I always think of our modern times as being characterized, in part, by an excess of communication. Phone, email, text, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and blogs flood our days with the details of our friend's lives and yet, I still miss my long distance friends. I always think people a century ago must have had to wait weeks before getting important news about their loved ones. Then I read in National Geographic that a century ago, in large cities like New York, the mail was delivered up to seven times per day and that people used postcards to invite each other for dinner, inquire about their health or love life, or just say hello.
In that context, it would seem that we have always had the desire to communicate to each other on a frequent basis. I'll venture a guess, however, it was only the elite and the wealthy that had the opportunity to sit at home all day sending missives back and forth. The working class would have been slaving away 12-14 hours a day in a factory or someone else's home, and would have to wait to find out if something wonderful or dreadful had happened to a loved one. In that regard, we've made great progress. As annoying as it may be that we so addicted to communication, sometimes to the point that we use it to ignore or avoid actual in person communication, there is something lovely about the fact that should a person be accepted to a school, have a baby or come down with an illness, they can tell their loved ones right away regardless of their economic station.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
An unsung hero
I just finished watching the HBO miniseries John Adams, via Netflix. I found this brief portrayal of the first 50 years of U.S. independence, from the perspective of John Adams, to be fascinating. Adams is an unsung hero in our country's founding. Even in the story, he grumbles that he'll be eclipsed in history by Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. While the show illuminates his singular devotion to the cause, his tenacity in bringing the aforementioned men into their place in history, and his personal sacrifices, it also reveals why he is perhaps overlooked in the hearts and minds of Americans.
Adams was highly intelligent and principled but also abrasive, self-righteous and devoid of grace and charm. The guy just bugged people. Washington, tall and strapping, bravely led the army that secured our freedom from the British and even Adams saw him as a natural leader. Jefferson, charming and thoughtful, was an idealist who created some of the most beautiful thoughts and words that shaped our young country. Franklin, an entertaining eccentric, was a brilliant inventor and diplomat extraordinaire. The French were in love with him and they hated Adams.
Yet for all that made Adams unloved by history, without his pushing and tenacity we may never have declared our independence, may never have won the war and may never have had a lasting document declaring our rights. In the same way that Jared Diamond said (quoting Tolstoy) that all of the ingredients must be present to create a civilization and that only one missing is enough to prevent it from forming, Adams was part of a pot of ingredients that all had to be present in order for freedom to be formed. I think it's so interesting how messy our independence was; how many times it almost didn't happen and how much every man (and woman) sacrificed for the cause. Adams did not even live in the states during most of the revolution as he was in Europe trying to secure support for the war. Once America was free, he was serving as ambassador to England, and did not enjoy the freedom he helped build, nor spend time with his children for whom he secured that freedom, for many years.
Aside from the historical importance, the miniseries is incredibly well done. I hardly ever say this, but the directing is amazing. Everything from the script, production design, acting and cinematography supports the highly intimate portrait of a man and his relationships that is rarely seen in a historical drama. Astonishing is the humanness of the men who were our early presidents: Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Washington was exhausted by the position and couldn't wait to pass the torch. The job was a constant struggle for Adams as he was disliked and plotted against in party politics and only after 36 votes of the electorate was the tie with Aaron Burr broken to elect Jefferson.
Also fascinating, is the lifelong tie between Adams and Jefferson who died on the same day, 50 years after the declaration of independence on July 4. That they ended up on opposite sides of issues that have shaped American politics since, almost seems to be an intrinsic part of the success of our government. Whether we should have a strong central government or be a collection of republics, whether we should rely on a written constitution or allow each generation to dictate its own laws and whether a man should serve office strictly on his own sense of right and wrong or if party politics and the bigger picture should shape that term have been debated for over 200 years.
At times I was emotional, overcome with patriotism and in awe of the brilliance and faith of these men. Other times I was amazed that it all came together and disgusted to discover that despite the best intentions of most, even then greed, power and egos came into play to distort and corrupt our newly formed government. All throughout, the founding fathers have their own doubts as to whether this nation can actually live up to the ideas they set forth for it; can any collection of people really honor such high ideals? As Adams says "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."
Adams was highly intelligent and principled but also abrasive, self-righteous and devoid of grace and charm. The guy just bugged people. Washington, tall and strapping, bravely led the army that secured our freedom from the British and even Adams saw him as a natural leader. Jefferson, charming and thoughtful, was an idealist who created some of the most beautiful thoughts and words that shaped our young country. Franklin, an entertaining eccentric, was a brilliant inventor and diplomat extraordinaire. The French were in love with him and they hated Adams.
