awareness

Fashion  /  PotD
Recycling Fashion’s Trash With New Fashion
September 6, 2016
charles i. letbetter - recycling fashion

We live in a disposable society. It’s easier to throw things out than to fix them. We even give it a name – we call it recycling. —Neil LaBute

charles i. letbetter - recycling fashion's trash to create new fashion

Recycling old clothes to create new fashion addresses a big problem, but is it enough?

Sitting near my back door are two trash bags full of clothing waiting to be donated to … something. We’ve thought about different charities, but looking into them we were disappointed by the number of clothes still ending up in landfills. There are a few stores around that will give you store credit (minimal as it may be) for donating your used clothing to them, but they still end up throwing much of those donations into the incinerator. Actual recycling of clothes doesn’t happen as much as we’d like to think.

As we prepare for the onslaught of new clothing that arrives with the beginning of a month of fashion weeks, we need to stop and take a moment to consider what we’re doing with the things we cast off. As (hopefully) wonderful new designs come down the runway, we’re likely to see a lot that we want hanging in our closets. The problem is that our closets are already full. Our dresser drawers are already overflowing. Before we buy new, we have to make space by tossing out the old.

Some people religiously donate to charitable resale shops. Others try to make a dime back at consignment shops. Too many others don’t want to be bothered and simply throw things in the trash. In doing so, as much as we might think we’re doing something good, we are creating a problem.

Fast Fashion Is  A Dirty Business

We’ve talked about it before, how much fast fashion generates more clothing than can be worn. By some accounts, fast fashion is the second dirtiest business in the world. Only the oil industry produces more pollution. For the better part of the past decade, environmentalists have warned about the tremendous impact of fashion’s overwhelming waste. Between the harsh chemicals used in fabric production and the amount of material deposited in landfills, the negative impact of fashion is greater than its economic benefit.

And that’s not even taking into consideration the immoral use of animal hide and fur.

Both the producer and the consumer are at fault. Garment manufacturers are under pressure to produce materials at increasingly lower costs in order to feed fast fashion’s discount-oriented machine. Recycling these materials is difficult because the chemicals used in their creation destroys fibers making it difficult for stitching to hold up over any length of time. Fabrics begin to fray, become discolored, and start to fall apart after only a few washings.

Consumers don’t treat clothes any better. We use fabric softeners and harsh laundry detergents that not only pollute the water but further erode the quality of the fabrics. Simply by trying to maintain our clothes we are destroying them. Then, not liking the damaged condition of our wardrobe, we throw them away, by the ton. We don’t even consider recycling in many cases because the condition of the clothing is just too poor.

A Possible Solution

Answers to big problems sometimes come from unlikely sources. In this case, one of fast fashion’s leading retailers, H&M, is at least trying to find sustainable solutions. An article in WWD yesterday takes a look at the retailer’s efforts at recycling used clothing by turning them into new fashion. H&M partnered with the London College of Fashion in creating a contest urging design students to use donated materials as the central element in a capsule collection.

Fabrics for the project came from H&M’s policy of allowing customers to bring in castoff clothing, regardless of origin. The program, which began in 2012, promises consumers a discount on a single item in the store in exchange for their donation. Shoppers are told that their donations will be recycled or used for new garments. The contest is an important step toward fulfilling that promise.

33 teams participated in the project aiming to waste no material in the production of new fashion. Eight winners were announced, though there is no mention as to whether any of the collections might be considered for production. The message sent to design students, however, was pretty clear: recycling materials gets you hard-to-find attention.

Will It Really Work

Cecilia Brännsten, H&M’s sustainability business expert, told WWD:

We will need a holistic approach to circularity. It will include the whole life cycle from design, what chemicals we put into our products, material choice, production processes and new ways of enjoying fashion by reuse, rental, and repair.

Such an attitude is necessary if fast fashion is going to survive. Without it, there is a place in the near future where the mountains of cast-off and unsold clothing become a burden that cannot be ignored. The current model of fast fashion is simply not sustainable.

However, recycling solutions require consumer participation at a much higher degree than what is currently taking place. While we are pleased to see design students thinking of recycling, making the leap from contests to actual production requires that those mountains of clothes be available to garment manufacturers rather than in landfills. If consumers don’t participate in recycling programs, there is no source for the new designs.

Doing Your Part

I’m going to stop short of actually endorsing H&M’s clothing donation program. I think it is going to take more than a one-time 15% discount for them to procure enough usable fabric to actually turn recycling into a viable fabric source.

At the same time, though, those who shop fast fashion retailers like H&M need to share in the burden of finding a sustainable solution to all the waste they’re creating. Perhaps if there were a requirement for shoppers to donate at least one item before buying a new one then recycling programs might stand a chance. I don’t see that happening, though, as it would cut into the impulse shopping that accounts for the majority of fashion  purchases in the first place. Consumers, people like you and me, have to be motivated to do more.

Unfortunately, if a problem isn’t causing us adverse pain we tend to not care about being part of the solution. We want other people to do the work for us. Too many people think that their participation doesn’t matter. If we’re going to put a dent in the amount of fashion waste created then we all have to participate in recycling programs, whether at H&M or elsewhere. Stop putting fabric in the trash. Either find a way to reuse materials yourself or make it available to someone who can.

I sincerely believe H&M and other fashion retailers want to be responsible. Doing so is good for their bottom line. Nothing changes without your participation, however. You need to be fashion responsible. Before you swipe your credit card for that new Dior blazer, consider donating something from your closet to a recycling project. We’ll all be better for it.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Original Style  /  PotD
Life Should Be Less Safe For Work
September 5, 2016
charles i. letbetter - life should be a little less safe for work

Nature uses human imagination to lift her work of creation to even higher levels. —Luigi Pirandello

 

charles i. letbetter - life should be less safe for work

We see “Not Safe For Work” all across the Internet. Perhaps work should be more open to personal expressions

For those of us in the United States, this is Labor Day. Today, we celebrate hard work, how unions crafted a 40-hour week, guaranteed us weekends, and a litany of other achievements that made the lives of the working class a bit better.  We also celebrate the figurative end of summer. Once upon a time, schools didn’t start the fall semester before Labor Day.  Old-fashioned style mavens also warned against wearing white Labor Day. This first Monday in September holds a lot of significance.

There is also a piece of counter-culture significance to today: this is the last day of Burning Man. No, I didn’t go this year. Again. I can’t say that I’m overly excited about returning to the playa and getting sand in everything. I keep watch, though. I was a little disturbed when vandals destroyed the tents belonging to the son of a Russian oligarch. I understand their reasons for being upset, but their methods seem a bit out of step with the spirit of the festival. As participants begin to leave, Instagram has been flooded with photos, many of which are, as usual, not safe for work.

Much of life on the playa would be considered not safe for work. Not only is clothing totally optional, the creativity people use in expressing themselves might be considered distracting in the workplace environment. Costuming at Burning Man is sometimes rivals what we’ll see on the runways in New York. Burning Man’s atmosphere of openness and inclusiveness allows people to choose between expressing who they are or who they want to be.

Boxing Ourselves In

We’re all relaxed today, enjoying our day off. I’m sure there will be plenty of people in shorts and t-shirts, maybe a swimsuit or two, and plenty of bare feet (unless you live along the East Coast, in which case you have our sympathies).  Take a moment, however, to think about what you will wear and how you will act tomorrow. We get up and, even though we don’t think about it in such terms, we all have these uniforms we put on. Work has expectations for how we dress, how we behave, how we talk, and how we interact with others. Personal expression does not factor into this 150-year-old manufacturing-based system in which we still operate. There are rules. Strict rules.

Granted, some of those restrictions are absolutely necessary. Walking around wearing flammable material, or less, just doesn’t work on a manufacturing floor where things are being welded or metal shards are being flung through the air. We wouldn’t have computers if people didn’t maintain the clean room standards. One certainly doesn’t want to go around handling vials of infectious disease without wearing a biohazard suit. Common sense applies in a lot of obvious situations.

However, in less dangerous climates where special gear and breathing apparatus are not necessary, we still place severe limits on personal expression. We tend to call those limits “professionalism,” but what they actually do is remove the individual and replace them with a corporate identity prescribed to match their duties and class status within the organization. Anything that might potentially distract from productivity is strictly forbidden. For generations, we’ve gone along with those rules because we needed the jobs. However, as a younger group begins to move into those positions of management, perhaps it is time to reconsider.

Pushing The Limits

Kat and I are fortunate to work in creative fields that give us some wiggle room between what is practical and necessary versus what is creative and expressive. Personally, I need little creative space for myself. I am an old man. I have embraced my old=manness. Suspenders are now part of my look so that my pants stay up over my old-man gut. I even briefly considered buying a flannel shirt like my Grandaddy used to wear. I may yet. Kat is sitting here with her hair colored two different shades of blue, sporting a new androgynous cut and style. We get to do things like that. We’re lucky.

I am of the mind, though, that everyone should have the same freedoms, and perhaps more. Common sense has to apply if one is standing near hot grease in a kitchen and such, but the concept that we should be uniform, that we must maintain a look of “professionalism” is overrated and outdated. If one is a receptionist at a financial services company on Wall Street, there is no damn good reason why that person shouldn’t be able to wear a sexy gladiator look like Cara Delevigne did on the playa. Unless one is working around flammable materials, the cool looks of these four guys would make any office environment more relaxed and entertaining.

I understand, the nudity that is so common in the desert makes the more prudish types uncomfortable. They may not shop with you or buy your stuff if you show up to work topless or something. But why can we not wear creative hats or shirts made of scarves? Is there really anything wrong with someone choosing to wear creative face paint to work if you’re in an office where no one except your cubicle mates sees you?

Breaking The Mold

We spend far too much of our time at work to be locked into an identity prescribed by someone else. There are plenty of ways we could open up and make our workplaces more friendly to self-expression and individuality without interrupting productivity. At the end of the day, does it really matter whether one is wearing a business suit as long as we’re getting the work done? Why should everyone’s first job trap them in polyester? Things such as individual hair styles and facial decorations do not impact the quality of work one does. If we could ever get past the overt sexualization and objectification of the human body, there would be no reason to not wear sheer tops or even go topless in many offices. We have made workplaces far too restrictive without giving any reason to the restrictions.

I know, I sound excessive. There’s no chance people are going to start walking around half-naked in the back rooms of a bank. Society is not ready for the creativity and freedom of Burning Man to be thrust upon them all at  once. Still, we can begin to open the door. Pushing the boundaries where you are proves how little individuality impacts productivity. Younger people moving into positions of authority can begin to relax rules without upsetting the whole environment. There are many ways to begin to move forward.

We have to work. There’s no getting around that. But no one should have to sacrifice expressing who they are in order to make a living. It’s time to make work a little less “safe” and a lot more open to alternatives.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Mythology  /  PotD  /  science
When Empires Fall, Dark Ages Follow
September 4, 2016
charles i. letbetter - when empires fall, dark ages follow

Everybody thinks that this civilization has lasted a very long time but it really does take very few grandfathers’ granddaughters to take us back to the dark ages. —Gertrude Stein

 

charles i. letbetter - when empires fall, dark ages follow

While politicians make claims of greatness the reality is that we are much closer to falling into return of the dark ages

Helping my 18-yr-old with his homework is bringing back some often painful memories. This week, his English class started studying Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. I saw the title and shuddered. I remember struggling with the old English and not doing terribly well. The allegory was easy enough to follow once it was explained, but trying to get through the particular challenges of a language that was still trying to emerge from the Dark Ages was a formidable challenge. Fortunately, he actually likes this stuff. He’s doing well without me.

Looking back at that time period, though, when few people read and “publishing” was still not yet a thing got me thinking about how desperate and hopeless the conditions were in the period following the fall of the Roman empire. The decimation of anything remotely resembling that government was so complete that calling that period the Dark Ages is almost an understatement. The late William Manchester studied and wrote about that frightening point in history extensively. In his 1992 book, A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of an Age, Manchester makes the following observation:

Very little is clear about that dim era. Intellectual life had vanished from Europe. Even Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman emperor and greatest of all medieval rulers, was illiterate. Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages, which lasted some seven  centuries after Charlemagne, literacy was scorned; when a cardinal corrected the Latin of the emperor Sigismund, Charlemagne’s forty-seventh successor, Sigismund rudely replied, “ Ego sum Romanus et super grammatica”— as “King of Rome,” he was “above grammar.” Nevertheless, if value judgments are made, it is undeniable that most of what is known about that period is unlovely. After the extant fragments have been fitted together, the portrait that emerges is a mèlange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness.

His last sentence is what frightens me. Compare the qualities with which he defines the Dark Ages to our conditions today and the parallels should shake us to our core. Perhaps we should be concerned. Let’s take a look at each area.

Incessant Warfare

For all the talk about peace, the United States hardly knows what the word even means. I talked briefly with my middle son, the Marine, last night and briefly discussed how tensions over the South China Sea keep everyone on the base in Okinawa in a constant state of preparedness. There is no real relaxing even when they appear to be celebrating the long weekend.

The US military doesn’t know how to relax. We don’t want them to relax. If we look at the list of military conflicts in which the US has been involved, we don’t just see the major activities such as world wars, but an ongoing litany of one engagement right after another. Most of these have slipped our memory. Some were even ignored by the public in general. Yet, our taste for incessant warfare dirties our history from its inception. Consider this list, compiled by The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, for the decade from 2000-2009. How many of these do you remember?

  • 2000 – Sierra Leone: On May 12, 2000, a U.S. Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.[RL30172]
  • 2000 – Nigeria: Special Forces troops are sent to Nigeria to lead a training mission in the country.[10]
  • 2000 – Yemen: On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.[RL30172]
  • 2000 – East Timor: On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET). [RL30172]
  • 2001 – On April 1, 2001, a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals surveillance aircraft and a People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States and the People’s Republic of China called the Hainan Island incident.
  • 2001–2014 – War in Afghanistan: The War on Terror begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, U.S. Armed Forces invade Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks and “begin combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda terrorists and their Taliban supporters.”[RL30172]
  • 2002 – Yemen: On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.[RL30172]
  • 2002 – Philippines: OEF-Philippines, As of January, U.S. “combat-equipped and combat support forces” have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines’ Armed Forces in enhancing their “counterterrorist capabilities.”[RL30172]
  • 2002 – Côte d’Ivoire: On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Côte d’Ivoire, U.S. military personnel went into Côte d’Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouaké.[11][RL30172]
  • 2003–2011 – War in Iraq: Operation Iraqi Freedom, March 20, 2003, The United States leads a coalition that includes the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland to invade Iraq with the stated goal being “to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States.”[RL30172]
  • 2003 – Liberia: Second Liberian Civil War, On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 U.S. Marines into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the U.S. Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.[RL30172]
  • 2003 – Georgia and Djibouti: “US combat equipped and support forces” had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their “counterterrorist capabilities.”[12]
  • 2004 – Haiti: 2004 Haitian coup d’état occurs, The US first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the U.S. Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Multinational Interim Force, MINUSTAH.[RL30172]
  • 2004 – War on Terror: U.S. anti-terror related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.[13]
  • 2004–present: The U.S deploys drone strikes to aid in the War in North-West Pakistan
  • 2005–06 – Pakistan: President Bush deploys troops from US Army Air Cav Brigades to provide Humanitarian relief to far remote villages in the Kashmir mountain ranges of Pakistan stricken by a massive earthquake.
  • 2006 – Lebanon: part of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[14] begins evacuation of U.S. citizens willing to leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.[14][15]
  • 2007 – The Mogadishu Encounter, on November 4, 2007, Somali Pirate‘s boarded and attacked a North Korean merchant vessel. Passing U.S. Navy Ships and a helicopter that were patrolling at the time responded to the attack. Once the ship was freed from the pirates, the American forces were given permission to board and assist the wounded crew and handle surviving pirates.
  • 2007 – Somalia: Battle of Ras Kamboni, On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.[16]
  • 2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia: Helped Georgia humanitarian aid,[17] helped to transport Georgian forces from Iraq during the conflict. In the past, the US has provided training and weapons to Georgia.

The Roman empire made the same mistake that we’re making: trying to secure the whole world on their own. Granted, the “world” of the Roman empire was actually just most of one continent, but given capabilities and geographic knowledge of the time the comparison is still apt. When the Romans proved to be stretched too thin, the Huns breached the Northern borders, opening the doors to every other barbarous tribe that wanted a piece of the action. The once great Roman army fell with surprising speed.

With the fall of Rome, wars between the invading tribes were non-stop. The constant battles sucked up every last ounce of resources leaving nothing for even basic items such as the maintenance of roads. By the time of Chaucer, only the best of the ancient Roman roads were still passable. Most were muddy, rutted, paths barely suitable for foot traffic.

Today, the US military spend $829.1 billion annually. Only health care takes a larger portion of the US budget and many in Congress would dearly love to dismantle those programs. Of that $829 billion, the vast majority goes not to equipment or veteran’s care or personnel, but the direct cost of involving our troops in constant rotating areas of conflict.

Could we be making the same mistake that Rome once did? Could we be taking steps toward our own Dark Ages? Military activity on its own is not enough of a precursor. Let’s continue.

Corruption

Where would you like to start, the Democratic presidential candidate’s private email server or the Republican presidential candidate’s ties with the Russian oligarchy? I’m not sure there is anyone within the borders of the United States who would deny that our government is rife with corruption from one end to the other. Even officials such as town councilpersons and county sheriffs have been convicted of things such as bribery and influence peddling.

What we often overlook, though, are the devastating effects of corporate corruption. It was the illegal dealings of traders on Wall Street and large banks, not the government, that led to the economic depression of 2008. Whistleblowing organizations such as Wikileaks are inundated daily with a constant stream of corruption accusations from around the world. Courts are full of lawsuits never fully heard as both corporate executives and the average Joe next door look for ways to exploit the system.

