Oink!

Chug-a-lug -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
What is it about the American size-fixation? The size of the average American home is now 2349 square feet, roughly twice the size it was in the 1950's. Make the ceiling height 10' rather than 8' -- you've dramatically increased the amount of air being heated and cooled by your average house-buying American. If Mr. Americano needs to drive somewhere, no problem. The 10 mpg Chevy Tahoe will get him there in cushioned, air conditioned comfort.

George Will wrote a column recently, where he mentioned that our idea of luxury has been redefined by modern marketing, financing and production technologies. Essentially, everybody has luxury now -- flat screen TV, granite countertop, central A/C. You can't even buy a low end Kia Rio that doesn't have A/C and carpet -- those used to be extra frills. Your new $450/month apartment -- it may comparatively modest but it will still feature 10' ceilings, wood burning fireplace and garden tub in the bathroom. Now, if a $35K/year school teacher can have those things it behooves a $135K executive to do something to set himself apart. He must do something that says, "I've made it. I'm successful. And I'm more successful than you are". That means he needs to burn money somewhere ostentatiously. How about an outdoor kitchen by the pool -- with nicer appliances than what most people have in their indoor kitchens? How about a home theater? Maybe a gift wrap room?

There's a problem with a society that defines success this way. It runs into a couple of logical impasses, the first and most obvious is the straining of resources. When a couple of people engage in this materialism it's no big deal; when a whole nation does it, it becomes a big deal. We basically have doubled our fuel consumption for a collective, egotistical "Hey look at me!” How much is real need, and how much is hubris? I didn't feel deprived in a 1600 square foot house growing up. Our Chevy Impala didn't seem downscale at the time. The second logical impasse is more abstract. If we use materialism as the sole (could as easily say soul) measure of who we are, is there any good way to express what's uniquely good about ourselves? Are you only as good as what you own?

If the George Will scenario continues, everyone will soon have a satellite dish and birch cabinets. We lose the distinctions and even ourselves in the whole ugly process.

This will seem like a non-sequitur but bear with... When Jane Fonda ended her marriage to Ted Turner, she noted that she still loved him but they were growing differently. He kept bringing new cars, boats, people and parties into their lives. He wanted breadth and she wanted depth. She (at a relatively late age, early-60's) was exploring her spiritual feelings and wanting to grow inwardly. Kudos to Jane -- we should all want to strive for an added dimension. And for America at large, we could stand to have a new dimension too -- one that isn't purchased with Visa or Master Card. You can't take material goods with you when you die, but I can't help but think -- all that is your essence goes right along with you.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Tomorrow Started?

Has it happened before? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

I’m sitting in the North Park Starbucks on a Friday day off. Am amazed at the number of working age people (no students, no retirees) who are here. How do you join that elite group outside of being self-employed or unemployed? Earlier, an entire middle school class was herded into the AMC Theaters for some kind of Earth Day movie. My teachers never took me to a fun shopping mall for a field trip. I got to see an electricity plant and a computer parts factory – they suffer in the comparison to North Park which offers Abercrombie and Mrs. Fields Cookies.

None of this has to do with today’s title, “Tomorrow Started” -- a 1980’s new wave song title by the group Talk Talk that has always intrigued me. The album featuring that song, It’s My Life, has cover art that shows puzzle pieces with various animals falling out of the sky. What to make of all that? Maybe it does nothing other than provoke the thoughts of an over-caffeinated blog writer. 

Has tomorrow already started? Or does time flow relentlessly from past to future? There are some interesting aspects to the question. Some physicists claim that if you were incredibly small and could enter a black hole, you could go back in time. At 200 earth pounds, I’m too big for this earth scale much less that scale. According to Einsteinian physics, space and time are on some kind of continuum – perhaps manageable by some technological genius. 

A favorite argument against time travel is that we’d be seeing visitors from the future gallivanting around earth as tourists visiting the early 21st century. While here, you think they might also impart the cure to cancer, or an effective design for a nuclear –powered automobile. But nay, we only see our humdrum present with its humdrum possibilities. There is one loose thread here … the visitor might satisfy the above-mentioned criterion – small enough to enter a black hole. Thus it’s here, but so incredibly tiny that we fail to see it. For that matter it might need some incredible telescopic powers to see us.

Does intelligent complexity necessitate a particular size, scale or dimension? As anthro-centric humans, we fairly assume that an intelligent being would be made of organic molecules, be our scale of size and have a DNA blueprint. We are certainly an example where that’s the case, but are we proof that it’s always the case? I’ve never followed Star Trek episodes, but I know they must’ve covered this. 

