“Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?”
Viewers of Dr. Phil have probably heard him ask this to estranged family members. It’s also a question that applies to Democrats in Washington.
Dems are right about Donald Trump’s impeachable offenses, as reported by an anonymous whistleblower — and soon to be whistleblowers, I guess — to great consternation last month.
Following that bombshell, the White House released a transcript that catches the president red-handed, asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for “a favor” — to investigate Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden, and Biden’s son.
This follows Trump’s admission, during a June 13 interview with ABC, that he would accept political help from a foreign government, which the chairwoman of the Federal Elections Commission on the same day said would be illegal.
And if that wasn’t enough, Trump doubled down last week and said publicly that Ukraine and China should investigate the Bidens.
So the Democrats have the president dead to rights, and impeachment inquiries are proceeding apace.
But will impeachment make the party happy?
Likely no. The GOP-controlled Senate would have to vote to impeach the president, something members have no interest in doing, a few outliers to the contrary.
To be sure, the impeachment imbroglio is high drama (or low, depending on one’s perspective regarding the state of national politics), but it could also serve as the death knell for Democrats’ chances in 2020.
Our Founding Fathers were concerned about foreign influence in the running of our nation. Hence, their insistence that the president be a natural-born citizen, the Emoluments Clause and the “high crimes and misdemeanors” language in the Constitution.
These safety features are earmarked for exactly the kind of grifter who now occupies the White House, a man whose businesses profit from the presidency and who isn’t above asking foreign powers to dig up dirt on his rivals.
Yet while the Founding Fathers were quite prescient, even they didn’t foresee a time when such a scoundrel would continue to command loyalty from his “troops,” a modern-day Macbeth whose Thanes do not flee from his monstrous missteps but instead embrace him all the more in spite of or because of them.
So if Democrats bring charges, which they must in defense of the rule of law and to keep such misbehaviors from becoming normalized with successive presidents, they risk being characterized as do-nothings, squanderers of their time in office, and obsessives over what Trump supporters characterize as an attempt to overturn the 2016 election.
If they look the other way at these current allegations and focus instead on advancing their cause, they stand a better-than-average chance of winning the White House in 2020, which would make them — and their supporters — happy.
But looking the other way is something they can’t do in good conscience. More than a few people believe that Trump’s public invitation to China and Ukraine last week to investigate the Bidens occurred because he wants to be impeached, knowing it actually boosts his chances for re-election among voters who still see him as a much-needed outsider sticking it to the man.
It would all be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
The only hope is that conservative Americans will recognize Trump’s antics for what they are, will decide that the country’s long-term viability is more important than any short-term economic gains, and will let their elected officials know they want justice served. If Republicans see their chances of re-election dwindle because of ongoing joyrides on the Trump train, they will exit, and quickly.
But as long as public support is there, they will not, enshrining graft and duplicity in the nation’s highest office.
Dr. Phil’s guests usually pick happiness, by the way, because the causes they are fighting over aren’t worth lost time with family. Unfortunately, Democrats don’t have that luxury. They are in a battle for the very soul of the nation, so they must be right-fighters, regardless of how much it hurts them moving forward.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
A trip to Mars for Ohioans?
The Mars bar. Really?
Now I understand the favorite trick-or-treat offerings of some other states. Texans love a 10-gallon hat full of M&M’s, California is purring for Kit-Kat bars, and 12 states recognize that chocolate and peanut butter are greater than the sum of their individual parts with Reese’s.
I can even see how Tootsie Pops could shoot straight to number one in Vermont and Montana. Although I personally find them disgusting, they are at least a high-profile candy, thanks to a decades-old advertising campaign that asked, “How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? (Who cares? Throw them away before you get to the ghastly middle.)
But I can’t possibly understand how Mars clawed its way to the top of both Ohio and Pennsylvania. I have lived in northeast Ohio all my life and have never once seen anybody eating one, let alone handing them out on Beggars’ Night.
The map in question originated with Bid-On-Equipment in Illinois, which noted in a blog post that it had used the Google AdWords site — now known simply as Google Ads — to analyze “search volume trends for more than 100 different types of candy” from September 2018 to October 2018 in all 50 states.
So apparently more folks in Louisiana searched for Air Heads than any other candy during that time period, just as people in North Carolina and South Carolina surfed for information about Milk Duds, and North Dakotans improbably were burning to learn more about Hot Tamales while their South Dakotan neighbors went digging for news on Gummy Worms.
