JargonV3I2

February 13th, 2006

This month we’ll delve into the seedy world of used medical equipment. Below are selections from an advertisement for a used mammography x-ray machine. The item is selling for $8,000.

List $46,890. MedCon: EX. Bennett high frequency mammography x-ray system.

System new in January,1996. Model MF01500g, maximum ma rating 175 ma, 34 Kv.

Includes full set of compression paddles, manuals, cassettes, accessories, and patient ID markers as shown

The M-CTR is a dedicated mammographic imaging system consisting of the M-1500G high-frequency (100 kHz resonant) x-ray generator, the MST-76 tubestand, the DM-1500 mammographic collimator, the mammographic x-ray tube, the M-1500C control panel, and the MF-B24 and MF-B30 buckles. A variety of options provides additional flexibility to meet individual requirements.

Source: pemed.com

Sinister Phase Two?

February 13th, 2006

A couple weeks ago I got into a joking discussion with a friend about how the only serious threat to the American Neoconservative military and political movement was not the Democratic Party but Google. One assumes that any Silicon Valley company with a lighthearted air is run by liberals — in Google’s case, liberals who don’t exude the pandering helplessness of many a Democratic ticket. (I don’t want to assume a political affiliation for a search engine, but according to a USA Today report, ninety-eight percent of the money given by Google employees to 2004 political candidates was given to Democrats.) Google is more respected than the Democratic Party, and maybe even more powerful. If Barack Obama ran in 2008 for the GOOP (Google Party), who would you vote for? But, my friend and I reasoned, unlike the Democratic Party, few people even know who Google is, and no one knows what Google wants. The name Eric Schmidt meant nothing to me at the time — I might have briefly wondered if he’d played third base for the Phillies in the 1970s. Eric Schmidt is Google’s CEO. I know that because I Googled it. My friend then related a news story he’d read about Google’s plans to buy up mass quantities of dark fiber, fiber-optic cable that’s been laid but is not in use. Then, after a moment of thoughtful pause, he declared: “Google wants to own the Internet.”

If you were to compare today’s Republican party to a major corporation, none seems a more apt fit than Enron just before the fall: they’re extremely powerful and ruthlessly exploitative of vulnerable markets, and their rampant incompetencies are rendered almost irrelevant by their ability to control public opinion. But if Google were a political party, what would it be? Thinking aloud to my friend, I tried to imagine what life would be like the day after Google toppled the Republican Party in a future election. People like you and I would be deliriously happy. . . for about a week. And then we’d realize that we’d given power to a faceless government that already knew everything about us and controlled our access to information completely. And they would be more inhuman than anything we’d ever dreamed of. “If I have ever glimpsed the gleaming eyes of Big Brother on this earth,” we would say to one another sagely, wondering why Yahoo! was down, “It is in those red and yellow circles.”

In March of 2001, The Onion ran a story called “Starbucks To Begin Sinister ‘Phase Two’ Of Operation.” All of the coffee houses were simultaneously closed for repurposing, locked behind titanium shutters. No one was quite sure what this meant, but among the more ominous signs was that “the familiar Starbucks logo [was] slightly altered to present the familiar mermaid figure as a cyclopean mermaid whose all-seeing eye forms the apex of a world-spanning pyramid.” (They had also “stopped buying stirrers altogether.”) It is interesting to note that if The Onion ran that same story next week about Google, it would be too close to a plausible scenario to be particularly funny.

Still, we can’t just assume that one day Google will turn into the sum of all of our futuristic fears. That’s empty cynicism, and no more valid than to assume that Google is perfect and will remain so forever and ever. After all, Google is a company whose unofficial corporate motto is “Don’t Be Evil,” a phrase which seems to be viewed with little irony thus far, despite the ease with which it can be imagined painted on the side of a barn and read by talking pigs and sheep. Google’s founders and CEO each make a salary of $1. Engineers are encouraged to spend twenty percent of their salaried hours on projects that interest them personally. One of the five pillars of workplace conduct at Google is their Dog Policy. One imagines hallways strewn with fitness balls and slides where staircases ought to be. In its workplace trappings and corporate culture, Google is a classic depiction of a dot com utopia.

This brings up an interesting question, one that nine out of ten people have too much rote cynicism to take seriously: what if Google is a utopia? This is not to say a place of perfection, but a place that’s the human equivalent thereof. Not the perfect ideal, but the perfect ideal shrunk and necessarily compromised to its best workable model; the closest we can get on this earth. If there’s a more deserving candidate than Google for the title of corporate utopia, I can’t think of it. But a “corporate utopia” is, to most rational people, a dead dream encased within an oxymoron. Corporations are personified in the logo of The Corporation, men with briefcases and devil’s tails. We do not seem able to believe in any utopia that is not a negative one; in our minds every white and gleaming facade is surely a mausoleum. If we are lucky, the utopia is simply revealed to be fundamentally unsound, and crumbles away. If we are unlucky, we are bound for totalitarian rule, and the next question to ask ourselves is: “Soma or Victory Gin?”