The effect of so much constant and thorough corruption is to destabilize all of society. We have, in just the past twelve years, seen the complete elimination of anything we once considered the Middle Class. Both legal and illegal corruption bring us constantly closer to that Medieval class system where one is either born rich, serves in the military, or exists in poverty as a serf with no hope of ever changing one’s station in life. As we refuse to reign in such rampant corruption, our march toward the next Dark Ages grows every closer.

Lawlessness

Remember when we were growing up and our parents and teachers taught us that the police were our friends? We naively believed them as they  protected us from the violence that was going on right under our noses. I can sit here and see now that such an attitude toward law enforcement is a benefit of white privilege. Sure, for me and my family, the police are our friends. I can flag down a police officer as he patrols the neighborhood and know that they are going to respond to the best of his/her ability. To them, we appear like a normal, law-abiding, Caucasian family. I’ve never had any reason to fear them.

Too many people cannot say the same thing, though. Even as you are reading this, Native peoples fighting against a pipeline that would destroy their only water source (thanks to more corruption) are being attacked with dogs and tear gas. Here’s the video from yesterday’s activity:

At the same time, police in Santa Clara, California threaten to not do their sworn jobs, to protect and keep peace, because a black quarterback is protesting the brutality of law enforcement against people of color.

Over the past several years, we’ve seen violence erupt across the nation in direct response to the lawlessness perpetrated against people based on racial and religious grounds.  Law enforcement has  too often decided that they get to pick and choose whom they get to protect. Courts have followed suit, repeatedly giving reduced or no sentence at all to white offenders while filling prisons with black and Latino citizens. Our concept of justice has been warped to serve the opinions of whichever political ideology happens to be popular at the moment.

Lawlessness may be the one area where we are already as bad as the Dark Ages. When people mysteriously die on their way to jail and spend countless months imprisoned without a trial we cannot call our society enlightened. Do you feel the darkness closing in yet?

Obsession With Strange Myths

Today is a Sunday. How many people are making their weekly pilgrimage to a place of worship where they will bow in honor to a deity and belief system they don’t really understand? Our propensity to believe in, and obsess over, strange myths is greater now than it has ever been. In fact, the citizens of the Dark Ages would be confused and probably even frightened by some of the religions that prosper in the United States. With over 600 denominations of Christian sects alone, our country’s somewhat dubious guarantee of freedom of religion has given rise to a plethora of belief systems that range from the ancient and honored to the recent and ridiculous.

What pushes us ever closer to a  Dark Ages-style of existence is that what one believes can affect their place in society. I have watched with interest this weekend as the Republican candidate for president has capitulated to church leaders of questionable legitimacy. Desperate to appeal to a wider group of voters, the candidate is pandering along religious lines offering preference in exchange for votes.

Where the poverty-stricken and uneducated Medieval masses were committed to what we would call superstition and legend, we have organized our mythologies so as to give them some sense of legitimacy. Yet, the ferociousness with which we defend these legends of deities that raise from the dead and so-called prophets and saints who miraculously heal select people (but never a whole hospital) ends up sounding every bit like a populous that was illiterate and ignorant of science.

Impenetrable Mindlessness

We easily dismiss illiteracy in the Dark Ages because the printing press had yet to be invented. Access to books and scrolls was limited to those in power, and as we’ve already mentioned not even emperors were especially well educated. We, however, are supposed to be different. The United States is supposed to be the smartest, most well-educated, most intelligent country in the world. At least, that’s what we like to keep telling ourselves. Reality, however, is considerably different.

Statistics from the Literacy Project Foundation show that 44 million adults in the US are unable to read even a simple story. 44% of Americans do not read a book of any kind over the course of a year. Over three million students drop out of high school each year. Those who do graduate are unable to complete any form of higher education because of insurmountable costs that require incomprehensible debt.

Combine those statistics with an anti-intelligence attitude in government that rivals that of Sigismund and we are creating an atmosphere sending us hurtling toward the Dark Ages. Medieval citizens at least had the excuse that modern science did not yet exist. Copernicus wasn’t even born until 1473 and even then his views were considered so heretical that the Church prohibited them from being discussed.  We have every benefit of science imaginable and still there are people who discard such knowledge and information as unsubstantiated rumor not worthy of discussion.

I’m not the first person to notice that we have the wealth of the world’s knowledge  literally at our fingertips and yet we choose to remain ignorant. This, perhaps more than anything else, spells most certain doom for the whole of society.

No One Is Listening

As I sit here near the completion of this missive, hours of research and work poured into it, I wonder how many people will even read these last few lines. We don’t like being told that we are destroying our own civilization. We know that we know better. Yet, our actions continually push toward an edge that, once crossed, could take centuries before there is any recovery.

I wish you would listen. I wish you would share this article. I would love to see people insisting that we take these problems seriously.

There is some comfort in knowing I’ll likely be dead before we really see a return to the Dark Ages. What hurts is knowing that we have gone there with full knowledge of what we are doing. We are turning our back on advancing  civilization and choosing ignorance. History has no choice but to look back on us with shame.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues  /  PotD
Sexy and Porn: Who Knows The Difference?
September 3, 2016
charles i. letbetter - sexy or porn: who can tell the difference

I’m not trying to be sexy. It’s just my way of expressing myself when I move around. —Elvis Presley

 

charles i. letbetter - The Difference Between Being Sexy And Porn

If there’s too fine a line between what’s sexy and what’s porn, it’s because we fail to understand the difference

I was awakened early this morning by the sound of gunshots. Three of them. Within a block of the house. Money is tight. None of the kids are doing as well in school as I’d like (though, the six-year-old reading at a third-grade level is nice). New York Fashion Week starts on Thursday. Of all the things I have to worry about, being sexy isn’t one of them. I’m an old man. I gave up trying to be sexy a long time ago.

Some people do accuse me of shooting porn, though. The image above probably doesn’t help that reputation any. There’s a partial view of a penis in that picture. Exposed breasts are artistic but a penis is pornographic. I’ve been trying to figure out that illogical double-standard for years. We think we know what is sexy, but we have no real concept of when something crosses the line between what is sexy and what is porn. Our publicly stated opinions tend to be rather insincere compared to our personal actions.

Being sexy is a marketing tactic, whether corporate or personal. Sexy is what one uses to get people to notice something or someone. Being flirtatious and suggestive is an advertising campaign that promises something it probably won’t deliver. At least, not to you. Porn takes something sexy and pushes it past our comfort level for public consumption. Anything that makes us uncomfortable must be wrong. But wait, we want to see more. We are so very messed up.

Lingerie Is Sexy, Not Porn

I am not a fan of advertising review boards. The US doesn’t exactly have one, though the FCC’s broadcast standards and a handful of laws tend to act in that capacity. Several European countries have such entities, though, as does Australia, and they frequently have difficulty discerning between what is publicly acceptable (sexy), and what is not (porn). These committees tend to make a lot of mistakes. We’re guessing they can’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground. The latest piece of insanity comes from Australia where the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau banned an ad for Australian lingerie brand Bras N Things. They consider the ad pornographic. Here, take a look:

Here’s a sample of what the board had to say about the ad:

“They were not merely modeling the underwear, they were moving suggestively, gyrating and looking lasciviously at the camera—like a very amateur porn movie. It was a demeaning and embarrassing display. It was vulgar, unsuitable for the young and simply demeaning for any woman walking past.”

You know, I think they said the exact same thing about Elvis Presley back in the 1950s. That gyrating. That snarl thing he did with his lip. Lord knows his moves were much too suggestive. His music must have been vulgar, unsuitable for the young. Funny how that turned into him being a legend by the time he died in 1974.

Just because something causes one to feel a little tingle in their pants doesn’t make it wrong and certainly is no reason to label it pornography. When something stirs the pleasure senses in your body, perhaps one would do well to go with it rather than pull out the chastening rod.

One Model’s Opinion

The model in the Bras N Things ad is Simone Holtznagel, a former Australia’s Next Top Model contestant. I don’t know if she had any financial stake in the company, but she didn’t take kindly to the censorship of her ad. In fact, she took it rather personally. Her rant on Instagram is a little difficult to decipher if one doesn’t read emoji well, but here’s the full thing:

The best part comes right smack in the middle of the tirade:

Do not impress your insecurities on me, whether physical or sexual. But by saying my body, just comfortably being my body, is somehow ‘wrong’ or ‘dirty’ you are insulting and potentially damaging any woman who may identify with me. Keep your neuroses off my body and go watch some REAL porn, you might be less uptight.

I have to agree with her. Watching porn might make a lot of people less uptight. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they would at least try?

A Different Model’s Opinion

At the same time, a different model was writing an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal (paywall) with the assistance of her rabbi, decrying everything that made her famous in the first place. This piece of sanctimoniously self-righteous vomit is about as disingenuous as anything I’ve ever read. The model wants everyone to “stop indulging porn” because disgraced politician Anthony Wiener can’t keep Oscar Meyer in his pants.

Mind you, this model, who appeared 15 times on the cover of Playboy and is practically unrecognizable wearing anything other than a swimsuit, has made some decisions in her life that are quite likely haunting her. She has hepatitis B, among other things, contracted through her own personal actions; choices she made. She has had multiple cosmetic surgeries, not all of which have gone well. Her use of illicit drugs and alcohol is legendary. Now that she’s no longer in demand, over 60, and facing mortality, she wants to recant. So, she’s blaming porn.

I’m sorry, but Ms. Anderson’s problems, and those of Mr. Wiener, are not the fault of porn any more than the Bras N Things ad is too sexy. Blaming porn for one’s own personal actions, choices one makes with full knowledge and awareness of the consequences, is rather like blaming arson on the existence of matches. Bashing porn doesn’t make one sexy. Or interesting. Or morally righteous.

Knowing The Difference

There is a difference between something that’s sexy and something that’s porn. Sexy is an attitude, it’s a part of someone’s demeanor, a level of confidence that is comfortable not only with their sexuality but with the concept of sex as a  whole. People who are sexy understand that the pleasure starts the moment one sees the other, even when one is untouchable and unobtainable. Being sexy facilitates desire.

Pornography, by contrast, is a sexually explicit act not done so much for one’s own pleasure but more for the pleasure of others. Titillating is the word some like to use, though that term is not necessarily accurate. People involved in porn understand that the pleasure does not involve the person as much as it does the activity. Porn doesn’t have to be sexy, it simply has to achieve the desired result. Porn facilitates fulfillment of a physical need.

Sure, sometimes the line between the two can get a bit thin, but it’s not invisible and one certainly knows when one is crossing it.

And we really need to get over this idea that either is inherently wrong. Everything has the potential to be used incorrectly. Even peas.  Two-year-olds and peas are a deadly combination.

We have a lot more important things to worry about.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
American-Branded Hate Dominates
September 2, 2016
charles i. letbetter - amerocan-branded hate dominates

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. —Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

charles i. letbetter - American-branded hate dominates

There’s more hate speech from American sources than anyone in the Middle East

Today’s pictures are only there to get your attention. They have nothing to do with the topic.

Okay, that statement’s not completely accurate. We have a picture of an ass. If you are a racist, bigoted, xenophobe who spreads hate, then you are an ass. So, I guess there is a distant relationship to the topic. Sort of.

Nonetheless, it appears that America is number one in yet another area of distinction: spreading hate online, specifically on Twitter. The research done by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism was released yesterday. I had planned to write this article then and was too ill to do so. This much hate makes me sick to my stomach.

We’re not especially surprised by the outcome of the study. At least, we’re not surprised that Americans spew more extremist views than anyone else. We’ve been watching the mountains of filth grow from the moment President Obama was elected to office in 2008. Every neanderthal in the country suddenly felt a need to go online and express their rage, ignorance, and outright stupidity. Half the time the statements don’t even make sense.

The numbers are higher than we expected, though. Much higher. Even that Mid-East terror fountain we refer to as Daesh (because it’s insulting and they really have nothing to do with Islam) doesn’t put as much hate online as do Americans.

Numbers Difficult To Count

Just how proliferate is the extremism we’re talking about?

“White nationalists and Nazis outperformed [Daesh] in average friend and follower counts by a substantial margin. Nazis had a median follower count almost eight times greater than [Daesh] supporters, and a mean count more than 22 times greater.”

Concrete numbers are difficult to come by because Twitter, which the report specifically targets, is constantly doing its best to eliminate accounts known for producing hate speech or content that incites or encourages violence. However, that effort has been very  lopsided. While the social media company has shut down, by its own account, over 360,000 accounts “for threatening or promoting what it defined as terrorist acts,” those efforts have been directed specifically toward Daesh. Nazis and white supremacists, on the other hand, have gotten by with saying just about anything they want.

What’s important to realize is that it’s not just the number of accounts but the number of followers that matter. A group might post a racist statement and be largely ignored if they have a low follower count. But when one has a following the size of the white nationalists and Nazis studied for the report, nothing gets ignored. Instead, the hate gets liked and retweeted over and over, spreading its vile poison around the globe. The final reach by these mostly American-based hate groups is in the millions.

Everyone Gets A Chance To Speak

Remember that point in Plato’s Republic, along about Book VII I believe, where he uses the allegory to describe why Democracy fails? He might as well have been looking right at us when he wrote that passage. For democracy to work, there must be learning, understanding, and reasoning across the board. Everyone must have a base level of intelligence if everyone is going to get a vote. Otherwise, the system fails.

The great promise of the Internet was that it would “level the playing field” by giving everyone a voice. Sure, the big corporations would have the biggest and flashiest websites, but that wouldn’t prevent Joe Redneck over there from creating his own website as well. Freedom of Speech. First Amendment. Rah, rah, rah. We were so convinced this w as a good thing and in many ways it has been. Then, along comes social media like Twitter and its ability to amplify all those millions of voices. Everyone gets 146 characters, no matter who you are. Equal footing for everyone. Sounds great.

And then the hate begins. Small at first, more of an annoyance than anything. But the hate grows. People start following the hate. They start retweeting the hate. Suddenly, extremists groups we thought had all but disappeared are popping up with huge audiences. They play to the fears and the lies and the misinformation of an under-educated and largely ignorant populace. The extremism spreads from Twitter to real life as the number of Klan and Nazi rallies increase. The next thing we know, not only is hate back stronger than ever, but it’s running for President!

Shutting The Barn Door

Ask the good folks at Twitter what they’re doing about the problem of extremist hate speech and they’ll direct you to their terms of service. They try to emphasize the parts that “prohibit promoting terrorism, threatening abuse and hateful conduct such as attacking or threatening a person on the basis of race or ethnicity.” The rules are there. The problem is getting anyone to follow them. Twitter, like Facebook and other companies. relies on users to report inappropriate activity. However, one cannot report activity they don’t see.

There has been a lot of discussion over the past few years as to how we create “echo chambers” with our social media accounts. We like, friend, and follow those people and organizations that hold values similar to our own.  When someone repeatedly makes statements that we don’t like, things that we find offensive,  we unfriend or unfollow them. Problem solved, right?

Not exactly. If offensive hate-filled behavior isn’t reported, then it continues whether we see it or not. When everyone following a hate group agrees with that point of view, nothing gets reported. Instead, the hate is shared, re-distributed, turned into a meme and shared again. The very systems that allow us to choose what we see and who we follow end up allowing the hate and the extremism to grow.

Complicating matters even further is the fact that, unlike Daesh, American-branded extremism isn’t cohesively organized and planned. Individuals are as likely to make offensive statements as are known  hate groups. Shutting everyone down becomes difficult.

Finding A Solution

The report states that its data represents only a subset of all the extremists and hate-based groups on the Internet. They are legion.

Where we begin turning the tide against hate is first by filling Twitter and other social media with more love. Support those who fight against injustice. Demand equality for your Muslim neighbor, your Latino neighbor,  your black neighbor. Fill your life, and your friends list, with those who are the targets of hate. Show more kindness and generosity toward those most likely to be the subject of online trolls and bullies.

Then, when you see injustice and hate, put it down. Don’t merely unfriend someone. If what someone is saying threatens another person or group, speak up. Report them. No, you’re not being mean or vindictive. You’re sending a message that hate and extremism are not tolerated.

Hate kills. No one has a right to kill. Stop the hate. Embrace your brother and sister. Spread the love.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Music
Replacing The National Anthem
August 31, 2016
charles i. letbetter - change the national anthem

If you forget the words to your own song, you can always claim artistic license. Forget the words to the national anthem, and you’re screwed. —Lyle Lovett

 

charles i. letbetter - change the national anthem

The National Anthem is difficult to sing, is fraught with negative connotations, and fails to fully represent our country. So why do we still use it?

I’m looking at recent headlines and having an incredible sense of having been here before. Once again, we’re arguing about the National Anthem. This instance happens to be the result of some random football player exercising his right to sit during the pre-game ritual. This isn’t the first time someone has done that. It won’t be the last. This whole incident has been played out multiple times during my life. Yet, for all the talk, nothing has actually changed.

I’ll admit that, as a musician, I rather like the music portion of The Star-Spangled Banner. I like that not just anyone can sing the song well. The song harmonizes well when arranged correctly. The melody is open to a lot of personal interpretation. As a piece of music, The Star-Spangled Banner works well for me.

However, as a national anthem, the song sucks. The language is stilted and the entire third verse is offensive. Textually, the song doesn’t so much say, “Hooray for the United States,” as it says, “Hey, we didn’t get beaten this time.” As a nation, we have been divided over the anthem since the middle of the 19th century. Continuing to force it upon generation after generation just for the sake of tradition removes any real meaning. What we sing at the beginning of ballgames and political events today does not represent us. We need a national anthem that speaks for us all.

Why Have A National Anthem?

If we’re going to get all riled up about the issue of a national anthem, we first must consider why we have an anthem in the first place. Why is it an anthem and not just a national song? I don’t find it unrealistic should we just have a national jingle. After all, we are one of the most commercially driven and materialistic people on the planet. Perhaps an anthem isn’t what we need at all.

