photograph

Mythology  /  PotD
Life Without Free Will
May 19, 2016
charles i. letbetter - life without free will

Free will carried many a soul to hell, but never a soul to heaven. —Charles Spurgeon

 

charles i. letbetter - life without free will

We are so comfortable with the concept of free will, can we even begin to imagine life without it?

Free will. You’ve used it as an excuse. You’ve used it as a tool of judgement and condemnation. But this morning we’re stepping right off into the deep end of the pool by considering the possibility, and quite likely the fact, that free will has never existed. Sounds like I’m off my rocker, doesn’t it? Kat might as well reserve me a room in the old folks home, strapped into a rocking chair so I can’t hurt anyone. Bear with me.

Back in 2002, there was a movie starring Tom Cruise called Minority Report. The underlying premise of the movie was that a very “special” group of triplets had the ability to see into the future and know who was going to commit a crime before it was committed. Law enforcement found a way to tap into that gift and use it to stop those crimes (mostly murders) before they happen. Things get dicey, though, when the condition of the triplets begins to deteriorate and a false positive accuses a cop (Cruise) of committing a murder. The movie was interesting, in part, because it raised the question of what happens when one’s free will is interrupted, even though that interruption might save a life.

Our society, as it is currently constructed, depends on free will, the presumption that one makes, and is, therefore, responsible for one’s own decisions. Our entire justice system and our concept of guilt and innocence hinge upon free will. Religions around the world fall to nothing if there is no free will determining morality. Without free will, what’s the point? If we have no choice in the matter, what keeps us from being the most base and loathsome creatures possible?

Yet, for all the arguments one might make to the contrary, there is considerable evidence that there is no such thing as free will. This is a problem; an existential and perhaps merely academic problem at this point, but nonetheless a problem.

What I encourage you to do, just as soon as we’re finished here, is to jump over to The Atlantic and read the article by philosopher Stephen Cave, There’s No Such Thing As Free Will. He goes a lot deeper into the details than I have space to do here. He does a very good job of breaking down all the science into a language that is almost understandable. Appreciate his effort. When I drop back to look at the base research material even my head begins to hurt. He’s doing you a favor. Sort of.

The challenge in even bringing up this topic is that it causes us to question our motivations, our morality, and our very place in the universe. Almost to a person, our initial response is fatalistic: if I’m not in control of my life, if my choices are predetermined, then fuck it, I’m going to do whatever the hell I want. People who take such a fatalistic approach are more likely to steal, less likely to help someone else, and less likely to be happy with their lives. If that is how life is without a belief in free will, then maybe we’re better off living with a lie. Some scientists, theologians, and philosophers are willing to go with that theory.

But do we really want to live under the umbrella of a lie? As we are better able to map the activities of the brain and observe neurons and chemicals involved with specific activities, we can actually observe how our brains prepare us for an action before we’ve made the conscious decision to act. Stop and let that sink in a minute. We’re not just seeing the brain activity that comes post-decision, what we’re observing now is how our brain anticipates and actually guides us toward what we like to think is a decision of our own doing. There are specific transmitters that fire, certain chemicals that are activated, to correspond with everything we do, whether it be good, bad, or indifferent.

While the prospects may seem frightening (determinism is a very scary thing), being without free will may ultimately be in everyone’s best interest. Cave uses the comparison of how we responded to the atrocities of 9/11 versus how we responded to the atrocities of Hurricane Katrina. We look at 9/11 as being something that someone caused: someone made a willful and deliberate decision that resulted in horror. As a result, our first response was one of anger and retribution. By contrast, we look at the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina and, because we don’t consider weather to be an act of anyone’s doing, we skip the blame game and go straight to healing the hurt, addressing the loss of life and property, and moving on with our lives. Where there is no free will fueling our anger, we get to a more appropriate response much more quickly.

There is also the prospect that as we learn even more about what causes us to do what we do, we might then be able to address anti-social problems, especially those involving violence, before they ever become an issue. Whereas the approach in Minority Report was to imprison people before they committed a crime, we may be able to one day completely eliminate the need for prisons by altering whatever chemical/neurological combination leads to those specific actions.

In the end, the world could ultimately be a much better place as we wean ourselves away from the concept of free will and take steps to address the real cause of our inappropriate behaviors. The same science is also likely to lead us to cure diseases such as dementia and Alzheimer’s.  Our future could be very bright and wonderful.

But in the meantime, there are some critical questions regarding our dependency on free will and religion that need answering and those answers are not going to come easily. We’ve relied on free will for so very long, it is almost impossible for us to imagine life without it. But if we start looking at those questions now, by the time science can fully explain our actions then perhaps we’ll have some moral and philosophical answers.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  video
Telling Different Stories
May 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - telling different stories

People are much deeper than stereotypes. That’s the first place our minds go. Then you get to know them and you hear their stories, and you say, ‘I’d have never guessed.’ —Carson Kressley

 

charles i. letbetter - telling different stories

Advertising is at its best when it does more than push a product and tells stories we weren’t expecting

 

Stories are a natural part of any good ad, whether it’s video or still. Ads have to be compelling stories where the viewer can put themselves into the situation or, at least, relate to some aspect of the story. No one buys a product with which they cannot in some way relate. So, a large part of being a creative ad person is knowing how to tell a good story.

Linus Karlsson tells great stories. As chairman of McCann/Commonwealth, though, we’ve seen Karlsson more as an agency builder. Some of us are old enough to remember his fantastic Miller Lite ads from several years ago, but he’s been heading up the corporate side of things long enough many might have forgotten just how creative he can be. Apparently, that is a large part of the reason he started a new agency, Ming Utility and Entertainment. Small and focused on work that is either useful or entertaining, Ming gives Karlsson the chance to spread his creative wings once again, and he has created a most compelling story in the Frank & Marty campaign for Smith Optics.

The trend among makers of sunglasses is to put them on pretty faces, cool people who are doing all the things you would like to be doing if you weren’t tied down with silly stuff like work and children and paying bills. Karlsson goes exactly the opposite direction not only in creating characters who aren’t especially young and hip, but the two people out of ten who wouldn’t use Smith sunglasses while fishing. They consider such an advantage cheating.

We’ve seen similar approaches before, but Karlsson goes all in with a set of short films that allow us to really get to know Frank & Marty, and gives Karlsson and his team plenty of room to tell the whole story. The two characters, both of whom are fresh castings we’ve not seen before, even have their own website and social media accounts. And Instagram (there’s a joke there, but you won’t get it until you’ve seen all the videos)

Take a look at the videos below and enjoy the work of a master storyteller. These are the kind of stories we all want to tell with our pictures. This is what makes being creative fun and worthwhile.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  PotD
Empowerment Or Exploitation
May 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - empowerment or exploitation

Climate change, demographics, water, food, energy, global health, women’s empowerment – these issues are all intertwined. We cannot look at one strand in isolation. Instead, we must examine how these strands are woven together. —Ban Ki-moon

 

charles i. letbetter - empowerment or enslavement

Empowerment is more than words; the actions have to match as well

There are days, like today, where I feel as though all the stories are the same, we’ve merely switched up the names a bit. Twenty years ago, June of 1996, Kathie Lee Gifford was co-host of a popular morning talk show and was active in causes designed to empower women. Somewhere along the way, someone convinced her that putting her name on a clothing label would be a good idea. The label would be affordable and provide stylish fashion to women who couldn’t afford the big designer names. Empowerment; that’s a good thing, right? There was just one problem.

June 26 came along and the chief executive of National Labor Committee Education Fund in Support of Worker and Human Rights in Central America told Congress that the clothes were being made by 13- and 14-year-olds in Honduras. Even worse, those children were being forced to work 20-hour days. Empowerment? No, enslavement.

The backlash against Mrs. Gifford was quick and hard. She was demonized from every direction. Never mind that it was Wal-Mart, not Mrs. Gifford, who had made the choice of suppliers. No one ever bothered to picket the people directly responsible. Instead, because her name was attached to the brand, it was Mrs. Gifford who had to take the responsibility.