In late January, Business 2.0 magazine published an article called “Imagining the Google Future,” wherein experts plotted four scenarios for the future of the company. One was titled “Google is the media,” the next “Google is the Internet,” the third “Google is dead” and the last “Google is God.” The second scenario is the most plausible. It’s just an extension of what Google is doing now. Google is already my Internet telephone directory (and my postal service, and my road atlas, and to some extent my shopping guide and newspaper), so it’s no great leap to believe that it will one day be my Internet telephone company as well, providing a shining net of free wireless access across any city I’d want to live in. Google is poised to create their own browser (the Gbrowser domain name was copyrighted in 2004), and even their own operating system, the chief question is whether they’ll want to bother, or prefer to simply sit back and support open source products like Firefox, Open Office and Linux, all of which are in competition with Microsoft anyhow. Google has been so overwhelmingly successful at building a free and better mousetrap in so many arenas of Internet life that I’d really not be very surprised if sometime in the future I’m able to catch bothersome rodents in tiny, fantastical stasis boxes emblazoned with large ‘G’s that magically appear at my house free of charge whenever I buy cheese.

The most interesting argument of the “Google is dead” article is that the Internet community will eventually turn on Google — not out of fear or malice but out of sheer profitability. If I can use my knowledge of Google unscrupulously to make the biography of George W. Bush appear as the first Google result when I type in “miserable failure,” can’t I also use that same knowledge to make “city library” or “Kanye West Grammys” return the homepage of whatever porn site will pay me the most money? The practice of search engine optimization could make the act of hampering Google’s functionality into a huge cash cow. Even when there’s no money involved, successfully messing with Google will mean credibility — Google will become more and more the great monolith that everyone with a can of proverbial spray paint wants to tag. From the lowliest hackers to the largest world governments, everyone will be bringing a conflict to Google in some way. (Last August the U.S. government demanded that Google turn over all of the terms input for search over a single, unspecified week, plus a million random web addresses from Google databases. The cited reason for this was a need for the government to back up its case for correctly enforcing online pornography laws. Happily, Google declined.) Even if Google continues to grow despite these challenges, its own omnipresence will begin to work against it. Sooner or later serious concerns will arise that Google is Big Brother, and people will use Yahoo! or other search engines, even if they know they’re second-rate, out of disestablishmentarianism, or the feeling that they’re making a grass-roots, humanistic choice, or out of simple paranoia.

If it seems inevitable that many, many people will eventually turn on Google for a hundred reasons of great or little validity, is it not also inevitable that Google will turn on people? Already Google is drawing demonstrations for the opening of its censored China portal, www.google.cn, which filters certain keywords. (A query of “Tiananmen,” for example, is said to returns no reference to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. This must only be true if one searches from within China, however. Professor Yeti himself gets twelve pictures of tanks.) Google claims that its portal is nonetheless beneficial to the Chinese people, lest Google be censored in China altogether, but Google’s complicity in repression here is still undeniable. Does Google’s cooperation with China signify that Google will come to resemble China? That’s a bit of a leap. Still, though I have to leave the question of Google’s future path of good or evil unanswered, for I am no futurist, I will admit to this: I do feel a slight fear of criticizing them. Beyond the ever-present fear that my criticisms are unfounded and will later appear stupid, I’d get the same chill of needless danger from provoking Google that I might get from heckling a police officer. All that would prevent Google from revenging itself upon me more thoroughly than I care to think about is its own uncertain morality.

Chris Leslie-Hynan loves Google, he thinks it is just the best thing ever.

Good News, Bad News

February 13th, 2006

There was a time when I enjoyed looking through a newspaper. Especially on Sundays, it used to be a pleasure to sort through the different sections, culling the classifieds, Parade, and, before I’d had enough economics to comprehend it, the business section, savoring the other sections one by one, perhaps reading back to front for a big finale with section A, hard news both national and international. I remember reading the comics section of the Akron Beacon Journal after dinner at my grandparents’ house, continually delighted by “Calvin & Hobbes” and baffled by the concept of “Prince Valiant” — was it SUPPOSED to not be funny? Now, though, after wading through the news online all day at work, as per my job description, I find myself informationally exhausted at home with no use for anything but the sports scores.

What might this mean for us internet-based connoisseurs of current affairs? My guess is that it means we pay much less conscious attention to the events of the day, instead taking in information through some sort of osmosis; browsing blogs and commentary, I don’t so much try to actively comprehend what I’m reading as much as I let the news-polluted waves wash over me, hoping to catch a few worthwhile tidbits before I’m coughed up onto shore at the end of the day. As I come home feeling kind of dazed and dirty, I warily eye the newspaper much as a seasick sailor might regard an uncooked steak.

I first noticed this change in reading/learning styles when some busy person who hadn’t had time to keep up with the news lately asked me what was going on in the world. I knew I had a decent grasp of politics and world events, but for some reason I was frustratingly unable to recall any of it. When prompted I realized I could fill in the relevant details about the big Supreme Court decision or terrorist threat or whatever might have been going on at the time, but only in the way I might if asked about what I’d eaten for dinner on the third Tuesday of last month; that is to say, I could supply the information but not very enthusiastically or clearly.

Personally, I blame two factors for this mental decay: ubiquity of content and lack of primary sources, both of which chronically plague blog readers. My job entails keeping track of links to our website, which reports on environmental news and related political issues, so I fill my RSS reader with sources like AlterNet, Salon, and Mother Jones. However, most of the time I’m skimming for text that might mention Grist, so I try to avoid slowing down by reading for comprehension, at least on busier days. While I take the time to read very few stories in full on any given day, I probably see hundreds of headlines. So, for example, today I found out from the Guardian that “White House knew Katrina scale,” but I have no idea who knew what, when they knew it, or from whom. I read on TomPaine.com that “Bush, Cheney and Rove put national security below their goals of increasing presidential power and winning elections,” but I don’t know how they did it or what that means for national security or citizens like myself. Not only that, I’ve probably read a dozen summaries of those different stories (yeah, we’re a left-leaning publication) all restating variations of the same idea.

