Sorry, but I forget the Web site that inspired this post. What it did was present the idea of being someplace and thinking "Wow, I'm really here!"
I got that feeling many years ago during my Army days when I'd get a weekend pass and go into New York City. Just seeing the skyline would trigger that reaction.
What does the triggering is strongly related to characteristics of the place and, usually, their fame. Moreover, different aspects of the place will trigger different people. And of course the person normally is primed for the reaction to the degree that the place is of passionate interest. For example, for some folks viewing the Eiffel Tower yields the "Wow, I'm really in Paris!" reaction. For me it's being along the Seine in the vicinity of the Ile de la Cité which happens to strike me as being even more Parisian than the tower. Results vary.
Citing the Eiffel Tower suggests that being near a particularly famous structure or place is probably the most common source of the "Wow, I'm here!" reaction. The "I'm really in Rome!" reaction is probably usually set off by viewing the Forum, Colosseum or St. Peter's.
On the other hand, I think that for places such as San Francisco or Seattle it's their overall settings that do the trick. Which does not totally rule out being triggered by being at Fisherman's Wharf or seeing the Space Needle. I suspect the general settings of Paris and Rome are far less likely to evoke strong, positive emotional reactions than the more focused sites noted above.
Regardless, the strong, positive emotional reaction is one of life's pleasures.
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Whither National Geographic
The USA's National Geographic Society (Wikipedia entry here) has been abound since 1888, and its well-known magazine for almost that long.
I can remember as a child looking at my grandparents' copies. My parents didn't get around to subscribing until I was perhaps college age. By then, I found myself almost never reading through an entire article. The one thing I always did enjoy in those days was their maps: I still have a number of them in my map collection, a few dating back to around 1920.
In the first 50 or so years of its existence the Society sponsored discovery expeditions along with commissioning reports about places known, but unlikely to be visited by most readers. In the 1920s and 1930s such places would include Brittany and other parts of France. To get there, a reader would have to take a long train ride to an East Coast port (if he didn't live near one) and then sail across the Atlantic on a steamship -- all this before getting to the target area (and having to retrace his steps getting home). Most folks back then did not have the time and money for such travel, so the Geographic served as a handy proxy.
One of the few useful concepts I can recall from my sociology training was that organizations would usually try their damndest to continue existing after their original reason for existence had vanished. So it seems to be for the Society. By around 1960 there were no longer significant unexplored places on earth and comparatively fast, inexpensive jet air travel made overseas tourism practical for a much larger portion of the American population. Ever since, the Society has pushed into new fields and seems to have thrived.
Alas, for me what the Society does and what its now-many publications show are not unique to it. There are other sources of information covering the same topics. Even worse, in my opinion, the Society has allowed itself to drift into supporting political positions that are corruptive of best scientific practice. An example is "Climate Change," where research practices have tended to fall short of scientific method as exemplified by Karl Popper and Richard Feynman.
I can remember as a child looking at my grandparents' copies. My parents didn't get around to subscribing until I was perhaps college age. By then, I found myself almost never reading through an entire article. The one thing I always did enjoy in those days was their maps: I still have a number of them in my map collection, a few dating back to around 1920.
In the first 50 or so years of its existence the Society sponsored discovery expeditions along with commissioning reports about places known, but unlikely to be visited by most readers. In the 1920s and 1930s such places would include Brittany and other parts of France. To get there, a reader would have to take a long train ride to an East Coast port (if he didn't live near one) and then sail across the Atlantic on a steamship -- all this before getting to the target area (and having to retrace his steps getting home). Most folks back then did not have the time and money for such travel, so the Geographic served as a handy proxy.
One of the few useful concepts I can recall from my sociology training was that organizations would usually try their damndest to continue existing after their original reason for existence had vanished. So it seems to be for the Society. By around 1960 there were no longer significant unexplored places on earth and comparatively fast, inexpensive jet air travel made overseas tourism practical for a much larger portion of the American population. Ever since, the Society has pushed into new fields and seems to have thrived.
Alas, for me what the Society does and what its now-many publications show are not unique to it. There are other sources of information covering the same topics. Even worse, in my opinion, the Society has allowed itself to drift into supporting political positions that are corruptive of best scientific practice. An example is "Climate Change," where research practices have tended to fall short of scientific method as exemplified by Karl Popper and Richard Feynman.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Irrational Brand Dislikes
Sometimes we are rational, sometimes not.
