|
What You've Missed:
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 February
2004 January
Recommended Sites:
Old Blog
The Washington Post
Roger Ebert
The Onion
Dilbert
Unamerican Activities
Dear readers: Thank you very much for your support of Fluorescent Sunshine. Knowing that I have an interested audience keeps me motivated. Please leave your thoughts on the articles by clicking the link at the end of each post. Your comments let me know that my work is not in vain! Thanks, BJK
|
| Grape Stomping Woman Falls on Face |
| 05.21.04 (1:31 pm) |
Blaaahahaha! Ok, this is not funny. Ok, yes it is. Check this out. Right click on [url=http://www.sleestakk.com/spic...]this link[/url] , then choose "save target as," then save to your desktop or whatever. Launch it and prepare to laugh away!
If you can't open it, or whatever, here's what happens:
Two women (reporters) for Fox 5 in Atlanta are doing one of those stupid live field reports on the news. They're at a winery, reporting on an impending grape stomping contest, or what have you. The women are in buckets, stomping grapes at a moderate pace, while one of them is talking about the contest. Apparently, s/he who stomps the most grapes in a certain time period is pronounced the grape stomping champion and gets some shitty prize (probably a bunch of grapes).
All of a sudden, Woman #1 (let's call her Jane Doe) yells "stop!" Her companion (Woman #2) dutifully complies, and Jane Doe, sensing victory close at hand, starts stomping double-time. She achieves such a frenetic pace that she pitches forward off the platform they're standing on and face-first into the ground. I mean face-first, no arm bracing or anything. JD begins howling in pain, saying she can't breathe, and the other woman stands there uselessly for 5 seconds before going to JD's aid. Jane Doe keeps howling, the camera keeps filming, and we cut back to the studio, where the anchor people are shaking their heads and clucking their tongues (trying not to burst out laughing) and saying "ooh, looks like she's in pain! Hope she's ok." Then they cut to commercial.
Priceless.
Disclaimer: I, too, hope she's ok. However, if I fell down and smashed my grill while grape stomping on live TV, I'd expect to see that on the Internet, too.
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| I got married... |
| 04.29.04 (6:55 am) |
[i]So this is the new year,
and I don't feel any different...[/i]
-Death Cab for Cutie
So, I got married on April 17th. It was, truly, a supernaturally amazing experience. To be quite honest, I fully expected the day to be an anti-climax. Since we got engaged in May '03, not a day went by when we weren't planning every little nuance of the wedding. I'd thought about it so much that I didn't think it could possibly live up to the hype. So many things in life are hyped so greatly (movies, millenia, etc.) that, upon taking place, cannot possibly be greater than the buzz that preceded them.
Not so with getting married. The day was amazingly, wonderfully surreal. The weather was perfect, the surroundings were perfect, and Kate looked perfect. It blew my mind; here I was, a guy from Ohio, standing under a palm tree in California, getting married to my best friend. What strange and wonderful twists of fate had led me to that time and place! I looked out into the crowd and there were family and friends from all different eras of my life. At the rehearsal the night before, it occurred to me that I had a great, wonderful, special story to tell about a time that I spent with each person there. The wedding was a ceremony honoring the entire sum of our lives, as well as one commemorating our union. I felt so fortunate; so rich, and so alive.
There are two times in most peoples's lives when people gather in such numbers on their behalf. One is a wedding, and the other is a funeral. I wanted to frame this perfect day when everyone I cared about was there, surrounding me, happy, and in good health. There we were, all of us, in the prime of our lives, and it was good. The reverend performing our ceremony said: "in marriage we are delivered from our aloneness." That has been reverberating in my head ever since. To be delivered from aloneness, forever, is a priceless gift. I truly wish this experience for all of my family and friends who would wish to have it...marriage, so far, is wonderful.
Anyway, being married, for me, doesn't feel a whole lot different for now...am I supposed to? I remember every year on my birthday my mom would ask: "so, do you feel older?" and I'd always wonder what that was supposed to feel like. Later, I'd realize that I didn't feel older at the time, but eventually it got to a point where I did, in fact, feel older. I mean, when I was 18, I didn't still feel 13. So, I think "feeling married" will be pretty much the same. One morning we'll wake up on our 10th anniversary or whatever and it will dawn on us that, hey, we've been at this for awhile! For now, though, our routine is pretty much the same as it has been.
For some reason I think I'll feel more married when more friends of ours are married...I know that sounds funny, but it seems that way for me. It's funny, I think a lot of those guys from college are in shock because now one of their OWN GUYS took the plunge, thereby opening the door for everyone else...it's no longer just the province of older relatives, etc., but something that might actually happen to them soon.
