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
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Climate Change Argument for the Existence of God
Hi Blog fans,
I intend this to be the first in a number of blogs to come out in quick succession, so no Hawaii photos yet, stay tuned for those!
This one will be provocative - so turn away now if you have a nervous disposition.
It is written with my most vocal audience (IFO and Stevie G) in mind, though may be of interest to any number of you I have annoyed in the past by telling you you aren't an Atheist.
Being a theologian is a thoroughly annoying business; as religion is the one of those things that nobody actually believes it is possible to be an expert in. So you can study for years, but ultimately most people will inately believe that their opinion is equally valid as yours even if they have never thought about the subject before.
Which, in a sense, it is.
Belief is a personal thing, and everyone has a right to believe what they want. This stretches to other disciplines too. A brain surgeon will be an expert in their field, but if you believe you don't want them poking around inside your head, then your belief trumps their knowledge.
However, you don't get to set the framework of the conversation. If they tell you the CAT scan shows an enlarged medulla oblongata you don't get to tell them that it is your hippocampus.
Here is where the difference lies in discussions about religion - everyone thinks they can set the framework of the conversation where religion is concerned. And this is entirely unhelpful in deciding the thing of larger importance - what they believe.
Hence I always try to find out more when someone tells me they are an Atheist, because most often they are an Agnostic - seeing religion as something that falls outside what can be known.
Importantly, this does not make them fluffy-minded fence-sitters. Evidence for this comes from a recent article about the global atheist convention, which was written by an Atheist. She noted;
Even atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins, on a scale of 1 (believes in god) to 7 (atheist) describes himself as a 6.9. "
That seems odd doesn't it? From someone who can write about the God Delusion. But, you see, Dawkins can't call himself an Atheist, because his criticism of belief in God comes from scientific method - and you cannot scientifically disprove the existence of God (any more than you can prove it) so to state that God does not exist would be to hold a belief unsubstantiated by the scientific method, and therefore have no stronger foundation than the believers themselves. That's why there aren't that many true atheists - the global conference only had 2500 attendees, which is about as many as the North Dakota Florists associations annual jolly in Vegas.
So, anyone who claims that their world-view is based in scientific method can only be a form of Agnostic, and state that we don't know for certain. This can be strong agnosticism - combined with belief that religious behaviour is detrimental to human advancement, evil makes the existence of a good God unlikely etc., but it is still agnosticism.
When framed in these terms, I can actually get onboard with a form of agnosticism myself. I think it is clear that we can't prove the existence or non-existence of God through scientific method. But I am a strong agnostic in the other direction, combining my knowledge that we can't scientifically know, with belief that other elements combine to allow faith in the existence of God - faith, of course, implying probability of various levels.
However, in a world (seemingly) won over by the scientific method, most Agnostics simply dismiss religious belief - "we can't know so why should we care" could be the mantra. Even those who might seem like strong agnostics in the pub rarely go the lengths of doing anything to bring down religion - so they too fit in here, as what I will call the Inert Agnostic.
Those of you who have got this far will be thinking; What has all this got to do with Climate Change?
Well, it turns out, quite a lot.
You see, with Climate Change, the boot has been placed rather unceremoniously on the other foot.
With Climate Change, fans of the scientific method are suddenly experiencing what believers have experienced for centuries - an urgent need to wake-up the Inert Agnostic.
For it is quite possible to be Agnostic about Climate Change, with the capital C's. There is documented evidence of climate change with the lower case c's, but to put these different bits of evidence together and state that man is responsible and it will continue to get worse is to enter into the realm of probability.
In this realm, you ultimately rely on belief.
This is true of any scientific theory, but with Climate Change a religious comparison is strong, because proponents of Climate Change point to a devastating result if their theory is not adhered to.
Cimate Change will have teleological proof (as we in the theology game call it); the theory will be proved correct in the end, when the predicted disasters have occurred.
Obviously, proponents of Climate Change can't wait for that to happen so, with what some might call a religious zeal, they are trying to win converts to their cause.
