Wow, 150+ posts...you guys do just fine on your own. Good thing, too since I have been incredibly derelict in my duties.
I wish I had an excuse. Firstly, I was just getting a little burnt out by all of the bickering, but mostly I have been geeking out on "Doctor Who" and "Torchwood". Sorry, I wish I had a better reason for my absence, but there it is. I am a total Sci Fi nerd, and I make no apologies for that.
No news on the house, except that the seller's bank has assigned the file to someone, so I might be hearing something in the next few weeks...or not.
Here's a little something to get you going: Do you believe there are lifeforms that exist in the rest of the universe?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
246 comments:
1 – 200 of 246 Newer› Newest»the field is called exobiology, the study of the possibility of life on other planets, though of course we have to know what life is, or inescapably is, so that we will recognize it if we do find it. So the question can't be answered unless we first figure out what life is, and that's a very tough question.
This is not my original quote, but I've always loved it: "The best evidence for intelligent life out in the universe is their steadfast refusal to contact us humans."
Having said that, I do believe the odds of us being 'alone' in the universe are slim. But considering the size of the universe, we humans may never reach a point of technology that would allow us to travel at the speed necessary to reach another inhabited planet. And whatever life might be out there may appear as nothing more than rocks to us. So, yes, first we have to be able to identify life that doesn't appear like us.
vw: "corkslu" ...what you ask for when you're ready to open the 4th bottle of wine...
Yes, I do. But I think they are silicone based rather than carbon based.
Or did I see that in a movie?
Or is that actually the way it is now?
I think I have to look that one up. BBL.
Gets really interesting and relevant 7 paragraphs down.
http://tiny.cc/BBux5
Isn't the the whole universe one big life form of one sort or another? The fact that it exists would suggest that it's living thing...just sayin'.
WV: saicist: I think I know what it means. It's a big five-dollar word that won me the National Spelling Bee back in 1974.
I like some science fiction. Philip K. Dick is particularly good (as I suppose everyone knows). I enjoy it, however, as fable. Alien encounters dramatize class and culture clashes very nicely, compellingly, without forcing the reader (or viewer) explicitly to acknowledge the political content. Good science fiction can be somewhat simple on the surface, but subtle and stealthy underneath. It is, however, fable. Life is what we make it.
If you do the math, odds are there is intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. Will humans or aliens evolve to the point we make contact? I have absolutely no clue, so I'll say yes because I find the idea comforting.
I'm more interested in discovering life on Earth. My latest obsession is viruses. They straddle the line between life and inorganic chemistry. They're neither plant nor animal, they're not living organisms, but they aren't dead either. People wonder how humans could have evolved from the same species as chimps in such a short period of time. It's because in addition to primate DNA, we have a lot of virus DNA, some of which causes immediate beneficial or benign changes. Some of it gives us immunity to disease, some of it causes disease after we have successfully mated.
If aliens have visited Earth, it's most likely that are viruses, unintelligent bits of DNA from places far, far away.
Great comment, YC.
Have you read this from Scientific American? I remember really enjoying it as I read it standing up in a bookstore.
August 8, 2008 |
Are Viruses Alive?
Although viruses challenge our concept of what "living" means, they are vital members of the web of life
By Luis P. Villarreal
Here's hoping that we're the 'other life out there' to the ones a bit more perfectly realized.
I'm still not sure we have sufficient consensus on what "intelligence" means on this planet to be able to say anything meaningful about its presence in alien life. I mean, how do we know that individual consciousness is a significant factor? BTW, all of the above is OTB.
OTB?
wv: beate
WT, I was referring to my entire comment only, and OTB = out the butt.
BTW, what was your band, and where was it reviewed?? Enquiring minds want to know!
Oh, I didn't name it because no one would have heard of it: Bump City. Reviewed in the East Bay Express, a rag, but a free rag... ;-)
WT, so you took your name in homage to Tower of Power? Ballsy. :)
Yup! That and the location of the band... ;-)
WT, I guess I'm not an expert on things Oakland. But I don't think I knew you were a musician. Musical folks seem overrepresented here, no?
I don't know. Is such over-representation possible? ;-)
If I were *truly* ballsy, I'd post a pic of myself with a guitar. Then again, that's been done...
WT, if you have a cooler guitar, go for it. :)
wv: gosue
(what a message to send a lawyer!)
That's just it; I don't have a cooler guitar. Weirder, yes.
Now to be ontopic for a sec: I think there is life on other planets, but they will never visit Earth because their space program is too expensive to maintain...
To paraphrase an author who's name escapes me, it's a matter of statistics, really. Depending on who you talk to, the universe is 12 to 15 billion years old. Humans have only been around for 40,000 years. It would just be too tough a pill to swallow to believe that nothing else has evolved in all that time and space.
Perhaps because of the vastness of time and space, other civilizations have already come and gone; even if their signal lasted one thousand light years, we may still not be able to receive it. There are two questions: whether there are other civilizations and whether it is likely that that we'll ever be able to get wind of each other's existence.
One could argue that it is likely that many other civilizations have existed and that it is unlikely that they'll ever come to know of each other.
When I get time I am going to look into something called Fermi's paradox.
Of course if the Proteus effect is real--that is, the tendency for life to destroy itself in evolution--that would increase the odds that we'll never come to know of the actual existence of other civilizations.
oops got my Greek mixed up. Meant Medusa rather than Proteus effect. So one question is if live does tend to destroy itself, are we likely to know, in the time that we have on earth, whether life has ever emerged in other parts of the universe? How often would it have to arise for it to be likely for us to have evidence of intelligent life on other planets?
Here's the Medea effect for which I gave a link above:
In The Medea Hypothesis, renowned paleontologist Peter Ward proposes a revolutionary and provocative vision of life's relationship with the Earth's biosphere--one that has frightening implications for our future, yet also offers hope. Using the latest discoveries from the geological record, he argues that life might be its own worst enemy. This stands in stark contrast to James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis--the idea that life sustains habitable conditions on Earth. In answer to Gaia, which draws on the idea of the "good mother" who nurtures life, Ward invokes Medea, the mythical mother who killed her own children. Could life by its very nature threaten its own existence?
According to the Medea hypothesis, it does. Ward demonstrates that all but one of the mass extinctions that have struck Earth were caused by life itself. He looks at our planet's history in a new way, revealing an Earth that is witnessing an alarming decline of diversity and biomass--a decline brought on by life's own "biocidal" tendencies. And the Medea hypothesis applies not just to our planet--its dire prognosis extends to all potential life in the universe. Yet life on Earth doesn't have to be lethal. Ward shows why, but warns that our time is running out.
Breathtaking in scope, The Medea Hypothesis is certain to arouse fierce debate and radically transform our worldview. It serves as an urgent challenge to all of us to think in new ways if we hope to save ourselves from ourselves.
Ward invokes Medea, the mythical mother who killed her own children.
**
I'm missing (probably at least) one point here. But perhaps I'm just too shallow. Medea takes revenge on Jason's betrayal to her by taking the lives of his children.
So, is Ward stating the Earth is taking revenge? Against us all for our betrayal of...what? Earth itself? That's something of an inaccurate metaphor.
All the rest makes sense but the "Medea" part I'm missing.
And it also succumbs to the most basest fact.
Once you're born, you begin dying. This applies to all living things as well as all evocations.
The theory makes sense. Maybe I'm just thrown by the title.
BTW. Just so it's not misinterpreted, (yes, I'm paranoid) my post was *not* an arguement of the meat of no one's post. Merely a frivolous comment on Ward's title of his theory.
Just making conversation.
Carry on.
I thought it had something to do with Tyler Perry...?
it does make one wonder how unique we are...? I mean, obviously we are somewhat unique, even for this planet. I also think it's highly unlikely that we are the only sentient beings EVER in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
I can't even grasp the enormity of an expanding universe, much less our teeny tiny miniscule role in it.
Suza, who's that in your new icon, a relative, one of Mick's French actresses?
Medea, Medusa, who's counting? Now the Medusa Effect, there's a syndrome. Military term describing the aftermath of a despot's overthrow. Inevitably some reactionary loyalists retain bits of the deposed tyrant's power and wealth. They become long-term trouble makers. Think of the blood dripping from Medusa's severed head as Perseus flew over the desert -- when each drop hit the hot sand it turned into a poisonous viper. (Hear the hiss?)