Most music dictionaries define an anthem as a song that identifies the ideals and values of a specific group of people. For example, when our friends directly to the North of us sing Oh, Canada it’s pretty obvious from the start what the song is about and who it represents. Russia’s national anthem (which is not without similar controversies itself) is also highly recognizeable. That one starts out:

Russia – our sacred homeland,
Russia – our beloved country.
A mighty will, a great glory –
These are your heritage for all time!

Sort of. The translation is a little rough, but the general sentiment is there. My point is that an anthem makes it clear that it holds a relationship with a specific group of people.

The Star-Spangled Banner doesn’t exactly fit that definition. People only relate the song to the country because we keep playing it every time we decide to get sweaty or have an election. The song does not contain the name of the country. The song does not represent our ideals. Our song is about a flag not getting blown to smithereens. That’s it. So, it fails in the definition of an anthem.

A National Anthem Should Be Inclusive

Singer/songwriter John Legend, who I respect, went on record yesterday as saying he believes we should change the national anthem to America The Beautiful. A lot of people have made the argument for Katherine Lee Bates’ song before. At the very least, it is certainly more descriptive of the country and contains the word “America.” That’s more than the current anthem does. Plus, it is easier to sing and is already well-known. There’s just one little problem in the chorus:

America, America,
God shed his grace on thee.

Uhm, yeah, there are going to be a lot of people have a problem with that reference to a specific deity. The case isn’t made any stronger by the fact that the original poem has at least eight verses, one of which contains a phrase some might find a bit frightening:

America, America,
God shed his grace on thee;
‘Til nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

What the fuck? Okay, if we give Miss Bates the benefit of the doubt, she might have meant “whiter” in the sense of more heavenly, maybe. Still, the inference here is totally unacceptable in a national anthem. The same is true for God Bless America and I’m Proud To Be An American. The religious references divide us, not unite us.

Some (Slightly) Better Suggestions

We have some existing songs within the American catalog of music that have the potential for being a great national anthem. If we’re going to get all caught up in the flag thing, then perhaps the late George M. Cohan has the answer:

You’re a grand old flag
You’re a high-flying flag
And forever in peace may you wave.
You’re the emblem of
The land I love,
The home of the free and the brave.
Ev’ry heart beats true
‘Neath the Red, White and Blue,
Where there’s never a boast or brag.
But should auld acquaintance be forgot,
Keep your eye on the grand old flag.

The song only works, however, if we just adopt the chorus. The first verse has an uncomfortable reference to, “Way down yonder in the land of cotton.” I can understand a lot of people not being particularly fond of that little element.

Perhaps we just do away with lyrics altogether. After all, that seems to be what largely upsets folks about any of the songs. Maybe John Philip Sousa’s The Stars and Stripes Forever, which is already our national march, could fit the bill. We like singing, though, and again, it doesn’t match the definition of an anthem.

Time To Write Our Own

We need a new national anthem. We need a song that is singable, one that unites us  rather than divides us. The United States deserves a national anthem that actually contains the name of the country in its text. A song that can be sung by little children or mass choirs should be the goal of our effort. Any anthem representing our country needs to reflect all of us, not just the privileged few. To have a song that marginalizes so many of our own people is unacceptable.

We have too many wonderful and talented composers in our country for us to not have one kick-ass national anthem. We need to get behind the concept and tell Congress, who ordains such things, that we demand a new song. Maybe have John Legend write it, or maybe Beyoncé and Taylor Swift could team up. Anyone accept Kanye. Please, don’t let that idiot near our national anthem.

For too long, we have argued and fussed over a national anthem that fails to represent us well. We need to get over the whole aspect of tradition and write something new; something  that gives us all a reason to stand with pride and sing.

Or maybe we just need a jingle.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  science
Does History Care If We F*#k Up?
August 31, 2016

The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice. —Mark Twain

 

charles i.letbetter - does history care if we fuck up

Humans may very well be responsible for one of earth’s greatest calamities, but 100,000 years from now will anyone care?

Humans like to think we’re the smartest beings that have ever inhabited this planet. We may be correct. History indicates that whatever preceded us didn’t have a great deal of luck when it came to surviving what the universe threw at them. We, on the other hand, are pretty sure we’re different. We are convinced that we have everything under control and can almost certainly mitigate any natural disasters. Confident beings, we are.

However, given the choices we’re making, history may judge us no more intelligent than the dinosaurs. We gleefully ignore science. We intentionally pollute our air and water, the very things we need to survive. Our planet is over-populated beyond its ability to sustain life. Yet, we refuse to use genetically modified foods that could feed the planet. We love war. Not only that, humanity has a long history of people not getting along with their closest neighbors. Anyone looking at us in retrospect would consider our violent tendencies a negative character trait.

Humans, however, are focused on the here and now. We pay attention to us. The past is the past. Let the future worry about itself. The earth is slowly baking? Meh, it’s just a periodic thing that happens. Humanity may be in the process of committing one of the biggest fuck-ups in the history of the planet. Yet, does history actually care? Looking beyond our meager existence as a species, we are as easily forgettable as Australopithecus afarensis. The fact you don’t know whether I just made up that name proves my point.

How We Look At History

Humans are the latest, but most likely not the last, in a long evolutionary line of hominids. Our earliest bipedal ancestors existed some six- to eight-million years ago and were considerably smaller than we are now. Our best connection with this time is a single skeleton from about three million years ago. Scientists named the skeleton Lucy because she was, in a very real way, a person. Lucy’s skeleton was found in 1974 in a shallow Ethiopian stream bed. Researchers announced this week that we finally know how Lucy died. She fell, feet first, from a high distance, most likely a tree.

Studies of Lucy’s skeleton take a lot of time. She is the only one of her species we have encountered. She is the only one of her species we are likely to ever encounter. Therefore, while anthropologists study her remains at the microscopic level they try to make conclusions not only about Lucy’s life but her entire species. Did Lucy live or sleep in the trees? When she fell, why was no one around to save her? Each question answered raises a dozen more.

Inevitably, someone asks about the accuracies of these findings. We’re using the best CSI-like technology available. We’re drawing conclusions and making discoveries about Lucy’s time period that would have been unthinkable 40 years ago. Yet, we have no way of knowing exactly how accurate the findings are. No one from that period in history, nothing written, no form of communication still exists. Lucy’s life matters because it is the only glimpse we have into her species. Without her, we wouldn’t have a clue. History wouldn’t care.

How History Looks At Us

Back in 2011, geologists and other scientists who study history in large time frames declared that we have entered the Anthropocene—Age of Man. They all agreed that the impact of humans on this planet was significant enough to deserve its own epoch. In a National Geographic article on the topic, writer Elizabeth Kolbert relates an experience she had with stratigrapher Jan Zalasiewicz. As they were examining an outcropping of rock in the Scottish Highlands, Zalasiewicz pointed toward a particularly dark-colored stratum about three feet wide and said, “Bad things happened in here.”

By “bad things,” Zalasiewicz was referring to mass extinctions, a global calamity of some sort that was so severe as to change the color of the sediment left behind. Known as the end-Ordovician, this was one of the biggest earth-shaping extinction events in the last half-million years. The event is significant because, without those changes, humans might never have evolved on this planet. Even if they did, we would have been very different creatures.

Flash forward 100,000 or even a million years now, and realize that the way in which Zalasiewicz views that stratum of rock is exactly how future scientists will view the sedimentary remains of the Anthropocene. At some point all that will remain of us, of our society, of our technology, of our philosophies, our quarrels, our wars, and our politics is sediment. Our means and methods of communication might give researchers more insight into us than we have into Lucy’s time period. Ultimately, however, it’s all just a giant slab of rock underneath other giant slabs of rock.

History Isn’t Detail Oriented

I’m going to be blunt: History doesn’t give a shit about the petty details of our lives. We don’t’ give a shit about the petty details of Lucy’s life. Future inhabitants of this planet, whatever they may be, won’t give a shit about the petty details of our lives. Even if they are somehow able to access and decode this strange mess we call social media, they won’t care. They have no reason to care. What future species want to know about us  is the same thing we want to know about Lucy: How did her species affect our species?

Lucy’s Australopithecus afarensis species represents a link in an evolutionary chain. We are another link in that same chain. What matters to the ultimate course of history is whether we make that evolutionary chain stronger or weaker. We’re arrogant bastards sure that we are strengthening that chain, but our estimations may be biased. Where we stand now, we can either start paying attention to our planet and focus on preserving both it and us or we can fuck it all up and end up being the weak link in our evolutionary chain. This is how history ultimately views our species.

When you ask yourself whether your life matters, consider this context of history. Does  your life make us stronger, weaker, or indifferent? If your life is represented by a stratum of rock, do you change the color or do you blend in with those around you? If we, collectively, fuck up this evolutionary chain, history is not going to be kind in its view of us. They’ll look back and, regardless of the details of our lives, consider our whole species imbecilic.

So yeah, history cares if we fuck up. Maybe we should as well.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Luxury Shoppers Aren’t Nice People
August 30, 2016
charles i. letbetter - luxury shoppers aren't nice people

I am convinced that there can be luxury in simplicity. —Jil Sander

 

charles i. letbetter - luxury shoppers are not nice people

If you need help, don’t bother asking the person coming out of a luxury retailer

Let’s play a game this morning. You’re walking down the street with a friend, maybe doing a bit of window shopping. It’s a nice day and you’re enjoying looking at the window displays of luxury brands even though you don’t have the money to actually shop there. A young woman on crutches approaches from the opposite direction and just before she gets to you she stumbles and drops the bags she’s carrying, spilling their contents on the sidewalk. What do you do next?

Sitting at home, looking at this on your phone or tablet, it’s easy to say we would rush over and help the young woman. After all, it’s just the polite thing to do. One would have to be callous to just stand there or keep walking. Who would do such a thing?

But when Paris Descartes University and University of Southern Brittany teamed up to actually test shoppers reactions, the results were not favorable. As it turns out, just the presence of luxury brands is enough to change how people react to someone in need. Whether those people actually shop in the luxury stores doesn’t seem to make a great deal of difference. Being around retail shops for names like Prada, Chanel, and Dior causes us to be less kind, less helpful, and less charitable. Only 35% of luxury shoppers offered any kind of aid or assistance to the person in need. By contrast, when the same test was performed in an area void of luxury retailers, 77.5% of shoppers responded in a positive manner and helped.

I Gave At The Office

There are many reasons for why luxury shoppers might be shy about helping. I don’t have time to go into all of them, but one of the primary reasons is that people who have money typically manage their money, or have someone do it for them. When it comes to charity, donations are made at scheduled periods to accommodate both cash flow and tax issues. These people often give millions of dollars annually. As a result, they tend to be of the opinion that they’ve already given back to society, substantially. They don’t need to do any more.

Paired with this is the sad reality is that those who have large amounts of money are constantly being asked to donate more. They’re aware of myriad scams and con games that would quickly drain their bank accounts if given the opportunity. Those who have been stung by such fraud are justifiably cautious. Even a simple act of stooping down to help someone with their packages puts them at risk of theft or kidnapping. They are cautious for a reason.

Does this justify them not helping someone in need? In some cases, perhaps so. How does one observe such an event, especially on a busy Parisian street, and know whether or not the need is real or an act? If someone is out without a security detail, they may already feel significantly at risk. Such events are exactly the type of thing security experts warn their clients to avoid. So maybe we give some of them a little slack.

Faking The Luxury Thing

One of  the most interesting aspects of the study is that the mere presence of a luxury shop is all it took to change people’s reactions. When the super-rich reacts negatively, we’re really not all that surprised. When average non-rich people react this way, though, we’re a little more surprised. Why would their behavior change based on what they’re near?

Blame the credit card. While the number of millionaires is legitimately increasing, so are the number of people who want to act and shop as though they’re richer than they are. Their lives are fueled by an array of credit cards with floating balances. Their debt is high. These people are playing a game of public deception. They want everyone to see them as something they’re not. One most often sees them window shopping at the big-name stores, but then making their actual purchases at the outlets.

Should we expect any different behavior from these people, really? If they’re already living fictional lives based on incredible debt, then we shouldn’t be too terribly surprised when they follow through by acting more snobby in the presence of someone in need. The difference is that their behavior isn’t fueled by security concerns. They are just being assholes because they think that’s how rich people are supposed to act.

A Lack Of Empathy

Researchers theorize that the presence of luxury, reminders of conspicuous consumption, causes people to be less empathetic. Those who shop in and around luxury stores actually consider themselves better than others around them. That feeling of superiority changes how one views people in need. The assumption made is that anyone in need must be of a lower social class or otherwise they wouldn’t be in need.

That lack of empathy is something we see growing across what we would previously have considered upper middle class. As socio-economic strata flatten out, those who perceive themselves to be at the upper end of the ladder look for more visible ways to separate themselves from those they consider to be lower. These people can actually be mean in how they deal with other people, and especially those who ask them for any kind of assistance. They are completely lacking in empathy, even though they’re not all that different from the people around them.

A Little Kindness Goes A Long Way

Even in this less-than-friendly climate, there are still those who do help, who do have a touch of compassion.  People in this study were not asked for money or any kind of contribution that might put them at any actual risk. Some were asked to simply watch a person in a wheelchair while the other person retrieved packages. The young women asked some if they could borrow a cell phone to make an emergency call. When removed from the obvious presence of luxury, people responded with overwhelming kindness.

These results make for some interesting correlations. Do money and/or luxury make us worse people? Do we really think that wearing a luxury label makes us better than our fellow humans? Are we really good people at heart who are too easily swayed? Hopefully, this study opens the door for more. If luxury brands are going to affect how we interact with people to such a strong degree, we need to understand more about the causal factors and how they might be addressed. The last thing our world needs is to encourage any greater absence of empathy.

Meanwhile, if we want to shop around nice people, perhaps we’d best stick to shopping at Target.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  science
Be My Friend, Live Longer & Happier
August 29, 2016
charles i. letbetter - be my friend, live longer & happier

Old friends pass away, new friends appear. It is just like the days. An old day passes, a new day arrives. The important thing is to make it meaningful: a meaningful friend – or a meaningful day. —Dalai Lama

 

charles i. letbetter - be my friend, live longer & happier

The secret to both longevity and happiness, it turns out, is to have good friends and deep relationships

“How many Facebook friends do you have?” There’s only one group of people to whom that question’s answer actually matters: Marketers. They look at the number of friends as a ratio for the number of people you influence. You like something, they are more likely to like the same thing. You buy something, they may buy something similar. Marketing looks at a friend not as a relationship but as leverage for selling.

You know was well as I do that social media “friends” or “followers” aren’t actually relationships, though. Those people, or the numbers, might make us feel a little better about ourselves but they’re not going to come help you move. That sympathetic online friend isn’t likely to buy you the drink you really need. The random Twitter follower isn’t likely to lend you the money you need to fix the car. While there might be the occasional exception, most online friends typically stay that way: online. We don’t develop real relationships with them.

The people who are really our friends, though, have a bigger impact on our lives than we might have thought. Mainly, the depth of those relationships and the number of them we have, help us to live both longer and healthier lives. Being my friend, in real life, is good for you, even if I’m occasionally a pain in the ass. What’s more, there’s actual science to prove it.

Everybody Needs A Friend

I’m drawing results from the longest-running study of human wellness and development, the Harvard Grant Study. The Grant study started in 1938 with 730 men. Half were Harvard sophomores. The other half were young men from the slums of Boston. For over 75 years, researchers followed these men through their lives, through war, through marriage, through various employments, and into retirement. They looked at everything, including their health. They even did brain scans. And what was the top takeaway from all that research? Friends, good, strong relationships, keep us  healthier and help us to live longer lives.

This goes beyond just having a best friend, though that is definitely a strong factor. The larger one’s real-life friend network is, the more likely they are to live longer and be more satisfied with the content of their lives. Having friends who share experiences, who are sympathetic and supportive, and who just “hang out” are all important. These are the relationships that stay with us. A friend that is with us at age 50 is more likely to still be our friend at age 80 and beyond.

What’s important about this level of friendship is that a friend is encouraging. Friends that create and promote conflict are not helpful. Relationships that are constantly in turmoil actually do us more harm than good. Divorce can be healthier than living in a high-conflict marriage. Yet, where we have a friend on whom we can depend, a friend that makes us smile, we are more likely to be healthy.

Loneliness Kills

What is equally important to realize is that just as quality relationships prolong our lives, the absence of them shortens our lives. At any given point, on any day you choose, one in five Americans says they’re lonely. Loneliness kills. Those who are isolated from society are more likely to die sooner.  Those who do not have a friend to whom they can talk are more likely to develop terminal diseases that lead to death.

By contrast, one should note that it is not merely the presence of friends that keeps us healthy, but the depth and quality of those relationships. A line that seems to be important is the age of 50. Prior to reaching middle age, friends are more numerous but they are also more likely to come and go with some frequency. As we get older, however, the number of friends begins to solidify. The relationships that matter get deeper and have more meaning in our lives.

This does not mean that having more friends makes life easier. The Grant Study started in 1938 and right away a majority of the participants were flung into World War II. Some who were well off and privileged plunged to the depths of poverty. Some who were raised in Boston tenements rose to the top of social standing. The ranges of experience varied dramatically. What remained consistent is that those with a good friend, those with strong relationships, weathered the storms better.

Friends Protect Our Brains

I find it especially interesting  that having multiple strong relationships not only helps us live longer, but they also help protect our brains. Looking at study participants who are now in their 90s, those with a healthy dose of friends experienced the effects and diseases related to dementia at a much slower rate and later in life than those who did not have a strong friend network. Having friends keeps our brains functioning more strongly, helps our memory recall, and keeps our brains more nimble.

When we are young we collect more friends to help us feel a part of society. We surround ourselves with those who are like-minded in an effort to validate our own opinions and lifestyle. As we get older, however, we begin looking for that friend who is going to be there long-term, even if they are not physically close. The friend who we may not see every day but is there to talk with even on the boring days is invaluable. Having friends who don’t judge, with whom we can be ourselves, keep us healthy and happy.

