photooftheday

Hashtag Philosophy  /  pop culture  /  PotD
Odd Thing That Irritates Me
April 23, 2016

One thing above all gives charm to men’s thoughts, and this is unrest. A mind that is not uneasy irritates and bores me. —Anatole France

 

charles i. letbetter - odd thing that irritates me

#OddThingThatIrritatesMe is trending on Twitter and it irritates me that I have so many items to add to the list

I was not born with my father’s easy-going temperament. My brother was. I’m not sure he’s raised his voice for anything other than a Rangers’ game in the past 30 years. Poppa was gentle, the very definition of being “slow to anger.” I envy that quality and it rather irritates me that I don’t have it.

Me? I got my Grandpa Slover’s short fuse. I seem to have inherited a number of his traits, from walking with my hands behind my back to having a low tolerance for mindless noise. The temper is what gets me in trouble most often, though, and none of my attempts to adjust that over the years have succeeded.

So, when I got up late this morning, I found it somewhat fortuitous that #OddThingThatIrritatesMe would be trending. There is much that irritates me. Given sufficient time, I could probably create a list that would dominate Twitter for the entire week. Sad, isn’t it? Especially compared with some of the rather mild irritants that have been posted by others.  Consider these:

See? Those are mild irritants at best. If anything, I’m irritated that everyone else’s irritants are so pallid. What irritates me is a long list of grievances that have grown from mild annoyances that were not worth mentioning to major issues that make me want to scream. I am irritated that I have such faults.

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share what irritates me because I know that doing so irritates other people and if I’m going to be irritated then I damn well want company. So, here are just a few of the things that irritate me.

  • Knowing damn good and well that I bought something at the store yesterday but not being able to find it when I need it. This happens far too often and, of course, when I need that particular item is usually when I’m in the middle of cooking and don’t have time to go traipsing around all over the kitchen trying to find where it was misshelved. This is made all the more infuriating knowing that I’m the one who put up the groceries.
  • When it’s still dark out and the cats decide to scare the living shit out of me. Our three cats almost always get up when I do of the morning because they know I’ll turn the light on in the kitchen and that pleases them for some stupid reason. They take advantage of this time when the children are still asleep to chase each other and play, which can be rather cute. But they don’t make a lot of noise as they chase each other up and down the hall. I’ll be sitting here typing away and all of a sudden, WHOOSH! There are three cats running along the back of the couch and under my chair and over the desk and then gone again. Startles me every time.
  • Phones that make noises during the night. If I could, I’d leave my cell phone on silent mode all the time. Doesn’t matter how cute or funny the ringtone is, it irritates the living hell out of me every time one goes off because there’s never any warning and it disrupts my train of thought, or my nap, whichever is happening at the moment. Silent phones mean missed messages, though, so I have to turn it up during the day and too often I forget to turn it back down before I go to bed at night. So, somewhere around two in the morning, I’m jolted awake as my phone all-too-loudly informs me that, “A new message has been received.” Kat has her phone set to just chirp, but that little noise comes off as condescending, flaunting the fact that whatever message just arrived isn’t for me. We need quieter phones.
  • Kids toys that shouldn’t make noise, but do. As I’m typing, the Tipster is awake and attempting to play with the tea set she got for her birthday. Logically, that shouldn’t be a problem unless her tea party turns into a wild Barbie rave. But the ceramic cups and plates clink every time she sets one down, and she’s six, so it’s not like she’s the most graceful being on the planet. So, I’m hearing this constant arhythmic high-pitched clink, clinkety-clink, clink, clink, clink while I’m trying to concentrate on what I’m doing. Good thing spell check is turned on.
  •  Having to stop  what I’m doing to refill my coffee cup and take my medicine. Whether I’m writing or editing pictures, concentration is critical and any interruption is less than appreciated. The problem comes that my brain doesn’t work without coffee and bad things happen if I don’t take my meds. Inevitably, I’ll be deep in thought, fully committed to whatever I’m doing, reach for my coffee cup and …   empty. Now I have to interrupt the flow of my work, walk to the kitchen, fill my coffee cup, return to the desk, find that comfy spot in my chair again, and try to remember exactly what the hell I was doing. Taking medicine is just as bad. I easily lose 10-15 minutes of productivity every time.
  • Writing something really cool with an especially wonderful picture and no one reads it. This happens a lot on the weekend. I spend just as much time on our Saturday and Sunday articles as I do those during the week, but if the weather’s good they aren’t read by more than two or three people. I understand, when it’s pretty and warm and all spring-like, who in their right mind wants to stay indoors and read something irrelevant off the computer? Understanding doesn’t prevent me from being disappointed, though, and it irritates me when I feel like all that work was for nothing.

I could go on and on and on, but we both have better things to do than sit here listening to me gripe about the tiny little irritants that aren’t going to go away. I’m sure you have your list as well. We all do. And that list never seems to get shorter.

Continue Reading

Music  /  PotD
Prince, Chyna, and Immortality
April 22, 2016

The key to longevity is to learn every aspect of music that you can. — Prince

 

charles i. letbetter - prince, chyna, and immortality

Prince changed music. Chyna changed women’s wrestling. But would we want either of them to be immortal?

Here we are again, mourning the death of yet another music legend. If I had any purple left in my wardrobe I might be wearing it today. Maybe. Earlier this week, I listed Purple Rain as one of the top five songs that everyone needs to hear. Now, that’s all anyone wants to play. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when an artist dies.

There’s also a temptation to curse 2016 for being unreasonably evil in killing off people who mean a lot to our culture and in whom we have a great deal of invested emotion. I saw one tweet yesterday that claimed the aliens were calling all their spies back home before the disaster of this fall’s presidential election. While unlikely, that explanation comes about as close to making sense as anything else does at the moment.

Yesterday just plain sucked for everyone except, possibly, Queen Elizabeth II, who turned 90. And even if her day went as badly as everyone else’s, the Queen gets a do-over in June when her birthday is officially celebrated.

The rest of us, however, started the day with news of Chyna’s death. That was bad enough. Chyna was one of those people who always seemed to be struggling against public perception. Few people paid attention to women’s wrestling before Chyna got into the game, and she changed that. She made it more sexy, more entertaining. That wasn’t enough, though, and she kept looking for something I’m not sure she ever found, some level of acceptance that alluded her.

When the news began to filter onto the Internet that Prince is dead, the initial tone was one of disbelief. After all, he’d been the target of false death announcements before and having TMZ break the news is like asking for a giant here-we-go-again eye roll. Only when the Associated Press joined in on the story did the shock and sadness really begin to set in and spread a purple wave of sadness around the globe.

Were it a more quiet news day, we would probably be talking about the death of Brenda Soto, a 16-year-old Fairfax county, Virginia student who was beaten to death by other girls while at school. There are multiple issues there that need to be discussed, including the accusation that multiple students stood by and recorded the beating on their phones instead of doing anything to help.

Our collective attention can’t seem to handle more than one topic at a time, though, and for the moment, all our attention is on Prince. The rock star’s death is bound to become one of those “where were you” moments for a lot of people. I am seeing in the global reaction’s to Prince’s death a pattern similar to what happened when Elvis died unexpectedly in 1977. All the shock, all the despair, mostly coming from people my age and a wee bit younger, those for whom songs like Purple Rain, Raspberry Beret, and When Doves Cry influenced some formative part of their adolescence, is very similar to that of women of a certain age when Elvis died.

I remember being in the car with Poppa, on my way to a piano lesson, when the news of Elvis’ death came on the radio. I wasn’t of the generation that worshipped him, though, so while I appreciated the impact he’d had on music, I wasn’t necessarily a fan (which hasn’t changed). Similarly, teens today are not overly familiar with Prince and the various iterations and changes he went through. Those who are really into music appreciate his impact, but they’re not as likely to be fans and most won’t understand why their parents and the rest of the world are turning everything purple.

What I expect to come next are the conspiracy theories. Prince led a life that is ripe for speculation. After all, since his 2001 conversion to Jehovah’s Witness, Prince had acted less like a rock star and more like a delusional cult member (which is the most accurate way to describe all Jehovah’s Witnesses). Even though he had returned to performing and seemed to be in good form when he rocked Atlanta earlier this month, one has to wonder if the strange religious beliefs, particularly that part about not allowing blood transfusions or organ transplants, might have factored into his death.

There’s also the fact that Prince died a mere two months after one of his more famous girlfriends, Vanity. That there might have been some connection between their deaths is already a tale that is gathering some steam and, given the romantic twist, could quite likely take off.

Or maybe he’s out golfing with Elvis and Bowie in Bermuda.

With the tremendous number of deaths among music legends and other celebrities this year, one might find it interesting that just this past Wednesday The Guardian ran a story about the possibility of digital immortality. The theory here is that while it might be impossible to preserve one’s body forever, given the natural decaying of biological tissue, one might be able to digitally preserve all of one’s memories, experiences, personality, and wisdom in a digital form, and then present that back through some type of chat bot with an avatar resembling the face of the deceased. The name of the company is Eternime and the product isn’t quite ready for prime time. Their website says they hope to be in beta sometime “next month,” without any indication as to which “next month” that might be.

But what if we could preserve the personality, the spirit, and the essence of people like Prince or Bowie or Elvis? Would we really want to keep them around in that form? We have their music, which is influential on their own. Do we really need a digital Prince to repeat back some of his previous questionable statements? Regardless of how great his music was, this was the guy who said, “When I found out that there was eight Presidents before George Washington, I wanted to smack somebody,” and “Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.” Do we really need that nonsense lingering around? I’m not sure immortality suits everyone terribly well.

And that’s why I might not wear purple today, even if I had some. All that was great about Prince happened before 2000. In fact, one could easily, in my opinion, make the argument that after his 1998 album Lovesexy everything else pretty much sucks. To return to an earlier analogy, think young Elvis versus “old” Elvis (he died when he was 42, so “old” is a matter of perspective). With both artists, the songs that made them famous and for which they’ll always be remembered are the ones at the front of their careers. Prince hasn’t had a number one hit since 1989’s Batdance.  After that, the highest any song ranked on the charts was The Greatest Romance Ever Sold, which topped at #63 in 2000. He hasn’t had a song hit the top 100 since 2004’s Call My Name.

So, as great as he once was, maybe it’s best that we let Prince and everyone else go. Immortality isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be and sometimes the more we know about our heroes and legends, the less likeable they become. We’ll miss what we liked about them, that part of them that touched our lives, but that doesn’t mean we should keep them around forever.

And hey, maybe the movie Men In Black was right: They’re not dead, they just returned to their home planet.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - water that is safe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Art
The Obscenity of Art
April 21, 2016
charles i. letbetter - obscenity of art

Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. —Herbert Marcuse

 

charles i. letbetter - the obscenity of art

To the extent that the purpose of art is to connect us with an emotion, can anything produced ever be considered truly obscene unless it generates no emotion at all?

Yes, it has happened again. Once more, some prurient patrol of public prejudice has assumed the mantel of moral responsibility for the planet and attempted to stamp out the obscenity that is art. Apparently my articles are not getting in front of enough eyes because I know damn good and well we wrote about this at least three times last year. Yet, for those who weren’t paying attention, here we go again.

This time, the offense takes place in Englewood, New Jersey where there is apparently a city ordinance prohibiting public display of nude images in certain spaces. Specifically, according to the Associated Press, “nude images have to be kept in interior rooms not visible from public areas.” This 1992 ordinance created a problem for Laura Borghi of Borghi Fine Art Gallery when it came time to hang a work by painter Tom Dash this past January. Due to the size of the canvas, Ms. Borghi claims that she had limited options as to where to display the piece. So, she chose the front window of her gallery. [We’ll just assume that there is ultra-violet protection on the glass to prevent the sun’s rays from destroying the pigment in the paint. Otherwise, she would be a very bad gallery owner.]

Dash’s artwork, by the way, is, “an ink jet collage of photos of two women painted over in acrylic paint.” One of the women happens to be showing her bare buttock.

Englewood city code enforcement officer Walter Deptuch, who apparently takes his job very seriously, issued Borghi a violation requesting that the artwork be removed. I’m guessing that “request” failed to use the magic word “please,” as Borghi refused to move the painting. She was then threatened with “fines of $1,250 per day and the threat of up to 90 days in jail.” Rather severe consequences for showing someone’s bare bum.

Ms. Borghi has, of course, filed suit as she should, and, of course, that immediately causes any elected official, or city employee, to clam up, so there has been no statement from the city attempting to justify what would seem to be a rather over-the-top reaction to something that likely  offends fewer than five percent of the town’s populace. I’m just guessing at that statistic, but given the number of bare butts one sees on prime time television these days I hardly see how Dash’s artwork can be considered obscene on those grounds.

As we’ve stated before, though, obscenity and art rather go hand and hand. Getting the attention of image-weary humans requires an increasing shock value and whether the art form is visual or verbal or musical, artists across all genres find themselves crossing that might, to some, be considered a line of good taste in order to express themselves in ways that communicate stronger emotions. A little obscenity here and there is necessary for some art to stand out and, quite honestly, whose definition of obscenity are we using in the first place?