It all sounds highly suspect to me.
And again I say — Mars bars?
I am trying to wrap my mind around the paradigm-shifting injustice of it all. When I tweeted the Bid-On-Equipment map, I called B.S. on the results. (That’s Bachelor of Science to anybody who is offended.)
One respondent noted that nobody Googles candy they are already familiar with, so maybe the map is more reflective of state residents’ curiosity than their favorites.
That makes sense, but still leaves me wondering why, over a 13-month period, Idaho residents looked up SweeTarts often enough to make it number one, or why Swedish Fish surfaced so frequently in Kentucky searches.
It just sounded bogus.
But then came my epiphany. What if “Mars” wasn’t a reference to one particular candy, but rather to all the candy made by Mars, Incorporated?
According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, I know), Mars Inc. produces Milky Way, M&M’s, Skittles, Snickers and Twix. If Ohioans were looking up these, and Google captured them under the Mars umbrella, we would go from the doghouse to the penthouse of good taste.
But it can’t be that either, as Snickers and M&M’s make the list separately in several states.
So either the entire study is wonky (but not Willy Wonka-y, because those didn’t make the list either) or Ohioans really were jonesing for their Mars bars last year.
All I know is, based on the vacant stares I’ve received when talking about all this, if your Halloween plans include handing out Mars bars, you’d better be ready for a swift kick to Uranus.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
This column slaps
I learned a new meaning for an old word recently.
Not surprisingly, I must credit my students, who keep me contemporary even as they marvel at how linguistically inept I am for a guy who teaches English.
In class last week, a student said that a particular appetizer at Applebee’s “slaps.” A few other students agreed.
Rather than feign understanding (as I often do when confronted with shifting youth lexicon), I confessed my confusion. Was the appetizer too spicy? Too expensive?
“No, Mr. Schillig, it just means it was ... you know, good,” the student clarified.
“Really good,” another student chimed in.
“So if this class slaps, that’s a compliment?” I wondered.
Students weren’t ready to make a judgment about the course, especially to the person who grades them, although a few did roll their eyes at the out-of-touch bald geezer using a word reserved for people under 18.
I then asked if it was acceptable to say that something — a song, a book or a movie, maybe — was “slapping”? Would several enjoyable things lumped together, like dinner and dancing, “slap,” or did it always have to be “slaps”?
They assured me “slapping” was OK, and that two things “slap.” I told them I would try to be less tragically unhip and incorporate the word into my lexicon, maybe telling my wife that the next meal she makes “slaps.”
Before using my new compliment, however, I did a deep dive — well, maybe more of a shallow swim — through the etymology. I didn’t want to throw around a word with unsavory connotations.
The online Urban Dictionary notes “slaps” means “good as (an Anglo-Saxon word for intimacy that is inappropriate for a family newspaper).” So the term is already on shaky ground for the next staff meeting or the Thanksgiving dinner table: “This sales report is slapping, Jorge!” or “This gravy slaps, Grandma!”
As “slap,” the word is centered on music and music systems. It can refer to “tight music, something you can go dumb to.” This definition sent me scuttling to find definitions for “tight” and “going dumb,” both of which are positive in this context.
As “slapping,” the word can be applied specifically to playing loud music from a car. So “Beethoven’s Fifth was really slapping from those factory-installed speakers in your 1977 Nova” would be something that one could theoretically say, although probably wouldn’t.
An interesting aside involves SLAP, all caps, which is internet slang for “sounds like a plan.” When you text a neighbor to ask that his semi-feral cat pretty please stop fertilizing your flower beds, and he responds with SLAP, you can rest assured that the problem is solved.
Until the cat does it again, that is.
This discussion and my research remind me English is a living language, and changes come quickly. Some stick, some do not. Some even open the door for increased understanding.
For example, far more profound than a new sense of “slap” is the use of plural pronouns “they” and “them” for individual people who prefer not to be identified by the gender-specific “he” or “she.”
This shift in usage received a shot in the arm recently. Merriam-Webster, the dictionary of choice for the Associated Press, announced it would include this sense of the word in its publications going forward.
In the past, I’ve opposed the use of “they” and “them,” to refer to one person, not because I was against the rights of anybody to identify as nonbinary, but because they can lead to confusion. If I’m told “they” will be waiting for me at the corner, I might expect more than one person, until I get there and see just one.
