Yes, I know it's been a while since I posted last. Between the pressures of a traveling husband, a demanding child, and creating new life within me, when I have the time to post I'm generally too tired to do so. I have a fiery statement percolating within me, which I hope to post in the next day or so. If I'm lucky.
In the meantime, I would like to reccomend a new book, "The Fundamentals of Extremism," edited by Kimberly Blaker. Ingrid, one of the resident demagogues on the local creepy radio station, loathed it, so I know it must be good. I ordered my copy after I heard her royal snit today.
Nothing like jumping on a bandwagon, especially one that's already halfway down the road. In my defence, my dislike of SUVs is longstanding and open, at least among the people who know me well. And a recent newspaper column made me want to bitch about it.
Today, Kathleen Parker decribed what she feels is the "Kafkaesque assault" against SUV drivers, a group to which she happens to belong. Apparently, a combination of the "What Would Jesus Drive?" ads, the Arianna Huffington campaign, and some soul-searching by Matt Lauer has driven her to the edge. Critiquing SUVs has nothing to do with their gas-guzzling tendencies, their threat to other drivers, or the pollution they give off. No, it's all about the "moral one-upmanship" of the anti-SUV crowd, the need for "people to insist that you ascend to their moral high ground just because it makes them feel better," and the suspect funding and sources of the people actively campaigning against these vehicles.
In defense of her chosen transportation, Parker notes that "While it's inarguably true that SUVs use more gas . . . Most people who drive SUVs don't drive solo but pack them with kids. In other words, they carpool, which saves gas, right?"
Well, maybe wrong. I don't know where she's getting her information that SUVs are filled with energy saving carpoolers. Not where I drive. All I seem to see (what little I can see above the SUVs' behemoth-style backsides) is one, or possibly two riders. I'm out and about at a number of different times during the week, but I seem to keep missing the grand carpooling exodus onto our streets. If there is any actual proof of SUVers' noble carpooling sacrifices, I'd like to see it.
Parker also questions "(W)hat uses more energy: An SUV that gets filled up once a week? That would be mine. Or, say, a Brentwood mansion with electronic gates, such as the one in which (Arianna) Huffington lives?"
This here, of course, is what we call a false dichotomy. I have neither a mansion nor an SUV, although I have an opinion on both. Just because one is worse does not make the other good. And a lot more people drive SUVs than live in Brentwood mansions, giving them a far greater effect on society. Whether or not you think Huffington is being disingenuous in her personal campaign, one still needs to examine whether or not ones need for an SUV is truly not outweighed by the costs, both personal and in terms of our responsibility to others.
There are certainly people who need to drive a larger vehicle. One of my sisters, for example, has 4 children aged ten and under. Both she and her husband have served as scout leaders. She drives a minivan, a vehicle whose size she uses to the utmost, while her spouse drives a regular car to his job. She tries not to take the van on long trips, and does her best to kep the milage to a minimum. (Might I add that their vehicle's capacity sure came in handy this summer, when my brother-in-law volunteered to take my daughter and her cousins back from the hospital to his house, while we waited for news about my Dad's heart surgery.) Other people may need such a vehicle for their small business, or because they live well out in the country.
I doubt, however, that most SUV owners meet these conditions. One person I know has two kids, and lives in a condo in town. She spends $200 a month in gas, and is looking for a much smaller vehicle. The others I know are much the same. They don't really need this big a vehicle, a fact that they freely admit. They use at least double the gas a smaller vehicle would use. They pollute at a higher rate. They are more dangerous to other cars. In a society where decreasing our dependance on foreign fuel, decreasing highway fatalities, and reducing pollution and greenhouse gases are not only laudable but essential goals, what is wrong with encouraging people to do with less?
In my parents' day, during WWII, it was everybody's patriotic duty to help out the country by using less, be it less meat, less sugar, less rubber, or less fuel. No one batted an eye at this. As we head towards war now, this old sense of duty, of responsibility towards one's country and fellow citizens has shrunk, dwarfed by our ballooning sense of entitlement and outraged self-importance. Give up my SUV? Why, that's communistic! And unpatriotic! Next you'll want us to walk everywhere, and live in a yurt, and use solar power for everything! This country was founded on the idea that people have the right to do what they like when it comes to our driving choices! So there!
Here are some fresh ideas, people. Let's show some restraint. And self-control. Let's make driving decisions based not simply what we can do, but perhaps what we should do. Let's think a little bit less about ourselves, and more about what how our actions effect other people.
They may not be really fresh ideas. But they are ones worth thinking about.
Well, your CD collection looks shiny and costly.
How much did you pay for your bad Moto Guzi?
And how much did you spend on your black leather jacket?
Is it you or your parents in this income tax bracket?
Now tickets to concerts and drinking at clubs,
Sometimes for music that you haven't even heard of.
And how much did you pay for your rock'n'roll t-shirt
That proves you were there,
That you heard of them first?
How do you afford your rock'n'roll lifestyle?
How do you afford your rock'n'roll lifestyle?
How do you afford your rock'n'roll lifestyle?
Ah, tell me. . . .
Excess ain't rebellion.
You're drinking what they're selling.
Your self-destruction doesn't hurt them.
Your chaos won't convert them.
They're so happy to rebuild it.
You'll never really kill it.
Yeah, excess ain't rebellion.
You're drinking what they're selling.
Excess ain't rebellion.
You're drinking,
You're drinking,
You're drinking what they're selling.
"Rock'n'Roll Lifestyle" - Cake
You just gotta love Cake.
Yeah, it's been a while. Six days straight of child care doesn't leave me either the time or mental energy to blog. It does, however, give me time to brood. Hence, may I present my first list:
25 Types Of People I Dislike On General Principle
1) People who are infinately world-weary before they have even seen their third decade.
