I like Dennis Miller, he's pretty sweet. Here he is talking about Obama's speech to a group of his disciples recently.
- sorry to the Obama fans out there, I know Fox news makes your ears bleed...
Obama gets more annoying to me the more I hear about him. I think he's arrogant, sneaky and a master at playing this country's people. I only ever hear liberals talk about black/ white affecting anything in this race. But Obama tells his worshipers what they like to hear, but isn't based on reality. Repubs will try to scare everyone about Obama because he's black and has a different name. Give me a freakin break. This guy is so phony I don't know what to do with myself. Everything about him is contrived and planned out to get ahead politically. His changing his name from Barry to Barack, his choice of a church, his friends, everything about him. Now all he has to do now is spew the standard garbage liberals love to hear in his eloquent smokers voice and it is genius. And no matter what flip flop or weird idea he comes up with he will get a pass, for he is The Chosen One.
Repubs are always accused of being the fear mongers, of scaring the public into doing things.
That's interesting when you consider the doomsday crap from the global warming people. That stuff is by far more scary sounding and isn't even based on anything immediately affecting me right now. It's funny too, that those fighting to stop the world from changing from it's current state are also the same people who think the creation is garbage and evolution should be taught exclusively. WHAT? Did evolution end with the birth of the great Al Gore??? I think the world is a tough place and is used to going through changes... (or evolving)...People can be pretty resilient too.
Al Gore is another great person to contemplate. How many millions has this guy made from his preaching of inconvenient truths?? It is astounding. And yet how much energy is he using at this present time after all his newfound knowledge?? oh, only like 20 times the average family? That seems about right. But Bush and Republicans are the fear mongers right? Just watch Gore's movie about how everyone in the world is gonna be dead in a few years. That's not playing off of fear at all.
Gore's another professional, playing the public. Maybe Obama and Gore would make a perfect ticket.
So, after a month of slumber, I was awakened again by ridiculous things happening around me. I had to say something. To sum up: Obama is annoying.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
glenn murcutt
An architect that I greatly admire is Australian Glenn Murcutt. Known for his sustainable and site sensitive designs, he creates architecture that works together with its surroundings and forces interaction with it. His designs utilize nature to passively heat, cool, daylight and water. His work isn't influenced by trends, but draws from local vernacular architecture, the site and a sound knowledge of materials to inform the design. Murcutt uses materials that are local, sustainable and sometimes even recycled from an existing structure to create buildings that are rich in character and in his words, "touch the earth lightly".
Read an article on Murcutt from the New York Times.
I recommend these books for more info and great pictures of his work.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Understanding Obama
I really didn't want to write more on this guy, but he is always being talked about on the news and radio, and I can't help myself. So I will write some thoughts on things I've been hearing as we learn more about the man behind the myth. I really think Obama would mean a change for America, but a kind of change, I'm beginning to think, that is different from that found in his soaring speech. The change is one that is actually craved for by a some in this country and would mean a radical departure from much of our current ways.
I again think of Rev. Wright. I know, Obama lovers are sick of hearing it, sick of guilt by association, etc. Tonight the Rev. can be seen in an interview on PBS with Bill Moyers for his first big public appearance since his infamy began. Moyers, probably just as in love with Obama as the standard media personality, doesn't challenge the Rev. at all, but sits through Wright's soft spoken explanations like Oprah listening to some poor woman's story. I had to keep looking down at the bottom of the screen to see if they were holding hands. They seemed to thoroughly enjoy each other's company, it was tender. One small thing that the Rev. said was interesting to me, regarding everything that's been going on with Obama: "He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor..." What do we typically mean when we think, 'it's politics' or 'I can't stand politicians'?? Is it that politicians are usually associated with honesty and trustworthiness? or are these common phrases instead coming from the idea that politicians tend to say what is safest, what the people want to hear and not necessarily the truth and facts? Obama has tried to say things to keep himself safe, first it was that he didn't think his church was particularly controversial, then it was that he never heard such things in the pews, then finally he had to come out and say he completely disavowed himself from the pastors comments. I think Rev. Wright has it right. Obama is doing what politicians do.
What does he really believe about things? It's very hard to tell and that has worked well for him thus far. Obama seems to be struggling to keep it that way, since he isn't a fan of debates or interviews or questions about these things anymore. Recently, when Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground came up, you could tell Obama was quite annoyed that he had another problem to deal with. What happened to the good ole days of everyone throwing themselves at his feet and cheering when he so much as sneezed? But Ayres is another interesting insight into Obama's world and into the group of people that have been around him while Obama was being reared and groomed to be an instrument for 'change'.
Ayre and his wife and their radical group in the 60s-70s bombed various sites in the U.S., including the pentagon, the capital and other government buildings. They were and probably still are anti-capitalist and more for a communist or socialist form of government. On September 11, 2001, Ayres said he wished they had done more back in the day against the government. He never apologized for any of these domestic attacks and now has joined many other radical left academics as a professor, teaching at a university in Chicago. A recent audio clip of him showed Ayres continues to harbor hatred for America, saying that 'we're in the belly of the beast' and 'in the heart of the monster' here in this country. People like him see America as basically evil and in need of drastic change. The left's utter hatred of Bush has created a climate where radicals like Ayres are not criminals, but patriots, and the things Ayres did and stood for and now glossed over. And Obama knows Ayres well enough to know he still hold radical views and distaste for our country, but as his weak response in the debate showed, he doesn't want to deal with it, but wants you to think it is trivial and should be ignored.