Celebrity labels often have this problem. Putting their name on clothes can produce a perpetual revenue stream for the celebrity, often without them making any actual investment in the products at all. Their name, their face in the advertising, virtually ensures that the products will sell well. The celebrity can then use a portion the profits to support a cause of empowerment to a specific group, typically one related to their own background. Sounds like a can’t miss scenario, doesn’t it?

But it does miss. Often. In addition to Mrs. Giffords nightmare, which eventually sunk the label, both Jaclyn Smith and Michael Jordan have lent their names to clothing lines only to have the claim on sweatshop use leveled against them. This is not a new story, and it’s happening again.

This time, it’s Beyonce’s Ivy Park label that’s coming under fire. British newspaper ran a story this past Sunday claiming that the sportswear brand is being manufactured in Sri Lanka by women making mere pittance a day in confining circumstances with strict curfews. That article wasn’t too bad, as it sloppily attempted to connect the brand, and its UK seller, Topshop, to disgraced BHS executive,Sir Philip Green. But then, writer Sirin Kale picked up the story for Vice brand Broadly and took the matter much, much deeper, exposing the severity of the situation.

Beyonce talks a lot about how she wants her Ivy Park brand to be a source of empowerment for women. In an interview with Elle (which also manages to cement Philip Green’s involvement), the music diva says of the brand:

It’s really the essence: to celebrate every woman and the body she’s in while always striving to be better. I called it Ivy Park because a park is our commonality. We can all go there; we’re all welcomed. It’s anywhere we create for ourselves. For me, it’s the place that my drive comes from. I think we all have that place we go to when we need to fight through something, set our goals and accomplish them.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Inspiring, even. I’ve no reason to doubt the singer’s sincerity. But I’m pretty sure the women making those clothes aren’t visiting any parks, either. They do one thing and one thing only: make Ivy Park clothes.

The women who work for the Sri Lankan garment manufacturer make roughly the equivalent of sixty-two cents an hour. They don’t see their families; they live in dormitories on-site. They have strict curfews and their movement is limited. They barely survive. One woman said the $126 a month she makes sewing mesh panels into leggings was not enough to cover her basic expenses. Where’s the empowerment in that?

Now, to be fair, conditions in Sri Lanka are not as bad as those in Bangladesh or Pakistan. The company that owns the sweatshop pays particular attention to the building’s structure and meeting appropriate building codes. Women here are not as likely to be caught in a burning building. I should also mention that their pay is above Sri Lanka’s pitiful excuse for a minimum wage. However, workers would need to be paid nearly three times that minimum, or more than double their current wage, before they can actually live off what they are making.

Working conditions don’t have to be the worst in the world before they become exploitation. When the clothing retails at (approximately) $14 for a headband on up to $250 or so for a dress, someone is being empowered, but it is being done through the exploitation of women whose conditions are desperate enough that they will work for such horrible wages. Millions of dollars will flow into Beyonce’s bank account, and equally so for Topshop, but not for anyone else. Exactly how is that empowering to anyone but Beyonce?

We keep seeing this pattern over and over and over with almost every celebrity label on the market. Beyonce isn’t the only one, she’s just the latest big name who’s making money off women so poor they likely have never even heard of the singer and certainly can’t afford her albums.

As we saw with Mrs. Gifford’s label, though, canceling orders, shutting down the sweatshops, isn’t the answer, either. When Wal-Mart finally pulled the clothing order from the Honduran sweatshop, over 10,000 people lost desperately needed jobs. In Beyonce’s case, the numbers would likely be even higher. It’s not just the workers but entire poverty-ridden countries being exploited by the whole fashion industry.

If Beyonce was really serious about empowering women, she’d make sure those is Sri Lanka were receiving a living wage, even if that means shaving a percentage point off her own profit. If she were serious about empowerment, a portion of the profits could go into the Sri Lankan communities in desperate need of help. If empowerment were really the focus, The singer could support nutrition and education programs for the women making her clothes.

Fashion isn’t about empowerment, though, despite what their marketing packet might say. Fashion is about profit and if that means exploiting large groups of disadvantaged and disenfranchised people, then sadly the fashion establishment finds those terms acceptable.

Celebrity labels are nothing more than an attempt to profit from a name while it’s popular. No one is empowered. No one is given an advantage. It’s all about the money and exploitation. Every. Damn. Time.

Continue Reading

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

Caffeine. The gateway drug. —Eddie Vedder

 

charles i. letbetter - drug policy fails. again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  pop culture  /  PotD
Hardcover No Longer Undercover
May 17, 2016
charles i. letbetter - hardcover no longer undercover

Getting 10,000 listeners for a free podcast novel is a lot easier than selling 10,000 hardcover novels at $25 a pop. —Jeremy Robinson

 

charles i. letbetter - hardcover no long undercover

Everyone was so sure that hardcover books were all but extinct. They were wrong.

My favorite people all read. A lot. The smartest people you’ll find are avid readers. The richest people in the world always have a book handy. People who don’t read regularly don’t just bother me, I find them quite frightening. Interestingly enough, I have found that those who have no hardcover books on their shelves seem to have the hardest heads, least likely to be open to information, creativity, or anything new.

For the past several years now, we’ve been told that hardcover book publishing is all but dead. Sales numbers supported that claim. E-readers were everywhere for a while, and it wasn’t all that unusual to see them on the bus, or the train, or at the local coffee shop, typically in the hands of someone young, hip looking, and wearing earbuds to avoid conversation or interruption. Going digital seemed like the environmentally friendly thing to do, too; more books could be published without killing thousands of trees. Going digital also meant one could carry multiple books with them without suffering the weight of an overcrowded bookbag. The whole premise sounded good, and to some degree still does.

What any avid reader will tell you, though, is that while digital publishing does have its advantages, there’s still nothing like the feel and pleasure of holding a real, hardcover book in your hands. We’ve always known that. We might give e-readers a try, and there are moments when they can be quite convenient, but we always come back to hardcover books because holding that physical tome of paper and ink is almost as much a part of the reading experience as is the story enclosed in the book’s pages.

Now, here’s the surprise: Hardcover books are coming back, both in terms of what is fashionable as well as hard sales numbers. The numbers are not huge, yet, according to Publisher’s Association; some $50 million or so out of a $7 billion-plus market. At the same time, though, digital publishing took a similarly-sized downturn. Put the two together and one has to optimistically consider this a trend.

Oh, and on top of that, the British bookseller Waterstones stopped selling e-readers, converted the shelf space to hardcover titles, and saw a five percent increase in sales! Considering the complete demise of Borders books, and how other booksellers have struggled, one has to wonder if perhaps those in charge of such operations might have given up a bit too quickly, tossing in the towel without putting up a sufficient battle.

What has pushed the trend back toward ink-on-paper books? Some point to an increased popularity in lifestyle titles such as Andrew Weil’s Spontaneous Happiness and Dave Ramsey’s The Total Money Makeover. The popularity of coloring books among young adults hasn’t hurt sales, either, though that hardly counts as a literary genre. Ultimately, what has brought us back to the hardcover is emotion and practicality. We love our books. We love how they feel in our hands. We love turning down pages. We love decorative bookmarks. We love that ability to make sure everyone sees the dust jacket so they know what we’re reading.

We’re also more keenly aware of the shortcomings of e-readers. The portability is great for the first couple of hours, but battery life is limited and no one likes to be tethered to a wall outlet while they read. Environment is a problem, too. Too much or too little sunlight and you can’t see the screen, and the quickest way to ruin an e-reader is to take it into the kitchen while you’re cooking. Drop your Kindle? Sorry, you’ll have to buy a new one. Set the reader too close to anything magnetized and you lose your entire library.

Books are back. We’re not really surprised, are we? While this does not necessarily mean brick-and-mortar bookstores will return in the fashion we once knew, we can be certain that hardcover books are not going to disappear anytime soon. Probably never. Real readers know this. We love our books.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letebetter - modesty doesn't become you

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

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

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

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

https://youtu.be/NuhXbGwcUwo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - if puritans were treated like muslims

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

xen·o·pho·bi·a

[ˌzenəˈfōbēə, ˌzēnəˈfōbēə]

NOUN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charels i. letbetter - life isn't that bad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

Be happy.