But, you know, it's kind of weird being the first ones to get married, in that a lot of our friends are still stoking the embers of their college glory days. For so long everyone was on the same track in the same place, and now everyone is conquering life on their own terms...it's neat and interesting and sometimes tragic to watch. But there are a good handful of weddings coming up among us, and I am genuinely excited for these friends of mine. I hope that they have the same perfect experience that I had. Also, I am sure that marriage is in the not-too-distant future for some others, and for them I am preemptively glad.
They, too, will be delivered from aloneness. It's a beautiful thing.
|
|
7 Comments
|
| |
| Re: Gay Marriage |
| 02.19.04 (6:53 am) |
[image]bkriner_690431275.jpg[/image]
From: James P. Moran, Congress of the United States, 8th District of Virginia
To: Brandon J. Kriner
[i]Dear Mr. Kriner
Thank you for contacting my office and sharing your thoughts with me regarding the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is always a pleasure to hear from my constituents.
As you know, this measure seeks to amend the United States Constitution so that state law will be preempted and marriage will be legally defined as a union between a man and a woman. I am concerned that this will have a chilling effect on a state's right to establish laws within its own borders as eight states have already seen fit to enact domestic partnership laws that would be preempted by this amendment. Historically, constitutional amendments are adopted in order to expand the rights of U.S. citizens. The Marriage Amendment would actually write discrimination into the Constitution for the first time and would ban any protections for gay and lesbian couples, such as allowing visits to a partner who is in the hospital.
You will be pleased to discover that I am strongly opposed to this mis-guided and harmful piece of legislation. Rest assured that I will be closely monitoring the progress of this measure and will keep your thoughts in mind should it come to the floor of the House for debate.
Again, I appreciate hearing from you and trust youw ill continue to contact me on other matters of mutual concern. Please feel free to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/moran which contains information on topics that may be of interest to you.
Yours truly,
James P. Moran[/i]
This is a letter I received in response to my February 5th letter to my state and local representatives, also posted on this site. I was really glad to hear the Congressman's points of view, and I couldn't agree with him more: the Constitution is a document that establishes, expands, and protects the rights of Americans. It is a terrifying sign of the arch-conservative times in which we live that this current Congress and President would use the bedrock of our freedom to deny homosexuals the right to marry.
What are opponents of gay marriage so afraid of? So far, all I've heard is that it "threatens the institution of marriage and families." How so? I can think of hundreds of things that threaten the institution of marriage: drugs, alcohol, gambling, adultery, emotional and financial bankruptcy. What does allowing two men or two women to marry have anything to do with your family, my family, or anyone's family? This rationale is despicable, bigoted, and familiar. We are threatened by that which is different from us. In a nation of franchises, we crave the soothing heartbeat of sameness: that which is not like us must be against us. It's the small thinking of the insecure and afraid.
We laugh and laugh at [i]Will and Grace [/i] and [i]Queer Eye for the Straight Guy[/i]. Gays are good enough to entertain us, but not good enough to live among us as we do. This unspoken attitude makes these television programs nothing more than minstrel shows. It is unjust to marginalize a portion of society, only accepting characteristics which are deemed "safe."
I am proud of the City of San Francisco for performing gay marriages in defiance of California state law. This is a prime example of what civil disobedience is all about: when the law opresses civil rights, it must be flaunted at every opportunity. Each one of us can protest loudly, and shake our tiny fists. Together, our fists can become a hammer, driving home justice and truth.
p.s. Click [url=http://www.moran.house.gov/is...]here[/url] to read Congressman Moran's statement on President Bush's support of an amendment banning gay marriage.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Requiem for a Dwarf |
| 02.17.04 (1:23 pm) |
[image]bkriner_1274482659 .jpg[/image]
Reality dating television is a giant, blinking neon sign of our troubled times. In lieu of producing creative, coherent entertainment, the major networks are now producing expensive sociology experiements. The once innovative formula is now cliche: a control group of women competes for the hand of one man. The man systematically eliminates them until he finds the one with whom he'd most like to appear on the cover of [i]People[/i] magazine. After several rounds of [i]The Bachelor, The Bachelorette,[/i] and [i]Joe Millionaire[/i], the Darwinistic dating show idea seemed out of possibilities for expansion. However, Fox has provided a shockingly tasteless entry to the Reality Moron-athon in the diminutive form of [i]The Littlest Groom[/i], a show that plays like a funeral for American culture.