And of course we're the only intelligent life in the universe. God didn't clone Adam and Eve. Eden was somewhere within what we now call Iraq. Everybody knows that!
God. You're all so fucking smart. Gaia, Medusa, nurturers, baby-killers. Yet you all think abortion is a wonderful thing.
Is it so goddamn hard to connect the dots?
I'm convinced Suza is Mick's feminine side.
wv: hacter. Uh-huh.
yc - that's young garbo. slight resemblance to a young suza.
:)
Oops went from Proteus (name used in a book on stem cell research) to Medusa (icon of the book on horrorism, and quaker's ruminations on Medusa have nothing to do with the topic at hand) and now finally to the Medea effect, a term just coined by astrobiologist Peter Ward.
Why life itself has biocidal tendencies is what the book lays out, and I haven't had time to read it, and can even post here only in a state of distraction. The point of relevance seems to this: if life tends to destroy itself then we may never come to know of its existence elsewhere due to said biocidal tendencies (life elsewhere may have died out light years ago, and we may die out before we can make contact with life elsewhere). We may die out due to biocidal tendencies or meteor showers or, in the last case, the burning out of the sun.
So we can say that even if life is likely to have emerged and evolved elsewhere--though our distance from the sun, the water content of our planet, our freedom from regular meteor showers which have all made the evolution of complex life possible is probably quite uncommon in the universe--it is unlikely that we'll ever come into contact with it.
Life would have to be a lot more common and not biocidal for our being likely to come into contact with it.
Haven't had time to look into the Fermi paradox, which is at the heart of the issue.
Thank God he's not a college professor.
TheGavone said...
Why don't you ask him, Hartal? See what he says.
June 25, 2009 9:40 AM
TheGavone said...
I mean I'm really tempted to start blabbing.
You wanna know what's funny? He's removed a lot of his old posts. I wonder why?
WV: aftmens
June 25, 2009 9:42 AM
Well, Hartal, did you ask him?
Given FH's interest in Dr. Who--a big fave among the geeks of the world, including my wife-- this seems to be what he did not know about time travel
http://tiny.cc/IBTkH
Posted By: Mick LaSalle (Email) | Jun 25 at 09:32 AM
My, how does he work so fast?
WV: unfeco
"quaker's ruminations on Medusa have nothing to do with the topic at hand"
Myth is myth. Naming it after a Greek myth or calling it "biocidal" -- either way, it's a current myth. Be wary. And (please) more concise.
Yes, of course I will, Quaker. I'm really just a big tease...I love pushing the envelope and certain people's buttons.
wv: Moerkslan. now what do you suppose that means?
hartal - which part of that Discovery article about Time Travel did Doctor Who not understand? The paradox thing?
Fun article - and written in a way that even I could understand!
Don't know how it applies to Dr. Who which I haven't been watching. My wife told me about it.
Here's Peter Ward in his own words:
http://tiny.cc/awvHt
So, Hartal. What did you find out? You wanna ask rude, probing questions--let's hear some brilliant deductions.
Oh, silly me. I forgot--he blocks your emails.
Have no idea what you're talking about. I am trying to help you let LaSalle go. You want that to happen, and that's why you keep on engaging me. LaSalle blocked me from SF Gate; I then emailed him to complain; he then blocked my address. But I have no interest in having a conversation with him. I could care less if he blocks my email as long as he cannot have me banned.
*
My guess is that once America sees that the world is still standing sfter the death MJ and FFM. the stock market will rally tomorrow.
*
Try a sociological or semiotic reading of FFM's sexual superstardom. My guess is that it's inexplicable except as a revolt against the 60s. Her ridiculously femme hairstyle suggested the end of feminism; her curly hair attempt to bring desire back into the fold of white racialism--her hair (and she was her hair) met the threat of black female sexuality, symbolized in part by thick and kinky hair; and FFM's marriage to a fictional heroic cyborg military man indicated the respectability of
patriotism.
FFM was the segue from the 60s to the Reagan years.
Sex, race and nation came together in that poster.
My guess is that it's inexplicable except...
**
That was quite an "except".
And as a "sociological or semiotic" approach, quite accurate.
But couldn't you have waited just one more day?
I feel no personal loss but I feel a sense of decorum is appropriate with the death of anyone. At least for a brief period.
Signed,
Emily Post
You're right, Ted Spe. So I should have added that FFM, the actress, seems to have been accomplished and serious, and not the person that she was in the more popular American imagination. In fact she seems to have struggled with that image. But I only know the image.
But don't we need to talk about something else before my time--the juxtaposition of the Jackson Five and the Osmonds on Saturday morning cartoons.
It seems that what killed Michael Jackson was that recent American Idol winner's rendition of "Billy Jean".
But wasn't MJ's genius about the sublimation of the subversive energy of black music for American and global commercial success?
That's funny,Hartal. You wanna help me let him go? But I enjoy stalking him over here on ferret's blog.
You're just jealous that he never did block my emails--for a whole year. Can you imagine what I must have written to him? I'm pretty sure he read the emails. Such a symapathetic character.
wv: outtonc. heh.
p.s. I'm very good at the moving on thing.
You're disturbed if you think I have the slightest interest in your email exchange. Get the help that you need.
Moving on? That's a good one. Gavone, you're an obsessed stalker with no life. Get one.
I sense nervousness in you as never before, qua.
I believe I emphasized that I was a big tease. Hence the Gavone moniker.
Why the sudden hostility? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
wv: dedlyzed
"Quasi-sentient zygotic tissue"
That was a pretty good one, by the way.
You know I adore only you, so be nice.
wv: exycwhen. Too funny...how can this be?
no one wrote
**
You're right, Ted Spe. So I should have added that FFM, the actress, seems to have been accomplished and serious, and not the person that she was in the more popular American imagination. In fact she seems to have struggled with that image. But I only know the image.
**
No. That's not what I was saying. If you re-read my post, you, considering, would know that was not what I was saying.
Again, if you re-read what I wrote, I agreed with your perspective on what the dearly departed represented at the time.
All I was saying is in our little comfy world that you and I both live in, could you not have waited till the corpse was cold before you began your diatribe of the ills and illusions of our sad, sad world and the emblem that, as you crassly put, "FFM" represented?
Timing, my friend.
It's all in the timing.
Decency and respect for the dead.
That's all I meant.
Really, that's all I meant.
Ted, please come back and tell us you were kidding about Hartal's post being indecent. Your sanctimony is boundless.
Well said Hartal, I loved the comeback. Ted doesn't have a clue that he just got pwned.
1. FFM's ambitions as a serious actress are probably only comprehensible as, in part, a reaction to the iconic action achieved by way of that poster, so the poster has to be understood.
2. I am not showing disrespect for FFM but a critical interpretation of culture that made her its sex symbol. For that criticism to have effect, it has to be written when people are thinking about FFM as an American symbol. That's happening in this 24 hour news cycle.
3. I doubt that anyone close to FFM is reading this. We all have emotional distance from her unless we are bound up with celebrity in unhealthy ways.
Ted, I don't know you think you're going to impress around here with that kind of pomposity.
It's not all in the timing my friend, it's all about knowing your audience.
There were quite a few more significant deaths in Iran alone today. Unfortunately every single station is now 24/7 Michael Jackson.
And no Ted, I couldn't wait to post this, you sanctimonious ass, because time is running out. I work for a hospice support group, so in regards to death and dying, I have a much better perspective on what is proper decorom that a celebrity crazed obit stalker.
So now young YC is using the qua label? Liars and theives abound. Beware cheap imitations. I remember back in the 1980s african amereican intellecuals got angry over the white world's embrace of MJ's castrated black music. Dull topic, now. As to Farrah, she was part of the "new normality" that followed the end of the 60s. She was the opposite of a hippie or radical woman. (Take a close look at Jane Fonda's permutations over that period and you'll see what I mean.) Slightly more interesting topic.
sorry about the typos. mild hangover (good one, following a celebration)
I got in late last night after rehearsal, and Jimmy Kimmel was on. After one of his Michael Jackson jokes got little response, he said, "Too soon?" To the extent celebrities impinge on our lives through mass media, most people see them as part of our lives, albeit tangentially. One can argue that our society places too much emphasis on celebrity, but I don't think one can say that celebrities' deaths deserve any less respect than anyone else's.
