Youtube Link, since blogger is stupid and wont let me embed the video.
A preliminary glimpse into the mind's of the leading characters is as follows:
Rabbit's Point of View: Spot and Whitey are best friends. Every morning, they engage in a good-spirited game of tag. Because they are young and reckless, this game occasionally becomes physical and ends in a racous dogpile. One morning, Spot and Whitey are playing around when their game is interrupted by a violent pair of chickens who dont know that their game is fun sport, not fighting.
Chicken's Point of View: The Baron von Cluckenstein was surveying his territory early in the morning with his lackey Egg-or, when all of a sudden, he was disturbed by a pair of rambunctious bunnies. These bunnies were fighting viciously, and it was his duty to seperate them before they could harm him and his property.
Policing is a tricky business. On one hand, those who try and make peace often are doing so because they truely think its right. On the other hand, it seems like they are rarely appreciated. By definition, those who make peace are dealing with two (or more) parties who are in conflict, and thus probably acting confrontational. This means that at best, these two parties are going to be fighting, arguing, etc, and the peacemaker is often caught in the middle.
Interpretation can make the job trickier, as well. This is especially true when a cultural barrier gets in the way. What may appear to be a violent situation could in fact be a friendly one, and visa versa. Imagine a person with no knowledge of US culture watching a football game. To everyone else, it is a sport, but to the outsider, it may seem like a fight between two armies, one that they might want to stop. Could you imagine them running out onto the field to stop the fight?
Peacemaking and Policing are tricky indeed.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Horrible gruesome violence that fails to shock
Noah's blog made me think about something my dad said last night as we watched tv. It went vaguely like this:
"Whats up with all these shows?" he said. "Theres all this blood. Last night I was flipping channels and I saw some show where the guy was dying in the operating room and fluid came out of some iv etc. etc etc. It's not even hbo or anything, its normal primetime tv."
I flipped the channels. CSI: blood and fluids all over the floor. House: Blood and fluids being talked about, and occasionally all over the floor. Heroes, which I watched the night before: telekinetic scalping, after which point blood and fluids got all over the floor.
I realized that in fact, TV does have a lot of blood/fluids on it. Yet, it seems completly natural. The average person watching primetime tv probably does not even realize the amount of blood that gets shown it. It is only when someone fresh appears on the scene that they suffer the initial reaction "hey, theres a lot of violence."
I think initially, someone tried to be just a little more edgy, a little more dramatic, and so included a small amount of blood in their tv drama. This was HORRIBLE SHOCKING, and served its purpose. Yet, over time, people became desensitized to this small amount of blood, and so the only way to elict the same reaction was to up the ante with more blood/violence. Over time, we arrived at our present level. Its probably likely it'll still raise.
It's a lot like swearing. Swear words have power because they shock. at an older time, if someone swore, something SERIOUS had happened. Now, swearing seems so common as to be common everyday vocabulary that is nowhere near the levels of offensiveness that it once was. Over time, we build tolerance, and the only way to elicit the same reaction is to gradually increase.
Is it a bad thing? On one hand, we could trivialize violence or language, but on the other hand, we aren't shocked by as much. Maybe a higher tolerance prepares us for the "real world", where there are no network censors to tone down the violence or language.
"Whats up with all these shows?" he said. "Theres all this blood. Last night I was flipping channels and I saw some show where the guy was dying in the operating room and fluid came out of some iv etc. etc etc. It's not even hbo or anything, its normal primetime tv."
I flipped the channels. CSI: blood and fluids all over the floor. House: Blood and fluids being talked about, and occasionally all over the floor. Heroes, which I watched the night before: telekinetic scalping, after which point blood and fluids got all over the floor.
I realized that in fact, TV does have a lot of blood/fluids on it. Yet, it seems completly natural. The average person watching primetime tv probably does not even realize the amount of blood that gets shown it. It is only when someone fresh appears on the scene that they suffer the initial reaction "hey, theres a lot of violence."
I think initially, someone tried to be just a little more edgy, a little more dramatic, and so included a small amount of blood in their tv drama. This was HORRIBLE SHOCKING, and served its purpose. Yet, over time, people became desensitized to this small amount of blood, and so the only way to elict the same reaction was to up the ante with more blood/violence. Over time, we arrived at our present level. Its probably likely it'll still raise.