[i]The Littlest Groom[/i] features a handsome, 23 year old dwarf named Glen, who must select a companion from a group of twelve dwarf women, much in the style of [i]The Bachelor[/i]. According to the Fox web site: [i]"THE LITTLEST GROOM will venture where no other show has gone by helping a young man who is 4’5” tall to find true love. Initially believing he will choose among women of similar stature to his own, he later discovers, in a surprising twist, that some average-sized women will enter the picture. Will his ideal mate be a little person, or will she be of average height?"[/i] I could not believe my eyes when I came across this program. I laughed, but not because I was entertained. I laughed involuntarily, the way one kicks when struck in the knee by the doctor's rubber mallet.
Fox's pretense that [i]TLG[/i] is about a man's quest for love is insulting. The purpose of the show is to exploit the human tendency to stare at unusual sights; in this case, the sight of thirteen dwarves on a reality dating show. The program is not offensive because it features dwarves, but because dwarfdom is used as a plot device to determine the show's outcome. For years, dwarves have been used to generate revenue for circus freak shows and, in the post Mini-Me era, violent slapstick comedy. Fox is shamelessly exploiting these stereotypes to get a quick ratings boost during February sweeps.
The fact that [i]The Littlest Groom [/i]is batting cleanup in Fox's Monday Night lineup is an indication of a fundamental shift in the nature of entertainment. In the past, entertainers were people who amused and engaged audiences through their extraordinary talents. As evidence of the Dumbing Down of America, today's entertainment consumers have eschewed artistic talent in favor of a series of geek shows. A geek was a 19th century circus performer whose show consisted of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken. Even though the geek show was violent and offensive, circusgoers couldn't resist indulging in a strange spectacle. Fox is cashing in on the geek principle: time and money need not be spent developing creative art when consumers would rather see a series of visual train wrecks.
The trends illustrated by [i]The Littlest Groom[/i] are more alarming than the show's content. We live in a time where television networks are bending over backwards to limbo under the ever-lowering bar of socially redeeming content. Here we are only six weeks into 2004 and we have already been presented with Janet Jackson's breast and little people on parade. What will ABC and NBC do to stake out their 15 minutes of notoriety? There is an increasing sense that no subject is too crass, to lame, or too short to exploit for a few more ratings points.
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Sequels, Part 1 |
| 02.12.04 (1:53 pm) |
[image]bkriner_678245643.jpg[/image][image]bkriner _1292914540.jpg[/image] [image]bkriner_1320599521 .jpg[/image] [image]bkriner_1159562275 .jpg[/image]
Seeing upcoming movie trailers used to be the highlight of a good night at the movies. These days, it's cause for an unpleasant sense of deja vu. The multiplexes keep getting bigger, but it seems that the universe of themes, plots, and characters keeps shrinking. I'm referring, of course, to the tidal wave of sequels, spinoffs, and remakes that seems to emanate from Hollywood these days. No old sitcom or comic book character is too passe for resurrection, and no box office flavor of the month too forgettable to have another go at the Friday night crowd. As an avid movie fan and an observer of popular culture, I find myself wondering if our society is running out of stories to tell.
Let me clarify. Many of the most popular stories in today's culture have their roots in ancient archetypes. Nearly every movie, book, and television program can trace its roots back to the basic universal sagas in human lore: the Bible, Greek Mythology, African Folktales, and countless myths and legends that are so deeply woven into through the human tradition. So common are these threads that they are easily distilled: everyone remembers learning about the three basic conflicts in Literature class (Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Himself). Joseph Campbell further outlined the commonalities of human legends in his [u]Hero of a Thousand Faces[/u]. People have been telling the same stories since the beginning of civilization, each culture adding its own relevancies to create palpable situations and unforgettable characters.
Today, we are still telling the same stories. Over, and over again, usually three times per story. The difference is that we are not drawing upon different themes and characters, but parading the same, hackneyed antagonists and protagonists across the screen. Twenty years ago, only the most memorable characters were worthy of seeing more than once: Indiana Jones, the Star Wars crew, Freddy Krueger, Jason, and so on. Some of these movies were better than others, but there was no doubting the enduring nature of the characters. The essences of Indiana Jones, Darth Vader, and Marty McFly were too big to be contained in just one movie.
In the modern era, franchising rules the day. Characters and situations don't have to be clever or interesting as long as they are familiar, kitschy, or possess a latent, faint nostalgic pulse. How else to explain the mindlessness of the [i]Charlie's Angels[/i], [i]Scooby-Doo[/i], and [i]Brady Bunch[/i] films? The rationale of the studio seems to be: if they were featured on a lunch box or a pair of UnderRoos, they can be inserted in a clear plastic plot that only serves as an excuse to reintroduce them to the mainstream. Ditto for "modern" franchises like the [i]Barbershop[/i] series. You'd think that one movie about guys in a barbershop would be enough, but no, there will be three in distribution by the end of the year.