Lately, when we get to dig at who he is and ask about things he says or people he hangs with, things don't go too well for Barack. Prepared speeches where his eloquence and inspiration can shine are much safer. So he tries to deflect all the questions and concerns we have about his character with irritated answers like, 'this happened 40 years ago when I was 8' and other things to make it seem unreasonable to look at who he associates as an indicator of his own character. But Ayers has never admitted guilt or shame about what they did as domestic terrorists, and continues to say he wishes they did more and hasn't left his anti-american thought in the past. So if Obama has a relationship with him, does that mean anything or not? When there isn't much to gather as far as an understanding of who Obama, I will stash this little nugget into my satchel.
My man John Gibson, dealing with Obama supporters calling and complaining that too much focus is put on Obama's associates and not on the issues, put it like this: We've had plenty of debates and time to know all of their policies, we already know what he and Hillary say they will do. They are basically the same or similar on most every issue. What we want to know is about Obama's character and what he will do when he is in office. We know Hillary, not much more dirt can be brought out on her, we know it all. We do not know Obama.
I think there are two main groups of people who pretty much blindly follow Obama (it must be blindly, because no one can profess to know much about him, really).
- One is comprised of many left leaning and most far-left leaning people. Many of this group are educated (by people like Noam Chomsky), and believe the country is flawed. And not just from Bush doing a bad job- this has sure fueled their fire- but more than that. They call for a complete changing of our country, where income is re-distributed, our borders are torn down, our military is eliminated, and basically all laws are done away with because of the belief that laws discriminate, infringe, offend or something like that. They often think people that disagree are uneducated or less then they are. I thought Obama speaking to a group of wealthy liberals in San Francisco was quite telling, if for no other reason, because it sounded so different from his prepared inspirational speeches he knows will be made public. I thought his commentary on working class whites in rural America illustrated well the snobbish attitudes people in this liberal group hold. They dream of (and hold as an actually reachable goal) an earth where everyone around the world holds hands, all religions other than Christianity thrive and the temperature ceases to rise, where cars no longer exist, but people ride around on magic unicorns.
- The other group are those poor people who don't know and don't want to know who Obama is, or how liberal he really is. They see a man who is young and exciting. They love his being different from the norm in his racial makeup and background. They like that he says he's going to make their life great and give them lots of stuff. They like that he says 'hope' alot and makes them feel good inside when he speaks. For these reasons they will vote for him. When asked what they like about him, they will probably answer because he is young and different, that he is inspirational, or even that he is black. They like the idea of change, but don't care to know exactly what type of change it will be.
- There is probably a third group, with people who have bits of themselves described in the above two groups.
Thinking about it all makes me worried. I'm scared by the thinking of both groups.
An argument often made by Obama supporters regarding his ability to change America is that he a diplomat, that he will talk and work with other people to get things done. But this is not based on the reality of his past. Looking at those that have helped him get to where he is now is a who's who list of radical thinking people in this country. They are people that seem to foster hatred of others and hold quite extreme views that do not lend themselves to negotiation or reaching across party lines. He speaks of unifying America, of overcoming all differences, but the groups he has associated with for his adult life represent division and outright enmity toward others. Obama is the most liberal senator we have right now. And as far as reaching across the isle and working together to pass laws, McCain and Hillary have him beat. However, a group we can count on him working with for sure is Hamas, who has already given Obama their endorsement.
What I can gather as I try to understand Obama is that he associates with people of extreme views and positions. His character is pretty much unknown still, so I will look at the character of those he hangs out with. It has become clear that he is a politician, saying things that sound good but isn't necessarily truth. I think it will be difficult for him to become president as moderately thinking people look past his inspirational speeches and realize who he is.
I again think of Rev. Wright. I know, Obama lovers are sick of hearing it, sick of guilt by association, etc. Tonight the Rev. can be seen in an interview on PBS with Bill Moyers for his first big public appearance since his infamy began. Moyers, probably just as in love with Obama as the standard media personality, doesn't challenge the Rev. at all, but sits through Wright's soft spoken explanations like Oprah listening to some poor woman's story. I had to keep looking down at the bottom of the screen to see if they were holding hands. They seemed to thoroughly enjoy each other's company, it was tender. One small thing that the Rev. said was interesting to me, regarding everything that's been going on with Obama: "He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor..." What do we typically mean when we think, 'it's politics' or 'I can't stand politicians'?? Is it that politicians are usually associated with honesty and trustworthiness? or are these common phrases instead coming from the idea that politicians tend to say what is safest, what the people want to hear and not necessarily the truth and facts? Obama has tried to say things to keep himself safe, first it was that he didn't think his church was particularly controversial, then it was that he never heard such things in the pews, then finally he had to come out and say he completely disavowed himself from the pastors comments. I think Rev. Wright has it right. Obama is doing what politicians do.