2) People who go to restaurants for the scene, not the food.
3) Posers.
4) Hipsters.
5) People who, upon being introduced, feel the need to acquaint you with their political/socio-economic/marital/sexual/religious status. If it's important, it'll come in a general conversation. And if I have a burning desire to know, trust me - I'll ask.
6) People who want to tell me about their personal journeys. See the word personal, people? It's a clue to keep it that way. Their's a reason that they're not called public journeys.
7) Zealots and fanatics.
8) People who think God will send you to hell forever if you don't suscribe to their sectarian belief system.
9) People who belittle others who do well in science, or mathmatics, or literature, or any skilled field, simply because they themselves don't understand these subjects. Their are a myriad of fields in which my stupidity and inability are noteworthy. But I can't imagine putting someone down because they have knowledge that I lack.
10) Saleclerks whose lives are far, far more interesting and important than my own, to the point where it really is a dreadful burden on them to actually consider waiting on me.
11) People who overschedule, overspend on, and overindulge their kids.
12) People who tip horribly, and congratulate themselves for ripping off some poor waitress.
13) People (generally mothers) who stay at home/ work/ breast feed/bottlefeed/spank/don't spank their kids, and feel compelled to tell that what you're doing is terrible and insane and will completely screw up your unfortunate children. Fortunately, most of these folks tend to congregate on Internet message boards, posting dozens of messages a day, and are thus easily avoided. (One does wonder when they have time to care for their own alleged kids.) However, you do stumble across them occasionally in the real world, so beware.
14) People who think that their time is far more valuable than anyone else's.
15) People who really and deeply care what Badgley Mischka's 2003 spring line will be like.
16) Vegans. This is more of a general observation than a principle, as I have never met a vegan in whose company I have passed an enjoyable block of time. My husband claims to know a very nice vegan lady in Oregon, so I guess I'll have to leave this one open to change.
17) People who believe that their superior tastes in music confers upon themselves superior social status.
18) People who believe that name-calling, slogans, and general bitchiness translates into trenchant, thoughtful political commentary.
19) People who habitually use logical fallacies in their arguments.
20) People who don't think before they speak.
21) People who have read a book, or an article, or an Internet entry on a
complicated subject, and herein believe that they know all there is to know about it.
22) Quacks.
23) Anyone who would even think on appearing on ABC's Are You Hot? The Search For America's Sexiest People.
24) Men who read Maxim.
25) Spammers.
I'm sure that, given time, I could think of many more, so I'll probably be adding to this in the future. Feel free to add your own at any time.
I often listen to the local "Christian" radio station, because I find their viewpoints rather interesting, although seldom ones I agree with. Today, I checked out "Return to the Word," with Pastors Ed Bulkley and Alden Laird (a show perhaps more acurately titled "Why we hate psychology and psychiatry, and we're none too fond of that science stuff neither.") The topic was "The Limitations of Science," with an emphasis on the Columbia disaster.
This is an excellent topic for discussion. Science can give us the answer to a tremendous number of things. It is an exciting and wonderous area of human endeavor. In terms of the Columbia, I hope that it can provide the answers to how this tragedy happened, and how we should proceed in the future.
Science, however, cannot answer everything. It is not equipped, nor is it meant to, answer the larger questions faced. Is there a God? If so, why does these things happen? Will these astronauts have a life beyond? Do any of us? Why are we here? What is our purpose? What is moral, or just, to do with the scientific knowledge we have? Are there things we have the scientific ability to do that we should refrain from? These, and so many questions like them, are matters for religion and philosophy, not scientific inquiry. We should not look in the textbooks for an answer, but instead examine our souls.
This, sadly, was not what was discussed. Instead, I will provide a sampling of the comments made, by both the hosts and callers, to give you an idea of the flavor of the show. (Some comments may not be exactly verbatum, due to my nonexistant shorthand skills, but I have not altered the gist of what was said.)
"We're seeing more disasters, and they are the judgment of God . . . we as a nation have shown how evil we really are."
"I'm not trying to depreciate their (the shuttle astronauts') deaths, but why are we as a nation paying so much attention to this, and not the people who died in a church bus crash?"
" . . . there are demonic forces attacking us."
"Science textbooks are revised as soon as they come out (said as an argument as why science can't be trusted like the bible can) . . . Some science textbooks used in schools still have Piltdown Man in them."
"They (scientists? teachers?) use (evolution) to brainwash people."
"Science has made some advances but . . . they ("they" again - scientists? teachers?) are in spititual darkness so they use science, as it's the devil's tool."
"They (there's that "they" again) are using science against Christians."
"We have to get the bible back into the schools . . . and cast out all the evil that is there. . . there's no reason why Christian teachers can't be reading the Word to the students. . . ."
This show wasn't about the limitations of science. It really wasn't about science at all, at least what science really is. It was about contempt for science. It was about disparaging science. It was about a hatred for science, when it may challenge our cherished beliefs. It was a complete misunderstanding about what science is, what it accomplishes, and how scientific thought is demonstrated. And ultimately, it was a slap in the face to those that died, and all that they were trying to achieve. Given what I've heard from these people on this show in the past, I'm not exactly surprised. But it still saddens me that this ignorant babble is all that they could come up with to commemorate the Columbia crew. I hope that we as a nation can do better to immortalize their memory.
I am just so very sad, and sorry. I had only recently finished reading an article about some of the projects on the shuttle when the news was broadcast.
For some reason, this hits me so much harder than deaths from a car accident, or a military event, or a disease outbreak. Maybe because there is something so noble, so pure about what these people were doing that weeping seems the only honest response.