Ceci n'est pas une gaffe...
If you watched this night's VP debate (ahem, was it really a debate?), you may understand what a gaffe may be. If it is successful, it may be called sound bite, particularly when A delivers it to score points relative to its counterpart B (which may then be called a 'punch'line:-).
Maybe also thoughtful, some funny comments, given by Thomas L. Friedman (NY Times, Wed, Oct 1, 2008, page A31) - hopefully, this is enough of citation), about what for possibly most seem more of a concern than talks on issues which are not really addressing the questions in so-debates.
"I've always believed that America's government was a unique political system - one designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots. I was wrong."
We have House members, many of them whom I suspect can't balance their own checkbooks, rejecting a complex rescue package because some voters, whom I fear also don't understand, swamped them with phone calls. I appreciate the popular anger against Wall Street, but you can't deal with this crisis this way. "
[the House rejected the bill on Monda, Sept 29, the Senate passed it on Wed, Oct 1]
"We're all connected. As others have pointed out, you can't save Main Street and punish Wall Street anymore than you can be in row boadt with someone you hate and think that the leak in the bottom of the boat at his end is not going to sink you, too. The world is really flat. We're all connected. 'Decoupling' is pure fantasy."
[didn't he write a book with the 'flat'-title...?:-)]
"I always said to myself: Our government is so broken that it can only work in response to a huge crisis. But now we've had a huge crisis, and the system still doesn't seem to work. Our leaders, Republicans and Democrats, have gotten so out of practice of working together that even in the face of this system-threatening meltdown they could not agree on a rescue package, as if they lived on Mars and were just visiting us for the week, with no stake in the outcome.
The story cannot end here. If it does, assume the fetal position."
Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008
How is America?
When you live for some period of time abroad, you wonder how to depict the more and less subtle differences. Sometimes you do not even recognize them, sometimes you do not know how to conceptualize them.
Here is one, I (still) cannot make sense of.
To my experience, it seems that stairs are usually a representative part of a building, and for this reason it may seem legitimized to put them on a crucial spot in the building.
Even more, security, safety and emergency concerns may impose additional restrictions on how to design a building and its stairs. no wonder, that soccer stadiums tend to have many many gates, in order to fill/empty the structure quickly (quess what would happen in panic, when you seem not to be able to move out quickly? Don't tread on me...). And so it comes that you see not only audience, but many gaps due to gates and stairways which cut across the rows of seats.
But let's look at a more common type of stairs, in buildings of every day use. We might expect huge stairs in huge buildings, for huge crowds and to make a huge impression on the visitor. this may be valid for Gaston/Healy Hall on the Georgetown Campus (likewise for European palaces, but similarly - scale adjusted - also for single households).
But - where are the stairs in the Walsh School Building? Where are the stairs in the ICC building or in the Lauinger library? They are not representative, not impressive, but closed up, away from the main hall/entrance room/atrium. As if the stairs are not a part of the building, but something to hide (and indeed, their walls are sometimes not even painted). And those stairs are small, maybe not even 1.5m (or 6 yards?) wide...
WHY????
Given that those few elevators are slow, old and small, they do not tend to provide enough capacity for the loads of students, faculty and others to get through the structure.
Is there any good reason for this? Cutting costs? Space constraints? Static challenges?? Or just different conceptions of how (thought of) modern buildings should look like?
If you have a powerful explanation, let me know.
Here is one, I (still) cannot make sense of.
To my experience, it seems that stairs are usually a representative part of a building, and for this reason it may seem legitimized to put them on a crucial spot in the building.
Even more, security, safety and emergency concerns may impose additional restrictions on how to design a building and its stairs. no wonder, that soccer stadiums tend to have many many gates, in order to fill/empty the structure quickly (quess what would happen in panic, when you seem not to be able to move out quickly? Don't tread on me...). And so it comes that you see not only audience, but many gaps due to gates and stairways which cut across the rows of seats.
But let's look at a more common type of stairs, in buildings of every day use. We might expect huge stairs in huge buildings, for huge crowds and to make a huge impression on the visitor. this may be valid for Gaston/Healy Hall on the Georgetown Campus (likewise for European palaces, but similarly - scale adjusted - also for single households).
But - where are the stairs in the Walsh School Building? Where are the stairs in the ICC building or in the Lauinger library? They are not representative, not impressive, but closed up, away from the main hall/entrance room/atrium. As if the stairs are not a part of the building, but something to hide (and indeed, their walls are sometimes not even painted). And those stairs are small, maybe not even 1.5m (or 6 yards?) wide...
WHY????
Given that those few elevators are slow, old and small, they do not tend to provide enough capacity for the loads of students, faculty and others to get through the structure.
Is there any good reason for this? Cutting costs? Space constraints? Static challenges?? Or just different conceptions of how (thought of) modern buildings should look like?
If you have a powerful explanation, let me know.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)