I was never a fan of Pavement, but this is one of theirs that always sticks with me, like I can hear it and it'll stick in my head all day...
Pavement, "Shady Lane"
Of course, it being a Spike Jonze video, it's sort of deliberately "avant garde" and whatever. But the tune is memorable, regardless of the video.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Days of Future Past
This NPR piece amused me, how we've passed various "future" dates from all sorts of movies, and how quaintly unrealized those various futures were, and what they say about the present times that spawned them, and how real life is far more complex and rich than these imagined futures.
Funny that this came up, as I was watching an episode of TRANSFORMERS with the boys, where this politician uses doctored media to fan anti-Autobot flames in the populace (aided by Megatron, naturally), propagandizing people into thinking that the Autobots are the bad guys, which gets them booted off the planet, leaving it for the Decepticons. Anyway, a fairly straightforward demagogue narrative that communicates that this is a bad thing.
But watching it today, you can't help but think that this is what we have now -- the talk radio and Fox News circuits create a reactionary echo chamber that crafts its own reality, affecting how people react to the world around them in various invidious ways. It wasn't a reflection of the prescience of the kiddie show, so much as it showed the debasing of our political culture by a demagogic faction, and how much damage that had done. In the episode, of course, the bamboozled people realize the error of their ways; in real life, people most certainly haven't; if anything, they've gotten worse!
Funny that this came up, as I was watching an episode of TRANSFORMERS with the boys, where this politician uses doctored media to fan anti-Autobot flames in the populace (aided by Megatron, naturally), propagandizing people into thinking that the Autobots are the bad guys, which gets them booted off the planet, leaving it for the Decepticons. Anyway, a fairly straightforward demagogue narrative that communicates that this is a bad thing.
But watching it today, you can't help but think that this is what we have now -- the talk radio and Fox News circuits create a reactionary echo chamber that crafts its own reality, affecting how people react to the world around them in various invidious ways. It wasn't a reflection of the prescience of the kiddie show, so much as it showed the debasing of our political culture by a demagogic faction, and how much damage that had done. In the episode, of course, the bamboozled people realize the error of their ways; in real life, people most certainly haven't; if anything, they've gotten worse!
Monday, August 23, 2010
Finally
Got the pix out of iPhoto's clutches! The lake looked like the ocean this morning. A little tiltycam on the top one. Whoopsie! But I kept it because the colors and contrast were so nice.
Sunny
Lovely summer day. Great light, good temps. I snapped some pix, need to get them uploaded. iPhoto's being a dick, so I have to sort that out.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
A Touch of Evil
This is kind of interesting, a Columbia forensic psychologist coming up with a 22-point "Scale of Evil."
"Semi-psychopath" is an interesting term I hadn't really considered (just because in my view, if somebody's a psychopath [or psychopathic], they've pretty much crossed a line, there, where human behavior is concerned).
Also, the presence of torture on this list is interesting, given our legalistic sanctioning of it as "enhanced interrogation."
01 Those who kill in self-defense and who do not show psychopathic features; these cases do not involve murder.
IMPULSIVE MURDERERS
02 Jealous lovers who kill: These murderers, though egocentric or immature, are not psychopaths. This level on the scale includes crimes of passion.
03 Willing companions of killers: Killers on this level are usually impulse ridden, meaning they have a hard time controlling the kinds of violent thoughts that most people ignore.
04 Criminals who kill in self-defense, but are extremely provocative toward the victim.
05 Traumatized, desperate persons who kill: These murderers may be genuinely remorseful and they lack significant psychopathic traits.
06 Impetuous, hot-headed murderers, who don’t have marked psychopathic features.
07 Highly narcissistic, but not distinctly psychopathic persons, who kill “loved ones” out of jealousy.
08 Non-psychopathic persons with smoldering rage: These people kill when their rage is ignited.
SEMI-PSYCHOPATHS
09 Jealous lovers with marked psychopathic features.
10 Non-psychopathic killers who murder people who are “in the way”.
11 Psychopathic killers who murder people “in the way”.
12 Power-hungry psychopaths who kill when cornered.
13 Psychopathic murderers who kill out of rage.
14 Ruthlessly self-centered psychopathic schemers who kill to benefit themselves.
15 Psychopathic spree or multiple murderers.
PSYCHOPATHS
16 Psychopaths committing multiple vicious acts, which may also include murder.
17 Sexually perverse serial murderers: In males, rape is usually the primary motive and the victim is murdered to hide evidence.
18 Torturer-murderers: Murder is the primary motive and victims are killed after a torture that was not prolonged.
19 Psychopaths driven to terrorism, subjugation, intimidation and rape, but short of murder.
20 Torturer-murderers: Torture is the primary motive with these killers.
21 Psychopaths who do not kill their victims, but do subject them to extreme torture.
22 Psychopaths who inflict extreme torture on their victims and then murder them.
"Semi-psychopath" is an interesting term I hadn't really considered (just because in my view, if somebody's a psychopath [or psychopathic], they've pretty much crossed a line, there, where human behavior is concerned).
