I'm one of those snooty guys who self-righteously proclaims that he hardly ever watches TV. Other than sports, I don't spend much time with the boob tube. Never seen OC, Lost, Cold Case, Veronica Mars, etc. I've watched Office a couple of times. House once or twice. And occasionally Jeopardy, or reruns of The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Everyone Loves Raymond or King of the Hill.
And for the most part, I've even avoided the DVD collections of TV series. But last week someone gave me a season of 24. I started the first episode Friday night at 11 p.m., and finished the 24th episode exactly seven days and three hours later. This was 'Crack TV' and I was a hopeless addict. I wanted to watch into the wee hours of the morning, even on weekdays. I missed two trips to the gym because I was up late the night before. Twice I watched an episode in the morning before work. And almost every day the thought crossed my mind that I could skip work for the day and binge my way into a 24-induced stupor.
I started to dream about Jack Bauer saving the world. I was ready to sign up to volunteer for David Palmer's campaign, except that I was so disgusted by his wife. I started looking at everyone in my real life with a suspicious eye, wondering if they were part of a conspiracy against me, or worse, against all things good in the world as we know them.
I can no longer look down my nose at Lanee for religously turning to Gilmore Girls every Tuesday night. I can't shake my head at friends or family who talk about who made the cut on Survivor, The Apprentice or Dancing with the Stars. No, because now I have faced the fiendish television addiction, with no signs of recovery.
It's 10 o'clock at night. Season Three is in the cabinet. And my hands are shaking.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Home Field
Now that the snow is finally gone for another year, I walked the lawn to survey conditions before I jumped in with with rakes and hoes and a stream of trips to the nursery.
Mine is not a rich, luscious lawn, and there was a time I would have found that disappointing. Not now; not at this stage of my life. I noted the badly worn grass on the north side, trampled by countless touch football games last fall, and smiled at the memories of passes thrown and caught, or being juked by Sam as he raced past me into the end zone, or standing in the living room and watching the neighborhood boys running and shouting in spirited action.
I gazed at the grass still struggling to survive in what is clearly the best position for home plate in our makeshift field, where many a batter has swung and missed at wiffleballs, or knocked out a trivial grounder, but occasionally launched one over the driveway and into the hedge, the ultimate achievement in our home-run derbies.
And I smiled at the large brown patch where last fall we gathered up a giant pile of leaves for Layla to jump in, her very first autumn, and laughed quietly at how they buried her for an instant, while we all rushed for our cameras.
I would not trade my lawn for a richer, greener, neatly manicured alternative. It is a good yard for me to labor in, for Sam to edge and mow, for Jazz to do her business and for the family to gather together to rake leaves on an October Monday night. And it is a good yard for growing memories, a perennial which blooms abundantly in the back half of our lives.
Mine is not a rich, luscious lawn, and there was a time I would have found that disappointing. Not now; not at this stage of my life. I noted the badly worn grass on the north side, trampled by countless touch football games last fall, and smiled at the memories of passes thrown and caught, or being juked by Sam as he raced past me into the end zone, or standing in the living room and watching the neighborhood boys running and shouting in spirited action.
I gazed at the grass still struggling to survive in what is clearly the best position for home plate in our makeshift field, where many a batter has swung and missed at wiffleballs, or knocked out a trivial grounder, but occasionally launched one over the driveway and into the hedge, the ultimate achievement in our home-run derbies.
And I smiled at the large brown patch where last fall we gathered up a giant pile of leaves for Layla to jump in, her very first autumn, and laughed quietly at how they buried her for an instant, while we all rushed for our cameras.
I would not trade my lawn for a richer, greener, neatly manicured alternative. It is a good yard for me to labor in, for Sam to edge and mow, for Jazz to do her business and for the family to gather together to rake leaves on an October Monday night. And it is a good yard for growing memories, a perennial which blooms abundantly in the back half of our lives.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Interviews
This week I interviewed a number of individuals for jobs in our company. All of them were for professional positions, paying over $50,000 per year. And without exaggeration, these things really were said by candidates:
--"I assume that all companies are going to be bad."
--"I didn't really leave that company on good terms. My boss was a schmuck."
--"My wife and I have had problems."
--"I have no expectations of longevity in any job I take."
--"When my father-in-law lends me money, he always calls me a loser."
What else? Let's see, someone brought a two-year old child, who was barefoot and wandered around the office while we interviewed in another room. Someone else broke down and cried in my office. One person came in wearing glasses with only one bow.
At times it felt like I was living a Kafka novel. And in case you were wondering, none of them will be joining us.
