Quagmire

Why do we need alternative energy when there's plenty of sulfurous gas emerging from the La Brea tarpits? Can't we harness that? May have to move the mastodons, admittedly...

(photo taken July 1, by yours truly, for those of you who need such details)

Effective politics: Automatic for the propositions

There's a proposition on the upcoming California ballot that is drawing more attention than even the gubernatorial race (I can't believe I spelled "gubernatorial" correctly on the first try—trust me, I did): Prop. 87. It apparently involves taxing oil companies for drilling in the state, and using the money for researching alternative energies, but apparently creating a new under-regulated bureaucracy for this research. The proponents and opponents are trying to pick apart the other's argument in their ads, as one would expect, and I admit up front that's the only thing I have to comment on: their ads.

What is most interesting to me is the skill of their marketing, especially on the pro side. This morning, as I put on my shoes, I watched a few minutes of TV, stopping on one of the local station's morning "news" program. And during a single commercial break—that is, during one set of commercials interrupting the program—I saw an ad by the opposing side (where they use an actor in a firefighter's jacket to explain what a bad idea the tax is), then another ad (I don't recall for what), and then an ad from the pro side that specifically refuted the claims made two commercials previous (even showing a close-up of the end of the prior ad, zooming in on the fine print that notes those who paid for the ad and showing the name of one of the major oil companies).

I thought to myself, Egad, how much do they pay to schedule their commercial so that the other side's message doesn't even get to linger longer than 30 seconds?

I am not suggesting it's the most clever argument on the pro side; of course the oil companies are behind the ads trying to convince the voters the proposition is bad, because from their perspective it is. When it comes to trying to convince the voters it's good, the pro side seems to rely heavily on implicitly punishing the oil companies because they made a $78 billion profit last year. The use of the money raised by the tax seems something of an afterthought; my impression of their argument for the proposition (as opposed to their argument against the opposition), based on seeing their other ad many times, was more or less: Hey, the oil companies can afford to be taxed so let's do it; they've been sticking it to you at the pump, so here's your chance to extract revenge. Oh, and eventually it may actually have some benefit for the environment.

That's probably effective enough to get it to pass. Whatever pangs of guilt many might feel over just taxing them for being profitable should be assuaged by the suggestion of what might come. There's no effort at trying to convince the people it's necessarily fair—they made that profit because the voters purchased their product, after all—but rather at appealing to their emotions, both base and altruistic.

I seems like those same people who tried to organize the don't-buy-gas-on-this-day events (that were probably fake) finally realized that wasn't going to happen and devoted their efforts to getting this on the ballot. Which is smart. Because this doesn't require them to make any sacrifice for the greater good, other than bother to actually go to their polling place.

That, of course, is more than those interested in either punishing the oil companies or in allowing them to keep their lucre have reason to expect from the average television viewer, but since it's not a matter of one side or the other getting a majority of the actual populace to vote for their side but to get a majority of those who bother to vote to cast ballots in their favor, so it's still worth their respective whiles to spend the money on such advertising. They certainly need not worry too much about the average viewer who will likely vote to bother reading the particulars of the proposition (and even if that average viewer tried to read said particulars, it's not likely even a college-educated individual could make heads or tails of what it would really entail, if passed, or what consequences may emerge from it failing to pass).

That is a hideously glib statement about the nature of the process. Still, I think it more or less valid. I don't think the point of politics is for the average person to understand it, and I think the average person is probably far happier not understanding it. I am, it should be obvious, not one with much of an optimistic belief about the process of governing. The role of those in power is not to do what's best for those being governed but to do what allows those in power to remain so, thus ostensible benefits for the governed is as effective as actual benefits for the governed (and the latter are probably more coincidental than intentional). I don't expect my elected officials to be working in my favor, and hence I am not disappointed when they don't do so.

But the people working for both sides of the Prop. 87 are doing one hell of a bang-up job. If they work this hard after the election, something might actually get done.

TV Party: The Judas crib

While flipping around channels this afternoon (not much point in watching the Chargers destroy the Titans, even if Vince Young is playing), I caught an episode of MTV Cribs featuring baseball player Johnny Damon. According to the episode guide, it aired in April of 2005, which means it was filmed most likely some time after the end of the 2004 season, after he was part of the World Series winning Boston Red Sox.

In the episode, he takes a moment to spotlight a painting hanging in his house, imposing players from the Red Sox on to the famous painting of the Last Supper (prints of which are apparently for sale... still), where Damon is the one portraying Jesus. (I'm assuming he was proud to be part of the team, not as narcissistic as having it up in his own house might imply.) He later closes the segment, with his family taking their boat out on the lake next to their home, by exclaiming "Go Sox!"

As anyone who follows sports (not merely baseball) knows, after the end of the 2005 season, Damon signed with the New York Yankees (arch-rival of the Red Sox), which made him a betrayor in the eyes of Boston fans--a "Judas," if you will. (I didn't come up with that; I'm neither a Red Sox nor a Yankees fan.) I'm sure someone has already commented on how Damon was mis-represented in that painting, but it seems particularly embarrassing for him when watching the episode now (a mere year and a half later).

Mostly, watching his segment I found myself thinking, especially after he put such effort to get in the plug for his now-erstwhile team, that, given how MTV repeats its programming over and over (because, well, we're silly enough to watch it over and over), I wonder which he regrets more: turning his back on his beloved Sox, or allowing MTV to document that love for posterity?

Remember: It's best to keep one's personal life off of TV. (That's what blogs are for.)

Chasing grammar

Piggybacking on the last post, about the Snow Patrol "Chasing Cars" video:

Speaking of artistic intent: As noted, the video is filled with shots of the lead singer lying on the ground, the street, the train (yeesh), and as best I can tell, this is all to represent the lyrical content of the aforementioned chorus, wherein he suggests the best way to escape troubles is to assume a prone position.

