odds 'ñ' ends

...Today on the campus shuttle I saw something that I'm still trying to process. A fairly heavy person of indeterminate sex (probably female, so I'll use the feminine pronouns, but I'm not certain) stepped onto the bus. Her hair was buzzed on the sides, and the top was short - between 1 & 2 inches - and bleached to a yellower shade of blond. She might have been pierced, but if so it was only moderate. Maybe a nose ring or something - nothing outrageous. To complete this picture, dress her in standard college student garb - jeans, t-shirts in layers, sneakers. Make the t-shirt Coke-red with the words "Chick magnet" in black, accompanied by a cartoon drawing of a bespectacled, scrawny nerd, shirtless and flexing. I still don't know what it means. It may well keep me awake for a night or two.

...[I can't remember this item... if I do, I'll write it down so I can share it later.]

...From Heloise, she of the Helpful Hint, two tidbits (from the Strib, 9/17/07):

Plastic Grocery Bags
Dear Heloise: Please let your readers know that plastic grocery bags can be used at inner-city churches that have food pantries and clothing for the needy. I also take my bags to area nursing-home residents. SUE, via e-mail
For what? So they can tie one over their head and end their suffering? Or maybe the eccentric ones like to store things like their toenail clippings and feces.

Sound off
Dear Heloise: I refuse to use the "self checkouts" in grocery stores! Why should I pay the same price for my groceries, doing all the work myself, as the next person, who gets service? Give me at least 10 percent off my total grocery bill, and I might think about doing it myself. I know I am not the only one who thinks this way. BOB in Texas
Well, Bob, I'm not sure what to do with your helpful hint, but here's a couple of other things that might get you riled up: The newspaper used to cost a penny, and you still had change to buy a phosphate at the local malt shop! Plus, young people use curse words! And the whippersnappers have the gall to congregate in public places! When I was your age, computers used punch cards! You don't even know what those are!

Google Earth is dead to me

I was looking for Millennium Park (in Chicago, near Navy Pier) on Google Earth. I know where it is (just north of the Art Institute), but I couldn't find it. I looked at Microsoft's Live Search - their response to Google Maps/Google Earth, and it's right there. Pritzker Pavilion is so clearly identifiable, that I could tell at once what I was looking at. What does Google Earth have in that spot? A pasty beige rectangle dotted with construction equipment. WTF? Surely it isn't that hard to update your satellite imagery, Google Earth. Surely it isn't that hard to update your satellite imagery.

Seen on a bus this a.m.

This morning I saw this image on the side of a city bus. I giggled because I saw it as a figurative representation of one method to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome: don't get pregnant. Then I realized they didn't intend it that way. Oops!

*I didn't have time time snap a photo, but pulled the imaged from the Minnesota Organization on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome web site.

Oxymoron of the day

The other day I saw a car with a ribbon stickum on the back that said "Autism Awareness."

Infrastructure costs money

This comic says it better than I could.

I think the fundamental question raised by this issue is, "What is the role of government?" Implicit in that is the more specific "What should the government do with our tax money?"

I'm working on a paper right now about the rise of suburban sprawl, and the most fascinating part, to me, is the fact that in the 1920s-1940s, the federal government established the following housing policy:

The federal government will subsidize private developers. These developers can build vast tracts of single-family housing with little to no attention to creating good communities, then take their profit, and, when the septic tanks they installed (cuz they were cheaper) fail, we'll jump in with federal money to install a sewage system. In addition, public housing ("a breeding ground for communists," according to Joseph McCarthy) will be provided only grudgingly, and built poorly.

Apparently, the federal government is supposed to ensure massive profits for a few people with the power to buy -- I'm sorry, influence -- policymakers. Making sure that every citizen has a decent place to live is not the government's role, I guess. (Same goes for adequate healthcare and education, it would seem.)

First!

Just after 6:00 this evening (about 35 minutes ago) the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed.

2057: The City, Take 2

Remember a couple days ago, when I talked about the city of the future? Today I read a piece from 1999 called "The American Metropolis at Century's End," by Robert Fishman. The premise was: Let's survey prominent "urban specialists" (architects & landscape architects, urban planners, historians, and so on) and put together a list of the top 10 influences on American cities in the 2nd half of the 20th century, and another list of the 10 most likely influences for the 1st half of the 21st.

