Unemployed Astronauts » Random ramblings

Scientologists and cheap cigarettes

Daniel — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:27:59 +0000

For the last couple of days I’ve been trying to crack the intricate conundrum of why scientologists always smoke (bundles) of cheap cigarettes. When I think a lot about something, that something seems to pop up everywhere as if the amount of thoughts I steer towards it is exponentially linked with its numerical presence on this place we call earth. So — my dear reader — you can imagine how the world I’ve lived in for the last few days has been, filled to the brim with scientologists on every street corner smoking headache inducing Russian cigarettes — your next encounter with this tale may vary well contain John Travolta in the leading role. I am hoping to change the scenery for the forthcoming couple of days by sharing my answer for this knot of Gothic proportions.

If you are prone to crack under group pressure, easily persuadable and of somewhat questionable character, you may enjoy the occasional cigarette or two. If that is regrettably so — you undoubtedly have a favorite brand of cigarettes, you might even have a back-up favorite in case they ran out of your preferred tobacco. Now, if you’re a young teenage girl (which I render highly unlikely as you’d have to have read your way through an abundance of words to even get to this line), you most likely smoke something light and sassy, because your lungs aren’t as rugged as some of us old-timers. If you’re a classy lady or a womanly man, you may feel more comfortable with one of those thin long ones — if you smoke a grown-up cigarette after having put your lips around one of those it feels like a big white cigar, I personally try to steer clear of those. And if you’re a real cowboy — like me — chances are your favorite poison is a strong cigarette, such as Lucky Strike or Galloise. Now that we’ve got that in place, I believe it’s time to pull the curtain up on why scientologists — besides navyblue pants with knife edge creases, pulled up so high they have to grab their wallet over their shoulders — prefer cheap cigarettes. When you choose a brand of cigarettes, that choice says something about you — besides revealing you’re a weakling, especially if you smoke menthol aided — and most likely you’ll smoke something that fits into the image you wish to convey of yourself. Scientologists are schooled in an orthodox belief in authority, they all wear the same uniforms, read the same riveting science fiction shocker and generally act in the belief that they’re serving a higher collective power — something more important than themselves. If the image you’re reflecting isn’t important, you might as well smoke the cheapest cigarettes, and so they do — and I honestly can’t blame them, because I’d have to smoke much worse stuff if I was a scientologist.

For some interesting thoughts on the future of cigarette branding under the increased crackdown — including making them look more dangerous — visit Pentagram.

Mickey Mouse shaped tomatoes

Daniel — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:30:21 +0000

We are separated from nature. We feast on the resources of nature, but unlike previous generations of mankind, we are not connected with nature anymore. We eat boneless (fishless?) fish-sticks with no resemblance what so ever with the fish it’s supposed to contain, tomatoes all year round (shaped like Mickey Mouse if you fancy) and precut animal parts originating from a part of the animal people wouldn’t be able to pinpoint if you put a gun to their head. We live with a distorted echo of nature, as close to nature as Disney Land is to being a country. Much the same way as video-gamers and retired pilots remote controlling bomb planes in Afghanistan while sipping coffee in Nevada, we carelessly inflict harm, not because we don’t care, but because we’re visually and therefore emotionally detached from our actions.

I like to think of myself as a politically aware consumer, e.g. I always buy the ecological eggs because — though a little more expensive — it helps my appetite, and I feel like I’ve done a little good. I’m sure a lot of you have small conscience boosting habits of such nature. However, after a weekend of watching Yann Arthus-Bertrand’s Home, as well as Robert Kenner’s recently premiered Food Inc., I have a feeling that — though applaudable — thinking about the chickens isn’t quite enough. We have to think bigger — much bigger, as in planet-size big, and I’m not talking about Planet Hollywood here. To be able to turn this thing around, it’s essential that thinking about the environment becomes more than a trend among champagne socialists — or a lifestyle for the odd Greenpeace activist or two — this has to become mandatory for passing the decent person test.

The problem with tying the survival of our ecosystem up on this dental-floss string of hope however, is that most people forget to think about these things because they aren’t reminded to, there’s simply no reason why they should change their lifestyle based on theories dully expounded by god denouncing scientists when no effect of this so called global warming is visible. In my opinion, we should expand this discussion from being primarily elitist, and start relinking us city dwellers and nature, facing people with the implications of their actions, and hopefully make them reconsider the way they consume before the environmental implications start splashing at the gates. Since I’m hesitant to dropping the whole city idea, a more subtle — yet plausible — way of making this reconnection could be to implement a graphical peephole of information regarding the product we’re purchasing, and its effects on the environment — i.e. giving transparency. These things have to be presented easily digestible, so that it takes no effort to understand the points presented. To illustrate the sort of transparency I’m talking about, here is a cropping from a visualization in GOOD Magazine on the amounts of water we use, directly as well as indirectly. For example, it takes up 1,500 gallons of indirect water use to create one pound of beef, while filling a bath tub takes approximately 35 gallons of direct water use.