 

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD
Crashing Art
May 13, 2016
charles i. letbetter - crashing art

In the time of the sacred sites and the crashing of ecosystems and worlds, it may be worth not making a commodity out of all that is revered. —Winona LaDuke

 

charles i. letbetter - crashing art

When the high-end art scene starts crashing, do we worry, or do we look for opportunity?

The art world is crashing. Don’t worry, your favorite museum is safe, at least for now. In fact, for all but maybe .001% of the population, life will go on as it always does. No big deal. In fact, even as I’m typing I’m still trying to decide whether or not I should be concerned. I mean, after all, there are much more important things to be worried about. Just look at this list:

Oh, and on top of everything else, it’s Friday the 13th with a full moon while Mercury is in retrograde. I may know people who won’t leave their house today. I may be one of them; I’m not sure mowing the lawn is worth the risk.

With all these really critical issues out there, why am I most bothered by this article about art sales crashing? I’ve been sitting here staring at it since Tuesday, trying to decide if I’m really concerned that Sotheby’s reported a loss of $32 million. Am I really all that upset by the fact that auction at Christie’s this past Sunday only brought in $78.1 million compared to the $658.5 million of a year ago? Is this really all that important?

On the surface, what happens in the high-end art world is irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of people because we are not and never will be invited to that party. The people who invest $20.4 million for Auguste Rodin’s sculpture “L’Eternel Printemps” are not your next door neighbors. These are people who have stupidly insane amounts of cash on hand, more money than sense some may say, and are investing it in the hope that art produced by dead people will go up in value.

Note, the artists’ families don’t see a dime of this investment revenue. The artists only get the amount for which the work was originally sold and I can, in most cases, promise you that it was not $20.4 million. The art investment scene is a game among the super rich to see who can obtain the bragging rights for the largest and most valuable collections.

What makes the high-end art market even worse is that all too often the people who buy the art don’t have any intention of displaying it. Some of the world’s most valuable art has been sitting in climate-controlled warehouses for decades. Occasionally  someone will loan a piece to a major museum, but even among the most elite very few have sufficient security systems in place to risk displaying irreplaceable works of art. The only value in buying these art pieces is the hope that the next sucker will pay even more for them.

Given all that, is there really any reason to be concerned that the handful of extremely evil art brokers who control high-end art have seen their over-priced commissions slashed by 37%?

Actually, there is. See the article in the very first bullet point up there, the one about global investors cashing out? The crashing art market is part of that same worry among major investors that something bad is about to happen to the global economy. People who have money, lots of money, are resilient in the face of normal market fluctuations; the daily ups and downs don’t bother them a whole lot. So, they lose a few million on one day, they gain it back and more a couple of days later. No worries.

When the economy shows signs of depression, or worse, however, people who have money start cashing out so that they don’t risk losing everything. Should the markets suddenly decide to go crashing, they don’t want to lose all their money. This week’s hit was about $7.3 billion taken out of the markets and that’s the fifth consecutive week for such a gap over the amount of investment.

Where the art market fits into this is that it doesn’t involve as wide a group as does the stock market. There are no hedge funds in art. The number of people making this kind of investment is extremely small, fewer than 500 by some counts, and involve only the richest individuals and estates in the world. Not much makes these people nervous. They barely flinched in 2009 after the markets collapsed in 2008, and have been consistently making heavy investments in art since then, despite various challenges to the economy. When these people are nervous enough to stop investing in art, the rest of us should probably be shaking in our dime-store boots.

That’s not to say that there might not be an opportunity here. Previously, when the high-end art market starts crashing as it is now, investors look to more modestly priced art and unknown artists. Such investments are cautious, to be sure, because investors never know whether an artist whose work is currently under appreciated might “catch on” within the art investment community and suddenly increase in value. If it doesn’t, they’re just stuck with a $4,000 painting of flowers that they’ll probably just end up loaning to a small museum and forgetting about.

Still, for all those unknown and under appreciated artists out there, which is pretty much every artist out there, a downturn on the high-end may well be their opportunity to gather high-level attention. Doing so is not easy. These investors rarely go shopping among second- or third-tier galleries, and even then one has to figure out how to deal with the nasty-assed art brokers to even get a showing at any place remotely impressive. Being an artist is wonderful. Actually trying to sell art absolutely sucks but can be worth all the trouble.

We all know how important timing is and this crash at the high-end may mean the timing is right for a number of artists.

Or, it could mean that the entire global economy is doomed.

It is Friday the 13th, after all.

Continue Reading

PotD
Retail Falls From Grace
May 12, 2016
charles i. letbetter - retail falls from grace

I’m paranoid about shopping. I get irritable. I find it tedious and taxing. People say shopping is retail therapy, but I need therapy after shopping. —Anushka Sharma

 

charles i. letbetter - retail falls from grace

You know that mall store where you once bought at least half if not all your wardrobe? Hope you’re not emotionally attached because they’re failing

I was in a mall last week for the first time in a few months. The day before, venerable mall chain Abercrombie & Fitch had announced they would be closing 150 stores and they started Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. I watched from a small distance as they opened that morning, a noticeable weariness in the person’s posture. There was no better-than-thou attitude and only a weary smile as I passed.

Fashion retail as we have known it in the past may well be in need of hospice care. While it’s not dead yet, the condition of fashion retail shows every sign of having a terminal disease and its recovery, at least in the form with which we have become accustomed. We are already familiar with the problems big department stores such as Macy’s and Sears have had. Now, fashion specific retailers who have been struggling the past five years are beginning to look as though they may be on their last legs. Retail has fallen from grace and we don’t seem to be inclined to restore it, or even let it survive in its current incarnation.

Most recently, GAP is starting to feel irrelevant after they announced earlier this week that April same-store sales fell another seven percent from same time last year.  GAP is rapidly running out of options. No one is walking through their doors. I know, I watched, seated in one of the malls comfy chairs. For 30 minutes I sat there. Dozens of people walked past, but none of those even slowed enough to look through the windows. Finch Ratings lowered GAP’s default rating to junk status yesterday, further deflating any energy left in the stock. If they are not in full-scale liquidation by the holidays I will be quite surprised.

So much has changed from when a young Jewish immigrant named Adam Gimble opened his first dry goods store in Vincennes, Indiana back in the 1850s. As he moved from Vincennes to Danville, Illinois and then Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the joke at the time was that profits from one store alone wasn’t enough to feed Gimble’s seven sons. Gimble was a pioneer in the concept of chain retailing, among other things, and the concept around which he built his stores is still dominant in retailing even now.

But retail has never been easy. Movies and popular fiction made the competition between the Herald Square Gimbles and the Macy’s store across the street quite famous, but by the time Miracle on 34tj Street made a big deal about the two stores and their holiday promotions, all three of Macy’s founding partners had been dead over 40 years and the costs of expansion were burdening the company. Both stores went through various iterations in an attempt to survive, but Gimbles closed for good in 1985, and Macy’s sold to Federated Department Stores in 1994. While Federated has kept the Macy’s brand and merged others into that framework, it has still struggled continuously.

Fashion retail is not an easy business, and now that malls themselves have fallen out of favor as a family social destination, the malls are either closing or having to invest millions of dollars in an attempt to get more people through the doors. Tom McGee, president and chief executive officer of the International Council of Shopping Centers, told Associated Press:

“Shopping centers and the physical retail experience is becoming much more experiential. People want to have experiences when they go out. They want to experience restaurants. They want movie theaters. They want that kind of all-in aspect. They want the aesthetics and the look to be something that is engaging and appealing to them.”

Even if malls can make the aesthetics and periphery of a shopping experience more appealing, though, that doesn’t mean that people will actually buy clothing from the same retailers they did 5-10 years ago. In addition to a continuing growth in online shopping, which may grow dramatically if more fashion labels adopt a see now, buy now approach to their runway shows, re-sale stores are taking off, both brick-and-mortar, as well as online, and they’re coming with deep pockets and strong marketing strategies. Contemporary wardrobe styles care little whether the Armani jacket is from this year’s collection or five years ago. To the extent that luxury goods are presumably made better and last longer, they can be sold and re-sold numerous times. Each time a garment is re-sold, that’s cash out of the hands of traditional fashion retailers.

