9/9/2010, 1:39:07 PM
6/21/2013, 11:37:59 AM
4/14/2011, 2:29:38 PM
5/2/2010, 2:13:08 PM
5/20/2011, 12:51:59 PM
10/29/2012, 2:25:01 PM
11/2/2012, 10:49:37 PM
1/11/2013, 1:06:38 PM
5/18/2010, 5:29:23 PM
4/6/2010, 1:14:54 PM
As humans assert their domination over the planet, destruction inevitably follows
Typically, when we talk about human violence, we’re talking about our tendency to want to destroy each other. Syria. Yemen. Iraq. Afghanistan. North Korea. Chicago. Our propensity toward killing each other is nothing new, of course. We’ve been doing it for centuries. Misinterpret some religious texts and one can even attempt to justify their destruction of another people by claiming that their deity commanded them to wipe out everyone who does not worship as they do. We’re very good and very experienced when it comes to wiping each other off the face of the earth.
As we’ve become more advanced in our ways of killing each other, such as using drones so that we don’t have to actually face those on whom we drop bombs, we’ve also become better at destroying every non-human entity as well. Species and ecosystems that have existed for thousands of years have become targets of destruction to such a degree that many have already gone extinct with hundreds more in danger. We justify our destruction of the planet with various excuses, saying we need the energy from natural resources or the food from various species. Yet, our wanton decimation of these ecosystems could leave us with nothing but a barren wasteland of a planet that is no longer capable of sustaining our own lives, much less any other.
A new report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) makes clear just how horribly destructive we’ve been and how threatening the dangers are. By killing everything around us, we’re dooming ourselves to destruction.
We typically associate the WWF with its broad efforts to protect animal life across the planet. They certainly do the best they can, but their efforts are no match for the determined march of corporate interests. As a result, we’re losing animal life at an unprecedented rate. The statement that’s been making headlines is this one:
Populations of vertebrate animals—such as mammals, birds, and fish—have declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012. And we’re seeing the largest drop in freshwater species: on average, there’s been a whopping 81% decline in that time period.
Stop and think about those numbers a minute. We have less than half the animals we did in 1970. It took us less than fifty years to rip through the entire animal population of the planet, completely devastating whole species who have survived natural changes in environment for hundreds of thousands of years. Many of the species we’ve eliminated existed prior to the evolution of homo sapiens and even through the first several thousand years of our existence. Yet, in less time than it takes for a single human generation to pass through history, we have destroyed all of them.
Most damning is what we’ve done to freshwater species. 81 percent of freshwater species are gone! Do you realize how fucking close to complete extermination of freshwater life we’ve come in a simple 42 years? And for what? So we can build our hydro-electric dams, strip mine coal, and place water-contaminating oil pipelines in places they’ve no right to be in the first place. Understand, prior to 1970 we still had the same power needs, but we somehow managed to not kill off EIGHTY-ONE FUCKING PERCENT of freshwater species. Hope you’re enjoying that fresh trout and other fish because they could all be completely gone within the next twenty years if we continue at our current rate.
Obviously, we didn’t commit such broad destruction across the planet by going through and killing every animal one by one. While poaching and illegal fishing are certainly part of the problem, there are many other factors that have contributed to this dramatic decline in animal species. I’ll let the folks at WWF explain:
Habitat Loss and DegradationHabitat loss and degradation is the most common threat to animals on the decline. Everything from unsustainable agriculture to residential or commercial development to energy production can damage vital areas for wildlife. WWF helps countries take stock of their natural resources and use that information to make better decisions on how to grow.
Our current food system impacts habitats to make way for agriculture, leads to the overfishing of our oceans, and contributes to pollution. WWF is pursuing new ways to provide nutritious food for all while minimizing the negative impact on the natural world. Watch the video.
As our climate changes, various animals will need to adapt to survive. Changes in temperature can mix up signals that trigger events like migration and reproduction, causing them to happen at the wrong time. The global community is taking major strides to curb climate change in the coming years.
Animals face the dangers of overexploitation, too. Sometimes that’s direct, like through poaching and unsustainable hunting and harvesting, and sometimes that’s indirect, like through unintentionally catching one type of sea creature while attempting to catch another. WWF works to stop wildlife crime and prevent illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.