As I was reading about this situation yesterday, another email dropped into my inbox (yes, I still use email) showing off a new print ad for an exhibition at Sweden’s Sven-Harrys art museum called Swedish Art: Now! I’m sure they argued over that title for hours. The exhibition includes the Tomas Hämén fossilised dinosaur faeces sculpture, Asstral Traveler. The print ad includes a picture of that piece of sculpture with lead copy that states: “You’d better sit down for this.” Body copy later encourages, “Admire it above, then take in the real thing…” At that point, my inner 15-year-old can no longer hide and burst out giggling. Here’s the ad:

obscenity in art

Yes, you are seeing that correctly. Hämén carved a butt plug from fossilized dinosaur shit and the museum thinks you might want to sit and take it in. I sincerely apologize for the adolescent giggles continuing on this side of the Internet. I don’t’ know whether the folks who created the ad, M&C Saatchi, Stockholm, intended the slightly erotic inferences, but I certainly hope they did. Certainly, no one in Sweden seems to be claiming there to be any obscenity here, but I can’t help but wonder how well the same ad would play in Englewood. If Ms. Burghi cannot display the bare butt, can she display a fossilized butt plug?

The degree to which our world is off its moral rocker is evident in the fact that I am offended that someone else took offense at something I don’t see as offensive. Screams of obscenity get thrown around all over the place and one might reasonably argue that creating such a dustup over a relatively insignificant display of a woman’s bare bum is a pretty good way to generate some free marketing. Although, with attorney’s fees and court filing costs, I’m not sure “free” is exactly the appropriate term.

Speaking of attorney’s, the one representing Ms. Borghi in all this, Brian Bernstein, is confident they will win because both the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions prohibit censoring art in any way. There’s no special obscenity exception clause. He states:

“There’s nothing new about government efforts to suppress artistic expression, especially if it might be viewed by some as controversial. Art that challenges convention makes an attractive target for the government.”

With most municipal budgets being as tight as they are and city resources in most places being so slim, I’m rather surprised that the city of Englewood would want to suffer the expense of such a lawsuit in the first place. Don’t be surprised when they settle out of court and the whole matter gets dropped.

I’ve seen the AP wire story in no fewer than seven publications over the past 24 hours. That should be sufficient attention that Ms. Borghi isn’t likely to have much trouble actually selling the artwork, which, I assume, was her goal in the first place. Doubtless, the price may have increased a little bit. I’m fairly certain Tom Dash doesn’t mind a little extra publicity coming his direction, either.

Obscenity is a tag that often carries some value in the art world. If a work is strong enough to offend the prudish, the artist must be saying something important, no? And if that message is so elevated that the artistically naïve and ignorant don’t “get it,” then the artwork must be especially valuable. Such is art world logic.

Personally, I don’t find artwork obscene and would be just fine if this whole argument would go away. What’s obscene is the way a handful of galleries and curators control the art market, driving up prices for a handful of artists, while preventing other artists from being shown in major galleries at all. That’s where the real obscenity in art lies.

Oh, but I’m not supposed to talk about that. Damn, I’m likely to get into trouble now.

Oh well.

Continue Reading

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

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

 

charles i. letbetter - sex and politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And have sex.

Continue Reading

Music  /  PotD
Dude, You HAVE To Hear This Song
April 19, 2016
charles i. letbetter - dude you have to hear this song

All music is folk music. I ain’t never heard a horse sing a song. —Louis Armstrong

 

charles i. letbetter - dude you have to hear this song

Many songs are good, but there are a handful of songs you want to share with the world

Like most American kids, I grew up surrounded by a wide array of music. While gospel tended to be dominant there was plenty of contemporary and classical music across every genre. We grew up with a broad appreciation for music and it was rare, especially by the time my brother and I were both teenagers, that there wasn’t something playing on the stereo from the moment we woke up each morning until our parents forced us to bed at night. Even then, the ear bud coming from my radio made sure there was s song to keep me company in the dark.

Being surrounded by all that music, especially during a period when rock music was at its best, we became accustomed to hearing really incredible music all that time. I know I would be horrible at trying to be a full-time music critic in today’s environment because there is so little of what I hear now that stands up to the monumental achievements of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Three Dog Night, and so many, many others. A song has to be more than good to get my attention, it has to be outstanding and different.

There have been but a few times in my life when someone has said to me, “Dude, you have to hear this song,” when I didn’t wince on the inside. Those few instances, though, started early and stick in my memory even though a couple of the songs have been dropped from anyone’s standard repertoire. My father rarely got excited about a song. My father was an even-keeled man who rarely got too terribly excited about anything. But there were a couple of times in the 70s when it actually happened: Poppa got excited about a song.

The first time was in 1970 and I remember the experience as clearly as if it were yesterday. Poppa had attended a conference where the leader of a youth choir (those were really popular at the time) had adapted Jerry Reed‘s Preacher and the Bear for the group. Poppa enjoyed the song so much that he brought the group’s album (which was generally as amateur as one might expect) and he couldn’t wait to play that song for us the instant he got home. We hadn’t yet heard Reed’s version (it never was much of a radio hit), so the song was quite a novelty. Of course, being my father, he tried turning the song into a joke he could tell from the pulpit and, being my father, that attempt failed miserably. And while I don’t care to remember the name of the group on that old album, I have to smile every time I hear Jerry’s version of the song. Take a listen.

Poppa would get excited a few months later that same year when Three Dog Night released Joy to the World. I have a little more difficulty explaining this one other than it was on the radio a lot and it was one of the few songs Poppa would turn up and didn’t mind too much when I sang along with it, loudly, and probably off key. We never owned the single nor the album. I was too young at the time to be investing in such things and, honestly, we were poor enough at the time when the $5 for an album represented a fair amount of grocery money. Nonetheless, I caught Poppa turning this song up every time it came on, even when he was well into his 60s. I think you understand why.

There was a lot of incredible music throughout the 70s and if I tried to list every song that influenced me in some way we’d be here for weeks. As the disco craze developed, though, there was one song from the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack that started a movement of its own and launched the career of an incredibly under-appreciated musician named Walter Murphy. He’s not someone who tours, ever, but the depth of his talent has not only influenced a number of movie soundtracks but is the glue that holds together the music productions of the animated show, Family Guy. Now, every time I hear that familiar theme I can’t help but think of this song:

A lot of music from the early 80s that we thought we liked at the time makes me shudder now. We listened to some really, really horrible stuff for a few years. So, when Prince released his sixth album along with a movie by the same name, my first reaction was one of skepticism. The sound was so different from the other junk we were hearing that it took listening a couple of times or more before I caught on to exactly what was happening. Finding the song now in its original form is challenging. You certainly won’t catch it on any of the streaming services and where it does exist is usually in a remastered form. While the visual quality is lacking, the video below is as close as I can come to the original version of the song that gave the early 80s some definition.

https://youtu.be/F8BMm6Jn6oU

Micheal Jackson was one of those performers I grew up listening to and was astonished by his continual development and ability to out-perform whatever his previous effort had been. While his entire catalog is full of one hit right after another, it is a song from his 1987 album that has always stood apart for me as one of the most meaningful and long-lasting. Man in the Mirror didn’t get a lot of attention at the time, initially being eclipsed by the title track from the album, Bad, but it eventually hit number one on the Billboard charts the next year. Over time its message has proven to be one of the most enduring and effective and is still one of the most downloaded songs ever.

Once we get into the 90s, my choices for songs that I really want to share grow fewer and farther between. Unfortunately, I’m bumping up against both a time and world limit. So, we’ll just have to save the more recent songs for another time. There’s a lot of new music being released today. Maybe one of those will be a song we all really want to hear.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Weekend Of No Regrets
April 18, 2016

The water cooler conversation in every job I’ve had is sports, it’s what did you do this weekend, it’s ‘How are your parents doing?’ —Kal Penn

 

charles i. letbetter - weekend with no regrets

Don’t let social media guilt you into thinking you had a bad weekend. It was just fine.

Nope, I didn’t attend Coachella this weekend. Chances are pretty high you didn’t, either. Sorry, but if I have a spare $1,500 I’m not likely to spend it on tickets to a music festival at some polo club in Indio, California. I don’t really care who was there. I don’t give a damn what they were wearing or which pseudocelebrity’s nipple ring showed through her top (yeah, I would have thought pseudocelebrity was hyphenated but my editor insists that it’s not). I didn’t attend a major league baseball game, or even an NBA playoff. I didn’t go to the movies. I didn’t even watch Netflix. I didn’t do any of the things my newsfeed is trying to convince me I missed over the weekend.

Do I have any regrets? Not a one. I would hope that you don’t, either. While the celebrities and movie stars flaunt the fact they don’t have anything better to do with their time or their money, but want to make sure you see them anyway, we were hanging out here in Indiana, of all places, quietly having a good weekend, building memories, doing things that actually yield a positive result and build a stronger community.

One of the downsides of social media is seeing what everyone else is doing. Pictures of friends and celebrities in far off exotic places or on vacation, can cause us to feel that our normal, everyday, sometimes less-than-thrilling lives are somehow incomplete because we’re not doing any of the really “cool” stuff. We may be jealous. We may feel depressed. We might think that our lives are incomplete.

You know better. You’ve always known better. You know as well as I do that chasing frivolous things just for the attention ends up being shallow. You don’t need me to pull out the dozens of sociological studies that show we’re at our happiest when we’re spending time with friends and family, or just relaxing and reading a book. You don’t need me to remind you that our lives feel better and more fulfilled when we completely unplug from all forms of media every once in a while. Yet, when all those pictures start popping up in Facebook and on Instagram, we still get those twinges of guilt that perhaps we didn’t do enough, or didn’t do the most cool things.

What did we do this weekend? We had Long’s donuts for breakfast. We tilled the garden and started getting it ready to plant. There was a huge piece of shrubbery that has been bugging us, so Kat’s dad came over and helped rip that monster from the ground. We celebrated a couple of birthdays. Kat gave her sister a scalp massage. The kids made new friends, managed to get absolutely filthy more than once, made their own pizzas, and enjoyed having birthday cake. Bubbles were blown. Laundry was washed, folded, and put away. Kat came to the rescue of a friend with a baby sitting need and I spent some time Skyping with my 18-year-old. Somehow, we managed to find time in there to buy groceries, write four articles, and Kat was at the salon from open to close on Sunday.

Each and every one of the things we did holds more value than getting sunburned while standing in the middle of a field trying to listen to a band that you can’t even see. We were productive, we got some rest, and we spent time with people who are genuinely important to our lives.

We don’t have to travel hundreds of miles and pretend to be something we’re not in order to have a good weekend. Neither do you. We had a good weekend. No regrets. I’m willing to bet yours was just as wonderful. Drop the guilt and enjoy the memories.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  science
Beware The Friendly Seduction
April 17, 2016
charles i. letbetter - beware the friendly seduction

Most virtue is a demand for greater seduction. —Natalie Clifford Barney

 

charles i. letbetter - beware the friendly seduction

The people who seem the friendliest may not always have your best interest in mind

As salacious as today’s topic may seem, I’m going to start with a story that comes from growing up in church. No, seduction and church don’t exactly sound like they should go together, but you might be surprised at the many ways in which churches are home to some of the most dangerously seductive people on the planet.

Growing up as a pastor’s son, we moved around Kansas and Oklahoma a fair bit. We also visited a lot of churches.  When we would first move to a new church Poppa would often warn: “Beware the person who is the first to greet you because they’re most likely to do you the most harm.”  His warning proved true every time. The people who would be on the welcoming committee, those who were first in line to offer their help in getting settled in or acquainted with the community had ulterior motives. They wanted us to do things their way and mistakenly thought that they might be able to wield some influence by posing as friends. When we would eventually move, the same ones that seemed most happy to see us arrive were the most delighted to see us leave.

That lesson carried forward into my adulthood and I found it often true in business as well. There is a seduction that takes place when a company is trying to hire someone new; they want their company to appear appealing, friendly, like it would be the perfect place for you to spend the rest of your life. You take the job, though, and discover those “friendly” people are manipulative, back-stabbing, and vindictive. After a while, one begins to look upon this friendly form of seduction with caution. Who do we trust? Who do we believe? Is anyone actually sincere?

Turns out, there’s actual science behind what we’ve been experiencing our whole lives. While that information doesn’t make me feel any better about people we’ve met in the past, especially some of those I experienced when we were children, it does, at least, explain their motivation and gives us all the more reason to be cautious in the future. Friendly seduction is everywhere and is even cultivated by many business seminars. We have good reason to be careful. The question is, are you one of those dangerous people?

Look at your resumè. Do you have the term “people skills” anywhere on there? For years, businesses of every kind, from the fast food joint on the corner to the Fortune 500 company downtown, have been looking for employees with good “people skills.” What they’re looking for, using the appropriate jargon, are prospective employees with a high level of emotional intelligence. The term was first posited in a 1990 study by Peter Salovey at Yale and John D. Mayer at the University of New Hampshire. The findings of that study then became a 1995 best-selling book by Daniel Goldman, who was, at the time, a science reporter for The New Yorks Times.  Where friendly seduction had occurred naturally in a few people before, the emotional intelligence movement began cultivating those with “people skills” and promoting them to positions of importance.