What does he really believe about things? It's very hard to tell and that has worked well for him thus far. Obama seems to be struggling to keep it that way, since he isn't a fan of debates or interviews or questions about these things anymore. Recently, when Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground came up, you could tell Obama was quite annoyed that he had another problem to deal with. What happened to the good ole days of everyone throwing themselves at his feet and cheering when he so much as sneezed? But Ayres is another interesting insight into Obama's world and into the group of people that have been around him while Obama was being reared and groomed to be an instrument for 'change'.
Ayre and his wife and their radical group in the 60s-70s bombed various sites in the U.S., including the pentagon, the capital and other government buildings. They were and probably still are anti-capitalist and more for a communist or socialist form of government. On September 11, 2001, Ayres said he wished they had done more back in the day against the government. He never apologized for any of these domestic attacks and now has joined many other radical left academics as a professor, teaching at a university in Chicago. A recent audio clip of him showed Ayres continues to harbor hatred for America, saying that 'we're in the belly of the beast' and 'in the heart of the monster' here in this country. People like him see America as basically evil and in need of drastic change. The left's utter hatred of Bush has created a climate where radicals like Ayres are not criminals, but patriots, and the things Ayres did and stood for and now glossed over. And Obama knows Ayres well enough to know he still hold radical views and distaste for our country, but as his weak response in the debate showed, he doesn't want to deal with it, but wants you to think it is trivial and should be ignored.
Lately, when we get to dig at who he is and ask about things he says or people he hangs with, things don't go too well for Barack. Prepared speeches where his eloquence and inspiration can shine are much safer. So he tries to deflect all the questions and concerns we have about his character with irritated answers like, 'this happened 40 years ago when I was 8' and other things to make it seem unreasonable to look at who he associates as an indicator of his own character. But Ayers has never admitted guilt or shame about what they did as domestic terrorists, and continues to say he wishes they did more and hasn't left his anti-american thought in the past. So if Obama has a relationship with him, does that mean anything or not? When there isn't much to gather as far as an understanding of who Obama, I will stash this little nugget into my satchel.
My man John Gibson, dealing with Obama supporters calling and complaining that too much focus is put on Obama's associates and not on the issues, put it like this: We've had plenty of debates and time to know all of their policies, we already know what he and Hillary say they will do. They are basically the same or similar on most every issue. What we want to know is about Obama's character and what he will do when he is in office. We know Hillary, not much more dirt can be brought out on her, we know it all. We do not know Obama.
I think there are two main groups of people who pretty much blindly follow Obama (it must be blindly, because no one can profess to know much about him, really).
- One is comprised of many left leaning and most far-left leaning people. Many of this group are educated (by people like Noam Chomsky), and believe the country is flawed. And not just from Bush doing a bad job- this has sure fueled their fire- but more than that. They call for a complete changing of our country, where income is re-distributed, our borders are torn down, our military is eliminated, and basically all laws are done away with because of the belief that laws discriminate, infringe, offend or something like that. They often think people that disagree are uneducated or less then they are. I thought Obama speaking to a group of wealthy liberals in San Francisco was quite telling, if for no other reason, because it sounded so different from his prepared inspirational speeches he knows will be made public. I thought his commentary on working class whites in rural America illustrated well the snobbish attitudes people in this liberal group hold. They dream of (and hold as an actually reachable goal) an earth where everyone around the world holds hands, all religions other than Christianity thrive and the temperature ceases to rise, where cars no longer exist, but people ride around on magic unicorns.
- The other group are those poor people who don't know and don't want to know who Obama is, or how liberal he really is. They see a man who is young and exciting. They love his being different from the norm in his racial makeup and background. They like that he says he's going to make their life great and give them lots of stuff. They like that he says 'hope' alot and makes them feel good inside when he speaks. For these reasons they will vote for him. When asked what they like about him, they will probably answer because he is young and different, that he is inspirational, or even that he is black. They like the idea of change, but don't care to know exactly what type of change it will be.
- There is probably a third group, with people who have bits of themselves described in the above two groups.
Thinking about it all makes me worried. I'm scared by the thinking of both groups.
An argument often made by Obama supporters regarding his ability to change America is that he a diplomat, that he will talk and work with other people to get things done. But this is not based on the reality of his past. Looking at those that have helped him get to where he is now is a who's who list of radical thinking people in this country. They are people that seem to foster hatred of others and hold quite extreme views that do not lend themselves to negotiation or reaching across party lines. He speaks of unifying America, of overcoming all differences, but the groups he has associated with for his adult life represent division and outright enmity toward others. Obama is the most liberal senator we have right now. And as far as reaching across the isle and working together to pass laws, McCain and Hillary have him beat. However, a group we can count on him working with for sure is Hamas, who has already given Obama their endorsement.