In one sense, it’s rather exciting to know that we’re witnessing a dramatic transformation in the fashion retail business, one that almost certainly is going to benefit consumers more in the long run. At the same time, though, it’s somewhat disheartening to know that some of our favorite brands and retailers may not survive the transition. Progress always works this way, you know. Not everyone survives, and in this case being big might actually be a handicap.

If you’re one of those people who really like A&F or GAP clothing, you might want to stock up now, though. Limited store closings are definitely coming and both brands are on life-support. Last rites will come in the form of deep discounting this fall. Oh, how the mighty and impenetrable have fallen. Keep watching.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - when good judgement matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know we do.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - nationalism is not patriotic

Patriotism does not mean being a jerk about being an American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  PotD
Modeling Sucks. Sometimes.
May 11, 2016
charles i. letbetter - modeling sucks sometimes

I never cared about modeling. As a model, you’re powerless. —Karen Gillan

 

charles i. letbetter - modeling sucks sometimes

If you’re looking to make a career out of modeling and don’t already have a fat bank account, you might want to think again.

Back in 2005, when I first considered moving to Indianapolis from Atlanta, I naturally wanted to make sure that I would be able to have sufficient income. I did a little digging and was able to make contact with four different modeling agencies here. Three were delightfully quick to say yes, they would be happy to utilize my services. The fourth, Helen Wells, wouldn’t commit but at least was open to discussion. I had similar phone calls with ad agencies with similar results. So, I put the majority of my belongings in a storage unit (which would later flood), packed the rest in the back of a rental car, and headed North feeling somewhat optimistic about the future.

Within two weeks I knew I was wrong in my assessment. One modeling agency packed up and moved the very next day after I met with them, taking all the models’ earnings with them. Another told me how much they paid for a model’s comp card session, but they only had one model due to a disagreement over pay. They were gone within 30 days of that conversation. The third was more difficult to pin down, never quite having time to schedule a meeting and when we did was suspiciously non-committal. By the end of the summer, a lawsuit had been brought against the agency for withholding models’ pay. The models won the suit, but the agency owner fled the state without paying anyone.

I don’t know how many times  I’ve talked with aspiring models who just wanted to make a little extra money while in college. Modeling sounds like it would be an easy source of cash for anyone who is reasonably attractive. The common perspective is that all one has to do is show up. Someone does your hair and makeup, someone else provides your wardrobe, then you just stand in front of a camera and pose for a few minutes. Boom, instant easy cash. But that’s not the way modeling works at all. Not even close.

Modeling has always had its shell games and money rackets going all the way back to the 1940s when professional modeling began. The industry runs loose with absolutely no one overseeing it in any way. Some states have laws concerning how long models can work if they’re under 18, and a few European countries have some form of law designed to protect against eating disorders, but for the most part, modeling agencies do whatever they damn well please and models almost always end up feeling more like victims.

CNN Money recently started airing a five-part investigative series called Runway Injustice, taking a detailed look at the dark and dirty side of modeling. Only two parts have been released so far, but it is obvious from the title that the cable news outlet isn’t taking a positive view of the modeling industry. They’re looking at the con games, the slow-to-pay problem, and how many agencies make money charging models for expenses. One former model even goes on record as saying her agency charged her for the flowers they sent her on her birthday.

When one watches a fashion show and sees all the long-legged girls parading past in next season’s fashion, one might get the impression that these models are doing quite well for themselves, but the truth is quite different. While designers might pay the Hadid or Jenner offspring outrageous (and unjustified) amounts for showing up, most labels still pay less than $5,000 per model. I know, that still sounds like a lot, but from that travel, hotel, and food expenses are deducted, on top of the agency’s standard 20% commission and administrative fees. Many models walk away, after months of waiting, with less than $500. Some end up actually owing the agency money. Even Cara Delevigne, who has been at the very top of the game, doesn’t have anything nice to say about the industry and how it treats models.

Increasingly, the value of an agency, or “management company” as many like IMG prefer to be called now, is being called into question. More casting agents are looking at sources such as Instagram and other social media outlets, choosing models with exceptionally high numbers of followers, which virtually guarantees success for whatever ad campaign or runway show in which the model appears. Unrepresented, or independent, these models have difficulty keeping the work flowing. Most end up signing with an agency and find themselves right back in the same traps that more traditional models experience.

All this begs the question that, if modeling is such a horrible career, why would young people want to even consider doing such a thing? The answer is that not everything about modeling is horrible. For many, just the fun of being in front of the camera, getting to play dress-up with the wardrobe, the opportunity to travel (even if it’s on their own dime), and sometimes meeting really cool and famous people is sufficient. Some use modeling as a way to explore their alter ego, being in front of the camera what they cannot be in their private lives. Others use modeling as a means of escape from other horrible conditions.  For many, just the chance that they might become part of the .05% who actually make a fantastic living is enough to risk everything.

I’m sure that, at the end of the CNN investigation, there will be someone advocating greater oversight of the industry and legislation to protect models from various forms of abuse and deceit. Don’t expect anything to actually happen, though. We’ve heard all these complaints before. Nothing I’ve seen in the CNN report so far is new or different from what I’ve seen and heard for 30 years. The sad fact is models are not an organized group, therefore they are not able to present a single or unified voice. They don’t have, and can’t afford, lobbyist speaking to legislators on their behalf. No one sticks up for them and, once the spotlight of the CNN story fades, everything will almost certainly continue on the way it has.

Modeling is fun, sometimes, but there are a lot of other times when it just plain sucks. If someone wants to do it for the fun and adventure, great. Go for it. Have fun every step of the way. Don’t expect to get rich, though, and watch your back at every turn. While being a model can present some incredible experiences, it’s not likely to leave you swimming in cash. In fact, you’ll be needing your own gas money. Always.

Good luck.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion  /  Photography
Product Placement In Photography
May 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

If you really think about it, when watching television, you have product placement all the time. —Jay Chiat

 

charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

Could photographers benefit by charging for product placement in their photographs the way television charges for placement in their shows?

Sitting here trying to catch up on some news articles I missed over the weekend, I came across an article in the Media section of the New YorkTimes looking at how advertising has changed in a digital age. What caught my attention was all the talk about how an old ad trick, product placement, is making more sense than ever in content that is shown on multiple platforms. Creating separate content for every available platform is expensive, but if the brand is embedded in someone else’s content, the onus and cost for multi-platform delivery falls to someone else. This works for the brand not only in terms of saving money (which it may or may not do), but extending their reach to content viewers who may not have been familiar with the brand.

You’ve been watching this happen on television and the movies from the moment either began. Big brands, especially tobacco companies, were significant sponsors of early television because it put their name in front of people who weren’t consumers of their product. Brands became “household names” not so much because of the quality of the product but because of their association with someone’s favorite TV program. As media has evolved, we now see that same product placement being equally important to digital media, especially those that run on social media platforms.

Photographers have utilized product placement before as well, though they may not have thought of it in those terms specifically, and they probably didn’t get paid for the placement. When we’re doing portfolio work, or taking pictures that are not for a specific client, we often approach designers and boutique owners about borrowing wardrobe. This allows our photographs to look more professionally styled (rather than depending on what the model is carrying in her bag) and, in some cases, gives the designer or boutique a touch of free publicity. In an environment where cash isn’t in abundance, the system sort of works. Kind of. Maybe.

Let’s take the pictures in this article, for example. The wardrobe is courtesy of  local designer Shiela Ferguson, whose Jealousy Jane brand is reasonably well-known in the local market. Christopher Thompson did the hair and makeup. By mentioning them here, they both, ostensibly, receive some advertising benefit from being included in the photograph. That’s assuming the people viewing the picture are in the market for a new couture gown or want to drive to Atlanta, Indiana to have their makeup done.

Consider how we might have made this photo different, though. What if the models had been holding a branded drink, with the label prominently showing? Would the image have been more interesting if they had been eating menu items from a popular fast food chain? Perhaps the image would have taken on a different tone had they been giving the dog branded treats.

