Current Issues

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  Music  /  PotD
Shoveling Through Another Monday
May 23, 2016
charles i. letbetter - shoveling through another monday

Cleaning your house while your kids are still growing up is like shoveling the walk before it stops snowing. —Phyllis Diller

 

charles i. letbetter - shoveling through another Monday

When you’ve had such a good weekend, why does the universe feel the need to ruin that with a Monday?

Shoveling through digital tons of information seems to be the modern equivalent of going into work on a Monday morning and finding your inbox stacked five feet high. I have a feeling only government offices still use actual inboxes, given their penchant for wasting paper, but most everyone going to work today is going to find one of their first tasks to be shoveling their way through the detritus whether that be actual bottles left from consumed beverages or mountains of information that were blissfully ignored. Perhaps, like me, you have plenty of both.

I think one of the first things needing to be removed from the pile and set to the side is the fact that Canadian driver James Hinchcliffe won the pole position for the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500. I know most of the people reading this couldn’t care less about the 500, but what makes this story worth shoveling out of the pile is that one year ago today, the day after qualifying, Hinchcliff crashed into Turn 3, right here in my backyard, and nearly bled to death. With head and spinal cord injuries, it is amazing that he is even driving a golf cart, let alone rounding the 2.5-mile oval at speeds averaging 230.760 miles per hour. The strength and determination required to pull off this kind of comeback should be inspiring for a Monday morning.

Apparently the Billboard Music Awards were last night. I didn’t watch them, but if we’re shoveling we probably want to include this in the save pile somewhere. I can’t say anything authoritative, since I was sound asleep through most of it, but Billboard has posted their choices for 10 best performances of the night. Apparently Madonna did a tribute to Prince, Celine Dion sang in tribute to her late husband, René Angélil, and Britney Spears performed a tribute to herself. Or something like that. I do know that you should probably avoid the comments section of any performance you might see. The trolls were out in force last night and spread their hate and nonsense across the whole show.

Did you know that the used sneaker market nets over $1 billion annually? WTF? I thought it was strange when a “vintage” sneaker store popped up in a local mall a couple of years ago, but the number of people collecting limited release shoes has grown into a full-fledged part of the fashion industry. Does it make a lick of sense? Not really, but it does make for great conversation. Oh, and before you go shoveling your old sneakers out of your closet, one of the conditions to keeping the prices on these shoes stupidly high is that they’ve not actually been worn. Business Insider has a great piece on the industry. People who spend this much on shoes they can’t wear have no room to be making fun of geeks who buy toys they’ll never play with.

For those of you who enjoy shoveling politics, especially if you are my age or older, you’re going to either love or hate or love to hate this next one: The US is getting cozy again with Vietnam. Let that sink in a minute. During his visit there yesterday, President Obama announced the lifting of a decades-old arms embargo to the island nation where so many thousands of troops died in the one war the United States unquestionably lost. There’s a good, or at least understandable, reason for the move, though: China’s getting feisty in the region. While the President denies such reasoning on an official basis, Vietnam has been rather public in its concern regarding how China has been throwing its weight around in the South China Sea. Specifically, with island bases encroaching ever closer, China could send planes from one of those islands and bomb Hanoi in less than an hour. Vietnam is scared and we’ve seen this before. Be concerned.

Finally, today is #WorldTurtleDay. In the never-ending stream of special days and tributes, this is one that doesn’t annoy us quite as much. I mean, who can get angry about a turtle. In fact, I’m guessing a lot of us resemble turtles with the pace we’re moving today. These are some of the longest-living creatures on the planet, though. If moving a little (or a lot) slower is the key to a happy and longer life, then maybe we should start paying attention to the lessons they have to teach. Turtles are incredibly cool, even if they aren’t mutant teenagers chomping down on pizza.

Most of what I’m seeing this morning deserves to be shoveled right into the dumpster. There is an incredible amount of meaningless noise that serves no other purpose than to be a distraction. Shoveling to bulk out of the way is our best hope of sorting out what’s really important. I won’t say that it will make your Monday any better. Some of what I’m seeing rather sucks if one is deep in the stock market or heavily involved in retail. Still, just getting rid of the piles of stuff at least creates the illusion that you’re doing work or something like that.

With all that comes at you today, just keep shoveling and try to not throw out your back in the process.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD  /  Social Commentary
Fair Doesn’t Get Personal
May 22, 2016
charles i. letbetter - fair isn't personal

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made. —Groucho Marx

 

charles i. letbetter - fair doesnt get personal

Complaining about life not being fair is immoral when you’re already so close to the top.

I could be very frank with you and say that life isn’t fair. Ever. I could end this article here and go back to bed, which sounds so very tempting. But to do that would be missing the entire point this morning. You already know life isn’t fair. You feel how unfair life is everytime the car doesn’t start, or someone else gets the girl, or the baby throws up on you just as you’re about to walk out the door. You don’t need me to tell you that life isn’t fair. What I want you to hear this morning is that nothing to do with fairness, the good, the bad, or the indifferent, is personal. The universe is not picking on you.

From the earliest point in our lives, we look for fairness. If we see a child with a lollipop, we want a lollipop. If one of our classmates has new shoes, we think we deserve new shoes  as well. Someone gets paid a given amount for a certain job, we think it’s only fair that everyone be paid the same amount for the same job. This concept of what is fair seems to be universal. Even monkeys understand equal pay for equal work. We want everything in our lives to be fair, or so we say.

The fact is, if you’re living in the United States, Canada, or most of Western Europe, the scales are already tipped in your favor. Those little inconveniences you consider unfair are little more than a minor balancing of the universal measure of right and wrong, and chances are you’re still coming out much better than the vast majority of  people. Consider some of the following comparisons:

Why? What’s fair isn’t a personal thing. Shit happens on a universal basis. There’s no cosmic calculator that is keeping tabs on the number of good things you get versus the bad. There’s no mystical figure in the sky or below the earth who is waiting to reward you for being nice, or punish you for being a total bitch. Instead, what we consider to be fairness has more to do with where on the planet you were born, whether your parents were (comparatively) rich, and whether you had the opportunity to go to school. If you had those things, life is likely to be overly fair to you. If you were born with those factors against you, life is more likely to feel like the bottom of a global shithole.

Whether you want to admit it or not, if you were born in the US, regardless of any other factor, life for you is more fair than 85% of the rest of the world. Here’s another list:

  • While you complain about slow internet speeds or lack of wifi in a given location, 60% of the world still has no internet service at all.
  • When you complain about the long wait times at the doctor’s office, consider that 27% of the world’s population has no access to modern healthcare at all.
  • If you are tempted to complain about your job, remember that over 200 million people around the world have no job and few prospects for ever getting one.
  • Before you gripe about the assembly instructions being in more than one language, know that 750 million people in the world can’t read at all.
  • As you’re complaining about the slow service at that restaurant, over 795 million people will go hungry today. Most of those will go hungry tomorrow as well.

Are any of those statistics in any way fair? What is fair about children in one part of the world sleeping soundly at night while those in a different region huddle together in fear as they listen to bombs falling around them? What is fair about women in Africa walking multiple miles each day to collect water when all you do is turn a tap and then complain because you don’t like the way it tastes?

In the past week, I’ve heard people complain that they didn’t think it fair that someone was prettier, someone had bigger boobs, someone had a better spouse, someone had a better job, someone had a bigger house. Each one of those people specifically said they didn’t think their current condition was fair.

I don’t think the real problem is one of fairness at all. Life isn’t treating you mean, the universe doesn’t have a target attached to your forehead. You’re just greedy, and perhaps lacking in perspective. Your desire for more blocks your ability to see just how much you already have.

Life is treating you just fine. So not every little detail goes your way. So someone else gets the promotion at work. So Brad Pitt will still be hotter than me even when he’s 98.

You’re alive. That’s fair.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Social Commentary  /  video
Fitness And Sex
May 19, 2016
charles i. letbetter - fitness and sex

Our growing softness, our increasing lack of physical fitness, is a menace to our security. —John F. Kennedy

 

charles i. letbetter - fitness and sex

You know you need to exercise, fitness just hasn’t been any fun, until now

Look at the quote above and who made it and we realize that, for the most part, the current American citizenry has never been in the best of shape, and despite numerous fitness crazes we’ve only gotten fatter. This is especially true if one lives in the Midwest, and if one lives in Indianapolis specifically, we’re more out of shape than anyone.

No, I’m not kidding. The American Fitness Index report was released this week and of the 50 US cities surveyed, Indianapolis comes in dead last. This is really bad. Look at this list of areas where we are failing:

Improvement Priority Areas (worse than 20% of target goal): • Lower percent meeting CDC aerobic activity guidelines • Lower percent meeting both CDC aerobic and strength activity guidelines • Lower percent consuming 2+ fruits per day • Lower percent consuming 3+ vegetables per day • Higher percent currently smoking • Higher percent obese • Lower percent in excellent or very good health • Higher percent of days when physical health was not good during the past 30 days • Higher percent of days when mental health was not good during the past 30 days • Higher percent with asthma • Higher percent with angina or coronary heart disease • Higher percent with diabetes • Lower percent of city land area as parkland • Fewer acres of parkland per capita • Lower percent using public transportation to work • Lower percent bicycling or walking to work • Lower Walk Score® • Lower percent of population within a 10 minute walk to a park • Fewer ball diamonds per capita • Fewer dog parks per capita • Fewer park playgrounds per capita • Fewer park units per capita • Fewer recreation centers per capita • Fewer tennis courts per capita • Lower park-related expenditures per capita

Just the size of that list should be enough for us to realize that we have a lot of work to do if we’re going to improve our situation. There is one measure not on the list, though, and it may be the one that gives us a chance to redeem our fat selves: sex. You’re reading that correctly, we might very well be able to sex ourselves into good health. Or, if not good health, at least something less likely to end up in the cardiac ward of your neighborhood hospital.

How is this possible, you ask? The folks behind your favorite porn site, PornHub, have created a new program with you in mind: Bangfit. No, I’m still not kidding. We’re totally wearing our serious face here. This is a legitimate fitness program, or, at least, an attempt at one. Here, watch this surprisingly safe-for-work video that explains the whole thing:

https://youtu.be/DUFjNiusLEw

Okay, so that’s at least the way the thing is supposed to work. I wouldn’t be posting this if I hadn’t checked the thing out for myself and, uhm, … it’s not working. This may be due to the fact that dozens of online magazines and sources reported about the site yesterday and their servers are now totally overloaded; that’s what I’m guessing. When I first tried accessing the web page, it timed out. When I tried about five minutes later, I got the site, but none of the links worked. When I pull up the site on my phone, it asks for a specific code to sync my phone, which is supposed to track my “activity,” with the computer, which is supposed to provide “instruction.” That doesn’t always happen, though. When the sight finally DID work, the lag between clicking a link and seeing any result was rather slow.

In theory, the premise should be correct. Sexual activity should provide serious fitness advantages, especially when done on a regular basis. I’m seeing some problems with the reality of the concept, though.

  1. For there to be any fitness advantage, the sex is going to have to last more than five minutes. C’mon guys, you know damn good and well how rarely that happens. You’re going to have to work on your stamina.
  2. No one is that regular with their sex lives, at least, not if you’re using a partner. The program has the single-person option, of course, which is also likely to be the most popular. But the real fitness comes from the couples play and very few couples manage to make daily sex a reality.
  3. The product is still in beta, so there are still some glitches and not all features are present. For example, only three settings are currently offered: single, couple, and threesome (in your dreams).
  4. The scoring system relies on your phone being attached to your hip in some way and measures your movement accordingly. So, depending on the position, one person might get more of a workout than the other. I also found I was able to adjust my fitness score simply by shaking my phone.
  5. Really cheezy porn from Brazzers plays on your computer while you’re “exercising.” Maybe you like cheezy porn. I’m sure someone does … somewhere.

I do encourage you to give it a try for yourself. Who knows, maybe we can start having group “fitness” parties! Of course, there are the necessary caveats. Check with your doctor to see if your heart is healthy enough for sex (mine always looks at me funny when I ask that question). Be sure to stretch, hydrate, and all that other pre-workout stuff fitness people do. Don’t forget to use appropriate safeguards such as condoms and birth control unless you really, really want an excuse for never working out again.

Sex fitness really isn’t a bad idea, and may be just the thing to help Indianapolis get off its unhealthy and flabby ass. I see a lot of people clicking on the single user option, though. Out of shape people aren’t going to find workout partners for this program too easily. So, good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Social Commentary
Drug Policy Fails Again
May 17, 2016

Caffeine. The gateway drug. —Eddie Vedder

 

charles i. letbetter - drug policy fails. again.

We’ve known for some time that our nation’s drug policy is out of whack, but now we see other negative aspects affecting a broader range

I should probably clarify, since this article is likely to catch the attention of someone somewhere in the bowels of law enforcement:  Neither of the pictures shown here depicts a person smoking any illegal substance. I do not have such a photograph anywhere in my catalog. While I’ve known, and continue to be closely acquainted with, a large number of people who do engage in the use of inappropriately controlled substances, I am too keenly aware of colleagues who have photographed such only to have members of law enforcement come along and confiscate all their equipment and computers as “evidence.” While such contrived bullying is remedied in court, I can do without the disruption.

That being said, imagine a world where no creative person ever consumed any form of drug. Music from the 50s onward would be dreadful. Art from at least the 18th century forward would be flat and meaningless. Literature is a little more difficult to track, but certainly from the 1930s and beyond drugs participated heavily in the creative process. Drug use among creatives spans centuries, not decades, and one can make a reasonably accurate argument that much of what we know as fine arts would either not have existed at all or, at the very least, would not have been of equal quality were it not for the influence of various substances along the way.

One might think that our nation’s brief period of alcohol prohibition, from 1920-1933, would have taught us that outlawing popular mood and personality altering substances doesn’t work. Everyone gave it a valiant try, but it failed. The difference between then and now is that, upon recognizing the failure, the law was not merely changed, but the entire Constitution re-amended. For some reason, however, our current crop of politicians have yet to learn that lesson, even though reversing the failed drug policies of today would be much more simple.