Yet for all that made Adams unloved by history, without his pushing and tenacity we may never have declared our independence, may never have won the war and may never have had a lasting document declaring our rights. In the same way that Jared Diamond said (quoting Tolstoy) that all of the ingredients must be present to create a civilization and that only one missing is enough to prevent it from forming, Adams was part of a pot of ingredients that all had to be present in order for freedom to be formed. I think it's so interesting how messy our independence was; how many times it almost didn't happen and how much every man (and woman) sacrificed for the cause. Adams did not even live in the states during most of the revolution as he was in Europe trying to secure support for the war. Once America was free, he was serving as ambassador to England, and did not enjoy the freedom he helped build, nor spend time with his children for whom he secured that freedom, for many years.
Aside from the historical importance, the miniseries is incredibly well done. I hardly ever say this, but the directing is amazing. Everything from the script, production design, acting and cinematography supports the highly intimate portrait of a man and his relationships that is rarely seen in a historical drama. Astonishing is the humanness of the men who were our early presidents: Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Washington was exhausted by the position and couldn't wait to pass the torch. The job was a constant struggle for Adams as he was disliked and plotted against in party politics and only after 36 votes of the electorate was the tie with Aaron Burr broken to elect Jefferson.
Also fascinating, is the lifelong tie between Adams and Jefferson who died on the same day, 50 years after the declaration of independence on July 4. That they ended up on opposite sides of issues that have shaped American politics since, almost seems to be an intrinsic part of the success of our government. Whether we should have a strong central government or be a collection of republics, whether we should rely on a written constitution or allow each generation to dictate its own laws and whether a man should serve office strictly on his own sense of right and wrong or if party politics and the bigger picture should shape that term have been debated for over 200 years.
At times I was emotional, overcome with patriotism and in awe of the brilliance and faith of these men. Other times I was amazed that it all came together and disgusted to discover that despite the best intentions of most, even then greed, power and egos came into play to distort and corrupt our newly formed government. All throughout, the founding fathers have their own doubts as to whether this nation can actually live up to the ideas they set forth for it; can any collection of people really honor such high ideals? As Adams says "Posterity! You will never know how much it cost us to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
My friend Max is on Charlie Rose tonight!
Max S. Gerber, an incredible photographer (The Latest Shot in my blog links), is going to be on Charlie Rose tonight talking about his book My Heart vs. the Real World.
I have been amazed by him since we first met next door to each other in Echo Park in 2000. Working for Time Magazine, The L.A. Times and various other weeklies, magazines and newspapers, he often has very little control over his subjects or their environments and very little time to set up but he always makes the most incredible portraits: arresting in their realness, intimate and beautiful. His book is a personal project, a diary of children who, like himself, have congenital heart disease (CHD) and have had various surgeries and transplants at a young age, to save their lives. It's touching to see the grown up dignity of these kids that only comes from an act of survival most of us never experience. Congratulations Max!
I have been amazed by him since we first met next door to each other in Echo Park in 2000. Working for Time Magazine, The L.A. Times and various other weeklies, magazines and newspapers, he often has very little control over his subjects or their environments and very little time to set up but he always makes the most incredible portraits: arresting in their realness, intimate and beautiful. His book is a personal project, a diary of children who, like himself, have congenital heart disease (CHD) and have had various surgeries and transplants at a young age, to save their lives. It's touching to see the grown up dignity of these kids that only comes from an act of survival most of us never experience. Congratulations Max!
Monday, June 16, 2008
Raging at the dying of the light
I am very excited. A friend of mine in L.A. has finally started a blog. One of the most interesting, informed and opinionated people I know, he writes as he speaks and his blog is eloquent, witty and a delight to read. The reason I'm so excited, however, is because his passion is for politics and he has started his blog just in time to cover, blow by delicious blow, the 2008 Presidential Election. I am also opinionated and interested but don't seem to have the inclination to follow politics in quite the same way.
Now, I can read a well-spoken and summarized rally cry without the misery of slugging through The Economist or watching television. Topics covered in his impressive first week: The excitement of having Obama as the Democratic nominee, why Clinton did not lose because of sexism, how Obama's camp is using the Internet to squelch rumors and who should be his V.P. It's great stuff and I recommend that you check out Free Radical.
Now, I can read a well-spoken and summarized rally cry without the misery of slugging through The Economist or watching television. Topics covered in his impressive first week: The excitement of having Obama as the Democratic nominee, why Clinton did not lose because of sexism, how Obama's camp is using the Internet to squelch rumors and who should be his V.P. It's great stuff and I recommend that you check out Free Radical.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I have sprouts!