What I can gather as I try to understand Obama is that he associates with people of extreme views and positions. His character is pretty much unknown still, so I will look at the character of those he hangs out with. It has become clear that he is a politician, saying things that sound good but isn't necessarily truth. I think it will be difficult for him to become president as moderately thinking people look past his inspirational speeches and realize who he is.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Things that make bad architecture
As a result of my distaste for much of the built world being produced nowadays, I thought I would offer some critiques for everyone inhabiting it with me to consider. Looking at the architecture in the U.S., much of it, in many ways, is lagging if not void of any architectural validity. Quality design is no longer a priority, but quantity and efficiency. I've made a quick list of ways buildings fail, reasons they frustrate me and do not provide their inhabitants with the many benefits good architecture should. My interest is in designing homes and so my most critical eye is upon this building type.
1- Ornamental excess/ trend reflection: Too many buildings lack good design where it matters, and become mere displays of the latest trends in architectural style and materiality. For example, the 'Tuscan' obsession right now in the western U.S. Trends come and go- if you look at subdivisions in Southern California you can tell which decade they were built by the style they are reflecting. There, entire shopping centers and areas of town can become run down and abandoned when the style they represented has run its course. I have witnessed the strange phenomenon of a strip mall getting a make over- application of the trendy stone cladding, correct beige tone stucco and the obligatory arch here and there- and all of a sudden it is a thriving oasis once again.
This seems odd and also wasteful when so much material and money is spent on superficialities with such short life spans. I realize buildings require maintenance and the occasional renovation. But good architecture and design is timeless. It should reflect the culture, character and climate of the area it is in and not fleeting trends. In places where culture and character is becoming increasingly lacking, this wasteful cycle is thrown into hyper drive. Good design has never been so needed and so disregarded.
2- Faux cladding: I see this often as a way to disguise an otherwise ugly and poorly designed building. Cladding does have its place- perhaps on a high rise where the true material is too large, heavy or expensive to use, but if it is simply for the purpose of a trend like that mentioned above, please spare me. Let something a little less costly and permanent like your car tell the world you seek its approval and inclusion.
3- Stucco: Just a nasty looking exterior material. Affordabilty makes it attractive, so I suppose it has its place. But it looks and acts cheap as well! Concrete block is infinitely cooler in my book, and am still partial to wood and other materials displaying a more natural beauty. In general, I like the idea of using materials that don't need to painted and disguised, but can be celebrated for their unique properties just as it is.
4- Fabric Awnings: I think of a sculptor finishing a masterpiece in stone, celebrating the human body- Then ruining it by dressing it up in a cheesy outfit. If it is a true masterpiece, then the outfit is unneeded and detracts from the finished work. If it is good architecture I feel like it should have more of a sense of permanence and purity. If shade or shelter is required, a material which doesn't require regular bathing and maintenance would, to me, be more successful. The idea of materials that age well is something I am also a fan of. Too often, fabric awnings look like an old band aid or cheap remedy for a design that missed something somewhere during the process.
5- The 'Grand Entry': I am not impressed by these, am I completely insane? I feel like these have become increasingly important in the world of those seeking their neighbors praise, or those building a home as a temple unto themselves. An article I once read discussed this design element, along with a couple others, as an extremely effective selling tool. The person mentioned that such a feature ups the 'wow' factor for someone viewing the house quickly and superficially. Once they move in they find the grand entry to be less impressive, but more a waste of space, decreasing privacy throughout the house and increasing the noise level unnecessarily. I suppose that is one of the main differences in buying a developer designed home and one designed by an architect. Wow factor, trendy materials and gimmicks to make a quick profit vs. quality design tailored to the needs of the occupant. But people continue to eat it up. It is a waste of space! It serves no function but to impress the person as they enter! If that is a main requirement in your home's design, please don't seek out my input. I think of some of my favorite architects and their designs, even when a home is large, the entry is often quite humble. For me, a home with a connection with nature is important, not one that is meant to outdo it through the use of high ceilings and spiraling staircases. Spaces with a sense of openness or of intimacy should be strategically designed and located to fit the users needs, lifestyle and the overall site.
6- Site unspecific design: Too many buildings look like they were designed without any particular site in mind. This leads to generic, predictable, out-of-place, or at the least, inefficient design. Quality architecture should respond to the site and client and user needs. Although the idea of green building is being touted as the latest fashion, many of the concepts regarding sustainable design have been there since the beginning. Orienting the building to maximize/minimize daylight and heat gain, use of local and sustainable materials, etc are simple strategies of good design that until modern times have simply been logical and necessary decisions. One of the main things that bothers me with tract and 'cookie cutter' homes is their uniformity despite their location and orientation. Many buildings today look as though they were designed without any visit to a site or research into the surroundings of where the project is to be. But most don't care about such things when they wish only for maximum square footage and four car garage. Impact on the site, energy efficiency, conscientious use of materials are all things for others to worry about- but as the built world increasingly taxes the natural world and we find our quality of life being compromised, a return to such basic principles is important.
7- Disconnect from nature: This issue blends together with the previous- In our complete ignoring of the world outside our own built universe, we not only are wasteful, but harmful to the environment. A connection with nature is not only beneficial for daylighting, heating, cooling and ventilation, but also healthy for people themselves. There is a tradition now of dominating, neglecting and abusing the natural environment which must be reversed before it is too late. A balanced relationship should be the goal.