As a result, the New York Times reports this morning that mandatory drug-testing is making it difficult to find employees. One employer recounted an instance where hundreds of people were attending a job fair the company was holding. When the company announced that all new hires would have to pass a drug screen, over half left. Mind you, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t have passed the piss test. Of the 9.1 million employment mandated drug tests administered in 2014, only 0.38 percent came back positive, the greater majority of those being for casual marijuana use. Drug testing does not increase productivity or make people more creative. If anything, workplace drug tests are a complete waste of both time and money.

What is mystifying is that while none of this is new information, we still have not done anything on a federal level to solve the problem.

Okay, I’ll admit, the past 12 years the U.S. Congress has failed to solve any problems, so we already know where a great deal of the bottleneck is.

Still, given the travesty of marijuana-based mass incarceration, and the numerous studies showing that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol,  one would think that we would have more than two states who have completely legalized the drug, and more that would have adopted a more sensible approach to other drug use. Can someone explain to me why we’re still putting up with this bullshit?

I could post pages upon pages of facts and figures regarding the failure of our current drug policy, but what has to happen is for people to get behind a sensible replacement; something that would address legitimate problems without making criminals of a third of the population (higher if you’re black or Hispanic). Here’s what a reasonable drug policy needs:

  • Complete declassification of marijuana as an illicit drug and reclassification as a medicinal herb.
  • Elimination of all workplace drug testing with the exception of those involved in public transportation and the use of heavy machinery. Even there, disqualification for marijuana use should not be immediate but subject to treatment and review.
  • Personal use of cocaine and opioids would not be a criminal offense but would require mandatory treatment with regular follow-up.
  • Misuse of prescription medicines, including over-prescribing and misprescribing on the part of medical professionals would receive greater penalties. Pharmacists would have the ability to halt and/or question new prescriptions known to conflict with existing medications or where prescribed dosage is deemed unsafe, without any repercussion.
  • Psychiatric and addiction treatment for drug, tobacco, and alcohol use would be covered under all major medical health insurance policies.

There is no excuse for us continuing to support such an obviously failed prohibition policy. Change only happens if we make it happen. Tell your legislator now. We need a better drug policy.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  Mythology  /  pop culture
Modesty Doesn’t Become You
May 16, 2016
charles i. letbetter - modesty doesn't become you

It is strange that modesty is the rule for women when what they most value in men is boldness. —Ninon de L’Enclos

 

charles i. letebetter - modesty doesn't become you

Modesty should never be a mandate, but only a personal choice for those who understand their own power

Modesty is a topic that tends to get my dander up, so to speak, because I see it misapplied and inappropriately mandated and used as a bullying weapon far too often. Modesty has been used to shame, to subjugate, to imprison, and to deny rights to women for centuries and that we continue to put up with such nonsense leaves me angry. There are three specific instances that are raising my blood pressure this morning, even though not all recent.

In fact, the first happened a couple of months ago. Kat, as you may or may not have noticed, has relatively small breasts. We’re both cool with that. They have their advantages, one being that she doesn’t typically need to wear a bra. In some cases, wearing a bra can even be painful. So, she doesn’t. However, during a performance review at work a couple of months ago, she discovered that one of her co-workers, not a client or anyone of authority, but a co-worker had complained that sometimes the shape of Kat’s nipples are visible beneath her clothing. Normally, we call such an attitude petty and let it go.

Then, this past Saturday, KTLA meteorologist Liberté Chan was going through the morning weather report when morning news anchor Chris Burrous, a man whose own hair style was stolen from a 1950s evangelist, handed her a sweater during the live broadcast because, “we’re getting emails.” This is just so incredibly foul one has to see it for it to be believed.

https://youtu.be/NuhXbGwcUwo

Chan, who know that those who complain lose their jobs, laughed off the whole episode and Burrous later apologized, but neither is sufficient to excuse both the behavior and the reasoning behind it.

Finally, we published an article yesterday, Life Isn’t That Bad, and shared it with a few friends who expressed feeling a little hopeless about all the bad news in the world. In one instance, a woman, who is not a mutual acquaintance, commented: “Smart message. Terrible blouse.” I had to drop back and take a look at the article. I chose yesterday’s imagery because of Ella’s smile, not what she was wearing. Turns out, she’s wearing a sweater, not a blouse, and had chosen to leave it unbuttoned, daring to show some cleavage.

Modesty is a big thing among many religious zealots and in certain parts of conservative culture as a whole. Some entire countries demand that women dress modestly and provide for severe punishment if they don’t. Even the Puritans who inhabited the English settlement at Jamestown held some pretty tyrannical views. Mandatory modesty is global and a part of everyday life for many.

There’s just one HUGE problem with all this forced modesty: Everywhere you see it, without exception, it is being done in an attempt to shame, dominate, subjugate, and objectify women. Women are not told to cover up because doing so empowers them. Women are not told to be modest because it gives them more authority. Women are not told to be modest because it helps their voice to be heard.

No, women are told to be modest because they are “distracting,” which demeans them to being nothing more than shiny, pretty objects. Women are told to be modest because their dress style is “inappropriate,” which means someone is shaming them. Women are told to be modest because “only your husband should see you like that,” which is both dominating and subjugating. Every time women are told to be modest, in inference is that they are doing something wrong, even if all they are doing is existing.

What especially sickens me is that this disempowering nonsense is being taught to young girls from the moment they first learn to dress. There is an absolutely disgusting movement among conservative evangelicals called Secret Keepers. I was concerned the moment I heard the name, because keeping secrets is a tool used by rapists, specifically child molesters who are trying to keep their victims silent. “Secret Keepers” immediately sounds to me a group of children who have been molested. What it is, though, is a movement designed to impress girls as young as eight years old with the concept that their bodies are not their own and that modesty helps keep them “pure” for their eventual husbands. Get a load of some of their nonsense:

Bellies are very intoxicating and we need to save that for our husbands!

Lean forward a little bit. Can you see too much chest or future cleavage? Your shirt is too low.

It all depends on whether God has chosen to bless you with breasts or not.

There you go. Already, girls are being told that not only are their bodies not their own, but that they are little more than objects to be possessed by husbands and that their budding sexuality is distracting. Where this leads, ultimately, is the concept that victims are responsible for their own rape. They were “asking for it” because of how they dressed, or how they walked, or how they otherwise were sufficiently immodest.

We already have more than enough trouble combating the pervasive rape culture that has dominated our society for centuries. Women everywhere need to know that they can wear whatever they hell they want, where and whenever they wish, without being placed in physical danger. Women, and young girls, need to know that they can stand up for themselves and their ideals without the threat of violence against them.

Furthermore, women need to know that they, at the very least, have the same right to be dominant, to be forceful, to be bold, to be adventurous as any man who ever lived. If that boldness means one needs to take off their shirt to make a point, go for it. There is absolutely NO reason women should be shamed for doing exactly the same thing that we encourage men and boys to do.

I know there are already countless articles on this topic all over the Internet, so I won’t go on at length. Those were just the things stuck in my craw this morning.

Ultimately, though, I’m looking forward to the day we can view something like the video below as just another weather forecast. Fair warning, if you’re viewing this at work you probably do not want to scroll down.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Mythology  /  PotD
If Puritans Were Treated Like Muslims
May 16, 2016
charles i. letbetter - if puritans were treated like muslims

All too many Muslims fail to grasp Islam, which teaches one to be lenient towards others and to understand their value systems, knowing that these are tolerated by Islam as a religion. —Abdurrahman Wahid

 

charles i. letbetter - if puritans were treated like muslims

What if Native Tribes were as xenophobic toward Puritans as Americans today are toward Muslims?

xen·o·pho·bi·a

[ˌzenəˈfōbēə, ˌzēnəˈfōbēə]

NOUN

  1. intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.

America, we have a problem. The name of that problem is xenophobia. We can no longer ignore our problem. We can no longer tolerate the blatant and distasteful exhibition of our problem. We need to address this matter head on and put it to an end. Muslims are not inherently bad. Immigrants are not inherently bad. Believing that they are is not American and is not acceptable in an intelligent and progressive society.

I realize that these are tough words to start on a Monday morning, but we need the focus and determination that Mondays provide. Xenophobia has gotten out of control and needs to be stopped.

A prime example of xenophobia was made public in court documents last Friday when it was revealed that a North Carolina man (why is it always the Carolinas?) on a Southwest Airlines flight decided he needed to rip the hijab off a Muslim woman and scream, “Take it off! This is America!” The man was convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, but this is just one small symptom of a wider disease.

After reading of this account, I began to wonder: What would have happened if native tribespeople had been xenophobic toward the Puritan separatists that landed at Plymouth in 1620? We know the Powhatan tribe that initially encountered these strangely dressed white people were suspicious, and they had good cause to be. European-based diseases left behind by Columbus and his crew had already made their way up the East coast from Florida and were wiping out millions of native peoples. In fact, some have wondered that, had the tribes not been decimated by disease, they might not have been willing to tolerate the newcomers at all.

When we think about it a bit, one can see similarities between how the Powhatan might have viewed the Puritans compared to how many people today view Muslims.

  • The Puritan separatists who followed William Bradford were refugees. They were considered traitors in England and unwelcome rabble rousers most everywhere else in Europe. Only the very liberal Holland offered to take them in, and Bradford found the social structure there too “ungodly” for his brand of religious extremism. They had nowhere else to go. Many Muslims know exactly how that feels.
  • Puritan women dressed funny, at least in the eyes of the Powhatan. Puritans were very concerned about modesty and a woman could be imprisoned, whipped, and even killed for dressing immodestly.  Puritan women wore no fewer than ten different pieces of clothing and having too few petticoats or not covering her head in public was considered scandalous. For native peoples looking on wearing little more than deer skin, such costuming certainly seemed ridiculous. Similarly, few Americans today understand why Muslim women dress so modestly.
  • Puritan women had no rights; they were considered the property of their husbands. They could not own property or speak in church, and they dare not challenge their husbands. Native peoples who respected and elevated women found this treatment quite strange, just as modern Americans find the different relationships of some (not all) Muslims to be unusual.
  • Puritans had a strange religion that native peoples did not understand. Native tribes were spiritual to be sure, but they saw their deities as benevolent whereas the god these Puritans worshiped was fearful and angry. Likewise, large numbers of Americans view Islam and any other non-Christian religion as “strange” and some would even deny Muslims the right to worship openly.
  • Puritans didn’t speak the native language. Communication was difficult and challenging. Muslims and other immigrants struggle with English now. Is there really any difference?

The similarities between the Puritan separatists we know as Pilgrims and modern Muslims immigrating to these same shores is striking. Both chased from the lands of their birth, neither understood, both disadvantaged, and both trying to hold true to their spiritual beliefs while surrounded by a people and culture that did not and does not understand them.

What if the response of the Powhatan had been to turn Bradford and his followers away? Certainly, there were more than a few opportunities to completely wipe out these pale settlers and be rid of them. What if the tribes had decided to build walls, fencing the pilgrims off and limiting their access to food and water?  Perhaps the Powhatan might have forced the immigrants to learn their language. If so, we might all be speaking Algonquian languages now.

Had the Powhatan been as xenophobic as we’ve become, we would not be the country we are now. While speculating on how we might have developed is futile, the willingness of the tribes to tolerate those early religious refugees in the strange clothes, to the point of the tribes’ own doom, was critical in shaping what we have become.

In his commencement address at Rutgers University this past weekend, President Obama addressed the problem of xenophobia in our country.

Isolating or disparaging Muslims, suggesting that they should be treated differently when it comes to entering this country. That is not just a betrayal of our values. That’s not just a betrayal of who were are — it would alienate the communities at home and abroad who are our most important partners in the fight against violent extremism. Suggesting that we can build an endless a wall along our borders and blame our challenges on immigrants — that doesn’t just run counter to our history as the world’s melting pot. It contradicts the evidence that our growth and our innovation and our dynamism has always been driven by our ability to attract strivers from other parts of the globe. That’s how we became America — why would we want to stop it now?

[You can read the full text of President Obama’s address here or watch it here.]

If we are going to continue to be the America we think we are, if we are going to continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, if we are going to continue to be the world’s leaders in economics and innovation and science and discovery, then we cannot tolerate xenophobia within our ranks. We must challenge those who speak disparagingly against immigrants, against those who do not speak English, against those who think we must all be Christian, and against those who would turn people away and erect walls along our borders. We must embrace those who are fleeing from political and religious persecution. We must welcome those who come in search of hope. We must put our arms around those looking for the success we have already found.

We cannot live in fear, any fear, whether it is fear of Muslims or Jews or Hindu or Southern Baptists. We cannot live fearing people who arrive on our shores from Syria, Honduras, Mexico, or Guatemala. We cannot live in fear of change, of different cultures, languages, and styles of dress.

We are Americans, damnit. Fear has no place here. Stand up and welcome them to their new home, just like the Powhatan did for a bunch of sea-weary religious extremists in 1620.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Life Isn’t That Bad
May 15, 2016
charles i. letbetter - life isn't that bad

We are here to add what we can to life, not to get what we can from life. —William Osler

 

charels i. letbetter - life isn't that bad

Life isn’t nearly as bad as we think. Maybe we should start looking at the positive a little more often.

“You know what your problem is? You can’t see the good because you’re too busy complaining about the bad.”

I wish I could remember the name of the woman who said that to me several years ago. She was a mid-level executive at an ad firm. We were sitting in a creative meeting and I thought I was just being realistic about everything. People have less buying power. The middle class is only buying what it needs. Discrimination is rampant. She was finally fed up with the negativity I spewing and called me on it. She also knew I didn’t have the numbers to back up my claims. Why? Because those numbers haven’t existed for decades.

As a nation, we have a habit of believing the worst, even when there is no real evidence to support it. Gregg Easterbrook first published his book, The Progress Paradox, in 2004. His thesis is that while life has gotten better for almost everyone in the Western world, we actually feel worse about our lives. He draws on three decades of research to make his point, and then dares to suggest that we need more optimism, affirmation, and forgiveness in our lives. No one listened.

Mr. Easterbrook was back this past week with an OpEd piece in the New York Times, “When Did Optimism Become Uncool?” He takes on the notion that mainstream politicians in both parties have convinced us that life is horrible, that it has been horrible a long time, and that the only way to fix it is to elect them to office. He then calls them all liars.

