Recently Michigan became the latest state to become a "right to work" state. This means that a worker doesn't have to belong to a union or pay union dues regardless of the job they are doing.
About six decades ago, the Republican platform backed unions because they represented the "Made in America" ideal. As of late Republican sentiment has shifted dramatically away from unions, who in turn have been major supporters of Democrats.
I have heard, from friends on both sides of the political aisle, the mantra "unions drive up the cost of doing business because union wages are so high". The next question has to be: how low should the wages be? Companies that do business in China or the Philippines or third world countries are getting labor at ridiculously low prices. Should they be able to pay Americans 10 cents/hour too?
Without unions, can we trust the corporations to look after their employees with competitive wages and benefits? Many people believe that "fair market trade" effectively works, believing a company has to offer good wages and provide benefits in order to entice workers to come work for them and this competition will drive the industry. Unfortunately we know this is untrue. Jobs are not so plentiful, nor have they ever been, that all Americans can choose to go to another company if theirs doesn't pay enough or provide the best benefits. In most areas the competition isn't much better, and if no company in an area provides anything better, then the status-quo rules out and no one gets any benefits.
I'm not going to tout the past accomplishments of unions such as the five day work-week or the abolition of child labor. Most of the unions of today rarely resemble these same organizations of yesteryear. We've all heard the jokes about union workers standing around while only one actually does any real work or how a union employee can practically commit murder and still not get fired. Certainly problems can occur when fairness and equity take a back seat to tenure and unreasonable contracts.
I liked the way Ohio phrased its "anti-union" bill a couple years ago. It used the term "merit based raises" to replace tenure when it came to teachers and civil employees. Of course all you have to do is watch an episode of Mad Men to see examples where a circumspect supervisor raises up his buddies while pushing down others, all in the auspices of "merit". Friends will merit promotions, men over women, whites over ethnicity. This is precisely what tenure was supposed to be a remedy for. Sure, there is a Federal law that prohibits some forms of discrimination, but the list is actually quite short and it's difficult to prove.
Some states have enacted merit-based wages on standardized testing. That's a completely different can of worms I don't even want to waste time going over.
Now in Michigan (once the law takes affect and clears its legal challenges), a police officer can join the police force without joining the union or paying union dues. Does that officer get paid the same union wages? Same pay for equal work? Even though it was the union that negotiated the contract which set the pay scale? Why should the officer get the same benefits if he or she isn't going to pay into the union?
Full disclosure: I have never belonged to a union. I worked for United Grocers that had a distribution center where union workers were employed, but I've always been a designer and we have never unionized. I've worked for companies that appreciated my talents and paid me competitively, but I've also worked for companies that mistreated me because they could. Luckily my skills have allowed me to seek employment elsewhere when a company has gotten all uppity, but then the recent recession hit and it all went to hell.
At one point I was paid $25.00 per logo I designed with endless unpaid revisions. This worked out to be about 60 cents/hour. It didn't matter how long I worked on the logo or how many changes the client made, I still just got the $25.00. Strike that, as a matter of fact I only got paid for three of the logos, the fourth is still owed.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Friday, November 9, 2012
On Gay Rights
The recent election has brought up some old bitternesses.
A good friend of mine has posted Facebook messages to his family telling them that if they voted for Romney, then they were disrespecting him because he's gay. Of course his family members reacted with immediate repudiation and anger. They feel they have been disrespected, bullied and accused of being bigots. Let's examine why he posted in the first place:
The Republican party and ergo Romney/Ryan have established they dislike how gay people act. They feel that gays should stay in the closet, not enroll in the military, and so on. They specifically want to roll back the hospital visitation rights, funeral choices, domestic partnership health benefits. They want to go back to the days of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many want to re-criminalize homosexuality altogether. These are direct attacks against the gay population. Gay people are therefore rightfully feeling disrespected when someone states that they support this ideology or platform.
Now, during this election many people stated they support only "some" of the platform, or "more" of the platform than what the Democrats provided. They pointed at the Republican economic policies or foreign affairs, and so on, as concepts better aligned with their own ideology, and they certainly have every right to believe this way.
However, these people simply need to be honest with themselves. They can like the platform for its economics, and even detest the domestic issues, but by supporting one they are supporting the other. By supporting the economics, they have placed a higher value on their finances than the rights of their family members or friends. It's simple math. It doesn't mean they were trying to overtly hurt their friends and family, they simply have different priorities. This is America and everyone has a right to their own beliefs and vote. They have the right to free speech. However, can they really be offended by their Uncle calling them out? Do they have that right? Sure, they can be offended, but only if they are not honest. An honest person would own up to their actions and beliefs. Yes, they may love their Uncle, but his way of life just doesn't trump their financial stability.
Does this make them bigots? Only if they support the negative platform because they really think gays should be restricted and discriminated against. They're not bigots if they only support the financial side of a party's platform. But they're not off the hook either. The support in any way is still a choice they have made that their Uncle's rights are not as important to them as something else.
The fact they got so angry makes one wonder though. Could it be, as Hamlet said, "I think the Lady doth protest too much"?
We are all responsible for our actions. Their Uncle is responsible for calling them out on their decisions. Do they take any responsibility, or do they just get angry?
A good friend of mine has posted Facebook messages to his family telling them that if they voted for Romney, then they were disrespecting him because he's gay. Of course his family members reacted with immediate repudiation and anger. They feel they have been disrespected, bullied and accused of being bigots. Let's examine why he posted in the first place:
The Republican party and ergo Romney/Ryan have established they dislike how gay people act. They feel that gays should stay in the closet, not enroll in the military, and so on. They specifically want to roll back the hospital visitation rights, funeral choices, domestic partnership health benefits. They want to go back to the days of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Many want to re-criminalize homosexuality altogether. These are direct attacks against the gay population. Gay people are therefore rightfully feeling disrespected when someone states that they support this ideology or platform.
Now, during this election many people stated they support only "some" of the platform, or "more" of the platform than what the Democrats provided. They pointed at the Republican economic policies or foreign affairs, and so on, as concepts better aligned with their own ideology, and they certainly have every right to believe this way.
However, these people simply need to be honest with themselves. They can like the platform for its economics, and even detest the domestic issues, but by supporting one they are supporting the other. By supporting the economics, they have placed a higher value on their finances than the rights of their family members or friends. It's simple math. It doesn't mean they were trying to overtly hurt their friends and family, they simply have different priorities. This is America and everyone has a right to their own beliefs and vote. They have the right to free speech. However, can they really be offended by their Uncle calling them out? Do they have that right? Sure, they can be offended, but only if they are not honest. An honest person would own up to their actions and beliefs. Yes, they may love their Uncle, but his way of life just doesn't trump their financial stability.
Does this make them bigots? Only if they support the negative platform because they really think gays should be restricted and discriminated against. They're not bigots if they only support the financial side of a party's platform. But they're not off the hook either. The support in any way is still a choice they have made that their Uncle's rights are not as important to them as something else.
The fact they got so angry makes one wonder though. Could it be, as Hamlet said, "I think the Lady doth protest too much"?
We are all responsible for our actions. Their Uncle is responsible for calling them out on their decisions. Do they take any responsibility, or do they just get angry?
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
On Labor Laws
In many of the jobs I've had the question has arisen: "what's the difference between salary exempt and salary non-exempt?"
It's quite easy. Salary non-exempt is for someone who earns a salary but if they work over 40 hours in a week they must be paid overtime. The following rules apply:
1. They must never be asked to stay at their desk or area of work during "off hours" such as lunch time. By asking them to remain at a certain location the employer is thereby asking them to work or be ready to work, and must then pay them for that time. This goes for those employers who think having lunchtime or after work meetings, seminars, classes, etc. but without pay, just pizza is actually a legitimate request. The employer should ask this question: would the employee be at that location, class, meeting, etc. if they weren't actually at work? If not, then why do you think you shouldn't be paying them to be there? The same goes for things like making the employee be "on call", stay near a phone or answer emails during their off time.
2. The employer absolutely cannot ask the employee to work more than 40 hours in a week, not pay them overtime, but give them "comp" time the following week. Whatever time is worked in one week must be paid appropriately. There is no such thing as comp time unless it occurs within the work week.
3. The employer CAN ask the employee to keep track of their time via time sheets, etc. They can also ask the employee to work between certain hours. They do not have to pay for breaks.
Salary exempt is for someone who earns a salary but cannot earn any overtime. Very strict rules apply for this status since it can so easily be abused:
1. The employer cannot keep track of the employee's time worked except in the case where the employer must bill time to clients (such as lawyers or architects). Keeping time sheets, making the employee punch a time clock, etc. treats the employee like a non-exempt employee and therefore nullifies the exempt status.
2. The employer can set regular work hours, but the employee can be expected to work during "off hours". Therefore the regular work hours cannot be strictly enforced since the employee is considered to be "always on the job". This is especially true if the employee is on-call, takes work home with them, is expected to answer email, etc. all outside of the regular work hours.
3. The employer cannot demand that an employee work exactly 45, 50, 55, etc. hour work weeks. Again, the employee is pretty much always at work so the hours are meaningless. Instead the employee should be expected to get their tasks completed within a certain time not fill up a set amount of hours with tasks.
4. Not just anyone can be put into exempt status. Only those employees that are in management, supervisory, or professional positions can be exempt from overtime. During the George W. Bush administration this list was added to: now those employees who are considered "skilled" can also be exempt from earning overtime.
5. An employer cannot switch employees from exempt to non-exempt without changing the job description. Some scandalous employers try to switch employees to exempt during busy projects so they won't have to pay overtime, but then switch them back again after the project is completed. This is highly illegal.
6. An employer cannot have an employee working as exempt while another employee doing essentially the same job is non-exempt. This is why job descriptions are important.
What does it mean to be an "employment at will" company or state? It simply means the employer doesn't need to prove grounds for firing an employee under most circumstances. They can simply say "it just didn't work out". However, this doesn't mean they can discriminate against the employee or fire them unjustly. Legal cases can still be brought against the employer regardless of the "at will" statement.
Now, if an employee (or a representative Union) has signed a contract which contradicts any of the above rules, the employee is out of luck. Contracts supersede most employment laws.
For more information one can refer to the book "Ohio Employment Practices Law" by Bradd N. Siegel and John M. Stephen.
Please note, I am not a lawyer and this blog does not intend to give legal advice. If you feel you have been wrongfully terminated, treated unjustly by an employee or employer, you must seek professional legal aid.
It's quite easy. Salary non-exempt is for someone who earns a salary but if they work over 40 hours in a week they must be paid overtime. The following rules apply:
1. They must never be asked to stay at their desk or area of work during "off hours" such as lunch time. By asking them to remain at a certain location the employer is thereby asking them to work or be ready to work, and must then pay them for that time. This goes for those employers who think having lunchtime or after work meetings, seminars, classes, etc. but without pay, just pizza is actually a legitimate request. The employer should ask this question: would the employee be at that location, class, meeting, etc. if they weren't actually at work? If not, then why do you think you shouldn't be paying them to be there? The same goes for things like making the employee be "on call", stay near a phone or answer emails during their off time.
2. The employer absolutely cannot ask the employee to work more than 40 hours in a week, not pay them overtime, but give them "comp" time the following week. Whatever time is worked in one week must be paid appropriately. There is no such thing as comp time unless it occurs within the work week.
3. The employer CAN ask the employee to keep track of their time via time sheets, etc. They can also ask the employee to work between certain hours. They do not have to pay for breaks.
