Offshore eyesore

I recently listened to a program discussing the Offshore Drilling proposal being debated in the US at present ("A Closer Look at Offshore Drilling" TotN 8/11). After hearing both sides of the debate and trying to stay open to the arguments, the supposed benefits just don't seem to add up.
To think this would lower the price consumers pay for energy, especially at the pump, is lofty at best. Any oil would not affect oil prices for the next 30 years according to the Department of Energy (as quoted in the program), and even then would be a pebble in the ocean.
Those supporting the option then turn to the argument that these platforms are much safer than they were 30 or 40 years ago and we should ignore the oil slicks or accept that they are just natural occurrences. A further extension of this argument says that oil barge accidents result in more oil being dumped in the ocean in a single case than over an entire year for these offshore platforms. Still another argument says that windmills kill birds too so might as well just stick with what we know. This "lesser of two evils" argument seems childishly stubborn and there are too many tar covered beaches to be duped into believing it.
On the other hand, to keep the moratorium in place and avoid having States compete over who will buy their shorelines would force us to look towards other forms of energy--for which there are many. I believe the argument comes down to "renewable" versus "non-renewable". That's been at the crux of the problem for a long time, and we've been faced with this since the 70's at the latest. So the benefit of exploiting oil resources offshore is not only at the expense of desecrating the environment, but also at the risk of putting off development of renewable energy sources even longer. At some point we have to accept that we need to move in a different direction and that it is better done now than later (see the Stern Review for more on that).
After the housing bubble, I hope people realize that they need to do something to prevent firms from feeding off what is common property (i.e. "tragedy of the commons") and exploiting what they call "externalities" (which really means taking what is not theirs), and giving very little in return or assuming they can lean on the public who will always sacrifice for the greater economic good.
Actually, the problem is not exploiting natural resources. The problem is when those resources are finite/non-renewable, dirty, and come at the expense of the public economy and general well-being. If something is renewable/sustainable, then there is a level at which we can exploit it at very near zero sacrifice. The Alaskan pipeline didn't free us from the corner we've painted ourselves in, and offshore drilling won't either. This is just new wallpaper on an old problem when, in fact, it's time to start thinking outside the box and breaking down some walls in order to construct new ones.

It's gonna be hot

Okay, this was featured on NPR's Bryant Park Project, and then I found a "remix". I don't think there will ever be a more interesting newscast... but maybe that's what it takes when you're a weatherman in Haiti.

Testosterone

I just listened to the National Public Radio show This America Life (TAL) on the way to work. This week's episode was about "Testosterone". Yeah, I know, no need to roll your eyes; actually, you'd be surprised how interesting it was. For one, everyone on staff at TAL was tested for their testosterone level, and as you can imagine, there was a bit of emotion over what the results would be. The guy who came out with the lowest level felt crushed and lamented, something along the lines of, "If this were SportsCenter, I'd feel alright about having the lowest level, but on public radio?! If I can't have higher levels than anyone on public radio, then all is lost!" And the irony? The guy with the highest level of testosterone, twice most other people on staff, didn't even know what SportsCenter was.
But this got me to thinking on a slightly different topic: How geeky, really, is public radio? Is it just a complex that people who are on public radio have, or do you really have to be a nerd to listen to it. I listen to it constantly, and my own mother has told me, "I'm glad we both have that nerd trait". Recently she professed that she bought a new iPod nano and is downloading TAL too.
With the theme of the last TAL podcast being testosterone, I gave this concept of public radio listeners as nerds - and hence low on the testosterone totem pole - a bit of thought. Of course during the program, I wondered what my own testosterone level might be. I'm not very muscular and not as bold in character as someone who might have high levels. Or could it be unexpectedly high? Afterall, I'm adventurous enough to live overseas and I'm a member of a public speaking group. Or I could be, as statistics would naturally suggest, simply average.
But what does listening to public radio show about where one might fall on that scale? Well, according to my analysis of things, listening to podcasts of NPR on the way to work teeters more on the high testosterone side of things. You don't agree?
If I were driving to work and listening to public radio, then of course that would be different. Driving, especially in a city, is aggressive, and to keep your adrenelene high, then you should listen to something with a bite to it (whether that be some funk, alternative or drum n' bass). On the flip side of course is that businessman driving a BMW and listening to classical music - smug knowing that he has his own parking spot waiting for him at the office.
If I were listening to public radio 15 years ago, chances are that I would be stuck within earshot of a big, fat electronic device, tuned ever-so-carefully so as not to get any static over the voice of my beloved radio show host. That image is somewhat scary, yes, and also sounds so stationary that it's no wonder that the word nerd - if not recluse - would be associated with the act (and I fear that many of the hosts on NPR today were those nerdy recluses 15 years ago, but that's beside the point).
Times have changed. Now with podcasts, I am "on the move" in an urban setting, and yet waiting for my destination on the train. I don't need to expend much energy to be aggressive aside from the split second you get to grab a seat should one open up. On the train, listening to music can go with your mood and certainly brighten up your day. But day in and day out on the train, I find that I need a little bit of narrative; more than just tunes that will absorb me, I need something that will engage me and public radio somehow provides this.
By the time I get to work, I usually have had time to listen to a complete show, and I feel charged and ready for the day, full of ideas and thoughts, commentary and sometimes wonderment. Today I also find myself unexpectedly wide-awake. It could be that it's Friday, sure, but it still runs counter to the few hours of sleep I got this week. But try and tell me today that public radio is only for geeks and nerds, and I will smugly chorttle and boldly tell you that your disinterest in the world around you displays a lack of desire that indicates low levels of testosterone.

