March 21, 2005
More Gehry Than Wright
Architect of Unyielding Designs Takes Top Prize
Someone who apparently has taken all the wrong lessons from The Fountainhead has now won one of architecture’s highest honors, the Pritzker Prize. A shining feather in his cap:
The Caltrans building is another case in point. After it opened last fall, detractors quickly dubbed it the “Death Star.” Its facade — roughly 400 feet long by 200 feet high — is among the most monolithic in the city, with a skin of aluminum panels that open and close in response to the amount of sunlight on the building.
…
“The design is all about connectivity,” he said, citing the gathering spaces on its broad plaza and skip-stop elevators that he says encourage employees to walk between floors and interact with one another.
Always a good sign when your design about connectivity uses its elevators to get people to walk. Good thing you choose to deliberately make space inefficient in the hopes that forcing people out of their way will create “gathering spaces”. I’m sure that does wonders for worker productivity. Of course, it is a government building, so I’m sure worker productivity wasn’t factored into the design goals.
Mayne has been considered one of the most polarizing figures in architecture. His verbal battles with clients and builders are legendary in the profession. And there is nothing traditionally beautiful or explicitly welcoming about his designs.
“I’m interested in conflict and confrontation,” Mayne said.
His buildings, often cloaked in canted or folded metal screens, giving them a dramatic silver-gray cast, have a muscular presence. They use fragmented forms to express the anomie of contemporary life — and of sprawling, centerless Los Angeles in particular.
Yes, when I select an architect, someone I’m going to battle with so that he can build me an ugly, inhospitable building is my first choice. And instead of someone whose use of space and natural forms will improve my use of the space, I want somebody whose use of “fragmented forms” expresses the “anomie of contemporary life”.
It’s no secret that I’m a big fan of the philosophy that form follows function. Perhaps I’m overly traditional, but I happen to think that the design of a building be a symbol of its purpose. I am not anti-style, but when an architect spends such a high amount of effort to craft the facade of a building, it’s like a sports car: I wonder what he’s trying to compensate for.
The 501st New England Garrison
The 501st New England Garrison
When I first heard the name, and the fact that they marched in Boston’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, I thought it must be a revolutionary war group. I pictured some ragtag Minutemen marching with their muskets.
But it appears that they are designed to fight against a different threat. They must protect the Empire.
Here are a few pictures of our very own commentor Wilson posing for a few pictures with them.
Let the upstart rebellion be warned. I think Wilson has joined the Dark Side.
Blogging is Good for the Brain!
Sorry I’ve been a bit lax on the posting lately, I’ve been a bit busy. But after reading this story, I think I need to get back on the horse. It appears blogging has a lot of very positive impacts on ones brain.
Hat Tip: Jacqueline Passey
March 20, 2005
I’ll Answer That Call
Via Patterico:
This led to me wonder how unusual my position really is. I suspect that my attitude is widely shared by bloggers, including those who have signed the open letter to the FEC.
I think it’s time to put the question to you directly. Who out there will make this pledge:
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my
opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.
I’m your huckleberry. I won’t hesitate a moment to take that pledge.
After the RIAA started suing people, I stopped downloading illegal MP3’s. I did so because I knew that was wrong. But I will not surrender my first amendment rights.
The people in power have held the reins to the debate for too long. Finally, the rest of us are getting a voice. We are using that voice, speaking truth to power, and thus we are a danger. We will not be silenced now.
Hat tip: Carpe Bonum
March 19, 2005
The Life of an Adrenaline Junkie
I’ve got a personality trait that several of the safety-conscious people in my extended family don’t understand [and don't much like]. I’m an adrenaline junkie. A thrill seeker. The kind of events that get your heart pounding and your brain racing in fear make me ask for one thing. “Let’s do it again!”
In our bodies, we have a mechanism to deal with fear. That mechanism, called the “fight or flight response”, is designed to get us out of hairy situations that we’re not supposed to be in. The problem with this, however, is that the feeling of panic and exhilaration is a hell of a rush. It gets addictive, much like a drug. So people like me start to actively seek out the sorts of activities that bring that response.
I went skydiving. That was a 45-minute adrenaline shot, but left me wanting more. I took up motorcycling. When riding on the street was too restrictive to allow me to fully explore the limits of a motorcycle, I started taking the bike to the racetrack. When I got tossed from the bike in a violent 75 mph crash, that should have told me “you don’t need to be doing this anymore.” But instead, I want another bike!
I wish those people in my life who don’t have the same reaction to adrenaline had the capability to understand. The best way that I can phrase it is to call myself an adrenaline junkie. To me, it truly is an insatiable craving for excitement. I think the only thing I can say to those who don’t share this trait: “If I had to explain it, you wouldn’t understand.”