And I am all for that. I believe in Climate Change and think we should be doing everything we can to stop it.
But then I have form. I already hold an unsubstantiated belief that inspires me to try and get others to change their beliefs.
People who share my belief have also done some very bad things (a lot lot worse than fabricating evidence to be fair) but it doesn't mean that I should be tarred with the same brush, and it also doesn't fundamentally weaken my argument.
My belief asks people to change their behaviour - and that makes believers unpopular in some circles.
So welcome to my world Climate Change believers!
And while you are here, why not look around and see what else might take your fancy in the realm of beliefs that might save mankind from future disaster...
DD out
I intend this to be the first in a number of blogs to come out in quick succession, so no Hawaii photos yet, stay tuned for those!
This one will be provocative - so turn away now if you have a nervous disposition.
It is written with my most vocal audience (IFO and Stevie G) in mind, though may be of interest to any number of you I have annoyed in the past by telling you you aren't an Atheist.
Being a theologian is a thoroughly annoying business; as religion is the one of those things that nobody actually believes it is possible to be an expert in. So you can study for years, but ultimately most people will inately believe that their opinion is equally valid as yours even if they have never thought about the subject before.
Which, in a sense, it is.
Belief is a personal thing, and everyone has a right to believe what they want. This stretches to other disciplines too. A brain surgeon will be an expert in their field, but if you believe you don't want them poking around inside your head, then your belief trumps their knowledge.
However, you don't get to set the framework of the conversation. If they tell you the CAT scan shows an enlarged medulla oblongata you don't get to tell them that it is your hippocampus.
Here is where the difference lies in discussions about religion - everyone thinks they can set the framework of the conversation where religion is concerned. And this is entirely unhelpful in deciding the thing of larger importance - what they believe.
Hence I always try to find out more when someone tells me they are an Atheist, because most often they are an Agnostic - seeing religion as something that falls outside what can be known.
Importantly, this does not make them fluffy-minded fence-sitters. Evidence for this comes from a recent article about the global atheist convention, which was written by an Atheist. She noted;
Even atheist poster boy Richard Dawkins, on a scale of 1 (believes in god) to 7 (atheist) describes himself as a 6.9. "
That seems odd doesn't it? From someone who can write about the God Delusion. But, you see, Dawkins can't call himself an Atheist, because his criticism of belief in God comes from scientific method - and you cannot scientifically disprove the existence of God (any more than you can prove it) so to state that God does not exist would be to hold a belief unsubstantiated by the scientific method, and therefore have no stronger foundation than the believers themselves. That's why there aren't that many true atheists - the global conference only had 2500 attendees, which is about as many as the North Dakota Florists associations annual jolly in Vegas.
So, anyone who claims that their world-view is based in scientific method can only be a form of Agnostic, and state that we don't know for certain. This can be strong agnosticism - combined with belief that religious behaviour is detrimental to human advancement, evil makes the existence of a good God unlikely etc., but it is still agnosticism.
When framed in these terms, I can actually get onboard with a form of agnosticism myself. I think it is clear that we can't prove the existence or non-existence of God through scientific method. But I am a strong agnostic in the other direction, combining my knowledge that we can't scientifically know, with belief that other elements combine to allow faith in the existence of God - faith, of course, implying probability of various levels.
However, in a world (seemingly) won over by the scientific method, most Agnostics simply dismiss religious belief - "we can't know so why should we care" could be the mantra. Even those who might seem like strong agnostics in the pub rarely go the lengths of doing anything to bring down religion - so they too fit in here, as what I will call the Inert Agnostic.
Those of you who have got this far will be thinking; What has all this got to do with Climate Change?
Well, it turns out, quite a lot.
You see, with Climate Change, the boot has been placed rather unceremoniously on the other foot.
With Climate Change, fans of the scientific method are suddenly experiencing what believers have experienced for centuries - an urgent need to wake-up the Inert Agnostic.