Then again, I also spend a lot of time tracking blogs like Think Progress, Worldchanging, and the Sierra Club Compass, which embody the other way in which I fail to engage appropriately with what’s going on in the world: I don’t actually bother to figure out what they’re talking about. A good example is the State of the Union address. I heard about Bush’s pre-speech interview in which he hinted that he’d bring up America’s “addiction to oil,” and I probably spent hours reading or at least glancing at heated commentary, but did I actually watch, listen to, or read the commentary of the speech? No way. The same goes for far too many worthy stories: I’ll see a headline in the Guardian that some scandal or other is breaking in Washington, and a couple days later I’ll get walloped with thousands of words devoted to minutiae related to the whole ordeal, but do I ever get the basic facts straight? I don’t, because it would be like trying to eat a main course after nine salads and seven desserts.

Will I ever get my facts straight again? Hard to tell. If I were, say, an apprentice carpenter or a barista or a ditchdigger I could probably avoid printed news coverage during the day, thus allowing me to enthusiastically dive into the paper once I got home. However, I’m probably much more likely to wind up at another job in front of a computer once my time with Grist is up, continuing to muddleheadedly wallow in punditry for the foreseeable future. So next time you effortlessly peruse the obituaries, disagree with an op-ed, or fill in the crossword, kindly keep me in your thoughts, won’t you?

Andy Slabaugh (http://andyslabaugh.blogspot.com) wrote a book review for the Wichita Eagle when he was in seventh grade.

The O.C. — Oh, No!

February 12th, 2006

I enjoy watching TV.

Sure, I’ve gone through stages of TV-watching: a three-hour-a-day habit, a strict one show per day limit, and a firm denial of any watching whatsoever. I’m not here to make any judgments about how much TV one should watch. At this point of my life, I feel I’ve earned the right to decide for myself how much TV I should watch. And just as I generally eat healthy foods but every now and then munch on a few Cheetos, I generally watch quality shows, but occasionally watch the Cheetos of the TV world — Fox’s The O.C.

The O.C. started out just fine, for the type of show it was — a guy from the wrong side of the tracks somehow gets caught up in the lives of a wealthier family and falls for a wealthy girl. Sounds like a great start for a teen dramedy, right? It was everything I expected it to be. The hunky poor guy attends ritzy parties, hangs out with a nerdy-yet-cute school outcast, and gets in fights with the school’s water polo team.

In my opinion, part of the glory of this type of show is that we all have sort of an inkling about what should happen. The hunky guy will of course get together with the beautiful rich girl. The nerdy-yet-cute guy will hunger for the love of a popular girl, but never receive it (until possibly the end of the series). The bully will continue to be the nemesis of the hunky guy. Of course.

That’s why I was a bit taken aback, beginning with the last part of the first season. OK, so the hunky guy and beautiful girl are having problems — but they’ll patch it up. Wait a minute, the nerdy-yet-cute guy gets together with the popular girl? Everyone becomes friends, even the bully? At first it was bewildering, but then I got used to the break from the usual TV storylines. How exciting! No one knew what would happen next!

Then it got to be too much for me. The stories got more and more outlandish. A prime example of this is the life of Marissa Cooper. In less than three years, this teen’s parents have gotten a divorce and then almost re-married; her sister has been sent to a boarding school and briefly returned to date, then attend the funeral of a local boy; her mother has had a brief affair with Marissa’s ex-boyfriend, then married a rich old man who later dies; and her father has been the focus of an FBI investigation, lost most of the money entrusted to him by his clients, and moved away. That doesn’t even count what Marissa herself has been up to: experiencing a drug overdose in Tijuana, nearly being institutionalized by her mom, battling an alcohol problem, dating a woman from the local music scene, and shooting her boyfriend’s brother. She was also the chairman of the high school’s activities committee. Personally, just experiencing one of these events would be plenty for me to deal with, including being on an activities committee. (If you’ve never seen the show, believe it or not, these things did all happen. Also, thanks for reading this far into the article!)

The problem isn’t that outrageous events occur on the show. On a show like this, crazy antics are demanded. But it’s gone past TV-believable to just plain ridiculousness. Does something earth-shattering have to happen every episode? Whatever happened to an episode about hoping a girl would go out with you, or accidentally having two dates at the same place and same time, or getting locked in a storage room with someone you say you hate but have a lot of sexual tension with? When the glory of mundane events gets overlooked, outrageous events become boring. That’s what’s happened here.

Along with the problem of preposterous storylines, the revolving door of characters is also moving far too quickly. In a show that’s only a few seasons old, there are a surprising number of characters that have walked onto the show only to be written out again a few episodes later. If my children, years in the future, watch a few episodes from the third season, then watch an episode from the first season, it’s likely that there would be at least two characters they’d never seen before. And they probably wouldn’t know what’s going on in the plot.

It’s also likely that if people watch the show ten years from now, it’ll seem extremely dated. For one thing, the writers of the show have really packed in a lot of references and “cool” teen slang. Characters don’t listen to CD players, they listen to iPods. They go to Modest Mouse shows. They use “MapQuest” as a verb. I understand that it’s an attempt to be hip, and that’s what annoys me. It’s like the commercials for Bailey’s Irish Cream where groups of young people attend parties where they only serve Bailey’s. I get it — we’re supposed to think they’re really hip and thus want to drink their brand of booze. But really it has the opposite effect on me. I’m not going to turn up my nose if someone gives me a bottle of Bailey’s, but I’m not going to make a beeline to the Bailey’s when I’m at the liquor store. In the same way, I’m not fooled by The O.C.’s slang.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate the show. I’m a bit annoyed with it at times, but obviously I’ve continued watching it. There are some good qualities: there are great shots of the beach that are nice to see now that it’s the middle of the winter; I like a few of the characters; and although I sometimes have to remind myself about the whole “suspension of disbelief” thing, it’s not a bad mental getaway. Especially while eating Cheetos.