Personally, I saw Ted's and Hartal's exchange as sincere expressions of their views, without rancor (well, perhaps a small amount of rancor, but less than has been common in the past), and I thought Hartal acknowledged Ted's critique in the spirit it was offered and offered his defense appropriately. I would hate to see that disagreement escalate into ugliness.
Since we had all been hearing that Farrah Fawcett had been ill for a while (for an hour on prime time TV, no less), her death was not unexpected. But Michael Jackson's was truly out of the blue; I had been on the phone, and reading the news on SFGate.com out of the corner of my eye, when the reports started coming out from TMZ and the L.A. Times, and I just had a feeling the news was not going to be good.
When I was growing up, in a neighborhood that was mostly black and Mexican, Michael Jackson was bigger than anything else. It seemed like all of the girls had open crushes on him, and they all just referred to him as "Michael"; no other name was necessary. Where I lived, Donny Osmond was just a pale imitation, pun intended.
wv: pinges
Qua. I didn't think you were so petty. Can't be too sure, though.
I was drinking a very nice cab myself last night. I just moved into my own place. Haven't seen my stuff in a whole year.
Farrah was an interesting person. Or at least represented women that weren't afraid to be attractive to men. I think it's a crime that women can't celebrate their beauty and desire to be appealing to men and still be intelligent or thoughtful at the same time and not be ridiculed.
As a person that is better looking than most women, there is a predjudice against women like me. We're mainly seen as decorative objects--not to be taken seriously. And good heavens if one should ever decide to be a homemaker and mother first. Most of this bigotry is perpetuated by women themselves. So much for real choice in this world.
A pronunciamento from a voice that sounds like the old xootsuit:
"I remember back in the 1980s african amereican intellecuals got angry over the white world's embrace of MJ's castrated black music. Dull topic, now."
Well a lot of black people remember with joy the Jackson 5 music (can't remember the title for "don't stop...get enough" but maybe that's his greatest dance song) and the Off the Wall album. Thriller does not generate the same excitement for many. Certainly not from me, but that is the album he is most remembered for and being remembered by today. That merits discussion.
But no time today.
oops great videos from Don't stop till you get enough on youtube. That's from the Off the Wall album. Gotta go. But that's the MJ voice I hear in my head today. Love it.
"But that's the MJ voice I hear in my head today. Love it."
To each his or her or its own. The original super-tiny MJ was clearly the best of the series of personae, but that's not saying much.
btw, I'm surprised you limit your search for the true qua so narrowly, noone. The only thing we can all be sure of is that you're not writing this good stuff.
Well you're agreeing with my points: the best MJ music was not Thriller on which people are obsessively focused, and the iconic FFM poster and sexual superstardom marked a break with the feminism and dissent associated with the 60s--you call this the new normality. But it was the point that I made. And I don't think you'll find at SF Gate a reporter or blogger who offered a critical reading of the significance of FFM's iconic poster. I suggested that line of discussion here, and you followed it.
You're utterly delusional about how creative and interesting you are.
And whoever you are, you are still a coward doubtless because you don't want to be associated with personae who was routed by me in a previous debate.
You don't rout, you rant.
Your analysis of the Farrah poster was pretty light. I disagreed with the superficiality.
The 60s began in the late 1950s and ran through the era of post-colonial third world revolutions (that is, until the US lost the grand daddy of them all in 73-74). The most important events of the 60s occurred outside the US. When the US retrenched, post-Nixon and post-Viet Nam, the US counter culture lost its targets. Thus the "new normality" set in (in the US). Farrah and her tv show and her poster and so forth were all part of that internal cultural shift. She was a minor player, historically; unoffensive at worst, charming in a safe US suburban way at best. Your opening post did not develop ANY of these issues. You are free to try to do so now, however . . .
btw, I like the other qua's idea of examining the various stages of Jane Fonda's career (and image). She really did (and still does, I guess) adjust her feminine image to the times. (Not that she's not sincere, just saying . . . .)
I completely avoided Michael hysteria. My little brother had a couple of his records. He had a Mariah Carey record, too. I found it tough to tell which one he was playing, frankly, as I shut my bedroom door and turned up what was most likely King Crimson's Discipline. I also remember those red jackets with the zippers all over them and thinking, 'WTF?' I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who is unmoved and dreading the onslaught of MJ related tidbits to come. I should probably call Joe Jackson to commiserate... I do think Janet is one hell of a cutie, though. Michael should have become her instead of Diana Ross.
Wait... I do remember now... Michael was the one who sounded like a child moving a heavy object, and Mariah sounded like a child who had a heavy object dropped on her foot.
I could never understand the Micahel Jackson craze, either.
I thik he was a little light in his loafers for my tastes.
think, I meant think. A little too light in his loafers. Literally and figurativly.
Lord, just please take me before you take Scott Baio.
Careful there, TS. you're revealing yourself. The guy was a sex animal. Must be an Italian thing.
My guess is that quantum leap is xootsuit who finds that he can't resist engaging me and commenting on my posts.
Most of the other qua names are twinfan Michael.
One thing is for sure: they are both cowards who have many defeats behind them. Why else are they posting under ever newer names?
N of course if you take your eyes off the civil rights, black power and women's movements, the real action was over the North/South divide. You may not understand that every other suburban boy had Farrah's poster up in his room and the Reagan revolution combined the power of the suburbs with the American South.
The sexual superstardom of Farrah represented a domestication and re-racialization of sexual desire, an insidious resurrection of the femme ideal and an unthinking return to cyborg militarism. The Farrah fad was all about immunizing adolescent boys to the subversive cultural trends of the time. At least as far as I can tell as I was too young at the time.
The point remains that no one was reading the iconic Farrah poster in a sociological and semiotic way before I made the first effort. Your post only walks in my footsteps. Once I removed the brush over a once blocked path, you simply followed. You are an intellectual follower, not a creative thinker.
You may think you have added something by changing the topic to Jane Fonda and the Vietnam War. But Fonda's transformations are well known while the cultural significance of the Farrah phenomenon is usually ignored. Look at the commentary at SF Gate. Including the writing of Hartlaub and LaSalle.
The topic today is the meaning of the Farrah phenomenon. You may have noticed that she, not Jane Fonda, died yesterday. I added a lot to that discussion. You have said almost nothing but you are somehow convinced that you have something important to say.
That's delusion.
You are also deluded that others rant in the way that you do. Do a discourse analysis of what I write. There are arguments and interpretations (and arguments for my interpretations) behind what I say.
A discourse analysis will reveal to you that qua, twinfan and xootsuit most often fall into pronunciamento.
YC. You work for a hospice support group? Bravo. Seriously. That’s great. But until you actually volunteer at a hospice some time, as I have, please don’t lecture me.
I don’t understand why you feel the need to be “no one”’s defense attorney. He can handle himself. And I wasn’t aware I was being rude to him or anyone else. I just stated an opinion. A reservation of speaking ill of the dead so quickly.
I’m also quite aware that “no one” was not speaking ill of the dead. He was speaking ill of society’s embrace of this particular dead person’s image and what it meant at that time in American society. Nevertheless, I simply felt the timing for something like that needs a certain amount of a waiting period.
Pretty benign stuff. No cause for an attack. I even signed off as Emily Post. I thought that would convey that I was quite aware that I was appearing somewhat sanctimonious.
But you just love hating me. Don’t cha? I got issues. You got issues. But I think yours can be cured with more fiber in the diet. Really. It’ll do you wonders.
But, I’ll accept a reply of “I just don’t like you, Ted. Never have. Never will”
Fair enough. Odd. Boorish. Narrow minded. Childish. Perhaps even venal. But…fair enough.
Anyways, moving on.
Did anyone see THREE KINGS? There was an interesting scene when the American Sergeant Barlow was taken captive by the Iraqi Captian:
Captain Said: What is the problem with Michael Jackson?
Barlow: What do you mean?
Captain Said: What...Is...The...Problem...With Michael Jackson? You understand my question?
Sergeant Barlow: No, I'm not sure I do.
Captain Said: The king of pop, ooh-hoo, ee-hee.
Sergeant Barlow: Yeah, Michael Jackson.
Captain Said: He come to Egypt, I see picture in newspaper. "Hello" with the white glove. I'm Michael Jackson in my autoroom, with my chop up face. Your country make him chop up his face.
Sergeant Barlow: I don't think so.
Captain Said: Michael Jackson is pop king of sick fucking country.
Sergeant Barlow: That's bullshit, he did it to himself.