Traditionally, I wouldn’t have considered such a move because using branded items, especially if the brand name and/or logo is prominently visible, can lead to some significant legal problems. Brands spend a lot of money on their image and don’t want anyone representing them in a way contrary to the brand’s message. Trademark infringement can be costly if photographers aren’t careful about what they’re doing.

In today’s environment, however, there might be an opportunity for enterprising photographers to do something unheard of: make money by selling product placement in their portfolio images! Why not? Products in photographs make them more interesting, more relatable, and make the story come alive to a larger audience. Funds from product placement can then be used for other things such as set construction and hiring models that match the brand message.

Of course, you know there are challenges to such an approach. First and foremost, the photographer has to be able to demonstrate a quality portfolio that appeals to the brand they’re approaching. No one wants to pay for shitty images, nor do they want their products associated with those images. One can hardly blame them.

Second in line is going to be whether the photographer can demonstrate value in his product. In today’s marketing game, this is where numbers matter. How many followers does one have not only on Facebook and Twitter, but Snapchat, Instagram, Tumblr, Vine, and Periscope? The higher each of those numbers are, the more likely a brand might be interested in placing their products in an image. Know that they’re also going to look at how many likes and shares previous images have received.

A photographer would need to have the ability to deliver an audience the brand wants. If one is primarily doing pet photography, approaching your local Coca-Cola bottler probably isn’t going to work. Tag Hauer may be a tough sell if one plans on shooting farm animals. Being able to match your audience with that of a brand is critical, which means you need to know who is your audience. Look beyond your friends and find out who really pays attention to your work.

Being able to measure results is going to be important as well. Marketing departments have a strange fetish for numbers and if they do agree to pay for product placement they’re going to want to know that you delivered the number of eyeballs you promised. If you don’t, they won’t likely pay for placement again and, especially if you don’t even come close, they might demand a refund. That means you need some method for compiling and reporting viewer statistics. There are a variety of ways to do so, especially if you are paying for sponsored content on Facebook or Snapchat, both of whom have great backend analytics as for not only how many eyeballs but where in the world they were, how old they were, their gender, and even whether they later visited the brand’s  Facebook or Snapchat.

Yes, that is a lot of work and no, it’s not going to be an option for someone who asks a model to shoot and doesn’t plan a concept until she walks through the door. If a photographer wants to actually make money off their portfolio, they have to think more like Caty Burgess, Senior VP for media strategies at the CW network, who asked in that network’s upfronts, “Is the question, ‘What is an ad?’ or ‘What isn’t an ad?'”

Almost anything we create with a camera has the ability to be an ad, even art nudes. We have the potential to change the paradigm in our favor. Think about it and consider changing your strategy.

 

charles i. letbetter - product placement in photography

Selling this shot to Coke after the fact didn’t work, but it might convince them to do something similar in the future

 

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
Philosophies Of Photography
May 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - philosophies of photography

There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. —Dalai Lama

 

charles i. letbetter - philosophies of photography

Why a photographer takes a picture is sometimes more important than what is being photographed.

I learned a long time ago that I can’t please everyone. There are a few people, fewer than five, who seem frustrated that I don’t write more about photography since that is mostly what I do. I suppose I could do that, but I’ve always operated under the premise that if one is reading about photography one is not doing photography and the only real way to improve is to do, not read. When I do write about photography, I want it to be something that is genuinely helpful.

What I’ve noticed, though, is that in those moments when I consider doing something crazy like writing a book, the outline itself seems sufficient instruction. If I were to title a chapter with something like, “Understanding Depth of Field,” what else is there to say except that the larger the aperture, the smaller the number, and the shorter the depth of field. There, done with that chapter. You’re welcome.

Okay, so I can BS my way through a thousand or so words on just about any topic, but is that really helpful when, if you want to improve your photography, you have to get out and shoot; that’s the only way anyone gets better. You can read all the damn books by all the “experts” in the world, but if your camera is not in your hand, if you’re not snapping regularly, if you’re not taking risks and trying things out differently, you’re not going to improve.

I’m no longer shooting anywhere near as often as I did four or five years ago and while I’m still not exactly “okay” with that, I’ve come to terms with the reality that my body hates me. We have a working relationship in that my body doesn’t especially like me working and lets me know when I’ve gone too far. Actually, if I could get more shoots in between 4-6 AM, we might be more productive, but there aren’t many people willing to shoot at that hour. Having plenty of time to step back and think, though, has allowed me to re-asses my philosophy of photography and make some changes.

Philosophies come and go and none of them are ever iron-clad; they’re circumstantial at best. Philosophies are based on a specific perspective to a specific reality and as both the perspectives and the realities change, so do the philosophies. As a result, philosophies held by other people are of limited value. Their perspective isn’t going to be the same as yours. The reality is not going to be identical to yours, even though you might share significant portions. Philosophies are valuable to other people only as guides in helping them establish their own.

I’ve held enough different philosophies of photography to fill a terabyte hard drive. Could I talk about each point at length? Yes, but I’m not sure what purpose that would serve. If you want how-to articles, there are plenty of those spanning different topics at Peta Pixel and PDN. Neither link is an endorsement, mind you, just two obvious resources. All I’m giving you are bullet points. Use the contact form if you have questions or hit me up on Facebook.

  • Photography is a means of communication. When you take a picture, you are saying something. When you share a photo, you are broadcasting a message. Think before you talk.
  • Photography is a visual language and just as we don’t all speak English we don’t all take photographs the same way. That’s good. Diversity opens all our minds.
  • Sometimes we have a lot of pictures to serve as our vocabulary, but we don’t always know how to put them together into cohesive communication. Learning to curate our photos before sharing them is important.
  • Just because someone else did it doesn’t mean you can, or should. Find your own distinct look and play to that.
  • Any camera that takes pictures is a good camera.
  • Every once in a while, stop what you’re doing and shoot dirt. Choose a common element, such as a tree or a dandelion, and find a way to make it interesting. Keep the creative juices flowing.
  • Don’t over-think any situation. Details can distract you from the creativity and artistry of the shot. Focus on the major elements and then shoot.
  • Shooting nudes is to photography what figure drawing is to a traditional art education: fundamental. To not study the human body is to be unprepared for shooting a clothed one.
  • Protecting the rights of photographers to shoot without interference is your responsibility, even if you never leave your own studio.
  • Beauty is built upon flaws. There is no such thing as the perfect photograph. Play to the quirks, the oddities, and the imperfections of a subject.
  • The world sees photography as a commodity. The only way to change their mind is to take pictures that are not common.
  • Photography has the ability to tell a harsh truth and that scares people. Don’t be afraid to take those pictures. Sometimes people need to be scared.
  • Censoring photography is like putting a gag in someone’s mouth. Just because someone doesn’t like the message doesn’t mean they have a right to control it.
  • Photographers own the rights to their pictures just like a speaker owns the rights to the words coming from their mouths. Limiting the rights to a photograph because of who is in it is like limiting the rights to a novel because of the words the author used. Stepping in front of a camera does not give anyone rights to that image.
  • Giving up rights to a photograph is a weakness.
  • Neither taking a photograph nor being in a photograph gives either side the right to bully the other.
  • Think with your eyes, see with your camera.
  • Criticizing photographs is a waste of time. When examining a photograph, there are but two questions: Did you capture what you wanted? What would you do differently? Everything else is a matter of one’s creative taste.
  • Saying one understands the whole of photography is like saying one understands every language in the world: you don’t. Photography is too broad, too complex, and too  individual in its details to be consumed as a whole.
  • One doesn’t need friends who limit one’s work. One needs friends who will stand/sit/lie naked in front of your camera while one searches for an angle.
  • The value of a photograph is not in the subject but in the photographer’s ability to tell the story of that subject in a single frame.
  • Just as mountains are millions of years old, there are an equal number of ways in which they can be photographed.
  • Light introduces us to a subject; shadows tell the story.
  • Morality in a photograph lies not in its content but only in the mind of the person viewing it.
  • To be jealous of someone else’s photography is to demonstrate the need for one’s own improvement.
  • Displaying a photograph in both color and black and white is like telling a story from two different perspectives; one is the three little pigs, the other is the wolf.
  • Technology and digital camera works open the field of photography to a whole new realm of exploration which we’ve not yet begun to understand.
  • Never share a picture that didn’t first make you feel something.