--"I assume that all companies are going to be bad."
--"I didn't really leave that company on good terms. My boss was a schmuck."
--"My wife and I have had problems."
--"I have no expectations of longevity in any job I take."
--"When my father-in-law lends me money, he always calls me a loser."
What else? Let's see, someone brought a two-year old child, who was barefoot and wandered around the office while we interviewed in another room. Someone else broke down and cried in my office. One person came in wearing glasses with only one bow.
At times it felt like I was living a Kafka novel. And in case you were wondering, none of them will be joining us.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Spring in My Step
A row of crocuses appeared in my garden this week, welcomed in by the 75-degree temperatures and announcing with their muted fanfare that Spring has once again arrived. There are many signs of Spring, but I can think of no better than the dainty crocus, with its slender leaves and lavender blossoms. The first days of Spring are a time of rebirth, and best accompanied by classical music and a comfortable pace. Spring needs no artificial adornment. Just pick up the flotsam and jetsam left by the falling tide of melting snow and let nature's splendor reveal herself again.
One should pay attention at this time of the year; walk slowly and repeatedly over the same course, noting the new arrivals of the day. Listen to the birds as they return and build their nests. Walk out in the morning and feel the change in the air. Wait for the first daffodil, the perennial second-place finisher, that rises taller to look down upon the crocus line, already in formation.
It was different when I was young. Then Spring was fast-moving water and building dams and muddy shoes and t-shirts well before the actual temperature might suggest them. Spring was two days off of school and Easter candy and Opening Day of the baseball season. But most important, Spring meant that summer vacation was only a few months away, which was the time of year we all really looked forward to.
I don't look past Spring any more. In fact, I don't look past any time or season. As I approach my 50th year I try to appreciate the simple pleasures of the days I have been given. So I welcome the arrival of the crocuses, and smile as I pass them every day, noting that yet another has sprung up to join his mates. He does not require my approbation, and though it means nothing to him, I yet mark his arrival with an approving eye as I make my self-appointed rounds.
One should pay attention at this time of the year; walk slowly and repeatedly over the same course, noting the new arrivals of the day. Listen to the birds as they return and build their nests. Walk out in the morning and feel the change in the air. Wait for the first daffodil, the perennial second-place finisher, that rises taller to look down upon the crocus line, already in formation.
It was different when I was young. Then Spring was fast-moving water and building dams and muddy shoes and t-shirts well before the actual temperature might suggest them. Spring was two days off of school and Easter candy and Opening Day of the baseball season. But most important, Spring meant that summer vacation was only a few months away, which was the time of year we all really looked forward to.
I don't look past Spring any more. In fact, I don't look past any time or season. As I approach my 50th year I try to appreciate the simple pleasures of the days I have been given. So I welcome the arrival of the crocuses, and smile as I pass them every day, noting that yet another has sprung up to join his mates. He does not require my approbation, and though it means nothing to him, I yet mark his arrival with an approving eye as I make my self-appointed rounds.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
My Vegetative State: Final
For the health of it. It's healthier to go meatless. Healthier in theory. Healthier in practice. And there is a mountain of data to support this.
Vegetarians have less obesity, less heart disease, less diabetes, less hypertension, less cancer, less osetoperosis and fewer gall stones. And they live longer. I can't say they all run without weariness, but they generally have more energy because their bodies run on cleaner fuel.
I suppose that if you scrupulously avoided the modern meat factories, and only ate what you killed, then eating meat wouldn't be quite so bad for you. But the fact is, virtually all meateaters in this country eat factory beef, factory pork, factory poultry or some other type of factorized hormone-injected hyper-grown sodium nitrate-infused scientifically-modeled production-efficient meat.
Our bodies weren't built for meat. Our teeth aren't right. Our colons are way too long. And our blood vessels don't like it. Don't talk to me about the need for protein and all of that nonsense--I don't believe a word of it. I've gone for a year eating just fruit and was perfectly healthy and happy. And you can now get all the protein you need as a supplement--in chocolate no less.
I think we'd be better off without milk and dairy as well, but it's hard for me to live without cereal (and I'm greatly looking forward to switching to raw milk).
Thus endeth this series. I try not to preach. I almost never criticize. I am deeply grateful that I have a wife who has been kind enough to make me alternatives at meal time for so many years. I have many dietary faults, and I make no allowance for them. I never claimed to have it all right. But this is one thing I do, for numerous reasons, which are now available for public consumption, and at least as easily digested as your average hamburger.
