e premte dhjetor 10, 2004

Your Research Dollars at Work

First let me apologize for my silence for the past 2 weeks. Unfortunately my laptop has been in the shop and the first week in the shop did not fix the problem. To paraphrase the New Testament, 'Those that live by the laptop fail miserably while the laptop is in the shop.'

However, current events continue to fly by. Two research studies in the news recently caught my eye. First, as I type this with my laptop laying firmly in my lap, I come across the news headline "Laptop heat a threat to fertility"   Ooops! Good thing my wife and I have already had our darling children who are in college now. This has generated 265 articles across the world on Google News and a hilarious thread, most of which cannot be repeated here, on Slashdot.   I mean, dude, can I file an OSHA claim?

And then, a linguist at the University of Pittsburgh has done extensive research on the term 'Dude' to be published in the fall edition of American Speech. I mean it seems like a totally lame study, dude, but it has generated 211 news articles according to a search of Google News. Here are a few extracts from the CNN report:

"An admitted dude-user during his college years, Scott Kiesling said the four-letter word has many uses: in greetings ("What's up, dude?"); as an exclamation ("Whoa, Dude!"); commiseration ("Dude, I'm so sorry."); to one-up someone ("That's so lame, dude."); as well as agreement, surprise and disgust ("Dude.").

Kiesling says in the fall edition of American Speech that the word derives its power from something he calls cool solidarity -- an effortless kinship that's not too intimate.

Cool solidarity is especially important to young men who are under social pressure to be close with other young men, but not enough to be suspected as gay.

In other words: Close, dude, but not that close."

And these guys get paid for publishing this stuff? Where did I go wrong?

(2004-12-10 08:14:07.0) Permalink

e premte dhjetor 03, 2004

Closer or Relationships as Verbal WWF

Last night's cinematic outing was "Closer" a movie disguised as a verbal assault. (NB for our world wide audience, the initials WWF stand for the peculiarly American television entertainment form World Wrestling Federation which could never actually be glorified as a sport and which bears only a vague resemblance to GrecoRoman wrestling.)  You can tell that this movie was first a play by Patrick Marber.  The cinematography and scenery take a back seat to the verbal jousting on screen.   It is entirely unfair that I have used the picture of Julia Roberts for this notice but there were no available shots of all 4 actors together.   Jude Law, from 2003's "Cold Mountain" and 2004's eye candy piece "Alfie (Hated it)," Clive Owen, from one of my personal favorites "Croupier" and 2004's "King Arthur" (please forgive him), Natalie Portman, aka Queen/Senator Amidala in Star Wars or in another recommended rental "Garden State", and Julia form a relationship cube that morphs through several iterations.  I still can't decide how much I like this movie since there are several places where I think the plot takes an unrealistic turn and I thought to myself, 'No woman I know would do that or respond like that.'  However, the sample size of women I know might be too small or too provincial.  Perhaps the sample of American women transplanted to London would do these things.  There are several scenes that really are excellent interchanges and make the entire movie worth the effort.  The relationship consequences of the actions and exchanges could also be viewed as a modern morality play.  Naturally this is just one man's humble opinion and you are free to (verbally) disagree..."Let's get ready to rumble!" (in the comments)
(2004-12-03 10:12:02.0) Permalink Comments [1]

Marshall McLuhan in the New Millenium

There is just way too much to cover today.    My laptop croaked itself Sunday and I just got it back yesterday.    Makes it tough to be productive...those that live by the laptop fail when the laptop fails (to paraphrase the Gospels.)   First up is todays Op-Ed analysis of the Ron Artest dust up and its continuing fall out.   Danniel Henninger has this analysis on-line in the Opinion Journal of the Wall Street journal (proudly powered by Sun according to the ad on the page.)    A few salient extracts follow:

"... Marshall McLuhan was laughed at in 1967 with the publication of "The Medium Is the Massage," his aphoristic summary of what electronic media were going to do to us.   'All media works us over completely,' McLuhan said.   The book's subtitle was "An inventory of effects."   It's a good time for another inventory, because no one's laughing now.

Much of the "culture" we consume is graphic and electronic.   Most of us have watched more screens of entertainment--on TV, in movies, videogames and computers--than any other activity not required to sustain life.   A cable company like Time Warner now offers about 500 channels.   This is relatively new.   It must have an effect.   But what is 'it'?

It is mostly entertainment.   As with movies, TV from the first days was primarily a performance medium.   That means it is a medium of exaggeration.   It exists to go over the top.   Professionals will tell you that like any staged performance, TV requires exaggeration, or sharpened behavior, to succeed.   On a TV screen or the silver screen, normal "performance" doesn't "come across."   To compensate for the screen's odd, deadening effect, all actors ham it up.   Actors from Jackie Gleason to Telly Savalas to John Belushi have all painted their characters in broad, "unreal" strokes--to put them across.

Violence is also one of the medium's most basic tools.   Since the slapstick figures of Europe's old Commedia dell'Arte, violence has been a staple of exaggerated effects--the Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers and today "South Park."   But of course no one in the 17th century watched such stuff every night.

...McLuhan said media would change us.   He was right.   There are simple words to describe what we are seeing lots of now: vanity, anger, impatience, envy, egocentrism, arrogance.   Oh yes, vices are not crimes. But standing under a constant electronic shower of them will wash away what might be called the smaller, quieter virtues, such as humility, restraint, modesty, respect, tact, patience, generosity, prudence, piety--that stuff.

Does it matter?   Two years after "The Medium Is the Massage," Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black issued a famous dissent in the Tinker case, which elevated the speech rights of very young students and lowered the inclination of teachers to civilize their students.   Justice Black warned this would make the schools vulnerable "to the whims and caprices of their loudest-mouthed, but maybe not their brightest, students."   So what? They're all stars now. "

To which I can only raise my voice and say, "Amen, brother.    Preach it!"   Please read the entire article since I have only excerpted from it here.
Image courtesy of Sports Illustrated/CNN...click image for article on the whackiness of Ron Artest.

(2004-12-03 08:44:58.0) Permalink