The Next Tangent

Bike Trip - Pittsburgh to D.C. - May 2010

2010-06-10T00:14:00.003-05:00

A duel of mind and body.

When searing lactic acid and the painful erosion of joint cartilage combine forces with agonizing seat sores and numbness of the extremities, what is left to propel a man forward? The answer: stubborn, furrow-browed, wild-eyed determination – the kind of which is normally reserved for rabid primates and Kentucky car salesmen. After only the first couple of hours on the trail it became painfully obvious that I needed a lot more practice before attempting a ride of this magnitude. Previously, my longest ride ever had been 20 miles on paved surfaces, whereas our bike ride was to be 335 miles. I had only even been on my bike 4 times this year, and had not even owned a bike until last fall. Yet here I was, punishing my virgin ass and blasting my unsuspecting quads on a monumental bike ride from Pittsburgh to Washington D.C. It was roughly akin to running a marathon with no training… but probably harder.

I decided to do this trip last year when my friend Joe mentioned in passing that he’d like to try it out. Joe is an experienced road and mountain biker, and is kind of mentoring me into the sport. We actually departed from McKeesport, just outside of Pittsburgh, on the Great Allegheny Passage with his friend and fellow cyclist, Jim. Both of them have ridden for years and been in countless races, both cyclo-cross and mountain biking. I quickly realized that I would not see much of them on this trip as I struggled just to make our rendezvous points without wilted body parts dropping from my drooping torso.

The GAP runs for 150 miles of mostly crushed limestone surfacing along former railroad corridors until it hits Cumberland, Maryland, and meets up with the C&O Towpath for another 185 miles into D.C. It hits several small towns, runs along the scenic Youghiogheny River, and rolls through vast tracts of beautiful forest. Since it follows railroad grades the climbs are not very steep. On the other hand, they can last for 20 miles or longer, with plenty of opportunity for weariness and fatigue along the gravelly path. The trail works its way over many bridges spanning huge valleys with stunning views, or alternately goes under railroad and freeway bridges, exposing their iron and concrete supports. There are a few tunnels as well, with a couple of them well over 3,000 feet long.

Day one saw the most road crossings and trail users (both local and thru bikers), as it was a sunny Saturday close to Pittsburgh. This day also had the most road crossings, however they were not as frequent as you might expect, and the vast majority of them were tiny rural routes with zero traffic. I diligently fed and watered myself at regular intervals, constantly lamenting the fact that I could not get the padding in my baggy, secondhand bike shorts with the safety-pinned fly to cover my butt. I could not believe how ragged I was feeling half way through the day with immense amounts of mileage yet to cover. It seemed a reasonable bet that I would not make this whole trip, but I pedaled on like a creaking automaton. I first reconnected with Joe and Jim at mile 15 or so since a large tree had come down across the path. They were hacking at the branches to people could get through. I could barely lift my bike loaded down with gear over the trunk. Happily I took a few minutes to rest before reluctantly getting back in the saddle. I met them once again at mile 50 or so for a much-needed break where I tried to mask my doubts and pains. From there I beat my way to our rendezvous at Confluence. I arrived into this tiny town without cell service at dusk and tried to lift my wooden leg over the bar without tearing up. My hind quarters had been brutally savaged. I could think of nothing I ever wanted to do less than sit on that bike seat again. Eventually I found Joe and he took me to the campsite they arranged. I set up my tent, cooked some vegetarian chili, and passed into the pure bliss of unconsciousness.

I awoke for day two rather refreshed, albeit pretty sore. I scarfed my oatmeal and coffee then hit the road long before my speedy taskmasters. We had done a bit over 70 miles the previous day, and this day was to be longer. It started well. I decided to wear TWO pairs of my good bike shorts at once – a decision I made for the rest of the trip. My ass pain was rather tolerable for the first hour or so, but it soon became excruciating and maddening, along with my other pains and maladies. Most of the day was uphill through remote forest with almost no one on the trail for the first half. Eventually as I passed the Eastern Continental Divide and the Mason-Dixon Line I saw more folks, but still not large numbers. The scenery was beautiful, but my camera had turned itself on the day before and the battery died. Later I would use my phone sparingly for pictures, but at this point I needed to save its battery. At one point I veered up the trail in Frostburg and up a large hill as I followed some other bikers. At the top I saw no sign of the trail, so I followed some other riders down a steep road to what turned out was their own house. While grumbling a few choice words, I turned around and headed back to the trail, annoyed but half-amused by my strenuous detour – as if I my legs were not suffering enough. Later in the day I met up with Jim and Joe in Cumberland where we rested a bit before tearing into the C&O Towpath.

The C&O Towpath was in much poorer condition than the GAP trail. It was basically like a dirt driveway most of the time, with large remote sections seeming barely maintained. We went as far as Old Town before dark, completing 80 miles for the day. Old Town is small. In looking for a place to camp, we found the former high school (circa 1960), which is now a diner/car shop/beauty parlor. We bought a few small things in the cafeteria and asked if they knew where to camp. The old lady running the kitchen graciously offered up the grounds behind the school for us to set up our tents. It was perfect because when we awoke the next morning it was raining, but we had a warm place to eat breakfast and get ready for a muddy slog along the historic canal. The nice thing about working so hard is that you can eat whatever you want. I had pancakes with a side of French toast.

Again, I fell way behind Joe and Jim. This time by hours. It was chilly, it rained the entire day, and the trail was nothing but mud puddles. It was a rough day to say the least. Joe commented later that this was more like mountain biking than anything else. I rode for a straight 10 hours in absolute agony, alternately cursing at myself to keep turning the crank, or else moaning with my dead eyes blurring the trail before me. I had bags on my hands and feet, as well as a rain jacket, but I was soaked. It literally never stopped raining. Pedaling through mud just zaps your energy. There were no towns to cross. Almost no one else on the trail. I just had to make it to Williamsport to meet the guys. The plan was to go further from there, but I didn’t arrive until sundown: a sad, soggy pile of wretchedness. I called them on my cell phone and eventually made it the mile to the Red Roof Inn where they had a room.

Apparently the check-in girl was another kindly Marylander and insisted we could take our muddy bikes into our motel room. We put down tarps, but there was no containing the mess. I ate then took one of the best hot showers of my life before leaving my aching body for the subconscious treats and torments that sleep provides. In the middle of the night Joe woke up with me palming his bald head in my hands, apparently squeezing it the way you would a melon at the market. I have no explanation for this, but I find it endlessly amusing.

We had considered calling off the trip briefly because the day had been rough for all of us, and because rain was in the forecast again. However, we instead decided to break up the remaining 100 miles into two days and stick it out. Day three would take us 45 miles to Brunswick, a small railroad town. Luckily it was overcast but never really rained all day. Nevertheless, the trail was still a muddy wreck, and there was even a detour onto the roads that added some mileage and climbing. The day before a shot of pain had wracked my knee unexpectedly and now continued to plague me as it swelled up and refused to bend without loud protest. Onward I dripped. I became one with my pain and with the trail, as if flowing forward with the inevitability of water to the sea. The first 15 or 20 miles passed rather easily, though, since Joe rode with me and we chatted for a while. He had taken what he thought was a minor spill the day before, but now his leg was injured and he was going easy on it for a bit. Jim, on the other hand, was never seen again. He left a message that he blew through Brunswick and was going to try to finish that day. Unfortunately, he ended up throwing his crank bolt at mile 17. He camped around there, then single-pedaled his way to D.C. the next day.

Joe and I stayed at a hotel two miles off the towpath on the fourth night after being the sole patrons at “El Sloppy Tacos.” The ride to the hotel was not what you want at the end of the day, since it pretty much was all uphill. Every time I thought the climbing would end, we’d turn another corner and it would continue. Finally we got to this place that looked like a nursing home converted to hotel/diner. Even our rooms had this vibe about them, with concrete walls painted white and large showers to accommodate wheelchairs. Apparently it is now mainly a hotel for railroad workers. We got some food at a grocery nearby, and even found a car wash before again parking our bikes in the tiny room.

The next morning we got a relatively early start and hit the still muddy trail with the end in sight. Fortunately, this day featured several sections of trail that were again the packed limestone like in PA. Those bits were heavenly most of the time, but they did tend to have many seriously washouts and very rough patches. We again saw few people this day until close to D.C. Many parts along the C&O were gorgeous, and this day’s backdrop was no exception. There were plenty more locks, aqueducts, historical lockhouses, and wildlife areas. On this trip I saw so much wildlife, including: snakes, turtles, muskrats, snowy egrets, great blue herons, a fox, mallards with ducklings, indigo buntings, orioles, vultures, turkeys, squirrels, millions of deer, and millions of Canadian geese with their goslings. At one point I came about an inch from hitting a chipmunk, and another time a goose chased me for about 20 feet hissing at me.

Strangely, this fifth day did not seem as bad as the other ones and I pedaled relatively strong all day, though I was plenty ready to quit when we hit D.C. It had been a massively grueling ride that left me limping and sore. We finished it all in four and a half days, which is not bad at all for a total of 335 miles. Joe’s wife, Kristen, was nice enough to pick us up and we ended up going out to the world’s worst Chinese buffet that night, then got some stale beers next door. I liked the buffet, though, because I was ravenously hungry, and because the clientele were entertaining. A greasy older gentleman was there holding each shrimp at arm’s length and speaking softly to it before eating it. Aside from the shrimp talker, there were hand-holding, googly-eyed lovers rubbing noses and large black ladies in leopard print overcoats unsure of whether this buffet would serve their culinary needs. Then a group of young guys walked in past the tired row of silent munching men, wearing clothes so fashionable you’d think they were in a band, except they were all clownishly mall-groomed to be the perfect pre-fab ruffians. These displays, as well as the memorable experience of food far below mediocre, made this stop very worthwhile for me.

The next day we walked around D.C., from the main Smithsonian building to the Lincoln Memorial and had lunch at the Native American museum. The food there was delicious. I had spring squash and black bean tamale pie in warm avocado sauce with a side of grilled corn and green cabbage with epozote. I also got some honey fry bread. This was to be a particularly great food day, though, because later we ate dinner at the Udipi Café in Monroeville, which serves the food of another kind of Indian. This place was in a somewhat rural and out-of-the-way location, and had no real ambiance except that it was full of actual Indian people enjoying all-vegetarian South Indian cuisine, which was probably the best I’ve eaten. It was a perfect ending to an arduous of rewarding trip. I got to see some great landscapes whiling breathing in the fresh spring air, I was able to test the limits of my physical and mental endurance, I spent quality time in the company of good friends, and I capped it all off with a day of exotic gluttony. What else does anyone want from life… aside from the obliging company of a high-heeled Korean escort?

2010-01-22T01:25:00.004-06:00

Oh It’s Such a Shame:

Jay Reatard
(May 1, 1980 – Jan. 13, 2010)

I never knew what to make of Jay Reatard. I only met him once briefly in New York City. He was extremely polite and soft-spoken. Then he went on stage and berated the crowd as the frontman for his namesake band, The Reatards, while defiantly dodging the beer bottles whipped at his head without ever missing a note. I still do not know if the many bottles thrown at him were an odd sort of adulation, or tossed with genuine malice. Between songs he’d hurl abuse at the crowd - as well as a few return bottles - then juice up the next song with the frenzied feedback of rock-n-roll rapture. The danger this night was palpable; not just an affectation. He was not playing for us, but campaigning against us… letting loose a torrent of personal demons, and at one point tossing a cast iron mic stand into the audience. Using the bathroom later, I saw someone bleeding profusely from the head and speculated that was where it had landed.

For me, The Reatards were something to see live to fully appreciate. It was an ephemeral experience that felt strangely timeless. It spoke directly to the reptilian brain. The vital energy radiating from the stage captured the deep agitation, frustrated id, and existential unrest that people like me keep mostly bottled up all our lives, letting it only come out occasionally in nervous ticks and anxiety disorders. No wonder I like The Reatards; I’ve not yet outgrown that teenage feeling of perpetual dissatisfaction and wanting to explode out of your skin, and here was a man exploding in all the right directions. It didn’t seem like “a show” in the sense that he was posturing or putting on an act. There was something undeniably real in this self-destructive bliss, and it offered a vicarious catharsis to those standing in the blast zone.

But The Reatards were not all that Jay was, and adopting Reatard as his surname soon became oxymoronic as he progressed well beyond a fantastic idiot savant into something more complex. His first full solo album, “Blood Visions” in 2006, was in my opinion probably his greatest work, featuring inventive song structures that stayed sharp with just the right dose of pop hooks and lyrical barbs. There is a whole host of influences you can dissect out of it, but in the end this was a singular work deserving of the many accolades heaped upon it. “Watch Me Fall” came next, and showed him to be one of the only punk artists whose descent into pop found him more of an alienated outsider than his initial blasts of teenage angst did. There is an undeniable melancholy and even self-reproach in the lyrics, which ironically became more introspective and detached at a time when his popularity was soaring and his melodies grew more accessible. Though this album is in many ways his most conventional work, it was still a formidable release, showing again his creative restlessness as he tried new things and refused to be caged by past successes.

I had been fortunate enough to see Jay play numerous times in numerous bands over the years. Depending on the venue, the soundman, and all the other usual variables, his solo shows could sometimes leave me feeling I had witnessed something fleeting and special. I was also at one of the final Lost Sounds shows in Buffalo when personal problems between him and bandmate/girlfriend Alicja Trout went awkwardly public on stage. It was a poorly attended show on a frigid winter night far from home, but somehow the evening’s events felt oddly historic – like I was lucky to see this band just before they imploded. I also saw him in the Angry Angles with his ex-girlfriend Alix Brown, and in The Bad Times with King Louie. I saw him play drums several times with the Final Solutions in Memphis, Chicago, and Austin. Even then he propelled the show, often with his impatient energy that saw no need for stage banter or applause between songs: “Shut the fuck up, let’s go! Come on!”

Even with all these bands I’ve listed, it does not come close to all those he played in, or those that he was a founding member of. He was incredibly prolific as a musician, and his relentless work ethic could have played a role in running down his health. He also ran his own record label, managed a band, and was an outstanding sound engineer who had recorded, mixed, and mastered his own projects as well as many others. I remember an interview with him in Razorcake a few years back when he half-jokingly claimed that he became the de facto recording guy for a bunch of bands, half of which “are really terrible,” because “people are fucking not smart enough to figure out how to use a manual to a fucking machine.” I really admired his ability to self-deprecate with collateral damage.

I started off this obituary of sorts by saying I did not know what to make of Jay Reatard. From what little I have seen, and according to his wider reputation, he could be difficult to say the least. His band actually quit on him during his last tour, he had many physical altercations with audience members, and was known to slam dunk disco balls onto people’s heads whenever possible. These things and many more made him prime garage-rock gossip fodder, and added to his unpredictable and enigmatic allure. Yet I never knew him personally, and this blog is about the loss of a great artist, not a friend of mine. In a recent interview with Spinner, Jay said something very insightful, worth quoting in full:

I don't enjoy the idea that you have to like people to like the music they make […] I don't see a Pollock on the wall and think 'I bet that Jackson dude was great to hang out with.' I look at it and I'm completely engulfed. It doesn't even matter who made it. It's an object to be enjoyed or not. You'd think people who are into independent music, who supposedly have independent thoughts, would be above [gossip]. What's the difference between Pitchfork and Weekly World News? It's usually just sensationalized crap.

No matter what Jay’s temperament was, I will continue to appreciate his music and relate to it as an articulation of some essential quality that we both have in common. I also appreciate the fact that he wasn’t desperately seeking the love and approval of his audience. Though I am sure he wanted to connect profoundly with people through music, he obviously wasn’t willing to pander to them in order to be liked or get his ego stroked. He had artistic integrity manifesting in a purity of expression that was necessarily volatile at times, and he became an atomic counterpoint to the phony piffle adorning the bulk of the musical landscape.

For me, the city of Memphis doesn’t so much conjure up images of Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash as it does Greg Cartwright and Jay Reatard. That’s not to say that the latter are any better than the former, of course, but they are of my generation… and are somehow more real to me. Funny, the one Jay Reatard memory that keeps coming to mind as I write this is when we both happened to be in a small, packed bar on the East side of Austin on the kind of night when the cokeheads barricade themselves in the tiny bathroom for long intervals, making desperate pee-goers run into the streets. We both were by the stage watching The Feelers play, trying to keep our balance in the rowdy crowd and to sing the odd refrain while chaos ensued all around us… in part because of us. In my drunken stupor I apprehended him next to me inside of his, sweaty hair matted to his face with a trickle of blood streaming down his temple. I remember thinking, “hey… that’s Jay Reatard. That guy is alright!” That image of him as just another drunken fan now makes me think that - while he often seemed like someone searching in his music and in his life - the greater tragedy is not that we won’t hear his excellent new discoveries, but that he won’t experience them himself.

* Photos were taken at a Reatards show I went to... Austin, 2006.

* Make sure you check out the video below. It is from his latest solo album and is excellent.

Trimming the Hegemony

2009-12-30T01:14:00.000-06:00

Trimming the Hegemony:
Re-shaping the American Dream

There exists two major motivators of the average person – money and the esteem of others – and nothing seems to irk people more than coming into contact with others who are content with being neither rich nor famous. In America we are supposed to always hunger for more, and look up in reverence to those who have it. Someone without this drive toward wealth and notoriety is seen something less than fundamentally human. They are looked upon with suspicion: as lazy, subversive, and loathsome. They don’t conform to the common vectors of psychology, the directional flow of narrative structure. Their life stories are sideways tangents. It is a mistake to think that we are all supposed to be content within the capitalist system, placated by escapist TV and other diversions (although it most often does deter us from meaningful personal and collective pursuits). On the contrary, these things exist to make us want more; to inspire us to consume more. The messages we receive compel us to fruitless action; bestow existential purpose replete with hidden irony. If you happen to find a modicum of contentment outside the official paradigm, you become an irrelevant anomaly and a stain in the economic fabric of the nation. Someone will come along eventually and try to bundle your errant desires into a target demographic, then poison your wellspring with discontent, but invariably there will be those who just can’t muster the requisite enthusiasm for such ribald excess. They feed neither the egos nor the pockets of their alleged superiors, except after deep consideration. These people reserve respect for those deemed worthy for their talent or meritorious actions, and view the purchase of durable goods as utilitarian rather than a raison d'être. Of course, these people – in their purest form – are fictitious, but nonetheless form the template used numbers of folks growing disenchanted with business as usual.

Many ways exist for us to gauge success without resorting to the philosophical tyranny of the dominant culture. There is no real joy or esteem that results from becoming famous for accomplishing nothing other than being born rich or going on a reality show. These things cannot replace the enormous pride of achievement, which requires much less external validation. In the same regard, the acquisition of material goods for their own sake not only harms the environment (and often laborers) in many ways, but also has become a compulsive, mindless yearning that is carefully nurtured within us by outside influences. This results in massive consumer debt, a culture of entitlement, narcissism, and greed… and worst of all: the laborious pursuit of vapid discontent. I see habitual shopping for sport and therapy as roadblock to self development, whether for clothes or electronic gadgetry. It is making us monotonous and superficial. The cheap happiness afforded the purchaser wears away quickly, replaced by yet another dire need aching to be fulfilled with fashionable product. The exception to this is the person that buys things with an actual purpose. These are the people who buy the cars they actually need rather than giant trucks for urban driving, the people who buy fancy binoculars only because they love watching birds, or the people that buy expensive cameras because they are actually into photography. Too often, though, we see people buying things they do not actually require in order to fulfill some psychological need. They want a status symbol that will impress others, feel they deserve the cutting edge technology or the most stylish things, think buying something will elevate their mood, or simply cannot think of another mode of living and have never questioned this one.

There are a myriad of ways to fill the existential void without resort to reflexive consumption for its own sake, just as there are a million worthy goals that do not involve questing for ever greater opulence and fame. It is up to each of us to discover these for ourselves, and to try and use the marketplace as a means rather than an end in itself. By the same token, we should only seek fame as the secondary result of our achievements, and award only worthy individuals with our positive attention. The American Dream should not be the fruitless drive to accrue belongings and wealth, whether through slavish toil, luck, or sneaky shortcuts. That is the advertiser’s dream, and the dream of the product makers and stock traders. The shopping fetish has become our patriotic duty, and it has become a national fixation. Instead, we should begin to think of the American Dream as experiencing the freedom to pursue one’s own path, to follow one’s own interests, and nurture one’s own genius. It is the dream of savoring life rather than foolishly spending it filling our private treasuries with worthless stuff

Political-Correctness Swings Both Ways

2009-12-22T00:56:00.003-06:00

Political-Correctness Swings Both Ways

Let me start off by saying that I kowtow constantly to the P.C. police of the right-wing, since I rarely find myself in suitably liberal environments to just be myself without reproach. I constantly have to be sensitive to the feelings of Christians, rednecks, capitalist blowhards, and those with myopic views on the true American character. For example, speaking about such things as antitheism, animal rights, or just about any lefty cause is outright repugnant to the commonest sensibility in the U.S. For a while to take any sort of nuanced view on our current wars was frequently met with extreme anger and sometimes even threats of violence. At the same time, we must be delicately P.C. with the host of minority groups (both ethnic and ideological) that tend to fall under the umbrella of liberalism, which, although I seek refuge there myself, the sheer terror of ever causing offense by stating an unpopular opinion or unsavory fact can get quite absurd. This latter sort of P.C. is generally the one most people think of when they think of political correctness, largely because those who are frothing angry about perceived political correctness are typically right wing. They are frequently infuriated with the idea of having to conceal their true attitudes about people who are, well… not just like them. That said, I must admit sometimes those in the conservative camps do make good points about the avoidance of issues and certain truths because the wider swath of society finds these things to be uncomfortable or inconvenient. At any rate, it is the height of folly to assume that intolerance resides solely at one end of the political spectrum, or only within one social group.

My main point of contention here is that when I hear someone bellowing belligerently about political correctness, it is usually some reactionary malcontent incensed by the idea of having to be civil, fair, and/or accurate. I even hear this onerous phrase attached to environmental issues lately, as though being anti-pollution and waste is a political fashion adopted by tree-hugging hippies. It very well may be, actually, but that does not nullify the concept of environmental health and safety. It is scientifically correct as well as morally correct. To decry environmental responsibility as merely P.C. B.S. is really an expression of one’s unwillingness to responsibly alter one’s own behaviors. On this issue, I will happily takes sides with the tree-huggers who actually try to do something positive rather than refute the notion energy conservation and waste reduction with no better argument than it is annoyingly P.C. and inconvenient. Personally, I am happy that it is finally politically correct to do the right thing in this regard, even if it isn’t the path of least resistance.

Madden, Warcraft, & the New Man

2009-08-23T00:09:00.004-05:00

Technological Devolution or Mankind's Final Fantasy?

You are probably already aware of the epidemic of grown men obsessed with video games. This male stereotype has become a cultural cliché referred to in lady’s magazines, TV sitcoms, Tonight Show monologues, and all forms of mass media. Boys like their Playstations, and their poor neglected wives can’t compete with the allure of that pixilated Promised Land. It all seems to be part and parcel of the overall Generation X slacker archetype; they were the first people to grow up with sophisticated and affordable gaming systems. Now it has morphed into a huge industry where grown men essentially play with toys. This should come as no shock, since women have long patronizingly referred to men and their “toys” - whether motorcycles, jet skis, or X-boxes - and the men themselves have adopted this terminology and its implied childishness. As a man not enticed to waste time on video games, I have long resented the stereotype that looms over my gender. However, I cannot deny there is a disproportionate amount of men drawn to this virtual reality, and I wonder why that is. Furthermore, is there anything wrong with it?

The common image non-gamers have of avid videophiles is that the brains of these lethargic soda-pounding sofa-slouchers are going to pudding. In a sense this is true, since most skills are not translatable to real world situations, and unlike many other sedentary entertainments most video games do not require a lot of deep, independent thinking. Many people who read books or watch movies do also passively enjoy a great bit of diversionary entertainment of little intellectual value, however, many others actively engage challenging subject matter. No doubt games can be challenging, but not in a way that involves complex issues that must be pondered with deep reflection. You are not going to learn about philosophy, physics, biology, politics, or economics by deciding what kind of mustache your virtual wrestler should have. However, when video games do require strategic development and spatial reasoning, this type of thinking is perhaps valuable in the way that Sudoku is valuable in preventing mental atrophy. Video games nevertheless get a reputation as somehow being more of a waste of time than, say, board games or chess, probably because of their apparently addictive nature and wider popularity... and because the most mentally stimulating and creative ones are rarely the most popular. Instead people prefer to steal cars and battle zombies.

I am not actually against games - not even those of dubious moral or intellectual value, since they are certainly fun for many people - but I do think that logging too many hours playing Guitar Hero is pretty sad when you could have spent that time actually playing a guitar. Furthermore, when you add up the TV viewing and video game playing times - both likely spent with calorie-laden foods and drinks - you have can begin to account for the staggering amount of obesity in this country and the colossal rise in juvenile diabetes. It is amazing to me that we are seeking to solve this by making games that force the players to be more active. It’s a nice free market answer: selling people more products to counteract the effects of your other products. I am not blaming the game companies for heart disease and diabetes, but at the same time I’ll wager very few people are clamoring for the Wii Fit that are not already avid gamers.

Indeed, a recent study by the CDC found that the average gamer is overweight and more likely to be depressed and shy. This correlates well with studies of teenage gamers who are also introverted with the same physical and mental health concerns; although this study found that the average gamer is 35 years old. Researchers are not certain whether those who are socially awkward and depressed are more likely to become obsessive gamers, or if the games themselves play a role. However, I would strongly suspect anything that encourages withdrawal from social interaction and facilitates idleness only compounds those problems.

As for the gender question: how do we account for this modern “man of (in)action”? Well, we know women are raised to be more social creatures, and there is also a strong biological basis for why they excel at language skills and communication (including brain differences). It stands to reason that plunking themselves down in front of a TV to play the role of an axe-wielding dwarf would not appeal to them. This also explains the findings in the aforementioned study that found female gamers were even more likely to be depressed and in poor health, since interpersonal dynamics are more important for women. The ladies may also prefer other sedentary activities, such as watching TV, since plenty of shows focus on human interactions (often minus weaponry and machines), whereas most video games involve some sort of goal-oriented activity through which one can sublimate their aggressive instinct. These games are an effective way to placate the masses and, in addition to television, further reduce our human-to-human contact. For this reason they are also probably good to control male violence in the real world. Women certainly also enjoy some aggressive catharsis, but nature and nurture have not conspired to make this an almost pathological necessity for their gender. In a weird way, that groggy guy in the bean bag chair playing a first-person shooter with pizza sauce on his collar and cholesterol in his arteries is actually one less guy out causing trouble and getting into fights. Not only is he removed from social situations, but his sedentary lifestyle keeps him from feeling froggy or being physically formidable when he does go out. It’s a great plan; so long as the game hasn’t prepped him mentally for some real-world shoot’em-ups.

The Army already uses video games to indoctrinate teenage gamers into Army culture as an aid to recruitment efforts. There is also ample scientific evidence that exposure to violent TV programming at a young age is predictive of actual violence later in life. Naturally, as the quality of video game simulations get better, and since these games have a firsthand perspective where the user gets to directly engage in virtual violence, one would expect gamers starting at a young age to be even more desensitized and prone to aggressive acts - especially since they are not spending time with real humans and developing social skills. For adult gamers, though, perhaps video games do make the world a safer place by offering an escapist outlet where the frustrations of reality can safely be vented. At any rate, I think a survey of either the top-selling computer games or of average woman’s pastimes will show that game developers overwhelmingly target a male audience. The ancestral impulses of the primal hunter resonate in the thumb-work of the modern man as he stomps through the artificial jungle with his trusty Cheetos by his side.

Video games certainly are not the only reason people are increasingly insular and detached from one another. We have all sorts of technologies that purportedly bring us together, but more often keep us from talking to the person right next to us or knowing anything about our neighbors. There is very little feeling of community in modern American life, which has an effect on everything from our empathy and concern for each other, the safety of our neighborhoods, our political beliefs, our narrow worldviews, and even our health. It seems to me that we too often stay home nursing our suspicions and misanthropy. I am not exempt from this. For instance, TV often substitutes for real human interaction for me. We choose programming that appeals to our sensibilities and have virtual TV friends that we identify with, rather than going through the trouble of dialoguing with people that may have opposing viewpoints. Even our news has become catered to whatever reality we chose to believe in. Connecting to the world primarily through niche media has not necessarily expanded our horizons, and in many cases it makes us more susceptible to political and corporate manipulation. Video games also contain implicit worldviews that can bias or influence us cognitively and emotionally.

People also like TV because it is passive and easier than conversing. Video games are likewise passive, even though you are hitting buttons and solving problems. They are passive because they do not provoke critical thinking, but rather pacify the user with a trivial, asocial activity. Again, I am not against triviality and escapism, but I think we have it proportionally wrong in this country… and that comes with many ill-effects as we plug in and tune out.

In a deeper sense, a person might ask what the difference is between “real” reality versus “virtual” reality. Both are based solely on sensory input, and some have argued that as artificial environments become more convincing, why should we care if we are engaged with the actual world or a stunning facsimile that is even better? In fact, philosophers and scientists are still trying to work out what the nature of the so-called “real” world even is, so why not inhabit a computer-generated illusion? This is fine reasoning for a hedonistic narcissist, I suppose, and there actually isn’t much of a rational argument in favor of one apparent reality over the other (other than every “life” decision in a simulation would have the significance of a crossword puzzle – a wonderful work of inconsequential mental masturbation if we are aware of the artifice). Perhaps someday we will all be happily plugged into a matrix “manned” by machines, but that technology is not quite here yet, so persistently avoiding reality at this point is still injurious both to society and to oneself. We should all probably ask ourselves if we can do something better for the world and others in it besides withdrawing from it.

The Road to Heaven

2009-08-22T23:56:00.004-05:00

Intentions in the Pavement

(Photo by Ben Lybarger © 2007)

It is often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so the converse might also be true. In fact, that is what Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman might tell you. The road to heaven being paved with bad intentions is the basic argument for laissez faire capitalism, where greed and selfishness is thought to function for the greater good. But rather than take that laughable and self-serving notion to task right now, I’d like to address the idea of intentions being irrelevant and behaviors being paramount.

On the surface this seems quite true. Whether I intend to help or hurt someone is seemingly irrelevant to the actual outcome. The missile strike that caused collateral damage and killed someone’s children was not intended to do this, but the children are dead just the same. There can be a million hypotheticals just like this, either positive or negative. In the end, what matters is what happens.

Or is it? Is the accidental killing of someone just as bad as premeditated murder? Is the person that inadvertently helps improve someone’s life through mere chance worthy of accolades? Our intentions are, in fact, the only thing we ultimately have control over, so they make all the difference when judging humans and corporations. I am not suggesting that we can all be shielded from responsibility for our actions by saying that we did not intend the negative outcomes, but that is only because it might excuse criminal negligence. Furthermore, the desire to do good in the world is a noble impulse rooted in empathy, but it needs to be paired with intelligence and some good luck to be effective. At any rate, I think that old saying needs to be retired since any road paved with intentions is a two-way street.

Broadcast Identity

2009-08-19T01:54:00.003-05:00

Is TV changing Society, or Vice Versa?

All but the most oblivious among us have long ago acknowledged the role of television in framing the way we see the world. It both reflects the current culture and creates it. To be sure, much of television is still pure escapism void of substance; and this in turn helps create the ignorant and complacent population that keeps the ghost of Edward R. Murrow angry and vengeful. But sometimes shows pop up that deal with real issues and combine social awareness with the standard fluff. Could TV programming be getting slightly smarter, or at least more engaged with the real world? Probably not, but I am going to go ahead and dream the impossible dream for a few more minutes.

While most shows will strive to remain politically neutral, a few break into the mainstream that seem intent on social engineering. Shows such as 24, which had once sought an informal mandate on torture, come instantly to mind (though it seems to have backed off that position… even going as far as to add reviled lefty Jeanine Garafalo to the cast). On the other end of the spectrum there is an ongoing gay revolution involving a multitude of mainstream programs over the last ten years or so. While often the representations are caricatures used for comedic value, it nevertheless seems obvious that the ubiquity of humanized gay characters and gay-themed programming is caused by, and results in, a broader acceptance for this marginalized population.

Just as it would be a monumental task to enumerate the ways popular programming has worked to advance gay acceptance, so has it explored conventional sexuality and challenged traditional gender roles. A prime example of social engineering at multiple levels is, oddly enough, Rescue Me. This is Dennis Leary’s successful series where he plays a New York City fireman whose life is forever altered by 9/11. As you may recall, Leary was most famous in the 90s with his stand-up act that borrowed heavily from the now deceased Bill Hicks. He was an icon for conservative rage, although it was never clear what the level of irony was in his act. With this new show, it seems he is using his blue-collar cred to open dialogue on a myriad of social issues, including endless, blunt, and often crass discussions of the aforementioned issues of sexuality and gender identity.

In Rescue Me, male psychology is both celebrated and (consciously) parodied. Whether it is Leary raging against his apartment furniture, silly bouts of testosterone-fueled machismo, repressed emotions (“real” men only comfortably display anger and aggression), crude sexuality and homophobic bonding, or the interplay of gender dynamics and power relationships, the show pulls few punches. Furthermore, uneasiness and hostility toward homosexuals is explored through a main character’s bi-curiousness and a fire chief’s eventual pained acceptance of his gay son. More recently, one of the firemen (Marco) has been dating a lady boxer whom the guys think is a lesbian due to her manly demeanor, and who additionally challenges his traditional masculinity by dominating him sexually. There are so many examples of how this show reflects and reinforces our cultural shift from rigid gender roles en route toward a more egalitarian society, that they can hardly be fully listed and explored in this short article. And while such themes occur incessantly with the subtlety of bulldozer, I still wonder how many people consciously engage the show on that level. Perhaps even passive viewing by individuals can slowly alter the prescription of our cultural lens.

Rescue Me does not exhibit the great writing of some transcendent program, though it does have its moments of witty banter, hilarious scenes, and engaging characters. For the most part though, it remains a guilty pleasure with wild and ridiculous plot twists and over-the-top situations that make it an addictive comedic melodrama. Leary’s character is even haunted by ghosts of dead people and sometimes religious figures (or maybe these are hallucinations of conscience and the product of mental illness). It is basically a soap opera for men, and that is its genius. The target audience of presumably disgruntled working-class males is treated to entertainment that lovingly deconstructs that very same population. It is a delicate juggling act they perform, since this blatant deconstruction requires the conveyance of a politically-incorrect, no bullshit attitude, along with ample displays of rugged maleness. Of course, I do not know if they are actually reaching their obvious target demographic, which they alternately pander to then challenge. It could be that only college professors and tax accountants watch this program in order to both vent their repressed primal nature while also feeling superior to it.