Why? Because they’re not telling us the truth. When one looks at the numbers, we’re much better off than we think. Consider some of the little details he tosses out (based on real research, mind you):

  • Job growth has been strong for five years
  • Unemployment is the lowest it’s been since the Clinton administration
  • The American economy is the largest in the world, more than China and Japan combined
  • American workers are seven times more productive, per capita, than Chinese citizens
  • Pollution, crime, and most diseases are in extended periods of decline
  •  Living standards, education, and longevity are all up
  • The US military is the strongest ever
  • Middle-class buying power is up thirty-six percent in the current generation
  • American industrial output is nearly double what it was during the Reagan administration
  • Only 10 % of humanity lives in extreme poverty; in 1990, that number was 37%

We are, in anything, afraid of being optimistic? Why? Because we don’t think optimism moves agendas and we all have our fucking agendas. We have this incorrect notion that to get increased funding to study the economic benefits of alternative power that we must first create a doomsday scenario to justify the study. The fact that it would save money and increase efficiency and make everyone’s lives better isn’t enough of a selling point. If we want to encourage domestic investment in manufacturing, we make up some story about losing jobs to China. Sorry, there is ZERO evidence to support that claim. Instead, we’re ignoring the fact that modern manufacturing doesn’t require as many on-floor employees as it did even twenty years ago. US Manufacturing is on the rise, it just doesn’t take all that many people to do it.

We are, collectively, full of negative bullshit. Even worse, we enjoy spreading negative bullshit across social media. One reasonably popular pop singer had her Twitter account suspended this past week after she went on a number of distasteful rants. We see something negative and use it to bludgeon what we see as the ideological enemy; things are bad and it’s their fault.

Did you know that, despite all the negative talk by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the United States still leads the world in science, engineering, business innovation, and every area of creativity, including the arts? What about the fact that, even including 9/11, Americans are still five times more likely to be struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist? Yet, only 26 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction the country is going. What, you want things to get worse?

That is not to say we don’t have our problems. Life could be better I mean, how fucking long as we going to keep talking about bathrooms, already? Drop it. There never was a problem there. Transgender people have been using the restroom with which they identify longer than any of you have been alive and there are no incidents of any kind of inappropriate activity. Let it go, or I’m sending in Elsa with her lesbian lover. And yes, we could be doing a lot better with matters of racism, but those would be severely diminished if we would simply learn to show some respect to each other rather than looking at everyone as the enemy. We are at a point where we are so committed to being miserable that we’re making up things to be pissed about.

Life really isn’t all that bad. In fact, this is a pretty fantastic time to be alive. Mr. Easterbrook uses a quote from Warren Buffet’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders that has been fairly popular. I  think context is important, so let’s look at the whole of that part of Buffet’s statement:

It’s an election year, and candidates can’t stop speaking about our country’s problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do.

That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.

American GDP per capita is now about $56,000. As I mentioned last year that – in real terms – is a staggering six times the amount in 1930, the year I was born, a leap far beyond the wildest dreams of my parents or their contemporaries. U.S. citizens are not intrinsically more intelligent today, nor do they work harder than did Americans in 1930. Rather, they work far more efficiently and thereby produce far more. This all-powerful trend is certain to continue: America’s economic magic remains alive and well.

Some commentators bemoan our current 2% per year growth in real GDP – and, yes, we would all like to see a higher rate. But let’s do some simple math using the much-lamented 2% figure. That rate, we will see, delivers astounding gains.

America’s population is growing about .8% per year (.5% from births minus deaths and .3% from net migration). Thus 2% of overall growth produces about 1.2% of per capita growth. That may not sound impressive. But in a single generation of, say, 25 years, that rate of growth leads to a gain of 34.4% in real GDP per capita. (Compounding’s effects produce the excess over the percentage that would result by simply multiplying 25 x 1.2%.) In turn, that 34.4% gain will produce a staggering $19,000 increase in real GDP per capita for the next generation. Were that to be distributed equally, the gain would be $76,000 annually for a family of four. Today’s politicians need not shed tears for tomorrow’s children. Indeed, most of today’s children are doing well. All families in my upper middle-class neighborhood regularly enjoy a living standard better than that achieved by John D. Rockefeller Sr. at the time of my birth. His unparalleled fortune couldn’t buy what we now take for granted, whether the field is – to name just a few – transportation, entertainment, communication or medical services. Rockefeller certainly had power and fame; he could not, however, live as well as my neighbors now do.

Indeed, most of today’s children are doing well. All families in my upper middle-class neighborhood regularly enjoy a living standard better than that achieved by John D. Rockefeller Sr. at the time of my birth. His unparalleled fortune couldn’t buy what we now take for granted, whether the field is – to name just a few – transportation, entertainment, communication or medical services. Rockefeller certainly had power and fame; he could not, however, live as well as my neighbors now do.

…

For 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. America’s golden goose of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs. America’s social security promises will be honored and perhaps made more generous. And, yes, America’s kids will live far better than their parents did.

See? Life really isn’t all that bad. In fact, it’s pretty wonderful. Perhaps we should start being more appreciative of what we have, taking a more optimistic look at the future, and build together for the common good, not because we fear the world is about to fall apart.

Be happy.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD  /  Social Commentary
When Good Judgement Matters
May 12, 2016
charles i. letbetter - when good judgement matters

Property may be destroyed and money may lose its purchasing power; but, character, health, knowledge and good judgement will always be in demand under all conditions. —Roger Babson

 

charles i. letbetter - when good judgement matters

We don’t always exercise good judgement, and for many that’s okay, but for a few such errors are unforgivable

We all make errors in judgement; most are not terribly big and their impact does not extend beyond ourselves. No big deal, right? We learn our lesson and, more often than not, avoid making the same mistake again.

Other times, though, those errors in judgement are more critical. For a photographer, they most often come down to whether or not we take a specific shot. We don’t always have time to mull over the consequences or poll all the parties involved. You see something happening, something you know is significant, and you have to make a decision. Now. Without consultation. It is in those moments that character and good judgement matter.

While we can excuse ourselves, and each other, of momentary lapses in judgement, we expect more from our world’s leaders. In fact, good judgement and character are two of the most fundamental characteristics we typically demand of anyone holding public office. Being a leader inherently involves making decisions under pressure, using careful diplomacy and selecting just the right vocabulary without implying undue aggression. Without some manner of care and good judgement, we could easily find ourselves in conflicts we could easily lose.

Consider the kerfluffle currently surrounding the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Normally a very careful person, she is typically aware that any statement she makes publicly is likely to be dissected differently by everyone listening.  Apparently, though, her personal opinions don’t always match her official statements. At least, that seems to be the case as she was recorded being critical of Chinese diplomats during their visit to Great Britain last year. The circumstances, a garden party at Buckingham Palace, in a light rain, were such that the queen quite likely was not aware that she was being recorded. When she agrees with a senior police officer that the behaviour of the Chinese toward British ambassador Barbara Woodward was rude, the whole world took notice. As small and unassuming a statement as it was, made in what was assumed to be a private conversation, the result could have long-term detrimental effect on  UK-Chinese relations.

That’s not the only matter of judgement that has blown up in the face of our British friends of late. Just prior to an international summit in London on political corruption in government, Prime Minister David Cameron was heard telling Queen Elizabeth that two countries attending the summit, Nigeria and Afghanistan, are “possibly the two most corrupt countries in the world.” Never mind that the Prime Minister’s statement was correct. In Transparency International’s 2015 corruption perception index, Afghanistan lists near the bottom at 167, ahead of only Somalia and North Korea, Nigeria was at 136. Yet, 10 Downing Street has spent the time since attempting to walk back the statement and one can imagine that introductions at the summit this morning were likely quite tense.

Every decision we make reflects upon who we are as a person and our judgement reveals the truth of our character. Can we be trusted to tell the truth when it matters? Will we make the correct decision in a critical situation? Those matters of judgement are important when what one does has the potential to affect millions of people. One needn’t even be an elected official for those moments of critical thinking have to be precise and correct.

For example, counterfeiting of luxury fashion brands is a global problem costing billions of dollars. Battling the problem has proven challenging as the ability to crack down on pirates in Asian countries, especially China, has been difficult. So, when Washington, D. C.-based International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition admitted Chinese Internet super company Alibaba to the group last month, more than a few companies were upset.  Both Gucci and Michael Kors have left the coalition, and others may follow. Why? Many of those same companies are suing Alibaba in federal court for “knowingly encouraging and profiting from the sale of counterfeit goods on its e-commerce platforms,” according to the Associated Press. Admitting Alibaba was a judgement call by the IACC that may ultimately affect the price of luxury goods around the world if that decision proves to impede a solution to counterfeiting.

Then, there’s the case of Fox News White House correspondent Ed Henry. Apparently Mr. Henry uses Twitter’s direct messaging feature to chat back and forth with his followers. One of those followers happened to be a stripper in Las Vegas. After several exchanges, she invited Mr. Henry to visit her at the club where she works. He did. So far, no harm, no foul, assuming Mr. Henry was being honest with his wife. A lot of married guys go to strip clubs. But then, the two took the relationship further into a full-blown affair that lasted over a year. Then, both InTouch and the National Enquirer got a hold of the story. Still, in the grand scheme of things, it’s a private matter for Mr. Henry to address with his family, no?

Apparently not. Ed’s boss, Fox News chief Roger Ailes told the Washington Post, “This raises serious questions about Ed’s lack of judgement, especially given his position as a journalist.” As much as I often dislike Mr. Ailes, he understands the true gravity of the situation. In his position as a White House correspondent, Mr. Henry has to make quite and critical decisions as to which stories are important and which are not. He influences the information and perspective of news delivered to millions of people.   If his judgement is lacking anywhere then one has to question whether he is making similar mistakes on the job.

As I said at the beginning, for the millions of us who are not public servants, who are not responsible for dispensing critical information, whose actions are not likely to affect global markets, our errors in judgement affect very few people and very few people have any reason to care. When those errors are committed by someone who holds an element of public trust, however, no matter what it may be,  those judgement calls become extremely important.

We are looking at one of the nastiest presidential elections ever this year. When we consider the judgement of the two leading participants in that race, we have every reason to be worried. One has been married three times, and on at least one of those occasions was nothing short of cruel in dispatching his wife.  Another has played light and loose with classified information and implemented policies and procedures that, at the very least, challenged foreign relations and, possibly, might have contributed to the endangerment of American lives abroad.

Good judgement matters. Even the head of Fox News knows good judgement matters. Do we really want to elect a president whose judgements have repeatedly been grossly and dangerously flawed? Don’t we deserve better?

You know we do.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues
Nationalism Is Not Patriotic
May 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - nationalism is not patriotism

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first. —Charles de Gaulle

 

charles i. letbetter - nationalism is not patriotic

Patriotism does not mean being a jerk about being an American

The photos I’ve chosen for this topic are intentionally cheesy. I didn’t have any pictures of a bikini-clad model waving a flag or any similar nonsense, but I do have pictures of fireworks and models in bikinis so I put them together with sufficient results. I could easily slap a red, white, and blue “USA” over the top and pass them off as something patriotic, but to do so would be wrong and devalues the concept of patriotism. Instead, this cheese plays more to the concept of nationalism and an attitude that, long term, is rather problematic.

My stomach turned a little yesterday when I saw that the leading “domestic” beer brand, Budweiser (which isn’t American owned, by the way), had changed its name to America through the presidential elections this fall. You can now drink America, become inebriated on America, piss America, puke America, and be arrested for driving under the influence of America. That creates a lovely mental picture, doesn’t it? While Budweiser execs claim that they’re being patriotic, what they’re doing is pandering to a level of nationalism, the same nationalistic ideals that have a leading presidential candidate claiming he can bring America back to greatness. I have some bad news for you: both are full of male bovine excrement.

Many people hold the mistaken belief that nationalism and patriotism are the same, but that would be far from the truth. Nationalistic fervor is rooted in power and exclusion. Patriotism is rooted in emotion and responsibility. While the two can look similar, they are, at their core, quite different. Furthermore, Americans are among the few who don’t already have a good grasp on the concepts. European and Asian countries see nationalism as a power play, often a political stance appealing to pride in national domination. Patriotism, on the other hand, is seen as an act of service, a responsibility one has for living in the country.

One of the best distinctions between nationalism and patriotism comes from the pen of George Orwell some 70-plus years ago. What he said then still holds just as true today, so let’s look at what he had to say:

Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

Interestingly enough, nationalism wasn’t even much of an issue until the rise of the Romantic period in the early 19th century. Prior to that point, patriotism ruled even in power struggles; people took the dominant perspective that it was their responsibility to defend their country against external attack, but were polite and accommodating toward others. With the Romantic period, though, nationalism, that concept that one country was great to the exclusion of all others, became dominant. We not only see in it the political struggles of the time, but literature, art, and music. Once it took hold, nationalism never left. Unchecked and taken to its extreme, nationalism was a primary factor in the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

Seeing the United States being pushed toward, and embracing a nationalism bordering on extremism is frightening. Actions are being taken in the name of patriotism that are not patriotic at all. Those who support such nationalistic ideals are using that sentiment to establish a dominating power that, left unchecked, cannot help but lead to horrible crimes against humanity. We need to understand the difference between nationalism and patriotism and realize how dangerous the wrong attitude can be. Consider:

  • Patriotism celebrates diversity; nationalism finds strength in a single race and single religious belief, to the forced exclusion of all others.
  • Patriotism honors those who help others; nationalism preserves all resources for their own use.
  • Patriotism recognizes the responsibility of serving; nationalism exploits the strengths of a strong military.
  • Patriotism learns from criticism and looks for ways to improve; nationalism is insulted by criticism and attempts to dominate those who are critical of the nation’s behavior.
  • Patriotism admits that we make mistakes and learns from them; nationalism attempts to justify one’s actions and admits no wrong.
  • Patriotism values peace and is willing to compromise to avoid conflict; nationalism prefers military domination over everyone.

I love the United States as much as anyone, but as a patriot, I have to see our shortcomings, I have to recognize that we are not perfect, and I have to take responsibility for my participation in that imperfection. While I have no problem defending this country, I have no need or desire to see her dominate the world or outer space in order to be great. As a patriot, I see the greatness that has always existed in this country and I know that greatness comes in part from our diversity and our ability to, since the moment the Mayflower landed on these shores, accept those who are not wanted anywhere else.

There is always room for greater patriotism, but this current nationalistic bullshit needs to stop. And change the name of the fucking beer back to Budweiser. America is better than some two-bit, watered-down, weak-ass excuse for a lager. Please.