Also, the presence of torture on this list is interesting, given our legalistic sanctioning of it as "enhanced interrogation."
Good Fathers and Bad Dads
I'm not going to blog about my father, except to say that there is a world of difference between fathers and dads; any man can be a father, but not every man can be a dad, and he was never my dad. In my view, a dad is someone who loves you unconditionally and unreservedly, is kind, caring, honest, gentle, compassionate, empathic, emotionally accessible, and protective, and supports you emotionally and spiritually, encourages you and heartens you. Take away those things, and all you have is a father, not a dad. I know the difference, because he was the former, and not the latter. Ideally, a father is a dad, and that's what all fathers should aspire to; most think the one automatically gets them in the club, and that's why I think there are so many bad dads out there. I think mine wrestled with so much stuff coiled up inside him that he could never healthily relate to the world around him (which is likely why he had, what, four or five marriages under his belt?)
And the same dichotomy can be applied to mothers and moms, along similar lines. Parenthood is a challenging enterprise, when contrasted with simply having kids. Having kids is comparatively easy, and humans have been doing it for awhile, now. But raising them is the real challenge, and not everybody's cut out for it. I know my father certainly wasn't.
The one good thing I drew from my time with him as my "dad" was that it taught me across the board how NOT to be a dad -- I used him as a counter example, and have excelled at parenting by simply not being like him, or asking myself "What would HE have done? Okay, I won't do that." And it's worked out very well for me. My boys adore me, and I am there for them, whatever they need, and I hope that the good example I offer them as a dad will translate in their own successful lives, and on, and on, down the line, for their kids, and their kids' kids, and so on. In my view, life throws enough at you without having a bad parent in the mix to make things that much harder.
My father, 1933-2010. Onward and upward.
And the same dichotomy can be applied to mothers and moms, along similar lines. Parenthood is a challenging enterprise, when contrasted with simply having kids. Having kids is comparatively easy, and humans have been doing it for awhile, now. But raising them is the real challenge, and not everybody's cut out for it. I know my father certainly wasn't.
The one good thing I drew from my time with him as my "dad" was that it taught me across the board how NOT to be a dad -- I used him as a counter example, and have excelled at parenting by simply not being like him, or asking myself "What would HE have done? Okay, I won't do that." And it's worked out very well for me. My boys adore me, and I am there for them, whatever they need, and I hope that the good example I offer them as a dad will translate in their own successful lives, and on, and on, down the line, for their kids, and their kids' kids, and so on. In my view, life throws enough at you without having a bad parent in the mix to make things that much harder.
My father, 1933-2010. Onward and upward.
Friday, August 20, 2010
This & Thataway
Today should be fairly busy, although I've soldiered through most of my workload, thankfully. Definitely better off by the end of the week than I was at the front end. Although we'll see how it goes, what curveballs come this way. Some promising opportunities, jobwise, which I'm hoping will come through for me. We'll see.
I've changed up my writing schedule a bit, just to reflect the exigencies of the week. I'm doing short stories on the weekdays (or, more accurately, one short story per the weekday schedule), and am working on the long fiction on the weekend. I think, at least for now, it works better in terms of available time, since I need a bigger bloc of time for long fiction, which is easier to come by on the weekend. Whereas short fiction is something I can resolve on a normal 5-day schedule. I contacted a publisher regarding one of my story submissions, and am hoping it gets picked up. We'll see. Publishing schedules are always tricky.
I may take the boys to the Willis Tower SkyDeck this weekend, that is something they've been jonesing to do for awhile, so I may indulge them. It's tourist-pricey, but it's super-cool, and they should dig it! Or at least B1 will (B2 is a definite thrillseeker, but he can balk at unpredictable moments). I'll take some good pix of it, if we manage to go. Nothing much else on tap for the weekend, beyond writing and biking and SkyDecking.
That power outage at work was odd; ComEd was doing some work, not sure what tripped up the power. It was several city blocks that lost it, like a straight line going west. They fixed it in about a half an hour. Haven't had that much fun since Sparky the Raccoon got fried on a power line. Sparky was my name for him -- it was quite ghoulish: a raccoon had climbed one of the electrical poles and had apparently electrocuted itself. It was hanging upside down from that pole, and because its pelt matched the old bleached wood color, I don't think anybody noticed for a very long time. Of course, I noticed, and I dubbed the raccoon "Sparky" in honor of its demise. Sparky was there for months, before somebody finally saw him and took him down. Weirdly, there's a nook at the top of the pole, and since Sparky's passing (this was a few years ago), a squirrel has turned that pole into a kind of clubhouse, storing nuts in the top, I guess. It just shinnies up the pole and vanishes in the top.