However, such instances would be rare, with most misunderstandings easily deciphered through context. And “they” has a long history of being used as a singular pronoun already, especially informally. When compared with the alternatives — ignoring the earnest entreaties of nonbinary people or introducing a new pronoun (“ze,” perhaps) for these specific situations — it’s preferable to go with “they.”
Plus, if I can accept and understand that a slapping appetizer is a compliment, then I can wrap my mind around “they” as a singular.
Because increased empathy slaps.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
Not surprisingly, I must credit my students, who keep me contemporary even as they marvel at how linguistically inept I am for a guy who teaches English.
In class last week, a student said that a particular appetizer at Applebee’s “slaps.” A few other students agreed.
Rather than feign understanding (as I often do when confronted with shifting youth lexicon), I confessed my confusion. Was the appetizer too spicy? Too expensive?
“No, Mr. Schillig, it just means it was ... you know, good,” the student clarified.
“Really good,” another student chimed in.
“So if this class slaps, that’s a compliment?” I wondered.
Students weren’t ready to make a judgment about the course, especially to the person who grades them, although a few did roll their eyes at the out-of-touch bald geezer using a word reserved for people under 18.
I then asked if it was acceptable to say that something — a song, a book or a movie, maybe — was “slapping”? Would several enjoyable things lumped together, like dinner and dancing, “slap,” or did it always have to be “slaps”?
They assured me “slapping” was OK, and that two things “slap.” I told them I would try to be less tragically unhip and incorporate the word into my lexicon, maybe telling my wife that the next meal she makes “slaps.”
Before using my new compliment, however, I did a deep dive — well, maybe more of a shallow swim — through the etymology. I didn’t want to throw around a word with unsavory connotations.
The online Urban Dictionary notes “slaps” means “good as (an Anglo-Saxon word for intimacy that is inappropriate for a family newspaper).” So the term is already on shaky ground for the next staff meeting or the Thanksgiving dinner table: “This sales report is slapping, Jorge!” or “This gravy slaps, Grandma!”
As “slap,” the word is centered on music and music systems. It can refer to “tight music, something you can go dumb to.” This definition sent me scuttling to find definitions for “tight” and “going dumb,” both of which are positive in this context.
As “slapping,” the word can be applied specifically to playing loud music from a car. So “Beethoven’s Fifth was really slapping from those factory-installed speakers in your 1977 Nova” would be something that one could theoretically say, although probably wouldn’t.
An interesting aside involves SLAP, all caps, which is internet slang for “sounds like a plan.” When you text a neighbor to ask that his semi-feral cat pretty please stop fertilizing your flower beds, and he responds with SLAP, you can rest assured that the problem is solved.
Until the cat does it again, that is.
This discussion and my research remind me English is a living language, and changes come quickly. Some stick, some do not. Some even open the door for increased understanding.
For example, far more profound than a new sense of “slap” is the use of plural pronouns “they” and “them” for individual people who prefer not to be identified by the gender-specific “he” or “she.”
This shift in usage received a shot in the arm recently. Merriam-Webster, the dictionary of choice for the Associated Press, announced it would include this sense of the word in its publications going forward.
In the past, I’ve opposed the use of “they” and “them,” to refer to one person, not because I was against the rights of anybody to identify as nonbinary, but because they can lead to confusion. If I’m told “they” will be waiting for me at the corner, I might expect more than one person, until I get there and see just one.
However, such instances would be rare, with most misunderstandings easily deciphered through context. And “they” has a long history of being used as a singular pronoun already, especially informally. When compared with the alternatives — ignoring the earnest entreaties of nonbinary people or introducing a new pronoun (“ze,” perhaps) for these specific situations — it’s preferable to go with “they.”
Plus, if I can accept and understand that a slapping appetizer is a compliment, then I can wrap my mind around “they” as a singular.
Because increased empathy slaps.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Running around the issue of bias
“The Heart of a Swimmer vs. the Heart of a Runner,” read the headline.
Here we go, I thought, clicking on a recent New York Times article by Gretchen Reynolds. When you’re a runner, as I fancy myself to be, you grow accustomed to people scolding you about how awful the activity is.
Hard on the knees and joints. Too much pounding. Increased risk of heart attack for those just starting. Too much exposure to the sun.
These same people tout the advantages of cycling and swimming, even when I tell them I find cycling too inconvenient and that I sink whenever I come into contact with water. (At least I’m not a witch.)