For it is quite possible to be Agnostic about Climate Change, with the capital C's. There is documented evidence of climate change with the lower case c's, but to put these different bits of evidence together and state that man is responsible and it will continue to get worse is to enter into the realm of probability.
In this realm, you ultimately rely on belief.
This is true of any scientific theory, but with Climate Change a religious comparison is strong, because proponents of Climate Change point to a devastating result if their theory is not adhered to.
Cimate Change will have teleological proof (as we in the theology game call it); the theory will be proved correct in the end, when the predicted disasters have occurred.
Obviously, proponents of Climate Change can't wait for that to happen so, with what some might call a religious zeal, they are trying to win converts to their cause.
And I am all for that. I believe in Climate Change and think we should be doing everything we can to stop it.
But then I have form. I already hold an unsubstantiated belief that inspires me to try and get others to change their beliefs.
People who share my belief have also done some very bad things (a lot lot worse than fabricating evidence to be fair) but it doesn't mean that I should be tarred with the same brush, and it also doesn't fundamentally weaken my argument.
My belief asks people to change their behaviour - and that makes believers unpopular in some circles.
So welcome to my world Climate Change believers!
And while you are here, why not look around and see what else might take your fancy in the realm of beliefs that might save mankind from future disaster...
DD out
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Uphill struggle...
Hi Blog fans!
I got an email this week telling me that I suck as I don't update this often enough. This is very true. Sorry.
This will also be a short one - with more to follow.
Brief news Summary.
1. Got a job as a marketing consultant
2. Started two weeks ago
3. Therefore had a week where I was at work from 8-5pm, then straight into car to get to theatre for call, then back to spend time with Clarissa (who was visiting from London). Crazy.
4. This was every night except Tuesday, when I went for a 2 hour final round interview to be the artistic director of a theatre here instead.
5. After thoroughly exhausting myself, Kira insisted that we go to Hawaii - so we did.
6. Spent 7 days in turtle bay resort in Northern Oahu (main island in Hawaii).
7. Back now working very hard in marketing job here - www.projectlineinc.com
So it is an uphill struggle at the moment - quite literally! The job is based in downtown Seattle, at about Sea Level, and I conservatively estimate that our apartment is about 500 feet above Sea Level. Nice on the way there, not so nice on the way back!
Right, I'm spent and have to deal with Mother's Day.
More soon - including Hawaii pics!
DD
P.S. People in Hawaii were selling Tsunami Survivor T-Shirts. That has to be the height of bad taste doesn't it?
I got an email this week telling me that I suck as I don't update this often enough. This is very true. Sorry.
This will also be a short one - with more to follow.
Brief news Summary.
1. Got a job as a marketing consultant
2. Started two weeks ago
3. Therefore had a week where I was at work from 8-5pm, then straight into car to get to theatre for call, then back to spend time with Clarissa (who was visiting from London). Crazy.
4. This was every night except Tuesday, when I went for a 2 hour final round interview to be the artistic director of a theatre here instead.
5. After thoroughly exhausting myself, Kira insisted that we go to Hawaii - so we did.
6. Spent 7 days in turtle bay resort in Northern Oahu (main island in Hawaii).
7. Back now working very hard in marketing job here - www.projectlineinc.com
So it is an uphill struggle at the moment - quite literally! The job is based in downtown Seattle, at about Sea Level, and I conservatively estimate that our apartment is about 500 feet above Sea Level. Nice on the way there, not so nice on the way back!
Right, I'm spent and have to deal with Mother's Day.
More soon - including Hawaii pics!
DD
P.S. People in Hawaii were selling Tsunami Survivor T-Shirts. That has to be the height of bad taste doesn't it?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
SOS
No! Not a cry for help (not yet anyway), but an acronym for the subject of my latest missive. To be revealed below...
Evenin' All!
I find myself in two minds over the invasion at the moment - largely because the Yanks seem to like me!
If you haven't seen them yet, I've been getting great reviews for my portrayl of CS Lewis. Words like "Superb" have been bandied around! How can I maintain ire against such a friendly people?