Can you spell copyright?

Just in case you couldn't get enough of Free Rice, here's another way to dedicate a few hours of your life: Scrabulous.com


Just hurry up, because Hasbro has been alerted to the site since it became widely popularized on Facebook, and is gearing up for a lawsuit. Hear more on that from NPR:
The End of Scrabulous? (Jan 14)

and here: Hasbro Urged to Buy Rogue Scrabble Site (Jan 15)

Home Alone

Every Monday I download the podcast of the radio program This American Life on NPR in Chicago. It is something I look forward to every week along with a half dozen or so other radio podcasts, but TAL is easily my favorite.
This week's offering featured the theme "Home Alone" about those in our society who chose to live alone in life. It's not hard to recognize the stigma related to this "phenomenon" of people who are thought to be deviant or intrinsically lonely based on this one factor of single dwelling. Then again, it's not hard to understand why that stigma exists; human society is intrinsically interdependent. We are not brought into this world single-handedly, but it is our choice in how we will live in this world, and inevitably, - to quote the popular television series "Lost" - we may live together, but we die alone.
Personally, when I first moved to Japan for four months as a student back in 1997, people were astounded at the fact that I knew no one where I was going. But I wasn't worried because I knew that there would be others there that I would get to know; and I did. Besides, the previous year I went to India for three months not knowing a soul, and ended up discovering enough beautiful souls that India still occupies a special place in my heart today.
I have experienced communal living in dormitories with roommates or housemates. I have lived with a Japanese family that housed and fed me for three months, expecting little in return (at least at first). And I have lived with my girlfriend/fiancee for over two years now. These have all been valuable experiences for me that I wouldn't trade for the world, however I also value the times when I have lived alone. For two years in the Japanese countryside, I had my own apartment and few visitors. For about one year in Kyoto, I lived in an apartment near the university I was attending, cycling back to my empty apartment in the middle of the night after finally closing my books for the day. Some of those days were lonely, and some of those nights I wished for nothing more than to be with my family and loved ones. But I recognized that there is a value in living alone and building up a sense of security in who you are as a single entity.
In the end, though, I think we all want to be part of the world around us. Those who cringe from that are indeed oddities to some extent, but only if they try to banish the outside world. For most people living alone, they enjoy that private space where they are free to invite people in or retreat to the peace and quiet of their own existence for a little while. And in some ways, these are the stable bastions of society who go against the grain and snap stereotypes like the brittle, bare-bone ideas they are. Afterall, I certainly can not deny that I look forward to putting on my headphones and fading into a different world, listening to the stories of TAL or even the daily news. Even on the crowded trains of Tokyo, instead of feeling like an isolated sardine in a metal box, I can close my eyes and be someplace else. Even alone, we know when we are home.