Salary exempt is for someone who earns a salary but cannot earn any overtime. Very strict rules apply for this status since it can so easily be abused:
1. The employer cannot keep track of the employee's time worked except in the case where the employer must bill time to clients (such as lawyers or architects). Keeping time sheets, making the employee punch a time clock, etc. treats the employee like a non-exempt employee and therefore nullifies the exempt status.
2. The employer can set regular work hours, but the employee can be expected to work during "off hours". Therefore the regular work hours cannot be strictly enforced since the employee is considered to be "always on the job". This is especially true if the employee is on-call, takes work home with them, is expected to answer email, etc. all outside of the regular work hours.
3. The employer cannot demand that an employee work exactly 45, 50, 55, etc. hour work weeks. Again, the employee is pretty much always at work so the hours are meaningless. Instead the employee should be expected to get their tasks completed within a certain time not fill up a set amount of hours with tasks.
4. Not just anyone can be put into exempt status. Only those employees that are in management, supervisory, or professional positions can be exempt from overtime. During the George W. Bush administration this list was added to: now those employees who are considered "skilled" can also be exempt from earning overtime.
5. An employer cannot switch employees from exempt to non-exempt without changing the job description. Some scandalous employers try to switch employees to exempt during busy projects so they won't have to pay overtime, but then switch them back again after the project is completed. This is highly illegal.
6. An employer cannot have an employee working as exempt while another employee doing essentially the same job is non-exempt. This is why job descriptions are important.
What does it mean to be an "employment at will" company or state? It simply means the employer doesn't need to prove grounds for firing an employee under most circumstances. They can simply say "it just didn't work out". However, this doesn't mean they can discriminate against the employee or fire them unjustly. Legal cases can still be brought against the employer regardless of the "at will" statement.
Now, if an employee (or a representative Union) has signed a contract which contradicts any of the above rules, the employee is out of luck. Contracts supersede most employment laws.
For more information one can refer to the book "Ohio Employment Practices Law" by Bradd N. Siegel and John M. Stephen.
Please note, I am not a lawyer and this blog does not intend to give legal advice. If you feel you have been wrongfully terminated, treated unjustly by an employee or employer, you must seek professional legal aid.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
On the warrant out for my arrest!
Yes, there was a warrant out for my arrest. Allow me to 'splain:
In June of 2010 I was driving down W.44th when I came upon the "intersection" for a high school that was being newly constructed. There was a stop sign and I came to a very near stop and then continued on. On the West coast this is called a "California stop". The operator of blue and red flashing lights called it a traffic violation.
My court date was set for July 7th. Since I was working from home back then I had plenty of time to go down to the courthouse, so on the 28th of June I ran down there and paid my fine. I could have waited all day in court on my stated trial date in hopes of reducing the fine, but I've never had good luck with that. The one and only other time I got a ticket (for turning left just before 6pm at a stop that clearly read "no left turn between 7am and 6pm), I was forced by the judge to apologize, loudly and in a long repeated refrain, to the entire court. I decided to avoid court in Cleveland. Well, the fine was paid and forgotten.
Flash forward to just a couple weeks ago. In the mail I received a letter from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles saying I was now blocked from getting my license renewed or any vehicle registered in the state due to the warrant that had been issued for my arrest.
You must know I was immediately panicked. I consider myself a "goody-two-shoes". I don't do drugs, I very rarely drink alcohol, and so on. I believe in abiding by the law, with the exception of only a few tickets (I've gotten five in my life and one was from one of those cameras).
I got on the inter-webs and tracked down the case number listed on the paperwork. Sure enough my case popped up claiming I had not showed up for my court date, and never paid the fines. With two years of fees stacked up on the original fine I was now looking at quite a large sum, not to mention the fees from the BMV for reinstatement. I was on pins and needles.
Luckily I had only regularly used one solitary credit card back in 2010. A quick call to the card company and I was being sent (via agonizing snail mail) a copy of June 2010's statement showing the paid fine.
A few days later I was driving to work in the morning when I was suddenly pulled over. Apparently, according to the police officer, I was doing 35 in a 25 zone. Since the zone was a "Hospital Zone" it wouldn't count as a speeding ticket. In fact, it would now count as "reckless driving" and I would be thrown in jail and my car towed. I decided not to inform the officer that there was a warrant out for my arrest. I crossed my fingers he was not going to run my license and I put on my best "doe eyed" ignoramus act. He handed me back my license and I was free to go with a verbal warning. Close call.
So tonight I finally had my paperwork in hand. I went down to the courthouse and displayed my credit card statement proudly. The nice woman looked up my case number and discovered that the case had somehow been logged twice. One showed the fine paid, the other showed a warrant for my arrest.
She assured me it would be taken care of, gave me a signed and sealed paper proving the file was incorrect and sent me on my way.
Thus ends a tale of one of America's most wanted men: Bud Perry, alias Bud "the Rascal" Perry.
In June of 2010 I was driving down W.44th when I came upon the "intersection" for a high school that was being newly constructed. There was a stop sign and I came to a very near stop and then continued on. On the West coast this is called a "California stop". The operator of blue and red flashing lights called it a traffic violation.
My court date was set for July 7th. Since I was working from home back then I had plenty of time to go down to the courthouse, so on the 28th of June I ran down there and paid my fine. I could have waited all day in court on my stated trial date in hopes of reducing the fine, but I've never had good luck with that. The one and only other time I got a ticket (for turning left just before 6pm at a stop that clearly read "no left turn between 7am and 6pm), I was forced by the judge to apologize, loudly and in a long repeated refrain, to the entire court. I decided to avoid court in Cleveland. Well, the fine was paid and forgotten.
Flash forward to just a couple weeks ago. In the mail I received a letter from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles saying I was now blocked from getting my license renewed or any vehicle registered in the state due to the warrant that had been issued for my arrest.
You must know I was immediately panicked. I consider myself a "goody-two-shoes". I don't do drugs, I very rarely drink alcohol, and so on. I believe in abiding by the law, with the exception of only a few tickets (I've gotten five in my life and one was from one of those cameras).
I got on the inter-webs and tracked down the case number listed on the paperwork. Sure enough my case popped up claiming I had not showed up for my court date, and never paid the fines. With two years of fees stacked up on the original fine I was now looking at quite a large sum, not to mention the fees from the BMV for reinstatement. I was on pins and needles.
Luckily I had only regularly used one solitary credit card back in 2010. A quick call to the card company and I was being sent (via agonizing snail mail) a copy of June 2010's statement showing the paid fine.
A few days later I was driving to work in the morning when I was suddenly pulled over. Apparently, according to the police officer, I was doing 35 in a 25 zone. Since the zone was a "Hospital Zone" it wouldn't count as a speeding ticket. In fact, it would now count as "reckless driving" and I would be thrown in jail and my car towed. I decided not to inform the officer that there was a warrant out for my arrest. I crossed my fingers he was not going to run my license and I put on my best "doe eyed" ignoramus act. He handed me back my license and I was free to go with a verbal warning. Close call.
So tonight I finally had my paperwork in hand. I went down to the courthouse and displayed my credit card statement proudly. The nice woman looked up my case number and discovered that the case had somehow been logged twice. One showed the fine paid, the other showed a warrant for my arrest.
She assured me it would be taken care of, gave me a signed and sealed paper proving the file was incorrect and sent me on my way.
Thus ends a tale of one of America's most wanted men: Bud Perry, alias Bud "the Rascal" Perry.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
on the "Pee Shiver"
Most readers will understand the term "pee shiver", and yet a portion will not. There is a nervous response to the urge to urinate which causes a kind of muscular tremor to occur. Mine have always been very strong and violent. Robert can always tell when we're in the car and I suddenly have to pee because my whole body shudders and I involuntarily make a short moan sound. However, he rarely gets these shivers and thinks it's funny when I do.
He's not alone. I was a party years ago when the topic came up and over half of the crowd was baffled; they had never experienced such a thing in their lives and really couldn't understand what it was.
It must be an evolutionary thing. Did our ancestors get it, or is it a more recent development? What purpose does it serve? Without my pee shiver, would I not know that my bladder was getting full? Many times I get the shiver after I have already urinated. George Carlin must have had this occur since he made it part of his stand up routine. He joked that the pee shiver must be an innate condition to help us "shake" off any left over drips. Evidently he only got the shiver after he was finished.
I know this is a strange topic, but it really does make you think: how many little stupid things is built into our genes and what purpose does it or did it serve? Did our prehistoric ancestors get a little shiver to alert them they needed to begin a search for adequate bathroom facilities?
Do other animals get this shiver? I have seen my cat finish using her litter box and begin to exit. Just at the last moment she will pause, her eyes narrow and her tail quickly spasms, sending her into a leap out of the box. Maybe this is her pee shiver.
Okay, discuss.
He's not alone. I was a party years ago when the topic came up and over half of the crowd was baffled; they had never experienced such a thing in their lives and really couldn't understand what it was.
It must be an evolutionary thing. Did our ancestors get it, or is it a more recent development? What purpose does it serve? Without my pee shiver, would I not know that my bladder was getting full? Many times I get the shiver after I have already urinated. George Carlin must have had this occur since he made it part of his stand up routine. He joked that the pee shiver must be an innate condition to help us "shake" off any left over drips. Evidently he only got the shiver after he was finished.
I know this is a strange topic, but it really does make you think: how many little stupid things is built into our genes and what purpose does it or did it serve? Did our prehistoric ancestors get a little shiver to alert them they needed to begin a search for adequate bathroom facilities?
Do other animals get this shiver? I have seen my cat finish using her litter box and begin to exit. Just at the last moment she will pause, her eyes narrow and her tail quickly spasms, sending her into a leap out of the box. Maybe this is her pee shiver.
Okay, discuss.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
on Books
A dream from my childhood has always been to own a personal library like those great English manors depicted in mystery movies. You know, the ones with a brass rail and ladder contraption, with a second level of book shelves. Rows and columns of beautiful leather bound volumes.
When we first moved into our home, the little hexagonal room off the master bedroom became my small version of this fantasy. We lined it with bookshelves and I filled them with my book collection, amassed over the course of my life. Many of the shelves also featured interesting book ends and tiny knick-knacks. Then we started our design business and all those books were replaced with catalogs and material sample binders. The books were packed into boxes and stored in the attic or the spare bedroom closet, never to be seen again.
As the world quickly begins to embrace the electronic-book, or e-book, I lament the decline of the hard bound volume. I'm realistic though; I recently reread Treasure Island because it came pre-loaded on my Android phone. A recent Kindle commercial depicted a woman who likes her e-books and a man, stuck in the past, refusing to let go of his antiquated printed medium. He complains that he likes his traditional books because he can dog-ear a page. The woman shows she has that same ability in virtual space.
I miss the smell and fell of the pages, but I must admit it can sometimes be very difficult to read a book in bed, the one place I have always read. Perhaps I will begin reading e-novels instead. Does nostalgia trump the ease of technology?
Amazon seems to think it does. The online giant has quickly cut into the profits of brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes & Noble and Borders. The new generation doesn't find hanging out in a book store all day as satisfying as the older generations. However, as the big book stores continue to decline, Amazon has made a rather strange announcement. They are going to begin building Amazon stores, real brick-and-mortar locations to sell their wares. Of course Amazon has branched out to sell all sorts of merchandise, not just books, but they are still their mainstay items.
Is this move counter-intuitive? Amazon claims 'more of the company's products would benefit from hands-on interaction with shoppers'. Sounds like a bookstore to me.