A newer program that touches on political and social issues is Royal Pains. In this series, a doctor is fired for treating a poor minority kid in need of emergency care rather than tending to a billionaire hospital trustee recovering from surgery. After that, a sequence of events leads him to become “concierge doctor” for the extremely rich in the Hamptons, while also doing work for the poor community with access to far inferior healthcare. He is kind of the Robin Hood of doctors, subsidizing the medical treatment of normal people through the hefty rates he charges his wealthy clients, although the glamorous rich get infinitely more airtime. The premise is a microcosm of a much bigger picture, since our country is one of many that try to attract wealthy foreigners to subsidize treatment for indigent and uninsured patients, while current healthcare reforms may involve tax hikes for the extremely wealthy at home.

What strikes me most about this show is not just that it illustrates our inequitable system of health care, but that it does so in program aimed at a more wholesome demographic. It is decidedly not a dark, gritty, hard-hitting drama, but rather basks in the sunny aura of those living in the lap of luxury, as well as the love lives of the picture-perfect cast. The historic predecessors of this kind of show would normally leave it at that. However, some complexity is introduced into the life of this moral main character as the rich people he encounters are not all just arrogant and privileged, but also troubled, sometimes decent, and/or insecure people. The show doesn’t glamorize the poor either, although taking up their plight is framed as highly ethical. More often the focus is on the elite clients and their problems and excesses (including a “Bark-Mitzvah” for rich lady’s dog). The Haves are not demonized, though, even while the program points out their inflated senses of self-importance, and often their essential unhappiness.

The premise enables some health care commentary (though watered down) that is carefully weighed against the abundance of sexy people, flaky romantic tensions, and comedic relief, in order to keep the show from becoming overly didactic. What is most promising about this show is that even when an episode’s plot is hackneyed or cheesy, the dialogue is often clever, the characters likable, and most social commentary is structural rather than forced into actors’ mouths. Other peripheral issues occasionally come to light as well, such as in the pilot where a woman almost dies from smelling chemically-treated flowers. In the end, this is classic light-hearted mainstream entertainment that sells itself through the shallow glitz that coats its moral center. We get to satisfy our cultural need to gawk at gorgeous people and marvel at incredible mansions, while these things are (at least somewhat) put within a socio-economic context. Many of us apparently admire those who own their own private islands and can hire their own private doctors to come to their house on a moment’s notice, but this gets undercut when these economic elites disparage the level of care available at hospitals for common folk. Even those most deeply mired in the American mythology of a grand meritocracy will become uneasy at the thought of wealthy people “deserving” better health care.

While the star of USA’s Royal Pains is the prototypical hero sans any real character flaws, the protagonist of NBC’s The Philanthropist is a narcissistic, womanizing billionaire whose transformation of conscience is spurred by the death of his son, and by an ill-fated trip to Nigeria that took him out of his comfy bubble of safety and solipsism. While every episode does unfold the same way with someone telling a story in flashbacks, sometimes such formulas are comfortably familiar (though Rescue Me’s habit of lengthy musical montages got really tiresome). Often what is most interesting is the riffage off the basic song structure, as well as the idea that propels it. Here they use this format to touch on global politics and various humanitarian crises. The inspiration is from real-life entrepreneur turned philanthropist, Bobby Sager, who speaks of the hollowness of accumulating material wealth, and still practices hands-on giving through his charitable foundation. Unlike his fictional counterpart, he was never a playboy party animal, and no catastrophic event was necessary for his empathetic engagement with the less fortunate. However, what fun is that for a TV show?

Aside from the Teddy Rist’s uncanny ability not to get killed, my biggest problem with this show is that it occasionally gets too melodramatic. I say that not because the tragedies herein don’t deserve reverence, nor because self-actualizing moments don’t deserve wonder, but because here these things sometimes seem too pat or postured. The emotional impact can be duller when the director is desperate to make you feel it, and falls back on impersonal clichés to make it happen.

What is good about this show, however, is how it engages with empathy in world politics, from Kosovo to Myanmar to Haiti, bringing issues and criticisms to a mass audience in the U.S. that is notoriously oblivious to such things. What’s more, this show isn’t polemic. All sides of the conflicts are humanized, and there is an attempt to understand the roots of these problems.

For example, the episode set in Kosovo even bravely touches on the role of religion in the conflict, wars, genocide, and continued animosity and instability in that region - going as far as to have the apparently agnostic main character state that fanaticism by Christians and Islamists is big part of the problem. In this episode the frustrating conflict is explored, showing how a culture of revenge and distrust is deeply entrenched and difficult to transcend, and how this is both personal and aligned according to ethnic/cultural/religious lines. It also illustrates how some opportunists seek to maintain the status quo in order to benefit financially. The role of transnational companies in the mix is almost ambivalent, even though Rist touts the job opportunities his company would create in the mines he wants to open there. He also makes reference to the fact that the inability of Kosovo’s people to cooperate and co-exist peacefully has kept them from improving their own economy. The country isn’t exactly a shining opportunity for foreign investors either, due to frequent terrorist acts and sabotage, but it is interesting how Rist sees himself as more determined and effective than the local government and businessmen, and even the UN. It is an unusual take on international business ethics, where profits from resource exploitation getting funneled back to a rich country is seen as almost virtuous. Of course, the enrichment of foreign investors in exchange for mining jobs is not exactly an equitable exchange, and the actions of a maverick CEO do not necessarily countermand institutional corporate wrongdoing, but the situation in Kosovo seems bleak enough that he could make a difference.

A similar ambivalence can be seen in the Nigeria episodes, which do humanize the rebel resistance as well as the government, but is likewise uncritical of Rist’s oil company there and their direct and indirect complicity in the humanitarian crisis, let alone the environmental one. (It is not hard to see parallels with Shell Oil’s controversial presence in that country.) Just because you are a billionaire putting money to good use doesn’t negate how you earned it.

It may seem like I am being hard on this show, but in truth, I think it is one of the better programs on TV right now. For a network program, it does an amazing job hitting important issues in a way that is not too dumbed-down. Furthermore, it has a progressive conscience and is much bolder in its critiques than one would expect. A cynic might say that the episode in San Diego where the recipient’s of philanthropy were Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans was to an attempt to expand the show’s political demographic, since only a complete asshole would object to such charity, but I doubt the America First crowd will ever fall in love with Teddy Rist.

It is interesting how the image of the American Dream is changing; how instead of TV simply depicting lavish lifestyles or worshipping decadence and material excess, we are seeing a shift of conscience as we progress through end-stage capitalism. Sure, there are still those who still dream of gross wealth, and there are plenty of shows that cater to them (including two of the three I mentioned), but in my more optimistic moments I think this may be the slow beginning of a more mature humanity transitioning toward better pursuits. While the reality programming craze of the last 15 years has demonstrated that we will do anything for a moment of fame and a crack at a pile of cash, I think this is waning as more people realize there is also pleasure to be had in helping each other, and that the lifestyle of the over-consuming hedonist comes at a tall cost to others, the planet, and our dignity.

This shift in the cultural zeitgeist was spawned in part from the plethora of comforts and conveniences now available to us, thanks to rapidly evolving technology. While those living in extreme deprivation or working miserable jobs can look at wealth and all its trappings with great longing, most middle-class Americans these days realize there is little happiness to be gleaned from it. Now even families of modest means in North America have TVs, computers, cell phones, and a myriad of other luxuries unimaginable just a couple generations ago. Being rich is no longer the carrot it used to be. Sure, a comfortable level of income will always be desirable, but becoming a millionaire doesn’t seem likely to solve all of our problems, and its gaudy excesses appear increasingly wasteful, pathetically egocentric, and even immoral. The implicit premise that sating human greed is our highest purpose is fading fast. And I think that is a good thing.

Chupacabras de la Noche 10K Trail Run

2009-08-02T15:33:00.000-05:00

I’ve recently decided to become a novelty race-runner, so any race named after a crypto-zoological creature certainly qualifies. My only previous race experience was the Austin Beer Mile in 2007 where I chugged four warm beers in the course of running a mile within about 14 minutes. Not an amazing time, but it was certainly a challenge to avoid making a contribution to the massive amounts of steaming vomit along the track. Sadly, this time I saw no one heaving the foamy contents of their stomachs into the grass, but there were many other factors that made this race an even better experience, and one that provided a different sort of buzz afterward.

I had been worried about running a 10k (which is about 6.2 miles) since I had not even run a 5k before. This one was particularly worrisome for several additional reasons. About a week prior, I had put a rather nasty hole in my foot by accidentally kicking a nail sticking out of a concrete patio, and the night before I stayed at friend’s house with dogs that really agitated my allergies. Then the morning of the race I got my entire upper arm blasted with lasers for tattoo removal, which was much more painful and draining than actually getting a tattoo. As I type this, my right arm is literally swollen to twice the size of my left arm. Another area of concern for me was the fact that I discovered and registered for the race only 4 days prior to it, which really didn’t give me any time to prepare. Nevertheless, I was motivated by the challenge of it, and to get the awesome Chupacabra shirt that all the runners received. Amazingly, it was not just a cotton T-shirt, but one of those sweat-wicking technical shirts. I never intend to take off this treasured garment, though stink and style may demand it.

There turned out to be nearly 500 people entered in this race, so I guess I am not the only chupacabra fetishist out there. Lisa and I were also shocked to see so many skinny people in San Antonio, which is a noted hotbed of mammalian corpulence (all the happy meals here feature complimentary insulin shots). At any rate, the event went down at McAllister Park, which turned out to be pretty large and more wooded than expected. There were even tons of deer roaming about, giving this portion of the sprawling city that elusive natural feel. The race began after dark, which is mostly because during the day it was over 100 degrees. It was still in the upper 80s and extremely humid even at 9pm, though, which meant tears of sweat streaked down our weakened flesh in whimpering torrents. The trail was marked with glow sticks every so often, enabling you to navigate your way through the convoluted maze, and everyone wore headlamps or carried flashlights. The race began with screams of “aaaaiiiiieeee!” and a huge initial bottleneck formed instantly as we all poured into the woods.

Once things started to pick up, it was clear that the winding trails would be slightly perilous due to all the loose rocks, low branches, and tree roots trying to trip you in the dark. I stumbled many times, but didn’t go down. Others were not so lucky. Lisa volunteered to work in an aid station and had to help carry off a girl who badly tore the tendons in her ankle. Many people were covered in mud – evidence of their spills onto the previously rain-soaked ground.

At first I was very conservative with my energy and just followed the pack. I had started way in the back, though, and after a while I decided to advance my standing. After passing probably 100 people I found a long opening where I was the solitary guy on the trail, so I got excited and opened the throttle until I caught up with the tail end of first wave of runners released from the gate. That was the peak of the race for me, and I continued to pass people at a more moderate pace until the end. The elusive final stretch seemed to take forever as we got nearer, dashing up and down little hills and plodded along somewhat wearily, completely soaked and exhausted. I actually finished in the middle of the pack, which isn’t too bad for a non-runner, I suppose. I think I could have done a lot better if it hadn’t been for the initial bottleneck and my poor start position. I’ll have to prove my mettle with the next race, though. Some of the other runners told me this one was pretty hard, and if I do a normal 5k in the future I will breeze through it. That was pretty encouraging, since I never imagined I’d even be able to finish a 5k, let alone become a somewhat decent runner.

Afterward we all descended upon a restaurant they had reserved and I got a huge, delicious veggie burger and fries for free, along with some complimentary and very tasty Alamo Golden Ale. All in all, it was a great experience that really pushed me physically but in a fun way, and I hope to do a lot more running in the future.

Top 5 i-pod jams of the race:

1. “Tvivel” by Masshysteri
2. “Stoned to Death” by the Zero Boys
3. “Hot Stumps” by the Controllers
4. “Something Against You” by the Pixies
5. “Sabatage” by the Beastie Boys

Police at the Gates'

2009-08-01T02:09:00.002-05:00

The recent arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Cambridge police after he entered his own home has yielded a prolonged news cycle about race and law enforcement, so I figured I’d throw my own thoughts into the mix:

1. Objecting or even being rude to police officers should not be grounds for arrest. The Disorderly Conduct charge should not be used as a completely discretionary and insanely broad “contempt of cop” charge wielded against anyone who annoys, offends, or angers an officer. We are not quite a police state yet, so we should not have to regard cops (a.k.a. civil servants paid by taxpayers) as infallible gods to be deferred to and obeyed without question. Of course, I do not advocate giving police officers a hard time, since I prefer that we engage all people with proper respect. I also don’t recommend bold disobedience to someone with a gun, but citizens should be permitted to state their concerns, object to the cop’s actions, and question the legal validity of the officer’s behavior… especially in your own home. In my personal experience, I’ve found that too often I was cast in a role of placating, humoring, and patronizing the ego of an officer out of fear… and I am not even a minority (at least not yet).

2. There is no question that many cops are racist, and that this is a problem. I think a lot of people would like to deny that fact, or claim it has no bearing on their job performance. Certainly an officer that has overt racist beliefs can suppress most of them under his professional demeanor. However, his decisions will always have this bias built into them, and he certainly will also have a tipping point. Even police officers with no strongly racist beliefs will often make assumptions and interpretations of people and situations according to racial biases that may not be totally conscious or correct (Amadou Diallo was an extreme example). I actually have been friends and acquaintances with a handful of police officers who fall into the former category, and in my presence they have peppered their off-duty (and usually barroom) conversation with mean-spirited racial jokes and ample uses of the n-word. I can’t say this was endearing at all, and it really drove home the realization of what it must be like for minorities when they get pulled over. And if it is that bad for black people, who have the politically-correct mainstream culture on their side, I can’t imagine what a Hispanic person might feel like in a country where they are openly and widely blamed for the nation’s problems.

3. In regard to point #2, I should also mention that a lot of prejudice actually comes from the job. Many police officers work in cities with large minority populations and high crime rates, and these officers mainly come into contact with a certain segment of that population, often at their lowest point. Many times, they may have even been attacked by minority gang members, belligerent druggies, and the like. It is similar to how war vets frequently learn to hate those who had likewise despised and attacked them and their friends. These cops are not seeing a representative sample of the minority communities, and can develop a world-view quite different than they might have if they were just accountants interacting with black people in the marketing department.

4. Sometimes minorities incorrectly attribute certain behaviors to racism and perceived persecution. I do not know in this case whether the cops, Gates, or both were being inappropriate, but I do know that sometimes past experience and widely held beliefs can bias minorities to interpret situations incorrectly. Though the police involved in this incident may have behaved completely nobly, it is true that cops are often jerks to people regardless of race. This does not mean police officers are by default assholes, since I have encountered many really polite and professional ones, and I am also friends with a few that are great people. However, I have also been condescended to, screamed at, threatened, and provoked by many cops in my life. Usually these are small town cops… aside from one notable experience in San Antonio (well, actually a separately incorporated section called Leon Valley). Small town cops as a rule are often bored and crave confrontation, and desire respect through fear and intimidation. I am not going to bore you with all of my experiences, but I’ve had a Salem, Ohio, cop’s shoe on my back and his gun drawn on my head for the crime of going swimming in a city pool after hours with the permission of the manager. I’ve had one Medina, Ohio, officer dare me to say one more word while his face was pressed against mine. He told me if I did, he would assault me right there in the street. (Bear in mind, I was not acting belligerently.) So many experiences of this nature led to be literally stopping in my tracks when a cop drove by me with a friendly smile and wave as I walked through Wooster, Ohio. It still stands out in my mind many years later. For a moment I actually felt like the police were looking after me as part of the community, rather than hoping to find a pretense to harass and arrest me. However, that same police department raided a Halloween party I was at, arrested some people, and changed the screen savers on the house computers with a message about “getting served” by the Wooster P.D.

In my encounters with the police, I have been the one to trying to de-escalate the situation, which was always heightened by their own actions. Clearly, as a white male dealing with white male officers, race was not a factor. Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge the few officers who have been gracious, professional, and reasonable toward me. I know the job can make a person jaded, so their resolve to retain dignity and maintain empathy is all the more appreciated.

The Truth About Climate Change

2009-07-03T11:56:00.010-05:00

Alarmists v. Skeptics:
The Verdict about Global Warming

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2007

The global warming debate has become largely politicized, with “skeptics” being pitted against “alarmists.” The skeptics believe that the science behind climate change is far from settled, and feel that the threat is being highly over-stated by grandstanders and opportunists (Michaels, 2008). The so-called “alarmists,” on the other hand, believe that drastic action must be taken to curb anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and prevent dire global warming predictions. Skeptics tend to view the issue as being sensationalized by the leftist media using fear-mongering tactics, and used by scientists to generate more government funding (Michaels, 2004). The alarmists openly suspect that those framing global warming as a “myth” are at best wishful thinkers, and at worst economically and politically motivated to misrepresent research. Indeed, Oriana Zill de Granados has profiled some of the top skeptics of global warming for PBS and notes that most doubters have financial ties to the oil, auto, electricity and coal industries (2007). The Union of Concerned Scientists has similarly listed a number of “skeptic” organizations funded by industry and wealthy donors that frequently disseminate misleading or false information (2009). The UCS also notes that between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil gave close to $16 million to advocacy organizations that obfuscate the science behind global warming (UCS, 2009).

At issue is not just whether global temperatures are rising, since this is demonstrated rather well through temperature measurements, sea level changes, glacial melt, decreasing sea ice, shifting habitats for various species, timing changes in migration and reproduction behaviors, etc. (Godish, 2004, p. 132-133). The main points of contention are whether human activities are causing these changes, and what their consequences will be. Ice core and oceanic studies have shown that sunspot cycles do correlate with temperature changes, but it is not conclusive that these alone account for the temperature increase of the last century (Godish, p. 128). While all scientists accept that solar variation has had a profound effect on earth’s climate, Rodney Viereck of the NOAA Space Environment Center also notes that, at most, only about one third of the global warming of the 20th century is attributed to solar variability (2001). Furthermore, a study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in 2007 demonstrated that over the last two decades every trend regarding solar variation should have had the opposite effect than what was observed in global mean temperatures (Hirschler, 2007).

The evidence of humans propelling climate change comes largely from the significant increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, which are the highest they have been in nearly 500,000 years (Godish, 2004, p. 130). Both sides of the debate also acknowledge that the combustion of fossil fuels has increased exponentially over the last century, and nobody denies that they emit greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the air. To my mind, it is difficult to understand why dissenters cannot connect these dots, unless they have a vested interest in not doing so.

The case for curbing these greenhouse emissions, preventing deforestation, and taking other measures to combat global warming focuses on its many possible and highly undesirable outcomes. These include rising sea levels and changing climate patterns that lead to large-scale population displacement, drought, flooding, and other extreme weather events (Godish, 2004, p. 135). Additionally, these things will have major impacts on agriculture and natural ecosystems, leading to famine and extinctions, as well as playing a large role in causing diseases and military conflicts (Barnett, 2003; FAO, 2007; New Scientist, 2009; Nursing Standard, 2009; Thomas et al, 2004; WHO, 2005).

Such predictions are hotly contested by doubters, who counter with the claim that global warming could be a good thing. For example, the Patrick J. Michaels at the Cato Institute makes the dubious assertion that more CO2 makes the planet greener and will increase food production by extending growing seasons (2004). This is just one of many attacks leveled by self-described global warming “dissenters.” Senator James Inhofe is the leading character in the dissenting camp, and his Senate Floor Statement from 2003 touches on just about every argument for doubt.

First off, Inhofe (and those of like mind) constantly reiterate that the science is not “settled,” and then proceed to assail the prevailing “consensus” with a mixture of valid points, half-truths, and errant conclusions. Beyond just arguing (unconvincingly) that sun spots and natural cycles are propelling the current warming, and even that might be a good thing, Inhofe draws upon past environmental follies such as the media hype about environmental cooling in the 70s (Inhofe, 2003). Indeed there was a temporarily over-estimated cooling effect from aerosol pollution, which had been thought to overshadow the warming effect of CO2 (Le Page, 2007). However, a survey of scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 showed only 7 predicted cooling, and the main proponent of this thesis quickly revised his mistake by 1977 (2007). It is this type of rhetorical spin that Inhofe and others have used to confuse the issue of climate change, knowing full well that the scientific community now has an exponentially larger body of research and data to draw from, as well as a much more sizeable consensus with endorsements from a wide array of respected scientific institutions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their latest report in 2007, and it featured more than 2500 scientific reviewers, 800-plus contributing authors, and over 450 lead authors from 130 countries (UCS, 2009). In contrast, Inhofe’s list of dissenters, according to The New Republic, contains 650 names including “weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science,” as well as real scientists who did not realize they were on the list and are not actually dissenters (Plumer, 2008).

Inhofe also likes to argue about how the Kyoto Protocols are flawed and ineffective (Inhofe, 2003). In some respects he is correct, especially since emerging economies were exempted from the stricter standards for already developed nations (most notably India and China). He says that Kyoto hurts Third World nations by curtailing their development, especially since their quality of life, public health, and local economies can be drastically improved through electricity generation (2003). Inhofe rightly points out that fossil fuels are currently the cheapest option, and that renewable sources could be cost-prohibitive in poor countries (2003). However, his analysis fails to take into account the many ways that sustainable growth in the developing world can be more affordable over the long term, how incentives for innovation and production can reduce costs for low-carbon technologies, and the many strategies for rapidly disseminating these technologies (Stern, 2009). To my mind, it is still likely that the richer nations will need to subsidize sustainable development in poorer countries, which will be in our own interest for a variety of reasons (i.e. national security, pollution, climate change, etc.). Nevertheless, Inhofe correctly notes that CO2 emitted by developing nations will continue to be a complex problem, although his suggestion of not worrying about it would most likely lead to even bigger problems. Inhofe also claims that the Kyoto goals for emission reductions are arbitrarily derived, but any reductions are better than no reductions, and the idea is to slow (and hopefully eventually reverse) the increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (2003). His argument is essentially a short-sighted economic one with disingenuous concern for developing nations.

If it is not the economies of Third World nations that Inhofe is chiefly concerned with, what is it? He often notes the expense of carbon regulation upon the regulated industries, which is reasonable considering the oil and gas industry, as well as electric utilities, are his biggest campaign contributors (Inhofe, 2003; Center for Responsive Politics, 2009). On the flip side, many are arguing that the current economic crisis is the ideal time to start building a sustainable economy based on reasonable consumption and environmental responsibility (Stern, 2009). Nicholas Stern of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy even claims that reducing greenhouse gases will cost only about 2% of GDP every year, and notes that this could run considerably lower depending upon public policy and speed of technology (2009). Indeed the costs of inaction are likely higher. The National Conference of State Legislatures concluded that there were significant economic costs to climate change, ranging from declining water levels to impacts on tourism and real estate (State Legislatures, 2009).

Interestingly, Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute recently used research by Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute to argue that since there is natural variability in the Earth's ocean temperatures, and a decade-long cold stage in the Atlantic being forecast, this will temporarily “offset” global warming and obliterate the urgent need to take regulatory action now (2008). To my mind, this position seems extraordinarily naïve, since greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere over the next decade, and even if their effects are deferred by ocean temperatures, they will be more severe once the trend gets “stuck” in a warm stage (which he notes will also happen). Furthermore, ocean temperatures warm slower than land temperatures, and they have significantly increased in heat content since the late 1950s (Godish, 2004, p. 132). The journal of Nature published a study last year that found ocean warming and thermal expansion rates are fifty percent greater than estimated in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (Science Daily, 2008). This coupled with sea ice and glacial melting does not seem to indicate cooler oceans coming any time soon.

Another important area of uncertainty is not about whether we should do something, but what exactly we should do. The Stimulus Bill passed in February funds and promotes renewable energy projects and energy efficiency through such things as weatherization programs, grants to makers of advanced vehicle battery systems, R&D to capture greenhouses gases from coal-fired facilities, grants to develop rail transit, and much more (Jones Walker, 2009). Also, the House and Senate have approved President Obama’s budget , which sets the stage for a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases, while Lisa Jackson of the EPA seems poised to directly regulate CO2 on its own authority if Congress fails to pass specific climate legislation (Bravender & Samuelsohn, 2009; Washington Post, 2009). Recently HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) or so-called “Climate Bill” passed the House with many compromises, but still remains a movement in the right direction if the Senate does not kill it (Lerer & O'Connor, 2009). To counter the so-called environmental alarmists we now have a chorus of economic alarmists touting the devastating effects of this new “energy tax.” Again, I think this is a short-sighted economic view, and regardless, much more is at stake environmentally than economically. Also, recall that the Great Depression was ended by massive deficit spending and technological development spurned by WWII.

At any rate, the urgency of regulatory action was recently underscored by an International Scientific Congress on Climate Change in Copenhagen, which found that the worst-case scenario trajectories outlined by the IPCC are being realized, and are possibly even worse than predicted (University of Copenhagen, 2009). Furthermore, the IPCC’s report in 2007 makes note of “committed warming effects,” or “thermal inertia,” which means that there would be additional warming over a period of time after emissions drop, due to the greenhouses gases already emitted (IPCC, 2009). This highlights the importance of quick and decisive action before the effects of climate change are too severe, since cutting emissions at that point will not immediately prevent many of the negative impacts. Another item of concern is the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which outlines how the arctic is already being seriously impacted by climate change, with temperatures rising almost twice as fast as in the rest of the world (ACIA, 2004).

Determining the truth in this quagmire is intentionally difficult due to deliberate obfuscation as well as legitimate questions. Nevertheless, it seems extremely likely that climate change is being driven by anthropogenic emissions. We know that gases such as CO2 have been steadily increasing, that deforestation has diminished our carbon sinks, and we understand how greenhouse emissions trap heat and raise global temperatures. What is mostly in dispute is what the result of these changes will be, and how best to address them. This is not likely to be an issue where finding the middle ground between extreme camps gives the best results, since reality unlike justice, is not contingent upon human compromise. It seems to me that much greater scientific validity can be attributed to the “alarmist” camp. Moving on the conclusion that global warming need addressed quickly involves some risks to the economy, but I think they have been overstated. Technological innovation has always been a driving force for the economy, and few things will require more innovation and entail more opportunity than moving away from fossil fuel reliance. Additionally, renewable technology will concurrently address a myriad of other environmental risks to air and water quality, which aren’t related to climate change but are emitted from the same sources. Perhaps most importantly, this global warming crisis, whether over-hyped or not, could serve as the necessary impetus to move us toward an environmentally and economically sustainable society.

Sources

“Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.” (2005). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from the internet on April 3, 2009 from: http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/scientific.html

Barnett, Joe. (April 3, 2003). “Security and climate change.” Global Environmental Change. Volume 13, Issue 1, p. 7-17.

Bravender, Robin & Samuelsohn, Darren. (April 2, 2009). “EPA holds trump card in U.S. emissions debate.” The New York Times. Retrieved from the internet on April 3, 2009 from: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/02/02greenwire-epa-holds-trump-card-in-us-emissions-debate-10422.html

“Climate and health.” (July 2005). World Health Organization. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html

“Climate is growing health threat.” (January 21, 2009). Nursing Standard. Retrieved from Academic OneFile. Gale. Columbia Southern University. April 2, 2009.

“Climate change likely to increase risk of hunger.” (August 7, 2007). U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000646/index.html

“Data available for James M. Inhofe:.” (2009). Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582

“Energy and environmental provisions of the stimulus bill: following the ‘green’.” Jones Walker e-bulletin, February 2009, vol. 22. Retrieved from the internet on April 3, 2009 from: http://www.ascension-publishing.com/BIZ/joneswalker.pdf

“Global Warming Skeptic Organizations.” (2009). Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

Godish, Thad. (2004). Air Quality (4th Edition). New York, NY: CRC Press.

Hirschler, Ben. (July 10, 2007). “Solar variations not behind global warming: study.” Reuters. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL101501320070710

“House, Senate approve Obama budget.” (April 3, 2009). Washington Post. Retrieved from the internet on April, 3, 2009 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress-budget3-2009apr03,0,7225190.story

Inhofe, James M. (July 28, 2003). “The Science of Climate Change: Senate Floor Statement by U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla) Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works.” Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm

“IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.” International Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from the internet on April 3, 2009 from: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

“Key messages from the congress.” (March 12, 2009). University of Copenhagen. Retrieved form the internet on April 3, 2009 from: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/

La Page, Michael. (May 16, 2007). “Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s.” New Scientist. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

Lerer, Lisa & Patrick O’Connor.(June 28, 2009).“House passes climate-change bill.” Politico. Retrieved from the internet on July 2, 2009 from: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html

Michaels,Patrick J. (November 3, 2004). “Is global warming always bad?” Cato Institute. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2872

Michaels,Patrick J. (May 16, 2008). “Global warming myth.” Cato Institute. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

“Ocean Temperatures And Sea Level Increases 50 Percent Higher Than Previously Estimated.” (June 19, 2008). Science Daily. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080618143301.htm

"Pines growing lonesome and redwoods rarer in US West.” (January 31, 2009). New Scientist 201.2693: 14(1). Retrieved from Academic OneFile. Gale. COLUMBIA SOUTHERN UNIV. on April 2, 2009.

Plumer, Brad. (December 15, 2008). “Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...).” The Vine. The New Republic. Retrieved from the internet on April 3, 2009 from: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/12/15/inhofe-s-650-quot-dissenters-quot-make-that-649-648.aspx

"The costs of climate change." State Legislatures 35.2 (Feb 2009): 8(1). Retrieved online from Academic OneFile. Gale. Columbia Southern University on April 2, 2009.

“The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?” Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved from the internet on April 3, 2009 from: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html

Thomas, Chris D., Alison Cameron, Rhys E. Green, Michel Bakkenes, Linda J. Beaumont, Yvonne C. Collingham, Barend F. N. Erasmus, Marinez Ferreira de Siqueira, Alan Grainger, Lee Hannah, Lesley Hughes, Brian Huntley, Albert S. van Jaarsveld, Guy F. Midgley, Lera Miles, Miguel A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, Oliver L. Phillips, and Stephen E. Williams. "Extinction risk from climate change." Nature 427.6970 (Jan 8, 2004): 145(4).

Viereck, Rodney. (March 26, 2001). “The sun-climate connection (did sunspots sink the Titanic?)” NOAA Space Environment Center. Retrieved from the internet on April 2, 2009 from: http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

Suicide Solution: Hunter S. Thompson

2009-06-27T12:13:00.004-05:00

Suicide Solution: Hunter S. Thompson

I recently watched Alex Gibney’s Gonzo documentary on iconoclastic journalist and intoxicant enthusiast, Hunter S. Thompson and really enjoyed it. Rather than discuss the fascinating life he led, though, I am inclined to take issue with his ex-wife’s comments on his suicide, which characterized it as cowardly. This assessment is of course valid since she knew him far better than I ever will, but she did frame it quite differently than his son Juan did in the film, and her opinion resonates with the general attitude of contemporary Western society against suicide. In total agreement with her was everyone else in the room at the time of my viewing, which is no surprise, given the pervasiveness of the stigma of shame attached to taking one’s own life and the disgust such an act arouses. The usual reasoning is that suicide is the “easy way out,” and it hurts the ones you love more than yourself. The first contention is easy to dismiss: few things could be more difficult than killing yourself. It violates the most fundamental of instincts shared with all living creatures. If it was not difficult, then the person’s physical suffering or mental anguish must have been so great that their self-termination was tantamount to euthanasia. As for the second contention that it is a selfish act, I view it as just the opposite. I think it is selfish to expect someone to live for your sake when they no longer desire to go on. It is furthermore self-serving to condescend and judge the person after the fact. The fact is, this was not your life, and a person has the right to end it whenever they wish. Of course, it is often tragic and painful when they do, but then so is aging and dying of cancer. There are not many happy ways to die, and it is a bizarre twist of logic that holds suicide - the absolute termination of one’s self - to be an act of selfishness!

I do not advocate suicide, would try to dissuade anyone but the most hopelessly ill from doing it, and feel horrible that anyone would be at a point in their life where it seemed the only solution. But then I feel equally bad when someone gets a fatal diagnosis or dies in an accident. I suppose someone might say that those things cannot be helped, while suicide is willfully dispensing with what most people desperately cling to. Therein is the reason it is so abhorrent to many people: primal instinct and a conflicted jealousy. On one hand we disapprove of any reason for suicide when so many others - apparently worse off - prolong their lives in pain and suffering, for either valid or completely inexplicable reasons. To many, this is like a rich man burning his money in front of a poor man. On the other hand, deep down we resent the bravery of someone who just cuts to the chase and got the inevitability of death over and done with. It speaks to our innate death drive and inflames our deepest curiosities and fears. There is striking psychological discord when apprehending a suicide. The will to survive is paramount in humans seemingly beyond reason, yet it is also immanently tenuous upon deep introspection.

We should think twice before belittling another’s pain or their conceivably rational reasons for exiting this world on their own terms. In my mind, any reason is tragic… and any reason is readily forgivable (even if it is stupid, such as killing yourself when your girlfriend breaks up with you). Some have commented that Hunter could have written so much more had he lived, but apparently he didn’t think so, and the quality of his writing had long been suffering. He had had his share of enjoyment and contributed to our beloved heap of humanity more than most. He had no obligation to write for you, me, or anyone in the world. He was not put here for our amusement or enlightenment. Those were things he gave freely, and he was done dispensing them.

Hunter’s suicide was as far from being heroic, though, as it was from being contemptible. It is simply a cause of death, no more immoral than dying of heart disease. Apart from the probable terror of holding a gun to his head and thinking of all the things he would miss most, his death was quicker and easier than most, and there is nothing wrong with that. I would rather have a loved one die in an instant than endure a long, undignified, and agonizing death in a hospital bed after years of watching their health and memories fade. I would be selfish to think otherwise. I hope my own death is likewise an easy one, and that occurs when I feel it is time, and not through the cruelty of happenstance.

Hunter’s suicide note was some of his most poignant writing, no less because he punctuated it with his own life. He may have missed out on some moments of happiness or excitement despite his cynical appraisal of the future, but he was not in his prime and I think he saw the trajectory he was heading in. It is the same direction we are all heading in. I hope to ride it out further than he did, but not everyone has to be like me. His suicide note was titled “Football Season Is Over,” and I think it is has a whimsical humor coupled with a haunting existential resonance:

No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun -- for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax -- This won't hurt.

Ministers and Administrators

2009-06-15T19:45:00.004-05:00

Ministers and Administrators:
Strategic Partners in Human Management

It occurs to me that priests and other clergymen are a lot like human resources people. Reverends marry and bury, while HR folks hire and fire -- each officiating over important unions and terminations. Both speak in clichés, encourage people with grandiose hyperbole, dispense nonsensical rhetoric in official-sounding phrases, and offer quaint platitudes to captive audiences. In other words, they “aspire to inspire!” Human Resources people are like clergy also in the way they are cloaked in a vacuous aura of wild-eyed positivity, making them either appear obscenely fake -- as if masking their deep social antipathies in a grotesque overcompensation -- or else pitiably simple, like their world is delicately balanced above crushing disillusionment making you just want to humor them. I think there is probably a hint of condescension in each of these characters too, since they both savor their authority and yet are insecure about their roles as shepherds of the human flock. However, you could say there is more than a hint of condescension to this blog as well, but it is meant in good fun. The grandiloquent redeemers, bureaucratic policy peddlers, “thou shalt” shouters, and goal-oriented go-getters out there could easily win me over with some clever motivational acronyms and a prayer development workshop providing free coffee and bagels.