Visualized this way (do click on the above image to study the full visualization), I am able to effortlessly decode the presented knowledge on my water footprint, and worth noting this is knowledge that presented in a scientific report wouldn’t have gotten the slightest glimpse from this pair of blue eyes. I suggest implementing this sort of transparency on the products we buy, by putting information on the environmental effects of a product, on the product — just as you would put an image caption under the image it relates to, not in the back of the book where no one would find it.

It’s not a new idea to put information on packaging — if for example you buy a piece of meat, you’ll be able to read on the packaging that it’s ecologically produced (unless of course it isn’t, that doesn’t sell meat so no reason to waste ink on that), the weight of the meat, which country it was produced in (unless it was produced in an unfavorable country, in that case we skip that part as well), and if they’re nice they might even tell you how many minutes to cook it. Companies tell the part of the truth that sells — which is quite reasonable really, people do it all the time as well, e.g. you wouldn’t start a conversation with a nice gal by telling her about your freshly picked up STD. But telling a story about a happy, green grass fed, massaged, Mozart listening cow, when you’re really selling lumps of miserable, grey soy bean eating, meat chopper listening cow, is like bragging about your new two storey loft apartment, truth being you live with your mom. And I’m not saying that it’s not okay to live with your mom — even considering that you’re 35 years old, and can’t sleep until she feeds you warm milk with honey, while gently stroking your forehead — I’m just saying you shouldn’t tell stories that aren’t true. And the same thing applies to companies, and since certain companies for obvious reasons try to stay non-transparent, the curtain has to be pulled up by someone in a higher place, so that we as consumers can judge from facts — not fiction — whether we want to buy the product.

To a full overview on GOOD Magazine’s Transparencies series, click here.

For a wonderful project on the rising water levels caused by global warming, projected directly onto the walls of Bristol, England; click here.

Why super animals shouldn’t exist

Daniel — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:35:31 +0000

In nature special super powers have been assigned with a perfect balance between prey and it’s natural enemies. Some have special hearing capabilities, others are fast, can disguise themselves, jump high, lift enormous loads, fly, swim and so forth. But no animal has all of these, because it would offset the natural balance. The way it works, under normal circumstances the carnivores will hunt it’s prey, and the weakest will be the first to fall behind, leading to its death. This way the healthy animals with the fittest genes survive, and the ones with weaker genes become dinner, and are therefore denied the chance to reproduce themselves, subsequently strengthening the combined gene-pool for the species. If tigers were just a little bit faster, could jump a bit higher or camouflage itself like a chameleon, it would have a higher success-rate while hunting (according to Wikipedia they’re only successful in 1/20 hunts), leading to some happy tigers, and some long faced water buffalos. Because they would be more successful while hunting, there would be more food for the tiger families, which would lead to more tigers. Which then in turn would lead to even fewer water buffalos, and suddenly you have a downward going spiral. Just as all other animals, the tiger has the perfect amount of super powers to keep a healthy balance in nature, slowly strengthening the species it hunts because only the strongest are allowed to reproduce. If it was a bit faster it would take on its natural habitat like a 10$ all you can eat buffet, and if it was a bit slower weak genes would be allowed to pollute the gene-pool, weakening the species on the tigers menu.

The human species have evolved into a kind of super being. Our super power is our brain (at least for some of us), and unlike animals where their powers are contained solely in their bodies, we create technology so that we can choose which set of skills we want to carry with us on a specific day. The ability of long distance communication with other humans, fire deadly bullets from a far, or to momentarily scale up and let a tank represent our physical presence. Now both the tiger and the water buffalo have long faces, and with good reason as well. The reckless use of our super powers are accompanied by not so super environmental consequences, and the perfect natural balance that once was is now slanted. By stepping out of the natural circle of life on earth, we’ve upgraded our role from highly evolved monkeys into the role of God, but while doing so we’ve forgotten to upgrade our level of responsibility.

If all insects were to disappear from Earth, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings were to disappear from Earth, within 50 years all life forms would flourish.