8- Reliance on unnatural systems: Last idea and one that has been talked about already is the overuse of a/c and ventilation systems, electric lighting, and other inorganic systems. While their use is sometimes unavoidable, simple design solutions and the right materials can usually greatly reduce the need for these energy consuming and pollution causing systems. Corbusier called the house 'a machine for living'- and I love the imagery it brings to mind. A place adaptable to fit the changes in living and usage by its occupants as well as to accommodate the changing environment outside. To paraphrase architect Glenn Murcutt, a home should be a living and breathing thing, one that closes up when it's cold and rainy and opens up and can breathe when it is hot and sunny. Bad architecture relies on unnatural systems- these systems allow for sloppiness as they can make up for the design's incompetencies.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Help me nail this coffin
(and various tangents as they come to me, ending with the rebellion against a robotic clone take over of society)
First coffin I'd like to ask your help with:
Blockbuster Video. I recently was a helpless bystander, watching, like most other people out there who live in towns or areas built prior to the mid 90s, my local video store go out of business. The story is the same, a new shopping center is built or redone and this current American chain staple is guaranteed a home in your community. It didn't take more than a few months and Waimea Video store, where we went every weekend growing up and knew the owners and everyone working there had to close shop. We tried to keep supporting them but we apparently couldn't do enough. That was a good 2-3 years ago and the space it occupied still remains empty. It looks run down and really great.
But the trade off was worth it, right? Sure! We can all go to Blockbuster now and pay $6.00 (or is it more now?) for one movie for one night, deal with disinterested high school dropout workers, and dish out money to some unseen franchise owner who may or may not live in the area. And for some reason, despite their huge selection, it is often harder to find anything to watch.
Solution? Netflix. Plans start at $5 for 2 movies a month, and you can keep them as long as you want. We have the 2 at a time unlimited per month plan, it's $14. We watch up to about 8 movies a month, and we can watch an additional unlimited amount on our computer. It is far, far cheaper than Blockbuster and you don't even have to spend money on gas to drive anywhere. We are giving money to a ghost, sure, but at least not encouraging bad architecture and a sterile and monotonous landscape.
*note: Blockbuster Video also offers movies via mail similar to Netflix, but do not be fooled. Blockbuster is still again more expensive, and also, think of all the bad architecture. Also, I know Blockbuster is struggling lately as a result of their being so lame, so just participate in the coffin nailing!
Future Coffin I'd love to nail down:
Starbucks. See previous post for details on this annoying and trend defining phenomena. I'd say more, but I don't drink coffee so don't really care about it other than, again, looking at predictably generic architecture and equally predictable patrons.
Solution? Make your own. Or at least sacrifice that recognizable white and green cup and go someplace where lattes aren't $10.
Other future coffins I have seen in dreams:
Borders, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy. I would love to see these chains go down mostly for their participation in the demise of a place close to my heart: the music store. No more local music stores to hang out at, get recommendations at, to special order CDs you can't find, or to buy tickets to local shows. Even old school chain stores like Tower Records (which, though a chain, was pretty sweet and usually pretty localized) couldn't survive in the new landscape of Big Box economies of scale and convenience. I recognize the digital revolution has completely changed the music business more than anything else, but am still bitter with my terrible choices when I want to go on Tuesday and buy the new CD I was waiting for. Want a CD today? You have to go to Borders, Barnes & Noble, Best Buy or maybe Walmart. The sad thing is unless your taste in music completely sucks, then more than likely you won't find what you're looking for. The selection is frustrating and prices: high. It's sad to see smaller, local music stores with more diversity in music being utterly wiped out by gigantic boxes of sameness with identical music selections no matter which part of the country you're in.
Solution? Boycott and shop online. Amazon.com has a decent selection of music, used and new, for a range of prices. Online shops are able to provide whatever you are looking for. I have used Amazon for the past few years, as I'm old school and still like a tangible CD from time to time, and love it. Prices are great and it's shipped quickly to your door.
In summary:
The landscape has drastically changed with the global economy and increased trade, outsourcing and the internet. While this has brought us goods for lower prices and many other wonderful benefits, I believe in many ways our choices are becoming more limited as ultra-efficient and morbidly obese companies like those mentioned above put every one else out of business. I know that people make choices, and thus are to blame for going to these big box, generic chains and leaving the others to go under. Two thoughts: One, people are like robots. Two, the physical landscape has changed in so much of America that people no longer have access to local businesses without a car, they are no longer blended into communities like they were in the past. We have built an automobile dependent environment where everything in life is separated by vast amounts of roadway and parking lot. Naturally, this has created a niche for these mega chains as people now go to one particular zone to buy goods and need everything they seek in that one zone. The birth of the mega chain big box. A one stop shop for everyone, so you better be seeking the same goods as everyone. This neatly separated and planned out environment connected by roads begins altering the way we live and interact. To function in an overly planned, inorganic system, the human must also become inorganic and simply participate in the system. Robots on a conveyor belt, going from zone to zone.