Vegetarians have less obesity, less heart disease, less diabetes, less hypertension, less cancer, less osetoperosis and fewer gall stones. And they live longer. I can't say they all run without weariness, but they generally have more energy because their bodies run on cleaner fuel.
I suppose that if you scrupulously avoided the modern meat factories, and only ate what you killed, then eating meat wouldn't be quite so bad for you. But the fact is, virtually all meateaters in this country eat factory beef, factory pork, factory poultry or some other type of factorized hormone-injected hyper-grown sodium nitrate-infused scientifically-modeled production-efficient meat.
Our bodies weren't built for meat. Our teeth aren't right. Our colons are way too long. And our blood vessels don't like it. Don't talk to me about the need for protein and all of that nonsense--I don't believe a word of it. I've gone for a year eating just fruit and was perfectly healthy and happy. And you can now get all the protein you need as a supplement--in chocolate no less.
I think we'd be better off without milk and dairy as well, but it's hard for me to live without cereal (and I'm greatly looking forward to switching to raw milk).
Thus endeth this series. I try not to preach. I almost never criticize. I am deeply grateful that I have a wife who has been kind enough to make me alternatives at meal time for so many years. I have many dietary faults, and I make no allowance for them. I never claimed to have it all right. But this is one thing I do, for numerous reasons, which are now available for public consumption, and at least as easily digested as your average hamburger.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
My Vegetative State: Part 3
This just in: The United Nations said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. A few excerpts from recent articles in Envirohealth and GoVeg.com:
"Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.
"... In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.
"...The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when "a chicken in every pot" was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death. What we're seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty.
"...Animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world's acid-rain-causing ammonia, and it the world's largest source of water pollution -- killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick. Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb. The acres and acres of cesspools stretching over much of our countryside, polluting the air and contaminating our water, make the Exxon Valdez oil spill look minor in comparison. All of which we can fix surprisingly easily, just by putting down our chicken wings and reaching for a veggie burger."
"... a vegan prevents approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year than a meat-eater does."
Honestly, this came up in conversation today completely unprovoked by me. But it certainly fit in the context of this series.
Are you serious about saving the planet? Worried about the future for your children and grandchildren? The UN study concluded that you can do more for the environment by being a vegetarian than by switching to driving a Prius. Soy there.
http://goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/47668/
"Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.
"... In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.
"...The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when "a chicken in every pot" was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death. What we're seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty.
"...Animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world's acid-rain-causing ammonia, and it the world's largest source of water pollution -- killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick. Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb. The acres and acres of cesspools stretching over much of our countryside, polluting the air and contaminating our water, make the Exxon Valdez oil spill look minor in comparison. All of which we can fix surprisingly easily, just by putting down our chicken wings and reaching for a veggie burger."
"... a vegan prevents approximately 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year than a meat-eater does."
Honestly, this came up in conversation today completely unprovoked by me. But it certainly fit in the context of this series.
Are you serious about saving the planet? Worried about the future for your children and grandchildren? The UN study concluded that you can do more for the environment by being a vegetarian than by switching to driving a Prius. Soy there.
http://goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/47668/
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
My Vegetative State: Part 2
If you're trying to follow the outline logic from the previous post, forget it. As the master of my blog domain, I changed the structure. This is Part 2 in a series of why I don't eat meat.
The Moral Imperative
B. Be kind. Rewind. Ok, it really has nothing to do with videotapes, but it's the same principle. Sometimes we do things for the benefit of our faceless brothers and sisters on Planet Earth.
When I was a freshman in college I read a book called Diet for a Small Planet which talked about the inefficiency of consuming calories from meat. As I recall (and at that time), it requires 13 times more grain to deliver calories via meat than if the grain were to be consumed directly by humans. Since so many people on this earth are starving, it struck me that if we all shifted to a meatless diet, more people could be fed. I suppose the practical applications of this logic could be challenged in a hundred ways, but I also suspect there is an inescapable truth at the heart of the matter.
I am quite aware that my individual actions don't make much of a difference. But over the course of my lifetime, and with perhaps the slightest power of example, maybe I will do a little good. At the very least, it seems like an objective worthy of my effort.
In addition, rain forests are being cleared aggressively for cattle farming, which is a very bad thing. (By the way, demand for tropical hardwoods like rosewood, teak and mahogany also drive aggressive rainforest destruction.) Here's an excerpt from an Amazon Rain Forest website:
As the demand in the Western world for cheap meat increases, more and more rainforests are destroyed to provide grazing land for animals. In Brazil alone, there are an estimated 220 million head of cattle, 20 million goats, 60 million pigs, and 700 million chickens. Most of Central and Latin America's tropical and temperate rainforests have been lost to cattle operations to meet the world demand, and still the cattle operations continue to move southward into the heart of the South American rainforests.