I see two explanations for the sequel tsunami. The first is the size of movie theaters. When I was a kid, the big theater in town had twelve screens. Now the local movie house boasts twenty-two screens in a two-story building with an in-house Ruby Tuesdays. The multiplex was a place to see a movie after dinner; the megaplex is a self-contained destination. The best way to put more people in front of more screens is more movies, and the studios know it. It's easier and less financially risky to make a sequel; the self-contained movie universe already exists. Many follow-ups are in production before the first installment even hits the screens.
The second determinant of sequels is franchising. Just as it is less risky for studios to make sequels, it's easier for audiences to invest their ticket dollars in a familiar product. Sequels thrive on the same mojo that propelled McDonald's and Holiday Inn to prominence: people enjoy a familiar, comfortable consumer experience where they don't have to risk disappointment. If you liked the first [i]Scary Movie[/i], then [i]Scary Movie 3 [/i]is surely a safer bet than stumbling unprepared into [i]Mystic River[/i]. The same tactic works in reverse: if you missed the first one, seeing a follow-up will probably cause you to rent it for home viewing. There's no way around it: sequels are a gold mine for the studios, and mental Big Macs for the audiences.
A third factor in sequel proliferation is the DVD. DVDs are merchandised in a decidedly different fashion than their VHS predecessors. They are physically compact and inexpensive to produce, making them perfect to be "value priced" in boxed sets. Their low price tag and bonus features adds to their consumer appeal. Since a boxed set has a higher profit margin than selling a single DVD, there is great incentive for the studios to produce a second and third film to round out the series. I give you [i]Jurassic Park 3[/i] as the consummate boxed-set movie, appallingly poor in comparison to the first two, and created only as a cash cow for the studio. So rampant is the production of boxed sets that sometimes it is difficult to purchase only one installment of a series.
With mixed emotions, I resign myself to a moviegoing future in which even more sequels, remakes, and updates adorn the megaplex screens. With good fortune, I will live long enough to see the box office and television hits of my childhood repackaged for my children's generation. I do not begrudge all sequels, only the ones whose characters do not deserve our further dollars and adoration. However, there are wonderful, original films being made all the time, and it is unfortunate that they do not receive the attention and funding of their installment-based bretheren. If you go to the movies in my neighborhood, you will probably find me in the crowd of the next summer sequel sensation. But more often, you'll find me down the hall in a sparesely populated theater, enjoying a respite from the throng attending [i]Alien vs. Predator[/i].
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Gay Marriage |
| 02.05.04 (10:26 am) |
To: Senator John Allen, Senator John Warner, Rep. Jim Moran, Delgate Marian VanLandingham, Senator Patricia Ticer
From: Brandon J. Kriner
Re: Homosexual marriage
I am writing to express my concern regarding recent and possible legislation designed to supress the civil rights of homosexual citizens of the United States. Religious groups, politicians, and even the President of the United states stand opposed to what I feel should be a basic right for all Americans: to enter into a legal, lifelong covenant of marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. The current level of opposition to this basic right is alarming, and is tantamount to the discrimination faced by African Americans during the Civil Rights strife of the 1960s. This generation of legislators seems poised to deny these rights to homosexuals, and like their forbearers, will bear the immutable stigma of bigotry and discrimination for the rest of history. As a leader of Virginia and our nation, please have the forsight to stand up for the rights of all Americans. Please do not let hate and fear guide your conscience or your vote.
Respectfully yours,
Brandon J. Kriner,
Alexandria
|
|
7 Comments
|
| |
| Super Bold |
| 02.02.04 (10:10 am) |
[image]bkriner_1194970723 .jpg[/image]
If you blinked, you missed it. I didn't, and I didn't. During a Super-Bowl halftime show "duet" between Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, the former N'Sync star tore off part of Jackson's body-armor-style outfit, and out popped what appeared to be her right breast.
I couldn't believe my eyes...did I just see...yes, dear reader, it turns out that I did. Wow...you don't see that every year! It seems that there is now a controversy afoot over whether or not the exposure was intentional. There is evidence that it was: MTV (producers of the extravaganza) promised "some shocking moments."
Indeed, at the moment of exposure, millions of innocent American eyes were spared a [i]complete[/i] look at Jackson's breast by a strange, sun-shaped...well, there is no other word for it...nipple cover.