I’m skipping the refill here at Starbucks. I’m too shaken up by the possibilities. There’s a chance, however small and beyond bizarre that Talk Talk is on to something…. Tomorrow Started. It might also mean that yesterday is approaching. Let’s try not to think about that too much, unless we can choose which yesterdays to relive.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Adamsville

Snickers says, "Hello" -- Picture by blogSpotter

by blogSpotter
I’m driving the 16 miles from Lampasas to my brother’s house, now approaching Adamsville. My usual mile-a-minute estimate fails here, because the narrow two-lane highway forces caution. My 55 mph (in a new Chevy HHR from Alamo Rent-a-car) is pissing off the locals, who roar around me in their F250’s and Avalanches. We’re in Central Texas hill country, and the late afternoon views of nearby Lucy Creek and cedar thickets are distracting me a little bit.

Adamsville has one intersection, ten houses, a service station, and Luke’s Music Hall. Five of the ten houses appear to be abandoned or in serious disrepair. A sign tells me that Izaro is nine miles east. I can’t help but wonder who lives in these houses now, or ever did. But in fact, appearances can be deceiving... My brother and his wife live in a beautiful 4-acre hillside “ranchette” just two miles north of Adamsville. They have two dogs, two cats and two pet donkeys (the donkeys are named Dinky and Snickers). My brother and his wife have very full lives rehabilitating old computers and restoring old cars. I enjoy a lengthy visit with them and their church friends – dinner included. Their back porch runs the length of the house and looks over a spectacular hill country view.

There was a time when I felt like I needed to be “where the action is”, the heart of a big city. How do you get by without Best Buy, Nordstrom’s and Olive Garden? What of nightclubs and restaurant row? I’ve lived at the Heart of Dallas now for 25 years and can’t say I’ve benefited all that much from the city beat. I know you can experience solitude in a throng of people. My brother has made me aware that you can have a sense of total belonging with a few well-chosen friends and companions.

As I go (somewhat unwillingly) into my 2nd half-century, I realize my needs are not what they were, or what I thought they ever were. Lampasas has what I need for all practical purposes: HEB, Blockbuster, Wendy’s, nearby friends and family. I could drive into Austin for weekend shopping forays. What of tripping the lights fantastic? What of the parties, museum galas, street fairs and phantasmagoric events of the big city? … It was all somewhat a mirage -- never had it, never will. I sometimes think that urban living drives one further inward, not outward. I’ve remained perfect strangers with many of my nearby neighbors. The biggest advantage of the city is the job selection. As you phase towards retirement, the job doesn’t matter so much. As you age your way into a prune-like senior citizen status, an active bar scene is way less a concern. If you’re lucky enough to be partnered, it’s even less a concern than that.

So, am I about to pack it all up and move to Green Acres? I still have to have HEB, so Adamsville loses the bet. And at 50, I still need to earn for my retirement – by all estimates, Social Security will be endangered by my 66th year. But would it be such a tragedy to “live small”? Most high school seniors in a small town chomp at the bit to leave. I think many boomers, like me, have become bored with suburban “Pleasant Valley Sundays” to borrow from the Monkees. You wouldn’t want to run into small-minded prejudices that characterize some small Texas towns but as more boomers make this late migration, it shouldn’t be as much of a concern.

And now, Luke’s Music Hall beckons…

© 2008 blogSpotter

Bittergate Unfolds

Obama tastes something bitter -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

With these words spoken at a San Francisco fundraiser last Friday, Obama stepped in a pile of "resonant speech-making". He was trying to hook his liberal San Francisco audience, all the while forgetting that the press corps would broadcast his remarks to the whole world. To someone less politic, an approximate translation is:

"Those hayseeds in the Midwest have become Bible-thumpin', gun-totin' racist assholes because of 25 years' unemployment."

The word "bitter" has connotations beyond angry or disaffected -- it almost implies a bit of derangement. Some of the remaining primaries are in rural areas and Obama needs the support of fence-sitting Midwest Anglos. He has clearly put that support in some jeopardy. Also, in an ongoing campaign it's possible to lose a state (in the general election) that you "won" in the primary. There can't really be any resting on laurels. Therefore, the Obama spin machine needs to crank it up.

The first Obama spin was going after Hillary for going after Obama. Hillary affirmed that people who worship and own guns may not be particularly "bitter" about anything. Obama and quite a few others accused Hillary of posturing as Annie Oakley (of Annie get Your Gun). Hillary doesn't have to be Annie Oakley or a religious zealot to make her point. She doesn't have to own any guns or attend church weekly, to speak to the rights of those who do own guns and attend church regularly. There are things a bitter human might do, but worship God isn't one of them. Unlike Hillary's sniper fire miscue two weeks ago, Bittergate gives us a look into what Obama really thinks. And one thinks he'd rather be shopping for arugula at Whole Foods, commiserating with the secular, gun-hating glitterati.