So I was prepared for Reynolds’ article to be more of the same, an excoriation of my hobby based on some egghead’s idea of hard science. Surely, thought I, the heart of a runner has been found to be deficient, just as his knees and joints are.
And then I had an epiphany, just as the article opened on my screen and I was starting to read, already disgruntled by what I was certain would be there. My revelation was this: I was biased against information that I hadn’t even read yet.
I had identified a personal prejudice, some weird kissing cousin of confirmation bias, where people seek out only information that supports what they already believe. In my case, I was discounting information out of hand because I was preemptively certain it would contradict me.
Suddenly aware of this glitch in my thinking, I monitored my reading and reactions carefully. The article began with an acknowledgement that the hearts of both elite runners and swimmers were more efficient than the hearts of sedentary people. Okay so far, I thought.
Reynolds proceeded to note how a recent study had found “interesting if small differences” in the left ventricles of swimmers vs. runners. My inner eye rolled in anticipation, even as a more objective part of myself noted the cynicism and lack of objectivity I was demonstrating.
Surprisingly, however, the article found that the left ventricles of runners were more efficient than swimmers’, likely because running is performed vertically, while swimming is done horizontally. A runner’s left ventricle, then, must battle gravity to move blood back to the heart, which means that it becomes stronger and more efficient than a swimmer’s.
Reynolds even noted that it might behoove swimmers to add some running to their regular workouts.
As I read, I could feel my mental defenses lowering, allowing me to become more accepting. The science agreed with me, so it must be right, something I was far less willing to concede when I thought the research would go against me.
The scientific bottom line is that both elite swimmers and runners have cardiovascular advantages over people who don’t exercise. Researchers hope that the same is true for those of us who are far less elite participants.
More compelling for me, however, was the cognitive bottom line — how quickly I was ready to deep-six information based on a cognitive bias.
Cognitive bias helps to explain how so many people can be snared by fake news. Those who are absolutely certain, for example, that human-influenced climate change is a hoax will be more likely to write off even the most compelling evidence that it is real and to hang on every word of less authoritative sources. Likewise, parents who believe vaccinations cause autism will cling to anecdotal “evidence” in the face of overwhelming consensus from the scientific community that no such link exists. Supporters and detractors of President Trump will continue to fortify themselves behind their respective walls built by right- or left-leaning news organizations of dubious reputations.
And for readers who believe they are exempt from such fallibility, there is a name for this misconception, too — a bias blindspot.
The implications for vigorous and healthy debate aren’t good. We may smile and nod when presented with alternative viewpoints because we’ve been taught to be polite, yet we internally consign such information to the cerebral dustbin, even as we fancy ourselves as open-minded.
Trying to dissuade anybody of a deeply held belief in the course of a 750-word column or even a two-hour debate is asking too much. Maybe the best we can hope for when talking with somebody whose views are diametrically opposed to our own is to move the needle of their belief ever so slightly, to have them at least entertain the possibility that some small part of what we say has merit.
Think of it as swimming against the tide or running uphill — difficult to do, but worth it for our health.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
Here we go, I thought, clicking on a recent New York Times article by Gretchen Reynolds. When you’re a runner, as I fancy myself to be, you grow accustomed to people scolding you about how awful the activity is.
Hard on the knees and joints. Too much pounding. Increased risk of heart attack for those just starting. Too much exposure to the sun.
These same people tout the advantages of cycling and swimming, even when I tell them I find cycling too inconvenient and that I sink whenever I come into contact with water. (At least I’m not a witch.)
So I was prepared for Reynolds’ article to be more of the same, an excoriation of my hobby based on some egghead’s idea of hard science. Surely, thought I, the heart of a runner has been found to be deficient, just as his knees and joints are.
And then I had an epiphany, just as the article opened on my screen and I was starting to read, already disgruntled by what I was certain would be there. My revelation was this: I was biased against information that I hadn’t even read yet.
I had identified a personal prejudice, some weird kissing cousin of confirmation bias, where people seek out only information that supports what they already believe. In my case, I was discounting information out of hand because I was preemptively certain it would contradict me.
Suddenly aware of this glitch in my thinking, I monitored my reading and reactions carefully. The article began with an acknowledgement that the hearts of both elite runners and swimmers were more efficient than the hearts of sedentary people. Okay so far, I thought.
Reynolds proceeded to note how a recent study had found “interesting if small differences” in the left ventricles of swimmers vs. runners. My inner eye rolled in anticipation, even as a more objective part of myself noted the cynicism and lack of objectivity I was demonstrating.