But I don't want to give up and watch the natural world of the past be taken over. And not all places have been fully converted to this new system of living. And I think a growing number are becoming dissatisfied with this artificial way of life (Just visit real communities of real people and see the influx of those fighting their robotic transformation moving from elsewhere, seeking a real life among humans). My hope is for change towards more variety (not one or two big box chain stores full of products everyone must shop at), freer movement (on foot, by car, bicycle, horse, piggyback, your choice!) and a more naturally functioning system of living without conveyor belts.
In closing, I again ask all humans for help. I believe there will always be a need for video stores, music stores, book stores, coffee shops, and so on. I do not believe the one size must fit all dominance of huge chain stores is healthy for communities of members of a variety of sizes. By not giving these chains money, but by finding what we can on the internet, or of course at the few surviving local businesses in your area, humans can resist the robotic clone take over threatening to eclipse our entire society. Everything is cyclical: I believe the Walmart era isn't eternal, but humans will turn back towards a world of human scale and interaction as it is the most natural and sustainable. As humans begin to get a handle on things and are able to fight off the evil robot forces, human scale businesses run by fellow humans of various sizes may again proliferate throughout the land, enriching the character of communities and fulfilling all of our wildest dreams.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Obama's 'I have a racist grandma' speech
It is interesting to see Obama changing right before our eyes as a result of the increasing insights into his personal life and beliefs. Until now he always said race wasn't an issue, he was an American running for office. If anyone else brought it up they were painted as racist or someone stuck in the past. When Geraldine Ferraro said she didn't think Obama would be in his position if he were white (a comment most reasonable people agree with...and Hillary wouldn't be where she is...but does anyone care?), he immediately said that was out of line and she shouldn't be allowed to continue working for Hillary. He actually tried to compare that with what Rev. Wright was spewing over the pulpit?
Race is not a factor with Obama- that is what he's worked so hard to get into everyone's minds for the past year. As people begin questioning what really is inside the man due to what many he associates with carry inside themselves, Obama has completely changed his message. It turns out that race is everything after all.
In his race speech, Obama again says he disagrees with his mentor Rev. Wright, but then tries to trivialize it by saying we all have gone to church and disagreed with church leaders before. I personally think my being told that I shouldn't put off having children until I'm wealthy isn't quite on the same level as, say, the fighting and killing between fellow white people needs to stop and we should instead turn against the real enemy: black people- As Wright suggests, but of course reversed, in one of his uplifting sermons.
As Obama's halo fades and people see two regular human democratic candidates with nothing much separating them politically, Obama turns to the tried and true. No longer can he stand back and let everyone else argue about whether or not race is an issue, pretending to be above it all. He sees his momentum slowing... His speech, I think, can be summed up in a few phrases: Racism exists in America. I am black. Nothing will ever change until we the people do something about it.
and the ONLY way to do anything about it is: Elect ME! hint hint....
Apparently the only way we can get past racism is if we vote for Barack Obama, so I guess I have to. To me, that is a sad and desperate attempt to win back the love and affection of the country.
I just wish Obama was a regular old black guy who was actually experienced enough. No racist church membership, no questionable acquaintances, no seemingly disgusted with America spouse- but just a solid, experienced, honest person. There wouldn't be all this ammunition and ridiculous stuff to be made into gigantic issues like they have unless something wasn't right. What is not right is I think Obama has been counting on his race to get him the presidency. And now it is becoming more apparent than I'm sure he would have liked.
I don't know much about Colin Powell or Condi Rice, but I know they are pretty high up there and I can't image such a huge deal being made about their being black. I don't know whether its the democratic party and their obsession with being PC, the fact that Obama is a mythical creature we don't really know, or whether he's more of a celebrity rock star than legitimate candidate that has caused this circus. I do know I'm getting bored with it.
Race is not a factor with Obama- that is what he's worked so hard to get into everyone's minds for the past year. As people begin questioning what really is inside the man due to what many he associates with carry inside themselves, Obama has completely changed his message. It turns out that race is everything after all.
In his race speech, Obama again says he disagrees with his mentor Rev. Wright, but then tries to trivialize it by saying we all have gone to church and disagreed with church leaders before. I personally think my being told that I shouldn't put off having children until I'm wealthy isn't quite on the same level as, say, the fighting and killing between fellow white people needs to stop and we should instead turn against the real enemy: black people- As Wright suggests, but of course reversed, in one of his uplifting sermons.
As Obama's halo fades and people see two regular human democratic candidates with nothing much separating them politically, Obama turns to the tried and true. No longer can he stand back and let everyone else argue about whether or not race is an issue, pretending to be above it all. He sees his momentum slowing... His speech, I think, can be summed up in a few phrases: Racism exists in America. I am black. Nothing will ever change until we the people do something about it.
and the ONLY way to do anything about it is: Elect ME! hint hint....
Apparently the only way we can get past racism is if we vote for Barack Obama, so I guess I have to. To me, that is a sad and desperate attempt to win back the love and affection of the country.
I just wish Obama was a regular old black guy who was actually experienced enough. No racist church membership, no questionable acquaintances, no seemingly disgusted with America spouse- but just a solid, experienced, honest person. There wouldn't be all this ammunition and ridiculous stuff to be made into gigantic issues like they have unless something wasn't right. What is not right is I think Obama has been counting on his race to get him the presidency. And now it is becoming more apparent than I'm sure he would have liked.