I’m going to stop there. I’ve probably already exceeded the point of interest for the vast majority of people. Philosophies become boring the longer one is forced to stare at them. Consider what your philosophy might be. You don’t need to write it down, just think about it then pick up the camera and start shooting.

Philosophies don’t take pictures. Photographers do.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  science
Selective Ignorance
May 9, 2016
charles i. letbetter - selective ignorance

All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure. —Mark Twain

 

charles i. letbetter - selective ignorance

The world is full of things we’re probably better off not knowing

I went all day yesterday without checking my email, not even once.  In the ongoing struggle to not spend every waking moment in front of the computer, it was an important step and the interesting thing is I didn’t do it on purpose. Between Mother’s Day and children and the dog and the cats, my day didn’t leave a lot of extra time. I’m rather surprised that we managed to work in two new articles yesterday. There was just too much going on to waste time with something that generally is as pointless as email. If I missed anything important, it can be chalked up to selective ignorance; I chose to not know what was in my email.

Don’t judge me, you do the same thing. Our world contains too much information for us to even begin to comprehend it all. Were we to try, we would drive ourselves crazy. Our minds cannot comprehend all there is to know, so we are forced into a situation of selective ignorance, focusing on what is genuinely important to our specific situation and ignoring all the noise on the outside.

Humorist Garrison Keillor talks about selective ignorance in terms of parenting: we don’t want to know everything our teenaged children are doing when they’re out of our sight. We might say we want to know, but the truth is we do better when we don’t know. Whether they’re having sex or exploring their own sexual identity or smoking pot in the Steak-N-Shake parking lot, there are details of our children’s lives we do best to leave alone.

We utilize selective ignorance more than we think. In many ways, it is an extension of Pareto’s Principle of 80/20 in that 80 percent of what we know (or think we know) is fueled by 20 percent of the information we receive. We focus on what appears to be the best information, the most concise assessments, and then extrapolate our knowledge outward as necessary. This allows us to pay more attention to what is really important.

Author Timothy Ferris might put it better than I do:

We commit acts of selective ignorance more often than we realize. When we see a top ten list, we pay much more attention to the top three than we do the bottom seven. Marketers like creating top ten lists where their product comes out first because, in overwhelming numbers, we tend to buy the number one rated item on the list, often without even considering the other nine.

There actually is a school of science behind mapping what we choose to ignore. They even have their own website. Selective ignorance can be incredibly important in matters of science and technology, which may sound rather counterintuitive after first, but when you think about it, no one can focus on all the science that is being studied. Consider, for example, who you would rather have to operate on your heart condition, your general practitioner, who tries to know as much about all of medicine as possible, or a cardiologist who might ignore things like how to birth a baby or treating pediatric rashes in favor of focusing on less invasive ways of  treating your heart murmur.

Not all instances of selective ignorance work to our advantage, though. In an article on the topic, Silvia Roman states:

Nowadays, scientific and technological knowledge usually eludes public criticism and even we have seen how important government decision making were made by the so-called technocrats. We often forget the contingency of this knowledge, the fact that scientists make choices about what to know and what to ignore.

These research choices, intentionally or unintentionally, lead to a selective scientific knowledge and thus, to a limited understanding of complex phenomena.

Correlating complex phenomena across a wide range of scientific understanding is one of those places where selective ignorance doesn’t work, but the limits of our human brains still push us in that direction. One of the promises of quantum computing is that it holds the potential to find the correlation between disparate and even random sets of data. The technology does not have the limits of understanding that cripple the human brain, creating the possibility of greater understanding.

Even if quantum computing allows us to find those distractingly complex phenomena, though, we’re still likely to exercise selective ignorance in choosing what is going to be reported. In fact, it turns out that the level of selective ignorance in science reporting is so severe it often turns into outright misinformation, whether on the part of the people doing the reporting or the researchers themselves.

Selective ignorance in scientific reporting was actually the main topic on John Oliver’s program, Last Week Tonight last night. While the piece is a little long (20 minutes), he does a very good job of demonstrating what the far-reaching effects are of someone who engages in selective ignorance. Grab another cup of coffee and take a look:

Selective ignorance is a tool that has limited benefit. While it helps us cull through the mass of information flooding through our timelines and newsfeeds, when we fail to distribute enough information, or the correct information, we can cause problems.

There are plenty of things I don’t want or need to know. I don’t want to know what you have for lunch. I don’t need to know that your recently removed boyfriend is a douche. However, if you happen to cure cancer somewhere along the way, by all means, we want all the information possible. Not all ignorance is bliss.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - mom versus technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
A Mother’s Beauty
May 8, 2016
charles i. letbetter - a mother's beauty

Mother’s love is peace. It need not be acquired, it need not be deserved. —Erich Fromm

chalres i. letbetter - a mother's beauty

Mother’s Day brings plenty of memories, but we forget the beauty sacrifices mothers make for us.

I typically avoid the topic of mothers on Mother’s Day, partly because that’s what everyone is talking about and I’m not sure I can, or should, compete for your attention. Mother’s Day is also a little sad now that my own mother is gone. Some days it is better to let others do all the talking.

We romanticize our mothers in a sense, not that such a perspective is inappropriate, but our love for our mothers sometimes keeps us from seeing the depth of a mother’s sacrifice for her children.  She wouldn’t bring it up, of course, mothers rarely do. But what we remember of our mothers is seen through the perspective of a child. We don’t see what all went on in a mother’s life before she had children and everything she willingly gave up for us.

There aren’t many pictures still around of my mother when she was young. Her family was dirt poor and didn’t have a camera so the only pictures are those someone else took and gave her. What I see in those few pictures, though, is someone with a quick smile, sparkling eyes, and curly jet-black hair. I can understand why Poppa found her attractive. She was petite, like her other mother, with her father’s slim build; enough curve to be feminine, but not so much as to appear inappropriately sexual, which was apparently a thing back in the 1950s. She wore bobby socks with loafers and heels and gloves as was common at the time. Poppa said she was very prim and proper, very strict in her etiquette, but more than anything, he said she was beautiful.

Sure, everyone thinks their mother is beautiful, but we don’t see the same beauty that our fathers did. We see someone who is loving and caring and made sacrifices for us so that we could have everything we needed. Remember, though, that our fathers knew our mothers before we did and they saw her beauty in a different light.  They saw a side of a mother’s beauty that we’re not all that comfortable discussing. Despite everything that might have happened later, all the arguments and divorces, the illnesses and emotional issues, before we were born our fathers thought our mothers were sexy. They wouldn’t likely use that word in front of us, but that’s what they were thinking.

I occasionally come across someone who has nude photographs of their mother taken before they were born. We don’t often think of artistic nude photography having existed much before Helmut Newton, but it most certainly did, and was secretly very popular.   The difference was that they kept those photos to themselves. There was no Internet or social media on which to share them, so rarely did anyone else ever know they had been taken and it certainly wasn’t something they would just show to the kids. Typically, the photos are found by the adult child while helping their mother go through things later in her life. They elicit all knew stories about a side of our mothers we never considered: they were sexy.

Then, we came along and spoiled it all. The effect might not have happened immediately. Some women’s bodies handle childbirth better than others. Others, though, never lose the weight they put on carrying you. Hips that widened to facilitate your delivery didn’t snap back in place. If you kicked the wrong thing while you were swimming around in all that amniotic fluid, you likely created a physical problem your mother had to endure the rest of her life. She was thrilled to nurse you and cuddle you close, but because of that her breasts sag and she never looked the same in a swimsuit again.

You gave her stretch marks and those dark circles under her eyes from 18-plus years of never getting enough sleep and worrying about the trouble she knew you were getting into, even if she didn’t know exactly what it was. You killed her arches as she ran after you in shoes that were not meant for running. Her joints eventually became stiff and arthritic from all the times she put herself in unnatural positions to find that toy you had just dropped, or teaching you how to play leap frog, or picking you up and carrying you from the playground after you fell from the swing, again.