Admittedly, there are many other ways to contribute to society. We should all have our pet causes, but respect the ways other people try to make a difference. I don't get involved in Big Brothers/Big Sisters, or Habitat for Humanity, or Feed the Children. But I do eat vegetables.
The Moral Imperative
B. Be kind. Rewind. Ok, it really has nothing to do with videotapes, but it's the same principle. Sometimes we do things for the benefit of our faceless brothers and sisters on Planet Earth.
When I was a freshman in college I read a book called Diet for a Small Planet which talked about the inefficiency of consuming calories from meat. As I recall (and at that time), it requires 13 times more grain to deliver calories via meat than if the grain were to be consumed directly by humans. Since so many people on this earth are starving, it struck me that if we all shifted to a meatless diet, more people could be fed. I suppose the practical applications of this logic could be challenged in a hundred ways, but I also suspect there is an inescapable truth at the heart of the matter.
I am quite aware that my individual actions don't make much of a difference. But over the course of my lifetime, and with perhaps the slightest power of example, maybe I will do a little good. At the very least, it seems like an objective worthy of my effort.
In addition, rain forests are being cleared aggressively for cattle farming, which is a very bad thing. (By the way, demand for tropical hardwoods like rosewood, teak and mahogany also drive aggressive rainforest destruction.) Here's an excerpt from an Amazon Rain Forest website:
As the demand in the Western world for cheap meat increases, more and more rainforests are destroyed to provide grazing land for animals. In Brazil alone, there are an estimated 220 million head of cattle, 20 million goats, 60 million pigs, and 700 million chickens. Most of Central and Latin America's tropical and temperate rainforests have been lost to cattle operations to meet the world demand, and still the cattle operations continue to move southward into the heart of the South American rainforests.
Admittedly, there are many other ways to contribute to society. We should all have our pet causes, but respect the ways other people try to make a difference. I don't get involved in Big Brothers/Big Sisters, or Habitat for Humanity, or Feed the Children. But I do eat vegetables.
Monday, March 05, 2007
My Vegetative State: Part 1
Three times in the past few weeks I have been asked why I am a vegetarian. (For the record, I eat dairy products and seafood, but not mammals or reptiles. I could go either way on amphibians.) Since I do not believe I have ever recorded an answer to this question, I will do so here, in a short series on the subject.
Part I: The Moral Imperative
A. Be nice to animals. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to kill animals for food. I just think it's better not to. It seems to me that if you had to look the live creature in the eye and then watch it butchered for your meal, you would more often than not choose a grain, fruit or vegetable--anything without eyes and guts. Most of us intuitively believe that it's better not to kill animals needlessly. We disapprove of the child who takes the life of the squirrel for the experience, or the hunter who lets his kill rot in place, or even the big game hunter who shoots and kills for sport and trophies. Why? Because we respect all life, and these deaths were unnecessary and wasteful. But if we have perfectly healthy dietary alternatives, isn't it equally wrong to create demand through a carnivorous diet? And generally we do have alternatives, and they are almost universally healthier.
This logic is made all the more compelling by the inhumane conditions most animals face in today's farms. When we eat a chicken, we are responsible for genetically engineering a creature whose life experience was in a crowded cage in a darkened building with its beak cut off and fed a steady diet of hormones for quick growth and a short life. And cows don't have it much better. If I treated a dog that way I would get arrested. So why do we let industrial farmers do this to their "product"? (For more on this in a very humorous, animated fashion, go to www.themeatrix.com.)
Now to be fair, the same argument can be constructed concerning seafood, which I eat regularly. And I plead guilty as charged. But I truly believe that fish are less sentient than fowl (which are less sentient than mammals). And insects farther down the sentience scale, followed by vegetables I suppose, which are alive but not at all conscious. I think it would be better not to eat seafood either, and I don't defend where I've drawn my line. I'm just explaining my logic.
There is an old Jewish tradition that prior to receiving our eternal reward, animals will sit in judgment of us for how we treated them as our stewardship. If that's the case, I like my chances better if I haven't eaten the jury in a previous life.