I just planted my garden on Tuesday and I already have sprouts! Nothing is more exciting than growing plants, especially from seed. Putting something in the ground that grows to make food? This is the stuff that civilizations are built on. Literally. I finally finished reading the 400+ page book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It's really dense, that's why it took me six months to read it. He's an academic and a scientist so he goes to great lengths to explain and provide evidence to support his theories but most of it can be summarized in a few sentences.
Basically he asks the question “Why do some civilizations grow to conquer other civilizations or groups of people and not the other way around?” The answer, he says is in dense populations. Dense populations require food production. Out of the 200,000 plant species in the world, a mere dozen, he says, account for 80% of our current crops and not a single major food plant has been domesticated in thousands of years. That some groups of people happened to live where these plants grew gave them an enormous leg up. Same story for domesticable animals which were much more prevalent in Eurasia. Out of those domesticated herds living in close proximity with people came most of the communicable diseases that became accidental weapons of mass destruction for civilizations conquered by Europeans. Actual weapons came from innovation and technology, a result of competition for land that again is borne of dense populations requiring land for food growing. In the sparsely populated Americas, traversed by hunter-gatherers, there was little need for technology.
Diamond describes food production as an autocatalytic process meaning that it "catalyzes into a positive feedback cycle" that goes faster and faster. I've heard that once you plant vegetable plants that they produce more year, especially if you continue to cultivate them. So last Friday, I went to the nursery and bought vegetable seeds, herbs and soil - peat moss, manure and planting mix. First, I blocked off my area (about 10x4') with cinder blocks to hold the soil (I ran out and used some stiff cardboard for the rest). Then I laid cardboard boxes over the soil (after removing the packing tape) and soaked them. I layered and layered the soil but had only covered about a half of an inch so I went back to the nursery. In the end, I built up the garden about two or three inches, and then watered it again. I tracked the sun to make sure I was getting at least five hours of sunlight before I planted.
I started to get a little freaked out. I haven't used a book and I'm pretty much making this up as I go. What if birds come and eat all my seeds? Or some little animals come and chew off the plants as they sprout? What if I can't find a job and have to move out before any veggies grow? A sign at the nursery about checking the PH balance of my soil made it sound like my seeds might be sizzling in acid in the ground right now instead of germinating. I also saw a lot of spiders in the garden and an army of ants, but a little Internet research informed me that both are very garden friendly.
I took a deep breath and planted my seeds. I put tomatoes with the parsley, basil and mint plants, a row of green onions and marigolds for bug protection for the entire garden, lettuces with radishes here and there to protect from critters, an assorted mix of summer squash and bordered the whole thing with cosmos, which are pretty and also keep bugs away. In the cinder blocks, I planted arugula, which apparently does well in containers. In the areas outside the garden, I planted a hummingbird flower mix and sweetpeas to climb the fence. The seed packages say they it 45-90 days to produce vegetables but I should have sprouts for everything by 5-15 days. I spent $140 total and if it provides four weeks' worth of vegetables, it will have paid for itself but I anticipate that it will produce much more than that and enough to give away to friends. I still have most of the seeds I bought so I can keep planting as long as the weather is nice.
An article in the New York Times said seed and food plant sales are up all over the country and not since the 1970's when inflation was high, have nurseries seen this kind of interest in fruit and vegetable gardening. A desire to eat better quality food and rising food prices are cited as responsible for the surge. The latest salmonella scare in tomatoes, they think caused by contamination upstream from another farm, makes me think that my city garden is potentially safer than an organic farm in a more rural area. And if food production really is the catalyst for civilization, then who ever controls food production will have power over us all. How cool would it be if we asserted our independence and expressed our liberty by starting a food growing revolution?
Basically he asks the question “Why do some civilizations grow to conquer other civilizations or groups of people and not the other way around?” The answer, he says is in dense populations. Dense populations require food production. Out of the 200,000 plant species in the world, a mere dozen, he says, account for 80% of our current crops and not a single major food plant has been domesticated in thousands of years. That some groups of people happened to live where these plants grew gave them an enormous leg up. Same story for domesticable animals which were much more prevalent in Eurasia. Out of those domesticated herds living in close proximity with people came most of the communicable diseases that became accidental weapons of mass destruction for civilizations conquered by Europeans. Actual weapons came from innovation and technology, a result of competition for land that again is borne of dense populations requiring land for food growing. In the sparsely populated Americas, traversed by hunter-gatherers, there was little need for technology.