Cops with Quirks

2009-05-09T23:02:00.009-05:00

TV Trend: Cops with Quirks & Defective Detectives

Forensic mania over the last decade has taken its toll, with millions of youngsters deluding themselves into thinking they can get jobs as forensic investigators. But now there is a new police show trend that sets the bar even higher, revolving around eccentric genius crime fighters (i.e. novelty cops). Of course, developing interesting personality quirks and nurturing a variety of mental illnesses is not such a tall order, but that genius aspect is going to cause trouble for ambitious emulators. Let’s take a closer look at some of these programs:

1. Monk. This show stars an ex-cop whose wife was murdered, spurring a nervous breakdown, a period of reclusiveness, and the exponential worsening of his obsessive-compulsive disorder. He is now a private detective whose brilliance in solving cases makes his debilitating psychopathologies and behavioral hang-ups generally tolerable.

2. Dexter. Whereas Monk has psychopathologies, Dexter is a bona fide psychopath. He is a blood splatter analyst by day and a serial killer at night… trying to only kill the “bad” people he comes across at work. The nice thing about this show is how it combines the forensic trend with the new defective personality trend in order to get more viewers. It is a fairly good (but not exactly original) premise to work from, and Michael C. Hall is excellent in the title role, but the show suffers from poor acting in some other key roles, as well as a lack of subtlety. They employ what I call “kitchen sink” writing, where you over-inflate the drama with too many outrageous plot twists… effectively throwing in everything but the kitchen sink. Another show that has this problem is Rescue Me, though I also have a little soft spot for that one as well.

3. Lie to Me. Here we have an expert lie detector who is typically hired by the police to use his psychological training in body language and facial expressions to solve cases. Naturally, this truth detector savant is rather oddball and abrasive (like almost all of the main characters in this idiom), but again, his unique talents compensate (again true for all). I’ve watched several of these episodes, and it is passable if pedestrian fare even though it is a pretty weak gimmick and the running storylines are kind of bland.

4. Raines. Jeff Goldblum played an LAPD detective who was “mentally haunted” in this short-lived series. I guess not all quirks were created equal. He was insane and would interact with hallucinations of the dead crime victims in order to solve cases. I have been told it was a decent show, but I can already imagine how every episode went.

5. Law and Order: CI. This show has Vincent D’Onofrio as the odious central character who is an obnoxious detective that erodes the mental defenses of criminals with his Freudian analysis of their deep psychology. He is an expert in every field of study no matter how arcane, and is also infuriatingly smug about his many completely unrealistic attributes. Especially funny are the end sequences with the dramatic scoring to his Murder She Wrote-style psychological denouements that always end in a grand breakthrough moment yelled into the ear of the seated suspect from behind.

6. Medium. The star is no genius, but just an everyday woman with clairvoyant abilities. I am surprised this marketing gimmick was not done before. Maybe it has been, since the psychic police consultant has been a mythological American archetype on the talk shows forever, and sadly it has sometimes become a reality in the case of the actual person this character is based on. I have always liked Patricia Arquette, but feel this series is beneath her. While they do the most they can with the cheesy premise and police drama formula, I just can’t muster much enthusiasm for this program. I realize even hackneyed programs can be fun and engaging from time to time, but this one leaves me yawning.

7. Pysch. For this show, instead of the central character having outlandish abilities or a defective personality, his quirk is pretending to be psychic. Still, he has to be extraordinarily observant and clever to pull it off. While most of these novelty-cop shows ultimately become boring and formulaic, what propels this show more than the mystery itself is the funny banter between characters and a light-heartedness that ironically makes it less of a joke than some of its competitors.

8. The Shield. This is a brutal cop show with a central character that is not psychological disturbed or a damaged prodigy, but rather a morally-challenged schemer on an elite crime strike force (of course). He is a profoundly crooked cop, but for all its excesses the show doled out a great deal of ethical ambiguity with more courage than most, while also dealing with violence and social issues in a frank and honest way that was never pretty. The main pratfall of this show was its compulsive need to be shocking and to top itself, but even then it was one of the more engaging cop shows on TV. The Shield also tended to focus more on the ongoing storylines than the episodic ones, which helped keep them from scraping bottom for goofy new criminal scenarios in every show, as well as keep the overarching narratives from seeming perfunctory or forced.

9. Crossing Jordan. In this now defunct show, Jill Hennessy was a headstrong medical examiner who spent a ridiculous amount of time doing police work and getting into a hell of a fix by being such a rebel. The show was completely absurd, especially in the first couple seasons where she and her dad would solve cases by acting out the crimes together. Nevertheless, her unorthodox attitude made her one of the quirkiest and unlikely crime-fighting MEs of all time. Furthermore, she was emotionally-damaged by her mother’s murder and has a lot of trouble trusting and connecting with people, which provides the protracted romantic tension as well as a reason she enjoys corpses.

10. Bones. Yet another inane police drama with both the oddball personality and the forensic tie-in. This time she’s a forensic anthropologist who, in keeping with the ludicrous stretching of occupational roles on these shows, is a veritable partner with an FBI agent. What I find most insufferable about this banal program rife with hackneyed writing and the requisite camera obsession with rotten cadavers is that she is made quirky by her seeming inability to read social cues or make meaningful attachments outside of work. This female Spock seeks refuge in “science” to avoid human emotion. It feels like a premise drafted by a college freshman in an “Intro to Creative Writing” class, right after the obligatory ode to a dead grandparent. In many ways this show is like Crossing Jordan, with the emotionally damaged and withdrawn woman examining corpses (with whom she presumably is more comfortable) and engaging in unlikely police work. The most interesting thing about these shows is looking at them in the wider cultural context and what they say about how the traditional female role has changed -- no longer defined by emotion and irrationality, yet presumably still needing a strong man nearby (this is gender stereotype is reversed in the series Chuck, where his savior and love interest is a female agent… still not great programming but it a level or two above Bones). I suppose Temperance Brennan and Jordan Cavanaugh (both Irish?) would be much more iconoclastic characters making up for their lackluster shows if this was 1970.

11. Life. He went to prison for years for a crime he didn’t commit and is now he is a homicide detective with a fondness for fruit and trying to live a Zen lifestyle in L.A. He’s sharp but no genius and his personal peculiarities are decidedly positive instead of damaged. It’s not transcendent programming, but it plays well. Already in season two the creative stream ran dry and they started airing outrageous novelty episodes chock full of cheese. I think it got cancelled, which is probably for the better, although at its best the show had a classic TV feel without the pseudo-hip veneer, which made the willing suspension of disbelief easier.

12. The Closer. No healthy fruit for this workaholic Georgia peach; it’s junk food that she desires most. She’s another bad-ass, unconventional cop working only the most elite cases, and again, her ability to get the job done every time grants her leeway in pissing people off. I haven’t seen much of this show, but the awards it has won make me suspect it is less gimmicky and has more nuanced characterization than the previews suggest. Or maybe it just sucks. Regardless, it is centered on a central character with a quirky personality and exceptional aptitude.

13. Saving Grace. She is a slutty alcoholic cop who killed someone while driving drunk. However, God gives her a second chance and sends a hillbilly angel named Earl to try and sway her onto the righteous path. It is easy to see the gimmick for this defective detective as a clever swipe at the religious demographic while also basking in lively intercourse with an archetypal sinner. It is probably big in the red states for this reason.

14. House. I know you are thinking that this is a medical show. True. But it is centers on a physically and emotionally-damaged genius misanthrope who solves the most complex of medical mysteries while psychoanalyzing everyone around him. It is probably the best example of the type of drama I am talking about. While constantly struggling against its own formula to avoid becoming stale (with notable successes and failures), what makes the show so compelling is the fresh take on the detective genre, tremendous acting by Hugh Laurie, and intelligent dialogue for the characters.

15. Mental. The latest show to try and work the House formula makes some superficial changes. Mental also has a British actor as the star, but he’s apparently not required (or able) to mask his accent like Laurie. In this series he’s a brilliant psychologist with an unconventionally positive disposition as he unravels the hard psychiatric cases like a police procedural, complete with break-ins and covert investigations. He even has a female administrator with whom to have erotic tension, like House. I particularly like the cutesy graphics before commercials of a head being unzipped. And even though show titles are getting lamer by the season, this one is like they gave up trying. The name “Mental” is a bland pitch for the generic idea that propels the series.

Milk Is Weird

2009-05-07T12:01:00.001-05:00

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2007

Have you ever really thought about how strange it is to drink milk? Most of us gave up our mother’s breast milk long before it became creepy… then replaced it with lactations from a non-human animal. How is that not a little creepy as well? You don't see that anywhere else in nature. I've never heard of a predatory cat on the African savannah getting thirsty and pinning down an antelope to suckle its teats. On the other hand, a quick web search will yield some interesting pictures of women breastfeeding pigs, monkeys, and tigers (but strangely no cattle… they must be at the top of the breastfeeding hierarchy).

When you think about it, human breast milk should better meet our nutritional needs than the milk of other mammals, which is meant to nurture their offspring. I wonder if the many people who drink cow milk would also drink milk from a lactating woman. I would try it if I knew the girl and she was hot, I suppose (milk from a MILF!), and yet we all drink happily from the teats of anonymous cattle without any erotic overtones to our consumption. We wean dairy calves as soon as possible (within a couple months or less) just so we can get at that precious bovine nectar. And who was that first pervert to go sucking on goat nipples and cow udders? (I bet he was French… I like the way they think.) And can you imagine what he must have said to convince others to do the same? I bet he had a dinner party and wouldn’t tell anyone what was in their glasses until after they reluctantly sipped some of it. Then they beat him into a coma. Or maybe this love affair with cow milk started when human moms got sore from nursing nine noisy kids and decided to try something a little unconventional.

Perhaps it is high time we started milking humans. That would be an extra source of cash for low-income moms, and I am sure the whole “but drinking human milk is gross” thing would blow over once people realized breast milk from another species is even grosser. Of course, we’d have to keep getting our glorious dairy maidens pregnant every so often, just like we do with cattle. I’m sure there would be plenty of volunteers for a roll in the hay with these busty breeders, but it would create too many bastard children for our celebrities to adopt. I therefore modestly propose that we also solve this problem in the same way we do with cattle, and just kill the offspring swiftly after they are born then sell them as meat to rich families. However, this would likely not pass muster with the moral majority and humanists alike, so alas, I guess we’ll continue to turn to cattle for most of our dairy needs, and hope that one of those dead calves wasn’t destined to grow up and become the next Bovinestein. Or maybe it would have been the next Moossolini. I guess we’ll never know.

Thoughts on Synecdoche, New York

2009-04-11T12:50:00.002-05:00

Synecdoche, New York

Charlie Kaufman (2008)

It seems the general consensus is that this film encompasses so many ineffable ideas with such graceful complexity that it demands multiple viewings. In fact, the movie seeks to encompass everything - the full scope of human experience - within its discreet boundaries. A synecdoche represents the whole of something by referring to a part of it, and we see layer upon layer of this here. The director in the movie, Caden, sees his play as a synecdoche for reality, just as much as the director of the movie, Kaufman, sees it as a synecdoche for humanity. In all of Kaufman's scripts before this, his directorial debut, we see themes of consciousness and subjectivity explored, blurring the boundaries between fantasy, memory, dreams, neuroses, delusions, and the inaccessible notion of an empirical reality. All of these things and more are elements of being that we dissect and sift through to create models for our self-concept as well as representations of the outside world. At their root, though, the stark boundaries between dream and reality, self and others, etc., are artificial constructs. Each shades the other. Our individual identities become defined by how we perceive ourselves as apart from the whole, apart from each other, separate from other animals, nature, rocks and the universe. A more honest appraisal will see these distinctions as a continuity of energy and matter, a series of overlapping interrelationships. Kaufman's works are very much rooted in phenomenological inquiry, examining the structure of consciousness, and this is his by far his most ambitious piece of exploration.

There are two basic modes of thinking: right-brained and left-brained. The left hemisphere is analytic, rooted in logical systems and deals with discrete information. It conceptualizes with language and numbers. It is responsible for our inner-monologue, and everything it produces can be deconstructed. Reason itself is a structure draped over reality, and always leaves something lacking, something outside of the binary logic. The study of semiotics shows us there is not a direct relationship between symbols and the things they represent. Semantics are complicated by connotative and denotative meanings, and the failure of any word to fully convey the reality of any thing.

The right hemisphere is more holistic in its approach. It thinks and perceives in ways that do not fit nicely within language. It invokes the images, impulses, feelings, and insights that poets, artists, and musicians struggle to convey. They try to transubstantiate subjective experience into something objective, seeking to yield something paradoxically evocative of a deeper common truth: the word that was with God, the word that was God. (While this is a reference to the Gospel of John, I use the word "God" here to represent perfection, which I think is in the spirit of the passage -- the melding of right and left-brain knowledge, a merging of sign and referent, universal comprehension -- the word made flesh.)

The interplay between the left and the right lobes of the brain are fundamental to this film, but so are the conflicts within each hemisphere. The characters embody the tangles of information that we each try decipher and process in order to make sense of ourselves and the world around us. Everyone projects his or her own desires and knowledge upon others, but at the same time they also internalize scripts and model their behaviors on what they imagine others want from them. Conflicting desires and contrasting beliefs are often equally valid, and we constantly try to suppress the chaos.

Here, though, Kaufman embraces the noise -- the entropy and uncertainty at the edges of everything we attempt to define -- in hopes of creating a tangible representation redolent of truth. Human consciousness is something communal that evolves apart from the human body, which links us all in unique ways, and has unfathomable implications for how we attribute meaning to our existence, as well as how we imagine death. Mortality is a huge element to this film, and plays an equally important role in defining our lives, being the ultimate in "to be or not to be," either/or duality.

By and large I think this movie is a stunning success, though quite melancholy and daunting. Still, Kaufman's flourishes of absurd humor abound, showing us that even deep investigations into human frailty need not be overly stodgy or pretentious. The acting is likewise superb, and what most impressed me was how well the film was cut. It unfolds seamlessly with a perfect pacing, while at the same time perpetually undermining what you think you know with new dissonant layers that don't feel forced.

Texas Schools Abstain From Education

2009-03-01T13:28:00.001-06:00

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2004
(The pic is not actually in Texas, but it is the only remotely applicable photo I have. Plus I think it is hilarious.)

This really makes me want to vomit. A recent report released by the Texas Freedom Network has found that "abstinence-only" education has been adopted by 94% of our state's schools. This was a two-year study of the curricula for 1,031 public schools. Their findings not only included the downplaying or ignoring of contraception, but a whopping 41% included factual errors about STDs, HIV, and condoms. This is unbelievable and completely contemptible. They report that Texas schoolchildren receive scare tactics and myths in the place of honest and useful information that could protect them. Somehow Texas citizens (and many others throughout the country) have chosen to ignore the fact that abstinence-only education does not stop teen sexual activity, and that it increases pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The report further noted that, in addition to the misinformation, instruction was geared toward stigmatization, fear, ignorance, gender sterotypes, and even overt religious instruction that uses the bible to teach sex ed!!! I don't really want to get into the warped lessons you can learn about sex (and especially gender roles) from the bible... such as offering your virgin daughters to a mob of sodomites or not pulling out of your brother's wife to spill your seed onto the ground... but more importantly I think it is completely outrageous that the bible is used in the schools at all.

According to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, Texas has the highest teen birth rates in the country. Abstinence-only education is opposed by the American Medical Association and a study in the journal Pediatrics last year found that teens who take "virginity pledges" are just as likely to have sex, but less likely to use protection. There is piles of evidence showing this ridiculous tactic doesn't work. The abstinence-only crowd seems to either willfully ignore it out of cowardice, or they actually want even more teen pregnancies... pregnancies which frequently results in greater demand for public assistance... public assistance that many of these conservatives would like to withdraw. Why do the same people who want to cut sex education so often also want to cut discretionary spending on social programs? Great idea! We'll have our nation's kids crap out even more kids that they can't support or care for, then we can let them starve, steal, or turn tricks if their parents can't pick up the slack! That makes total sense. I suppose maybe some teens will get lucky and only catch a venereal disease because they were taught condoms are sinful and don't work.

What further enrages me about this idiotic quest to deny human nature and put hormone-crazy teenagers at risk, is that according to the Washington Post our federal government spends $176 million a year on these absurd abstinence promotion programs. That article came out in 2007, though. According to an article on Reuters, in 2008 the government spent $204 million on abstinence-only education! They also quote the Institute of Medicine as calling these programs "poor fiscal and public health policy." Indeed. Let's hope this era of irresponsible lunacy is at a close.

Refueling the American Dream

2009-02-27T15:12:00.000-06:00

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2007

The long-term goal of many in the automotive industry, and certainly the dreamiest alternative fuel source of all, is the hydrogen fuel cell. The Department of Energy currently has taken the lead in a federally funded Hydrogen Program. Among many other technological applications, they focus on the research and development of hydrogen fuel cells. The Department of Energy’s stated intention (at least before Obama came into office), is to replace the internal combustion engine with these fuel cells, and to create a hydrogen production, delivery, and fueling infrastructure.

One of the benefits of converting to a hydrogen economy is that efficiency is much higher than with the internal combustion engine. As EnvironmentalChemistry.com reports, “traditional internal combustion engines typically have efficiencies of around 30%, whereas fuel cells can achieve 40-70% efficiency." Even more importantly, pollution and greenhouse gases would be drastically reduced in favor of an output of pure water. But forming hydrogen fuel requires a lot of energy, and currently very little of our energy in this country comes from renewable sources. Producing the fuel through electrolysis to separate the H from H2O could be done with renewable energy, but this is a much more expensive and energy intensive method, and therefore is rarely ever used . Plus, it would require the vastly expanded use of renewable energy. The most common method is steam methane reforming, which takes the H from natural gas and is cheaper, but it results in more greenhouse gas emissions... paradoxically making a clean fuel by burning dirty fuel. However, we do have a large (yet still finite) supply of natural gas, and it does burn cleaner than oil and coal. It is also cheaper than oil and coal, at least until demand for it goes up.

Even though some experimental hydrogen vehicles do exist right now, this technology is not yet widely feasible. The main obstacles include bringing down the huge cost to make it competitive, developing adequate on-board storage methods (the fuel tanks are necessarily very large), producing the fuel affordably and sustainably, finding ways to transport it, and creating the required refueling infrastructure. According the DOE’s optimistic estimations, the hydrogen economy will still take a few decades to achieve, but they aim to have the technology ready for commercial applications by 2020. This, of course, means that urgent climate change concerns and other serious pollution problems arising from internal combustion engines will not be addressed in time by the deferred hydrogen solution.

In the interim hybrid cars would reportedly increase fuel efficiency by about 25%, thereby reducing demand for foreign oil as well as pollution and CO2 emissions. Many have raised concerns as to whether just buying small and efficient cars without hybrid technology would be just as good, but it does seem hybrids offer unbeatable city mpg. Although some current hybrid models are notoriously inefficient, some do have impressive efficiency when compared to regular compact cars, and future development can increase this gap. (Of course, buying small non-hybrid cars with high fuel efficiency is also a good thing.) Claims that hybrids will need costly repairs and have exceptionally toxic batteries also appear largely unfounded. However, the price tag of hybrids is often prohibitive for many consumers of average means, at least for the time being. The hybrid seems like a good choice for the environment and reducing oil consumption, but shouldn’t be viewed as a permanent fixture on the roadways.

Perhaps offering completely electric cars could be part of the answer. They could be rolled out almost immediately with existing technology and serve the needs of most commuters. Chevy is planning to introduce their Volt in 2010, and Toyota has plans for an all-electric car in 2012. It is amazing to me that the big automakers speak of these new electric cars as if they are something new, when they themselves had introduced them a decade or more ago, then promptly withdrew them from the market. For example, Ford had an electric Ranger and Chevy the EV1, but they abandoned them for large trucks and SUVs just as gas prices started escalating (and now they want bailouts as a result of this irresponsible decision). The new generation of electric cars will certainly be more expensive than hybrids initially, until economies of scale come into play. The operating and maintenance costs of these vehicles will be much lower, though, and we will reduce foreign oil demand even greater while also drastically reducing emissions. Even if we generate the electricity to fuel them from coal, large-scale usage will still result in enormous reductions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide emissions from vehicle exhaust. The electric car could even be a long-term solution if hydrogen vehicles don’t pan out, especially when we find ways to generate the bulk of our electricity without fossil fuels.

Another interesting alternative for an interim technology may be compressed natural gas, which burns much cleaner with less CO2 emissions, and can be mined with minimal disruption to the environment. Obviously, this would not be a permanent solution, and I am not sure how long our domestic reserves would last with drastically increased demand. Nevertheless, we could trade with Europe if necessary, which has ample supplies, rather than dealing with a market affect by OPEC production. CNG offers high fuel efficiency, and the EPA declared the Honda Civic GX the cleanest internal combustion engine ever tested. The Civic GX is currently the only factory vehicle made for CNG, although conversion kits are available to make regular vehicles run on either gasoline or CNG at the flick of a switch. While the CNG is generally cheaper than regular gas, there is not much of a refueling infrastructure. Another major drawback is the cost of the Civic and the conversion kits.

Corn ethanol, in my opinion is a complete waste and not a viable alternative. The energy put into growing the corn almost equals the energy yielded from the ethanol. It also doesn’t produce much savings to the consumer at the pump, and it would not be profitable at all to farmers if they didn’t receive USDA subsidies. Furthermore, using it as a fuel stock would reduce food production in a world with millions of malnourished people, reduce biodiversity in favor of monoculture, and likely yield even more pesticide runoff and soil erosion. The one benefit, though, is that it reduces foreign oil demand.

In summary, I think the best approach for the U.S. is to responsibly reduce foreign oil dependence is through hybrids and/or electric vehicles. Compressed natural gas seems less enticing, and ethanol has too many environmental costs. The use of hybrids and electric cars can be encouraged through various incentives and tax rebates at the federal, state, and local levels. Research and Development for a long-term solution could still focus on hydrogen fuel cell technology; however, I think it is much more important to find ways to fulfill our electricity demands with fossil fuels, and to research better battery technology for electrics and hybrids (increasing their range). Putting longer lasting/smaller batteries in our hybrids and electric cars, and making them less toxic, is much more doable than the enormous challenges facing a hydrogen economy. In fact, I think the hydrogen hype was used to extend the reign of King Oil while appearing environmentally responsible. The fact that Bush fought hard against raising our incredibly low vehicle emission standards while giving huge tax breaks to SUV owners speaks volumes. Hydrogen was a carrot dangled in front of us to preserve the status quo, which caused (and continues to cause) immense environmental damage while filling the coffers of the powerful oil industry.

I think we need to reduce our high oil consumption in other ways as well. That means, among other things, developing much better public transit in most of our cities, and even high-speed rail systems to connect them. That also means not keeping oil prices artificially low so that people will be more likely to carpool, bike, and use public transportation more often. We also need to remove government direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuel industries. These include stopping the lease of public land below market value for private drilling or mining, ending corporate tax breaks for oil companies, making them pay for their heavy use of the public infrastructure, making them more responsible for clean-ups of spills and contaminated sites, ending federal funding of research and development that benefits them, incorporating the costs to public health in their operating expenses, and accounting for all other externalities such as air and water pollution. In fact, our costly involvement in the Middle East can be seen as a giant oil industry subsidy, and although we didn't get the oil we wanted in Iraq, they certainly drove up the price of domestic oil, leading oil companies to reach record profits while the nation was driving up immense national debt.

Bird Brains: Not So Dumb After All

2009-02-24T17:01:00.001-06:00

BOOK REVIEW:

Sightings: Extraordinary Encounters with Ordinary Birds

Author: Sam Keen

You probably think a book focusing on birds will be boring, but you’d be absolutely wrong. This is a collection of eleven prosaic essays that explore the author’s revelations about life gleaned from his lifelong fascination with birds and nature. Sam Keen is Ivy League educated in philosophy and religion, and he gives us much more than a dry discussion of ornithology. Like the transcendentalists before him, Keen sees the divine as revealed through nature, but he is not falsely sentimental about it, ignoring the dark aspects of nature and our mortality. “Mother Nature is a giver and destroyer of life, a carnivorous breast.” His observances of turkey vultures patiently hovering around a wounded gull lead him to find value and even grace in these ugly birds that portend death.

Keen also talks about the information overload and perpetual distractions of modern life that keep us from noticing and appreciating the moments we inhabit. We are apart from nature, apart from other animals, and apart from each other: never giving ourselves time to experience “a silent moment into which strange thoughts might intrude.” Instead most of us are perpetually occupied with emails, television, ipods, advertisements, cell phones, traffic, and the endless pursuit of “easy happiness and cheap grace.” We get bored inside silence with only our thoughts to entertain us. Our current culture fills our every spare moment with noise that disrupts any real contemplation, always finding some technological way to escape introspection, to escape dwelling in the space we currently inhabit. We’ve become increasingly alienated from any meaningful interaction with other humans, let alone nature, which, as much as our conceit prefers to deny it, we are absolutely part of. We share a commonality with all living beings that goes beyond the biological.

For Keen, spirituality is not found in organized religion, but glimpsed through auguries of deeper truths found in the woods. We don’t need to solve the great mysteries of the universe or appease fickle deities, but rather experience peak moments where we feel our subjectivity dissolve into the apprehension of something greater, a sense of wonder difficult to express in language but that makes us feel tied into the whole of being. It is not something you are likely to ever get from celebrity blogs or sitcoms. To experience the sacred in the present, rather than seek some grand revelation, helps us find contentment in
the now.

This book is poetic and insightful, resonated with a truth and beauty my lame description isn’t getting across. While occasionally bordering on the hokey, he most often succeeds at conveying moving stories from his life filled with poignant reflections on humankind’s place in the cosmos. What’s better is that birds don’t come off as a “device” through which to launch into philosophy. Instead the revelations feel completely earnest, and his love of avian species is abundantly evident. While his discussion of things like the surprising intelligence of birds is brief, he makes his case with startling alacrity. There is so much in this small book that I could discuss tirelessly, and in reading it I felt his ideas about life were very close to my own theories and feelings. It is a rich and evocative book, both emotionally and intellectually, and in the end I don’t think I will see birds quite the same way I did before. - Ben

Droll, Baby, Droll: the Absurd Promise of the Arctic Refuge

2009-02-23T14:34:00.000-06:00

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2007 (it's not ANWR, but it is Alaska!)

I have serious doubts about oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The region’s potential as a rich source of oil does not actually seem that promising, and it is rather contentious as to whether extraction can be done with acceptably minimal effects upon the wildlife and ecosystems there.

The U.S. Geological Survey has done the most extensive study on the area to date and estimates about 10.4 billion barrels of oil would be technically recoverable within the entire region. To put this number in perspective, according to the Energy Information Administration the U.S. consumed a total of 7.5 billion barrels of oil in 2007 alone, and we import about 3.6 billion barrels every year. To make matters worse, even at the fastest pace of development, the EIA predicts that oil would not enter the market for ten years after the commencement of mining, and attain peak production in twenty years. It does not seem like a real solution to our energy problem, but more like a political red herring.

As far as impact on the area being considered for mining, it is habitat for several species such as polar bears, snow geese, musk oxen, etc., some of which are protected by international treaties. The porcupine caribou herd calves in the area cited as having the highest potential, and when natural disturbances have impeded their ability to migrate there in the past, calf survival rates dropped significantly. Mining in the area most likely would reduce their numbers and have a negative effect on the natives who depend upon them for subsistence. Also of concern is the fact that normal shipping operations account for roughly 60% of oil pollution in the world's oceans, so obviously this would increase as we increase the sea traffic taking oil and goods to and from Alaska. The development of new jobs in the arctic would also cause increased population, and therefore producing more waste, pollution, and energy consumption.

Another issue for consideration is that there are few places in the world that have retained their natural integrity and been largely unaffected by humans. The presumption that the entire globe is ours to exploit and alter should be questioned, and some value should be given to the remaining untrammeled areas.

While some dissent to drilling proposals is found in Alaska, many people there enjoy their profit-sharing checks from the oil industry, which also funds their government in lieu of taxes. I found in my travels there that the residents are commonly quite interested in greater development that increases their population and economy.

However, it should also be noted that the dividend checks they receive go right back into the oil company coffers. The disperse nature of Alaska means everything is very spread out, requiring lots of driving. The nature of the terrain and climate also requires the great majority of vehicles to be high clearance and four-wheel drive, and consequently are gas-guzzlers. Counter-intuitively, gas prices are more expensive there than in most places in the continental United States, probably since their oil is shipped away to refineries in the lower 48, then back. Most importantly, Alaskans need the dividend checks to help with heating costs through the bitterly cold winters that encompass most of the year. Much of the state’s residents warm their homes with heating oil, and 20 percent of their electricity is generated from petroleum (according to the U.S. Department of Energy). Perhaps what I find most problematic about the dividend checks is that they enable, and even entice, more people to move to inhospitable climate of Alaska, thereby consuming vastly more fossil fuels than they would normally. Also, Alaska has very little manufacturing and agriculture (with agriculture only possible in two relatively small regions), so food and other products must be shipped there from far away, consuming even more fuels.

The broader question here, though, is whether more oil is desirable in the U.S. at all. Obviously decreasing foreign oil dependence is a worthy goal, especially since 21% of our oil is imported from potentially troublesome countries (Saudi Arabia and Venezuela), but there is most likely not enough oil in ANWR to really make much of a difference at all... nor will it perceptibly drive down oil prices. When considering how much we import, the amount of oil expected to be in ANWR would only yield about three years of energy independence if we got it all at once. If you simply want to exclude imports from OPEC countries but not Canada or others, then you could get maybe five to six years of OPEC independence, although OPEC would still control price. At any rate, even the best scenario is hardly a long-term solution.

Nor is it a quick fix, since as mentioned earlier, it wouldn't all stream into the marketplace at once, making its effects even less noticeable. Even at peak production, we'd still likely have to obtain OPEC oil, and as mentioned earlier, OPEC still affects oil prices worldwide. One last thing to consider is that oil demand will certainly rise worldwide in the time it would take for ANWR to become productive, therefore raising the price of oil as well. If oil demand also rises domestically (despite recent drops) as population continues to grow, that would also lower the percentage of our demand that ANWR could supply. All in all, drilling in Alaska wouldn't give us energy independence, nor appreciably lower gas prices, so the tiny gains are not worth the much bigger problems drilling would cause.

I believe the hope most people have for ANWR drilling is that it will enable us to maintain our current levels of consumption, rather than reducing them through conservation and alternative sources. With global warming and other environmental concerns, coupled with political instability from oil dependence, do we really want to increase the amount of fossil fuels burned in the world by drilling more? Reducing demand seems like a better idea.

A further philosophical issue is also present here. I don’t think our nation’s natural resources exist to enrich private industries. The main benefit to drilling is oil company profits. They should be fairly compensated for doing work that advances the public good, but the age of the oil tycoon should be put to rest. The deep and well-founded suspicion many people have regarding this issue, including myself, is that it is being pushed by an oil lobby seeking more profit, and isn’t really a long-term solution to our energy problems. The oil industry would be the big winner, not the people. ANWR drilling is a ruse that makes politicians appear to be taking action to combat high gas prices, while also appeasing the interests of the private industry that funds them.

My Thirty Cents Worth of Environmental Tips

2009-02-18T17:13:00.001-06:00

30 Environmental Ideas

Tips that almost any monkey can do.

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2007

By no means is this a complete list, and it is somewhat random. Also remember that nobody is perfect. While I try to do a most of these things, some of them are harder than others. You can’t beat yourself up too much for giving in to a poorly chosen vanity purchase, taking a road trip for fun, or taking the occasional long shower. You have to live your life. The idea is to create lifestyle changes while still allowing for some indulgences. It’s not a competition for green bragging rights or to feel superior to the lowly wasters. That said, it is a good thing to always seek out ways to make less of a negative impact on the environment, and to hold yourself to a higher standard of responsibility and morality. Even if you do not plan on having children, you are still part of the human race, and you can’t put your own selfish interests above those of future generations. Lifestyle choices and the choices you make in the marketplace express and enact your ethical convictions.

1. Recycle. After reducing the amount of goods you consume, and if you cannot reuse them, a large portion of your household waste can be recycled. Sadly there has been somewhat of a backlash fueled by sensationalism and misinformation against recycling recently, most notably by the magicians Penn and Teller. On their Bullshit show they are noted for oversimplifying issues and picking and choosing information to support their own biases. For example, Chaz Miller from the National Solid Wastes Management Association was on their show denouncing recycling, and has publicly objected to how his comments were deliberately taken out of context and edited dishonestly. While I do agree with some of the positions Penn and Teller take on the show (though maybe not how they support them), often they are disingenuous, politically motivated, and completely wrong. At any rate, most of the claims of the anti-recyclers can be readily debunked, though to do so here would take too much time and space.

Basically, the benefits of recycling are large. There is the reduction of space need for landfills and the reduction of toxins leaching and gases escaping from landfills. In most cases it reduces the energy needed to manufacture new products, and diminishes the need for mining or obtaining new raw materials. Recycling paper uses half the water and produces almost 75% less air pollution than paper made from raw materials. Recycling paper also saves trees and reduces the electricity and oil used. Glass can be almost indefinitely recycled using less energy than producing it from raw materials, while also reducing air and water pollution. It is, of course, even better to reuse it if possible. Aluminum cans may also be recycled with great efficiency as well with immense saving in energy and resources. Plastics pose a more difficult problem, since the recyclability depends upon the type of plastic, and the sorting of plastics is expensive. Nevertheless, some plastics can be recycled with similar benefits to the aforementioned materials, and the markets for recycled PET and HDPE are growing. Also, remember that plastic is a synthetic polymer derived from petroleum (non-renewable resource), and it does not biodegrade. So it will be with us for a long time, generally photo-degrading with exposure to UVA light over long periods of time.

2. Shorter showers, low-flow showerheads. Low-flow showerheads can save water and money. An average shower used 25 gallons of water, and if you are like me one the best things in the world is a long, hot shower. However, that is a complete waste. Try taking more “navy” showers, which are short showers where the water is shut off while you soap up, then kicked back on for rinsing off. You can buy super-cheap shut-off valves at Lowe’s that screw on behind the showerhead to make this easier. That way you can kick it on and off without having to re-adjust your water temperature.

3. Low-flow toilets & selective flushing. Old toilets can use 3.5 to 5 gallons per flush, while new low-flow toilets might use 1.5 gallons. It is completely ridiculous to use even one and a half gallons of potable water to flush away a little urine, so if you rent your living space or can’t afford to swap your toilet out for a new one, selective flushing is in order. If you are really gung-ho you can switch to a grey water system where you remove the u-bend under the sink and capture the water from washing your hands in a bucket. Then use the bucket to flush the toilet.

