The Next Tangent

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:14:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:25:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:14:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:56:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:09:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:56:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 06:54:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:33:00 +0000

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'

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 07:09:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:56:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:13:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:45:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:02:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:01:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:50:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:28:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:12:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:01:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:34:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:13:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:43:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:41:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:53:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:38:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Ben) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:46:00 +0000

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.