(Captain Said hits Sergeant Barlow on the head with a clipboard)
Captain Said: You are the blind bullshit my main man. It's obvious, a black man make the skin white and the hair straight, and you know why?
Sergeant Barlow: No.
Captain Said: Your sick fucking country make the black man hate hiself just like you hate the Arab and the children you bomb over here.
great reference, TedSpe, though Michael Jackson may have had his eyes on the global market, not just White America, when he put himself under the knife. There is that problem of global anti black somatic prejudice.
At any rate, here is Michael Jackson on the Iranian crisis today.
http://tiny.cc/Sq5p2
dsg, I very much liked your comment on MJ over at SF Gate. Eloquent.
Another eloquent commentary on the meaning and weirdness of MJ is at Juan Cole's Informed comment website. He finds the secret in MJ's Black or White. And what about the comparison with the King. And I don't mean that he just 'married' his daughter--in normal circumstances would have been a blow to the fears of miscegenation. But also the whole Graceland/Neverland thing and the fact that they were undone by more money than God has.
no one, I agree with it not just being about white America. But I get Captain's Said's point of what MJ had to do "for" white America.
But in fact if you look at the transference of MJ's face, there's almost a Kabukish aspect to it.
And considering his popularity in Asia was probably, if not larger, more vehement in Asia...who knows?
The man was eccentric. But not stupid.
You still haven't written a single interesting thing on your subject, hartal. Throwing around the terms sociology and semiotics is futile. You've asserted pompous conclusions with no analysis of signs whatsoever. And you've spent most of your time attacking us quas, who really could care less. We just like to see you waste space!
The force of your expression is belied by the cowardice of your pseudonymous existence on the list. You're a coward, quaker. Ted Spe expressed at least some interest in what I wrote, though he questioned my manners. Or don't you notice anything but your own posts.
I nominate hartal for the quaff award this year.
Damnit...I spelled it wrong. It's the quaaf award. That's makes all the difference in the world.
And, Qua. I'm a little concerned. I've been looking up the definition of Qua over at the urban dictionary and there are quite a few of them. Which one do you go by?
all right, let's break it down, no one. You wrote:
"N [sic] of course if you take your eyes off the civil rights, black power and women's movements, the real action was over the North/South divide."
That is meaningless, a series of vague oratorical gestures identifying nothing.
"You may not understand that every other suburban boy had Farrah's poster up in his room and the Reagan revolution combined the power of the suburbs with the American South."
This sentence manages to combine unfounded ad hominem attack with more vapid discourse apparently meant to sound like intellectual inquiry. Farrah's poster was a symptom, not a cause.
"The sexual superstardom of Farrah represented a domestication and re-racialization of sexual desire, an insidious resurrection of the femme ideal and an unthinking return to cyborg militarism."
No. She was just a well scrubbed, non-threatening alternative to hippies and radicals. The fact that Farrah was popular is significant -- again, a symptom, not a cause. The "femme ideal" you vaguely assert never vanished, it just got displaced temporarily while the counter-culture's voice was loud. Without urgent historical underpinnings for its insistence (the Viet Nam war in the U.S., primarily), the counterculture lost its focus. The other voices in the culture were still there. They reasserted themselves in popular discourse. The final phrase (the unthinking return to cyborg militarism") is just flat out ludicrous. The US had just lost a war for the first time in its history. THAT fact determined the terms of retreat and retrenchment. Poor Farrah did not.
"The Farrah fad was all about immunizing adolescent boys to the subversive cultural trends of the time. At least as far as I can tell as I was too young at the time."
At least you admit you're guessing here. In fact, the gay and lesbian population became increasingly open and proud at exactly the same time as the Farrah frenzy you imagine.
"The point remains that no one was reading the iconic Farrah poster in a sociological and semiotic way before I made the first effort."
And, as I have shown, you weren't reading that poster at all, in any way. You were sloppily slinging vague notions and pompous, overbearing rhetoric, while saying nothing.
You're busting me up,Qua. Quack, quack, quack...that says more than your following dialogue. I'm still laughing.
I'm changing my moniker to Quavone in your honor--I hope that you don't mind.
knock yourself out, Gina. You, Michael, dsgonzale6 and, for a very short time, xootsuit, are the only posters here who have used photos of yourselves as icons. (I assume that lawyerly visage who popped up briefly actually was xootsuit.) I say props to all four of you. You've earned some license.
btw, what happened to your website with the photos? No more link?
Pointing to concrete social movements with their respective concrete demands is not, as you say, an oratorical gesture. Your charge that it is farcical verbiage. Do you know the meaning of the words that you use? You lose credibility at the beginning.
False duality: The teenage cult of FFM's sexual stardom and her status as America's sex symbol were symptom and cause. And in its dual existence its meaning still has be probed. How did she come to have that status and that hold on the American imaginary (I am sure that I am not exaggerating)? Why did that look with that hair take off?
The US losing a war did not mean that the civil rights movements, the struggle for a multicultural America and the women's movements were, inevitably, going to be beaten back. In fact the defeat could have had consequences opposite to the future president proudly commencing his campaign in Philadelphia, MS and carrying out a cultural counter-revolution with which LaSalle and only a few others remain indentified.
That domestic defeat still took cultural struggle, and the cultic status of FFM is well understood in that context. That it was a struggle means exactly that counter forces remained operative.
Not a very impressive attempt to engage, and don't forget that you left my response at 743 pm unanswered.
You're being routed again. Time to change names again, coward.
give it up. you're a fake.
Thank you, Qua...I sure do appreciate your fine sense of humor. You quack me up.
About my pictures and why I stopped--my father wouldn't let me use the computer for very long. Downloading images on his dial-up took forever. Now that I'm on my own, I plan on starting back up again. Just trying to get settled a little bit first.
I'm taking two classes online right now--narrative storytelling and 20th century art history. It's expensive, but worth it. Next semester I start with the art classes. That's when things should really start getting fun and hopefully I can bump things up a notch or two.
And, why does that blah, blah, blah dumb ass have to see more into things than what really are? Can't Farrah just be a beautiful women that men found pleasing to the eye? Like art? Beautiful women have existed throughout history as have the men who found them desirable. It's that simple.
And just you're too lazy to look it up Hartal:
1. quaaf
(Kwaa-f) n.
The quaaf is a very rare and illusive abomination of every thing god has created, opposite of the queef, a quaaf is the expulsion of air from a penis after sexual intercourse. Although no scientific studies have found any evidence to support the existence of the quaaf, it is still a great insult none the less.
Sorry. I can never write when I'm laughing.
Just in case you're too lazy to look it up, Hartal:
1. quaaf
(Kwaa-f) n.
The quaaf is a very rare and illusive abomination of every thing god has created, opposite of the queef, a quaaf is the expulsion of air from a penis after sexual intercourse. Although no scientific studies have found any evidence to support the existence of the quaaf, it is still a great insult none the less.
WV:raters
Here you go, Mr. Qua:
http://ineedashotofredemption.blogspot.com/
wv: derses. The opposite of dirges.
"I'm taking two classes online right now--narrative storytelling and 20th century art history. It's expensive, but worth it... Beautiful women have existed throughout history as have the men who found them desirable. It's that simple."
You're going to flunk your classes. At best, you'll barely pass. But you'll still have your fart jokes.
Was I directing my dialogue towards you, QuaafFartal?
In the grande scheme, you're as significant as a quaaf. And all you have is your 'noises' to to prove that you even existed.
Mr. Qua actually makes a difference in this world--he makes people laugh and has very good insight coupled with original thinking. I 'm positive that we could consider him a national treasure...I know I do.
So is he a national treasure because he spends his time writing the intellectual equivalents of attempted head butts against me or because he gave you a little money afford a better internet connection than your father had given you?
So is he a national treasure because he spends his time writing the intellectual equivalents of attempted head butts against me or because he gave you a little money afford a better internet connection than your father had given you?
you're smoking too much of the green stuff, Hartal. I know the thinking of a pothead. Extrapolates and always misses the mark. He contributes truth--you contribute the half-baked...or should I say the baked?
Who is he? The guy who refuses to be identified with the names under which he has already embarrassed himself? You're an apologist for a coward.
It doesn't matter who he is or what his name is, what matters is that he speaks the truth...something that is entirely lost on you.