Continue Reading

Current Issues
Moms Versus Technology
May 8, 2016
charles i. letbetter - mom versus technology

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. —Albert Einstein

 

charles i. letbetter - mom versus technology

For all our moms are asked to do, keeping up with their children’s technology can be one of the most challenging

The geek in me was very excited this past week when IBM announced they are allowing public access to their new quantum computer. We are on the verge of the next huge leap forward in computing technology. What this means for research and scientific advancement is mind boggling. Our children will understand more not only about the what but the why of the universe than we ever thought to question. This is a great move forward for everyone.

Well, maybe not everyone. One of the biggest challenges moms have is trying to keep up with their children’s technology. This may not be as much of an issue for young mothers just yet; as long as technology stays at a fairly steady pace we can learn along with the kids. But when it takes a significant leap, such as it did in 1984 and is about to do again, the older we are the more challenging it can be to keep up.

The problem is not necessarily unique to moms, but the sad fact is that most women born in the 20th century have not had as much access to match, science, and technology education as have men. All three have long been considered the domain of men, despite the fact that some of the most brilliant discoveries have been made by women. As a result, many of our moms have difficulty understanding the technology that seems second nature to their children or grandchildren.

My mother was one of those people. Despite being a well-educated teacher with a masters degree, when it came to computers and more advanced technology, not only did she have difficulty understanding how they worked, she didn’t really want anything to do with them. She was proud of the fact that my younger brother was a computer whiz and appreciated what we were able to do with them, but technology was the one area she was happy to leave alone.

When Poppa’s eyesight failed him, we finally convinced them that a computer was a good thing. My brother successfully convinced Poppa that the computer could increase the size of the type so that he would be better able to read. We also introduced them to email by sending them pictures of their grandsons, who were always being adorably cute. Poppa loved it, and Mother loved getting the pictures, but she waited until Poppa printed them out. She wasn’t going to bother looking at them online.

Then came the day Poppa was no longer there. A couple of days after his funeral, I found Mother sitting at the desk staring at the computer. “Do you want to check email?” I asked, knowing she didn’t know how.

“The funeral home gave me a link to an online condolence page,” she said, “but I don’t even know how to turn the stupid computer on.” Tears were, again, streaming down her face. Losing her partner of over 42 years was difficult enough, but being faced with all the things he did that she didn’t understand was hitting her hard. I pulled up a chair and sat next to her. After a couple of hours, she could at least check email, enter the URL the funeral home had given her, and visit a couple of websites for widowed pastor’s wives.

Mother only lived six more months, unfortunately, but in that length of time, she finally became comfortable enough to save the photos we emailed to her without having to print them all, and even found a couple of online games that she didn’t hate.

I think of all that has been developed over the past 14 years, though, and wonder how well she would have adapted. She was okay with the first simple cell phone they had, but given how that smartphones often frustrate me I can only imagine that one would come close to making her curse. She might have gotten on Facebook, perhaps (after a lot of coaching), but there’s no way she would have touched any of the other social media apps.

Keeping up with technology is rough for any of us who are not actively involved in development, but for someone whose primary frame of reference is significantly less digital, even what we might consider simple technology like setting a digital clock or working a remote control, can be daunting. So, since this is Mother’s Day, why not take a moment and see if your mom or grandmother or great-grandmother needs help with technology forced upon them. Check their security settings. Make sure they’re not giving out their passwords. Be gentle and loving.

Just, uhm, maybe consider keeping her off Tinder. She doesn’t need to see that.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Female Entrepreneurs Do It Better
May 7, 2016
charles i. letbetter - female entrepreneurs do it better

I never felt oppressed because of my gender. When I’m writing a poem or drawing, I’m not a female; I’m an artist. —Patti Smith

 

charles i. letbetter - female entrepreneurs do it better

Female entrepreneurs are more successful than men, especially when under the age of 25.

Being in business for oneself is a dream that a lot of people have had, but for centuries, conventional wisdom held that men were the safer bet for investors. Being born female automatically put one at a severe disadvantage in the business world. Even now, for all the positive strides that women have made, venture capitalists still prefer to put their money on all-male teams. Call it the good-old-boys network or outright chauvinism, being female and trying to run your own business is more than a bit challenging.

Opinions may soon change, though, after a 10-year study by venture capital firm First Round has shown that many of those old, prevailing concepts of what makes a new business a good investment are just plain wrong. Being young isn’t bad, and being a female is actually a blessing. So much so that new business with at least one female on the management team out-performed traditional all-male teams by a whopping SIXTY-THREE PERCENT! In terms of business statistics, that number is huge! Combine that with the same research showing that having a founder under the age of 25 increases performance by thirty percent and we’re starting to wonder why every new business isn’t being fronted by young women!

The results of the study were first assimilated into a non-academic structure by the Harvard Business Review and should, hopefully, not only encourage investors to put more money into businesses started by women, but should also encourage more women, especially young women, to not hesitate to put that business plan together sooner rather than later. We’ve already seen that having a female at the front of the business is more likely to result in a successful Kickstarter campaign. Successful categories for women include technology, fashion, and games, but across the board, women beat all-male startups every time.

Perhaps the big question here is why we’re so surprised by these findings (and, universally speaking, we are)? Women have been running operations with complex financing and investment structures for thousands of years; they’re called homes. To claim that there’s no parallel between making a home successful and doing the same for a business is naïve and ignorant. Moreover, women have proven themselves more than capable of leading armies, running countries, and heading up Fortune 500 companies while still taking care of children and keeping their families in tact. Good luck finding a man who can pull off the same tasks with as much gracefulness.

Numbers compiled about this same time last year show that female entrepreneurship is on the rise. The number of funded startups with at least one woman on the management team doubled between 2009-2014. Still, that only accounted for eighteen percent of the whole, significantly low for the size of the whole picture. Women not only find it more difficult to secure VC financing for their companies, they have more difficulty gaining support from friends and family, especially in traditionally conservative areas of the country, such as the deep South and the Midwest. There are still too many people who challenge a woman with silly questions such as, “How are you going to balance both a business and a family?” or, “Does this mean you’re not going to have children?” That nonsense just needs to stop.

One possible area of concern, though, is that the same First Round study shows that where one goes to school does actually seem to matter. Specifically, startups did better when at least one member of the management team had attended an “elite” school, ie.,  anything in the Ivy League, Stanford, or MIT. That factor creates a significant challenge for any entrepreneur, but especially for women who cannot count on the legacy factor to get them into those schools. With rising education costs continuing to bring into question the value of a college degree, justifying the expense of going to an elite school over state schools with national standings in specific fields becomes a more difficult argument. Is it worth having a diploma from Harvard just to get funding for a business?

There are a lot of factors that go into making a startup work, though, and part of the reason for having a management team rather than trying to do it all on one’s own is that a diverse team spreads out those qualifications and experiences so that one doesn’t have to stretch to be perfect in everything. One of the dichotomies of the study is that, while startups with founders under the age of 25, having work experience at a top tech company is also an important factor. How is one supposed to go to college, get experience at a top tech company, and still start a company by the time one turns 25? I suppose if one graduates high school at 16 or something along those lines, it might theoretically be possible, but that is still a lot to ask of one person. Utilizing the skills and experiences of a team keeps the pressure from landing on the shoulders of one person.

What we do learn from this research, though, is that the time for young women to be starting their own business is now. The concept of waiting until one has several years of experience under their belt has proven to be ineffective. If you have an idea, do the research, write a solid business plan, and assemble a strong management team. Get yourself out there and do things. All the evidence points toward unprecedented success.

Go. Do it. Make yourself proud!

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Mythology  /  PotD
God Is Not Your Excuse
May 6, 2016
charles i. letbetter - god is not an excuse

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. —Richard Dawkins

 

charles i. letbetter - God Is Not Your Excuse

Trying to use God as an excuse for bad behavior not only dishonors your deity, but makes you look incredibly stupid.

Standing at the bus stop outside a busy mall the other day, I watched as a bus driver put a man off the bus. He had ridden the entire route twice, the driver said, and he had to at least get off and wait for the next bus on the route before riding again. So, he took his small suitcase and sat down on the bench and waited.

The weather had been rather nasty earlier in the day, with plenty of rain and a few storms passing through. As the middle-aged man sat there, he’d mumble something about it being a nice day, then laugh to himself. There were some obvious mental health challenges but he was high functioning enough to be able to reasonably take care of himself. After a few minutes, the clouds broke and a ray of sunshine filled the parking lot. The man said, to no one in particular, “Oh look, there’s the face of God. You should always say hello to God.” This started him on a stream of consciousness wherein he repeated the few elements of faith that lingered in his mind. They weren’t many. One was that God would not flood the earth and that something in Thessalonians said Jesus was coming back. That’s all he had, all his mind could comprehend at that moment. The bus soon came and he was quiet again.

I try to not be too hard on matters of faith, partly because I used to be among those who believed without question and know the spell-binding effect on those who either don’t have the ability to reason at a higher level, or simply choose to not do so. When one gives oneself wholly to faith, reason can seem silly at best and an aggressive challenge at worst. People whose faith runs deep defend their position the most fiercely because that is their foundation for reality. Chipping away at their faith is like pulling a rug out from under them.

Yet, there are others for whom faith is merely a convenience, an excuse for justifying antisocial behavior without consequences. These are people whose faith is shallow. They don’t really understand the tenets of their religion and all for which it stands. Rather, they have latched on to a handful of concepts and built their own separate belief system around those concepts that just happen to be loosely based upon the religion. They call themselves Christians or Muslims or Hindus, but they are, in truth, none of those things. They are imposters who are simply trying to use deity(ies) as an excuse for their behavior. Let me give you some very recent examples of what I mean.

  • Missouri state representative Tina Hulbrect said this week: “It is not up to us to say ‘no, just because there was a rape, they cannot exist.’ Sometimes bad things happen — horrible things — but sometimes God can give us a silver lining through the birth of a child.” The statement was made in defense of a bill currently before that state’s legislature that attempts to define life as beginning at the moment of conception. What her statement effectively does is use God as an excuse for both the rape and the unwanted pregnancy, saying that God uses bad for good.
  • The Washington Post published an opinion piece by Chris Nye yesterday (May 5) encouraging Christians to keep their prayers to themselves. The opinion came from having observed too many large, grandiose public prayer gatherings for yesterday’s National Day of Prayer observance. The author challenges the public displays with Jesus’ instruction in Matthey 6:6 to keep one’s prayers private, even to the point of going “into the closet.”
  • In North Carolina, where people seemed inclined to check with God about everything, including going to the bathroom, a tow truck driver left a disabled woman stranded on the side of a road because the car had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker. The tow truck driver, who is actually from South Carolina but apparently does business over the state line, told the woman, “I’m a conservative Christian, I’ve just drawn a line in the sand.”
  • Then, RawStory published an article on Wednesday claiming that the Dugger-related cult, Quiverful, was planning a retreat expressly for the purpose of marrying off teenage daughters. The movement bases their actions on a passage in 1 Corinthians 7:36 that they translate to be encouraging young people to get married. Interestingly enough, since that article was posted, the organizers of the retreat have removed the event from their calendar and added a banner at the top of their website claiming they aren’t doing anything illegal.

By the way, that passage of scripture on which they’re basing their actions can sound a little creepy:

If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

It’s that line about, “he should do as he wants” that is misused to justify some incredibly unacceptable behavior.

Every one of those examples, from Rep. Hulbrect’s support of rape, to the public prayers, to leaving a disabled person stranded, to marrying off teenagers, uses God as an excuse for their actions. I’m afraid I have some bad news for those people: God’s not in your corner. No deity actually supports such behaviors and it is this very twisting of religious ideologies that causes people of reason to find your religions distasteful. But here, let me try to put this in a language you can better understand.

  1. God does not need your help. If God is omnipotent (Genesis 18:14, Psalms 33:6-9, Nahum 1:3-6, Jonah 1:4, 11-13, 15) then he is perfectly capable of handling things without your interference. He does not need you interfering, interceding, or generally fucking things up because you, for some stupid reason, think you are a warrior for your deity.
  2. God is not buying your bullshit. Matthew 7:21 specifically states: Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. You can call yourselves whatever you want, but your deity can see right through your crap.
  3. God would just as soon you stay out of the way. 1 Chronicles 20:15 makes it clear that the battle against evil isn’t even in your hands, but those of your deity. “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God’s.” The more you interfere, the more you try to “help,” the more you are effectively stating that you don’t trust God to handle the situation. Sit down, shut up, and stay out of the way.

Using God as an excuse does not justify your actions. Ever. Exodus 20:7 makes God’s position very clear: You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

There is no excuse for anyone, of any religion, to behave anti-socially. God (however you define deity) is not here for your convenience. Your actions are not acceptable. Not by society, and not by God.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Experimental  /  PotD
Waking To A Nightmare
May 4, 2016
charles i. letbetter - waking to a nightmare

All our best men are laughed at in this nightmare land. —Jack Kerouac

 

charles i. letbetter - waking to a nightmare

We awaken this morning to a nightmare of our own doing, a horrible and noxious reality that may haunt us forever

I may have told a lie during the night. Little man woke up about a quarter to three, crying from a nightmare. I pulled him up into my lap, gave him a big hug, and tried to reassure him. “Dreams are only pretend,” I said. “And bad dreams are not real.” Another big hug and he was able to go back to bed and sleep soundly the rest of the night.

But that part about bad dreams not being real? Yeah, I may have fibbed a bit on that one. Nightmares can be all too real.

Let’s fast-forward four years to the year 2020. There are 10 million driverless cars on the road, which has reduced the number of traffic fatalities; but those cars don’t always take us where we want to go as governments have the ability to override our instructions and force us to go where they demand. Everyone you meet is aligned with one group or another and even something as simple as buying a soda can result in you being charged as a spy. Few people gather at bars anymore and even fewer at churches. Quantum computing on the cloud has our entire lives connected to and controlled by the Internet of Things. Unchecked global warming has accelerated the acidification of the oceans to the point the Florida Keys and other coral-based islands are dissolving into the sea.

