Freakiness

I neglected to mention this wire story from Pittsburgh recently, which freaked me out for several minutes. As I read the story I was thinking how bizarre it was, and then I see the sentence “my name is not Nikki Allen.”

I only know one person in Pittsburgh, and her name is Nikki Allen. She, like the girl in the story, is 24.

After a quick search of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw the girl’s picture, and it wasn’t my friend. Here’s her myspace page and livejournal. Still a weird way to start your day. The story is developing into something truly weird.

Google and the New Economy

Here are some very enlightening quotations from a recent article on Google at Time magazine:

ERIC SCHMIDT (CEO): “The company isn’t run for the long-term value of our shareholders but for the long-term value of our end users.”

LARRY PAGE (Founder): “If we were motivated by money, we would have sold the company a long time ago and ended up on a beach.”

Bravo, boys. Here’s to what I hope will begin a revolution toward an economy where profit is secondary to the greater good and to personal satisfaction.  If that sounds ridiculously optimistic, consider this: a hundred years ago industries thrived because they filled a need, a necessity, and profit was derived from that, but today it seems like the tenor of business in this country is one of want, of convenience. We are finding ever more luxuries with which to fill our lives. The middle class is doing much less physical labor. We’re getting to a point where necessity is no longer the mother of invention, convenience is. Our lives are so convenient now that many more of us have the option of taking a job we enjoy versus a job we’re forced into. I feel like trade skills are falling off while interchangeable office skills are on the rise. In that environment, there exists more freedom to choose a job you enjoy. Your daily aim then becomes doing your job well because you care about the work.

I’m not saying this is widespread right now, nor will come to pass for the entire populace any time soon, but I really think it might be possible. Give it a thousand years and we’ll see. The danger between now and then becomes finding something enjoyable for everyone to do. Today there are so many members of my generation and younger who are so affluent that they’re bored to tears and psychologically abused by an army of marketers trying to sell them unnecessary trinkets and pleasures. They have no idea where to start looking for something about which they can be passionate. They need mental, emotional and spiritual food and they’ve got Kelly Clarkson and MTV. We’ve traded in physical hardship for psychological stress. For everything you gain, you lose something I suppose.

Anyway, that all just popped in from out of nowhere. Not sure if it’s coherent but oh well. Thinking about those two statements and how they run completely counter to traditional capitalism brings me a great deal of joy. Maybe change can start at the top for once.

“You’re watching history in the making.”

Those were the words of my fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Shaddox, as she graded papers, head down, intent on her work and unaware of the confused faces of her students as we alternately looked back and forth between the TV screen and her desk. For what seemed like an eternity, we sat there in silence, wondering if this was standard procedure – a fireball and two separate booster trails. Well the boosters are supposed to fall off, right? They showed us that earlier. Most of us had never seen a shuttle launch before, so what did we know? I think we tried to get Mrs. Shaddox’s attention, but I seem to recall her telling us to keep watching, and saying “this is history in the making” more than once. Or maybe my brain just latched onto that sentence, given that it was perhaps the single greatest understatement of my elementary education.

One of us got her to look up at the TV screen, I guess, or maybe the phrase “obviously a major malfunction” caught her ear, or maybe Mrs. Binam from across the hall came into the room. The teachers weren’t sure what to do with a school full of kids who had just watched seven people die on live television. I don’t remember anything else after that.

Tomorrow marks 20 years since the Challenger disaster.

Somebody on Fark had a unique vantage point I found interesting:

I was 5 years old on a plane to Disney World when this happened. The captain announced what had happened and suggested we all look out the left window. In the distance you could see the booster trail. I remember seeing tons of shiny objects drifting to the ground.

