That’s One Small Step for Allah
I’m sort of fascinated by contemporaryArab culture. On the one hand you have state-of-the-art electronic broadcasting equipment and competent direction from the control room . . . yet the content of the broadcast is bizarre medieval superstition.
How can it be that complex technology can so effortlessly coexist with such irrational rubbish? “The radiation from Mecca is infinite.” Jeez, I’m embarrassed for these guys.
One clue, Arabs are ignorant. I don't mean that in a bad way. They can't help but be ignorant. They have very few opportunities to be informed.
According to the UNDP Arab Human Development Report of 2003, the total number of books translated into Arabic during the past 1,000 years is less than those translated in Spain in one year.
I’m all for greater understanding between cultures, but the Arab world has a long way to go before it has even a hazy understanding of western culture and values . . . or even science.
The day some American billionaire writes a check to establish an institute for the study of Judeo/Christian culture in Saudi Arabia will be the day we begin to make some progress toward mutual understanding.
The first big lesson will be the reaction of our Saudi friends.
And yet, there is still hope that rational people can rise up and prevail against ignorance.
To believe otherwise is simple bigotry.
Friday, August 31, 2007
More Money For the Big Sleazy?
While we’re all remembering Katrina for a moment let’s think briefly about New Orleans’ real tragedy. It’s a dysfunctional city. It was before the hurricane and it still is.
Remember the famous video of the looting in New Orleans? Remember also, this was before the levees breached and the city flooded. Here we see New Orleans’ finest taking part in the fun.
A few hours later, the city began to fill with water and police were nowhere to be found. Nor were the buses that could have helped evacuate residents. Nor were any local authorities.
New Orleans is about the most dangerous city in the country when the weather is good. When there is flooding and chaos, it gets extra spicy down there.
The city has been “cleaning up” now for two years. According to the federal government (via Larry Kudlow’s article in The Sun) more than $127 billion has been spent on the city’s recovery. That would be nearly half a million dollars for every man, woman, and child in the city.
Hell, the GDP of the entire state of Louisiana is $152 billion.
Where is all that money going? Not sure but it’s certainly doesn’t seem to be helping New Orleans become a normal city again. According to City Journal's Nicolas Gelinas, crime is worse now in New Orleans even will half the population.
The usual suspects are pleading for even more money to spend on what was always a seedy, theme park for anti-social behavior.
Rather than restoring the city to it’s traditional steamy squalor, a better goal would be to remake the city as a safe place to live and a productive place to work. President Bush made a baby step in that direction by replacing the failing public school system with a series of competitive charter schools.
But he could have gone much further.
As Kudlow says, if the Administration had declared New Orleans a tax-free enterprise zone in the aftermath of Katrina, it would not only have recovered by now, it would also be a fundamentally different place. And a far better place for the people who live there.
While we’re all remembering Katrina for a moment let’s think briefly about New Orleans’ real tragedy. It’s a dysfunctional city. It was before the hurricane and it still is.
Remember the famous video of the looting in New Orleans? Remember also, this was before the levees breached and the city flooded. Here we see New Orleans’ finest taking part in the fun.
A few hours later, the city began to fill with water and police were nowhere to be found. Nor were the buses that could have helped evacuate residents. Nor were any local authorities.
New Orleans is about the most dangerous city in the country when the weather is good. When there is flooding and chaos, it gets extra spicy down there.
The city has been “cleaning up” now for two years. According to the federal government (via Larry Kudlow’s article in The Sun) more than $127 billion has been spent on the city’s recovery. That would be nearly half a million dollars for every man, woman, and child in the city.
Hell, the GDP of the entire state of Louisiana is $152 billion.
Where is all that money going? Not sure but it’s certainly doesn’t seem to be helping New Orleans become a normal city again. According to City Journal's Nicolas Gelinas, crime is worse now in New Orleans even will half the population.
In fact, since Katrina, New Orleans’s murder rate has been higher than that of
any first-world city. Depending on fluctuating estimates of the city’s returning
population, it’s perhaps 40 percent higher than before Katrina and twice as high
as the rate in other dangerous cities like Detroit, Newark, and Washington.
The usual suspects are pleading for even more money to spend on what was always a seedy, theme park for anti-social behavior.
Rather than restoring the city to it’s traditional steamy squalor, a better goal would be to remake the city as a safe place to live and a productive place to work. President Bush made a baby step in that direction by replacing the failing public school system with a series of competitive charter schools.
But he could have gone much further.
As Kudlow says, if the Administration had declared New Orleans a tax-free enterprise zone in the aftermath of Katrina, it would not only have recovered by now, it would also be a fundamentally different place. And a far better place for the people who live there.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Soumi-Mania!
People who complain about America being a racist society have a point. We’re far too race conscious in this country, in my opinion (which is the only one that counts on this website).
But you have to go to Europe to know what a really blanco-centric society feels like. And there’s no place more Caucasian (outside of the Caucasuses) than Finland.
I give to you, the whitest people on earth:
See, it could be a lot worse.
People who complain about America being a racist society have a point. We’re far too race conscious in this country, in my opinion (which is the only one that counts on this website).
But you have to go to Europe to know what a really blanco-centric society feels like. And there’s no place more Caucasian (outside of the Caucasuses) than Finland.
I give to you, the whitest people on earth:
See, it could be a lot worse.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Changing Opinions . . . Hmmm
A New York Times poll finds that more Americans support the war in Iraq today than they did two months ago. The Times was so alarmed by this development that they redid their poll just to make sure. The results were the same. About 10% more people think, in retrospect, that military action in Iraq was a good idea and about 10% fewer think it was a bad idea compared to two months ago.
Of course, the majority of people polled still think intervening in Iraq was a bad idea, but if that majority is shrinking, The New York Times can’t figure out why. It’s “counterintuitive” says the Times. It “could not be easily explained.” But explain it they tried on Sunday.
“Once is a while a poll finding doesn’t make sense.” In other words, how could The People be so stupid? I mean, surely they’ve read the uniformly dismal news in the Times. They’ve been told endlessly that Operation Iraqi Freedom is the catastrophically quagmirishly misleadingly Bushitlerburtonesque worst war ever! Are The People slipping off the wagon again and rejecting the truth we’ve spoonfed them?
The first explanation the Times grabs for is that The People, in their devotion to Hillary Clinton, must have been confused by references earlier in the poll to Clinton’s original support of the war. “It was just a hunch,” says the Times breathlessly, “but it was all there was.” Frankly, only the Times could see this as a plausible explanation.
