Not that television is supposed to be real or anything but I can't help but notice how light the groceries are. When TV characters buy groceries, they always need paper towels and potato chips and the like, yet never shop for eggs and other things that are fragile and/or heavy. And whenever they are drinking from soda or beer cans, don't the cans look empty? Maybe I need to expand my horizons and watch more television to see if I'm wrong (perhaps I don't watch enough different shows).
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
spitball
Growing up, I enjoyed watching baseball as much as football. But through the years, I've come to enjoy watching football more. Maybe it has to do with having fewer games and more action. I find myself interested in the off-season and the NFL draft now too.
And perhaps it has to do with all of the spitting in baseball.
Not that there isn't any spitting in other sports too - there is. But for all of the physicality of football, I rarely see it there. Unfortunately, I saw it once while watching an NBA game, upon the hardwood floor no less, but just that one time. But in baseball, they spit so much it's like they're doing it to regulate their body temperature or something. This observation of all of the spitting is nothing new - it was even captured quite nicely in the movie The Naked Gun, where even the fans join in (fortunately, that was an exaggeration). Although I thought I was getting used to it, all of the spitting may finally be getting to me. It's making the game difficult to enjoy.
One lasting image of this year's World Series may well be a particular camera shot of watching Philadelphia Phillie Ryan Howard sitting in the dugout. No, it wasn't him doing the spitting: the shot was of him sitting on the bench in profile and to his left was another player several feet away, but off-camera. He was positioned higher than Howard, perhaps with his feet on the bench and sitting upon the shelf behind the back of the bench. In any case, here's this dramatic close-up shot of Howard, and it's being punctuated with the occasional stream of spit stretching across the length of the television screen as if from a fountain. Disgusting. I've thought for years that one of the most awful jobs has got to be that of dugout cleaner.
I've even lost respect for baseball players as athletes as a result of all of the spitting. I mean, in what sport is it even possible to stand around chewing tobacco anyway? Football? No way! Basketball demands running up and down the court the entire game, so no. Tennis, no. Any sport with a hard, flat surface wouldn't allow it. Like I mentioned earlier, very occasional spitting can happen in any sport, but in baseball, can one look at it being played for even 10 seconds without seeing a player doing it? It's gotten so that it's as natural as breathing. What happens when one of the players hosts an outdoor barbecue at his home: do he and his guests spit as much all over the lawn and patio? I hope not.
If there is anything positive to all of the spitting, I think it's how tobacco appears to be getting used less and less. Now much of what is being used are sunflower seeds and what-not. Which is still unsightly, but not as bad as treating ballparks as giant spittoons. Chewing gum is okay. But in other cases, I don't even know what's in their mouths that they have to spit so much.
And perhaps it has to do with all of the spitting in baseball.
Not that there isn't any spitting in other sports too - there is. But for all of the physicality of football, I rarely see it there. Unfortunately, I saw it once while watching an NBA game, upon the hardwood floor no less, but just that one time. But in baseball, they spit so much it's like they're doing it to regulate their body temperature or something. This observation of all of the spitting is nothing new - it was even captured quite nicely in the movie The Naked Gun, where even the fans join in (fortunately, that was an exaggeration). Although I thought I was getting used to it, all of the spitting may finally be getting to me. It's making the game difficult to enjoy.
One lasting image of this year's World Series may well be a particular camera shot of watching Philadelphia Phillie Ryan Howard sitting in the dugout. No, it wasn't him doing the spitting: the shot was of him sitting on the bench in profile and to his left was another player several feet away, but off-camera. He was positioned higher than Howard, perhaps with his feet on the bench and sitting upon the shelf behind the back of the bench. In any case, here's this dramatic close-up shot of Howard, and it's being punctuated with the occasional stream of spit stretching across the length of the television screen as if from a fountain. Disgusting. I've thought for years that one of the most awful jobs has got to be that of dugout cleaner.
I've even lost respect for baseball players as athletes as a result of all of the spitting. I mean, in what sport is it even possible to stand around chewing tobacco anyway? Football? No way! Basketball demands running up and down the court the entire game, so no. Tennis, no. Any sport with a hard, flat surface wouldn't allow it. Like I mentioned earlier, very occasional spitting can happen in any sport, but in baseball, can one look at it being played for even 10 seconds without seeing a player doing it? It's gotten so that it's as natural as breathing. What happens when one of the players hosts an outdoor barbecue at his home: do he and his guests spit as much all over the lawn and patio? I hope not.
If there is anything positive to all of the spitting, I think it's how tobacco appears to be getting used less and less. Now much of what is being used are sunflower seeds and what-not. Which is still unsightly, but not as bad as treating ballparks as giant spittoons. Chewing gum is okay. But in other cases, I don't even know what's in their mouths that they have to spit so much.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
a great name for a race horse:
Hoof Hearted
No really... now say it three times fast.
I heard about this name years ago on the radio. It seems that it even had the race announcers cracking up. Imagine how it sounded: "Hoof Hearted along the rail!"
No really... now say it three times fast.
I heard about this name years ago on the radio. It seems that it even had the race announcers cracking up. Imagine how it sounded: "Hoof Hearted along the rail!"
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
quick. editing.
I just saw a commercial for the new version of Windows, and for all the points that it was trying to make, I couldn't get past how quick the editing was. As in extremely short attention span quick editing. Or for those of you that remember, M-TV quick editing. I've turned away from concert video of my favorite bands because my eyes weren't allowed to relax and choose for themselves what to focus on; it was all decided for me by the editing. It may make sense to chop things up like that and indulge the increasing speed of contemporary life, but I wonder if it is symptomatic of much of what's wrong with today's society. Everything. has. to. happen. right. away. Quicker! Faster! Now!
Perhaps one thing that is needed is to re-align ourselves with the rhythm of nature - it keeps moving along at its own unhurried pace, no matter our efforts to change it. I'm reminded of ecopsychology, which emphasizes the movement out of our built environments and back towards nature. Maybe that explains why I've always been attracted to plants and gardening, and birds and birdwatching. I like the unhurried rhythm and getting attuned to nature's clock.
One of my favorite TV shows to watch as a child was called Thunderbirds. It involved the use of marionette puppets to portray a family cooperating to perform rescue-type missions. Part of the appeal was the drama created by the slow pace of movement of the characters - I wonder how the children of today would respond to such a show?
Perhaps one thing that is needed is to re-align ourselves with the rhythm of nature - it keeps moving along at its own unhurried pace, no matter our efforts to change it. I'm reminded of ecopsychology, which emphasizes the movement out of our built environments and back towards nature. Maybe that explains why I've always been attracted to plants and gardening, and birds and birdwatching. I like the unhurried rhythm and getting attuned to nature's clock.
One of my favorite TV shows to watch as a child was called Thunderbirds. It involved the use of marionette puppets to portray a family cooperating to perform rescue-type missions. Part of the appeal was the drama created by the slow pace of movement of the characters - I wonder how the children of today would respond to such a show?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
you talkin' to me?
It's almost year 2010...
and I don't own a cell phone.
I know that I should, especially in case of emergencies, but I'm still putting off getting one. I realize that the longer I wait, the harder it will be when I finally do. After all, technology is advancing at an ever alarming rate and I missed the time when they were simply cell phones. Now they're cameras too, and mini-computers, and other assorted devices. Or can be anyway. Actually, I don't even know just what they are capable of nowadays.
