24 April, 2007
15 April, 2007
13 April, 2007
Holding Up
So I don't watch a lot of TV. I have a TV, but don't have cable, so the only thing I get is the smattering of local channels, plus an odd assortment of "fringe" channels shall we say.
So last night I turn this thing on. My remote control is partially broken, so only certain buttons work.
As I was trying to get to one channel, one of the buttons stuck and I was taken to a mid-20's channel that was showing reruns of Charlie's Angels.
Wow, I have to say, this show REALLY DOES NOT STAND UP OVER TIME. Your shocked I know.
I am old enough to remember this show during it's original run, and I have say, I thought Boseley was God. I worshipped at his church, wanted to be him, wanted to smell like him. Three woman, working for him, armed, dangerous. I was too young to think about acting, script, storyline, reality, reason, or anything else.
At the time, I think it was Sabrina that really was the center of my total fixation. I mean Farah was Farah, and still is, Farah. Just say it, Farah, Farah, Farah. But there was something about Sabrina, at least I think that was her character name, that hooked me.
My sister, three years older, but not much wiser, was physically trying to be her own Angel, buying red pants, berets and wearing all the facial products she could get her hands on. My brother, six years older, was too cool for any of us, and was in the middle of his 10-year , teenage isolation period, so I had and still have no idea his views about this poignant and world-changin show.
But this time around, watching this rerun, I was stunned. In one action sequence, two of the three Angels are chasing "the bad guy" through a park, and when it comes time to tackle the guy, in comes the MALE stunt double. This guy was "subbing" for Cherly Ladd, a sub herself, and he was built like a middle linebacker for the Raiders.
One minute Cheryl in her red hot pants, the next minute someone who looked like my dad is tackling the bad guy. Then, in an instant, there is Cheryl again. No grass stains, hair in place, etc.
I was thinking, "Gee, how did they fool me with this when I was eight?"
Oh, and the script. I was nearly in tears. Then, the bad guy, in a final and apocalyptic fit, tries to act menacing as he blacks out or passes out or something along those lines. I was hysterical with laughter. Hysterical at this guy's acted pain. And it was this hysteria that snaped me out of my haze, forcing me to realize I was actually watching a rerun of Charlie's Angels. Good God, what is next? Magnum P.I? The Fall Guy? Hardcastle and McCormick?
In short, be careful people. Those shows of our glory years come with a price. If you want your memories deflated, just search out those lost channels and prepare for the worst.
So last night I turn this thing on. My remote control is partially broken, so only certain buttons work.
As I was trying to get to one channel, one of the buttons stuck and I was taken to a mid-20's channel that was showing reruns of Charlie's Angels.
Wow, I have to say, this show REALLY DOES NOT STAND UP OVER TIME. Your shocked I know.
I am old enough to remember this show during it's original run, and I have say, I thought Boseley was God. I worshipped at his church, wanted to be him, wanted to smell like him. Three woman, working for him, armed, dangerous. I was too young to think about acting, script, storyline, reality, reason, or anything else.
At the time, I think it was Sabrina that really was the center of my total fixation. I mean Farah was Farah, and still is, Farah. Just say it, Farah, Farah, Farah. But there was something about Sabrina, at least I think that was her character name, that hooked me.
My sister, three years older, but not much wiser, was physically trying to be her own Angel, buying red pants, berets and wearing all the facial products she could get her hands on. My brother, six years older, was too cool for any of us, and was in the middle of his 10-year , teenage isolation period, so I had and still have no idea his views about this poignant and world-changin show.
But this time around, watching this rerun, I was stunned. In one action sequence, two of the three Angels are chasing "the bad guy" through a park, and when it comes time to tackle the guy, in comes the MALE stunt double. This guy was "subbing" for Cherly Ladd, a sub herself, and he was built like a middle linebacker for the Raiders.
One minute Cheryl in her red hot pants, the next minute someone who looked like my dad is tackling the bad guy. Then, in an instant, there is Cheryl again. No grass stains, hair in place, etc.