– Jonas Edward Salk (b. 1914)

On the effects of middle fingers, temples and well shaped artifacts

Daniel — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:54:44 +0000

When we make various gesticulations towards each other, we more often than not get a response from the attended recipient, rooted in the emotional response invoked by the lonely middle-finger, or friendly wave. They might even wave back at you, with their middle finger or open hand, dependent on your gesticulation. Mass and form of human material moves us; dependent on our varying cultural background we find certain proportions in a human face beautiful, we react on facial expressions dependent on the combination of activated muscles and tall guys are more likely to be successful in a job-interview. I reckon the vast majority of people would agree on this.

If we look at mass and form in dead material – such as bricks and mortar – we similarly react emotionally dependent on shape, and cultural connotations bound in that specific shape. When we enter a church – mosque, synagogue, temple, whatever rocks your boat – chances are even an atheist will notice a certain energy bound in the structure of that space. It doesn’t even have to be as monumental as places of prayer, smaller does it as well – just think of your home, a classroom or a nightclub. We have expectations of certain behavioral patterns for places with a certain positional correlation between the bricks and mortar it consists of. Some infuse a feeling for safety, others are places of authority. Undoubtedly some of the effect is caused by the cultural values we give certain spaces, a courtroom for example is a place of authority. But I am convinced that the mere form of the space has an effect on the functions and values we expect of it as well, and that our behavior varies dependent here on. As an example, imagine a courtroom in an old nightclub. Or to spice things up – a nightclub in an old courtroom. Sounds like a party I’d attend. I’d try to avoid the courtroom though, even one situated in an old nightclub. I’d think most people would agree this far.

Now, why is it that people seem to think that it’s any different for things smaller still – such as a well shaped wineglass or a neatly designed lamp. Of the people I’ve met in my relatively short life-span, the vast majority seem painfully uninterested in good design. When people are aware of the effects public spaces in varying shape possess, why do they care so little about what ought to be the most important space for them – the temple of tranquility and peace they call their home, and the objects and artifacts they surround themselves with in it. Beautiful, intelligent design conjures thoughts of equal measure – in my opinion it’s worth the money.

On concrete camouflage and why roosters normally don’t inhabit skyscraper ledges

Daniel — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:01:59 +0000

Feral pigeons are derived from domesticated pigeons returned to the wild, which in turn were originally bred from rock pigeons. When in the wild, rock pigeons naturally inhabit – you guessed it – rocks. Preferably a place with a nice view, like a sea-cliff or the side of a mountain. This is why they have their grey plumage – to blend in with the rock beneath them, so that they can enjoy their view without getting interrupted by something unpleasant, such as a hungry peregrine falcon. It’s for the imminent lack of this ninja like camouflage that you don’t see too many roosters hanging out on cliff-sides and ledges of skyscrapers – their red comb is quite too prominent, and if that wasn’t enough for our hungry peregrine friend to spot it, it will crow passionately towards the sun, shaking its shiny red comb for that extra visibility, until the light is no more. Plus – with relevance to them sitting on ledges of buildings, sometimes near the kitchen window – they taste great with a lemon and some garlic thrown in there.

Now, back to the subject – if there ever was one. The rock camouflage works just as well as concrete camouflage, and street pigeons still need it as badly as their rock loving cousins – first of all because those hungry peregrine falcons have followed their cooing friends’ example and moved to the city, but also because the humans inhabiting the cities are trying to exterminate them with everything from poison to special pigeon contraceptives. Tough luck.

Instead of trying to get rid of them, I think we should embrace them (not physically though, unless you feel like a trip to the local drugstore), being the only animals with a concrete camouflage they deserve the space. Coo coo.

Red hot pressure cooker

Daniel — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:31:38 +0000

When the Chinese government blocks everything from Twitter to Blogspot from the public in the days up to the 20th anniversary of the massacre in Tiananmen Square, there’s obviously knowledge floating around the internet they don’t want the broader public of China to be aware of. Knowledge that’s dangerous because people might realize what the mischievous fuckers have been up to. If they’re aware that their system can’t stand the toll against truth and knowledge, how can they believe in it themselves? It’s obviously not capitalism they’re fighting anymore, so I figure it’s knowledge they’re afraid of, knowledge that will diminish their power. And it’s China’s leaders’ unscrupulous hunger for power, and the siren song of western capital that has lured them off of their thoroughly beaten red track, to let in capitalism.

But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. When the money starts trickling down to the pockets of the average man, chances are the pressure cooker will blow, and people will demand openness and true democracy. And the dirty scoundrels leading the country today will only have their greediness to thank.