One of my irrationalities has to do with product brands. For some reason there are brands that turn me off no matter if their products are measurably superior to those of other brands.
Let me give you some examples. Some of these might be brands that you are extremely fond of -- for whatever reasons you have.
I can't explain why, but one brand I don't care for is Nike. I do own a Nike baseball cap with University of Washington colors and symbolism. I bought it because I needed a show-my-loyalty garment for when I (rarely) attend Husky football games, and the Nike cap happened to be better looking than the alternatives. (To show my dual-loyalty, I also usually wear a Penn sweatshirt to the game.)
Another brand I don't care for is The North Face. That's because I don't like their logotype, rationally designed though it might be. I suppose I might be missing out on some fine products. But there are plenty of equally fine competing products, so I'm probably not losing if I never consider North Face.
Yet another garment brand is Under Armour. I think there's something about the name that seems icky, though I can't explain to myself just why it seems icky.
As for automobiles, perhaps my most irrational avoidance target is Subaru. But at least I do know why I have this "thing" about Subarus. It's because of the 360 cc Subarus than Malcolm Bricklin first imported to the USA in the late 1960s. Those cars were tiny, looking like motorized Dutch wooden shoes. I thought they were ridiculous, and never got over the feeling even though full-size Subarus have interesting engineering features.
In contrast, there are some brands for which I have irrational positive preferences. But that might be a topic for another post.
One of my irrationalities has to do with product brands. For some reason there are brands that turn me off no matter if their products are measurably superior to those of other brands.
Let me give you some examples. Some of these might be brands that you are extremely fond of -- for whatever reasons you have.
I can't explain why, but one brand I don't care for is Nike. I do own a Nike baseball cap with University of Washington colors and symbolism. I bought it because I needed a show-my-loyalty garment for when I (rarely) attend Husky football games, and the Nike cap happened to be better looking than the alternatives. (To show my dual-loyalty, I also usually wear a Penn sweatshirt to the game.)
Another brand I don't care for is The North Face. That's because I don't like their logotype, rationally designed though it might be. I suppose I might be missing out on some fine products. But there are plenty of equally fine competing products, so I'm probably not losing if I never consider North Face.
Yet another garment brand is Under Armour. I think there's something about the name that seems icky, though I can't explain to myself just why it seems icky.
As for automobiles, perhaps my most irrational avoidance target is Subaru. But at least I do know why I have this "thing" about Subarus. It's because of the 360 cc Subarus than Malcolm Bricklin first imported to the USA in the late 1960s. Those cars were tiny, looking like motorized Dutch wooden shoes. I thought they were ridiculous, and never got over the feeling even though full-size Subarus have interesting engineering features.
In contrast, there are some brands for which I have irrational positive preferences. But that might be a topic for another post.
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Ocean Cruise Strategies
I didn't go on cruise ships until eight or so years ago. That's if you don't count crossing the Pacific Ocean twice when I was in the army deployed to Korea. Since then, I've been on five and will take my sixth soon.
My take is that there are three main types of cruise ship passenger motivations. Some people are there mostly for the onboard experience. That might include dining, pass-time activities, entertainment, and visiting with fellow passengers. A sub-group might be folks with mobility issues, where those are minimized by being onboard while taking a break from being at home. The purest way to do this is to book passage on repositioning cruise (to or from Europe or Asia, depending on the time of year): very few stops en route.
Then there are those who cruise with the goal of visiting specific destinations, and are indifferent to shipboard activities.
Finally, there are those who like the whole package: shipboard things and ports-of-call.
I fall into the destination-oriented category, selecting cruises on the basis of how many ports-of-call are both interesting and new to me. Given that my main interest is Europe, it doesn't take many cruises to exhaust its potential.
However, my upcoming cruise is in the Far East. That's because Hong Kong and Shanghai have always interested me. It also stops in northern China and southern Japan, so at least those areas will be new to me.
But once that's done, I'll probably mostly do bus tours. That's because they pack much more viewing items per day than any cruise ship offers.
Your results probably vary.
My take is that there are three main types of cruise ship passenger motivations. Some people are there mostly for the onboard experience. That might include dining, pass-time activities, entertainment, and visiting with fellow passengers. A sub-group might be folks with mobility issues, where those are minimized by being onboard while taking a break from being at home. The purest way to do this is to book passage on repositioning cruise (to or from Europe or Asia, depending on the time of year): very few stops en route.