Not until the 12th paragraph, the third to last in the article, does the Times offer up another baffling finding: “there was also a drop in the number of people who said the war is going badly.”
Hmmm . . . perhaps, and I’m only speculating here, but just maybe The People don’t want to lose the war and are encouraged by the remarkable success the coalition forces have had in the past two months stabilizing Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala? Maybe they’ve read deeper and learned that the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) has recently been revealed to be a front organization set up by foreign Al Qaeda fascists to give the insurgency an Iraqi face? Perhaps they’ve also heard that coalition casualties are the lowest they’ve been in seven months?
My humble opinion is that no rational patriotic American wants to see the United States defeated in Iraq. Moreover, I’d say that most Americans would consider the mission in Iraq to be a noble one that’s consistent with American ideals.
That mission: to remove the despotic Hussein dynasty from power in accord with U.S. policy established during the Clinton Administration, to ensure that the weapons of mass destruction that the regime reported having to the United Nations in 1991 have been destroyed or otherwise accounted for in accord with a dozen U.N. resolutions, to establish a democratic foothold in the most politically backward and strategically important region of the world, and thereby undermine the region’s illiberal, intolerant, militarily expansionist regimes by providing a an alternative model to oppression . . . that mission is still worthy even after years of mismanagement.
Succeeding in that mission would be a good thing for Iraq, for the millions of people living in that region and for the United States. So, what’s the trouble with that? Well, it would also be good for George Bush.
And for some people who may or may not work at the Times, genocide is better outcome.
A New York Times poll finds that more Americans support the war in Iraq today than they did two months ago. The Times was so alarmed by this development that they redid their poll just to make sure. The results were the same. About 10% more people think, in retrospect, that military action in Iraq was a good idea and about 10% fewer think it was a bad idea compared to two months ago.
Of course, the majority of people polled still think intervening in Iraq was a bad idea, but if that majority is shrinking, The New York Times can’t figure out why. It’s “counterintuitive” says the Times. It “could not be easily explained.” But explain it they tried on Sunday.
“Once is a while a poll finding doesn’t make sense.” In other words, how could The People be so stupid? I mean, surely they’ve read the uniformly dismal news in the Times. They’ve been told endlessly that Operation Iraqi Freedom is the catastrophically quagmirishly misleadingly Bushitlerburtonesque worst war ever! Are The People slipping off the wagon again and rejecting the truth we’ve spoonfed them?
The first explanation the Times grabs for is that The People, in their devotion to Hillary Clinton, must have been confused by references earlier in the poll to Clinton’s original support of the war. “It was just a hunch,” says the Times breathlessly, “but it was all there was.” Frankly, only the Times could see this as a plausible explanation.
Not until the 12th paragraph, the third to last in the article, does the Times offer up another baffling finding: “there was also a drop in the number of people who said the war is going badly.”
Hmmm . . . perhaps, and I’m only speculating here, but just maybe The People don’t want to lose the war and are encouraged by the remarkable success the coalition forces have had in the past two months stabilizing Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala? Maybe they’ve read deeper and learned that the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) has recently been revealed to be a front organization set up by foreign Al Qaeda fascists to give the insurgency an Iraqi face? Perhaps they’ve also heard that coalition casualties are the lowest they’ve been in seven months?
UPDATE: This Gallup poll shows the most outspoken Iraq war hawks, McCain and Giuliani, are also the candidates most trusted by Americans polled to handle the Iraq war. That means, to my untrained eye, that most people don't mind the war as long as we're in it to win it.
My humble opinion is that no rational patriotic American wants to see the United States defeated in Iraq. Moreover, I’d say that most Americans would consider the mission in Iraq to be a noble one that’s consistent with American ideals.
That mission: to remove the despotic Hussein dynasty from power in accord with U.S. policy established during the Clinton Administration, to ensure that the weapons of mass destruction that the regime reported having to the United Nations in 1991 have been destroyed or otherwise accounted for in accord with a dozen U.N. resolutions, to establish a democratic foothold in the most politically backward and strategically important region of the world, and thereby undermine the region’s illiberal, intolerant, militarily expansionist regimes by providing a an alternative model to oppression . . . that mission is still worthy even after years of mismanagement.
Succeeding in that mission would be a good thing for Iraq, for the millions of people living in that region and for the United States. So, what’s the trouble with that? Well, it would also be good for George Bush.
And for some people who may or may not work at the Times, genocide is better outcome.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Looking at Buildings
Yesterday evening was a lovely time to walk through Manhattan. The air was fresh and the breeze cool and the ratio of beautiful to grizzled New Yorkers was favorable. On an evening like that you notice splendor on almost every block.
One of my favorite street views on such evenings is 42nd St. looking east. There you see the iconic Chrysler tower in all its exuberant Jazz Age spikiness.
Below it is Grand Central, another icon but of the turn of the century Beaux Arts style . . . a confident time when people built city structures to last a millennium.
What is our contribution to this heritage? An almost perfect example stands directly between the two icons. It’s the demoralizingly dull “Grand” Hyatt.
There is nothing Grand about it. Everything about it expresses mediocrity, carelessness, monotony, and expedience. It is not meant to last any more than the scaffolding around a real building is meant to last. Unlike the other two buildings, you could damage this one with a well thrown rock. Its transitory-ness dishonors everyone associated with it including its malevolently named “architect,” Der Scutt.
And what’s the worst part of it? It was once a prominant and fairly beautiful building and its skeleton is still there under the filthy glass panels. This isn’t the Hyatt or the Renaissance or the Hyatt Grand Renaissance . . . This is the Commodore Hotel. The same hotel where Richard Nixon and Whittaker Chambers confronted Alger Hiss . . . the same hotel from which Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald were ejected.
It was designed by Warren and Wetmore who designed it as a complement to their masterpiece, the Grand Central Terminal itself.
Today it is a banal plate-glass placeholder for whatever significant building eventually replaces it. I can hardly wait.
Apologies for the negativity. I’m trying to live up to the high standards of 2 Blowhards and write something positive. How’s this: At least the Hyatt has the good sense to try to disappear between it's two more noble neighbors.
Yesterday evening was a lovely time to walk through Manhattan. The air was fresh and the breeze cool and the ratio of beautiful to grizzled New Yorkers was favorable. On an evening like that you notice splendor on almost every block.
One of my favorite street views on such evenings is 42nd St. looking east. There you see the iconic Chrysler tower in all its exuberant Jazz Age spikiness.
