|
[30 May 2006|07:57pm] |
I saw my favorite family again at the museum the other day. Why do I like them so much? When I first met them, they were buying a "build-a-dino" kit:
FATHER: We're going to use this kit to build a dinosaur army and take over the world.
MOTHER: But dear, what if the dinosaurs rebell against us?
DAUGHTER: We'll just have to use the robat army we build last week to keep them under control.
FATHER: What if the robots rebell too?
DAUGHTER: We'll program them not to do that.
|
|
|
[18 May 2006|06:23pm] |
|
Apparently, the CIA and FBI also have content targeted for kids. I don't know why this suprises me so much, it makes perfect sense...
|
|
|
[13 Oct 2005|07:30pm] |
So, last week whent I went to get my bubble tea fix, there was the strangest show on Bubble Island's TV. There was a smallish child on the screen, and they spent five minutes (or so) rolling around on the grass. Yesterday, the same show was on, except for this time there were some children clapping their hands together, then another child repeating this same funky dance step. Over and over and over. The sounds was turned down, and the captioning had things like "child giggling" and "sound of Boohbahs". I just don't get it. The Bubble Island claimed to know nothing about this show, so I've been asking people since if they know what a "Boohbah" is.
Apparently, Boohbahs are those freaky, fuzzy, plastic headed things you see in toy stores (for some reason, I'm phobic of things with with soft bodies and hard heads, but that's another story). They seem to be the next logical evolution of the Teletubbies. I don't know that I approve.
Today, I decided to see what sort of presence these boohbahs had on the web. This is how I discovered the joys of:
http://http://www.boohbah.com/zone.html
It's work safe, if you don't mind your co-workers thinking you're wierd.
|
|
|
[08 Aug 2005|12:12pm] |
|
My Favorite news article of the day. In a nutshell, Google (the company) is refusing to talk to CNET until 2006, because CNET printed a host of personal information about Google's chief ex. The funny part? All the info was obtained through google (the search engine).
|
|
| musings on art |
[05 Aug 2005|11:51am] |
Tuesday, I had a few hours to kill, so I went to the art museum (for the second time in the last 10 years... I'm on a roll). It got me thinking (again) about my views on art. Specifically, art as a possession vs. art as a cultural treasure. I like art as a cultural treasure. I like to going to museums and looking at all the pretty pictures; if there's people there to tell me about the pretty pictures, all the better. I have no special desire to take the pretty pictures home with me (unless I was going to turn my home into a museum, which is another matter entirally).
I recognize that most people differ with me on this issue; most people like to have stuff on their walls. In deference to y'all; buy some prints (or casts, or whatever). We have the technology reproduce most any peice of art, at least to a degree that anyone would notice as a display peice. The good thing about buying art is that it allows artists to eat; while there's something to be said for the whole starving artist mystique, actually allowing artists to starve to death is counter-productive. I think a proper system of artistic patronage would be far superior, however. If you like a peice of art, I think you should comisson more art from the same source (or at least invite the artist out for coffee; there are small ways to support the arts too).
This opinion is at least partially influenced by my observations that I often find artists more interesting the the art they produce. I support a "wacky artist" segment of society, even if I don't necessarily approve (or even understand) what they produce. Indeed, I'd go so far as saying that supporting such a segment should be one of the formost goals of society (this argument will have to come later).
Mind you, I make a distinction between "arts" and "crafts". To be art, in my mind, the pretty picture has to express something in order to be considered art. There needs to be at least the attempt of communication. If something looks nice (or works well, or whatever), but dosn't say anything, then it's a craft. Note there's nothing wrong with crafts. Despite my pretention and condensending attitude, I like crafts too. They're also important to society, just in a different way. Crafts make people happy, and happiness is important. There's no reason not to sell happiness, however, and I've no objection to crafts being sold on every street corner.