4. Turn down water heater. This is easy and almost everyone can do it, whether you rent or not. The ideal temperature is 120 degrees for most households, which will save you money and energy, as well as make the water heater last longer. For every 10 degrees you lower it, you can expect a 3 – 5% reduction in energy costs, and often they come set at 140 degrees. You may even be able to go lower if you have a small household with low water needs. If you own your house, maybe consider and on-demand water heater (also known as an instantaneous or tankless water heater). These make hot water as needed, rather than keep a continuous supply of it on reserve (with the associated energy losses). Spontaneous water heaters do have a slightly limited flow if you have multiple uses at once or a large family, but for most people they will work just fine. Also, even high demand households can simply add more heater units, which also will grant larger savings.

5. Weatherize your house. There are many levels of doing this ranging from the cheap methods (plastic and thick curtains over the windows) to more expensive but worthwhile methods (new windows, insulation, etc.). Winterization and efficient design can dramatically reduce your heating bills as well as emissions from coal, woods, or gas combustion. Similarly, there are many ways you can prepare your house for the hot summer to reduce air conditioning usage. The ideas and techniques for weatherizing your house are many and can be found through a simple web search. However, I think one thing most often ignored is how totally wimpy people have become in just the last few generations. Why not endure more of the ambient temperatures when they are not too extreme? Your body will adjust, just like poor people all over the world do, and our ancestors did for thousands of years. It is not so bad to actually experience seasons, rather than live in a climate controlled cocoon, divorced from the natural world. Here’s another idea: dress for the weather! When the temperature is 15 degrees, do not expect to run around your house in bare feet and a speedo.

6. Turn off water while brushing teeth. This is actually one of my biggest pet peeves: seeing people leave the faucet on while they brush their teeth, comb their hair, shave, etc. This wastes immense amounts of water, and serves no purpose. It is the easiest thing in the world. Simply turn on the water to rinse your brush, and not while it is in your mouth. Even filling the basin to shave can save a ton of water. Similarly, fill up the sink to do dishes, rather than wash each dish individually under running water. Actually, that was a tough habit for me to correct, but after much self-flagellation I’ve changed my brutish ways.

At any rate, most people don’t understand just how precious and limited our water actually is. Even in the U.S. we have huge water supply problems throughout the Southwest: Lake Mead is rapidly dropping, large metropolitan areas are facing serious shortages, farmers and cities are coming into conflict, the Colorado River is drained completely dry before it reaches its mouth, and so on. If you think you are living in a state where water supply is not a problem, guess again. Most freshwater sources are being used unsustainably, and once millions of people in the SW lose their supply, where do you think they’ll look next? Many Western communities are already trying to dip their buckets in Great Lakes H2O, and so far are being denied. Desalination might be another solution if it weren’t so expensive and energy intensive. Furthermore, the immense Ogallala Aquifer that underlies a huge portion of the Great Plains and supplies almost 30% of irrigation water for crops in the “world’s breadbasket” is being rapidly depleted. Unfortunately, this aquifer has an immensely slow recharge rate, and the water in it took thousands of years to accumulate. What will we do when Midwest crops cannot be grown? In many areas over parts of the aquifer, that prospect is not too far off. Water issues like these (and many much worse) face people across the globe, and they will only be exacerbated by global warming. Complicating the issue further is the privatization of water sources as unscrupulous capitalists see profit in demand for this basic commodity, and cause even greater hardship and poverty for people in developing nations. Or they bottle water from publicly-owned sources, depleting them and making a fortune selling that water in convenience stores around the country.

7. Get a dishwasher. Consider that an efficient dishwasher only operated when full can actually use less water than hand washing. In fact, dishwashers can use 66% less water… and less soap as well. It is important that you get a good one, though, since the need to pre-rinse greatly reduces the savings. Also, don’t use any drying function they may have. Just let them dry naturally or towel them off to save energy. The good news is that doing the environmentally-friendly thing lets you avoid doing one of the most miserable of all chores.

8. Avoid excessive purchasing and packaging. In the U.S. we are the most wasteful society in history, with an average of 4.4 pounds of trash produced per person every day. Start thinking of how much garbage your household generates, then multiply that by roughly 110 million, which is the number of households in the United States. Ask yourself whether we can continue indefinitely extracting resources and creating that much waste. The U.S. produces more than 1/3 of the world’s garbage. It is estimated that we use up approximately 10 metric tons of raw materials per person every year in the form of consumer goods. On average, most of these materials are disposed of as waste within 6 months of extraction. Think of how many unnecessary material items you purchase, and also how wastefully they are packaged. Then there are all the individually wrapped processed foods we buy. It is better to buy in bulk, and/or try to avoid overly processed and packaged meals as much as possible. Also, look for products sold in biodegradable or even recycled materials.

9. Use canvas shopping bags. This is very important because both plastic and paper bags are bad for the environment in different but equally bad ways. Currently way more plastic bags are used, so I will only discuss them. Hundreds of billions are used worldwide, with billions of those are blown across the planet into the oceans, becoming “urban tumbleweed,” and finding their way to the most remote corners of the world. They take extremely long amount of time to degrade and like other plastics, they leach toxins into soils and water. They also kill large numbers of marine animals, and it is estimated that 12 million barrels of oil is used every year to make these bags. Though they can be recycled, only about 3% are because it is not efficient or economical at all to do so. Many countries have at least partially banned plastic bags, including India and South Africa. Others have levied “bag taxes” or a “plastax” to discourage their use. Some communities in the U.S. have adopted these measures as well, and hopefully more will. In the meantime, it is an extremely easy thing you can do to help the environment. Simply take your bags with you to the store. I find keeping them in the car, or hanging them on the doorknob so you don’t forget works really well.

10. Use public transportation, bike, or walk. This is one of the most important things you can do. Riding a bicycle or walking will help you stay in shape while avoiding pollution and oil consumption. Nobody walks in America, and it shows in our obesity rates. According to the Center for Disease control over 30% of Americans are obese. Not overweight, but actually obese. But health benefits are not the main advantages of driving less and walking or biking more. Reducing the amount of miles we drive lowers photochemical smog and emissions of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Transportation accounts for 55% of air pollution in the United States.

Also, whenever possible, try to use public transportation. Not only is it good for the environment, but you won’t have to deal with traffic, it is cheap if you buy a monthly pass, and your work may even subsidize the cost. It is hard to fathom why every individual in a city needs to drive everywhere separately. If more people used public transportation, perhaps it would improve in this country to the level of many European countries.

11. CFL bulbs. Compact fluorescent bulbs may cost more than regular bulbs, but they last ten times longer, which makes them cheaper than regular incandescent bulbs in the long run since they save so much electricity. Some people have raised concerns about the minute amounts of mercury still in them, which does require proper disposal for the bulbs. Stores like Ikea and Home Depot will accept them, and you can look up options in your area at earth911.com. The amount of mercury in the bulbs has been greatly reduced and is now completely minuscule. Furthermore, unless you break the bulb, the mercury does not get into the air or water at all. Coal-fired power plants, which provide about 50% of the electricity to Americans, are the number one way mercury is emitted into the air and water. Using less electricity with CFLs then actually prevents more mercury emissions, along with carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and so on.

12. Support eco-friendly businesses. Companies respond to consumer demands, and only educated consumers can make the necessary demands, not only for the environment, but for health and human rights. Just as it is important for voters to understand the issues and the candidates, it is important for consumers to understand the corporations and businesses they support. There are patriotic duties and capitalistic duties. Corporations, as purely profit-seeking entities, do not generally behave ethically on their own, and they need not only government oversight but consumer oversight as well. Obviously you cannot look up every single store and product, nor can you always avoid buying from unethical or unsustainable businesses. However, you can certainly learn some things about places you frequent and direct the bulk of your money to companies you actually want to support. If you are really motivated you can also write or call businesses you have trouble with to politely voice concerns over their practices, letting them know why they have lost your business. The more people who give feedback, the more they realize the demand they have to respond to. Even if you just ask about certain areas of concern, they begin to see that this is a concern among their consumers. You also need to be cynical when evaluating their P.R. There is such thing as “green-washing,” which uses positive spin and misrepresentation, and will highlight perfunctory changes that appeal to concerned customers.

13. Turn off the lights. This one is so obvious, but bears mentioning just like my mother used to mention to me... daily. Unlike generations before mine, we no longer are very conscious of our energy usage and tend to leave multiple things on throughout the house. I am certainly guilty of this, but I do try to turn off TVs, computer monitors (even if I let the PC sleep), lights in rooms I am not in, fans, etc.

14. Fight phantom energy loss. Up to 5 - 8% of your electric bill is for energy lost through your electronic devices, such as cell phone chargers, DVD players, TVs, computer monitors, power tools, battery chargers, etc. This “phantom energy” occurs even when these things are not in use, nor being charged. However, it can be minimized by unplugging these types of electronics, or using power strips that can be clicked off when they are not in use. It is a pain and difficult to always remember, but it saves energy and money too. Hopefully in the future more appliances are designed not to shed energy unnecessarily in this way.

15. No more bottled water. Bottled water is one of the most ridiculous trends imaginable. Most often it is just filtered tap water no better and sometimes even worse than regular tap water. Nevertheless, people are psychologically addicted to it. If filtered water is what you crave, just buy a water filter for your home tap and cut down on cost and waste. Think of the illogic of transporting filtered tap water across the country to drink it, burning all that gas and releasing all though hydrocarbons and other pollutants, when you could simply filter it yourself. The best thing is to buy reusable and recyclable water bottles that you can carry with you. Also, I could find no credible support the claim that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, such as those used for sodas and sports drinks, are harmful if reused.

I don’t mean to just pick on bottled water, since many products come in plastic bottles and containers and should be reduced whenever possible. (For many of these high-calorie, low- nutrition drinks the reduction will improve your health as well.) One reason to cut them out is the energy and resources used to create the plastics (which are derived from oil and natural gas at petrochemical plants) and manufacture the bottles. Another is the problem of recycling and disposal. Plastics constitute a large and growing segment of our municipal solid waste, do not biodegrade, and account for about 9/10 of the garbage in the oceans. So many water bottles and other plastics have been discarded all over the planet that there exists a “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” which is a giant mass of mostly plastic trash the size of Texas, which originated mostly from land sources and accumulated due to terrestrial winds ocean currents in that region. There is no way this could be cleaned up without inconceivable expense, and so the 100 million tons of plastics photo-degrade in the sun, breaking down and entering the food chain.

16. Get an electric kettle. This may seem like an odd one for the list, but really these things heat water much faster and more efficiently than a kettle on a gas range. Many other minor appliances can yield similar savings in money and energy, while also delivering convenience. For instance, I love my rice maker.

17. Buy Energy Star appliances. This really is a no-brainer. Even if they are more expensive, you will most likely save money in the long run. The Energy Star program run by the E.P.A. and the Department of Energy certifies that a product exceeds minimum efficiency standards by a certain percentage, depending upon the type of product. However, some appliances exceed further than others, so it is worth doing the homework.

18. Get off mailing lists. Try and reduce your junk mail and the things you sign up for just to get mail, such as catalogs for companies you never buy from or could check out online. In fact, try and do your banking and other interactions online rather than through the post office. This reduces the large amount of energy and resources involved in paper manufacture, as well as the fossil fuels consumed during transport.

19. Use unbleached and/or recycled paper products. This is closely related to #18, but is important when considering that paper mills are serious offenders for polluting land, air, and water. Chlorine is commonly used in most paper manufacture, and it leads to the formation of hazardous dioxins that are emitted into the environment. These dioxins are persistent (do not easily break down), and are known to cause cancer and reproductive harm.

20. No sandwich baggies. Things like plastic baggies, cling wraps, etc. are not generally recyclable. Typically, neither is the Tupperware many people use as an alternative recycled, but since they are reused many, many times, they are a wiser choice to avoid the waste, energy, and pollution associated with the manufacture, transportation, and disposal of these and other plastics. Similarly, you should avoid Styrofoam.

21. Don’t waste food. Americans waste more food than most people in sub-Saharan Africa eat. In the year 2000, for the first time ever, there was same amount of overweight people in the world as there was malnourished and starving people. There are a lot of social, economic, and political issues involved in getting food to the needy, but it should disgust you that we scrape more off our plates than millions of less fortunate people eat, and it really highlights how oblivious we are. Furthermore, the growing, harvesting, packaging, and transportation of food all require enormous amounts of energy and resources. Try not to buy or prepare more than you can eat, and be careful about not purchasing too many perishables that will rot before they are used.

22. Clotheslines. Seriously, your dryer is one of the biggest energy users in your home. You can set up clotheslines inside or outside, and drying garments this way actually increases their lifespan. You can even hang clothes on hangers on the line so that when they dry you just move them to the closet. You won’t need to iron them, which unless you pay close attention to when the dryer quits, you often need to do.

23. Be less trendy. Don’t get new cell phone if you don’t need one - same with PCs, etc. Getting rid of perfectly good electronics, clothes, furniture, appliances, etc. just because they are no longer fashionable or you are tired of them is usually not a responsible thing to do. Too often people (myself included) are enticed by the promise of consumer ecstasy from shiny new products with pointless features and slick new looks. Even if you donate your old items, you are supporting the creation of more products, which would be fine (since that helps the economy) if they could be manufactured with minimal environmental impact and were completely recyclable, but most often that is not the case. Right now we are in a slow economic transition from capitalism based on perpetual growth and unlimited resources, to a more realistic marketplace that seeks a level of growth or stability that can be maintained. This means, among other things, that the many products designed not to last long, to be discarded after a short useful period, or be outmoded quickly are going to decline. In its place we’ll have an economy that places less stress upon ownership, and manufacturers will be held responsible for their products from the cradle to the grave. We’ll move to an economic model where consumers essentially lease many of the items they currently own, paying an affordable fee for the use of products that will be fixed and updated on a regular basis. The company will be responsible for the uptake of the expired or dysfunctional product, so they will be motivated to make it both durable and recyclable. There will benefits for business and consumers, as well as the environment, and our philosophical affinity for ownership will become more and more archaic and childish.

24. Buy used stuff. Make Craigslist your best friend. Go to thrift stores and swap meets. Take hand-me-downs. It all helps reduce the huge demand for new products and saves you lots of money. Of course, reducing demand is not popular in this economic crisis, but living beyond our means is one of the main things that got us into it in the first place.

25. Use “green” cleaners. Household chemical products are significant sources of indoor air pollution as well as important sources of soil and water contamination. A little research and experimentation might be called for to find the safer ones that still actually work, but it is worthwhile to do so. In addition, we should all seek to use less chemicals, herbicides, fertilizers, insecticides, etc. It is vitally important to read the labels and check websites for proper use and disposal as well, since most of them are dangerous if handled improperly, and pose serious environmental risks.

26. Drive sensibly. If you want to save fuel, don’t accelerate quickly with a lead foot or remain on the gas when it isn’t necessary, requiring rapid braking at traffic lights. In fact, driving fast burns significantly more gas, which is why the 55 mph speed limit was instituted in the first place. The Department of Energy says every mph over 60 adds an additional 24 cents per gallon on average. Driving more sensibly and less aggressively can actually save you lots of fuel, with savings generally estimated at 30%. It will also make you less likely to be in an accident and/or make people hate your guts. There are also lots of other driving tips to get better mileage that you can find, such as maintaining tire pressure or removing extra cargo.

27. Eat less animal products. The ecological impact of a person eating at the carnivore level is 10 times that of a person eating at the herbivore level. Every time one animal eats another, 90% of the energy is lost from the original feedstock (i.e. grains). This means that most of our agriculture land is devoted to food just to feed our livestock. This creates large environmental problems with pollution from feedlots, over-grazing, erosion, runoff, etc. Also, the staggering amounts of cattle we raise in this country are a huge source of methane gas, since they are ruminants, and methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times worse than carbon dioxide. The EPA reports that cattle emit 5.5 metric tons of methane per year in the U.S., while the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported in 2006 that livestock accounted for more greenhouse gases than motor vehicles. Also consider that rainforests, which are the world’s best carbon sinks (and should be preserved for many other reasons as well), are commonly cleared for cattle ranching. That compounds the global warming with deforestation increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the cattle providing ample methane.

28. Buy a fuel efficient car. This is the most obvious of all. North American’s constitute only 5% of the world’s population, yet we account for 25% of worldwide oil consumption. Don’t be a douchebag and buy more car than you need because of some personal insecurity or vanity. And don’t drive three blocks because you are too lazy to walk. In fact, if you don’t need a car, don’t own one at all. You’ll save tons of money on insurance, maintenance, repairs, registration, tickets, parking, and gas. You’ll also reduce our foreign oil dependence.

29. Buy only shade-grown, rainforest certified coffee. You should also buy only Fair Trade coffee. Coffee is the world’s most traded commodity after oil, and Arabica (the most common) coffee needs to be grown in the shade. The shade can be provided by indigenous trees that also provide vital migratory bird habitat and absorb carbon, or it can be under man-made roofs that have no ecological benefits. Rainforest Alliance certification also makes sure workers get treated and paid well and sustainable agriculture is practiced (preventing erosion and pesticide use). By supporting fair wages and socially responsible coffee companies, you are also protecting the environment from deforestation. Less poverty leads to less burning and clear-cutting of forests and depletion of soils, which cannot fully recover even if they were reforested.

30. Donate to green causes, invest in green businesses, vote and advocate for environmental issues. One of the best ways to protect the environment is to support initiatives to build green, raise emissions standards, encourage investment in renewable energy and green technology, etc. If you want to donate to a green cause or invest in a green business, look up their annual report first, which are available on-line for most non-profits and corporations, and see how they are using their money and what their goals are.

Epilogue:

Our future trajectory holds for humanity the continued worsening of serious water shortages around the globe, accelerated loss of arable lands, the many devastating effects of global warming, dead zones and dying reefs in the oceans, contamination of surface and ground water, increased pollution in the air, etc. Cancers and other diseases are also on the rise and are directly related to what we’ve done to the environment. These are serious problems without easy answers. While some degree of this is already locked in and happening, all hope is definitely not lost yet. It is true that the government needs to take the lead in preventing industrial pollution and setting stricter emissions standards, and that nations around the globe need to cooperate to reduce emissions and promote sustainable development. The business and manufacturing sectors also need to take more responsibility for their products and processes while finding new ways to profit from green technologies. However, none of these things should be used to deflect personal responsibility. Consumers create the demand that businesses respond to, while voters and social movements create the forces that motivate government. Changing habits at the individual level can also have a huge direct impact, preventing an impressive amount of resource depletion, air, water and soil pollution, and all manner of waste production. For every person that decides not to be a bystander, but to actually make personal changes, the positive effect becomes larger. I am not suggesting that you or I alone can save the world, but it is of paramount importance that we do our part, rather than seeing ourselves as somehow insulated from the biosphere and the negative impact of our actions. Too many of us think we are not responsible for any lifestyle change until it is easy, cheap, and convenient. We pass the buck to future generations or to the scientists who will save us. Doing the right thing is not always the path of least resistance, but most of the positive changes that you can make actually are extremely simple, and many will save you money as well.

Sure, alternative technologies will hopefully be created in time, and maybe some of the damage can be averted and recovered from. I would not argue against the benefit of research and develop, or the exponential speed of it (though I doubt that this logarithmic growth can be maintained indefinitely). Nevertheless, we can’t afford to wait for the techno-messiah; technology cannot be counted on as the inevitable savior. In the 50s, people just assumed that the safety and disposal problems with nuclear power would be sorted out in the future. While some advances have surely been made, we are still grappling with those problems we had 50 years ago, as well as dealing with radioactive contamination of sites around the globe. It will be some incredible scientific advances that reverse desertification, remove greatly increased amounts of carbon dioxide from the air (which stays as a greenhouse gas for about 100 years), or bring back extinct species (current extinction rates are up to 1000 times the natural background rates, and this has huge impacts on food chains and ecosystems). And these are just a few of our problems. I have no doubt that we can transition off of fossil fuels, but the questions remains whether we can do it fast enough, how much damage has already been done, and how do we prevent environmental destruction and pollution in developing countries. I don’t think people realize just how dire the global situation is. Far from being too alarmist, many scientists say the predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change were instead overly conservative. At any rate, science and technology are certainly vital means for combating climate change and other environmental problems, but there are other social, governmental, economic, and individual components that are also important. We can’t afford to rely on one to the exclusion of the others.

The idea that humans cannot cause real damage to the earth is the most irritatingly stupid myth out there. It is a sort of false modesty that drips from the mouths of people who wish to not acknowledge global warming, either for financial reasons or to preserve their ignorant bliss. There are many examples from the past where we can witness serious destruction of ecosystems, massive human-caused extinction of species, and even dire situations where we actually took action to stop the rapid progression of a serious global threat (i.e. CFCs and the destruction of the stratospheric ozone). Even if you concede that the earth will always return to a condition hospitable to human beings (even though for most of its existence it has not been), what guarantee do you have that this return to Eden will happen within a time frame while humans still exist? If we cause atmospheric conditions to change to where life on the planet is seriously endangered, what makes people think it will magically change back to pristine levels just so we can survive? To argue that we have no impact on weather, climate, or ecosystems is completely absurd. The more you learn about the science behind global warming, the more ridiculous the detractors sound. It is a sad truth that the average person will choose to believe whatever allows them to live their life as usual. To maintain this belief, ignorance is essential, as is the support of “authorities” who reassure them. Fortunately, this is changing, although not quickly enough.

Under Bush we had enormous rollbacks on environmental protections at every level, and if I itemized all of them it would make you physically ill. For instance, the EPA under Bush carried out a policy of non-enforcement and no new rule-making. One of the things they got sued for during that period was non-enforcement of the Clean Air Act, and in 2007 the Supreme Court found them at fault for not regulating carbon dioxide. The EPA then tried to initiate some new emissions standards but that were halted by the White House. So far, however, Obama has supported California’s right to set tough emission standards (which was also fought by the Bush Administration), and the new administrator at the EPA is currently considering how to regulate CO2. Also, Obama has made commitments toward promoting fuel efficiency, weatherizing homes and government buildings, converting the federal fleet to hybrids, and investing in green technology, so the future is not looking quite so bad as it did just a few months ago. However, this is just the beginning, and should not reassure us back into complacence.

Oh, and one other thing… you probably don’t need to water and treat your lawn. Nobody cares how green and full of chemicals it is. You need a more interesting hobby.

Thoughts on 21 Grams

2009-02-09T12:43:00.003-06:00

21 Grams

Alejandro González Iñárritu (2003)

This movie has some gorgeous camerawork, especially between the seemingly randomly collated scenes, with the mesmerizing bird shots being my favorite. It also has some excellent acting on the part of Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro. Somehow, though, it failed to fully excite me. I think one reason is that it is almost suffocatingly bleak, which really isn't a fair criticism, since it deals with some very hard subject matter and ruminates upon some of the inevitable tragedies of human existence. Indeed, it would be nearly impossible to make this film in a way that wasn't depressing. The only comic relief comes from Del Toro's giant Jesus truck, which may seem heavy-handed to some, but not so much if you live in a red state. The musical score really adds to the psychological effect of a cinematographic elegy, and is almost maddeningly subtle… almost seeming judgmental of the characters with its somber condescension. The characters, for their part, are generally prone to emotion and folly, minus any humor, although Sean Penn's character makes one conscious attempt with a joke about kidneys, but his attempts at levity and charm came off mostly creepy to me. The one part where he was genuinely, if frustratingly, funny is when he chooses the most inappropriate time imaginable to tell a woman he was the transplant recipient of her husband's heart. On the other hand, I was rather touched by Naomi Watts' hospital scene, which is almost unwatchably devastating.

I think what bothers most people about this movie, and even me to an extent, was how the plot is revealed out of sequence. To be sure, many other movies do this, but a lot of people found this nonlinear method to be rather contrived in 21 Grams. While I didn't have a major problem with it, the temporally disrupted scene progression did produce a distancing effect, which coupled with the alienating music, made the viewer more aware of the filmmakers than the characters. I don't even necessarily have a problem with this, but something here made the chopped narrative seem pretentious and banal. That said, I think I understand why they developed the story this way. As you watch the film you get echoes future events, and you subsequently learn how the characters get there. Instead of the plot advancing with causes leading to effects, you get a sense of randomness and fate that undermines human free will. You see the effects first, then understand the causes, suggesting that things happen despite how we try to control them. In the end, it is hard to tell whether the film decides there was a reason to it all or not: ultimately unsure whether there is a perduring soul that survives to redeem the suffering of humans. This uncertainty is not at all a failure, and it would be deeply disingenuous to resolve the existential dilemma of humankind in a Hollywood movie. At the same time, the movie's cocksure subtlety almost makes its intellectual meanderings too diffuse, leading many to believe its structure, as well as the plight of the characters, was pointless. I agree that maybe the movie did not say enough, and despite my preference for nuanced understatement over facile explication, the film does feel like it could have used a tad more provocation to justify the cut-up technique. While theoretically compelling, it wears thin by the end, seeming to bask in its own cleverness while partially robbing the film of its inherent drama. I left this film feeling marginally challenged with only mild satisfaction. I hope that is not how I leave the world.

Thoughts on Marie Antoinette

2009-02-03T12:41:00.001-06:00

Marie Antoinette

Sofia Coppola (2006)

As much as this movie is maligned by fans and critics, I didn't think it was that awful. Though far from perfect, I felt the 80's sort of New Wave soundtrack synched up surprisingly well, linking the excesses and decadence of both periods nicely. Only one glaringly awful song finds its way in the film, but it is canceled out by Siouxie & the Banshees' "Hong Kong Garden" being done as Baroque chamber music. Also wonderful was the lyrically appropriate use of Gang of Four's "Natural's Not In It" in the opening credits, which set up the dissonance between Rousseau's philosophy and the vain pursuits of petty leisure class. It is interesting to me how both the 80's middle class and 18th century French aristocracy come off as sort of innocent, almost completely oblivious to the horrors of the world that they are complicit in perpetuating.

Marie Antoinette was not the villain she was made out to be, but neither was she a saint. At first I couldn't really tell if this film was ruthless critique or a romantic ode, which is a nice ambivalence to maintain. The film is mostly tastefully understated, and though a bit slow in parts, the many beautiful shots make up for the pacing problems. It intentionally avoids heavy politics that would give better historical contextualization, with Coppola instead giving the film a narrow subjectivity unusual for a period piece. Rather than stodgy, overly dramatic characters, there is a sort of exotic banality to her existence that humanizes Marie Antoinette rather than sensationalizes her. In fact, the movie undersells much of what it depicts, while at the same time being surprisingly true to actual events and details in her life. I think the most nauseating aspect of the movie is the repulsive and limp romance between Marie and the Swedish Count Hans Axel von Fersen. At the same time, the most tiresome is Louis XVI's reluctance to fornicate with his wife for reasons unknown. The viewer feels acutely the frustration and confusion the Kristen Dunst's character must have felt.

In keeping with the film's paradoxically modest depiction of extravagance, as well as its subtle tone, it ends before some of the most dramatic events in Marie Antoinette's life. We don't see her best friend's head impaled on a spike, her young son's (most likely) false allegations of sexual abuse by his mother, or Marie Antoinette's beheading at the guillotine. Instead, that sordidness and tragedy belonging to melodrama (and in this case, reality) are left out in favor of only showing the visceral non-reality that she inhabited for many years of her life. It is a flight of fancy, the last lavish dawdle of a dying aristocracy. We know it must end, but we don't have to watch just how harshly.

By having every scene remain closely tied to main character, exploring the small but well-ornamented world she inhabited, you can almost long for the sort of luxuriant opulence that she basked in, nearly able to ignore the deprivation and debt that supported it. I think the myopic focus of the film is not just to bid empathy for a wrongly vilified figure, but to also simply bask in the allure of extreme wealth and indulgence along with her. The world of the common man is far removed and hardly considered by the queen until it is too late. Even when she tones down some of the traditional pretenses of her station, it is with an unshakable penchant for regal elegance, and the camera mirrors this quixotic urbanity. When she tries to cast of high society in favor of nature, she is rebuked by her own deep-seated sense of nobility that runs counter to Romanticism. We also see the additional contradiction of her oddly brazen naiveté, and come to understand how it keeps her largely unaware of who she is and what she represents to the people. In one scene, a lack of applause takes her completely by surprise, and later, the arrival of the angry proletariat seemingly comes out of nowhere. France had turned against her, and you almost feel bad for this woman who had so long savored the idle pursuits of royal privilege. If the film had kept on for another two years, though, you would have REALLY felt bad for her.

Why Would I Defend Bill Maher?

2009-02-01T12:53:00.001-06:00

Religulous

Larry Charles (2008)

I really enjoyed this film. Maher is a great provocateur of a comedian, and I respect that. He also makes many good points. I have read a lot of the negative responses to his (and Larry Charles') film Religulous, and many of them were logically flawed and/or unfair, so I figured I'd respond to some of the statements by the film's detractors. It is not the first time I've defended Bill Maher (in emails and at beer parties, at least). If you recall, Bush's first Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, after hearing Bill Maher's statements quoted to him by a reporter, told the media that Americans "need to watch what they say"... and inappropriate and absolutely chilling statement from the White House, which incidentally speaks volumes about the general mileau of the Bush era. Bill Maher had simply concurred with a guest that however warped, heinous, and repugnant the 9/11 terrorists were, there is nothing "cowardly" about their bold and fatalistic actions against us, whereas "lobbing cruise missiles from 2000 miles away" could certainly be considered more cowardly. (It bears mentioning here that Maher is not anti-military in any way.) Soon after his comments, his show was canceled. So much for Freedom of Speech.

Anyway, here is me going down the list of critiques I've been reading about Religulous online, along with my own two cents thrown onto the donation plate...

1. Bill Maher delivers and ill-mannered, hateful, condescending, closed-minded tirade.

I have read this a lot and I can see why, to a degree. When he confronts people with the ridiculousness of their beliefs he does not take particular care to mask his own incredulity. I admire his courage to portray his honest reactions to their faces, rather than doing what most doubters do: bite their tongues and listen with patronizing nods. Sure, there definitely is a level of mockery here, but the film is not only a cathartic rant for atheist viewers, it also challenges the notion of religious beliefs being on some sort of hallowed ground that can never be challenged or attacked like any other belief or idea would be. What are the grounds for this privilege? Is it because religious people are especially sensitive and might react adversely if their ideas are challenged, or [gasp] even lightly mocked? Apparently some of them are. I am glad this movie doesn't pussyfoot around and bend over backwards to be overly sensitive and accommodating. Nobody is going to physically attack religious people because of this film, or claim that they shouldn't have any rights. It is just challenging their peculiar ideas that aren't challenged enough in our sheepish mainstream culture. Really, I don't even think that it was all that condescending. Isn't it more condescending to gently pat them on the back and smile at their quaint beliefs… like when toddlers talk about Santa Claus? In fact, most of the mockery here is just inherent to the questions he asks, or how he summarizes bible stories with unmasked wonder that anyone could find them to be factual. He seems offensive primarily because it is impolite to point out the ludicrous nature of these ideas.

2. This film just preaches to the choir.

I admit I went to this movie primarily to get a good laugh. Passion of the Christ appealed mostly to those with strong Christian convictions already, yet they seemed to truly bask in the agony and bloodshed of that flick. I, on the other hand, just wanted the misanthropic pick-me-up promised by a film that digs deep down into the freaky folds of the faithful majority. It is powerful dark humor when you think about the absurdity of what these (sometimes) otherwise intelligent humans believe, and how those beliefs continue to impact the world in profoundly negative ways.

I am not quite ready to sign off on the notion that it won't change anyone's mind, though. Of course no one will have an instant epiphany and renounce god as they leave the theater, but the film is undeniably provocative. The questions it asks are valid, and the burden is on the believer to answer them. People often say political movies or films about social issues only reinforce the positions of their existing adherents. That may be true to a large degree, but film, art, and other media do instigate thought and discussion. People do change their minds over time, and even a slapstick jab at religion by a polarizing figure can initiate, or continue to propel, a viewer down a path of intellectual inquiry. They might patch up the god-sized holes in their belief system, or shed it altogether. Sure, many people found Maher to be kind of a jerk. Even I did, but in a loveable and sincere way (I find jerks funnier than idiots). However, it is clearly not enough for the religious viewer, or the viewer sitting on the theological fence, to simply state: "Bill Maher is a mean man, so I can discredit everything he said."

Of course, the movie is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with theological indoctrination and religious hegemony worldwide. There are many books written that outline in detail the numerous critiques of faith and religion that are alluded to (or not) in Religulous. If the film barely touches on the tenets of belief, it also barely touches on the arguments against them.

As for the way the film was cut, there may be a valid point about over-editing, as well as some unnecessary crassness hurting the message in parts. A fish joke about pussy was a particular groaner for me. At least it is often funny and interesting in other parts, though. Ever try and watch the videos that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses give out? Yawn City. I think that's why Passion of the Christ did so well: it satisfied the Romanesque bloodlust that most zealots demand in their entertainment.

Interestingly, when I saw this movie at 2:30 on a Tuesday afternoon, the theater was packed full of people, most of whom were senior citizens. They laughed and I could hear them discussing things as they left the theater. Sure, they could have all been avowed atheists beforehand, but I suspect at least some of them were old faithfuls with a few questions spewing off inside their heads.

The biggest effect I think this movie will have overall will be the drawing of atheists and agnostics out of the woodwork. Many are afraid of being socially ostracized by friends and family, or discriminated against if they "come out." Perhaps more will be emboldened by this unrepentant comedic blasphemy.

3. Bill Maher doesn't understand the religion he attacks.

Some people say he proffers a facile reading of the scriptures. At least he has read them. Much like how most Constitutionalists have never read the Constitution, most religious adherents have never read the bible. It seems to me that more atheists I know have read it than the Christians I know. Followers simply learn a loose working interpretation of the scriptures from a church authority… if that. Naturally, Maher has done his homework and understands the book just fine. Even if his questions seem naïve and basic at times, they are nonetheless valid and merit quite a bit of squirmy theological rationalization to answer (more about that in the next section). The real problem people have with Maher is that he treats biblical concepts without the reverence and kid gloves that the pious demand.

4. Bill Maher only spoke to fanatical weirdos and not genuine theologians.

Why wouldn't he discuss these matters in depth with theologians, or more scientists for that matter? Everyone loves hearing detailed arguments about Pascal's Wager and the ontological proofs devised by St. Anselm of Canterbury, right?

Actually, I do enjoy those sorts of discussions, but remember that this is a movie aiming, first and foremost, to be entertaining and provocative. I would argue that it at least succeeds in the latter. Whether it is funny or entertaining is up to individual tastes. I thought it was. I agree that it could have been more in-depth, but we are dealing with a general population (both atheist and religious) with the attention span of a gnat. That said, I would argue that there was more said of genuine substance and courage in this film than in any political debate I've watched during this election, but the debates aren't quite as hilarious.

I think the biggest problem with the superficial critique is that while the movie picked on the simpleton minority of believers - the crazy zealots, freaks, and hucksters – the religious moderate actually does have more in common with them than he or she does with agnostics or atheists. In my experience, while not everyone runs a Creationist museum or thinks that he is Jesus, the average theist doesn't have much more developed thoughts than the lunatic fringe depicted in this movie. Even if they do, their beliefs serve only to give credence to these kinds of wackos who've really just advanced a step or two further into the spiritual fantasyland. Theologians are indeed deep, intelligent thinkers that have interesting points of view, but they do not represent the majority of believers. If you want debates with the best and brightest among the pious look to Richard Dawkins to take them on, not a stand-up comic and the director of Borat.

