Here are a few suggestions for driving that I think we would all be wise to adopt.
1)If, when driving along a two lane county road, you look into your rear view mirror and the line of traffic behind you stretches out as far as you can see, SPEED UP.
2)If you decide to sit at a stop light or stop sign and watch me approach from a long way off, only to dart out in front of me at the last second, that's ok. Just GO.
3) One would assume that the older a person gets the bigger the hurry they would be in; after all, they may die before they reach their destination. One would be mistaken.
4)The merge lane is, in fact, a merging lane. Do not stop. Do not slow down. For the love of God, speed up and merge!
5)If you have the right-of-way, TAKE IT.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2009/01/12/atomization.html
When I was in the Army taking training to become a generator mechanic (I never touched a generator after being assingned to a permanent duty station in Furth, Germany,) I learned that the process of 'atomization' refered to fuel being sprayed into the cyclinder by the fuel injector. This process is very important due to the fact that a solid body of fuel, whether gasoline or diesel, will not explode but rather burn slowly. Rosen refers to the 'atomization' of people in respect to how they receive their news.
Atomization of people, in this context, is readily apparent in regards to print and television media. Suppose that you are a resident of a small town in the western United States around the turn of the 20th century. News did not travel fast and when it did it was hard to seperate the rumor from the truth. The only regular news outlet available to you would be the local newspaper and it is not inconceivable to believe that the publisher of a small, local newspaper could use this means to affect, and in varying degrees, shape public opinion on a myriad of issues. With no other media outlet at hand you would have no choice but to accept whatever the paper decided to print.This can be seen to some degree today in the very conservative bias displayed by Fox News and, conversely, the decidedly liberal slant of CNN News. The difference today is that we have a wide variety of sources which give us the ability to see both sides and decide for ourselves. In the far flung, unconnected societies that typically made up America in the past, this was not possible.
Rosen theorizes that there are three distinct spheres of human thought and that the media as a whole has much influence on the things that we, as people, hold as true or false.
The innermost sphere is that of consensus. That is, the collective body of ideals and principles that we hold to be absolute truth and not open to debate. They are right, therefore there is no need to debate issues.
The outermost sphere contains those ideas and thoughts that people generally see as deviant, or outside the norm. This sphere encompasses things such as the gay and lesbian community,radical political models, drug use, etc.
The middle ground, being the sphere of ligitimate debate acts as a transition area where concepts and ideas may move from being considered deviant to being considered truth and vica versa. According to Rosen, this is the millieu of the media. By deciding what issues are appropriate for discussion the media holds considerable control over what is held as truth and what is not. Again, imagine you live in an isolated community with only one source of news. It would be very easy for a man, or small group of men, to gain control of a populace simply by reporting what they want the people to know and ommiting anything to the contrary.
Television, despite being the ruination of American society, can be very instrumental in offering many differing points of view. This allows a person to look at both sides of a particular issue and decide how they personally feel about it. The problem remains that, even in the midst of a great variety of opinions, television media still chooses the topic very carefully so as to further their own agendas.
The internet is the greatest threat to this 'status quo' as it allows anyone to research any issue that they may interested in and be guaranteed that there are a great number of other people interested in the same discussion. As a result of this freedom of speech it is possible to see that the lines between these three spheres may become very blurred.
When I was in the Army taking training to become a generator mechanic (I never touched a generator after being assingned to a permanent duty station in Furth, Germany,) I learned that the process of 'atomization' refered to fuel being sprayed into the cyclinder by the fuel injector. This process is very important due to the fact that a solid body of fuel, whether gasoline or diesel, will not explode but rather burn slowly. Rosen refers to the 'atomization' of people in respect to how they receive their news.
Atomization of people, in this context, is readily apparent in regards to print and television media. Suppose that you are a resident of a small town in the western United States around the turn of the 20th century. News did not travel fast and when it did it was hard to seperate the rumor from the truth. The only regular news outlet available to you would be the local newspaper and it is not inconceivable to believe that the publisher of a small, local newspaper could use this means to affect, and in varying degrees, shape public opinion on a myriad of issues. With no other media outlet at hand you would have no choice but to accept whatever the paper decided to print.This can be seen to some degree today in the very conservative bias displayed by Fox News and, conversely, the decidedly liberal slant of CNN News. The difference today is that we have a wide variety of sources which give us the ability to see both sides and decide for ourselves. In the far flung, unconnected societies that typically made up America in the past, this was not possible.
Rosen theorizes that there are three distinct spheres of human thought and that the media as a whole has much influence on the things that we, as people, hold as true or false.
The innermost sphere is that of consensus. That is, the collective body of ideals and principles that we hold to be absolute truth and not open to debate. They are right, therefore there is no need to debate issues.
The outermost sphere contains those ideas and thoughts that people generally see as deviant, or outside the norm. This sphere encompasses things such as the gay and lesbian community,radical political models, drug use, etc.