Surprisingly, however, the article found that the left ventricles of runners were more efficient than swimmers’, likely because running is performed vertically, while swimming is done horizontally. A runner’s left ventricle, then, must battle gravity to move blood back to the heart, which means that it becomes stronger and more efficient than a swimmer’s.
Reynolds even noted that it might behoove swimmers to add some running to their regular workouts.
As I read, I could feel my mental defenses lowering, allowing me to become more accepting. The science agreed with me, so it must be right, something I was far less willing to concede when I thought the research would go against me.
The scientific bottom line is that both elite swimmers and runners have cardiovascular advantages over people who don’t exercise. Researchers hope that the same is true for those of us who are far less elite participants.
More compelling for me, however, was the cognitive bottom line — how quickly I was ready to deep-six information based on a cognitive bias.
Cognitive bias helps to explain how so many people can be snared by fake news. Those who are absolutely certain, for example, that human-influenced climate change is a hoax will be more likely to write off even the most compelling evidence that it is real and to hang on every word of less authoritative sources. Likewise, parents who believe vaccinations cause autism will cling to anecdotal “evidence” in the face of overwhelming consensus from the scientific community that no such link exists. Supporters and detractors of President Trump will continue to fortify themselves behind their respective walls built by right- or left-leaning news organizations of dubious reputations.
And for readers who believe they are exempt from such fallibility, there is a name for this misconception, too — a bias blindspot.
The implications for vigorous and healthy debate aren’t good. We may smile and nod when presented with alternative viewpoints because we’ve been taught to be polite, yet we internally consign such information to the cerebral dustbin, even as we fancy ourselves as open-minded.
Trying to dissuade anybody of a deeply held belief in the course of a 750-word column or even a two-hour debate is asking too much. Maybe the best we can hope for when talking with somebody whose views are diametrically opposed to our own is to move the needle of their belief ever so slightly, to have them at least entertain the possibility that some small part of what we say has merit.
Think of it as swimming against the tide or running uphill — difficult to do, but worth it for our health.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
Opening our national parks to electric bicycles
Edward Abbey must be turning over in his grave following the newest announcement regarding national parks — even if almost nobody knows where he is buried.
Abbey was an old-school naturalist whose book, “Desert Solitaire,” ranks as a contemporary “Walden.” In its pages, he extols the beauty of the natural world and argues passionately for its preservation.
He likely would be unhappy with last week’s announcement by the National Park Service, expanding the use of electric bicycles in the country’s 419 national parks. The bikes, some of which can travel at speeds of 28 mph, will now be allowed along any trails where regular, foot-powered bicycles are used.
The decision was lauded by advocates for the elderly, the disabled and the physically unfit, who say the bikes will allow visitors in these groups better access to taxpayer-funded parks. The bikes are also better for the environment than cars and motorcycles.
But many other groups are crying foul, advocating for e-bikes to remain only on designated trails for reasons of safety and aesthetics.
Without a doubt, slower-moving hikers coming into contact with e-cyclists moving at three times their speed could result in injuries to both parties. And the bikes, which emit a low, humming sound, will be a source of noise pollution for people attempting to escape the modern world.
Yet the inexorable forces of “industrial tourism” appear poised to win out.
Abbey, who died in 1989 and who was buried secretly by friends in a desert west of Tucson, loathed such “progress.” To him, industrial tourism referred to all the little — and big — amenities that encroach on man’s attempt to get back in touch with nature. These include paved roads, hotels, restaurants and convenience stores in and around national parks to cater to visitors in their “back-breaking upholstered mechanized wheelchairs,” Abbey-speak for automobiles.
He claimed that industrial tourism threatened the nation’s national park system by changing the fundamental nature of ... well, nature. But he also thought industrial tourism robbed tourists themselves by making it impossible for them to actually escape their “urban-suburban complexes.”
He was also critical of marathon visitors whose goal is to cram visits to as many parks as possible into a two-week vacation, believing they would be better served to slow down and savor one or two locations, exploring them by foot and, yes, by bicycle.
But he didn’t envision the advent and quick proliferation of the e-bicycle industry, which has fought hard for the recent rule change for reasons of shareholder self-interest.