Diamond describes food production as an autocatalytic process meaning that it "catalyzes into a positive feedback cycle" that goes faster and faster. I've heard that once you plant vegetable plants that they produce more year, especially if you continue to cultivate them. So last Friday, I went to the nursery and bought vegetable seeds, herbs and soil - peat moss, manure and planting mix. First, I blocked off my area (about 10x4') with cinder blocks to hold the soil (I ran out and used some stiff cardboard for the rest). Then I laid cardboard boxes over the soil (after removing the packing tape) and soaked them. I layered and layered the soil but had only covered about a half of an inch so I went back to the nursery. In the end, I built up the garden about two or three inches, and then watered it again. I tracked the sun to make sure I was getting at least five hours of sunlight before I planted.
I started to get a little freaked out. I haven't used a book and I'm pretty much making this up as I go. What if birds come and eat all my seeds? Or some little animals come and chew off the plants as they sprout? What if I can't find a job and have to move out before any veggies grow? A sign at the nursery about checking the PH balance of my soil made it sound like my seeds might be sizzling in acid in the ground right now instead of germinating. I also saw a lot of spiders in the garden and an army of ants, but a little Internet research informed me that both are very garden friendly.
I took a deep breath and planted my seeds. I put tomatoes with the parsley, basil and mint plants, a row of green onions and marigolds for bug protection for the entire garden, lettuces with radishes here and there to protect from critters, an assorted mix of summer squash and bordered the whole thing with cosmos, which are pretty and also keep bugs away. In the cinder blocks, I planted arugula, which apparently does well in containers. In the areas outside the garden, I planted a hummingbird flower mix and sweetpeas to climb the fence. The seed packages say they it 45-90 days to produce vegetables but I should have sprouts for everything by 5-15 days. I spent $140 total and if it provides four weeks' worth of vegetables, it will have paid for itself but I anticipate that it will produce much more than that and enough to give away to friends. I still have most of the seeds I bought so I can keep planting as long as the weather is nice.
An article in the New York Times said seed and food plant sales are up all over the country and not since the 1970's when inflation was high, have nurseries seen this kind of interest in fruit and vegetable gardening. A desire to eat better quality food and rising food prices are cited as responsible for the surge. The latest salmonella scare in tomatoes, they think caused by contamination upstream from another farm, makes me think that my city garden is potentially safer than an organic farm in a more rural area. And if food production really is the catalyst for civilization, then who ever controls food production will have power over us all. How cool would it be if we asserted our independence and expressed our liberty by starting a food growing revolution?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
An unreasonable man
Well folks, it looks like we've got ourselves a Democratic candidate. While I still support Obama, and will follow through with my promise (to myself) to volunteer for his campaign now that he has the nomination, I have to say a word about Ralph Nader. I just watched the documentary, An Unreasonable Man, about Nader's work and his bid for the 2000 presidency and I have to say, the guy has a point. If you haven't seen the film, I recommend it.
Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.
I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.
The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.
The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.
In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:
In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.
But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.
We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.
The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.
We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.
Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.
I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.
The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.
The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.
In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:
In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.
But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.
We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.
The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.
We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Concerned citizen
This weekend I found a note on my car. It was a slip of paper printed on a laser printer. It read as follows:
Thank you for taking up two parking spaces.
Had you been more thoughtful, you could have moved forward/backward to allow another vehicle to park.
So rather than helping to solve the problem, you have helped to make it more difficult. Please make an effort to do otherwise in the future.
At first I was shocked. I couldn't have taken up two spaces because I am actually very thoughtful and would never do that. Even though I was in a hurry to get somewhere, I got out and looked. Sure enough, there was two or three feet of curb behind my car but it seemed as though the car in front of me had found plenty of room in the "other parking spot". Besides, I have a tiny car. My RAV4 is shorter than pretty much every car on the road except a mini so another car would have taken up those extra feet. Would they leave a note on a SUV saying that their car is too large for the city and how dare they take up so much space?
I drove away kind of incensed. This person has made it their job to monitor their street (neighborhood? city?!) for rude parkers, printing out sheets of these notes and cutting them into "tickets" to issue. It's hard to imagine that this note would cause anyone to change their behavior. Dripping with condescension and judgment, it fails to even indicate "the problem" the note is trying to address, so a truly clueless person would only be baffled.
For a moment, I was tempted to write a response and leave it on my car. This is what I would have written:
Thank you for being such a diligent citizen.