Well... they seem loathe to give me a job that will actually involve a notable sum of money - and that is starting to get irksome.
Hence the feeling that my life is currently a victory of Style Over Substance. No, Caps-lock isn't stuck, that was to let you know that that is what SOS stands for - in this instance at least... any air traffic controllers reading this... probably shouldn't be.
Yes, Style Over Substance. That's me all over. The toast of the town, on both the internet and the TV - check out Taproot Theatre's site for all the links - but slumming it on Craigslist during the day deciding whether to be a dog fluffer or a wet chugger.
It got me thinking about other examples - helpfully linked to things people (i.e. Ifo) have asked me to write about on my blog.
First, Obama's fall from grace. Total victory of style over substance. Not in the sense that he is, but that those who wish to portray him as such are winning the day. For example, today there was an article in the Guardian about Obama selling out by visiting a prayer group, whose leader apparently admires Hitler. Sounds terrible doesn't it. Until you read that previous speakers have included Bono.
Basically, what the journos have done is search hard enough to find some oddball members of the organisation and then link them incredibly spuriously to Obama. You would expect this sort of thing from the right-wing - but from the Grauniad? It is just more evidence of how every section of the media has bought into the metanarrative (you know how much I love those!) that Obama's presidential win was a victory of style over substance and he is now failing to deliver.
In doing so, they are actually succumbing to style-over-substance themselves - but only for a while. The insidiousness of this particular beast is that it effects how people vote, so now Obama has less of a mandate (after the Dems lost the Massachusetts senate seat), and will find it harder to get substantive work done.
So, why has Obama fallen from grace so spectacularly? Because the media needed him to.
What else were they going to report? Good news? Not likely. The only newspaper to concentrate on good news closed down after 16 months (though that was itself an SOS victory, as it couldn't print a story about its own demise!).
Ifo is also interested in food stamps - the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The title here sounds totally SOS. You can just hear the cogs turning in the spin-sters minds - "let's call it SNAP, it sounds so cool". They forgot that no-one cares about being cool when their kids are starving. So everyone calls them Food Stamps - for that is what they were. Stamps that could be redeemed for different values toward food. They now use electronic benefit transfer cards but the idea is the same.
You have to be very near the poverty line to have access to food stamps. Currently, around 40m Americans are on the program (i.e about a sixth of the country as a whole), with an average monthly benefit of $133. Most shockingly, 1 in 4 of America's children is linked to the food stamp program.
I'm not a public policy specialist by any stretch of the imagination, but it actually seems like a program of substance to me - with evidence to suggest that it helps families stay out of welfare, in work, and above the poverty-line.
However, the system it supports is SOS - with the desire for America to be seen as the best country in the world far outweighing the desire for it to actually be the best country in the world.
The Food Stamp program was originally brought in during the great depression, to help farmers sell their crops to starving city-dwellers. It was brought back when JFK witnessed appalling poverty in the Appalachian region during his presidential campaign.
It was never intended to assuage the guilt of unscrupulous employers who pay their workers a pittance so that they can afford the cars and houses for which this country is famed.
Grotesque income disparity = SOS. In both senses.
Well, that's enough of me! Looking forward to lots of comments!
DD out
P.S. Kira is actually living both style and substance at the moment. Her hypnotherapy is going amazingly, she has just landed the biggest agent in town (totally by chance!), and has a ton of other v/o and theatre auditions. She puts me to shame...
Evenin' All!
I find myself in two minds over the invasion at the moment - largely because the Yanks seem to like me!
If you haven't seen them yet, I've been getting great reviews for my portrayl of CS Lewis. Words like "Superb" have been bandied around! How can I maintain ire against such a friendly people?
Well... they seem loathe to give me a job that will actually involve a notable sum of money - and that is starting to get irksome.
Hence the feeling that my life is currently a victory of Style Over Substance. No, Caps-lock isn't stuck, that was to let you know that that is what SOS stands for - in this instance at least... any air traffic controllers reading this... probably shouldn't be.