Sure, my telephone is push-button and not a rotary - at least I'm that current. But I insist that my handset reaches all the way from my ear to my mouth. I've never understood talking into empty space. And I like the handle to be something I can comfortably wrap my hand around, and press against my ear with my shoulder if I want to. There's something so balanced about the handsets of yesteryear.
I remember how odd it was hearing one of my nieces referring to the good ol' telephone as a 'landline' for the first time - why not keep the name 'telephone'? Oh, right, I suppose that the word telephone could possibly be confused with 'cell phone' (celephone?). I don't really know the reason for using the word landline instead of telephone.
I've been embarrassed while in public when, without hearing the sound of a ringing telephone, I suddenly hear someone starting a conversation: "Hi! How are you? What's going on?" So I wheel around, expecting to see someone that I know, only to realize that they are talking to someone on their cell phone. It's a good thing they're too wrapped up in their calls to notice me turning around with an expectant expression on my face. And I've often wondered: technology is great, but isn't it kind of a drag to always be reachable?
and I don't own a cell phone.
I know that I should, especially in case of emergencies, but I'm still putting off getting one. I realize that the longer I wait, the harder it will be when I finally do. After all, technology is advancing at an ever alarming rate and I missed the time when they were simply cell phones. Now they're cameras too, and mini-computers, and other assorted devices. Or can be anyway. Actually, I don't even know just what they are capable of nowadays.
Sure, my telephone is push-button and not a rotary - at least I'm that current. But I insist that my handset reaches all the way from my ear to my mouth. I've never understood talking into empty space. And I like the handle to be something I can comfortably wrap my hand around, and press against my ear with my shoulder if I want to. There's something so balanced about the handsets of yesteryear.
I remember how odd it was hearing one of my nieces referring to the good ol' telephone as a 'landline' for the first time - why not keep the name 'telephone'? Oh, right, I suppose that the word telephone could possibly be confused with 'cell phone' (celephone?). I don't really know the reason for using the word landline instead of telephone.
I've been embarrassed while in public when, without hearing the sound of a ringing telephone, I suddenly hear someone starting a conversation: "Hi! How are you? What's going on?" So I wheel around, expecting to see someone that I know, only to realize that they are talking to someone on their cell phone. It's a good thing they're too wrapped up in their calls to notice me turning around with an expectant expression on my face. And I've often wondered: technology is great, but isn't it kind of a drag to always be reachable?
Monday, October 26, 2009
don't quote me on that
It's not easy being an athlete these days, and that's aside from all things athletic. There's also having to deal with the media. It's said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and the sword in this case might be a baseball glove, a football, a golf club, etc., while the pen is more than likely a notebook computer.
Oftentimes when I read a quote made by an athlete, my inclination is to picture some sort of formality, like a presentation made while standing behind a lectern surrounded by microphones at a scheduled press conference in front of the media. If that should be the actual circumstances behind the quote, then it can be reasoned that the athlete knew exactly what he or she was doing. But I think in most cases, accepting that the quote was accurately transcribed in the first place, the circumstances behind the interview were much more casual than that. Certainly the athlete must be made aware that they are talking on the record to a member of the media, but even so, I imagine that it's easy to overlook that possibility. And should the athlete (or any other celebrity) let their guard down for a moment and say anything controversial or otherwise eyebrow raising, well, they may well end up with more than they intended.
A recent example is a quote attributed to a defensive player for the Oakland Raiders, Richard Seymour. He was being interviewed for a radio program, and found himself comfortable enough in the conversation to make a so-called guarantee that the Raiders would qualify for this season's playoffs. I've heard excerpts of this conversation, and it sounded quite casual and relaxed, not a formal proclamation at all. Yet the following day, a big fuss was made on national television sports shows about Mr. Seymour's guarantee. I don't know how he feels about all of the attention, but what he said was hardly made during a formal press conference.
Oftentimes when I read a quote made by an athlete, my inclination is to picture some sort of formality, like a presentation made while standing behind a lectern surrounded by microphones at a scheduled press conference in front of the media. If that should be the actual circumstances behind the quote, then it can be reasoned that the athlete knew exactly what he or she was doing. But I think in most cases, accepting that the quote was accurately transcribed in the first place, the circumstances behind the interview were much more casual than that. Certainly the athlete must be made aware that they are talking on the record to a member of the media, but even so, I imagine that it's easy to overlook that possibility. And should the athlete (or any other celebrity) let their guard down for a moment and say anything controversial or otherwise eyebrow raising, well, they may well end up with more than they intended.
A recent example is a quote attributed to a defensive player for the Oakland Raiders, Richard Seymour. He was being interviewed for a radio program, and found himself comfortable enough in the conversation to make a so-called guarantee that the Raiders would qualify for this season's playoffs. I've heard excerpts of this conversation, and it sounded quite casual and relaxed, not a formal proclamation at all. Yet the following day, a big fuss was made on national television sports shows about Mr. Seymour's guarantee. I don't know how he feels about all of the attention, but what he said was hardly made during a formal press conference.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Crabtree's first game
Watching post-game coverage of today's game between the 49ers and the Houston Texans, the most common refrain had to do with watching film of the game. Coaches and players for the most part didn't want to comment on today's performances until after they've watched the film first. I wonder how teams ever managed before game film was so readily available?
Yes, the Niners lost today, but there was a lot of positive to take away from it anyway. Now I don't know what the coaching staff sees on a daily basis, and I never watch game film, but the offense sure seemed to open up in the 2nd half. How much of that was due to the play of quarterback Alex Smith? Does the zip on his passes open up the playbook, or was opening it up due to being so far behind? If he continues to start, will the offensive philosophy change to include more passing, possibly to help open up the running game? And how about that Vernon Davis?
But in particular, I'd like to say something about the play of Michael Crabtree. He already looks like an integral part of the team, making clutch catches and someone that is already a dependable option. And I was most impressed by the strength of his hands and ability to go up and get the ball. He's a gamer!
Yes, the Niners lost today, but there was a lot of positive to take away from it anyway. Now I don't know what the coaching staff sees on a daily basis, and I never watch game film, but the offense sure seemed to open up in the 2nd half. How much of that was due to the play of quarterback Alex Smith? Does the zip on his passes open up the playbook, or was opening it up due to being so far behind? If he continues to start, will the offensive philosophy change to include more passing, possibly to help open up the running game? And how about that Vernon Davis?
But in particular, I'd like to say something about the play of Michael Crabtree. He already looks like an integral part of the team, making clutch catches and someone that is already a dependable option. And I was most impressed by the strength of his hands and ability to go up and get the ball. He's a gamer!
Saturday, October 24, 2009
seen any koalas lately?
Like all living things, eucalyptus trees evolved to be a vibrant part of the natural world, contributing to the activities of the other living organisms which live around them. And this tapestry of life has taken thousands of years to acclimate together.
In California, eucalyptus trees have become ubiquitous, and seemingly a natural part of the landscape. Many people assume that they are native to California; certain specimens are even considered to be 'heritage' and therefore carry with them an added history to the places where they exist. Some of these trees have been with us for generations. But not for thousands of years.
Yet as common as these trees are, it is also well known that they constitute the primary diet of the koala. Yes, the koala of Australia. Perhaps when pressed, it would then be acknowledged by everyone that the eucalyptus tree is also native to Australia. Where it has had thousands of years to acclimate with that environment and the creatures living over there. Not here.