Just because I can, here's the first list:
1. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act and the Dominance of the Automobile
2. Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Financing and Subdivision Regulation
3. De-Industrialization of Central Cities
4. Urban Renewal: Downtown Redevelopment and Public Housing Projects (1949 Housing Act)
5. Levittown (the Mass-Produced Suburban Tract House)
6. Racial Segregation and Job Discrimination in Cities and Suburbs
7. Enclosed Shopping Malls
8. Sunbelt-Style Sprawl
9. Air Conditioning
10. Urban Riots of the 1960s

But what about the future? What do the experts think could be the most influential factors in the future development of the American metropolis? Let's take a look:
1. Growing Disparities of Wealth
2. The Suburban Political Majority
3. Aging of the Baby Boomers
4. A Perpetual "Underclass" in the Central Cities and Inner-Ring Suburbs
5. Smart Growth: Environmental and Planning Initiatives to Limit Sprawl
6. The Internet
7. Deterioration of the First-Ring Post-1945 Suburbs
8. Shrinking Household Size
9. Expanded Superhighway System of "Outer Beltways" to Serve New Edge Cities
10. Racial Integration as Part of the Increasing Diversity in Cities and Suburbs

The article mentioned that these top 10 lists were selected from 25 choices (for the past 50 years) and 19 choices (for the next 50). I don't know what the 19 "future" choices were, but I kind of doubt the list included "holographic cartoon sharks," "self-driving cars," and "personal robots."

Break out your shades, cuz the future is blazin'

The other night I saw this show - well, part of it - on the Science Channel called "2057." Actually, it was three shows. There was one about "The Body" (which I didn't see) and one about "The World" (which I also didn't see) and one about "The City" (which I saw in part). I was intrigued by this concept of the future of the city. Given my studies in landscape architecture and my leaning toward urban design, I wonder what the future of the city holds. So I thought, This should be interesting.

Do I need to say at this point that I was disappointed? Apparently the city of the future is defined entirely by technology. I did learn a few things from the 20 minutes or so that I watched.

1) In 50 years, everyone will have a personal holographic pet that follows them around and apparently keeps children safe via its GPS module. Or something. It didn't make a lot of sense at the time, and makes even less now that I see it written down.

2) In 50 years, bipedal robotic assistants will be common. They will exhibit basic human form (a torso, head, two arms, and two legs). Everyone will have one, and old people will still cherish their 35-year-old models of these devices. Really? Given the rate at which technology becomes obsolete in the year 2007, I'm finding it hard to believe that a dusty old manbot from 2020 will still be around 37 years later. Also, which would we restrict them to the limited humanoid form? Why not give them 4 or 6 legs, so they'll be more stable? And throw on 6 or 8 arms, to increase their capacity to carry our groceries.

3) In 50 years, some fogey will build his grandson a souped up holographic cartoon shark buddy, and then run away from home (but leave his archaic robot friend behind). The kid will proceed to hook up grampa's 50-year-old laptop to the 2057 version of the internet (which, by the way, will be EVERYWHERE), and put his new pal into the city-wide internet, where it will swim from one gigantic holo-billboard to another. With it, unbeknownst to the annoying brat, it will carry an ancient computer virus that will cause the entire urban network to crash. (This reveals a couple of things: again, it appears that within the next 10 years or so, technology will stop being obsolete, and backwards-compatibility will extend so far into the past as to make obsolescence ... obsolete. With any luck, they'll be able to read those 5-1/4" floppies I've got in the bottom of my desk drawer.)

4) In the ensuing chaos, traffic jams will reappear for the first time in 40 years, because automated cars and networked roads and GPS satellites will make sure that the traffic is always flowing smoothly (up to that point, at least), and there will never be any technical glitches that cause that system to fail. Thankfully, this seamless flow of traffic has also eliminated traffic accidents and related fatalities, and, as previously noted, there are never any major malfunctions in the system. Looks like Microsoft will be losing the contract on that one. (Note to self: Invest accordingly.)