How long do you plan on living? If you’re under the age of forty, chances are very high you’ll live well into your 80s, and quite possibly another decade beyond that. Think of all it is gong to take to support your life over that period of time. Think of the amount of food you’ll need to consume. What is going to be the source of that food? Think about the clothes you’ll need to wear. What is going to be the source of the materials necessary to make those clothes? Think about all the energy you’ll need to consume to power a life that is increasingly dependent upon electronic devices. How are we going to source all that power?
To the extent that we continue to destroy everything and everyone with whom we come into contact,  we are numbering our own days. We cannot continue to live on a planet that has been scorched by our carelessness. Realize, we have already KILLED OVER HALF OF ALL SPECIES that existed in 1970. If we continue at that rate, we might have 40 years before everything is gone. Where does that leave us?
This is why your down-ballot votes matter. Your vote for Congressperson matters as that is where funding and policy decisions are made to help stop the destruction. Your vote for state legislature matters as state policies are frequently to blame for the continued destruction for fresh waterways. Your vote for city offices matter as local policies contribute heavily to the contamination of groundwater and the destruction of local resources. These are all things that the President can’t control. While your vote for that office is important, without your vote for all the other down-ballot offices the vote for President becomes practically meaningless.
For all the talk about colonizing Mars, the fact remains that, for at least the next 75 years, we are limited to one planet; a planet we are actively bent upon destroying. Perhaps it’s time we started paying more attention to the earth around us. If we don’t, we will die; it’s just that simple.
I’m not eligible for a Pulitzer Prize, but if I were I’m not sure I’d want the honor
The annual Pulitzer Prizes were awarded yesterday and, as with every year for the past 30, I had just a momentary touch of jealousy. There was a very brief period in my life where I thought I wanted that particular recognition, or at least, the money that goes along with it. The cash would always come in handy, but I no longer truly desire that prize because what one has to photograph to win the damn thing doesn’t suit me particularly well.
If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at the Pulitzer winners in the photography categories for the past ten years. Stop me when you notice a pattern.
2007 Breaking News Photography: Oded Balilty of Associated Press For his powerful photograph of a lone Jewish woman defying Israeli security forces as they remove illegal settlers in the West Bank.
Feature Photography: Renée C. Byer of The Sacramento Bee For her intimate portrayal of a single mother and her young son as he loses his battle with cancer.
2008 Breaking News Photography: Adrees Latif of Reuters For his dramatic photograph of a Japanese videographer, sprawled on the pavement, fatally wounded during a street demonstration in Myanmar.
Feature Photography: Preston Gannaway of Concord (NH) Monitor For her intimate chronicle of a family coping with a parent’s terminal illness.
2009 Breaking News Photography: Patrick Farrell of The Miami Herald For his provocative, impeccably composed images of despair after Hurricane Ike and other lethal storms caused a humanitarian disaster in Haiti.
Feature Photography: Damon Winter of The New York Times For his memorable array of pictures deftly capturing multiple facets of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
2010 Breaking News Photography: Mary Chind of The Des Moines Register For her photograph of the heart-stopping moment when a rescuer dangling in a makeshift harness tries to save a woman trapped in the foaming water beneath a dam.
Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his intimate portrait of a teenager who joins the Army at the height of insurgent violence in Iraq, poignantly searching for meaning and manhood.
2011 Breaking News Photography: Carol Guzy, Nikki Kahn and Ricky Carioti of The Washington Post For their up-close portrait of grief and desperation after a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti.
Feature Photography: Barbara Davidson of Los Angeles Times For her intimate story of innocent victims trapped in the city’s crossfire of deadly gang violence.
2012 Breaking News Photography: Massoud Hossaini of Agence France-Presse For his heartbreaking image of a girl crying in fear after a suicide bomber’s attack at a crowded shrine in Kabul.
Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his compassionate chronicle of an honorably discharged veteran, home from Iraq and struggling with a severe case of post-traumatic stress, images that enable viewers to better grasp a national issue.