Now, let’s be extremely clear: having good people skills does not inherently make one a bad person. The whole premise of emotional intelligence is that being in touch with one’s own feelings and emotions helps make them empathetic to the feelings and emotions of other people and therefore, at least in theory, better able to understand their perspective and respond accordingly. Having a strong emotional intelligence is critical in any people-facing position and some of those qualities are important in developing our ability to get along with others. Emotional intelligence on its own is not inherently a bad thing.

However, since 1990, researchers have found that some of those with high emotional intelligence may not be the nice guys they pretend to be. Two separate studies in 2014, one by Ursa Nagler, et al., and another by Sarah Konrath, et al., built upon previous research to show that those with high emotional intelligence tend to be narcissistic, manipulative, malicious, and exploitative. On the lighter end of this friendly seduction, they are always looking to turn a situation to their advantage. They create and spread rumors, gossip, and misinformation. At its worse, these people use their ability to read others as a means of controlling them, persuading them to do things they otherwise would not, and working situations to the detriment of others. Before you know it, you’re “best friend” at work is behind you getting fired, or losing that promotion, or killing that great project you’re on.

And they do it all with a smile on their face.

While encountering these people at work is bad enough, they can be even more dangerous in social situation. Emotionally intelligent people come across as fun, engaging, often humorous, and charming, everything you might want in a potential mate. On the back side of this friendly seduction, though, they take advantage of that social appeal to rape and batter those who are least expecting such behavior. Highly emotionally intelligent  people may cause us to drop our guard so that we’re not as aware of impending physical danger.

Again, not everyone with a high emotional intelligence is a bad person. In fact, they, themselves, are more likely to be duped or misled because of their overconfidence. They often think they have control of a situation when they don’t. Highly emotional intelligent people are just as likely to be the victims of seduction as they are the perpetrators.

Being attracted to friendly people is in our nature and a necessary part of building a workable society. The vast majority of friendly people you meet are sincere and their friendships are worth pursuing. Beware the person at the front of the line, though. The seduction they offer is not in your best interest.

Not even at church.

 

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD  /  video
Dating Discrimination
April 16, 2016
charles i. letebtter - dating discrimination

I tried to make up for being short by affecting a strut, by adopting the voice of a much bigger man, by spending more money than I made, by tipping double or triple at bars and restaurants, by dating tall, beautiful women. —Mickey Rooney

 

charles i. letbetter - dating discriminating

There has always been discrimination in dating, but when that discrimination turns to blatant racism we need to examine our motives

I’m not too big on giving dating advice for the simple fact that dating is not something I have to do with any great frequency. Sure, I’ve had enough duds and disappointments to understand the emotions attached, but I don’t have the endless horror stories that I know some people experience, either. My criteria are fairly simple: she has to be smart, attractive enough that I’m not afraid to take her picture, and not likely to crush me if she slips and falls. Kat fills those requirements quite nicely along with several bonus points. I’m happy, thank you.

I never was any good at all the dating apps everyone seems to think are the solution to their relationship problems, though. Over the years, I think I’ve tried them all. Match never sparked anything. eHarmony outright turned me down. Plenty of Fish tended to smell. And Tinder left me totally depressed when no one ever swiped right. Yawn. Over it. I fail to see the attraction.

Apparently I’m an anomaly, though, or maybe I’m just too old. For people Kat’s age and younger, those apps are a significant part of their lives and reading their profiles can be very revealing. Sometimes, perhaps a bit more revealing than they intended. While we expect people to be a bit discriminating in whom they might choose to date, when that discrimination turns to blatant racism then perhaps it’s time we seriously started questioning who we are.

Since I’m not on any dating apps regularly, I didn’t realize there was a problem until the issue popped up on The Daily Show this past week. Host Trevor Noah has not been shy in tackling the topic of racism at all levels of society, which is necessary. Too many people think we have gotten past racism when in fact it is still just as entrenched as ever, we just make more of an effort to hide it. At least, we did until this presidential election cycle in which being racist seems to be a key plank in some candidates’ platform. The Daily Show’s  Jessica Williams and Ronny Chieng applied their usual humor in exploring the topic. Take a look:

While the piece made me chuckle a few times, it also caused me to wonder just how widespread this problem of dating racism actually is. After all, I can see where the larger the sample, such as in New York or LA, the more frequently one might see the problem. Do the same signs show up in the Midwest as well? I knew the answer before I asked the question, but I went ahead and verified my suspicions anyway.

Checking up on racist dating isn’t easy for an aging white guy to do. First, I had to go back to all those apps, re-install them, and then request my passwords. Then, after updating my profiles a bit, with new pictures and such, I started looking at the profiles each app thought I should consider. Sure enough, the second profile I hit started with, “white guys only please.” Going on through, some were even more aggressive. “Asian men can keep their small dicks to themselves,” and, “Don’t talk to me if your whole family isn’t white.” Then, there were those who were outright offensive. I won’t bother repeating them. I spent less than 30 minutes on all the apps combined and found over 20 openly racist profiles.

What this shows is that not only are we more racist than I had realized, we’re also incredibly hypocritical. Ask people what they look for in a good relationship and they’ll almost always come back with the standard altruistic qualifiers such as kindness, intelligent, funny, hard working, good with children, and other such nonsense. Based on the profiles I saw, what women are really looking for is someone rich enough to take them nice places, has a house big enough for all their kids and pets, drives a nice car, is down for some kinky shit in the bedroom, and, oh yeah, had better be the right race.

A couple of things worth noting at this point. Obviously, being a straight male, I didn’t see any of the other guys’ profiles. I doubt I would be surprised, though. I’ve met too many men in the Midwest who wear their racism like a badge of honor. Also, the racist statements weren’t limited to white women. Black women, at least those in my immediate area, make the same statements against Hispanic and Asian men as do white women. Dating racism isn’t just “a white girl thing.”

What hurts is that we know better. There’s not a single one of us who wasn’t taught from the time we were very tiny that who we love isn’t a matter of looks or physical attraction, but a matter of hearts that are passionate for each other. I’ve often told Kat that I dislike the question, “Why do you love me?” Real love, where it dares to exist, has no qualifiers. We don’t love someone because they’re pretty, or tall, or a certain race. When we honestly, earnestly love someone, it is because we choose  to love them. Period. End of statement. Love that must come with qualifications cannot be real for love must be pure or it doesn’t exist at all.

I know dating is difficult for a lot of people and yes, we are going to be naturally discriminating about certain qualities we find attractive. If we are being blatantly racist in our search, though, not only are we cutting ourselves off from really wonderful people, we’re also presenting ourselves as someone who hates. No one wants to date a hater. Someone who appears attractive on the outside and has hate on the inside is not someone most of us want even in our circle of acquaintances. No one needs a hater in their life.

This exercise made me really appreciate not being out in the dating scene. I saw a lot on those apps that was unattractive in so very many ways. I was rather shocked at how people chose to present themselves. Maybe it’s time for everyone to take a step back and consider who and what they really are. Find the hate and get the fuck over it. Not only will you be better for it, I dare say you’ll find the rest of the world more accepting as a result.

Good luck.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
The Bourgeoisie Internet
April 15, 2016

When the bourgeoisie sees that power is slipping out of its hands, it brings up fascism to hold onto their privileges. —Buenaventura Durruti

 

charles i. letbetter - the bourgeoisie internet

Holding back information, making it available only to the rich, is the type of bourgeoisie move the Internet was meant to destroy

This battle has been fought before. This battle will be fought again. The haves versus the have-nots. The rich versus the poor. The bourgeoisie versus the commoner. Wars have been fought along these very same lines, and yet, despite whatever changes may take place, we still find ourselves back at this very same division where the few who control the money and power not only dominate society, but institute means by which they can keep information, money, and opportunity out of the hands of everyone else. This time, however, the weapons on both sides are somewhat different, and the lines are a bit more muddied.

First, let’s be very clear of how we’re defining bourgeoisie. The term originates in the middle ages and under those conditions, through the 19th century and as a catalyst for the French revolution, the bourgeoisie were those who controlled the capital, what eventually became banking, and access to money in any form. There was a shift, though, in the 20th century as both Lenin and Marx used the term to describe anyone of privilege. Not only would they have considered the one percent that controls today’s money bourgeoisie, they would likely extend that definition to many of us as well. In contemporary terms, bourgeoisie isn’t simply a matter of having money and power, but actively working to keep those at the lower end of the scale from having access to the same.

Let me give you some examples. You might be bourgeoisie if:

  • You own a home in a neighborhood that regulates how tall your grass grows
  • You own a car that cost as much or more than many people’s houses
  • Your children attend a school that requires uniform dressing
  • You own clothes so expensive that a standard ensemble cost more than a semester’s college tuition
  • You pay over $100 for name-brand athletic shoes and you’re not an athlete
  • You believe that your ability to pay more for goods and services makes you better than those who pay less
  • You collect “art”

Matching just one of those statements probably doesn’t fully qualify you as bourgeoisie but, if you match two you might want to question your values, and if you match three or more you might seriously want to take a look at your motivation.

One of the things which the bourgeoisie has traditionally controlled is the flow of information. The concept present at the inception of the United States revolution that there might be such a thing as a “free” press was popular for its potential to inform, educate, and enlighten the masses, not just the college-educated elite. A free press was supposed to be the great equalizer that prevented the bourgeoise from taking control of the government. Obviously, that didn’t work as major media is now controlled entirely by oligarchs.

One of the founding reasons for creating the Internet was to break the hold of universities (generally considered a holding of the bourgeoisie) over research information. When Leonard Kleinrock and his staff first developed ARPANET in the 1960s, their purpose was to share information between universities in hopes of accelerating progress through discovery and innovation. When Tim Berners-Lee first posited his thesis for the World Wide Web in 1989, he, too, was looking at the ability of this new technology to “level the playing field” so that everyone could have equal opportunity and access. The goal was to never charge for anything, but to have everything free and open to the public.

Yeah, that was the goal. Look around you. Want online access to your local newspaper? Paywall. Want to stream unlimited movies and television shows? Subscription required. Want enticing discounts that save money and shipping on almost everything you buy? Membership required, $99 a year.

While many of those prices might be justified due to the cost of producing materials, that’s not true across the board. There are many cases where access and information is withheld, placed behind a paywall or requiring a subscription, simply because they can. One of the worst offenders, in that case, is research information, the very thing that the Internet was supposed to make available to everyone. For free.

That system, however, is being challenged in a very strong way. Alexandra Elbakyan, a 27-year-old graduate student from Kazakhstan who, in the spirit of Napster and Wikileaks, built a database and published 50 million scholarly research articles. For free.

I won’t repeat the full story, which you can read in The Washington Post but her reasoning is sound.  Most research, especially in the United States, is conducted under some form of government grant, meaning that taxpayer money is going into the research. However, when a research paper is completed, researchers aren’t allowed to just toss it out there and let everyone have a look. Instead, they’re required to publish their papers through a peer-reviewed journal. Research fellows and professors at every level of academia are judged based largely on how many papers they’ve had published. And it gets worse.

Researchers are not paid by the journals who publish their research and in most cases are required to sign over the copyright to their paper. So, the journal is getting their content for free. They then charge universities and libraries for subscriptions to those journals, subscriptions that can easily top $5,000 a year. Access to a single article runs, on average, $35 per person. The total accumulation is something in the neighborhood of $10 billion a year. All for access to something that, arguably, shouldn’t cost anything in the first place because, as taxpayers, we’ve already paid for it.

This is the new war with the bourgeoisie. Access to information is the new line in the sand along which battle lines are being drawn. The bourgeoisie see information as a way to increase their wealth and keep the bulk of information limited to those who can afford to access it. They not only put information behind paywalls and limit access to members, they also control the very access points for “free” information. While smartphones may seem ubiquitous, they’re not. Even in the United States, there is still as much as 40% of the population without regular access to the Internet in any form. Data prices via cell phone have consistently risen over the past ten years and even home access providers, such as AT&T, are beginning to add data caps in an attempt to extort more money from customers. As they do so, they limit access to information and, by extension, opportunity.

Those who are membres of the bourgeoisie attempt, of course, to justify their actions. An economic system dependent upon ever-growing profit margins supports continued abuse by the bourgeoisie. Creating a genuinely flat playing field that is open to everyone requires an economic model quite different to the no-holds-barred capitalism to which we’ve become accustomed.

Yet, there will be, there must be change. Every time the two sides meet, where those who are “common” take on the bourgeoisie, there is change. More players such as Ms. Elbakyan will enter the fray. Those determined to upset the status quo of Internet access will force changes.

But be aware that there is a battle here. Pick your side carefully.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Photography  /  PotD
Throwing Shade Over Coffee
April 14, 2016
charles i. letbetter - throwing shade over coffee

I like coffee because it gives me the illusion that I might be awake. —Lewis Black

 

charles i. letbetter - throwing shade over coffee

Either the coffee is right or everything is wrong

Competition is everywhere. We compete for time, we compete for attention, we even compete with ourselves when it comes to matters such as losing weight or going to the gym. We understand competition both from a personal and commercial perspective and we typically don’t think too much of one product throwing a little shade at their competition. We rather expect that. After all, they have to compete for our attention before they can compete for our dollars.

