Friends!
Ever notice how television insists on portraying Senator McCain as some kind of ghost in the screen? As if suddenly everything went from digital to analog again; the image just isn't quite as clear. The effect makes you think that the footage is from some bygone era, irrelevant and old. This is, however, conjecture. Who knows?
I will, of course, draw an analogy to words. Behold, Michael Crichton of thriller-book fame in State of Fear:
Ever notice how television insists on portraying Senator McCain as some kind of ghost in the screen? As if suddenly everything went from digital to analog again; the image just isn't quite as clear. The effect makes you think that the footage is from some bygone era, irrelevant and old. This is, however, conjecture. Who knows?
I will, of course, draw an analogy to words. Behold, Michael Crichton of thriller-book fame in State of Fear:
"...there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. 'Feeble-mindedness' could mean anything from poverty and illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of 'degenerate' or 'unfit'. Vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on."What was really going on was genocide in the name of progress. According to Wikipedia, eugenics is a social philosophy. A smarter, healthier, less-suffering human race is its fundamental goal. But if what Mr. Crichton says is true, then it's quite important to wake up when you come across impotent words like "feeble-mindedness" and "unfit" - or a television network's subtle use of poor imagery.
