-
Recently seen by The Samurai
More Photos
Monthly Archives: September 2008
VC 23123… Three months in…
My subtitle for this one is:
…Or, How California’s lawmakers prove they have a sense of humor.
So… I will start my post with a question. What difference have we seen with on the roads with the new law banning the use of cell phones, without hands free devices?
Personally, I have noticed little or no difference in the number of people that I see on the phone. I have even seen people sitting at a stop light, talking on the phone while a cop sits not even fifteen feet away.
Just for giggles I went ahead and sent an email to the California Highway Patrol to ask them for statistics on the numbers of citation issued to people for using their cell phones will driving, versus the number issued to people after VC23123 and VC23124 went into effect.
To be honest, I was not expecting a reply at all, but I did actually get one. One that told me to contact a different section of their agency… by phone… whuch I did. Only to be put on hold for about twenty minutes before I was advise by another person that I needed to contact yet another number. At which point I stopped.
I know I should have taken this a little further, fought the good fight, and stayed on the trail to get this information. Unfortunately I am not like the Michael Moore’s of this world where I can go off entirely half-cocked on a mission of little importance for the sole task of making myself look good. Well… nevermind that, there are not enough plastic surgeons in the world to make Him look good. My opinion…
No… I stopped there primarily because I was doing this research while on my lunches, and since there is only so much time and I am not independantly wealthy… well, you see my point. However, if a representative from the Highway Patrol happens to come across this site and this article, and does have the information that I am looking for, then I will gladly post it.
The point that I think I am trying to make, just like the one I tried to make in July, is that this law it pointless. It is one of those “warm fuzzies” that the law makers like to put out there to make the people think that they care.
I do support the principle that the law stands for, do not get me wrong on that. I think that the idea is a good one, but instead of creating a brand new law that actually duplicated what is already out there, why not just enforce the laws that are already on the books? To me, that would be more impressive than making a new law that reenforces another.
Oh well…
“Who am I? What am I doing here?” – Admiral James Stockdale – 1992
Marketing gone too far…
There is this show that I like on the Sci Fi channel called Eureka. It is about a little town that is peopled by only genius’. This town is supposedly in a classified location and built to house the best minds in the country in a place where they can work with relative safety. All this while the town’s main law figure in the town is the only one without a high IQ.
OK… My sales pitch completed, I do have to say that I really like the program, in spite of the fact that the characters are stereotypical of most show of this type. I will discuss my analysis of TV shows in a later post. But the point of this post is that this series has taken the whole marketing and sponsorship thing a little too far… ok… a LOT too far.
You see… one of their sponsors is “Degree for men.” While most of the time you are only forced to deal with the horror of being accosted by the commercials during the COMMERCIALS, in the last season they have taken to incorporating the commercialism right into the series itself… by making it seem like “Degree for men” is something that the scientists at Eureka are working on for the government.
The show itself is still a good show, but the whole commercialism part is something that kinda wears on me. I understand that you need to have a sponsor for everything these days and most importantly for a program like this. But at this rate, I cannot help but wonder what is next.
Will Adrian Monk start making it a common practice to tell his assistant, whatever her name is, that he needs to go take his, “ACME brand Lithium”, because it give him that warm and happy feeling.
Can we expect to see Rodney McKay take a moment to talk about the benefits of his HP scientific calculator or his Panasonic Tough-book?
How about Dr. Cox taking a moment to talk about why he should have used Trojan brand ribbed condoms before fooling around and getting his ex-wife pregnant?
Where does it end? Will we, one day, see the Presidential State of the Union address start, and the pres will walk out with a jacket like the race car drivers wear, with logo’s for his sponsors on it?
How about laws? Is there a potential for something like this: You get pulled over. The cop walks over to you and says… “I would like to let you that your left tail light is out, and your ticket is brought to you today by the fine folks over at ACME tail lights and electrical repair.”
Oh well… I am going off on a tangent here… If you get a chance, watch Eureka… it is a good show, but just be ready for the commercialism.
For a taste of what I am talking about, click here.
The Return of the Pin-Up
There has been a trend coming back around that I am actually liking. It is the return of the “Pin-up” style of art and women’s clothing.
There are probably those of you out there that do not know what I am talking about, at least not with the term “pin-up”. Though you have probably seen it several times, you just do not know what I am talking about.
“Pin-up” is a style of art that involves women that are scantily clad, at least by the standards of the 1940s and 1950s. Art that adorned the noses of several hundred bombers over Europe and the pacific and in the pockets of the soldiers that fought the ground war. Images that made women like Rita Hayworth and Bettie Page more famous to some soldiers than their movies did.
In fact, there appears to be a whole new class of this style of dress and photo-art that is making the rounds. Some of it I like and some of it I am not so fond of, especially the ones with the women who are also sporting lots of tattoos. That is not to say that they are not attractive, they are just not what I find attractive.
The new models that are making this style popular are people like:
Heidi Van Horn – A few Tattoos, but still lovely
and
Amy – Again… a couple tattoos, but nothing overdone.
What really tickles me is that to this day, there are still people that consider this art a form of pornography or somehow ranks as smut. I beg to differ, I think that the human body is a work of art. These ladies do what they do because the have the bodies, as I am sure the minds, to do it and do it well. They also show, through most of their work, that it is not what you DO see that can be a turn on, but what you cannot see and must be left to the imagination.
Posted in Art and Entertainment, Observations
Leave a comment