March 18, 2005
My Living Will
For all of you out there, I’m not planning on blogging about the whole Terry Schiavo thing, except to bring up the importance of a living will. I haven’t had any sort of chance to figure out how to actually get this into legal document form, but here’s my plan:
Should I ever fall into a state where I am unable to positively understand and interact with my surroundings, I want the following procedure to be followed.
First, I want to be examined by three independent experts in the relevant field.
Each doctor will then need to give a prognosis. That prognosis will be their best estimate of whether I can make a full or nearly full recovery. The prognosis will be delivered on a scale of 1 to 10.
These three numbers will be averaged.
If the average is below 7, pull the plug.
It’s relatively simple. But the last thing I want is for my wife and family to be agonizing over what to do.
One last thing. By pull the plug, I will NOT be starved to death. Find a way to get it done and done quickly.
March 17, 2005
Trackback Festival!
Blogs often post up a roundup of links they’ve found over recent days. They often do this to give a shout-out to fellow bloggers that they like. I, however, am far too lazy for that.
If you’ve written something you especially like, trackback to this post. I’ll periodically go through the trackbacks and update this post to link them on the main post. It will also give me a chance to peruse some reader’s sites that I may not normally come across, and if I like your work, you’ll be placed on the blogroll.
To everyone else, Happy St. Patrick’s Day! While not being Irish myself, I am a big fan of Irish culture, and will forever be an enemy of the Fighting Irish.
Trackbacks:
Catscape has tracked back with Top Ten Signs you Live in a Liberal Town
A Red Mind in a Blue State has tracked back with Parenting Goals
Eric’s Random Musings has tracked back with Tax Reform
TF Stern has tracked back with Eminent Domain in Freeport, Texas
(Update: Why is it that one mildly amusing suggestion about government gets 18 comments in two days, but only one person tracks back for free publicity?)
Why We Should Drill in ANWR
Alaskans Wary of Vote on Oil Drilling
Drawing us in with the thought that Alaskans must be against drilling in ANWR, the story points out in its first line that Alaskans do support the drilling project, although they obviously have some concerns related to how it would happen:
The tiny north coast town of Kaktovik officially supports responsible development of oil and gas. But many reacted warily to the Senate vote to allow drilling in their back yard.
Even with just 284 residents, Kaktovik is the largest town on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain. Mayor Lon Sonsalla said just about everyone has concerns about changes that could accompany any work in the 1.5 million-acre stretch, where billions of barrels of crude oil are believed to rest beneath the tundra.
This is perfectly reasonable, and I’m sure that in the planning, we can make allowances to ensure that their concerns are addressed. So the real question is why the vote in the Senate is such big news, and why environmentalists are so overwhelmingly against it.
The environmentalists, of course, will tell us that they’re interested in preserving this natural state, presumably for the people who live there, and the precious caribou that they believe will end up extinct. They are trying very hard to make sure this doesn’t happen, even though the Alaskans want the drilling to occur, and experience shows that caribou are actually attracted to the warmth (warning: PDF) of oil pipelines.
The call then moves to alternative energy sources. The dirty little secret is that all political parties, and all humans, are waiting for the day that we can move away from oil. The difference between us and the environmentalists, though, is that we are a part of the “reality-based community”. The simple fact is that other sources of energy are not ready yet, and we need to bridge that gap. And companies are working feverishly to reach the point where they are ready, because the first company to bring a viable alternative to market stands to make a killing.
And this brings us to the final point about the environmentalists. When you point out that other energy sources are too costly, they don’t care. When you point out that increasing oil prices will cause serious problems for humans all across the globe, they don’t care. And the reason for this is that they start from a first premise widely opposite ours. They see humans as a plague, and believe the world would be better off without us:
I don’t think they’re concerned with benefiting man. I don’t think they’re concerned with human welfare. Their standard of value is that which makes human life IMPOSSIBLE. Their standard of good is: If something PRESERVES NATURE – which means it keeps nature intact from human encroachment that is good. As soon as man enters the picture – as soon as there is human activity – as soon as man CHANGES nature – they regard that as inherently bad. So I think that that is their standard of value.
We understand that oil is not the future. Oil has a very big problem, in that it’s a dirty source of energy. But we won’t get very far to the next step unless we keep our economy chugging along while the cleaner sources of energy mature. We are asking for the opportunity to take an area of the country where almost nobody lives, nobody visits, and make a small environmental impact to benefit the entire rest of this country. Is that too much to ask?
March 16, 2005
Essential Liberty for Temporary Security
Neal Boortz reports that the Dept. of Homeland Security has leaked a report on possible terrorist attacks to the NY Times. Boortz says:
The real problem here is that most Americans have been lulled into a lethargic stupor. It’s been almost four years since 9/11 … and nothing has happened within our borders since. For most Americans, the threat of a terrorist attack is off the radar screen. That’s called complacency .. and complacency kills.