Before you were born, that lady you now call your mom paid more attention to how she looked when she went out. Her ensemble was carefully put together, even if it was more bohemian and less Chanel. She might have even worn makeup and had her nails done. After you came along, though, she was happy if what she was wearing didn’t have any fresh stains and if everything matched it was more by coincidence than design. Your mother’s stylist thought you were cute, but secretly hated you because your mother went from trying out different cuts and colors to short and easy-to-manage.

After  you came along, your mother didn’t go out with friends as often, didn’t travel as much, gave up on trying to fit into Gloria Vanderbilt jeans and damn sure wanted to make sure there was sufficient coverage between her and her Calvin’s. Almost everything that had gone into making her so physically desirable to your father either you ruined or she had to give up to care for you, except for one thing: Love.

And that’s what we remember on Mother’s Day: her love. After all, that’s what is important, right? Nothing else matters, at least, not now. A mother’s beauty isn’t defined by how “hot” she looks, how many heads she once turned, or how many hearts she once broke. A mother’s beauty is defined by how she could kiss a boo-boo and make the pain go away, or how she knew exactly when you needed her to make those special pancakes, or how she could mend a broken heart then help you plot revenge. She likes that definition.

Mothers don’t care about what they’ve given up for you. The love you and, in the vast majority of situations, would do everything all over again (with the benefit of a little wisdom from the experience). She loves you, you love her, and that makes everything beautiful enough for her. But don’t you ever forget that she did make those sacrifices. I’ll tell you what she might not: you owe her. Big.

A poet, whose name escapes me at the moment, once said that a mother’s beauty is defined is defined by the grace and compassion of her children. Your mother gave up a lot for you. Make her beautiful, damnit.

 

Continue Reading

Nature
Gardening Naked
May 7, 2016

What a man needs in gardening is a cast-iron back, with a hinge in it. —Charles Dudley Warner

 

charles i. letbetter - gardneing naked

Sure, gardening in the buff sounds like a lot of fun, but we have a feeling that it’s not all its made out to be

World Naked Gardening Day has been trending on Facebook for the past three weeks. While, from what I can tell, most of the participants appear to be British, or at least European, the event seems to be a wildly popular idea. They even have their own website. With such popularity, one might get the idea that everyone around the world is shucking their bloomers and heading out to their gardens.

The movement, now in its twelveth year, is something encouraged by naturists who have a tendency to run around naked rather often anyway. The appeal is understanding. Feeling the cool, loose soil between your toes, the warm sunlight on your back, and a gentle breeze blowing on your nipples sounds almost erotic in its own way. For people who enjoy gardening and enjoy getting back to nature in the most literal way possible, the day sounds perfect.

But, as I sit here in my nice, warm house, drinking my nice, hot coffee, I’m thinking that World Naked Gardening Day probably isn’t something in which I’m likely to participate. Not today. Probably not next year, either. There are some aspects of gardening nude that just don’t appeal to me. At all. Consider these issues:

  • As I’m writing, the temperature here in Indianapolis is 62 degrees. Now, if one is reasonably clothed, that’s not a bad temperature at all. In fact, for all those strange people out running the mini-marathon through town this morning, that temperature is damn-near perfect. However, if one is gardening, an activity that, generally speaking, is slightly more sedate and doesn’t quite count for getting in one’s cardio exercise, 63 degrees is a bit on the chilly side. Things are going to shrink and peak and the whole thing is going to be uncomfortable.
  • Unless you have a tall, solid fence, you’ll likely get arrested. For the larger portion of the United States, being out in your yard naked, where the neighbors and all those impressionable young children can see you, is illegal. We are some of the biggest prudes in the world. Tall fences eliminate the public indecency charges, but they also cast long shadows which isn’t necessarily good for gardening. Even worse, if one is arrested for being naked, which is bad enough, one if going to be tossed in jail naked until they can find you one of those pretty orange jumpsuits. Ick.
  • One word: bugs. Most people who are connected enough to the earth and really enjoy gardening are more likely to use natural methods of pest control, which means there are some species of bugs that manage to survive and are crawling around in the garden right now. If they’re crawling around in the garden, that means  they’ll be crawling all over you, too. The very thought of having bugs crawling into one’s more private crevices is not the least bit enticing, and probably isn’t all the healthy, either.
  • Gardening typically involves a lot of bending over. Stop and think of that visual for a moment. We’ve all seen the lawn decoration that is supposed to resemble a woman in a red and white polka dotted dress bending over her garden. Imagine that woman naked. Worse yet, imagine her husband out there with her. Got that visual in your head? Good luck getting rid of it.
  • The primary reason we don’t want children seeing adults naked is because we don’t want to answer those questions. We know they’re not interested in intercourse at an early age, and we know that a healthy attitude about their own bodies is a good thing. However, when they do happen to see an adult, especially a parent, naked, their curiosity is sparked and they start answering questions; questions we’re not in any hurry to answer. Questions that start with phrases such as, “Why does mommy have …” and “What is that thing?” There is a time and place for answering those questions, but the garden is neither that time nor that place.

I love the idea of gardning naked, in theory. I encourage everyone to spend as much time naked as possible, especially in front of my camera. I rather like naked people. But naked gardening? Uhm, I think I’ll take a pass on this one, thank you.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - female entrepreneurs do it better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go. Do it. Make yourself proud!

 

Continue Reading

Music  /  science
A Little Bit Of Work Music
May 6, 2016
charles i. letbetter - a little bit of work music

Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything. —Plato

charles i. letbetter - a little bit of work music

When a task is clearly defined and repetitive in nature, research from Applied Ergonomics suggests that music is consistently helpful.

When I first graduated college and entered the adult office environment, the work environment tended to be pretty damn quiet. Only when I went down to the press room, where the large Heidelberg machines cranked out newspapers with deafening volume, was there much noise. Upstairs, teletype machines had been moved to the corner and rarely emitted their machine-gun clatter as even then computers had already started taking over the job of distributing wire news.  While I’m not aware of any explicit rule against music, it just wasn’t done.

Now, walk into almost any office and one is likely to find music playing. In some instances, it can even be overwhelming. Indianapolis-based Simon malls (there’s one near you) pipes music both inside and outside their facilities during shopping hours. Once quiet offices often have corporately approved playlists and there’s rarely a cubicle dweller that doesn’t pop in their ear buds before turning on the computer for the day’s work. Music is pervasive in our society, no matter where one is.

The question asked recently is whether all this music is actually helping our productivity, or is it noise providing a distraction?

Those of us who are most musically oriented, find the answer obvious: of course, music helps our productivity! I’m listening to a playlist now and I cannot imagine sitting here doing most anything without music playing in my face. Not too many people would disagree, but should someone happen to walk through the door about the same time Parliament Funkadelic (who’s in town tonight) brings down the funk, you might just find me up moving around, which those boss-like people might consider unproductive. Some folks are no fun at all.

A study from Applied Ergonomics says yes, music is a consistent aid to productivity, even in manufacturing situations where the sounds of machines might competing for sound attention. The research finds:

A series of experiments has investigated the relationship between the playing of background music during the performance of repetitive work and efficiency in performing such a task. The results give strong support to the contention that economic benefits can accrue from the use of music in industry. 

That research has had some challenge, though. Canadian researcher Theresa Lesiuk published research showing that:

… positive affect and quality-of-work were lowest with no music, while time-on-task was longest when music was removed. Narrative responses revealed the value of music listening for positive mood change and enhanced perception on design while working. Evidence is provided of the presence of a learning curve in the use of music for positive mood alteration.

In other words, music itself may not necessarily help productivity. Rather, the right music puts one in a better mood so that we are more inclined to work better and focus longer than we might with no music or, worse yet, with music we expressly do not like. If we are forced to listen to Kanye West all day, for example, our productivity might plummet as we spend far too much time in the restroom throwing up. Whereas, with a reasonable mix of artists, our mood is likely to improve to the point we really don’t mind the fact that what we’ve been asked to do makes absolutely no sense at all.