Although monarch butterflies gather en masse on them (prior to the arrival of eucalyptus trees, I wonder what the monarchs depended on?), the proliferation of eucalyptus trees in this country was originally a misguided attempt to supply timber to be used for early construction, which was certainly not enough to negate the hazards of having them. A recent tragic consequence, as demonstrated by the Oakland hills fire of 1991, is that the eucalyptus tree is extremely flammable, as well as brittle. And they expand into our landscape (Mediterranean climate) quite readily, without a check nor a balance... so where are the koalas?
In California, eucalyptus trees have become ubiquitous, and seemingly a natural part of the landscape. Many people assume that they are native to California; certain specimens are even considered to be 'heritage' and therefore carry with them an added history to the places where they exist. Some of these trees have been with us for generations. But not for thousands of years.
Yet as common as these trees are, it is also well known that they constitute the primary diet of the koala. Yes, the koala of Australia. Perhaps when pressed, it would then be acknowledged by everyone that the eucalyptus tree is also native to Australia. Where it has had thousands of years to acclimate with that environment and the creatures living over there. Not here.
Although monarch butterflies gather en masse on them (prior to the arrival of eucalyptus trees, I wonder what the monarchs depended on?), the proliferation of eucalyptus trees in this country was originally a misguided attempt to supply timber to be used for early construction, which was certainly not enough to negate the hazards of having them. A recent tragic consequence, as demonstrated by the Oakland hills fire of 1991, is that the eucalyptus tree is extremely flammable, as well as brittle. And they expand into our landscape (Mediterranean climate) quite readily, without a check nor a balance... so where are the koalas?
Friday, October 23, 2009
a matter of taste
My topic for today? Pineapples!
In particular, and maybe I'm alone in this, but I only like their taste when they're part of savory dishes: Hawaiian pizza, sweet and sour pork, etc. I've never cared for their flavor in desserts like cakes, mixed fruit cocktails, or even blended in fruit drinks. Yuck.
Really? Pineapple on pizza? For some people distasteful, but for me... I love it!
In particular, and maybe I'm alone in this, but I only like their taste when they're part of savory dishes: Hawaiian pizza, sweet and sour pork, etc. I've never cared for their flavor in desserts like cakes, mixed fruit cocktails, or even blended in fruit drinks. Yuck.
Really? Pineapple on pizza? For some people distasteful, but for me... I love it!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
in defense of Bartman
It's interesting how particular names or incidents are able to capture the imagination of the public more so than others. Certain moments are able to capture that elusive 'it' factor that make them either famous or infamous in the minds of people. In this case, the name of a particular fan is known to almost every follower of baseball, most every citizen of Chicago, and certainly every fan of the Chicago Cubs: Steve Bartman
Separating the emotions from objectivity is asking a bit much and often isn't even worth the effort, but I'm going to do so anyway: Steve Bartman did what most every fan would have done. All he did was reach up to catch a foul ball.
Looking at replays, he wasn't the only one in his section and of those immediately around him to be oblivious to the oncoming outfielder running over to make a play on that ball. Like everyone else he was looking up. Had the ball landed just one or two seats to either side of him, then another person would have taken the blame. It's not as if all the other fans around him were leaning away from that foul ball to maximize the outfielder's chance of making the play. I sometimes wonder if it is expected of home team fans to pull away any fan that might interfere with a play (if it benefits the home team). Such is the attraction that people feel towards foul balls; I'd hesitate to grab a friend let alone a perfect stranger!
I bet that if one were able to direct the flight of any ball hit to the crowd, it would be like holding a magnet above metal shavings, with the fans reaching up with their outstretched hands. That the ball was directed at Steve Bartman was just happenstance. It could have been anyone and they would have reacted the same way as he did. I just hate to see him singled out as the target of blame.
Separating the emotions from objectivity is asking a bit much and often isn't even worth the effort, but I'm going to do so anyway: Steve Bartman did what most every fan would have done. All he did was reach up to catch a foul ball.
Looking at replays, he wasn't the only one in his section and of those immediately around him to be oblivious to the oncoming outfielder running over to make a play on that ball. Like everyone else he was looking up. Had the ball landed just one or two seats to either side of him, then another person would have taken the blame. It's not as if all the other fans around him were leaning away from that foul ball to maximize the outfielder's chance of making the play. I sometimes wonder if it is expected of home team fans to pull away any fan that might interfere with a play (if it benefits the home team). Such is the attraction that people feel towards foul balls; I'd hesitate to grab a friend let alone a perfect stranger!
I bet that if one were able to direct the flight of any ball hit to the crowd, it would be like holding a magnet above metal shavings, with the fans reaching up with their outstretched hands. That the ball was directed at Steve Bartman was just happenstance. It could have been anyone and they would have reacted the same way as he did. I just hate to see him singled out as the target of blame.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
time flies
As I've gotten older, I've come to realize one of the reasons that the years appear to be going by faster and faster. Although strictly speaking, a year passes by at the same rate for everybody, the percentage of a year compared to one's age continues to get smaller and smaller. For example, a year to an eight-year old is one-eighth of their lives, whereas a year to an eighty-year old is just one-eightieth of their time here. There are, of course, other reasons for how time is perceived differently by the different ages that we reach.
Monday, October 19, 2009
less elbow grease
Here's the domestic hint for today:
When washing dishes by hand, let the detergent do the majority of the work! What do I mean? Well, instead of doing most of the work yourself by washing the dishes in random order, take your soaped-up sponge and work the detergent into the difficult dishes first, and set them aside. Then wash the rest of the dishes, letting the detergent loosen the stuck-on food on the hard-to-wash dishes that you set aside. By the time you are done washing and rinsing the regular dishes, the more difficult to clean dishes will require a lot less elbow grease!
This is something I didn't think of doing until fairly recently. Sometimes if I know I won't be washing the dishes right away, I'll still make time to wet the sponge, apply detergent to it, and 'massage' the suds onto the harder to clean messes before I do something else (like eat). I've been amazed at how much less effort I'll have to put in later for the little bit of effort now.
Of course, it's always advisable to have the dishes at least soaking in water and not let them dry out with food stuck on them.
When washing dishes by hand, let the detergent do the majority of the work! What do I mean? Well, instead of doing most of the work yourself by washing the dishes in random order, take your soaped-up sponge and work the detergent into the difficult dishes first, and set them aside. Then wash the rest of the dishes, letting the detergent loosen the stuck-on food on the hard-to-wash dishes that you set aside. By the time you are done washing and rinsing the regular dishes, the more difficult to clean dishes will require a lot less elbow grease!
This is something I didn't think of doing until fairly recently. Sometimes if I know I won't be washing the dishes right away, I'll still make time to wet the sponge, apply detergent to it, and 'massage' the suds onto the harder to clean messes before I do something else (like eat). I've been amazed at how much less effort I'll have to put in later for the little bit of effort now.
Of course, it's always advisable to have the dishes at least soaking in water and not let them dry out with food stuck on them.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
a Latin pun
I have a love-hate relationship with puns - I love telling them and hate hearing them.
What makes a good pun anyway? Tell a pun to almost anyone and even the good ones elicit a grimace in the face of the listener. Yet, some people actually like puns. I suppose it's similar to liking spicy-hot food - as painful as it is, some people simply enjoy the sensation.