Below it is Grand Central, another icon but of the turn of the century Beaux Arts style . . . a confident time when people built city structures to last a millennium.
What is our contribution to this heritage? An almost perfect example stands directly between the two icons. It’s the demoralizingly dull “Grand” Hyatt.
There is nothing Grand about it. Everything about it expresses mediocrity, carelessness, monotony, and expedience. It is not meant to last any more than the scaffolding around a real building is meant to last. Unlike the other two buildings, you could damage this one with a well thrown rock. Its transitory-ness dishonors everyone associated with it including its malevolently named “architect,” Der Scutt.
And what’s the worst part of it? It was once a prominant and fairly beautiful building and its skeleton is still there under the filthy glass panels. This isn’t the Hyatt or the Renaissance or the Hyatt Grand Renaissance . . . This is the Commodore Hotel. The same hotel where Richard Nixon and Whittaker Chambers confronted Alger Hiss . . . the same hotel from which Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald were ejected.
It was designed by Warren and Wetmore who designed it as a complement to their masterpiece, the Grand Central Terminal itself.
Today it is a banal plate-glass placeholder for whatever significant building eventually replaces it. I can hardly wait.
Apologies for the negativity. I’m trying to live up to the high standards of 2 Blowhards and write something positive. How’s this: At least the Hyatt has the good sense to try to disappear between it's two more noble neighbors.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Oxford Union it Ain’t.
Is the combining of amateurish YouTube videos with presidential debates an advancement for our national dialogue or the equivalent of a Jimmy Carter cameo appearance on Joanie Loves Chachi?
I had a lot of faith in YouTube as a genuinely new development in communications technology and custom until this. Now I’m beginning to think of CB radio. Once what was underground becomes mainstream it loses all its mystery and the baffling intrinsic value it once had as an insider thing evaporates. CB, vblogging, it’s nothing new . . . just regular Joes talking to each other again.
The sad thing about the debates is that the YouTubers came off as far more human and authentic than the candidates themselves . . . with the exception of Mike Gravel who really belongs among the unhinged in unregulated cyberspace rather than among the coiffed and scripted in actual physical space. You want dignity and gravitas? Watch Letterman instead.
Thankfully, the hive wisdom of YouTube will always have the upper hand in any encounter with ersatz “leaders”
Is the combining of amateurish YouTube videos with presidential debates an advancement for our national dialogue or the equivalent of a Jimmy Carter cameo appearance on Joanie Loves Chachi?
I had a lot of faith in YouTube as a genuinely new development in communications technology and custom until this. Now I’m beginning to think of CB radio. Once what was underground becomes mainstream it loses all its mystery and the baffling intrinsic value it once had as an insider thing evaporates. CB, vblogging, it’s nothing new . . . just regular Joes talking to each other again.
The sad thing about the debates is that the YouTubers came off as far more human and authentic than the candidates themselves . . . with the exception of Mike Gravel who really belongs among the unhinged in unregulated cyberspace rather than among the coiffed and scripted in actual physical space. You want dignity and gravitas? Watch Letterman instead.
Thankfully, the hive wisdom of YouTube will always have the upper hand in any encounter with ersatz “leaders”
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Conscience of the Senate
It’s good to know that while the Earth may be heating up, the Global War on Islamic Extremism is spreading, and millions of illegal immigrants saturate and overflow our borders, the U.S. Senate is coolly and rationally deliberating on the most pressing of all issues now facing the Republic.
Fasten your seatbelts and listen to the 400-year-old Democratic Senator from West Virginia pour on the passion, pump up the volume, and speak truth to power about the deplorable injustices faced in the Canine-American community.
It’s good to know that while the Earth may be heating up, the Global War on Islamic Extremism is spreading, and millions of illegal immigrants saturate and overflow our borders, the U.S. Senate is coolly and rationally deliberating on the most pressing of all issues now facing the Republic.
Fasten your seatbelts and listen to the 400-year-old Democratic Senator from West Virginia pour on the passion, pump up the volume, and speak truth to power about the deplorable injustices faced in the Canine-American community.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Explosion in Midtown
Yesterday’s steam pipe explosion sounded like a colossal jet engine operating at maximum thrust and people near the epicenter reacted as you would expect.
Confusion . . .
Yesterday’s steam pipe explosion sounded like a colossal jet engine operating at maximum thrust and people near the epicenter reacted as you would expect.
Confusion . . .
Followed by mild panic . . .
But the day after all is calm. The streets are crowed with equipment but the pace of work is decidedly unionesque.
As for Con Edison . . . don’t worry. They’re On It!
As for Con Edison . . . don’t worry. They’re On It!
When No News Is Good News
Last week, UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer secured his spot in the media relations Hall of Fame by issuing perhaps the greatest holding statement ever written:
The beauty of this is that, except for extraordinary situations, any spokesman for any organization can issue the exact same statement and mitigate whatever bad news is also being announced.
Try it.
"Sales of our most important product offering were down this quarter by 48% in the United States. But we categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."
"We have failed in our attempt to cut funding for American troops in the field and secure an ignoble defeat for our nation thereby disgracing ourselves and the U.S. Senate. But we catregorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."
Plus, the statement can be positioned as a potent but thinly veiled threat simply by adding the word "yet" to the ending.
Brilliant.
(via things)
Last week, UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer secured his spot in the media relations Hall of Fame by issuing perhaps the greatest holding statement ever written:
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area.”
The beauty of this is that, except for extraordinary situations, any spokesman for any organization can issue the exact same statement and mitigate whatever bad news is also being announced.
Try it.
"Sales of our most important product offering were down this quarter by 48% in the United States. But we categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."
"We have failed in our attempt to cut funding for American troops in the field and secure an ignoble defeat for our nation thereby disgracing ourselves and the U.S. Senate. But we catregorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."
Plus, the statement can be positioned as a potent but thinly veiled threat simply by adding the word "yet" to the ending.
Brilliant.
(via things)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Humanity Prevails
But look even closer. There are people up there!
It’s the possibility that life-altering experiences are taking place at any given moment somewhere in the city that gives New York its singular sense of excitement and promise.
Here’s an example. I took this photograph of the view from a high floor on the Pan Am Building looking north past the Grand Central Tower. Great vista.
Here’s an example. I took this photograph of the view from a high floor on the Pan Am Building looking north past the Grand Central Tower. Great vista.