Racism is rampant and segregation is mandatory. People of religious faiths wear identifying badges and don’t intermingle. Those with no badge are regarded with suspicion but are the larger group and travel the most freely. Healthcare is available only to the rich and many hospitals have closed, their halls lying empty after the entire payment system collapsed.  Living without debt is impossible because inflation wasn’t held back by plummeting wages. Women and LGBT groups have joined forces in an attempt to thwart efforts at minimizing the rights of both, with an increasing militantism necessary to protect both groups from armed right-wing militias running rampant. 80% of the US population takes required anti-depressants in an attempt to hold back rising suicide rates.

As incredible as that situation may seem, every last bit of it is a simple extrapolation based on current events and sentiments. While none of the scenarios are certain, each are possible given current developments and prevailing attitudes. The United States has always prided itself on being a country where anything is possible, but included in that “anything” is the opportunity for a nightmare such as the one described above.

Don’t say it won’t happen. Just six short months ago no one was taking the candidacy of a loud-mouthed, egotistical New York real estate billionaire seriously, either. No one thought he’d last through the first few primaries. Now, he’s the heir-apparent to his party’s nomination and should he actually win (don’t say it can’t happen) every one of the nightmare scenarios mentioned above could become true, based on his past and current rhetoric.

No one likes a nightmare and when we are small we take comfort in the fact they are just bad dreams. This is one nightmare, though, that could all too easily become a reality that not only fails to make America great but endangers our very future. We can put a stop to this nightmare, but only if those who are apathetic and lazy, those who think their voice doesn’t count, those who hold the opinion that fate is out of their hands, begin to speak up and make noise and participate in the public discussion at such levels as to not be ignored.

Life will almost certainly go on, no matter what the future holds, but do you really want to live in a nightmare?

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Taking Over The World
May 3, 2016

The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do. —Sarah Ban Breathnach

 

charles i. letbetter - taking over the world

Taking over the world may be as simple as taking one single action: voting

One of my favorite cartoons ever originated the same year my oldest son was born. Warner Brothers’ Animaniacs holds a place of nostalgic importance within our family for many reasons, but one of those is the concept that anyone with the right determination, effort, and a little luck, might take over the world. Where did we get that idea? Pinky and the Brain. In every episode, Pinky asks, “What are we going to do tonight, Brain?” and Brain answers, “The same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the world.” They’re mice, and more than once they come quite close to succeeding.

Given the interconnectedness and interdependencies among nations, taking over the world is probably a more realistic goal now than it ever has been. The solution is rather simple and I’m not the only who has noticed, I’m sure. Affect the stock market in one major country and watch all the others respond in kind. This makes gaining economic control easy. World food supplies are largely controlled by a handful of companies. Control the food supply and you control people. The entire world, including governments and the global power grid, are connected by computers.  One well-written virus and you control who has electricity and who doesn’t.

Perhaps most frightening is the realization that one intelligent individual could probably achieve that level of control without the aid or knowledge of their own government. Fortunately, controlling a stock market and the global food supply requires a substantial form of capital and not many people have access to that wealth. Still, it is a very real danger. Who has access to that kind of wealth and power?

The President of the United States.

Whether we like it or not, we cannot deny that the US is a global power and that the decisions made here affect events and people around the world. For example, the United States is the sole source for a number of life-saving drugs. Should we decide to shut down production of those drugs, especially those for fighting diseases like Ebola and Malaria, the results could be devastating on a global scale.  Were our government to enact a policy that makes it impossible for international companies to make a profit in the US, the global economy, including our own, would crash overnight. Where we decide to put troops affects the safety and well-being of millions of people. Pull the Marines from Okinawa and that region of the world would almost certainly collapse as North Korea’s insane leadership would see that as an opportunity to assert domination.

The President could affect all of those situations and more.

When we’re considering for whom we are going to vote, or whether we’re going to vote, our tendency is to look at domestic issues, specifically, “What’s best for me?”  As such, our vision tends to be incredibly short-sighted. We too often want a President who will encourage and enact policies we think will make our lives better, even if it is to the detriment of someone else. We are as selfish in our voting as we are in our use of money.

What might have a greater effect on our longevity and quality of life, however, is how we relate to the world. Even our domestic policies such as health care and minimum wage affect things such as immigration and foreign investment. We like to think we’re all big and mighty and powerful on our own, but the fact is we hold a lot of debt and in many ways are just as dependent on other countries as they are dependent on us.

One of the first stories to slap me in the face this morning is evidence that Syria’s President al-Assad is coordinating efforts with Daesh.  This is bad news for the entire world as Syria appears to be directly funding terrorism. Both the economic and military strength of the United States are principal aspects in stopping this atrocity.

Oh, and there’s more evidence that China’s economy lacks a solid foundation. China influences the US economy in three ways: investment, debt, and trade. Should their economy crash, they could easily take down ours and the European Union at the same time. US foreign policy is critical in helping keep the Chinese economy stable.

Then, there’s the increasingly worrisome matter of North Korea. Not only have they now limited movement in and out of Pyongyang, but they’ve banned weddings, funerals, and any other form of assembly ahead of their party congress next week. This increases speculation that the country may attempt a nuclear demonstration during the event. Even North Korea’s one reluctant ally, China, is depending upon US intelligence information in helping to form an international response should the rogue nation decide to do something stupid.

The United States is tied to events all over the world, which makes the US president a key component in how those events are resolved. While we don’t need a president who is going to be overly aggressive and intimidating toward foreign leaders, we also don’t need someone who fucks it all up with a religious-based ideology or a hesitant approach to taking action. We are dogged by the hindsight that had we taken a more forward and active role in foreign matters prior to WWII, we might have prevented at least some of the atrocities committed in both theaters of that war. We don’t have to like being a world power, but the world depends on us stepping up and taking that responsibility.

Okay, so maybe it’s a stretch to say that the US rules the world entirely. We have our vulnerabilities. Still, whoever we elect as President wields incredible power over the lives not only of Americans but the seven billion plus citizens of this planet. We should take extra care in deciding how we’re going to cast our ballots. After all, Pinky, we know taking over the world is possible. We need to be careful about which lab mouse we select to do so.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  Mythology  /  PotD
Predicting The Future
May 2, 2016
CHARLES I. LETBETTER - predicting the future

Never make predictions, especially about the future. —Casey Stengel

 

charles i. letbetter - predicting the future

Sure, trying to guess a future that is, at best, blurry is risky, but some things are more certain than others.

I’ve met a lot of shysters and con men over the years. I hate to admit I’ve even been taken in by a couple of them. Those who know how to read people well can easily manipulate them. One of the most common, and obvious, cons is predicting a person’s future. We know when we sit at the small, sparsely-adorned table that what we’re about to hear is fake, but still there is a part of us that wants it to be true, especially when the fortune teller says things we want to hear.

There have been a few times, though, I have come across people who seemed to have an unusual amount of insight, and at least a couple of them were wearing suits. They had an uncanny sense of  the future; where markets were heading, which technologies would live, which would die, and the unexpected ways in which those technologies would affect society. The business world prefers to call them futurists. Then, there was that strange person who walked up to me at a Starbucks in Atlanta, unprovoked, and said, “You’re going to lose everything.” Yeah, that’ll leave an unsettling feeling in your stomach.

Even futurists don’t get everything right, but I think there are some things that are more certain than others and we can tell simply by watching trends and adjusting our actions accordingly.  While there is still no accurate indicator of when you’ll find love (scam, every time), we stroked the fur of our black cat this morning and came up with some predictions for the future we think we pretty accurate.

  • Men’s Fashion Week is doomed and androgyny will slowly take over fashion. In some ways, the handwriting would almost seem to be on the wall with this one. An article in this morning’s WWD discusses yet another major label, Gucci, combining both men’s and women’s fashion on their runways. To some degree, the move just makes financial sense. However, over the next few years what this is likely to set up is a greater amount of androgyny across fashion. We’ve already started seeing it in some of the younger, more “street” labels such as Public School and Alexander Wang, but don’t be surprised when the transition reaches the point that couples can shop not just at the same store, but off the same rack.
  • A major South American war seems inevitable and the US will largely ignore it. Yeah, that’s a little vague, because there are multiple countries where revolution seems ripe. At the moment, food shortages in Venezuela have that country high on my list. People who are hungry do desperate things and Venezuelans seem to be reaching that tipping point quickly. They’re not the only ones, though, as both Brazil, for whom this summer’s Olympics may be an economic bust, and Columbia, where unrest among cartels and the government is simmering, could erupt as soon as this fall. Unfortunately, and somewhat inexplicably, the United States has never taken the interest in South American humanitarian conditions that it does with Europe and elsewhere. One might almost think we’ve forgotten our neighbors to the South. I don’t see that attitude changing.
  • Straight, monogamous sexual relationships will become the minority preference. We’re already well on our way toward this one. As social acceptance of gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered lifestyles reaches a sense of normalcy, other “alternative” sexual preferences inevitably begin to rise as well. New York Magazine published an article last week with findings from a Kinsey Institute study, the largest of its kind, showing that roughly 21 percent of adults in America have engaged in “consensual non-monogamy and kink” at some point in their lifetime. Kat and I talked this one through a bit and feel that this surprisingly high number is tilted toward younger generations where alternative lifestyles in general face less social stigma than they do with those my generation and older. Combine these people with the LGBT crowd and, even allowing for some overlap in the two groups, that number is likely nearly 40% already. Upcoming generations are likely to embrace that trend and grow the numbers even more. The social and political impact of this will be considerable.
  • Children currently under the age of ten are most likely to be affected by a full-scale cyber war during their lifetime. Yes, it’s easy to make such projections on the very young, but the future almost seems inevitable on this one. If you’re not familiar with the term “Internet of Things (IoT)” then you might want to start reading. The basic concept is that soon everything will be connected digitally, including manufacturing. While that may be a challenging concept to comprehend, one of the side effects is that wealth and power and likely to become even more concentrated, which means when they are primary targets in the future of warfare. Those who successfully hack the IoT will be able to disrupt food supplies, access to basic services, and completely shut down banking, leaving people stranded from their money. Traditional warfare with Marines landing on beaches goes out the window and a handful of people will have the ability to bring mighty countries to their knees.
  • Religions will fall out of social favor and will be seen more as cults. This is a pendulum swing that seems to happen every few hundred years and we can see it coming. Nearly 30% of Americans now list themselves as religiously unaffiliated. Again, the trend is being driven by younger generations who are less accepting of religious precepts and totally deny any religious authority. Historically, this ushers in a period of severe secularism where those espousing any form of visible religious observance are labeled as extremists and religions themselves as cults. This trend isn’t just among Americans, either, as similar trends have been noted in Europe and Australia and is driven not only by violent extremists in the Middle East but right-wing political involvement as well. The arc historically takes 200-300 years to complete and by my estimation, we’re still at least a generation or two from that arc reaching its apex.

Now, all that being said, we are obligated to add the caveat that the future is never written until it is past. Are there actions that could disrupt these predictions? Sure, but these are strong trends and I’m giving these predictions around a 90% chance of coming true. If I’m wrong, you are more than welcome to remind me. However, when I’m right ….

Yeah, I’m going to say I told you so.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues  /  Just For Fun
Friday Follies
April 29, 2016
charles i. letbetter - Firday Follies

We are all full of weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our follies – it is the first law of nature. —Voltaire

 

charles i. letbetter - Friday Follies

Oh, wait, we forgot to talk about a few things

Oh geeze, it’s Friday already. How did this happen? The lawn needs to be mowed, the house is a mess, the laundry is piled up and I don’t have anything thawed for dinner. I’m so behind on editing I don’t even want to think about it at this point. On top of that, there are no fewer than a dozen topics on my board that we haven’t had a chance to talk about this week. Writing takes up a lot of time and there just hasn’t been enough of that time available.

So, since most everything is somewhat timely, let me see how many of these follies I can reduce and get into one article. You can click the links for full stories in most cases. Or not.

Leica announced a new stripped-down version of its digital camera that sounds exactly like what I need. No LCD screen, no stupid video eating up battery, no wildly high ISOs, none of the stupid filters and shit that all the amateurs think make their cameras cool. This is a real photographer’s camera. One has to know what they’re doing and not rely on presets and the “auto” setting. I like the look and sound of this camera. What I don’t understand, though, is why the damn thing costs over $5,000! With all the nonsense stripped down I would expect a price significantly lower. I  was all ready to put one on my shopping list until I saw the damn price tag.

I’ve always thought that, being a child of the 60s and 70s, we grew up with some of the best music ever written. Now, there seems to be some evidence that as, for the first time ever, older catalog music is outselling new music.  Some are trying to blame this on streaming services while others say that the whole retro vinyl thing is a factor. To an extent, both arguments may have some validity to them. But, the bottom line, and we all know it, is that older music is just better. Only a fool would choose Taylor Swift over the Beatles or Stones, One Direction over AC/DC or Three Dog Night. We had the best music ever, and now even the kids are beginning to recognize that fact.

Durham, NC ad agency McKinney has the perfect response to their home state’s controversial HB2 law: flush it. To make that action more accessible to people, they’ve printed HB2 on toilet paper. The rest should be self-explanatory. The only problem with the concept is they didn’t seem to make any provision for it being widely  accessible. If you write the company, they might send you a roll. You should know what to do with it.

Funniest thing I’ve seen on Twitter all week:

Speaking of funny, if you’ve not followed Berkeley Breathed’s Bloom County on Facebook this week, you’ve missed a special collection of real gems. Since Breathed decided to publish his work on Facebook rather than through the creative-squashing syndicate, we’ve seen some delightfully wonderful strips, but this week has taken the hairball (so to speak) as the cartoonist stretched Monday’s World Penguin Day into a full week. Well, almost. Bill the Cat got his dues in today. Still, this week’s strips have been a prime example of why Breathed is a treasured talent.

There, that clears out the most important stuff. Follies are best on Friday, I suppose. That’s the only way the alliteration works. There are still a couple of scraps lying around, but I’ll leave those in case I get desperate over the weekend. The grass on the lawn isn’t getting any shorter with me sitting here. Not that I’m going to cut it. I just need to find someone in the neighborhood who can use an extra $4.37.

Follies. Hehe.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues  /  PotD
Get With The Game
April 29, 2016
charles i. letbetter - get with the game

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few. —George Berkeley

 

charles i. letbetter - get with the game

The world has changed. Either get with the game or be prepared to be left behind. We’re not going back

Lika a lot of creative people, I had a tendency to daydream when I was a child. I could get lost in my own thoughts no matter where I was or what I was supposed to be doing, which often meant I wasn’t doing anything at all. Those would be the times, after calling my name multiple times and getting no response, one parent or the other would take hold of my shoulder and give me a firm shake, then say, “Charles, you need to get with the game. You’re holding everyone up.”