So what, then, should we choose for work music that will keep us focused and on task? A couple of different studies come into play here. Research just last year published in the Journal of Consumer Research shows that the music needs to be at a moderate level for us to maintain creativity and pay attention to what we’re doing. Anything too loud, thumping base, screeching treble, or with too fast a rhythm is distracting and can actually interrupt the creative process. That’s not exactly what we want to hear, but if we look at the matter practically we have to admit that it’s true. If the music makes us want to stop what we’re doing, it’s not helping.

Second, the Acoustical Society of America found that pure ambient noise is actually the best at helping us focus and aiding in creativity. If we’re mouthing along with the lyrics, or even worse, standing in our office chairs singing along, we’re not as focused on our work. Ambient noise can be quite musical, but that steady, consistent, quiet sound is what’s going to help us to be more productive and actually get things done.

What, then, should be pumping through our ear buds as we try to make it through the rest of this Friday? According to one fairly specific study, Baroque music is your best bet. I would tend to challenge those findings, though, as some elements from the baroque period can be rather tumultuous and its minor-oriented tonalities could actually put a person in a bad mood. The ambient nature of Electronica is more likely to be a better option, as long as you’re not a pure acoustic snob. Electronica offers more subtle soundscapes that aren’t likely to surprise or overwhelm at any given point.

Interestingly enough, video game soundtracks and some movie soundtracks can be really helpful. I have a list of favorite soundtracks that do a very good job of keeping me focused on editing when I’m feeling rather tired and run down. I also keep a playlist of quiet standards nearby when I’m working on a large set of images that need simple, consistent processing. Even though the songs have lyrics, they’re not of a nature that I’m likely to get caught up singing along. I can focus on what I’m doing.

Everyone likes music and it makes sense that we would want to listen to something while we’re working, especially on Friday afternoons where the sun is just begging you to come out and play. What we listen to matters, though. Take a look at your playlists and maybe consider making some adjustments to help you make your work more productive.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - God Is Not Your Excuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD  /  Status
Toxic Frustration, Easy Solutions (video)
May 5, 2016
charles i. letbetter - toxic frustration, easy solutions

Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward. —Kurt Vonnegut

 

charles i. letbetter - toxic frustration, simple solutions

Frustration is toxic and poisons an environment quickly. Solutions don’t have to be complicated, though.

My alarm wouldn’t shut up or snooze this morning. I couldn’t find the image I had planned to use for this article. A child was up way too damn early. A cat demanded I fill the food bowl, despite there being more than enough food already there. I try to not be too terribly superstitious, but this morning has me wondering of there’s some validity to all the concern over Mercury being in retrograde. As I’m writing, we’re not even to 6:00 AM and already my level of frustration has reached a toxic level.

There are a number of things that can be frustrating.  Realizing that it is only Thursday, not Friday, is one. Finding out someone ate the last of the Frosted Flakes will certainly do it. Remembering just now that we forgot to get milk for breakfast adds to the list. In a society where the pressure to perform is high, where expectations exceed reason, where resources never seem to match demand, frustration is a daily occurrence. The question is never whether we’re going to be frustrated, but how quickly in the day is it going to happen.

Frustration is toxic and spreads quickly. Twitter is probably the best example of that fact. One person posting their frustration is all it takes for a topic such as #DropOutHillary to start trending. Whether the topic is valid or has any merit is irrelevant; people are frustrated with the entire election system so they’re more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and wail. Frustration hits quickly, hits hard, and lands punches where we least expect them. As a result, our reactions are often excessive or even inappropriate to the size of the problem.

Solutions are not especially difficult to find, though, except for that part about wanting to change who is running for political offices. Most of what frustrates us are the tiny annoyances that have a relatively small impact in reality but feel significant at the time. We can’t always stop or prevent the frustration from happening, but we can address the toxicity through some rather simple steps.

  1. Step back from the situation and take a breath. When my alarm wouldn’t shut the fuck up this morning, I was so frustrated Kat had to intervene. I couldn’t find a solution to the problem because I was too emotionally involved. Being able to step back and see the insignificance of the annoyance gives us a chance to find a solution without causing damage.
  2. Drink something. When problems happen before I’ve had my morning coffee, my frustration is immediate and often severe. Being able to wrap my hands around something other than someone’s neck, something like a coffee mug or, later in the day, a glass of scotch, reduces the likelihood of collateral damage.
  3. Momentarily distract yourself from the problem. Most of what frustrates us does not require our immediate attention, unless it’s an alarm that refuses to shut off. Dwelling on the problem only ramps up the frustration. Find something less volatile, like a comic strip or a stripping comic to distract you until you’ve calmed down. Then, you can approach the problem more calmly.
  4. Put down the gun. Gun safety is requisite for those of us whose high anxiety levels lead them to frequent periods of frustration. Even getting to our weapons is a multi-step process that is intentionally difficult to perform when angry or frustrated. This has saved countless lives of passing motorists whose stereos are far too loud and preserved phones, computers, and other digital devices from being riddled with bullet holes. Violence is never the solution.
  5. Create something. Being frustrated takes up an incredible amount of energy. Pouring that energy, even if it is negatively motivated, into doing something creative can be cathartic. Not only may you create something beautiful and fulfilling, you might well be saving yourself a heart attack in the process.

What did it for me this morning, at least momentarily, was this clip from last night’s Late, Late Show with James Corden. I mean, how can you hold on to your frustration when George Clooney is in the backseat doing Hollaback Girl? This is a very funny 15 minutes and I’ll probably watch it more than once today, given how this day seems to be challenging me right out of the gate. Perhaps it will help you as well.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - waking to a nightmare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Art  /  Photography
Second Time Around
May 3, 2016
charlesi. letbetter - second time around

I think children are like pancakes. You sort of ruin the first one, and you get better at it the second time around. —Kelly Ripa

 

charles i. letbetter - second time around

This is why we don’t throw things away. Sometimes we can fix things on down the road.

Ask the cats and they’ll tell you I’ve spent the past 30 minutes yelling and cursing at the computer. Right in the big middle of trying to edit some photos that require detailed attention, another application decides that it needs to update RIGHT FUCKING NOW and takes over the desktop until it’s done. My response was sufficient to send all three cats running for cover under the bed.

Since I was momentarily disabled, I grabbed the laptop and decided to play with some old images that have been bugging me for years to see if we could give them a second chance at life. This is the advantage of being connected to the cloud. I was able to access my archives and pull down the offending images just as I would on the desktop and Photoshop pulled in all my presets so that everything I use was available on the laptop. No problem. The only issue is that I’m lousy at detail work on the laptop and I really didn’t want to go to the trouble of connecting the Wacom tablet. So, I limited my work to the changes I could enact globally without destroying the image in the process.

What has always bothered me about these images is the amount of noise. I didn’t have all the equipment necessary when these were shot and as a result they are so full of noise that I’ve not been able to render a satisfactory image out of the entire set. I thought this would be a good chance to try out some new noise reduction filters that would allow me to pinpoint the problem areas. The good news was that they did better than any previous attempt at reducing the noise. The bad news was that there was still a level of noise beyond what I prefer.

Second step: use a different black and white conversion process. When I was shooting film, I was rarely a fan of FOMAPAN because it had a higher grain spread. For this set of images, though, that seemed to be a perfect match. The amount of noise left after the filter was on par with what FOMAPAN naturally produces. After making that adjustment we then put the images through our LAB process and came out with something much closer to being acceptable.

Note that we still didn’t mess with the details. There’s one image where some foreground stuff is visible and others where little shadows or other inconvenient details were ignored for the time being. Should we ever decide that we’ve reached a quality of production where we might print these I would need to clean those up. I don’t think we’re quite there, though. They don’t look horrid on screen, but I’m not convinced they’re ready for print.

Philosophical note: People, like old photographs, often deserve a second chance. Given some time and application of different circumstances, the person you thought was a complete asshole may not be quite so bad. Not saying they’ll be perfect, but some of them definitely deserve a second chance. The exception would be the serial abuser. Kick that jackass to the curb. They don’t change.

Anyway, the fucking update is done now, so here’s the pictures we managed to get finished while we were waiting.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading

Page 19 of 36