5) The police force will oversee all manner of things, including the city-wide network. In the ultimate irony, the kid who brings down the city (in a performance reminiscent of Jeff Goldblum's character in Independence Day) turns out to be the son of the Chief Inspector of Integrated City Network, or whatever title this apparent police state will bestow on the person in charge.

There was no talk of the actual city of the future. Will suburbia continue to dominate the urban landscape of the industrialized world? Will multi-nodal cities spring up around present metropolises? Where will people work, relative to where they live? Will the concepts of New Urbanism finally be implemented in an effective way, or will we continue to see contemporary suburbia dressed up in ever-fancier tuxedos? Will "urban sprawl" - however you define it - be curtailed? What about poverty and race? Will segregation of the poor, blacks, and poor blacks continue to be de rigeur? What about environmental and ecological issues? How will cities of the future address the problems associated with massive impervious surfaces and the urban heat island effect? Will green space be recognized as a valuable sociocultural and physical component of the city, and will metropolitan areas be planned accordingly? Will urban planning itself become a more holistic and proactive discipline?

What about the fact that the vast majority of the world's population is (and will continue to be) located at the meeting point of water and land? What effect will rising sea levels have? What about climate change? Signs point to more frequent and severe tropical storms. Will New Orleans be remembered as the first of many coastal cities destroyed by storms?

And we havent' even looked at developing countries. What of the inconceivably massive slums that accompany so many major cities worldwide? How will continued population growth and urbanization in the developing world affect the quality of life in Bombay and its ilk?

Apparently, these are not questions that matter. Apparently, in 50 years, the city will continue to be defined as it matters to middle- and upper-class Caucasian Americans, and how technology will make their lives easier and safer.

I guess I shouldn't have expected much from a show on the Science Channel.

Binge blogging

I went for a few days there early this month with no entries. I was feeling like crap and avoiding the world, spending as much time as possible unconscious. Now in the past 3 days I've made 9 posts (out of the 13 for this month). Granted, a couple of them are of the Tourette's variety, but still. I'm wondering if friends will be staging an intervention and sending me into a 12-step program. I'm concerned about my ability to control my blogging. I keep telling myself, "I can tell when I've had enough. I can quit when I want to. I'm in control, really." But I'm not sure if I believe it.

Will ours be one of the thousands of homes torn apart by blogging? If I over-blog, will I become abusive and mean? Is this going to affect my ability to hold a job? Can those people over there smell the blog on my breath? Is that an alien-Elvis hybrid watching me from that unmarked government surveillance vehicle!?

AAAAAGGGGHHHH!

Oh look!

There's a puppy in that car!

Less than meets the eye

So, I was kind of interested in seeing Transformers: The Movie, and I thought Ben had expressed interest as well. Ben told me that he'd heard that it had little plot (no surprise there) but that it was fun to watch. It also received a relatively high rating from Rotten Tomatoes (57% among critics, and 84% among the rest of us).

(The following may contain spoilers. I mean, assuming a movie with so little plot can be spoiled.)
My expectations were suitably low. So low, that it ought to have been hard to not meet them. Somehow, this film failed to meet those low expectations. At about 2 and a quarter hours long, it was too long by an hour and a half. Portions of the film dragged by. When the kid and the girl go to his house to recover his great grandfather's glasses, upon which is etched the secret location of some cube thing that the Decepticons are after (to destroy the human race, of course), was it really necessary for us to spend 25 minutes while he looks for the backpack in his room, and the Autobots destroy his parents' yard? You know how most movies, when they are released on DVD, include deleted scenes? This one won't, because I don't think there were any. Every appallingly dull, sophomoric moment of cheese was crammed into this turd, and the action, while decent, didn't keep me interested. As for the the high quality CGI, ... seriously, who goes to see a movie based on how non-fake a robot-car looks when it pees on John Turturro?

[Interesting sidebar: I previously posted about the Transformers movie. That reference to the Ponies of the Apocalypse? Check this out, and try guessing who one of the producers is....]