Without you, surely our city would fall into chaos and ruin, overrun by the rude and stupid.
At the time that I parked, another car was parked in front of the neighboring driveway and taking up a few feet of curb so I squeezed my tiny car into the only space available.
Thank you for taking up two parking spaces.
Had you been more thoughtful, you could have moved forward/backward to allow another vehicle to park.
So rather than helping to solve the problem, you have helped to make it more difficult. Please make an effort to do otherwise in the future.
At first I was shocked. I couldn't have taken up two spaces because I am actually very thoughtful and would never do that. Even though I was in a hurry to get somewhere, I got out and looked. Sure enough, there was two or three feet of curb behind my car but it seemed as though the car in front of me had found plenty of room in the "other parking spot". Besides, I have a tiny car. My RAV4 is shorter than pretty much every car on the road except a mini so another car would have taken up those extra feet. Would they leave a note on a SUV saying that their car is too large for the city and how dare they take up so much space?
I drove away kind of incensed. This person has made it their job to monitor their street (neighborhood? city?!) for rude parkers, printing out sheets of these notes and cutting them into "tickets" to issue. It's hard to imagine that this note would cause anyone to change their behavior. Dripping with condescension and judgment, it fails to even indicate "the problem" the note is trying to address, so a truly clueless person would only be baffled.
For a moment, I was tempted to write a response and leave it on my car. This is what I would have written:
Thank you for being such a diligent citizen.
Without you, surely our city would fall into chaos and ruin, overrun by the rude and stupid.
At the time that I parked, another car was parked in front of the neighboring driveway and taking up a few feet of curb so I squeezed my tiny car into the only space available.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Damn you Flickr!
Unless you're one of my dozen friends on Flickr, you wouldn't know that I've become obsessed; which is not a good thing to happen while I'm unemployed. A friend of mine had been bugging me to join for years and I kept writing back that I was perfectly happy with ofoto, now Kodak Gallery. Whenever I took pictures, which was usually trips and special occasions, I uploaded them there and invited friends and family to look at them. They could buy prints if they wanted although I don't know if anyone, other than me, has bought prints of my photos.
Finally, one day in June last year, after finding some pics of Santa Monica on Flickr, I thought it would be fun to upload some of my own since I'd been photographing my walks on the beach for a while. I uploaded several hundred photos from the last few years in L.A. only to discover that you have to subscribe to Flickr to upload that many. It took me almost a year but the day I planned my UK trip, April 1, 2008, I broke out the credit card and paid the $25 for a year of Flickr. Uh oh. I started uploading everything I had and tagging and sorting. Then I decided that I needed a new camera for my trip to the UK, my old one was well over four years old and less than two megapixels! Most camera phones are better than that now.
Two weeks and 700 photos later, I was a Flickr tagging and sorting maniac. Good thing I don't have a job because I spent about five whole days downloading, reviewing, tweaking, exporting, uploading, naming, tagging and organizing my photos. The reason I am reluctant to join these types of sites is not because I don't see the inherent value, it's because I know that if I like it, I'll get sucked in. It wasn't enough to have a place to send my friends to see pics of my trip, I needed to get more exposure! I joined groups, I looked at other people's photos, I submitted my photos, I made comments, I favorited and I tagged and tagged and tagged. Snapping like crazy at everything, I've uploading another 700 photos in the last month and signed up for Flickr stats which has since become a 7pm ritual, seeing how my photos performed that day. Performed? What's my ROI for this endeavor?
So far, it's not very good. Flickr'ing is keeping me from diligently applying for jobs and I've instead become obsessed with walls and pavement, no doubt fruitful pursuits. What I'd really like to see is more of my friends on Flickr. I know, I know! It's true though, you can't imagine how happy it makes me (and will make you) to see pictures of far away friends, family, babies, dogs and vacations pop up on the Flickr homepage. When I was in England, my relatives teased me for taking so many photos. They said I looked like tourist (imagine!) I explained that in the world that's young and hip, everyone takes pictures of everything. It's just another way that we communicate in this digital age. Showing people what we see through our eyes. That's a beautiful thing, no? So what are you waiting for?
Finally, one day in June last year, after finding some pics of Santa Monica on Flickr, I thought it would be fun to upload some of my own since I'd been photographing my walks on the beach for a while. I uploaded several hundred photos from the last few years in L.A. only to discover that you have to subscribe to Flickr to upload that many. It took me almost a year but the day I planned my UK trip, April 1, 2008, I broke out the credit card and paid the $25 for a year of Flickr. Uh oh. I started uploading everything I had and tagging and sorting. Then I decided that I needed a new camera for my trip to the UK, my old one was well over four years old and less than two megapixels! Most camera phones are better than that now.
