As I am writing this posting, I am sitting in a quiet Ethiopian coffee shop in Tucker, GA where I encountered a prime example of culturally-induced laziness. There are only three people in the cafe right now with an expected arrival of a fourth. This fourth individual was pulling into the parking lot when he decided to call the cafe and order a drink -- from his car!
I would have given him the benefit of the doubt -- he may have been in an extreme rush and needed to get in and out as quickly as possible -- yet, I found there was absolutely no reason to grant such a gesture. Again, there were only three people in the cafe (one of which was the owner), so there was no long line to endure. The drink the guy ordered was an easy one to make, so there was no period of waiting needed. He ultimately paid with cash, so there was no fear of being delayed by the credit card machine.
But the greatest variable in why I could not give the guy a break was that when he finally pulled into the parking space, he took his sweet time coming into the cafe to get his drink. If he was in such a rush -- the presumable reason for why he would call-in his order -- then he would have been a bit more swift in getting his desired drink. Yet, this swiftness was nowhere to be found and/or seen.
30 June, 2006
21 June, 2006
on a car or in the grass - there is no real difference
Recently, while driving through the glorious, pristine, and captivating avenues of upper Price Hill (Cincinnati); I came across an informational sign/marguee in front of the St. Peter & St. Paul United Church of Christ that brought a smile to my face. The smile was not induced because of the deeply moving message placed upon the sign, nor was it stimulated because of the potentially rewarding events advertised as taking place at the church. No, the smile was created because a twofold conviction was affirmed the very moment I read the sign: 1) church billboards, for the most part, hardly ever offer anything deeper than an espresso spoon;* and 2) church billboards, when attempting to offer something insightful, tend to fail miserably in their pursuit.
(Incidentally, the best bilboard signs that I have seen thus far come from Tire Discounters).
The particular sign that I encountered that day carried an element of self-defeat, for it simply read: "Actions speak louder than bumper stickers". (The self-defeating nature of this sign was the ultimate reason I had to smile). The question must, therefore, be asked: how is that sign any different -- in intent -- than a bumper sticker? If the primary criticism against bumper stickers is that they are nothing more than pithy sayings with no life in them (which I'm assuming is the underlying argument of this church); then the same criticism could be placed at the feet of SPSPUCC, for their sign functions in a highly similar way. Since there is no real difference between the two -- other than the fact that one is on a car and the other is in the grass -- a further question must be asked: is the sign actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish -- i.e., to be better than a bumper sticker? I hope and assume that their intent was to place life (or, actions) in the message set upon the sign, thus making it better than a bumper sticker; the difficulty, however, is that the message does not convey this intent -- it merely falls victim to its own criticism.
* For those unaware, espresso spoons hold far less than teaspoons
(Incidentally, the best bilboard signs that I have seen thus far come from Tire Discounters).
The particular sign that I encountered that day carried an element of self-defeat, for it simply read: "Actions speak louder than bumper stickers". (The self-defeating nature of this sign was the ultimate reason I had to smile). The question must, therefore, be asked: how is that sign any different -- in intent -- than a bumper sticker? If the primary criticism against bumper stickers is that they are nothing more than pithy sayings with no life in them (which I'm assuming is the underlying argument of this church); then the same criticism could be placed at the feet of SPSPUCC, for their sign functions in a highly similar way. Since there is no real difference between the two -- other than the fact that one is on a car and the other is in the grass -- a further question must be asked: is the sign actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish -- i.e., to be better than a bumper sticker? I hope and assume that their intent was to place life (or, actions) in the message set upon the sign, thus making it better than a bumper sticker; the difficulty, however, is that the message does not convey this intent -- it merely falls victim to its own criticism.
