to play fewer video games. it's time for us to watch fewer superhero movies. more than that, it's time we stop enjoying these movies. because you see, i talked to a lot of people who spoke highly of "transformers," and for the life of me i can't understand where they're coming from. all i can figure is that these people wanted to like the movie because of their 80's nostalgia. and that's the part i can't understand.
was life so good when we were kids - were the toys so good? - that some of us still display them in our homes like decorations?
don't get me wrong. there is a time and a place for toys and video games and all the like. i just think its time we stop letting this shit define our generation. my grandpa's generation fought against a great evil in the world and prevailed. they are now called The Greatest Generation. in contrast, we are a generation of coddled adolescents in adult bodies who speak the language of pop culture. in fact, we should call ourselves Generation Pop Culture, because as far as i can tell that's the only legacy we're leaving behind so far, our universal love and understanding of all things pop.
it's junk food for the mind and if saying so makes me an elitist, so be it.
"transformers" was a horribly told story on every level, and if we as adults can't recognize this then maybe it's too late for us as a people. maybe we've crossed the pop culture point-of-no-return. maybe all the brain junk food has caught up to many of us and made our brains fat and useless once and for all. maybe "transformers" really does signal the beginning of the end.
June 26, 2007
soprano fans = stupid?
i'll be honest, i've never watched one episode of The Sopranos from start to finish, so i come at this as an outsider. I'm Not One of You. nonetheless, i find myself inexplicably fascinated by this show's finale.
i take that back. i know why it fascinates me: because here you have a critically-acclaimed show with a loyal fan base that's about to implode with anticipation for the final episode. the day after, no one seems happy with the show's unfulfilling, all-too-sudden curtain. it didn't make sense. a show with that pedigree couldn't possibly end on such a disappointing note.
well guess what? it didn't: http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/
harris's blog explains with painful detail the number of clues that were packed in the last episode to suggest tony's death. he calls it a theory, but i'm ready to deem it a factual conclusion. tony is dead. plain as day.
at this point i want to explain why i think soprano fans must be stupid.
plenty of the clues harris mentions would be easily missed if you weren't watching the show with a fine-toothed comb and a keen mind. for instance, the Last Supper image flies by much too quickly for any commoner to notice. or maybe you're like me and you didn't know that oranges were forebearers of death in The Godfather films and so you didn't notice them in The Sopranos either.
i want to forgive your foolishness, soprano fans, really i do. but how can i after reading the following:
The sensation of imminent death – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was now-famously discussed in an episode called “Soprano Home Movies.”
This same episode was reportedly repeated, out of sequence, re-airing “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” the week before the finale.
And the same exact scene – this same discussion of how death would be experienced – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was also apparently excerpted in flashback in the second-to-last episode.
in other words, you're telling me that once the show's credits started to roll, none of this dawned on you? really? none of this discussion played in your mind at any point? you really thought david chase intended to end his beloved saga with a gimmick? and then you all had the nerve to wake up the following day and complain about how unsatisfying the end was? really? did all of that really happen?
i know i'm monday morning quarterbacking. but i just can't believe it took this long for a more plausible interpretation of the conclusion to surface. how reactionary are we as people? how bad are we at interpreting art when it's not spelled-out for us? why couldn't ONE soprano fan put 2 and 2 together immediately after the episode was over?
that's the thing about this show i never understood. it's considered one of the greatest shows ever made, yet when i hear people talking about it, never do i hear anything of substance. all i hear is "who do you think is gonna get whacked next week?" like it was some sort of survivor-style reality tv show. this show had to be about more than killing, right?
well, yes and no. ultimately the finale is about tony's death, but it manages to make his death something more profound and more deeply felt than some third-person assassination. when the camera goes black, my heart is beating very fast and i get chills. death so sudden, so unexpected, and so predestined. you aren't just watching tony. You Are Tony. and then you die.
my point is that soprano fans should have given this show the benefit of the doubt. instead of complaining, they should have instantly started putting the pieces together. they should've been savvy enough to understand that david chase had something substantial up his sleeve, something better than a "did my cable just go out?" prank.
and now all we're left with is this collective failure. the blind leading the blind and whatnot.
tony soprano must've been rolling in his grave.