Yes, Style Over Substance. That's me all over. The toast of the town, on both the internet and the TV - check out Taproot Theatre's site for all the links - but slumming it on Craigslist during the day deciding whether to be a dog fluffer or a wet chugger.
It got me thinking about other examples - helpfully linked to things people (i.e. Ifo) have asked me to write about on my blog.
First, Obama's fall from grace. Total victory of style over substance. Not in the sense that he is, but that those who wish to portray him as such are winning the day. For example, today there was an article in the Guardian about Obama selling out by visiting a prayer group, whose leader apparently admires Hitler. Sounds terrible doesn't it. Until you read that previous speakers have included Bono.
Basically, what the journos have done is search hard enough to find some oddball members of the organisation and then link them incredibly spuriously to Obama. You would expect this sort of thing from the right-wing - but from the Grauniad? It is just more evidence of how every section of the media has bought into the metanarrative (you know how much I love those!) that Obama's presidential win was a victory of style over substance and he is now failing to deliver.
In doing so, they are actually succumbing to style-over-substance themselves - but only for a while. The insidiousness of this particular beast is that it effects how people vote, so now Obama has less of a mandate (after the Dems lost the Massachusetts senate seat), and will find it harder to get substantive work done.
So, why has Obama fallen from grace so spectacularly? Because the media needed him to.
What else were they going to report? Good news? Not likely. The only newspaper to concentrate on good news closed down after 16 months (though that was itself an SOS victory, as it couldn't print a story about its own demise!).
Ifo is also interested in food stamps - the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The title here sounds totally SOS. You can just hear the cogs turning in the spin-sters minds - "let's call it SNAP, it sounds so cool". They forgot that no-one cares about being cool when their kids are starving. So everyone calls them Food Stamps - for that is what they were. Stamps that could be redeemed for different values toward food. They now use electronic benefit transfer cards but the idea is the same.
You have to be very near the poverty line to have access to food stamps. Currently, around 40m Americans are on the program (i.e about a sixth of the country as a whole), with an average monthly benefit of $133. Most shockingly, 1 in 4 of America's children is linked to the food stamp program.
I'm not a public policy specialist by any stretch of the imagination, but it actually seems like a program of substance to me - with evidence to suggest that it helps families stay out of welfare, in work, and above the poverty-line.
However, the system it supports is SOS - with the desire for America to be seen as the best country in the world far outweighing the desire for it to actually be the best country in the world.
The Food Stamp program was originally brought in during the great depression, to help farmers sell their crops to starving city-dwellers. It was brought back when JFK witnessed appalling poverty in the Appalachian region during his presidential campaign.
It was never intended to assuage the guilt of unscrupulous employers who pay their workers a pittance so that they can afford the cars and houses for which this country is famed.
Grotesque income disparity = SOS. In both senses.
Well, that's enough of me! Looking forward to lots of comments!
DD out
P.S. Kira is actually living both style and substance at the moment. Her hypnotherapy is going amazingly, she has just landed the biggest agent in town (totally by chance!), and has a ton of other v/o and theatre auditions. She puts me to shame...
Friday, January 15, 2010
(Anglo) Saxon the City
Bonjour Mes Amis,
After a sizeable hiatus I am returning to the blogosphere - so rumours of my Major Tom like departure are greatly exaggerated.
However, we weren't far off there, as I was in bed for a week after landing back in Seattle (I'm skipping over London as this is, after all, called Dor'n in the USA!). I don't think it was the Schvine Flu, as I didn't have a temperature, but I was virtually unconscious for 4 days straight - fun!
I'm back up and running now though - almost literally. Have been working during the day (thanks Fresh Minds!) and rehearsing every evening from 7 -10.30pm. Got the day off today though, so am relaxing - after taking Kira to the airport at 5am...