My overwhelming first impression of Obama was that of a smug, disingenuous smooth-talker. That's how I still see him and this week's ado will not change my opinion. But stacked on top of Reverend Wright's rants, this Bittergate quote is likely to change other minds; it's likely to have legs and follow Obama all the rest of the campaign.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Aliens Among Us

Aliens on the approach? -- Picture courtesy of Columbia Pictures and EMI

by blogSpotter
I just watched a movie, Steven Spielberg’s 1977 sci-fi opus Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Close Encounters is probably one of the most important, seminal movies with regard to the cinematic depiction of aliens and UFO’s. Notably, Encounters shows aliens as benign curious creatures where earlier movies showed portrayed them as warlike invaders.

Previous filmmakers didn’t have problems with the illogic of matching the war-making abilities of 20th humans against that of aliens capable of bending space-time to get here from somewhere else. Another logical nit that seems to be irrelevant even in most sci-fi movies is that this superior intelligence would need to be so furtive – it does fly-bys in remote locations, seldom ever landing or presenting itself. The closest solar system to ours is light years away; it’s unlikely that our cosmic interlopers wouldn’t land for a rest stop. If these aliens could conquer the fabric of space-time, they probably wouldn’t be coy about showing themselves to early 21st century humans who still haven’t cured cancer, achieved world peace or progressed beyond fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Close Encounters advances admirably beyond this sci-fi impasse -- these aliens put on a light show, play an intergalactic concerto and step out of the mother ship to engage in sign language diplomacy. I have to mention though, that even in this movie the landing is shrouded in secrecy at a remote site in front of mostly military personnel.

It's not just the filmmakers that pique my curiosity. I'm taken by the the passion of sci-fi fans (now or then) desperately wanting to socialize with aliens -- not contemplating whether the encounter would be a friendly one. In human history, when one culture meets another, the technologically superior side will just about always conquer and subsume the less advanced culture.

I had a friend a few years back that followed sci-fi and loved alien stories. I asked him, given the mountain of logical evidence against it, why so many people gravitate towards the idea of alien visits. He suggested that it’s another form of seeking God or afterlife, a striving to make sense of life and find something bigger than us. All of that makes sense and yet I want my “story” to make sense too. Dr. J Allen Hynek, the UFO expert who advised Spielberg in 1977, said that “alien” is probably not the right word. The creatures he conjured are almost omnipresent and deeply familiar with us, their subjects. If Hynek wants to postulate that there is more dimensionality, more than meets the eye with Earth life I’m on board. But this intelligence didn’t get here in a flying saucer, nor does it have almond-shaped eyes – my admitted prejudice. I’ll stop there and let the reader take it where he or she will.

Back to Close Encounters… I saw this movie when it first came out, when I was 19. I completely forgot that Dreyfuss’ character flirts with another woman (outside of his crumbling marriage) who shares his alien obsessions. I also forgot about the pilgrimage to Devil’s Tower in Wyoming or the partial government cover-up. How many other movies and TV shows (e.g., X Files) owe a debt to this movie? It basically got the alien ball rolling, as we know it today. Even if you don’t buy the sci-fi premise, the acting and special effects are superb. Check out a copy of Close Encounters of the Third Kind today and find out why the U.S. National Film Registry has preserved this film as one of extreme cultural significance.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Vista One Year Later

Is XP looking better? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

When Windows Vista came out in February of 2007, I wrote a fairly softball review, “A Vista That’ll Mystify”. It’s now about 14 months since Windows Vista made its debut. It sold well at first – 20 million copies in the first month. But then as word of its problems got out, the market penetration slowed considerably. As of now, only 14% of XP users have gone over to the “dark side” and an incredibly small 1% of business users have done so.

Briefly, here are Vista’s most talked about problems… The hardware requirements are stringent and were initially misleading. One company in Britain filed a lawsuit, because even after expensive memory upgrades the company’s computers lacked the correct graphics chips. Vista was cited for slow file access, (reportedly now fixed with SP1). It ran into controversies with OEM licensing and draconian Digital Rights Management. Last but not least is the “User Account” security feature that plagued users with “permission to continue” prompts. I call this the “Mother May I” feature. This was lampooned mercilessly on the Apple commercials with Justin Long and the PC Guy.

My own Vista experience has been rather dismal -- let me preface this by saying I’m not a Bill Gates basher and have enjoyed many Windows products. My Vista boot-up and shutdown times have drawn out to 10 minutes. Program invocation (by double-click) can have me drumming my fingers for a minute or two. The performance-tuning tool itself locked up and slowed my computer terribly. On another recent occasion, Vista kept reinstalling my HP printer driver and doing multiple copies of the driver (until I deleted everything and reinstalled the driver). I wanted to cry, or maybe toss it all in the trash and buy something not-Vista.