For this movie to get at the meat of the theist arguments it would have to be a series the size of Ken Burns' history of jazz. Consider the point where he asks the Theme-Park Jesus why god doesn't just destroy the devil. There has been nearly 2000 years of scholarly work done by desperately faithful intellectuals to answer that. You'd have to start with the representation of Satan in the bible, and try to decide whether he is a literal entity constrained by God's power and only acting as far as God permits, a figurative entity embodying the temptation of sin and the primacy of faith over reason, or one of the million other interpretations. Then you get into the notion of Original Sin, which actually isn't in the bible, but was formulated chiefly by St. Augustine to answer how an all-powerful and all-loving god could allow evil to exist in the world. Previously Pelagius had said that man creates evil and that's how god can remain all-loving (although the Old Testament itself really put the lid on that all-loving nonsense), but then Pelagius was branded a heretic because mankind could not possibly have the power to screw up perfect creation with his lowly actions. So it seems we don't have the free will to be sinful at all. Adam did have free will, though, and he tainted mankind with his actions, so now we all suffer as a consequence (that seems fair!). Basically, evil exists in the world because Adam screwed up and god got pissed (was man god's only imperfect creation, then?). We inherited Adam's sinful nature and his punishment, as mankind was thereafter born into a state of sin and doomed to a physical death as well as eternal suffering, according to Augustine. The only way to escape that eternal suffering is by god's grace. But wait a minute: god is all-knowing as well! That means he already knows if he'll save you or not, so the best you can do is try and figure out if you are in are already on the list to get into heaven. At least that's what John Calvin, the famous theologian of the Protestant Reformation and inventor of predestination, said. Or maybe you do have free will and just need baptized to be saved? Every one of the thousand Christian splinter groups has a different idea and none of it makes sense without huge convoluted arguments (like I've started to outline here) that ironically employ reason to solve a problem of faith. Here I thought reason was evil ever since Adam had eaten that Newtonian apple from the Tree of Knowledge. In a weird way the goal of theologians is to make rational arguments about why rational arguments are no good. In the end, I suppose it is kind of pointless to ask why god doesn't destroy the devil when it really boils down to either 1) God has his reasons, and we cannot possibly comprehend them, or 2) there is no god or devil. The only real reason to ask that question is to get a nonsense answer, and preferably one that won't take two hours to explain. It is more fun to listen to Theme-Park Jesus than some stuffy theologian presenting a complex mystification. For most people, just knowing that some authority has figured out all the answers to these sticky questions is good enough. For those who need more, they didn't come here looking to find it.

5. Isn't Bill Maher just as fundamentalist as those he makes fun of?

Short answer: no. This is something people like to say as a sort of dodge to discredit atheists outright before considering what they have to say (and remember, Maher actually claims to be agnostic, though he clearly doesn't think the god hypothesis has anywhere near the probability of the atheist hypothesis).

Fundamentalism is a belief that is not disprovable, and for which no manner of argument or evidence can deter the believer. It is an absolute certainty to the adherent. To demonstrate this certainty, think of people in history who were burned alive because they refused to recant their Catholicism. That's some serious certainty. There are many faithful people today who operate with that same degree of unwarranted confidence, though I suspect if it came down to it, more of them would rationalize a way for it to be okay to renounce their religion when perched atop a pile of kindling.

You give an atheist the same choice of fiery death or converting to Protestantism, he'll "convert" every time. Granted, that doesn't mean that his disbelief was actually refuted, since he would say whatever the torch-bearers wanted to hear while still privately believing it was all nonsense, but how can disbelief be confused with an affirmative, fundamental belief? For example, a person skeptical that another is the reincarnation of Napoleon would not be said to be as radical in his position as the person who firmly believes that he is the long-deceased French emperor. Most would say the man is crazy and the disbeliever is perfectly sensible. However, there is an immensely slim possibility that the man in question might actually be Napoleon, so we had better hedge our bets and keep him away from Western Europe.

Atheists are not fundamentalists; they just have a more supportable point of view. They will readily accept the refutation of their hypothesis if god reveals himself. What would prove the god hypothesis wrong for a religious fundamentalist, though? Atheists simply claim that it is incredibly improbable that god does exist, much the way that trolls, fairies, or leprechauns are very unlikely to exist. You can't be absolutely certain that they don't, but few people will go on record claiming they do. I could similarly claim that a workforce of tiny elves, undetectable by any microscope on earth, labor at a sub-atomic level to propel the human heart. You can't prove me wrong, but that does not mean that there is a 50/50 chance that I am right. Most people will agree that the burden of proof is on me, the one making the claim, to show some evidence supporting it. Why then should the burden be on the non-believer when it comes to god? We don't just assume that magical pixies exist then ask the non-believers to prove that they don't. Just because I can't 100% guarantee that there aren't unicorns somewhere in Alaska doesn't mean that they must be there. One faith cannot even disprove the god or gods of another faith, yet they feel pretty confident that those people are just deluding themselves. Why do they think that they themselves are not similarly self-deceitful? Faith is a system of belief wherein the believer has no direct evidence; he or she simply wants these things to be true. How can desire (or fear) be the basis for knowledge? An atheist does not necessarily want to believe there is no god, he is just unconvinced that one exists.

At any rate, if we are going to say that believing in something outrageous and supernatural with no evidence is equally as reasonable as not believing in something outrageous and supernatural, then the world is in deep trouble. In the end, I think that is the point of Religulous. It is gallows humor for a self-destructive species mired in fundamentalist superstition. It may also be a Hail Mary pass hoping to connect with more thoughtful receivers downfield. And I pray that will be the last quasi-religious football metaphor I ever use in my lifetime.

Thoughts on High Noon

2009-02-01T12:38:00.001-06:00

High Noon

Fred Zinnemann (1952)

This classic western stars Gary Cooper, who plays a retiring marshal about the leave town on his honeymoon when words comes that a crazed outlaw and his gang will be arriving on the noon train to seek revenge against him. He decides to remain in town rather than run away, but this decision, which he doubts in a moment of weakness, is not the wise one, as it will indubitably result in violence that he will not likely survive. To compound his worries, he finds not one of the townspeople will stand with him as he faces this grim menace. Even his new wife, the incomprehensibly gorgeous Grace Kelly, is determined to leave him before the brutality commences. She is a Quaker turned against violence after he dad and brother were murdered in a righteous cause.

The film is much celebrated for the brooding tension as time clicks away until an honorable man faces his death alone. The big question becomes: why does he not leave town? The obvious answer is that the gang will hunt him down no matter where he goes, but the movie makes it clear that this is not about practical concerns: it is about honor. He cleaned up that town at great risk to his own life and well being, helping them rid it of rampant thugs, drunkards, and scofflaws that had made it so a "decent woman could not walk down the street in broad daylight." Yet when he needs the help of those he protected, they refuse. If the townspeople would simply get behind him, they would greatly outnumber the villains, but instead they rationalize excuses to justify their fear and cowardice, disavowing responsibility for helping someone who had risked so much to help them. In this way, the movie explores the bystander effect, wherein people exempt themselves from taking moral action to the point that their apathy allows grievous harm to occur. Furthermore, I think Cooper's decision to stay in town was not simply to display courage or bravado: it was to see if his worldview of reciprocity and justice could prevail.

The film includes several references to the ineffective legal system of the North, which let the killer on the noon train avoid the noose and get released from prison early. In this we see a classic death penalty argument and the alignment of the urban North with liberalism and gross perversions of justice. While these are familiar conservative talking points especially popular in the South, these apparent notions are undercut by the shameful (in)actions of the purportedly superior townspeople. In fact, this movie was in part a criticism of the McCarthy witchhunts that afflicted some of those involved in this production, urging solidarity against wrongdoing and evil. When personal self-interest trumps communal spirit, bad things can happen. The film can be seen as an argument against individualism, where the community should have stepped up to the plate rather than passing the buck. But the movie could possible be interpreted as arguing in favor of individualism as well, since in the end the townspeople hadn't been worth risking his life for. Such bleak and devastating realizations about human nature are themes that come up often in Westerns and Samurai films where the honorable protagonist saves the unworthy. Generally they are reluctant heroes driven by a personal code of ethics that must remain consistent even when the world is not.

While I share the in disgust obviously heaped upon the morally cuckolded townspeople, I think that doing good works with the expectation of reciprocity undercuts any sense of altruism. They should feel ashamed, but their lowly behaviors do not make them unworthy of saving. Great men (or women) are always those who endure great risk and hardship for others simply because it is the right thing to do. Once you decry the weak, fearful, or reluctant as unworthy, you risk becoming one of them. If Cooper rode into the next town and refused to aid justice there because of this experience, he'd be excusing himself as just another bystander.

In the end, it is a more complex film dealing with morality than it appears on the surface, and highly enjoyable. Even if you haven't seen it before, you'll probably recognize Tex Ritter's theme song, which gives away the entire plot in the opening credits.

Thoughts on 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days

2009-01-20T12:46:00.001-06:00

4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days

Cristian Mungiu (2007)

This film is about a girl's illegal abortion towards the end of Ceauşescu 's long autocratic reign in Romania. In the end, his rule was overthrown by revolution in 1989, and he was later executed by firing squad. Abortion was not only strictly illegal during this time, but there was a tax placed on single or married people who remained childless after age 25, while special incentives were reserved for mothers of more than 5 children. Into this tense political atmosphere, which is not dealt with directly but felt through the forces and constraints placed on the characters, we follow the story of a young girl that goes above and beyond the responsibilities to help her self-obsessed and childish friend arrange an abortion in a hotel room. The abortionist is a sleazy underworld operator, and the whole process, while not graphically depicted, is grotesquely and uncomfortably played out. In so doing, we also get a chance to see what life was like under a totalitarian regime, with black market goods, various restricted activities, poverty, and a pervading sense of claustrophobia.

The camerawork in this film is stunning. They successfully made the movie a completely subjective experience, as though we were government spies watching these lurid events and collecting evidence. The placement and movement of the camera also mirrors the characters' psychological states in each scene. At first the camera is uncertain and ashamed, maintaining a distance and remaining obscured by objects as it observes from different angles. Then later it embodies panic and tension, closing in on the characters with a suffocating tenacity. All of the scenes are done in one shot and there is no soundtrack, which avoids cheap shortcuts to obtaining emotional reactions. The scenes are well thought out and filmed in a cinéma-vérité style that occasionally erupts into a shockingly beautiful frame. There is one gorgeous shot with the main character puking in snowy alley after she drops the fetus down a trash chute, which really sticks out in my mind. While the film's starkness and subtlety might bore the most passive viewers, I think most people will find it strangely haunting and memorable.

Thoughts on Canadian Bacon

2009-01-19T12:45:00.001-06:00

Canadian Bacon

Michael Moore (1995)

This Michael Moore comedy from the mid-nineties is conceptually quite funny, as it involves a fictional U.S. administration manufacturing popular consent for new Cold War with Canada in order to divert attention from the nation's economic problems and improve the president's approval ratings. Unfortunately, though, the film often fails to give its characters equally comical dialog or interesting personalities. The most hilarious moments in the movie involve the anti-Canadian propaganda, which still make me smile as I type this. The majority of other scenes, however, revel in mediocrity, with an obvious ode to Dr. Strangelove serving more to highlight how much better a Cold War comedy that movie was. Still, a comparison to a Kubrick masterpiece might be unfair, since Moore obviously went more for a slapstick SNL approach to humor. (Also, it may be a tad unreasonable to compare Moore's first feature film to one of the most widely hailed masterpieces of a beloved cinematic auteur.)

In this movie, Moore obviously aimed to critique the U.S. by mocking Canadians with their clean environment and universal health care, as well as noting the relationship between big business (mainly defense contractors) and the government. The socio-economic impact of having a common enemy to consolidate and distract the citizenry is a central theme, as the U.S. loses its ideological enemy (the U.S.S.R.), leaving the country without a credible threat upon which to feed the military-industrial complex. The result is job losses (at least for those working for weapons manufacturers or the ancillary industries), a struggling stock market, and seemingly widespread public dissatisfaction. The film counters the idea of a military rival being necessary mainly by contrasting us with our neighbors to the north. Nevertheless, while the film portrays pentagon and CIA officials as war-mongering maniacs, it doesn't fully discredit the notion of a national boogieman being helpful to the economy. While that may be a tall order for just a goofy comedy, I would have thought achieving this would be paramount to one that clearly puts its politics in the foreground.

In Canadian Bacon, the plot and characters seem almost superfluous, as nobody is particularly funny or relatable, and very little propels the story forward other than the anticipation of heightened absurdity. This is probably is why Moore went on to achieve much greater success making comedic political documentaries. While I do think this is a mediocre fare, it still has its charms that make it watchable all the way through. It is based on a funny and somewhat original idea (i.e. a Canadian menace), if the screenplay had been tweaked just a bit more it could have been a cult classic. In reading a synopsis or hearing a friend describe this film to you, it sounds hilarious, but after watching it little is gained beyond what could be had in a paragraph of summary and few choice lines.

Thoughts on Fitzcarraldo

2009-01-12T12:48:00.001-06:00

Fitzcarraldo

Werner Herzog (1982)

I admit that I hadn't really looked forward to watching this. It is a film over two and a half hours long about a European man driven to the point of obsession with his desire to bring opera to his expatriate home of Iquitos, deep in the Amazon. My failure to muster enthusiasm, however, was quickly overcome by a movie as grandiose in scale and determination as the dreams of its main character. On top of other themes, the film explores the relationship between pragmatic reality and the human desire to transcend it. It also deals with competing notions of what it means to be civilized.

Early on we meet Fitzcarraldo's girlfriend Molly, who runs a classy brothel that teaches the locals to be refined prostitutes… seemingly a clear comment on capitalism. Fitzcarraldo says he does not object to the girls who work there, but has a strong distaste for the "dandies who think money can buy everything." To him, some things are beyond capitalist exchange. What drives him in his bold endeavor is not merely the savage pursuit of profit, but the realization of a bigger dream. He devises his absurd capitalist scheme to exploit inaccessible rubber trees along the Pongo as a necessary quest undertaken to finance his opera house. It is not done for personal gain, but rather he believes his determination will serve some greater good. The struggle and the goal are both ways to seek human transcendence over reality.

Fitzcarraldo's motives are contrasted by the powerful rubber baron who gains his greatest "ecstasy" from the "precious feeling of losing money," whether by gambling or just feeding it to fish. For him, there is nothing higher, no greater vision or concern, and the loss of money for him becomes strangely erotic. It is a conspicuous means of basking in extreme wealth and privilege, but even more, it is arousing the way infidelity of a lover awakens lust within the doldrums of a long relationship. He personifies the vapidity and excesses of crude capitalism that supplants any sense of a higher humanity.

At one point this rubber baron derogates the natives for having overly poetic language, believing such speech to be uncivilized. Even the missionaries deeper in the Amazon speak of the difficulties in bringing civilization the natives, saying: "we can't seem to cure them of the idea that our everyday life is really and illusion behind which is the reality of dreams." Fitzcarraldo finds acceptance among the much-feared "bare-asses" deep in the jungle precisely because he sees the world much as they do, believing "reality is just a rotten caricature of opera." He avoids being killed by them mainly because he greets them with opera recordings, not the guns that everyone else reaches for. In other words, he exposes them to what is great about civilization, not the violent and myopic impulse towards exploitation that supports it. He shares his version of the dream behind reality.

Interestingly, he chooses a captain to whose main qualification is that he can navigate (through taste rather than maps) between reality and hallucination. In this way, he is one of the vital intermediaries that Fitzcarraldo depends upon. Huerequeque, the drunken cook with his women and slovenly appearance is also an important intermediary between the natives and the crew, since he can apparently understand their language. He also helps transform Fitzcarraldo's impossible goal into reality by suggesting they use the ships engine to help pull it over the hill.

The natives themselves seem to further undercut Capitalist exchange by performing incredible labor in service of this bizarre undertaking. In fact, one of them even dies, yet they carry on inexplicably. We come to find that their goal was to set the boat loose on the raging Pongo River to soothe the evil spirits of the rapids.

What satisfies most about this film is the uncompromising focus of Fitzcarraldo, and how the viewer comes to see themselves in him precisely as he sees the opera giving "expression to our deepest feelings." He does eventually succeed, though not in the way he hoped, in bringing opera – an emblematic indulgence normally reserved for the rich - to the poor people of the Amazon. In this, we see the fruits of capitalism delivered back to the source of its wealth, the exploited lands and people. What Fitzcarraldo considers one of the highest joys of existence is shared beyond its elite social class. I think this film oddly parallels the Heart of Darkness in the Congo, but in a reverse trajectory. Fitzcarraldo's journey deep into the jungle does not uncover the horrid realities at the root of human nature, the primitive ugliness held in check by civilization. Instead, he goes up the river to find and confirm what is wonderful about human nature, but has been corrupted by civilization. In the end, I was sincerely moved by a movie that didn't really follow the usual dramatic conventions. It leaves you with a sense of triumph difficult to articulate… life-affirming in a way that isn't syrupy and false.

I think Fitzcarraldo's journey also parallels Werner Herzog's approach to filmmaking. He seems indefatigable in pursuit of his vision, and similarly hustles and maneuvers within a capitalist system to get it made. I am not claiming he is a socialist at all, but rather that he views money as merely a tool, and often and obstacle, towards uncompromising artistic achievement. Like Fitzcarraldo, he does have to deal with the constraints of reality, but he takes as wider view than most of what those constraints are, and so is able to achieve more.

I think the few films I have seen of Herzog's so far all search rather than presume. He doesn't only want to tell us something he knows, but rather find out about something he doesn't. For this reason, as with the works of other director's I love, films like this feel more genuine. Even the camerawork alludes to this inquisitiveness, with many shots obviously gleaned from actually being in the Amazon and feeling the nuances of its presence, rather than forcing preconceived designs upon it. I can only imagine the extraneous plot devices, special effects, and pretenses that a lesser director might have treated this story with.

Thoughts on Tokyo Drifter

2009-01-09T12:34:00.002-06:00

Tokyo Drifter

Seijun Suzuki (1966)

The vivid color compositions in this movie are dazzling. Suzuki not only dapples much of this film with a garishly glorious palette, but he also experiments with camera angles and disorienting jump cuts a la the French New Wave. This movie came out just a year after Fellini's first color film, which also made bold choices, and it demonstrates a level of panache equal to yet different than that much-lauded auteur. In watching Tokyo Drifter I could really see where Tarantino paid direct homage to this convoluted crime drama about a yakuza boss (Kurata) and his right-hand man (Tetsu) attempting to go clean. The plot is frequently hard to follow, and style seems to dominate every scene. After making dozens of typical studio crime films, Seijun Suzuki apparently had enough, and instead totally assaulted all genre conventions in an act of aesthetic rebellion. The result is a surreal experimentation that raises camp to the level of high art. At times it feels quite sloppy and out of control, but vibrantly so. The deconstruction of Tetsu's feudal loyalty to his master mirrors the films deconstruction of genre loyalty. Suzuki also is clearly struggling with the influence of modern (western) society upon traditional Japanese values. The unquestioned loyalty that is crucial to the samurai (which Tetsu basically embodies) becomes problematic when the corruption of Kurata is made clear. In the end, personal honor trumps his fidelity to his boss and former father figure.

The sets involve a lot of western references, from neo-classical to modern 60's kitsch designs, combining them to forge a unique aesthetic when seen through a Japanese lens. We also see the familiar overlap of samurai and western films in a saloon-style brawl halfway through the movie. Another aspect of this movie that I really enjoyed was the soundtrack. Much of it is scored with a sort of 50s film noir/lounge feel, as well as moody 60's pop filtered through Japan – a process that usually always yields great results. On an interesting side note, I believe Tetsuya Watari, the star of the film, actually sang his own theme song, while the actress who played his love interest, Chieko Matsubara, also sang her songs in the film.

Thoughts on King Corn

2009-01-04T19:58:00.000-06:00

King Corn
Aaron Woolf (2007)

This documentary follows the filmmakers, a couple guys from Boston, who move to a small farming community in Iowa for a year to connected with family roots, and more pertinently, to grow and acre of corn and learn about the agricultural industry. While it is well put together, and really gives a feel for the nuances and atmosphere of Iowa, it also could have benefited from a lot more information and analysis. Also, it moves too slowly, and a few attempts at humor were pretty weak. Still, it did provide a lot to talk about.

Early on they go to a laboratory to have their hair analyzed and are surprised to learn that up to 70% of the carbon that makes up their bodies is derived from corn. Obviously, not human eats that much corn directly, so the question become how this could be? The answer is that corn products are in just about every food we eat. Most juices and sodas contain high fructose corn syrup. Most meat is fed corn. Cookies and snacks are filled with corn starches, syrups, proteins, and gluten. Basically anything you eat at a fast food restaurant is corn, right down to the fries that get most of their calories from being cooked in corn oil. This leads the filmmakers to find out how this happened.

To start with, they learn about USDA corn subsidies, which reward the over-production of corn. In fact, as any farmer will tell you, corn has become such a devalued commodity that they couldn't grow it without government assistance. The origin of these subsidies dates back to Earl Butz, Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture. He had a philosophy of expanding our food production, which in accordance to supply and demand principles, drove down the market value of crops. That's where the corn subsidy came in to encourage farmers to grow it despite low prices. Without it, corn would always be grown at a loss. However, it was only really profitable if you grew a lot of it, and ever since the 70s the number of small farms has sharply declined. Today huge consolidated corporate farms exist and continue to stamp out competitors. What is considered a small farm now would have been considered a large farm in the past.

Most agriculture in the U.S. is soybeans and corn, encouraged by subsidies, yielding a monoculture rather than crop diversity. This of course greatly reduces the practices of fallowed fields, bumper crops, and cover crops, which can all be used to naturally enhance soil productivity and prevent erosion. Soil erosion is a major problem worldwide, with a 2006 study by Cornell University showing that "the economic impact of soil erosion in the United States costs the nation about $37.6 billion each year in productivity losses." Currently, industrial farm operations apply massive amounts of fertilizers, which have a serious impact on the environment; not the least of which is the 20,000 square kilometer dead zone in Gulf of Mexico caused by fertilizer runoff in the Midwest. Fertilizers are also produced at petrochemical plants, since they are basically oil products with all the negative baggage that comes with that. They are not the only problematic aspect of modern agriculture, though. Herbicides and pesticides are also used in abundance and have severe consequences to wildlife, plant life, ecosystems, and our water supply.

Then consider that corn we grow is a genetically modified variety, which is resistant to these pesticides and herbicides that are toxic to all other plant life and animal life. These too runoff into the surrounding environment. Corn has also been genetically modified to be able to grow in closer proximity to other corn plants than it normally would, allowing more product per acre. And let's not forget the terminator gene that breeds dependence upon companies like Monsanto for new seeds, since the plants they produce are sterile. However, the problems associated with patented seeds are much too vast to go into here, and weren't included in the film.

One thing they did mention in the film, though, is that 99% of the corn we grow is inedible by humans. In fact, it is basically a raw material to be processed in a variety of ways. They note that 32% is exported or turned into ethanol. (By the way, ethanol as a fuel has zero environmental benefits over regular gasoline. It takes fossil fuels used in fertilizers and farm machinery to produce the corn in the first place, then also to refine it. These reasons make it at best a wash, rather than a net gain.) A large portion of corn harvests go in making high fructose corn syrup also, and more than half of it goes to feed animals.

The documentary looks at modern feedlots first. Before cattle go to slaughter, they go to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations for fattening. Cattle are naturally supposed to eat grasses, but here they are confined into densely populated areas where they get little exercise at all, and they do nothing but eat grains. In fact, grains have replaced grass as their principle food, and the principle food they eat is corn. This has had major effects on their health, since it wrecks their digestive systems. To combat acidosis and other diseases related to CAFOs, cattle consume 70% of the antibiotics in the U.S., which of course humans then get when they eat them. Cattle fed a diet of corn will not live long even with the antibiotics. We feed them corn to fatten them up quicker, and thereby increase profits. We also feed them corn because corn is cheap, since it is over-produced and subsidized. The cattle we eat are actually grossly obese and unhealthy, and in eating them so much we have become the same way. As they point out in the movie, ground beef, America's favorite meat product, is basically just fat masquerading as meat. They furthermore note that if you are 30 years or younger, you most likely have only ever eaten corn fed beef.

Since the cattle reach market weight faster with much higher fat content, of course their life spans are shortened, and their living conditions are appalling. The confinement operation shown in the movie is astoundingly huge. The camera seems to endlessly pan along fields jam-packed with cattle as far as you can see. They said that particular operation had 100,000 cattle. They also said it produces as much waste as a city of 1.7 million people. Of course this presents an environmental problem, with many instances of surface and groundwater contamination in particular. Other environmental problems relate to the fact that the immense amount of cattle we raise produces more greenhouse gases than the automobiles we drive, a fact supported by data collected by the Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations.

I can't help but point out one more aspect of our incredibly high rate of meat consumption, since the vast majority of the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. goes to feed animals that we raise for food. The ecological impact of one person eating meat is ten times greater than if that person ate at the herbivore level instead. When you eat another organism, as much as 90% of the energy is lost. Therefore, eating higher up the food chain is an incredibly inefficient way to transfer protein and calories, since ten times more people can subsist on the same amount of land if they ate the grains directly, rather than cycle them through the livestock that they consume. More meat consumption causes more greenhouses gas emissions, more oil consumption, more pollution, more depleted soil, more overgrazing, and more habitat destruction to create farmlands to feed more animals. By eating at the plant level more often, on the other hand, we could feed many more people without the need to expand farm acreage or employ destructive means to increase productivity. But I digress…

As small farms continue to die out, industrialized agriculture has stepped in to meet the demand for low food prices, aided by the government. The excess production of corn that spiked after Earl Butz reversed our agricultural policy thirty years ago had led to an ever-expanding list of uses for corn. One infamous usage is high fructose corn syrup, which has changed the world, and not necessarily for the better.

The filmmakers wanted to tour a factory and learn more about the process of refining corn into sweetener, but the industry is oddly secretive. They did have a bubbly PR person speak with them about this miraculous product. So the filmmakers went ahead to try and manufacture it themselves. This proved to be detailed chemical process that involved minute amounts of highly corrosive sulfuric acid. Their efforts eventually paid off, though, as they finally created some of this non-nutritional sweetener. Sugar is just empty calories also, but the unprecedented affordability of corn sweetener quickly overtook more than half of the sweetening market. Not only did high fructose corn syrup replace sugar in many products, but it was even added to many products that were previously unsweetened. This positively correlated with the dramatic increase in obesity and diabetes in America. While the debate on whether corn syrup is worse for you than sugar is still raging, it is obvious that the rise in the amount of sweetened foods and drinks has had health effects. Also consider that these foods and drinks tend to be the cheapest, the most ubiquitous, and the most marketed, further increasing their consumption and adverse health consequences… especially among poorer and less educated people. One fact quoted in this movie states that having just one can of soda per day almost doubles your risk of type-2 diabetes.

Currently, the United States spends less of its income on food than ever before in history. That is the future that Earl Butz envisioned, but we are left to wonder at what cost it was achieved. Mine is also the first generation to have a lower life expectancy than our parents. This can certainly be linked to how the American diet has changed over the last thirty years. We ingest more food, absorb more empty calories, and eat more meat, largely because of corn. All of these things have health repercussions. Also, since most of our corn and soybeans are grown to feed immense amounts of livestock at an immense cost to the environment, even thoughtful meatlovers will agree that our consumption needs to be reduced for the good of humanity.

The (de)Meaning of X-mas

2008-12-23T21:07:00.000-06:00

Photo © 2005 Ben Lybarger

You probably should not read this rant if you love Christmas for any reason. I don't want to bring you down... not that I feel down in the least bit myself.

My wife and I have steadily put less and less energy toward X-mas over the years, and now we do virtually nothing to celebrate it. It didn't make sense to us anymore because we are not religious, and we do not rejoice in compulsory consumerism.

Here is my Holy Trinity of X-mas Humbuggery… with an emphasis on the buggery.

1.) Jesus

Christmas is not Jesus' birthday. Biblical scholars all agree to that, although they disagree on what day actually was his birthday. Our current winter holiday was co-opted from the Romans and was actually a pagan holiday called Saturnalia commemorating the birth of Saturn (and later the feast of Sol Invictus, "the birthday of the unconquered sun" on the 25th). I am very much a fan of celebrating Saturnalia instead of X-mas. This "orgiastic" occasion was observed through feasting, tomfoolery, promiscuity, and a reversal of social roles… slaves served as heads of state, and vice versa. This reversal would last one week from the solstice into the New Year, bridging that mysterious and tumultuous gap where one cycle of seasons ended and another was born. It was much more propitious for Christians to observe their most sacred holiday during this period, running from the alleged birth date until Epiphany. Not only did it occupy this mystic period of death and renewal, but it also appealed to the Romans whose religion they were trying to supplant (see Mithraism for many parallels regarding the Jesus myth).

Furthermore, the X-mas tree tradition is derived from pagan holidays observed by the Germanic tribes. They lighted trees to celebrate Lichtfest during the solstice, commemorating the darkest day of the year and the movement back into longer days. X-mas trees didn't get co-opted by Christians until sometime between the 16th and 18th centuries. Other things such as mistletoe and Yule logs were borrowed from pagan customs too, and the modern nativity scene isn't even correct according to the Bible itself.

Obviously, our objection to X-mas on religious grounds is largely symbolic, since Christ has little to do with the holiday anyway. Although many people believe he is the reason for the season, the season seems to be the reason itself. At any rate, my bigger objection is what X-mas has become, at least in America: a celebration of our consumerist pathology, a secular worship of the divine marketplace.

2.) Santa

I am not sure why Santa exists as part of our culture, and I am not particularly interested in researching his roots. I am speaking about the function he serves in our current mythology. Is it to disillusion children when they find out that they've been lied to by their trusted parents? Do they then carry this disillusionment and mistrust into the rest of their lives, becoming critical thinkers wary of those who promise great things? Do they remain cynical and suspicious of deceit? This indeed would be a positive function. Their resulting skepticism might then be applied to other areas of possible manipulation, such as advertising, government, and most directly applicable: religion itself. Is Santa then the Anti-Christ? Indeed his name is an anagram of Satan.

Most kids are disappointed and feel somewhat betrayed by learning the truth about Santa. I know I loved this magical fat bastard who brought me a bounty of toys every year. In fact, the very idea of constructing a happy false belief in children is directly akin to constructing other false dogma in their young minds. If we are willing to lie about Santa, why don't kids think we are lying about Jesus too? They are both magical beings too good to be true. The Santa delusion is indeed much less disastrous when dispelled, but it gives you the tough poison of life with which to face larger deceptions and blissful delusions.

Then why do so few people lose faith? You'd think once you reflected on how easy it was to indoctrinate children into believing something absurd, you'd apply that lesson toward other naive beliefs. Perhaps, though, religion is much more resistant to cynicism, due to its much stronger reinforcement. Also, it is probably a much scarier prospect to maybe lose the hope in a spiritual afterlife.

In fact, I think the Santa myth actually reinforces religion in a weird way. It seems to tell children that the time for false worship is over, that they may have lost Santa, but Jesus is still there for them. They will be happy to cling to Him, lest they lose every character in the mythical pantheon.

These arguments aside, Santa's primary function is not to reinforce or challenge spiritual constructs. Even more, I think the Santa myth has become a tradition co-opted by business.

3.) Market Worship

Santa is now an icon of commerce, the Patron Saint of Purchasing. He stands for the idea that Christmas means getting cool new things that will make you happy. Once he is unveiled as a fake, we move into a more mature conception of the holiday. Christmas then becomes a time to buy things as a way to express how much we care for our loved ones and friends. It is not really sincere expression, but a rote compulsion. It is what you do to participate in deeply consumerist culture where everything has exchange value. It is well and good to have an occasion that reminds us to appreciate those close to us, but why does this appreciation have to be expressed through manufactured goods?

How many times have you bought something totally stupid for someone because you had to get them something, but you didn't know what to get? How many times have you bought something for somebody just because you knew (or feared) they would get you something? Naturally, there is nothing inherently wrong with gift giving, but it should be voluntary and spontaneous. It can be done whenever the magnanimous mood strikes. The same goes for charity and general goodwill. These things should be exercised all year long. Unfortunately, for most people they aren't even exercised at X-mas. People stampede into stores, desperate to grab up all the good deals before anyone else does. People report elevated levels of frustration and anxiety during this glorious season. I know I've felt my own nostrils flare under the pressure of consumerist X-mas. I've also seen other people's anger and impatience boil. Paradoxically, this has become a time of year where contempt is bred for humanity as we all scavenge the retail jungle for goods to lavish upon our own little circle of friends and family.

I read this passage in my Environmental Science book last week, and it dryly stated the obvious quite succinctly: "The people in highly developed countries consume huge amounts of resources. Citizens of these countries eat more food, particularly animal protein, which requires larger agricultural inputs than does a vegetarian diet. They have more material possessions and consume vast amounts of energy" (Environmental Science, 11th Edition, 2008, Enger & Smith). Scientists report that if everyone on the planet used as much energy and generated as much waste as we do in America, we'd need six more earths to sustain us.

To celebrate X-mas properly, you need to buy X-mas lights and waste energy illuminating the lawn and your home (though I admit this is often very pretty). You need to get a tree and light that up as well. You need to fill the underside of that tree with copious amounts of presents in order to thrill the family with their plentitude. Most of these presents will be pointless and unnecessary, and have taken vast amounts of energy and resources to manufacture. We buy printed paper and tape, which come in retail packaging, to wrap a ton of various presents that also come in excessive packaging materials. We generate massive amounts of waste: paper, tape, product packaging, food, pointless gifts bought out of obligation, discarded trees, energy waste from lights, tacky decorations for home and lawn, and on and on… People have no concept of the waste we generate and the poverty in the world that makes such displays all the more egregious. It is about conspicuous consumption. X-mas has become the gaudy jewel encrusting our crown of capitalist arrogance.

We are only happy when we consume, and we gauge our success by how much we've stuff we've amassed. Shopping has become a form of therapy. We are desperate to learn about new products and fashions that we will then hunger for. We have virtually become vessels for the programming of corporate desires. Wants and luxuries become needs, the bare necessities for the god-given the pursuit of happiness. Eight year olds have cell phones and people below poverty line buy designer clothes. People are so infected by the advertising and lifestyles represented to them by the media that they view those things as their rights. They will pay their cable bill and seek help for their heating bill. They will go into credit card debt to meet their gift-giving obligations. X-mas is shallow exercise for retailers to move into the black. It encourages debt enslavement. To be a better American and show more Christmas Spirit, you have to buy more stuff. You have to realize how unhappy you are presently, and fill that nagging, insatiable void with things that will make your life better. We are all guilty of this to an extent, but it has gotten way out of hand. Buying things is not evil until it becomes your raison d'être. X-mas is really just a secular expression of our overall consumerist pathology.