Coffee is a competitive business, to be sure, but at the same time, it is one of the things that unites a lot of people. Meeting over coffee is one of my preferred ways of getting together with people. How people drink their coffee, or whether they drink coffee, tells me a little bit about them.

Where we don’t necessarily expect competition, though, is among dictionaries. Certainly, it has always existed, with each claiming to be either the most precise or the most complete. The dictionary business has changed dramatically, though, as the Internet has developed. People are buying fewer dictionaries than ever before, and major search engines now provide the definition of a word simply by typing it in, so we don’t even need to visit a dictionary’s website. Spell check doesn’t help the dictionary business, either, though that function isn’t always reliable.

I’ve just given you three very different and distinct topics within three paragraphs, loosely tied around the concept of competition. Yet, what brings all these together this morning, and the only reason I’m writing about them in the first place, is the shade one dictionary threw at another over coffee, which thereby highlights just how competitive the word business can be.

The whole thing started when the top-ranking dictionary.com posted this tweet:

Seems a rather appropriate tweet given this is National Library Week, doesn’t it? A gentle hint at how our word choice carries basic emotions. But look carefully at the picture. Do you see the problem? The folks at Merriam-Webster, you know, that more traditional dictionary that folks my age used all through school, caught the error and were quick with a comeback.

Oops! Major shade thrown. By a dictionary.

If ever there were an example of needing to not only double check but triple check one’s work, this is it. Even in the dictionary business,where competition tends to be more elevated and subtle, if one makes an obvious error in public be sure that the competition is going to pounce on the opportunity to take advantage of your mistake, even if it’s one most people probably didn’t even notice the first time around.

And most people didn’t notice. No one had said a thing about the fact that the coffee in the picture didn’t have any visible signs of being creamed until Merriam-Webster brought it to our attention. Most people tend to skim their Twitter feeds anyway and we actually pay attention to less than ten percent of what we see there. Had the competition not been watching, chances are that even if someone caught the error they likely wouldn’t say anything.  After all, who wants to take on people who work for a dictionary? For most mortals, such a challenge could end badly.

The other lesson to be learned here is that pictures have meanings and definitions just as much as words do. One can’t just take a random picture and slap it with a set of words that have no relation, or worse yet, contradict the image. You’ll notice that in the picture we used here the coffee does have cream. Uhm, you did notice that she’s holding coffee, didn’t you? Maybe I’m expecting too much of some, but I’m sure one or two people caught on without having to scroll back up and check. My point is, though, that matching the right picture with the right words can be quite challenging. It took over an hour of wading through the archives before we found a coffee picture that actually had cream in it. Imagine what the challenge would be like for someone who didn’t have such a collection at their fingertips. Finding the right picture can be every bit as challenging, and every bit as important, as finding the right words.

Which brings me to my final point: this is what happens when marketing departments use stock photos rather than buying original imagery. Dictionary.com was slammed because someone in the marketing department, possibly an intern, was instructed to pair a stock image with a literary quote [we’ll just assume that dictionary.com has permission to use the image and didn’t steal it from the Internet]. Business is too competitive to be risking your image with stock photography, especially when the photo doesn’t match the message.

In the end, this isn’t a huge, earth-shattering or career-ending faux pax.  I doubt anyone lost their job and this isn’t the type of thing that is going to sway anyone’s opinion about which online dictionary to use. There are lessons to be learned from the situation, though; lessons we all should remember so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes.

And we all could probably do with another cup of coffee.

 

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD  /  Social Commentary
Photography, Just Because Or Despite
April 13, 2016
charles i. letbetter - photography just because or despite

We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless. —Lech Walesa

 

charles i. letbetter - photography, just because or despite

The reasons for being a photographer are both noble and challenging

I seriously hesitated before choosing this morning’s pictures. These pictures were taken on the Tipster’s third birthday. Today, we celebrate her sixth. She’s grown a lot, changed a lot, but those eyes are still as dark as midnight and that expression on her face is still a mixture of happiness and curiosity and sheer mischievousness. Despite all that, though, when I might have had opportunity to take her picture again yesterday, on exactly the same perch where these were made, I didn’t. My excuse was that I’d left my camera inside and didn’t want to risk leaving the kids in the yard by themselves, not even for the few seconds it would have taken to get the camera. The real reason, though, was one of a different caution: I didn’t want anyone to see me taking pictures of a child without her mother present.

The reality of being a photographer in 2016 forces us into making those decisions that we really don’t want to make. Despite all the advances in technology, despite all the court cases upholding photographers’ rights, despite all the precautions we might take to avoid any indication of wrongdoing, too often we find ourselves not even bothering to take out the camera rather than risk our intentions being misunderstood.

I read a beautiful, if not somewhat altruistic, article yesterday about “Photography For Photography’s Sake.” Photographer Eric Kim gives a very noble look at the real reason we are photographers: the love of taking pictures. It’s not the money (what money?), nor the chance at fame, nor even the chance to get free gear (if one is willing to play that game) that drives us, but rather the thrill that comes when we capture that perfect (for now) image that makes us feel good about our place in the world and our ability to document life on this planet, creating beauty, permanently capturing the temporal. Being a photographer is a wonderful profession even without the occasional perks.

Despite all the pat-on-the-back positivity, though, the same website carried an article about Greek tourists being harassed, one even having their phone taken, because their intentions were misunderstood by a group of overly-aggressive mothers. The tourists were taking pictures of a fountain, the kind that shoots up jets of water from a concrete surface. There are hundreds of them in the US, but this one happened to be in Southend, Essex. Like most every other similar fountain, children were playing in the water. The mothers mistakenly assumed that anyone taking pictures of the fountain must be paedophiles and confronted the shocked tourists. One of the mothers even posted on Facebook that she had “busted a paedophile ring.” In fact, she had done no such thing. She had merely ruined someone’s vacation. All three tourists were quickly cleared by police of any wrongdoing, but the stigma holds.

Misunderstanding about why we do what we do, the increasing lack of respect given to our profession, makes it extremely difficult at times to enjoy what we do. While we may want to take pictures simply for the love of taking pictures, there are too many times when we stop and have to second-guess whether the picture we might consider taking is worth the potential trouble it may cause. This current environment of distrust impedes our creativity and casts dispersions on our intentions despite the fact we’ve done nothing wrong.

In some cases, that lack of trust results in open hostility that makes being a photographer dangerous. One prominent presidential candidate has even gone so far as to corral photographers at his campaign rally, encouraging others to “beat them up,” and even laughing when one falls or gets hurt. While this example may seem extreme in the same sense that this candidate’s entire campaign is extreme, it is indicative of just how hostile the world has become toward people who carry cameras.

While I would very much like to ignore that hostility and walk around taking pictures of this and that all day long, I don’t. Not only is there the general suspicion with which we have to deal, there are alleged colleagues who would superimpose an unrealistic sense of perfection not only upon their work but everyone else’s. For them, no photograph is worthwhile so long as the slightest flaw exists. The eyes have to be in just the right position and the “catch” in a person’s eyes has to be in just the right place and there has to be the perfect number of hairs blowing across her face and they have to be the perfect length and if everything is not perfect then the photo is worthless. Sorry, I don’t consider that photography. What we capture is imperfect because life and the world is imperfect and the beauty of it all is found in the imperfections.

What few seem to realize is that every time a photographer is challenged about their work, despite whatever noble or seemingly righteous intentions on may have, we ultimately second guess why we are photographers in the first place. Are we photographers just because we love the act of taking pictures or are we photographers despite an aggressive society that fails to understand the artistry and beauty we find in everything.

The weather forecast for this afternoon is pleasant enough that I’ll likely let the kids play in the yard, and if I do then maybe, just maybe I’ll consider taking another photo of the birthday girl. Kat still won’t be home, such is the downside of being a responsible adult, but perhaps I’ll take the risk anyway. Both kids make great subjects and I know our immediate neighbors know I’m a photographer and won’t give our activities a second thought. I’ll still worry about those passing by. Will someone call the police or child protective services? Will someone stop and try to challenge what I’m doing? But maybe I’ll enjoy taking pictures just because, despite all the risk.

Maybe.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Forced To Protect The Future
April 12, 2016
charles i. letbetter - protect the future

If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost. —Barack Obama

 

charles i. letbetter - forced to protect the future

Forcing Government To Protect The Future Sounds Like A Good Idea, But Is It?

We all remember the late Whitney Houston’s hit song, The Greatest Love Of All, don’t we? You can sing along in your head as I remind you of those opening words:

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children’s laughter remind us how we used to be

Saying that “children are our future” comes easy; it’s a popular line that politicians and others have used repeatedly, especially when talking about things such as education and the need to protect schools and playgrounds. Everyone always claims they support the need to protect and build a strong, sustainable future for “our children.” They’re actions, however, say otherwise.

Politicians are rarely held responsible for their actions, and especially not their inactions, especially when it comes to those matters that affect people not yet old enough to vote. That, however, could change. A class-action lawsuit was filed last August in Oregon by 21 young people, all under the age of 18, claiming that the government, “has known for decades that carbon dioxide (C02) pollution has been causing catastrophic climate change and has failed to take necessary action to curtail fossil fuel emissions. Moreover, plaintiffs allege that the government and its agencies have taken action or failed to take action that has resulted in increased carbon pollution through fossil fuel extraction, production, consumption, transportation, and exportation. ” The suit goes on to state that the plaintiffs accuse the government, through its actions and omissions, has violated their right to due process, violated the Fifth Amendment by denying rights afforded previous generations, and violated the public trust doctrine of the Ninth Amendment by failing to provide clean natural resources.

As with any lawsuit against the government, there was an immediate motion from the justice department arguing that the case was without merit. Representatives of various fossil fuel industries also filed motions in the case recommending that the whole thing be dropped. Sure, we believe that “children are our future,” we just don’t want to be forced to actually back up those statements with legislation.

The court, however, has disagreed and handed down a decision this past Friday, April 8, in which federal judge Thomas Coffin that not only ruled in favor of the children, but also stated:

“The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for some time now. Plaintiffs give this debate justiciability by asserting harms that befall or will befall them personally and to a greater extent than older segments of society. It may be that eventually the alleged harms, assuming the correctness of plaintiffs’ analysis of the impacts of global climate change, will befall all of us. But the intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life, necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact on a discrete class of society.”

The whole decision is some 24 pages long, but what Judge Coffin essentially says is that evidence of Government deliberately ignoring the dangers of burning fossil fuels is significant and that the children have a right to clean air and water guaranteed by the government. The government has an obligation to protect the future interests of those not yet old enough to voice their own opinion.

Obviously, this is just the first in what is likely to be many challenges to the lawsuit. It should also be noted here that the suit does have some adult involvement which might add a bit of shade to the altruistic appeal of the lawsuit. Legal actions are expensive and this one is being underwritten by Our Children’s Trust, a non-profit designed specifically to address climate change issues on behalf of children.

Setting aside the potential issue of exploiting children to gain a legal standing that might not otherwise be possible, let’s consider what happens if, through some very clever argument, the lawsuit is upheld all the way through the Supreme Court. Imagine Congress and the states being required to protect the future interest of children in relation to climate change. This is attacking directly a Congress that has had difficulty  even finding a base point of agreement on the topic. Will a lawsuit be sufficient to push them into action?

As much as I would like to think that would be the case, I can’t be too hopeful. Even should the children ultimately win, Congress is nothing if not full of lawyers experienced in finding loopholes and various ways to avoid being held responsible for anything. While the courts may compel Congress to take definitive action, there is no real punishment levied upon them if they don’t. Technically, Congress could be found in Contempt fo the Supreme Court, but it’s not like the Court would send all members of Congress to jail if they failed to comply. I have difficulty seeing a positive end result.

Looking at a larger scope, however, one has to consider the precedent of this lawsuit in challenging government to be responsible for the future impact of their actions or inactions. If this lawsuit is upheld, if governments have to protect the rights of children on the issue of burning fossil fuels and climate change, the similar arguments could be made concerning the economy, access to education, quality of education, access to good-paying jobs and housing. Potentially, this lawsuit could set a precedent that would allow those representing children to second-guess any action of government that might have a long-term negative effect and that list could be quite long.

Expanding out even further, if governments can be held liable to protect this interest of children, can parents or other groups be held liable for their actions as well? Do parents jeopardize their children’s future by failing to save for their college? Who’s responsible if a child’s health is sacrificed by smoking in the home? Can the NRA or any other group be held responsible for impeding legislation that might protect children from gun violence or lead paint or flammable clothing?

Last week’s Supreme Court decision in EVENWEL ET AL. v. ABBOTT, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS specifically states that congressional districts must be drawn using total population figures with no reduction or adjustment for whether portions of that population are eligible to vote. The precedent set here infers that the entire population of a district, including children, are to be represented by that member of Congress and it is the responsibility of each congressperson to protect the interests of all their constituents.

There’s a potential Pandora’s Box of litigation waiting should this lawsuit be upheld and it all comes down to one very basic premise: doing the right thing. When we know that something we are doing is harming someone else, regardless of how it might impact profit or the desires of someone else, we have an obligation to do the right thing and stop that activity.

