See those abs? Buy these cigarettes.
And since I’m revisiting things, I’ll revisit another one: the make science look cool by putting random guys in photos with rappers thing.
(Disclaimer: I don’t object to the thing itself; it probably doesn’t actually hurt anything; I object to treating it as a serious way to improve Murkans’ attitude to science.)
Here’s what I hate about the whole idea: it is about manipulation instead of argument or persuasion. It has, by design, no substance at all. It’s openly and proudly just a stupid advertsingy “look at this and feel like this so buy this” type of item. I hate that kind of crap, and I especially hate it when it infiltrates areas that are or should be all about substance. I hate how calculatedly mindless it is. Maybe that’s why dislike of it is supposed to be “elitist” – because it’s politically suspect to think that calculated mindlessness is a bad harmful thing.
Well I don’t care; if that’s elitism I’m an elitist; I do think calculated mindlessness is a bad harmful thing.
With that much (i.e., zero) substance behind it, any admiration of science that this campaign excites in the wee bairnies is likely to be as ephemeral as musical fashions.
Not that Bret Michaels was cool in any era.
Wait a minute; I think I was too hasty. Sheril has just posted a combined New Kids on the Block / Backstreet Boys video. This may be what finally turns the tide of reason in this country. I predict a devastating avalanche of rationality that sweeps aside the Palins and Becks once and for all.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: See those abs? Buy these cigarettes. http://dlvr.it/9B6xm […]
Oh good, I can’t wait for that avalanche!
Well. The photos are embarrassing, all except for the one w/Heart. Having sat next to Ann Wilson in high school I am pretty sure she wanted to get her picture taken w/the scientists because cool rock stars love science, not the other way around.
But this kind of PR thing can turn out way cool. Those of you in with the American Library Association probably know the Celebrity READ posters that show cool people (stars of Harry Potter movies, Tim Gunn, Rachel Maddow, Kareem Abdul Jabar, and a bunch of actor and musician people I don’t know). Each celeb is holding a book and it’s a book they claim to have read. I don’t think that promotion dissed either reading or the celebrities. Of course reading (as in, you do or you don’t) isn’t as complicated as science. They aren’t making any theoretical claims about reading or putting their phonics dogs in the fight. So it’s not exactly the same thing. I myself had a few of those READ posters in my office for a long time. . .
Plus it’s a better selection of cool people – I mean, Rachel Maddow? Who is cooler?!
That’s why I don’t get how this is “promoting” science. It’s scientists standing next to rock stars. At a glance, couldn’t it just as easily be said to be “promoting” rock stars? Or “promoting” people standing next to other people? (A cause I support, btw.)
I’m still chafing a bit about the underlying assumption that if it’s not medical science, it’s not even worth mentioning (or funding). But I guess it’s human nature to care only about what obviously has the potential to influence you directly. Many people can’t be pried away from their iPhones these days with a crowbar, yet will tell you with a straight face how meaningless and irrelevant science is to everyday life. The only thing quantum mechanics is apparently good for is propping up new-age woo and homeopathy.
And another thing: We’re Merkins, dammit, not Murkans. By executive order of President Muffley himself.
My feeling about it is fairly neutral. I don’t see too much harm in it but at the same time I fail to see how it will make science appear ‘cool’ to young people – and it CAN be made cool to them. In recent years science has been used as a key component of some of the most popular TV series – the CSIs and similar forensic science based shows. While one can argue about the truth of the vision of science shown in these shows (I somehow doubt that you will go from a swabbed blood spot to a genomic sequence in a couple of hours in a real police forensic lab) it has, however, resulted in a huge increase in applications to forensic science courses in university. The ‘scientists’ that are portrayed in these shows are young, eager and shown to be constantly learning and discovering new ‘facts’ about their cases. They are not successful laboratory directors in suits. I work as a medical researcher an even I have difficulty identifying with some of the ‘rock star’ scientists in the GQ campaign so I can only imagine how difficult it would be for the average young person thinking of which career to choose.
Oh it’s not manipulation, it’s framing! ;)
If it were only science! Unfortunately this is how political candidates are elected too..
I know. That was meant to be implicit in the post – but I should have made it explicit.
Ophelia: but if you made it explicit what would a logical-empiricist have to comment?
Hmm, seems my Merkin Muffley joke has fallen flat. Oh well, I’m still proud to be a Merkin.
Ohh, I didn’t get it, Hamilton. I had to see the two names together to get it.
Usually at the top of my list of favorite movies. Source of many of my most-used catchphrases.
I got the joke, Hamilton, and appreciated it. But I consider “Murkan” to be a shortened version of what Harlan Ellison used to spell as “Amurrican.” The ur spelling is closer to the Midwestern – Southern Plains pronunciation that is being parodied in “Amurrican.” I hear it at least once a week in the part of our disUnited States in which I live.
Being raised as a good ol’ Missourah farm boy,* I was pretty sure that was what “Murkan” meant. But given its definition, I figured “Merkin” was a funnier thing to call yourself. Sort of like “Teabagger.”
*After driving from the suburbs to my grandparents’ house, that is.
Shoot, a fella can have himself a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all this stuff.
A good Peter Sellers reference is rarely lost on me.
Got a hankering to change my name now. Not sure if it’s worth filing all the paperwork, though.
As written, as spoken by Slim Pickens, and as shot by Kubrick, the line included “pretty good weekend in Dallas . . . .” “Vegas” was substituted for “Dallas” in the post-production dialogue looping because the assassination of JFK had occurred in the interim.
Really?! How odd – Dallas wouldn’t have suggested a riotous weekend even before the assassination. The emergency kit included condoms – would that have suggested Dallas?
You sure that’s not an urban legend, Jeff?
It’ s not an urban legend. It has been confirmed in several books about Kubrick’s films, and if one watches the scene in the cockpit of the B-52, where Major Kong is reciting the contents of the survival kit, when Slim Pickens speaks that line, his mouth moves to form the word “Dallas” but “Vegas” is what we hear. A bizarre coincidence. Another occurs in the pie-fight scene that occurs in the war room and that was cut from the film before release. President Muffley is hit squarely in the face with a pie, and someone (George C. Scott’s Buck Turgidson, perhaps) exclaims “Our President has been cut down in his prime!”
I think the implication of the original joke is that to Major Kong, Dallas is the Big City. It’s like the Onion article, “Rural Nebraskan Not Sure He Could Handle Frantic Pace Of Omaha“.
Ah – that makes sense. I was thinking Pickens’s accent might be relevant. He’s speaking as a Texan. I’d always thought of it as speaking as a military guy picturing leave, with Vegas as the fantasy spot for an ideal leave.
Cool. A new bit of info.
Oops, sorry Sigmund, your comment (#9) went into the spam file for some reason and I’d forgotten to check it for a few days.
I agree that it doesn’t hurt anything, by itself. I think enthusiasm about it, though, endorses some seriously dopy attitudes.