Melinda Cameron used to watch Saved by the Bell.

Behind-the-Scenes Lives

February 12th, 2006

About Baghdad is a film collage of Iraqi life in July, 2003, three months after the American invasion. With a style stripped down to the bare elements of film, director Sinan Antoon immerses the viewer in a flood, an outpouring, of the experience of war for ordinary Iraqis.

In contrast to usual documentary style — voice-overs, interviews in quiet offices with “experts,” music cued for aural interpretation — About Baghdad is simple, egalitarian, itinerant, and direct. The scenes leap from street corner to factory, from middle-class home to bombed asylum. As the film’s website says, the people interviewed range “from poets to politicians, cabbies to communists.” We follow the roving journalists through a jumble of scenes, people, ideas and opinions, all tied together by the simplest of questions: “What was it like under Saddam’s regime?” “How do you feel about the American invasion?” “How have things changed?” “What will the future be like?” Instead of adding up to a single story, the film contains numerous stories, each echoing the others, combining to create an atmospheric din, a barometric reading of all of Iraq’s past and present pressures.

The film indelibly imprints the tyranny of the Baathists, through stories both dizzyingly various and uniformly horrifying. Victims of imprisonment and torture show their scars and tell their stories: tales of torturers dousing prisoners in boiling water and infesting their cells with lice. Of cotton balls put between toes, soaked in alcohol and then burned. I was reminded of what I learned from the Stanford prison experiment: that our natural creativity extends to devising means of torture. One man recounted a particular torturer who would ask a prisoner of seventy if she wanted earrings. The woman would reply “No, I don’t want earrings. I’m old and I’m going to die soon, and my daughter and grandson are already dead.” And the torturer would say “Here, I’ll give you earrings,” then apply electric clamps to her ears and watch her shake. As for those outside the prisons, one woman described the fear and alienation of daily life, of a society in which “you couldn’t say anything to anybody that you really felt, that really meant anything,” for fear of opportunistic informers.

Not surprising, then, were the many cries of relief at Saddam’s ousting. One man jubilantly repeated, “Even the air is changed!” Another emphatically declared that “Everything, the first war with the U.S., the sanctions, this current state of anarchy — it is all Saddam’s fault.” But this feeling of relief does not imply unconditional love for the American invaders. Most expressed gratitude for Saddam’s removal, though often begrudgingly and with the caveat: “Now let us rule ourselves.” In interviews with intellectuals — poets and professors — the sentiment was overwhelmingly cynical: that the Iraqi people, after so many years of poverty and oppression, were ready to “take the hand of the devil himself.” One poet described Iraqis as jumping at “the smallest ray of light . . . even if it were just a straw in this sea.”

For most, the greatest worries were the widespread unemployment and the lack of security. A factory owner worried about the coming of free trade, about the impossibility of competing with “quality products from well-financed companies.” The head of the national Chamber of Commerce seemed optimistic, proclaiming that tradespeople could soon import products from “all over the world.” However, the bureaucrat’s manner became increasingly suspect, as he responded with heatedly defensive threats to a challenger from the crowd. Citizens lamented the disappearance of their safety: rampant looting and robbery essentially creating a 5:00pm curfew for shop owners and citizens. Watching today, it is painful to remember that these interviews took place only three months post-invasion: the people’s distress over lack of security did not yet include suicide bombers and guerrilla warfare.

The film’s glimpses of American soldiers and military operations do not exactly inspire confidence or admiration. The first soldier interviewed was a subtle but bona fide wacko. His helmet slightly askew and his eyes in an unfocused gaze, as if orating to an imaginary audience, he gave new vividness to the metaphor of parroting one’s superiors. “George Bush may not be a perfect man, but he is my president, and I believe in him. And I’m proud to follow his commands, whatever they may be, and wherever they may take me.” More disturbing than his words was his palpable disconnection from reality: he sounded as if voicing aloud thoughts more often reserved for self-reinforcement.

Other military interviewees were more human, but no less disappointing. Juxtaposed with oral histories of the years of war, sanctions, and squalor, an American PR officer’s ignorance of “the area” and its history appears grossly negligent. Another soldier, when asked if he had much contact with the people, simply laughed a soft and embarrassed laugh, lowered his head and replied, “Negative.”

If the U.S. military thought they could win over Iraqis with mere propaganda, this film proves them wrong. Interviewees deplored the hypocrisy of heavily guarding oil fields, while allowing schools, asylums, and national museums to be looted and vandalized. At the screening I attended, Louis Fishman, Carleton College professor of history, described an even more baffling military oversight: the weeklong failure to guard the former Iraqi intelligence offices, allowing anyone to rifle through future legal evidence and historical documents.

The messages that emerge from the film’s many voices are more impressions than answers: the true, messy tragedy of war, beyond the made-for-TV versions. The Iraqi people’s anger, anxiety, and desire to decide for themselves how to rule their country. The tyranny of Saddam’s regime and the hypocrisy of the American crusade.