The Howard Hughes of Fashion

Salon has a fascinating piece on Abercrombie & Fitch head honcho Mike Jeffries today. The article pointed to a string of adjectives that reminded me of Howard Hughes: “driven, demanding, smart, intense, obsessive-compulsive, eccentric, flamboyant and, depending on whom you talk to, either slightly or very odd.” Sure, he “always goes through revolving doors twice, never passes employees on stairwells, parks his Porsche every day at the same angle in the parking lot (keys between the seats, doors unlocked)” but greatness is often accompanied by a measure of insanity. What was most amazing was his Machiavellian candor:

“In every school there are the cool and popular kids, and then there are the not-so-cool kids,” he says. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

I’m sure that quotation will enrage most people, but again I say, “why is this surprising to anyone?” If you have any awareness of the insipid, fascist behemoth that is Abercrombie & Fitch, you know that it has to be led by someone like Jeffries. He has sold America an almost Aryan Ideal of fashion. It’s a wonder they haven’t started performing eugenics experiments on their employees. Actually, scratch that, they practice a commercial form of it:

For example, when I ask him how important sex and sexual attraction are in what he calls the “emotional experience” he creates for his customers, he says, “It’s almost everything. That’s why we hire good-looking people in our stores. Because good-looking people attract other good-looking people, and we want to market to cool, good-looking people. We don’t market to anyone other than that.”

Still I admire the guy’s honesty. He’s a complete ass and he’s proud of it. His success has justified his worldview.

As a sidenote, the piece also mentions a dedication to “the brand,” and I just want to say that, as someone who works in a marketing-related field, I pity anyone who depends entirely on brand awareness for their survival. To say that your brand is more important than your product means that your product isn’t good enough at setting itself apart from the competition, so you have to convince people that your brand is somehow special in some unquantifiable way.

Which leads me to this: judge clothing by clothing, not by what store you buy it in. People who insist on only shopping at certain “lifestyle brand” stores are fools who have been hypnotized by the Convincing John[1] of advertising. If you assign any portion of your identity to a store in a mall, you have lost a part of your soul. Except of course, for Chick-fil-A, which is the nectar of the Gods, as everyone knows.

1.) God bless you, Jim Henson, for creating this character and helping to make kids aware of his presence in our culture.

Wilson Pickett (1941-2006)

People have no idea how influential this guy was. His music is everywhere and for whatever reason people don’t connect with his name the way they do with, say, Otis Redding. Everytime I talk about Wilson Pickett to someone, they say they’re not sure who he is until I start listing the hits: “In the Midnight Hour,” “Mustang Sally” (much dreaded by cover bands for its status as the most requested song of all time), “Land of 1,000 Dances” (which I have to hum before people remember it[1]), “Everybody Needs Somebody to Love” (you heard that one in the Blues Brothers, remember?), “634-5789” (20 years before Jenny’s “867-5309” came around).

The man was a soul giant. We have lost an important part of pop music history.

This one’s for you, Mr. Pickett:
Land of 1,000 Dances (right click and save as)

1.) The hook to which was shamelessly stolen by Ini Kamoze for his 1995 hit “Here Comes the Hotstepper” from the soundtrack to Robert Altman’s Pret-a-Porter. He called himself “the lyrical gangsta,” which of course Heath turned into “the lyrical hamster.”

Peace

This is the kind of thing I have always suspected but have almost never seen reported on: “Peace: No Longer Just a Dream” is an article I read in The Week, and I think we should spread it around, mainly because the dominant 24-Hour News Machines tend to only make money on sensationalistic claptrap, and this doesn’t qualify. Some important points made by the article:

  • The number of ongoing wars throughout the world has dropped by 40 percent since the end of the Cold War, and is still declining.
  • The year 2005 had the lowest number of conflicts of any sort—wars between countries, civil wars, ethnic cleansings—since 1976.

I would go further to say that, despite what the media says about the war in Iraq, it’s not a catastrophic tragedy as wars go. Our loss of life is currently at 2,200 US troops. Vietnam was around 50,000. Yes, the war in Iraq was maddeningly unjust and poorly planned, but any comparison of it to Vietnam is flaccid. Of course, the most dangerous aspect of this war is not the blood in the field, but the sinister machinations of its genesis in Washington.

My point in all this is that I truly believe the world is continually becoming a better place, in increments too small to truly measure. Anyone who says the past was better, simpler or more peaceful is someone who hasn’t studied much history.