Look closer and you can see the parapets and gargoyles of the tower in detail . . . details entirely hidden from view when the tower was constructed but built nonetheless because back then architects had an understanding of humanity’s romantic character and our deep desire for delight. (Something Thom Mayne will never comprehend).
But look even closer. There are people up there!
While everyone else is droning through the workday and possibly thinking about what to eat for lunch, there are three men clinging to the precariously steep side of the copper roof 40 stories above the city. Imagine what that guy on the ladder is experiencing. Bright sunshine, a stiff breeze, muffled car horns in the distance . . . and his heartbeat.
But they’re not really clinging at all. They’re totally at ease. This is something they’ve done before, maybe hundreds of times before. It’s no big deal to crawl out of a porthole at the top of a century old tower and climb down a fragile ladder to re-point the brickwork on a chimney no one will ever see.
Knowing that these things exist hidden from view is what makes life truly exciting. And compared to the monotonous glass walls that surround the tower . . . which architectural style best captures this essential human craving?
But they’re not really clinging at all. They’re totally at ease. This is something they’ve done before, maybe hundreds of times before. It’s no big deal to crawl out of a porthole at the top of a century old tower and climb down a fragile ladder to re-point the brickwork on a chimney no one will ever see.
Knowing that these things exist hidden from view is what makes life truly exciting. And compared to the monotonous glass walls that surround the tower . . . which architectural style best captures this essential human craving?
Stifle Debate. Allah Wills It!
I never thought unilateral surrender would be the sort of policy position that attracts voters but I'm not a professional politician.
Still, in their zeal to score points against George Bush, the Democrats have reached deeply into the darker recesses of geopolitics to the point where a simple prank e-mail address can make you think some rather uncomfortable thoughts about which side the Democrats are advocating.
Will this e-mail message from Howard Dean, for example, look prescient or prurient in 10 years?
So what if it’s addressed to Muhammad Atta. Just because you’re a notorious terrorist who happens to have killed thousands of American men, women, and children, and was willing to die in order to inflict maximum damage to American prestige at home and abroad, that doesn’t mean you’re a Democratic supporter.
Still, they ought to update their mailing list.
I never thought unilateral surrender would be the sort of policy position that attracts voters but I'm not a professional politician.
Still, in their zeal to score points against George Bush, the Democrats have reached deeply into the darker recesses of geopolitics to the point where a simple prank e-mail address can make you think some rather uncomfortable thoughts about which side the Democrats are advocating.
Will this e-mail message from Howard Dean, for example, look prescient or prurient in 10 years?
So what if it’s addressed to Muhammad Atta. Just because you’re a notorious terrorist who happens to have killed thousands of American men, women, and children, and was willing to die in order to inflict maximum damage to American prestige at home and abroad, that doesn’t mean you’re a Democratic supporter.
Still, they ought to update their mailing list.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Le Freak
I’m sure I’m not the only one to recognize that Le Freak is the only disco song you’ll ever need to round out your music collection. It is the perfect example of the genre.
Does it have disembodied clapping? Yes.
Gratuitous references to Studio 54? Yup
What about absurdly simplistic orchestration and an exaggerated bass solo? Oh yes.
Utterly mindless and self absorbed lyrics extolling the benefits of a fictitious activity, one that exists in name only? Yeah man!
But there’s so much more. The name alone captures much of the despondent cheapness that characterized the mediocre age. It incorporates French which was considered at the time to be “classy” – a word, by the way, which cancels out its own meaning.
But it also includes a word devoid of meaning altogether. “Freak” takes the lazy way out, it means whatever you want it to mean. Everything is valid and absolutely nothing is authentic anymore. It says, “we give up.”
The simple title of the song expresses deeply the exhaustion and shame of the 1970s that drove popular culture to celebrate all that was base and ignoble. “Le Freak, c’est chic” says it all without actually saying anything.
Before the dismal Seventies is totally whitewashed by benign nostalgia I feel it is my duty to remind you of the profound half-assedness of what passed for creativity in a craptacular world of stagnation and moral decay.
I give you . . . Xanadu!
I’m sure I’m not the only one to recognize that Le Freak is the only disco song you’ll ever need to round out your music collection. It is the perfect example of the genre.
Does it have disembodied clapping? Yes.
Gratuitous references to Studio 54? Yup
What about absurdly simplistic orchestration and an exaggerated bass solo? Oh yes.
Utterly mindless and self absorbed lyrics extolling the benefits of a fictitious activity, one that exists in name only? Yeah man!
But there’s so much more. The name alone captures much of the despondent cheapness that characterized the mediocre age. It incorporates French which was considered at the time to be “classy” – a word, by the way, which cancels out its own meaning.
But it also includes a word devoid of meaning altogether. “Freak” takes the lazy way out, it means whatever you want it to mean. Everything is valid and absolutely nothing is authentic anymore. It says, “we give up.”
The simple title of the song expresses deeply the exhaustion and shame of the 1970s that drove popular culture to celebrate all that was base and ignoble. “Le Freak, c’est chic” says it all without actually saying anything.
Before the dismal Seventies is totally whitewashed by benign nostalgia I feel it is my duty to remind you of the profound half-assedness of what passed for creativity in a craptacular world of stagnation and moral decay.
I give you . . . Xanadu!
Friday, June 29, 2007
What Real Fascism Looks Like
Imagine for a moment that the American ambassador to France summons the organizer of the Cannes Film Festival to his office and after a meeting the two announce that it would be best for France if Michael Moore’s latest movie is not shown in the country.
Unthinkable, right? Yet that’s essentially what happened this week in Thailand.
The Iranian government succeeded in getting Persepolis removed the Bangkok Film Festival line up. The film by French-based Iranian dissident Marjane Satrapi is opposed by the Iranian theocracy because it "presents an unrealistic face of the achievements and results of the glorious Islamic Revolution in some of its parts".
In withdrawing the offending film, the festival organizer said, “It's a good film, but there are other considerations."
Those other considerations include a barbarically violent “insurgency” in southern Thailand where Islamists are fighting Buddhist oppression by cutting the heads off women and children with dull machetes.
Considering that Iran is an equal opportunity jihad supporter, I am almost tempted to wonder if Iran has a hand in the “insurgency.” Nah, that’s unthinkable too.
But for all the critics who feverishly imagine the United States throwing around its influence to crush dissent, this is a useful lesson in how fascism actually works. The threat of physical violence is what is censoring Persepolis.
Fascism always comes down to physical pain. And pain is very persuasive. That's why it's employed so frequently and effectively by proxies in places like Gaza, Kashmir, and Thailand as well as by governments such as Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea.