The middle ground, being the sphere of ligitimate debate acts as a transition area where concepts and ideas may move from being considered deviant to being considered truth and vica versa. According to Rosen, this is the millieu of the media. By deciding what issues are appropriate for discussion the media holds considerable control over what is held as truth and what is not. Again, imagine you live in an isolated community with only one source of news. It would be very easy for a man, or small group of men, to gain control of a populace simply by reporting what they want the people to know and ommiting anything to the contrary.
Television, despite being the ruination of American society, can be very instrumental in offering many differing points of view. This allows a person to look at both sides of a particular issue and decide how they personally feel about it. The problem remains that, even in the midst of a great variety of opinions, television media still chooses the topic very carefully so as to further their own agendas.
The internet is the greatest threat to this 'status quo' as it allows anyone to research any issue that they may interested in and be guaranteed that there are a great number of other people interested in the same discussion. As a result of this freedom of speech it is possible to see that the lines between these three spheres may become very blurred.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Well, since I have no followers and expect none, I suppose that this will be like talking to myself. But that's ok. I've been trapped in my own head for so long that it has become quite comfortable and, in fact, the norm. This can't be any worse than Facebook where all I get anymore (with a few exceptions) are inane postings about finding lost animals or gaining levels in "Mafia Wars." I find it all very tiring.
I guess the first thing i will discuss is the recent earthquake in Haiti and the resulting outpouring of charity from the world community. Please do not misunderstand the following; I am not a heartless bastard without pity for my fellow man. While I am admittedly not an expert on Haitian culture, I do not understand why some nations seemingly cannot advance themselves.
Millions of US dollars are sent to African countries every year for famine relief, AIDS, etc. This is all fine and well, but God (who/whatever that is) helps those who help themselves. This is to say that I do not see much effort on the part of these countries to better themselves. I'm sure that conditions are not ideal in Haiti and they are probably sorely lacking in resources, but their "roommate," if you will, The Dominican Republic, is a tourist mecca and an advancing nation. They share the same island. What is happening that these two nations, neighbors, are so different.
Also, I saw on the news today that some Haitians are blocking the roads into Port au Prince with corpses to protest the delay in humanitarian aid. I understand their plight but take great offense at the obvious ingratitude that this evinces. If it were up to me, those who took part in blockading these roads would receive NO aid, and if it were a widespread occurence, I would call my ships and planes back to the States and let the Haitians figure this out on their own. What has happened in Haiti is truly a humanitarian disaster, but I owe them nothing. WHat this country chooses to do for other nations is purely charity and should be received with much gratitude.
If anyone ever happens to read this I'm sure that they will consider me a racist, nationalist, etc., and that's ok. Frankly, I've gotten too old to care what most people think of me. Don't label me a heartless bastard. I am all for helping these people in their time of need. Many times in my own life I have needed, and received, help from those around me. I have never expected this help or believed that anyone owed it to me, and I most certainly have never gotten upset when the the charity of others did not come on my schedule.
I guess the first thing i will discuss is the recent earthquake in Haiti and the resulting outpouring of charity from the world community. Please do not misunderstand the following; I am not a heartless bastard without pity for my fellow man. While I am admittedly not an expert on Haitian culture, I do not understand why some nations seemingly cannot advance themselves.
Millions of US dollars are sent to African countries every year for famine relief, AIDS, etc. This is all fine and well, but God (who/whatever that is) helps those who help themselves. This is to say that I do not see much effort on the part of these countries to better themselves. I'm sure that conditions are not ideal in Haiti and they are probably sorely lacking in resources, but their "roommate," if you will, The Dominican Republic, is a tourist mecca and an advancing nation. They share the same island. What is happening that these two nations, neighbors, are so different.
Also, I saw on the news today that some Haitians are blocking the roads into Port au Prince with corpses to protest the delay in humanitarian aid. I understand their plight but take great offense at the obvious ingratitude that this evinces. If it were up to me, those who took part in blockading these roads would receive NO aid, and if it were a widespread occurence, I would call my ships and planes back to the States and let the Haitians figure this out on their own. What has happened in Haiti is truly a humanitarian disaster, but I owe them nothing. WHat this country chooses to do for other nations is purely charity and should be received with much gratitude.
If anyone ever happens to read this I'm sure that they will consider me a racist, nationalist, etc., and that's ok. Frankly, I've gotten too old to care what most people think of me. Don't label me a heartless bastard. I am all for helping these people in their time of need. Many times in my own life I have needed, and received, help from those around me. I have never expected this help or believed that anyone owed it to me, and I most certainly have never gotten upset when the the charity of others did not come on my schedule.
This will be my first 'blogging' experience and am not sure where it will end up in the future. I will use this forum to spout rhetoric and tell all of you people what I thnk you should do and how you should live your lives. I will also begin to lay out my plans for a total world take-over in the near future. My first order of business will be to place Pete Rose into the baseball hall of fame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)