Interestingly enough, among the 60 study participants still living, which happens to include one former US President (think about it), every last one of them has repeatedly confirmed over the years that friendships are a  dominant factor in their happiness than either money or fame. Some have done well financially, others are barely getting by, but they all agree that it is those deep, abiding relationships that make life worthwhile.

I don’t know about you, but I’m always open to more friends; the real ones. Let’s do coffee. Perhaps we’ll both live longer.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion
Is Fashion Week Flying Off The Rails?
August 26, 2016

You really do have the license during fashion week to wear the things that you wouldn’t necessarily wear to dinner, because it really is a fashion parade. —Brad Goreski

 

charles i. letbetter - is fashion week flying off the rails

With Fashion Week less than two weeks away, the traditions surrounding the month-long event seem to be disappearing

We’re now less than two weeks from the start of New York Fashion Week and I’m not sure at this point whether to bother consulting the schedule or not. Normally, shows would be pretty much locked down by now. We would have a good sense of the schedule and could begin preparing for where we need to be at any given moment. Not this season. At least, not yet. I suspect the calendar will straighten itself out eventually, but there are some big names still missing and some will stay that way.

Fashion week as we knew it a year ago no longer exists. Everything is in a state of flux and it is this season that is seeing a lot of the transition that is likely to become the norm for coming years. Digital media and online buying having taken over. With that comes a complete change of attitude, strategy, and availability. What we once expected from a fashion week just doesn’t happen any more. This is the season we start making that shift and it’s making more than a few people uncomfortable.

What We Know

Without going into any boring detail at this point, here are some of the changes we are aware of:

The waves of change are  all over. Even how sets are constructed and shows are structured is changing. We’re expecting far fewer traditional runway shows this season. Who gets invitations and who doesn’t, who sits where, and what is allowed into a venue is all different than it was last season. Very little of what one expects from fashion week is staying the same.

Consumers Want Current Season

Folks in Italy may have to do some backtracking on their February statements against current-season show strategies. They came our pretty strong against the concept last season and Italian designers seemed to largely agree that shows needed to stay a season ahead of retail. Consumers, however, seem to have other ideas.

A report was released this week by Verdict Retail showing exactly the opposite of what the Italian Fashion Council wants. 85.6% of shoppers say they want to shop current season and support a see-now, buy-now strategy. 85% is a scale-tipping number. Labels can either get with the program or suffer the consequences of continually declining sales.

Unpredictable weather and social media are the primary culprits behind this change in consumer expectations. When everyone around the world can see a collection the instant it walks, the demand to have that collection now increases significantly. With weather often blurring the lines between seasons, a heavy coat is appropriate for summer as much as s short shorts are part of the winter collection.

Discounters Rule

The other aspect that is spurring changes on fashion runways is the fact that luxury labels are having difficulty keeping up with discounters and outlet stores that are digging into their profits.  Large department stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom are having to run sales 50% and even 75% off in order to compete with the likes of H&M. This leaves designers increasingly narrow margins and effects how they approach fashion week.

Even discounters, though, may soon face declining sales. A Moody’s retail analyst told Bloomberg TV this week that consumers make $80 billion in interest payments on student debt each year, leaving them with increasingly less expendable cash during that time of their lives when they should have the most money available to spend. Gen-X and older Millennial shoppers are having to adopt a more frugal spending plan. Historial studies show that once such a mindset is established, consumers typically don’t change habits even when they do have more money

This leaves luxury labels looking for new ways to entice cash- and credit-strapped shoppers. Traditional runways are not selling the clothes as effectively. Fashion week is, in some cases, too old school to hold the effectiveness it once did. Labels are actively seeking alternatives.

Hang On For A Wild Ride

We’re expecting even more shifts and changes as we get closer to the September 8 start date of the season. We’ll do our best to keep up with the most important. Stay with us.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Everyone Gets To Weather A Storm
August 25, 2016
charles i. letbetter - everyone gets to weather a storm

Living is strife and torment, disappointment and love and sacrifice, golden sunsets and black storm. —Laurence Olivier

 

charles i. letbetter - everyone gets to weather a storm

Indiana cowered as storms passed over, but we were not alone. Everyone gets to endure a storm.

Skies above were clear and the air was humid as I stepped out the door to take the dog on his early morning walk. The last of the rain moved out around 3:00 AM. Computer models aren’t predicting any new storms for today, but WTHR’s Chuck Lofton isn’t convinced. Conditions this morning are too similar to yesterday morning. As the dog and I make the last turn toward home, I see lightning to the North.

Yesterday wasn’t a pleasant weather day for anyone in central Indiana. The first siren sounded here shortly after 3:00 PM. By that time, a Starbucks up in Kokomo (about a 90-minute drive North) had already been flattened by an F3 tornado. I grabbed my hat and phone and headed outside. A neighbor met me on the corner and we watched one lightning strike after another.

“You don’t think that’s headed this way, do you?” he asked, the worry showing on his face. Yesterday was his birthday and he wasn’t having a good one.

“No,” I answered. “But it’s too close for comfort. That’s hitting right around 38th street. Just about where the kids’ school is.”

The lightning passed, then came the bulk of the storm. Clouds and wind shifted direction repeatedly. We never saw a funnel. We wouldn’t have in all that rain. The system moved on East and caused more trouble in the central and Eastern parts of  town. Only two twisters have been confirmed, but there were many more funnels spotted. Buildings damaged. Power out. Children scared as they hunkered down at school. Not a fun day to be in Indiana.

It’s Not Always Like This

Tornado sirens went off five different times yesterday afternoon, prompting my 18-year-old, who just moved up here, to ask whether the weather was like this all the time. This is the second time since he’s been here that sirens have sounded. This isn’t what we might consider traditional Indiana weather, especially for this time of year. Research out of Purdue University in Lafayette suggests that warmer temperatures might be pushing “tornado alley” into the state. Days like yesterday may become the new normal for Indiana.

When a storm like this hits an area, everyone is momentarily jarred. Weather is one of those areas in life over which we have absolutely no control. When the weather starts getting nasty, our senses revert to an inherent sense of fear. We instinctually recognize the danger. Our blood pressure increases to facilitate a run to cover. Our ears go on high alert, listening for the approaching storm. Eyes become more focused, even to the point of increasing our ability to see in the dark. As the storm passes, we exhale, feel a sense of relief in still being alive. We survived another one. Yay us.

Storms like yesterday are small, though.  Just ask anyone in Louisiana who is still wading through several feet of water, unable to return to their homes. No one totally escapes the storms that life throws at us. As frightening as yesterday might have been for some, those storms were light compared to what others are enduring.

A Death Toll Rises

Earthquakes hit central Italy last week, completely leveling many ancient towns. At first, the death toll seemed moderate. I think the first report I saw listed 14 casualties. When I went to bed last night, the count was at 159. This morning, the death toll sits at 247 and climbing.  Strong aftershocks continue, making rescues dangerous. The storms we endure are not always those associated with weather. They come at us from many different directions and many different forms. Compared to what is still happening in Italy, yesterday’s dance with tornadoes was a walk in the park.

In the Italian city of Amatrice, one of the worst-hit towns, a small hotel with 70 guests collapsed. Only seven bodies have been recovered so far. In Pescara del Tronto, rescuers were finally able to get to a 10-year-old girl who had lain in rubble for 17 hours. Over in Accumoli, however, two little boys, ages 8 months and 9 years, were buried along with their parents when their house fell in on them. Stories like these are repeated over and over and over across central Italy to the point one risks becoming numb to the tragedy. This storm was just as unexpected as yesterday’s tornadoes. No one could have predicted this.

Yet, to not expect storms in life is foolish. I sometimes think that we should teach storm survival skills as a course in high school. Students would learn skills to help them survive not only tornadoes, but earthquakes, floods, mudslides, volcanic activity and other forms of displacement and upheaval. Fire is an inevitability for everyone. Storms are inevitable. So, why are we not better equipped, both emotionally and tactically, to hand them?

#CantDoNothing

Since life’s storms are so inevitable, not only do we need to be prepared to handle the ones that directly affect us, but we also have a responsibility to respond to the tragedy of storms that displace others. Locally, the American Red Cross is leading efforts to assist those most directly impacted by yesterday’s storms. If you want to help, you can click here to give. Around the world, there are appropriate agencies to which one can give as to participate in providing relief to all the manners of storms that disable people around the world. Those who survive have a responsibility to humanity to step up and provide assistance.

Sometimes, though, storms are ongoing. Some of the most devastating events are not natural disasters but those initiated by the insanity of war and economic disasters. Refugees continue to pour from Syria and other war-torn countries. Their storm seems never ending. While it’s easy enough to sit here and say, “I feel sorry for those people,” what they really need is a more hands-on approach, people willing to volunteer on the ground in the places where refugees land and the places they wait.

Milana Vayntrub is probably best known to most of us as Lily from the AT&T commercials. She was vacationing in Greece earlier this year when she learned about the severity of the refugee situation there. Being a refugee herself, she felt compassion and took the steps to do something. She then used her phone to create a documentary about the situation. The portion here is 13 minutes. Please, take a moment to watch.

More Storms Coming

Some storms can be forecasted. Many others can’t. What we do know is that more storms are coming, both here in Indiana and around the world. With each storm, there are people adversely affected. We hope to not become victims ourselves. Where we don’t, however, we have an obligation to help those who are, not just here, but around the world.

Continue Reading

Personal  /  Photography
Are We Too Poor To Make A Jump
August 23, 2016
charles i. letbetter - are we too poor to jump

Sometimes, if you aren’t sure about something, you just have to jump off the bridge and grow your wings on the way down. —Danielle Steel

 

charles i. letbetter - are we too poor to make a jump

Making the jump to a new career sounds tempting, but what if you are already poor?

Kat and I were both sitting in the living room reading Sunday when I looked up and mentioned that I was having to be careful about what I read. Too many articles and books and studies pique my interests. I could jump down any number of rabbit holes and waste untold hours of time chasing a topic that has no application to anything I do. The problem is that I enjoy learning new things far too much.

“Would you like to go back to college?” she asked. The expression on her face told me she was serious. That’s Kat, though. She’s all about tackling challenges head on, embracing one’s passion and hanging on as tight as possible.

I gave her my standard set of excuses. I wouldn’t know what to study. My GPA is too low. Most importantly, I don’t see the benefit of going $60,000 or more in debt at a point in my life where I’m not likely to ever earn enough to pay it back.

We are, by government standards,  poor. No, we’re not destitute, but the last thing we have the money to pursue is some random jump into a career or field of study that may prove to be impossible. Our general situation improves only with the careful management of our limited funds.  Chasing other interests is a fantasy.

When To Jump

Earlier this month, the Huffington Post started a new section specifically aimed at people pondering some of the same questions I ponder. The description of the section sounds appealing:

When to Jump™ is a community dedicated to exploring the fundamental question we all think about: when is the right time to go do what you really want to be doing? HuffPost has partnered with When to Jump founder Mike Lewis to curate the stories and ideas of people who left something comfortable to chase a passion. Whatever your jump may be, this is the place to help inspire you to make it.

The stories have headlines that sound incredibly encouraging. This Would-Be Doctor Switched Paths To Help People In An Entirely Different Way.  How A Former Pre-Med Student Found Another Way To Build Healthy Communities. I Left My Successful Career as a Doctor to Become an Art Student.

Wait, are you noticing what I’m noticing? There’s a trend here, at least early in the community’s inception, to focus on those abandoning the medical field. Reading through these three articles, I could feel happy for each person’s story. They took the risk, made the jump, and it worked. Yay them! I couldn’t help noticing, though, that these people come from a much higher socio-economic class than I do.  Financial challenges have a much different meaning for them than it does for me. For the OB/GYN cum art student, there didn’t seem to be any severe challenge beyond her own self-doubts.

Is this whole career jumping just for the affluent? Thousands of people my age who lose their jobs to acquisitions and mergers, economic downsizing, or technological advancement are told to “make the jump” into something they love doing. But when each month is a challenge to keep the lights burning making a blind jump into something that could, at least for a moment, involve a substantial investment, that move isn’t so attractive.

Let’s All Be Astrophysicists

Over the past few years, I’ve taken quite an interest in astrophysics. Neil deGrasse Tyson has done a great job of making this incredibly complicated field of study seem relatable and even obtainable. Being an astrophysicist sounds like an incredible amount of fun, even if the amount of math is intense. I’m sure I would do better with math now than I did back in 9th grade. I think I could come to love astrophysics.

I’ve had arguments similar to this before, though. Back in 1988, I was all in turmoil over whether to go back to school and get my master’s degree in something music related or chasing this photography thing and seeing where it took me.   We know how that debate ended. Finances played a large role in that decision, too. Photography meant having a paycheck right then, even if it was small. Going back to school meant not knowing if there would ever actually be a paycheck. In the end, the decision wasn’t all that difficult. Paycheck wins.

This takes me back to the article from a couple of weeks ago, Stop Doing What You Love. I might really like astrophysics from an amateur perspective, but does it really make sense to jump into the field with any hopes of being successful? Probably not. In addition to all the cost for additional education and tutors, there’s the fact I would be well into my 60s before achieving the level of education necessary to become employable. Better I stick with what I’m good at doing.

Stuck To The Ground

Personally, I don’t even  know if I really want to jump. I still love photography. I’m not yet done taking all the pictures I want to take. As I look into the future of the profession, I cannot help but wonder if my days are numbered. Once everyone can take pictures with the contact lying on their eye my usefulness decreases considerably, Imagining a day when there are no more professional photographers isn’t terribly difficult.

But to jump requires having money. Money to go back to school. Money for equipment and books and materials. Then, there’s that matter of paying bills, feeding a family, while in the course of such a jump. When people have some kind of financial backstops, those worries are not so large. For those who have none, however, such concerns are a roadblock.  We have to take care of our families first. Making a jump may put our careers at risk, but we can’t put our families and their well-being at risk. We’re stuck.

Such is the way our country works, though. Anything is possible if you have money. If you don’t, those who do go out of their way to make you feel like a burden on society, no matter how hard one works or how hard they try to fit in. Being poor removes one ability to jump.

I don’t expect anything to change. I might investigate the choices a bit, but I’ll see a price tag and probably back off the idea of making a jump. After all, I’m not a doctor or  pre-med student. They get to jump. The rest of us just dance in place. Our feet are too poor to leave the ground.

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography
Showing Some Respect For The Photographs
August 22, 2016
charles i. letbetter - show some respect for the photographs

Respect is what we owe; love, what we give. —Philip James Bailey

 

charles i. letbetter - showing some respect to the photography

There are pictures everywhere on the Internet now but few are getting any respect

When one visits the Louvre, there are certain rules one must follow. Actually, there are a lot of rules one must follow. No smoking, drinking, eating, raising your voice, touching artworks, or running in the museum exhibition rooms. The museum houses some of the world’s most fantastic pieces of art and curators there are adamant that guests respect the art. They even put up signs to remind visitors how to act. They look like this:

charles i. letbetter - showing some respect for the photograph

Louvre mode d’emploi – Respecter les collections

There are times when I wish I could put a similar label on my photographs. I find it interesting that when a photographer puts any kind of identifying or security mark, such as a watermark, on their photographs people complain that the mark “interrupts the aesthetic value of the picture.” At the same time, though, those same people fail to show any respect for the photograph in the way it is treated and displayed. Comments are brutal and insulting without having any knowledge of  all the photographer went through to create that image.

The Internet, and especially social media, thrives on photography. Whether professional or amateur, the Internet needs photography and video or else it quickly becomes boring. Few people realize that early editions of the Internet didn’t have photographs. The first browsers had no way to display images. Everything was text. The Mosaic browser changed all that in 1993 and the Internet has never been the same. But with all those pictures out there, we’ve lost our respect for the pictures and the medium.

Respect The Process

Photographs appeared on the Internet a full decade before digital photography became a reasonable alternative to film. Before digital photography, the path from camera to Internet was long and trying. The film had to be developed, processed, finished, and then scanned into a digital format. Scanning was unreliable and often multiple scans had to be created before a usable copy was obtained. It was the fallacies of those early scans that necessarily gave rise to tools such as Photoshop.  The digital image had to receive further processing and editing to make it ready for online use. Weeks could pass before a  photograph was ready.

Today, even professional cameras come wi-fi equipped so that a photographer can instantly publish a photo to Instagram or other application if they desire. Still, that immediacy does not take away from the skill, talent, and effort the photographer put into that photo. More involved photographs, such as the ones at the top of this page, can take several hours over the course of multiple days before they are ready for public exposure. Months of planning may take place before the frame is even snapped. Nothing about a professional photograph is easy or accidental.

Respect for the process shows respect for the hours of training, the multiple specializations brought to bear, the difficulty of knowing which adjustments to make  and when a line has been crossed. Just because one can see a photo instantly after it is taken doesn’t mean that the photo is done. Raw images are seldom as perfect as they might appear on the back of a camera. A lot of hard work and creativity goes into almost every professional image.

Respect The People

One of the biggest disgraces of the Internet are those mean-spirited people we refer to as trolls. The problem has become so severe that Time magazine saw fit to devote a cover story to the topic. Writer, Joel Stein describes the problem thusly:

…if you need help improving your upload speeds the web is eager to help with technical details, but if you tell it you’re struggling with depression it will try to goad you into killing yourself. Psychologists call this the online disinhibition effect, in which factors like anonymity, invisibility, a lack of authority and not communicating in real time strip away the mores society spent millennia building.

Such overwhelming disregard and complete lack of respect for both the creators and subjects of photographs is why you are not allowed to comment publicly on my pages. I would love to hear kind thoughts and might even entertain technical questions. Unfortunately, opening up comments to allow for any intelligent conversation on a topic is an open invitation to trolls who, by their very definition, don’t know how to control the tongues.

