Morning blog fans,
Ahhhh... there is nothing like a quick blog in the morning while I wait for my bath to cool. Very soothing. Normally...
At the moment however, I can hardly bring myself to use the word blog - it reminds me too much of Blagojevich... who I will call Blago for short.
Blago is the guy who tried to sell Obama's senate seat BUT don't worry, this isn't going to be a political blog (not yet anyway), but an update on the Dorrian's favourite hobby in the States - TV watching.
Yes blog fans, like millions of Americans our 3rd most important purchase was a TV. Then we found out how American's are actually taxed - by paying for cable.
Luckily they can't get our cable to work properly so we don't pay full price, but if they could get it to work I would probably have to get another job to pay for it.
Speaking of jobs, Kira's is going very well. She has just got herself an office downtown in which to see her ever growing client list for hypnotherapy, and tonight we are going to the opening of a museum exhibit which she provided voice work for. Swanky!
Mine is also doing nicely, though I am very busy. If you want to check out some of my work, here is one of the first case studies I have produced at my new job (http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?casestudyid=4000007048). If you read it you'll see it is all very technical, so I am on a steep learning curve about virtualization in the data center. For those of you in the UK who understood that sentence, would you like a job? We are currently looking for technical writers in the UK, so if you think you could write a case study like the above, let me know...
Anyway, back to the important thing - TV. Like many Americans (now that I am a sleeper for the British invasion, I must describe myself that way) we watch too much of the stuff. One recent show really made my blood boil though - Celebrity Apprentice.
The Apprentice here is a real let-down for any ex-pats hoping for quaint fun in the style of the show on the Beeb. What is great about the Beeb's version is that advertising rules mean it can't be used for product placement. Instead, wannabe Gordon Geckos and Geckas run around like headless chickens, and sometimes even look for headless chickens they can pass off as kosher.
Not here.
Here, the apprentice is one big scam for corporate america.
This is possibly OK when the unknown Geckistas are battling againsts each other, but when it is Celebrities competing for their charities it leaves a bit of a nasty taste in the mouth - like the great corporate gannet has just vomited its leavings for me, the chick, to digest.
However, worse than that was to come on this season; Rod Blagojevich - seemingly Al Capone's successor as ruler of Chicago, though in this case it looks like he is the Untouchable.
Blago is up for federal trial for attempting to 'blago' some cash on the back of Obama's vacant senate seat, but instead of languishing in ignominy he is being allowed to 'blago' some sympathy by appearing on reality TV.
The guy is a buffoon. He has no idea how to use a computer or a phone, seems incapable of working a full-day without taking a siesta, and appears to have no management skills whatsoever. He is also crass. While he got to play on the apprentice, he tried to build publicity by sending his wife on "I'm a celebrity get me out of here".
Neither she nor he are celebrities of course. They are infamous, not famous, which is something that the producers of both shows either forgot, or were helped to forget...
Yes, I got annoyed by having to watch this crass buffoon manipulate a charity format to stage a TV defence case - but what annoyed me more was the people giving him the chance to do this.
These people were given a face in Celebrity Apprentice - Donald Trump.
Trump was basically acting as either blago's defence attorney or PR rep for most of the show. Not only did he not highlight his crass buffoonery, which he would have done with any other contestant, he took any opportunity he could to bring thoughts back to his trial - and how unfair it was.
Some of his attempts to do this were laughable - some were downright offensive. For example, when blagos incompetence seemed to have led to a failed task he said to Michael Johnson "Michael you're African American, how can Rod point the finger at you? What if some of his jurors are African American? And Goldberg (a wrestler) you're jewish aren't you? Well, he can't point the finger at you, in case some jurors are Jewish." And this was broadcast on National TV.
That statement was pernicious in so many ways. First, if you don't want his jury to be swayed by what happens on TV - don't let him on your show! Second, by tying courtroom bias to minorities in that way, you are being openly racist. It is akin to suggesting that minorities will always side with people of their minority whenever they can, even in a court of law, so the only fair judges are white people.