June 01, 2007
sometimes you're ethel
i'm writing this just after lebron's instant historic performance, the one that put the pistons down 3-2 in the series. you know, the one where lebron validated all of his years of hype, scoring the last 29 of his team's 30 points and leading the young cavs to an improbable victory in enemy territory.
when i was younger i would've been upset by such a loss, broken-hearted if you will. and don't get me wrong, i'm not happy that the detroit pistons lost today (a loss that almost guarantees elimination). but i understand something now i didn't understand when i was a kid, and that is this: i understand that sometimes it's your time to be the star, the belle of the ball, the main attraction, etc. but more importantly, there are times when it's your turn to ride in the backseat. you're not always gonna be the main star of the program. you're not always gonna be the one they're rooting for.
it can be difficult to come to terms with such a truth, which is why i couldn't do it as a child. with immaturity comes the belief that you are always the star of the show and the center of the universe.
to go a step further, this basketball contest playing out before us reminds us (particularly the piston fans) that sometimes the will of the people is what's most important. and the will of the people would prefer to see lebron james performing miraculous deeds on the hardwood. they don't want to see a boring, efficient piston team win another eastern conference trophy.
so maybe i can just enjoy the ride better this way? no longer worried about losing or failing. there's nothing else on the line for me. instead, i just need to fall in line with the people and enjoy the lebron show for all its worth and accept that my team is playing ethel to his lucy.
May 07, 2007
i don't want to be a talking head
note #2: this is about sports. so if you hate sports, you're wasting your time here. (see. nothing funny there.)
there's a chance the NBA FINALS this year will feature a rematch from two years ago. if you don't watch basketball, that's the dee-troit pistons vs. the san antonio spurs. granted, we're a long ways off from this being a sure thing, but the fact is that talking heads like bill simmons and the Pardon the Interruption guys have already deemed this potential match-up dreadful / boring / disastrous / awful / woeful ...and so forth.
i'm pissed off because these knuckleheads actually wield some influence over the public, and as long as they're telling people not to watch detroit v. spurs because it's boring, the longer the public will not watch because they've been told it will be boring. and then no one watches because the talking heads told people they shouldn't, and then the talking heads use the low-ratings to prove how boring the series was.
if you don't believe that the talking heads can create anticipation for a sporting event, then i present you with this past weekend's boxing match as evidence of the contrary. nobody i knew before a few weeks ago could've given three dumps about mayweather vs. de la hoya, but after being drilled with stories from the fickle sports media (re: talking heads) for two weeks leading up to the story, complete with the hyperbole of the match "saving boxing," suddenly everyone was talking about this match like they've been following non-heavyweight boxing for years. turns out the fight was so-so, which means it didn't live up to the hype, which means a bunch of people who didn't really give a crap watched anyways. i wonder if anybody had a mid-fight awakening along the lines of: "why am i watching this again? i don't even like boxing."
so i wonder what simmons/kornheiser/wilbon/barkley/paige/espn/fox sports/sports illustrated/free darko/etc. would rather see?
oh, right. the phoenix suns. obviously. PTI and simmons implied as much. sure their fun, freewheeling style of basketball never happens in the playoffs the way it happens in the regular season (i'm not saying it doesn't work; i'm saying it just doesn't happen at all). but the talking heads don't care. they made up their minds long ago. and because of that, if phoenix fails to reach the NBA Finals, you can forget about the sports media giving one dump about it (which is funny since they cover sports for a living).
ps. i'm tired of flabby sports writers complaining about which cities they might have to travel to. drew sharp - detroit free press columnist/contrived contrarian - pissed on the notion of potentially going between buffalo and san antonio to cover potential NHL/NBA FINALS series. and he's not the only one who's done this.
listen jerk-off, most people are stuck behind a desk all day, if they're lucky. don't act like you're some kind of king or something. you're a fat blowhard, lucky to have such a cushy job. just stop talking for a while, okay?