I am especially likely  to lose my temper when someone shows a lack of respect for a model. Disparaging the physical appearance of a young woman has caused me to block more than one person. I can tolerate questions about a pose or whether a highlight is out of gamut, but insult a model and were it possible to reach through the Internet and punch someone, I would.  People who risk their self-esteem and personal identity to pose in photos don’t need anyone tell them they’re too short or their head is awkwardly shaped. Shut the fuck up.

Respect The Work

Not all that long ago I would occasionally give someone a signed print as a gift. I would carefully choose a photograph, perhaps one from a set they claimed to really like, go through the trouble of additional processing necessary to pull a print, and then sign and date them for authenticity. After all that effort, only once in the past  eleven years have I seen one of those works actually hanging anywhere. Instead, they’re put in the back of closets, forgotten and unappreciated. In one instance, I found a print torn, mangled, and shoved behind a file cabinet. The recipients of those gifts not only showed disregard for the gift, but failed to show any respect for the work.

Image theft, which has been a constant problem on the Internet, also exhibits a lack of respect for the work. Doing a google search for a photograph then copying it and using it for your own purposes, whether online or in a brochure is theft and lacks respect. Failure to credit photographer in the work is another form of theft and disrespect. Cropping out the photographer’s watermark is a sign that one fails to respect the image and its source.

I would be tempted to say you wouldn’t go into the Louvre, take a picture of the Mona Lisa and then try to pass it off as your own work, but, astonishingly, I can’ t. People have so little respect even for masterworks as to think that they can claim some right to misuse whatever they see.

Respect For Everyone

Failure to show respect for others ultimately reflects back on yourself. A lack of self-respect causes a failure of respect for others. We do not value in others what we do not value in ourselves. No one is fooled. All the mean-spiritedness does not hide the self-loathing. Trolls are more transparent than they realize. Photo thieves are merely trying to make up for their own shortcomings. No one is fooled.

I don’t blame photographers who feel acrimonious about the misuse of their photos and pull back permissions. The person who posts photos on Facebook without tagging the photographer disrespects both the photo and the person who took it.  After suffering that slight more than a few times a photographer has a right to say, “No more.”

I grow tired of seeing people who know absolutely nothing about photography disrespect my work. I know many other photographers feel the same. If you enjoy the pictures a photographer presents, please say something. If you don’t, there’s no need to say anything at all. Please, respectfully, keep your mouth shut.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Why Do We Get Dressed Everyday
August 22, 2016
charles i. letbetter - why do we get dressed everyday

I always say: To be well dressed you must be well naked. —Oscar de la Renta

 

charles i. letbetter - why do we get dressed everyday

A growing fashion retailer asks why we get dressed. We think that’s a damn good question.

My alarm goes off at 4:00 AM and the first thing I do is reach for my clothes. I get dressed quietly, in the dark, one of the benefits of having a monochrome wardrobe. I don’t have to worry about whether colors or patterns match. By the time I get my shoes on, though, I’m sensing a nip in the air. Checking the weather app on my phone, I see it’s only 60°F outside. I pull on the sweater draped on the back of my office chair, attach the leash to the dog’s collar, and out we go for our morning walk. 4:00 in the morning and I’m already dressed. There’s something wrong with this picture.

Chances are, especially if you live in the Midwest, you  don’t think of not getting dressed. Even when we tell people we’re not feeling well and aren’t getting dressed today, we’re still wearing something. Running around naked always sounds fun until one actually does it. Then, we discover our skin sticks to things in uncomfortable ways. Little pointy objects we’d never noticed before reach out and grab at us. The slightest breeze makes us shiver. And those damned mosquitoes are a constant nuisance. Okay, time to put on some clothes.

Fashion retailer Uniqlo, which is just starting to make serious attempts at the US market, thought this might be a good time to ask the question: Why do we get dressed? The question is at the center of their very first global ad campaign and it smartly addresses a question with which many of us wrestle every morning. Why are we doing this?

We Have Our Reasons

Whether one believes ancient mythologies of how we were created or prefers the scientific explanation of evolution, we find that we’ve been covering ourselves pretty much from the moment we learned to walk upright. Even now, high school students are taught the five main reasons we get dressed:  protection, adornment, identification, modesty, and status. We break each of those down into subcategories based on things such as tradition, social class, occupational requirements, religious intervention, and comfort. We want to look acceptable even when we’re drenched in sweat.

Fashion is a $1.2 trillion industry built on one primary concept: we need to get dressed. Different labels offer different answers to the how, what, and how much of it all, Some take the quality route. Others go for practicality. Still others are nothing more than utilitarian in their scope. Our reasons are as many and varied as the styles of underwear found in our drawers. As much as we might complain, we actually like getting dressed and can be damned picky about it.

This careful choice of clothing is what Uniqlo is trying to tap with this campaign. Despite being one of the largest fashion retailers in the world, they’ve had trouble getting a foothold in the US market. The campaign focuses on both the diversity and quality of the clothes the store carries. Here, take a look at their new ad:

https://youtu.be/AKwd_0q7-mw

Not So Easily Defined

While quality and selection are wardrobe choices are important, they’re not the only reason we choose to wear what we wear. Color, for example, not only reflects certain styles and trends but also reflects our mood and our physical condition when we get dressed.  If you’re feeling a bit depressed, you might choose to wear something pink because it cheers you up. On days you need to tackle tough situations you might choose black or a dark navy because they give you a sense of power. Maybe you just really like a particular shade of green. We all have our reasons.

Some have expressed fear in the past that fashion styles are erasing our sense of nationalistic or cultural identity. I can see where someone might feel that way. Look at the ad and one notices that, while the two main characters are both white, everyone else is Japanese. This is Uniqlo’s way of staying true to their roots in Japan.  At the same time, though, we notice that everyone is wearing a distinctly Western style of clothing. Remove any racial identity and we might have trouble discerning whether this is a scene in Japan or Moscow or Paris or Minneapolis. Large retailers do tend to create a homogenous fashion palette that leaves all the customers with a certain sameness to their look.

Shoppers have proven, though, especially in recent years, that they want more say in how they put a look together. Advertisers might style a look one way, but everyone tends to put their own individual twist on things. How we look when we’re dressed says something about us individually. Uniformity is passè and, for many, insulting. We are not likely to wear head-to-toe Chanel but a certain coat or handbag might be the perfect touch for a look pieced together from discount stores  and second-hand shops. How we put ourselves together is a complicated matter for some people.

How You Should Get Dressed

Style experts, who seem to be getting younger every time I blink, tell us to utilize the three F’s when getting dressed: Feel, fit, and flatter. Granted, that approach seems a bit simplistic if your occupation requires something specific, whether it be a suit for the boardroom or dungarees for working with heavy equipment. Such restrictions can make the flattery element challenging but if the feel and fit are on point then the look is probably going to be flattering anyway.

Fit is probably where we fail most often. As our weight fluctuates between seasons and levels of activity, we find ourselves trying to squeeze into clothes that are too tight or trying to find creative ways to hold up something that’s a touch too large. People at either end of the spectrum, either very thin or very large, have the most difficulty finding something that both fits and flatters. Retailers like Uniqlo best serve the mainstream. Anyone with special challenges can find getting dressed more like a nightmare.

Perhaps the question of why we get dressed is one we should ask more often. Too often we pull on whatever is close and convenient with no regard to even how it feels, much less fit or flatter. We all might be happier if we considered the reasons we wear what we wear. Certainly, it would make our society more interesting and less like a homogenous blur. Express yourself in what you choose to wear.

Even if you’re only wearing underwear.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Music  /  PotD
Your Music Choices Affect How Your Food Tastes
August 20, 2016

Markets change, tastes change, so the companies and the individuals who choose to compete in those markets must change. —An Wang

 

charles i. letbetter - what you hear affects your tastes

What we hear affects how we taste. So, one beer is providing its own soundtrack

Most mornings I sit here trying to be as quiet as possible so as to not wake everyone else in the house, especially the little ones. Fortunately, everyone sleeps rather soundly, so I’m able to grind beans and make coffee without disturbing anyone other than the dog, who doesn’t mind as long as I feed him first. I enjoy sitting down with that first cup of coffee in the peace and quiet of the morning. I’ve never given any consideration as to whether music might actually change how my coffee tastes. However, I’m certainly thinking that way now.

Beer maker Stella Artois released a couple of YouTube videos this week aimed at changing how we experience their beer. Partnering with The Roots, aka the band from Jimmy Fallon’s Tonight Show on NBC, the brand is throwing some science at its customers by demonstrating how music alters how their beer tastes. No kidding. This is real science. In fact, it’s just part of a larger multi-sensory project called Le Savior. They’ve already thrown multi-sensory events in Montreal and New York where the videos take center place. Unfortunately, the rest of us just have to try and re-create the experience on our own.

Do we really care enough about the subtle tastes of a beer to change our playlists? If you drink Budweiser, you could probably care less. For Stella drinkers, though, that difference can be a huge factor in their drinking experience. Turns out, sound affects our entire culinary experience. Perhaps we should investigate.

Yes, This Is Real Science

While science has taken some hard knocks among those who refuse to believe the earth is hotter than ever, the science of auditory effects on tastes is pretty solid. Yes, we actually looked it up and did some reading. I mean, just because a beer company tells us something doesn’t mean we’re going to believe it, right? Please, tell me you don’t take these campaigns at face value. What we found is that not only is the auditory impact on food tastes a serious area of study, the volume of research on the various aspects is considerable.

At the core of all this research is how sound affects our concept of sweet and salty tastes. A 2011 study,  Effect of Background Noise on Food Perception, looked at how perceptions of food differed based upon whether diners ate in silence, quiet background noise, or loud background noise. As it turns out, noise, “diminishes gustatory food properties,” ultimately affecting the tastes we perceive from the food and drink we think we’re enjoying.

In the real world, that means we need to be eating in environments that are actually quieter, not louder, if we want to really enjoy our meals. Televisions need to be shut off. Dining al fresco at a sidewalk cafe bordering a busy street probably isn’t enhancing the tastes of the food as much as we might think. All that loud kitchen noise and clanging and overly loud conversation? That’s great if a restaurant is trying to keep you distracted from how the food actually tastes. Quieter is always better.

But Silence Drives Us Nuts

Additional research, however, shows that some sounds, specifically music, can change how we feel about certain spices and especially regarding alcoholic beverages such as wine. A 2012 study published by The British Psychological Society demonstrated that subtle background music changed how subjects responded to the same wine. Think about that. Without being told they were drinking the same wine each time, subjects rated the wine differently four different times according to changes in background music. Interestingly enough, the subjects were so concentrated on the wine, they didn’t even notice cognitively that the music had changed!

With that knowledge in hand, Stella Artois employed food scientists Bompas & Parr and then worked with The Roots to come up with two different soundtracks to emphasize either the fruity sweetness or the hoppy bitterness, depending on which one might prefer. While I’ve not seen a full menu for the four-course meal severed at the Le Savior events, I assume food choices complimented whichever soundtrack was being played.

What this raises is whether dining and/or drinking experiences can be tailored based on music choices. If a restaurant plays a brass-heavy soundtrack, for example,  are the more exotic and perhaps bitter tastes of the food going to come through more than if a lighter sound were chosen? Stop and think about it for a minute. Would knowledge of what music was playing ever impact or possibly even change your choice of where to dine?

Side A Or Side B?

Getting down to the actual videos one might find the difference between the two soundtracks almost insignificant. That theme comes up often in the comments below each video and while that source is far from being authoritative on any level we cannot ignore that we’re talking about more subtle difference that not everyone notices or appreciates. No two people approach tastes in exactly the same way. Our culinary traditions and experiences color every dish and every drink we consume. Some people care about subtle difference in flavor, some don’t. That’s cool.

Below, you’ll find both videos. Unfortunately, there’s nothing visually attractive here. The video is simply a vehicle for the soundtrack. What you’ll find, though, is that side A, which is supposed to bring out the fruitier elements of the beer has an emphasis on steel drums in the midst of the rapid-fire lyrics for which the group is known. There’s less direct melody and more percussion in this track. Side B, however, which is supposed to bring out the bitterness in the beer, is heavy on brass counter-melodies. Personally, the two tracks are obviously and completely different. However, I can see where someone not specifically tuned in on the musical elements might miss the difference. Again, one’s own tastes influence the experience.

 

Changing Minds

The question remains is whether this gimmick is enough to change anyone’s opinion about Stella Artois. For all the noise about craft and premium beers in the market, there are still a lot of people who just want something cold and alcoholic. One also has to wonder how a restaurant might serve music that meets the variety of tastes among the customers. Does every meal come with its own soundtrack? How would that even work?

Still, the test is an interesting one. Listen to the soundtracks during your next snack or drink. Who knows, they might just change your mind.

Continue Reading

Art  /  Fashion  /  Nature  /  Photography  /  PotD
Celebrating World Photo Day 2016
August 19, 2016
charles i. letbetter - world photo day 2016

There is nothing more miserable in the world than to arrive in paradise and look like your passport photo. —Erma Bombeck

 

charles i. letbetter - world photo day 2016

Today we celebrate the joy of taking a photo, of preserving a memory, of telling a story

Welcome to World Photo Day 2016! This is a day in which we’re going to play along nicely and pretend that the organization behind this day isn’t just trying to sell their book. We like this day because it celebrates something we feel rather passionate about: photography! I mean, who doesn’t like it when someone captures a good photo of you? Granted, for some people that is excessively more difficult than for others. I will also admit that there are times, even when the photography is good, we don’t especially like how we look. I mean, that whole passport photo quote above is way too accurate.

Still, we like to celebrate World Photo Day. Mind you, we don’t celebrate because this was the day photography was invented. The date was determined based on the Daguerreotype, which showed up in 1837. Even that wasn’t really the first photo process. The first fixed-image process was the Heliotype in 1826. What this date actually celebrates, though, is your access to photography. The French government purchased the rights to the Daguerreotype on this date in 1839 and made them open to the public. This allowed for further development of the camera so that you can take selfies with your phone.

Photography has come a long way since 1839. Photography will go a lot farther. This has never been a static industry. Change is constant as someone is continually trying to find a way to take a better, more real photo. Every time someone snaps a shutter, they capture both a moment in time and a moment in photographic history.

The Joy Of A Photo

I’ve taken hundreds of thousands of photographs over the years. From the first time until today, I still get excited when I look at the finished product and find that I have captured something special. Of course, there are times when I’m the only one who thinks a particular image is special, but many of them hold a lot of meaning.

Your pictures are the same way. Sometimes the pictures we hold most dear are those that are not technically stellar. It’s that picture of someone special, or that moment that gave you an incredible feeling, or the last time you saw the person who gave you life. Photographs tell our life’s story. They mark the moments of highs and lows. They remind us that we’re human.

So, we’ve chosen a group of photos for today that spans a range of events and emotions worth remembering for different reasons. Some pictures were chosen not because of the photo itself but because of the people involved behind the scenes. Danelle French did make up for some really great make-up on several. Some are special because of where they were taken. And several are of Kat. That’s a good excuse on its own.

We’ll take more pictures. It’s not always convenient or easy, but we keep going. Some we share. Many we don’t.  What follows is a mix of both. And if you want us to take your photos, just ask!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Terrorism Gives Fashion A Shake
August 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - terrorism gives fashion a shake

Human rights are not only violated by terrorism, repression or assassination, but also by unfair economic structures that creates huge inequalities. —Pope Francis

 

charles i. letbetter - Terrorism give fashion a shake

Recent terrorism around the world has given the fashion industry reason to worry

Western media often turns a blind eye toward problems in the East, but as radical acts of terrorism continue to grow around the world the effect comes closer to impacting our own lives every day. For fashion, one of the most critical areas of the world is Bangladesh. Only China assembles more clothing than the many garment factories here. Over 4 million people are employed in the nation’s garment industry, making it a critical economic element. We’ve expressed concern about conditions in Bangladesh before, but now matters are more critical.

Last month, terrorists attacked a cafe in Dhaka. Twenty people were killed. Among those were two Italians with connections to the fashion industry. Seven Japanese were also killed in the attack, some of whom were there on fashion business. Almost immediately, buyers started canceling trips to the city. Retail brands began calling their staffs back home.  The ripple effect sent shivers throughout the Bangladesh garment industry.

Terrorism is not new here, nor in any of the Asian countries struggling to pull themselves from Third World status. Recent attacks, however, have given international companies reason to worry more about the safety of their employees. Employees are worrying more about the safety of simply trying to get to work of the morning. As fashion’s buyers become more reluctant to visit the impact to the fashion industry begins to grow.

Reason To Be Concerned

This time last year, terrorism was a topic whispered carefully in backrooms. While care was taken to keep presentation venues safe, no one was willing to admit that any direct efforts were made to prevent any kind of attack. Then, a Paris nightclub was hit. That act of terrorism shook one of fashion’s most important cities to its core. People wanted to know that attending fashion events would be safe. No one wants to be a victim.

Since then, another attack in Paris as well as attacks in Brussels, another city with strong fashion connections, has put the topics of terrorism and security at the front of fashion discussions. As we mentioned a couple of days ago, event organizers in all four major cities have dramatically increased their security plans for this fall’s shows. Every effort will be made to keep those security factors in the background, though. No one is planning on having armed troops standing at the doors.

For garment workers in Bangladesh, those armed troops might be a welcome sight. The rise of terrorism in that country has thrown everything into turmoil and created questions about the safety of both garment workers and retailer’s representatives in the country. Should workers begin to feel unsafe going to work, production could see a significant decrease. If buyers refuse to travel to the country, orders decline. Without retailer’s representatives keeping an eye on factories, working conditions are likely to deteriorate again. There is a lot that could be lost.

Everyone Is Affected

For those of us in the US especially, it is still very easy to dismiss terrorism when it occurs elsewhere in the world. Yes, we “Stand With Paris,” and sympathize with Brussels, but beyond the reach of social media, we don’t see those events touching  our daily lives. Our stores are still full, our prices are still low. We’re happy and completely oblivious to the dangers others face. That naivitè may be short-lived, however.