Yesterday, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) essentially told the entire United States the same thing: You need to get with the game. The “game” isn’t anything with a ball or rings or mats or fields, though. The game they’re talking about is equal protection for everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. The message was blunt and firm that cities hosting, or even bidding, for any manner of NCAA event, whether an educational conference or a major game, has to ensure that everyone gets equal treatment. No exceptions. The statement from the NCAA reads, in part:

The board’s decision follows the recent actions of legislatures in several states, which have passed laws allowing residents to refuse to provide services to some people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. While proponents of the laws focus on how they protect religious beliefs, critics have voiced concerns that they create an environment of sanctioned discrimination.

Here’s the thing: the NCAA isn’t exactly known as a bastion of liberal or progressive thought. If anything, they tend to see themselves as protectors of tradition and legacy, taking more conservative positions on the majority of issues. The Board of Governors is made up largely of university presidents who tend to be more concerned with not upsetting major donors, who also tend to be rather conservative in their positions. One can’t blame the influence of liberal media nor liberal academics as the NCAA stands quite separate from either. For the nation’s governing body over collegiate sports to make a statement such as this indicates something very important: society has changed, whether you like it or not.

Oh, but the NCAA wasn’t content to just let it go with sexual orientation and gender identity. They’re taking on some other very important issues. The statement also reads:

The Association now prohibits championships events with predetermined sites in states where governments display the Confederate battle flag, and prohibits NCAA members from hosting championships events if their school nicknames use Native American imagery that is considered abusive and offensive.

In case you’re head is spinning and you’re just not sure what all just happened, let me make it very clear: anti-gay and/or anti-transgender laws and blatantly racist symbols are no longer acceptable. Anywhere. Period. Under any circumstances. Get with the game.

Hold on, we’re not done.

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)announced yesterday that it is launching an investigation into gender stereotyping in advertising. Again, we’re talking about a traditionally conservative body, one that has at times been accused of being too knee-jerk in its reactions, taking a surprisingly progressive move demonstrating a significant shift in what contemporary society considers acceptable. ASA Chief executive, Guy Parker, said as part of the statement:

We’re serious about making sure
we’re alive to changing attitudes
and behaviors. That’s why we’ve
already been taking action to ban
ads that we believe reinforce
gender stereotypes and that are
likely to cause serious and
widespread offense, or harm.

While the ASA’s announcement legally applies only to the UK, advertising is expensive and while some regional changes are often made, global campaigns that run in the UK as well as other countries will still have to meet those same standards. So, word to all the misogynists out there, especially those in advertising: Get with the game. Gender stereotypes are no longer acceptable.

Morals are not something that can be legislated, nor can they be strictly dictated by a mythology. As a society progresses and moves forward, those morals, those social norms, are going to change. Some change willingly. Others foolishly fight change with their last breath. Boycott all you want, protest all you want, elect all the religiously intolerant, inbred, closed-minded legislators you want, society will move forward. Your best move is to get with the game.

To  review, the following are no longer acceptable, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances:

  • Anti-LGBTQ legislation of any kind
  • City or venue policies that do not protect race, gender, and sexual orientation
  • Confederate flags
  • Offensive Native American imagery
  • Gender stereotypes

I realize, for some of you, that is a lot of change in one fell swoop. Too bad.  Get with the game and start moving forward. You’re holding everyone else up.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues  /  video
It’s Not Easy Being Mom (Video)
April 27, 2016
charles i. letebtter - it's not easy being mom

My mother was a single mom, and most of the women I know are strong. —Regina King

 

charles i. letbetter - it's not easy being mom

Being a mom has always been tough, so let’s skip the platitudes and recognize them for the tough, persevering people they are.

We tend to think of mothers as being tender, gentle and nurturing creatures who kiss away our boo-boos when we’re little, mend our broken hearts when that first crush dumps us, and cries when we finally get around to leaving home. Certainly, moms are all those things. But your mom is so much more. In fact, I’ve not known a mom who isn’t just as tough, as hard-working, as creative, and as persevering as any man she might come up against. Moms not only know how to get the work done, they know how to clean up the mess when everything explodes in your face. They’re due a bit more respect than what they’ve been getting.

I don’t like losing jobs, but when I see positions in advertising that have traditionally gone to men not only going to women, but going to a mom, I don’t feel I have any room to complain. Not only does that mom deserve the same opportunity as old white guys like me, chances are pretty high she can do the job better and is going to leave all us old white guys in the dust. As we’re beginning to see more women in top executive roles at ad firms, the tenor of ads both for and about women has changed. Slowly but surely, that condescending tone of ads that permeated advertising through the 90’s and well into the early part of this century is beginning to change perspectives and put in its place is one more real and understanding of women’s lives.

For example, with Mother’s Day coming up in a couple of weeks, we’re seeing ads from the usual places beginning to crop up but they’re not all sweet and smarmy as they’ve been before. This ad from Teleflora does a much better job of depicting exactly what all a mom does. Take a look:

In case you don’t recognize the voice, that’s the late NFL champion coach Vince Lombardi’s famous speech on what it takes to be a winner. All those words about grit, being tough, never giving up, and doing whatever it takes have traditionally been applied to football players. What this ad shows, though, is that they apply just as much to your mom, my mom, and every mom who’s ever given birth to a child. The road isn’t easy.

Even in cultures where women have traditionally been treated as little more than slaves, we’re beginning to see some change. I was struck by an ad from India, a place where patriarchy and misogyny still have a strong hold on the culture. Taking on the perspective of a father who sees late in his life just how hard his daughter works both as a mom and a business person and takes on the stereotype of men not helping around the house. Every father-to-be, in every country, needs to see this:

As we pass from a male-dominated perspective to one that is hopefully more balanced, one of the things we begin to realize is that just the act of becoming a mom is more than we’ve ever imagined. Not only is it painful to become a mom, it’s dangerous. A statistic of which I was not aware until late last year is that almost 300,000 women still die every year from complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Think about that a moment and do some math. That means someone is losing their mother at least once every two minutes.

Don’t go thinking that statistic is limited to third world countries, either; it’s just as applicable here in the United States and every time some goddamn holier-than-thou politician introduces yet another idiotic bill limiting women’s access to free and/or low-cost healthcare and birth control, he’s ratcheting that number higher. Fortunately, there are organizations like Planned Parenthood and Christy Turlington’s Every Mother Counts (EMC) program who are there to address the issue of mortality among mothers. EMC operates in seven countries, including the US, to not only bring awareness of childbirth issues, but to partner with organizations to address issues such as poor education, transportation to doctors and hospitals, and supplies. They’re directly meeting the needs of moms like yours and mine every day, and not only do they get little thanks for it but often they are ridiculed and bad mouthed and even threatened because they dare to further the cause and life quality of women.

Seeing more women in traditionally male roles, such as advertising, communications, medicine, technology, and pretty much everywhere else is good for us all, good for our society, and good for our economy. Let us not lose sight, though, that many of those strong womens are also the people someone calls mom. They deserve more than flowers. They deserve our respect.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD  /  video
More Than Mean (Video)
April 27, 2016

I think there is a danger there of being mean to people and humiliating people and embarrassing people just because it might get you ratings. It is a disturbing trend. —Bruce Nash

charles i. letbetter - meaner than mean

The only habit of allowing trolls to be mean, especially to women, whenever and where ever they want has gotten out of control. It’s time to stop them.

“Stop being mean!”

That is the Tipster’s response when I put her to bed for the third time. In her six-year-old world, having an 8:00 bedtime is mean; the sun isn’t quite down yet, there’s still daylight, so she thinks she still has time to play. We have boundaries and schedules I am obligated to enforce for her own good, so therefore, in her mind, I’m the mean one.

Raising a little girl in today’s environment. I want her to be as independent and strong as her mother and she shows every sign of having all those qualities. Grandpa Bob tells me Kat didn’t like going to bed, either. Yet, when I look at the world into which she’s growing up, one that demeans and ridicules women just for being women, I worry. A lot. I think I have plenty of good reasons.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that one of the nation’s top software engineers, Jessie Frazelle, received so many death and rape threats that her employer had to hire bodyguards to guarantee her safety. She recently moved to another company and while she has yet to make any kind of statement the general consensus is that she was harassed out the door, that the company knew about the harassment and did nothing to stop it. Last July she wrote:

Ever since I started speaking at conferences and contributing to open source projects I have been endlessly harassed. I’ve gotten hundreds of private messages on IRC and emails about sex, rape, and death threats. People emailing me saying they jerked off to my conference talk video (you’re welcome btw) is mild in comparison to sending Photoshopped pictures of me covered in blood.

Then, earlier this week, Frazelle tweeted:

I wish I could say this was an isolated problem. I wish I could say this was a new problem. Neither of those statements would be true, though. Being mean to women online is as old as the Internet itself and the toll it is exacting is severe.

The same day that the Frazelle story was posted, The Washington Post ran a story questioning whether 31-year-old Fairfax County firefighter Nicole Mittendorff was harassed so severely that she committed suicide last week. What makes this story particularly upsetting is that the trolls who have continued to hound her claim to be her fellow firefighters. An investigation is underway, but no matter what they find, and it’s almost certain that someone will be charged in this case, the fact that nothing was done to stop the continual barrage of mean comments, that no one was able to sufficiently stand up for her and back the trolls down, incriminates the entire online system.

Being mean, especially to women, has reached epidemic proportions. While this is just observational speculation, I’m willing to be that one could ask any woman with an internet account if they’ve had someone they don’t know say something mean about them online and probably 9 of every ten, if not more, would say yes. I know Kat’s gotten comments, especially when we first started seeing each other. She was able to handle those quickly, though. Not everyone is so lucky.

We laugh when Tonight Show host Jimmy Kimmel has guests read mean tweets about themselves but the very fact we find those tweets and other similar comments funny is a part of what allows the online abuse of women to flourish. Part of the reason trolls say the mean things they say is because they think what they’re doing is absolutely hilarious and that if we don’t “get it” that we need to “lighten up.” There is no humor in threatening to rape or kill women, though. It’s not funny to send them pictures covered in what appears to be blood. There’s no joke behind telling women they asked for it. Every last bit of it is mean.

#MoreThanMean started trending on Twitter yesterday after a Washington Post video was posted where two sports reporters, Sarah Spain and Julie DiCaro, sat down and had sports fans read, out loud, some of the mean tweets the two women receive every day. The effect was emotional and drove home just how easy it is to type things that we never would consider saying to someone in person. The men reading the tweets were clearly uncomfortable and some even cried. You not only need to see this video, you need to share this video. Take a look:

Stop and think. Mother’s Day is coming up in a couple of weeks. Would you talk to your mother like that? Would you tolerate someone talking to your sister, your girlfriend, or your spouse with those words? Not if you have an ounce of decency in you, you wouldn’t. Those of you who have daughters, what if someone spoke like that to her?

Being mean has become so much a part of our culture, though, to the point that we have justified it and built organizations around it, and now embodied it in one of our leading presidential candidates. In a follow-up story on the boycotts we mentioned last week, a new article from Business Insider shows just how much hate and meanness there is around letting transgender people use the restroom with which they most identify. People of color have been beaten at presidential campaign rallies and the candidate has encouraged such mean behavior.

We have created a culture of mean and tolerated it far too long. The time has come for us to stand up, to confront the online bullies, especially those who harass women. We don’t have to necessarily be mean in response to meanness. I think responding with, “If you wouldn’t say it, don’t type it,” is a good start. And yes, unfortunately, there are people who are willing to say mean things. One of them is inexplicably running for president and appears to be winning his party’s nomination. Are we really willing to allow the election of a president who is mean?

This is the primary reason we don’t allow comments on these pages. We tried it a few years ago and even then the mean and rude comments were enough of a problem I made the decision to simply not provide a forum where such statements could exist. I am still of the mind that unmoderated comments are unnecessary and unhelpful.

#MoreThanMean needs to become a battle cry. We cannot allow this culture of mean to continue. Lives are at stake. The lives of people we all hold dear, even if they’re not old enough to be online yet. For all the Tipsters and the Ravens and the Emmas and every other little girl out there who are not yet able to speak for themselves, we need to shut this culture of mean down now.

If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, don’t type it. And confront those who do.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion
Shopping Habits Die Ugly
April 26, 2016
charles i. letbetter - shopping habits die ugly

Whoever said money can’t buy happiness simply didn’t know where to go shopping. —Bo Derek

 

Shopping Habits Die Hard

You’ve changed your shopping habit and it’s killing a quintessential piece of America

I’m old enough to remember having to go downtown to shop. Back then, all the stores were downtown. They were open from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM except on Thursdays, when they stayed open late, until 7:00 PM. At least, that’s how it was in the small Kansas and Oklahoma towns we called home. Back then, if both your parents worked, your shopping choices were either Thursday night or Saturday, neither of which was an especially pleasant experience. Just having to be downtown at night could be harrowing.

I remember the first large indoor mall I visited: Woodland Hills Mall, Tulsa. At the time, its location seemed rather far out, well removed not only from downtown but most of Tulsa’s suburbs. There was nothing around but fields and pasture. Shopping there was a surreal experience and we wondered why in the world anyone would want to drive all the way out there. If you were to visit that location now, however, not only is the area heavily populated, it’s had to go through three or four efforts at revitalization to avoid becoming run down.

Recently, someone gave Kat’s dad, aka “Grandpa Bob,” a real treasure: a 1969 Rand-McNally Atlas. Looking at the map for Indianapolis back then, I-465 was only completed on the west side and the primary destination was Lafayette Square Mall. Drive along North Lafayette now and there are times the mall looks completely abandoned and even the few stores that do remain are small, discount-driven stores with goods of highly questionable origin and quality.

Our shopping habits are changing again, and as they do we’re slowly but surely killing off what has become a bastion of American retail and excess: the shopping mall. Already, there’s an entire website dedicated to tracking mall closures. Now, Green Street Advisors, a real estate research firm, is saying that department stores need to close hundreds of locations if they are to have any hope of returning to profitability. In short, there are too many malls with too many department stores and it’s bringing the entire retail sector down.