I have to disagree. The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the government is capable of defending us against a terrorist attack without drastic changes to this country, that are both politically unpalatable and inimical to the nature of our free society.
Let me make this point perfectly clear:
You can never expect perfect safety in a free and open society.
It is a simple fact. The nature of our society makes it impossible to defend against terrorist attacks. A motivated individual, if he has the will to do so, can plan an execute a terrorist attack. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. Look at the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Look at 9/11, as well as the first World Trade Center bombing. Look at the Unabomber, various serial killers over the last 30 years. All of these acts are forms of terrorrism.
And it’s not just pre-9/11 that this has occurred. We had the snipers in the DC area operating for weeks. There have been numerous anthrax scares. There haven’t been any major attacks in the US, but one can’t assume that none are planned. And the government can do little to prevent these attacks. At best, an attack executed with poor operational security can be snuffed out in advance. But for any real attack, the best the government can do is hope to retaliate against the terrorists, and possibly punish them. Not very forceful against people who are willing to martyr themselves for a cause.
To defeat terrorism, you need to defeat the worst sources.
This means, first, defeating the regimes and hunting down the groups who actively foment terrorism. This has been the one thing that we did not have the willpower to do before 9/11. The long term way to get people to stop concentrating on hating us is to foster a world where they don’t hate themselves and their surroundings. The only way to do this is to give support and encouragement (yes, military if necessary) to the people of those nations who are yearning for freedom. The one thing that the anti-war left doesn’t understand, is that we believe that the actions we are taking in Afghanistan and Iraq are actually investing in our own future of freedom. We see the cost in dollars and life as helping to ensure our very security here at home.
Second, it means ensuring that WMD is not spread to groups that want to do us harm. We will never be able to completely end terrorism. But a terrorist with a truck full of fertilizer, and a terrorist with a nuclear weapon, are two completely different things. If we can keep the people who hate us from having truly devastating weapons, we can lessen both their ability to inflict harm, and the incentive they have to do so. Terrorists want major, spectacular attacks. The ability that we have to forestall these may also reduce the likelihood that they will attempt lesser attacks.
The world we live in is changing. I’m not willing to give up the essential liberty for temporary security, and I suspect that many of my fellow Americans are not either. We need to have a debate in this country about just what level of security we can reasonably expect in an open society. We also need to look at what we can do, both here and in the rest of the world, to ensure our safety as well.
March 15, 2005
Separate the Wheat from the Chaff
Conservatives don’t want to keep paying rich people Social Security. Liberals want to increase taxes. I’ve decided that we need a compromise.
Voluntary Tax-adder: For those liberals who are always talking about how taxes should be increased, we put a little box on your tax return that says “I want to add $______ to my taxes this year.” After all, they feel that we should want to support the welfare state. So let those with money pony up and prove to be a good example for the rest of us. If you’re liberal, and you don’t check that box, don’t start talking to me about raising taxes.
Social Security Opt-Out: For seniors who are wealthy, you should be able to voluntarily opt out of receiving your Social Security benefits. You don’t get any tax breaks, you don’t get any other benefits, you just don’t receive Social Security checks every month. To make this something that current conservatives can take part in, they can sign an agreement that if their yearly income after retirement is above a certain percentage of their Social Security benefit (say 250%), they agree not to receive the benefits.
Liberals want to raise taxes. If they want to raise taxes, they should prove that they’re willing to do it themselves before they try to force the rest of us into it.
Conservatives want to bring down the cost of Social Security. Means-testing will certainly do that. So let’s make means-testing voluntary, and see who’s willing to take part.
Let’s see who the hypocrites are. Put up or shut up.
Europeans Getting Fatter Than the USA!
I don’t quite know why I keep blogging about weight… I guess it’s just a subconscious realization that I need to get off my ass and exercise a little bit. But I was heartened by the fact that it’s not just the USA anymore. The AP reports (via Yahoo!) that at least seven European countries are now fatter than the USA.
I wasn’t really going to blog about this. I started reading the story, and then thought to myself that the EU would start by over-regulating everything. Maybe they’d solve the problem by adopting unenforceable food rations. Or they’d make some arcane rules about it being illegal to sell food too high in fat, or sugar. I thought this to myself, purely in jest. And then I read this:
To counter the worsening trend, the EU is pushing a united effort from the food and marketing industries, consumer groups and health experts.
“The industry is being challenged to demonstrate, transparently, that it is going to be part of the solution,” Philip James, chairman of the IOTF said in a telephone interview after the launch of the program in Brussels.
“They have to say how much more money they will add to help solve the obesity problem. They have to put forward a plan on how exactly they are going to contribute year by year, and their contribution has to get bigger every year,” he added.
Great, so they’re going to just tax them heavier. I guess if you really think about it, this will increase the cost of food, hurt the (already stagnant) economic growth, and just might reduce obesity. Of course, I happen to think that taking people’s money away so they can’t buy more food isn’t the best option, but I guess that’s what separates us from Europe.