Start with the very fabrics necessary to create clothes. Much of the weaving and looming of natural fabrics is done in places where terrorism is nearly a daily occurrence, from Afghanistan to the Sudan to Third World parts of Asia. Here, terrorism threatens to disrupt the supply chain, keeping Western visitors out while preventing textile factories from being able to run at full production. As production falls, prices begin to increase.

Then, when assembly factories such as those in Bangladesh are affected, the very availability of clothes is threatened. Fast fashion retailers such as H&M are especially vulnerable to terrorism as disruptions both in ordering and supply chain threatens the regular arrival of new clothes on their store floors. Inevitable price increases threaten the already razor-thin margins that allow discount retailers to stay profitable. Another major disruption could cause holiday profits to disappear with price increases.

Responding Appropriately

Anytime terrorism raises its ugly head we face the question as to how to appropriately respond. Corporate statements carry little weight as they are carefully crafted so as to not offend anyone or commit to anything that might affect their bottom line.  Individuals assume that there’s nothing they can do beyond keeping victims “in their thoughts and prayers.” We leave it up to governments to handle the official response and assume they’ll do the right thing.

They don’t. Towns in France that ban Burkinis, Muslim swimwear that keeps a woman fully covered, are only adding to the problem, not solving it. Terrorism thrives on recruiting disaffected and marginalized people who feel betrayed by the society and government of which they long to be a part. Any time we respond in fear, any time we limit the rights of any marginalized group, we are feeding terrorism. The not-quite-under-your-breath remark made when passing someone wearing a turban helps feed terrorism. Getting Arab-looking people tossed off airplanes just because of their appearance is feeding terrorism. Supporting xenophobic politicians threatening to ban entry to the United States is feeding terrorism.

Higher prices and fewer choices are the price we will ultimately pay for terrorism against the fashion industry. With the luxury market already taking some severe hits the past two years, any additional decline could see retailers cutting back on inventory, orders dropping, labels making cuts, quality suffering, and prices jumping dramatically. What we say and how we treat people can have a much larger  effect than we realize.

Terrorism isn’t going to stop overnight. More attacks will happen. Much of what happens we cannot prevent no matter what we do. Power-mad ideological extremists don’t employ reason when determining their actions. We can keep those attacks from changing how we respond to people, though. We must care more about people now than we ever have. Fashion is good at caring. We just need to emphasize those actions a lot more.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Fashion Is Changing Its Look. Again.
August 16, 2016

Fashion doesn’t look good only on models; it can look good on different people of different ages and different body shapes. —Alber Elbaz

 

charles i. letbetter - fashion is changing its look - again

The next round of fashion weeks is just around the corner and the whole system is changing its look

We are now less than a month away from New York Fashion Week. One of the most frequent statements made back in February was, “we’ll have to wait until September.” Many of the changes that were announced early in the year com into fruition with next month’s set of shows. Not only have designers swapped seats, attitudes about the shows themselves have changed. Even more, the economy surrounding fashion has changed. What we experience through the fashion shows this season is likely to be a very different look than what we saw this time last year.

Change is a given in fashion. We wouldn’t need to do these dog-and-pony shows twice a year if fashion wasn’t always changing. We complain if we see two collections in a row that look too terribly similar. What’s important this season is the degree of change. Major wheels were set in motion back in the spring that change not only what we see now, but how we see it. The very structure of the presentations is changing and that may influence our perspective of the shows as well as our buying habits.

As I type this, schedules for New York are being finalized. There are some names we’ve come to expect that we won’t see on the roster this year. London, Milan, and Paris are getting ready as well and it’s just not the same as it was back in the Spring (if you can call February  Spring). The whole attitude is different. Let’s consider some of the changes.

Designers Swapping Seats

The number one topic at the beginning of each season is always which designers have switched to different labels. We didn’t see a tremendous amount of significant movement back in February, but we’ve certainly had some major changes since then and now all that jostling around has to prove its worth. These are going to drive changes in look for a number of labels.

  • Raf Simons has moved to Calvin Klein. You had to be hiding under a rock to miss this announcement. Everyone knew Raf was moving almost from the moment the first phone call was placed. The timing could have perhaps been a bit better. Simons works fast but it would be out of the ordinary even for him to create a full set on his own by  September 15, which is when CK is likely to show. Still, he’ll  be anxious to demonstrate the direction in which he wants to take the line. Anxiety and anticipation are very high here.
  • Peter Copping left Oscar de la Renta. What the fuck? This one almost knocked me out of my chair when the announcement was made last month. It’s been less than two years since Oscar de la Renta named Copping as his successor and then promptly died. The match looked perfect. The past two season’s shows have been well received. What the fuck happened? No one on either side is talking. Copping promptly moved back to the UK. De la Renta will run with a design team for the time being. We are very confused and very sad.
  • Bouchra Jarrar makes her debut at Lanvin. This looks to be one of the most highly anticipated shows of the season. Jarrar brings a different look, a more feminine look, back to Lanvin. That being said, shareholders are watching for a collection that resonates with buyers and increases sales. Will it work? We’ll see.
  • Anthony Vaccarello takes over at Yves Saint Laurent. The whole attitude has changed at YSL. Vaccarello comes from Versus Versace and almost certainly is going to bring some of Donatella’s influence with him. Expect a sexier, more defined, and perhaps even a little edgier look than YSL saw under Hedi Slimane.
  •  Maria Grazia Chiuri changes things up at Dior. Following Raf Simons isn’t going to be easy. Dior took its sweet time replacing the famed designer and makes a bold statement in appointing the label’s first female creative director. Chiuri makes the leap from Valentino where she was co-creative director. Pierpaolo Piccioli now has sole authority over there.

Spending this season on the sidelines, still, are Alber Elbaz and Hedi Slimane. One really has to wonder why they’ve not been snatched up.

A Little Less Fur

Fur has long been a mainstay of luxury fashion and Angora has been the go-to fur for quite a while given the endangered status of wild sources. Then, Peta, the animal rights group, took aim at the Angora industry in 2013, claiming harvesting methods were cruel. Now, it seems Peta has won. Orders for the fur dropped dramatically for this season after more than 100 major labels suspended use of fabric. Other types of fur have seen dramatic declines as well. I have to admit that I’m curious as to whether Dennis Basso is reducing his use of fur at all. Historically, he’s been unapologetic about using fur and animal skin in general.

What’s next? Wool. A recent op-ed takes aim at the ubiquitous fabric, claiming that large-scale harvesting methods are just as cruel as those used on angora rabbits.  Will this movement catch hold? The atmosphere certainly seems to be ripe for it, but the global use of wool peaks for the fall/winter season. We’re not likely to see any change until February.

What Season Is This?

We talked back in February about designers skipping the fall shows to go real-time this September.  Well, September  is here and we get to find out whether that strategy is going to work. Be sure, all eyes are watching Burberry, Tom Ford, and Rebecca Minkoff, among others, to see how they handle the straight-to-stores approach. Critical to this new look is whether consumers are confused by seeing both fall/winter looks and spring/summer looks in the same season. The seasonal look has been muted the past few years, with coats in spring and shorts in the fall almost being normal.

This change may work well, though, as designers look for alternative presentation methods. Criticism of the traditional runway approach grew rather heated back in February, but we’re not hearing much talk about the alternatives leading up to this season’s shows. Will Gloria Vanderbilt return to a runway approach or will she go with another fashion event that confuses the hell out of everyone? Talk back in the spring held that we would see more such presentations this fall, but as budgets have been trimmed to match declining profits much of that talk has disappeared.

A Little More Security

For people in Paris and London, the world feels less safe than it did back in February. Organizers in Milan and New York aren’t taking any risks, either. Whereas some designers had been flirting with the idea of open-to-the-public presentations, more care is being taken this fall to ensure the safety of everyone involved. Invitation requests are vetted with increased scrutiny and press credentials are more difficult to obtain. Guests lucky enough to attend an event will find security lines longer than ever. Restrictions on what guests can bring with them, including nail files and hair spray, are taken seriously.

Paris saw dramatically increased security last season but it didn’t seem to interfere with the overall spirit and celebration of the events. This season, though, there is a palpable difference in the tone. Multiple attacks across Europe have everyone looking over their shoulder. Supplier lists are under greater scrutiny. Location accessibility is a concern. In some cases, labels who might have traditionally sought a larger audience are scaling back a bit to reduce the risk.

Everyone wants fashion week to be fun and exciting, but the shadow of terrorism is impossible to escape.

Side Glance To Retail.

Macy’s is closing 100 stores. The announcement wasn’t a surprise. In fact, the retail conglomerate said earlier this year that store closings were coming. Yet, the impact was still like dropping a ton of bricks across the fashion industry. At the same time, China’s luxury market, which had been the one strong point in the industry, has begun a decline. No one is sure yet how much a hit global fashion brands might take but the Chinese government is making it clear they want those Yen to stay at home.

Meanwhile, both H&M and Lululemon are anticipating continued growth. Low-priced fast fashion is eating away at the luxury sector and forcing major labels to  make changes to their corporate look. As much movement as there has been among designers, there’s been even more seat swapping among fashion’s corporate CEOs. Even Burberry’s Christopher Bailey had to take a back seat in the boardroom over the summer.  No one wants to make a knee-jerk move that spooks the fragile market, but if sales don’t improve we may see even bigger shifts in the look of fashion by next February.

We Can’t Stop Watching

All that being said, interest in fashion is as high as ever. Fashion schools are experiencing prime enrollment numbers. Fashion magazines have retooled their look and enjoying higher numbers than this time last year. Instagram and Snapchat are full of fashionista-wannabes taking selfies of their latest look. Interest in fashion hasn’t waned one bit.

Everyone is being cautious, though. With so many changes hitting at the same time, this could be a very exciting season. We are hoping for a very exciting season. Strong interest in shows next month could do wonders for a slumping retail market. Don’t expect anything that looks like last year, though. This fashion look has changed dramatically. You may need to clean out your closet and start all over.

Prep your credit cards now. NYFW begins September 9.

Photo credits:

Model: Presley Stewart (LModelz)
Makeup: Danelle French
Hair: Jenise Norgaard
Styling: Nativa (Allyson Brooks and Lila Palomares)

Photography: charles i. letbetter

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Photography Education: What We Need To Know
August 15, 2016
charles i. letbetter - photography education: what we need to know

The aim of education is the knowledge, not of facts, but of values. —William S. Burroughs

 

charles i. letbetter - photography education: what we need to know

What is the best education for a photographer, a school or real life experience? (Photo by Polina Osherov, 2012)

This is a first. I’ve had a long-standing rule for myself that only my own pictures would accompany the articles here. Today we are making an exception for the point of education. The picture at the top was taken by Gary Watson, New Year’s Eve, 2012. The photo above was taken by Polina Osherov in June of 2012. Sometimes we have to let someone else take the pictures. That’s an important lesson. See? Education. It’s everywhere.

Well, not everywhere, exactly. Specifically, you’ll not be finding photography education at the Brooks Institute in Ventura, California anymore. The school announced late last week that they are closing. Founded on the heels of WWII by Ernie Brooks, Sr., the Brooks school was unique during the 20th century in that it put as much emphasis on the non-camera-related aspects of photo education as it did the picture-taking portions. Graduates during that period, and there were a bunch of them, were grounded, knew how to handle themselves professionally, and, for the most part, took damn good pictures. I’ve run into Brooks grads several times over the past 30 years.

Visit the school’s website today, though, and on the front page is posted the announcement:

With deep regret, Brooks announces that the school will close on October 31, will continue to offer administrative and student services support.

On the Brooks Facebook page, both current  students and incoming freshmen are pissed, and understandably so. Formal photography education isn’t what it once was.

This Specific Instance

For-profit schools have been taking a beating for a while now. Just ask anyone who has gone to or been affiliated with the Arts Institutes or ITT Tech, both of which have had to weather both investigations and fines from the federal government as well as numerous lawsuits from former students and faculties. Education and profit are not generally compatible in the first place. Throw in the temptation to defraud the federal government through the student loan program and bad things start happening quickly.

There is no indication that Brooks suffered from that particular problem, though. Instead, according to an article in the Ventura County Star, Brooks simply did not have enough students. Only 350 students were scheduled for this fall. In 2005, enrollment was 2,563. With or without federal financing issues, that’s a pretty big hit. While the article doesn’t go into particular detail, I assume that the school had already started laying off instructors and trimming administrative staff. The school had changed ownership multiple times over the past few years and its current owners,  Green Planet, were unable, or perhaps unwilling, to turn those numbers around.

In all likelihood, Green Planet is going to be hit with a class action lawsuit for defrauding students. Brooks was not part of recognized accreditation systems, so credits earned at Brooks do not transfer to other California schools. With recent administration changes, the charge that administrators knew that closing was imminent is one that is difficult to deny. What was once a well-regarded photography school has met a very sad and possibly unnecessary end.

Who Needs Photography Education?

On one level, there is a very legitimate argument that photography schools are no longer necessary, if they ever were. Think of the great photographers we’ve known: Horst, Helmut Newton, Richard Avedon, Herb Ritts. You’ll not find a photography degree among them. Avedon enrolled in Columbia University as a poetry major but dropped out. Herb went to Bard College and majored in economics.  Neither Horst nor Helmut gave the matter any consideration. Even now, I’m not immediately aware of anyone I would consider an above-standard photographer who is running around with a photography degree tucked in their belt.

From its inception, photography has been one of those skills developed outside the classroom, most typically as an assistant for another photographer. There are too many exceptions to the rules, too many instances where one has to shoot on the fly, for classroom instruction to hold a great deal of real-world value. Those who do the best are those who learned on the job and developed their own style that allowed them to stand out from the rest.

Yet, even there, Brooks was different than the rest. Talk to the few remaining photographers who came out of the 1940s and they’ll tell you they picked up photography during the war, most often while serving in the Air Force. And who was teaching pilots and others to use photography during WWII? Ernie Brooks, Sr. After the war, his first ten students were vets who wanted to transfer what they had learned in combat into a marketable skill at home and Ernie Brooks was the right person to teach them. His education system was practical, rooted in reality. Only when the school stepped away from that model did their enrollment and reputation decline.

Arguing For Specialization

As cameras have developed, especially in this digital age where everyone thinks they’re a photographer, some would argue that specialization is the key to photographic success, at least from a commercial standpoint. While I don’t think that argument holds water universally, within certain locations, such as California, it has some validity. There, formal education might not be such a bad idea.

Brooks Institute included some courses that might be difficult to find just anywhere. For example, Brooks had an in-water diving photography course. First off, getting credit for underwater photography sounds incredibly cool. However, it’s not one of those things one just picks up randomly. One benefits from not only having a professional dive instructor, but one that understands the effects of increasing pressure on their photography equipment and other underwater dangers. Brooks also had degree courses in science and technological imaging and other specialized courses.

When dealing with elements that contain a high degree of difficulty, specialized equipment, or a significant amount of danger, finding a school that teaches those skills is probably a better bet than attempting to learn them while assisting someone else, or worse yet, on your own using YouTube videos. Highly specialized aspects of photography need a highly specialized mode of education. Unfortunately, those programs are expensive and a for-profit school is likely to find the investment not worth the return.

More Than A Shutter Click

I am not likely to ever get behind the notion that a formal photography education makes one a better photographer. What makes one a better photographer is getting out there and taking pictures. Take bad pictures at first. That’s okay. Lord knows I certainly wasted more than a few rolls of film trying to figure our the whole damn process of measuring light and angles and reflectivity. With practice, most of us get better (I’ve met a few exceptions). If one is dedicated to becoming a good photographer, one will become a good photographer.

The problem with formal photography education, however, is that not everyone who takes a class is truly dedicated.  Let me reference back to last week’s article about not doing what you love. While this is true of many areas of study, photography is especially prone to the problem. Someone just loves taking pictures and their friends think they look professional. So, why not go to school and get a degree in what you love? If only what we think we love were the things we are actually good at doing. I know almost as many former photography students as I do former music students and in both groups, there is a high percentage of those who don’t remain in their field  of study. I’m one  of them (I have a music degree, remember?).

If there is an argument for being part of a formal photography education system it is the camaraderie found among fellow classmates. One of the biggest challenges to survival as a photographer is the ability to network with others. Photographers who attend schools with graphic arts departments, illustration departments, and more, build relationships across those lines that can serve them well in the real world. In fact, to some degree, the ability to build up a network of peers and professional relationships is at times more valuable than learning how to work a camera. Replicating that opportunity in the real world is almost impossible.

Learning To Change

I feel sympathetic toward the 350 Brooks Institute students who now have nowhere to learn. Many had traveled from other countries and diverse places across this one. Apartment leases were signed. Arrangements made. Money spent. They have every right to be angry with the school’s owners.

What we ultimately take away, though painfully, is that in photography as in everything else we must learn to change. What Ernie Brooks, Sr. built doesn’t fit well in the modern world of digital photography. Were he or his son still living, perhaps they could have guided the school through the change. But when the eyes are on the bottom line positive change is extremely rare. What’s good for the investors is rarely good for the school. Welcome to the real world, kids. Here’s your first lesson in adapting to sudden change.

The lesson should not be lost on the rest of us. I never thought I would need to understand computers in order to be a good photographer. If I remain in this profession another 30 years, I’m likely to have to adapt to more change, including virtual reality and 3D imaging. There is no way I can sit here and predict the severity of change that might be in our future, but I am sure it will change and we will still need to learn.

And the biggest change of all is still out there: letting go and letting someone else take the pictures. Sometimes learning is hard.

Continue Reading

Editorial  /  pop culture
Anger That’s Good For Body & Soul
August 14, 2016
charles i. letbetter - anger is good for body and soul

Beware of him that is slow to anger; for when it is long coming, it is the stronger when it comes, and the longer kept. Abused patience turns to fury. —Francis Quarles

 

charles i. letbetter - anger is good for body & soul

We’ve all been told that anger is a negative emotion. New research says otherwise.