I don't know much about Colin Powell or Condi Rice, but I know they are pretty high up there and I can't image such a huge deal being made about their being black. I don't know whether its the democratic party and their obsession with being PC, the fact that Obama is a mythical creature we don't really know, or whether he's more of a celebrity rock star than legitimate candidate that has caused this circus. I do know I'm getting bored with it.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Obama-nation
Some thoughts on Barack H. Obama and what I've been seeing and hearing regarding the presidential race.
It seems the country has fallen- and fallen hard- for this charming and inspirational speaker. People write songs about him, praise him as the savior of the world, and faint when they are in his presence. When most people are asked why they are voting for him, it's because he's a good speaker, young and exciting, or just that he represents change. I'm hoping the infatuation is coming to a close and people will awake from their love drunkenness and look at who this is that may become our President.
* I should note that I am not completely anti-Obama, I don't know much about him, but I think he has become a national obsession and most people jumping on the bandwagon don't know any more than I do. I don't think that is a good thing.
I think Obama was smart enough to know that running for president would cause people to talk about a variety of issues, namely religion due to his name, and race. I think he was also smart enough to know, by looking at the current climate in America, that people are so afraid to say anything about his religion and his race in particular, he could reach an almost untouchable status without doing much more than showing up and mentioning 'hope' a few times. He has come at just the right time and said just the right things to utilize this opportunity, no one can disagree his campaign has been near perfect.
Any time a doubt in his experience is raised, a question of his ability to protect us in the face of foreign threats is asked or how he will change and unite the world as one happy family, the person in doubt or seeking information is immediately called out as a racist or some kind of fool for doubting the Great One. Obama can keep himself above most of it and not even address any questions asked, others surrounding him shoot those questioning down, they will nurture America's fear of being called a racist or discriminatory and shield Obama from any kind of meaningful and healthy scrutiny. And I'm sure he foresaw this landscape and is now basking in it.
At first I thought that it would be fine if he were elected. I wouldn't go out and vote for him, but I also think it could actually be a historic step for the country and maybe he could do some good. But when I take some of the little things and add them up, I begin to wonder whether he really would be the positive force for change he makes himself out to be. I recognize that I do not know everything about him that I could if I researched more, but for now, with what I have, here are some observations:
- Wearing a flag pin is a small and fairly generic thing, but stating that you won't because you're above the need to because of your patriotic living coupled with not acknowledging the flag when the American anthem is sung while standing next to others who do acknowledge it seems a bit odd.
- Telling parts of the country that an element of the great change you will bring may require adjustments in NAFTA, and if Canada and Mexico don't want to work with your new plans you will get the U.S. out of it, is a great plan to gain the vote of people who may have lost their job. Learning soon after that some top aids had contacted officials in Canada and explained this was all campaign rhetoric and not to worry about anything sounds a little sketchy.
- When your wife says things that make people question whether you love and respect the country you're running to be president of and then the leader of the church you attend for 20 years, who married you and your wife, baptized your kids and who you call your mentor and is like a father, is found to be preaching things that sound completely racist, hateful and in many ways anti-American- it makes me wonder what YOU really are thinking inside.
- It seems Obama is slowly learning that people won't give him a free pass anymore, too much has caused need for explanation. But he continues to give vague and generalized answers to avoid any trouble. When Obama said he had never heard such things while sitting in the pews as Reverend Wright has been heard saying I couldn't believe how blinded by his greatness he must think people are. To hear a person preaching with such passion and conviction, it doesn't take an expert to hypothesize that these are things the speaker deeply believes, and thus, must make mention from time to time over the years. For people to believe that Obama heard these outrageous things for the first time after he began his campaign and just completely rejected it all is gullible to say the least. I love the quote by Obama that he doesn't think his church is all that controversial. AIDS was created by the government and the white man as some type of tool to destroy black people- that seems pretty reasonable to me too, Barack.
Obama, it seems, has taken the human form of a movement, and people will say anything they want about him, and it becomes so. A mythical creature no one can fully understand because fact is so blending together with fiction. And, for the most part, I think Obama has believed the myth himself, making grand statements like 'We can change the world!' with himself as president. Is it just me or is that a bit lofty?
Rev. Wright explains in one of his fiery sermons that Obama essentially knows what it's like to be raised by a black parent in the ghetto, knows what it's like to grow up with racism, and be called a n_ _ _a. But wasn't Obama raised by his white grandparents in the multi-racial state of Hawaii where he attending one of the most prestigious private schools in the state?? Later, he went on to Columbia and then Harvard and became a successful lawyer. I don't claim to know Obama's life experiences, but it seems Obama has enjoyed many great opportunities and successes. For his preacher friend to whip up the congregation into a frenzy, saying Obama knows the hard life and struggles of all minorities in this country, it seems like layers are being added to the mythical hero's story. As people begin to look into who Obama really is, hopefully the layers may be peeled back, showing the man without all the fluff, legends and lofty speech. Then, as a mere human, we can see him against the opponents, and decide between the candidates.