2013 Breaking News Photography: Rodrigo Abd, Manu Brabo, Narciso Contreras, Khalil Hamra and Muhammed Muheisen of Associated Press For their compelling coverage of the civil war in Syria, producing memorable images under extreme hazard.
Feature Photography: Javier Manzano of Agence France-Presse For his extraordinary picture, distributed by Agence France-Presse, of two Syrian rebel soldiers tensely guarding their position as beams of light stream through bullet holes in a nearby metal wall.
2014 Breaking News Photography: Tyler Hicks of The New York Times For his compelling pictures that showed skill and bravery in documenting the unfolding terrorist attack at Westgate mall in Kenya.
Feature Photography: Josh Haner of The New York Times For his moving essay on a Boston Marathon bomb blast victim who lost most of both legs and now is painfully rebuilding his life.
2015 Breaking News Photography: Photography Staff of St. Louis Post-Dispatch For powerful images of the despair and anger in Ferguson, MO, stunning photojournalism that served the community while informing the country.
Feature Photography: Daniel Berehulak of The New York Times For his gripping, courageous photographs of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.
2016 Breaking News Photography:Â Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev, Tyler Hicks and Daniel Etter of The New York TimesFor photographs that captured the resolve of refugees, the perils of their journeys and the struggle of host countries to take them in. Also receiving the prize is the Photography Staff of Thomson Reuters For gripping photographs, each with its own voice, that follow migrant refugees hundreds of miles across uncertain boundaries to unknown destinations.
Feature Photography:Â Jessica Rinaldi of The Boston Globe:Â For the raw and revealing photographic story of a boy who strives to find his footing after abuse by those he trusted.
There you have it: ten years worth of Pulitzer prizes for photography. Every one of those entries represents not only amazing photographs, but unbelievable amounts of pain, sacrifice, loss, and incredible risks, including their own lives. One doesn’t get the pictures awarded here without going where no sane person would want to go and taking pictures that, in a perfect world, would never need to be taken.
Therein lies the reason I don’t want a Pulitzer. If I’m winning a Pulitzer prize for photography, it is because someone else has suffered to such an extent that their suffering is visible through the photographs awarded. Of all the pictures on the list above, only the 2009 award for images of President Obama’s first presidential campaign didn’t come with someone facing death, disease, and/or destruction. Yes, we need to see those pictures, and they almost certainly need to be pushed to the front so that we have to visually confront the horrible reality that faces people other than ourselves. We need to know that while we’re complaining about a WiFi signal, Somali refugees are dying by the hundreds in cold ocean waters. We need to see the suffering caused by a pandemic such as Ebola. Without those pictures, we are not able to appreciate the horrible conditions and we are not as inclined to help rectify those problems.
I’ve known Pulitzer prize winners over the years, though, and those people don’t come out of long-term assignments like that without a few scars, both physical and mental. Â Not all of them are able to continue. Ghosts of their subjects, some of whom have died in the photographer’s arms, haunt them every time they raise a viewfinder to their eye. Nightmares of bombs going off or people in need tugging at their clothes prevent them from being able to sleep. Some winners refer to the prize as a curse for they can never shake those images and the heart-wrenching emotions that go with them.
Maybe my pictures of a little girl sitting on a stump and being silly are not earth-shatteringly important. Maybe my pictures don’t open people’s eyes to horrible conditions around the world. Maybe my pictures are sometimes simplistic portraits of people who hold no other significance than just wanting to have their picture taken. I’m okay with that.
There are photographers whose pictures are frightening, whose pictures bring your worry, and whose pictures maybe even induce some level of guilt. Those are the ones that win Pulitzers. But if my pictures make you smile, give you a reason to feel confident or good about yourself, or bring back a happy memory, then is that not its own prize? And most the time, I’m not at risk of contracting a deadly disease and dying six months later. I’m good with that.
However, should you feel the need to give me $10,000 for my effort, I won’t turn it down.
Our society has reached a point where the disasters of apocalypse are viewed as preferable to the fallacies of the status quo.