Those closest to me know that I have anger issues. I always have. When I was small I would deal with the anger by hopping on my bike and riding until I was exhausted. As I grew older, I developed other coping mechanisms such as biting my tongue (literally) and counting to 100. Many times I would walk away from a situation that was making me angry. None of those methods were completely fool-proof though. There have been many times when my anger has boiled over and everyone nearby has felt the wrath.

We’ve all been told our entire lives that anger is a negative emotion, one we shouldn’t give any room or attention. Consider how our universal mindset is positioned for an anti-anger attitude:

  • In a controversy the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves. —Buddha
  • Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one. —Benjamin Franklin
  • The greatest remedy for anger is delay. —Lucius Annaeus Seneca
  • Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured. —Mark Twain
  • Every day we have plenty of opportunities to get angry, stressed or offended. But what you’re doing when you indulge these negative emotions is giving something outside yourself power over your happiness. You can choose to not let little things upset you. —Joel Osteen

Today, I can call horseshit on all the anti-anger sentiment.

A Preponderance Of Evidence

Normally, articles such as this one stem from a single reading that branches out to various pieces of scientific research. This time, however, two very different articles showed up in my inbox at almost exactly the same time from two dramatically different sources. When I looked at the headlines sitting there together, I had to chuckle. The universe rarely gives me this kind of synchronicity. Then, I assumed the two articles likely contained different views of the same research. I was wrong. Both brought their own research to the party. By the time I read everything, I was thoroughly exhausted.

Where we start is with this article by Zaria Gorvett for the BBC. Ms. Gorvett’s writing here is extremely well researched. I would like to think that you would follow the link to her article and read the research which she references. You won’t, though, will you? Don’t worry, I’ll cover the high points for you.

The second article is from the more surprising source. The Greater Good website is the cumulative work of the Greater Good Science Center at Berkely University. Their stated purpose is:

The Greater Good Science Center studies the psychology, sociology, and neuroscience of well-being, and teaches skills that foster a thriving, resilient, and compassionate society.

Sounds all warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it? Yet, from this source comes Christine Carter’s article on Why It Doesn’t Pay To Be A People-Pleaser. When the universe delivers a double-whammy like that I’m pretty sure it means for me to pay attention.

The Soft Side Of Anger

Dr. Carter’s article takes a softer approach to the topic, not actually hitting the emotion of anger head-on but rather coming at it from the dichotomy of trying to please other people. If that doesn’t fuel some major anger and resentment I don’t know what does. She delivers three very good reasons why trying to be that super-positive Mr/Ms Happy all the time is a bad idea:

  • We don’t actually fool anyone
  • We find it harder to focus
  • You’ll become more stressed and anxious

The last subtopic was what really got my attention. Faking happy when we’re really not, shoving down our anger and frustration and trying to force the positivity is bad for us. Blood pressure goes up. Anxiety becomes more dominant. Our immune system doesn’t work as well resulting in more frequent illness. Not letting out all that anger you’re building up can kill you, and fast!

More than that, trying to push the happy when we’re obviously not happy is lying. We’re not really pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes. The people who work around you, the people who live around you, and even the kid who helps carry your groceries to the car knows your faking. Do you really want to live a lie or is it better to accept that some things totally piss you off and deal with your anger?

Dr Carter emphasises that the more we try to fake it, the more damage we do:

It’ll increase the odds that you react more aggressively to a provocation, eat more tempting snacks, engage in riskier behaviours, and—this one is pretty compelling to me—perform more poorly on tasks that require executive function, like managing your time, planning, or organizing.

See? All that fake goody-goodness isn’t doing anyone one damn bit of good.

Letting The Anger Flow

Ms. Gorvett comes at us with a strong statement that is backed by a truckload of research. Shove the positivity horseshit. Being angry accomplishes more good and is healthier at the same time.

The truth is, pondering the worst has some clear advantages. Cranks may be superior negotiators, more discerning decision-makers and cut their risk of having a heart attack. Cynics can expect more stable marriages, higher earnings and longer lives – though, of course, they’ll anticipate the opposite.

See all the links in that quote? Those lead to the research supporting her statement, and she’s just getting started. Good moods, all that happy-happy nonsense, is bad for you. I’m not just talking about emotions here. That positive attitude makes one more gullible, more selfish, and even encourages binge drinking, overeating and unsafe sex. This isn’t anecdotal. The research is right there in black and white.

Being angry, it turns out, puts us on guard, makes us more aware of a situation, and prepares us to be able to solve problems more quickly. Not surprisingly, this comes from our primal instincts and the need to protect ourselves. When our cave-dwelling ancestors lost a friend or family member to an aggressor, they got pissed off and either found a way to kill the aggressor or, if that wasn’t possible, move the fuck out of the offender’s territory.

Anger is a great motivator to help us get things done. Many times we don’t realize a problem exists until it pops up and ruins our day. We don’t like having our days ruined so we find a way to put that nonsense to an immediate end so that it doesn’t happen again. With that problem solved, we’re just a little less likely to be angry tomorrow. We’re doing well, right?

Anger Isn’t Going To Kill You

Pay attention here. Kat is constantly on me that my anger is raising my blood pressure and that I’m likely to have a heart attack while in the midst of having a nuclear meltdown over something. We’ve heard the same thing from doctors and psychologists for as long as we’ve been asking their advice. My son has taken to putting a kitten in my lap when he senses my anger reaching the boiling point. However, the research takes a different opinion.

644 people who already had coronary artery disease were followed for five to ten years. The study looked at anger, suppressed anger, and tendencies to experience stress. Guess what? The research showed that anger had NO IMPACT on one’s mortality. However, suppressing that shit increases the chances of having a heart attack nearly three-times over. You’ll just have to excuse me if I scream at someone the next time they no show on an appointment. I’m preventing a heart attack, dammit.

Furthermore, being angry the first time might prevent you from experiencing the same stressor later. If you’ve gotten angry over a situation, the next time that situation comes up your more likely to take steps to avoid what made you angry, such as making backups of your work, or packing extra clothes, or being sure the waiter explicitly understands that you’re allergic to mango. Anger saves our lives by putting us on our guard against Murphy’s Law.  When you’re expecting bad things to happen, you’re more likely to be ready.

Anger Is Good

People who are angry are more likely to have a well-established sense of fairness, are more likely to be generous with their resources, and are more likely to help people they see who are in need. They’re more prepared for life’s disasters and have the attitudes to deal with the stress. Angry people solve problems, are better negotiators, and invest more sensibly.

By contrast, people who are all positive and goody-goody all the time are more likely to be taken in by scams, are more likely to waste their money, are more likely to have failed relationships, and are more likely to become the victims of unexpected disasters. They also have shorter life spans, are more likely to fall prey to incurable disease, and need more assistance.

Which of those camps would you rather be in? For myself, I think I’ll keep hold of my anger, thank you. If you don’t want to experience it, then don’t fuck up. Do what you say you’re going to do. When you book an appointment, show the fuck up.  Pay when services are delivered.

Oh, and one more thing:  STAY THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN!

Continue Reading

Editorial  /  pop culture  /  PotD
Humility Is Good For Your Brain
August 14, 2016

 

Do you wish to rise? Begin by descending. You plan a tower that will pierce the clouds? Lay first the foundation of humility. —Saint Augustine

charles i. letbetter - humility is good for your brain

Humility may be counter-intuitive but is a critical part of learning

I’ve been taking pictures longer than a third of the US population has been alive. Yet, there are still aspects of photography with which I struggle. I have three adult sons about whom I generally feel positive. Knowing how to respond correctly to Kat’s little ones, though, often leaves me frustrated and confused. I like to think I am generally a smart guy, but I start reading through the journal articles to which I subscribe and it only takes a few minutes before I feel as dumb as a box of rocks. Humility reaches out and slaps me in the face on a daily basis.

We live in what has the potential to be a gilded age of knowledge. For the first time in the history of humanity, there is almost universal access to information and the combined knowledge of experts in almost every field. Yet, we’ve yet to experience anything close to a renaissance of intellectual reasoning or academic understanding. Why? How are we missing out on what should be one of the most fantastic periods of advancement in the history of the world?

The answer to that question is simple but painful to accept:  We lack any sense of academic humility. We are so confident that we already know everything we need to know that we close our minds to even looking for more knowledge and information. We let Internet memes inform our opinions. Our social media feeds become our sole source of knowledge. If a topic isn’t trending we don’t know that it exists and, even worse, we don’t care.

Why We Need Humility

From the outset, we are plagued with the misguided notion that equates humility with weakness. Popular social themes have instructed us to “fake it ’til you make it.” Pseudo-psychologists appearing on talk shows have us convinced that we need to exude self-confidence even to the point of covering up the fact that we don’t know something. Employment “experts” tell us that it is just fine to walk into a job interview and pretend to know something we don’t in order to land a job. After all, you can always look it up on the Internet later, right?

All that advice you’ve been listening to is wrong. Every last damn bit of it. Throw it all away. Push it from your mind. Do you want strength? Start with a little humility and admit that you don’t actually know nearly as much as you want people to think you know. We are all so fallible that when we are correct it comes as a surprise.

Jacob Burk, writing for aeon, lays out a strong argument that the ineffective way we obtain information has given us an over-confidence in what we think we understand. He cites recent research, which I strongly suggest you read but know you won’t, showing the “illusion of wisdom” that comes from our sloppy learning methods. As a result of that illusion, we stop looking for answers even when they’re right at our fingertips, such as the two links I’ve provided in this paragraph. I’ve expressed that frustration before and it that lack of humility that prevents you from learning. Even now, you’re likely arguing in your mind that you know enough.

Benefiting From Humility

Compare and contrast time. Confidence breed bullies. Humility breeds negotiators and problem solvers.  Confidence says, “I have the best ideas and you need to just shut up and follow me.” Humility says, “Let’s work together and find a solution that respects everyone.” Confidence says, “I am a great leader. Do what I say and everything will be okay.”  Humility says, “We do better when we work together, no matter who we are.”

Consider the words of Michele Obama from a speech made at the 2012 Democratic Convention:

We learned about gratitude and humility – that so many people had a hand in our success, from the teachers who inspired us to the janitors who kept our school clean… and we were taught to value everyone’s contribution and treat everyone with respect.

Such is the strength and power of humility. Those who are humble, especially on an academic level, don’t feel as though they have to come up with a solution to every problem on their own. People who are humble are team players. They look for the strength in others and humble leaders bring together those strengths and find solutions through the power of combined effort. Humility is, in essence, at the very heart of democracy. Our nation does not work well under the forceful demands of a tyrant. We believe, and have proven, that we are at our best when everyone contributes their voice and their vote.

Oh Lord, It’s Hard To Be Humble

The Mac Davis song from back in the 1970s is meant to be humorous. The chorus was laughably funny when the novelty song first hit the airwaves. Now, it sounds almost like it might be a campaign theme song.

Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble
When you’re perfect in every way.
I can’t wait
To look in the mirror.
Cause I get better looking each day.
To know me is to love me.
I must be a hell of a man.
Oh Lord, It’s hard to be humble,
But I’m doing the best that I can.

I still want to smile when I hear that song. Mac’s voice takes me back to a time when I was still riding in the backseat of my father’s car and didn’t think anyone could actually be as egotistical as the guy in the song. I was naive. We are surrounded by people who think they know everything simply because they can Google an answer to a question and make themselves look more intelligent than they actually are. We see them in comments to news articles and in the trolls that proliferate on Twitter.

Such overconfidence is holding us back. Solutions are not found when we refuse to recognise the problem.  We need people with humility to successfully negotiate treaties and business agreements. Learning is not something on which we can snack while binge watching Netflix. We need the humility to realize we are letting our brains atrophy. We need real, deep knowledge to lift us out of these antique ideas based in mythologies that are thousands of years too old.

We’re not perfect. The image we think we see in the mirror is an illusion. We’re not doing the best that we can. We all need a strong dose of humility and we need it applied right now.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Lazy, Foul-Mouthed, Messy, Freaks Are Fucking Smart
August 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - lazy, foul-mouthed, messy freaks are fucking smart

I’ve never met a funny person who wasn’t smart. I’ve met a lot of dramatic people who were stupid. But I’ve never met a funny person who wasn’t smart. —Rob Lowe

 

charles i. letbetter - lazy, foul-mouthed, sleepless freaks are fucking smart

Is it possible that one of the prerequisites for being smart is to be a bit anti-social?

Being smart, being that person in the room who can disassemble populist theories, or explain the trivialities of menu ingredients, or make jokes based on the periodic table of elements, does not always endear one to everyone else. What we claim to be a “war on intelligence” is actually an eons-old response that goes back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. Being the smart person in the room has a way of making everyone else in the room uncomfortable.

Actually, those with above-average intelligence are not  especially comfortable with the room, either. We all had a good laugh when an article relating foul language with intelligence hit the Internet. The article has been shared thousands of times and has over a million views. Everyone for whom the word “fuck” is a standard part of their vocabulary pointed to the article as evidence that they might be smarter than they typically appear.

Closer inspection, however, which is the first response of those who really are intelligent, reveals that vocabulary is just one of multiple anti-social characteristics that are common among those who are smarter than the average bipedal beast. There are reasons that what might be considered normal society tries to keep its distance, both literally and metaphorically, from smart people.

Freaks By Any Other Name

Additional research has been published recently to show that those who are more academic and scholarly in both occupation and lifestyle hold different perspectives from the rest of society. They don’t see themselves with any nationalistic connection, but citizens of the world. The smartest among us exist on the fringes if not completely external to society. Misunderstandings flowing in both directions is inevitable.

One example of such misunderstanding is a pseudo-intellectual article by Michael Lind that refers to intellectuals as freaks. Lind blasts the “ivory tower” concept of professional thinkers and university academics as being totally out of touch with mainstream society. He decries, without actual supporting evidence, those superficial elements such as being both single and childless, living in a metropolitan area (because that’s where universities are found), having a world view rather than being nationalistic, and social isolation as “particularly stupid and lazy.” He even goes on to say:

Successful intellectuals get where they are by being good at taking tests and by going to good schools. It is only natural for them to generalize from their own highly atypical life experiences and propose that society would be better off if everyone went to college….

Again, Lind makes these accusations based solely on observational anecdotes rather than any genuine research, so one cannot attribute any validity to the statements. However, that his views are reflective of a larger part of society is, and should be, disturbing.

Don’t Get Around Much Any More

Another recent headline screamed, “Research suggests being lazy is a sign of high intelligence.” Slackers the world over are now sharing this article, which they’ve not read, in an effort to support their sedentary lifestyle. “Look Ma! I is smart!” seems to be the general response. At least this article comes equipped with something resembling research. The headline is horribly misleading, though.

What the study, published in the Journal of Health Psychology, actually shows is that “thinkers” are more sedentary than “non-thinkers.” Personally, I was rather offended that the article would equate one whose work does not require a lot of physical movement with being lazy. I think I work damn hard most days, but most of that effort comes with my butt firmly implanted in this office chair. The lack of movement is not lazy as much as it is practical.

Other flaws in the study include the rather unscientific way in which participants were separated between “thinkers” and “non-thinkers” and the inability to explain how activity levels between the two groups were identical on the weekends. Based on this study,  the headline could have just as easily read, “Dumb people are easily bored.” Anyone who looks at this research as anything approaching conclusive is off their fucking rocker.

About That Cursing Problem

I can still hear my late mother admonishing me after I had dared to use the word “dang” in her presence. “Smart people don’t have to curse,” she said, “because they are intelligent enough to use more appropriate words.” In fact, I’m rather sure Mother would have argued with that article everyone has been sharing. Polite society doesn’t like language that is aggressive and sharp and potentially offensive. Cursing isn’t civil.

Of all the garbage running around, though, the research around the use of “taboo” words is rather solid. Here’s what they found:

[Multiple testing] formats produced positive correlations between COWAT fluency, animal fluency, and taboo word fluency, supporting the fluency-is-fluency hypothesis. In each study, a set of 10 taboo words accounted for 55–60% of all taboo word data. Expressives were generated at higher rates than slurs. There was little sex-related variability in taboo word generation, and, consistent with findings that do not show a sex difference in taboo lexicon size, no overall sex difference in taboo word generation was obtained. Taboo fluency was positively correlated with the Big Five personality traits neuroticism and openness and negatively correlated with agreeableness and conscientiousness.

 The actual study is a pretty heavy read but what it shows is that both men and women curse equally and that, in addition to scoring higher in IQ tests, those with expressive vocabularies also tend to be neurotic as hell, argumentative (because they know this shit and you’re fucking wrong you fucking moron), and lacking in areas of social sensitivity. Sound like anyone you know?

For Extra Credit: You’re Messy and Don’t Sleep

While everyone focuses on the cursing aspect of the Business Insider article, there’s also reasonable mention of additional studies that show smart people have messy desks and fucked up sleeping patterns. I’m sure the researchers would want me to point out that there are  positive benefits to having a clean desk as well, though, personally, I have absolutely no experience with that particular phenomenon. I swear my desk clutters itself in my sleep.

Here’s the thing: neither cursing nor desk conditions nor amount of physical movement actually makes a person smart. Some people are able to obtain and retain large amounts of information and make right-brained connections within those information groups that others are not capable of doing. The determining factor in whether one has that capability is biological. While studies may draw correlations between certain habits and activities among a percentage within a select study group, none of them prove that to be smart one has to curse or be sedate or sleep at odd times.

There are no shortcuts to being smart. One has to study. One’s left brain has to take in copious amounts of information so that one’s right brain can use that information to make connections that result in invention and problem solving and creativity. Without all the hard work and study, one is just as stupid as any other presidential candidate. There’s no substitute.