Questions abound: why wear a nipple cover unless you plan to expose your breast? Did she have a nipple cover on the other breast? Was that moon-shaped? Why wear body armor with detachable breast panels unless you plan to detach said panel? Timberlake, in a press statement, described the incident as a "wardrobe malfunction." A what? For me, a wardrobe malfunction is wearing a brown belt with black shoes. I guess when you're a star, anything can happen. Someone must get to the bosom, er, bottom of this!
Did MTV, CBS, Jackson, and Timberlake mean for this incident to take place? Maybe. The FCC, CBS, and MTV immediately released press statements with the usual blather about the regrettable, unintentional nature of the incident. But something tells me, intentional or not, these stakeholders won't be regretting it for long. Now that the token statements are out, they can all get to work figuring out how to make a buck off the notoriety.
We saw most of Janet Jackson's breast. Big deal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating nudity on prime-time network TV, but I wish that the broadcasters would at least be consistent. Many of the commercials that were aired during the game were of the usual, shame-on-you content, featuring oblique sexual and scatological references pitched at the level of the kid in the back of homeroom. CBS saw no problems with a chimpanzee soliciting a young woman for sex, but the network is outraged by the halftime incident. Apparently 2.9 million dollars buys you a license to push the envelope. It's okay to suggest sex as long as you don't show it.
This mixed-message broadcasting is hypocrisy at it's finest. FCC Chairman Michael Powell said, in a statement: "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better." I imagine many of these same viewers who were outraged at seeing Janet's breast were laughing heartily at the chimpanzee commercial. I guess bestiality is cuter than the breast of a beautiful woman.
I'm no prude; sex and below the belt humor can often be amusing. But shame on the FCC and network executives who issue obligatory, pious statements of outrage while plying lowest-common-demoninator advertisements to the highest bidder. If it's a spectacle the public wants, a spectacle is what we will get, but we can't have it both ways. The Super Bowl should either be a clean, family-oriented event, or a late-night PG-13 shocktastic extravaganza. In the meantime, the networks will be looking for a fig leaf big enough to cover Janet's breast and their own asses at the same time.
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| Lessons Learned |
| 01.27.04 (9:00 pm) |
I'm back, thanks for your patience. I had a stressful week last week and could barely tie my shoes, much less wax opinion here on this site. January always feels like the longest month of the year, and this year even more so. It seems like months since the ball dropped, and yet here we are, still in the thick of it. Before I go to sleep I wanted to record the important things that I've realized since the calendar changed, because...well, I dunno, sometimes it just helps to write shit down.
1. Always, always listen to your inner voice. If things get too loud in your head and you can't hear it, give it some time and it will eventually be loud and clear.
2. If you want something, just ask. Pursue it relentlessly. 90% of success really is just showing up. It's amazing.
3. Think just as hard about what you don't want in life as you think about what you do want. Your desires and dislikes will change, but they are always in tandem, each one shaping the other. Every time you encounter dislike, disinterest, or failure, you are a step closer to fulfillment in life.
4. Compromise is only a reasonable course of action if you have no choice. If the choice is yours, refuse to accept "almost," "kinda," and "maybe." Jack Johnson was right...maybe pretty much always means no. I believe that this world holds for each person an abundance of what s/he seeks, and we should refuse to accept something less just because it's out there. If you short change your conscience, you will short change your soul.
5. Take time to talk to the people you know about what you are looking for in life. Talk to everyone, no matter what your relationship with them, and discard your pithy self-consciousness about coming forward with what you want. You will be amazed at the small army of people who are willing to help you.
6. What goes around comes around. Help, others, too. You never know who will be able to return the favor at just the right time.
7. Refuse to take shit from anyone, and stop giving others so much shit, too. It's crude, but it's true...toting around a chip on your shoulder just makes others want to throw things at you in an attempt to knock it off.
8. Wallow in self-pity all you want, but only after you've taken stock of who you are, what you have accomplished, and what you have. Cherish the small, private victories as precursors to larger, public triumphs.
9. Be a decent human being. All the time. De-adversarialize your interactions with other human beings, and your stress will magically be reduced. Leave your jaded outlook back in your teen years where it belongs.
10. Shamelessly pursue your passions. Refuse to let anyone tell you that you can't/shouldn't/won't and prove them wrong. Take on a hobby or cause that fills your heart with gladness...it's therapeutic.
I know none of this is original, but that's not the point. I needed to see my thoughts as two-dimensional; to distill the truth from the distortion. And now, I need to detach from this dispatch. Good night...
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Hiatus |
| 01.21.04 (11:00 am) |
Dear Readers:
Fluorescent Sunshine will be back after the lights come back on...
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Success |
| 01.15.04 (1:13 pm) |
There is no firmer handshake than the feeling of a job well done.