12 I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth [made] of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. 14 The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” —Revelation 6:12-17 NASB
My late father, the preacher, held certain views of the Bible more because of tradition than actual academic understanding of scripture. One of those views was that there is a coming apocalypse from which Christians would be spared by the second-coming of Christ. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of a pre-millennial view. Popa likely held that viewpoint because when he was growing up and going to school in rural Arkansas there was no other viewpoint. It would not be until many years later that he would even be exposed to alternative theologies and when, as an adult, I first approached him with the concept of amillennialism, that there was neither a second coming nor a god-appointed apocalypse, he considered such a thing unbiblical.
Regardless of one’s millennial approach, the universal opinion was always that the apocalypse was bad. That whole thing about hiding in caves and begging to be caught in an avalanche doesn’t need a lot of translation. Regardless of its literal or metaphoric details, an apocalypse was something to be avoided. Worse than any war we have ever experienced, an apocalypse would leave few alive and those few would rather be dead.
Christianity isn’t the only major religion to have an apocalyptic scenario in their cannon. Islam teaches that Isa will return and be accompanied by Mahdi to destroy Christian innovation and convert the world to Islam. Listen carefully and you’ll hear Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak often of the return of Mahdi. Ancient Mayans had an apocalyptic tale as well, though theirs may have come true with the arrival of Cortez on the continent. No matter where one finds such prognostication, the end results are always the same: nearly everyone dies.
When I look at contemporary society, though, the way it has transitioned over the past five years, it seems that we have gone from fearing an apocalypse to actually wanting one to happen. As evidence, let me offer the popularity of the movie, Mad Max: Fury Road, which won six Oscars. It wasn’t all that long ago that such tales were seen as cautionary, a warning to avoid such calamity. With this movie, though, the dangers of the apocalypse and its social fallout are preferable to a tyrannical government. Audiences cheer on those who cause chaos against a status quo in which they feel they have no control.
We would be short-sighted, however, if we blamed everything on government or expected a presidential candidate to have any hope of adequately addressing our situation. Government, like it or not, is a reflection of the people it represents. If there is corruption it is because we, as a collective society, are corrupt. If the government behaves immorally it is only because we have given it permission to do so on our behalf. We cannot blame government for our ills when we are the government.
There was a new article posted to Psychology Today this morning warns against the dangerous lack of empathy in our society. Attorney David Niose makes an interesting observation:
It’s noteworthy, and undeniable, that two antonyms of empathy—disdain and indifference—have become cornerstones of American politics. When outsiders are routinely reviled, targeted for blame by an impulsive population that isn’t capable of rational thought, bad things can happen. Add doses of anti-intellectualism, nationalism, and militarism to the mix, and you have a formula for disaster. Just ask Germany.
The reference to Germany and, by extension, the crimes of World War II are troubling. Granted, we’ve heard such mean-spirited diatribe in political circles during every election cycle of the past two decades. I find it interesting that the further we get away from having leadership that actually remembers and participated in that horrible war, barely preventing an apocalypse of our own doing, the more willing we are to accuse those who disagree with us of harboring the same sentiments as war criminals. Still, yanking the conversation out of the political realm for a moment, Mr. Noise’s observations regarding the lack of empathy are accurate. Without empathy, we are far too eager to destroy our fellow man and we are less likely to care by what means we do so.
I once laughed out loud at the religious fear tactic that one needed to “get right with God” because the apocalypse is surely coming and the Anti-Christ is sure among us and all those who don’t believe are going to DIE or wish they could. Not only did I not believe in an apocalyptic event forecasted by a crazy man on an island some 1900 years ago, but I couldn’t believe that society would collapse to such a point as to allow it. I was young. I was naïve.
Now, I’m scared. Religious extremists have shifted from wanting to avoid apocalypse to embracing it. Those disenchanted on both ends of the political spectrum no longer believe a solution can be found within the system and are willing to scrap everything and start over with whatever remnant survives. Marginalized populations made economic slaves by the greed of corporate demagogues stand ready to blow up factories and sacrifice their fellow workers in order to make their voice heard.
Those wishing for the  apocalypse are almost certainly those who understand the consequences the least. Real life is not like the movies. Charlize Theron, as beautiful as she is, is not going to save anyone. When the apocalypse comes, the majority of us will vanish in a flash and it won’t be because some demi-god suddenly returned but because nuclear annihilation is a real thing. The only thing good to come of an apocalypse is that the overpopulation problem will be solved.