* For those unaware, espresso spoons hold far less than teaspoons
17 June, 2006
gotta love new yorkers
The 106th US Open -- one of the PGA's most telling tournaments -- is being held at the picturesque Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, NY (which is about a 20-25 miles north of New York City). As of today the leading score is a painful two over par, which is not reflective of the abilities of the players; instead, the scores are indicative of the grueling nature of the course itself. The commentators of this particular open are quietly wagering bets that the winning score will not fall below par in tomorrow's final round. If Phil Mickelson, however, has a round like he did today; the commentators may have to dish out the cake. We'll see.
The real reason for this particular blog was prompted by the final approach of the third-to-last pairing of today's round -- Phil Mickelson and Graeme McDowell. As the two made their way to the green of the 18th hole, in typical NY fashion, there was explosion of excitement and appreciation -- mostly for NY's adopted spokesgolfer Phil Mickelson -- that was probably heard throughout the entire Club (if not over the yelling of Paul Sr. down in Orange County). Mickelson's approach shot was aggressively beautiful -- landing just a couple paces away from one of the toughest hole locations for the whole tourney. McDowell's approach, however, came up a bit short of the green.
The front of the 18th green is anything but inviting -- especially for players who like to play it safe. (The slope of this frontage might as well be redefined as being a wall). The hole placement for today's round was slightly beyond a crucial "ledge" on this green; a ledge that could easily make or utterly destroy someone's round. The margin of error on this ledge is almost non-existent -- it's do or die. McDowell's ball was at the bottom of the wall, on the initial upslope, with just a short pitch to the hole. For some unknown reason, McDowell was trying to be tenderly aggressive with his shot by attempting a little pitch and run; yet, his shot rolled to the infamous ledge, hesitated, and then proceeded to roll backwards. The ball not only rolled back to in front of McDowell's feet, it actually settled itself back its own divot.
*editorial comment: if it isn't apparent by now, I sometimes take a longer route between two points in order to make one. In the words of Chevy Chase, in Caddyshack: "Sometimes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line . . . in the opposite direction"*
The moment the ball stopped its roll in the divot, a smile emerged on McDowell's face which then prompted a respectful wave of laughter throughout the stands. Then, once the response started to subside, a fan unashamedly shouted: "Hit it harder!", to which McDowell smiled again. Now on his fourth shot (on a par-four hole), McDowell has to regain his composure and essentially hit the exact same shot -- only harder. He takes his stance, makes his swing, and watches his ball fly on the same trajectory to the same location on the green; only this time, it held on the ledge and stayed put. The moment the ball stopped moving, the crowd errupted into an applause that would be expected had McDowell holed the shot from 200-yards out.
This type of response is indicative of a New York audience . . . they are passionately involved with what they're watching and they feel unhindered in manifesting such passion -- especially if you're an underdog (or, have underdog-like tendencies, which was apparently the case for McDowell today). They love the games they watch, and they love the athletes that play them. I can only dream of what the players are feeling when they hear such unhindered passion errupt on their behalf.
The real reason for this particular blog was prompted by the final approach of the third-to-last pairing of today's round -- Phil Mickelson and Graeme McDowell. As the two made their way to the green of the 18th hole, in typical NY fashion, there was explosion of excitement and appreciation -- mostly for NY's adopted spokesgolfer Phil Mickelson -- that was probably heard throughout the entire Club (if not over the yelling of Paul Sr. down in Orange County). Mickelson's approach shot was aggressively beautiful -- landing just a couple paces away from one of the toughest hole locations for the whole tourney. McDowell's approach, however, came up a bit short of the green.
The front of the 18th green is anything but inviting -- especially for players who like to play it safe. (The slope of this frontage might as well be redefined as being a wall). The hole placement for today's round was slightly beyond a crucial "ledge" on this green; a ledge that could easily make or utterly destroy someone's round. The margin of error on this ledge is almost non-existent -- it's do or die. McDowell's ball was at the bottom of the wall, on the initial upslope, with just a short pitch to the hole. For some unknown reason, McDowell was trying to be tenderly aggressive with his shot by attempting a little pitch and run; yet, his shot rolled to the infamous ledge, hesitated, and then proceeded to roll backwards. The ball not only rolled back to in front of McDowell's feet, it actually settled itself back its own divot.