I did learn a couple of things, though:
1. If you want a hot blonde to pass for smart, give her a foreign accent.
2. Every mechanical device on earth is just waiting to be turned into a Transformer so it can beat the crap out of humans.
3. Trite lines like, "Bumblebee is a brave soldier" don't sound at all ridiculous when (a) delivered by a talking semi and (b) the character has a stupid-ass name like "Bumblebee."
4. For maximum impact, a film ought to have a strong philosophical underpinning, and close with a voice-over monologue by Optimus Prime in which he states that "humans, like us, are more than meets the eye."
5. Nobody found a way to fit the phrase "robots in disguise" into the script. Come on people. You've got over two hours of screen time, and nothing is happening. Try harder in the sequel. (And oh yes, there will be a sequel. One of the Decepticons escapes, and will no doubt return in the summer of 2009 with more evil robuts, and Optimus Prime has broadcast a message out into space, telling any remaining Autobots that they are welcome on Earth.)
[**Update: just looked at Michael Bay's entry on IMDB, and Transformers 2 is slated for 2009. Interestingly, he is also directing a remake of The Birds. Yes, the Hitchcock film. If you want a bit of hilarity, check out this thread on the IMDB forums.]
6. A hot slutty chick with a criminal record will dump her jock boyfriend the instant he makes a denigrating comment.
7. How do you tell a good Transformer from a bad one? The good ones are American made vehicles, and the bad ones are military assault vehicles.
8. Comic relief will only get you so far.

New excuse: "The Buick made me do it."

Catholicism demonstrates again why it is utterly pointless in the modern world with its 10 commandments for drivers. Seriously, what is the point of this inane drivel?

Favorite lines:

Holy Mother Church urges drivers to, among other things, "refrain from drinking and driving, and to pray you make it before you even buckle up."
I'm sorry, don't we already have a pretty strong cultural pressure against drinking & driving? And if I'm so unsure of my driving skill that I have to pray that I survive a trip to the mall, I really ought to consider riding the bus instead.

They "also warned that automobiles can be 'an occasion of sin' -- particularly when they are used for dangerous passing or for prostitution."
These two examples aren't exactly similar in the eyes of the law. Again, if societal pressure isn't keeping you from picking up hookers, I doubt this ridiculous edict will have any effect.

Some church guy says, "We know that as a consequence of transgressions and negligence, 1.2 million people die each year on the roads. That's a sad reality, and at the same time, a great challenge for society and the church."
Actually, I don't see the necessity for the church in this equation. Maybe they're desperately trying to assert some degree of relevance in a world that would be better off without them?

Church guy also notes "that the Bible was full of people on the move, including Mary and Joseph, the parents of Jesus."
WTF does that have to do with anything? Moby Dick takes place on a boat, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that it should be a guide for ocean travel.

"drivers can kill themselves and others if they don't get their cars regular tuneups"
So now will I be committing a sin if I don't get my oil changed every 3000 miles? How many Hail Marys will absolve me of that?

Saying the Rosary while driving is "particularly well suited to recitation by all in the car since its 'rhythm and gentle repetition does not distract the driver's attention.'"
Nice. Growing up in a strongly Catholic household, I can remember always having trouble keeping track of which little plastic bead I was supposed to be holding on to. Sounds pretty distracting to me.

Commandment number 8 reads: "Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness."
This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard.

Sorry to go on - I'll leave the remainder to your own analysis.

PZ Myers over at Pharyngula sums it up nicely:

The Vatican can't put together a rational policy on contraception, a far more serious problem for the world and to which their beliefs contribute, but they can send out these trivial and irritatingly idiotic suggestions for drivers?

Fighting (v., not adj.) "Sioux"

I recently (ok, it's been a month or so) saw that people are once again upset about the UND Fighting Sioux mascot/name. They think it's disrespectful, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

So I saw a Dodge Dakota the other day, and I wondered, "Why isn't anyone up in arms about this?" If it's not okay to use a Native American tribe's name for a school sports team, why is it okay to drive around in a Dodge Dakota, or a Jeep Cherokee? For that matter, what about place names? A number of states and hundreds of towns are named for Native American groups or individuals. I have yet to hear of anyone saying "My daughter will not grow up thinking she is an SUV." Yet replace "SUV" with "mascot," and it's a typical sentiment in this particular debate.

And why is there so little uproar about the "Fightin' Irish" of Notre Dame, or the Vikings of Minnesota? For that matter, what about the Minnesota Twins? As a twin myself, I'm wondering if I need to be ticked off about ... whatever it is that should piss me off.