According to the MS sales group, Vista has huge advancements in security infrastructure. A security administrator could be infinitely pleased by these changes. However, these changes are lost on the end users. All we notice is that we have a snail-slow computer that keeps asking irrelevant questions. Customer experience is a popular buzzword expression now. It should be prominently on Microsoft's mind for the next OS go-round.

PC World labeled Vista as 2007’s “biggest tech disappointment”. InfoWorld ranked it #2 of IT’s all-time 25 flops. Microsoft has given clues that it may feel the same; they’re supporting XP though 2011 and coming out with a completely reworked Windows 7 in 2010. Let’s hope that the sailing is smoother in 2011. I’m typing this on my new MacBook that has Boot Camp dual boot to OS X 5.2 and what else – Windows XP Home Edition. I guess neither I nor the rest of America is sophisticated enough to appreciate Vista.

© 2008 blogSpotter

Avoiding a Fashion Fox Paw

Or is that a faux pas? -- Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter

I am very far from being a fashion plate. I couldn't ever be an editor at GQ magazine or even the men's wear section in Exercise for Men. But in the great whirl of daily life, I have seen the fashion follies of nerds and even heard the cruel remarks that are made about the fashion-disadvantaged. This is a very practical list of guidelines for someone who isn't clothing or looks-centered but nevertheless wants to "present" acceptably. You've heard of Robert's Rules of Order -- these are Robert's Rules of Avoiding Fashion Exile:

1. Cleanliness is next to Godliness - There is no bigger turnoff than halitosis, body odor, greasy hair or dandruff. I've heard some males in particular imply that cologne is unmanly. I myself would rather smell like Paco Rabanne or even Old Spice than smell like an armpit. Even if you are of the group that abhors cologne (due to allergy or fear of appearing effeminate) you should know that people in general and women in particular like a nice fragrance. Even if you don't have the light, woodsy scent of Calvin Klein cologne, at least smell vaguely clean. The waft of freshly laundered clothes or Irish Spring is far better than funky shirt and smelly under arms.

2. Be within the decade. Only the idle rich or shallow can spend lots of time and money primping in mirrors and trying on clothes. It's true that the clothes don't make the man. BUT --- if you start to resemble a street urchin you might be "unmade" by people who avoid being seen with a big nerd. You don't have to be up-to-the-minute trendy; just make sure your clothes are in a moving 10-year window of current fashion. Suspenders were fun in 1986 -- now they're not. Stone-wash oversize jackets were hot once upon a time; now it looks like a thrift store purchase.

3. Stick with classics, and let the store clerk help. Display mannequins sometimes give a giant hint about what colors and styles go together. You can hardly go wrong with traditional (yes "square") items. Stay AWAY from the teen department and be age appropriate. Expensive, high fashion garments when inappropriately donned, will elicit laughter and hurtful, mocking words. :-) Good, traditional brand identities can help steer you the right way: Izod, Arrow, Levis, Timberland, J. Crew etc. Don't buy extensively (much less exclusively) from discount stores and thrift stores. A reputation is at stake!

4. Buy clothes that fit and replace them when they don't fit any longer. DON'T wear high water pants. DON"T wear threadbare clothes that need replacing. DON'T wear the same item so frequently that people wonder if you have anything else. I had a college physics professor, a nice woman, who only ever wore two dresses. One was blue, one was green and they were otherwise identical. We would place bets on which dress she'd wear on a given day. Who knows, maybe she had a walk-in closet with 50 look-alike dresses.

5. Don’t be too much of an iconoclast. People have different "inner selves" that they may want to express with fashion quirks. The problem is that sometimes an external expression can be garbled, much like a verbal expression. Thus, your studded black belt makes you look like a jaded S&M freak, not a tough guy. A shaved head can call to mind skin heads and Neo-Nazis; sometimes a buzz (or burr) cut gives you the same low maintenance without frightening the ACLU. Other looks that happen by happenstance are: waif, pirate, Amish villager and halfway house denizen. Unless you really are an S&M freak, waif, pirate, Amish villager or halfway house denizen, dial back on the individuality some.

In general, the ideas here are fairly obvious. I think that people who are bright and creative (OK, myself included) sometimes get so lost in the stratosphere of thought, they never alight to the bionosphere of ordinary living and interacting. So you're not Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren -- nobody gives a hoot about that anyway. You're clean, refreshed and nicely, albeit casually groomed? That's all that matters, and that's a look that works.

© 2008 blogSpotter