Since you have no idea of what truth could mean in regards to a property of propositions that could be tested or scientifically verified, I have to guess that you're not calling qua's statements truthful but saying that the Cowardly Qua of Many Names is himself the truth. And that would mean I assume that qua lives the the true life, i.e. the good life, the exemplary life, the life that is a model for humans, the life to which we all should aspire to be faithful. In other words,
In short, the Cowardly Qua of Many Names is the truth to you as Jim Jones once was for others. You really are that demented, and you need to get help immediately.
No, Hartal, he just knows how to call a spade a spade.
If you mean now that he's (the quas, twinfan and xootsuit) willing to point to an elephant in the room--to use a slightly more interesting cliche about truth telling-- I've seen no evidence of that. But of course all you care about is that he has insulted someone who has mocked you. That's all that truth is in your very little world. And you have expressed some creepy hero worship of the qua characters especially given the thinness and incoherence of what they have posted. You too do seem unstable. Perhaps moving out of your father's house at 45 will help.
Semiotics of the Farrah poster, Lesson 1:
The background against which the young Farrah poses is a cheap Mexican serape, the sort sold to distracted tourists in Tijuana. Circa 1976, this element of the sign signified what? to whom? how do you reach those conclusions?
Restrict your answer to less than 50 words (unless you happen to be familiar with the fine serapes of other regions in Mexico, such as Tlaxcala; in that case, rock on).
Three of the more interesting images of truth telling are linked to animals: the elephant in the room, the ostrich with his head in the sand, and the the three monkeys who don't see or hear or something else evil. Truth telling involves breaking conspiracies of silence that are harmful (of course the Emperor with no clothes on is the most famous image), and the person who does this (sometimes called a whistleblower) is often accused of having no social graces. Now ask yourself who has been accused most often of having no social graces? The interesting thing is that you are in fact much more loutish in your behavior than I am, but I am much more often accused of being tactless and impolite, though my posts are actually models of civility compared to yours and the qua characters. You should be able to figure out why.
No evidence that anyone was concerned with the backdrop. the back drop was a non-verbal, non-symbol. But I am glad that you are following my lead to begin a critical discussion of that iconic poster. That is what LaSalle and Hartlaub failed to do.
The point, poseur, is that you did no such analysis. You did not lead anything. You ranted on at length citing irrelevant abstractions, with no regard to the details of the signs you said you would analyze. I took the poster apart years ago. It's a mildly interesting exercise. You still haven't done it. (And if you think the mere "backdrop" is irrelevant then you really are a fool.)
When are you going to send in the long post saying that the backdrop was of the utmost importance because it put Farrah (the white Texan equivalent of LaTeisha as a made up, bourgie name) in a position of a white tourist in a relation of use of the Mexican border (and the people there)for her own libindal release. If that's where you're coming from, I would say it's a stretch esp as an explanation for why it achieved iconic status. The background probably had little to nothing to do with that.
By the way, don't forget that you conceded my replies at 7:43 and 10:06 pm last night by letting them go unaswered. That doesn't look good. It suggests that you have no trust in the solidity of your own arguments. And we already knew that you were a coward.
You are a very jealous fellow. Lonely too, right?
oh, and as to the "lonely" part? I'm having a tough time hiding this exchange from prying eyes tonight. Surrounded by, as they say, loved ones. Exciting times here at the qua compound.
Go change some diapers, house husband. You'll feel better. So will the kids.
It's not sign with signified. The sign in Saussure's terminology is the signified and the signifier, not the sign. Go to bed, you lonely hysterical man.
And that's it? All that hostility. And nothing more to say about the backdrop or the poster. You said you already did the analysis years ago. Yeah, right.
Just to give you two exemplary analysis of non verbal symbols. I refer you to Barthes' analysis of the image of the picture of the black soldier and Danesi's analysis of the meaning of the business suit in its relation to original Puritans' outfits.
The signifier and the signified. True. That's the sign, in the original system. Sorry. Long time since I've debated semiotics with a dolt like you.
Now, where have you discussed anything about the signifier? Only in response to my challenge about the backdrop. Nowhere else.
I always preferred Barthes. He was a lot looser with the terminology.
Now, analyze the image, part by part, pinhead.
And now our poor hartal is googling like mad -- he's tracked down semiotics (would've been nice to do so before he tossed that term out there, but . . . .), yet he can't seem to find a structuralist critique of the Farrah poster anywhere on the web. What's he gonna do? Who's he gonna steal from now? Stay tuned.
I talked about the hair. For sane people that is more important than the backdrop. But you are a dolt, and I am not spending any more time on Farrah or you--you are too emotionally disturbed for me to have any interest.
oh, Gina, thanks for the link.
You're welcome.
I suppose I have to go take another look at that Farrah photo...just to see if you're making sense. I'm sure you are, I just never paid any attention to it.
Maybe I should have written "the only SENSUAL cleavage." The left arm triangle above the knee obviously echoes the leg.
In any event, if you analyze the Farrah poster closely, you will realize that the blonde hair is oen of the less important elements.
I greatly admire good composition. The Farrah poster was effective, maybe good, in its way.
A lot of Gina's photos are better.
Thank you, Qua, that's very nice of you to say that.
You know what? I was just writing to an old friend about that work. He really liked a lot of it, too. I was telling him that I had just gone back and looked at the earlier stuff and that I thought it was kinda sucky. It was my first photographic work that was meant from an artistic angle.I found it interesting to see the progression. I'm really looking forward to what I'll be doing in the future--especially taking the classes I'll be taking.
I've come a long way from November, 2006.
I guess I have certain gasbags to thank for my awakening.
hartal, I'm glad you thought it was eloquent, I'm sorry that events moved me to say it.
Here's a delightful example of MJ's influence.
http://tiny.cc/gkvPl
Here Mr. Qua--here's another.
Whaddya think of this one?
ok, I concede. That was a pretty good version of that song. Loved the guitar. Thanks. Maybe what I didn't like about the Jackson's is that they seemed so corney and maudlin. I mean, come on, MJ singing that song--I'd cringe if he sang that song to me and think, babe, there's a reason why we're not together. Him singing that song is too unbelievable--but then I do prefer a different type of man. It just goes to show you that people have different tastes...and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
This version was so good because it seemed heartfelt and geniune.
A lot of musician's take poorly sung songs and make them great. It doesn't mean that the first person to sing the song was a maestro, though.
http://tinylink.com/?3jbGaDcG7i
The J5's version was not meant to speak to you as a woman in the kind of heat that you always seem to be in. It was supposed to be cute (perhaps MJ should not have been singing such lyrics at that age) and damn impressive because MJ at that tender age was so disciplined and perfect (we now know the psychological price that he paid for the perfection instilled in him by his father--a psychiatrist testified that he actually was stuck emotionally and mentally at the age of 10; I have to assume that the judicial system got it right that he was innocent of the child abuse charges). . And don't get me wrong--I am a James Brown, P-Funk, Bootsie Collins guy. I love the Funk hour at 10pm on Fridays on KPFA. But don’t think MJ had nothing to do with people returning to James Brown.
Yes, we can say that MJ was not original (who is in his genres after James Brown?), but not everyone can copy James Brown's dance moves and add a different kind of energy and innovate on his basis. Not everyone can be so disciplined. He was a progidy, a musical genius who changed the course of American and global music. You can deal with that. Or you can be a curmudgeon. And I say that incredibly pained by his self-mutiliation and the squandering of his talent and money on eccentricities.
You know what's so striking about that clip? That you have a prepubescent little boy with a beautiful and pure-sounding voice singing a song that is completely innapropriate. As a mother, my chilren would never be pimped-out that way. Maybe that's what really happened to MJ and why charges of pedophilia followed him...greed took his innocence away from him and hammered out a monster in its place. It would explain why some people find him so distasteful and others look past what he became and admired his voice how he coped with how other's had exploited him.
That clip was grotesque...I couldn't even finish.
I was writing my response while you posted yours.
But that's exactly what is so distasteful, a young boy singing song meant to appeal to women sexuality. If I found that appealing, I'd be a pedophile, wouldn't I?
Please excuse my errors--I was thinking faster than I could write.
Actually by today's standards that song has hardly any explicit sexual references--except for the line let go of your shoulders, BABY. Otherwise, it is a song about love, friendship, trust and respect. Yes, I would never have my child sing it, and I immediately raised the concern. But I think your response to this song is over the top.