If we really believe that children are our future, then it shouldn’t take a lawsuit to get Congress, or anyone else to do what’s right, not only on matters of climate change, but every other issue that affects the ability of our children to live reasonable, sustainable, and productive lives. We have an obligation to protect the future for our children, and if we don’t do that voluntarily, then they have the right to use the force of the courts. We have to do the right thing. Now.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary  /  video
Modern Convenience
April 11, 2016

The technologies of convenience are making our sphere of exploration and experience smaller. —Robert Englund

 

charles i. letbetter - modern convenience

Modern convenience saves time, money, and wear and tear, but are we missing something greater?

This is one of those Monday mornings where I am having considerable difficulty finding any motivation. I hit the snooze on my alarm for a full hour this morning before pulling my feet out from under the covers. After a trying week with long hours and too little sleep and too much anxiety, I would just as soon spend the entire day in bed. What’s a little disturbing is that I almost could. Modern convenience gives me the ability to write from anywhere I can manage either a WiFI or cell phone signal. The software and settings on my desktop computer can be easily duplicated on my laptop. My image files are shared on the home network so I can access them from any room in the house. The only reason I would have to get out of bed is for food and coffee.

I am happy to be living in a period where such convenience is possible, and there is even more. I have the world’s information at my fingertips, no matter where I am, no matter what time of day it may be. My middle son, the Marine stationed in Japan, would have been difficult to contact a mere ten years ago, but now we can Skype and chat in real time without inconveniencing either of us. I can watch fashion shows around the world live without ever having to board a plane and sit next to someone wreaking of perfume for 17 hours. I can take a picture and not have to drop film off at the lab. The convenience of living right here, right now, is nice.

With such convenience, however, comes some responsibility, I think. If the universe is going to give us all these advantages, do we not have an obligation to use them for the greater good? If our lives are somehow made easier by the things around us and the abilities we have been given, does that not obligate us to not only improve our lives but that of those around us? Being the beneficiaries of convenience means that we are compelled to learn more, to understand at a deeper level, to be involved to a greater degree, and to speak more when the time is appropriate. Convenience is wonderful but we are indentured to the universe for using that convenience in ways that make a difference.

When I first sat down at my desk this morning, there were a number of news stories that caught my eye. These were among them:

That such a diverse amount of current information and opinions from around the world is available at my fingertips this morning is amazing. While they do come from several different sources, they were delivered as curated links so that I wouldn’t lose time sorting through all the different publications. Everything is right there waiting for me. The convenience is astonishing.

Yet, for that convenience, there is a necessary response. I cannot, morally, just read those articles and not respond. Each demands some form of response that alters my life and my schedule in some form. Consider:

  • The questions Raf asks, though seemingly esoterical on one level, are applicable for every aspect of a very broken fashion industry. This impacts not only how I view current fashion events, but also influences my own shopping habits. To the degree that I take advantage of the convenience of fast fashion, I endanger the creativity that pushes the industry forward.
  • If the weather patterns develop as predicted, we could see a colder winter here in the Midwest. Therefore, we would do well to plant a garden of food that can be easily preserved and hold throughout the winter. Challenging weather patterns lead us to take actions now that make us more self-sufficient.
  • While the extinction of birds in South America may seem to be inconsequential, we know that the world is interconnected and that such events make the world less sustainable. We need to be more aware of purchases we make, especially those regarding paper and plastic products, that impact the areas where avian species are most rapidly dying.
  • Disappointment in the Apple Watch, and how people are not using it even after spending so much money on them, will inevitably affect the future of smart wearables. This is an important lesson in how design can only push society forward so far. When the technology exceeds societies ability to adapt it to their lives, the technology fails. This is going to slow further technology integration. I need to keep a look out for how the industry as a whole responds.

Those may seem minor, perhaps, but they ultimately matter in how I shape my day and what decisions I make. Convenience generates awareness to things that we might have totally missed as little as five years ago. Convenience also makes it easier to respond in an appro

Convenience also makes it easier to respond in an appropriate way. When we know that portions of Asia and India are more likely to face devastating floods later this year, we can begin giving to relief agencies in advance rather than waiting until an emergency strikes. The plethora of financial options available to us now allows us to manage our finances in such a way that we are better able to save more and thereby help more than did previous generations. These conveniences give us an edge in helping to make the world a better place. We direct our creativity and innovation more precisely because it is convenient to do so.

Let’s face it, we would all be lazy and lethargic if it were an option. For 99% of us, though, we have to work to make any progress and anything that makes that work and our living easier is to be appreciated.

A trailer for the new Harry Potter movie was released over the weekend. Being able to see trailers without needing to go to the theater allows us to decide in advance which movies we might want to see. In this case, though, it also raises another question. We have a seven-year-old who is reading rather voraciously. He’s going to find the new trailer interesting, so the convenience of seeing the trailer now, at home, gives us the opportunity to not only discuss whether it is appropriate viewing fare, but also whether his reading level might be at a point where we could introduce him to the first of the Harry Potter books on conjunction with the release of the film.

It also allows us to do this:

Enjoy the convenience you have this Monday.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Bound To Indiana
April 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - bound to Indiana

In Indiana it’s not like New York where everyone’s like, ‘We’re from New York and we’re the best’ or ‘We’re from Texas and we like things big’ it’s more like ‘We’re from Indiana and we’re gonna move.’ —Jim Gaffigan

 

charles i. letbetter - bound to Indiana

Indiana has this way of entangling one to the point that leaving is nearly impossible

Today is my middle son’s 21st birthday. Since he’s in Japan, across the International Date Line, we conversed last night, Sunday morning his time. Somehow, the Marine Corp had let him sleep late and he was starting his day with a Corona that he had stowed away for the occasion. Just hearing that made me proud of him. He’s getting his life off to a better, freer, more honest start than I did.

Today also marks another anniversary, though, one I’m not nearly as proud to admit. I’ve now lived in Indiana, specifically Indianapolis, eleven years, the longest I’ve ever lived in any city. I won’t bore you with the story of how I got here as I’m sure I’ve already told it a sufficient number of times and thoroughly bored everyone who’s heard it. The point simply is that I never intended to make Indiana my home, but it has tied me down so thoroughly that leaving has yet to be an option I could afford to pursue.

I have to be careful here, as it is not my intention to offend everyone in this state. There are, like anywhere, some wonderful individuals that have, at the very least, made my life bearable, sometimes saved it, and sometimes even managed to make me smile. If asked, I could probably cobble together a list of about 30 people I’m not merely happy to have met but would probably, willingly, take with me on a road trip, including the college English teacher who was influential in convincing me to come here, the one gallery curator that doesn’t wince every time I walk through the door, and the Shibari master who not only made today’s pictures possible but managed to keep me alive when my continued existence was questionable.

Of coruse, it goes without saying, or should, that I wouldn’t have met Kat had I not endured living in Indiana all this time. She is the one thing that redeems this massive error in judgment. I jokingly question whether she and I share the same mental deformities that allow her to be as interested in me as I am in her. She actually likes sitting and watching me edit. We share a passion for coffee. She’s creatively expressive but doesn’t like having anyone try to put that creativity in a box or give it a limiting definition. She also dislikes the state of Indiana and wants to move, but then, she was born here, so her wanting to leave is more of a birthright given to every Hoosier.

What disappoints me most about Indiana, though, is how it devalues people, something we see in how the state chooses who governs and how that government is manifested through some of the most ridiculous laws ever imagined. The state of Indiana has prohibited even considering building a light rail system. They refuse to deal responsibly with companies millions of tons of chemicals into their streams and waterways, to the point that its entire water basin is polluted. Their infrastructure is a complete mess and their public education system is one of the worst in the country, despite being home to three of the best universities in the Midwest. I expected better. Everyone who lives here has a right to expect better. By failing to facilitate better transportation, better education, and a sustainable environment, state legislators are telling their constituents that their future does not matter, that their children’s lives are irrelevant, and they don’t give a damn if the bulk of the state lives in poverty.

Even worse, though, is how Indiana marginalizes its citizens. Last year, it was Indiana’s ridiculous Religious Freedom Restoration Act that brought public shame upon the state. This year, it is a ridiculously limiting, and probably unconstitutional, abortion law that is so horrid it has women calling the Governor’s office with details of their menstrual cycle in an effort to emphasize the degree to which the state has imposed itself upon the rights of women. Meanwhile, the state would rather see its people starve than provide food assistance. The state would rather pay corporate charter schools from out of state than invest in their own public school system. Each and every time the Governor and the state legislature makes one of these moves, they are telling people in Indiana that their lives don’t matter.

Once here, though, escaping from Indiana isn’t easy. If you’re a student, your best move might seem to be to go to school out of state. The problem with that is that there are three excellent universities here, IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame, that, depending on what one is studying, are among the best schools in the nation. So, you’re still stuck. Next option: get a good job elsewhere. Good luck with that. Employers have demonstrated a continued reluctance to hire Hoosiers from out of state. Why? Because we are perceived as being backward, overweight, lacking competitive drive, and culturally out of touch. I’m not saying no one from Indiana ever gets out, but being from Indiana means having the odds stacked against you from the very beginning.

Sure, there are other states just as bad, maybe even worse. Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina immediately come to mind. Indiana isn’t alone in its ability to elect some of the stupidest people on the planet who then enact some of the most ass-backward laws ever conceived. Indiana doesn’t have a corner on stupid.

Living here has gotten more challenging, though. Just this past Friday, a couple of friends had stopped by, along with their darling infant daughter. During our conversation, we noticed a considerable amount of police activity in the neighborhood. When they got ready to leave, they discovered that the neighborhood had been effectively locked down, no one being allowed in or out. They came back here and waited until almost midnight before being allowed to go home. At the same time, Kat and the kids were caught out of the neighborhood at a friends house. Even when police started letting people out of the neighborhood, they still weren’t letting anyone in. It was after 3:00 AM before Kat was able to get home and tuck her kids into their own bed. And after all that, after completely inconveniencing the more than 300 people who live in this rather secluded neighborhood, the person police were chasing got away.

Indiana has the ability to be a wonderful home. There are fantastically diverse state parks, wildlife, music, art, and top-notch advanced education opportunities. There are museums all over the place displaying the best material from around the world. There are more than enough reasons why living in Indiana should be wonderful. But it’s not. It hasn’t been the entire time I’ve lived here. And until the people of this state stop electing complete idiots to office, stop marginalizing people for stupid reasons like being gay or female, and get a handle on its crime issue, Indiana will continue to be a place that has to tie people down to keep them from leaving.

All that’s keeping us here now is waiting for Kat to finish school and her sister’s wedding. This past week, Kat was offered a position out of state at a salon with an international reputation. Whether she takes that offer or considers another, we’ll both finally be able to move. There is light at the end of our tunnel. We’re looking forward to cutting the ropes.

Indiana sucks, but it doesn’t have to. I suppose there’s a chance that they’ll one day wake up and change, but who wants to wait around for that? Opportunities are being lost every day. Cut your ropes, my friends. Move on.

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  PotD
Efficiency Is The New Pickup Line
April 9, 2016
charles i. letbetter - efficiency is the new ickup line

Secrecy is the enemy of efficiency, but don’t let anyone know it. —Ric Ocasek

charles i. letbetter - efficiency is the new pickup line

Millennials are having sex sooner and more often than previous generations, all due to efficiency

File this one under “reasons I’m glad I’m not dating anymore.” For anyone of my generation, or even the generation just younger than me, the manner and means in which Millennials and Gen-Zers are dating and “hooking up” is so dramatically different from the tactics and standards we used as to seem incredibly odd and unnatural. What they’re doing, though, is using available technology to maximize the efficiency of the one night stand.

There are a couple of articles you’ll want to read in order to truly understand what’s going on here. The first appeared in Vanity Fair last September, Writer Nancy Jo Sales looked at what she considers to be the “end of dating” largely because of mobile apps such as Tinder that make “hooking up” much easier than actually going out somewhere and meeting someone. The second was published yesterday on Mashable. Author Mandy Stadtmiller extends from the platform of the VF article to explore exactly how quickly those hookups happen, often without even having met each other. The common tie between the articles is the need for efficiency.

If we need to get real about young adults having sex, let’s do that now: They always have. Let’s not pretend that there was a generation somewhere back in the 50s where everyone remained virginal until they walked down the aisle to get married. The statistics have remained fairly steady since they were first studied over 70 years ago. Young adults like having sex and there’s not much that can stop them. Through every post-WWII generation, 60-65% of all 18-25-year-olds had sex at least once while dating. Don’t let your grandmother’s tales of chastity fool you.

For my generation, there was an unspoken three-date rule for having sex, and that rule has held as the standard for quite a while. Three dates give one time to get to know another person and decide whether there’s even a remote chance of a longer-term relationship. Of course, that’s assuming that there’s actually meaningful dialogue during the dates, which doesn’t always happen. I’m sure we all know someone who just endured the dates to get to the sex. Maybe it was you. Let’s not be naive. Young adult passions haven’t changed.

Dating apps, however, have suddenly shortened the time frame. Whereas we used to make fun of and joke about online dating, apps such as Tinder and Hinge have become so commonplace and easy to use that the stigma of online dating is completely gone. Instead, millennials see it as a way to cut through the clutter without having to endure the horrendous dates. Rather, couples who match on an app begin texting each other, which quickly becomes sexting, which quickly leads to sex. Fast. Efficient. Easy.