April 07, 2007
easter: still the worst
sorry Jesus, but Easter is weak. coloring eggs, hiding eggs, hiding baskets, the Easter Bunny? Somebody try to rationalize for me the absurdity of these so-called traditions alongside the observance of Christ's big comeback? i know not everyone believes in/ gives a crap about JC. but Easter, nonetheless, needs a face lift. there's nothing for adults here. nothing. maybe bumping Shark Week to #6 will act as a wakeup call.
those words were said way back on july 29, 2006 in a piece entitled the new holiday.
with easter day happening tomorrow, i thought it would be fun to remind everybody how lame this holiday actually is. looking back on the words i wrote last year, it strikes me that i still stand by all those thoughts and feelings. in fact, after coloring eggs today my disdain for easter has only strengthened. add to that the fact that i had to work on good friday and that i go back to work on monday - i mean, what is there to like? you get no guaranteed time off! even certain government operations are open on good friday, which says something about how lightly easter is viewed. i mean, the government loves to take time off. if you can't get those guys to take a vacation then you must be doing something wrong.
yes, jesus is cool, as is his story. i like that side of easter. but this is all the more reason why the holiday fails so miserably. jesus in the eyes of most people is either: the Son of God; or one of the most (and to many The most) influential figures to ever exist. does his life and his potential resurrection not justify something better than easter eggs and bunnies and potato salad?
even the color scheme of easter is awful. pastels hurt my eyes to look at. while many women are able to enjoy and celebrate these colors, they leave men feeling uncomfortable and neutered. i hate pastels.
finally, i want to mention the easter bunny. i'll grant you that, as a child, the easter bunny was fun. he brings you candy and small toys and he hides them somewhere in your house in a basket. i don't think he's a particularly creative holiday mascot, and i would've certainly vetoed the idea if i worked for hallmark, but you've gotta give him credit. as ridiculous as he is, kids still fall for it, which really is a testament to how gullible kids really are. they'll believe in anything that nets them candy and toys. still, the point i want to make here is that the easter bunny's success has little to do with the brilliance of his creation but more so with the fact that kids want to believe mystical gift-giving creatures exist no matter how ridiculous it might be. the easter bunny ranks just above an inanimate object on the scale of good mascots.
i say all this to say that i'm not excited about easter tomorrow, and with any luck i've brought you down too.
March 27, 2007
maybe it should be mccain
the '08 presidential election is a long ways off and yet john mccain finds himself in an early hole.
according to rasmussenreports.com:
Arizona Senator John McCain (R), now trails Giuliani by twenty percentage points. For the second straight week, the Rasmussen Reports poll measured McCain’s support at just 15%. That’s the lowest level of support measured so far for the man who began the campaign season as the presumed frontrunner. For the full month of March, McCain’s support has averaged just 16%, down from 18% in February and 21% in January.at this rate, johnny mac will be down to 0% before the end of the year, which must be embarrassing for his campaign backers. of course, conventional wisdom says that mccain's faltering support is directly related to his iraq strategy: namely, that he wants to keep The Troops in the desert until things get better (also important: he wants to add more troops to the region, not subtract). the majority of the american republic tends to disagree with mr. mccain on this front, which is hurting his popularity.
but here's the kicker: what if mccain is right? what if staying in iraq is the right thing to do? i, like so many others, have refused to even consider this strategy to this point. for me it was simple: if we aren't stabilizing iraq then why are we there? let's get out.
down the line, the dems are telling us whatever we want to hear. they are speaking in terms of exit strategies. they are passing antiwar bills in the House. they are declaring bush a failure, and rightfully so. bush has failed. but still, there is a concern that the dems are overcompensating for bush's mistakes, like they want to leave iraq just to zag away from the president, to prove his war was a failure, to gain the fleeting support of a fickle public. but wouldn't it be foolish to pull the troops in spite of the president?
leaving iraq before it has legs to stand on could lead to seriously dangerous results in the region. yet i don't here the big-boy dems talking about this, which is troubling.