I'm not one of those people...
but I'm often thinking up puns anyway. Oh well, as long as I'm coming up with them and not having to hear them, I'll be okay.
So in that spirit, and inspired by city slogans such as "Gilroy - the Garlic Capital of the World" and "It's Happening in Soledad" here is what came to mind for my hometown of Concord, CA:
Veni, vidi, vici
Thanks folks, I'm here all week...
What makes a good pun anyway? Tell a pun to almost anyone and even the good ones elicit a grimace in the face of the listener. Yet, some people actually like puns. I suppose it's similar to liking spicy-hot food - as painful as it is, some people simply enjoy the sensation.
I'm not one of those people...
but I'm often thinking up puns anyway. Oh well, as long as I'm coming up with them and not having to hear them, I'll be okay.
So in that spirit, and inspired by city slogans such as "Gilroy - the Garlic Capital of the World" and "It's Happening in Soledad" here is what came to mind for my hometown of Concord, CA:
Veni, vidi, vici
Thanks folks, I'm here all week...
Saturday, October 17, 2009
20 years ago today...
Today is the 20-year anniversary of the Loma Prieta earthquake. I thought I'd share some of my thoughts and memories from that time.
As with a lot of people living in the Bay Area, I was all set to watch Game 3 of the World Series between the Oakland A's and the San Francisco Giants, also known as the Bay Bridge Series. Looking forward to the game all day, I had finished working and was on my way back home. My place of work was in the same city (Concord) as home, and I was driving down one of the main avenues just after 5 pm when the car I was driving, a 1968 VW bug, started moving violently from the rolling wave. My first reaction to all the shaking was "What's the matter with this car?" Although I've lived in California my entire life, my first thought was not "Earthquake!" And as I looked around me, the other drivers weren't reacting much differently than me. After the shaking was over, I just drove home as usual. I don't recall any of the street lights or anything else being amiss.
When I got home, he house was fine; we were far enough from the epicenter that there was no damage. I started watching the television to watch the game, and that's when I first learned of what had happened. There were reports of the Bay Bridge having collapsed, which was a horrifying thought. I immediately pictured a portion of the bridge had completely collapsed into the water. They also showed footage of the collapsed portion of the Cypress Freeway in Oakland, and for awhile I didn't even realize what I was looking at because both levels of the road were so flat against each other. I saw what looked like a single level of raised highway with smoke snaking out of the middle.
As for the Bay Bridge, no part of it completely collapsed into the water, but a section of the top deck had fallen at an angle upon the bottom deck. I was fortunate that I never had to deal with the consequent detours that resulted from the bridge being out of commission for awhile.
A couple of days ago, I saw on the television news the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle for October 18, 1989, and the headline proclaimed "Hundreds Dead." As it turns out, there were 63 deaths that resulted from this tragedy.
I'm also reminded of a commercial that was running way back then for one of the local newscasts that showed appealing, vibrant scenes of the Bay Area, and said something to the effect of: "Millions of people in the Bay Area live on top of a fault line, and they don't care." Needless to say, after Loma Prieta I never saw that promo again.
As with a lot of people living in the Bay Area, I was all set to watch Game 3 of the World Series between the Oakland A's and the San Francisco Giants, also known as the Bay Bridge Series. Looking forward to the game all day, I had finished working and was on my way back home. My place of work was in the same city (Concord) as home, and I was driving down one of the main avenues just after 5 pm when the car I was driving, a 1968 VW bug, started moving violently from the rolling wave. My first reaction to all the shaking was "What's the matter with this car?" Although I've lived in California my entire life, my first thought was not "Earthquake!" And as I looked around me, the other drivers weren't reacting much differently than me. After the shaking was over, I just drove home as usual. I don't recall any of the street lights or anything else being amiss.
When I got home, he house was fine; we were far enough from the epicenter that there was no damage. I started watching the television to watch the game, and that's when I first learned of what had happened. There were reports of the Bay Bridge having collapsed, which was a horrifying thought. I immediately pictured a portion of the bridge had completely collapsed into the water. They also showed footage of the collapsed portion of the Cypress Freeway in Oakland, and for awhile I didn't even realize what I was looking at because both levels of the road were so flat against each other. I saw what looked like a single level of raised highway with smoke snaking out of the middle.
As for the Bay Bridge, no part of it completely collapsed into the water, but a section of the top deck had fallen at an angle upon the bottom deck. I was fortunate that I never had to deal with the consequent detours that resulted from the bridge being out of commission for awhile.
A couple of days ago, I saw on the television news the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle for October 18, 1989, and the headline proclaimed "Hundreds Dead." As it turns out, there were 63 deaths that resulted from this tragedy.
I'm also reminded of a commercial that was running way back then for one of the local newscasts that showed appealing, vibrant scenes of the Bay Area, and said something to the effect of: "Millions of people in the Bay Area live on top of a fault line, and they don't care." Needless to say, after Loma Prieta I never saw that promo again.
Friday, October 16, 2009
gold mountain
For those of you that have wondered about the name of this blog, here is the link to Wikipedia: Gold Mountain
And the web address correlates as such:
au (gold is Au in the periodic table of the elements) • mtn (mountain) • musings
Would you believe it wasn't already taken?
And the web address correlates as such:
au (gold is Au in the periodic table of the elements) • mtn (mountain) • musings
Would you believe it wasn't already taken?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
geographic illusions
Some years ago I learned that contrary to what I would have guessed, Lake Tahoe is actually farther west than Los Angeles. It seems counter-intuitive and reminds me of optical illusions. Here are some other things I find on the map that take some getting used to, for me anyway:
Las Vegas, NV is roughly due east of Big Sur, CA (I always pictured Las Vegas as being much farther south, due east of Los Angeles or something)
Montreal is not only north of New York City, but slightly east (maybe it's harder to get used to this idea being that I'm from California)
The big island of Hawaii is farther south than most of Cuba (another way of looking at it is Honolulu is farther south than Havana)
Las Vegas, NV is roughly due east of Big Sur, CA (I always pictured Las Vegas as being much farther south, due east of Los Angeles or something)
Montreal is not only north of New York City, but slightly east (maybe it's harder to get used to this idea being that I'm from California)
The big island of Hawaii is farther south than most of Cuba (another way of looking at it is Honolulu is farther south than Havana)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
a simple globe
Here's something that I have imagined, that may or may not exist:
A simple globe that uses colors and texture to indicate the geographical features of the earth, but with no writing on it whatsoever. No indications of humankind's imprint: no political boundaries, no labels, no writing or lines at all. Just an indication of how one would see our planet from space. I think having such a globe available would help people see the earth more realistically and perhaps be more inclined to saving it.
For comparison's sake, I would also like to see what our planet might have looked like 1,000 or so years ago, before our civilization made such changes to the land, but still more or less capturing its present state after the last ice age and what-not. Just so we can see the man-made changes that have already been done.
What will the Earth look like in another 1,000 years?
Some believe that our planet is billions of years old; will human civilization be responsible for destroying it in mere thousands?
A simple globe that uses colors and texture to indicate the geographical features of the earth, but with no writing on it whatsoever. No indications of humankind's imprint: no political boundaries, no labels, no writing or lines at all. Just an indication of how one would see our planet from space. I think having such a globe available would help people see the earth more realistically and perhaps be more inclined to saving it.