Efficiency isn’t the only factor at work here. Underlying the need for efficiency is an attitude of immediate gratification. Millennials are that generation, after all, who want everything now: the nice car, the big house, the exotic vacations, the designer clothes. Waiting for anything isn’t a part of their nature so we shouldn’t be surprised at all that they would want their sex without waiting as well.

We should also note that these hookups are in no way intended to take the place of long-term relationships. Millennials put those longer, more meaningful relationships in a different category than the quick sex hookups from Tinder. The longer relationship is something they’re willing to put in the future, after age 25, or even after the age of 30. The one thing millennials don’t want right now is to settle down.

What they do want, however, is efficiency in their sexual liaisons. I was rather taken aback by some of the forwardness mentioned in the two articles. Conversations went from, “Hi, you’re cute,” to “Send me a dick pic,” in fewer than five exchanges. Addresses and phone numbers were exchanged in less than 10. Chats were almost immediately sexual with seemingly no concern about personality or personal interests or any of the other things that typically draw two people together. Had I attempted such a conversation when I was of that age I would have most certainly had my face slapped. Efficiency matters now, though, and no one seems inclined to wait until the other person asks where they work before hopping into bed with them.

Which brings us back to the problem of people my age who find themselves single, again, perhaps for the third or fourth time. The rules have not only changed, the very mechanics have changed. Trolling for a one-night-stand at a nightclub is passé. See a pretty girl or attractive guy at a bar, chances are they’re looking at their phone, and chances are they’re going through Tinder. They’re not interested in the people around them because that’s not efficient. Older singles who don’t understand that significant shift in attitudes find themselves using the wrong tactics in an attempt to attract people who are too distracted to bother noticing. No wonder older singles end up depressed, lonely, and often suicidal.

This is a very different generation of young people from those who have gone before. Technology has made their lives more efficient. They order fast food before they get to Taco Bell. They expect their Uber to be waiting when they walk out the door. They have a lot going on and efficiency is the key to making it all happen right now. There’s no time for subtleties. Either your DTF or they’re moving on.

And if you don’t understand what DTF means, you’re not even in the game. Don’t bother.

 

Continue Reading

Art  /  Nature  /  Photography  /  PotD
Merging With Nature
April 8, 2016

Words, like nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within. —Alfred Lord Tennyson

charles i. letbetter - merging with nature

Outdoor pictures can be wonderful, but nature isn’t always as obliging as it might appear

[Ed. note: charles is busy dealing with little people this morning so we thought it best to just rerun an entry from last year when it wasn’t so freakin’ cold out. We’ll hope the boss is back tomorrow.]

I was able to step outside this morning without needing any kind of a jacket. That simple act made me very happy because it means we’re getting to the time of year when we can return to outdoor and natural light photography, a genre I genuinely love. There is something thrilling about being up at the crack of dawn, catching those first rays of sunlight, and having the first shoot of the day in the can before most people have finished their first cup of coffee.

On the best of days, we are able to schedule about ten days out, as far in advance as most meteorologists are willing to forecast, the weather holds, and we get that perfect blend of morning light with enticing shadows. If necessary, I’ll even settle for a moderately filtered shot as long as I’m getting good sun rays in the background. We have to be extremely well prepared and able to work quickly as the sun rises in the sky, but the results are almost always worth the early wake-up and any other minor inconvenience.

As I was going back through and re-processing this shot (we re-process anything over two years old), I was reminded, however, that nature doesn’t always want to cooperate. Dealing with the moving sunlight is one thing; at least, that’s predictable and something for which we can easily plan. What’s not as predictable is how vicious elements such as insects, rodents, and plant life might be on any given day at any given time. In this case, it was mosquitoes the model didn’t even feel whose bites left a number of unsightly little bumps on her skin. Sure, she felt them later, but their silent attack was beyond any on-camera solution by the time their presence was noticed.

I can’t help but feel bad when a model tells me two or three days later that she’s developed a rash, or found some strange bites on an intimate body part, or apparently came into contact with some plant to which she’s allergic. Nature can be a very dangerous place to take pictures!

When we’re out scouting for possible outdoor locations, we try to anticipate whether any little vermin might interfere with our plans. After all, a lot of people have issues with setting on a piece of rotting wood teaming with creepy, crawling things with more legs than can be counted at a single glance, which is all the creature is going to get before it’s brushed away, if not smashed. Yet, just because a location looks good one morning doesn’t mean it will be in the same condition two weeks later.

Mosquitoes are probably the most bothersome culprits, especially as we get deeper into the summer and their numbers seem greater than the entire population of whatever state we’re in. Ants are another common culprit and there is often absolutely no sign that they’re going to be a problem until the very moment we’re ready to sit a model on a stump, look down, and find the place crawling with them as though they’d received an invitation.

Most the time, such encounters are merely a momentary frustration. We try dealing with insects and such in the most humane manner possible. After all, everything is part of something else’s food chain and poison we put into the environment anywhere eventually comes back to our own dinner plates. Yet, there have been times when the aggressiveness of nature simply forced us to leave. One of the worst was probably the evening we were shooting in a small, natural pool that forms in the bend of a creek. We had shot there before with no problem, but on this particular evening, crawdads came out and began nipping at the models toes. Despite all our attempts to dissuade them, they were unrelenting and we finally had no choice but to retreat.

So,please keep in mind that there are things hiding in that picture that can sometimes make paradise a living nightmare. Nature doesn’t always want us merging with it; sometimes it wants us for lunch!

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Music  /  PotD
Merle Haggard: Okie From Bakersfield
April 7, 2016

The only thing that I miss lately in all music is somebody that will put out a melody that you can whistle. It doesn’t seem like there’s anything happening like that. —Merle Haggard

charles il etbetter - merle haggard: okie from bakersfield

Merle Haggard’s music touched lives in ways that will effect generations, even if they never knew him

I’m not sure there’s anyone who was raised in or around Oklahoma during the 1960s and 70s that doesn’t have a Merle Haggard story. Even if they never actually saw the man in person, his music affected Oklahoma and the people who live there even now. Never mind that he wasn’t actually born there. His song Okie From Muskogee gave both the town and the state a reputation it still tries desperately to hold onto, even though Haggard himself shifted and became more liberal over time. His songs struck a nerve with people who struggled to find jobs, to work the land, to stay out of jail, or to stay sober. That was Oklahoma then, and in many ways is Oklahoma now. As news of his death spread across the Internet yesterday, the stories began to appear. I saved mine until today.

I met Haggard twice, neither time with a camera available. The first time was when I was 13, a scrawny, shy little kid with glasses. We were in Tulsa for one reason or another and as we came out of a restaurant there he was, standing on the sidewalk with what I assume were some of his band members. Mother recognized him and whispered to Poppa, “That’s Merle Haggard!” She was trying to be discreet, but that never was one of Mother’s better traits. The song man heard her and walked over to say hi.

Haggard was still young then. I remember the dark, curly hair sticking out from under his black hat. His smile was big and friendly. When he shook my hand, though, his skin felt rough and dry, like someone much older, someone who was used to doing hard labor. I also picked up on a distinct aroma, one which I wouldn’t be able to identify for a few more years. Yeah, never mind what the song says, Merle was about as big a pot smoker as Willie, he just didn’t make as big a deal about it.

Merle had a distinct sound, one of those you could recognize the instant the record started playing. He didn’t go in for the studio string section that was popular in Nashville. He kept his music real, guitar-centered, a touch of banjo, with a little bit of steel thrown in at just the right place. He didn’t need to do any vocal tricks, he just sang a song with a good melody, one you could whistle if you wanted. He told stories that resonated not only in Oklahoma but all across the country. Whether it was the 60s or 2010, he had a connection with how people felt and a unique way of putting that into song.

The man never shied away from being honest about his opinions or his politics. While conservatives loved him in the 70s, he didn’t feel any loyalty to a party and his views shifted more to the left as he grew older. In a 2010 interview with Patrick Doyle for Rolling Stone, Haggard made a statement that caught his more conservative fans by surprise.

t’s really almost criminal what they do with our President. There seems to be no shame or anything. They call him all kinds of names all day long, saying he’s doing certain things that he’s not. It’s just a big old political game that I don’t want to be part of. There are people spending their lives putting him down. I’m sure some of it’s true and some of it’s not. I was very surprised to find the man very humble and he had a nice handshake. His wife was very cordial to the guests and especially me. They made a special effort to make me feel welcome. It was not at all the way the media described him to be.

He also became a more outspoken of the legalization of marijuana. In a different interview that same year, Haggard said:

Well, I’m kinda like George Carlin. I think that there ought to be a time where everybody should have all the drugs they want and there’d be nobody in charge, sort of like… now! 

The second time I met Merle was back in 2001, outside a club just North of Atlanta called Cowboys. I was on my way home and recognized Waylon Jenning’s vehicle parked next to the tour bus. Waylon hadn’t been doing well and I was rather surprised to see him out, so I pulled into the parking lot and as I got out of the car Waylon and Merle stepped out of the bus. Haggard’s hair was grayer, of course, but his eyes still sparkled, his smile just as broad, and his handshake just as real. He was in the middle of touring and had just stopped by for a moment to see Waylon, an old friend. Regrettably, I was on a tight schedule and couldn’t stay to listen to them swap stories.

Country music today is barely a shadow of what it was back when Haggard was consistently at the top of the charts. Music has changed, the industry has changed, and the world is a very different place. Still, he never stopped. Haggard’s songs remained real, relatable, and as country as the red clay of Oklahoma, which is saying something for a boy raised in a boxcar in Bakersfield.

Farewell, Merle. Thanks for all the music.

https://youtu.be/n4AgZST_TG8

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  PotD
A Better Size System For Fashion
April 6, 2016

Life is too short, and I’m Italian. I’d much rather eat pasta and drink wine than be a size 0. —Sophia Bush

 

charles i. letbetter - a better size system for fashion

Size labels won’t fix the problem of weight shaming, but it may change how we think of ourselves

This isn’t a new conversation, but the fact that we are still talking, regularly, about body size and weight shaming is itself a symptom of a larger problem that doesn’t have a simple solution. The human race has, as far back as anyone can tell, judged people by their size. At certain points in our history, being larger was considered more attractive because it was a sign of wealth that one had enough food to eat. Our obsession with being thin did not happen until the twentieth century, but body size has always been an issue.

While doing a bit of research, I came across a very interesting quote:

I felt like a loser. I was unhappy as a child most of the time. We were terribly poor and I hated my size.

Do you know who said that? One of the most unlikely people ever: Don Knotts, the late comedic actor known for his thin, wiry frame. A guy who felt bad about his size.

While the topic is not a new one, and not going to go away because of anything I write here, it has taken on a different direction of late. First, comedienne Amy Schumer is upset because she is in Glamour magazine. I know, that doesn’t sound like a horrible thing, but the problem she has is that she was included in the magazine’s special plus-size edition. Schumer wrote on her Instagram account:

“I think there’s nothing wrong with being plus size. Beautiful healthy women. Plus size is considered size 16 in America. I go between a size 6 and an 8. @glamourmag put me in their plus size only issue without asking or letting me know and it doesn’t feel right to me. Young girls seeing my body type thinking that is plus size? “

Glamour responded:

“First off, we love Amy, and our readers do too — which is why we featured her on the cover of Glamour last year. The cover line on this special edition — which is aimed at women size 12 and up — simply says ‘Women Who Inspire Us,’ since we believe her passionate and vocal message of body positivity IS inspiring, as is the message of the many other women, of all sizes, featured. The edition did not describe her as plus-size. We are sorry if we offended her in any way.” 

Still, more than a few people have noted that the very act of producing a special “plus size” issue further marginalizes anyone who doesn’t fit the stereotypical thin shape society expects from women.

Then, almost simultaneously but on a different part of the planet, Model Iskra Lawrence dealt handily with a troll who attempted to fat shame her. Lawrence, who is a bit of a gym rat, didn’t hesitate to post a picture of herself covered in bags of chips (known as crisps across the pond) and letting the troll know she’ll eat what she damn well wants. Scroll on down Ms. Lawrence’s feed and you’ll find some impressive pictures of her in the gym doing squats with more weight on her shoulders than I know I could manage.

Fighting against weight shaming is an eternal battle that, because of how some people respond to their own negative feelings of self-worth, is likely to never go away. Yet, I cannot help but think that we aggravate the problem with how we label both clothes and people. As mentioned in the Schumer/Glamour dustup, anything size 12 and higher is considered “plus” sized, but even women who wear size 4-10 often find themselves being ridiculed for not being a model-worthy size 0 or 2.