This year for X-mas Lisa and I am going to continue to buy absolutely no presents for anyone. I am going to look into ways that I can streamline my existence to reduce waste and energy consumption. I am going to try to find more ways that I can help other people through volunteering, and not just during the holiday season. I am going to continue to be thankful for the many luxuries I do have, even though I am far from wealthy, and not focus on what I lack. And I am going to seek happiness outside of the marketplace (although not rejecting it altogether, of course), and hopefully achieve more balance and contentment in my life.

Thoughts on Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains

2008-12-17T20:48:00.000-06:00

Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains
Jonathan Demme (2007)

Over the years I've heard a couple interviews with Jimmy Carter that really impressed me and made me think that the guy gets a bad rap from a lot of people (even got slammed on the Simpsons). After watching this, I can honestly say that he is my favorite Christian evangelist ever. He provides the perfect example of religion wielded in peaceful, reasonable, and productive way. However, I do think if he was an atheist, Hindu, Jew, or Muslim, he would have been just as good a person. Furthermore, I think it is unfortunate that he did open the door to evangelism in mainstream politics, a door which the Christian soldiers of the far right marched through in the following decades.

Jimmy Carter, however, by all accounts is a shining exemplar of an honorable populist politician and humble but forceful activist. This documentary follows him on a book tour in 2006, and gives patient and measured glimpses into his character that steadily build throughout the two hours. At first we see a frail old man at his rural home in Plains, Georgia. He seems simple and meek, like a gentle old man with stories and a folksy wisdom. Over the course of the book tour, however, what you begin to see is a sharp intellect and moral assertiveness that develop so smoothly your initial appraisal of the man dynamically alters without you realizing it is occurring. The book is about Israeli-Palestine relations, and early on you really fear that he has over-simplified the situation. Plus his many critics don't get answered right away, leaving you to wonder if the old man is not up to the task. However, slowly you get fed slivers of his argument, little by little, until his point of view coalesces into to something coherent and powerful by the end.

But this documentary is not just about his views on Israeli policies toward Palestine. It uses that as a framework to describe a man who is driven by a humanitarian conscience to work hard tirelessly at making the world a better place until the day he dies. He could have easily just retired into cozy obscurity after losing the presidency, but instead he has devoted much his time toward alleviating poverty, suffering, and injustice in the world. He established the Carter Center, a non-profit N.G.O. that works to advance human rights and improve health all over the world. He has won a Nobel Peace Prize and is also the virtual poster boy for Habitat For Humanity for whom he fundraises, and actually picks up a hammer and works even when cameras are off. He was working New Orleans after the hurricane, has labored in the slums of Mumbai, India, and countless other places. At root, he is a charmingly self-effacing farmer who still flies on commercial airlines not private jets, speaks at colleges for free, responds forcefully yet respectfully when being attacked, signs autographs tirelessly (sometimes thousands), and reads the bible every night with his wife… in Spanish no less. Perhaps most strikingly, he has an emotional sincerity that gives him a humanizing strength rather than vulnerability. Before I touch on his politics, I should also mention that he has some training in nuclear physics, paints, and is a poet. It should be abundantly clear by now that I have a great respect for this man. And while this documentary is obviously in homage to him, it isn't narrated, larger than life, or one-dimensional. You don't get the sense that you are being sold the iconography of superhero, but rather are watching a real person whose distinguishing characteristic is his goodwill and tenacity.

His views on the Middle East peace process are more reasonable than they seem at first, and he alludes to the reasons for this initial reaction. One reason is one of the largest lobby groups in the U.S. is AIPAC, which he points out is not about advocating for peace but has a stated and valid purpose to advocate for the policies and interests of the Israeli government. They are paramount in shaping the opinions of American Jews, politicians who want their backing, and the media. There is nothing even close in size and influence to represent Arabs, and definitely not Palestine in particular. We are predominantly fed one side of the story, and the Israeli government has immense power in framing how the issues are presented and debated. This is not some Jewish conspiracy, but rather simply a fact. There are many powerful political lobby groups in the U.S., and the depth of their influence should surprise very few people.

A lot of people in this film presupposed the book was anti-Jew because of the way the media reported on it. Furthermore, as was abundantly clear with the vicious attacks on Carter's book and personal character, that any and all criticism of Israel gets angrily dismissed as anti-Semitic. While not hyped up in this documentary at all, you do get a glimpse into the angry protests that Carter's book aroused, with Jewish people on the streets actually screaming blatant hate speech toward Arabs, and even the esteemed and intelligent Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, comes off as committed Zionist repudiating reason with emotion. Carter's decision not to debate Dershowitz was probably my biggest disappointment, but I can understand not wanting to debate a lawyer.

It was also interesting how the media hyped up a story about how Kenneth Stein, executive director of the Carter Center left his post over this inflammatory book. It turns out the guy had left his post many years before the book was published, and had simply spoken out against the book. However, fourteen board members did resign, feeling Carter unfairly sided with Palestine. Having not read the book myself, I cannot say, but it seems from this documentary that he decries terrorism completely, and simply is saying that isolating and colonizing Palestinian territories only feeds extremism. He does not "side" with Palestine, and freely acknowledges their heinous behaviors. The main objection to his book is apparently his use of the word "Apartheid" to describe Israel's policy toward Palestine. While some criticisms of this word are more valid than others, it seems to me most often just a convenient way to dismiss the book without engaging its arguments. I am sure there are many good points to be brought up against Carter's position, but I do think Palestine's desperation will continue to feed the unrest and violence. Certainly their own actions have at the very least been counter-productive, but Israel undeniably plays a large role in their plight, and holds more power to alleviate it.

The gist of Carter's argument about Palestine is this: Israeli policy goal are colonization, not national security. Any decrease in Palestinian terrorist attacks can be attributed to other facets of Israeli policy and politics within Palestine. Obviously this is a hard sell in the U.S. He supports this in many ways, not the least of which is reporting on what he actually saw there. He even tells the students at Brandeis College (a secular but largely Jewish institution that earlier denied his offer to speak for free), to form a small student delegation with a few faculty members and visit the West Bank and Gaza themselves. He says that he imagines they might be surprised by what they see. He handles tough questions from the large crowd there, argues eloquently and with sensitivity, and by the end receives a standing ovation. It is pretty amazing considering his book was received with such vitriolic rhetoric from the press who clearly sensationalized it often without reading it. Carter explains that he adamantly condemns Palestinian bombings and terrorist as well as Israel's incursions into their territory, but he insists that no peace will be possible with Israel cutting them off from the world and seizing more of their land. As it stands now, Israel has built their wall not on the border with Palestine, but mostly inside Palestinian territory… often quite far inside. They also build many roads to connect their (illegal) settlements with Israel, which slice up Palestine, and Palestinians are not permitted to use them. Palestinians are cut off from the river on one side, have no access to the ocean or any ports, have no real commerce with the outside world, no airport, etc. In addition to greater confiscated territories, to construct the wall over 100,000 olive and citrus trees were destroyed and Palestinian irrigations systems, shops, homes, greenhouses, and other infrastructure was demolished. Palestinians have not only lost land and personal freedoms; they also have little access to health services and medical care, water, and economic improvement. Carter emphasizes that it is a clear humanitarian crisis there, and even though he greatly admires and respects Israel, their policy in this area is egregious and immoral. His intentions are to harshly chide them, but definitely not to demonize them. Few people would say that criticizing the U.S. for Guantanamo Bay, for instance, meant you hated Americans. That is absurd. It is likewise possible to criticize the actions of Israel without hating them.

Perhaps one of Carter's best interviews on the tour (you get bigger responses from him as the film progresses) is when he sits down with Israeli television. The man interviewing him is gracious and serious-minded, points out apparent contradictions, and asks many hard questions that Carter handles very well. Even the interviewer seemed taken aback. Of course, there is tons more to be said and debated on this subject than is in this film, but it does highlight some unpopular yet true facts about an important issue while examining an important man.

I was struck by the way Carter approached, and continues to approach U.S. foreign policy. He fully realizes the idiocy of not talking to countries until they agree with our point of view. In fact, Bush insisted Carter not be allowed to speak to a foreign head of state (which was a longtime friend of Carter's) because he feared Carter would negatively affect U.S. interests there. It was the first time Carter had experienced State Department disapproval. Typically he would actually use his relationships to help the State Department by advocating for their stated goals whenever he went overseas, and he did this even for Ronald Reagan. Carter's ideas about foreign policy rely upon building relationships and appealing to people's better nature. He is interested in honest negotiation and understanding, and under his administration public opinion about the United States in most Arab countries was completely the inverse of what it is now. In one part of this film Carter defends his dealing with the Iran hostage situation, saying that negotiation eventually got them released unharmed while greater military intervention would have surely got them killed, as well as killed Iranian civilians and created more anti-U.S. sentiment in the region. Perhaps the most amazing thing Carter achieved during his presidency, and which has never been matched before or since (especially by the Bush Administration who did next to nothing in this area), was his famous Camp David peace talks with Israel and Egypt. He had the heads of state from each warring country there for a week, and tirelessly worked to reach some compromise between these hated enemies. At the beginning they could not even stand to be in the same room as each other. Carter spoke to them back and forth individually, and in the end his efforts finally paid off. Incredibly, he actually got things on such promising terms that these rival heads of state spontaneously hugged each other at a press conference. I don't think you need a degree in political science to recognize that this is an amazing feat of statesmanship.

Perhaps one reason Carter's presidency is remembered with such bitterness is due to the energy crisis he inherited. We see archival footage of him in this film stating the shortage is permanent and suggesting ways to actually conserve energy and reduce waste. This was long before the Green movement took hold, and his message of less consumption certainly didn't go down well with the average American. Reagan then came into office and increased our dependence upon foreign oil (which Carter had reduced by 50%), rolled back environmental regulations in a really big way, and set up a sort-sighted plan of extraction and exploitation that created major crises for future generations to deal with. The 80's are generally regarded as a decade of selfishness, materialism, and corporate corruption. It is hard to imagine how much better off the country might be in terms of pollution, social justice, and foreign standing had we had stuck with Carter's vision of a morally and intellectually grounded nation.

I think maybe the footage that best exemplifies Carter's spirit is found in the bonus features. He is staying in an elegant suite with a spiral staircase to the bedroom while on tour, but finds that the hotel had put a double bed on the ground floor in the middle of the living room area for him. He leaves in a huff, completely insulted that they thought he was some "decrepit" old man who couldn't walk up stairs. Not only was he known for doing 50 push-ups every morning as president, but he has continued to live healthy. However, I think he resents anyone patronizing him as feeble, whether in body or mind, and he has an indomitable spirit that keeps him up to task.

Thoughts on Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room

2008-12-14T21:00:00.000-06:00

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Alex Gibney (2005)

Just how interesting can a documentary about atrocious corporate corruption actually be? Incredibly interesting, it turns out. This was the scandal that made Kenneth Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andrew Fasdow household names associated with this infamously crooked enterprise… their images burned in effigy wherever rowdy populists roamed the streets. Well maybe not, but they at least frequented the news and showed up on the radar of the nominally cognizant. These pillars of fraudulence brazenly cooked their books, hiding significant losses from stockholders in subsidiary companies, and claiming speculative profits in the future as their actual quarterly earnings. By keeping up the appearance of phenomenal profits, new investors were perpetually drawn in while others kept their money in the dying company. Even as aforementioned bigwigs artificially drove up stock prices then sold their shares at immense profits, they were simultaneously encouraging their employees to put more of their money into the sinking ship.

Not only Enron employees were destroyed by their actions, though. They took accounting giant Arthur Anderson down with them, and caused the loss of many thousands of jobs and pensions. For instance, the documentary shows how Enron purchased a public utility in Oregon, ran it into the ground, and robbed lifelong employees of their retirements. Something like that makes a good argument against privatization.

Another sickening episode played out as big business convinced California to deregulate their energy markets, yielding rolling blackouts and costing taxpayers billions of dollars, which Enron greedily banked. At first the company studied the electric grid and found ways to increase line charges, then they became bolder and simply manufactured reasons to shut down power plants, creating a fake power shortage so they could drive energy prices incredibly high for consumers. Obviously, California citizens were not too happy, and the poor and elderly were particularly hard hit. Another disgusting aspect of this California fiasco is the scapegoating of their governor, Gray Davis, who was recalled due to the state's flagging economy after being bilked by Enron. Ultimately, he was replaced in a carnival-style recall election with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Interestingly, Kenneth Lay (who is a close family friend of the Bushes) had a private meeting with the Terminator prior to the recall. Whether or not he directly aided Arnold's unlikely rise to power, clearly Enron had a strong interest in getting a friendly face in the governor's office to hopefully keep their stranglehold on the state.

What is perhaps most startling about this documentary is hearing actual recordings of Enron traders, and seeing footage of Enron meetings and private skits where they openly mock the people they are maliciously screwing over. They presume an arrogant superiority over regular people due to a sort of Social Darwinism that is commonly used by unethical capitalists to justify their unconscionable actions. Curiously, Skilling's favorite book was reportedly Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which he grossly failed to comprehend much the way Social Darwinists consistently misappropriate the theories of Charles Darwin. It is the same kind of narrow understanding that people took to the novels of Horatio Alger, giving such little focus to morals and the role of luck in amassing fortune that publishers re-printed abridged versions with those parts edited out. Regardless, Enron was not driven by luck or morals, but by a single-minded focus on profits that repudiated fair play and legality.

Clifford Baxter seems to be one of the only executives riddled with guilt over his actions, and accordingly killed himself as Enron started sinking fast. Kenneth Lay faced a heavy prison sentence, but died of heart disease before he could pay his debt to society. Jeff Skilling is currently serving a lengthy prison term, with Fastow serving a smaller one due to his testimony. Another of the more colorful and shady characters, Lou Pai becomes the shadowy winner in all this, exiting Enron early with millions and a new stripper wife.

Even as the story closes on the Enron catastrophe and the world moves toward a new era with corruption of different complexions, a closer look at this unparalleled historic scandal teaches us much about unfettered capitalism, the dark side of human nature, unmitigated greed, and the warning signs of gross corporate malfeasance.

My Father's Father

2008-12-13T22:03:00.000-06:00

Randall Lybarger

May 8, 1922 - December 15, 2000

My paternal grandfather came from interesting parents, which I was lucky enough to know until I was teenager, since they both lived well into their nineties. My great-grandfather Clarence was an engineer whose specialty was designing high-pressure compression systems. He worked for the Cooper-Bessemer Company, initially creating super-heated steam compressors for locomotives. Despite serving in World War I, perhaps the biggest scare in his life came when he traveled to Pennsylvania to assist railroad workers there who were having trouble with a steam engine he designed. The train was about a foot or two up off the ground on a crane to enable access to its underbelly, and Clarence had lain down on his side underneath it to fix the problem. The union man operating the crane, apparently furious that management sent a suit to do his job, intentionally released the locomotive engine and dropped it on my great-grandfather. Through incredible luck, the immense tonnage of this cast-iron monster did not smite him. He survived with only swaths of skin scraped from his back and side, since the train wheels gave him enough clearance not to be crushed into oblivion.

(Pictured above: Clarence Lybarger)

Later in the 1950s, train travel started becoming more obsolete as the golden age of the automotive commenced, so Cooper-Bessemer adapted to the times. My great-grandfather's knowledge of super high-pressure compressors easily translated to many other applications. He designed components for such things as the Atlas booster rockets used on the Mercury Project that put the first American in orbit, as well as the Manhattan Project that created the first atomic bomb (though he did not know what he was working on at the time).

The railroad also played a large role in my great-grandmother's early life, though for her it proved more tragic. When Mabel was three years old her father worked at the train yard in Crestline, Ohio, just a short walk from where his French wife took care of their home. Mabel was an only-child for the time being, but her mother was expecting. This was 1901, before trains had hydraulic brakes, and Mabel's father was atop a railroad car manually taking the brakes off when, possibly through the drunken negligence of another worker, another train was released onto this track. It collided at high velocity with the train Mabel's father was working on, knocking him down between the cars. The trains rolled over him, completely cutting his legs off at the knees. As he lay dying and bloody beside the tracks, his pregnant wife was summoned and raced to the tracks to hold her husband in his last moments. When he passed away, she fainted and did not awake ever again. Family lore holds that she died from grief, while modern medical professionals (i.e. Lisa) postulate a inter-cranial bleed from when she fell. Whatever the cause of her death, the imagination fails to truly register the horror of such an awful event, which the young Mabel likely witnessed. Afterwards she was taken to Kansas to be raised by her father's family, and didn't return to Ohio until she was a teenager.

(Pictured above: Mabel Lybarger)

The details are sketchy, but she met Clarence a few years later, and despite her initial disinterest in him, he pursued her into marriage with an unknown mixture of charm and determination. And what a marriage it was. I remember attending their 70th anniversary party in the early 90s and getting buzzed from the punch, which I pretended not to know was spiked. They even received a presidential certificate of acknowledgment.

Born in 1922, my grandfather was their firstborn child, followed later by his sister Jane. Randall grew up and went to Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, for chemistry. He didn't finish, though, before he was drafted into World War II and got stationed in Hawaii until it ended. While there he worked as a photographer and also served as a courier for top-secret documents. Often he found himself bored, and I've seen many pictures of topless women and him drinking with his buddies, making me think his assignment could have been much worse. In fact, he and his friends started a jazz band there. My grandpa was capable musician, and primarily played trombone. He was ecstatic when he was asked to fill in for a sick member of Woody Herman's "Thundering Herd." His band also played during the VJ Day celebrations, opening for Guy Lombardo in Hawaii when Japan surrendered.

(Pictured above: Randall in Hawaii)

(Pictured above: Randall in Hawaii)

(Pictured above: Randall in Hawaii, third from the left.)

(Pictured above: Randall in Hawaii)

(Pictured above: Randall in Hawaii)

(Pictured above: Randall with unknown women.)

Randall also played the piano, and after the war he migrated to the vibraphone, likely influenced by the records of one of his favorite groups, the George Shearing Quintet. I actually inherited a signed record of his. He also loved Keely Smith's voice, as well as the music of Les Paul, Tommy Dorsey, Kai Winding, and more. My dad remembers when he was a kid that every Wednesday night was band rehearsal at the house, and for a time my father even tried trombone himself, but to much less success.

(Pictured above: Randall with his trombone in Hawaii)

Unfortunately, the story of how he met my grandmother, Ilo Hayes, is largely unknown. My dad says that one of Randall's aquaintances was dating Ilo's sister, Zoe, and they were hooked up on a blind double date. This was either soon after the war, or when he was on leave towards the end. Ilo had been working as a legal secretary, and was a musician also. She played first-chair violin in the Springfield Symphony, and was third-chair for the Cincinnati Symphony before she started a family.

(Pictured above: Ilo Lybarger)

Randall got a job working for a company that developed paper and plastic products, which soon got bought out by the Continental Can Company, the nation's biggest manufacturer of metal cans. Eventually he became the head of the Flexible Packaging Division, in charge of research and development as well as quality control. He traveled constantly for his job, and my dad says he was almost never home during the week.

(Pictured above: Randall on the left)

When he was home one of his biggest hobbies was model building, which he did every weekend. He primarily liked WWI fighter planes. When he was younger one of his favorite experiences was going up in an old biplane with a friend and doing barrel rolls.

Aside from models, he also collected guns and swords. He had an extensive collection that included weapons used in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. This included a flintlock rifle from the 1830's made by a family gunsmith, and was Randall's grandfather's gun in the civil war.

To blow off steam my grandfather enjoyed a good beer or cocktail. For most of his life the martini at lunchtime was a staple of the diet. In his basement he had a fully stocked wet bar, along with his collection of guns and swords and years of model planes and naval ships. As a kid it was my favorite place in the world, and when I got older I stole my first tastes of liquor from his stock. Years later he would tell me that he always suspected and felt glad I never replenished the bottles with water. There was a fold-out couch, cable TV, and an Atari 2600 in the basement too. I'd be down there in the middle of the night drinking Canadian Club whiskey, watching "Skinemax" nudie flicks, playing with antique swords, and smoking Carlton cigarettes that I swiped from him during the day. It was a 13 year-old's paradise.

In the 1970's Randall was diagnosed with lymphatic leukemia, and had even shifted all his money and everything else into Ilo's name to make things easier after he passed. However, miraculously it went into remission and never troubled him again. The victory was very short-lived, however, because Ilo was diagnosed with cancer soon after. During her sickness she remained her church secretary and was still active with the League of Women Voters. At one of their meetings Paul Newman, who went to Kenyon College with my grandfather, had come to speak. Ilo did not feel well, collapsed, and could not get up on her own. Paul Newman scooped her up, carried her in his arms down the stairs, then drove her home. He had a residence on my grandparent's street, and Randall would always walk his dog with Newman's wife, Joanne Woodward. At any rate, Ilo reportedly said, in a joking mood that belied her condition, that having Newman carry her off while her friends watched almost made the cancer worthwhile. However, in 1977 she died. I was three years old, and I still remember it vividly as the only time I ever saw my dad cry.

Randall re-married several years later, a younger woman named Judith whom he happily stayed with until he died in December of 2000. An example of his character and love for her became apparent to me when she had a stroke and doctors told her it that was vital she quit smoking. While never able to quit for his own health, he stopped smoking cold turkey as a show of solidarity, and to reduce temptation for her. Judith, while obviously not a replacement for Ilo, remains a beloved part of our family to this day. With her, Lisa is able to bond for hours over their Neil Diamond fetishes, and they even went to see him in concert together.

(Pictured above: Randall and Judith, with me in the background)

I think the number one thing that comes to mind for me when I remember Randall is how funny he was. He had a quick-witted, gregarious personality that approached life with a playful attitude. He was the kind of guy who could flirt with a waitress in his 70s and not seem dirty or inappropriate. He could lure a smile onto the face of a prude or prostitute, and I'd deem myself lucky if I had one eighth of his charisma. He was a worrier, though, and he also paced a lot with nervous energy, which is the trait I inherited instead of his charm.

(Pictured above: Randall at Dayton Air Force Museum. Photo by me as a kid.)

I visited him in the hospital when he was sick with diverticulitis, then later pneumonia and complications from incompetent medical treatment. It was one of the most horrible experiences I've ever had. He was in four-point restraints on a hospital bed, completely wild-eyed, and urgently groaning something over and over that I couldn't understand while he writhed and squirmed. I had never seen him like this and it seemed undignified, obscene and terrible. I didn't know what to say or do. He was transformed into something I didn't recognize. I tried to get him to relax and reassured him, like a bonafide twit, that things were going to get better. Eventually I understood what he kept mouthing again and again until his throat dried the words into hoarse syllables of agony. He was saying, "please help me." To this day I never want to see anyone suffer like that. I don't know if he was sensible at that moment or not, but one I've my big regrets in life is that I didn't tell him how much I loved and respected him. That was the last time I ever saw him alive.

My Mother's Father

2008-12-12T22:22:00.000-06:00

Robert Lacher

February 26, 1910 ~ February 9, 2005

When my grandpa was dying in 2004, I visited him and asked him some questions about his life. I had always regretted not asking my other grandfather about his experiences before he died a few years prior, so this time I had my laptop and took some notes. Now, four years later, I just went back and found them…

My grandfather, Robert Lacher, was born in Delaware, Ohio, in 1910, and went to Powell High School with graduating class of less than 20 students. During breaks he worked on the Chesapeake & Ohio railroad and also hauled apples at Highland Orchard. Later he was the first person in his family to attend college. His mother wanted him to become a doctor, so he went to Ohio State University and got his BA. However, he did not continue on to med school, instead opting to farm with his father.

He met Florobel, my grandmother, at church in 1939, during a Christmas play. "She was a slim and a tender beauty," he recalled, "I had a lot of competition; all the young fellows were asking her out. Of course I didn't know she was so intelligent then."

My grandmother laughs modestly while he says this to me, as if time made his description seem ridiculous. I ask her what she thought of him. "He was okay," she said with an old-fashioned emotional reserve, adding that he had "a lot of dark wavy hair."

"A lot of hair," she adds during a pregnant pause, recalling with more laughter as she bats away the memory for the time being.

In 1942, at the age of 32, he was conscripted to serve in the army during World War II. "When I got drafted I was farmer," he told me, "and farmers are supposedly deferred, but I wasn't. I thought probably because I was conscientious objector I was drafted." Apart from being a deeply religious and gentle man, his Aunt Maude had also strongly influenced his pacifism. She was very anti-war and told Bob that if she were a man she would be a conscientious objector. I wanted to know if his feeling on the subject ever changed, but he said he didn't feel any differently at the end of the war. "I just felt I was doing my duty."

The second night after his arrival in Guadalcanal, which was the South Pacific island where some of the fiercest battles with the Japanese took place, he was appointed for guard duty. He told me he was very nervous that night. "Parakeets and bugs made such a racket that few people could even think." Although he entered the fray as a non-combatant, he now was protecting a National Guard unit from Boston. "Supposedly such brave men and they chose a conscientious objector to guard them!"

When I asked him if he ever had to fight despite his objections, he said: "the only violent thing I ever did was peel potatoes." However, in his war diary he did write that he asked for his classification to be changed on the grounds that he "no longer saw how passive resistance could solve the world's problems."

Soon he began service as a field medical technician doing bug counts, urinalysis, and many other duties. "Almost everybody that came in had malaria," a disease carried by the omnipresent mosquitoes. At that time soldiers were ordered to take a pill called Atabrine, which was a synthetic form of Quinine that by all accounts tasted bitter enough to ruin a rat's lunch. Since proper dosages had not yet been worked out, the drug also came some unpopular side effects, such as nausea and turning the skin yellow, along with unfounded rumors of creating impotence, which made it even less popular. Still, it was pretty effective when taken.

Often they would work well into the evening hourse, and once a Japanese plane flying over them at dusk saw the light. They dropped 3 anti-personnel bombs. One of them landed very close to my grandfather.

In his journal he wrote:

Jan. 14, 1943 - "Today was rather quiet until about 7:30 P.M. We were in the lab working as was usual for us at nights. We heard a plane suddenly go into a power dive, and Jack Powers remarked, 'It sounds like a Jap plane.' Then we heard a bomb explode by the graveyard about 500 ft. to the east. Immediately Jack snapped the light off, and we flopped to the floor in a split-second. It seemed like the fury of hell was upon us, and I wondered if this was to be my end. The ground trembled, and the air rushed upon us with crushing force. Then this thought entered my mind, 'What will Mother and Dad think?' Calm came as quickly as the fury had come. But devastation, death, and critical injuries were with us."

He told me that anti-personnel bombs have a 3' extension on the nose so they would explode above the ground and catch more people. Soldiers were trained to drop to the ground if one landed close by, and perhaps the spray would go over them. Luckily he and the other two workers in the lab at the time did this as shrapnel ripped through the nearby refrigerator and riddled the tent above their heads. In the officer's ward next to them everyone was killed, which he said was about twenty men. The next barrage of bombs came thirty minutes later very close by and killed many, but did not hit the hospital. He kept a piece of shrapnel that he dug out of a coconut tree at the border of his tent.

Attacks by the Japanese were frequent, and my grandpa recounted to me a time when Mahoney, a fat man, jumped into Peter Kakrides' foxhole during a raid that occurred when he was walking back from the latrine. "Peter thought it was a Jap bomb and was saying his prayers," then the two got into "a fierce discussion" when he found out it was only Mahoney.

My grandfather injured his left knee once jumping into a foxhole during an air raid, but would not seek help because he didn't want to leave his unit. Eventually the pain became unbearable, though, and he sought medical attention. This led to him being sent to the Fiji Islands temporarily, then back to the states where he was in hospitals in Texas and California for a brief time. His left leg continued to bother him the rest of his life, growing worse as he got older.

Soon he was stationed at the Erie Proving Ground back in Ohio where he worked as a lab technician. He said that even though his didn't want to leave his company, he was still rather happy not to be in Guadalcanal. Shortly thereafter he became one of the first to be excused from duty because he had so many points. He had been overseas and had been in a battle. He was discharged from the Army in 1945.

I asked him what he thought about the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He told me he thought it was all right. He noted that they had started the war and we had a chance to end it. He then added, "Japs are just as fine people as anyone else."

Back in civilian life, he worked a short while for his brother's company doing plumbing, and worked at a dairy farm for about a year and a half as well. Then he decided that he wanted to more than "work on someone else's on a "dirt farm."

"So I struck out and became an electrician. I always was pretty mechanical and I really picked it up off the bat. First I did small jobs, then they kept getting bigger until I really had some big jobs. Had the business 45 years. I was only color blind red-green, and the neutral wire is always gray… I guess it was gray… maybe it was green. Anyway, I always knew which was the neutral wire. You'd be working along and forget what you are doing and you'd touch a hot wire. 600 volts was the biggest jolt I ever got."

600 volts would have sent me into another vocation. The very idea of a color-blind electrician sounds ludicrous and almost masochistic, but I've always felt somewhat awed and inspired by his determination and ingenuity. To this day he remains the most color-blind person I ever met. He'd have trouble with game pieces in board games and I'd have to help him… and I'm color-blind! I can't imagine him doing residential and commercial wiring. Nevertheless, he did it, and he did it well. He retired in 1975, but continued working part-time for his son who took over the business for several years after that.

As a hobby, he grew pumpkins that he sold every year for Halloween. As a kid I remember him always being on a health kick with vitamins and obsessions with different foods: horseradish, peanuts, raisins, yeast, baked beans, Long John Silvers, etc. He was a member of the first group of volunteer firemen in Orange Township. He had also been in the Benevolent Order of Oddfellows, a bewildering distinction that I nonetheless admire very much. He was also married to Florobel for 60 years before he died.

One thing that sticks out in my mind about him is the snickering way he laughed, which was never voiced but rather would convulse the air as a smile overtook his face. Though vulnerable to strains of slapstick humor, he maintained a seriousness that was not grave or stern, but benevolent instead. Very rarely provoked into anger, he was also not a devoted conversationalist. More of a doer than a talker, he was a slow and deliberate man operating with a calculated efficiency of motion. He possessed the strongest work ethic of anyone I ever met. I attribute this to his upbringing as a farmer. He built his own house and ran his own business for almost half a century, while at the same time tending fields after work. For the nearly thirty years I knew him he always had a garden, but it gradually grew smaller and smaller as he aged. When he was into his nineties he still grew tomatoes in the flowerbeds alongside his house. I don't think he knew what do with himself when age took more and more ability from him. He was never the kind of guy found great value in watching TV or reading books for hours on end, let alone learning anything about computers. He lived to feel his hands in the soil, the sweat on his brow, and the morning air in his lungs. In him, I saw an agrarian nobility and pure simplicity of being that I'll probably never know… but truly admire.

Thoughts on Fallen Angels

2008-12-09T12:36:00.001-06:00

Fallen Angels

Wong Kar Wai (1995)

Following on the heels of the excellent Chungking Express, Fallen Angels inhabits the same physical and thematic territory, offering more stylized glimpses into the soul of Hong Kong. While I don't think it quite reaches the high mark of Chungking, the camerawork, mis-en-scene, and lighting is perhaps even more stunning, giving an emotional tangibility to both the city and its characters.

There are two basic stories here. One involves a young man gone mute after eating a can of expired pineapples. He's a petty criminal that breaks into shops after hours, not to steal anything, but to open them up for business and sometimes physically force people to be his customers. Awkward and unable to communicate effectively with the world, much like his heavily accented father, he eventually falls in love with an equally weird girl that is in many ways his overly vocal opposite. He describes the feeling of his first love as though he was a store and she was a customer that he hoped would shop there regularly. For her part, she does treat him like a convenience store that is easily forgotten.

The other story involves Leon, a hitman, and Michelle, his breathtakingly beautiful partner who arranges the hits. They share an apartment in the building that the mute's father owns, but inhabit it on opposite shifts, never seeing each other. During her turns she cleans for him and even goes through his garbage, learning about and ultimately falling in love with her business partner. However, she notes that if you find out too much about a person, you lose interest. Love is strongest when there is mystery, not when it is dissected and analyzed. This could also be Wong Kar Wai's view on narrative, which is rarely clean and concise, but curious and impressionistic.

There is something opaquely evocative about his movies. The ones I have seen have all been visually astounding, with seeming nods to Godard in both the editing and frequent looks at how pop culture and corporate branding gets woven into the identity of people and places. I think Wong Kar Wai has developed a unique voice of his own, however, putting more stock in the sheer beauty of his images. Fallen Angels is more poetry than essay, grasping at effervescent truths. Philosophies and ideas, like human relationships, rise and tumble in the postmodern tide that renews wonder while washing away certainty. In exploring themes of love and capitalism, time and permanence, loneliness and alienation in one of the world's most populated cities, this film leads to intuition more than knowledge.

While this film is not Japanese, I can't help but be reminded of Tokyo Drifter, which I had just watched. Both films seemed to evince an Eastern sensibility that may be foreign and frustrating for many Westerners. Both bask in a sumptuous style, with plot serving more as a clothesline on which to drape lavish cinematic excesses. In Fallen Angels, as well as in Wong Kar Wai's other movies, we see the transient nature of relations, with characters trying to enjoy fleeting moments of togetherness. Everything comes with expiration dates. When Michelle rides on the back of the mute's motorcycle, she realizes that the ride is short and will be over soon, yet she savors that brief warmth of their closeness. Happiness is moments, not eternity. I think as Westerners we see life as a utilitarian process towards some goal, some deferred state of contentment. This often robs us of experiencing the present, which is something to be enjoyed while it lasts. In this way, Fallen Angels is very self-actualized in its focus, looking to dwell on the beauty of filmmaking, rather than the forward momentum of plot contrivances toward a clear and demystifying resolution. When people hear a song, they are able to enjoy it without intense scrutiny. In a similar fashion, this film sticks with you like a beautiful melody.

That said, I think one of the few missteps here is actually the recurring song used when the mute is videotaping his father; scenes which also went on too long. Elsewhere, though, the soundtrack is fantastic and used expertly to color the characters. In fact, it is even used as a means of communication between them. This seems to beg the question of how much pop-culture and art influence the way we experience the world and see ourselves. Do we merely use it to express our feelings, or does it also shape how we feel and understand the world?

There is lot more than can be explored regarding this film, but I'm not intending to write a full-on essay. While it does not quite succeed at the level of Chungking Express, Days of Being Wild, or his remarkable In the Mood for Love, it has many moments of visual transcendence that carried me away with it.

Thoughts on Sicko

2008-12-07T19:04:00.000-06:00

Sicko
Michael Moore (2007)

This is the first documentary film by Michael Moore that I've seen, although it has been hard to avoid hearing critics slamming them all as being sheer propaganda. It seems many people have the opinion that a documentary should be unbiased, and live under the delusion that it can be. French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard noted that when you intend to shoot a documentary you shoot fiction, and vice versa. Every decision you make is guided by some philosophy, even if you choose to just set a camera on the street and hit record. Godard viewed his own films as essays. I'd say Moore's Sicko is the cinematic equivalent of an editorial.