What About Baghdad conveys is the ordinary experience of a war zone. Not the usual soldier’s eye view, all bombs and bullets, but what it is like to have your city transformed into a war zone, and how you deal with it. Some cope quietly in their homes or workplaces, carrying on while worrying about the future. Some speak at the top of their voices on street corners and in cafés. Universal is the need to tell the stories of the past and the present and to speak boldly about the future. About Baghdad is a chance to go beyond our own rants and debates in American reporting and editorializing, and meet the people who we would be, had we been born in Iraq.

Jonathan Wichmann (jonathanwichmann@gmail.com) lives and writes in Northfield, Minnesota.

Four Fives

January 16th, 2006

Five Lizards and Why They’re Great

  1. Gila monster (known to eat humans)
  2. Newt (humorous reminder of Mr. Gingrich)
  3. Gecko (Geico commercials)
  4. Alligator (longest surviving dinosaur)
  5. Five-lined skink (can re-grow tail)

Five Natural Disasters That Did Not Occur in 2005

  1. Plague of locusts
  2. Massive asteroid strike on major city
  3. Hell freezing over
  4. Tsunami of Savings at Gordy’s Above-Ground Pools
  5. Poles suddenly reversing

Five States Spelled Backwards

  1. Aksala
  2. Ippississim
  3. Oiho
  4. Nogero
  5. Saxet

Five Famously Stupid People

  1. Yogi Berra
  2. Anna Nicole Smith
  3. Jessica Simpson
  4. Dubya
  5. Jessica Simpson’s Husband

Of Fake Cowboys and Movie Star Animals

January 16th, 2006

Dear Professor Yeti,

As a professional cowboy — not a rodeo cowboy or a stunt-show cowboy or a theme park cowboy, but a real, honest-to-Wyatt Earp, cow-branding, chaw-spittin’ cowboy — I don’t get to see many movin’ picture shows. There ain’t many ride-in movie theaters, least not in these here hills where I roam. But I heard tell of a new flick, as the city slickers call ’em, called somethin’ bout a broken mountain or some such thing. I guess it’s about cowboys like me and such. You know if it’s worth me washin’ up and puttin’ on my one Stetson not covered in burrs and horse dung and findin’ me a theater?

Wayne Johns, Butte, Montana

Dear “Wayne,”

A likely name, indeed. Your faux-“home on the range” talk is evidence enough that you have likely never spat chaw or even seen a cow outside of the shrink-wrapped variety in your grocer’s freezer, but your attempt at a nom de plume eviscerates any remaining shred of credibility left after your offensive attempt at cowboy-speak. As one who has spent a great deal of time roaming the wilds and expanses of the American West, I can attest to the rather wonderful idiosyncrasies of the terrain and its inhabitants, and just as I know that Laura Ingalls Wilder was a whiny little brat, so too do I know that most cowboys are actually quite articulate and surprisingly aware of current affairs, including the latest offerings from Hollywood. (Did you know that more cowboys subscribe Us Weekly and Details than ophthalmologists, patent attorneys and physics professors combined?)

Unhappy trails,

Professor Yeti


Dear Professor Yeti,

What’s up with humans’ sudden attraction to penguins? Those fat little butler-birds reek like rotten fish and are plain obnoxious at parties, always getting drunk on cheap Antarctic vodka and going on and on about how their agents have fabulous new projects lined up for them. But all they can do is waddle and swim. They have no street smarts and not much charisma. Why don’t they make a film about me and my pals? We’re infinitely more charming, funny and intelligent, not to mention hip. How many penguins live in New York City? Like two or three. In a cage that stinks of fish guts. How many squirrels live in NYC? Lots. I rest my case. Send Spielberg my way.

Bruce the Squirrel, Cluster of Oaks By Strawberry Fields, Central Park

Dear Bruce,

I understand your frustrations. I, too, had such jealousies after the movie Harry and the Hendersons came out and gave my fat cousin Harold more than his fair 15 minutes in the spotlight. But I settled down when Harold became a national laughingstock after endorsing the back-waxing services of MetroSalon, and then the temporary facelift product Botox. He now looks more ridiculous than ever, and is living proof that fame can, in fact, be one’s downfall.

I will send you a copy of my book, How To Win Friends and Influence Humans; this should help you find your own way to gain a modicum of fame without becoming a boor such as Harold or a beast such as, say, Michael Jackson.

Also, I deal with Soderbergh, not Spielberg,

Professor Yeti


Dear Professor Yeti,

Two years of publication! Congrats, darling! Now can we go out for that dinner and a show that you’ve been promising me since 2003? Will you please start coming home from the magazine office a bit earlier, say before 11 p.m.? When we started dating, you always cooked for me. Curried oxen, poached salmon with gooseberries . . . remember those days? Now that your web site has turned two, how about turning some of your TLC to your beloved?

Love,

Darlinda

Dearest Darlinda,

Thank you ever so much for the wishes of congratulations. My heart aches each moment I am not with you; every atom in my body pines for you. Know that each night, as I burn the proverbial midnight oil, the moon outside my window is the same as the lunar orb at which you stare. The nightingales that sing you to sleep offer me their mournful lullaby as well, as I have set up a recording device outside our bedroom window. And each morning, when the dawn breaks as I sit in front of my computer, ruminating and typing, I think of you going through your morning routine — showering, brushing your teeth, eating your oatmeal, reading the newspaper. I am with you in spirit, always, and you are welcome to visit me in my office, always. I have a day bed.

Con amor,

Your Snuggyboo, Professor Yeti

Professor Yeti is a world-famous expert and advice columnist. Please send correspondence to: professoryeti@professoryeti.com.

