themediamademecrazy.com

obama supporter, texas state senator kirk watson was unable to state ANY of obama’s accomplishments in the senate on ‘hardball with chris matthews.” it’s a remarkable piece of footage, right down to the studio laughter in the end. somewhat painful to watch, but necessary…

however, i would also like to post the question: when did “white voters” become a significant demographic? weren’t they always just referred to as “voters”? i love progress.

i’ve put a lot of thought into this one and i find it terribly frustrating that the term “urban” is equated with “black.” i understand the desperate need for political correctness in the white male dominated field of advertising, but this connection has since drifted into the black community and is used in self definitions. i keep getting invitations from the LA Urban League Young Professionals, where ‘urban’ is synonymous with black. unfortunately, i do not generally identify as black and i definitely do not need to put myself in a situation where i have to describe my ethnic background in order to achieve some level of acceptance. furthermore, i cannot bring friends of mine who i would define as ‘urban young professionals’ who are not black for fear of their discomfort.

it seems that ‘urban’ should be synonymous with a multiracial community as the most amazing component of city life (as i see it) is people from different backgrounds, cultures, and classes, living in such close proximity. this leads to knowledge, tolerance, and above all, diversity; but i suppose this perspective is inherently NY, while LA stands in direct opposition: people from different backgrounds, cultures, and classes, living distally and without any interaction, leading to ignorance, racism, and even greater disengagement from the larger community.

i was recently asked by a professor to answer the following questions: (1) what is the nature of human nature? (2) what is the proper social order? (3) is equality possible?
here are my answers, might you have a response?

1. What is the nature of human nature?

Humans are animals and therefore human nature is inherently animalistic. However, humans pride themselves on their ability to distinguish themselves from the animal kingdom thus creating civilization (and clothing), therefore, their legacy is much more than simply genetic. Human nature understands how posterity (i.e. other humans) will judge their actions and temper their behavior accordingly, be it positive or negative) to ensure some level of immortality. The concept of the Selfish Gene (Dawkins) extends to the selfish meme; we will kill for our ideology, be it an economic system or religion. The nature of human nature is to perpetuate oneself both genetically and ideologically.
NOTE: Strangely, we feel no need to leave our mark on the world outside of our species, a task that requires much more than simply ideas as the written word is exclusive to humans.

2. What is the proper social order?

Social order is an essential part of a community, regardless of species. We are social animals and demand some level of sociality to survive and flourish. However, I am uncertain as to what the proper order is. One might argue that the strongest and most capable should be at the top, making general decisions for the betterment of the group. However, this becomes difficult and cumbersome when groups expand to countries. Therefore, I assume that the proper social order occurs within small communities with common goals and aspirations, at which point, the hierarchy becomes tangible and each individual does not feel like simply a cog in the machine, but rather and active part of the community.

3. Is equality possible?

Equality on paper (and even in practice) is very possible, however to achieve equality in the mind is a futile task. Each individual and community of individuals must isolate themselves from the group in order to develop a sense of self. And this separation breeds feelings of superiority (ego enhancement). I think that an excellent example is the transition of racist ideology in America. In reality, there has been very little change within the minds of individuals around the country, but their actions are tempered based on the expectation of equality, thus giving the illusion of equality. This does not equal actual equality. For me, this was the most shocking part of reading Invisible Man (1952) by Ralph Ellison; so many of his statements are still so pertinent to today’s race relations, 55 years later.

tonight’s premiere episode, “a clean escape,” starred sam waterson and judy davis as patient and psychiatrist, where the former cannot remember the past 24 years. it was interesting at best. disregarding the gaping plot holes (like where does he go when he leaves her office, or why has it taken 10 months to utilize what seems like the most probable solution?), the style of the program was poor. for me it began with davis’ character. a actress of 57 should be allowed to look 57; every close-up, especially her emotionally distraught ones, only offer further evidence that she is far to old for the role asked of her. it really prevents one from suspending disbelief.

furthermore, i think that the director put too much faith into the plot of the story and oversimplified the shooting, causing the entire project to collapse under poor visuals. in fact, i was much more interested in the story after listening to the dialogue on NPR (yeah, i listened to NPR yesterday… that’s another blog) than after watching the exact same scene.

however, i did commit to watching the whole episode and it generally improved from 2 1/2 to 3 stars (on a 5 star scale). but i have hope, and i will continue to watch the remaining 3 episodes, saturday nights in august at 10pm on abc.