While changing the labels won’t make the problem go away, perhaps if we re-think how clothes sizes are named we can, at least, provide both men and women with something that doesn’t immediately demean them when they take an item off the store rack. Why not replace numbered sizes or even the more general small, medium, large, etc. with labels that provide a more general definition without being insulting. Here’s what I’m thinking for new labels:

  • Casual would be similar to what we now consider a medium size. Hips might be more full, waistlines more forgiving, but within a range appropriate for the average person.
  • Fit might be a more appropriate label for those who take body tone seriously. Waistlines might be tapered, but not too small, shoulders would be more accommodating, and trouser legs would be full so that those calf and thigh muscles would have room.
  • Sensible seems to make sense for the next size range up, as this would encompass those whose skeletal structures would never allow them to fit into smaller clothes no matter what they tried. Millions, if not billions, of people fit into this range that is not trim, but still quite healthy with nothing to be ashamed of.
  • Abundant might be more appropriate for that size range higher than what is currently a size 16. Admittedly, for those who fit into the largest of sizes, nothing really takes away the stigma that comes from being compared to those who are smaller. Yet, by using a label that at least has a less-offensive connotation perhaps we can minimize the hurt to some degree.
  • Attenuated could work for smaller sizes, which can be just as difficult emotionally as larger sizes. Women, especially, whose metabolism runs high are never going to fit well into Casual-sized clothing. Kat is one of those people who typically has to shop in the Misses or Teen section to have any hope of finding something that fits. And that’s despite consuming healthy portions of my cooking.

These are obviously just suggestions and I don’t expect anyone influential to pay any attention. Getting the entire fashion industry to change anything is extremely slow and difficult. Yet, we need to start somewhere and realize that our labeling conventions are helping to shame millions of people who have no cause to be concerned about the size and shape of their  bodies. Size labels seem like a good starting point.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Trying To Make Sense Of The World
April 5, 2016
charles i. letbetter - trying to make sense of the world

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. —Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

charles i. letbetter - trying to make sense of the world

There are so many events that fail to make a lick of sense, one has difficulty trying to not go crazy

Yesterday had more than it’s fair share of challenges. Some were part and parcel of just having kids and trying to take care of them. Others, though, hit deeper. We found out yesterday that the owner of a popular Northside bar & grill that Kat and I occasionally enjoy committed suicide over the weekend. Beyond the immediate tragedy of one feeling so desperate, the move also puts in jeopardy the livelihood of his employees who may now be without a job.

Last evening, an estranged couple, who were under a no-contact order, met in a parking lot in Camby, a small town just East of Indianapolis. The conversation grew heated and in an apparent act of frustration, the man shot his estranged wife in the leg and then the head before exiting the car and killing himself. She’s in stable condition, but be sure that every aspect of her life has been turned upside down.

The world is crazy.

The Tennessee State Legislature passed a bill yesterday making the Bible the state book. Governor Haslam has said he opposes the bill, but there is still some speculation as to whether he may sign it and, if he doesn’t, whether the legislature can override the veto. So much for the separation of church and state. Merely by passing the bill the state legislature has marginalized millions of Tennessee residents who don’t identify as Christian.

The world is insane.

An ex-wife, the one named Ivana, of a leading presidential candidate said yesterday that she supports immigration because, get this,  “Who’s going to vacuum our living rooms and clean up after us? Americans don’t like to do that.” Never mind that she, herself, is an immigrant and I dare say has never so much as touched a vacuum cleaner in her overly-advantaged life. Such statements make it clear that 54% of the United States would be marginalized should her ex be elected president.

The world has gone nuts.

Someone hacked the entire citizenship database for the country of Turkey, population 49,611,709, and published all the details online. Everything. Full name, parents’ names, date and place of birth, current address, etc. Everything one would need to completely obsfucate Turkish identities for decades. This potentially places everything related to identity in question. Imagine if the US Social Security records were to be hacked in similar fashion. The website hints that the new US president had better know what he’s doing or we could face a similar attack.

The world has turned on itself.

Reuters is reporting that Daesh militants are using rockets filled with mustard gas in their fight to take over a Syrian military airport. Never mind that the use of chemical weapons violates the Geneva convention. We can’t expect Daesh to abide by any laws, including their own. Such an act demonstrates a complete and total disregard for human life and we should take note that this isn’t the first time the terrorist organization has used the nerve gas. These people are vile, yet France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls says Islamic extremists are winning the propaganda war. Could we be facing an event worse than anything Hitler could have imagined?

What do we do when the world seems to have literally turned itself upside down?

We could worry. We could fret. The truth is, though, there’s not a hell of a lot we can do to actively change the actions of others. We can look forward to voting in November, but then it’s what, 12 to 18 months after that before we could start to see any significant difference that actually effects global actions?

I’m beginning to think that Sally Bowles had it right when she sang:

What good´s permitting some prophet of doom?
To wipe every smile away
Life is a cabaret , old chum!
So come to the cabaret!

What else makes sense? If we cannot create immediate change over such outlandish behavior and events, then we do best to go on with our lives and make the best of them we can. Two friends brought beautiful young lives into the world this weekend (both boys, interestingly enough). We should celebrate. There are advances being made in the fight against Alzheimer’s. We should be encouraged. There was an electrical fire at the Internal Revenue Service. We should be hopeful.

Star by admitting
From cradle to tomb
It isn’t that long a stay
Life is a cabaret, old chum!
It´s only a cabaret, old chum!
And I love a cabaret!

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD  /  Social Commentary
Time To Ditch The Cruelty
April 4, 2016

Cruelty, like every other vice, requires no motive outside of itself; it only requires opportunity. —George Eliot

 

charles i. letbetter - time to ditch the cruelty

We need more smiles. We need more niceness. We need less cruelty.

I started yesterday in one of those foul moods where I’m pretty sure my verbal cruelty had Kat more than happy to be spending the day at the salon. I hate those days, but yesterday rather snuck up on me as a confluence of circumstance combined with continual interference from an unwanted external source made the situation intolerable. While I would like to excuse the behavior as just being human, I can’t. I know better. I caved to those basest and vile instincts that might have had their place some 40,000 years ago but are wholly inappropriate now.

Sadder still, I’m far from being the only one who has had issues with cruelty of late. We have come to expect cruelty in a presidential election year, I suppose, but that still doesn’t make the comments against women, minorities, immigrants, or other candidates’ family members any more appropriate. One of the first things I saw in my newsfeed this morning was a click-bait article (I’ll not bother you with the link) recounting the 17 worst assassination attempts on President Obama. And the whole still-developing mess from the Panama Papers threatens to unleash a whole new wave of international outrage toward anyone whose offshore dealings come off as shady. Given the current inference of bad guys mixing with heads of state, one might expect the next couple of weeks to be a bit tense at best.

I worry that cruelty has become our second nature. Someone says something we don’t like, we want to punch them. Someone represents something we oppose, we want to redistribute their body parts. Someone cuts us off in traffic, we’re immediately homicidal. We don’t want to take time to talk and understand each other’s point of view, we don’t want to take into consideration a different perspective. We don’t want to negotiate a peaceful outcome. We want full and complete destruction and will go to whatever means necessary to satisfy our blood lust.

This is the world we have created. We cannot blame our bent toward cruelty on previous generations. We did not learn this through bad parenting. We did not get here by failing to get the right trophy when we were in grade school. This is the result of a conscious and deliberate decision to not stop ourselves at that first moment of anger or disappointment. We could have just as easily shut ourselves down and done the right thing, but we decided, both collectively and individually, to let the anger push us forward.

As a result, we no longer even notice when five are killed in Pittsburg, or Kansas City, or Glendale. When an Uber driver goes nuts and kills six in Kalamazoo, we’re momentarily upset because children were involved, but then we go right back to exactly the same things we were doing the moment before. We’ve resigned ourselves to the notion that this is just the way things are and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

I call bullshit.

I can do something about my attitude and my response to everything that happens to and around me. How I respond, in turn, effects how others around me respond and their response impacts others beyond my reach. Every last one of us can improve the world simply by changing our own response and not letting anger and cruelty take over. We are in control and just as my grousing and cursing made yesterday difficult for everyone, I can just as easily make this morning better by saying thank you, speaking softly, and maybe even hand delivering a kiss or two where appropriate.

You can do the same. I know you can. You can smile, even though the weather this morning leaves something to be desired. You can choose a quiet, positive-toned response when someone approaches you with unjustified anger. You can stick up for someone who’s being treated unfairly. You can earnestly try to understand someone else’s point of view, even though you disagree with their position on the matter. You can step back, count to ten, or maybe even walk away from a situation rather than losing your temper.

We can all do a lot to change this pattern of cruelty that we’ve allowed to permeate our society. After all, we were the ones who let the situation get out of control in the first place. Politicians don’t make America or anywhere else great, people do. Let this be your #MondayMotivation to start making the world more friendly. We can do it.

Continue Reading

Art  /  Music  /  PotD
Leave The Creative Alone
April 3, 2016
charles i. letbetter - leave the creative alone

Singing provides a true sense of lightheartedness. If I sing when I am alone, I feel wonderful. It’s freedom.—Andrea Bocelli

 

charles i. letbetter - leave the creative alone

Creatives can be the life of a party, but there are times we have to be alone.

I realize as I start writing this morning that there is the distinct possibility that what I’m about to say may come off as complaining. I’m not. My purpose here is instructional for anyone who knows, works with, or worse, lives with a creative person. People are attracted to creatives because of their talent, which is enjoyable and frequently entertaining. Creatives can be wonderful company and even passionately romantic. You like us for some very good reasons.

Trouble comes, though, when we insist on being left alone. People who are not creative frequently don’t understand at all, and when two creative souls are paired together it can be a challenge as to who gets to be alone when and for how long.

A recent article on Creative Market explored the topic of Why Creatives Need Alone Time To Thrive and they hit the nail on the head for several points:

  • Better Focus on One Single Subject
  • More Positive Emotions
  • Freedom from Demands of Others
  • More Creativity
  • Improved Memory

For creatives, being alone is when the real work gets done, even if it doesn’t look like we’re working from the outside. So much of the creative process is done inside the head. No matter whether one is a singer, plays an instrument, writes, acts, paints, or any other creative genre, we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what we want to achieve and white might be the best way to do so. We need to be free from interruptions and distractions, though, for us to be able to get through that mental process successfully.

As a pianist, in a younger existence, I spent many hours alone in a practice room. Much of that time was spent drilling, going over difficult passages again and again and again until either they were mastered or my mind was exhausted. Yet, an almost equal amount of time was spent being quiet, studying the notes and becoming aware of patterns, staring at the keyboard and thinking about how my fingers needed to move across it, hearing the music in my head so that I could be better aware of the phrasing and nuances necessary.

The quiet time didn’t end when I left the practice room, though. While the clock might dictate that it was time for my body to be elsewhere, my mind would still be occupied with the music. Someone might call to me from across the campus and I would be so totally lost in thought that I wouldn’t hear them. Creatives understood, others not so much. I was charged more than once with being stuck-up and antisocial when that was never my intention.

One aspect that non-creatives often do not, and perhaps cannot, understand is that the creative process isn’t limited to just the act of doing something. Being a photographer, using the obvious example, may seem to be limited to the act of actually taking and processing the pictures. What people don’t see are the hours spent thinking about concepts, the right setting, the best lighting, what poses might work, which model would be best, and the angles from which we might shoot. All of those considerations have to be finalized before anyone else shows up. In fact, many of those decisions need to be made before we even contact someone about shooting. All those decisions are best made alone.

The more visceral elements of the creative process do not necessarily take place where one might expect. For me, going on a long walk is one of the most creative times I have. I’ve known others who would go sailing, or working in their flower garden, or spending time with their pets. What works is different for every creative individual. What’s common across almost all of us is that we do those things alone, and yes, we are working just as hard then, perhaps even more so, than when we’re behind the camera, sitting on the piano bench, or standing behind an easel.

Please understand, when we insist on having time alone, it doesn’t mean we don’t like you or that we don’t enjoy your company. We don’t necessarily intend to be antisocial. If anything, being out and enjoying the company of others often stokes our creative imaginations. We like a good party, or a ballgame, or a day at the beach. Most of us enjoy spending that time with you; it gives us much-needed energy to keep going. Being with other people can revive our passion for what we do.

Still, when it comes down to doing the bulk of creative work, we need to be alone. Please don’t be offended. Please don’t think we’re putting you in second place. Being alone is simply a very necessary and often very welcome part of the process.

We love you for understanding and thank you for giving us the space to be who and what we are.

Continue Reading

Behind The Scenes  /  Status
Mischief Managed
April 2, 2016
charles i. letbetter - mischief managed

Let them call it mischief: When it is past and prospered t’will be virtue. —Ben Jonson

 

charles i. letbetter - mischief managed

I moved to Indiana when he was six. This week we make up for lost time.

I mentioned last week that my youngest son was coming to visit. Despite multiple attempts, this was the first time any of my boys has been able to come here to see me rather than vice versa. We were incredibly excited. That week has flown by faster than any I can remember and now we’re taking him home. I’m sad that he can’t stay longer.  Still, we’ve had a very good time. He still has a baby face, so no one expects the mischief of which he is capable. He measures it out carefully.

Sunday, we hiked around Eagle Creek, found a bridge over a quiet stream, and sat and talked while he dug holes in the creekbed with a large stick. He used to complain about long hikes with his brothers. He seemed to enjoy this one.

Monday, we hung out at the mall (because, you know, that’s where the Lego store is) then took some time to watch Batman v. Superman. The last movie we saw in the theater together? The Incredibles and I carried him on my shoulders. He reminded me of that experience more than once. Despite his frequent requests, we did not attempt to reenact that experience.