The plight of department stores isn’t new and has been fairly well documented. Just last week Sears announced it would be closing 78 more stores (mostly KMart stores) this year. Macy’s warned last September that it would close 40 stores this year. We’ve seen this coming for a few years and that has, if anything, accelerated the rate of change in our shopping habits. We’re buying more online and from discounters now than we ever have.

Yet, more closures are needed if these once ubiquitous department stores are to stay in business. Green Street’s report suggests Sears close nearly half its existing locations. JCPenney needs to close approximately 320 stores, while Nordstrom probably needs to shutter 30 locations, and Macy’s needs to ax another 70 on top of the previously announced 40. All this is necessary if the store brands are to remain profitable.

Store brands are likely to take heed to this advice. They’re watching what’s happening to similar retailers in the UK and it’s not a pretty sight. UK retailer BHS went into administration yesterday, a prelude to possible bankruptcy as did menswear giant Austin Reed. And the once popular mall stalwart Aeropostale was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange on Friday after its stock price has failed to break the $1 mark since last September.

All this spells death for traditional suburban malls who depend on large department stores as their anchors. Malls have seen anchors cut the amount of floor space in some locations and even abandon leases in some others. When that happens, shopping at those malls screeches to a sharp stop. Smaller inner-mall stores, which rely on traffic driven by the anchors, quickly fold and leave. The next thing mall management knows, their vacancy rate exceeds 40% and once that happens the end days are near.

Let’s face it, though: no one really likes shopping at the mall anymore. This isn’t the 80s. We would much rather shop discounters such as TJ Maxx or  Marshalls and when we do shop a major department store we’re more likely to go in, find what we need, and leave. We don’t have enough expendable income to waste time just wandering around and exploring the mall.

No one has said yet whether they’ll follow Green Street’s advice. If they do, though, you can most likely kiss your mall shopping habit goodbye. With store closures in the numbers that the report recommends, only a fraction of mostly newer malls  would be able to survive. Within two years, the entire retail landscape could change dramatically.

I find it a bit ironic that suburban shopping centers and malls were responsible for killing many downtown shopping districts and now those malls are finding out what it’s likely to become obsolete themselves. Few downtowns ever recovered. Mall deaths may be even more permanent.

So, get your food court fix now and maybe make an extra trip to Spencer’s Gifts for those naughty little things. The mall is one shopping experience whose future is not pretty.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD  /  science
Suicide Has Our Attention For Now
April 26, 2016
charles i. letbetter - suicide has our attention for now

Our nation has not made the level of investment on a federal level that can have the positive effect on suicide that has happened for the other leading causes of death. —Dr. Christine Moutier, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

 

charles i. letbetter - suicide has our attention now

We’ve callously tried to ignore suicide for years but as the numbers go up we have to pay attention

We’ve all known someone who didn’t make it. Suicide hit close to home again a couple of weeks ago when the owner of the restaurant where Kat and I have our infrequent lunch dates decided he couldn’t go on. That was not the first such incident either of us has encountered, though, and the numbers are going up.

Suicide has our attention now. With the release of the CDC’s latest report last week, news and media outlets jumped on the unexpected and alarming news that suicides in the United States have jumped, overall, by a whopping 25 percent since 1999.  Statistically, that 25 percent is frightening enough, but when the numbers are broken down into specific groups the fear factor spikes. Just take a look at some of the larger increases:

  • Suicide among Native Americans increased a dramatic 89% among women, 36% among men.
  • Suicide among white women increased by 60%.
  • Suicide among white men increased by 28%.
  • Suicide among girls ages 10-14 tripled.
  • Both women and men between the ages of 45-60 saw increases of 63% and 43% respectively

There almost seems to be one bright spot in that deaths among black males is one of the few areas that saw a decrease. Oh, but wait, that group has seen a severe increase in homicide over the same period, which more than offsets the suicide statistic.

There’s also a disturbing shift in the mode of suicide. While firearms and poisoning (which includes drug overdose) are still the most common methods, suffocation (hanging) incidents increased by 25 %.

When faced with this topic, the first question out of our mouths is almost always, “why?” The truth is, we don’t always know, but looking at the economic divisions we see that suicides were higher in all age and gender groups where income and economic opportunity were lowest. Even with the passing of the Affordable Care Act, which wasn’t fully implemented until after the study’s end date, availability of mental health care among the poor is exceedingly scarce.  The entire psychiatric field relies almost entirely upon insurance receipts and mental health care is one area where insurance companies risk significant loss because of the need for ongoing treatment. Insurance looks to cut its losses by limiting coverage and raising rates, which, in turn, means that those most at risk are least likely to get the help they need.

We also know that there is an increased sense of desperation across the country and social media may be feeding into that problem. Young adults seem to be especially prone to this problem as pressures from parents are high to get a job, even though entry-level positions can be difficult to find. An increase in the importance of standardized testing at school increases the emphasis on academic performance. Meanwhile, when looking at Facebook and Instagram all one seems to see are photos of other people going to concerts and on expensive vacations and buying expensive clothes. This isn’t motivating. Instead, feeling that they are the only ones in their group not succeeding leads to a sense that they never will succeed and might as well stop trying.

Depression is a well-known factor in one’s decision to end their own life, but what we can extrapolate from this study is that the causes of depression are increasing and the depression itself is more severe. Women suffering through long periods of gender and pay inequity increases rates of depression. Repeated loss of employment, long-term unemployment, and seeing their skill set become irrelevant are among the major causes of depression among middle-aged men. General concerns about safety, ability to care for families, pressure to conform to societal standards and the feeling that government isn’t helping are all contributing factors.

With this, our attitudes toward suicide are slowly changing. The death of comedian Robin Williams brought the topic to the forefront of conversation for a moment and we slowly began to realize that the conversation we were having wasn’t the right one. Still, we find ourselves unsure what to do, how to help, or what to say when we fear that someone we know may be suicidal. Based on what we are beginning to understand, here are some tips to keep in mind.

  • Keep the number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in your phone:  1-800-273-TALK (8255)
  • Be aware of any signs of abuse and/or bullying as these are leading factors across multiple groups
  • Don’t be afraid to say something. Posting “I wish I had known” on Facebook after the fact doesn’t help anyone.
  • Learn how to listen. Listening, keeping your mouth shut, avoiding platitudes or empty advice, are valuable traits.
  • Know what to say. There are numerous resources online to help. You already know someone who needs help. Be ready.
  • Suicide is not “the cowards way out,” nor does it negatively affect one’s spiritual situation. Don’t even go there. Guilt doesn’t help.
  • Consider how your own actions may be making someone else’s life difficult. The words we say, the way we treat others, are all factors.

Now that suicide has our attention, let’s do what it takes to reverse course. I’m not naive enough to think that every suicide is preventable, but there is a lot we can do to reduce the number. We can no longer feign ignorance or pretend that the issue doesn’t apply to anyone we know. We have an obligation, if not to society, at the very least to our friends to put this issue on the front burner. We don’t have to wait for medical science to come up with a cure. For a significant number of people, we are the cure.

There’s no downplaying the severity of suicide any longer. Now, we do something.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Mythology  /  PotD
Take Your Boycott And Shove It
April 24, 2016

I can say unequivocally that the boycott does not work. It’s never complete enough to have impact unless it’s backed by force, and I don’t think anybody in America seriously proposes that. —Helen Suzman

 

charles i. letbetter - take your boycott and shove it

There are literally hundreds of boycotts going on right now and none of them matter because, by and large, they don’t work.

There is a very real chance that I am going to offend some people today, and, according to comic Ricky Gervais, that’s not a bad thing. The man who has made the better part of his living off hurling insults at people and making them feel bad thinks we all should stop trying to be so damned politically correct and speak our minds. Of course, the danger in such a statement is that not everyone’s mind is running on all cylinders which could end up being a dangerous thing that ultimately leads to this stupid thing called a boycott.

I follow trends pretty closely, not because I want to adapt them, but from both fashion and advertising perspectives they are important in taking the temperature of a given society or specific demographic group. The latter part of this week I’ve seen a trend emerging quietly, among white people primarily, folks who aren’t necessarily inclined to be terribly upset by Prince’s death, that makes me ill. Some people want to boycott Target stores because they are willing to allow transgender people to use the restroom facilities of the gender with which they identify. Another incredibly insane movement wants to boycott the twenty dollar bill because they oppose the Department of Treasury’s decision to put Harriet Tubman on the currency, replacing one of our worst presidents ever, Andrew Jackson.

Let me state, unequivocally, that if you support either one of these boycotts you are a fucking idiot. The Target boycott won’t work because its based on an unrealistic fear that no intelligent person believes. The twenty dollar bill boycott won’t work because it’s just plain stupid and fueled by ignorance and racism. More than both those factors, though, boycotts don’t work because they’re ineffective and the sooner we stop throwing the word around as though it were some magic tool for getting our way, the better.

Do you have any idea how many different groups are attempting pointless boycotts right now? The website ethicalconsumer.org, which I neither support nor endorse, keeps a list of ongoing consumer boycotts that is about as complete as any. The list is ridiculously long and includes a number of companies that always seem to have someone boycotting them, such as Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Ben & Jerry’s, H&M, Kellogs, and that company everyone loves to hate: Monsanto. Guess what: NONE OF THE BOYCOTTS ARE WORKING! They won’t. They never will.

Why? Because the boycott as an economic tool is fundamentally flawed and even in cases where it might appear that a boycott worked, it was other external factors that likely led to any significant change.

I was impressed by a report done by Stephen J. Dubner over at Freakonomics this past January. The report, originally done for radio, takes a look at one of the most famous boycotts of modern times: The Montgomery Bus Boycott. If ever there were a boycott that seemed to work, that would be it, right? That one would appear to be a shining example of what can happen when a group of people exerts their economic force onto a situation. But Daniel Diermeier, dean of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, doesn’t think it was necessarily the boycott that led to the desegregation of buses. He states:

Being able to identify the actual causal impact of the Montgomery boycott is very difficult, probably impossible. There are some people that argue, at the end of the day, it was really the legal strategy of the NAACP that really was the decisive component. And it’s difficult to disentangle that.  I think most scholars that have looked at this particular case would argue that the boycott became a symbolic event that triggered an entire social movement.

As historians have broken down the event, we come to understand that Rosa Parks was no random bus rider, that Montgomery was no random location, and the boycott was no random activity hastily slapped together by a preacher from Atlanta. Rather, the event was but a part of a longer-term strategy to effect a chance in the civil rights laws across the country. The boycott put a face on a burgeoning movement but it was the strategy of the movement, not the boycott itself, that resulted in change.

The same applies to any other boycott we see that one might consider successful. There has to be an over-arching strategy and organizing force capable of widespread support and influence that understands how boycotting is a very specific tool and, like trying to use a hammer to thread a needle, doesn’t work when applied incorrectly. The vast majority of announced boycotts don’t even come close to having the reason and authority behind them to be successful.

Too often, boycotts such as the ones announced this past week amount to nothing more than an attempt at moral bullying. The same organization that announced the boycott of Target has also tried boycotting Disney multiple times for a variety of reasons. I’m sure you’ve noticed how well that boycott is going [insert sarcastic eye roll here]. Their entire purpose behind the boycott is to force Target into changing their policy for no reason other than to match up with the organization’s right-wing religious-based morality. What they’re doing is nothing more than an attempted “might makes right” tactic that is doomed to failure.

If anything, this week’s boycotts are likely to backfire. Even when the cause is a good one, and neither of these are, boycotts often end up having the reverse effect. Why? No one likes to be told what to do. We especially don’t like to be told where to shop, what to eat, or what to wear. Boycotts that attempt to affect those industries are doomed before they even start.

For boycotts to work, they have to appeal to a matter of conscience that exceeds our commitment to our buying habits. Interestingly enough, there is one form of boycott that might actually have an impact. Note what is happening in the move against North Carolina’s HB2 law, aka the bathroom bill, which prohibits people from using any other restroom facility than the one determined by the gender identified on their birth certificate. This has to be one of the most stupid laws on the planet and people are responding appropriately by leaving the state of North Carolina to wallow in their own ignorance. Not only have a number of entertainers canceled performances in the state, but major corporations that had been planning expansions there have decided to move their operations elsewhere. While not officially an organized boycott, at least, not as far as we can tell at this point, the movement has gained so much momentum that the United Kingdom has warned LGBT tourists against traveling to either North Carolina or Mississippi because of their anti-gay laws. This movement is still developing, though, so we’ll see what it takes to actually get the laws overturned, which is the only acceptable outcome.

Generally speaking, though, and in overwhelming proportion, announcing a boycott is rather like saying you don’t like pea soup because of the way it dribbles down your great-grandmother’s chin. You’re being a stupid, ignorant bully and the rest of the world would kindly thank you to shut-the-fuck-up. Boycotts don’t work. If that offends you, tough. Deal with it.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD  /  science
Water That Is Safe
April 21, 2016
charles i. letbetter - water that is safe

Rivers, ponds, lakes, and streams – they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do – they all contain truths. —Muhammad Ali

 

charles i. letbetter - water that is safe

Water is the very essence of life, but is it ever safe to drink?

I was standing outside with the Tipster this morning waiting on her bus in the rain. As we stood there, huddled under my umbrella, she noticed the water running off the side. Being the silly little six-year-old that she is, she tipped her head back so that the top of her head was exposed to the rain.

“What are you doing?” I asked in a rather incredulous tone. As with many six-year-olds, getting her ready for school this morning was a trying set of circumstances and I really wasn’t in the mood for nonsense.

“I’m drinking the rain off the umbrella,” she giggled.

I pulled her back up under the umbrella with a warning, “You don’t want to do that.”

She’s six. She’s not going to let a statement like that go unchallenged. So, naturally, her response was, “Why?”

What came out of my mouth was, “Because the cats have been all over it,” which is a cop-out because the cats have been all over everything in our house. What I really meant, though, was something more like, “I have no idea what the Ph balance of the rainwater here is and given all the manufacturing on this side of town I’m not sure any of the rainwater is safe without some form of filtering.” That version would have gone right over her little head, though. Cats are much more relatable.