Four thought-provoking tales of present and future Earth are brought to life in “Masters of Science Fiction,” an all-new anthology series featuring a stellar lineup of actors and directors, and narrated by acclaimed physicist Professor Stephen Hawking. The series premieres SATURDAY, AUGUST 4 (10:00-11:00 p.m., ET) on the ABC Television Network.

for part 2, click here

this has been a constant topic in my work and life. feel free to read the first rendition written with abran alaniz here and stay tuned for the sample chapter!

i’ve been struck by some amazing epiphanies lately. the most recent came while reading TIME (october 23, 2006) which featured an analysis of america at 300 million. the graphs were amazing. here are my two favorites:

topographical population

race/ethnic demographics

the former made me want to move to a spot somewhere in the middle of the country where no one lives. it seems so simple and ripe for my own happy little community of one (maybe two [smile]). the image also gives a pictoral representation of the empty expanse of the land. i’ve never made it off the coasts (aside from a week in denver, phoenix, and vegas) and it makes me want to take a journey across the country…

but it was the latter that really changed the way i look at media. for some reason i was upset with the culture-via-TV that perpetuated the demographics that “i” did not exist. that is to say, i rarely see someone that looks like me on television, specifically multi-ethnic individuals. but looking at the demographic map, i realize that we are less than 2% of the population. of course you never see asians on television, they comprise 4.4% of the population. in fact, their presence on television is equivalent to the national average!

that’s when i realized that my problem was not with television or its statements on race and the ethnographic breakdown of the nation. but rather the collapse of local television. national networks must create programming for a nationwide audience. 80% of which is white. this simply never occurred to me as i have only lived in densely populated, diverse, urban areas (i.e. new york N>18m; boston N>5m, los angeles N>12m). the interactions i have are drastically different from the larger national body. worse yet, when an nationwide network attempts to recreate “my” lifestyle for a nationwide audience, it comes out strangely warped (e.g. friends).

i would like to see more local programming, not just news and commercials, but rather programs of all genres. unfortunately i do not have access to public access channels due to my building’s agreement with sbc. i think i need a set of rabbit ears.

recently i have been attending yoga at yoga circle in lovely downtown los angeles. although i have a gym in my building, the experience of walking through downtown, and entering a space designed to be an oasis from the urban hustle and bustle.

during the final pose of the day, savasana, we are encouraged to let the mind release all daily thoughts and meditate. during yesterdays savasana, i realized something.

all urban noise has a definite meaning: a car horn, sirens, screeching tires, people screaming, subway tracks, etc. each of these individuals sounds can be constructed to create a story of the environment without any visual stimulus whatsoever. alternatively, natural sounds are delightfully devoid of meaning. Wind through trees, a babbling brook, the sound of feet crunching leaves underneath. although these sounds may have meaning, they are not designed with an intention in mind. they allow for any and all meaning to be placed on them.

so listen to something natural, and derive some meaning (sensical or not). its good for the mind and soul. personally i like the jazz styles of the fountain in my yoga studio.

(con·di·tion·ing) (kon-dish-un-ing) 1. learning in which a stimulus initially incapable of evoking a certain response acquires the ability to do so by repeated pairing with another stimulus that does elicit the response.

Living in downtown Los Angeles, I think that the conditioning occurring between individuals in the area to be particularly intriguing. It is a melting pot of young urban professionals and homeless; two groups that, under normal conditions, would remain separate and relatively ignorant of the other’s position. However, in the burgeoning community that is young, urban, professional Downtown Los Angeles, these two groups find themselves in a daily clash that should pit class against class, but instead it has become a very plain sort of interaction. For the most part, the upper classes in the area ignore the homeless, despite their attempts to draw their attention.

Both are “residents” of Downtown, attempting to live, work and play in Downtown LA (neighborhood slogan). Many of the paying residents have settled into a way of dealing with the regular interruptions into their relatively privileged life. I try to be as pleasant as possible, knowing fully well that the homeless begging me for change have a hard life, and I don’t want to add further stress. I usually respond with “I’m sorry” or “Not today.” However, I do know many individuals that will curse out the homeless, in an attempt to condition them into not asking for money. Alternatively, they are seeking to condition me to feel sorry for their situation in order to evoke an emotion that might cause me to donate. This seems to be the overarching goal of homeless (or any industry for that matter), and the only way I see to resolve it is to donate to the homeless shelters around town to ensure that I am doing my part without encouraging the negative habits of the homeless in my neighborhood.