Getting people young and old excited to participate in our democracy is a great thing, but I hope that people will not join in the celebrity worship for superficial reasons like appearance or inspirational oratory. To me, integrity, honesty and what a person stands for and plans to do in actuality (and 'changing the world' doesn't count) are most important to me.
It seems the country has fallen- and fallen hard- for this charming and inspirational speaker. People write songs about him, praise him as the savior of the world, and faint when they are in his presence. When most people are asked why they are voting for him, it's because he's a good speaker, young and exciting, or just that he represents change. I'm hoping the infatuation is coming to a close and people will awake from their love drunkenness and look at who this is that may become our President.
* I should note that I am not completely anti-Obama, I don't know much about him, but I think he has become a national obsession and most people jumping on the bandwagon don't know any more than I do. I don't think that is a good thing.
I think Obama was smart enough to know that running for president would cause people to talk about a variety of issues, namely religion due to his name, and race. I think he was also smart enough to know, by looking at the current climate in America, that people are so afraid to say anything about his religion and his race in particular, he could reach an almost untouchable status without doing much more than showing up and mentioning 'hope' a few times. He has come at just the right time and said just the right things to utilize this opportunity, no one can disagree his campaign has been near perfect.
Any time a doubt in his experience is raised, a question of his ability to protect us in the face of foreign threats is asked or how he will change and unite the world as one happy family, the person in doubt or seeking information is immediately called out as a racist or some kind of fool for doubting the Great One. Obama can keep himself above most of it and not even address any questions asked, others surrounding him shoot those questioning down, they will nurture America's fear of being called a racist or discriminatory and shield Obama from any kind of meaningful and healthy scrutiny. And I'm sure he foresaw this landscape and is now basking in it.
At first I thought that it would be fine if he were elected. I wouldn't go out and vote for him, but I also think it could actually be a historic step for the country and maybe he could do some good. But when I take some of the little things and add them up, I begin to wonder whether he really would be the positive force for change he makes himself out to be. I recognize that I do not know everything about him that I could if I researched more, but for now, with what I have, here are some observations:
- Wearing a flag pin is a small and fairly generic thing, but stating that you won't because you're above the need to because of your patriotic living coupled with not acknowledging the flag when the American anthem is sung while standing next to others who do acknowledge it seems a bit odd.
- Telling parts of the country that an element of the great change you will bring may require adjustments in NAFTA, and if Canada and Mexico don't want to work with your new plans you will get the U.S. out of it, is a great plan to gain the vote of people who may have lost their job. Learning soon after that some top aids had contacted officials in Canada and explained this was all campaign rhetoric and not to worry about anything sounds a little sketchy.
- When your wife says things that make people question whether you love and respect the country you're running to be president of and then the leader of the church you attend for 20 years, who married you and your wife, baptized your kids and who you call your mentor and is like a father, is found to be preaching things that sound completely racist, hateful and in many ways anti-American- it makes me wonder what YOU really are thinking inside.
- It seems Obama is slowly learning that people won't give him a free pass anymore, too much has caused need for explanation. But he continues to give vague and generalized answers to avoid any trouble. When Obama said he had never heard such things while sitting in the pews as Reverend Wright has been heard saying I couldn't believe how blinded by his greatness he must think people are. To hear a person preaching with such passion and conviction, it doesn't take an expert to hypothesize that these are things the speaker deeply believes, and thus, must make mention from time to time over the years. For people to believe that Obama heard these outrageous things for the first time after he began his campaign and just completely rejected it all is gullible to say the least. I love the quote by Obama that he doesn't think his church is all that controversial. AIDS was created by the government and the white man as some type of tool to destroy black people- that seems pretty reasonable to me too, Barack.
Obama, it seems, has taken the human form of a movement, and people will say anything they want about him, and it becomes so. A mythical creature no one can fully understand because fact is so blending together with fiction. And, for the most part, I think Obama has believed the myth himself, making grand statements like 'We can change the world!' with himself as president. Is it just me or is that a bit lofty?
Rev. Wright explains in one of his fiery sermons that Obama essentially knows what it's like to be raised by a black parent in the ghetto, knows what it's like to grow up with racism, and be called a n_ _ _a. But wasn't Obama raised by his white grandparents in the multi-racial state of Hawaii where he attending one of the most prestigious private schools in the state?? Later, he went on to Columbia and then Harvard and became a successful lawyer. I don't claim to know Obama's life experiences, but it seems Obama has enjoyed many great opportunities and successes. For his preacher friend to whip up the congregation into a frenzy, saying Obama knows the hard life and struggles of all minorities in this country, it seems like layers are being added to the mythical hero's story. As people begin to look into who Obama really is, hopefully the layers may be peeled back, showing the man without all the fluff, legends and lofty speech. Then, as a mere human, we can see him against the opponents, and decide between the candidates.
Getting people young and old excited to participate in our democracy is a great thing, but I hope that people will not join in the celebrity worship for superficial reasons like appearance or inspirational oratory. To me, integrity, honesty and what a person stands for and plans to do in actuality (and 'changing the world' doesn't count) are most important to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