I was thinking, "Gee, how did they fool me with this when I was eight?"
Oh, and the script. I was nearly in tears. Then, the bad guy, in a final and apocalyptic fit, tries to act menacing as he blacks out or passes out or something along those lines. I was hysterical with laughter. Hysterical at this guy's acted pain. And it was this hysteria that snaped me out of my haze, forcing me to realize I was actually watching a rerun of Charlie's Angels. Good God, what is next? Magnum P.I? The Fall Guy? Hardcastle and McCormick?
In short, be careful people. Those shows of our glory years come with a price. If you want your memories deflated, just search out those lost channels and prepare for the worst.
Landis
Okay, nearly a year after the infamous "positive" test, Floyd Landis still finds himself entangled in his million dollar defense of the Tour de France crown.
Yesterday, a governing body ruled the lab could test the backup, or B samples, from Landis, to help with other ongoing aspects of the evidence they are gathering against him.
I'm a little confused. I've been confused about this for a year, but I keep thinking SOMEONE will answer some of these questions about the case.
And yet, no, nothing, nada.
The "mainstream" media has completely dropped the ball on this case. I think a collective, "doping fatigue" and complete ignorance of procedure, history and science is to blame, not to mention most of the "mainstream" media seems to know little about cycling, and probably can't win any awards by writing about it. Harsh, I know, but think about it.
Landis failed a test for synthetic testosterone. He failed one test, in the middle of SEVEN tests throughout the Tour de France.
How does that work? How is that possible? Doesn't this seem a little strange? Would someone take testosterone for one day? I'm not saying he wouldn't but what benefit would there be?
You would think that someone would have tried to explain that, but as far as I know it just keeps appearing in print as a sidenote.
Oh and remember, the "mainstream" media first reported his testosterone level was too high, then too low, then the ratio was too high, then too low, etc, etc. They had NO IDEA what they were reporting, yet they did it anyway. Better to run a retraction than coming in second?
Also, the lab that conducted the tests is the same lab that has made countless procedural errors in past tests, and was the same lab that went after Lance Armstong, over and over. And yet this is the lab that is still being used for the testing? Nice!!(in Borat tone)
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that this lab has made several errors, and yet the idea of using another lab hasn't occured to anyone? Nice!!(in Borat tone)
Believe me, I think most of the guys who are competing at the highest level in cycling are DOPED TO THE GILLS, but that does not eliminate the fact that something isn't right in the Landis case.
And, when I hear a report about this case, in the "mainstream" media, it is the same rehashed mush they were reporting when the case first broke.
Funny, of all those riders to ride last year, just one positive test. Just one. American Floyd Landis. Winner.
Oh, and that "event" a few months ago regarding the second place finisher, and a "abnormal" test of some kind. THAT was an accident. The Spanish anti-doping investigation. Oh ya, were gonna throw that one out too.
In short, the entire industry of cycling stinks, and I would not be surprised to find out that the crowd watching the race is doping. But, again, that still does not make me wonder what is really going on behind the scenes in the Landis case.
Yesterday, a governing body ruled the lab could test the backup, or B samples, from Landis, to help with other ongoing aspects of the evidence they are gathering against him.
I'm a little confused. I've been confused about this for a year, but I keep thinking SOMEONE will answer some of these questions about the case.
And yet, no, nothing, nada.
The "mainstream" media has completely dropped the ball on this case. I think a collective, "doping fatigue" and complete ignorance of procedure, history and science is to blame, not to mention most of the "mainstream" media seems to know little about cycling, and probably can't win any awards by writing about it. Harsh, I know, but think about it.
Landis failed a test for synthetic testosterone. He failed one test, in the middle of SEVEN tests throughout the Tour de France.
How does that work? How is that possible? Doesn't this seem a little strange? Would someone take testosterone for one day? I'm not saying he wouldn't but what benefit would there be?
You would think that someone would have tried to explain that, but as far as I know it just keeps appearing in print as a sidenote.