When we first moved into our home, the little hexagonal room off the master bedroom became my small version of this fantasy. We lined it with bookshelves and I filled them with my book collection, amassed over the course of my life. Many of the shelves also featured interesting book ends and tiny knick-knacks. Then we started our design business and all those books were replaced with catalogs and material sample binders. The books were packed into boxes and stored in the attic or the spare bedroom closet, never to be seen again.
As the world quickly begins to embrace the electronic-book, or e-book, I lament the decline of the hard bound volume. I'm realistic though; I recently reread Treasure Island because it came pre-loaded on my Android phone. A recent Kindle commercial depicted a woman who likes her e-books and a man, stuck in the past, refusing to let go of his antiquated printed medium. He complains that he likes his traditional books because he can dog-ear a page. The woman shows she has that same ability in virtual space.
I miss the smell and fell of the pages, but I must admit it can sometimes be very difficult to read a book in bed, the one place I have always read. Perhaps I will begin reading e-novels instead. Does nostalgia trump the ease of technology?
Amazon seems to think it does. The online giant has quickly cut into the profits of brick-and-mortar stores like Barnes & Noble and Borders. The new generation doesn't find hanging out in a book store all day as satisfying as the older generations. However, as the big book stores continue to decline, Amazon has made a rather strange announcement. They are going to begin building Amazon stores, real brick-and-mortar locations to sell their wares. Of course Amazon has branched out to sell all sorts of merchandise, not just books, but they are still their mainstay items.
Is this move counter-intuitive? Amazon claims 'more of the company's products would benefit from hands-on interaction with shoppers'. Sounds like a bookstore to me.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
on Pattern Recognition
I recently heard a story on NPR about the testing of words with baboons. The scientists weren't testing the animals to see if they could understand the words, but to see if they could comprehend whether something was a real word or not. They placed a touch screen in a room which if the baboon selected correctly the baboon would get a treat. The baboons were allowed to go into the room freely, whenever they wanted.
To the scientists' surprise, after some practice, the baboons were able to discern the difference between English words and nonsense words. For instance there could have been the word PERSON and the non-word POUEIRSEIKN. The baboons were able to figure out the non-word used too many vowels and had awkward consonant placement. Most of the baboons were able to figure out over 4,000 English words and one special baboon was able to correctly select over 11,000.
The results of this experiment indicate once the rules of English letter placement are learned, real words can be separated from unreal words. This has nothing to do with actually understanding the meaning of the words, but everything to do with pattern recognition. The baboons weren't learning English, they were simply learning how some symbols do not get placed next to other symbols in certain series.
This also means young children are probably doing the same thing. Pattern recognition and solving is in a very different area of the brain from language learning. Understanding this may lead to different approaches in teaching English in schools.
Recently 60 Minutes had a story on a very specialized form of Aphasia in which people cannot recognize faces at all. A young boy cannot pick his own mother out of a line up of faces. He must rely on other clues to guide him to her such as her voice, mannerisms, hair, dress, and of course other people pointing to her and declaring the face belongs to his mother. Conversely the episode also highlighted some people who are called "super recognizers", who can recognize every face they've ever seen. A woman from NYC could readily pick out faces from people she may have only seen once, ten years ago. She could also easily pick out faces of famous people when they were just children because age doesn't seem to affect her ability.
These two stories seem to share a link. It makes me wonder if the young boy who could not discern faces, may not be able to readily pick out certain patterns. Humans have an innate ability to see faces where faces are not, such as the face on Mars, or in the Moon, or Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Growing up we had a bathroom flooring material that was made up of "broken" shapes. I could pretty much find a human face in every one of the little shapes if I looked long enough. This is just pattern recognition. Could the young boy pick out faces in our bathroom flooring too, or would he by stymied?
We tend to think of our brains as immensely complex. We have historically tried to keep ourselves elevated far above our animal brethren with our special computational abilities. However, experiments like the one above only go to show how many of our special functions are actually common. We now have computer programs that can recognize faces. Is it simply a combination of all these separate talents that truly makes human beings exceptional?
To the scientists' surprise, after some practice, the baboons were able to discern the difference between English words and nonsense words. For instance there could have been the word PERSON and the non-word POUEIRSEIKN. The baboons were able to figure out the non-word used too many vowels and had awkward consonant placement. Most of the baboons were able to figure out over 4,000 English words and one special baboon was able to correctly select over 11,000.
The results of this experiment indicate once the rules of English letter placement are learned, real words can be separated from unreal words. This has nothing to do with actually understanding the meaning of the words, but everything to do with pattern recognition. The baboons weren't learning English, they were simply learning how some symbols do not get placed next to other symbols in certain series.
This also means young children are probably doing the same thing. Pattern recognition and solving is in a very different area of the brain from language learning. Understanding this may lead to different approaches in teaching English in schools.
Recently 60 Minutes had a story on a very specialized form of Aphasia in which people cannot recognize faces at all. A young boy cannot pick his own mother out of a line up of faces. He must rely on other clues to guide him to her such as her voice, mannerisms, hair, dress, and of course other people pointing to her and declaring the face belongs to his mother. Conversely the episode also highlighted some people who are called "super recognizers", who can recognize every face they've ever seen. A woman from NYC could readily pick out faces from people she may have only seen once, ten years ago. She could also easily pick out faces of famous people when they were just children because age doesn't seem to affect her ability.
These two stories seem to share a link. It makes me wonder if the young boy who could not discern faces, may not be able to readily pick out certain patterns. Humans have an innate ability to see faces where faces are not, such as the face on Mars, or in the Moon, or Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich. Growing up we had a bathroom flooring material that was made up of "broken" shapes. I could pretty much find a human face in every one of the little shapes if I looked long enough. This is just pattern recognition. Could the young boy pick out faces in our bathroom flooring too, or would he by stymied?
We tend to think of our brains as immensely complex. We have historically tried to keep ourselves elevated far above our animal brethren with our special computational abilities. However, experiments like the one above only go to show how many of our special functions are actually common. We now have computer programs that can recognize faces. Is it simply a combination of all these separate talents that truly makes human beings exceptional?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
on Movie Memories
When I was three we lived in a little dilapidated black house with white trim. I have so many memories from that house, from swimming in my underwear in a plastic wading pool in the back yard, to pedaling my little plastic Jaguar down the sidewalk along our cross-stile white fence. I can remember finding my first Lego set, sent from my grandmother in Vancouver, Washington, waiting for me under the wood burning stove. Also from that time I have two distinct memories of movies. One was some kind of devil-worship film with cloaked figures in a circle; after all it was the sixties.
The second movie memory was of a little girl dressed up as a ham for a school play. She fell down a hillside and her brother ran home in the rain to get help. However, when he got home his sister was already there, having been carried by a scary man who was hiding in their shower. This frightened me tremendously and caused me to always check behind shower curtains before "doing my business" for years and years. Finally in high school we watched the old b&w version of To Kill A Mockingbird and I recognized the frightening scene. It was very much like Freud has postulated: if you can truly get to the source of the fear you can eliminate it.
Films that truly had an emotional or psychological influence on me includes Star Wars. It came out in 1977 when I was still in grade school. Everyone I knew had already seen the film at least once but my parents didn't want to pay the raised price to go to a theater. Movies were suddenly at a staggering $4.00! I was finally able to see the film with the next door neighbor at a bargain theater the following summer. It blew my little mind. I became obsessed. My neighbor and I began to make our own films and I grew increasingly in love with special effects and movie make up. I spent an allowance on the action figures of C3PO and R2D2. My mother was furious that I had spent my money on two tiny pieces of plastic, so she threw them in the outside garbage pail and forbade me to go digging them out, which is of course what I did that very night. I still have those figures sitting inside the original Millineum Falcon my parents broke down and got me. It wasn't until I was an adult though that the little robots gained the company of Chewbacca, Han, Leia, Luke and Darth Vader.
Jaws and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind affected me greatly too. Speilberg has always been good at drawing me into the film with good acting and clever pacing. I have never once felt like anything more than a mere observer to a Michael Bey or Bruckheimer film. In their films I could not care less if the main characters get killed which is the true sign of a badly told story.
The second movie memory was of a little girl dressed up as a ham for a school play. She fell down a hillside and her brother ran home in the rain to get help. However, when he got home his sister was already there, having been carried by a scary man who was hiding in their shower. This frightened me tremendously and caused me to always check behind shower curtains before "doing my business" for years and years. Finally in high school we watched the old b&w version of To Kill A Mockingbird and I recognized the frightening scene. It was very much like Freud has postulated: if you can truly get to the source of the fear you can eliminate it.
Films that truly had an emotional or psychological influence on me includes Star Wars. It came out in 1977 when I was still in grade school. Everyone I knew had already seen the film at least once but my parents didn't want to pay the raised price to go to a theater. Movies were suddenly at a staggering $4.00! I was finally able to see the film with the next door neighbor at a bargain theater the following summer. It blew my little mind. I became obsessed. My neighbor and I began to make our own films and I grew increasingly in love with special effects and movie make up. I spent an allowance on the action figures of C3PO and R2D2. My mother was furious that I had spent my money on two tiny pieces of plastic, so she threw them in the outside garbage pail and forbade me to go digging them out, which is of course what I did that very night. I still have those figures sitting inside the original Millineum Falcon my parents broke down and got me. It wasn't until I was an adult though that the little robots gained the company of Chewbacca, Han, Leia, Luke and Darth Vader.
Jaws and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind affected me greatly too. Speilberg has always been good at drawing me into the film with good acting and clever pacing. I have never once felt like anything more than a mere observer to a Michael Bey or Bruckheimer film. In their films I could not care less if the main characters get killed which is the true sign of a badly told story.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
on Interpreting
This last Friday I was at my monthly Deaf Advocacy Committee meeting and noticed something interesting. While one of the hearing people was speaking I found myself watching the sign language interpreter. I do this a lot since I will always pick up some new sign, and I find the choices each interpreter makes to be fascinating.
This particular interpreter is brand new and the poor girl had to work for over two hours straight, signing what ten hearing people were saying and then saying what the deaf people were saying. She did wonderfully and didn't seem to tire. Her word choices were very insightful, choosing to sign the single word "goal" for the entire phrase "heading toward something better". Sure she may have lost a tiny nuance by omitting the word "better" but the meaning remained mostly intact.
What was so different this time is that I actually found myself tuning out the speakers and focusing on the interpreter. I was actually much more precise and clear. English speakers tend to throw in a ton of emotional baggage, judgments, humor and completely useless information into our sentences. The interpreter cuts most of this out and concentrates on the core sentence meaning.
A while ago I met the director of the Cleveland Hearing and Speech Center, Sue Bungard at Spaces Gallery to pick out some artwork for the Center, which since its construction has been virtually art-less. Sue is deaf but can read lips and speak excellently. She faced me and said "hello" and then as I began to tell her how my morning had been going, she turned her back to look at some of the colorful paintings on the gallery wall. I found myself standing there with my mouth open. I wondered for a moment if I should tap her on the shoulder so she could turn toward me and "hear" what I was telling her. Then I realized nothing I was saying was actually important in any way. It was just noise, or to Sue it was just a bunch of lip flapping. My guess is, since much of what people say is filler, she takes in the person's intent and then shuts her active-listening-mind off, essentially turning her back on the person.
I do sometimes wish people would be more succinct in their speech. Time and again I have been plagued with a student asking a 26-part question that requires a telling of personal history in order to "put it into context". Yes, this is an exaggeration, but not by any huge degree.
One can be too succinct. My partner Robert hates to listen to my stories which admittedly can tend to have too much information, asides, commentary and references. However, I like to tell stories in chronological order with the built-up payoff at the end. Robert on the other hand tells the punchline of the story first and then proceeds to fill in all the details afterward. Once I've heard the denouement, there's very little reason to listen to the rest of the story because there's no build-up.
An example of one of my stories may start out with "it was very cold yesterday", meander through "just like the Columbus Day storm of 1964", and finish with "her car slid out of control and hit the embankment!"
Conversely an example of one of Robert's stories may start out with "Did you hear that she was in a terrible accident yesterday?", which leads to, "it was only 19 degrees outside" and finally end with "she had just finished paying off that car too."
I wonder how the interpreter would phrase these stories? I'll bet she'd be very succinct.
This particular interpreter is brand new and the poor girl had to work for over two hours straight, signing what ten hearing people were saying and then saying what the deaf people were saying. She did wonderfully and didn't seem to tire. Her word choices were very insightful, choosing to sign the single word "goal" for the entire phrase "heading toward something better". Sure she may have lost a tiny nuance by omitting the word "better" but the meaning remained mostly intact.
What was so different this time is that I actually found myself tuning out the speakers and focusing on the interpreter. I was actually much more precise and clear. English speakers tend to throw in a ton of emotional baggage, judgments, humor and completely useless information into our sentences. The interpreter cuts most of this out and concentrates on the core sentence meaning.
A while ago I met the director of the Cleveland Hearing and Speech Center, Sue Bungard at Spaces Gallery to pick out some artwork for the Center, which since its construction has been virtually art-less. Sue is deaf but can read lips and speak excellently. She faced me and said "hello" and then as I began to tell her how my morning had been going, she turned her back to look at some of the colorful paintings on the gallery wall. I found myself standing there with my mouth open. I wondered for a moment if I should tap her on the shoulder so she could turn toward me and "hear" what I was telling her. Then I realized nothing I was saying was actually important in any way. It was just noise, or to Sue it was just a bunch of lip flapping. My guess is, since much of what people say is filler, she takes in the person's intent and then shuts her active-listening-mind off, essentially turning her back on the person.
I do sometimes wish people would be more succinct in their speech. Time and again I have been plagued with a student asking a 26-part question that requires a telling of personal history in order to "put it into context". Yes, this is an exaggeration, but not by any huge degree.
One can be too succinct. My partner Robert hates to listen to my stories which admittedly can tend to have too much information, asides, commentary and references. However, I like to tell stories in chronological order with the built-up payoff at the end. Robert on the other hand tells the punchline of the story first and then proceeds to fill in all the details afterward. Once I've heard the denouement, there's very little reason to listen to the rest of the story because there's no build-up.
An example of one of my stories may start out with "it was very cold yesterday", meander through "just like the Columbus Day storm of 1964", and finish with "her car slid out of control and hit the embankment!"
Conversely an example of one of Robert's stories may start out with "Did you hear that she was in a terrible accident yesterday?", which leads to, "it was only 19 degrees outside" and finally end with "she had just finished paying off that car too."
I wonder how the interpreter would phrase these stories? I'll bet she'd be very succinct.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
on Autism
In American Sign Language, the sign for Autism is to make the letter A with both hands at the ears, then bring the a-fists around the front of the head until they meet, closing off the eyes. The concept is Autism closes off the person from the world or creates a barrier between the person and the rest of society.
At a recent sign language class, there was a woman sitting next to me. I'll call her Jane. As my instructor, who is deaf, was telling a story about buying a new computer and giving his old one to his niece for Christmas, Jane laughed out loud and then under her breath whispered the word "shoes". I was perplexed. Nowhere had our instructor used the word "shoes" in his story, yet for some reason Jane thought the story was funny and had evidently been about footwear. I surmised her receptive skills for sign language just weren't up as high as the other students in this advanced class. As the instructor continued to tell different stories, Jane continued to be very amused, but always whispered incorrect words, sometimes nodding as if she agreed or understood when clearly she didn't.
When I mentioned this strange behavior to the instructor he informed me he suspected (or knew) Jane was a high-functioning Autistic person. I was now fascinated. Other than her mirthful joviality and sometimes misunderstanding the intent or subject of our teacher's stories, Jane seems downright common. Her choice in winter sweaters is banal, her quick helpful nature (she jumped at the chance to fetch coffee for the class) is pleasant, her hair-do is well put together and her eagerness to talk to strangers admirable. Yet if you listen to the meter of her voice, watch her mannerisms closely, there is definitely something there, almost indiscernible. Or is it that I'm seeing things now which may not really be there; simple personality traits that make her distinctive but not autistic?
Aspergers Syndrome has recently been the cause celebre for Hollywood and television, or at least it has drawn special focus. The show Community on NBC has a major character, Abed who supposedly has Aspergers. The syndrome is marked by awkward social interactions, obsessions, and a lack of understanding of sarcasm or wit. Abed speaks awkwardly, is obsessed with film and t.v., and in the first season certainly exhibited a lack of sarcastic comprehension, but as his character ages, he has become more and more "normalized" especially as his television associates become more and more eccentric with each season. The recent movies "Adam" and "Mary and Max" both feature main characters dealing with Aspergers, as do a number of recent novels. Last year's Amazing Race featured a man with Aspergers. What is this sudden fascination? It is fairly easy to create a character who has a "quirkiness" while still being for the most part "normal" by giving them the now familiar trait of Aspergers. Gone are the days where an autistic character must be portrayed with fervent gusto by the likes of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.
The United Kingdom conducted a wide survey of households and discovered about 1% of the total population had some form of autism, from severe to mild. What was surprising is how many adults answered the survey that they "suspected" some kind of autism as an explanation for their own life-long condition. The Los Angeles Times posted a recent article about the sudden "explosion" of autism cases in children, a nearly 20% rise over the last decade. The problem with the concept of such a rise, they have determined, is that adults with autism have typically been diagnosed as retarded or even schizophrenic and either heavily medicated or locked away. A study of adults in mental hospitals revealed a generous proportion of them were actually autistic. The obvious conclusion is we are not really experiencing a dynamic up-shift in the number of autistic children, we are simply diagnosing it more often than a decade ago. The number of autistic people in the American population is probably on par with the U.K. at 1%.
My sister and I have always joked she is a little bit crazy and I'm a little bit "retarded". I will admit I have never been all that comfortable with being touched, it kind of gives me the creeps (my parents were not touchy-feely people). I am very sensitive to sound and really can't stand loud noise (my father was the same way). For most of my life I felt very awkward talking to people, and I can get very obsessed with certain subjects. These could all be signs of high-functioning autism, albeit to a tiny degree. Maybe the joke my sister and I tell each other has some validity.
At a recent sign language class, there was a woman sitting next to me. I'll call her Jane. As my instructor, who is deaf, was telling a story about buying a new computer and giving his old one to his niece for Christmas, Jane laughed out loud and then under her breath whispered the word "shoes". I was perplexed. Nowhere had our instructor used the word "shoes" in his story, yet for some reason Jane thought the story was funny and had evidently been about footwear. I surmised her receptive skills for sign language just weren't up as high as the other students in this advanced class. As the instructor continued to tell different stories, Jane continued to be very amused, but always whispered incorrect words, sometimes nodding as if she agreed or understood when clearly she didn't.
When I mentioned this strange behavior to the instructor he informed me he suspected (or knew) Jane was a high-functioning Autistic person. I was now fascinated. Other than her mirthful joviality and sometimes misunderstanding the intent or subject of our teacher's stories, Jane seems downright common. Her choice in winter sweaters is banal, her quick helpful nature (she jumped at the chance to fetch coffee for the class) is pleasant, her hair-do is well put together and her eagerness to talk to strangers admirable. Yet if you listen to the meter of her voice, watch her mannerisms closely, there is definitely something there, almost indiscernible. Or is it that I'm seeing things now which may not really be there; simple personality traits that make her distinctive but not autistic?
Aspergers Syndrome has recently been the cause celebre for Hollywood and television, or at least it has drawn special focus. The show Community on NBC has a major character, Abed who supposedly has Aspergers. The syndrome is marked by awkward social interactions, obsessions, and a lack of understanding of sarcasm or wit. Abed speaks awkwardly, is obsessed with film and t.v., and in the first season certainly exhibited a lack of sarcastic comprehension, but as his character ages, he has become more and more "normalized" especially as his television associates become more and more eccentric with each season. The recent movies "Adam" and "Mary and Max" both feature main characters dealing with Aspergers, as do a number of recent novels. Last year's Amazing Race featured a man with Aspergers. What is this sudden fascination? It is fairly easy to create a character who has a "quirkiness" while still being for the most part "normal" by giving them the now familiar trait of Aspergers. Gone are the days where an autistic character must be portrayed with fervent gusto by the likes of Dustin Hoffman in Rainman.
The United Kingdom conducted a wide survey of households and discovered about 1% of the total population had some form of autism, from severe to mild. What was surprising is how many adults answered the survey that they "suspected" some kind of autism as an explanation for their own life-long condition. The Los Angeles Times posted a recent article about the sudden "explosion" of autism cases in children, a nearly 20% rise over the last decade. The problem with the concept of such a rise, they have determined, is that adults with autism have typically been diagnosed as retarded or even schizophrenic and either heavily medicated or locked away. A study of adults in mental hospitals revealed a generous proportion of them were actually autistic. The obvious conclusion is we are not really experiencing a dynamic up-shift in the number of autistic children, we are simply diagnosing it more often than a decade ago. The number of autistic people in the American population is probably on par with the U.K. at 1%.
My sister and I have always joked she is a little bit crazy and I'm a little bit "retarded". I will admit I have never been all that comfortable with being touched, it kind of gives me the creeps (my parents were not touchy-feely people). I am very sensitive to sound and really can't stand loud noise (my father was the same way). For most of my life I felt very awkward talking to people, and I can get very obsessed with certain subjects. These could all be signs of high-functioning autism, albeit to a tiny degree. Maybe the joke my sister and I tell each other has some validity.
Friday, December 16, 2011
on Schadenfreude
The Morrissey song goes "We hate it when our friends become successful". We also delight in seeing people get their comeuppance. So often a politico who stands firmly on an ultra-conservative "family values" position gets publicly outed when they are caught with a rent boy or as in the recent case of the Mississippi mayor who was investigated for shopping at a gay porn store. The more these kinds of people set themselves up as moral pillars of the community, the farther they fall from grace when their hypocritical truth is revealed. We eat it up with a spoon.
A good friend of mine has been working at an incredibly difficult job; a position that typically takes two or more people in other locations. The board this friend has to deal with is impossible. For instance, my friend has to do all the preparations for the board meetings and even take the minutes, even though there is a board secretary. The board continually "tasks its members" to do projects, but they continually shirk their responsibilities and tell my friend to complete these tasks for them. It's a ridiculous situation. None of this was in the job description. Therefore it is not surprising my friend is looking for work elsewhere. My friend and I both wish the entire board will collapse in my friend's absence, but we both know they will persevere without a single lesson learned. But oh what delight it would be if the whole organization collapses!
I blame television, books and movies. These mediums always show us cause and effect. If an evil doer causes problems, they will certainly end up badly. Life, however, doesn't always go like that. I guess that is why people cling so much to the concept of Hell and Heaven. In this life evil people seem to get away with all their evil deeds while good people get punished with being poor or disease ridden. People must believe that evil doers will be punished AFTER this life and good people will be rewarded. It helps categorize things, makes sense out of a topsy-turvy world.
I know it is wrong to wish evil on someone. Jesus turned the other cheek, but then he was Jesus.
A decorative plate hangs on our kitchen wall. Printed on its face is a different take on the old 'serenity prayer' : "God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
A good friend of mine has been working at an incredibly difficult job; a position that typically takes two or more people in other locations. The board this friend has to deal with is impossible. For instance, my friend has to do all the preparations for the board meetings and even take the minutes, even though there is a board secretary. The board continually "tasks its members" to do projects, but they continually shirk their responsibilities and tell my friend to complete these tasks for them. It's a ridiculous situation. None of this was in the job description. Therefore it is not surprising my friend is looking for work elsewhere. My friend and I both wish the entire board will collapse in my friend's absence, but we both know they will persevere without a single lesson learned. But oh what delight it would be if the whole organization collapses!
I blame television, books and movies. These mediums always show us cause and effect. If an evil doer causes problems, they will certainly end up badly. Life, however, doesn't always go like that. I guess that is why people cling so much to the concept of Hell and Heaven. In this life evil people seem to get away with all their evil deeds while good people get punished with being poor or disease ridden. People must believe that evil doers will be punished AFTER this life and good people will be rewarded. It helps categorize things, makes sense out of a topsy-turvy world.
I know it is wrong to wish evil on someone. Jesus turned the other cheek, but then he was Jesus.
A decorative plate hangs on our kitchen wall. Printed on its face is a different take on the old 'serenity prayer' : "God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
And God turn the ankles of the people
who would do me wrong so that I
may know them by their limp."
Thursday, December 8, 2011
On Christian Love
A friend of mine comes from a very religious family and has a gay uncle. I asked her how the family deals with her uncle and how the uncle deals with the family.
Her mother, I'll call her Ida had called her brother Bill in order for him to come to the family celebrations for Thanksgiving. They spoke for quite a while. She does not like his being homosexual, but she loves him and wants him in her life. She really is just worried that at the end of it all he won't be there in Heaven beside her, and that makes her sad. She let him know that she prays for his immortal soul out of love and kindness, not out of hatred or fear.
This seems a common thread I've been reading and hearing a lot about recently. The Salvation Army, who have always been "anti-gay" issued the statement they only hate the sin, but love the sinner. They don't believe in denigrating any human being, after all everyone is a sinner.
The love Ida has for her brother is genuine, and so are her faith inspired concerns. She simply can not understand why Bill was still not coming over for Thanksgiving. She only has love for him!
I wonder though if the shoe was on the other foot she would be so understanding? Let's pretend I'm some kind of rabid Jew who believes the followers of Jesus are deluded. If I were to tell Ida I'm praying for her to see the light and forget all this Jesus nonsense, after all I'm just worried she's going down the wrong path to salvation. It's all out of love. I wonder how she'd take it? Would the simple fact I'm praying for her make her angry? What if I was worshiping some other godly name, like Vishnu or Baal or Allah? Would she get upset? There are many people upset right now that they may have eaten a turkey for Thanksgiving that had been blessed in the name of Allah. Somehow this tainted the turkey for them and endangered their immortal souls.
Recently I was asked to speak to a room full of 13 year-olds at a Unitarian Church about my sexuality. One question was brought up about the definition of being gay, bisexual, or straight. It was explained there is a sliding scale (Kinsey) and most people do not fall directly on one end or another (fully gay or fully straight). Bisexuals are a difficulty for gay people politically. If a bisexual can truly choose which gender to pursue, then sexuality becomes a choice. If sexuality is a choice then everyone could choose to be straight. Like Michele Bachmann just announced, "all gay people can marry as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex". Problem solved.
If sexuality is not a choice, (as it wasn't for me) then the only thing people can "blame" is nature, and thereby God. If God made us what we are, then it can't be wrong. Sin must be a conscious act, except for the Catholics who believe in the stain of original sin from Adam & Eve which even newborn babies carry. If Ida's brother Bill was born gay, then all of Ida's prayers are actually just rails against nature, against God's wishes. Is it really any wonder he didn't feel like going to her house for Thanksgiving?
Her mother, I'll call her Ida had called her brother Bill in order for him to come to the family celebrations for Thanksgiving. They spoke for quite a while. She does not like his being homosexual, but she loves him and wants him in her life. She really is just worried that at the end of it all he won't be there in Heaven beside her, and that makes her sad. She let him know that she prays for his immortal soul out of love and kindness, not out of hatred or fear.
This seems a common thread I've been reading and hearing a lot about recently. The Salvation Army, who have always been "anti-gay" issued the statement they only hate the sin, but love the sinner. They don't believe in denigrating any human being, after all everyone is a sinner.
The love Ida has for her brother is genuine, and so are her faith inspired concerns. She simply can not understand why Bill was still not coming over for Thanksgiving. She only has love for him!
I wonder though if the shoe was on the other foot she would be so understanding? Let's pretend I'm some kind of rabid Jew who believes the followers of Jesus are deluded. If I were to tell Ida I'm praying for her to see the light and forget all this Jesus nonsense, after all I'm just worried she's going down the wrong path to salvation. It's all out of love. I wonder how she'd take it? Would the simple fact I'm praying for her make her angry? What if I was worshiping some other godly name, like Vishnu or Baal or Allah? Would she get upset? There are many people upset right now that they may have eaten a turkey for Thanksgiving that had been blessed in the name of Allah. Somehow this tainted the turkey for them and endangered their immortal souls.
Recently I was asked to speak to a room full of 13 year-olds at a Unitarian Church about my sexuality. One question was brought up about the definition of being gay, bisexual, or straight. It was explained there is a sliding scale (Kinsey) and most people do not fall directly on one end or another (fully gay or fully straight). Bisexuals are a difficulty for gay people politically. If a bisexual can truly choose which gender to pursue, then sexuality becomes a choice. If sexuality is a choice then everyone could choose to be straight. Like Michele Bachmann just announced, "all gay people can marry as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex". Problem solved.
If sexuality is not a choice, (as it wasn't for me) then the only thing people can "blame" is nature, and thereby God. If God made us what we are, then it can't be wrong. Sin must be a conscious act, except for the Catholics who believe in the stain of original sin from Adam & Eve which even newborn babies carry. If Ida's brother Bill was born gay, then all of Ida's prayers are actually just rails against nature, against God's wishes. Is it really any wonder he didn't feel like going to her house for Thanksgiving?
Saturday, October 22, 2011
on Coming Out
The headlines have been filled with missing babies, Eastern leaders captured or dead, and Star Trek movie star Zachary Quinto coming out of the closet as a gay man. Why is this news, and does it really matter?
Many people will say, "who cares if you're gay or not, can't you just keep it to yourself?" which is a very ignorant statement. A guy who sits in his office cubicle with a picture of his wife on his desk is considered a "good family man". He is expected to bring his wife to company parties and events. But what if he has a picture of his boyfriend or husband on the desk? Trust me, I've been in that situation so many times! It doesn't matter how liberal or diverse a company is, there will always be someone who will ask you "So what does your wife do?" Luckily things have changed enough in many parts of the country that a reply of "My husband is a photographer" won't get you fired or lynched...sometimes.
Years ago Michelangelo Signorile used to write for the gay news magazine The Advocate (he's now on XM Sirius Radio) and he stirred up huge amounts of controversy by going on a campaign to out popular actors and actresses, politicians and sports players. Many gay people were aghast and wanted him to stop this practice, after all it's up to the individual to come out when they feel it is most appropriate. Although I agree it is usually up to the individual, those people who are in the public eye need to come out soon or be forced out. Like I said, it's controversial, but it's so important. The more people that come out or are forced out, the more gays will be visible. People are more likely to accept something that is not dark and shadowy, some fringe activity that the religious right can claim is evil, perverted, sinful and deserving of nothing but derision and avoidance.
When I was growing up there were no role models at all. The only people I ever saw on t.v. or the movies were insane killers, twisted perverts, or the sad but funny sidekick. These are the images the Religious Right still wants gay kids to see so that we won't "choose" this lifestyle. Paul Lynde, (Hollywood Squares original Center Square and Bewitched's Uncle Arthur) who couldn't even remotely be considered straight, landed his own self-titled show. The show's opening credits has Lynde opening the door to his home in a pose that said, "Hello, I'm fab-u-lous!", but then his wife comes up to give him a peck on the cheek and his daughter (played by Phil Silvers' daughter) smiles warmly. How could such a show actually work? Well, there were many, many households in America which looked exactly like this example. If the show had continued maybe they would have introduced a new character, 'daddy's very close friend John, who will be staying in the guest room, and daddy will spend the night in there too because mommy kicks in her sleep'.
Recently a gay couple who have been together over 35 years invited Robert and me to a party at their house. At the party they had hired a young gay college student to play piano. When the party was winding down, many of the patrons gathered around the piano player and asked questions. The first question was, "are you out?" to which the reply was an immediate "yes" but answered with a bit of shock. Of course the young man was out, why wouldn't he be? In the age of Ellen, Elton, Rosie, the L-Word, Queer as Folk, the Real World, Will & Grace, there are a lot of examples out there of gay people who are not tragic, psycho, or comedy relief. One of the lesbian couples told how, when they were in their 20's or 30's they had to move around in bands or else they could get attacked. They'd actually lost friends who, when walking to their car in the parking lot of a gay bar, were attacked and killed simply for being gay.
I was talking at another soiree to the parents of a young gay friend of mine. The parents told me that Michael not only came out at a young age, he purposely spoke at an assembly at his high school, set up a Gay-Straight-Alliance club, and was very popular. Times are definitely changing.
Now Spock is gay. Well, not the character Spock of course, but at least the actor is out which is going to help even more young people feel that being gay is not a death-sentence. This is the exact thing the religious right is so panicked about. Good.
Many people will say, "who cares if you're gay or not, can't you just keep it to yourself?" which is a very ignorant statement. A guy who sits in his office cubicle with a picture of his wife on his desk is considered a "good family man". He is expected to bring his wife to company parties and events. But what if he has a picture of his boyfriend or husband on the desk? Trust me, I've been in that situation so many times! It doesn't matter how liberal or diverse a company is, there will always be someone who will ask you "So what does your wife do?" Luckily things have changed enough in many parts of the country that a reply of "My husband is a photographer" won't get you fired or lynched...sometimes.
Years ago Michelangelo Signorile used to write for the gay news magazine The Advocate (he's now on XM Sirius Radio) and he stirred up huge amounts of controversy by going on a campaign to out popular actors and actresses, politicians and sports players. Many gay people were aghast and wanted him to stop this practice, after all it's up to the individual to come out when they feel it is most appropriate. Although I agree it is usually up to the individual, those people who are in the public eye need to come out soon or be forced out. Like I said, it's controversial, but it's so important. The more people that come out or are forced out, the more gays will be visible. People are more likely to accept something that is not dark and shadowy, some fringe activity that the religious right can claim is evil, perverted, sinful and deserving of nothing but derision and avoidance.
When I was growing up there were no role models at all. The only people I ever saw on t.v. or the movies were insane killers, twisted perverts, or the sad but funny sidekick. These are the images the Religious Right still wants gay kids to see so that we won't "choose" this lifestyle. Paul Lynde, (Hollywood Squares original Center Square and Bewitched's Uncle Arthur) who couldn't even remotely be considered straight, landed his own self-titled show. The show's opening credits has Lynde opening the door to his home in a pose that said, "Hello, I'm fab-u-lous!", but then his wife comes up to give him a peck on the cheek and his daughter (played by Phil Silvers' daughter) smiles warmly. How could such a show actually work? Well, there were many, many households in America which looked exactly like this example. If the show had continued maybe they would have introduced a new character, 'daddy's very close friend John, who will be staying in the guest room, and daddy will spend the night in there too because mommy kicks in her sleep'.
Recently a gay couple who have been together over 35 years invited Robert and me to a party at their house. At the party they had hired a young gay college student to play piano. When the party was winding down, many of the patrons gathered around the piano player and asked questions. The first question was, "are you out?" to which the reply was an immediate "yes" but answered with a bit of shock. Of course the young man was out, why wouldn't he be? In the age of Ellen, Elton, Rosie, the L-Word, Queer as Folk, the Real World, Will & Grace, there are a lot of examples out there of gay people who are not tragic, psycho, or comedy relief. One of the lesbian couples told how, when they were in their 20's or 30's they had to move around in bands or else they could get attacked. They'd actually lost friends who, when walking to their car in the parking lot of a gay bar, were attacked and killed simply for being gay.
I was talking at another soiree to the parents of a young gay friend of mine. The parents told me that Michael not only came out at a young age, he purposely spoke at an assembly at his high school, set up a Gay-Straight-Alliance club, and was very popular. Times are definitely changing.
Now Spock is gay. Well, not the character Spock of course, but at least the actor is out which is going to help even more young people feel that being gay is not a death-sentence. This is the exact thing the religious right is so panicked about. Good.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
on Bad Neighbors
We used to live in a wonderful and artsy area of Portland, Oregon, just off Alberta Street. The houses were all either traditional bungalows or Portland Style (four-square houses with the large front porches), or a combination thereof. The neighbor to our South was a nice quiet family of four. The father was a professor, the mother a retired teacher and the kids were smart, quiet, clean and polite. Nearly every night I could see the mother and daughter washing dishes from an angled view out my kitchen window.
The neighbor to our West was a very elderly woman who required the use of a mechanical chair lift installed at her front porch. You rarely even knew she was there except for the occasional whir and clang of the lift as she came home from grocery shopping. Unfortunately this little old lady was getting forgetful and her granddaughter had discovered the gas stove left on far too many times. The woman was put into a home and her two granddaughters moved in, along with their motorcycle-riding boyfriends. From then on we were treated to extremely loud tailpipes, angry arguments, heated battles, sirens and cops blocking the street, loud death-metal music, and the near constant sound of that darned mechanical lift going up and down (all four persons living there were very, very obese). They had two enormous dogs who would bark at any tiny instigation. One day Robert was sitting on our porch swing when he heard the following loud declaration emanate from their house: "The whole house smells like shit, but I looked around and couldn't find any shit!"
Keeping it classy.
However, these were not our worst neighbors, by far. To the immediate North was a man, probably in his fifties, who fancied himself to be a radio broadcaster. There had been a fire in his house at some time in the past and for at least a decade the walls had no covering, just exposed studs and pink insulation. He rarely ever left the house, but occasionally would have a few people staying there. To his North was a small connector road which he would line up large boulders and park vehicles across so no one could use it. His backyard and front porch was completely filled with horded items from broken washing machines to plastic chairs, all stacked up, rough and tumble with barely a pathway between. He ran an electrical wire along the top of his fence to keep trespassers from entering. And he erected a 50ft steel tower to broadcast his signals.
You would think he was breaking the law with the tower except that he didn't actually exceed the height limit for "antennae" in the city. He also typically kept his amplification rate just barely under the legal limit. This really didn't matter much because all the houses in the area, including ours, had old knob & tube electrical wiring. While this kind of wiring is fairly safe (despite many people's panic about "old" wiring) it kind of acts like a giant antenna, turning your house into a giant receiver. When we'd plug in anything that had a speaker, including our telephone, it didn't matter if the item was turned on or not, the speakers would broadcast anything our neighbor was outputting. Neighbors got together and complained to the FCC and to the councilpersons, but he was actually within the letter of the law.
I still remember a conversation I had with my grandmother. She had called me and suddenly the neighbor began to broadcast his intermittent "show" which consisted mostly of saying "holy guacamole" over and over with an echo, or playing one of those Christmas songs featuring dogs barking the tune. This time he was repeating, "you're a dirty bitch, you're a dirty bitch", to which my Grandmother replied, "what did you say, Bud?" I tried to explain that it wasn't me, but his volume was far too high for me to get this across.
We even tried to talk to him, but it seems we were part of the "establishment trying to take him down". He was paranoid and delusional and felt this radio broadcasting was his way to get back at the "man".
I don't miss him.
The neighbor to our West was a very elderly woman who required the use of a mechanical chair lift installed at her front porch. You rarely even knew she was there except for the occasional whir and clang of the lift as she came home from grocery shopping. Unfortunately this little old lady was getting forgetful and her granddaughter had discovered the gas stove left on far too many times. The woman was put into a home and her two granddaughters moved in, along with their motorcycle-riding boyfriends. From then on we were treated to extremely loud tailpipes, angry arguments, heated battles, sirens and cops blocking the street, loud death-metal music, and the near constant sound of that darned mechanical lift going up and down (all four persons living there were very, very obese). They had two enormous dogs who would bark at any tiny instigation. One day Robert was sitting on our porch swing when he heard the following loud declaration emanate from their house: "The whole house smells like shit, but I looked around and couldn't find any shit!"
Keeping it classy.
However, these were not our worst neighbors, by far. To the immediate North was a man, probably in his fifties, who fancied himself to be a radio broadcaster. There had been a fire in his house at some time in the past and for at least a decade the walls had no covering, just exposed studs and pink insulation. He rarely ever left the house, but occasionally would have a few people staying there. To his North was a small connector road which he would line up large boulders and park vehicles across so no one could use it. His backyard and front porch was completely filled with horded items from broken washing machines to plastic chairs, all stacked up, rough and tumble with barely a pathway between. He ran an electrical wire along the top of his fence to keep trespassers from entering. And he erected a 50ft steel tower to broadcast his signals.
You would think he was breaking the law with the tower except that he didn't actually exceed the height limit for "antennae" in the city. He also typically kept his amplification rate just barely under the legal limit. This really didn't matter much because all the houses in the area, including ours, had old knob & tube electrical wiring. While this kind of wiring is fairly safe (despite many people's panic about "old" wiring) it kind of acts like a giant antenna, turning your house into a giant receiver. When we'd plug in anything that had a speaker, including our telephone, it didn't matter if the item was turned on or not, the speakers would broadcast anything our neighbor was outputting. Neighbors got together and complained to the FCC and to the councilpersons, but he was actually within the letter of the law.
I still remember a conversation I had with my grandmother. She had called me and suddenly the neighbor began to broadcast his intermittent "show" which consisted mostly of saying "holy guacamole" over and over with an echo, or playing one of those Christmas songs featuring dogs barking the tune. This time he was repeating, "you're a dirty bitch, you're a dirty bitch", to which my Grandmother replied, "what did you say, Bud?" I tried to explain that it wasn't me, but his volume was far too high for me to get this across.
We even tried to talk to him, but it seems we were part of the "establishment trying to take him down". He was paranoid and delusional and felt this radio broadcasting was his way to get back at the "man".
I don't miss him.
Friday, October 14, 2011
on Free Speech
Ah, the first amendment to our United States Constitution; what would we do without it?
This one little amendment has been fought for and against in courts, in Congress, everywhere throughout the U.S., for all of our history. What are we allowed to say, where, when and how is the subject of many contentious fights. The amendment itself states very plainly that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". However, it doesn't mention laws made outside of Congress.
This is how we got obscenity laws which certainly do abridge the freedom of speech. If something is obscene (a very vague and varied definition by the way) then citizens no longer have the right to say it, print it, distribute it, or even own it privately. Yes, by definition you are not actually allowed to own pornography in your own homes. This is how officials can break in (with a search warrant, unless it's deemed some kind of terrorism activity) take your computer and search for anything "obscene". Now regular ol' porn will probably be permitted in most cases, but are you 100% sure every person shown in that pornography is of legal age? Did you know the legal age varies depending on whether or not that person is engaged in "straight" or "gay" sex? Yup, varied definition for sure.
What about "sexting"? Should a high school student be sent to prison for the 'distribution of pornography' after she sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend, who shared them with his friends? A few years ago a woman was arrested for child pornography because she took photos of her baby in the bath tub and (rather stupidly) sent them out as a Christmas card. More recently, this past summer, a major book store chain covered up a magazine because it featured a topless male model; a model that is renowned for having a very feminine face. Because he looked like a woman, but had exposed MALE breasts, they felt they needed to cover it up "for the sake of the children". Why is nudity so highly sexualized in America? A family in Florida recently tried to sue their next door neighbor because the neighbor had two 4ft tall statues of the David which of course has exposed genitals. The woman exclaimed, "what if my little boy saw that statue?"
People can peaceably assemble, this is our right guaranteed by the Constitution, and Congress can't make a law which prevents this. However, if the assembly is deemed terrorist in any way then the "peaceably" portion kicks in and the gathering can be quashed, even in private locations. Also, governments, Federal and Local can make laws stating the people must apply and be approved for a permit to gather in public places, presumably due to security and maintenance concerns. If someone in the governing body determines they do not approve or like why the people are assembling, they can simply not approve the permit, or revoke it later at their discretion.
I've devoted quite a few blog posts about the power of words. People certainly have the right to say whatever they want, but they must understand they have to accept the consequences of that freedom. If someone shouts on a street corner (or Facebook for that matter) the company they work for is terrible, then that company has a right to fire them over it. Sure, the person had every right to knock their employer, but the employer has a right to protect their image from slander. If a person stands on a street corner (or again, Facebook) decrying a certain ethnicity, personality trait, etc., it is certainly their right, but what if it incites violence or degradation of the ethnicity, etc.? This can be considered "hate speech" and can be outlawed.
The Press is allowed to print whatever it wants. However, there have been laws enacted which prevent certain claims by advertisers. There used to be rules regulating how the media could portray the "truth", but those regulations were mostly gutted during the first few years of Bush Jr. Now we have Fox and many other "news" organizations making up whatever they want to and sometimes running an obscure apology if caught. Most of the time now, the media doesn't care if it's blatantly lying. An acquaintance once told me major news
agencies will never get eclipsed by bloggers because no one would know whom to trust in the blogosphere. Do we know who to trust in the major news agencies? The Egyptian uprising, now part of the so called "Arab Spring" was first reported from the site with hand held phones and broadcast over Facebook and Twitter. The major news agencies were at least 8 hours behind. Where will our news come from in the future, and will it be trustworthy?
This one little amendment has been fought for and against in courts, in Congress, everywhere throughout the U.S., for all of our history. What are we allowed to say, where, when and how is the subject of many contentious fights. The amendment itself states very plainly that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". However, it doesn't mention laws made outside of Congress.
This is how we got obscenity laws which certainly do abridge the freedom of speech. If something is obscene (a very vague and varied definition by the way) then citizens no longer have the right to say it, print it, distribute it, or even own it privately. Yes, by definition you are not actually allowed to own pornography in your own homes. This is how officials can break in (with a search warrant, unless it's deemed some kind of terrorism activity) take your computer and search for anything "obscene". Now regular ol' porn will probably be permitted in most cases, but are you 100% sure every person shown in that pornography is of legal age? Did you know the legal age varies depending on whether or not that person is engaged in "straight" or "gay" sex? Yup, varied definition for sure.