And that’s why it’s hard to take seriously those who go on national television to complain about the crushing of dissent here in the U.S. In the real world "speaking truth to power" can get you crushed quite literally.
Imagine for a moment that the American ambassador to France summons the organizer of the Cannes Film Festival to his office and after a meeting the two announce that it would be best for France if Michael Moore’s latest movie is not shown in the country.
Unthinkable, right? Yet that’s essentially what happened this week in Thailand.
The Iranian government succeeded in getting Persepolis removed the Bangkok Film Festival line up. The film by French-based Iranian dissident Marjane Satrapi is opposed by the Iranian theocracy because it "presents an unrealistic face of the achievements and results of the glorious Islamic Revolution in some of its parts".
In withdrawing the offending film, the festival organizer said, “It's a good film, but there are other considerations."
Those other considerations include a barbarically violent “insurgency” in southern Thailand where Islamists are fighting Buddhist oppression by cutting the heads off women and children with dull machetes.
Considering that Iran is an equal opportunity jihad supporter, I am almost tempted to wonder if Iran has a hand in the “insurgency.” Nah, that’s unthinkable too.
But for all the critics who feverishly imagine the United States throwing around its influence to crush dissent, this is a useful lesson in how fascism actually works. The threat of physical violence is what is censoring Persepolis.
Fascism always comes down to physical pain. And pain is very persuasive. That's why it's employed so frequently and effectively by proxies in places like Gaza, Kashmir, and Thailand as well as by governments such as Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea.
And that’s why it’s hard to take seriously those who go on national television to complain about the crushing of dissent here in the U.S. In the real world "speaking truth to power" can get you crushed quite literally.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tony Blair Departs 10 Downing Street
With the baying of assorted malcontents in the far background, Tony Blair and family leave the Prime Minister's residence marking another yet dignified (if not entirely peaceful) transition of power in a civilized Western democracy.
Compared to France’s recent transition I can conclude that the Brits have nicer cars but the French have prettier women. No surprise there.
With the baying of assorted malcontents in the far background, Tony Blair and family leave the Prime Minister's residence marking another yet dignified (if not entirely peaceful) transition of power in a civilized Western democracy.
Compared to France’s recent transition I can conclude that the Brits have nicer cars but the French have prettier women. No surprise there.
Friday, June 22, 2007
oDelawhere?
Passing through Delaware reminds me once again that I’ve never actually met anyone from Delaware. I’ve never set foot in Delaware. And most disturbingly, when the word "Delaware" is uttered, I can’t picture anything.
Try a little state-based word association.
What comes to your mind when you think of Idaho? Potatoes of course.
Texas? Oil, black gold.
Vermont? Cows with unshaven legs.
Now think of Delaware. What do you see . . . DuPont? Articles of incorporation? How about the Delaware Water Gap? Nope, that’s in Pennsylvania.
I’m telling you, Delaware is a sham.
No one ever gets on or gets off the Amtrak train when it stops in Delaware. There’s never anyone on the platform, or in the station, or anywhere in sight. Even the “advertisements” in the clearly fake railway terminal imply a penchant for obscurity.
(click on the pictures to get a better look)
What do you see as you cross the “state”?
There are a lot of deserted street corners. And when I say deserted, I mean there hasn’t been anything other than feral dogs using these streets for the past decade or so. I guess everyone is down at the luxury yacht registry.
What about industry? Surely there must be some productive blue collar employment opportunities in this colorless state.
Here is a typical “factory” in Delaware complete with elaborate ductwork, spools of cable, and forklift pallets of cardboard packaging. What’s missing in this picture perfect generic factory? Factory workers. Are they all at lunch? Not at 3:35pm, they’re not.
And it the middle of this people-less community, what do we find? A high security facility of some sort. The fences, the cameras, the concertina wire – what sort of attack are they expecting? And who would be doing the attacking . . . there’s no one within miles of the place.
Clearly this is the “safe undisclosed location” from which Dick Cheney runs the real government.
This is where the price of oil is set worldwide, where the controlled detonation of WTC Building 7 was planned and ordered, where the mysterious crash site in Shanksville, PA was simulated, where the cancellation of Rosie O’Donnell’s contract on The View was called for, where all the tapes of “Get Smart,” “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” and “The Thunderbirds” are hidden.
Delaware is nondescript. It's purposely nondescript. It's as if the state motto is "Move Along. Nothing to See Here." This kind of obscurity can only be by design.
I think I'm onto something big here. If this is my last post, then you I'm right.
Passing through Delaware reminds me once again that I’ve never actually met anyone from Delaware. I’ve never set foot in Delaware. And most disturbingly, when the word "Delaware" is uttered, I can’t picture anything.
Try a little state-based word association.
What comes to your mind when you think of Idaho? Potatoes of course.
Texas? Oil, black gold.
Vermont? Cows with unshaven legs.
Now think of Delaware. What do you see . . . DuPont? Articles of incorporation? How about the Delaware Water Gap? Nope, that’s in Pennsylvania.
I’m telling you, Delaware is a sham.
No one ever gets on or gets off the Amtrak train when it stops in Delaware. There’s never anyone on the platform, or in the station, or anywhere in sight. Even the “advertisements” in the clearly fake railway terminal imply a penchant for obscurity.
(click on the pictures to get a better look)
What do you see as you cross the “state”?
There are a lot of deserted street corners. And when I say deserted, I mean there hasn’t been anything other than feral dogs using these streets for the past decade or so. I guess everyone is down at the luxury yacht registry.
What about industry? Surely there must be some productive blue collar employment opportunities in this colorless state.
Here is a typical “factory” in Delaware complete with elaborate ductwork, spools of cable, and forklift pallets of cardboard packaging. What’s missing in this picture perfect generic factory? Factory workers. Are they all at lunch? Not at 3:35pm, they’re not.
And it the middle of this people-less community, what do we find? A high security facility of some sort. The fences, the cameras, the concertina wire – what sort of attack are they expecting? And who would be doing the attacking . . . there’s no one within miles of the place.
Clearly this is the “safe undisclosed location” from which Dick Cheney runs the real government.
This is where the price of oil is set worldwide, where the controlled detonation of WTC Building 7 was planned and ordered, where the mysterious crash site in Shanksville, PA was simulated, where the cancellation of Rosie O’Donnell’s contract on The View was called for, where all the tapes of “Get Smart,” “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” and “The Thunderbirds” are hidden.