mccain, on the other hand, knows he's killing himself by siding with the surge. *he knows this!* yet he remains faithful to his conviction. and his conviction is based on the fact that he's been studying the circumstances in iraq on his own. his opinion seems to have little to do with focus groups and polling. mccain seems genuinely like he's just trying to do the right thing. and today on cnn he said that the new approach in iraq is starting to show some positive results, which helps secure him in his convictions.
as much as i like the idea of obama or the charm of edwards or the clintonness of hillary, i can't help but find the do-the-right-thing-know-matter-how-you're-perceived mccain to be honorable and also electable.
however, standing by such tough medicine makes this a hard sell to the general public. if he wants to regain favor with the polls, john mccain must explain to us in plain english the progress that is being made in iraq.
March 21, 2007
does opec actually own texas?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore, who has reversed his political fortunes to become a potential contender in the 2008 presidential race, made an emotional return to Congress Wednesday in an appeal for an even more dramatic rescue -- saving the planet.
Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avoid a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.
He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information.
"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis," Gore said. "Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination."
He rejected the contention by opponents of quick action on global warming that the United States should only impose mandatory controls on greenhouse gases if China, India and other rapidly developing nations agree to do the same.
"The best way and the only way to get China and India on board is for the U.S. to demonstrate real leadership," Gore said. "As the world's largest economy and the greatest superpower, we are uniquely situated to tackle a problem of this magnitude," he said.
"You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as he challenged Gore's conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures.
Barton and Gore's exchange grew testy at one point -- Barton demanding that Gore get to the point and Gore responding that he would like time to answer without being interrupted.
"Global warming science is uneven and evolving," Barton said.
"A lot of those recommendations are more regulations and more taxation," said former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, though he added that he agrees with Gore that the scientific debate on climate change is over.
"I think we can find answers to use the coal energy, to use the natural gas we have."
Gore was warmly welcomed back by some of his critics, such as Republican Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas.
"You're dear to us, but I just don't agree with you on this," Hall said.
February 19, 2007
dubai's schwartz is bigger than yours
way, way upwards.
meet the Burj Dubai:
no, those other buildings aren't just very short. this is a concept drawing of the soon-to-be tallest building in the world. it isn't finished yet because it's very tall and it will take a long time to build. reportedly, it will top 26-hundred feet upon its completion - 900 feet taller than the sears tower. and i think to myself: maybe too big?
i'll point out, again, that dubai is in a desert, which means there's no real need build up. they have plenty of earth real estate to build on. so the next question becomes why? for the love of jebus, why?! why do this if not for necessity?
the answer to this riddle you'll find surprising i think.
the world is fascinated by penises. a recent poll said that a majority of men wished they had a bigger penis. freud based an entire theory on penises. women talk about men's penis size all the time (ie. sex in the city). large penises are a source of pride for those men who have them; small penises, likewise, bring shame.and i wonder aloud: is there a connection between penises and skyscrapers?to boast having the world's largest building is undoubtedly a source of pride, and skyscrapers do resemble penises in their basic shape, no?
in fact, i'll bet if aliens landed on planet earth tomorrow, they'd quickly question us on why we devote such large shrines to male genitalia. and all the while we'd be saying to them, "what are you talking about?" - completely unaware of the magnitude of our fascination.
now just maybe this is some coincidence. maybe skyscrapers and cocks just happen to look the same in their basic shape. even if this is a coincidence and not actually some subconscious manifestation, still, you must agree that both are physical representations of The Male Ego.
for some reason, both the owner of the penis and the creator of the skyscraper desire to be bigger than the next man/building. a point worth making now is that, in a way, society generally rewards size. this is contrary to my initial reaction that the quest for size is a fruitless reward and that society on the whole could care less how big your penis/skyscraper is. but that's not true. women are as equally fascinated with large penises as men are with breasts (and you're lying to yourself if you disagree). likewise, large buildings are spectacles for the masses. they are attractions for tourists, targets of terrorists.
maybe the quest for size is important?
i don't know the answer to that. but with this in mind, i ask you to reconsider the premise: isn't it possible that The Male Ego is manifesting itself in our architecture in the shape of the most phallic of symbols?