*editorial comment: if it isn't apparent by now, I sometimes take a longer route between two points in order to make one. In the words of Chevy Chase, in Caddyshack: "Sometimes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line . . . in the opposite direction"*
The moment the ball stopped its roll in the divot, a smile emerged on McDowell's face which then prompted a respectful wave of laughter throughout the stands. Then, once the response started to subside, a fan unashamedly shouted: "Hit it harder!", to which McDowell smiled again. Now on his fourth shot (on a par-four hole), McDowell has to regain his composure and essentially hit the exact same shot -- only harder. He takes his stance, makes his swing, and watches his ball fly on the same trajectory to the same location on the green; only this time, it held on the ledge and stayed put. The moment the ball stopped moving, the crowd errupted into an applause that would be expected had McDowell holed the shot from 200-yards out.
This type of response is indicative of a New York audience . . . they are passionately involved with what they're watching and they feel unhindered in manifesting such passion -- especially if you're an underdog (or, have underdog-like tendencies, which was apparently the case for McDowell today). They love the games they watch, and they love the athletes that play them. I can only dream of what the players are feeling when they hear such unhindered passion errupt on their behalf.
16 June, 2006
grey is dependent upon black and white
While loafing comfortably on the couch this morning, enjoying my morning dose of Arabian-born joe, I found myself watching a "old" episode of The District -- a show that was a noble attempt at being one of the more ethically-based on public television. Ironically situated in this nations capital, which may have had something to do with the show's brief shelf-life, the new commissioner of the DC police department seeks to right the wrongs that have seemingly hitherto gone unnoticed and/or unchecked. Hence, the noble impetus of the show.
The point that caught my attention was a comment made by one of the commissioner's subordinates. Her rant, which prompted mine, was simply this: "Is police work always about black and white with no room for grey? I can't buy that." (Oddly enough, her retort to her own concern was built upon black and white style thinking). Not more than a few moments later -- in the same scene (and camera angle) no less -- she adamentally accuses a fellow co-worker of making a "wrong" decision. . . actually, she openly says, "Temple was wrong" -- Temple being the character played by Sean Patrick Thomas. The irony is that the very thing she sought not to buy was the very thing she was passionately trying to sell.
This example points to an issue that has plagued our thinking for the past few centuries -- i.e., relativism. The overriding problem with holding a relativistic position is that you cannot hold it absolutely. In other words, such a position will not last in the long run. Those who hold relativistic views wind up contradicting themselves typically in the same breath. Not only that, but the moment they try and argue for their position is also the moment they lose steam in their onslaught. To say there are no absolutes is in and of itself an absolute assertion. Even if a relativist tries to wiesel himself out of this, the very fact that he's wieseling is evidence of some sort of standard (i.e., an absolute) he seeks to defend. But more importantly, a relativist should ultimately not care if you disagree with his position because your disagreement -- in his eyes -- is not an actual threat because there are no absolutes -- i.e., those things that actually pose a threat to his position. Yet, the fact of the matter is that a relativist does become uncomfortable the moment someone disagrees with them. The reason for the discomfort may come from the innate understanding that "grey" positions are ultimately dependent upon the absolute existence of black and white positions.
The point that caught my attention was a comment made by one of the commissioner's subordinates. Her rant, which prompted mine, was simply this: "Is police work always about black and white with no room for grey? I can't buy that." (Oddly enough, her retort to her own concern was built upon black and white style thinking). Not more than a few moments later -- in the same scene (and camera angle) no less -- she adamentally accuses a fellow co-worker of making a "wrong" decision. . . actually, she openly says, "Temple was wrong" -- Temple being the character played by Sean Patrick Thomas. The irony is that the very thing she sought not to buy was the very thing she was passionately trying to sell.