I've changed up my writing schedule a bit, just to reflect the exigencies of the week. I'm doing short stories on the weekdays (or, more accurately, one short story per the weekday schedule), and am working on the long fiction on the weekend. I think, at least for now, it works better in terms of available time, since I need a bigger bloc of time for long fiction, which is easier to come by on the weekend. Whereas short fiction is something I can resolve on a normal 5-day schedule. I contacted a publisher regarding one of my story submissions, and am hoping it gets picked up. We'll see. Publishing schedules are always tricky.
I may take the boys to the Willis Tower SkyDeck this weekend, that is something they've been jonesing to do for awhile, so I may indulge them. It's tourist-pricey, but it's super-cool, and they should dig it! Or at least B1 will (B2 is a definite thrillseeker, but he can balk at unpredictable moments). I'll take some good pix of it, if we manage to go. Nothing much else on tap for the weekend, beyond writing and biking and SkyDecking.
That power outage at work was odd; ComEd was doing some work, not sure what tripped up the power. It was several city blocks that lost it, like a straight line going west. They fixed it in about a half an hour. Haven't had that much fun since Sparky the Raccoon got fried on a power line. Sparky was my name for him -- it was quite ghoulish: a raccoon had climbed one of the electrical poles and had apparently electrocuted itself. It was hanging upside down from that pole, and because its pelt matched the old bleached wood color, I don't think anybody noticed for a very long time. Of course, I noticed, and I dubbed the raccoon "Sparky" in honor of its demise. Sparky was there for months, before somebody finally saw him and took him down. Weirdly, there's a nook at the top of the pole, and since Sparky's passing (this was a few years ago), a squirrel has turned that pole into a kind of clubhouse, storing nuts in the top, I guess. It just shinnies up the pole and vanishes in the top.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Dinobotics
Okay, I'm probably asking for it by even analyzing it, but why the hell are the Dinobots stupid?
I never liked the Dinobots, and watching the show with my boys, I am reminded of how annoyed I was at the Dinobots all over again. They're robots. Thinking machines, crafted by Wheeljack, the prime inventor/engineer of the Autobots, who seems tirelessly talented in creating things. And he designed the Dinobots with the help of Ratchet (I think), emphasizing the strength and power of the dinosaurs in their design, and, apparently, their lack of brains. Alright, so while it might play well as a wrinkle in the plotline to have these dumbass robots in their midst, and it's certainly played to amusing effect in the storyline, such as it is, but the logic's just not there -- a slow-witted robot? Sentient enough to have a sense of self and identity and to carry out its functions, but otherwise not sharp? Makes no sense.
Ratchet and Wheeljack could've simply designed them to have strong chassis and have them have the CPUs able to handle that kind of load and power -- if anything, their strength, size, and power would make it vital for them to have a reasonable amount of intelligence. Prime, in greenlighting the creation of the Dino-dullards, makes a grievous error in judgment, unleashing these dangerous machines on the world.
Of course, the implications of the Dinobots aren't fully explored -- it's a kids' show, after all -- but stupid robots? Huh? Since robots are designed with a purpose in mind, the abdication of good sense on the part of the creators of the Dinobots is kinda shocking, given that the Autobots made them, the ostensible good guys of the series. It would be like equipping a main battle tank with the brain of a dog to guide it. Not a good plan.
This clip somebody made (and amusingly edited to show how thick they are) highlights the central flaws of the Dinobots... ("Do you understand?" The second part of this clip is similarly amusing)...
Story of the Dinobots
I never liked the Dinobots, and watching the show with my boys, I am reminded of how annoyed I was at the Dinobots all over again. They're robots. Thinking machines, crafted by Wheeljack, the prime inventor/engineer of the Autobots, who seems tirelessly talented in creating things. And he designed the Dinobots with the help of Ratchet (I think), emphasizing the strength and power of the dinosaurs in their design, and, apparently, their lack of brains. Alright, so while it might play well as a wrinkle in the plotline to have these dumbass robots in their midst, and it's certainly played to amusing effect in the storyline, such as it is, but the logic's just not there -- a slow-witted robot? Sentient enough to have a sense of self and identity and to carry out its functions, but otherwise not sharp? Makes no sense.
Ratchet and Wheeljack could've simply designed them to have strong chassis and have them have the CPUs able to handle that kind of load and power -- if anything, their strength, size, and power would make it vital for them to have a reasonable amount of intelligence. Prime, in greenlighting the creation of the Dino-dullards, makes a grievous error in judgment, unleashing these dangerous machines on the world.
Of course, the implications of the Dinobots aren't fully explored -- it's a kids' show, after all -- but stupid robots? Huh? Since robots are designed with a purpose in mind, the abdication of good sense on the part of the creators of the Dinobots is kinda shocking, given that the Autobots made them, the ostensible good guys of the series. It would be like equipping a main battle tank with the brain of a dog to guide it. Not a good plan.
This clip somebody made (and amusingly edited to show how thick they are) highlights the central flaws of the Dinobots... ("Do you understand?" The second part of this clip is similarly amusing)...
Story of the Dinobots
Truth in advertising?
These signs amuse me any time I see them, although I was more pleased with the great depth of field with my otherwise nondescript digital camera.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)