Which seems to be exactly what Trump would have liked, just on a smaller scale - not white people but one white person - Trump himself.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Trump and blago are financially linked, but Trump definitely took an interest in his case and sympathized with him. Perhaps he could empathize with the guy trying to do anything he could to make a buck, even if it was a little (major felony) shady.
Whatever the reason, he used his power and influence to try to generate sympathy for a man up on federal corruption charges - and he did so knowingly, as his comments about audiences being swayed attest.
So now, not only is Trump trying to sell products through Celebrity Apprentice, he is trying to sell his brand of justice - the rich and powerful shouldn't be subject to it.
This is what America could become - we're seeing it all too clearly with the Wall Street Wranglings in Congress, and with the refusal of the Republicans to accept the election of Barack Obama - elected by an overwhelming majority through the voice of the people. When you see it, it is an ugly thing. And it was wearing a rug on my Sunday night TV...
DD out
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Dave's new American GUT
hi Blog fans,
Wow - that last one was a doozie!
I promised you a few in succession and I am afraid I failed with that because I had to respond to quite a few comments.
I also mentioned that my next blog would be about PR. That is also going to turn out to be false - as I have had another subject present itself.
It is right in front of me. It is my gut.
After months of fighting it off, American food and portion size has finally got the better of me, and just as Jamie Oliver is taking over TV in the US. How ironic.
I am now the heaviest I have ever been (perhaps why there are still no Hawaii pictures), and desparately need to get in shape for the half marathon in June. I HAVE to lose this GUT!
It is strange how our stomachs can make us think about necessity, and that is exactly what mine has done (that was a terrible link, I'm sorry...).
Necessity is a nice little extension of the arguments in the last blog - and also happens to appear (albeit unannounced) on one page in last week's economist - p83 in my US edition - which happens to reference both the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and Aristotle.
But first, a quick and dirty (and therefore incomplete and inaccurate) introduction to link to the last blog.
In the Climate Change Argument for the Existence of God, I spoke about those who say they are agnostics due to pure reliance on the scientific method. You might also call these people Empiricists. One of the fathers of British Empiricism was David Hume. I shan't go into specifics about Hume's thought, but he started me thinking about necessity (at the same time as my gut) because he allowed for it in his thought - and this allowance led to a place for God.
Anyone who studied Hume would be up in arms at that description, but it is true - in the quick and dirty sense. Hume wrote that, in order for man to live, certain Natural Beliefs have to exist outside of empiricism. For example, we have not observed the Sun rising tomorrow, but we have the Natural belief that it will otherwise life would be pretty difficult to live (we'd be forever buying torches).
Hume writes that one such Natural Belief is the belief in God. Seems pretty out of character if you know of the rest of Hume's work, but it is there. 'God' in this case is not much of a God, as within Hume's thought we can know nothing about him. But in order to live, Hume thinks we need this 'God'.
So what is 'God' in this sense? I would say that this 'God' is Necessity - though I am not suggesting that my new american gut is 'God'.
What I am saying is that even if you are a follower of scientific method, you eventually need a necessity - whether you call it 'God' or not.
As a scientist you study events - one thing being changed (moved) by another. Logically there has to be, at some point, an unmoved mover.
Sounds a bit like mumbo jumbo that doesn't it?
But that is Aristotle - who worked a long explanation back from current movement to an unmoved mover.
And so we find ourselves back at The Economist p83, and back to the LHC at Cern - where science is also looking for an unmoved mover(s).
At Cern, physicists are smashing together particles at incredibly high speeds to try to uncover things that theoretical physics implies the existence of - like the Higgs boson and Dark matter. Interestingly, Paddy Power is offering odds on when and if the machine will find these particles - and particularly relevantly for our current discussion, they are also offering 100 to 1 on the LHC finding God.
That is not as stupid as it sounds - especially if for God you replace 'God', necessity - or rather for 'God' you replace GUT. Not my gut, but Grand Unified Theory, the physics holy grail - a theory that explains why the universe exists, or rather, why it is necessary that the universe exists.
Now it is a good job Cern is in Switzerland, because there are as many holes in my explanation of this as there are in that country's cheese, but if you look into what I am suggesting I am pretty sure it will hold true (Even if you quote Hawking at me in terms of linear time, there is still causality in terms of existence).