Since returning to Seattle, rising from my sick bed, and being forced to watch Sex and the City many times over, I have been struck by the fact that I am pretty much the anti-Carrie. For a start, we live on opposite coasts (yes I am aware she's not real...), then there is the fact that she likes buying shoes, whereas I own 4 pairs - two with holes in. She drinks cosmo's; I drink beer. She spent most of her twenties and thirties single; I married young. She is incredibly fashionable; I am not. She is a talented writer...
Anyway, after thinking through all this, I couldn't help but wonder; while I wouldn't fit in in New York, with all those fabulous people catwalking through life, will Seattle let me be a Saxon in the City?
The evidence so far is pretty good - plenty of pretty down-to-earth bars and restaurants, the Northwest's penchant for ale, football (association and rugby) available on the TV - but we need to go deeper than that. What defines the Anglo-saxon more than anything else? If aliens were to look at Britain from outer space, how would they define our psyche (or blargenhaaaat in their language)?
Well, if the defining French characteristic is Ennui - a deep-set boredom which results in them treating everyone and everything with disdain (Eurodisney - poof!), then the defining British characteristic is surely Enn-wee: a torpid notion that we will piss everything up the wall, which generally results in us actually doing so (for many this is literal as well as metaphorical, as they get drunk after said disaster and urinate in public).
Witness British sport. Despite many a half-hearted rallying cry, we still approach most, if not all, national sporting events with the enthusiasm of a Captain going down with his ship - we know it won't be pleasant, but it is our duty to stay the course to the bitter end.
This is not the case in most of the US - as fanatical devotion to the national cause (and local causes) is rampant. Not so in Seattle! Though there are some die-hards, I have found the same attitude toward the local teams - the certainty that they will be crap but the dutiful subjection to their crapness. So the Saxon in me feels at home.
Another joint cause is the weather. It is terrible here at the moment. So Seattlites moan about it. Who else do we know who does that??
Finally, self-deprecation - the necessary companion of Enn-wee: stave off disappointing others by not making them expect much in the first place. Here we reach a bit of a stumbling block - there is still the American desire to push one's own agenda. However, it seems to be much less prevalent than in other parts of the US - so I'll give it a half mark.
2.5 out of 3. Not bad. But there is a difference. Somehow, the denizens of Seattle seem able to hold onto this attitude without either a) self-destructively binging on alcohol; or b) turning grumpy. So there is something not quite Saxon about this city...
Perhaps it is the Viking sensibility (Seattle has strong Scandinavian connections) which overrides - the pioneer spirit allowing fatalism to morph into pragmatism. This has it's downside too (Seattle is starting to feel a little like the Wild West with a number of tragic police officer murders continuing), but the upside is quite appealing.
So, using the Carrie Bradshaw past tense, although a Saxon I was starting to see things from a different angle.
DD out
After a sizeable hiatus I am returning to the blogosphere - so rumours of my Major Tom like departure are greatly exaggerated.
However, we weren't far off there, as I was in bed for a week after landing back in Seattle (I'm skipping over London as this is, after all, called Dor'n in the USA!). I don't think it was the Schvine Flu, as I didn't have a temperature, but I was virtually unconscious for 4 days straight - fun!
I'm back up and running now though - almost literally. Have been working during the day (thanks Fresh Minds!) and rehearsing every evening from 7 -10.30pm. Got the day off today though, so am relaxing - after taking Kira to the airport at 5am...
Since returning to Seattle, rising from my sick bed, and being forced to watch Sex and the City many times over, I have been struck by the fact that I am pretty much the anti-Carrie. For a start, we live on opposite coasts (yes I am aware she's not real...), then there is the fact that she likes buying shoes, whereas I own 4 pairs - two with holes in. She drinks cosmo's; I drink beer. She spent most of her twenties and thirties single; I married young. She is incredibly fashionable; I am not. She is a talented writer...
Anyway, after thinking through all this, I couldn't help but wonder; while I wouldn't fit in in New York, with all those fabulous people catwalking through life, will Seattle let me be a Saxon in the City?