Abbey was no ingenue, at peace among the trees and unaware of market forces. He recognized the inevitability of big money corrupting our parks system and applying the same pressures there as it has in all other facets of local, state and national legislation. Advocates of industrial tourism, he wrote, “look into red canyons and see only green, stand among flowers snorting out the smell of money, and hear, while thunderstorms rumble over mountains, the fall of a dollar bill on motel carpeting.”
Abbey argued for no more cars and no new roads in national parks, and for allowing park rangers to get back to the serious work of policing and educating the public about our natural heritage. Recent rollbacks in environmental policies, of which this recent e-bicycle decision is but one small reminder, would have appalled him.
Appalled, but not surprised.
All the way back in 1967, in the introduction to “Desert Solitaire,” he noted that the book should not inspire readers to seek out the scenes of natural beauty that he described so lovingly, because they were already gone or going away. The book, he wrote, was “not a travel guide but an elegy. A memorial. You’re holding a tombstone in your hands. A bloody rock. Don’t drop it on your foot — throw it at something big and glassy.”
Today, that observation seems more prophetic than ever, as we whizz along trails on our electric bikes and bring more and more of what we seek to leave behind with us when we commune with nature.
Nowhere, it seems, is immune to the clarion call of cash.
Abbey was an old-school naturalist whose book, “Desert Solitaire,” ranks as a contemporary “Walden.” In its pages, he extols the beauty of the natural world and argues passionately for its preservation.
He likely would be unhappy with last week’s announcement by the National Park Service, expanding the use of electric bicycles in the country’s 419 national parks. The bikes, some of which can travel at speeds of 28 mph, will now be allowed along any trails where regular, foot-powered bicycles are used.
The decision was lauded by advocates for the elderly, the disabled and the physically unfit, who say the bikes will allow visitors in these groups better access to taxpayer-funded parks. The bikes are also better for the environment than cars and motorcycles.
But many other groups are crying foul, advocating for e-bikes to remain only on designated trails for reasons of safety and aesthetics.
Without a doubt, slower-moving hikers coming into contact with e-cyclists moving at three times their speed could result in injuries to both parties. And the bikes, which emit a low, humming sound, will be a source of noise pollution for people attempting to escape the modern world.
Yet the inexorable forces of “industrial tourism” appear poised to win out.
Abbey, who died in 1989 and who was buried secretly by friends in a desert west of Tucson, loathed such “progress.” To him, industrial tourism referred to all the little — and big — amenities that encroach on man’s attempt to get back in touch with nature. These include paved roads, hotels, restaurants and convenience stores in and around national parks to cater to visitors in their “back-breaking upholstered mechanized wheelchairs,” Abbey-speak for automobiles.
He claimed that industrial tourism threatened the nation’s national park system by changing the fundamental nature of ... well, nature. But he also thought industrial tourism robbed tourists themselves by making it impossible for them to actually escape their “urban-suburban complexes.”
He was also critical of marathon visitors whose goal is to cram visits to as many parks as possible into a two-week vacation, believing they would be better served to slow down and savor one or two locations, exploring them by foot and, yes, by bicycle.
But he didn’t envision the advent and quick proliferation of the e-bicycle industry, which has fought hard for the recent rule change for reasons of shareholder self-interest.
Abbey was no ingenue, at peace among the trees and unaware of market forces. He recognized the inevitability of big money corrupting our parks system and applying the same pressures there as it has in all other facets of local, state and national legislation. Advocates of industrial tourism, he wrote, “look into red canyons and see only green, stand among flowers snorting out the smell of money, and hear, while thunderstorms rumble over mountains, the fall of a dollar bill on motel carpeting.”
Abbey argued for no more cars and no new roads in national parks, and for allowing park rangers to get back to the serious work of policing and educating the public about our natural heritage. Recent rollbacks in environmental policies, of which this recent e-bicycle decision is but one small reminder, would have appalled him.
Appalled, but not surprised.
All the way back in 1967, in the introduction to “Desert Solitaire,” he noted that the book should not inspire readers to seek out the scenes of natural beauty that he described so lovingly, because they were already gone or going away. The book, he wrote, was “not a travel guide but an elegy. A memorial. You’re holding a tombstone in your hands. A bloody rock. Don’t drop it on your foot — throw it at something big and glassy.”
Today, that observation seems more prophetic than ever, as we whizz along trails on our electric bikes and bring more and more of what we seek to leave behind with us when we commune with nature.
Nowhere, it seems, is immune to the clarion call of cash.
Long kiss is extended by controversy
Call it the longest kiss in the history of pop culture: It started in 2010 and continues today.