There is no brighter smile than loving someone and being loved back.
Nothing stands straighter than the pride that comes with being your best.
No sleep is more peaceful than that which comes from a clear conscience.
No pain is sweeter than the ache of nourishing exercise.
There is no joy like a smile in the mirror.
There is no greater triumph of the spirit than the conquering of doubts, misgivings, and lethargy through action, thought, and voice.
Nothing succeeds like success.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Celestial Reasonings |
| 01.14.04 (9:41 am) |
This afternoon, President Bush will call on Congress to increase NASA's funding by 1 billion dollars per year over the next five years. This budget increase is part of the President's vision of sending humans back to the moon and then to Mars sometime in the first quarter of this century. There are many critics of this decision, but I agree with the President and with NASA administrator Sean Keefe: we must explore our solar system. Humanity’s deeply ingrained spirit of exploration will accept nothing less.
The reasons and proposed methods for returning to space are sound. First, the United States will fulfill its obligation to the International Space Station. NASA plans to phase out the aging and dangerous Space Shuttle fleet by 2010 and construct a new spacecraft designed to carry a small crew instead of cargo. The shuttle is the reason that NASA seems to have lost so much of its focus, and the public so much of its interest in the space program. Quite literally, we are no longer ascending to new heights. In the long term, there is very little to be gained by shuttling international astronauts to and from the ISS, other than to allow each participating nation to have its day in space. The establishment of a permanent human presence in space has been a worthy mission, but its inspiration has long expired. We are no longer pushing the envelope of science and development, but pursuing a perilous and hackneyed exercise in budgetary excess. A new, up-to-date spacecraft is needed before meaningful progress can be made.
After the Columbia disaster in 2003, the entire future of the space program seemed in doubt, until the Spirit rover sent us postcards from Mars that took our collective breath away. I must confess, after seeing those images of the Martian terrain I wanted to step through the camera. I wanted to feel the red, rocky soil crunching underneath my boots, gaze into the pink Martian sky, and listen to the awesome sound of utter, complete silence all around me. I wanted to be the first person to walk on Mars, to feel like Neil Armstrong must have felt. I bet the first fish that crawled out of the sea onto the land must have felt the same way.
I am sure that there are millions of people who feel the same way I do, yet the new space initiatives are being attacked by the usual critics with the usual asinine, temporal concerns. Some charge that we should not undertake these missions while our troops are in Iraq. These people seem to forget that we managed to land on the moon six times while a much larger war was being waged in Vietnam. Some argue that this program will simply cost too much money. I disagree. On the way to Mars, we will inevitably accomplish scientific, technological, and medical advances that will have untold corollary benefits to average human beings living right here on Earth. The more we learn about how our universe works, the more we'll learn about how life on our planet works, and we'll all be better off. It's inescapable; we are all part of the vastness of the cosmos, and it is a part of us.
These critics ignore our history, and ignore our destiny. Life evolved on this planet because living beings left their places of origin and adapted to new areas and climates. Our ancestors crawled out of the seas, across the land, across the seas, into the skies, and into the cosmos. We will now bring life to the moon, and to Mars; it is inevitable. If we do not go today, we will go tomorrow. The human spirit will refuse to remain confined to our small planet, and I believe that we will soon live up to our destiny.
The President's announcement today may be nothing more than a feel-good election year platitude. After all, his goals lie safely outside the boundaries of his would-be second term in 2008. However, I applaud George Bush for resurrecting America's space dream at a time when it was needed most. Finally, here is a national goal that does not involve war, terrorism, and corporate crackdowns. I can only hope that our nation's policy makers will take the necessary steps to bring these dreams to fruition, and that we will have the good sense to get Europe, India, China, and Russia in on the act. George Bush is right: it is time to return to the moon, and to see Mars for ourselves. Destiny is calling; what are we waiting for?
|
|
4 Comments
|
| |
| Reactionary Steps |
| 01.13.04 (10:44 am) |
Much has been said recently about the obesity epidemic in the United States, and many an expert has taken a stab at the causes. The consensus seems to be that long work days, increased commute times, and an increase in the consumption of unhealthy meals-on-the-go are to blame. Two [i]Washington Post[/i] articles that I have read recently point to decreased physical activity as the culprit, and seem to bemoan the loss of byegone days when walking and manual labor were par for the course. While I agree with the sociological research that these authors have done, I do not agree with the shaky conclusions that they seem to draw from their work.