It is: "If I lay here, if I just lay here, would you lie with me…" (emphasis mine).

However, "lay" is grammatically incorrect in this context (as he's not speaking in the past tense). If he said "Yesterday I lay here…" (which doesn't work with the sentiment being conveyed) or "If I lay myself down here…" then it would be right. There is proper usage when he says "would you lie with me…", so it appears he knows what is correct.

That said, no one gives a crap, because this is pop music, not a term paper; I fully concede that "lay" sounds better when sung in this song.

I suppose, being a former English major (hence the reason I know the proper use of "lie" and "lay"), I worry it's only a matter of time before no one gives a crap when this is done in term papers. (Obviously, it's too late for the internet here. This website, showing the longer, non-L.A., version of the video, doesn't bother with using the correct term in the introduction to the video: "The video features singer Gary Lightbody laying on the ground, overcome with emotion." It's not like it sounds better in this context. It's not being sung.)

It's not so much concern regarding the deterioration of the language (which is flawed in virtually every logical way possible, but I digress); I merely take some (most likely pathetic) validation from having bothered to learn which to use when (and I admit it is not easy to learn when the past tense of one verb is the present tense of another--one of the aforementioned flaws).

Subconsciously, I fear a world where what little knowledge I have is revealed to be completely worthless, thus because I had to learn it, future generations must continue to do so. Or more accurately, future English teachers must continue to pretend it's important to properly use "lie" and "lay" when one is not singing.

(Any term papers provided in audio format will need to have allowances made for use of poetic license in regard to grammar and syntax; those will be graded not only only the argument but on quality of tone and overall entertainment value, and quite possibly will be voted on in a nationally televised reality show. We can cross that proverbial bridge when we proverbially come to it.)

What it boils down to is this: Had nature blessed me with a good singing voice, I wouldn't give a crap about grammar either.

Chasing trains

It has long been my observation that there's something about seeing a place one frequents in a TV show (or movie) that, for those of us not in "the industry," seems to give one an unintentional sense of (for lack of a better term) tiny validation. Obviously those visual media exert a tremendous influence over our society, for better or for worse; given that even the least popular show on a basic cable channel (even that briefly aired John McEnroe talk show) gets seen by more people than most of us will even know, seeing a familiar location on the screen allows one to feel, perhaps for just a second, like one's non-descript little existence has been enhanced by the larger world seeing it. I know I've never been able to see a place I know well and refrain from mentioning to anyone within earshot how that's somewhere I go all the time.

While it's probably kind of pathetic to feel validated in even the slightest way over the remote connection to a creative work with which one had no involvement by the mere virtue of familiarity with the location for the shoot, surely that is exacerbated if the location is for a mere music video.

I'm not sure I feel this validation on a conscious level, but I do find myself compelled to tell you all about the latest instance of this I've discovered that applies to my non-descript little existence (because, at present, no one is around).

The Northern Irish (is that how to identify being from Northern Ireland?) band Snow Patrol's latest single, "Chasing Cars" (click to view a streamable copy) has a version of the video that was clearly shot in Los Angeles.

I found a longer version that does not have L.A. footage (again, click to view a streamable copy), and where singer Gary Lightbody has longer hair than in the one I see airing on TV (the one linked in the paragraph above), and where mostly he gets rained on while singing. I suspect they decided to give the singer a haircut and shoot one in make one more appealing to an American audience (perhaps the longer one is for Europe--maybe this blog would know, as it laments how the longer one is trying to make the band seem like Coldplay).

And what is more appealing to Americans than… subways?

Yes, in the video they shot a sequence in the downtown L.A. station of the Blue Line, the second-busiest light rail system in the country (really), and on one of its trains. The Blue Line, as some of you know, is how I've been commuting to work for the last seven years.

The thing is, that train line travels above ground for most of its 22-mile length, and only goes underground for about a half-mile (between the Staples Center and the skyscrapers of the "New Downtown" district), and hence is not actually a subway; there is another line, the Red Line, that is entirely underground (in fact, that one connects with the Blue Line at the station where they shot this) that they could have used—and, in fact, the cars on the Red Line are roomier, which would seem to be better for filming. Eh, what do I know about filming? That probably cost extra. (Presumably they shot this late at night, when the trains weren't running, but clearly they had to get someone to operate the train to come in. It all adds up, I'm sure.) I digress.

Most people wouldn't know the difference between Blue Line and Red Line trains, nor that it is only ostensibly a subway in the shot. They just see the train doors close, the train pull away from the platform (see poor screen capture below):
Then, switching to an interior shot, the camera slowing move up the aisle...
Until it hovers directly over the singer, who lies flat on the floor in the open area by the door, singing the lyrics.
(The chorus is: "If I lay here, if I just lay here, would you lie with me, and just forget the world?" Hence, the video is filled with shots of him lying on the ground and singing.)

Hence, most people wouldn't necessarily have the same visceral reaction that I do, because they haven't been on those trains twice a day, five days a week, for seven years. My reaction, after Hey, it's the Blue Line, is Egad, does he have any idea what has been on that floor? I'm not sure there are chemicals in existence that could get that filth clean enough that I would lie on it for any amount of money.

(Watching the sequence immediately after the train, I see him lying in what looks to be the hills of Elysian Park—not far from Dodger Stadium—but there they put a blanket beneath him. The hills, and the other spots he lies—the street, the top of the escalator—are ones I'd practically eat off of before lying on that train floor.)

Ignorance is bliss—well, really it's blissful—especially when one's personal experience doesn't ruin the artistic intent.

If only I lived somewhere that showed the longer version of the video, where I recognize none of the shooting locations... I would miss out on both the pathetic validation and the associated specific revulsion. Both of which I could live without.