It's a lot like swearing. Swear words have power because they shock. at an older time, if someone swore, something SERIOUS had happened. Now, swearing seems so common as to be common everyday vocabulary that is nowhere near the levels of offensiveness that it once was. Over time, we build tolerance, and the only way to elicit the same reaction is to gradually increase.
Is it a bad thing? On one hand, we could trivialize violence or language, but on the other hand, we aren't shocked by as much. Maybe a higher tolerance prepares us for the "real world", where there are no network censors to tone down the violence or language.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Rubbing your body with lard and ashes
I remember one time I was at one of those historical re-enactment places. I think it was colonial Williamsburg. Everything was all colonial american-y, which means that there was traditional clothing, persons, food, and soap. Especially the soap. While a Colonial lady was doing a demonstration on colonial american crafts, she mentioned that she had save the fireplace ashes so she could make soap. I asked about it (oh, i shouldnt have).
Soap is apparently made from fat and ashes. I find it counterintuitive that rubbing lard and charcoal over your hands makes them cleaner, but who am I to question colonial logic.
I wonder who it was that discovered that this mixture made soap. I mean, some of those "old" inventions make sense. Milk makes sense. You see young cows drinking at the udders. You realize that it must be nutritous, as young animals consume it and get bigger. You make the connection. In this way, the discovery of milk seems totally logical.
Soap is not. Who was it that discovered that this odd mixture made scum and dirt come off? I suppose some pre-colonial woman could have been cleaning her fireplace out with a pot of fatty pork cooling above when some of the fat could have drabbled out, mixing with the ashes. I then suppose her daughter could have come in the door, dirty from playing out in the fields. In a loving gesture, the colonial woman could have tried to brush the dirt from her daughters face, forgetting the fat/ash mixture on her hands. However, when she brushed her daughter, she may have realized that the dirt came off.
Anyways, thats my take on it. There is no other possible way people could have figured out that mixing beef fat and ash could make soap. Its almost as illogical as extracting an enzyme from bull liver, putting it in a thai energy drink, and marketing it as red bull.
Soap is apparently made from fat and ashes. I find it counterintuitive that rubbing lard and charcoal over your hands makes them cleaner, but who am I to question colonial logic.
I wonder who it was that discovered that this mixture made soap. I mean, some of those "old" inventions make sense. Milk makes sense. You see young cows drinking at the udders. You realize that it must be nutritous, as young animals consume it and get bigger. You make the connection. In this way, the discovery of milk seems totally logical.
Soap is not. Who was it that discovered that this odd mixture made scum and dirt come off? I suppose some pre-colonial woman could have been cleaning her fireplace out with a pot of fatty pork cooling above when some of the fat could have drabbled out, mixing with the ashes. I then suppose her daughter could have come in the door, dirty from playing out in the fields. In a loving gesture, the colonial woman could have tried to brush the dirt from her daughters face, forgetting the fat/ash mixture on her hands. However, when she brushed her daughter, she may have realized that the dirt came off.
Anyways, thats my take on it. There is no other possible way people could have figured out that mixing beef fat and ash could make soap. Its almost as illogical as extracting an enzyme from bull liver, putting it in a thai energy drink, and marketing it as red bull.
The unnecesary warning labels.
So, Last night over dinner, I found out that there was some parental strife with the issues of students keeping online blogs. Apparently some parent(s) were concerned about the idea of their children being prey to online stalking. Anyways, it is possible that we may see permission slips getting sent out to parents, asking them for their permission to have students post their ideas online. I dislike this.
Not so much because the blog is an evil thing, or because of the hassle of permission, but because its just one of those instances where because of the actions of a single person, an entire group must change theyre stuff, because of the even-impending fear of backlash (most of the time in the form of legal suits.) Ironically, the average student knows about five times more about internet safety than the average parent. Yet, just to be safe, the school must have parents sign off.
The phenomena is a lot like McDonalds coffee. Anyone in their right mind knows that coffee is hot (except for iced coffee, which is different altogether.) Yet, McDonalds must now put warning labels on their coffee that state "Hey, its hot, you retard," just to avoid lawsuits. Similar examples of warning labels and release forms for totally common everyday things litter stores and servicies everywhere. Yes, the coffee is hot. Yes, the food is fattening(but thats why you like it). Yes, smoking this is bad for you.