it's become a giant wang contest all over the world.
but this building in dubai isn't simply trying to take the world record. it's actually trying to demolish the record, which is weird, right? in fact, i'm almost ready to say it seems desperate. like, "hey ladies, look how big my penis is. see how big it is? don't you see?" and that's where The Male Ego starts to lose its way. it's one thing to be well-endowed. it's another thing to be an all out freak show. like that guy in rolling stone a few years ago.
if i'm being honest with myself, it's not that i am morally opposed to these "spacescrapers" (TM by the_glide, 2007). what bothers me is that dubai is positioning itself as the city with the biggest penis in the world, which would be something like the annoying rich kid having the biggest cock in the locker room. spoiled rich kids haven't earned such honors. rather, if we had our druthers, it would be the leader who had the biggest member. someone strong. someone with real significance. like, say, New York.
unfortunately, a skyscraper's height is no longer reflective of a city's respective greatness but instead only of its wealth, rendering these once great symbols practically meaningless.
January 23, 2007
picture the crowd in its underwear
yeah yeah, the 2007 State of the Union was mostly an unrealistic exercise in hot air blowing and political posturing. i get that. but i'm not here to bust dubya's chops or anyone else in washington for that matter. i'll leave that to the truly political blogs.
instead, what i offer you is the everyman point-of-view. to me, this speech sounded the way they always do: let's get every american a job; let's solve health care; let's cure AIDS in africa; let's talk tough to rogue nations; let's eliminate the use of fossil fuels; the time is now to teach every american student to read; no new taxes; balance the budget! cheaper fast food! robots in every household! better movies from hollywood! free massages for every american! two girls for every guy! (each statement followed by absurd durations of applause from the audience).
as bush talked about his dream agenda, it dawned on me that the moniker "state of the union" means little to nothing. there's nothing really necessary about this annual speech. it serves no practical purpose. the phrase: the state of our union is strong is often heard, but seemingly loosely argued.
and the thing is, i really would like to hear an honest speech about the state of our union. summing up the state - or health - of our country might be tricky. be isn't it possible? it wouldn't have to be a drab numerical breakdown of unemployment figures, murder rates, literacy scores and so on. just do three things: 1.) put things into perspective; 2.) set a succinct strategy for the current major challenges we face; 3.) inspire us. also, like going to the symphony, disallow any applause until the show is over. that'll reduce 10 or 15 minutes easily. shoot to keep it around 25-30 minutes. and that's all you have to do.
but these things will never happen. and so i must now dispense blame.
i could chose to blame the president, but he's too obvious a target. anyways, W is just following the pattern that's already been paved for him by previous administrations. dubya didn't invent the stale notion of the SotU. so i can't blame him for anything other than not having the guts or desire or vision to change the format.
rather than pinning all the blame on the president (whoever it might be), wouldn't it make more sense to blame the guys who actually write the speeches?
a few interesting notes about this SotU ritual. Did you know it's a constitutional requirement of the president to deliver this speech? Did you know it was modeled after the monarch's Speech of the Throne in the UK? Did you know Thomas Jefferson typed his SotU and had a clerk read it to congress, and he did this because he found the pomp and circumstance to be too monarchical? oh but that ol' scoundrel woodrow wilson brought back the big show in 1913.
here's where it gets more interesting. in the 1920's, calvin coolidge delivers the first SotU over the radio for all america to hear live. now i ask you, is it coincidence that coolidge is said to be the first president to have an official speechwriter? therefore, did mass media kill the notion of a self-expressive commander-in-chief?
i'd love to go back to the days of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Washington's Inaugural, but those days of candid thoughtfulness are clearly gone. too many media members listening all the time, searching for gaffes. fine.
so then, to the speechwriters: be brave! try taking a risk for once in your lives. stop cutting and pasting empty rhetoric from the archives. drop all the needless sentences. get to the point! just tell us in plain language what the state of the union actually is. that's it. that's all you have to do.