Art, on the other hand, is how a culture communicates with itself. This communication is disrupted when it is forced to run along commericial lines.
|
|
| SOMETHING IS WRONG... |
[03 Aug 2005|12:23pm] |
|
...WITH MY TONGUE! Nothing quite tastes right. Maybe I had one too many wasabi peas, or maybe my tea was a bit hot yesterday, but my taste buds are NOT functioning properly. Everything yesterday tasted bland and kinda unapatising. I'm still eating, of course, both out of habit and 'cause I need energy, but it's just not as much fun. I remain optimastic, because I'm told the tongue has incredible healing powers; hopefully it will fix itself (because I wouldn't know how to begin fixing it).
|
|
| Interesting things that happened on the way home from work: |
[26 Jul 2005|02:32pm] |
First, I was almost killed by a group on girls in bikinis. No, really. I was crossing the street while they were walking alongside it, and the car driving down it decided to pay more attention to them then either me or the stop sign. I had to leap out of the way and everything. They at least had the decency to look abashed.
Later, I noticed an guy in an electric wheelchair jaywalking (or rather jay-riding). This got me to wondering: who can move faster, me or a guy in an electric wheelchair? I must have been staring at him, 'cause he said, "Do you have a problem?" This lead into a conversation between the merits of a wheelchair vs. legs, which ended with us having a race. I won, but it was close.
|
|
| Barton Fink |
[21 Jul 2005|04:46pm] |
I didn't hear of The Coen Brothers until Fargo came out, and I didn't like Fargo, so I assumed I didn't like The Coen Brothers.
Not liking Fargo was an interesting experience. I watched it with a bunch of people, and assumed they were all as bored as I was by the film. But no, they all ranted and raved about how good it was. I wasn't sure why the brothers made the film, much less why everyone enjoyed it so; eventually I concluded it was supposed to be a comedy (right?), but I just didn't get the joke.
Of course, my not liking The Coen Brothers was largly based on ignorance, since at that point they'd made two of my favorite films (The Hudsucker Proxy and Miller's Crossing). Not knowing this, however, I persisted in not espicially liking 'em, or at least not liking them as much as everyone else. Raising Arizona and The Big Lebowski did not impress me enough to change my mind (though I found them far more amusing then Fargo). I persisted in my ignorance until I saw O Brother, Where Art Thou?, which did impress me at least enough to do an imdb search and find out what else they'd done.
Anyway, all this is really just prelude to last night, when I watched Barton Fink
( SPOILERS )
|
|
|
[28 Jun 2005|08:21pm] |
My favorite quote of the day (from A.O. Scott's review):
"War of the Worlds" is rated PG-13. Much of the earth's population is wiped out, leaving very little time for sex or bad language."
|
|
|
[05 Apr 2005|07:42pm] |
|
Today I learned that Botox apparently comes from botulism. This seems like a horribly bad idea to me. Does everyone else know this?
|
|
|
[17 Mar 2005|08:53pm] |
I've been sick this past week, and it hasn't been any fun. I've been a little stuffy and my throat's been a little sore, but mainly I've just been feaverish and INCREDIBLY weak. If I haven't HAD to be somewhere*, I've been asleep. Now, my strength is returning... I've forgotten... I'm MIGHTY!
*(I've been going to work, mostly, but probably shouldn't have been; I've more-then-likely infected the public. If the public dosn't like this, they should petition my employers to give me some sick days, and perhaps some medical benefits. This is the price they pay for not institutionalizing socialized healthcare.)
|
|
|
[26 Jan 2005|11:47pm] |
I haven't been doing much latly, but I have been going to Ann Arbor City Council meetings. I'd like to tell you I'm doing this an as attempt to be informed on local plitics, but in truth I just get a visceral pleasure out of watching politics in action. The last metting was Tuesday, the 18th (postponed a day for MLK Jr. day). The highlights:
The first issue of note was the new "Farmer's Market Master Plan" that the city is considering adopting. Basically, the park service now controlls the farmer's market, so they want to put a small (very small) park in the middle. By expanding into the neighboring lot(s?), they'll be able to increase the amount of stalls slightly, while removing "Dead Man's Alley", what they (jokingly?) call the middle row where less people shop (I've heard more entertainining "Master Plans", let me tell you. This one dosn't even involve plutonium!). The problem: the farmers don't seem to like the idea.