Journeys for the Adventureless

January 16th, 2006

At the age of 24, Kira Salak trekked solo across Papua New Guinea. Her book about this endeavor, Four Corners: Into the Heart of New Guinea, One Woman’s Solo Journey, was selected in 2001 as a Notable Travel Book of the Year by the New York Times Book Review.

I’d sure like to be able to tell my grandkids, if not the world (via a bestselling tome) that I made such an epic trip as a young ’un of 24. It could happen. I still have over three whole months before I turn 25. That’s over 90 days to plan, embark upon and complete my adventure. I just need to figure out where to go, get some time off of work, scrounge up some cash, get in shape to climb a mountain/kayak across an ocean/fight off guerillas and/or gorillas, plan an itinerary, book a plane ticket, rent a car/gondola/elephant and buy some sunscreen/Gore-Tex expedition gear.

And, considering the likelihood of success, write my last will and testament.

Truth is, I don’t think I’ll ever hike solo across Papua New Guinea or bike across Mongolia or kayak the length of the Amazon. Frankly, there’s only so much adventure I can handle, and my idea of an epic trip would be to spend a week sampling croissants in Paris. If I were to hike across an entire country, it would have to be Vatican City, or at least Gibraltar. (But I can’t cross Andorra by foot — that story’s been taken by Rolf Potts, in a recent World Hum article.)

There are few people in the world graced with the courage, confidence, survival instincts, physical strength and financial resources to be true adventurers. Kira Salak is one such person. I am most certainly not. If I won the lottery, that would take care of one of the above necessities, but I’d still be a good four short.


I once read somewhere that all good travel stories begin “No shit, there I was . . .” Salak and other true adventurers have it easy; they have massive personal stockpile of tales that merit such a beginning and the details of which keep readers rapt and astonished. There’s something about defying death, repeatedly, daily, that adds a certain compelling aspect to any narrative. Similarly, being the first person, or at least one of a very few, to have done something or seen a particularly spectacular landscape, makes the later accounting all the more impressive and astonishing. Most of us take trips; the adventurer goes on expeditions. I may have walked, even hiked, in multiple countries, but I don’t think I could possibly used the word “trekked” to describe any of my forays across sundry not-so-vast, not-so-wild wildernesses.

The fact is, I tend to stay solidly on the beaten path. Call me adventureless, not adventurous. My idea of a fun travel book to write — and don’t go stealing this idea — would be a volume titled Around the World in 80 Clichés, in which our less-than-fearless hero visits tourist-swarmed landmarks across the globe.

I have to find my “world’s first” claims and “No shit, there I was . . .” stories in more mundane locales.

For example, I recently visited the Green Parrot, a storied bar in Key West (motto: “Excess in moderation”) and a dive in the best sense of the word. There, at about 1 a.m., in the middle of a body-to-body dance floor, the air a haze of sweat, smoke and condensation of evaporating spilled beer . . . there, as I fought off overwhelming fumes and the chants of natives drunk on fermented barley-water, I did something no one has ever done there, in that enchanted land. I tap-danced. Specifically, I did a time-step, complete with phony grin and jazz hands. Stomp-hop-flap-flap-step-stomp-hop-flap-flap-step — pause to apologize for poking flying jazz hands into stranger’s back, smirk insouciantly at perplexed bartender, take a few swigs of Newcastle — stomp-hop-flap-flap-step-stomp.

I may not have been wearing tap shoes. I may not have had a cane or a fedora. My accompanying music, if you could hear it over the din of bad pickup lines and tourist small-talk, was “Travelin’ Blues,” a loud, rockin’ number, performed — quite well, for the record — by several large, sweaty men in shorts and t-shirts and shaggy hairdos. In short, this was not a Broadway-worthy, or even county fair runner-up-worthy, performance. But world’s-firsts are rarely accomplished under ideal conditions; indeed, it is often the conditions themselves that make such feats so difficult to accomplish.

A packed house of drunks would seem to preclude successful execution of anything more than a quick shuffle-ball-change, given a) the lack of space and b) the tendency of those who have had too much to drink and too little sleep (likely for several days straight) to not look kindly on those who poke them with jazz hands and then grin cheesily. You see? Awful conditions.

But my companions demanded that I dance, and after I attempted to weasel my way out of complying by stating that I could only tap dance, insisted that, in that case, I must tap dance, right then and there. Under the influence of peer pressure (and under the influence in the more traditional sense, I must confess), I caved. And in so doing, I staked a claim that Kira Salak and various other National Geographic-endorsed explorers will likely never challenge.


A few years ago, I took a travel writing class, for which the textbook was The Best American Travel Writing 2003. One of the featured articles was a piece by Lawrence Millman, who ventured to an obscure island in the Arctic in search of an “undiscovered” people called the Tunit. The title of the piece, “Lost in the Arctic,” pretty much sums up what happens. Despite all manner of warnings, signs and other indicators that this may not be a great idea, Millman embarks on his trip, only to become, well, lost. In the Arctic.

As one of the other students in the class put it during a discussion of the article, this was an “Uh, duh!” sort of story. You’re in a vast and vastly inhospitable environment, with few people around, no real sense of where you’re going or what you’re doing, and your mode of transportation (in this case, an old boat) is several notches below what might be called “reliable” . . . Uh, duh, of course you’re going to get lost. Of course you’re going to be miserable. Of course you’re going to fear, on several occasions if not for hours or days on end, that you’re going to become a human ice cube whose body, mummified by the cold, will be discovered by other adventurers a hundred years hence.