The liplock between Hulkling and Wiccan, two characters in “Avengers: The Children’s Crusade,” originally was published by Marvel Comics in magazine form nine years ago. It was reprinted in the collected edition of the series in 2017.
But only last week did the smooch really start to turn heads.
Hulkling and Wiccan are both male, a fact that so concerned Marcelo Crivella, the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, that he ordered law enforcement agents to seize all copies of the collection from the city’s International Book Fair. The raid was a bust, however, since all copies were purchased by buyers ahead of the raid, likely in anticipation of how much the book would sell for on the secondary market now that it had been targeted.
Crivella is also a preacher, and he believes books like this “need to be packaged in black plastic and sealed” before purchase, making him the latest in a long series of misguided people who believe that just because something offends them personally it must be hidden away from view or restricted for the rest of the world.
Now the situation is worming its way through the Brazilian court system, with one judge ruling that Crivella could not seize books in the future or revoke the book fair’s permit, and another judge ruling that he could, according to the New York Times.
The situation is worth noting here in the United States, where similar attempts to restrict content are more common than readers might think. Later this month, the American Library Association will mark Banned Books Week, an annual effort to spotlight First Amendment rights of Americans to read what we want without censorship.
Many censorship attempts occur in public school libraries, where parents will protest the inclusion of particular books and request or demand their removal or restriction. Some school administrators and school boards, eager to head off bad publicity, will accede. When they do, the book has been banned. When they do not, the book has been challenged, based on the ALA’s definitions.
Hence, some readers found their right to read the following books jeopardized in 2018: “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas, seen as too negative toward police officers; the “Captain Underpants” series by Dav Pilkey, too encouraging of disruptive behaviors; and “Thirteen Reasons Why” by Jay Asher, too focused on teen suicides.
But far and away the No. 1 reason for the top books on the list to be challenged is the inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual themes. LGBTQIA+ was cited in five of the top 11 most-challenged books last year.
Let’s be clear: Parents have the absolute right to restrict their own children’s access to any books, movies, or online content they find offensive. What they don’t have the right to do is to restrict other parents’ children from accessing those materials.
And censorship is that slipperiest of slopes: Once you start down the path of determining what is offensive to a community, it’s hard to know where to stop. One person’s vulgarity is another’s realistic depiction of life. The drawing of lines needs to extend no further than the door to each person’s home.
And a few points to keep in mind about Mayor Crivella’s attempts:
To my knowledge, no pop-culture depiction of two same-sex characters kissing ever made a reader gay. It might have made him or her aware that other people are gay, or that it’s acceptable in most social circles in 2019 to be gay, and that people shouldn’t judge other people for being gay, but it never made a heterosexual person say, “I think I’ll be that.”
Secondly, when you call attention to an alleged problem, be sure you’re ready to accept the unintended consequences. In this case, I’m sure Marvel Comics will be happy to accommodate readers who want to see what all the fuss is about by going back to press on a nine-year-old story.
And so the long kiss continues.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
The liplock between Hulkling and Wiccan, two characters in “Avengers: The Children’s Crusade,” originally was published by Marvel Comics in magazine form nine years ago. It was reprinted in the collected edition of the series in 2017.
But only last week did the smooch really start to turn heads.
Hulkling and Wiccan are both male, a fact that so concerned Marcelo Crivella, the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, that he ordered law enforcement agents to seize all copies of the collection from the city’s International Book Fair. The raid was a bust, however, since all copies were purchased by buyers ahead of the raid, likely in anticipation of how much the book would sell for on the secondary market now that it had been targeted.
Crivella is also a preacher, and he believes books like this “need to be packaged in black plastic and sealed” before purchase, making him the latest in a long series of misguided people who believe that just because something offends them personally it must be hidden away from view or restricted for the rest of the world.
Now the situation is worming its way through the Brazilian court system, with one judge ruling that Crivella could not seize books in the future or revoke the book fair’s permit, and another judge ruling that he could, according to the New York Times.
The situation is worth noting here in the United States, where similar attempts to restrict content are more common than readers might think. Later this month, the American Library Association will mark Banned Books Week, an annual effort to spotlight First Amendment rights of Americans to read what we want without censorship.
Many censorship attempts occur in public school libraries, where parents will protest the inclusion of particular books and request or demand their removal or restriction. Some school administrators and school boards, eager to head off bad publicity, will accede. When they do, the book has been banned. When they do not, the book has been challenged, based on the ALA’s definitions.