Oh and remember, the "mainstream" media first reported his testosterone level was too high, then too low, then the ratio was too high, then too low, etc, etc. They had NO IDEA what they were reporting, yet they did it anyway. Better to run a retraction than coming in second?
Also, the lab that conducted the tests is the same lab that has made countless procedural errors in past tests, and was the same lab that went after Lance Armstong, over and over. And yet this is the lab that is still being used for the testing? Nice!!(in Borat tone)
I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that this lab has made several errors, and yet the idea of using another lab hasn't occured to anyone? Nice!!(in Borat tone)
Believe me, I think most of the guys who are competing at the highest level in cycling are DOPED TO THE GILLS, but that does not eliminate the fact that something isn't right in the Landis case.
And, when I hear a report about this case, in the "mainstream" media, it is the same rehashed mush they were reporting when the case first broke.
Funny, of all those riders to ride last year, just one positive test. Just one. American Floyd Landis. Winner.
Oh, and that "event" a few months ago regarding the second place finisher, and a "abnormal" test of some kind. THAT was an accident. The Spanish anti-doping investigation. Oh ya, were gonna throw that one out too.
In short, the entire industry of cycling stinks, and I would not be surprised to find out that the crowd watching the race is doping. But, again, that still does not make me wonder what is really going on behind the scenes in the Landis case.
11 April, 2007
09 April, 2007
Glamour of War
Recently re-reading Dispatches by Michael Herr, one of the most notable books to come from the Vietnam War.
Near the end of one chapter the book details a conversation with photographer Tim Page regarding the “glamour of war.”
Page goes off. The gist is is “how can you take the glamour out of war?” “The glamour out of a Huey?
I don’t have the book in front of me, otherwise I would write it word for word. I loaned the book to someone else, just so you know.
“You just can’t do it,” is the basic conclusion.
Then, about a month ago, I found myself watching Patton, the George C. Scott piece from back in the day.
Patton talks about the beauty of the battlefield.
Me, I have never seen, or known war, so I can’t speak on first hand knowledge, but these ideas got me thinking.
Is war glamorous? Is it beautiful?
It can’t be right?
What about the IED? How can this be viewed as anything but horrific? We have had mines, traps, etc, for a long time in warfare, but perhaps with the new IED and EFP, the ball of molten copper used for piercing armor, we have entered a new era in warfare?
It all seems stupid, crazy, but again, I don’t know. I haven’t seen it, experienced it.
Near the end of one chapter the book details a conversation with photographer Tim Page regarding the “glamour of war.”
Page goes off. The gist is is “how can you take the glamour out of war?” “The glamour out of a Huey?
I don’t have the book in front of me, otherwise I would write it word for word. I loaned the book to someone else, just so you know.
“You just can’t do it,” is the basic conclusion.
Then, about a month ago, I found myself watching Patton, the George C. Scott piece from back in the day.
Patton talks about the beauty of the battlefield.
Me, I have never seen, or known war, so I can’t speak on first hand knowledge, but these ideas got me thinking.
Is war glamorous? Is it beautiful?
It can’t be right?
What about the IED? How can this be viewed as anything but horrific? We have had mines, traps, etc, for a long time in warfare, but perhaps with the new IED and EFP, the ball of molten copper used for piercing armor, we have entered a new era in warfare?
It all seems stupid, crazy, but again, I don’t know. I haven’t seen it, experienced it.
02 April, 2007
Ethanol and Photography Directly Related
The controversy with Ethanol revolves around the amount of energy required to manufacture it, compared to the amount of energy you get from using this fuel. Some would say, it takes more energy to make it than you get from burning it, making it a "negative" energy.
Documentary photography is the exact same thing.
You have to ask yourself, "How much time and energy do I want to spend trying to convince someone else to send me to do a project when I can just go and do it myself?"
Documentary photography is the exact same thing.
You have to ask yourself, "How much time and energy do I want to spend trying to convince someone else to send me to do a project when I can just go and do it myself?"
01 April, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