The first article I read [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com...]([u]A Walk on the Wild Side[/u][/url] , January 11) points out the rather obvious fact that increased suburban sprawl has led to the decline of people walking from place to place. In order to research this article, author Mary Battiata took it upon herself to walk "the commuter routes, the fastest roads from downtown to the suburbs," on a multi-day hike from downtown DC to Gilbert's Corner, a small outpost located fifty miles out on the fringes of suburbia. Battiata seems shocked at what she finds: "except for a few people at bus stops here and there, I haven't seen a soul afoot. There's no one walking." While I admire Batiatta's determination in completing this trek, I feel that she merely succeeds in pointing out the obvious: commuter routes are for cars, and as such perilous to pedestrians.
Even more remarkably, Battiata underscores her thesis by hearkening back to the good-old days: "It all seemed a very long way from the righteous path taken by metaphysicians of walking like Henry David Thoreau, who in his essay "Walking" praised going about on foot as an aid to clear thinking and good citizenship. Wasn't walking our American right, a virtue, in fact, that promoted hardy self-reliance and was as embedded in our history and character as freedom of speech? As in "Our Town," Thornton Wilder's play about life in fictional Grover's Corners, N.H., in the early 1900s, where people rely on their daily sidewalk encounters to take the measure of life itself. What were we losing, locked in our cars while the streets became ever more unwalkable?" Please, Mary, give me a break. Don't tell me that a nice Ford Expedition wouldn't have made life around Walden Pond a lot easier. As far as Grovers' Corners is concerned, I can see the H2s on Main Street now.
The second article, [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com...][u]Doing the Plow,[/u][/url] details a study by the American College of Sports Medicine in which pedometers were strapped to a group of Amish people for a week. Guess what the study found? That's right, they found that the average Amish person is "as physically active as distance runners." Let's see, could this be because they are, oh, I don't know, AMISH!? Most Amish are employed as farmers and traditionally avoid electricity and machinery, carrying on 19th century farming and domestic techniques. By default, this makes them slightly more active than an Account Executive at an advertising agency. But you knew that. I'm not sure what's more apalling, the fact that ACSM (clearly not one of the world's preeminent research colleges) chose to devote resources to this study, or that Post author Dana Scarton draws no conclusions from the results.
Both of these studies are illuminating, in their own way, but they also fail to point out the elephant in the living room: times have changed, and thus so must our habits. The 20th century gave us the car and then the interstate, and thus made it possible to have suburbs. The whimsical charm of "Main Street" began to disappear as the shopping mall replaced the street as the primary social space in American culture. The television further entrenched the suburban isolation of the American family, as it was no longer necessary to seek entertainment outside the home. Urban planners and developers responded in kind, and developed cityscapes designed with the car in mind. This, after all, is what our society wanted: a fast way to get from home to work in the comfort and isolation of the automobile.
There is no question that these developments have given rise to the obesity problem in our country. I admire and support community efforts to create pedestrian friendly spaces, and encourage people to enjoy them whenever possible. However, the car is here to stay. Gone are the days when one needed to walk everywhere, and we should not seek to bring those days back.
Cars and suburbs are not the problem, people's habits are the problem. While it may be necessary to drive many places, human beings are still born with legs and the freedom to walk on them as they wish. Freeways, cars, office parks, and strip malls are the fruits of economic progress, but they do not inhibit us from taking a walk or joining a fitness center.
We as a society must place a higher value on our own physical well being. Individuals of all ages should make a conscious effort to become more physically active in spite of the sedentary requirements of their jobs. Employers can help by adding fitness center discounts to their benefits packages, and entering company teams in local intramural sports leagues. Local governments can assist by creating designated pedestrian spaces such as hike/bike trails and jogging parks. Developers can design lucrative multi-use real estate that encourages people to live within walking distance of the workplace. Families can become closer by taking a nightly post-dinner walk. We should enjoy our cars, freeways, and suburban retreats, while making exercise an equally important part of our lives.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Blacklisted |
| 01.12.04 (11:52 am) |
Every time I drive past the [url=http://www.nra.org]NRA[/url] headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, I laugh. Here is a menacing monster of a group, so obviously out of line and in the wrong that they ought to share convention space with [url=http://www.nambla.org]NAMBLA[/url] .
Today I discovered that the NRA has published an enormous [url=http://www.nraila.org/Issues/...]blacklist[/url] filled with the names of organizations, celebrities, and companies that "have assisted in the attack on Second Amendment rights."
I find this tremendously appalling, but not surprising. Here is a pro-handgun, pro-violence organization that underscores the heart of the conservative ideology: fear and intimidation. Blacklists are the products of history's oppressors, from religious groups to governments to military regimes. Blacklists are a staple of racists, perpetrators of genocide, and a host of other evils that plague our world. It's the mentality of the small, weak, and afraid; those who view being armed and dangerous as a better alternative than being active and compassionate.