During the "let the public speak to us" portion of the meeting, three people talking about how they supported the plan, while over a dozen spoke out against it (and one guy spoke out against Isreal, but he was quickly asked to stay on topic or step down). The farmers feel that if they're going to do construction, they should add more then just a few stalls, and so want the place that would be a park to remain part of the market in addition to the expanded area. Higher-maintainence structures will be built, but nothing is budgeted to maintain them, causing the farmers to fear that their dues will have to go up. The storekeepers in the area don't think construction will help their business (espicially those on Detroit Street, which will likely be shut down for a good chunch of the project). Several farmers came forth and spent their three minuits giving a rundown on their family history, and how it would be compromised if this plan was adopted. Some people simply fear change, but some valid points were raised, on both sides of the issue, and a lot of people spoke passionatly.
The councile's response? Carlburg pointed out that "master plans" don't really do anything, and that they'd be under no obligation to follow it just because they adopted it. She suggested that they make an unsubstantive change to make this clear, pass the thing anyways, then impliment something that better met the farmer's needs when it comes down to actually something. Reid responded that he felt the change was substantial, and that by adopting the amendment they were really rejecting the plan. The council argued for awhile, until it became obvious that they were roughly divided into two groups. Those who were in support of the plan and felt that that passing the plan (with the amendment) was adopting the plan; and those who were against the plan, but thought that passing the plan (again with the amendment) was really rejecting the plan. Hence both voted for the amended plan, though they didn't agree what they were actually voting on. This made everyone happy, except for the people who's job it is to actually implement (or not implement) the plan, since they don't quite know what to do now.
The second issue of note was whether the council would allow a new appartment building to be built on Green Street. The guy who wants to build the appartments came forth and explained how it would really be a very nice building, and that they should let him proceed. His lawyer then came forth, and explained that the building was a very legal building, and they should let his client proceed. A few students cam forth, and said that they had no place to live next year, and begged the council to let their future landlord proceed. Then many, many, many neighbors came forth and said how they hated the idea, and that the council should put a stop to it right now.
I sympathise with the neighbors, but their arguments really wern't very good. They claimed they were concerned about sewage and parking and whanot, but they were clearly really more upset with the notion of having even more students in the neighborhood. The neighbirhood is classified and joint residental (or somesuch), meaning it's where students are supposed to live. As such, students should probably be allowed to live there, assuming everything else is up to code. Easthope (and several other council members) agrees with me. He explained that he too hates the building, but feels it's not his job to impose his architectural standards on the city. As long as it's built to code, he dosn't see how he can ethically oppose its construction. If people want to make it his job to do more, the laws need to be changed.
Other council members disagreed. One (Groome?) suggested that, while they can't reject the project out of hand, they can certainly make life so difficult for the poor bastard that he never dreams of despoiling the city again (she put it much nicer then this, of course). The council debated for a bit (ok... it was more then just a "bit") but eventually the vote was called and the gentleman was allowed to build his building. The council made several "suggestions", such as manditory maintanance inspections and more windows, which the fellow assured them he would follow. Several of the neighbores stayed behind to chew the council out at the end, but they look like they have pretty think skin and can probably take it.
Additionally, people mentioned the city's "greenbelt" policy, which I don't know much about. People also mentioned that the University was building a bunch of new, better buildings closer to campus, but I'm not sure I believe this. I've resolved to look both these thigns upi, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
I wonder what joys the next meeting will hold?
|
|
|
[02 Dec 2004|03:02pm] |
Tonight, I have decided to see I HEART Huckabees. It's aledigly showing at 9:40 tonight at the State Theater, but who knows for how much longer?