I dislike any policy or authority based on fear, but the pressing threat of apocalypse should cause us all to be very frightened, consider very carefully for whom we vote, and think more empathetically about those around us. If we don’t all thrive together, we shall surely die together.
Boom. Flash. Bye.
Some Days Just Suck
Tonight I’ll dust myself off, tonight I’ll suck my gut in, I’ll face the night and I’ll pretend I got something to believe in.—Jon Bon Jovi
Just as every day has the potential to be great, they have to potential to suck, and it’s not always your choice
I would very much like to meet the person who came up with the concept that every day is supposed to be bright, cheery, and wonderful. I would very much like to meet this person and come upside their head with a two-by-four. Why? Every day is not good. There is not always a reason to smile. Not every bad situation has a silver lining. Everything does not work out for the best. Some days just suck and to deny that censors feelings we legitimately need, such as anger, disappointment, and grief, if we are to ever improve our world. Remember: there are no bad emotions. Even the non-happy ones have their place.
So, here it is another Friday, the end of the work week, allegedly, and you have at least two, possibly three days off if you work for someone who observes President’s Day. Maybe you have big plans, have already spent a lot of money on deposits and such, and have everything arranged perfectly. You’ve done all you can and you’ve put your best effort into the whole weekend. Then, something happens, something you cannot control. Your father-in-law has a heart attack. Your car engine inexplicably blows a gasket in the middle of an intersection. That lovely person who was supposed to join you this weekend becomes ill and can’t stop puking. One of the children falls and breaks a limb. Suddenly, this Friday stops being happy and now, immediately, sucks. Your plans are ruined, your deposits are non-refundable, and all those perfect arrangements are irrelevant. There’s no recovery.
Sure, the day may suck. What’s important at this point is that you not deny how you feel. Don’t let someone tell you to suck it up. You can’t deal with those emotions until you admit that you have them. Be disappointed, there’s nothing wrong with that. Be angry, not in the sense that you fly off the handle and hurt someone else, but step away and punch the living hell out of a pillow or something. Go outside and scream. Let it out. Deal with those negative emotions.
No matter what we do, no matter how we try to live our lives as joyfully and righteously as possible, there are going to be days that suck, and they’re going to happen when it is least convenient to  put up with the sucking. Part of what makes a day suck is that it upsets what we were expecting from the day. Convenience isn’t in the cards when life suddenly turns sour. Even when you have some clue that a day is going to be difficult and you try to prepare yourself for the inevitable, it still can be worse than you ever expected.
My father died 14 years ago. We knew it was coming. If anything, we had hoped the end would come sooner because seeing him suffer through the deterioration caused by cancer was heart-wrenching. When I flew into Tulsa that morning, I knew what I was facing, that the inevitable had finally come. This was not going to be a good day. Yet, for all the mental and emotional preparation I had done, the moment he finally took his last breath, when the grip he had on my hand relaxed for the last time, when the hospice nurse looked at us and shook her head, the wave of grief that swept over me in that moment was unlike anything I had ever felt. This was more than just a bad day.
I didn’t think I would ever feel pain like that again, but I did. Six months and four days later I was called home from the office. Mother had fallen during the night and died quite unexpectedly. Not only was their grief, there was anger. I had just spoken to her the night before. What went wrong? To say that day sucked would be the most severe of understatements.
You’ve had days like that as well, maybe worse. I think of people who lose entire families in one fell swoop. People full of hope and opportunity are suddenly, for any number of reasons, paralyzed or struck with some seemingly random disease that dashes their hopes like glass on a concrete floor. A baby dies. A house catches fire. A dear pet is hit by a car. Those are all days that suck.
People are always trying to take a bad situation and make it better. Stop it. Let us deal appropriately with the bad, recognize tragedy for what it is, and then give people the space to move on in their own time, in their own way. Not every day gets to have a smile. Some days have tears, and that’s okay. Offer a tissue if you want to help, but never tell someone to not cry, to not feel whatever they’re feeling.
Some days just suck. Be a friend and accept that.
Share this:
Like this: