Gone to Ground

We call them memorial parks or final resting places; cemeteries or burial grounds. Where the remains of the deceased are buried, I see only graveyards; that is, yards and yards of graves.

The idea of boxes containing remains buried underground has never appealed to me. I recognize, however, that the ritual has meaning to many people, including my mother and father. Cemeteries are designed for the living, both for those who soon expect to be buried and their families. Landscaping would seem to be an important feature, along with easy access. You might choose a family plot, an established place with ties to the community.

Or you might do what my deeply missed and deeply stubborn parents did.

Mom and Dad bought an apartment in Longboat Key, north of Sarasota, in the early nineteen nineties. It made sense. They were retired from duel careers: my father as an attorney and a small business owner, my mother as a co-owner of the business and its chief marketing person. Their long-time business partner, my dad’s brother, was dead. After years of living in Milwaukee and enduring the harsh Wisconsin winters, they were ready for sunshine.

Sarasota provided what my parents needed: warm weather with just enough variety to interest my mother, a laid-back Gulf Coast ambiance, a lively cultural scene, and a diversity of communities. My parents always identified as Jewish but they never wanted to find themselves in an exclusively Jewish community. In Sarasota, they joined the synagogue but religion was simply one marker, along with “golfer” or “artist” they used to pick their activities and their friends.

We were nevertheless surprised, my siblings and I, when they became permanent residents of Florida. My parents were deeply rooted in Milwaukee, my father in particular. Just a few years earlier, he’d declared he could never imagine voting in the Sunshine State. Perhaps being a snowbird took its toll as they aged. I know the winters up north were difficult for my mother. Still, I never imagined they’d forsake their Midwest identities to become full-time Floridians.

It’s supposed to be instructive to watch how your parents age in place, what decisions they make, what regrets they retain. We then promise ourselves never to do what they did, unless we choose to do exactly what they did.

The apartment my parents bought featured breathtaking views; in every other respect it was severely isolated. Longboat Key is a slip of land with a single road traveling between Sarasota Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. Their gated development offered a swimming pool and tennis courts; everything else was driving distance away.  Billed as an “active senior” community, it was no place to be old or ill—or both. The place presented like a ghost town in summer. My folks made it work as long as they could, which is to say, as long as they could drive. After that, their small apartment with the big views began to feel like a lovely prison. They missed their old lives.

Go back to Milwaukee, I urged my father, even if for a few months to reestablish yourself. We’ll get you up there, I promised, and we’ll get Mom up there too. I meant we would accompany them back but I also reminded him they had a home of sorts: side by side plots in their family’s area of the Jewish cemetery.

Instead, my father dug in, stubborn about his life choices or perhaps his waning control over them. He announced he and my mother had sold their plots in Milwaukee and bought them in Sarasota, where he now lived, as he reminded me. The place they chose is certainly ecumenical. It’s also vast. A dozen Catholic and Protestant churches are represented. Sarasota’s two synagogues are also included, each with tiny areas, measured in yards and situated at the edge of the park like afterthoughts. Navigating the cemetery requires both a car and a map, which you pick up from a “care concierge” at the funeral home/care center. The memorial park, as it’s called, sits at the intersection of two busy arteries on Sarasota’s western edge. It’s close to Highway 75 and about as far away from Longboat Key and the water my parents loved as you can get and still stay in the county. Aside from a few mature trees in the center, its landscaping is minimal.

Maybe it’s the only game in town. That doesn’t make it any less depressing.

Five people attended my father’s funeral, including the nurse accompanying my mother. At her funeral ten months later, there were three of us. Seven years later, I finally made it back down to Sarasota, jumped off the highway at exit 210, stopped at the center for a map, got lost, found the designated area and still had to pace the site until I spotted the plaques in the ground. At last I stood in front of their nameplates and presumably on top of their graves, which was the only way to read them. I’d planned on some sort of semi-sentimental soliloquy. Instead, I looked at the scruffy grounds, the scratched bronze of my father’s nameplate, the adjacent names on adjacent markers, none of which I recognized and said aloud:

“What were you thinking?”

(to leave a comment, click on the title to go to the post page)

Posted in Culture, Life | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Do You Mean, Exactly?

I occasionally mix up words and their meanings, in part because I’m drawn to words that roll off the tongue and in part because my brain lacks optimal agility. But twisting meaning? That’s a no-no.

Nowadays, in discussions about deeply felt issues that get amplified by relentless media coverage and nonstop commentating, words and phrases are deliberately skewed. We overburdened, inattentive folks will hear whatever the media personality, political leader or celebrity says as truth, regardless of whether it is.

It’s distressing that we use language to misrepresent, mislead, judge, condemn, distract, oversimplify, or present false equivalencies unless we’re in the business of writing satire. The Onion works because its readers are in on the joke. In other instances, words (like statistics) are pulled out of context in order to confuse and obscure.  Sometimes the purpose is more sinister, to worry or terrify the listener (The word “socialism” has that effect). Say “evangelical” or “urban Democrat” or “Wall Street” with a sneer or a note of alarm; the meaning is clear: Danger!

In 2012 you’re going to see and hear lots of this: conventional wisdom suggests an election is no time to start a dialogue or hew too closely to unadorned facts left firmly in context. I have no control over this, people, but perhaps I can help by gently redirecting your thinking about certain common words and phrases.

  1. Liberal: not the spawn of Satan
  2. Republican: also not the spawn of Satan
  3. Pro-life:  Really, who isn’t, besides serial killers?
  4. Atheist: I promise you, not the spawn of Satan, Lucifer or some ancient Wiccan cult (side note: not automatically angry or depressed)
  5. Wall Street: Can we drop it as synonymous with greed? As an ex-New Yorker, I can tell you that greed, wealth and monetary/political manipulation is taking place in plenty of other locations  besides Lower Manhattan.
  6. Real Americans: citizens, as well as anyone who feels as if they are
  7. The American people: see above. Note:don’t assume they all want the same things.
  8. Founding fathers: A group of bright, privileged, nominally Protestant white men who sought to create a form of government independent of a monarchy. Exactly what they meant by certain key phrases in the document that sets out to define the government is open to debate; exactly what they’d do in 2012 is impossible for anyone to know.

Okay, now your homework assignment. You didn’t know you were going to get homework? Tough.

First the discussion topics:

  1. What is/should be the proper role of government? Include—what government does right and what government doesn’t do right. Extra-credit: come up with “fixes” and discuss.
  2. What is/should be expected of this nation’s citizens? Discuss voting obligations and rudimentary knowledge of our present system of government.
  3. How can/should our society accommodate people of different beliefs and ideas?

Now the rules:

  • You MUST have these discussions with people with whom you disagree (or suspect you disagree).
  • You must discuss civilly, using your words to advance an argument, not bully your opponent.
  • You must resist personal attacks. You must NOT assume anything about your opposite.
  • On at least one of these two topics, you must find common ground with your opponent.

Report back to me.

(to leave a comment, click on the title to go to the post page)

Posted in Critical Thinking, Culture, Media, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Do You Hear What I Hear?

I learned today via  New York Times piece that the super-charged, $100,000 BMWM5 with the twin-turbo V8 uses―gasp―recorded sound to mimic the full-throated engine roar the driver might expect to hear upon starting the car or pressing the accelerator.

A recording! The mighty BMW is the Milli Vanilli of high-end automobiles? This is just wrong.

Granted, technology is famous for pulling a fast one. Social media is populated (or littered, depending on your point of view) with discussions about the benefits and limits of Photoshop. Pop stars have been lip-syncing for some time, especially since it became important for them to multitask as decent dancers (Broadway performers are often able to do both for far less money, but let’s not go there.)  The use of a laugh track on television dates to the early days of the medium itself. What you see (or hear) isn’t always what you get.

Besides, it’s not as if the BMW in question is performing at below par. In fact, the superb insulation is what muffles the engine sound, along with other annoying audio tracks from the ordinary world. The folks outside the cushy cabin can hear the delicious vroom that signals all that money and power as exemplified by one machine. If the driver can’t, then maybe BMW has done its job too well.

What a quandary!

Of course it depends on what you want for your money. If your automobile is designed to show the world your purchase power, you can count on the combination of branding (“Ooh, a Jaguar”), styling (“Look at those lines”), and performance (“Look at it go”). It works just as well with couture (“Ooh, Zack Posen.  Look at those lines. It flatters her”) or just about anything else that has the potential to confer status. Who cares how awkward, uncomfortable, impractical, or unwieldy it is?

For many people, that’s exactly what having money is all about. For others, spending money is tied to enhancing one’s own quality of life. In those instances, some may prefer discrete touches, such as indoor waterfalls that mimic the soothing sounds of nature, or the heft of a $15,000 Rolex tucked out of sight under a weekend flannel shirt by L.L. Bean. Money, after all, can’t buy taste.

At any rate, the BMW honchos believe that for $100,000 the driver deserves the satisfaction delivered by the audio reproduction of the power surge that kicks in on the Autobahn at 130 kilometers an hour. If that’s okay by the driver, that’s okay by me (well, maybe not the 130 km but that’s that Autobahn).

But wait: What if the brilliant engineers at BMW look into developing technology that mutes the actual engine sound altogether? The driver hears the primal sound of twin turbo V-8 engines coming to life or shifting gears. We don’t.

This technology has applications far beyond the world of automobiles. What if we could mute the know-it-all at the party who’s mouthing off about Europe’s economic mess? How about the idiot on the train talking loudly into her cell phone?  Could we be kept from the mindless chatter of teens at the mall or the non-stop yammering of the talking heads on the inevitable cable channel playing where you get your car serviced?  What about the couple who fights in public? Or makes love loudly enough so they might as well be copulating publicly? Can we stuff a sock in it?

I’m not just talking about insulating individuals from offensive sounds, but a technology that allows the self-deluded  to believe they have a larger audience than they actually do, one that simultaneously protects their egos and our eardrums. Given the amount of noise pollution, this would amount to a public service. Perhaps BMW could get a global tax break.

I admit that slashing tires or breaking windows, embarrassing loudmouths in public or even changing the channel despite protests is more viscerally satisfying. But that’s an approach with serious blow-back potential.

This invention could potentially free us from the injury of assault by unwanted sound. We would still hear what we need to (police sirens, calls from our mothers) or want to (see “sounds of nature,” above); moreover, we’d be protected from those sounds we find most irritating, off-putting and egregious, like television commentators, nagging spouses, or even aggressive-sounding twin turbo engines.

image via Creative Commons

Posted in Culture, Life, Media | Tagged , , , ,

Word

Vincent_Van_Gogh_-_Sorrow

“Sorrow” by Van Gogh via Wikicommons

No one ever knows what to say.

“I’m sorry.”

“You’ll be okay.”

“Hang in there.”

Yeah, thanks.

“You’re one of the strong ones.”

“You can beat this.”

“I know just how you feel.”

Gack! No!

Don’t get me wrong: the impulse to reach out, offer support, be there, wherever “there” is—is  priceless. And appreciated.

“Fuck!”

“Shit!”

“Dammit to hell!”

Anglo-Saxon curses have the advantage of capturing the utter baseness of the predicament: inelegant, infuriating, rough, raw. They address the senselessness of it all–whatever “it” is. Unfortunately, they lose potency after awhile. This sucks.  True. Next…

How do we address bad news—grief, loss, sorrow, the pain of someone we know, admire, respect and genuinely like? How can we help?

Here’s what I learned: for every event (good and bad, I suppose, but let’s deal with the bad), a circle of affectedness is created. In the middle of the circle is the person who has taken a direct hit: the patient, the bereaved; the forever changed. He (or she) is the one who’s been shoved over the line in the sand they hadn’t even seen, kicked onto another path, dealing with the “before” and “after” of a timeline with a new wrinkle. Hit by a crashing wave, he struggles to the surface.

Actually, that’s my metaphor; we each have our own. But we’re not at the center of this particular story. We are somewhere else in the circle; further from the middle than the family and loved ones whose lives will also need to proceed along a new trajectory’; further perhaps than the colleagues, co-workers, close friends.

Our place in the circle isn’t insignificant. We’re pulled in by our genuine affection for the central figure. His pain isn’t our pain, but we hate his pain and we want to make it smaller. Our place in the circle matters, oh yes it does.

“What can I do?”

Don’t ask.

What I mean is: Don’t require of your flailing friend that he recommend to you the means of his rescue. He can’t tell you.

Do what you do best. Bake a cake, send a book; share a link, share information. Stay close, stay in the picture.

Expect nothing; know your support means everything. Be you. Be funny, be loving, be resourceful, be present. Be normal.

Posted in Culture, Life | Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Sound of Silence

I went to see “The Artist” the other day as part of my efforts (not very strenuous) to see the Oscar contenders and buzzed-about movies. Occasionally I digress for the purpose of guaranteed mindless big-screen entertainment, as when I went to see “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” (excuse me, is it just me or is Jeremy Renner looking absolutely fabulous?) But I digress…

I wasn’t sure how I would feel about the film. I have middle-brow tastes when it comes to movies and I can scarcely be called a film buff. I love to look at color, although I have an appreciation of the beauty and mystery of black and white photography. I also traffic in words and none are spoke in “The Artist,” a love letter to the late twenties and early thirties and the entertainment that preoccupied America.

I loved it; loved the attention to detail; in the curl of a mustache or the arch of an eyebrow. I adored both the overt and sly references to classic movie tropes of the era: the highly choreographed scenes, the grand theatrical acting. Some of the references were out of the time period (defined as 1927-1932): I recognized a bit of Alfred Hitchcock; the lush score brought to mind the work of renowned film composer Bernard Herrmann and the supremely talented Jack Russell terrier put me in mind of Nick and Nora Charles and their beloved dog Asta. Wait: maybe I DO know my film history!

I noticed these oddities but I wasn’t bothered by them: this was a film about a film star and the culture he inhabited during a transitional time in American history. “The Artist” was captivating in every way and the symbolism evinced by the successful actor pushed out of his chosen profession by the advances of technology is certainly a parable for our time.

One thing that struck me was the absolute silence of my fellow viewers. It’s not just that no one spoke; I doubt my smart, sophisticated audience would have put up with that. But we were treated to plenty of cues about how audiences react to silent films via the film itself; we saw them laughing or clapping or gasping or murmuring at various moments during the plot. The silent-movie audience was vocal, not in an effort to impede the flow of the movie but in expression of their appreciation. Watching “The Artist” in a theater that was completely quiet except for the music was odd. No coughing, no crackling of paper; in fact, no laughing out loud, although I caught many smiles. No, we were reverentially still, as attending a concert.

Maybe the difference is in the present-day movie-going experience itself, which doesn’t teach us how to watch a movie without distraction. Maybe it’s the novelty of being several layers removed: a present-day audience watching actors who portray a long-ago audience using the same exaggerated style as the rest of the movie’s characters.

Or maybe, at least in this instance, it was just such a blessed relief to be free of the cacophony that surrounds us every day: to surrender to the music, to watch the action unfold on the screen, to marvel at the comic and dramatic elasticity of the actors and not need to have anything explained, enhanced or interpreted. We sat back and let the rich sounds of (relative) silence guide us.

Posted in Culture, Entertainment, In The News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not in My Pocket

I’m into philanthropy. Not big-time, mind you; I’m not in a position to exercise noblesse oblige. But I’m at the age when budgeting for annual charitable

All rights reserved by hpebley3 via flickr.com

contributions, however modest, feels somehow mature. If I’d been a member of a faith-based organization, I might have started this process much earlier, but better late than never.

I’m hit up by the usual suspects: charities who purchased my address from the charity I gave to five years earlier; organizations who got my name through the $25 donation I made to my neighbors’ kids’ car wash to raise money for childhood cancer. I receive heart-rending letters from at least four charities focused on women in third-world countries (not including the one to which I donate). I’m often invited, courtesy of my connected friends, to fancy fundraisers that begin at $750 a plate for the privilege of sitting at a table in the back with people I don’t know and watching the tiny speck that is the famous featured speaker or performer. At least the local versions, which usually come in at a quarter of the cost, remind me that I’m part of a community.

I’m generally careful with my research, although I once gave $40 in cash to a young woman who came door to door, clipboard in hand, with a tale about raising money for blind kids in Africa. I never saw a receipt, or the young woman again; but I learned my lesson. No donations on the fly, in the subway or at my door.

At some point during the G.W. Bush years, I began to donate small sums to political action committees (PACS) and I do mean small. I was never shooting for a night in the Lincoln Room but I did want to throw my two cents into the effort to turn over both Congress and the White House. It was fun hearing from Emily’s List and getting thank you notes from the DNC Chairman. I felt as if I were making a difference.

In this coming election year, the stakes are at least as high as they were in 2008, if you’re inclined to vote (I am) and if you consider yourself far more likely to vote for one party candidate than the other (I do). Nevertheless, I’m unlikely to respond to any solicitations that involve politics because when it comes to promotion, my team is poised to play as dirty as the other.

 This year, gleeful Democrats are thrilled to be able to point to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s shifts in position in order to accommodate, one assumes, his primary voters. Payback for the attacks on John Kerry!  But as FactCheck.org has pointed out (the site should be required reading for anyone planning to vote), the latest DNC extended video “strains the truth to build a case against Romney by including some dubious claims” which it then goes on to list.

FactCheck’s home page demonstrates that Republicans produce far more questionable media pieces than do the Democrats. Grand Old Party operatives have perfected the art of burying a tiny truth within a mountain of innuendos, inferences, torquing contexts and twisting particulars.  Conclusions are supported by a lopsided mix of semi-legitimate observations and an overwhelming number of outright lies. All a party faithful has to do is point to the legitimate sliver of the message and say, “You can’t argue with that.” Hell, our candidates are happy to argue it isn’t absolutely essential, when making a larger point, to stick to the facts.

Meanwhile, political strategists assume we’re simultaneously biased (we already know what we like and don’t like) and inattentive and/or overwhelmed, which is why the credo “keep it simple, stupid” (KISS) is so popular. The problem when playing KISS and tell is that truth often has to leave the room.

Truth-twisting may be necessary to campaigning; it may even be inevitable—I hope not.  But I don’t have to pay for it. When Women for Women International tells me my money is going to sponsor women in war-torn countries, I believe it. When the DNC insists my donation will be used to get the truth out to the American people, I don’t.

Posted in In The News, Media, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Not So Nice

I’m reading Steven Pinker’s new book, The Better Angels of Our NatureAt 696 pages (before over 100 pages of reference notes), it’s not what you’d call a beach read, even if the weather were warmer. Pinker is a well-known, Harvard-trained psychologist, scientist and linguist who studies and writes about cognition; that is, (to borrow the title of his 2007 book), “the stuff of thought.” An affable, outgoing sort with an accessible writing style and a full head of longish curly hair, Dr. Pinker has his fans. Some of them have been gushing appropriately about Better Angels. In it, Pinker sets out to show that violence is on the decline. He supplements his lecture-like presentation of “six trends, five inner demons, four better angels and five historical forces” with impressive amounts of data with which it is nearly impossible to quibble. The Guardian’s David Runciman viewed it as “an astonishing book” and Nicholas Kristoff devoted an entire column  praising the book’s thesis and calling attention to the “stunning progress in human decency over recent centuries.”

Not every critic loved the book. The New Yorker reviewer Elizabeth Colbert faulted Pinker’s methodology: “Those developments which might seem to fit into his schema are treated in detail. Yet other episodes that one would think are more relevant to a history of violence are simply glossed over.” Andrew Brown, also writing in The Guardian, snidely referred to the book as “a comfort blanket for the smug” and followed up with this indictment: “The factual errors in The Better Angels of Our Nature destroy Pinker’s thesis, rendering it no more than a bedtime story.”

Let me stop right here and let you know I won’t be reviewing the book. I don’t feel qualified to judge either the research or the central thesis; I’m not sure I can fairly determine whether Pinker’s conclusions are based on solid science or selective speculation. I will admit that I’m attracted to the notion that on the whole, we’re getting nicer; that may factor into why I find myself reading cautiously and yet with a modicum of hope.

comments

Besides, Pinker introduces the book with caveats: many readers will find his conclusions hard to accept; we are overrun with oppressive news; a series of unforeseeable events could change everything. Notwithstanding his warnings, certain readers seem mightily put off by anyone’s imagining that we might be turning into good guys and gals. Harsh comments have been left on blogs, at the end of articles and interviews and elsewhere. I have no idea whether these readers have actually read any of the book; or whether they’re simply reacting to their understanding of what Pinker is proposing. The suggestion that mankind is evolving into a kinder, gentler version of itself apparently drives people nuts.

Kristoff’s Thanksgiving Day piece praised Pinker’s book, going so far as to give thanks for a world that is, on the whole, improving. His column gave quite a few readers indigestion (“this column’s a turkey,” said one). Other commenters accused Kristoff and Pinker of being dangerously naïve. “What universe are you living in?” asked one. “Maudlin and wishful thinking do not a wise man make,” advised another. And another simply wrote: “This is not true.”

We are, in the view of the commenters, craftier, sneakier, less overt or less inclined to whack someone over the head, perhaps but most definitely not nicer. Anyone suggesting otherwise is dangerously deluded.

Angry, aren’t we?

As a skeptic nevertheless trying to tiptoe towards a version of happiness, always mindful of landmines and booby-traps and the possibility of reversal, I’m both bemused and concerned with our negativism. I’m no fan of blind faith, mindless positivism, or false hope. I don’t know for certain that everything works out for the best; I realize we’re far from perfect–far from it. I detest the xenophobic hucksterism that underlies certain politicians’ insistence on American “exceptionalism”; the word was originally meant to describe a fortuitous combination of history and geography, not the sense of entitlement it currently conveys.

It seems, however, that many people, Americans in particular, may have become stuck in a collective mindset that views gratitude as naive and improvement as unlikely, given the nasty, brutish nature of our fellow travelers. That ticks me off. While I’m aware of the capacity of humankind to inflict suffering upon each other, I also rely on a personal perspective that encompasses more than half a century. I’m not thrilled that in my lifetime, children are threatened, the elderly are swindled, and the rest of us live with a virtually unbreachable income disparity. But I’ve seen things change for the better in my lifetime and so have you, even as the hold-outs object loudly to any changes at all.. It’s neither naive nor unsophisticated to look up from our gloom and doom from time to time and recognize forward momentum for what it is: a type of moral and social evolution that requires our encouragement, not our disdain.

 

 

Posted in Culture, In The News, Life | 2 Comments