I think your worship of him has something to do with race and promoting minorities as worthy role models. Mj was grotesque in so many ways. You'd have to be kidding yourself to not be able to admit that. I can hardly blame the boy-man for what he became--it's seems that so much of it reflected how greed and exploitation had shaped him. But, we do make choices in this life. Maybe that's the real crime here, not what different people see when they look at him.
That display and its sexual suggestivness is repulsive to me...that doesn't make me wrong...it's just what I see.
One more thing.
'Actually by today's standards that song has hardly any explicit sexual references--except for the line let go of your shoulders, BABY. Otherwise, it is a song about love, friendship, trust and respect.'
And, that's what makes so wrong. I imagine a pedophiliac would use love, friendship, trust and respect to get what they wanted
Michael Jackson always made me think of Brian Wilson. Undeniable genius in both, but an unsettling lack of deep ambition, too. Both were (are) pure pop. Both were (are) also innocent and creepy, at the same time.
Can you imagine hartal dancing to George Clinton? Groovin to Atomic Dog on his iPod while he pushes the shopping cart with a little kid in it around the supermarket. You go, funkster!
And we can bet the ranch that he'd never defend the good works of a pedophile priest, either.
Thank, you. He might,though,if the priest happened to be black. But even then he'd probably point his finger at whitey and say he made him do it because whitey had oppressed him as a child and made fun of his kinky hair.
Hartal will never admit he's wrong, either.
Oh, to be 28 again.
This last exchange is somewhat bizarre. It seems like there is some agreement about certain basic issues about Michael Jackson, but the rhetoric veers at time into animosity.
A thread about intelligent alien life turns to Michael Jackson. Fitting.
Who are the true American musical geniuses? A case can be made for Michael Jackson, though his true talent wasn't really music, but showmanship. The list would have to include Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Cole Porter, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, Hoagy Carmichael, Duke Ellington, and Bob Dylan.
Great choices, DSG. I'll just add Robert Johnson & Hank Williams.
I have a couple of questions for you, Mr. Logic.
Would you defend the actions of a pedophile priest if he had done things that were considered otherwise good works? What if that same priest had been molested as a child?
In regards to animosity--you always seem to overlook the attacks against me. Why is that?
no Ray Charles? I think Hoagy would just a sandwich to most people today if Ray C. had not recorded his version of Georgia.
Another comment on animosity. One can not have an exchange with the Hartal without him lapsing into animosity and personal attacks when you disagree with him. That's what makes him such an uncivilized slumdog.
Gina, I specifically didn't call out anyone in particular on the animosity issue. It was a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular.
As for your question about pedophile priests, I always try to take people as a whole, based on the good and bad. Pedophilia is bad, though; and Jackson was acquitted.
WT, I'd support both those choices as geniuses.
Qua, I agree that a case can also be made for Ray Charles, but I think Hoagy Carmichael's influence isn't dependent on his.
Now tell the truth -- do you inordinately favor Hoagland because he was a lawyer? (kidding, kidding, google is just too good sometimes)
Hoagy Carmichael was a great songwriter and a terrific stylist. That's all.
Hoagy was also one of the first singer-songwriters, in an era when those things were highly compartmentalized. And he's in "To Have And Have Not" which is just cool.
WT, his part is To Have and Have Not is totally cool. Plus, in that movie, he sings his Hong Kong Blues, which was later covered by George Harrison.
what about Charlie Parker?
So, you would defend a pedophile priest? Because I've never heard you pipe in when anyone blasts the Church for having them.
Gina, offer proof of their good works and that would be a different story, but without any proof, I have nothing to base my view on other than the conviction. Now, if you're just talking about accusations, there's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" issue to deal with. And in the case of Michael Jackson, he was acquitted, so the only evidence of pedophilia is speculation contrary to the legal conclusion.
In other words, just because you're a priest, I am not going to presume either good or bad acts on your part. And unproven accusations don't give rise to a bad opinion on my part. But if someone's convicted, then I have to believe in their guilt; similarly, if someone's acquitted, I have to believe in their innocence.
Unless I have actual knowledge to the contrary.
"if someone's acquitted, I have to believe in their innocence"
OJ?
Unless I know facts to the contrary. There was a civil trial.
qua, I'm not sure about Charlie Parker. Maybe.
Re OJ, wasn't one of the issues we just discussed the negative effect of the media and our culture of celebrity on society?
And the settlement. Don't forget the settlement of an undisclosed sum.
I think it's safe to assume that priests do good works--it's sorta a job requirment.
I believe I read somewhere that the OJ criminal trial had a jury full of poor black people and the OJ civil trial had a fairly well to do jury full of white people. I'm not sure I trust either extreme to perceive the true facts.
I was thinking about what quark said (not the DS9 character, and I only make that differentiation in case Ferret is reading this, which I doubt), about Ray Charles. I think Ray is one of those 'musicians' musicians' in that his influence wasn't so much felt in popular music, as it was influential on those musicians who had the ears to appreciate it at the time (like Mozart and Salieri in that movie.)
Ray didn't really change music, although he synthesized R & B, Country and Gospel into a hybrid essentially his own. Certainly, that makes him unique, but I was thinking of historical musical impact...
Speaking of Ray, if you can, check out Donald Fagen's tribute to him, "What I Do," on his album "Morph The Cat." It's the ultimate statement on Ray Charles, and better than the gas I'm spewing here...
But you're such a cute gasbag, Wt.
Speaking of ferret, where is that little tramp? Hasn't she got that house yet? Do we have to beg for an update?
You may hear perversity in the early J5 hits, but what I see is a boy who was pushed too hard and received too much adulation at a way too young age. He got stuck emotionally at that stage of his life.
Now I have read enough Freud to know that children can be, or are, sexual beings--one of his truly subversive, disturbing and scandalous thoughts. So perhaps he had the sexual drives and self control of some twelve or perhaps ten year olds. That's possible, but I see no reason why I should believe that he played around sexually with what he thought were other twelve year boys. He was acquitted. And not apparently on technicalities.
It's a real stretch to say that he became a pedophile because he presented himself as sexually available to adults in the J5 music, that is, he grew up to assume to role of those who were his imaginary audience as a child.
The music is not that sexual, and can be understood mostly innocently. And there is no evidence that he abused the kids.
He wanted to be around other kids because emotionally they were closest to him. It does seem as simple as that.
It's also irresponsible in my opinion not to assume that MJ was innocent of the child abuse charges. We do have a principle of innocent before proven guilty. Maybe he was in fact guilty, but I can't in good conscience voice the suspicion.
The payment of the settlement was probably motivated by a desire to keep secret the eccentricities of MJ's lifestyle so as to protect his revenue flow. That is, he had more to lose from getting an acquittal than he did from making the payout. It seems to have been a business decision. It was not an admission of guilt.
And there is no way that authorities would have backed off child abuse charges had the evidence been there just because the case was settled. And when he was charged, he beat them back in an open-to-the-public court. And not due to suspicions about racist cops, a glove not fitting and DNA being mishandled.
So it's a question of what it is responsible to believe and say; it's a question of which beliefs and opinions cohere with our senses of justice. I don't think it's consonant with those values to voice suspicion of his pedophilia. But it is consonant with them to say that Catholic leaders have been terribly irresponsible about pedophilia in their Church, given the evidence that they had. Evidence that's been confirmed in court and with jail sentences.
Now let me make it simple for Gavone: One of the most disturbing aspects of our country is that those who are freest of prejudice in their friendships and judgements and most sensitive to the legacy of racism are quite frequently called prejudiced.
But if we are to be judged by the circle of friends that we keep and our scores on the Implicit Association Tests of Harvard's Mahzarin Banaji, well...who do you think is among the least prejudiced people on this list? No way it's Gavone.
And I would be surprised if anybody scored better than I did on those tests. In fact you just couldn't
Fartus Interruptus.
I wouldn't listen to my I-Pod if I had my kids with me. I won't even talk on the cell. I don't listen to the funk or go as much anymore. Bootsie used to crack me up in this land where they call us man. When we lived in Mercer County NJ my wife played the greatest hits of JB until I could not take it anymore. But I'll tell you this: if you give kids a choice, they choose Bollywood. Hands down.
Seriously Gavone take those Implicit Association Tests and then come back to us, screaming about how they prove nothing.
About Farrah's grin, it's a combination of aggression against feminism (probably worth checking out what Darwin said about the grin in the Expression of Emotions) and assuagement of men's resentments towards feminism (here's a woman that is all smiles for you) while the tilting back of her head also suggests her sexual availability. But it wasn't just sex the poster was selling. The smile is too aggressive for that. More important was the assuagement of men's insecurities. That's why the smile seemed so god damn pleasant.