January 06, 2007
buy buy love
but let's get back to business.
among all the nice things i received was an album entitled simply, Love. it's by a band called The Beatles.
and let me tell you something. it's very, very good.
what i'd like to do today is explain to you what this album actually is. because it seems to me that people aren't really sure what to make of this. "another compilation? is that really necessary?" that was my first reaction, and i know i'm not the only one.
then i read a review over at Slant. it gave Love five stars and i was confused. how could a compilation receive five stars? i went on and read and learned. although i wasn't completely illuminated, i came to understand the basic premise: Love wasn't a compilation at all. it was more of a remix or reworking or something like that. songs were being blended into other songs and the results were good. this was enough for me to express my interest, and thusly, i received it as a gift.
and then i was in my car driving some long distance. i decided this was the perfect time to crack open the cd. slowly, carefully, i undressed it of that protective cellophane. then i removed that crisp disc from its home and slipped it into the stereo.
it began silently. i turned up the volume to see if i was missing anything. but nothing was happening. i waited.
and then!
it starts with the cool a capella notes of "Ahhh ahhh." BECAUSE. Because the world is round and all that. only voices like on the anthology. no instruments. and the pauses - oh, those pauses! - pauses between each line of the song. this is an epic beginning from the start! it is a signal that something great is about to happen, as it lays the groundwork with that calm-before-the storm, gentile sound. it is like the start of the 1812 overture. no seriously.
and then the action is afoot. a wall of sound fades-in from the distance, some mixture of familiar Beatles' sounds, now blending to create a new unique sound all its own. as it takes full crescendo Paul's familiar "get back" becomes the song, but with new energy not found on the "Let It Be" cut. honestly, "get back" has never been among the great Beatles songs. not in my mind, anyways.
but on LOVE it's undeniable. it has the energy of a concert version along with the clarity of a brand new song. and that's reason #3 to buy LOVE. every song sounds brand new, like they just recorded it. it's akin to watching Star Wars in THX for the first time. the sound quality alone makes this a worthy addition to any Beatle fan's catalog.
the truly fascinating aspect to LOVE, though, is absolutely in the way songs are blended together to create, in essence, the feeling of having new Beatles songs. imagine taking "being for the benefit of mr. kite" and attaching the end of "she's so heavy" to it. that is accomplished on LOVE with - can i say great? - with Great success. and of course henry the horse dances the WALTZ --> BOOM! guitars blaze in, mixed with the psychedelic /carousel chimes of mr. kite.
i understand that none of that probably made sense. but i had to try to explain. you see, LOVE isn't a remix so much as a collage of Beatles' sounds, flowing from one song to the next often without seams. it's the singing from "within you without you" over the wicked music of "tomorrow never knows." it's an acoustic start of "blackbird" that leads into "yesterday." it's "all you need is love" with the final notes of "goodnight" at the end, with sound bites of the band concluding a studio session. it's "strawberry fields" as if john started it alone and was slowly joined by the band.
it is perhaps the greatest mix tape of all time. longtime Beatles producer george martin created this with his son, and together they have pieced together these familiar, comfortable songs to fashion something of a Beatles symphony.
LOVE is to be martin's final work for the iconic band that he's been with for so long. and with this effort, it's as though martin is saying goodbye to a band, to music, and to a time he loved to be apart of. and the joy for the listener is to hear how intimately martin knows this music. that he's able to smash it to pieces and rebuild it into something wholly satisfying is a credit to his amazing expertise as a producer. and it stands as a testament to his relationship with John, Paul, George and Ringo. he not only knew these guys. he was one of them.
the need for this essay is almost unnecessary at this point. the word is quickly spreading about LOVE with places like borders, starbucks and all the like spinning it non-stop. so i know this might have a short shelf life. but i just needed to express how stunning it is for myself. it reminded me, again, how much i love the Beatles. i feel lucky just to be alive to experience this work, simply called LOVE, which must now be considered the coda of the fab four's catalog. if it all started with "she loves you" and their big break on ed sullivan, then LOVE is the conclusion to all that. trust me when i say: it's not to be missed.