So my new American GUT is that everyone's thinking (scientists, philosophers, religionists) is linked somewhere in its darkest reaches by the idea of necessity - whether or not they interact with it on a daily basis or not.
So, a question from me that is beyond my understanding: How does this correlate with my understanding of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle - that quantum physics deals ultimately only in probability?
DD out
Wow - that last one was a doozie!
I promised you a few in succession and I am afraid I failed with that because I had to respond to quite a few comments.
I also mentioned that my next blog would be about PR. That is also going to turn out to be false - as I have had another subject present itself.
It is right in front of me. It is my gut.
After months of fighting it off, American food and portion size has finally got the better of me, and just as Jamie Oliver is taking over TV in the US. How ironic.
I am now the heaviest I have ever been (perhaps why there are still no Hawaii pictures), and desparately need to get in shape for the half marathon in June. I HAVE to lose this GUT!
It is strange how our stomachs can make us think about necessity, and that is exactly what mine has done (that was a terrible link, I'm sorry...).
Necessity is a nice little extension of the arguments in the last blog - and also happens to appear (albeit unannounced) on one page in last week's economist - p83 in my US edition - which happens to reference both the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and Aristotle.
But first, a quick and dirty (and therefore incomplete and inaccurate) introduction to link to the last blog.
In the Climate Change Argument for the Existence of God, I spoke about those who say they are agnostics due to pure reliance on the scientific method. You might also call these people Empiricists. One of the fathers of British Empiricism was David Hume. I shan't go into specifics about Hume's thought, but he started me thinking about necessity (at the same time as my gut) because he allowed for it in his thought - and this allowance led to a place for God.
Anyone who studied Hume would be up in arms at that description, but it is true - in the quick and dirty sense. Hume wrote that, in order for man to live, certain Natural Beliefs have to exist outside of empiricism. For example, we have not observed the Sun rising tomorrow, but we have the Natural belief that it will otherwise life would be pretty difficult to live (we'd be forever buying torches).
Hume writes that one such Natural Belief is the belief in God. Seems pretty out of character if you know of the rest of Hume's work, but it is there. 'God' in this case is not much of a God, as within Hume's thought we can know nothing about him. But in order to live, Hume thinks we need this 'God'.
So what is 'God' in this sense? I would say that this 'God' is Necessity - though I am not suggesting that my new american gut is 'God'.
What I am saying is that even if you are a follower of scientific method, you eventually need a necessity - whether you call it 'God' or not.
As a scientist you study events - one thing being changed (moved) by another. Logically there has to be, at some point, an unmoved mover.
Sounds a bit like mumbo jumbo that doesn't it?
But that is Aristotle - who worked a long explanation back from current movement to an unmoved mover.
And so we find ourselves back at The Economist p83, and back to the LHC at Cern - where science is also looking for an unmoved mover(s).
At Cern, physicists are smashing together particles at incredibly high speeds to try to uncover things that theoretical physics implies the existence of - like the Higgs boson and Dark matter. Interestingly, Paddy Power is offering odds on when and if the machine will find these particles - and particularly relevantly for our current discussion, they are also offering 100 to 1 on the LHC finding God.
That is not as stupid as it sounds - especially if for God you replace 'God', necessity - or rather for 'God' you replace GUT. Not my gut, but Grand Unified Theory, the physics holy grail - a theory that explains why the universe exists, or rather, why it is necessary that the universe exists.
Now it is a good job Cern is in Switzerland, because there are as many holes in my explanation of this as there are in that country's cheese, but if you look into what I am suggesting I am pretty sure it will hold true (Even if you quote Hawking at me in terms of linear time, there is still causality in terms of existence).
So my new American GUT is that everyone's thinking (scientists, philosophers, religionists) is linked somewhere in its darkest reaches by the idea of necessity - whether or not they interact with it on a daily basis or not.
So, a question from me that is beyond my understanding: How does this correlate with my understanding of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle - that quantum physics deals ultimately only in probability?
DD out
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)