I prefer to avoid the “Uh, duh!” stories, as well as those that feature less-expected but just as easily preventable encounters with death. This is why I tend to avoid countries where the streets are named after dates, the top official is known as “Dear Leader” or “Benevolent Ruler” or “God,” or the official currency is arms, with bullets as the smallest unit and tanks as the largest. I try to stay away from locales that have not been named, or that have names that translate roughly to “Place of Death” or “Valley of Horrible Pain.” The road well-traveled isn’t the only road for me, but at least if it’s well-traveled that means it’s more or less safe, which I find is generally an attribute.

In short, while I’m perfectly happy to explore that which is new to me, and even to venture outside my comfort zone, I’ll find my adventures in benignly odd endeavors undertaken within the charted territories. You really don’t have to travel far to find a story, although, honestly, if I could add something to my tale such as “My feet were a blur of rhythmic motion, and the villagers stood captivated, their jaws dropping to reveal intricate tongue tattoos, before they pulled machetes out of their gourd-festooned loincloths and chased me to the river, where I fended off schools of piranha and an alligator before floating to safety” . . . well, that would probably make it a bit more interesting.

Doug Mack (doug@professoryeti.com) recently met Kira Salak and Lawrence Millman at the Key West Literary Seminar.

Travel! Excitement! Intrigue! Columbus!

January 16th, 2006

Ah, Columbus. A city known far and wide for… well… not much. OK, that’s not exactly true. We do have this little thing called The Ohio State University and the related phenomenon of Buckeyes Football Season, which is when people go absolutely insane and dress only in scarlet and gray for five months. Other than that, Columbus just isn’t the obvious choice as a vacation destination for the masses. But in my first year here in the capital of Ohio (round on the end and high in the middle, as my college roommate would kindly remind me), I have discovered that it has style, charm, and a quirkiness that I think people should travel for. And we have great food. GREAT food! So if you’re looking for a cheap and truly interesting place to visit, check us out:

First, there are the people. Columbus is a city populated by “an eclectic mix of students, politicians, artists, and entrepreneurs…” according to a surprisingly flattering Wikipedia entry. Sounds good, right? Not many people would put “eclectic” and “Columbus” in the same sentence, but it is amazingly accurate. (As a side note, the entry also notes, “Evidence of ancient mound-building societies abounds in the region near the confluence of the Scioto and Olentangy rivers. Mound Street, located in downtown Columbus, was so named because of its proximity to a large Native American burial mound.” We are known for our mounds! No one else has mounds!) Anyway, there is an active arts community, a culturally diverse population, a massive number of students and professors milling about, and a thriving business sector. Because of this diversity of inhabitants, Columbus has an interesting geography as well as an interesting set of available activities.

Northern Columbus is occupied by The University and the inevitable college bars, cheap and delicious restaurants, and grungy music venues. It is also home to The Wexner Center, which is an architecturally gorgeous arts compound. It shows independent and foreign movies, hosts art shows, plays, and public programs, and carries the moniker of Les Wexner, Ohio native and founder of Limited Brands.

Wexner is a big name in this town: far northeast of the city looms Easton Town Center, his outdoor Mall of America. It’s like a mini mall-city, and includes not only shops but bars, restaurants, a cineplex, and a comedy club. It’s a shopper’s dream on a grand scale. According to About.com, “… actor and Easton-investor Arnold Schwarzenegger (who reportedly loves Columbus) was quoted as saying, ‘I’ve never been part of something of this size. Les Wexner built a freeway for this thing.’” I would like to point out that it was actually the state of Ohio that built the freeway, and also I had no idea that Arnold Schwarzenegger loved Columbus. More points for us!

Back in the city, and slightly south of campus, is the Short North. I knew when I moved here that this was the part of town I wanted to live in, and I was lucky to find a beautiful apartment a block off the main drag. The Short North is a small arts district that runs between The University and downtown. It has retro shops, trendy shops, vegetarian food, burger joints, Asian food, Spanish food, an upscale steakhouse, dive bars, trendy bars, themed bars, gay bars, and all the ice cream and smoothies you can handle. The first Saturday of every month the Short North plays host to one of the most enjoyable of Columbus customs: the Gallery Hop. From 8-11 the galleries and shops in the Short North stay open late, serve food and wine, and entertain the several hundred people who meet to browse and buy. Even in the snow, people turn out to shiver and walk together; it is on those Saturday nights that I know this city is truly alive.

At the end of the Short North is downtown. Right between the two, Columbus has its own small version of Seattle’s Pike Place Market called the North Market. It is a sight to behold: an indoor marketplace with vendors selling fresh meats and cheeses, Indian and Chinese food, pizza, produce, homemade pasta, chocolate, almost any kind of food you can think of. There is no fish tossing, sadly. But anything you buy can be eaten on the second floor where you can look out over the vendors, and that almost makes up for it. On the weekends they also serve enough samples to fill you up for lunch.

Then there’s downtown. And so much to do! There is a gorgeous and historic theater called The Ohio Theater where I saw singer Carlos Vives and hope to see author David Sedaris. There is an interactive science museum beloved by every schoolchild in Ohio called COSI, and a small art museum that is currently hosting a beautiful exhibit called “Renoir’s Women.” Franklin Park Conservatory has a permanent collection of Chihuly glass, ancient and awesome bonsai trees, and hosts musical, artistic and other fabulous events throughout the year. They are currently hosting an exhibit called “The Amazing Chocolate Tree” about . . . chocolate! And who doesn’t like chocolate?! In the summer Franklin Park also hosts the Asian Heritage Festival. That’s the other thing I should note about Columbus. We have great festivals. We even have the largest Latino Festival between Chicago and New York. In June we also have Comfest, a weekend of great music, food, and reverie (or insanity, depending on your p.o.v), held on the grounds of the beautiful Goodale Park.