Now, get busy and do something with your day.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues
Being A Fan Can Get You In Trouble
August 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - being a fan causes trouble

If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn’t sit for a month. —Theodore Roosevelt

 

charles i. letbetter - ads that cause a lot of trouble

There are a lot of ways to advertise, but just being a fan can cause a lot of trouble

Those who know me know I have some really strong opinions about certain things and am typically not afraid to voice those opinions. One topic I am careful with, though, is choosing one brand of camera over another. There, I have to choose my words carefully because, being a photographer, what I say about a brand might constitute an endorsement. Making an endorsement attracts the attention of the Federal Trade Commission. If they think I might have been paid for an endorsement and failed to reveal that fact, I could get in a lot of trouble. Quickly.

At the same time, I also have to be careful about commenting on a certain set of games being held in and around Rio de Janerio, Brazil at the moment. The authoritarian and dictatorial governing body in charge of said events are heavy handed about anyone who is not paying out the ass to be a sponsor using anything that directly references the games in any method that might be construed as marketing. The list of potential offenses is long and nothing short of ridiculous. Never mind that you’re just being a fan trying to support the events and/or the athletes. You can’t even host a themed team-building event for your employees.

Yes, these guys are really that anal about the whole concept of non-sponsors even glancing at the games.

What Is An Endorsement, Anyway?

Let’s pretend for a moment that I showed you a picture of me holding a brand new camera, which would be cool because I could really, really use a brand new camera. Being that I’m excited about my fictional brand new camera, I would likely fill a page with all the wonderful things that this camera can do. I might just even tell you that it is better than rival brands. Being a fan of the camera, I’m likely to say a lot of things that might encourage you to purchase the same brand and model. That would be an endorsement.

Endorsements are a great way to build a brand. Word of mouth, people liking a product well enough to tell their friends and neighbors, is better advertising than all the television commercials in the world. That’s why that online store from which you purchased your rainbow-colored toe socks is really hoping that you’ll leave a review on their website. Good reviews are also a form of endorsement.

What causes trouble, though, is that sometimes people get paid for making those endorsements. They post a video on YouTube or a picture on Instagram that says good things about a product and  the company gives them money and/or products for their own use. Wouldn’t we all like a little bit of that action? What causes trouble, though, is when we don’t actually say that you’ve been paid to say what you just said. That’s when the FTC gets all upset.

What You Cannot Do

Between FTC regulations and IOC regulations, just tweeting that you’re drinking a Coke while watching pole vaulting can get you into trouble if you post that tweet from a business account. First, Olympic officials are going to be upset that you mentioned a specific Olympic event. You’re not a sponsor so that’s a no-no. Then, since your tweet could be construed as an endorsement, the FTC wants to know who paid for that soda. If you were at a Coca-Cola sponsored event, of which there are many, then your tweet may constitute a paid endorsement.

For a small business, especially, the endorsement waters are full of trouble. Let’s say you have a regular customer who talks up your business to everyone she knows. You’ve made more than a few sales because of her influence. So, the next time she’s in the store you give her one of her items for free as a way of expressing your thanks. Then, because she’s 23, she goes on snapchat and tells all her friends how wonderful that item is. Yay, more business, right? Maybe, but if she doesn’t disclose that you gave her that item, regardless of the reason, then you both could be in trouble.

The FTC has recently been cracking down on social media users who endorse products without mentioning that the endorsement is paid. When viewers know that an endorsement is paid, they respond differently, think more critically, and are more careful before making a purchase. Failing to disclose payment is something the FTC likes to call deceptive advertising. That’s trouble you really don’t want.

See how confusing this can get?

What You Can Do

There are some creative ways of getting around the IOC’s idiotic rules. To a large degree, timing is everything. Once the games are over, you can talk about Michael Phelp’s game face all you want. Using euphemism and synonyms keeps one out of trouble as well. Even the IOC doesn’t have the power to block inferred relationships that might or might not be intended. Still, one needs to be careful and choose their words wisely before actually setting anything out in the public space, especially on major social media sites such as Facebook.

With other paid endorsements, making sure the person doing the endorsing knows that they’re being endorsed (not everyone understands the subtleties of a free box of donuts) is a start. Making sure they mention that their photo or video is sponsored is also a very easy way to keep the FTC off your back. Staying within the law really doesn’t have to be all that difficult.

Of course, some people don’t like the world knowing that they’re being paid for their endorsements. They feel that such disclosure makes their words seem less genuine and calls into question their sincerity. Too bad. If they don’t play by the rules, it’s the sponsor who gets in trouble. Make sure they understand the consequences before they start taking pictures of that burrito you just gave them.

If All Else Fails …

If you’re concerned about accidentally getting into trouble, there are a couple of very easy steps you can take to ensure compliance.

  1. Ignore everything happening in Brazil. Or Pyeongchang. Or Tokyo.
  2. Make sure you’re handling all your own social media marketing without any paid endorsements.

Yeah, I know, those are not attractive choices. If you want to play it safe, though, that’s the baseline. Of course, you could hire a consultant who understands the intricacies of these matters. But then, the IRS has to be informed of that activity, too.

There’s just trouble everywhere you look.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Stop Doing What You Love
August 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - stop doing what you love

I’d rather be a failure at something I love than a success at something I hate. —George Burns

 

charles i. letbetter - stop doing what you love

Everyone keeps telling us to do what we love, but maybe that’s not the right tact to take

Imagine me not being a photographer. It could have happened. My degree is in music, after all. I loved it then and still do. Yet, the reality of the world was such that I was not afforded the opportunity to pursue that career. I love what I do, but only because I’ve developed that emotion over time. When I first started, I assumed it was just a temporary gig and couldn’t wait to move on. Had there been someone standing near my ear back then telling me to do what I loved, I would have set that camera down and never looked back.

I’m fortunate in  that my skill set and interests are broad enough to offer several different career paths, any of which might have been successful. Not everyone is as fortunate, though. Generations before me weren’t even given the option of falling in love with their work. “Grow up and find a good job,” was the mantra parents repeated to their children. If you were lucky, that job might be at least mildly interesting, but no one really expected you to like it. Work was just something you had to do. If you wanted to enjoy something, get a hobby.

Today, however, we see articles encouraging people to either do what they love or follow the money. Both are bad advice. The first sets one up for idealistic disappointment if not outright disaster. The second is based on greed which eventually leads to hate and that rarely ends well. Contentment is more likely to be found somewhere between the dream and the disaster. The key is not what you love but knowing what you do well.

What Does It Mean To Love?

You love your mom. You love your spouse or whatever you call that person who sleeps on the other side of the bed. You love your pets. But, what does it really mean to love your work? Do you take your work home with you? That’s not healthy. Do you live for your work? That’s a quick path to personal destruction. The reality is that we don’t actually love our occupations as much as we love the concept or idea of spending our days engaged in a specific activity.

I recently came across an article headlined, “You’re not meant to do what you love. You’re meant to do what you’re good at.” by Brianna Wiest, the founder of a magazine called Soul Anatomy. The magazine is a blend of Western psychology and Eastern philosophy that often starts out sounding like good advice but ends with an over-the-top dose of feel-goodism that negates what might otherwise be a practical statement. While I am not comfortable wholly endorsing Ms. West’s thesis, she makes some observations that are sounder (yes, that’s a word) than we care to admit. Such as:

People usually can’t differentiate what they really love and what they love the idea of.

One doesn’t just wake up one morning and say, “I love the idea of dentistry, I think I’ll go drill some teeth.” There are requirements and licensing that stands in the way of that happening. But even then, how many people have gone to med school not because they love medicine but because they love their parents and don’t want to disappoint them? Do we always know what we love?

Work Is Just Work

Ms. West gives the dreamers a bit of a slap in the face when she writes:

You can choose what you love to do, simply by how you think of it and what you focus on. Everything is work. Everything is work. Everything is work. There are few jobs that are fundamentally “easier” than others, whether by virtue of manual labor or brain-power. There is only finding a job that suits you enough that the work doesn’t feel excruciating. There is only finding what you are skilled at, and then learning to be thankful.

One might challenge that this is an example of the backward thinking that prevents people from enjoying their life and progressing socially. Strictly adhering to such a statement leaves one stuck in a socio-economic stratus with little room for advancement or happiness. All that clap-trap about changing how we think about a job is brainwashing people into being mindless automatons that do as they’re told. This isn’t the way to have a better life.

At the same time, though, she’s correct in that everything is work. Even though I enjoy being a photographer, I’m not a fan of early call times, late nights editing and processing to meet a deadline, and clients who have their head stuck up their ass. No matter what one’s profession, there is always an aspect that just comes down to pure labor. One can love the career without having to enjoy every minute performing those tasks.

Some Things Need To Get Done

Imagine a world where everyone only does what they love. Right off the bat, we eliminate at least a third of the adult population who will happily spend the bulk of their day having sex, or recovering from it. Those people aren’t going to get anything productive done at all. Sporting enthusiasts are dropped from the productivity list as well, as are those who have an unhealthy relationship with food. When we tell people to do what they love, we’re ignoring the fact that what they love may not be healthy, or even intelligent.

In order for the things in our world to operate with the efficiency we expect, we need people who don’t have to be in love with their occupation. We need people who lay buried cable. We need people who build bridges and are good at it. We need people who can keep the electric grid up and running 24/7. We need those guys on the ground with the orange sticks telling the airplane pilots how to maneuver that jumbo jet. Those are not glamorous jobs and probably don’t stroke anyone’s ego much, but watch how fast things grind to a halt if those people are off, “doing what they love.”

There’s nothing wrong with working for the sake of having a job and getting it done. If anything, it’s insulting to define a person based only upon one aspect of their lives. The person who handles your baggage at the airport may have mad art skills but can’t figure out how to make it pay. Your waitress who just spilled your dinner in your lap may play guitar better than Carlos Santana. We look at people and only see what they’re doing in that particular moment. We are not defined merely by what gives us a paycheck.

Working Those Mad Skills

Let’s make one more trip back to Ms. West’s article:

Your gifts are not random, they are a blueprint for your destiny. There’s more to your life than just what you think will make you happy. Your real talents may not stroke your ego as much, but if you apply to them the kind of higher thinking that allows you to find the purpose within them, you will be able to get up every single day and work diligently. Not because you are stoking your senses and stroking your ego, but because you are using what you have.

I start wincing about half-way through that paragraph because I’m not inclined to buy that “higher thinking” horseshit. Where she’s accurate, though, is in how one’s natural skills and abilities play into what we probably should be doing. Take people who have a gift for communicating as an example. They’re not all well-paid entertainers, but people who teach, people who inform. Do they need to love what they do? No, but it sure does help for them to be good at doing it. Knowing what you do well, being able to identify those skills to which one is naturally gifted, is more important than whether one loves a specific occupation or activity.

As school is starting back this fall, my eighteen-year-old is being asked to assess his career choices, decide whether he’s going to college next year, and choose activities that might support what he wants to do the rest of his life. While the assignments are required, I know that to some degree they are a waste of time. He will hold many different jobs over his life span. Some he will hate. Some he will tolerate. What’s important, though, are the ones he does well.

And look out, he doesn’t have to love what he’s doing to totally blow everyone’s mind. The kid is scary good at the things he does well, even when he doesn’t realize he’s doing them. Loving what we do isn’t a requisite for happiness. Adjust accordingly.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
We’re All Too Tired And Important
August 8, 2016
charles i. letbetter - we're all too tired and important

The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it’s just sort of a tired feeling. —Paula Poundstone

 

charles i. letbetter - we're all too tired

If being tired is a status symbol, many of us must be better regarded than we realize

My day starts early. The alarm goes off at 4:00 AM.  I walk the dog and we’re back by 4:30. I make coffee, read through the more important (in my opinion) overnight headlines, then start on the morning’s article by 5:00. Kat gets up at 6:00, the little demons thirty minutes after that. Kids on the school bus at 7:00, Kat out the door at 8:00, and then the real work starts. By noon, I’m exhausted. Staying up past 10:00 at night takes monumental effort now. There never seems to be a moment when I’m not tired.

Most of you can relate. I see it in your Facebook statuses and Monday morning tweets. I think this probably sums up how most of us feel when Mondays come around:

Here’s the thing: that we are “lucky” enough to complain about being tired, or exhausted, or worn out might be a sign of status we didn’t know we had achieved. New Republic published an article by Hannah Rosefield a couple of weeks ago that claims being tired is a status symbol. Writing almost exclusively from Anna Katharina Schaffner’s book, Exhaustion: A History, Ms. Rosefield looks at how exhaustion is both, “a sign of weakness and a badge of honor.”

This Is Nothing New

People have been tired ever since that Adam-type dude said to Eve, “Hey, hand me that apple, will you?” to which she groaned, “Get it your fucking self. My feet are killing me.” Or something to that effect. We’ve all seen the paintings and illustrations of serfs and slaves toiling endlessly in the hot sun while their unforgiving masters sipped mint juleps on the veranda. Had anyone tried telling those dear people that their exhaustion was a status symbol, one might have gotten 30 lashes with a whip, if anyone still had the energy to handle the whip.

But there was some point at which we began to look at exhaustion as an “affliction,” that fell upon on members of the upper class, especially women. I mean, how else could one explain why those lily white countesses just didn’t feel up to making it to the evening ball. “Put on a corset and fourteen layers of petticoats? I’m sorry,  eating cheese and petting cats have left me too tired for dancing.”

Explaining exhaustion has long been more a matter of guesswork than science. Ms. Rosefield explains:

In the Renaissance, melancholia was associated with the influence of Saturn; in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, excessive masturbation produced exhausted bodies and minds. In the mid-nineteenth century, the diagnostic concept of melancholia gave way to that of neurasthenia, which was caused by weak or exhausted nerves. Well into the twentieth century, neurasthenia was the go-to diagnosis for those suffering from exhaustion, anxiety and low mood, alongside an array of other—and to modern eyes, unrelated—symptoms: phobias, hay fever, ticklishness. 

Wait, they actually thought you could get tired from ticklishness? Yes, Ferb, yes they did. If that’s true, then the Tipster should be worn out every day!

A Choice Of Verbiage

Whether you being tired elevates your status apparently depends on the words one uses to describe the feeling. Just saying, “I’m tired,” doesn’t cut it. Neither does feigning depression (not taking anything away from the millions who actually suffer depression). You want to say you’re “burned out” if you want that upwardly mobile status kick. After all, that’s what Pope Benedict XVI essentially said when he abdicated in 2013. Being Pope was just too tough and he needed to move on.  You understand how that feels, I’m sure.

Ms. Rosefield explains:

To say that you’re exhausted is to telegraph that you’re important, in demand, and successful. It’s akin to the humblebrag of ruefully describing yourself as “so busy”—naturally, since exhaustion follows from busyness. In Schaffner’s telling, the associations of exhaustion with prestige have crystallized in the form of burnout. First used in the 1970s to describe exhaustion suffered by workers in the social sector, “burnout” was characterized by increased cynicism and apathy, and a decreased sense of personal accomplishment. Since then, its application has widened to include all worn down, overburdened workers, especially in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, where burnout is a subject of regular media debate. Burnout, caused by workplace conditions rather than by a worker’s mental and physical composition, is depression’s more palatable, more prestigious cousin. As the German journalist Sebastian Beck puts it: “Only losers become depressive. Burnout is a diagnosis for winners, or, more specifically: for former winners.”

See, it’s all in how one describes their affliction. When you hit that productivity wall about 3:30 this afternoon, just say you’re momentarily burned out. You’ll be regarded highly among your peers, I’m sure.

Differing Opinions

Unsurprisingly, not everyone agrees with the whole exhaustion is a status symbol thing. In fact, there are those who have been countering that argument for a while. The Washington Post ran an article back in 2012 with the rather telling headline, “Exhaustion is not a status symbol.” Don’t you just love how the endless archives of the Internet help keep us honest?

Okay, so the Post’s article is primarily an interview with University of Houston professor Brené Brown who was promoting a new book at the time. She hits the nail on the head, though, when she talks about how we use terms such as “crazy busy:”

‘Crazy-busy’ is a great armor, it’s a great way for numbing. What a lot of us do is that we stay so busy, and so out in front of our life, that the truth of how we’re feeling and what we really need can’t catch up with us. … It’s like those moving walkways at the airport — you’ve got to really pay attention when you get off them, because it’s disorienting. And when you’re standing still, you become very acutely aware of how you feel and what’s going on in your surroundings. A lot of our lives are getting away from us while we’re on that walkway.

You followed that, didn’t you? Our being “crazy busy” and the subsequently tired exhaustion that comes along with it is a way of avoiding how we’re really feeling. That makes sense, doesn’t it? Everyone wants to avoid how and what they feel on Monday.

Leaping Off The Merry-Go-Round

I’ll be honest, I rolled my eyes through the larger part of both articles and everything else I read on the topic before starting this one. From where I’m sitting, the whole mess sounds as though we’re either making excuses for laziness or failing to realize when we have a legitimate problem. Do some people honestly work too hard? Absolutely. I’ve known several. At the same time, however, I’ve known far too many people who complain about being tired when they’ve actually done next to nothing. They just want someone to feel sorry for them and justify their desire to slouch.

Ms. Brown did say something I found interesting, though:

… when we make the transition from crazy-busy to rest, we have to find out what comforts us, what really refuels us, and do that. We deserve to not just put work away and be in service of someone else. What’s really meaningful for us? What do we want to be doing? That happens not just in work culture, I see it even with teenagers who now have four and five hours of homework and go to bed at one in the morning. We don’t know who we are without productivity as a metric of our worth. We don’t know what we enjoy, and we lose track of how tired we are.

Finally, something that makes sense. Work that has no meaning for us causes us to feel more tired. Whether one is a celebrity or a factory worker, burger flipper or Pope, we all want to feel that there is some meaning to what we do. Without meaning, we’re all exhausted, melancholic, burned out, and maybe even a bit depressed. Ick.

So, perhaps our #MondayMotivation is to find meaning in what we do today. Or drink more coffee. I’m on my third cup. Coffee equals meaning, doesn’t it?

Continue Reading

Page 10 of 17