For comparison's sake, I would also like to see what our planet might have looked like 1,000 or so years ago, before our civilization made such changes to the land, but still more or less capturing its present state after the last ice age and what-not. Just so we can see the man-made changes that have already been done.
What will the Earth look like in another 1,000 years?
Some believe that our planet is billions of years old; will human civilization be responsible for destroying it in mere thousands?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
curling and sweeping
I've been corresponding with one of my nieces about the Beatles film Help! and it reminds me of the first time I saw the sport of curling. It's still a rather obscure sport here in the States, but I have a better idea of it now having watched it during the Olympics.
My first exposure to curling was the film Help! and if you are familiar with the curling scene, you can imagine how silly it looked! And that's without the added [spoiler alert] part about replacing one of the curling stones with a bomb. I remember wondering especially what all the sweeping with brooms was all about. What the heck are they doing? They're sweeping ice for gosh sakes! And what are they doing sweeping near the sliding whatchamacallits for? What's with that? This makes no sense!
My first exposure to curling was the film Help! and if you are familiar with the curling scene, you can imagine how silly it looked! And that's without the added [spoiler alert] part about replacing one of the curling stones with a bomb. I remember wondering especially what all the sweeping with brooms was all about. What the heck are they doing? They're sweeping ice for gosh sakes! And what are they doing sweeping near the sliding whatchamacallits for? What's with that? This makes no sense!
Monday, October 12, 2009
bad day
for Bay Area football, that is.
Yesterday, the 49ers and the Raiders lost by a combined score of 89-17... tough to wrap my mind around. As I mentioned before, I enjoy it when both teams win, but only the 49ers losing really hurts. I just watched Coach Singletary's press conference and it's just what I expected: straightforward and determined. We'll see how the team comes back from this loss.
Now I'd like to get to today's topic: uniforms! Yesterday, the Broncos wore what must be the most hideous looking uniforms ever worn in an NFL game. And the Patriots, their opponents, wore what simply looked like the uniforms they had just prior to their current designs. If teams are going to go retro with their looks, my suggestion is that they at least match up the eras to which they are going back. For example, the Broncos should have worn their uniforms from the 1970's to match what the Patriots were wearing. As for matching what the Broncos were wearing, I can't even imagine what the Patriots could have worn that was that ugly. But to wear colors that aren't of the same era is anachronistic and confusing.
Another idea I've had for years that I'm dredging up now is the color combination I thought would have been perfect for the old Houston Oilers (now the Tennessee Titans). I suppose I'm bringing this up now because the Titans have worn their retro Oiler uniforms in recent play. And I get my color ideas from... the Tampa Bay Buccaneers! For those of you familiar with the old Oilers uniforms, wouldn't the oil rig logo have looked so much more appropriate combined with the red, pewter, and black colors of the current Buccaneers? Baby blue never looked right for football. And thank goodness the Buccaneers changed their color scheme in the first place; those original orange uniforms were ridiculous!
Yesterday, the 49ers and the Raiders lost by a combined score of 89-17... tough to wrap my mind around. As I mentioned before, I enjoy it when both teams win, but only the 49ers losing really hurts. I just watched Coach Singletary's press conference and it's just what I expected: straightforward and determined. We'll see how the team comes back from this loss.
Now I'd like to get to today's topic: uniforms! Yesterday, the Broncos wore what must be the most hideous looking uniforms ever worn in an NFL game. And the Patriots, their opponents, wore what simply looked like the uniforms they had just prior to their current designs. If teams are going to go retro with their looks, my suggestion is that they at least match up the eras to which they are going back. For example, the Broncos should have worn their uniforms from the 1970's to match what the Patriots were wearing. As for matching what the Broncos were wearing, I can't even imagine what the Patriots could have worn that was that ugly. But to wear colors that aren't of the same era is anachronistic and confusing.
Another idea I've had for years that I'm dredging up now is the color combination I thought would have been perfect for the old Houston Oilers (now the Tennessee Titans). I suppose I'm bringing this up now because the Titans have worn their retro Oiler uniforms in recent play. And I get my color ideas from... the Tampa Bay Buccaneers! For those of you familiar with the old Oilers uniforms, wouldn't the oil rig logo have looked so much more appropriate combined with the red, pewter, and black colors of the current Buccaneers? Baby blue never looked right for football. And thank goodness the Buccaneers changed their color scheme in the first place; those original orange uniforms were ridiculous!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
acting baby
So many times, I've read of actors overcoming childhood shyness by taking acting lessons. This is something I attempted to do as an adult. Signing up was on my mind when I drove my cousin's (then) girlfriend to San Francisco to take an acting class. We assembled in the classroom for a brief introduction first, and when it came time to enroll, I went ahead and wrote my check. As I've written previously (Jester Joe!), attracting attention is not my thing but I'd never quite know just how I would respond to acting unless I took a class.
There was what I imagined: the process of reading a script augmented by countless rehearsals infused with seriousness and dedication - compared to what it turned out to be: mostly improvisation. At least, that's what I remember most. I dreaded it - not only was I driving to the city, but for this? I didn't have a good grasp of what improvisation was in the first place. If only the TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway? had been on the air prior to my taking this class, at least I would have known what it was like (not that I could have done it, but at least I'd have had an idea). Improv is supposed to be fun, but not for me. The first line that comes to my mind is "Stop looking at me!"
Finally, towards the end of class, we were given monologues to work on by our instructor. I have the distinct memory of our instructor handing out our monologues individually, saying something like "Steve, I thought of you when I found this monologue" to each of my classmates. But when it was my turn, I instead heard "Arthur, I couldn't think of anything for you, so here's this." I read through it, and said to myself: "I'm a dog?"
I don't regret trying an acting class though - I'd have greater regrets never seeing what it was like - but I do wonder why I ever signed up for a second class. Maybe I didn't want to think that I didn't give it enough of a chance. I guess I was searching for some sort of escape from being me. Which losing myself into a character might have done. But the ability to improvise is such a part of the creative process of acting, it's not something I ever would have enjoyed.
There was what I imagined: the process of reading a script augmented by countless rehearsals infused with seriousness and dedication - compared to what it turned out to be: mostly improvisation. At least, that's what I remember most. I dreaded it - not only was I driving to the city, but for this? I didn't have a good grasp of what improvisation was in the first place. If only the TV show Whose Line Is It Anyway? had been on the air prior to my taking this class, at least I would have known what it was like (not that I could have done it, but at least I'd have had an idea). Improv is supposed to be fun, but not for me. The first line that comes to my mind is "Stop looking at me!"
Finally, towards the end of class, we were given monologues to work on by our instructor. I have the distinct memory of our instructor handing out our monologues individually, saying something like "Steve, I thought of you when I found this monologue" to each of my classmates. But when it was my turn, I instead heard "Arthur, I couldn't think of anything for you, so here's this." I read through it, and said to myself: "I'm a dog?"
I don't regret trying an acting class though - I'd have greater regrets never seeing what it was like - but I do wonder why I ever signed up for a second class. Maybe I didn't want to think that I didn't give it enough of a chance. I guess I was searching for some sort of escape from being me. Which losing myself into a character might have done. But the ability to improvise is such a part of the creative process of acting, it's not something I ever would have enjoyed.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
the true-min show
I watched the second half of the film The Truman Show this morning, and I was captivated by it. It's very good; I'll have to watch it from beginning to end one of these days. It got me thinking of the frequent manipulations that must go on during the so-called 'reality shows.' Mind you, I really enjoy watching reality shows!