If you’ve driven around Indianapolis lately, you’ve probably seen the billboards and/or heard the radio ads from Citizens Energy, the company that manages and oversees the Indianapolis water supply. The ad campaign has been an attempt to garner public support and understanding for a proposed rate increase to water bills in the areas that Citizens covers. The situation, as presented by Citizens, sounds dier. Some pipes are over 100 years old and much of the original infrastructure is crumbling. Replacing all those pipes is expensive. The plan worked. Yesterday, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approved a rate hike that will increase the average residential water bill by $5 a month starting in May.

The rate hike doesn’t actually ensure that the water we receive through our taps is any cleaner when it leaves the treatment facility, but that it’s less likely to be contaminated between there and your home. In short, what the rate hike does is help prevent Indianapolis and the surrounding areas from experiencing a water disaster like what happened with Flint, Michigan. Clean water passing through aging pipes is about as dangerous as, well, drinking water falling off an umbrella. All manners of nasty chemicals leach into the water supply with no means of control.

As Americans, we take the quality and ubiquity of our water supply for granted. Almost everyone alive today has grown up with running water. We are accustomed to turning a knob and having the water flow at quantities and pressures we could take for granted. That’s why Flint’s water crisis was so alarming. We, as a general populace, weren’t even aware that such a disaster could happen.

Scientist and climatologists have been warning us for years, though, that our supply of drinking water is becoming increasingly unsafe. As with most matters of earth science, no one wants to listen. The stories are of gradual decline, of a slow erosion that isn’t necessarily evident every time one looks out the window.  In 1990, the Acid Rain Program was created as part of the Clean Air Act, but corporate and industrial opposition to the limits established by those laws has been severe and through continued lobbying the laws have been diminished to the point they’re hardly recognizable.

Keeping our drinking water clean is neither cheap nor easy. Earlier this month, Citizens was happy to announce that, “… drinking water produced at all of the utility’s treatment plants is safe …” but that announcement didn’t come until after the Environmental Protection Agency proposed adding an area downtown to its list of superfund sites. Being on this list allows federal funds to be used in cleaning up the area. Two of Citizens’ wellfield areas, along Riverside and 16th streets, would be included in that cleanup. Until then, anything from those wellfields has to go through extra treatment before it’s ready to be consumed.

Spring is deceptive in its ability to make everything look so clean and pure. We just assume that what we drink and sprinkle over our gardens is healthy and safe. A major effort is required to keep us as safe as we think we are, though, and your Indiana state legislature isn’t helping any. Bills attempting to eliminate or significantly limit the EPA’s rules, especially those regarding groundwater, are frequently introduced and there is a vocal lobbying effort to prohibit all EPA legislation completely.

As beautiful a state as Indiana could be, you’d think we’d value our natural resources more and want to keep them clean, but apparently that’s not necessarily the case across the board. Some would rather indulge the continued dumping of raw sewage and spew horrible chemicals into the air. What may seem harmless to some, eventually impacts us all. Rain eventually falls and little girls try to drink the rain from their umbrellas.

You would think such an act would be innocent and safe. It should be.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Sex And Politics
April 20, 2016
charles i. letbetter - sex and politics

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. —Plato

 

charles i. letbetter - sex and politics

Given a choice between sex and politics, the wise person chooses sex

Now that the New York primaries are over and went exactly the way everyone knew they would, the circus that is presidential primary politics moves to Indiana in advance of the primary on May 3. Many times, having a late primary means that your vote really doesn’t count for much. In the past two election cycles, the nomination of both parties has pretty much been decided by the time the Indiana primary rolled around. Not so this year. Both Democrats and Republicans are involved in races that are close enough in delegate counts as to make every last vote in the Indiana primaries worth something (despite what some pundits are saying).  So, all five of the remaining candidates will be hitting the state hard and heavy over the next two weeks to try and convince Hoosiers to vote for them.

What should Hoosiers do? Have sex. Not with the candidates, mind you. None of them are attractive enough for the thought of having sex with them to not be cringe-inducing. I’m pretty sure a couple of them have to blindfold their spouses before getting into bed at night. And we’re fortunate that the list has dwindled to five. One of the advantages of a late primary is that we don’t have to put up with that messy political orgy that started the season. Still, given the choice between politics or sex, we’re all better off choosing the sex.

Let’s face it: we’ve been listening to these yahoos spout their lies and hate-inducing clap-trap for over a year. Media of various forms have inundated us with every stupid word they’ve said, every insult they’ve spouted, every ridiculous idea they’ve proposed, and every opinion on which they’ve flip-flopped. Whichever party one favors really makes very little difference. The candidates who have survived thus far do not offer any real hope for our country.

So, if we’re going to get screwed anyway, we might as well do it in a way that is at least pleasurable. Sex is so much better than politics, makes people so much happier, and even in the worst of circumstances doesn’t endanger as many lives.  Here are a few reasons sex is better than politics:

  1. You, alone, get to decide who fucks you. Politics is like rape in that you’re getting fucked by someone you don’t like in a manner you don’t enjoy and then you’re told it’s your fault. With consensual sex, you choose who’s in bed with you. You don’t have to worry about some lame southern state screwing it up for the rest of the country or taking it up the backside from the electoral college. The sex partner you get is the one you choose.
  2. When the sex is bad, there are ways to fix it.  Not all sex is good, which you understand if you’ve had sex more than once. However, the majority of bad sex comes from poor communication between partners and can be resolved with a little time and patience. Bad politics, though, last a minimum of four years and there’s not a damn thing you can do during the interim to make it any better.
  3. Even bad sex is still good. Even when the sex isn’t as wonderful as you might have preferred, at least you come out saying, “Hey, I got laid!” You don’t have to share the details and no one actually cares if you fudge the orgasm count a few times. Bad politics, however, is never good. Bad politics is like finding out your partner has  an STD even the CDC doesn’t know about yet. You’re doomed. The bumper sticker won’t scrape off and people scream at you for electing the douche that sent the economy into the toilet and got West Virginia nuked.
  4. Sex only affects the lives of you and your partner(s). Even if you’re cheating with someone who is also cheating on someone, the total number of people affected is likely to be less than ten. When politics goes awry, however, the fate of the entire world can be at stake. Millions of innocent lives can be lost. Clean air and drinking water can be ruined forever. Generations who linger long after our demise can suffer because of one bad political decision.
  5. Cleaning up after sex is relatively easy. When the sex is over, you take a shower, wash the sheets, re-adjust the lamp shade, and then go on about your day. Or night. The backside of politics isn’t so easy. Who cleans up after war? Not the politicians. Who has to find a new source of drinking water? Not the politicians who allowed it to be polluted. Who replaces the air we can no longer breathe? Not the politicians who allowed it to become poisoned. Who replaces all the jobs that are lost due to bad foreign policy? Not the politician who implemented the failed policy. Politics is sloppy and leaves you with the mess every time.

As the presidential candidates roam from town to town the next two weeks, they’re going to make a lot of speeches in a lot of different places. Your best move? Don’t go. Leave them all talking to empty chairs. Send a message that Hoosiers are fed up with their lies and their hate and their condescending attitudes toward the Midwest. Instead, stay home and have sex. Or go to a strip club. Or take your significant other to a strip club and then have sex. Or watch porn together. Or try out a new butt plug. There are myriad options that are better than attending a political rally where no one cares about your opinion.

Mind you, I’m not saying you shouldn’t vote. By all means, everyone who is eligible should be at the polls on May 3. Your vote counts more in this election than it has in a long time. Be there.  Do the deed. But don’t think for a second that anything leading up to the actual election matters; it doesn’t. Protesting doesn’t matter. Picketing doesn’t matter. Yelling and screaming doesn’t matter. None of the candidates give a shit what you think; they’ve already made up their pathetic little minds.  The ONLY way to send a message is to stay away from their stupid events, all of them. Void the damn political polls. Then vote.

And have sex.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Photography
Pulitzer Prize Depression
April 19, 2016
charles i. letbetter - pulitzer prize depression

The Pulitzer Prize is an idea; it’s a vote of confidence. Like literature, it exists purely in the mind. —Jeffrey Eugenides

 

charles i. letbetter - pulitzer prize depression

I’m not eligible for a Pulitzer Prize, but if I were I’m not sure I’d want the honor

The annual Pulitzer Prizes were awarded yesterday and, as with every year for the past 30, I had just a momentary touch of jealousy. There was a very brief period in my life where I thought I wanted that particular recognition, or at least, the money that goes along with it. The cash would always come in handy, but I no longer truly desire that prize because what one has to photograph to win the damn thing doesn’t suit me particularly well.

If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at the Pulitzer winners in the photography categories for the past ten years. Stop me when you notice a pattern.

2007 Breaking News Photography: Oded Balilty of Associated Press For his powerful photograph of a lone Jewish woman defying Israeli security forces as they remove illegal settlers in the West Bank.

Feature Photography: Renée C. Byer of The Sacramento Bee For her intimate portrayal of a single mother and her young son as he loses his battle with cancer.

2008 Breaking News Photography: Adrees Latif of Reuters For his dramatic photograph of a Japanese videographer, sprawled on the pavement, fatally wounded during a street demonstration in Myanmar.

Feature Photography: Preston Gannaway of Concord (NH) Monitor For her intimate chronicle of a family coping with a parent’s terminal illness.

2009 Breaking News Photography: Patrick Farrell of The Miami Herald For his provocative, impeccably composed images of despair after Hurricane Ike and other lethal storms caused a humanitarian disaster in Haiti.

Feature Photography: Damon Winter of The New York Times For his memorable array of pictures deftly capturing multiple facets of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

2010 Breaking News Photography: Mary Chind of The Des Moines Register For her photograph of the heart-stopping moment when a rescuer dangling in a makeshift harness tries to save a woman trapped in the foaming water beneath a dam.

Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his intimate portrait of a teenager who joins the Army at the height of insurgent violence in Iraq, poignantly searching for meaning and manhood.

2011 Breaking News Photography: Carol Guzy, Nikki Kahn and Ricky Carioti of The Washington Post For their up-close portrait of grief and desperation after a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti.

Feature Photography: Barbara Davidson of Los Angeles Times For her intimate story of innocent victims trapped in the city’s crossfire of deadly gang violence.

2012 Breaking News Photography: Massoud Hossaini of Agence France-Presse For his heartbreaking image of a girl crying in fear after a suicide bomber’s attack at a crowded shrine in Kabul.

Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his compassionate chronicle of an honorably discharged veteran, home from Iraq and struggling with a severe case of post-traumatic stress, images that enable viewers to better grasp a national issue.

2013 Breaking News Photography: Rodrigo Abd, Manu Brabo, Narciso Contreras, Khalil Hamra and Muhammed Muheisen of Associated Press For their compelling coverage of the civil war in Syria, producing memorable images under extreme hazard.

Feature Photography: Javier Manzano of Agence France-Presse For his extraordinary picture, distributed by Agence France-Presse, of two Syrian rebel soldiers tensely guarding their position as beams of light stream through bullet holes in a nearby metal wall.

2014 Breaking News Photography: Tyler Hicks of The New York Times For his compelling pictures that showed skill and bravery in documenting the unfolding terrorist attack at Westgate mall in Kenya.

Feature Photography: Josh Haner of The New York Times For his moving essay on a Boston Marathon bomb blast victim who lost most of both legs and now is painfully rebuilding his life.

2015 Breaking News Photography: Photography Staff of St. Louis Post-Dispatch For powerful images of the despair and anger in Ferguson, MO, stunning photojournalism that served the community while informing the country.

Feature Photography: Daniel Berehulak of The New York Times For his gripping, courageous photographs of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

2016 Breaking News Photography: Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev, Tyler Hicks and Daniel Etter of The New York TimesFor photographs that captured the resolve of refugees, the perils of their journeys and the struggle of host countries to take them in. Also receiving the prize is the Photography Staff of Thomson Reuters For gripping photographs, each with its own voice, that follow migrant refugees hundreds of miles across uncertain boundaries to unknown destinations.

Feature Photography: Jessica Rinaldi of The Boston Globe: For the raw and revealing photographic story of a boy who strives to find his footing after abuse by those he trusted.

There you have it: ten years worth of Pulitzer prizes for photography. Every one of those entries represents not only amazing photographs, but unbelievable amounts of pain, sacrifice, loss, and incredible risks, including their own lives. One doesn’t get the pictures awarded here without going where no sane person would want to go and taking pictures that, in a perfect world, would never need to be taken.

Therein lies the reason I don’t want a Pulitzer. If I’m winning a Pulitzer prize for photography, it is because someone else has suffered to such an extent that their suffering is visible through the photographs awarded. Of all the pictures on the list above, only the 2009 award for images of President Obama’s first presidential campaign didn’t come with someone facing death, disease, and/or destruction. Yes, we need to see those pictures, and they almost certainly need to be pushed to the front so that we have to visually confront the horrible reality that faces people other than ourselves. We need to know that while we’re complaining about a WiFi signal, Somali refugees are dying by the hundreds in cold ocean waters. We need to see the suffering caused by a pandemic such as Ebola. Without those pictures, we are not able to appreciate the horrible conditions and we are not as inclined to help rectify those problems.

I’ve known Pulitzer prize winners over the years, though, and those people don’t come out of long-term assignments like that without a few scars, both physical and mental.  Not all of them are able to continue. Ghosts of their subjects, some of whom have died in the photographer’s arms, haunt them every time they raise a viewfinder to their eye. Nightmares of bombs going off or people in need tugging at their clothes prevent them from being able to sleep. Some winners refer to the prize as a curse for they can never shake those images and the heart-wrenching emotions that go with them.

Maybe my pictures of a little girl sitting on a stump and being silly are not earth-shatteringly important. Maybe my pictures don’t open people’s eyes to horrible conditions around the world. Maybe my pictures are sometimes simplistic portraits of people who hold no other significance than just wanting to have their picture taken. I’m okay with that.

There are photographers whose pictures are frightening, whose pictures bring your worry, and whose pictures maybe even induce some level of guilt. Those are the ones that win Pulitzers. But if my pictures make you smile, give you a reason to feel confident or good about yourself, or bring back a happy memory, then is that not its own prize? And most the time, I’m not at risk of contracting a deadly disease and dying six months later. I’m good with that.

However, should you feel the need to give me $10,000 for my effort, I won’t turn it down.

Continue Reading

Page 21 of 23

  • Don't Miss A Thing!

    Enter your email address to subscribe now and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 345 other subscribers