What about "sexting"? Should a high school student be sent to prison for the 'distribution of pornography' after she sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend, who shared them with his friends? A few years ago a woman was arrested for child pornography because she took photos of her baby in the bath tub and (rather stupidly) sent them out as a Christmas card. More recently, this past summer, a major book store chain covered up a magazine because it featured a topless male model; a model that is renowned for having a very feminine face. Because he looked like a woman, but had exposed MALE breasts, they felt they needed to cover it up "for the sake of the children". Why is nudity so highly sexualized in America? A family in Florida recently tried to sue their next door neighbor because the neighbor had two 4ft tall statues of the David which of course has exposed genitals. The woman exclaimed, "what if my little boy saw that statue?"
People can peaceably assemble, this is our right guaranteed by the Constitution, and Congress can't make a law which prevents this. However, if the assembly is deemed terrorist in any way then the "peaceably" portion kicks in and the gathering can be quashed, even in private locations. Also, governments, Federal and Local can make laws stating the people must apply and be approved for a permit to gather in public places, presumably due to security and maintenance concerns. If someone in the governing body determines they do not approve or like why the people are assembling, they can simply not approve the permit, or revoke it later at their discretion.
I've devoted quite a few blog posts about the power of words. People certainly have the right to say whatever they want, but they must understand they have to accept the consequences of that freedom. If someone shouts on a street corner (or Facebook for that matter) the company they work for is terrible, then that company has a right to fire them over it. Sure, the person had every right to knock their employer, but the employer has a right to protect their image from slander. If a person stands on a street corner (or again, Facebook) decrying a certain ethnicity, personality trait, etc., it is certainly their right, but what if it incites violence or degradation of the ethnicity, etc.? This can be considered "hate speech" and can be outlawed.
The Press is allowed to print whatever it wants. However, there have been laws enacted which prevent certain claims by advertisers. There used to be rules regulating how the media could portray the "truth", but those regulations were mostly gutted during the first few years of Bush Jr. Now we have Fox and many other "news" organizations making up whatever they want to and sometimes running an obscure apology if caught. Most of the time now, the media doesn't care if it's blatantly lying. An acquaintance once told me major news
agencies will never get eclipsed by bloggers because no one would know whom to trust in the blogosphere. Do we know who to trust in the major news agencies? The Egyptian uprising, now part of the so called "Arab Spring" was first reported from the site with hand held phones and broadcast over Facebook and Twitter. The major news agencies were at least 8 hours behind. Where will our news come from in the future, and will it be trustworthy?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
on Recognition
I was watching a short film the other day and suddenly got a terrible case of Deja Vu. I could have sworn I'd seen this particular scene. A few minutes later the feeling subsided. Deja Vu is not a prediction, or a memory from a past life. It's a random misfiring in the memory center of your brain, giving you the sudden feeling of recognition without actual memory connections. If you think you're suddenly having a psychic moment, try your hardest to predict what is going to happen next. Once the next thing happens your brain will still trigger the recognition, but you won't be able to predict it. A string of these recognitions will eventually alert the warning centers of the brain, telling you something ominous or wonderful is about to occur. This is a defense mechanism scientists are still trying to work out.
Pattern recognition is an ability we are born with. Babies see the shapes of faces, regardless of orientation (whether the face is upside down, sideways or right side up). Eventually, before they can really focus, they can recognize their parents' or caregivers' faces from strangers. Our brains can pick shapes, color, darkness & lightness out of nearly any image and turn it into a face, a body, or anything we can recognize.
Sometimes, if I wake up in the middle of the night and look at one of the pictures on the wall, or the lamp at the bedside, the shape may be common, but my brain can't recognize it. It may take up to a minute or two for me to finally realize it's just a lamp and not a person standing there. Sometimes I actually get angry because my brain searches for a reason that the painting on the wall is unrecognizable and comes up with an excuse: obviously that picture has been switched out by my partner. If I'm still mostly asleep my brain may concoct an entire story about why the picture has been replaced. As I wake up and the picture's details emerge more clearly it will trigger the recognition and I will now remember where it came from and that it is the very same picture hanging on the wall for years. I imagine this is how Alzheimer's disease feels as those memories disappear and all the familiar things and people no longer trigger recognition.
Pattern recognition is an ability we are born with. Babies see the shapes of faces, regardless of orientation (whether the face is upside down, sideways or right side up). Eventually, before they can really focus, they can recognize their parents' or caregivers' faces from strangers. Our brains can pick shapes, color, darkness & lightness out of nearly any image and turn it into a face, a body, or anything we can recognize.
Sometimes, if I wake up in the middle of the night and look at one of the pictures on the wall, or the lamp at the bedside, the shape may be common, but my brain can't recognize it. It may take up to a minute or two for me to finally realize it's just a lamp and not a person standing there. Sometimes I actually get angry because my brain searches for a reason that the painting on the wall is unrecognizable and comes up with an excuse: obviously that picture has been switched out by my partner. If I'm still mostly asleep my brain may concoct an entire story about why the picture has been replaced. As I wake up and the picture's details emerge more clearly it will trigger the recognition and I will now remember where it came from and that it is the very same picture hanging on the wall for years. I imagine this is how Alzheimer's disease feels as those memories disappear and all the familiar things and people no longer trigger recognition.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
on TV Beginnings
When I was in High School my friends' family had cable. I was a bit jealous because my family refused to pay for the luxury so we could only get two clearly visible channels, and one fuzzy PBS channel. My father finally installed a large antenna but in order to bring in the other channels (and those pesky UHF channels, remember those?) one had to turn a large disk and then wait to see if the channel came in as the antenna slowly turned. Eventually the motor burned out and I became the official antenna-turner. I'd have to run outside and turn the pole until my father would yell "okay". This would usually be a seemingly never ending back and forth.
I remember going over to my friends' house (I was friends with all three of the boys, and sort-of friends with the sister and parents) in 1981 to watch for the launch of MTV. All the screen displayed was a single image which I think said "coming soon", or maybe it was a countdown. I don't recall that detail, but when the channel finally launched the whole household was ecstatic. Then we were treated to hours and hours of "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles. Eventually the network began airing other music videos hosted by "VJs" like Nina Blackwood, Mark Goodman, Alan Hunter, Martha Quinn and J.J. Jackson.
In 1986 I moved to Tualatin, Oregon to be near my new job as an interior designer and store planner for America's largest privately-owned drug store chain (at the time). I had my own apartment for the first time and my own color t.v. set. Up to that time I had only owned a small black and white set, so I thought ALF was actually blue (until the mom on the show asked "who left all the orange hair in the bathtub?"). TV was filled with the news that FOX would be launching a new television network. The channel came on line with a small amount of FOX produced shows which would air weeknights. At other times the channel was blank.
The first show to air was the Late Show with Joan Rivers. She quit by 1987 and the show was hosted by guests until Arsenio Hall came on. With his popularity he was able to jump to one of the major networks and launch his own late night talk show.
The other programming included Married with Children, America's Most Wanted, and arguably the first reality show Cops. I always watched the Tracey Ullman show with its irreverent cartoon segments "the Simpson Family". I fell in love with nearly everyone on 21 Jump Street; I adored little Johnny Depp, but eventually threw him over for the new cast-member bad-boy Richard Greico. I laughed a lot at the New Adventures of Beans Baxter about a teenage or preteen who was a spy and even his parents didn't know. I howled at the show that started with a two-hour movie event called Werewolf, and had a little crush on John J. York.
There was a romantic-comedy show called Duet about a dating couple. The main characters were only slightly amusing and a bit flat but it was the show's other characters that really stole the show. There was the kooky secretary played by Ellen Degeneres, and the no-nonsense deadpan Alison LaPlaca, and the ditsy sister played by Jodi Thelan. These other characters, especially LaPlaca drew the most audience appreciation. Since this was a new network and they really didn't have a ton of shows being pitched, they were able to sit down and retool this sitcom in order to make it work. They cancelled Duet and then "spun-off" the show Open House.
Another major retooling happened with a show called Second Chance. It was about an older man who dies, is sent up to St. Peter, but given a second chance to right all his wrongs. How? By moving into an apartment above the garage of his own mother. This way he can keep (a rather creepy) eye on himself as a teenager. There were strange moments when his mother tried to put the moves on him, and lots of strange "hanging out" with himself as a teenager. "Hey mom, the creepy guy renting our spare apartment is trying to have another one-on-one talk with me after leering at me all day while I played basketball in the driveway with my two friends". This contrived storyline simply didn't work. However, the boy that played the teenager was Friends' star Matthew Perry who was somehow able to make the series' banal lines impressively funny. His teen costars were William Gallo who played Francis "Booch" Lottabucci and Demian Slade who was the nerdy Eugene Blooberman. The antics and likability of these three became the center of the newly retooled show called "Boys will be Boys".
I remember going over to my friends' house (I was friends with all three of the boys, and sort-of friends with the sister and parents) in 1981 to watch for the launch of MTV. All the screen displayed was a single image which I think said "coming soon", or maybe it was a countdown. I don't recall that detail, but when the channel finally launched the whole household was ecstatic. Then we were treated to hours and hours of "Video Killed the Radio Star" by the Buggles. Eventually the network began airing other music videos hosted by "VJs" like Nina Blackwood, Mark Goodman, Alan Hunter, Martha Quinn and J.J. Jackson.In 1986 I moved to Tualatin, Oregon to be near my new job as an interior designer and store planner for America's largest privately-owned drug store chain (at the time). I had my own apartment for the first time and my own color t.v. set. Up to that time I had only owned a small black and white set, so I thought ALF was actually blue (until the mom on the show asked "who left all the orange hair in the bathtub?"). TV was filled with the news that FOX would be launching a new television network. The channel came on line with a small amount of FOX produced shows which would air weeknights. At other times the channel was blank.
The first show to air was the Late Show with Joan Rivers. She quit by 1987 and the show was hosted by guests until Arsenio Hall came on. With his popularity he was able to jump to one of the major networks and launch his own late night talk show.
The other programming included Married with Children, America's Most Wanted, and arguably the first reality show Cops. I always watched the Tracey Ullman show with its irreverent cartoon segments "the Simpson Family". I fell in love with nearly everyone on 21 Jump Street; I adored little Johnny Depp, but eventually threw him over for the new cast-member bad-boy Richard Greico. I laughed a lot at the New Adventures of Beans Baxter about a teenage or preteen who was a spy and even his parents didn't know. I howled at the show that started with a two-hour movie event called Werewolf, and had a little crush on John J. York.
There was a romantic-comedy show called Duet about a dating couple. The main characters were only slightly amusing and a bit flat but it was the show's other characters that really stole the show. There was the kooky secretary played by Ellen Degeneres, and the no-nonsense deadpan Alison LaPlaca, and the ditsy sister played by Jodi Thelan. These other characters, especially LaPlaca drew the most audience appreciation. Since this was a new network and they really didn't have a ton of shows being pitched, they were able to sit down and retool this sitcom in order to make it work. They cancelled Duet and then "spun-off" the show Open House.
Another major retooling happened with a show called Second Chance. It was about an older man who dies, is sent up to St. Peter, but given a second chance to right all his wrongs. How? By moving into an apartment above the garage of his own mother. This way he can keep (a rather creepy) eye on himself as a teenager. There were strange moments when his mother tried to put the moves on him, and lots of strange "hanging out" with himself as a teenager. "Hey mom, the creepy guy renting our spare apartment is trying to have another one-on-one talk with me after leering at me all day while I played basketball in the driveway with my two friends". This contrived storyline simply didn't work. However, the boy that played the teenager was Friends' star Matthew Perry who was somehow able to make the series' banal lines impressively funny. His teen costars were William Gallo who played Francis "Booch" Lottabucci and Demian Slade who was the nerdy Eugene Blooberman. The antics and likability of these three became the center of the newly retooled show called "Boys will be Boys".