One of my favorite contrived scenes is when a television camera is placed inside a home and facing the front door for when someone pays an 'unannounced' visit. "Tim, how are you? What a surprise!" (An additional line might be: "So the camera crew is with you?")
Another scene that comes to mind is when one of the professional dancers of a competition show brought his celebrity partner to a large decorated room, and explained to her that he wanted to help her celebrate the prom that she was missing. Uh... yeah, as if he blew up all of the balloons himself, hung each of the decorations, etc. Touching, but still.
I even remember that years ago, the producer of one of the reality shows admitted that some scenes were filmed with stand-ins, such as the long-range shots of the canoes moving towards the shore. It really doesn't bother me all that much, but it does serve to remind oneself that these shows aren't necessarily reality. Unscripted (for the most part) yes, but reality? That's open to debate, but they are distinct from scripted shows.
And these reality shows impress me with how invisible they coordinate their multitudes of cameras to be - there must be enough cameras to capture enough interesting footage, yet one rarely sees any of them in the background. Wow - how do they do it? And I imagine that the participants must be told at the beginning of filming that the less they look at the cameras and acknowledge their existence, the better. All to create the feeling that we are invisible observers. Very well done.
One of my favorite contrived scenes is when a television camera is placed inside a home and facing the front door for when someone pays an 'unannounced' visit. "Tim, how are you? What a surprise!" (An additional line might be: "So the camera crew is with you?")
Another scene that comes to mind is when one of the professional dancers of a competition show brought his celebrity partner to a large decorated room, and explained to her that he wanted to help her celebrate the prom that she was missing. Uh... yeah, as if he blew up all of the balloons himself, hung each of the decorations, etc. Touching, but still.
I even remember that years ago, the producer of one of the reality shows admitted that some scenes were filmed with stand-ins, such as the long-range shots of the canoes moving towards the shore. It really doesn't bother me all that much, but it does serve to remind oneself that these shows aren't necessarily reality. Unscripted (for the most part) yes, but reality? That's open to debate, but they are distinct from scripted shows.
And these reality shows impress me with how invisible they coordinate their multitudes of cameras to be - there must be enough cameras to capture enough interesting footage, yet one rarely sees any of them in the background. Wow - how do they do it? And I imagine that the participants must be told at the beginning of filming that the less they look at the cameras and acknowledge their existence, the better. All to create the feeling that we are invisible observers. Very well done.
Friday, October 9, 2009
lion dance and fencing
What do Chinese lion dance and fencing have in common?
These two activities have something more or less subtle in common. And this something they have in common isn't necessarily what drew me to them in the first place, but who knows?
Fencing is the one sport that I chose to participate in during high school. I was initially attracted to it because of visions of swashbuckling, which turned out not to be the case. That is because competitors are limited to staying within a strip, limiting movement to back-and-forth and not allowing the running around and about as seen in the movies. But the sport still appealed to me, even preferring the practicing and the drilling to the bouts. As opposed to the others who wanted to compete and 'fence' as soon as the very first day!
When I reached college, I had in mind to join the Chinese Students Association, attending their very first meeting that first quarter. And I had it in mind to try out for the Lion Dance team, although as it turns out, there really was no audition process - it was more inclusive and welcoming than that. I just had to make sure that they didn't require a background in martial arts, and they didn't. Strange how given my reticence and unwillingness to draw attention to myself that I decided that lion dance was something I wanted to do. Me? The performing arts?
It wasn't until years later that I started noticing what may have drawn me to participate in lion dance, and what it has in common with the sport of fencing:
both allow the anonymity of hiding behind a mask.
These two activities have something more or less subtle in common. And this something they have in common isn't necessarily what drew me to them in the first place, but who knows?
Fencing is the one sport that I chose to participate in during high school. I was initially attracted to it because of visions of swashbuckling, which turned out not to be the case. That is because competitors are limited to staying within a strip, limiting movement to back-and-forth and not allowing the running around and about as seen in the movies. But the sport still appealed to me, even preferring the practicing and the drilling to the bouts. As opposed to the others who wanted to compete and 'fence' as soon as the very first day!
When I reached college, I had in mind to join the Chinese Students Association, attending their very first meeting that first quarter. And I had it in mind to try out for the Lion Dance team, although as it turns out, there really was no audition process - it was more inclusive and welcoming than that. I just had to make sure that they didn't require a background in martial arts, and they didn't. Strange how given my reticence and unwillingness to draw attention to myself that I decided that lion dance was something I wanted to do. Me? The performing arts?
It wasn't until years later that I started noticing what may have drawn me to participate in lion dance, and what it has in common with the sport of fencing:
both allow the anonymity of hiding behind a mask.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
a play about a medieval court
The strongest memory I have of being in second grade is when my class was to put on a play which we had to perform in front of each of the other classrooms. Not my thing, being in front of people, I mean. I'm not exactly the type to draw attention to myself, hamming it up and such, even at such a young age.
I can distinctly remember sitting in class and having these large boards placed in front of us with the play and each of the characters and their lines printed on them. After reading them, we requested which character we wanted to portray. The play was about a king and his court; I remember thinking that I'd look for the character with the least amount of dialogue and that would be my choice. Smart, right? Only one other kid chose the same character and the two of us got to play him in different performances.
Naturally, it was up to our parents to somehow provide us with our costumes, most likely by making them. So I went home and told my mom the name of my character:
Jester Joe
Now I can't say just what the look was on my face when she first told me what a jester was and then showed me the picture of a jester that was shown in our encyclopedia (this was way before computers and the Internet for you young folks). But I was seriously in denial. And absolutely horrified. My mom, being able to sew, made me a wonderful little costume and I wore it (all I can recall from the play itself was a kid named John B. played the king, and in one part I had to pretend to slip and find a ring on the floor), but my turn as Jester Joe isn't exactly a fond memory.
Although we still have the costume hanging in a closet.
I can distinctly remember sitting in class and having these large boards placed in front of us with the play and each of the characters and their lines printed on them. After reading them, we requested which character we wanted to portray. The play was about a king and his court; I remember thinking that I'd look for the character with the least amount of dialogue and that would be my choice. Smart, right? Only one other kid chose the same character and the two of us got to play him in different performances.
Naturally, it was up to our parents to somehow provide us with our costumes, most likely by making them. So I went home and told my mom the name of my character:
Jester Joe
Now I can't say just what the look was on my face when she first told me what a jester was and then showed me the picture of a jester that was shown in our encyclopedia (this was way before computers and the Internet for you young folks). But I was seriously in denial. And absolutely horrified. My mom, being able to sew, made me a wonderful little costume and I wore it (all I can recall from the play itself was a kid named John B. played the king, and in one part I had to pretend to slip and find a ring on the floor), but my turn as Jester Joe isn't exactly a fond memory.
Although we still have the costume hanging in a closet.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
it's Hammer time!
Michael Crabtree is a 49er!
So happy that Crabtree has signed with the 49ers. Not having him as a member of the team felt so incomplete, regardless of the circumstances, like there was a piece of the puzzle floating out there somewhere. It will take some adjustment time, and he is just one of 53 players, but it's great that he's finally here.