Harold Washington

Back in the early eighties, there was still a lot of civil strife in the City of Chicago. Things had possibly come to a head with the assassination of Martin Luther King, but that was hardly the end of it. What really marked a turning point in Chicago was the election of the city's first black mayor, Harold Washington.
Harold Washington passed away from a heart attack 20 years ago this month, on November 25, 1987, at the age of 65 and to commemorate his legacy, WBEZ public radio ran a feature called "Harold". You can hear the program free online at This American Life (www.thislife.org) through their November 9th episode #84.
One of the things that struck me as I began to listen to this episode was how much Chicago has changed over the past 20 years. Back when Washington was elected in 1983, the black and white areas of the city were still very much segregated. The unemployment rate in the black neighborhoods were some 25% and the projects were referred to by city officials as "the colonies". One alderman featured on the WBEZ episode said that the pressing issue in those neighborhoods was cleaning it up, literally, by trying to figure out what to do with all the garbage. But of course, at that point in time, before Chicago had any curbside recycling programs or "blue bag" projects, we all thought our social problems of race and gender were the pinnacle of civil movements. And it's true; we can't move on to issues that require cooperation and citizen involvement if massive portions of our society are externalized.
So now that environmental issues have been pushed up to the forefront, does that mean that we have reached a point in civil society where equality amongst humankind is finally recognized? Well, with the two leading Democratic candidates for President being a black man and a woman, and people putting accepting these candidates as viable ones, it certainly gives one hope.

Musical language

Yesterday I listened to an excellent episode of the radio program Radio Lab that covered the topic of music in relation to language. In the program they interview a professor who studied human ability for "perfect pitch" (that is, the ability to be able to identify any note upon hearing it without having to run to the piano) amongst different language speakers. The comparison between those who spoke English as their mother tongue and those who spoke Mandarin Chinese as their mother tongue were astounding: Chinese speakers were NINE TIMES more likely to have perfect pitch than their English speaking counterparts (all participants were students of music). Since tonal languages like Chinese and Vietnamese have a broader range of sounds that are constantly produced by the speakers at the same pitch, this suggests there may be a connection in the language we learn as infants and our ability for our brains to make sense of the sounds we hear. English is not a tonal language, yet plenty of speakers of non-tonal languages have become famous classical musicians, so this is not to suggest that one group has some special ability that others do not. But it does suggest, along with later content in the show to back this up, that we are able to accommodate new sounds and sound patterns over time (think of that song on the radio or CD you own that you have to hear 2 or 3 times before you decide you like it), however, until we adjust to these sound patterns, they are more-or-less gibberish to our ears.
In any case, as a music lover and a language learner, this was fascinating to me. It also puts some weight to the theory of playing Classical music to infants or even while a baby is still in the womb. It is said that this could increase the child's capacity for intelligence. If anything, it seems feasible to me that introducing the broad range of sounds that are contained in Classical music to a child at a young age would strengthen their acute hearing ability so that they are able to identify not only musical notes (as in "perfect pitch") but also the emotion expressed in human speech, the fine points of foreign languages and pronunciation, and maybe even assist in the complex thought process.
On a different note (no pun intended), think of the popularity of rock n' roll and later forms of music. Not only are they easy for people to relate to and identify with, but something like heavy metal music, that uses simple and sometimes dissonant musical chords, may resonate with someone who is feeling inner turmoil. Likewise, expressive singers may invoke emotions that we otherwise would suppress or pay little attention to. Even some pop musicians could trigger a sense of unity and calm our nerves by the simplicity of their music. At any rate, the affect music can have on our mood is nothing to be ignored, and understanding the language of music could help us to communicate better ourselves. By adapting to various types of music and acclimating to a broad range of patterns in sound, we are opening up our mind to new possibilities and possibly a solution to some conundrum that, up to that point, seemed like gibberish.
(link to Radio Lab episode)