FFM's iconic poster was a body blow to feminism; plus the hair suggested that women should be willing to wake up at 500 am in the morning to look purty for men folk again. Perhaps the background suggests a return to unthinking pleasure (summer break in Mexico) against the critical questions of the time.
Now nothing deep here about primary and secondary signs a la Barthes. But the question remains why that poster struck a chord when it did? A little hermeneutics of suspicion would be appropriate here. The SF Gate critics failed completely.
"a la Barthes"
Not even close, hartal. You cannot even identify the signifier. Still. That was my point. I'm more of a post structuralist, myself. But we all consider the same starting points:
Issue 1 is this: what's there. Not why, but what. Issue 2 is this: what DID it signify, when it hit big and sold 12 million copies at about 3 bucks a pop?
hartal's racist reading is pathetic. The white woman with the big teeth is not out to get you, hartal.
gina, the head upturned does not seem submissive in that way, to me. The bared throat is vulnerable, the upward smile is not threatening. Most important, I think, are the eyes. They engage brightly, with some intelligence.
This is the portrait of someone who knows she's being photographed or who is turning to smile at a person walking by who said something nice to her. Same thing, in this world.
Also, the subject is no pre-packaged babe. The only cosmetic indulgence is the curled and (probably) frosted hair, which Farrah deliberately showed off by tilting her head back, to let it flow. Otherwise, she is mildly tan, well scrubbed and healthy. Not glamorous, at all, really.
The Mexican blanket behind her, which looks machine woven to me but may not be, was chosen because it was at hand and it happened to match the swimsuit, but it wound up suggesting both bedding (pretty elementary) and exoticism (she may be the girl next door but she's not afraid of some mild adventure).
The pose itself, however, which Farrah improvised apparently, is the real heart of the image. Her crotch is covered, her pudenda is not prominent, yet the triangle her left leg forms, with that thigh-against-calf cleavage, suggests what she controls. Her left nipple brushes that all important left thigh.
The elements of the image came together almost by accident. The photographer himself more than once has attested to this. But once together, they formed the signifier.
Now let's not hear any more flatulent abstractions. Let's hear some specific intelligent conclusions about what that signifier signified IN ITS TIME and who responded and why. Go, hartal. The minute glass is funnelling!
I wrote: "it's a combination of aggression against feminism (probably worth checking out what Darwin said about the grin in the Expression of Emotions) and assuagement of men's resentments towards feminism (here's a woman that is all smiles for you) while the tilting back of her head also suggests her sexual availability."
An idiot screamed:
"The white woman with the big teeth is not out to get you, hartal." You're a drunken idiot since you think that is what I wrote. I wrote the opposite.
I was just offered major new work today (along with the major responsibilities I have). I'm a professional professional's, and you are an idiot. You already proved that with your attempt to tell us about the sign. Semiotics is about meaning in a field of difference. That's why I referred to it. YOu have no idea why. At any rate, I don't have time for this idiocy. You can have this coward. Gavone and this idiot are too much for me.
Dr. Hartal is out.
"I'm a professional professional's"
and a liar and a fool. Good luck with the new job. Maybe you'll have less time to blog.
And don't bother analyzing the signifier that you couldn't even see. No one cares.
oh, finally, "the opposite" of what you wrote is what you meant. Bet on it.
Gina, I don't believe it's safe to assume anyone's good works based solely on his or her vocation.
wv: bayariac
The San Francisco Opera?
hartal, do such comments really deserve to be dignified with a reply? I can appreciate the indignance you feel, but do any of us really want to say that those comments are worthy of attention?
I was sorta kidding. You know, made a really base comment to offset all the intellectual analysis. Don't kill it, you know?
I thought I read in that Hartlaub piece that the blanket was grabbed from the seat of someone's truck, and she did her own hair.
Maybe you guys are over-thinkig this too much. Maybe the pose was not that studied but sort of happened that way without so much careful thinking...naturally...as in a quick, unrehearsed study in natural beauty. Maybe that's it's appeal...to present an ideal of what men find attractive in women. And, if that was contrary to the feminine ideal of how women should look, so be it. Maybe it answered the feminism call for women to act and look like men. Look at the haircuts and how clothing changed during those periods of time. The fact that that poster sold so many copies sorta prove the point that a lot of people wewren't ready to give up that view just yet.
Afterall, it's feminism that was the "new" way of thinking. Who are a bunch of militiant women to redefine how women should look and act? I mean,who gave them permission to tell everyone how to think?
I think it was Rush Limbaugh who always made the point that feminism was a bunch of ugly women wanting to level the playing field against the advantage that beautiful women have always had. I think there's some truth to that.
Men are naturally drawn to good-looking women. It's biological. All you have to do is listen to them talk about ugly women to know that fact will never change.
True, dsg, but the vocation itself is by definition rather altruistic.
Of all the vocations, this one in particular is all about doing good works--serving others without expecting much in return.
Why do you keep defending Hartal? You've been treated to his nastiness when you disagreed with him. Why do you excuse his behavior? He's like a spoiled brat that wants his own way, and when he doesn't get it, starts hitting you to make his point. If that were my kid, I'd pack his little suitcase and tell him to go find a better situation if it's so unpleasant here.
One more thing about the Farrah photo.
Speaking as a person who'd like to think I'm something of an artist, I can tell you that when I take photos, I look for a beautiful composition and then try to capture it. It's not something I really labor over--it's just a reaction to what I see. If I can do that, then some sort of truth will be displayed. It's a spontaneous thing--from the gut. I thenleave it up to the viewer to decide what the image means.
I would also say though, that that reaction is also balanced with everything that I've learned about life--which is why I'm so much better at seeing than I was when younger. That's growth as an artist. To tie this in with MJ, that was his failing point--he didn't really grow as an artist--he just became distorted and failed to express any meaningful truths. And, that I believe, is the role of any artist--to help people that lack vision an opportunity to see truth.
Maybe that's what LaSalle meant when he said MJ became irrelevant.
Well, my work here is done. The smug and sanctimonious have taken a united stand. Now they can bore each other with their bloated posts (at least when they're not wasting hours commenting uselessly on sfgate blogs).
Gina:
You're on the right track, I think. A small token:
http://tinyurl.com/ny4xxz
Thank you, Qua. Truth is the truth, no matter how you slice it.
Have a good day.
I don't see what the big deal about this poster is. As a young boy, I mentioned wanting the poster after seeing it on a friend's bedroom wall. My mom summed it up pretty succinctly: 'Not in my house, you don't. She's a woman, not an object to hang on your wall.' Now, it could be that repeatedly staring at the poster for a few minutes might have brought with it special insight into its symbolism for boys everywhere, but my mom only needed to take a quick glance to figure out what a two-dimensional, four-color facsimile of an erect-nippled blonde symbolised.
That said, this gentleman prefers brunettes.
Gina, re priests, I don't hang out with them, so I don't have much experience on which to base a view. I hang out with lawyers more, and so I have a more informed view of them.
Re conflict, I'm trying to follow our hostess's marching orders. Especially in this small group, unlike SFGate, harmony is easier to achieve and I find it easier to stick to the high road. On SFGate, given the multitudes of different people, I succumb to my baser instincts more easily.
I've known priests my whole life. My mother took us to mass every Sunday and when I wasn't attending Catholic school, I went to catechism on Wednesday's. I married in the Church, had all of my children baptized as Catholics, and they currently attend Catholic school. I go to mass on Sunday's when I can make it. I do know priests. And, everyone one that I've ever known has done selfless work and never for profit. They, by nature, are men not interested in capitalistic pursuits. Everyone I've ever known is interested in the higher order of life.
And, to be honest, I've never known a single one to be anything different. I've read about them, of course, but bad priests--pedophiles--are only about .01% of all priests. I suspect many of those accused weren't even guilty. How does one defend themselves against the word of a grown person that says something happened years and years ago? And often with no proof? Some of those priests weren't even alive when they were accused. How does a dead man defend himself? It's the greed of lawyers that saw the deep pockets and went after the treasury. It's the innocent that paid the price. Still,the Church has made every effort to right things, to her credit. She still gets blasted, though, by people like Hartal and the like. And he wonders why I have so little respect for him, call him a slumdog.This is a man that gives a grotesque, questionable character the benefit of the doubt simply, I suspect, because he's black. And we all know how Hartal loves to play the race card when necessary.