Then there are those who cruise with the goal of visiting specific destinations, and are indifferent to shipboard activities.
Finally, there are those who like the whole package: shipboard things and ports-of-call.
I fall into the destination-oriented category, selecting cruises on the basis of how many ports-of-call are both interesting and new to me. Given that my main interest is Europe, it doesn't take many cruises to exhaust its potential.
However, my upcoming cruise is in the Far East. That's because Hong Kong and Shanghai have always interested me. It also stops in northern China and southern Japan, so at least those areas will be new to me.
But once that's done, I'll probably mostly do bus tours. That's because they pack much more viewing items per day than any cruise ship offers.
Your results probably vary.
Monday, February 18, 2019
Over-Examining the Past Through Present Eyes
The most recent Review section of the Wall Street Journal's weekend edition has a piece titled "An American Icon the Almost Wasn't" -- dealing with the Lincoln Memorial and its famous statue.
I found much of it interesting, while other parts bothered me. Its writer, Harold Holzer, who works at New York City's Hunter College, spent far too much space regarding the lack of reference to Blacks and slavery in the quotations chiseled on the structure's walls. Had he mentioned it once and let it go at that, it would have been fine in my opinion: his point would have been made.
These days the political left -- including most of non-science academia such as Holzer -- strikes me as being obsessed with race. I suspect the overly-done virtue signaling Holzer did might have a means of self-protection from potential wrath from his peer group. That is, Holzer was doing his best to demonstrate that he wasn't a racist to the detriment of what otherwise was a nice article.
Shifter to a broader perspective, it's probably nearly impossible to view the past free of current experience and points of view. I think it's perfectly fine when a writer's stated goal is to compare and contrast, say, daily life in early Imperial Rome with daily life in today's San Francisco. Also fine is placing a past case in the perspective of its history and its future.
What increasingly bothers me is when writers fail to try to place themselves in the context of their subject's times. Which is not to say that Vlad the Impaler's or Those Jefferson's contexts justified all that they did. But some care should be taken to explain those contexts that, just like present contexts, greatly influenced their attitudes and deeds.
After all, those in the future might well consider academic and political belief systems in present-day America as being being ridiculous or perhaps even ghastly.
I found much of it interesting, while other parts bothered me. Its writer, Harold Holzer, who works at New York City's Hunter College, spent far too much space regarding the lack of reference to Blacks and slavery in the quotations chiseled on the structure's walls. Had he mentioned it once and let it go at that, it would have been fine in my opinion: his point would have been made.
These days the political left -- including most of non-science academia such as Holzer -- strikes me as being obsessed with race. I suspect the overly-done virtue signaling Holzer did might have a means of self-protection from potential wrath from his peer group. That is, Holzer was doing his best to demonstrate that he wasn't a racist to the detriment of what otherwise was a nice article.
Shifter to a broader perspective, it's probably nearly impossible to view the past free of current experience and points of view. I think it's perfectly fine when a writer's stated goal is to compare and contrast, say, daily life in early Imperial Rome with daily life in today's San Francisco. Also fine is placing a past case in the perspective of its history and its future.
What increasingly bothers me is when writers fail to try to place themselves in the context of their subject's times. Which is not to say that Vlad the Impaler's or Those Jefferson's contexts justified all that they did. But some care should be taken to explain those contexts that, just like present contexts, greatly influenced their attitudes and deeds.
After all, those in the future might well consider academic and political belief systems in present-day America as being being ridiculous or perhaps even ghastly.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Great Men
I'm sure its more complicated than that, but I have a dim memory of a Sophomore year English class teacher who said that Leo Tolstoy thought that the tide of history and other external factors were far more important than the deeds of people such as Napoleon. This was in reference to Tolstoy's book War and Peace that we somehow had to read during the ten-week academic quarter.
I see little reason to deny that people are influenced by their times. On the other hand, there are some people who are far more capable than most others in altering the direction of history significantly. Culture, technology, all the rest of the package they might use or resist on their road to greatness because they can, while the rest of us cannot or do not.
What brings this to mind are two fairly recent biographies written by Andrew Roberts. One is about Napoleon, the other deals with Churchill.
Note that I didn't write "Napoleon Bonaparte" and "Winston Churchill" in the previous sentence. That's because I assume most readers know exactly who I'm referring to. That's because they were great men. One doesn't need to approve of what they did to agree that in several respects they were superior to most of their contemporaries.