I can see why people think Moore's documentaries are one-sided. He does touch lightly on opposing arguments, but mainly seeks out evidence to support his own thesis. Still, I don't see this as evil propaganda proffered by an unrepentant disingenuous lefty. If all advocacy for one's point of view is to be decried as propaganda, we'd all have to shut up. Propaganda is most dangerous when it is covert, when we fail to see the inherent bias. However, here we know at the outset what Moore's stance is. Propaganda is most unethical when it deliberately misrepresents facts or tells outright lies. I have read the responses by many of the detractor's of the film, and I am unconvinced that Moore has sought to deceive, and most points of contention are matters of interpretation of facts. The strongest criticism of Moore is what he omits, rather than what he includes, which admittedly is a fault. If he would have attempted an essay rather than an editorial, he would have dealt more seriously with opposing arguments. However, he is clearly editorializing here, and that is a valid, accepted form of argument. Furthermore, propaganda is insidious when it is used to bolster the dominant position, since it reinforces the status quo. Moore's film challenges the status quo. We all know how our current health care system works, and this film offers a strong counterpoint which cannot be dismissed simply as radical propaganda by any thinking person. You can disagree with Moore, but he requires that you defend your position with something more than ad hominem attacks. Just because Moore doesn't try hard to argue with himself, doesn't mean he is wrong.

So, does universal health care lead to a Utopian society where everything runs smoothly and everyone lives happily and healthily? Of course not. Certainly it might seem so after watching Sicko, however. Moore gives us one side of the argument in his convincing editorial, and the main strengths of it are 1) its criticism of our corporate health care system, 2) its ethics.

The very idea of rejecting something because it is "utopian" or idealistic is absurd. It is an argument against morality. It says we shouldn't try to do the right thing or make the world better because it is impractical. This "pragmatic" view keeps us from moving in the right direction. It supports a system that is grossly unequal and ineffective by claiming perfection is impossible so it might as well not be a goal. We might as well give up and embrace greed and unmitigated self-interest. It is a defeatist attitude that inculcates a culture of hopelessness. It is true that heaven on earth will never happen. There will always be troubles, social problems, strife, and injustice. But that does not mean we should just accept it. And it certainly does not mean we should leave a system in place that rewards it.

The essential ethical argument in Sicko is quite difficult to argue against. The fact is that our health care system actually rewards doctors for giving less health care. Insurance companies make more profit by denying payment for life-saving procedures. Our current system makes profit by allowing suffering and even death, and this is somehow okay because corporate profits are more important than human well-being.

Sicko may strike some as overly dramatic. It tells sad stories that are underscored with sad music. Part of Moore's argument is purely emotional. But is that a bad thing in this case? Shouldn't we have empathy with those who have suffered? They are representative of a huge swath of American citizens that have had similar experiences. Is it wrong to humanize them and their plight? Of course, many people would rather ignore the human obstacles to profit, since it is believed that they are necessary for the system to work. The obvious question becomes whether a system founded on the concept of dehumanization and suffering for profit is itself necessary? Do we really need to desensitize ourselves to it and accept it as the only way? There are powerful interests who insist this is the case, and sell it relentlessly through their own propaganda, which is way more egregious than that found in this film. They have the advantage: great influence over the media and government… and over public opinion.

I think one of the main objections the layman has to socialized health care is the idea of socialism itself. It is, of course, no accident that people have been so strongly indoctrinated against anything that hints of socialism. While I don't want to go into the many aspects of socialism already in place and accepted in the U.S., I would like to mention an interesting point raised in this movie. It was claimed that the French government fears the people, while the American people fear their government. The government should fear the people; we are the source of its authority and the final check in a complex series of checks and balances. In embracing this ideal, presumably shared by us, the French have seemingly been way more successful in using government to address the needs of the people. That is the essence of democracy, which in many regards we have been steadily abandoning in this country ostensibly founded on democratic principles. The people can and should influence the government to advocate for them, not for big business or the wealthy. By crafting a populace here that fears the government, we are way more open to privatization and more resistant to government regulation. We think having corporations run the country will be more efficient and do the job better. We turn a blind eye to corporate outsourcing, corruption, consolidation, environmental and labor abuses, etc. We forget that with the government the people have a voice. With Corporate America, we do not. You could argue that the consumer has a form of vote, but the choices of where we spend our money are ever-slimmer, consumers have less and less money as the income gap widens, and our minds are colonized by so much corporate advertising it is hard to see one's way out of it. By and large, we even forget that the main objective of business is to make more money, not to be socially responsible. With the government largely commercialized, serving mainly the interests of Corporate America, we have allowed our voices to get drowned out by falsely believing in the myth of our natural dependence upon big business. In giving up more and more democracy, we've denigrated the role of the most powerful weapon the people have: a government kept in check by the consent of the governed. Perhaps we need better (public) education to achieve better citizenship. But in the meantime we should look at health care as an even more fundamental right for all people, and use public pressure on the government to achieve it.

Let's look at this capitalist utopia we have going on. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 43 million Americans go uninsured for a variety of reasons ranging from the high cost to the denial of coverage. You can't get health insurance if you have any one of long, long list of pre-existing conditions. This makes financial sense for the insurance company, but it denies coverage to the people who need it most. But what of people who do have insurance? The companies then seek ANY way they can to avoid paying claims, especially the big ones for expensive procedures and drugs. It doesn't matter if these can save lives, and the denials get extremely creative. They also pull stunts where they approve something, then scour the paperwork to find a way to revoke payment, leaving the doctors to collect from the patients. Another tactic is to cancel the policy for the slightest reason whenever a major illness hits. Did I mention medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy? I admit bankruptcy - the loss of your home, savings, and dignity - is better than dying. However, that too may be the only option. I guess the poor, uninsurable, and other vast segments of working and middle class people have less of a right to health care.

Some other interesting facts shown in this movie (and elsewhere easily verified), includes the practice of HMOs offering financial incentives for doctors who deny expensive treatment to the highest percentage of their patients. That is, doctors get rewarded for NOT providing care. It is hard to overstate how ludicrous that is, but again, it makes economic sense for the company, which saves a lot of money. This is contrasted sharply in Britain and elsewhere, where doctors have incentives to actually help patients more, and to provide preventative health care that will increase their patients' wellbeing and save on long-term medical costs. Shouldn't this be what doctors do? Shouldn't they care more about people than money?

Yeah, yeah… that's another aspect of this perfect world, right? Doctors in the real world won't want to work in a nationalized health care system. Or would they? The doctors in Canada, Britain, France, and even Cuba seem pretty satisfied in this film. The British doctor lives in a million dollar home and makes about $100,000 per year. Could an American doctor possibly live contently on that? As the Brit doc says himself, they could unless they need a three million dollar home and several fancy cars. In other words: unless they are greedy. Of course, many doctors are greedy, and maybe some of these are even the best ones. However, it is hard for me to imagine the best doctors are those who care less, and that greed correlates strongly with skill. It is incredibly unlikely we'd experience a shortage of doctors if they couldn't become exceedingly rich. Perhaps more of them would be drawn in by a desire to help people, and live quite comfortably, rather than get filthy rich. Maybe those doctors are the best ones. At the very least, we could do much better with a system that didn't reward doctors who deny treatment. Our system has also allowed treatment and medication to become a corporate externality, whose costs are shifted to Canada and other countries where many Americans have increasingly sought affordable health care. Most people, however, can't leave the U.S. to get help. They just suffer, and often die.

Perhaps the most outright repulsive behavior in this film chocked full of institutional repugnance, is the dumping of poor and homeless people at shelters, untreated. This is done, and even defended, by hospitals. In this film we see disoriented people shoved out of taxis, suffering from a wide variety of injuries and ailments. One of the hospitals that refuses treatment to these people and engages in such human dumping is run by one of the nation's richest private schools. How wonderful of them.

Sicko does add a little comedy in its non-partisan attack on the healthcare system. One instance of this is the lusty introduction of Hillary Clinton as a universal health care proponent early in her husband's first term. However, she is soon bought out, like so many other politicians who receive money from the health care industry, including Bush. In fact, there are four times as many health care industry lobbyists than there are congressmen. This could explain all the positive ballyhoo about the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003. It was touted as something wonderful for seniors that would give them much needed relief. However, it really was a governmental gift to industry obfuscating the actual increased costs to recipients, as well as the new and confusing procedures in acquiring them. Congressman Tauzin was the bill's main proponent, often hysterically invoking his love for his own mother as the motivation for his ardent support of this bill. However, his true motivation was more clear after it passed when he and 14 congressional aides left to work in the health care industry. In fact, Tauzin became the head of their powerful lobby organization, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, making bundles of money as a reward for his congressional shilling.

While I really like this documentary, and feel it made many great points, I also have to mention that I was predisposed to its arguments and viewed it with some familiarity with the issues and facts it presents. I was somewhat dubious of the association between our health care system and the fact that Americans live statistically shorter lives, have greater infant mortality, and/or have more health complications than Canadians, British, French, and Cuban people with national health care systems. This could be due in part to the larger amount of polluting industries in America that degrade our environmental quality, and which lobby powerfully to minimize government regulation. We might be exposed to more water, soil, and air contamination that shortens our lives. Add to this the fact that we drive cars more than anywhere else, and thus might have more smog and respiratory ailments than many places. Our food regulation is also weaker than in many places in Europe, and we permit lots of chemicals, hormones, and antibiotics in the food we eat. This list could go on. However, the Institute of Medicine claims 18,000 people die each year mainly due a lack of disease screening and preventive care. Apparently, they arrived at this figure after considering other causes. Indeed, it does stand to reason that our system of health care is a major culprit in our unflattering statistics. Consider that the U.S. ranks 37th in the World Health Association's rating of the world's best health care systems, much lower than Canada and France with their national plans. In fact, we spend more of our Gross Domestic Product on health care than any other country in the world… more than even the countries higher rated socialized systems such as Britain, France, and Canada.

Some of my exposure to problems with our current health care system doesn't come from my readings. My wife is an RN at a military hospital. On her floor they take in mostly civilians, since they are the area's main trauma ward. Unlike civilian hospitals, they do not turn anyone away, not even illegal aliens. However, often she sees patients in need of treatments that they do not provide there, such as neuro-rehabiliation. These patients often do not have insurance to cover those procedures, so they simply sit on the floor and deteriorate, since no other facilities will take them.

I also know many other health care workers who have told me many horror stories. In fact, the American Nurses Association is one of the biggest advocates for universal health care. One aspect I find interesting is the role of drug rep from pharmaceutical companies. They court doctors persistently with meals, gifts, vacations, etc. They hope to have the doctors prescribe their products, which they often comply after sufficient encouragement. Is that a good reason for a doctor to prescribe medicine? You can see how this may account for why we are the most heavily medicated population on earth. We are bombarded by drug advertising and our doctors are relentlessly wooed by drug companies. Even at the military hospital where my wife works there are drug reps appealing to the doctors there, which unlike civilian doctors, cannot prescribe whatever they want. The idea is that these doctors will likely leave the service eventually, or advocate for the drug rep's products within the military system.

Curiously, I've been talking to a German friend of mine with MS about their socialized medical system. He felt some concern that the prescription drugs were costing taxpayers too much. They cost too much here too, and I do not think that the cost is justified. Pharmaceutical companies argue that the high prices are necessary for research and development. This argument fails because a lot of studies get government money, or are actually conducted by the government. The Federal government funds the lion's share of basic R&D, while venture capitalists invest in applied R&D. The NIH has funded copious research into drugs for cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and countless other diseases and syndromes. If drug companies cut their immense ad budgets, they could lower cost to consumers easily, and maybe only those who actually need the drug would get it. Think of how many drug advertisements you see daily, and how they convince us that every little thing can be solved with proper medication. Their goal is to increase their markets and expand profits, like all big businesses. And as with all business in a perpetual pursuit of larger margins, there are many unsavory social costs. Maybe greater regulation is necessary here. I think price caps on prescription drugs would be a wonderful goal.

In a book by MIT economists and physicians called "Reasonable Rx: Solving the Drug Price Crisis," the authors note that if the pricing trend continues only the wealthy will be able to afford prescription drugs in the future. They have suggested an interesting way to reverse this pricing trend without sacrificing research and development proposing something similar to how electrical utilities were split up into energy generators and energy distributors in the 90s. They want to separate drug research and development companies from drug marketing and distribution firms. The authors then suggest establishing an independent non-profit organization that would be the liaison between these development and marketing firms, and which would be staffed by scientists who set drug research priorities according to public need. They argue, among other benefits, is the avoidance of the "blockbuster mentality," where slight alterations of existing drugs are developed and marketed aggressively at immense profits. Such practices obviously do little to advance public health.

Returning back to the theme of our cultural opposition to any degree of nationalized industry, I do think we are brainwashed against our own interests. We collectively support more privatization, since we have had that corporate mythology reinforced in so many ways since childhood. Nonetheless, one way our capitalist "choice" has become increasingly limited is by our personal debt. A huge portion of us are saddled with immense student loans, while the more poor and uneducated are taken advantage of through many varieties of predatory lending that keeps them in a vicious cycle of debt. Moore's film alludes to how such things keep us servile and willing to sacrifice more for our employers. Psychologist Jean Twenge in her book Generation Me provides quantitative evidence that the main sources of anxiety and stress in our current culture are health care, retirement, and higher education. We rely on employers for our medical benefits and the ability to maybe one day escape our mountains of debt. Our desperation and neediness makes us grateful for whatever we can get. There are way more potential workers than there are jobs. This makes people a surplus commodity with diminished market value. Isn't that a nice way to see human beings? There is a British legislator in this documentary that lays this out rather succinctly. He notes that the top 1% of the population owns 80% of world's wealth, and many of the lower castes have become "hopeless and pessimistic" about their ability to improve their own lives. They feel that the best they can do is to put their faith into the current system and simply hope for the best. Often demoralized and apathetic, they constitute a much more servile population than if they were more educated, healthy, and confident. Indeed, that seems the goal of those in power… and I don't mean our elected government.

Curiously, this made me think of the role of religion. The poor are blessed and the meek inherit the earth. They can pray for God's help, especially regarding their health. Failing that, at the very least heaven will be better for them than this life. Their hard work and suffering will eventually be worthwhile. The gross inequities will be made right. You can see how people arguing against "utopian" socialist reforms would prefer the underprivileged stop agitating for "unrealistic" improvements in this lifetime. I am hardly unique in suggesting that religion plays a particular role in placating the poor and underprivileged, and has been used as a means of social control. However, even many churches and religious organizations are advocating for a universal health care system. Clearly, simply waiting for death to bring justice, human rights, and social improvement is not compatible with Christian morals either. Coming full circle now with another reference to Jean-Luc Godard: in his Weekend film it is asserted that Jesus was a communist. Certainly He was more of one than Stalin, Mao, and the rest. What else do you call someone who suggests we put the public good and well-being of others above greed and personal profit?

Thoughts on The Bad & The Beautiful

2008-12-03T12:30:00.002-06:00

The Bad and the Beautiful

Vincente Minnelli (1952)

This is a superb melodrama starring Kirk Douglas and Lana Turner. The film tells the stories of the morally pliant Hollywood producer/director Jonathan Shields as seen from three different people who were won over by his charm, came to love him, and were betrayed by him. It amounts to a rather fascinating character study that doesn't take the easy route and portray Shields as a complete bastard with no redeeming qualities. In fact, the viewer is likewise won over by his fast-talking charisma and energetic hustle in this tale that refuses to remain simple black and white.

Shields oscillates from a seemingly altruistic Samaritan to master manipulator. The three people who used to be close to him were all helped in no small portion by Shields to achieve great success, but later were wronged by him. As one actress says of him, "there are no great men… only men." Indeed, he did fail in regard to morals, but not business. It is tempting to see his life as being in service to the almighty dollar, an unrepentant capitalist who will crawl over people to get what he wants. However, when he takes over as a director for a big production, he discovers during the screening that he mangled a great script. "Instead of shooting this film the director should have shot himself," he says with extreme disgust in himself. Rather than releasing the substandard film and make a little money back from the production, he decides to incur even greater financial loss and keep it far way from the public eye. He is hiding the shame his own vanity had produced, but more importantly, he is recognizing a higher value than money: art.

It could be argued that Shields had long chosen to sacrifice people instead of sacrificing art. Of course, this is not to excuse his actions, but it is a higher ideal and mere money. When an actor offers him to take a spin in his fancy sports car, Shields could not be less interested. Instead, he immediately walks over and settles a dispute between a production manager wanting to keep a film within budget, and a director wanting to incur great expense in set design. Shields does not offer compromise, but sides completely with the director's artistic demands.

In the end, though, Shields seeks to make a film with all three people whom he had wronged in the past. His focus is still on art, but also on people. This is his way of making amends, of reconciling the conflicting impulses that had pushed away the people he cared about. The movie ends on a note of ambiguity, and we are left to wonder whether these people will eventually offer forgiveness or feel gratitude. One thing that is clear, though, they all are still drawn to Jonathan Shields' magnetic personality.

As a side note: I think the film's dramatic elements are extremely well played, but get heightened to ridiculous proportions when Lana Turner's character drives away from Shields in complete hysteria after catching him with another woman. This scene is one of the most hilarious instances of grotesque melodrama I have ever witnessed, and for that reason I love it. It seems directly plucked from a John Waters movie. However, this is not an accident of sloppy or quaintly naïve filmmaking. Turner's character has long lived her life as though it were an acting role for her to inhabit. She was the daughter of a famous actor and drunk, and she never learned any boundary between reality and artifice. Shields, ever the astute study of people, notes this directly in the film. Her freak-out in the car as she drives off in an emotional huff is an intentional cliché played out to the dramatic extreme.

Thoughts on Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

2008-11-21T20:34:00.001-06:00

Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
Robert Greenwald (2005)

Let me start by saying that I shop at Wal-Mart sometimes, even though I realized way before this documentary that it is unethical to do so. I suck. Many times have I tried to stop, or rationalized reasons not to stop. Their low prices and the fact that they have decimated almost all competition always draws me back in eventually. Also, I don't think any of the other big box retailers are much better. I need to seriously seek out viable alternatives, though, and do the right thing.

This documentary starts off in Middlefield, Ohio, actually, which was one of the tiny Geauga County villages whose social services I used to research in for my job at United Way of Greater Cleveland. Here the filmmakers talk to a family that owns a hardware store struggling to stay afloat with the arrival of Wal-Mart. What you note right off the bat is a lot of people in this documentary are not liberal hippie activists but flag-waving conservatives. The immense cross-section of the American public opposed to Wal-Mart goes to show that the opposition is not just ideological. As the world's largest corporation, Wal-Mart does very real harm at many levels.

That said, not everything Wal-Mart does is evil, of course. It would be foolish to expect everything they do to be negative, but the scope and intent of this film is to document the adverse effects. Wal-Mart itself beefed up its public relations campaign due to this documentary, and released their own cinematic rebuttal. Interestingly, the director of this film, Ron Galloway, later left Wal-Mart over a wage cap that was established there for long-term employees, creating a higher turnover rate and saving the company money.

I'll admit that I was already partial to the anti-Wal-Mart camp, and this film is clearly falls beneath their canopy. However, while some points may be disputed, this movie does raise many important concerns in a very convincing way. It should also be noted, though, that Wal-Mart is not alone in propagating the negative effects reported in this movie. We are all well acquainted with the giant chain stores that make our communities ugly and banal reiterations of each other. They all have similar problems. However, Wal-Mart is not just the largest retailer in the world, it is the largest company in the world. Period. This not only means that it has all the ill-effects of the other big businesses in amplified form, but it also sets the tone and standards by which they operate. In addition, it is also a symbol of the economic and cultural hegemony that is driving globalization. With this in mind, I figured I'd run down some of the general criticisms in this film with my own two-cents included.

I was initially fascinated to hear the staunch rural conservatives in Ohio actually argue for more business regulation, mirroring a lot of the antitrust sentiment long ago felt by agrarian populists. Their concerns are the most obvious and visible. Wal-Mart is a virtual monopoly that destroys small, locally-owned businesses. This has numerous negative consequences for communities. Often city centers atrophy, and businesses with actual attachments to the community are forced under. Commercial property values decline, since few new businesses will be able to compete with Wal-Mart's prices. One reason these prices are low is because they buy in such quantities that they get much lower prices. In fact, their size makes them able to pretty much dictate the prices they will pay, which in turn affects more than retailers. Manufacturers, farmers and other producers depend upon Wal-Mart's business, and will have to capitulate to their demands. Since Wal-Mart is a large corporation, and one of the benefits of a large corporation is efficiency through streamlined management, they generally don't bring in more jobs. To supply the same demand for products, diverse local businesses could fill that niche using more employees. Indeed, the smaller workforce needed to provide Wal-Mart goods, as well as low wages provided to them, help create those bargain prices as well.

This documentary notes that Wal-Mart brings down retail wages by $3 billion every year. While that figure may be open to debate, even if it is $2 billion off, that is a significant loss of income. Skeptics would probably say that this is made up for with greater consumer buying power in the Wal-Mart stores. So, by them putting the pinch on wholesalers and exploiting workers abroad, we reap a net gain despite domestic wage loss. This is not only unethical, but it suggests that Wal-Mart is conveniently the problem and the solution, since it breeds dependence. When we look more closely at Wal-Mart's existence, it looks more like a net loss to consumers and communities in general.

One thing not in this film, but has concerned me is how Wal-Mart and other large chains can refuse to carry products. As mentioned before, they will buy from the vendor who offers the cheapest price, but they also need a high volume, meaning smaller producers are not usually worth dealing with. (This has changed some with their groceries, but that has led to some other problems.) They also can refuse to carry something for other reasons, such as when they refuse to carry controversial music. Naturally, it should be their right to stock whatever they like, but Wal-Mart's immense size makes it amount to censorship. In this, and many other ways, Wal-Mart has become one of the preeminent forces shaping American culture.

One of the big advantages Wal-Mart gets over its local competitors is subsidies and tax abatements from city, county, and state governments. This documentary sites $1 billion in such subsidies. They also get things like sewers, roads, road signals, and other local infrastructure they need supplied at taxpayer expense. Individual retailers do not get such wonderful breaks. This money comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is often schools, fire services, police budgets, and other services. Wal-Mart employs many tax dodges and receives many tax cuts that are too detailed to get into here, or indeed in the film itself. However, it is worth noting that local governments feel there is often no alternative to accepting Wal-mart's demands because they could just go two miles outside of the city limits and build there, and the city would have all the negative impacts without any of the benefits. Indeed, Wal-Marts often do move outside of city limits, leaving behind empty buildings.

But for now, let's look at Wal-Mart's labor issues. This documentary talks with every level of former Wal-Mart workers, from high management to sales associates, some of which were still currently employed by the company. Managers tell of intentional short-staffing in order to get people to work more for less. Routinely they convince employees to work overtime off the clock and through breaks, or perform extra duties in order to help pitch in. District managers have even been trained on how to shift worker hours into the next pay period in order to avoid overtime costs. Apparently, according to one manager, they will even just delete hours all together without any rollover. It is company policy not to allocate enough money to the stores for the appropriate staffing. This keeps the workforce at a minimum, milking employees for additional labor, while reaping greater corporate profits. They also actively keep most of their staff from becoming full-time, and thereby being legally bound to provide medical and other benefits. However, Wal-Mart counters this by citing high statistics of full-time employees, failing to note that they consider 28 hours per week to be full-time. Of course, most employee income goes right back into Wal-Mart on payday.

Like other large retailers, most of Wal-Mart's employees on are government assistance, whether Section-8, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, etc. Their employees often cannot afford health benefits through Wal-Mart's insurance plan, which itself is not adequate coverage. In fact, the company actually tells its employees to go on welfare! In the parlance of business, employee benefits become and "externality," a cost they can deflect to a third party in order to save the company money. In this case, that third party is the taxpayer, who spends an estimated $1.5 billion per year for Wal-Mart employees.

Wal-Mart, like many other companies, has had its share of scandal by employing illegal immigrants, whose lack of recourse allows easier exploitation. However, the overwhelming majority of their workforce is legal, which meant at the time of this documentary 31 states had ongoing litigation over wages and worker lawsuits. This film also devotes some time to gender and racial discrimination within Wal-Mart, and suggests it is endemic to the Wal-Mart culture.

Given their keen interest in low wages in no benefits, it is hardly surprising that Wal-Mart is vehemently anti-union. Managers are trained to profile potential agitators, and their hiring process weeds out those who might possibly be a problem due to education, intelligence, or disposition. I was reminded on a recent band interview I read with Ninja Gun in Razorcake magazine. The guy said that he applied for a job at Target while not on tour, and the application had questions like, "what percentage of politicians do you think are honest?" He recognized that he was more likely to get the job if he answered really high, since that means you probably are more gullible and less independent-minded.

But that is not all of what Wal-Mart does to combat those dastardly unions. If anyone is even suspected of organizing, or suspiciously speaks with another employee then stops as a manager comes by, they will most often be fired. This keeps employees very resistant to the very mention of unions, since they can be easily replaced. Wal-Mart actually distributes anti-union propaganda, and also puts its employees under constant surveillance. In fact, every Wal-Mart store is well equipped to suppress unionizing threats with a camera package, an undercover spy van, and a 24-hour anti-union hotline to report other employees. There is even a rapid response team with a corporate jet ready to deploy at the slightest provocation.

While cameras are excessively used to prevent theft and spy on employees, at the time of this movie they were not very concerned with the state of their own parking lots, which were mostly uncovered by cameras or security personnel. This reflects Wal-Mart's main concern being profits, not people. This does not make them unique in the business world, though. This movie shows a striking amount of crimes, even rapes and other violence, in their parking lots. When communities and consumers demanded more security, Wal-Mart capitulated. While this was more out of public pressure than concern for public safety, it does make this parking lot security issue a mute point.

Another cost-cutting tactic used by Wal-Mart is to basically operate "as a distribution center for Chinese goods." While foreign manufacturers would normally have to work hard to gain footing in American markets, by producing goods cheaper than American competitors, they have instant ubiquity through Wal-Mart. This causes job loss domestically, and does nothing to help our economy. Some Chinese workers are profiled in this film, and they make about $3 per day. They don't have to live in company-owned dormitories, but even if they don't, the cost of rent is deducted from their paychecks. Their working conditions are hot, and they work 7 day a week. When corporate inspectors come, employees are coached to lie about factory conditions or risk losing their jobs.

China is definitely not the only country where workers are exploited in Wal-Mart's name. In the documentary they speak with a long-time Wal-Mart employee who was promoted to a job inspecting the company's plethora of foreign factories for certification. Prior to this he had fully bought into the Wal-Mart myth of social responsibility and image of a caring corporation, but was shocked at the worker conditions in Honduras when he visited. Then he found this was not the exception to the rule, and that the company did not want to remedy the problems and correct violations at all. Indeed, looking out for employee welfare cuts into their higher profits, which is why they went overseas in the first place: no worker rights there.

It was interesting to note in this movie just how much profit Wal-Mart makes. In 2005, their CEO Lee Scott made $27,207,799, while the average sales associate made $13,861. Sam Walton's widow and four children have a combined worth of $102 billion, and even built themselves a military-style bunker to protect themselves from the masses after 9-11 occurred.

One way companies try to gain public favor is by green-washing their business, donating to charities, and hyping up their philanthropy. It is much cheaper to sway public opinion with symbolic gestures than to actually do things the right way. The movie notes that Wal-Mart gave 1% of its annual income to charity. In contrast, the much maligned Microsoft monopolist, Bill Gates, gives 58%. This documentary also noted that Wal-Mart employees can opt to donate a portion of their paychecks to a critical need fund to help other Wal-Mart employees. Wal-Mart workers paid $5 million. The Walton family donated $6000. Apparently they felt that they had done enough to help the poor by driving down their wages and directing them to social services.

The last area covered in this documentary is Wal-Mart's effect on the environment. Not only to they and their ilk contribute to the huge problem of urban sprawl, but they have a record of being unresponsive to any local environmental concerns. In the film, the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation in North Carolina fights a deliberately obstructive Wal-Mart bureaucracy to stop their parking lot storage practice of herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides. These things sat uncovered directly on the pavement in large quantities, with rainwater washing them into the Catawba River, affecting plants and wildlife, and getting into human water supplies. It was not until a report ran on the local news that anything was done about. The company has a strong record of ignoring local consent decrees, and seems to think that it is too big and unassailable to worry about small governments and local courts. In fact, they do have bigger concerns, having been fined repeatedly by the EPA, mostly for various violations of the Clean Water Act.

Federal Power V. States' Rights

2008-11-15T21:17:00.000-06:00

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2007

To start answering the question about states rights, I think naturally the first place to start looking is at the Civil War and the events that led up to it. The Southern economy was more agricultural and completely based upon slave labor, while the more industrial Northern economy was based on free labor. It seems that clearly the Northerners had the high moral ground… or did they? Immigrants coming to the U.S. almost totally went to the North to get manufacturing and other kinds of work if they could find it. Early factories and mills in this country were not nearly as exploitative as later ones would become, largely because of immigrant labor (most notably the Irish). With a surplus of laborers, wages were driven down. Companies also pay as little as they can, operating on basic supply and demand principles even when it comes to humans. People became a resource to be exploited just like natural resources, and in general the North did not value the rights of labor much more than the South. In fact, that was one of the South's objections to Northern society: how it degraded the white man. Even most slaves lived in better material conditions than the Northern working class. Of course, these Southerners also neglected to take into account the extreme poverty in their section of the country, as large plantation owners constituted an elite aristocracy that controlled government, subjugated small farmers, and denied virtually any avenues of improvement to the poor and property-less. This exclusive economic system propped up upon denying millions of people basic human rights gave the North their biggest gripe against the South. Slavery supported the rich and blocked everyone else from social mobility, and that directly conflicted with the prevailing Northern sentiment. They largely did not care for what slavery did to the blacks, but were concerned about how it affected whites. As the U.S. was rapidly expanding westward, both the North and the South feared that the other was trying to gain a majority in the Senate by incorporating more slave or more free states. This brought the Civil War to a head.

Of course, there was a strong abolitionist movement that had a lot to do with it, but they never constituted a majority in the North. Even after the war started, complete abolition of slavery was not advocated by most. Though personally opposed to slavery, Lincoln had long advocated concessions to the demands of the Southern states, wanting to contain slavery and let it hopefully die of attrition. He said in relation to the popularity of slavery and the inequitable views of African Americans: "a universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded." He was furthermore worried that if one group could be deprived of basic human rights, such as African Americans had been, then why couldn't that happen to immigrant laborers too? That would slow their settlement in western territories and negatively impact the industrial growth of the North. Gradually emancipation of the slaves became central to the North, not only because of staunch abolitionist advocacy, but also because a popular feeling grew that only the complete freeing of all slaves would make the sacrifices of this bloody war worth it. Lincoln capitalized on this growing antislavery sentiment and issued the Emancipation Proclamation more than two years after the war started.

Lincoln's primary reason for going to war had been to preserve the Union, even if slavery had to be allowed for a time within it. He called the conflict a domestic insurrection, rather than formally declaring war: a flimsy pretense that allowed him to wage battle without ever seeking congressional approval. He did not invade the South however, but let the insurrectionists fire the first shots when they took Fort Sumter.

Given Lincoln's stated goals, many Southern apologists will tell you the Civil War was really about a state's right to secede from the Union, as if they were doing it as some sort of socio-political experiment. In fact, they all did it for one explicitly stated reason: they needed slaves. It does not matter if most Northerners were not progressive abolitionists with superior morals. They did not want more slave states, and the South did. When the South felt the balance of power was turning against them in the federal government, they withdrew from it and set up their own government. Under their president, Jefferson Davis, the Confederacy soon had a larger central bureaucracy than the U.S. So much for small government! Even more telling is that their new constitution did not explicitly mention their member states' right to secede… somehow forgetting to mention that key concept for which they allegedly left the Union. Their constitution also made it virtually impossible for states to outlaw slavery… there goes states' rights in the South! Even the fledgling Southern empire understood the reasons for which the original states united, and likewise wanted to preserve their own union, along with the stability and advantages it provides. It is worth mentioning here too, that Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus in the South and instituted martial law.

People today still argue about states' rights, and this is a valid and important debate. States should retain certain rights, while the federal government should have jurisdiction in other areas. This line can be debated to infinity, but the truth is, there needs to be some degree of centralization or you will have a number of social and economic problems. Furthermore, any government that allows secession will collapse into disorder, with states leaving any time a decision or vote resulted in something they did not like. The U.S. would dissolve into what we had before the Constitution gave us a central government, which was a completely ineffective loose affiliation of sovereign states... and there were only 13 to contend with at the time. And, as mentioned before, the South did not even believe in secession for their own government, leading one to conclude that they thought their case for secession was exceptional; not a widely applicable "right."

Also consider how the idea of states being able to defect from the U.S. has grown to become ridiculously implausible, and would clearly not be in their best interest anyway. That said, sure, I would love to see one backwards state set up where all the people who don't like blacks, gays, Mexicans, atheists, abortion rights, women's rights, and Muslims all flock to for rampant inbreeding and bible reading, but if that happened their number one goal would be to bomb the rest of us.

Though defeated in some very important ways (such as conceding to a Bill of Rights), the Federalists who argued for acceptance of our Constitution have largely set the course for our nation. They died as a party, but their vision for America a world power with a strong centralized government, diverse industry, and a vital commercial economy has undeniably succeeded over the Jeffersonian agrarian ideals. Thomas Jefferson worried that a highly industrial economy would concentrate large populations of exploited workers together and create volatile conditions conducive to crime and dissatisfaction. He imagined the nation as chiefly agrarian where most people owned and tended property, and only a small, decentralized government existed that was responsive to their needs and concerns. He didn't want industry and commerce to be completely repudiated. Instead he wanted to discourage urban development and encourage farming, which he thought, along with state sovereignty in most matters, would lead to a more egalitarian society. However, Thomas Jefferson himself had to violate some of his own ideals as president, and himself worked to expand governmental power. Furthermore, his economic plan hinged on westward expansion and was not sustainable. Personally, I hold Thomas Jefferson in very high regard and have a strong affinity for his vision of America. However, as is the case in most things, the purity of an ideal is impossible to realize. While it is important to challenge and limit central authority, just as Jefferson advocated, there are definitely areas where it is necessary. There is no returning to a tiny nation of farmers with ample land and resources. While the original states did enter into the Union voluntarily under the constitutional government, almost immediately the nation began functioning as a unified, gestalt entity. The Civil War ended any illusions of autonomous statehood. Furthermore, the Constitution does not explicitly grant states the right to secede. The notion of secession comes from the belief that since the states voted to ratify the document, they can also opt out. It has no legal standing. Secession was never envisioned as part of our system of checks and balances.

For better or worse (but probably better), America has become a Union of People, not a Union of States. One can almost see the idea of statehood as a necessary part of the transition between colonies and a nation. States remain relevant in many important ways, and should retain certain rights, but secession is not one of them. Neither is "nullification," which South Carolina tried when Andrew Jackson (himself from South Carolina and a champion of states' rights) was president. They wanted to assert the right to nullify an action of the federal government that they deemed unconstitutional. In this case it was a tariff. Andrew Jackson, who became convinced that no state had the right to defy federal authority, defeated them.