Delaware is nondescript. It's purposely nondescript. It's as if the state motto is "Move Along. Nothing to See Here." This kind of obscurity can only be by design.
I think I'm onto something big here. If this is my last post, then you I'm right.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Islamists and Truthers
Here is a rather typical Islamofascist video that seems to find its way onto YouTube all too easily these days.
The other genre of video lunacy proliferating on YouTube is the 9/11 Truther rant. This comes up in many forms, the most famous of which is the Loose Change series.
I love this clip of two utterly unhinged LC Truthers confronted by dispassionate geeks from Popular Mechanics who debunk claims that the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition rather than a suicide attack by the religious fanatics idolized in video lunacy genre #1 above.
What to make of this disconnect with reality? Why are there Truthers at all when there are plenty of people falling all over them selves to claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? Do they really think Mohammad Atta was working for Controlled Demolition Corporation rather than Al Qaeda?
My theory on this is pretty simple.
The people who believe that the Bush Administration planned and executed a vast conspiratorial program to stage what would look like an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are clinging to what they know is untrue because the truth itself is too disturbing for them to bear.
That truth is that there is a fascist political movement fueled by religious intolerance and petrodollars that poses a very real threat to the United States and every other liberal society. Perhaps the most disturbing element is that George W. Bush has pinned his legacy on countering this political movement with violence if necessary.
To accept that Al Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as part of a virulently illiberal political agenda would be to concede that on some fundamental level Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the neo-cons of legend are correct in their estimation of the threat.
To many people – including the 35% of Democrats who believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration – that truth is simply too hard to swallow.
It's far more comforting to believe that thousands of government employees secretly worked on "Operation Reichstag" for months if not years to bring about the 9/11 attacks in order to justify a war of conquest against the peaceful people of the Middle East.
That fits a bit more reassuringly into their pre-existing ideological beliefs.
I'm still waiting for the GS-9 whistleblower to come forward with a thousand slide PowerPoint deck explaining the program and reams of memos about confidentiality, diversity training, Hatch Act restrictions, T&E policy, and a baseball cap with the "Op Reichstag" logo that was handed out at the annual family picnic back in 2001.
In the meantime, the actual fascists are being trapped and slaughtered in Baqubah right now in Operation Arrowhead Ripper.
As Michael Yon reports, our guys are not dropping leaflets asking for the "insurgents" to surrender. They're searching for them and killing them, one by one.
A disturbing reality. But real nonetheless.
And finally, here's a sign of hope. Watch a bunch of jihadis break the cycle of violence by surrendering to an aircraft as it flies menacingly over their heads.
Jihad is over. If you want it.
Here is a rather typical Islamofascist video that seems to find its way onto YouTube all too easily these days.
The other genre of video lunacy proliferating on YouTube is the 9/11 Truther rant. This comes up in many forms, the most famous of which is the Loose Change series.
I love this clip of two utterly unhinged LC Truthers confronted by dispassionate geeks from Popular Mechanics who debunk claims that the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition rather than a suicide attack by the religious fanatics idolized in video lunacy genre #1 above.
What to make of this disconnect with reality? Why are there Truthers at all when there are plenty of people falling all over them selves to claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? Do they really think Mohammad Atta was working for Controlled Demolition Corporation rather than Al Qaeda?
My theory on this is pretty simple.
The people who believe that the Bush Administration planned and executed a vast conspiratorial program to stage what would look like an attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are clinging to what they know is untrue because the truth itself is too disturbing for them to bear.
That truth is that there is a fascist political movement fueled by religious intolerance and petrodollars that poses a very real threat to the United States and every other liberal society. Perhaps the most disturbing element is that George W. Bush has pinned his legacy on countering this political movement with violence if necessary.
To accept that Al Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as part of a virulently illiberal political agenda would be to concede that on some fundamental level Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and all the neo-cons of legend are correct in their estimation of the threat.
To many people – including the 35% of Democrats who believe 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration – that truth is simply too hard to swallow.
It's far more comforting to believe that thousands of government employees secretly worked on "Operation Reichstag" for months if not years to bring about the 9/11 attacks in order to justify a war of conquest against the peaceful people of the Middle East.
That fits a bit more reassuringly into their pre-existing ideological beliefs.
I'm still waiting for the GS-9 whistleblower to come forward with a thousand slide PowerPoint deck explaining the program and reams of memos about confidentiality, diversity training, Hatch Act restrictions, T&E policy, and a baseball cap with the "Op Reichstag" logo that was handed out at the annual family picnic back in 2001.
In the meantime, the actual fascists are being trapped and slaughtered in Baqubah right now in Operation Arrowhead Ripper.
As Michael Yon reports, our guys are not dropping leaflets asking for the "insurgents" to surrender. They're searching for them and killing them, one by one.
A disturbing reality. But real nonetheless.
And finally, here's a sign of hope. Watch a bunch of jihadis break the cycle of violence by surrendering to an aircraft as it flies menacingly over their heads.
Jihad is over. If you want it.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
What a Difference an e Makes
I wonder how many voters in 2004 thought they were casting ballots for a Democrat named Kerrey who lost a leg in Vietnam and won the Congressional Medal of Honor before being elected to the U.S. Senate instead of the actual Democratic candidate named Kerry who earned three Purple Hearts for superficial wounds during a three month rotation in Vietnam and then threw those medals away (actually someone else’s) in a dramatic protest against the war before being elected to the U.S. Senate?
Kerrey
Kerry
Well, the difference became even more stark this week when genuine war hero Kerrey wrote the kind of non-partisan, intelligent and perceptive rationale for the Long War that (single e) Kerry would never write and our current Commander in Chief should have written months ago.
Hero Kerrey asks why his fellow Democrats (such as Kerry no e) are advocating a policy that would be anathema to them if it were not for the existence of George Bush:
This is an excellent point and not entirely hypothetical since President Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States in 1998.
According to the frothing cable TV gladiator news corps, the claim that regime change originated in the Clinton Administration is yet another “BUSH LIE®.”
But the text of the Iraq Liberation Act is explicit:
And when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act on October 31, 1998 he offered this reasoning:
And this policy was supported fervantly by many politicians who now claim that it was a Bush creation based on fraudulent information.
So if regime change in Iraq is not some neo-con plot hatched by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11, what is it?
Well, the simplest answer is usually the right one: a fascist dictatorship fueled by petrodollars in the heart of an unstable and strategically important part of the world posed a recognizable threat to regional and therefore global security. The 9/11 attacks made that threat less tolerable for the United States and transition to a democratically supported regime in Iraq more attractive.