Unfortunatly, the whole body of the Church gets the blame for bad priests actions. So excuse me when I see the irony of people's support for MJ. That is the right usage of that word, yes?
Well, because I wasn't raised Catholic, I didn't know many priests to start with. I did go to Catholic schools from age 11 to age 21 (the public schools sucked where I grew up), and encountered some priests along the way. My 800-student all-male high school was run by Marianist brothers; some were pretty cool, some were creepy. I subsequently learned that two of the brothers who taught there when I was attending had inappropriate contact with students (I also found out later than one of the female lay teachers was sleeping with a classmate of mine, but that's a different story). Different experiences, different views. That's life.
wv: opine
I love female lay teachers.
So did dsg's classmate
I think we should all start chanting "FERRET! FERRET!"
My colleague in the next cube just jumped up on her desk shrieking, 'WHERE?! WHERE?!'
It figures that the "lay teacher" reference would unite us. ;)
But speaking of which, it reminds me of how San Antonio was such a small town in its ways, despite its size. My late brother Manuel's first wife was a teacher (elementary school), and it so happens that she had gone to college (Southwest Texas State U., formerly Southwest Texas Teacher's College, LBJ's alma mater, now known as Texas State U.) with the female lay teacher at my high school. I remember mentioning to my sister-in-law that this woman was teaching at my high school, and my surprise at her reaction of dislike. I guess she may have known her better than I did--I also have to admit that I did occasionally attend the parties that this teacher hosted at her house, where we would drink to excess, as high school students were wont to do.
So, let me get this straight. You attended parties at this woman's house where she served alcohol and you didn't tell anyone? More than once?
By the looks of it you're something of an accomplice to corruption. Afterall, some children can be held responsible for murder. How ironic in the end that you became a lawyer. Learning the trade at young age, huh?
I remember an adult that invited kids over to his house and offered us alcohol. I sensed his creepiness when I went there and refused the booze and never went back. He turned out to be a pervert as well.
Please tell me you weren't that naive.
I was 16, and I grew up in San Antonio. I think that made me naive by definition back then. Perhaps you were more worldly than I was back then. All I know is that I went to those parties on a few occasions and many of my friends went to those parties as well. Other than seeing one guy passed out drunk, I was never aware of anything unfortunate going on. As I previously noted, I was unware that one fellow (a friend of mine) was having sex with that teacher, and only learned of that fact later. I was also unaware of the two Marianist brothers who were having improper relationships with students during this time as well. Perhaps I was naive back then; I don't see how that makes me "an accomplice to corruption."
"an accomplice to corruption."
That's funny.
An abetter to abnormality!
An advocate to vice!
A cheerleader to chaos!
A contributor to amokness!
A minion to Disney!
When does the madness end??!!
I dunno. What was the legal drinking age in San Anton? Or were you deaf and illiterate at that age?
When I was 16, which was the age I went to the perverts house, I knew enough to know that adults didn't offer kids booze let alone have repeated parties where they got slobbering, fall down drunk. We always tried to hide things from the adults--they were the enemy to us.
Now, that's not to say the woman wasn't exploiting children, and granted, maybe you were different than I...which would explain why you think abortion is perfectly acceptable and I don't.
wv:delibl. LOL!!!
I mean, dsg, that's pretty basic--knowing that adults don't have drunken parties for children. Maybe if you had said something, your friend might not have been taken advantage of. And yet, you defend MJ, who gave alcohol to children. The irony never ceases around here.
Choices, choices, we all make choices.
Gina, I think you're letting your personal anger at me color your thinking. Since I was underage at the time, wasn't I also a victim as much as my friend? Aren't you blaming the victims for what happened to them? And this was in a Catholic school, and other than me, everyone involved was Catholic. If, as you say, the Church is so responsible, didn't the Church have a duty to keep this from happening? Your logic on this is all twisted, and it seems due to some anger boiling over.
wv: bokini
BTW, Gina, the accusation of giving alcohol to children was another charge that Jackson was acquitted of.
Nah, I just see a person who refuses to accept any responsibilty for his actions and likes to excuse himself and others with some sorta twisted logic. I can excuse a child for not accepting resposibilty, a grown man is something entirely different. I have no respect for a man that passes blame on to someone else without seeing his part of the equation.
I suppose that's what that popular saying " man up to it" means.
And, I don't dislike you, I just think you're not the genius that you'd like to convince everyone that you are.
There's no shame in not knowing everything, you know...it only means you're human like the rest of us.
As far as that twisted fuck, MJ, by his own admittance he liked to surround himself with children 'cause they "understood" him better.
Speaking as a mother, that statement has got "pervert" written all over it.
Being aquitted of something doesn't mean that you didn't commit the crime--it just means you beat the rap. You, of all people, should know that.
Ha. Left out the "C". Funny.
I really do know how to spell. Jeez. Responsibilty. As in take responsibilty.
Ok. RESPONSIBILITY! Take it, Damn it!
Gina, but there's a difference between taking personal responsibility for one's own actions and what you're talking about. Yes, I was naive, that's not the issue. Yes, I can look back and say that it would have been better had I behaved differently. And yes, I can take responsibility for the harm I caused as a result of my behavior. But you go further. You say that maybe it's my fault that my friend had sex with the teacher, a situation that I was completely unaware of at the time. That's beyond personal responsibility.
As an adult, I can look back on the things I did as a teenager, and even as a young man, and say that I should have behaved better in some instances. That's only natural, and only honest. But you're suggesting that I ought to accept responsibility for other people's exercise of their free will to do wrong, when I didn't even know what they were doing.
I think there's something unspoken that's irritating you here.
wv: baxwguit
No, dear, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you're going to criticize my Church for the actions of a lay teacher, realize the part that you as an individual took in it.Just like in abortion, I believe personal responsibility for one's actions must play some part. Unless you were deaf and dumb,you had to know that that situation was wrong. Yet you willingly took part in illegal activities...and on more than one occasion.The difference between you and the Church, however,is that She is willing to assume all responsibility in situations like this...even without knowledge of them. For that alone, I will defend Her. And yet, She still gets criticized by the slumdog Hartals of the world. Injustice, pure and simple.
Maybe that's the source of my anger.
See my point?
Gina, but I didn't criticize the Church for the lay teacher having slept with my friend until you first suggested that it was my fault. As I said, I thought her having slept with my friend was different from what the two Marianist brothers did in their inappropriate relationships with the students.
Then why add fuel to the fire?
In doing so, you realize, you also exposed yourself?
Do you know the details of the Brother's? Because according to your logic, if they had been acquitted,like MJ, it means they were innocent.
Maybe and might is not saying that you were fully responsible or guilty, by the way.
I mean, it's kinda interesting how now you're willing to talk. What's your motive?
If only...
Gina, the school notified its alumni donors of the general facts of the two situations involving the brothers several years after the fact, when others were either about to report the facts or had just done so. You have to realize that most of my classmates stayed in San Antonio, and were more connected with the school due to their physical proximity. As I said, I never knew about any of the events, including my classmate having sex with the lay teacher, until after the fact. Interestingly, several of my classmates claim to have known about their affair at the time. And BTW, I still donate to the school.
Okay, you say I'm not fully responsible or guilty, but I still have a hard time seeing how I'm guilty or responsible at all for the volitional actions of my friend or the lay teacher. Even assuming for the sake of argument that drinking with my friends at these parties was beyond the pale, and not simply typical teenage behavior, the connection between my behavior and their behavior isn't even tenuous, it's nonexistent.
But that's not what I said. I said that maybe if you had said something about the illegal parties, exposed her rather than partcipated, she would have been stopped. And, by being stopped, your friend might have avoided the illicit relationship.
It's small choices like that that stops wrongdoing.
I know our pervert was exposed and outed and run out of town fairly quickly.
It's all about the choices we make,
I think the term is guilt by association or complicit.
We do hold children responsible for crimes they commit in our society. Why should you or your friends be above the law? I wonder what would have happened had it come to light that you were doing this? Maybe not get a scholarship or admittance to a certain law school? Character is everything to some prestgious schools.
Ya kinda sold your soul, didn't ya?
And the way I see it, your support of abortion is high school all over again. Integrity may cost a person dearly, but it is the one thing that someone can't away from you without your permission.
prestigious. Sorry.
Post a Comment