The Hammer (formerly known as MC Hammer) connection is interesting, as he is reported to have somehow taken part in the communications between team officials and the Crabtree camp. Don't know quite what, but, well, just interesting...
Hearing the name Hammer also brings up memories of hearing how not only is he from the Bay Area, but he was actually once a batboy for the Oakland A's. It's fun to hear of local sports ties!
So happy that Crabtree has signed with the 49ers. Not having him as a member of the team felt so incomplete, regardless of the circumstances, like there was a piece of the puzzle floating out there somewhere. It will take some adjustment time, and he is just one of 53 players, but it's great that he's finally here.
The Hammer (formerly known as MC Hammer) connection is interesting, as he is reported to have somehow taken part in the communications between team officials and the Crabtree camp. Don't know quite what, but, well, just interesting...
Hearing the name Hammer also brings up memories of hearing how not only is he from the Bay Area, but he was actually once a batboy for the Oakland A's. It's fun to hear of local sports ties!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
go niners!
Well, I couldn't go on forever without mentioning my favorite football team, the San Francisco 49ers. The season is 1/4 over, and I might as well share some of my thoughts:
First of all, I really like Mike Singletary. Like any good teacher, he is demanding but fair. He is consistent in what he says, so there is no second-guessing. I admire his sincerity and straightforwardness with the players. A good example is the blossoming of tight end Vernon Davis. Whereas he once appeared selfish and lost on his way to greatness, his relationship with Coach Singletary has him pointed in the right direction.
I am also certain that should 2009 draft pick wide receiver Michael Crabtree finally sign a contract to play for the 49ers, he would also greatly benefit from working with such a coach, not just as a player but as a human being. This transcends any amount of money - Crabtree has the opportunity to play on a team full of players bringing out the very best in each other.
I'm not close enough to football to understand the nuances, but leadership makes a palpable difference, just as it does with any business. And I am very impressed with what I've seen of new team president Jed York. Any reminder of Eddie DeBartolo, Jr. is a good thing! Before Joe Montana, and even before Bill Walsh, the great Super Bowl teams began with Eddie DeBartolo, Jr. and it is so encouraging to see how Jed York is conducting himself as the new team president.
It's easy to be so positive considering their win-loss record up to this point, and I admit that. It's a long season, and I'll have to be steady in my emotions even after the losses to come that are inevitable. Time will tell, but all the signs for success are there!
First of all, I really like Mike Singletary. Like any good teacher, he is demanding but fair. He is consistent in what he says, so there is no second-guessing. I admire his sincerity and straightforwardness with the players. A good example is the blossoming of tight end Vernon Davis. Whereas he once appeared selfish and lost on his way to greatness, his relationship with Coach Singletary has him pointed in the right direction.
I am also certain that should 2009 draft pick wide receiver Michael Crabtree finally sign a contract to play for the 49ers, he would also greatly benefit from working with such a coach, not just as a player but as a human being. This transcends any amount of money - Crabtree has the opportunity to play on a team full of players bringing out the very best in each other.
I'm not close enough to football to understand the nuances, but leadership makes a palpable difference, just as it does with any business. And I am very impressed with what I've seen of new team president Jed York. Any reminder of Eddie DeBartolo, Jr. is a good thing! Before Joe Montana, and even before Bill Walsh, the great Super Bowl teams began with Eddie DeBartolo, Jr. and it is so encouraging to see how Jed York is conducting himself as the new team president.
It's easy to be so positive considering their win-loss record up to this point, and I admit that. It's a long season, and I'll have to be steady in my emotions even after the losses to come that are inevitable. Time will tell, but all the signs for success are there!
Monday, October 5, 2009
don't get shorty
So okay, I'm short. According to statistics, the height of the average American male is approximately 5 feet 9.5 inches, and I stand 5 feet 5 inches tall, which puts me around the heights of Michael J. Fox and Jason Alexander.
Looking into my past, I've worked at places where sure, I was shorter than most of the other guys, but it wasn't all that pronounced. But to watch guys my height on TV, it's really striking, discouraging, really. The thing I've noticed with their characters is they seem particularly short. I mean, look at how tall their co-stars are. Take Spin City for example - don't all the other male characters seem to be well over the average height? Aren't they all well over 6 feet tall? At my places of work, there were other guys that stood a little taller than me, and maybe taller than that, but not everyone. I guess it's just Hollywood and the typical casting process (which isn't supposed to be real anyway) but there's such a disparity between Michael J. Fox's character and the others.
The females all appear to be unusually tall compared to average, except perhaps for Heather Locklear, who with heels still stands taller than Fox's character.
As much as I tell myself that Davey Jones was the most popular member of The Monkees, I am sensitive to being short, especially as a guy. I suppose I can understand that most women are only attracted to guys that are at least a few inches taller than themselves, but even the very petite women are often looking for tall guys too. It's like they are carrying around one of those height requirement signs that are found at amusement parks: "You must be at least this tall to go on this ride."
This heightism extends from the purely physical where the strong survive and attract mates all the way to business and boardrooms. There are exceptions too, of course, such as Ross Perot, who is known less for being dynamic, but 'feisty' because of his lack of stature. I remember reading a book about a well-placed businessman who wrote of a chairman-of-the-board who managed to have a commanding presence in spite of standing just over 6 feet tall. Just over 6 feet tall? I wish.
But like everything, it's all relative...
Looking into my past, I've worked at places where sure, I was shorter than most of the other guys, but it wasn't all that pronounced. But to watch guys my height on TV, it's really striking, discouraging, really. The thing I've noticed with their characters is they seem particularly short. I mean, look at how tall their co-stars are. Take Spin City for example - don't all the other male characters seem to be well over the average height? Aren't they all well over 6 feet tall? At my places of work, there were other guys that stood a little taller than me, and maybe taller than that, but not everyone. I guess it's just Hollywood and the typical casting process (which isn't supposed to be real anyway) but there's such a disparity between Michael J. Fox's character and the others.
The females all appear to be unusually tall compared to average, except perhaps for Heather Locklear, who with heels still stands taller than Fox's character.
As much as I tell myself that Davey Jones was the most popular member of The Monkees, I am sensitive to being short, especially as a guy. I suppose I can understand that most women are only attracted to guys that are at least a few inches taller than themselves, but even the very petite women are often looking for tall guys too. It's like they are carrying around one of those height requirement signs that are found at amusement parks: "You must be at least this tall to go on this ride."
This heightism extends from the purely physical where the strong survive and attract mates all the way to business and boardrooms. There are exceptions too, of course, such as Ross Perot, who is known less for being dynamic, but 'feisty' because of his lack of stature. I remember reading a book about a well-placed businessman who wrote of a chairman-of-the-board who managed to have a commanding presence in spite of standing just over 6 feet tall. Just over 6 feet tall? I wish.
But like everything, it's all relative...
Sunday, October 4, 2009
pencil-necked geek
Football players make me feel so... inadequate. And one of the ways is from comparing the size of their necks to mine. Watching them when they are playing, it's not as noticeable. It's difficult to see how big their necks are; they really just look proportional to the helmets that they are wearing. It is when they take their helmets off and particularly when they are being interviewed in regular clothes that one can see how big their necks are.