We need less warning labels and more common sense, i guess.
Not so much because the blog is an evil thing, or because of the hassle of permission, but because its just one of those instances where because of the actions of a single person, an entire group must change theyre stuff, because of the even-impending fear of backlash (most of the time in the form of legal suits.) Ironically, the average student knows about five times more about internet safety than the average parent. Yet, just to be safe, the school must have parents sign off.
The phenomena is a lot like McDonalds coffee. Anyone in their right mind knows that coffee is hot (except for iced coffee, which is different altogether.) Yet, McDonalds must now put warning labels on their coffee that state "Hey, its hot, you retard," just to avoid lawsuits. Similar examples of warning labels and release forms for totally common everyday things litter stores and servicies everywhere. Yes, the coffee is hot. Yes, the food is fattening(but thats why you like it). Yes, smoking this is bad for you.
We need less warning labels and more common sense, i guess.
On Subtext
So, I saw Madame Butterfly the other day. Pretty good, and the design was incredible (mostly), but thats another story. In looking through the programs, I found that the japanese characters had actually believable Japanese names (Suzuki, Goro, etc). Contrast this with a different Puccini opera (Turandot), where the "Chinese" characters have pseudo-white names like..well, Turandot.
The ubiquitous Madame Butterfly's name is "Cho-Cho-san". At first, I dismissed this as being a european composer's name for a character living in a far off land he had never seen, but then I realized that "Chou" is the Japanese word for "butterfly". I'm not sure whether this was coincidence or planning, but it took me by surprise.
If it was planned, then I applaud Puccini for writing an opera where his characters, or at least the main ones, have meaning to their names. It shows a sort of premeditated idea about the play, and a skill to layer meanings together. But if its just a fluke, then am I praising Puccini for something that was totally not intended? It's hard to tell whether the artist intended some of his artistic accomplishments.
It shows up in a lot of art, actually. Is the subtext intended, or is it something that we as viewers fabricate, because we beleive that the artist is good. Because this is undoubtably a good author, he must have intended to make the flowers in chapter one blue. Because blue is the color of sorrow, and the flowers are outside sally's house, and sally has sorrow enter her life when her mother dies in chapter 5, which is the number of blue flowers that grow outside her house. Sometimes I am unable to accept the minutia that some readers/viewers/listeners find in art, and I wonder.
Maybe the author just likes blue flowers.
The ubiquitous Madame Butterfly's name is "Cho-Cho-san". At first, I dismissed this as being a european composer's name for a character living in a far off land he had never seen, but then I realized that "Chou" is the Japanese word for "butterfly". I'm not sure whether this was coincidence or planning, but it took me by surprise.
If it was planned, then I applaud Puccini for writing an opera where his characters, or at least the main ones, have meaning to their names. It shows a sort of premeditated idea about the play, and a skill to layer meanings together. But if its just a fluke, then am I praising Puccini for something that was totally not intended? It's hard to tell whether the artist intended some of his artistic accomplishments.
It shows up in a lot of art, actually. Is the subtext intended, or is it something that we as viewers fabricate, because we beleive that the artist is good. Because this is undoubtably a good author, he must have intended to make the flowers in chapter one blue. Because blue is the color of sorrow, and the flowers are outside sally's house, and sally has sorrow enter her life when her mother dies in chapter 5, which is the number of blue flowers that grow outside her house. Sometimes I am unable to accept the minutia that some readers/viewers/listeners find in art, and I wonder.
Maybe the author just likes blue flowers.
Monday, March 5, 2007
On Cost
Everything has a cost. Period. I really really REEEEEEEEALLY hate to admit it, but it does. I guess this means I have to work or something.
First, there are the obvious costs, like what you have to spend in order to obtain food, a house, a trained sloth, and so forth. These ones are straightforward. In order to eat for 2 days, I need to spend $xx.xx on food. Say you have twenty dollars. This will buy you food and drink for two days. This is the only money you have to do ANYTHING with at all.
You get bored and decide to alleviate your boredom with a good jog. That doesnt cost anything, right? You go out and do your jog. An hour later, you get back, and decide that you're thirsty. You reach into your refridgerator and pull out some water, and drink it.