Saturday, August 27, 2011
on Art and Signs
The Cleveland Storefront Renovation program specifically mentions building signs as one of the items the program money can be used for. The local Community Development Corporations encourage business/building owners to create interesting, artistic signs. This brings up the question: can a sign be art or does it always remain a piece of advertising. Many city and government programs earmarking money for public art do not allow a sign to be considered art.
In some recent architecture blogs and even one architecture history tour of Portland, Oregon mentions the iconic Portland Luggage sign at the corner of SW Fourth Street. Not to burst anyone's bubble, but that particular sign is no more than 15 years old. I should know since I designed it. The original structure of the sign was part of the original bank, and then in the 80's it became a Church of Scientology. The sign towered nearly five stories high, capped with an oblique trim, with a dark blue face and gold open pan-channel letters spelling out the church's long name, vertically. The city codes had changed by the 90's when Portland Luggage purchased the building and began renovations and the old sign could not just have the letters changed out, major revisions were now required to bring it in-line with code.
For starters, the sign face (times two since it is double-sided) was about four times the limit based on the building facade and street frontage. This change would reduce the sign to barely reaching the second floor. Furthermore the code required there to be no more exposed neon, and if the sign is to be illuminated, it could not be seen from over 10 city blocks away. Now this last part of the code was ridiculous since at night the human eye can see light from sources over billions of light years away (called stars). There is no way to create an illuminated sign that can't be seen from the nearby mountains let alone 10 city blocks.
The important part of the design process was to simply not accept the code as written. I had long discussions with the code enforcer who disclosed that if the sign was "compelling enough in design" it could be granted a variance. By adding a metal globe to the top of the sign structure I was able to make the sign about 3 1/2 stories tall and keep the internal illumination. I did have to remove any exposed neon, but I was allowed to shine lights up onto the globe from the canopy below.
So the question could be answered, in this case anyway, that the sign is artistic enough to be considered special. The sign is obviously regarded by the architectural community as an icon, for which I am very proud, but is it art? The American Sign Museum in Cincinnati seems to imply by its very existence that not only are signs a piece of nostalgia and items of advertising, but certainly are objects of art.
Recently I convinced a friend to seek funding from the Store Renovation Program to purchase his business sign, but to pursue a local art grant to hire an artist to manufacture the sign, thereby getting two funding streams for one expense. My fingers are crossed he will be successful in gaining both sets of money and getting a terrific sign and a significate piece of public art.
In some recent architecture blogs and even one architecture history tour of Portland, Oregon mentions the iconic Portland Luggage sign at the corner of SW Fourth Street. Not to burst anyone's bubble, but that particular sign is no more than 15 years old. I should know since I designed it. The original structure of the sign was part of the original bank, and then in the 80's it became a Church of Scientology. The sign towered nearly five stories high, capped with an oblique trim, with a dark blue face and gold open pan-channel letters spelling out the church's long name, vertically. The city codes had changed by the 90's when Portland Luggage purchased the building and began renovations and the old sign could not just have the letters changed out, major revisions were now required to bring it in-line with code.
For starters, the sign face (times two since it is double-sided) was about four times the limit based on the building facade and street frontage. This change would reduce the sign to barely reaching the second floor. Furthermore the code required there to be no more exposed neon, and if the sign is to be illuminated, it could not be seen from over 10 city blocks away. Now this last part of the code was ridiculous since at night the human eye can see light from sources over billions of light years away (called stars). There is no way to create an illuminated sign that can't be seen from the nearby mountains let alone 10 city blocks.
The important part of the design process was to simply not accept the code as written. I had long discussions with the code enforcer who disclosed that if the sign was "compelling enough in design" it could be granted a variance. By adding a metal globe to the top of the sign structure I was able to make the sign about 3 1/2 stories tall and keep the internal illumination. I did have to remove any exposed neon, but I was allowed to shine lights up onto the globe from the canopy below.
So the question could be answered, in this case anyway, that the sign is artistic enough to be considered special. The sign is obviously regarded by the architectural community as an icon, for which I am very proud, but is it art? The American Sign Museum in Cincinnati seems to imply by its very existence that not only are signs a piece of nostalgia and items of advertising, but certainly are objects of art.
Recently I convinced a friend to seek funding from the Store Renovation Program to purchase his business sign, but to pursue a local art grant to hire an artist to manufacture the sign, thereby getting two funding streams for one expense. My fingers are crossed he will be successful in gaining both sets of money and getting a terrific sign and a significate piece of public art.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
on Lilith
There are two versions of the creation of man in the Bible (Genesis/Bereshit). In the first God makes Man and Woman out of clay. Then a little bit further on Adam tells God he is lonely and so God takes a rib from Adam and makes Eve. According to many ancient sources (Midrash for one) the first woman, who was created from clay like her mate, felt she was equal and not subservient to Adam. This woman was called Lilith. She is credited as Adam's first wife, who had her own mind and either decided to go her own way or was banished from the garden.
Then Eve came along and said, "yes Adam, yes Adam" to everything he said. Of course without the fortitude of Lilith, Eve easily fell prey to the Devil's machinations and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because of Lilith's supposed defiance and equality she has been raised up as a symbol of pure feminism, and her name has been adopted for the "Lilith Fair" concert series and has been used widely in Wiccan and other non-Christian religions and organizations.
In some earlier writings Lilith mated with an Archangel named Samael. Then in later writings she became a seductress and a demoness. Most of these depict Lilith as a demon sent by the Devil to prey upon young men to defile themselves; in other words the original succubus.
I think it's kind of amazing how much folklore, tales, history, and religious text can evolve from a simple discrepancy in the Bible.
Then Eve came along and said, "yes Adam, yes Adam" to everything he said. Of course without the fortitude of Lilith, Eve easily fell prey to the Devil's machinations and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because of Lilith's supposed defiance and equality she has been raised up as a symbol of pure feminism, and her name has been adopted for the "Lilith Fair" concert series and has been used widely in Wiccan and other non-Christian religions and organizations.
In some earlier writings Lilith mated with an Archangel named Samael. Then in later writings she became a seductress and a demoness. Most of these depict Lilith as a demon sent by the Devil to prey upon young men to defile themselves; in other words the original succubus.
I think it's kind of amazing how much folklore, tales, history, and religious text can evolve from a simple discrepancy in the Bible.
Friday, August 12, 2011
on Cursive
I just read an article in the Times the other day regarding how American schools are no longer teaching cursive handwriting. The author made two points to bemoan this loss: 1. how will kids be able to read the original Declaration of Independence, and 2. how will people sign their names?
First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, I have always despised cursive. It is an invention that came about in the mid century to replace an older "archaic" form of handwriting that was supposed to be easier to learn and easier to read. The concept was to make all handwriting look the same. Each letter was supposed to be constructed identically by each individual in such a way as to remove anything remotely individual. This means that even signatures were supposed to be non-individualistic, which of course is a legal problem. More on this a bit later.
In the seventh grade my science teacher required everyone to take copious notes and then turn in a finished notebook at the end of the term. My hand would ache and I simply could not keep up. Cursive handwriting was slow and difficult for me to master. After a few dozen pages, I realized I couldn't read what I had written. I decided to change my own handwriting. I sat down and developed a new style of written alphabet full of flourishes and interesting shapes. Then, after a week or so of honing, the curly-cues and difficult line-work smoothed out. It was a form of printing with stylized letters. By forcing myself to write in this new alphabet, and only in this new form, I completely changed the way I wrote from that day forward. Although my handwriting was eventually reshaped by tedious lettering assignments in Architectural Calligraphy, many of the letter shapes have remained in my day-to-day hand writing.
Back to the article: The Declaration of Independence is not written in cursive. It is written in a form of calligraphy where many of the lower case letters are connected to one another but many are not. It is very readable because most of the letters are simply italicized versions of present-day fonts with obvious exceptions being the letters "s", "r" and the capital "Q". Even someone who has never once seen these versions of these particular letters can figure out what the document says, just as someone in present day can understand the old word: "Congreff" even though the s's look like lower case f's. As for the signatures on the document, they are as different from each other as they are from the text itself.
This leads me to the second point of the article, that kids won't learn how to sign their names. A signature is an individual, stylized piece of writing. If the students learned cursive the way it was meant to be taught, their signatures would, in no way, be individualistic. I can recognize my own signature in a split second. Yet, my signature is really made up of those stylized printed letters and not cursive. Hand printing is still an individualistic style of writing, regardless of whether or not the letters connect to each other. The human hand will always make little movements with repetitive use that are markedly individual.
So I say, let this old form of handwriting simply die out and fade away. It has served it's usefulness and has become passe. Just as the older forms of writing have passed on, this one should be allowed to disappear. Sure, we can feel its loss, just as some are complaining about old incandescent light bulbs going away, but we shouldn't cling to it just because it may have had a purpose one time, long ago. Let it go people. Let it go.
First of all, in the interest of full disclosure, I have always despised cursive. It is an invention that came about in the mid century to replace an older "archaic" form of handwriting that was supposed to be easier to learn and easier to read. The concept was to make all handwriting look the same. Each letter was supposed to be constructed identically by each individual in such a way as to remove anything remotely individual. This means that even signatures were supposed to be non-individualistic, which of course is a legal problem. More on this a bit later.
In the seventh grade my science teacher required everyone to take copious notes and then turn in a finished notebook at the end of the term. My hand would ache and I simply could not keep up. Cursive handwriting was slow and difficult for me to master. After a few dozen pages, I realized I couldn't read what I had written. I decided to change my own handwriting. I sat down and developed a new style of written alphabet full of flourishes and interesting shapes. Then, after a week or so of honing, the curly-cues and difficult line-work smoothed out. It was a form of printing with stylized letters. By forcing myself to write in this new alphabet, and only in this new form, I completely changed the way I wrote from that day forward. Although my handwriting was eventually reshaped by tedious lettering assignments in Architectural Calligraphy, many of the letter shapes have remained in my day-to-day hand writing.
Back to the article: The Declaration of Independence is not written in cursive. It is written in a form of calligraphy where many of the lower case letters are connected to one another but many are not. It is very readable because most of the letters are simply italicized versions of present-day fonts with obvious exceptions being the letters "s", "r" and the capital "Q". Even someone who has never once seen these versions of these particular letters can figure out what the document says, just as someone in present day can understand the old word: "Congreff" even though the s's look like lower case f's. As for the signatures on the document, they are as different from each other as they are from the text itself.
This leads me to the second point of the article, that kids won't learn how to sign their names. A signature is an individual, stylized piece of writing. If the students learned cursive the way it was meant to be taught, their signatures would, in no way, be individualistic. I can recognize my own signature in a split second. Yet, my signature is really made up of those stylized printed letters and not cursive. Hand printing is still an individualistic style of writing, regardless of whether or not the letters connect to each other. The human hand will always make little movements with repetitive use that are markedly individual.
So I say, let this old form of handwriting simply die out and fade away. It has served it's usefulness and has become passe. Just as the older forms of writing have passed on, this one should be allowed to disappear. Sure, we can feel its loss, just as some are complaining about old incandescent light bulbs going away, but we shouldn't cling to it just because it may have had a purpose one time, long ago. Let it go people. Let it go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)