Next Blog: The Moral Imperative, Part B
Part I: The Moral Imperative
A. Be nice to animals. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to kill animals for food. I just think it's better not to. It seems to me that if you had to look the live creature in the eye and then watch it butchered for your meal, you would more often than not choose a grain, fruit or vegetable--anything without eyes and guts. Most of us intuitively believe that it's better not to kill animals needlessly. We disapprove of the child who takes the life of the squirrel for the experience, or the hunter who lets his kill rot in place, or even the big game hunter who shoots and kills for sport and trophies. Why? Because we respect all life, and these deaths were unnecessary and wasteful. But if we have perfectly healthy dietary alternatives, isn't it equally wrong to create demand through a carnivorous diet? And generally we do have alternatives, and they are almost universally healthier.
This logic is made all the more compelling by the inhumane conditions most animals face in today's farms. When we eat a chicken, we are responsible for genetically engineering a creature whose life experience was in a crowded cage in a darkened building with its beak cut off and fed a steady diet of hormones for quick growth and a short life. And cows don't have it much better. If I treated a dog that way I would get arrested. So why do we let industrial farmers do this to their "product"? (For more on this in a very humorous, animated fashion, go to www.themeatrix.com.)
Now to be fair, the same argument can be constructed concerning seafood, which I eat regularly. And I plead guilty as charged. But I truly believe that fish are less sentient than fowl (which are less sentient than mammals). And insects farther down the sentience scale, followed by vegetables I suppose, which are alive but not at all conscious. I think it would be better not to eat seafood either, and I don't defend where I've drawn my line. I'm just explaining my logic.
There is an old Jewish tradition that prior to receiving our eternal reward, animals will sit in judgment of us for how we treated them as our stewardship. If that's the case, I like my chances better if I haven't eaten the jury in a previous life.
Next Blog: The Moral Imperative, Part B
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Martin Scorsese
They have come not to bury Martin Scorsese, but to praise him, which is a glaring reflection of the sad state of Hollywood values. Poor Marty, snubbed for so many years by the Academy of Motion Pictures, but finally taking home an Oscar for his latest work, The Departed.
I cannot muster much sympathy for Mr. Scorsese. Nor can I revel in his current glory. He is a talented filmmaker, to be sure--an excellent craftsman. But when I stand back and consider his body of work, I am left with the sad conclusion that his legacy is empty, base and degrading, that he has done far more harm than good, and that the real tragedy is that Hollywood is willing to elevate his debauchery into something almost iconic.
Who has seen Taxi Driver that came out a better person? Who really enjoyed this movie? Hardly anyone, I bet. Who thought Casino contributed to society? Or Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Last Temptation or Gangs of New York? Even most of his tamer work feels morally void to me, including The Color of Money and The Aviator. In fact, only his documentaries have left me feeling the least bit inspired, and I think The Last Waltz (The Band) is one of the great rock-n-roll documentaries, and No Direction Home (Bob Dylan) one of the most interesting.
And now The Departed, with language even more vulgar than its stock of 237 F-words. With more brutal, graphic violence and sex and sacrilege and racism and ... But what is important to the industry is that finally with Oscar in hand, Scorcese is crowned a demigod, and in his now transcendent state will be held above any mere mortal directors who might make films that educate, ennoble and inspire.
Have it your way, Hollywood. But I wouldn't trade one good Frank Capra movie for the whole of his work.
I cannot muster much sympathy for Mr. Scorsese. Nor can I revel in his current glory. He is a talented filmmaker, to be sure--an excellent craftsman. But when I stand back and consider his body of work, I am left with the sad conclusion that his legacy is empty, base and degrading, that he has done far more harm than good, and that the real tragedy is that Hollywood is willing to elevate his debauchery into something almost iconic.
Who has seen Taxi Driver that came out a better person? Who really enjoyed this movie? Hardly anyone, I bet. Who thought Casino contributed to society? Or Goodfellas, Mean Streets, Raging Bull, Last Temptation or Gangs of New York? Even most of his tamer work feels morally void to me, including The Color of Money and The Aviator. In fact, only his documentaries have left me feeling the least bit inspired, and I think The Last Waltz (The Band) is one of the great rock-n-roll documentaries, and No Direction Home (Bob Dylan) one of the most interesting.
And now The Departed, with language even more vulgar than its stock of 237 F-words. With more brutal, graphic violence and sex and sacrilege and racism and ... But what is important to the industry is that finally with Oscar in hand, Scorcese is crowned a demigod, and in his now transcendent state will be held above any mere mortal directors who might make films that educate, ennoble and inspire.
Have it your way, Hollywood. But I wouldn't trade one good Frank Capra movie for the whole of his work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)