Hence, some readers found their right to read the following books jeopardized in 2018: “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas, seen as too negative toward police officers; the “Captain Underpants” series by Dav Pilkey, too encouraging of disruptive behaviors; and “Thirteen Reasons Why” by Jay Asher, too focused on teen suicides.
But far and away the No. 1 reason for the top books on the list to be challenged is the inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual themes. LGBTQIA+ was cited in five of the top 11 most-challenged books last year.
Let’s be clear: Parents have the absolute right to restrict their own children’s access to any books, movies, or online content they find offensive. What they don’t have the right to do is to restrict other parents’ children from accessing those materials.
And censorship is that slipperiest of slopes: Once you start down the path of determining what is offensive to a community, it’s hard to know where to stop. One person’s vulgarity is another’s realistic depiction of life. The drawing of lines needs to extend no further than the door to each person’s home.
And a few points to keep in mind about Mayor Crivella’s attempts:
To my knowledge, no pop-culture depiction of two same-sex characters kissing ever made a reader gay. It might have made him or her aware that other people are gay, or that it’s acceptable in most social circles in 2019 to be gay, and that people shouldn’t judge other people for being gay, but it never made a heterosexual person say, “I think I’ll be that.”
Secondly, when you call attention to an alleged problem, be sure you’re ready to accept the unintended consequences. In this case, I’m sure Marvel Comics will be happy to accommodate readers who want to see what all the fuss is about by going back to press on a nine-year-old story.
And so the long kiss continues.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
Monday, September 2, 2019
Everything old is ... well, still old
You know you’re getting old when most of your conversations about landmarks and destinations include the word “old.”
Like, when our cat got sick over the weekend and my wife and I had to take it to an emergency veterinarian a few cities over. The vet was located in the old Outback Steakhouse, next to the old Circuit City, just down the street from the old Best Buy.
Or last weekend, when we went to eat at A-Town Burgers and Brews, which I told friends is in the old Wally Armour budget lot, which is the old Waaa Daa Hot Dog Shoppe, which is the old Denny’s.
Speaking of Waaa Daa, which I looked up because I couldn’t remember if “Waaa” had two a’s or three — there is no limit to the lengths I will go to ensure this column is accurate, I tell ya — I was reminded that the plastic hot dog that once adorned the roof was moved out of storage in 2016 and taken to LeSage, West Virginia.
There, it has been put to good use, or maybe just use, at an establishment called Hillbilly Hotdogs. I have been told that this fine-dining emporium has been frequented by at least one prominent Alliance citizen in recent months, who traveled there by motorcycle only to learn that no matter how much you dress up a hot dog, it’s still just a hot dog.
By the way, in The Review blurb about the plastic weiner’s transfer, “Waaa Daa” was spelled “Waada,” so even at this late juncture, some controversy remains about the ill-fated shop. Or shoppe.
But, back to “old.”
If you’ve been around town, any town, long enough, lots of stuff can be described by what used to be there. Downtown Alliance is a good example. Various buildings there have been home to other ventures, sometimes two or three.
A church now resides in the former Sears building. A secondhand store now makes its home in the old Kidding’s Automotive store. And a flea market is in the old Grimm’s Furniture Store, which was the old Murphy’s, which was probably a few other old things before that, too.
This isn’t surprising. Businesses go where people are, and people are notoriously mobile. So when traffic patterns shift, businesses follow, leaving a lot of old in their wake. And most of that old is old-timers like me who remember where stuff used to be and find it easier to talk about ill-fated ventures that exist now only in our minds.
And into our minds are where businesses have been moving for the last 20 years or so, following a migration of consumers from physical buildings into cyberspace, where they shop from home and have it all delivered, or go no further than a business’s parking lot, where employees load it directly into the car.
Welcome to the era of Grubhub, Doordash, Walmart Grocery Pickup, and Amazon. No rubbing elbows with our neighbors. No serendipitous encounters in aisle seven. Just our own homemade bubbles to contain our homemade realities.
It’s enough to make a body feel ... well, old.
But that’s pretty heavy stuff. To recap the lighter messages, then:
Hot dogs are just hot dogs, even when handcrafted by hillbillies.
Waaa Daa — three a’s, then two.
A-Town Burgers and Brews — worth a visit.
And the cat’s just fine. Thanks for asking.
chris.schillig@yahoo.com
@cschillig on Twitter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)