In the states' rights camp you sometimes hear people say that we should let states decide issues, and if you don't like them, you can move to another state with laws you do like. This is complete and utter bullshit, and a sad reiteration of the "love it or leave it" argument. If people just left their country, or their sovereign state, whenever there were discriminatory laws or some other objectionable injustice, then they add to the problem by allowing it to persist. Their avoidance would give validation to the offensive and dangerous practices, which could then spread. Do we really want populations skipping around the states or the globe looking for the perfect government that does not exist, a world population of refugees? For most people leaving wouldn't even be a practical possibility. Rather than let tyranny develop in your absence, it is infinitely better to agitate for positive reform. In fact, it is your civil responsibility as citizen in a democracy.

There is an ancillary argument occasionally made, usually implicitly, that says: "if you don't like it, you can secede from it." The states' rights proponents who embrace this failed philosophy confound the intellect. What if your sovereign state becomes similarly intolerable? Do you allow counties or municipalities to secede? At some point, you have to decide what your governmental boundaries are and preserve them. For this country, that was determined once and for all by the Civil War. If any state or group of states wish to break way from the country again, whether for noble or base reasons, they cannot assert a states' right to secede with a straight face.

Answering the question of what the advantages of a central government are would take forever, and many of them should be fairly obvious. But I would like to point out a few things:

Blacks surely thought the federal government was oppressive for, well, a couple hundred years… but so were the states. The 13th 15th Amendments were surely particularly welcomed developments for them. What if we still had some slave states and some free states? What if there was no amendment supporting their equal rights? Who but the most odious racist would argue that would be a good thing? Without strong central government, it would be like that. The South would have seceded. What about segregation? "States' rights" became the rallying cry of those who would continue this practice. Frequently today we still hear the phrase used as deflection in a myriad of issues. Rather than consenting to the will of the majority, these people would prefer to decide controversial issues locally, where the people are more sympathetic to their views. There is definitely something to be said for the tyranny of a majority, as clearly they do not always do the right thing. However, this principle of a wrong-minded majority would still be intact if you simply went with state decisions over federal ones. You could also argue that some free states are better than no free states, and that is true, but we shouldn't leave opportunity for popular injustice in any state.

Women's suffrage was another issue that ultimately demanded an actual constitutional amendment. Can you imagine if women could only vote in certain states? At the time, and even today there are people who think that would be nice. Of course, all the men in the sexist states would have to cross their borders to get laid, because what self-respecting woman would choose to live in a society that does not value their input?

Gays are currently trying to gain rights in many states, and would need a similar amendment to gain universal rights. Right now they have rights in a couple states and none in others. The idea for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is always being suggested to deny them rights, and that seems more likely to pass if it gained momentum than one granting them rights. If it did pass, I warrant that you won't hear too much of an outcry over states' rights from the conservatives who most often lay claim to them. Some issues of morality transcend the blasé attitude of leaving it up to the individual states. Unfortunately, some issues could be decided immorally… again with the tyranny of the majority. The fact that either side would be fine with federal legislation in their favor, however, shows that the issue is not really states' rights; it's about how best to get what you want. Although it would admittedly be terrible if the anti-gay movement got an amendment voted in, such a regressive measure would hopefully spark unremitting opposition and eventually be repealed, just as Prohibition was.

Issues of a higher morality are not the only issues that require federal decree, regulation, or coordinated policy, though. There are also many areas where federal supremacy is just a pragmatic necessity. And there is at least one area that I would argue envelops both practical and ethical concerns: the environment.

We all know the problems of too strong a centralized government; examples of the resulting risks of oppression and injustice are ample throughout world history. Our country is not immune to these concerns. While the Bush Administration has arguably presided over the most severe assaults on our Constitution in history with great expanded executive power, the PATRIOT Act, and the Military Commissions Act, Lincoln also behaved questionably when he suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned dissenters, tried civilians in military courts, ignored the Supreme Court when it tried to stop him, and waged war without congressional consent. FDR set up Japanese internment camps during WWII, John Adams silenced opposition with the Alien and Sedition Acts, Woodrow Wilson passed the Sedition Act of 1918, and the list goes on. Often attacks on the Constitution come in time of crisis or war when fear can be used to justify them, especially among a sheepish population that knows very little of its own history. It should be noted, though, that the Constitution does allow for suspension of habeas corpus in "times of rebellion or invasion" (Article 1, Section 9), which seems to be in conflict with the 6th Amendment. The Bush's Attorney General has even tried to argue that no habeas corpus is implied at all in the Constitution, which should raise the eyebrows of those diehard Constitutionalists who seem to only care about a facile reading of the Second Amendment. Anyway, I digress…

While clearly educated citizens must retain vigilance against encroachments upon our freedoms, it becomes difficult to see how tyranny will erupt from the federal government stopping someone from developing a wetlands area. Rather than explain the need for wetlands here, I'd rather approach the broader issue of whether the state or the feds should determine the regulatory policy for environmental matters.

It is tempting to say that the health of the environment is better protected through federal authority. However, if we look to Europe, which has more uniform and stricter environmental standards among disparate countries, we see that treaties among largely sovereign entities can make great accomplishments. The question becomes whether 50 autonomous states would sign onto a "treaty" mandating strict environmental regulation. There are reasons to doubt this, and what's more, it would take a long time to accomplish while much irreversible damage to water, soil and air would occur in the interim. Furthermore, legislators who pass environmental bills represent their districts as much as state representatives who would sign onto these treaties or pacts would stand for their constituencies. The main difference with state-by-state voluntary regulation is that states could opt out of treaties, so political and economic pressures would have to be applied to convince them to join and not leave.

There is a big problem constantly rising with the constitutionality of any environmental regulation; namely the constitution, being a pre-Industrial Revolution document, says nothing on the subject. Two things allow Congress to pass environmental legislation today, such as the Clean Air Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which are then interpreted and administered by agencies such as the EPA. One is the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate inter-state commerce. Therefore, environmental legislation must ultimately tie in to the activities of one state affecting some commercial interest in another. Obviously, this often requires quite a stretch of the imagination in many cases, so some groups propose the idea of an Environmental Amendment to give the government clear authority in this regard. On the other hand, other groups perpetually challenge the over-extension of government regulation under the Commerce Clause. The other thing environmental policy relies upon is the doctrine of federal preemption, in which the federal government has the right to strike down any state law that conflicts with federal law, or merely legislates within a legislative domain claimed by Congress. The federal government effectively preempts state governments on a case-by-case basis, with support for this doctrine conferred through the courts. This idea also gets challenged constantly, and is of particular importance to environmental regulation, which by its nature requires uniformity in standards across the states (and ideally the world). These issues are too complex to get into here, but my main point is that government ownership of the energy sector would enable a coherent energy policy to be adopted, and would facilitate better regulation and planning, thereby saving and even making money in the long run. I chose energy because it is one of the greatest polluting industries with powerful lobbyists, and because I believe our nation's natural resources are not there to enrich the few.

The question becomes whether or not federal preemption is damaging not to state sovereignty, but to the public good. Will it lead to tyranny under a corrupt central authority? As long as the county's checks and balances remain intact, the democratic process operates unimpaired, and government accountability is upheld, I severely doubt it. Still, many people argue that it would, and cite examples of private property rights being undermined by environmental restrictions. However, could not states impose similar restrictions? And unrestricted development, including destruction of habitat and wetlands, is clearly not for the larger public good, though it may be good for personal economic interests. The economy is not the measure of all things good and worthy. The South already tried to justify slavery as the basis of their economy and lost that argument. There are transcendent issues beyond the pursuit of wealth. In the environmental arena, it is not simply a moral issue either, but one of practicality with science on its side. With regulation there will always be some perturbed developers, angry property owners, and inconvenienced industrialists, but allowing states to approve unmitigated development is a risk not just for public health and natural destruction in that state, but also to the atmospheric and water quality of states around it. In a world where pollution and climate change affects everyone, we need more regions working on reducing emissions and waste, not less.

We have laws for civil and women's rights that do not permit the states to opt out. Alabama cannot decide to not to give blacks state jobs or reintroduce segregation. Indiana cannot decide to deny women the vote. Few people would argue against these federal prohibitions. We need a constitutional amendment for the environment as well. One state shouldn't be able to be way more lax on environmental regulation than another, not just because their activities will have adverse affects beyond their boundaries, but for economic reasons as well. Industries that can reduce costs by moving to where standards are lower will flock to those areas, causing job losses in their former states. To prevent this from happening states will naturally decrease their regulations to retain employers. It is easy to see how leaving environmental standards up to the states would erode any progress we've made and financially penalize states that protect their lands, water, and air quality. With uniform rules for all states, no one can gain competitive advantage by removing regulation.

Thoughts on JVCD

2008-11-09T12:12:00.001-06:00

JVCD

Mabrouk El Mechri (2008)

I was intrigued by the absurd, yet by no means unfamiliar, concept of this film (taking iconic characters and putting them in outlandish contexts is a time-honored comedic strategy). The real-life Van Damme plays himself in the advanced stage of his plummeting career, getting inadvertently held hostage in an armed robbery by a bumbling group middle-aged halfwits. It seems to be a premise ripe for comedy, but while the film thankfully avoids brash slapstick, it does come across with a strident lack of subtlety regarding drama and structure. The plot reeks of contrivance, and the way it unfolds is clumsy and unnecessary. It is as if the director sought to make an art film that would be the schlocky equivalent to Van Damme's martial arts movies… or maybe he did that accidentally. I am unsure. It strikes so many awkward imbalances, which the filmmakers probably think help it rise above genre, but in the end the film is too clunky and uninspiring to work. It is funny but not funny enough, the attempts at drama and tension seem overwrought, and by drawing so much attention to its artifice, it seems smugly self-satisfied. It doesn't justify its pseudo-experimentation with compelling ideas, earnest exploration, or stylistic charm. In fact, the look of the film is quite flat and ugly.

Still, a few things in here I liked. I liked the video store workers who were excited to catch Van Damme walking down the street… conveniently right after the middle-eastern one just got through saying how Jean-Claude was his favorite action hero because he never fought Arabs. A lot of other small scenes worked, but were woven ineffectively into an overall shoddy tapestry. I think Van Damme possibly does have some acting talent, which comes across better here not just because it's not a cardboard role, but also because he is speaking his native language. He has also aged well, maintaining his fighting physique while his boyish facial features of the past have gained character and expressiveness with deep lines of experience. The saving grace of the film is Van Damme's apparent ability not to take himself too seriously, ruthlessly mocking his own straight-to-video career with dozens of in-jokes I probably don't get. However, he does appear sincere in his desire to be taken seriously as an actor, and to avoid the demanding action roles he is getting too old for. This film serves almost like a series of screen tests to demonstrate Van Damme's acting ability.

Through the film we learn how Van Damme is going through a messy divorce, and experiencing financial woes as he loses good roles to fellow martial arts has-been, Steven Segal. We find Van Damme reflecting on his lifetime of sub-par action movies, which now serve as fodder to make his daughter's classmates make fun of her. Her expressed desire to live with her mom during a custody hearing in order to avoid this mockery is genuinely sad. Moments like these could have been more emotionally effective if placed in a better context, but instead come across as disjointed exercises in drama that keep us at a critical distance. Maybe we are intended not to care, but the syrupy sentimentality, often scored with horrendous pop music, couldn't possibly all be played for black comedy, could it? This ambivalence constitutes the most engaging aspect of the film, making me wonder if it is all some elaborate postmodern farce, or whether there's real pain beneath it. Or both.

Perhaps the most odious five minutes come when Jean-Claude speaks directly to the camera in a long, tearful soliloquy of self-pity about his troubled career and the difficult aspects of his fame. Whether it is a truly agonized plea to be taken seriously, or a tedious mean-spirited joke at his own expense, it is no fun to watch.

The Ugliest People In American History

2008-11-03T21:54:00.000-06:00

This is pretty mean-spirited, but hey, they've all been dead for over 100 years, so screw them. I went back as far as I could into the annals of American history to bring you the most beastly, deformed, and frightful countenances ever photographed. I am sure some even earlier folks were pretty repugnant also, but they were painted to look as good as possible without becoming unrecognizable. I wanted actual photos. I was looking for some intangible quality that really made them stand out apart from the masses of other homely high-achievers. Here are the results...

William McKinley

This picture captures a certain hardness of spirit that makes me think he didn't like kittens. Maybe it's the eyebrows.

Zachary Taylor

This guy had to become President of the United States before he could get laid. I bet even Taft did better with the ladies. I think little Zachary parlayed his popularity as the lovable wolf-boy in P.T. Barnum's sideshow into a political career.

Martin Van Buren

Poor ol' Martin was so ugly he crossed back into cute, like a scruffy mutt you just wanna scratch behind the ears. He was also very short. Can you imagine this little hobbit running the country? Adorable!

John Quincy Adams

This photo gives me the creeps. He is described in my history book as "a man of cold and forbidding manners, with little popular appeal." Sounds about right. There is something very strange and eerie about this photo. I don't trust him... dirty federalist swine.

Daniel Webster

This is quite a good score for ugly seekers. In fact, seeing this photo gave me the idea for this blog. He scares the hell out of me. The Devil himself wouldn't make eye contact with this guy. They should make a horror movie about him. He captivates his victims with eloquent speeches then defiles their flesh in Attack of the Whigs Part 3: Webster's got a Bratwurst.

John C. Calhoun

This beloved pillar of the "Great Triumvirate," along with Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, is perhaps the freakiest looking man I have ever laid eyes upon. Do they still make 'em like this in South Carolina? If so, maybe we should have let them secede from the union.

Henry Clay

Might as well complete the Great Triumvirate of Ugly. I gotta tell you, this really looks like some sort of molester-ghost to me. I bet he's got teeth like a chupacabra.

Andrew Johnson

Okay, I just had to add this goober to the original list. He was apparently as ugly on the inside as he was on the outside, being a complete racist turd described in my history book as "an intemperate and tactless man filled with resentments and insecurities." Go figure. I'd hate the very God who made me if I were this hideous drip of a man.

Socialized Energy & the Environment

2008-10-31T21:42:00.000-05:00

Photo By Ben Lybarger © 2007
Here are some ideas I've been kicking around lately. I don't have it all completely worked out yet, but you'll get the gist.

Would it cost taxpayers and consumers less money to have government-run energy plants and providers? Rather than trying to constantly make private energy firms comply with environmental regulations through enforcement, or by market manipulations that make compliance economically beneficial, perhaps we should just grab the bull by the horns and forego this expensive and largely ineffective song and dance between industry and regulating agencies. In so doing, there would be a huge elimination in taxpayer costs to monitor, permit, and litigate within the energy sector, and a uniform and coherent energy and environmental policy would be much easier to implement. Meeting and enhancing emissions standards would be much simpler inside government facilities. Funding for these improvements aimed at reducing pollution would be derived in part from the industrial subsidies we already pay, as well as the money saved from no longer regulating private companies in this sector… not to mention profits from the sale of energy.

As it stands now, companies seek to gain competitive edge, as well as reduce production costs in order to increase profit margins. This makes them reluctant to institute ever more costly pollution controls. To combat this, the penalties for non-compliance, from such agencies as the EPA, have to periodically be increased in order to make the corporate cost-benefit analysis come out in favor of emissions controls. As anyone involved on the industrial side can attest, this antagonist system is not good for business. More importantly, however, it is not good for the environment or the taxpayer.

In fact, the taxpayer will be paying the costs of pollution control anyway, since providers of energy will simply raise their prices for consumers. This naturally disproportionately affects the poor, who in turn get minimal subsidies for winter heat. Under a government-managed energy system, the eligible poor who currently receive federally funded energy assistance (such as HEAP in Ohio) would still receive help, but instead of it coming from tax dollars, it would come from energy profits diverted from stockholders into government accounts. In fact, these profits will also fund environmental controls, and maybe even drive energy prices down slightly for everyone.

One should also consider that poor and working-class families are similarly affected disproportionately by green taxes or emissions charges, which raise the price for consumers. Furthermore, the increasing movement away from direct regulation into the use of market forces and the growing awareness that companies can save money by reducing source pollution, increasing efficiency, and recycling industrial by-products, is very slow to take effect. Environmental benefit from these methods, while encouraging, is neither profound nor fast enough yet to divert expected ecological damage and climate change. Also, this still relies on traditional direct regulation and enforcement methods to make most positive changes to company infrastructure cost-effective.

Another problem with private firms handling the energy sector is that short-term planning takes precedence over long-term goals. With the average tenure of a corporate CEO averaging just two years, that person is chiefly concerned with turning a quick buck for stockholders, regardless of whether his or her decisions negatively impact the company's profits in the long run. Much less are they concerned with environmental impacts, short or long term. This is a particular problem, since most cost-cutting measures for industry are not immediate money-savers. Therefore, corporate planning takes on a whole new environmental importance often not addressed under the current management system.

In addition to the energy sector, I also believe that nationalization of the country's hazardous waste management facilities is a very good idea too, due to the immense costs of regulating it and the great potential hazards it poses to public and environmental health. In fact, there already are some government-run Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) for hazardous waste, which feature more frequent inspections and lower regulatory costs. Making all TSDFs governmental would also help the companies that generate waste by absolving their liability for improperly handled waste at these facilities. Current laws delegate broad liabilities among even minimally involved parties, and have been repeatedly upheld in the courts. They hold companies, as well as individuals within companies, responsible all for generated waste, even after it leaves their hands, and makes them financially accountable parties for any Superfund remediation. In addition, companies must demonstrate financial solvency for cleanup in case contamination occurs, whether through insurance policies, trust funds, or surety bonds. Liability is even retroactive, meaning that companies acting in accordance with past laws can still be held accountable for environmental damage incurred during periods of compliance. Clearly, if the government ran all hazardous waste management facilities, it would not only achieve much greater compliance with its own regulations at lower cost, but companies would also have less expensive liability issues involved in storing, treating, or disposing their hazardous waste.

Pollution and contamination issues are endemic to a wide variety of companies and firms across a wide swath of industries, however I do not advocate nationalizing our total economy for many reasons too numerous to get into here. Aside from hazardous waste management issues, my main contention is that our nation's natural resources belong to the people, and that the public should benefit most from their dispersal, rather than a handful of powerful executives and stockholders. In addition, it is greatly in the public interest to maintain a safe, healthy, and clean environment. Environmental protection can be much better maintained through a socialized energy sector, largely because it is one of the biggest polluters (think coal-fired power plants, oil refineries, etc). There are obviously a number of public utilities already, but the current trend is unfortunately towards greater privatization.

Some people will inevitably say that the public already profits off of the country's natural resources through leases of public lands for drilling and mining. This argument is incredibly weak, however, considering the relatively minor cost of leasing (if any) against company profit, in addition to weighing in things such as oil company subsidies. Naturally, some resources provide a much larger profit margin than others, but in many cases the people are the ones getting bamboozled.

Other folks will ask about the tax money currently generated from industry. In the nationalized energy scheme, even a slim profit margin will likely equal or excel the current income from taxes. We'd also lose money generated from fining violators of environmental regulations. However, do we really want to be dependent upon polluters for revenue?

The biggest obstacle to a plan for nationalized energy would be public acceptance. Socialism has an incredible bad reputation in this country, where the free market is worshipped above all else. Ignoring the myriad of ways in which this is not actually a free market economy, let's focus on the "evil" socialist reforms in the past. Beyond the obvious New Deal programs that brought us through the Great Depression, consider that it was Thomas Jefferson that originally proposed and attempted to provide public education. This is most definitely a socialist notion, even though Jefferson would not have known that, having died before the Industrial Revolution was in full swing with Karl Marx there to criticize its undesirable by-products. At any rate, most people accept socialized education now, while being largely unconvinced about socialized healthcare. It seems to me that health is a more primary human concern than education, since learning multiplication tables won't help your Staph infection.

Additionally, socialism should not be decried by those belonging to labor unions, receiving Medicare, Social Security, Disability, or any number of other the countless benefits available through the odious redistribution of wealth. In the current presidential campaign, much has been made of Barrack Obama's "socialist tendencies," but the vice presidential candidate features them even more prominently by bolstering and defending her home state's sharing of wealth through something approaching my idea of socialized energy.

Alaskan residents receive an annual dividend check from the state, funded primarily from oil royalties. Sarah Palin actually even raised taxes on oil companies in her state to increase these checks by $1,200. As Governor Palin says, "we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." That's exactly what I've talking about. In my plan, profits above administrative and maintenance costs would be used to integrate new pollution control technology and waste management procedures. Beyond that, what isn't appropriated for imminently compelling but unrelated needs, such as a defense crisis, would be distributed in Alaska-style dividend checks. This in turn would actually help the economy.

With the recent stock market bailout, it was fought largely on the grounds that it was too socialist. However, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson eventually had to change the plan to be less of a gift to the banking industry, and more of a direct investment by government in it ($250 billion worth). The people should then get a return on their investment… if the banks used the money to actually increase lending, which they haven't, instead using it to issue bonuses and make acquisitions. This perhaps underscores the questionable wisdom of the bailout to begin with, though not on "socialist" grounds. Wall Street executives are more concerned with their own self-interests than the public good, and that is a decidedly capitalist mindset.

Perhaps a better allocation of $700 billion dollars in taxpayer money would be towards the buyout of the energy sector under Eminent Domain. While it would not likely help the failing markets in the short-term, at least it wouldn't be a total flushing of public funds. The buyout would not entail a rise in unemployment either, since workers and management at all facilities could keep their jobs. The people most negatively affected would be those who've gotten rich off public resources or through monopolies over local infrastructures.

Dave & Busters is a Shit Hole

2008-09-29T15:14:00.002-05:00

I have never really gone to Dave & Busters or any similar place to play games, but last week Lisa and I decided to go there before hitting a movie. I figured the place was huge and would have all kinds of cool games, so I grabbed like $20 in quarters from my change tray and we headed out.

First disappointment: They don't take quarters. Why the hell would they make arcade machines that don't take quarters? Video games, laundromats, and car washes are the reason quarters were invented. Instead, you have to use these stupid debit cards that they sell you, but the games are priced in "credits," so you have to do conversions between real and token currencies to figure out the price of play. That's completely shitty and dishonest. At least put the price in terms of U.S. dollars on the machines, you bastard sons of whores!

Second disappointment: No pinball machines. A huge game room with no pinball is like having a Natural History museum with no fossils. It makes me sick, and I wanted to take a dump on their virtual reality simulators.

Third disappointment: Game prices are absurd. Lisa and I could not quite understand the card-swipe and cryptic credit system they had going on, but we only got to play one game of air hockey and two arcade games for $10. What the fuck??!! This must be why they don't take quarters. You spend about $3 per minute there. Indeed their Wikipedia page says the game card "encourages extended play of games to increase customer spending."

Fourth disappointment: No fighting games. We wanted to play some two-player fighting games; Mortal Combat or even wrestling type games. There were NONE. How and why can this be? The only thing I can figure is that the place is kid-oriented and those games are too violent. Indeed it did seem like all the games were G-rated (even the zombie shoot-em-up game). Does this make any sense for an arcade with a friggin' BAR in the middle of it?? They should have Grand Theft Auto and games where you are a Norwegian Black Metaler burning down churches.

Fifth disappointment: What the fuck is up with all the shitty carnival and truck stop kinds of games? Are you gonna try and tell me people like those more than pinball? Who enjoys that crap? I've had more fun doing the dishes. All I fucking wanted was some goddamn pinball!!

Sixth disappointment: What the hell is up with all the shooting games? I am a fan of the Second Amendment, but it doesn't take a European sociologist in a speedo to be shocked by the American obsession with firearms. There is literally almost no other type of video game there (aside from a ton of racing games - America's other favorite pastime). You can shoot such politically-correct things as enemy soldiers, zombies, and animals. The latter was the weirdest, as there were several "extreme" hunting games. I guess those are for people who enjoy the thrill of the kill without the annoyance of being in nature. By the end I was ready for a Texas-themed shoot 'em up game where you are Charles Whitman in a tower with your rifle. That'll never happen, though, mainly because the extreme violence in their video games has to have a moral context... in order to appease the children who hang out at bars. Good job, guardians of the public conscience!

Herb Alpert has some Crazy Mojo

2008-08-19T15:32:00.001-05:00

I have been to more than my fair share of Goodwill and various consignment stores, though mainly in Ohio and Texas, but nevertheless I feel confident in suggesting a new law of physics: Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass records and thrift stores attract each other much like the ionic affections between positive and negative charges. It is a fundamental law of nature, and you can count on it being true inasmuch as you can reliably assume gravity is the unremitting love that binds us all to this planet like so many mormon wives. You would sooner violate the Third Law of Thermodynamics and motor off to work every morning in a perpetual motion machine than enter a thrift store blissfully bereft of Herb Alpert records. Why is this?

Well, you might as well ask yourself why paleontologists like Dire Straits so much, or whether fish fall in love. Some things simply cannot be answered with any amount of philosophical elbow grease. And although the Herb Alpert ubiquity is in undeniable and menacing, I must admit that I have never sampled his musical offerings. Perhaps wrongly, I have taken the fact that everyone eagerly donates his records to Goodwill as a good indicator that they are total rubbish. As a friend of an imaginary friend of mine once reported to my sister's pet hamster during a peculiar shroom incident, malicious thrift store clerks will sometimes sneak these Herb Alpert album into the bags of unsuspecting customers, so eager are they to get rid of them. Naturally, I doubt the veracity of this source, so I wonder if the over-representation of Herb Alpert in the thrift store market is proportional to just how many records he sold during his heydey. Maybe the man is a genius. Maybe his marketing plan was actually to dominate the thrift store markets from the get-go. I would venture to say that there are much more thrift stores in the U.S. than traditional record stores, thereby granting him more exposure. He will become remembered solely for his amazing thrift store presence. I bet most of these albums were donated by him personally, or by some shadowy network of initiates in a secret society of sycophantic fans intent on preserving his name to future generations. Sure, this sort of fame does not come with much of a monetary reward, nor do most people ever actually listen to his work, but long after interest in Elvis and the Beatles wanes, Herb Alpert albums will still be collecting dust on the shelves to inspire the idle curiosity of future generations. That, my friends, is more immortality than any of us can aspire to.

Wrinkles & Revolution

2008-07-23T15:55:00.000-05:00

As I was ironing some shirts today, I started to wonder whether there is something inherent in human nature that finds wrinkled clothing aesthetically disagreeable. Is there something in our genetic make-up that compels us to abhor their appearance, urging us to go so far as to invent the iron, wrinkle-releasing sprays, and polyester? What possible evolutionary purpose could such a proclivity for pressed garments serve? And if this bias against wrinkles is learned as some arbitrary social norm, then I say let's be done with it. Sure, I am aware of vanguard fashionistas of the past who have tread down this dangerous path only to be greeted by scorn and derision, but isn't a world without the odious activity of perpetual ironing -- a world where the poor, in their bedraggled hoplessness, need not dream of a day when they can afford those wondrous wrinkle-free shirts reserved only for the privileged few -- isn't that a world worth fighting for? I think so.

The KKK Took My Grammar Away...

2008-07-20T15:51:00.001-05:00

The Secret Racist Plot Against the Alphabet!

Add crimes against grammar and good taste to the KKK's list of unconscionable offenses. For years when I've driven through NE Ohio I've been baffled by signs for businesses that replace the letter "C" with the letter "K." Just yesterday I saw a business in Lisbon for "Home Health Kare"! I am used to seeing Kountry Kitchens and Kuston Kar Kommandos (Kenneth Anger at his funniest), but I thought respectable businesses would at least spell correctly. What does it all mean? Do they provide home health care exclusively for aging white trash? Is it some sort of twisted ode to poor education that resonates with the barely literates of our society, or is something more sinister afoot? I have long imagined that these businesses were sending codes, not unlike the rainbows on the signs and windows of gay-friendly bars, that let people know they are Klan-friendly. Maybe if I knew the secret handshake or code words I could pop into one of these places and be taken into the basement headquarters where they plan their race wars and alphabetical terrorism. Surely no leftist organization would such a stance against the letter "C." You never see a "Food Ko-Op" or political treatises on "Kommunism." However, Karl Marx did spell his name with a "K." Was he a bigot?! I mean, notable black men with the same first name, such as Carl Weathers and Carl Lewis, used the "C" and by all accounts seemed quite happy with it. After all, what is wrong with the conventional "C" that begins words such as "Country," "Car," "Care," "Custom," and so on? Do the racists among us believe that the letter "C" is some sort of phonetic miscegenator, an alphabetic half-breed? Perhaps they fear and resent the letter C's freedom to be pronounced both "hard" and "soft." However, I rarely, if ever, see the letter "C" replaced with an "S" in words like "City" or "Centennial." In fact, when the letter "C" is part of a consonant cluster and takes on a whole new aspect, such as in the word "Children," nobody seems the least bit disturbed. In the end, I must defer to my former analysis in saying that the improper usage of "K" on signs indicates a racist establishment, possibly a meeting place or Kommunal Jack-offery for decrepit bigots, and should be boycotted indefinitely. Some will say that measure is extreme, but even if the bumbling retards who make those signs just think it is "Kool" and are not Klan affiliates, they still should be punished for being cockeyed morons.

Also, it should be noted, I am hereby calling for a moratorium on Rockabilly bands who spell the word "Cat" with a "K" for similar reasons. In fact, that brings me to another point about the usage of the confederate flag ("Confederate" strangely spelled with an actual "C") on Rockabilly designs… and just generally in Ohio and Pennsylvania, which, last time I consulted a map, were in the NORTH! That flag should not be flown in the South either, for that matter, since they LOST the war, and they should only raise the flag of the nation they actually live in, not some fictitious conglomeration of slave states. And make no mistake, the Civil War was always about slavery for the South. By their own declaration, that is why they tried to secede from the Union, and those are the racist ideals the flag still stands for. Why else would people care about it, especially in the North? Call me a rotten carpetbagger, but I'd gladly burn that one.

Thoughts on WALL-E

2008-07-09T15:46:00.000-05:00

WALL-E

Andrew Stanton (2008)

I have not really liked any Pixar movies, to be honest. At best, they are a mild but well-meaning entertainment that interests me about as much the intricacies of extruding aluminum. I went and saw this one, though, after reading Bob Ignizio's blog review of it. While naturally there are some nitpicky aspects that I would have done differently, on the whole I found it endearing, intelligent, and well worth seeing.

In the future humankind has become corpulent dregs completely dependent upon technology, and addicted to convenience to the point that walking has become obsolete. In their daily lives bombarded by advertisements, sheepishly following fashion trends, and immersing themselves in a virtual reality, they become completely detached from nature and from each other. Aside from an appropriate and biting social critique, this movie also provides a very plausible trajectory for the human race. Did I mention that they now live in large galactic arcs because the earth has become so polluted and inundated with garbage that it is uninhabitable? For hundreds of years they have been hovering in space, waiting for robots such as the starring WALL-E unit, to clean the planet up for them. Meanwhile they send periodic robot probes to seek out signs of plant life returning to earth.

If there were more kids movies like this one, then perhaps there would be more hope for future generations after all.

As the captain of the galactic arc says in an argument with the autopilot, "I don't want to survive, I want to live." It sounds trite, I know, but I completely understand what he means. He and some of the other protagonists seek not only a lost connection to the earth and to nature, but also to each other and reality in general. The virtual world they have created for themselves to exist within is a droning, unthinking and unfeeling monotony, much like how many people exist today. They (and we) are happy to mindlessly consume product without knowing how it is produced. There are a plethora of moral and practical concerns in being this ignorant. In the future glimpsed by this movie, the disconnect goes all the way to our minds that endless seek easy diversions, and our bloated bodies reaping the lazy benefits of "progress." (This final schism is arguably the end result of dualistic thinking.)

However, this is not a techno-fear flick, and is actually more complex than anyone has a right to expect from an animated children's film. The main plot is essentially a post-apocalyptic love story between a trash compacter and a space probe. That, in and of itself, is fantastic. The film also diverges from the endless sci-fi cliche of robots and computers attaining consciousness and turning on us. Ever since Frankenstein's monster, all of our creations have become dangerous, possibly as a Judeo-Christian warning against "playing god." On the other hand, this film endows its mechanoid protagonists with the largest degree of empathy and humanity of anyone, and it is indeed they who actually save us.

Still, who wants to put our fate in the hands of the trash compacters of the future?

What I've been up to....

2008-04-24T15:57:00.000-05:00

Not much going on here. Life can be so ho-hum.

I did shave the cat, though...

Shaving a cat is never easy business.

Oh, and I carved the name of an ex-lover into my arm with a razorblade...

Then I went into a shirtless rage in the garage...

And I smashed a mutant baby with a flat screen monitor...

Each day scrolls by with nary an event to behold, and slowly my heart churns into the butter of boring yesterdays...

I Once was a Bulgarian Folk Dancer

2008-03-04T16:12:00.000-06:00

Actually I wasn't, but I had business cards that claimed I was. Anyway, that's not the topic of this blog. I just couldn't think of anything else on account of being so tired that my bones are currently dissolving into my bloodstream and my head weighs 67 pounds. Onto the blog proper...

You know how some things just manage to squeak by you in life... important bands and movies that somehow side-stepped your oncoming consciousness; those titles always gleaned through some transdimensional rift in the space-time continuum that sealed up before you got a hand through? So you just nod cooly when somebody mentions that topic of your ignorance in conversation, and raise a casual eyebrow as if to say, "the greatness here is so obvious it defies comment." And whenever people do discover the unseemly truth about how you are so culturally oblivious they almost collapse in a grotesque display of feigned disbelief, and you know deep down inside they pity you and are disgusted by your gross ignorance the way a cloistered nun would be repelled by the groinal ailments of a traveling yacht salesman. Have you had this experience? It is almost as if the fact that the whole world knows and loves this band or film makes you want to see or hear it all the less, because you want to avoid participating in this general consesus. You'd just be getting caught up with the pack rather than moving ahead of them anyway, and anyone you'd want to talk to about it afterward would think you were a sad lowly creature extolling the virtues of something the entire world already appreciates. It'd be like raving about how great hormone replacement therapy is. Everyone already knows hormone replacement therapy is great for relieving those uncomfortable menopausal symptoms. No need to flog that sleeping dog; just let that dead horse lie, thank you very much. Go butter your buttocks and make your cheeks sizzle against parked cars in the sunlight, or whatever foul and degraded thing it is you ovulating dimwits do to amuse yourselves on a Tuesday afternoon while I stay indoors warding off hot flashes and calcium deficiencies.

This weird digression about post-menopausal symptoms aside, I posted this blog because I just finished watching Raging Bull for the first time and it was as sweet as forbidden fruit growing in the fertile Valley of Poon. Also, the last couple days I've gone jogging while listening to entire Pixies albums. Now, I have heard the Pixies before, of course, but I never really connected with them or listened to a whole album by them. I gotta say, I'm glad I put off appreciating them this long, because the rest of the world is probably sick to death of them by now, but they're fresh goods to me, and what Pixies fan wouldn't want to hear those albums again for the very first time. I guess the last laugh is on you flaccid trouser turkeys.