This blacklist makes me sick, and the NRA makes me sick. This group has singled out thousands upon thousands of Americans as "enemies" while the gun problem continues to escalate in this country. How can NRA members even look at themselves in the mirror after the horrors unleashed on this region by the DC snipers? If I found myself a member of a group that had this many enemies, I might think twice about which side I was on.
For my part, I have seen enough, and I have heard enough. Enough of school shootings, armed robbery, and sniper attacks. NRA, I vigorously oppose your mission and your methods. Consider me an enemy. Consider me blacklisted.
If you would like to be blacklisted as well, click [url=http://www.nrablacklist.com/]here[/url] .
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Fluorescent Sunshine has a new home! |
| 01.12.04 (11:24 am) |
As you can see, I've moved my blog. To access past articles, please click on the "old blog" link on the left side of the page.
Thanks for your support.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Adventures in Misanthropy |
| 01.12.04 (10:24 am) |
Quick: who is dumber? Britney Spears or Pete Rose?
In the latest installment of the Teen Queen Stupidity Sweepstakes, Britney and a childhood friend (Jason Allen Alexander) got married in Vegas and then, once they sobered up, had to get an anulment! Now, there is a large part of me that thinks that the girl was just acting her age. I mean, look, if you've been to college, you know how out of hand things get...people start drinking, and you wake up and think "my god, what have I done?" I keep picturing Spears and her friend waking up, rolling over, and doing the McCaulay Culkin "Home Alone" scream at one another. Or maybe he was already in the kitchen making breakfast when she emerged from her stupor...we may never know the truth. And this undoubtedly qualifies as the most expensive Walk of Shame in the history of the phenomenon. Doing stupid stuff like this is part of growing up...I guess. If you are a pop superstar, you have a greater propensity for finding yourself in these predicaments because you have the economic means (and the requisite mental disconnect with common sense) to do so. I keep thinking to myself that if Jessica Simpson weren't already married, she would probably be the next to suffer the mishap of a shotgun wedding. Now that the bar in the Sweepstakes has been raised, what will she do to one-up Britney? As for Jason Allen Alexander, it seems that he's already poised to rake in some quickie cash from the incident; my guess is in the long run he ends up as nothing more than an answer in the Arts and Entertainment section of a Trivial Pursuit card.
Enough has been said about Pete Rose to last a lifetime, but since I'm a Reds fan people often ask me what I think. Here is what I think: he is a shallow, narcissistic coward who betrayed the game that gave him so much. He strung baseball and the public along for 14 years, insisting his innocence, and only now, with a book deal on the line, does he say "well, I lied." You know what's worse than one lie? Another lie to cover the previous lie. And on top of that, profiteering from your liarship. Most of us are taught certain universal virtues when we grow up. Chief among those are honesty and integrity. We live in a world where liars are being exposed all the time (see: Enron) but it seems that if you are a sports hero, you get a free pass (see Simpson, O.J.).
We as a society need to love our heroes: no one who rooted for Pete to break Ty Cobb's record in 1985 wants to have that time in history tarnished. We as human beings must become emotionally involved in something that we feel is larger than ourselves; and today, sports heroes and entertainers serve much the same purpose as the protagonists in African folktales or Greek Myths. We need our world to be larger and better than our own self-perceived smallness, and we need that world to be peopled by those who posess capabilities that most of us could only dream of having. Pete Rose is one of these people. And apparently, this status meant nothing to him.
Just as we need to love our heroes, we need to hate them. We are jealous of their perceived immortality and cannot resist the spectacle of a falling star. We crave bad news and find reassurance in the misfortune of others. Watch the evening news. Pick a night, any night, you'll see what I mean. When others take a fall, we find relief: at least the things that keep us up at night aren't that bad. Our heroes are extensions of our own self-conscious and identity. We find find inspiration in their triumph and reassurance in their failure.
Pete Rose has failed. He has failed the game of baseball and those who cherish it. And he has failed himself. Sure, he has gained sustained notoriety by his banishment and subsequent shenanigans, and he will gain financially from his book. But on his last day, what will he have really gained? What will he have lost? Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley have just been enshrined in the Hall of Fame for careers that, while distinguished, do not come close to that of Pete Rose. They are immortal; Rose is not, nor should he ever be. His actions should only further basball's resolve to keep him at bay.
Mortal sins should not be compensated with immortal rewards. Prometheus was punished for stealing fire from the gods. We should respond in kind when the gods steal fire from us.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
|
|