Changing the regime was relatively simple. Securing a democratic government has been more difficult but no less important.
But the hard part has already been accomplished. Millions of Iraqis voted for a new government without acrimony or charges of fraud.
Today the violence in Iraq is over who will control that government, not over the U.S. involvement in bringing it about.
President Clinton’s intentions are still valid:
Had the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 succeeded in overthrowing Saddam, it’s very likely the same dynamic would have taken place then as now with Islamofascists attempting to undermine the nascent democracy by provoking sectarian violence.
The goal of self determination for Iraqis is an admirable one. You can debate whether it is worth American lives or not. But it’s incorrect to say it is a policy conjured by the Bush Administration. And it’s tragic that the struggle is being exploited for parochial partisan gain here in the United States.
Hero Kerrey reminds us that this struggle will not go away by itself. Zero Kerry reminds us why he wasn’t entrusted with presidential power in 2004.
Given enough time, reason will always prevail. So at least there’s hope.
I wonder how many voters in 2004 thought they were casting ballots for a Democrat named Kerrey who lost a leg in Vietnam and won the Congressional Medal of Honor before being elected to the U.S. Senate instead of the actual Democratic candidate named Kerry who earned three Purple Hearts for superficial wounds during a three month rotation in Vietnam and then threw those medals away (actually someone else’s) in a dramatic protest against the war before being elected to the U.S. Senate?
Kerrey
Kerry
Well, the difference became even more stark this week when genuine war hero Kerrey wrote the kind of non-partisan, intelligent and perceptive rationale for the Long War that (single e) Kerry would never write and our current Commander in Chief should have written months ago.
Hero Kerrey asks why his fellow Democrats (such as Kerry no e) are advocating a policy that would be anathema to them if it were not for the existence of George Bush:
“Supposed we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end the carnage?”
This is an excellent point and not entirely hypothetical since President Clinton made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States in 1998.
According to the frothing cable TV gladiator news corps, the claim that regime change originated in the Clinton Administration is yet another “BUSH LIE®.”
But the text of the Iraq Liberation Act is explicit:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
And when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act on October 31, 1998 he offered this reasoning:
“The United States favors and Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.”
And this policy was supported fervantly by many politicians who now claim that it was a Bush creation based on fraudulent information.
So if regime change in Iraq is not some neo-con plot hatched by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11, what is it?
Well, the simplest answer is usually the right one: a fascist dictatorship fueled by petrodollars in the heart of an unstable and strategically important part of the world posed a recognizable threat to regional and therefore global security. The 9/11 attacks made that threat less tolerable for the United States and transition to a democratically supported regime in Iraq more attractive.
Changing the regime was relatively simple. Securing a democratic government has been more difficult but no less important.
But the hard part has already been accomplished. Millions of Iraqis voted for a new government without acrimony or charges of fraud.
Today the violence in Iraq is over who will control that government, not over the U.S. involvement in bringing it about.
President Clinton’s intentions are still valid:
“The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member.”
Had the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 succeeded in overthrowing Saddam, it’s very likely the same dynamic would have taken place then as now with Islamofascists attempting to undermine the nascent democracy by provoking sectarian violence.
The goal of self determination for Iraqis is an admirable one. You can debate whether it is worth American lives or not. But it’s incorrect to say it is a policy conjured by the Bush Administration. And it’s tragic that the struggle is being exploited for parochial partisan gain here in the United States.
Hero Kerrey reminds us that this struggle will not go away by itself. Zero Kerry reminds us why he wasn’t entrusted with presidential power in 2004.
Given enough time, reason will always prevail. So at least there’s hope.
Green vs Modernism
What is green? Or more specifically, what makes a “green” building green? The definition is still pretty squishy.
Take for example the new Bank of America building going up on Bryant Park near the New York Public Library. According to BusinessWeek, the new BoA building, designed by Cook+Fox, will be, quote, “the most energy efficient, water-saving, healthful office tower ever built.”
This is flatly absurd. In fact, it’s observably absurd.
The BoA will be an enormous skyscraper taller than every other building in Manhattan except for the Empire State. Below is an architectural rendering of the building. Note that it is a pointy translucent slab encased in a glass curtain wall. It is, in the sacred language of the day, “crystalline.”
If effect, BoA will be a perpendicular greenhouse. The offices on the southern side of the building will not only enjoy direct sunlight all year long but will also require enough refrigeration to make them habitable by anyone other than sun scorched Saudi bedouins.
How could a building that will need to be air conditioned 10 months out of the year ever be considered energy efficient? Well, it will have a gas-fired generator in the basement to create its own electricity for cooling during the day and at night when rates are lower the building will use the public grid make ice that will assist the air conditioning system the next day. But again, how is this efficient? How is this “green?”
Just by looking at the BoA building you know it will not be energy efficient. Here is what an energy efficient skyscraper looks like:
Note the thick masonry walls, the open windows to allow air to circulate, the awnings to block out the direct rays of the sun. When Chicago’s Home Insurance Building was constructed in 1885 it was considered revolutionary. Not because it was “green”, but because it was “modern.” It was the first to use a steel frame and that allowed engineers to build tall for the first time.
Back then, architects didn’t have a word to describe a “green” building for the same reason fish have no word to describe “wet.” In 1885, engineers did not have the technology to building anything but energy efficient green buildings. And they didn’t care about energy efficiency. What they cared about was using new materials and new machines to construct totally artificial environments . . . “modern” environments that were no longer subject to the whim of nature, that triumphed over nature, that signaled an entirely new era in human development.
That’s what modernism is. 100% artificial and proud of it!
The animating spirit of modernism can only be appreciated if you live in a world where there is no alternative to the natural forces that had dominated humanity since the beginning of time.
Today, the opposite is true. Few of us even remember a time when we couldn’t totally shut out the natural environment. How many of us go without furnaces to counter the cold of winter, air conditioners to counter the heat of summer, automobiles to overcome distance, incandescent lights to illuminate the darkness, televisions, radios, and other electronic devices to stimulate our minds?
The idea that we wouldn’t use the energy-consuming modern conveniences we’re so accustomed to is so radical that we’ve had to come up with term to describe the concept. Yet the concept is as old as humanity.
Look at the Home Insurance building again.
The windows are open. The people inside the offices are wearing suits made of lightweight cotton. They have paperweights to keep the wind from blowing everything off their desks. They have a boiler in the basement making steam to heat the place in winter and at the top floors it’s still so cold they wear gloves. They might even light their work space with open flames from gas lights. There are no cars, just animals to pull heavy loads.