When I am walking around, I don't think that my neck looks unusually thin - I think it looks about the right size. It's those few times that I looked at myself in the mirror while wearing a football helmet (one of my cousins had one) that I looked wrong... really wrong. Whereas a football player looks perfectly natural while wearing a football helmet, I look like a pencil-necked geek.
When I am walking around, I don't think that my neck looks unusually thin - I think it looks about the right size. It's those few times that I looked at myself in the mirror while wearing a football helmet (one of my cousins had one) that I looked wrong... really wrong. Whereas a football player looks perfectly natural while wearing a football helmet, I look like a pencil-necked geek.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
quack!
With my interest in advertising and marketing, I like to imagine what that first presentation of a proposed ad campaign must have looked like. Having just watched an AFLAC commercial and their iconic white duck, I'm picturing the fateful day when the ad agency suggested to their client, the American Family Life Assurance Company, that "there's this duck, a white duck, and it talks, but it's not so much that it talks, but this duck, instead of quacking, actually says "AFLAC!" AFLAC... for American Family Life Assurance Company! Get it? AFLAC? Instead of quack? It'll be great! People don't even have to know what AFLAC stands for, all they'll know is that your white duck says it! And that's it... what do you think?"
Personally, I like the duck. I'm glad that the client went with it!
Personally, I like the duck. I'm glad that the client went with it!
Friday, October 2, 2009
it's my party, you can cry if you want to
Being part of a group and feeling a sense of belonging is important - after all, we're human. We're by nature a social animal. Yet I am dismayed by the partisanship of American politics. Once someone chooses one party or another, too often it appears that they no longer think for themselves, that their choices and decisions from then on will be decided by that particular party. It's fully understandable to find oneself aligning with a certain way of thinking and then naturally with the leanings of one party over the others, but then to give up one's individuality in the process, the ability to think independently and perhaps even 'cross party lines' every once in awhile is such a shame.
I suspect that not going far enough one way or another is somehow seen as being weak or 'wishy-washy.' As if declaring oneself a moderate is like telling the world "I'm not committed either way, so help me make up my mind." However, I see the moderate as being more open-minded and willing to give the different issues more thorough consideration, taking bits and pieces that make sense and thereby creating a whole, as opposed to leaning further and further to the left or right and ultimately losing the capacity think at all. And then it becomes that most ominous of age-old sources of conflict us vs. them.
Creating an atmosphere of us vs. them with broad, community-based strokes can lead to conflict. It's sated through the use of such activities as sports and other competitions, but often escalates into real confrontation, whether in the political arena or even war. Those of us with the inclination to forgo moderation and choose sides (political parties) end up closing the very minds which we are so fortunate to have.
I suspect that not going far enough one way or another is somehow seen as being weak or 'wishy-washy.' As if declaring oneself a moderate is like telling the world "I'm not committed either way, so help me make up my mind." However, I see the moderate as being more open-minded and willing to give the different issues more thorough consideration, taking bits and pieces that make sense and thereby creating a whole, as opposed to leaning further and further to the left or right and ultimately losing the capacity think at all. And then it becomes that most ominous of age-old sources of conflict us vs. them.
Creating an atmosphere of us vs. them with broad, community-based strokes can lead to conflict. It's sated through the use of such activities as sports and other competitions, but often escalates into real confrontation, whether in the political arena or even war. Those of us with the inclination to forgo moderation and choose sides (political parties) end up closing the very minds which we are so fortunate to have.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
no grass is greener
A recent article in my local newspaper described efforts to create a new strain of grass that can grow with less water and still form the kind of lawns that we are accustomed to being a part of our landscapes. On the one hand, this is an admirable endeavor, but on the other, are we so conditioned to believe that landscapes must include expanses of grass in the first place?
Now I am not against beautiful lawns full of grass per se; they are an important component of many sports arenas certainly, and make for important grounds for gathering in public places such as parks. They are wonderful for running on when playing and exercising. They should be looked at as special. But in this country at least, they are looked on by most as the primary building block of the typical landscape. I can imagine when our country was mostly wilderness, how an isolated landscape was looked upon as an escape where plants were chosen for the reminder they might provide of another place and time, the old country, for example. But now, with an ever growing population taking over more and more of the land, landscaping needs a new paradigm by putting emphasis on the old.
My point may have its origins in extolling the virtues of the near-elimination of grass-centric landscapes, but my greater argument is for the use of native plants. Whether you live in the mid-West, in which case you should consider plants native to the mid-West, or the Southeast (consider using the plants of the Southeast!), the plants that have evolved in your region will grow naturally with those conditions, be they the unique conditions of the soil, the precipitation, the amount of sunlight, and even in concert with the particular fauna of that region. By doing so, you would naturally use less supplemental water and maybe eliminate the use of fertilizers and pesticides altogether!
Back when our country was young and being settled, a single specimen of a particular tree with an exotic shape and colors may have stood out in an entire wilderness, but look at the typical suburb and these exotic trees are everywhere. In many cases, they multiply without check and crowd out the native trees. These native trees are the ones that our native fauna have evolved with for thousands of years! And back to the ubiquitous grass and lawns: how much harm is being done to keep them lush and 'cared-for'? Chemicals? Gas or electric lawnmowers? Precious water??
It's not so much adding yet another thing to worry about and take up increasingly rare time - those with landscapes to care for may well eventually end up with more time on their hands. Imagine recomposing your land such that you can spend that much less time tending to it. Replacing your lawn means not having to take care of it anymore. Well chosen native plants and shrubs means less water and pruning. And more birds and bees!
Now I am not against beautiful lawns full of grass per se; they are an important component of many sports arenas certainly, and make for important grounds for gathering in public places such as parks. They are wonderful for running on when playing and exercising. They should be looked at as special. But in this country at least, they are looked on by most as the primary building block of the typical landscape. I can imagine when our country was mostly wilderness, how an isolated landscape was looked upon as an escape where plants were chosen for the reminder they might provide of another place and time, the old country, for example. But now, with an ever growing population taking over more and more of the land, landscaping needs a new paradigm by putting emphasis on the old.
My point may have its origins in extolling the virtues of the near-elimination of grass-centric landscapes, but my greater argument is for the use of native plants. Whether you live in the mid-West, in which case you should consider plants native to the mid-West, or the Southeast (consider using the plants of the Southeast!), the plants that have evolved in your region will grow naturally with those conditions, be they the unique conditions of the soil, the precipitation, the amount of sunlight, and even in concert with the particular fauna of that region. By doing so, you would naturally use less supplemental water and maybe eliminate the use of fertilizers and pesticides altogether!
Back when our country was young and being settled, a single specimen of a particular tree with an exotic shape and colors may have stood out in an entire wilderness, but look at the typical suburb and these exotic trees are everywhere. In many cases, they multiply without check and crowd out the native trees. These native trees are the ones that our native fauna have evolved with for thousands of years! And back to the ubiquitous grass and lawns: how much harm is being done to keep them lush and 'cared-for'? Chemicals? Gas or electric lawnmowers? Precious water??
It's not so much adding yet another thing to worry about and take up increasingly rare time - those with landscapes to care for may well eventually end up with more time on their hands. Imagine recomposing your land such that you can spend that much less time tending to it. Replacing your lawn means not having to take care of it anymore. Well chosen native plants and shrubs means less water and pruning. And more birds and bees!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)