Napoleon is generally acknowledged as being a military genius, though he eventually began making military mistakes. He had the sense to understand the political situation in France as the Revolution faded and was able to seize power while still a young man. He also was an intellectual, widely read and interested in a variety of fields. He didn't have to bring scholars along when he invaded Egypt, but did so. One result of that was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the recognition of its importance. Then there is the Code Napoleon, the basis for law in many parts of Europe.
Churchill's accomplishments were less wide-ranging than Napoleon's. His greatest deed was altering the course of World War 2 by not seeking peace with Hitler after France fell, while shoring up the morale of the British public. Otherwise, he was a prolific writer, a fearless soldier who killed men in battle, an adventurer newspaper correspondent, and a politician who held many of the most important British government positions at one time or another.
How many of us have anything near Napoleon's and Churchill's skill-sets?
I see little reason to deny that people are influenced by their times. On the other hand, there are some people who are far more capable than most others in altering the direction of history significantly. Culture, technology, all the rest of the package they might use or resist on their road to greatness because they can, while the rest of us cannot or do not.
What brings this to mind are two fairly recent biographies written by Andrew Roberts. One is about Napoleon, the other deals with Churchill.
Note that I didn't write "Napoleon Bonaparte" and "Winston Churchill" in the previous sentence. That's because I assume most readers know exactly who I'm referring to. That's because they were great men. One doesn't need to approve of what they did to agree that in several respects they were superior to most of their contemporaries.
Napoleon is generally acknowledged as being a military genius, though he eventually began making military mistakes. He had the sense to understand the political situation in France as the Revolution faded and was able to seize power while still a young man. He also was an intellectual, widely read and interested in a variety of fields. He didn't have to bring scholars along when he invaded Egypt, but did so. One result of that was the discovery of the Rosetta Stone and the recognition of its importance. Then there is the Code Napoleon, the basis for law in many parts of Europe.
Churchill's accomplishments were less wide-ranging than Napoleon's. His greatest deed was altering the course of World War 2 by not seeking peace with Hitler after France fell, while shoring up the morale of the British public. Otherwise, he was a prolific writer, a fearless soldier who killed men in battle, an adventurer newspaper correspondent, and a politician who held many of the most important British government positions at one time or another.
How many of us have anything near Napoleon's and Churchill's skill-sets?
Monday, January 21, 2019
Media Prepping for Mortality: Ginsburg and MacArthur
As I write this, I have absolutely no knowledge of the state of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health.
Unfortunately, someone at Fox News goofed, airing a notice that she had died. As noted here, the network apologized. I haven't followed this matter other than being aware that it happened. But I don't doubt that there were folks out there accusing the network of wishing she actually was dead.
Aside from the slip-up, the people at Fox were simply doing what larger journalistic organizations do: preparing for certain future events. A newspaper such as The New York Times has probably hundreds of canned obituaries ready for use when needed. When a famous person dies, they simply add a few sentences citing the date of death and perhaps some surrounding circumstances.
And if the person is well known such as Justice Ginsburg, headlines are prepared. I know this from past experience.
In March of 1964 I was in Tokyo for a week's temporary duty at Stars & Stripes, the armed forces overseas daily newspaper. At that time General Douglas MacArthur was in failing health, and a S&S staffer was walking across the newsroom with a dummy front page with two-plus inch type announcing "MACARTHUR DIES."
As it happened, he hung on for nearly another month, but that headline or something similar was eventually used.
Unfortunately, someone at Fox News goofed, airing a notice that she had died. As noted here, the network apologized. I haven't followed this matter other than being aware that it happened. But I don't doubt that there were folks out there accusing the network of wishing she actually was dead.
Aside from the slip-up, the people at Fox were simply doing what larger journalistic organizations do: preparing for certain future events. A newspaper such as The New York Times has probably hundreds of canned obituaries ready for use when needed. When a famous person dies, they simply add a few sentences citing the date of death and perhaps some surrounding circumstances.
And if the person is well known such as Justice Ginsburg, headlines are prepared. I know this from past experience.
In March of 1964 I was in Tokyo for a week's temporary duty at Stars & Stripes, the armed forces overseas daily newspaper. At that time General Douglas MacArthur was in failing health, and a S&S staffer was walking across the newsroom with a dummy front page with two-plus inch type announcing "MACARTHUR DIES."
As it happened, he hung on for nearly another month, but that headline or something similar was eventually used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)