The evidence so far is pretty good - plenty of pretty down-to-earth bars and restaurants, the Northwest's penchant for ale, football (association and rugby) available on the TV - but we need to go deeper than that. What defines the Anglo-saxon more than anything else? If aliens were to look at Britain from outer space, how would they define our psyche (or blargenhaaaat in their language)?
Well, if the defining French characteristic is Ennui - a deep-set boredom which results in them treating everyone and everything with disdain (Eurodisney - poof!), then the defining British characteristic is surely Enn-wee: a torpid notion that we will piss everything up the wall, which generally results in us actually doing so (for many this is literal as well as metaphorical, as they get drunk after said disaster and urinate in public).
Witness British sport. Despite many a half-hearted rallying cry, we still approach most, if not all, national sporting events with the enthusiasm of a Captain going down with his ship - we know it won't be pleasant, but it is our duty to stay the course to the bitter end.
This is not the case in most of the US - as fanatical devotion to the national cause (and local causes) is rampant. Not so in Seattle! Though there are some die-hards, I have found the same attitude toward the local teams - the certainty that they will be crap but the dutiful subjection to their crapness. So the Saxon in me feels at home.
Another joint cause is the weather. It is terrible here at the moment. So Seattlites moan about it. Who else do we know who does that??
Finally, self-deprecation - the necessary companion of Enn-wee: stave off disappointing others by not making them expect much in the first place. Here we reach a bit of a stumbling block - there is still the American desire to push one's own agenda. However, it seems to be much less prevalent than in other parts of the US - so I'll give it a half mark.
2.5 out of 3. Not bad. But there is a difference. Somehow, the denizens of Seattle seem able to hold onto this attitude without either a) self-destructively binging on alcohol; or b) turning grumpy. So there is something not quite Saxon about this city...
Perhaps it is the Viking sensibility (Seattle has strong Scandinavian connections) which overrides - the pioneer spirit allowing fatalism to morph into pragmatism. This has it's downside too (Seattle is starting to feel a little like the Wild West with a number of tragic police officer murders continuing), but the upside is quite appealing.
So, using the Carrie Bradshaw past tense, although a Saxon I was starting to see things from a different angle.
DD out
Friday, November 20, 2009
Palin into insignificance
Hello All!
For those of you who still haven't heard here's what has happened recently.
1. The theatre in which I was going to be performing over Christmas suffered fire damage in an arson attack by a serial arsonist (who it now seems has been caught).
2. They are working round the clock to repair the damage, but won't be ready for Christmas, so the show had to be cancelled.
3. Therefore, Kira and I are now coming back to the UK for Christmas - and will hopefully see many of you soon!
4. I got my driving licence, so have been experiencing the joys of the internal combustion engine.
In all this, blogging has been far from my mind - and I'm about to go out and learn how to Lindy Hop, then get up at 5am to watch England get trounced by the All Blacks, then watch Arsenal annihilate Sunderland, then watch more devastation in UFC 106, before catching a SeaHawks game and going to Vegas (Oh yeah!) - so this will be quick.
My main thought is about Sarah Palin. Oddly, I find myself feeling sorry for her. Yes, she is uber right wing. Yes, she is playing on the petty, selfish fears of swathes of American's who have adopted her as the photogenic archetype of their own victimhood. Yes, hunting wolves with AK47s and clubbing baby seals to death is loathsome, BUT ultimately, what has she done except have the temerity to accept an invitation from an aged war hero and then follow that invitation through?
At times it seems like she is being vilified for daring to exist, a dinosaur (therefore put there by God?) to liberals, a hero to the far right, she didn't so much seek the limelight as have it thrust upon her - and when she is there who can blame her (certainly not an actor!) for wishing to stay in it as long as possible.
Yet again, we have a cautionary tale from our own recent history that has relevance for the American media's treatment of Mrs Palin.
Jade Goody
At first laughed at for her lack of intelligence, then demonised for her intolerance, Jade faced the same plight as Palin - hated by the media that created her for overstaying her welcome. Her journey from victim to villain and back could and should be studied by Palin's team; for Palin has much more in common with Jade than she does with any politician. She is the epitome of a modern celebrity - loved and loathed in equal measure as she symbiotically loves and loathes the media that sustains her.