My last plug for Columbus comes from just south of downtown in a beautiful, quaint, and oddly European part of town called German Village. It is similar in feeling to the Short North, but slightly less commercial, definitely less heavily trafficked, and a whole lot more German. Think lots of crowded brick homes on narrow brick streets. It’s a great place to walk around. In my opinion, the pride of German Village and the destination of choice is The Book Loft. It is what appears to be a normal sized bookstore in an old brick building that somehow contains a labyrinthine 32 rooms of books. And this is not a nicely connected 32 rooms. I have been lost in there! It’s like a rabbit warren for bibliophiles.

There is, of course, more. I do feel compelled to add that the Columbus Metropolitan Library is the best library in the country, and is gorgeous to boot, so you might want to stop in there while you’re here. We also have pro sports teams and great music venues. Nice hotels and cute bed and breakfasts. And it’s not extraordinarily expensive. Convinced? If you are interested in checking Columbus out, please explore experiencecolumbus.com. Then call me up when you get here.

Rachel Rubin would happily show you around town and take you to her favorite old-school Italian restaurant, The Florentine.

Hypertext Markup Disaster

January 16th, 2006

While I’m pretty much an internet fiend — I’ve got a blog along with another site, accounts with del.icio.us and Flickr, probably over a hundred RSS feeds in my newsreader, and, heck, I even write for a web zine — however, I’ve never really gotten into social software, as it’s known. I missed out on Friendster and Orkut, albeit through abstention and not ignorance or laziness. After hearing from my friends for several weeks last year about Facebook.com, I finally signed up and have enjoyed the service for various reasons since. The really big thing these days in online networking, though, is MySpace. Basically, MySpace is whatever you want it to be. The service can provide a blog, a profile describing your interests, a friends list, storage and display of personal pictures, comments from your friends, and more or less anything you can imagine on a web page. It’s free, relatively easy to sign up for, supposedly generates more traffic than Google, and boasts a mind-boggling 48.9 million users. They’ll probably break fifty million by the time you read this.

This fall the marketing department at Grist Magazine, a publication that I work for, was discussing new and exciting ways we could get our name out there to the young and exciting demographic that everyone’s after these days. At first when MySpace was suggested, I was kind of excited about putting together a profile for Grist and spending work hours looking for people who’d be interested in our environmental news coverage. Not wanting to make foolish mistakes, we decided to test the online networking waters at Tribe.net, MySpace’s poorer, much less popular cousin. It didn’t take long, though, to realize that MySpace was where the real action would be, so we signed up, got a password, and started searching for friends.

Big mistake! That’s not to say that every profile is hideous — in fact, many are fairly simple, straightforward and polite, effectively communicating that the user is new to MySpace and that he or she is looking for online friends. But, then, sooner or later, the ugliness starts in. Before things get too heated, though, allow me to state as a disclaimer that I harbor no real ill will toward any members of the MySpace community, and indeed feel that the proliferation of atrocious web design therein lies with the service’s owners and not the individual users.

That said, where to begin? Perhaps with one profile I viewed that was a complete layout disaster. Most immediately apparent, depending on your screen resolution, is the fact that the page is designed 1280 pixels wide, meaning that on a traditional 1024x768 screen it’s impossible to view the entire width of the page at once, leaving the viewer immediately frustrated. Next the user realizes that, unfortunately, the font color is very similar to that of the background image, resulting in unreadable type that needs to be scrolled up and down multiple times to render all of the text legible. With a few clicks of the down arrow the poor visitor is confronted that notorious web design gimmick, the enormous animated text image. A blinking, sparkling, outrageous “Welcome” sign is, in the end, probably not the most welcoming element to add to a webpage, especially not for potential visitors with epileptic proclivities. Compounding the already formidable eye strain is the loathsome size-shifting links. Hover over any hyperlink on the page and you’ll quickly realize how much harder it is to read a block of pink-on-pink text when the words are constantly changing positions whenever the mouse pointer glides over an underlined passage.

What’s more, you may be surprised that the above example does not even include any of the most intrusive features available to MySpace users. It’s possible to include auto-playing music, video, or even the dreaded blinking background, any of which make tabbed browsing a sensory nightmare on a fast computer, and a one-way ticket to processor lock-up for those with older machines.

One name you will come to loathe quickly on MySpace is that of Thomas, as in “I edited my profile with Thomas’ MySpace Editor V3.6!” The infamous Thomas, along with many others, has capitalized on MySpace’s confusing yet easily manipulable settings (just throw some HTML tags in your About Me section) by offering exportable code based on a number of drop-down menu options. Of course, with no preview or advice, it’s next to impossible to click through thirty size and color options with any idea of how your page is going to look in the end.

Like most sensible people, I’d assured myself that pink polka dotted backgrounds and gigantic flashing titles had gone out along with Angelfire sites and dial-up modems. A lot of press has been devoted to how blogging has democratized the media but, along with increased use of cascading stylesheets, it’s also done wonders for the aesthetic pleasure of the everyday personal website. It seems MySpace has decided to give back the power of total creative control to their users while failing to provide any guidance at all in helping them to design their pages, thereby ushering in a frightening new age of web-based aesthetic catastrophes. God help us all.

Andy Slabaugh (http://andyslabaugh.blogspot.com) has previously complained about cell phones and instant messaging.