Two weeks and 700 photos later, I was a Flickr tagging and sorting maniac. Good thing I don't have a job because I spent about five whole days downloading, reviewing, tweaking, exporting, uploading, naming, tagging and organizing my photos. The reason I am reluctant to join these types of sites is not because I don't see the inherent value, it's because I know that if I like it, I'll get sucked in. It wasn't enough to have a place to send my friends to see pics of my trip, I needed to get more exposure! I joined groups, I looked at other people's photos, I submitted my photos, I made comments, I favorited and I tagged and tagged and tagged. Snapping like crazy at everything, I've uploading another 700 photos in the last month and signed up for Flickr stats which has since become a 7pm ritual, seeing how my photos performed that day. Performed? What's my ROI for this endeavor?
So far, it's not very good. Flickr'ing is keeping me from diligently applying for jobs and I've instead become obsessed with walls and pavement, no doubt fruitful pursuits. What I'd really like to see is more of my friends on Flickr. I know, I know! It's true though, you can't imagine how happy it makes me (and will make you) to see pictures of far away friends, family, babies, dogs and vacations pop up on the Flickr homepage. When I was in England, my relatives teased me for taking so many photos. They said I looked like tourist (imagine!) I explained that in the world that's young and hip, everyone takes pictures of everything. It's just another way that we communicate in this digital age. Showing people what we see through our eyes. That's a beautiful thing, no? So what are you waiting for?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Lasagna garden
I've decided to plant a garden. I've lived in this apartment almost nine months, I'm not sure why it's taken me so long. My neighbor said the soil in our small patch of yard was shit but then I remembered it doesn't matter. Last year, I helped a friend of mine create a lasagna garden in her backyard. The idea is simple: You put layers of wet newspaper on top of any ground surface - grass, weeds, rocks, it doesn't matter - and layer peat moss and any organic material you can find like compost, manure, clippings, etc. Then you plant your garden! My mom always says that vegetables are the easiest plants to grow. People always complaining that they kill plants in their house don't have to worry. As long as you have light and water, veggies will grow. Fruits too!
The best thing about this method, other than the obvious ease of it, is that you leave the soil undisturbed. That means earthworms and other bugs that till the soil will find their way into your garden and keep it growing. I remember reading an article about a guy who turns lawns into food gardens. In the article, his company was rototilling this front yard and broke their machine on the grass roots and rocks. It was totally silly, renting that expensive machine and going through all that work, and killing all the sweet little earthworms! All you have to do is layer on top. The lack of light kills grass roots and anything else much easier than any chemicals or forceful extraction, the newspaper eventually gets eaten by worms and dissolves into the earth.
I've been mulling over this idea for some time. I can't see the garden from my apartment so it's easy to forget that there is a patch of land down there. Then yesterday, walking around, I saw that someone in San Francisco was growing vegetables in pots on the sidewalk! It really is that easy and I have no excuses. Here's how to do it.
Without getting into this too much, I believe that water and food are going to become serious battle grounds as people start to realize that mass production of food has driven it into very unhealthy directions. Big agribusiness is not likely to give up huge profits to make our food healthier and treat the earth better but we DO have control over our food - we can all plant vegetables. Power to the people!
The best thing about this method, other than the obvious ease of it, is that you leave the soil undisturbed. That means earthworms and other bugs that till the soil will find their way into your garden and keep it growing. I remember reading an article about a guy who turns lawns into food gardens. In the article, his company was rototilling this front yard and broke their machine on the grass roots and rocks. It was totally silly, renting that expensive machine and going through all that work, and killing all the sweet little earthworms! All you have to do is layer on top. The lack of light kills grass roots and anything else much easier than any chemicals or forceful extraction, the newspaper eventually gets eaten by worms and dissolves into the earth.
I've been mulling over this idea for some time. I can't see the garden from my apartment so it's easy to forget that there is a patch of land down there. Then yesterday, walking around, I saw that someone in San Francisco was growing vegetables in pots on the sidewalk! It really is that easy and I have no excuses. Here's how to do it.
Without getting into this too much, I believe that water and food are going to become serious battle grounds as people start to realize that mass production of food has driven it into very unhealthy directions. Big agribusiness is not likely to give up huge profits to make our food healthier and treat the earth better but we DO have control over our food - we can all plant vegetables. Power to the people!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)