Who will be the eventual victor? There can be only one. As with Jade before her, if the media strike down Palin, she will become more powerful than we can ever imagine - she will be a media martyr; beneficiary of collective guilt at complicity in her destruction.
With a good team in place she could easily take advantage of this at just the right time. Why work hard at projecting strength in a presidential race when you can win by projecting weakness - casting yourself as a 'victim', as your country is a 'victim'.
We've had Bush as Commander in Thief, get ready for the potential Commander in Grief - Sarah Palin: Field Marshall of the Hard Done By.
And the liberal media will have nobody to blame for it but themselves, as they create sympathy in the minds of American's as a heartless prosecutor does by going after a 'pretty but not too bright' defendent. Who cares if she's guilty - they are being mean to her!
If we want Sarah to start Palin into insignificance we need to start ignoring her - not continuing to write her own mythology. That way 2012 lies - and the Mayan's may well turn out to be right.
DD Out
For those of you who still haven't heard here's what has happened recently.
1. The theatre in which I was going to be performing over Christmas suffered fire damage in an arson attack by a serial arsonist (who it now seems has been caught).
2. They are working round the clock to repair the damage, but won't be ready for Christmas, so the show had to be cancelled.
3. Therefore, Kira and I are now coming back to the UK for Christmas - and will hopefully see many of you soon!
4. I got my driving licence, so have been experiencing the joys of the internal combustion engine.
In all this, blogging has been far from my mind - and I'm about to go out and learn how to Lindy Hop, then get up at 5am to watch England get trounced by the All Blacks, then watch Arsenal annihilate Sunderland, then watch more devastation in UFC 106, before catching a SeaHawks game and going to Vegas (Oh yeah!) - so this will be quick.
My main thought is about Sarah Palin. Oddly, I find myself feeling sorry for her. Yes, she is uber right wing. Yes, she is playing on the petty, selfish fears of swathes of American's who have adopted her as the photogenic archetype of their own victimhood. Yes, hunting wolves with AK47s and clubbing baby seals to death is loathsome, BUT ultimately, what has she done except have the temerity to accept an invitation from an aged war hero and then follow that invitation through?
At times it seems like she is being vilified for daring to exist, a dinosaur (therefore put there by God?) to liberals, a hero to the far right, she didn't so much seek the limelight as have it thrust upon her - and when she is there who can blame her (certainly not an actor!) for wishing to stay in it as long as possible.
Yet again, we have a cautionary tale from our own recent history that has relevance for the American media's treatment of Mrs Palin.
Jade Goody
At first laughed at for her lack of intelligence, then demonised for her intolerance, Jade faced the same plight as Palin - hated by the media that created her for overstaying her welcome. Her journey from victim to villain and back could and should be studied by Palin's team; for Palin has much more in common with Jade than she does with any politician. She is the epitome of a modern celebrity - loved and loathed in equal measure as she symbiotically loves and loathes the media that sustains her.
Who will be the eventual victor? There can be only one. As with Jade before her, if the media strike down Palin, she will become more powerful than we can ever imagine - she will be a media martyr; beneficiary of collective guilt at complicity in her destruction.
With a good team in place she could easily take advantage of this at just the right time. Why work hard at projecting strength in a presidential race when you can win by projecting weakness - casting yourself as a 'victim', as your country is a 'victim'.
We've had Bush as Commander in Thief, get ready for the potential Commander in Grief - Sarah Palin: Field Marshall of the Hard Done By.
And the liberal media will have nobody to blame for it but themselves, as they create sympathy in the minds of American's as a heartless prosecutor does by going after a 'pretty but not too bright' defendent. Who cares if she's guilty - they are being mean to her!
If we want Sarah to start Palin into insignificance we need to start ignoring her - not continuing to write her own mythology. That way 2012 lies - and the Mayan's may well turn out to be right.
DD Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)