Anyone and everyone is of course welcome to join me, but I will see it regardless because I am secure enough in my individuality to see a movie by myself. I think...
|
|
|
[19 Nov 2004|02:26pm] |
|
I'm not in Ann Arbor right now, but rather Up North for a few days to celebrate my Grandfather's 75th birthday.
|
|
|
[14 Nov 2004|10:48pm] |
Favorite news of the day: Oh look they discovered Atlantis
Favorite ironic fact of the day: Charles Darwin married his first cousin.
|
|
|
[14 Nov 2004|06:06pm] |
Lately, I've heard a lot of people (mostly self-identified liberals) expressing their belief that "it's wrong to impose your moral on others", and that it's wrong to legislate morality. I've been thinking about this, and I've decided this makes no sense to me.
Everybody has at least some morals. I suspect that everyone would be happiest living under a legal code that was designed to impliment their particular moralagenda, but this is sadly impossible since people have differing and often conflicting value systems. Still, there's also a lot of morals that most people have in common, so we can hopefully design a legal code that makes most people happy and everyone else can tolerate. I assume this is tha goal of our legal code (though I'm not certain how well it's achieving its goal, that's a different topic).
Further, if you live under a legal system which is specifically contrary to your ethical code, don't you have a moral obligation to either try to change the system or rebell against it? At least if you have any sort of moral conviction?
Or to look at it a different way, what do we have to base our legal sysem on, other then some sort of value system? How do we judge a legal system, other then how well is supports particular values?
When people say, "you shouldn't impose your morals on others," I think they mean this in the most literal sense. You shouldn't, but they can. Indeed, not imposing your morals on others is usually a moral stance in and of itself, thus it becomes hypocritical to try and impose this moral stance on the legal system. Myself, I'd be thrilled if the laws reflected my morality, or if I had any hope of imposing my morals on everyone else. Since this has no chance of happening, I support a minimum amount of moralizing in the legal code, but simply because I disagree with so much of it.
Many people feel that the "abortion is wrong" moral shouldn't be the basis of law, but I hear very few people arguing the same about the "murder is wrong" moral. Pretty much everyone feels that certain things; like theft, murder, and rape; are morally wrong, and that it is a good thing for them to be illegal because they are morally wrong. This, in and of itself, might be reason enough why murder is a crime and abortion isn't. If our goal is to meet as many people's moral standards as possible, then we probably only want to criminalize things that pretty much everyone is against. This is true of murder, but not of abortion.
I don't feel comfortable about this, however. There was a time when most people seemed to think that slavery was OK, but I still feel comfortable declairing that slavery was (and is) wrong, and I'm happy that slavery is illegal where I live. This happy state of affairs probably wouldn't have come about had the abolitionists not managed to impose their particular morals on the legal code. In some respects, I feel that anti-abortionists can be likened to abolitionists, in that they're both trying to protect the inherient right of things that society feels should have no rights.
Mind you, I agree with the abolitionists, and not the anti-abortionists, but that's besides the point.
"Pro-choice" is usually as much of a moral stance as "anti-abortion", and I think it's ok to recognize this. Few people are willing to claim that abortion is a good thing, it's just that they feel forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pragency is a worse thing. Both parties are constantly engaged in trying to shove their own morals down each other's throats. Bleeding hearts are as blinded as the religous right in this respect.
Now, I'm outlining the above argument in the hopes that someone will talk me out of it. I'm not at all happy with this position, if only because it is detrimental to me. As mentioned, I personally don't want people putting their morals into law, because I don't agree with their morals. Still, since both parties seem determined to impose their values on me, I'd prefer it to be the democrats (at the moment). Their values are slightly less obnoxious; they might be hypocritical, but at least their hypocrisy occasionally works in my favor.
Sadly, this means I agree with the people who think that democrats might want to abandon their secular base (at least a little). My problem is, I seem to be siding with a bunch of idiots (no offense intended), and I don't like to side with idiots. So if you disagree with me, please convince me otherwise!
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
wheloc's journal