Tuesday, our mischief took us downtown, starting on Mass Ave. where we played with toys and found a roof-top perch I didn’t know existed. We wound through the maze of memorials and skyscrapers until he got hungry. We hit Tilted Kilt because, you know, he’s 17. Besides, Taps & Dolls doesn’t do lunch and Hooters couldn’t be more passé. More than the over-priced burger and obvious scenic attraction, what does my son remember most about the day? The moist towelettes. He took three. He said they made his skin soft. We finished the day playing chess at Indy Reads Books. Score one for the old man. I can still beat him.

Wednesday was the family trip to the zoo. This was prime silly time as he was dive-bombed by exotic birds, ignored by baboons, and stared at by a very menacing looking cheetah. Had they let him take home a flamingo, I’m sure he would have tried. What was most surprising, though, was that by this point in the week we had worn him out. He was in bed before 9:30 that night;  the first time he’s been in bed that early in years.

Thursday, it rained. We stayed home. We talked a lot. We reminisced a lot. He asked questions about his grandparents, whom he barely remembers. We talked about life. We talked about girls. We talked about school, opportunities missed, and regrets.

Friday’s mischief took us to the Dallara Indycar Factory in Speedway. Since Kat had to be at the salon, we took the little ones with us. Those are the pictures below. The big hit of the day was the simulators. Based on how he performed there, I’m warning his mother to not let him drive for at least two more years. The world just isn’t ready. From there, we had froyo for lunch, then started the long walk home. Along the way, we passed several of the 2016 Indy 500 pace cars. Of course, he was smart enough to take a picture.

While his 18th birthday isn’t for a couple more weeks, we went ahead and celebrated a bit Friday evening. There were cupcakes. burgers, and mac & cheese. He fell asleep quite happy.

We’re going to miss him. There is still so very much to talk about. He still has a lot of questions that deserve answers. Perhaps, just maybe, we can make some arrangement for another trip this summer, though Kat’s schedule this summer is daunting. My baby boy is grown up in so many ways, but he still enjoys an afternoon of Phineas And Ferb and a bit of The Batman animated series before he falls asleep at night.

So, this round of mischief comes to an end. I’m hoping there will be more. I’ve missed time like this with all three boys. Who knows, maybe next time we can convince his eldest brother to join him. Although, I’m really not sure Indy is ready for that much Letbetter all at once. We’ll have to see. Enjoy the pictures.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD  /  Published
To Niche Or Not To Niche
April 2, 2016
charles i. letbetter - to niche or not niche

If everybody is doing it one way, there’s a good chance you can find your niche by going exactly in the opposite direction. —Sam Walton

charles i. letbetter - to niche or not to niche

The decision of whether to engage in niche photography can have a dramatic effect not only upon one’s income, but the development of one’s style

[Ed. note: We are traveling again this morning, so I’ve reached back into the archives for something of interest. This article was originally published January 12, 2008. I’ve had to update a couple of references and clean up some grammar references, but the rest of the article still holds. If anything, the question now might be whether one needs to expand outside photography as well. Either way, this is still good conversation fodder.]

“What kind of photography do you do?”

Some form of that question follows most every introduction of a photographer. The question is hedged in some anticipation that the answer might bring exciting stories of wonderful places visited or exciting adventures behind the camera. General expectation is that no photographer is simply a photographer; some definitive adjective must precede the noun so as to give one’s audience a reasonable concept of one’s range of work.

Socially, such labels help avoid confusion. A wedding photographer hardly desires to be confused with a pet photographer any more than an architectural photographer wants his work to be labeled as landscape photography. However, as digital photography continues to revolutionize the industry, one does well to question conventional wisdom regarding the value of declaring too narrow a niche.

Not all that long ago, niche photography was a matter of practical and economical necessity. Different styles of work required unique and often specialized equipment, much of which required considerable investment to produce professional quality work. Different types of film, some of which were quite expensive, were necessary for some types of special work. To maintain an inventory of such a wide variety of equipment and film makes little to no sense for most photographers. Rather, it has been more reasonable to select a specialty that one enjoys and pursue that field specifically.

Digital capabilities challenge the equation somewhat. What once was only reasonably shot with a medium- or large- format film camera can now often be more than adequately photographed with high-end digital equipment, equipment that, with the mere switch of a lens, is just as appropriate for taking pictures of a nephew’s bar mitzvah. Even projects requiring extreme enlargement, projects which ten years ago might have required the construction of a special camera and expensive, proprietary film, can now be shot with Canon’s newest 50+ megapixel 35mm camera.

What declaring a niche unquestionably does is allow a photographer to seriously focus on the methodology and styles of a specific genre. Architectural photographers need to stay abreast of changes in that industry just as fashion photographers are constantly watching the latest clothing styles and designers. Focusing on a specific specialty allows one to excel in that area, rather than being mediocre across a wider range.

Niche photography also allows one to more narrowly focus one’s marketing initiatives. Wedding photographers need exposure at bridal shows, landscape photographers don’t. Wildlife photographers don’t need the attention of editors at Sports Illustrated as does a sport or swimwear photographer. Marketing is expensive and can consume considerable time and resources. The more narrowly one can target their primary customer, the more effective the marketing effort.

A photographer chooses a niche based on the type work one most enjoys doing. Sports photographers are every bit as passionate about getting that one-in-a-million touchdown or slam dunk shot as a landscape photographer may be regarding the perfect sunset, or a wedding photographer capturing the perfect moment in a newlyweds’ kiss. If one is not enjoying what they are doing, it is questionable whether there is any real value in even picking up the camera; not that every moment is full of wonder and bliss, but that the passion for the work exceeds the pain of the downfalls. Taking pictures simply for the paycheck inevitably results in modest photography with little to no real lasting value.

Countering the philosophy of niche photography is the very real fact that more people than ever are picking up reasonably professional cameras and attempting to make a profession of their endeavors. On one hand, anyone true to the art of photography must be excited to see what has previously been a fairly exclusive field become more open to creative and experimental minds, especially younger photographers whose imaginations have not yet been completely shut down by reality. At the same time, however, the general accessibility of digital photography combined with the repairing and reconstructive capabilities of software have dramatically decreased the demand and value of professional photographic work. Metaphorically speaking, there is less pie to be shared at a time where there are more feet under the table. Such dilution brings into sharp questioning the validity of limiting oneself to a specific niche.

The artistic and marketing benefits of niche work have not gone away, mind you. What has changed is the fiscal viability of such limitation. Whereas one might have previously made a quite comfortable living as a wedding photographer, the field has been besieged over the past few years with newcomers who view the field simply as a way to pick up some extra money on the weekend. These “weekend wannabes” charge considerably lower prices than full-time professionals because they do not value their weekend hours as does one whose whole income depends on the work. Given that brides are always on a budget, the lower prices are attractive to customers who may not be especially quality-conscious.

Similar gluts have damaged the fields of fashion, glamor, travel, portrait, family and many advertising-related niches. Adding to the dilution is the increasingly prevalent use of online stock photography, which is generally cheaper and ready on demand. All these factors combined make economic dependence on a single niche of photography extremely difficult. As a result, one must seriously question whether limiting work to a narrowly defined niche still makes sense.

Expanding one’s range is a difficult and challenging decision, but may be one photographers can no longer avoid. Despite public opinion and casual observance, there is a considerable difference to be found between shooting weddings and photographing models. Family photography may seem tightly connected to infant photography, but the lighting and elemental differences between the two are dramatic. Just because a photographer is gifted in a specific area does not make them equally capable in others.

Photography instructors have long challenged students to shoot a wide range of subjects. Indeed, when someone asks me how to get started in photography I pass along the same instruction given to me by a grizzled and war-worn journalism photographer: grab a camera and shoot dirt. The basic lessons of light, focus, and depth-of-field are not subject dependent. One learns and develops most readily by simply keeping camera in hand and shooting life as it occurs. As one develops more fully in the craft, one then learns how certain elements react differently to changes in light, diffusion, and reflection. Keeping a wide-open perspective on the craft enables one to deepen both knowledge and appreciation.

Perhaps the time has come for the professional photographer to more widely apply that universal approach to their work; not advocating that one abandon their niche, but to expand intelligently upon one’s area of expertise, exploring secondary areas of interests as they apply to one’s own personality, background, and resource availability. Still vital is the notion that one must, unquestionably, hold some passion for their work, but just as a couple may expand their love for each other to their children without diminishing the original relationship, so can a photographer find pleasure in more than one niche without sacrificing expertise in their major field.

Another concept more photographers might do well to consider is to form more photographer’s cooperatives, such as the famed Magnum Group. Formed in 1947 by four war-weary photographers (Robert Capa, Henri Cartier-Bresson, George Roger and David Seymour), this member-owned agency has grown both in terms of scope and prestige. Over the ensuing years, the prestigious list of names has expanded dramatically, as have the enviable accolades and awards, ultimately bringing success to Magnum’s members that they likely would not have achieved on their own. Such cooperatives well serve a photographer’s ability to maintain focus on a particular niche while benefiting from the combined marketing effort and reputation of the group. Cooperatives require extremely careful pairing of personalities, however. Members must be more committed to the camaraderie of the group than serving their own egos. Roles and responsibilities must be carefully considered and well defined. More cooperatives have failed than succeeded in the past. Yet, this may well be a time when membership in such a group is the best way for a photographer to maintain viability.

Photography is a tremendously wide-ranging field and the opportunities within it are enormous. Those who excel will always be the ones who have an undying and unalterable passion for their work. Just how narrowly one defines that passion, however, is a matter worthy of careful and studied consideration.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Music  /  PotD
Stardom Quest
March 31, 2016
charles i. letbetter - stardom quest

Whenever I hear that I’m on the brink of stardom, I feel like I want to run into a cave. —Kate Bosworth

 

charles i. letbetter - Stardom Quest

Many people are looking for the fast track to stardom, but could that track be a dead end.

As easy as it is for people of my advanced age to look at the current generations of 20-somethings and think them slackers, I have to admit that, in reality, millennials and the Gen-Y folks coming after them seem to have an impressive amount of drive. Stardom seems to be coming to many, and for most of those, it is coming quickly, outside what we might consider “normal channels. Makers of mobile apps can become millionaires literally overnight if their apps become even remotely popular. Appearance on a talent show such as The Voice or American Idol can create a career where none previously existed. The allure of stardom is strong.

The Twittersphere went apoplectic yesterday when model/reality star Emily Ratajkowski posted the following picture:


Given Ms. Ratajkowski’s rather untraditional rise to stardom, hitching her wagon to that of another reality star of even bigger fame seems to make sense. Mind you, I’m not saying the message behind the tweets is in any way insincere, but this brand of do-it-yourself stardom requires constant maintenance; one has to create ways of constantly remaining in the public eye or one’s star begins to fade.

Retail fashion consultantAdheer Bahulkar wrote an article for WWD earlier this week which advocates a system wherein fast fashion gives rise to new, “fast” designers. The way he sees it, fast fashion outlets such as H&M and Forever 21 have a high demand for new clothes and by essentially turning young designers into brands themselves, the designers achieve a level of stardom much more quickly than they would through the normal path (which can take years).

The fast strategy of do-it-yourself stardom may be best embodied, though, by pop musician Lady Gaga. Looking at a music industry that was already overcrowded with less-than-spectacular talent, Gaga took the bizarre route with wild costuming and outlandish videos that forced people to stop and stare. After building an audience from sheer spectacle, she then dropped the facade and did an album with old-school crooner Tony Bennet, showing much to the surprise of many, that Gaga actually had the musical talent to justify her fame. Gaga turns 30 soon and already has the world by the tail.

As inviting as the fast track to stardom may seem, though, one might do well to question whether such an approach has any permanence. Too often, those who rise to the top quickly also fall into complete obscurity just as quickly. I can’t help but think of the line from the 1954 movie, On The Waterfront where a washed-up boxer confronts his reality:

You don’t understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let’s face it.

Consider self-made supermodel Kate Upton, who was a mainstay in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition from 2012-2014. She’s been completely absent from those pages the past two years, however, and unless she does something particularly outrageous, no one seems especially inclined to notice. Her stardom is not yet gone, but it has faded significantly.

Consider all those winners of American Idol, America’s Got Talent, The Voice, and even Project Runway. Where are they now? Only American Idol’s season 1 winner Kelly Clarkson has been able to keep hold of the fame given her in that fast track to stardom. The remainder still struggle to get noticed, with their reality show wins sometimes even working to their detriment.

Almost every field that yields celebrity is littered with names that were on everyone’s lips for a moment but are completely unknown to us now. Taking the fast-track to stardom is, more often than not, a roller coaster ride that often leaves one in a worse place than from where they started. At the very best, those who do manage to keep some level of shine find that they have to work even harder to keep from falling into complete obscurity.

Taking the fast track to stardom is tempting and there are so very many talented young people who seem poised to make that leap. Perhaps you are one of them. Just remember that, ultimately, no one makes a long-term career out of luck. Hard work has to happen if anyone is going to make the most of their skill and talent. Choose your path carefully. As arduous as it may seem, slow and steady still wins the race.

Continue Reading

Page 10 of 23