IEAPD
March 15 is the third-annual International Eat an Animal for PETA Day!
I do believe there is some filet in the fridge waiting for me tonight.
Of course, it’s not as cool as yesterday, but not every day can be!
I’m JFK!
Hat Tip: Anarchangel
March 14, 2005
Someone has Refused his Shackles
Nestle chief rejects the need to `give back’ to communities
In the same frame of mind as my previous post, the Boston Herald reports that the head of Nestle feels that corporations have an obligation to their shareholders, not the ‘community’:
In a stunning broadside to corporate citizenship as Bostonians have come to know it, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe – head of Nestle S.A. – said companies should only pursue charitable endeavors with an underlying intention of making money for investors.
“I think there is good reason for corporate philanthropy,” Brabeck-Letmathe said, speaking to Boston College’s Chief Executives’ Club. “But as managers, we need to be very careful, because it is not our money we’re handing out, but the money of shareholders.”
A more politically incorrect statement would be hard to find. Actually, that’s not true, you can look a few lines down:
“What the hell have we taken away from society by being a successful company that employs people?”
It is often that corporations are made to feel guilty for being profitable and successful. Guilt, of course, being a much easier method of control than outright force.
Nestle is a successful corporation that employs a lot of people, provides many products at decent prices, and as a result, rewards those shareholders who have chosen to invest in Nestle. The simple fact is that too much pressure to increase corporate taxation, or to pressure charitable giving to be done to the extent that it moves beyond good corporate image into negative shareholder returns, will stop investment. Stopping investment hurts shareholders, hurts Nestle’s employees, and hurts Nestle’s customers. By extension, it will hurt “society” as well.
It’s high time someone actually stands up and explains that successful corporations, by their very existence, are part of the lifeblood of this country. Corporations are not de facto evil, and thus should not be forced to feel guilty for their success.
Hat Tip: Ludwig Von Mises Institute
March 13, 2005
Too Much Freedom?
The debate about the recent bankruptcy legislation has touched on a strange nerve. While I’m no expert on bankruptcy and don’t intend this to address that legislation, I find it odd how this is shaking out.
B After the Fact recently posted on the bankruptcy legislation, and made the following comment referring to people who use their freedom with credit cards to get themselves into major trouble:
To put it another way, too much freedom gives you vertigo, makes you want to lie down, and let other people, people “better” than you, take care of it.
To put it in Peter Townsend’s way — “No Easy Way To Be Free.”
“Too much freedom gives you vertigo”?I’m sure as a result, B is more than happy to let the government take away his freedoms. I’m rather sure that he’s overwhelmed by the level of freedom that he has, and would much rather let elected officials handle it for him.
Okay, I’m being facetious here. I’ve debated many times with B, and as a result, have grown to understand that he is a highly intelligent person and an excellent debater. Thus, I’m sure he doesn’t think that his freedoms should be denied. Only the riff-raff.
This is a problem prevalent in our society. Heinlein’s character Mannie said it best in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”:
Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws–always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won’t be able to so something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good –not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.
Added to this, of course, are the smaller number of people who want laws to restrict their own freedom because they don’t trust themselves. These are the folks who want to quit smoking, and support banning smoking in all public places because they’re afraid to be tempted. A smaller group, sure, but also willing to cage others for their own goals.
To this I say simply: no. I don’t ask for your shackles for my safety. Ben Franklin said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Here is the major sticking point between libertarians and everyone else: Libertarians don’t see the government as our protectors. The Right sees government as the strict father. The Left sees government as the nurturing mother. Libertarians refuse to be treated like children. (Credit to Catallarchy and Michael Acree for driving that point home.)
I don’t believe that there is a point at which we reach “too much freedom”. With freedom comes responsibility, and I don’t accept anyone beyond myself to determine what my proper level of risky behavior should be. As a necessary corollary to this point, I don’t ask government to pick up the pieces if I screw up.
Can we ever have too much freedom? I remember when my tax bill hit this year, several people asked me “did you make too much money?” I wanted to jump off a cliff at that one. Should I respond: “Yes, I made too much money. I’m going to go to my boss tomorrow and ask for a pay cut.” I don’t think it works that way.
As B put it, quoting Townsend, “No easy way to be free.” I completely agree. But life isn’t, and shouldn’t be, easy. If you don’t think someone else is up for the challenge, that doesn’t give you the right to shackle the rest of us.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
This is the designer for whom I draft. He’s one of Atlanta’s preeminent architects…draw your own conclusions.
Comment by Robert — March 21, 2005 @ 8:17 pm
Brad, You are right. That building doesn’t look appealing at all. Lucy Stern
Comment by T. F. Stern — March 22, 2005 @ 12:05 am