That’s energy efficient!
And that’s nit so bad. I grew up in New York City without air conditioning. In summer I would fall asleep to the sound of a pianist practicing in some distant garret. My father worked at the headquarters of a huge multinational corporation that had no air conditioning. He wore a suit and tie every day while he worked. In fact, I once worked in a building on Wall Street that had no air conditioning and it wasn’t bad at all. It was an old building with thick walls, big windows and cool marble floors. You could smell the sea and hear fog horns through the open windows. Today, if you work downtown in a sealed glass box you’re no longer even aware that you’re about 100 yards from the ocean.
But I digress.
My point is this: two architectural movements, modernism and green building, are wholly incompatible. You cannot have a glass curtain wall and energy efficiency at the same time.
Moreover, while one movement (modernism) emphasizes technology’s mastery over the natural world and the other is all about using technology to accommodate the natural world which is absurd because nature needs no intermediaries.
My hope is that both movements collide cataclysmically and that what emerges from the rubble is a more tradition style that takes nature and humanity into account. A good place to look for inspiration would be right across Bryant Park. The New York Public Library is a masterpiece of humane and “green” architecture.
The Carrère and Hastings building is always cool in the summer despite the heat because its walls are thick, its windows open wide, and its mass is punctured by courtyards that allow air to circulate as well as provide the sort of enclosed outdoor spaces that humans are drawn to instinctively. My guess is that Rem Koolhas will not look to this historic precedent when thinking about his next library commission. And that’s a shame.
“Green” building as we know it today is doomed not because its intent is wrong, it’s doomed because it is a desperate attempt to make 20th Century modernism relevant again. Once ideological modernism is discarded, then we’ll see truly green buildings . . . again.
What is green? Or more specifically, what makes a “green” building green? The definition is still pretty squishy.
Take for example the new Bank of America building going up on Bryant Park near the New York Public Library. According to BusinessWeek, the new BoA building, designed by Cook+Fox, will be, quote, “the most energy efficient, water-saving, healthful office tower ever built.”
This is flatly absurd. In fact, it’s observably absurd.
The BoA will be an enormous skyscraper taller than every other building in Manhattan except for the Empire State. Below is an architectural rendering of the building. Note that it is a pointy translucent slab encased in a glass curtain wall. It is, in the sacred language of the day, “crystalline.”
If effect, BoA will be a perpendicular greenhouse. The offices on the southern side of the building will not only enjoy direct sunlight all year long but will also require enough refrigeration to make them habitable by anyone other than sun scorched Saudi bedouins.
How could a building that will need to be air conditioned 10 months out of the year ever be considered energy efficient? Well, it will have a gas-fired generator in the basement to create its own electricity for cooling during the day and at night when rates are lower the building will use the public grid make ice that will assist the air conditioning system the next day. But again, how is this efficient? How is this “green?”
Just by looking at the BoA building you know it will not be energy efficient. Here is what an energy efficient skyscraper looks like:
Note the thick masonry walls, the open windows to allow air to circulate, the awnings to block out the direct rays of the sun. When Chicago’s Home Insurance Building was constructed in 1885 it was considered revolutionary. Not because it was “green”, but because it was “modern.” It was the first to use a steel frame and that allowed engineers to build tall for the first time.
Back then, architects didn’t have a word to describe a “green” building for the same reason fish have no word to describe “wet.” In 1885, engineers did not have the technology to building anything but energy efficient green buildings. And they didn’t care about energy efficiency. What they cared about was using new materials and new machines to construct totally artificial environments . . . “modern” environments that were no longer subject to the whim of nature, that triumphed over nature, that signaled an entirely new era in human development.
That’s what modernism is. 100% artificial and proud of it!
The animating spirit of modernism can only be appreciated if you live in a world where there is no alternative to the natural forces that had dominated humanity since the beginning of time.
Today, the opposite is true. Few of us even remember a time when we couldn’t totally shut out the natural environment. How many of us go without furnaces to counter the cold of winter, air conditioners to counter the heat of summer, automobiles to overcome distance, incandescent lights to illuminate the darkness, televisions, radios, and other electronic devices to stimulate our minds?
The idea that we wouldn’t use the energy-consuming modern conveniences we’re so accustomed to is so radical that we’ve had to come up with term to describe the concept. Yet the concept is as old as humanity.
Look at the Home Insurance building again.
The windows are open. The people inside the offices are wearing suits made of lightweight cotton. They have paperweights to keep the wind from blowing everything off their desks. They have a boiler in the basement making steam to heat the place in winter and at the top floors it’s still so cold they wear gloves. They might even light their work space with open flames from gas lights. There are no cars, just animals to pull heavy loads.
That’s energy efficient!
And that’s nit so bad. I grew up in New York City without air conditioning. In summer I would fall asleep to the sound of a pianist practicing in some distant garret. My father worked at the headquarters of a huge multinational corporation that had no air conditioning. He wore a suit and tie every day while he worked. In fact, I once worked in a building on Wall Street that had no air conditioning and it wasn’t bad at all. It was an old building with thick walls, big windows and cool marble floors. You could smell the sea and hear fog horns through the open windows. Today, if you work downtown in a sealed glass box you’re no longer even aware that you’re about 100 yards from the ocean.
But I digress.
My point is this: two architectural movements, modernism and green building, are wholly incompatible. You cannot have a glass curtain wall and energy efficiency at the same time.
Moreover, while one movement (modernism) emphasizes technology’s mastery over the natural world and the other is all about using technology to accommodate the natural world which is absurd because nature needs no intermediaries.
My hope is that both movements collide cataclysmically and that what emerges from the rubble is a more tradition style that takes nature and humanity into account. A good place to look for inspiration would be right across Bryant Park. The New York Public Library is a masterpiece of humane and “green” architecture.
The Carrère and Hastings building is always cool in the summer despite the heat because its walls are thick, its windows open wide, and its mass is punctured by courtyards that allow air to circulate as well as provide the sort of enclosed outdoor spaces that humans are drawn to instinctively. My guess is that Rem Koolhas will not look to this historic precedent when thinking about his next library commission. And that’s a shame.
“Green” building as we know it today is doomed not because its intent is wrong, it’s doomed because it is a desperate attempt to make 20th Century modernism relevant again. Once ideological modernism is discarded, then we’ll see truly green buildings . . . again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