This Just in from the Department of Understatement

Saw this in the D*G’s front page last Sunday (yes it takes me a week to read the Sunday paper):

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, speaking to 3,000 delegates at a conference…conceded that shortcomings in his land redistribution program contributed to critical food shortages in his country.

You read that and think, oh ho hum, there are some problems there, but if you’re not aware of the particulars of Mugabe’s land reform, you’d have no idea that that statement is roughly equivalent to “Bush concedes shortcomings in Iraq War.” For those who may not know, Mugabe instituted a sort of government-imposed revolution whereby all white farmers were expelled from their land and their property given to black folk. This was in many cases a violent expulsion; imagine the Mafia enforcing affirmative action. Trouble is, the folks who took over the land have no farming experience, so you can imagine that this essentially crippled Zimbabwe’s economy.

Oops. Finally Mugabe is starting to admit the program wasn’t such a great idea.

Richard Pryor (1940-2005)

One of the great things Richard Pryor did was take the “bad words” and make them funny. I may be wrong, but I think that the more you laugh at words like “motherfucker” and “nigger” the less powerful they become. Pryor was so funny, all he had to do was say those words and their socio-linguistic[1] hegemony started to crumble. The more we laugh at the things that make us uncomfortable, the less power those things have over us.

Frank Zappa was a tireless crusader for the idea that words, in and of themselves, cannot hurt you. For the same reason that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, so also words can’t hurt you, only people can hurt you. If a word hurts you by itself, then that pain comes from inside you; it is but a dagger of the mind.

To extend that even futher, at 29 I still refuse to believe there is any qualitative difference between the word “shit” and the word “crap.” That whole “swear word” thing never worked for me as a kid, and it still doesn’t. If I train myself to say “crap” rather than “shit” or “fuck” when I stub my toe, the meaning and intent of the word hasn’t changed, only its linguistic garb. To say that one word is safe and another is not, when they both mean the same thing and convey the same image, is ludicrous. Another particularly vexing example is the phrase “that sucks,” which is somehow permissible to most people, even though the unexpurgated version of the phrase involves direct reference to either fellatio or cunnilingus [2]. That was the phrase’s intent and origin, yet stripped of its object it somehow becomes harmless.

Well now that I’ve set off all your pr0n filters, I guess I’ve made an effective tribute to Richard Pryor. I’d also like to say that, while Pryor’s films were rarely box office smashes, they have an easy amble to them; I don’t know how many times I’ve watched Brewster’s Millions, The Toy or his Gene Wilder buddy flicks. Or his best work as a screenwriter, Blazing Saddles, which he co-wrote and was supposed to star in, were it not for the studio’s fear of what Mel Brooks charitably termed as Pryor’s “sniffing habit.”

1.) Not sure if that’s a word, but let’s preted it is because it sounds really cool and pretentious.
2.) Somehow those terms are safer than “blow job” and “rug munching.” Perhaps because they are entirely devoid of all humor.

Tea, Earl Gray, Hot

Salon has a neat article on desktop manufacturing (yes you have to view an ad to get to it, but on the bright side it’s probably a John Mayer Trio ad). It looks to be the first step toward a Star Trek-style replicator. A device like that always makes me wonder if, as technology continually removes the physical and financial restraints of production, supply might change its relationship to demand. It’s the same issue as file sharing – if demand becomes near-infinite, what happens to demand and value? And if some desktop device can replicate the manufacturing processes of hundreds of industries, how does that affect their bottom lines? If the aim of technology is to make life easier and do more for us, what else is left for us to do to make a living? Could such a device eliminate commodity-based industries, leaving us only with service industries? If a device can make you anything you want, what’s left to want?

These Things Just Write Themselves

So far I’ve only seen this quotation on NewsMax.com (flaming right wing echo chamber and propaganda machine) and DailyKos.com (its counterpart on the left), so I don’t entirely trust the sources. Supposedly in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, NBC Universal President Bob Wright dismissed the idea of a news channel aimed at liberals, saying:

“For some strange, probably genetic reasons, they don’t listen to a lot of radio and they don’t watch a lot of television.”

Perfection.