You've just gone into your water stash. By jogging, you have increased the needs of your body (water) such that you had to drink more water to make up for it. In doing so, you will have to go buy more water to make up for the water that you just drank. Aha, a hidden cost.
Costs arent just monetary. Theres the much bigger issue of time. By doing one thing, you lose the opportunity to do other things. When you go jogging, you lose that block of time. You cannot use it to read, or go swimming, or play WoW. Time is a cost too, one larger than money.
First, there are the obvious costs, like what you have to spend in order to obtain food, a house, a trained sloth, and so forth. These ones are straightforward. In order to eat for 2 days, I need to spend $xx.xx on food. Say you have twenty dollars. This will buy you food and drink for two days. This is the only money you have to do ANYTHING with at all.
You get bored and decide to alleviate your boredom with a good jog. That doesnt cost anything, right? You go out and do your jog. An hour later, you get back, and decide that you're thirsty. You reach into your refridgerator and pull out some water, and drink it.
You've just gone into your water stash. By jogging, you have increased the needs of your body (water) such that you had to drink more water to make up for it. In doing so, you will have to go buy more water to make up for the water that you just drank. Aha, a hidden cost.
Costs arent just monetary. Theres the much bigger issue of time. By doing one thing, you lose the opportunity to do other things. When you go jogging, you lose that block of time. You cannot use it to read, or go swimming, or play WoW. Time is a cost too, one larger than money.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
On Choice
I remember in 8th grade, Mrs. PK used to always end class by saying "remember, you always have a choice." I have decided that she was right.
The element of choice always exists. If you think about it, the statement, "I have to do X" is never one hundred percent correct. Not to sound like a sterotypically rebellious teenager, but I think that nobody can ever be forced into doing something. Rather, people can be presented with several alternatives, some of which are collosally more practical or appealing than others.
Let's take the following situation into account. It is early, and your alarm clock wakes you up. You roll out of bed sleepily, thinking, "I have to get ready for school." But surely if you wanted to you could sleep in an extra fifteen minutes. There is no physical barrier stopping you from doing so, right? All it would mean would be that you would get to school fifteen minutes late. Here, you have two alternatives. Get up now, and get to school earlier, OR sleep in, and arrive late. If you were okay with being 15 minutes tardy, then you could very easily go back to bed of your own volition.
Imagine a more serious circumstance. You are at the bank, and a robbery occurs. You are threatened at gunpoint to hand over your valubles. Some people might say that this constitues "force". Yet once again, all that is happening is that you are being presented with alternatives. Option 1: Turn the valubles over, don't die. Option 2: Keep the valubles, and presumably get shot. You do still have the ability to choose option 2, it is just (to most people) so much less attractive that anyone else would go with option 1.
In this way, the element of choice does always exist. One can never be forced into something, only given choices, some of which may be so unfavorable that people may think that they are not options at all. Yet, my 8th grade teacher was right; you do always have a choice.
The element of choice always exists. If you think about it, the statement, "I have to do X" is never one hundred percent correct. Not to sound like a sterotypically rebellious teenager, but I think that nobody can ever be forced into doing something. Rather, people can be presented with several alternatives, some of which are collosally more practical or appealing than others.
Let's take the following situation into account. It is early, and your alarm clock wakes you up. You roll out of bed sleepily, thinking, "I have to get ready for school." But surely if you wanted to you could sleep in an extra fifteen minutes. There is no physical barrier stopping you from doing so, right? All it would mean would be that you would get to school fifteen minutes late. Here, you have two alternatives. Get up now, and get to school earlier, OR sleep in, and arrive late. If you were okay with being 15 minutes tardy, then you could very easily go back to bed of your own volition.
Imagine a more serious circumstance. You are at the bank, and a robbery occurs. You are threatened at gunpoint to hand over your valubles. Some people might say that this constitues "force". Yet once again, all that is happening is that you are being presented with alternatives. Option 1: Turn the valubles over, don't die. Option 2: Keep the valubles, and presumably get shot. You do still have the ability to choose option 2, it is just (to most people) so much less attractive that anyone else would go with option 1.
In this way, the element of choice does always exist. One can never be forced into something, only given choices, some of which may be so unfavorable that people may think that they are not options at all. Yet, my 8th grade teacher was right; you do always have a choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)