Check out The Big Picture’s thought provoking image series on the 20th anniversary here.

The guy that got the job

Daniel — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:33:57 +0000

Image credits NASA. Taken from the wonderful The Big Picture.

Matt Pyke

Trash Bing

Daniel — Sun, 31 May 2009 17:50:48 +0000

So, I just learned that Microsoft have earmarked USD$ 100,000,000.00 so far for marketing their recently rebranded search engine; now called Bing. Which apparently is short for But It’s Not Google. I know it’s not Google, I figured that out when I saw the ham handed approach of their video here, it looks like local TV ads from the start 90’s. And what’s the deal with that logo? It makes the whole thing look like a basement endeavor run by someone aesthetically handicapped. I bet it’s not run from a basement though, with the USD$ 100,000,000.00 and all.

Anyway, if the engine is amazing, most people probably wouldn’t mind they made commercials that look like local TV ads, and have a logo that makes you think it was done by a foot-painting blind guy. But My experience with Microsoft products so far tell me it’s probably not quite so. On top of that they’d have to keep at least the same pace as Google in product development, and the last time I checked, PowerPoint – which Mick Jagger infamously sang about in You Make a Grown Man Cry – still measures its gnarly workspace in bloody centimeters. It’s for entirely screen-based presentations, the world of pixels for fucks sake. They might as well measure the distances in strawberries. Or tears of despair from using the damn thing.

To me, it’s looking like they’d be better off using the USD$ 100,000,000.00 on product development – and a new logo – and let the engine sell it self.

Erotic print in a digital age

Daniel — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:53:30 +0000

I recently read about the new erotic magazine; Jacques, and it made me think about a quote by Peter Saville regarding the subject of erotic magazines:

“I’d like to redo Playboy magazine. I find it lamentable that there isn’t an intelligent, erotic magazine. There isn’t a magazine that was like Playboy was 30 years ago, and I find that’s dumb. Why isn’t there any intelligent, abstract eroticism?”

Whether Jacques is the new Playboy of the old 70’s I don’t know, because – unfortunately – I haven’t had a chance to study it yet. But what I do know from studying magazines with a similar focus is that erotic magazines are in a malign state. Their main competitor offers a better product, and free of charge that is. On top of that the covers of most magazines in the genre are so vulgar that I personally would find it embarrassing to purchase one without a trench-coat and a fake beard.

When examined closer on the inside it becomes obvious that they’re written by illiterate barbarians. Editions of Playboy from the 70’s had writers like Hunter S. Thompson, Vladimir Nabokov and Arthur C. Clarke, but now you have to come to terms with a guy that has a struggle trying to spell out c-u-m-s-h-o-t. It’s obvious that many erotic magazines are trying to deliver a fast product, in that they don’t go deep – literally speaking – but instead focus on poorly styled images and an expected quick read. I think they’ll have a hard time getting people to pay for that, as it’s available in moving format for free online, saving you that embarrassing – and expensive – purchase as well. And you don’t have to hide that hideous looking magazine either. You can simply clear your cache.

With the old playboys it’s something else. People put those in frames for god’s sake. One of my colleagues has a bunch of them on his desk at work for inspiration. With normal magazines in the genre you’d have them in the toilet for a different kind of inspiration. Now, I think the way to go for people with the chutzpah to take on the web competitors is to do like Jacques and S-Magazine, and focus more on intelligence – with interviews and articles – and on eroticism and not porn – with stylish images, and a cover that you’d feel comfortable having on your coffee table. A slowed down approach unlike what most erotic publishers take, where you’ll be considered a playboy because of your reading habits, instead of a perverted teenager.

Naughty banknotes

Daniel — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:43:19 +0000

I wonder whether there exists such a thing as a naughty banknote. Currency circulates, taking a trip around the bank after each transaction – only to be recirculated – continuing this loop for 1-2 years depending on the note’s origin. It would be interesting to track their journey, through varying pockets, cash registers and hands. Maybe some would have an overweight of transactions with a more questionable character, only trading for skin flicks and cigarettes. Naughty banknotes – 15.3cm x 7.8 cm sized devils with a bad influence, controlling your limbic system from the safe haven that is your back-pocket, until you slide it in between the folds of those fishnets and the swinging thighs that carry them. It might feel better there, like a fish in water – without the fishnets. If you knew that the fiver you were about to squeeze through the gap in that little boy scout’s collection box had previously been rolled up and used for snorting coke, bought a gun, three shots of tequila and a blow job – would you feel bad?