This example points to an issue that has plagued our thinking for the past few centuries -- i.e., relativism. The overriding problem with holding a relativistic position is that you cannot hold it absolutely. In other words, such a position will not last in the long run. Those who hold relativistic views wind up contradicting themselves typically in the same breath. Not only that, but the moment they try and argue for their position is also the moment they lose steam in their onslaught. To say there are no absolutes is in and of itself an absolute assertion. Even if a relativist tries to wiesel himself out of this, the very fact that he's wieseling is evidence of some sort of standard (i.e., an absolute) he seeks to defend. But more importantly, a relativist should ultimately not care if you disagree with his position because your disagreement -- in his eyes -- is not an actual threat because there are no absolutes -- i.e., those things that actually pose a threat to his position. Yet, the fact of the matter is that a relativist does become uncomfortable the moment someone disagrees with them. The reason for the discomfort may come from the innate understanding that "grey" positions are ultimately dependent upon the absolute existence of black and white positions.
who's really doing the capitalizing?
In a rather bold, yet entirely predictable, rhetorical move; the AP, as posted in USAToday, made the ironic statement that Bush's visit to Iraq was an attempt to capitalize on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with the hope of casting a positive light on the Republican party. The reason for the irony is that the article itself begins by noting the most recent American death in the Iraqi war, which incidentally speaks negatively about the Bush administration and the nature of this war.
If the irony is not clear by this point, let me state it in clear terms: the very thing USAToday criticizes Pres. Bush for alledgeldy doing is the very thing they themselves do -- unalledgedly. For Pres. Bush to conduct a trip to the Middle East shortly after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not to be understood as a move to capitalize on his death. It must be remembered, and I have doubts that USAToday does, that his itinerary is set months in advance; thus, the timing of this particular trip and the timing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death could simply be coincidental. Yet, for USAToday to print such an article after the death of the 2500th soldier in Iraq with the intent of casting a negative light on the Republican party (and, to attack the credibility of the Pres); that is the very definition of capitalization.
One final comment before closing out this post: USAToday (i.e., the AP) needs a good lesson in modern history. This current war in Iraq has certainly been subjected to many false comparison -- e.g., the Vietnam War -- and it has also been presented in such a way that (please forgive the crassness) makes a mountain out of a mole-hill. It is true that this war is like Vietnam; but only in the sense that it is a completely different style of fighting than conventional warfare. It is also true that 2500 soldiers have lost their lives in this fight against terrorism. It is here that history must be remembered. In one day, more than 2500 lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy; the Civil War claimed more lives in its short period than all of the wars from the Revolution to Vietnam combined (on multiple days, 10,000+ soliders died in various battles during the CW).
If the irony is not clear by this point, let me state it in clear terms: the very thing USAToday criticizes Pres. Bush for alledgeldy doing is the very thing they themselves do -- unalledgedly. For Pres. Bush to conduct a trip to the Middle East shortly after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not to be understood as a move to capitalize on his death. It must be remembered, and I have doubts that USAToday does, that his itinerary is set months in advance; thus, the timing of this particular trip and the timing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death could simply be coincidental. Yet, for USAToday to print such an article after the death of the 2500th soldier in Iraq with the intent of casting a negative light on the Republican party (and, to attack the credibility of the Pres); that is the very definition of capitalization.
One final comment before closing out this post: USAToday (i.e., the AP) needs a good lesson in modern history. This current war in Iraq has certainly been subjected to many false comparison -- e.g., the Vietnam War -- and it has also been presented in such a way that (please forgive the crassness) makes a mountain out of a mole-hill. It is true that this war is like Vietnam; but only in the sense that it is a completely different style of fighting than conventional warfare. It is also true that 2500 soldiers have lost their lives in this fight against terrorism. It is here that history must be remembered. In one day, more than 2500 lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy; the Civil War claimed more lives in its short period than all of the wars from the Revolution to Vietnam combined (on multiple days, 10,000+ soliders died in various battles during the CW).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
