under thought

The recent Facebook bra color campaign has certainly caused a fascinating stir. As an awareness-raising effort for breast cancer, women posted a single-word status update on their facebook page, indicating the color of their bra, and quietly passed the message along exclusively to other women. Some think it’s genius, others take offense. What does it all mean?

I have a hard time finding fault in it. In the world of causes, publicity is everything. Publicists talk about the ideal campaigns as having ’sex appeal.’ Well, breast cancer has certainly cornered that market, for better or worse. But some are cautious to offer praise, as evidenced by recent blog posts on the topic. They are plentiful but here and there are a couple examples. Some feel that breast cancer is too serious an issue to play around with in Facebook ‘games.’ Maybe so. Some assert that the bra game includes no perspective on the real issue. Perhaps not.

But awareness has to start somewhere. That said, by now anybody who isn’t already aware of breast cancer probably isn’t going to be reached no matter what campaigns we try. So what’s the point then, if everybody who can be reached already knows? Can it provide for deeper enlightenment as time goes on? Will it encourage people to support efforts financially? Those are good things right? Does it matter if that support came from a person who really understands breast cancer, or if it comes from someone who was intrigued by learning the color of an acquaintence’s bra? Perhaps the latter source isn’t prompted by the ideal kind of inspiration, but isn’t it still a worthy contribution to the cause?

As a person who wrote a book about living with another chronic illness, I can assure you that not everybody is going to understand the full perspective of what it means to be sick or have illness in your family. In fact, many people won’t, even when they try hard. It’s a fact of life that, unless a person has personally been impacted by disease as a patient or loved one, they simply can not understand it fully, and even then it’s a challenge. But that’s not their fault. It’s not a flaw. Rather, it is a blessing because it means they are healthy and fortunate. Regardless, they can still be valid supporters. And we rely heavily on their generosity. They give on faith that what they are doing is important, without the benefit of full understanding. And that strikes me as the kind of donor worth keeping. Awareness campaigns try to capture attention and educate as best as possible. But nobody will ever understand as well as a patient or their close circle of friends and family, and inherently those who offer support may not always show it in the preferred ways—but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be valued.

I work with a medical foundation and one of our primary hurdles is awareness, because hardly anybody knows what the disease is or that it even exists. But then again, our chronic illness involves bowels instead of breasts, which is about as sexy as, well, diarrhea. We hold fundraising walks hoping for 200 people in small markets and 1200 in larger markets. In my little market the breast cancer walk had a turnout of 20,000. We literally drool over the kind of attention that Pink gets, and can hardly compete for donors. But we try, and we succeed. And I am pleased with whatever help we can get, whether it comes from sincere understanding or from a giggle about potty humor. My book uses humor to cover a difficult topic, so I definitely understand that there can be a fine line between lighthearted support and making light, and it can be hard to distinguish sometimes. But I am inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt when people offer their assistance, in whatever form.

We could debate whether breast cancer deserves its apparent royalty status as The Most Important Disease in the World, and whether ‘pink nausea’ will have a damaging impact somehow… but again, as publicists say, “All publicity is good publicity.” This bra color campaign is a publicist’s dream. It started apparently by itself, with nobody taking credit. It spread effortlessly to millions of people in a matter of hours. It has everything a good marketing campaign needs—mystery, intrigue, a sense of exclusivity that makes people want to play along, and most importantly, self-propagation… to the point that people are searching the internet and passing it on like wildfire without even knowing what it is. Plus, it’s FREE!

Is it altruistic? Is it action? I don’t know, but it’s incredible publicity, and that absolutely translates to awareness. Since it was primarily passed on by women, perhaps it also demonstrates the power of women’s solidarity. Regardless, it’s an accomplishment that I am sure will benefit the cause, without question. Maybe not directly, but perhaps it created a wave of hits to cancer support web sites, or other second-acts beyond the status update. It might not be the perfect solution, but it’s a blessing worth counting.

In my own private tribute to a friend who survived testicular cancer, I posted the color of my underwear that day, without explanation. Not surprisingly, my too-subtle message was misinterpreted as a joke about cross-dressing in a blue brassiere. But it makes me wonder why women should have the exclusive patent on awareness with sex appeal. Remember Livestrong? Lance Armstrong certainly has an appeal, being an eye-pleasing super-human athlete. He definitely captured the world’s attention with those bracelets. Still, with all that focus on testicular cancer, one could easily have gotten the impression that it’s a disease with just a single victim. And nowadays, I hardly ever see yellow through the sea of pink. For crying out loud, the whole of professional football wore pink for an entire month last fall.

So, what’s so different about Pink Power? Are breasts really that much more of an attention-getter? Apparently so. Maybe it’s the simple fact that it’s easier for a man to lose a testicle privately than for a woman to lose a breast. I don’t know.

Certainly the bra color campaign raises the question of whether it’s OK to exploit the sexy side of breasts for a good cause. Breasts are used to sell nearly everything. Is that contributing to the greater good? Busty attempts to sell magazines, cars, beer? Probably not. Flashy efforts to sell raunchy videos depicting the lowered inhibitions of drunken college co-eds? Definitely not. But what about a mission to save lives? With all the breast exploitation going on, might we at least hang on to the one form that is actually doing some good?

Make a difference:

American Cancer Society

Susan G Komen for the Cure

National Breast Cancer Foundation

Or whatever illness needs your help… here’s where much of my effort goes:

Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America

I came across this brilliant animated video today. It’s a great description of how we transitioned into a consumer society and started the ball rolling to destroy our planet in the process of making stuff for us to buy that makes us the least happy we’ve ever been. There’s also a great video there on cap & trade.

Please don’t be offended if I say “Happy Holidays.” If you thought I was just being politically correct, and think that I should be saying “Merry Christmas” instead, then, well, I ask you to consider that there’s more than one holiday in the season, and not everybody is celebrating yours. Isn’t there room for everyone’s celebrations?

The Jobless Rate for People Like You

I was intrigued by this interactive unemployment statistic generator.  It shows the progression of unemployment rates for more than 100 combinations of demographic characteristics.  You can look at the plots together on one graph, or filter by various combinations. There were two generalities that stood out for me, one surprising and the other not so much.

1. Using ‘all education levels’ the only category where women had higher unemployment than men was for hispanics over 25.

2. Selecting all races, genders, and ages, then selecting various education levels, a strikingly clear message emerges… STAY IN SCHOOL.

Periodically a relatively uninteresting problem presents itself. There is a solution—a crude, yet highly-effective one. Sometimes the simplest answers are the most profound. I love such elegant problem solving. But occasionally a solution comes along that is so bizarre that it brings utter fascination to the dull situation it resolves because of the strange and comical result it creates, despite being entirely practical. Awkward as it may be for its bearer, this solution is outright gleeful for the observer. Giggling seems to be the only appropriate response.

Some email chatter this week has been pointing a comical finger at the Hadron Collider, with what seems to be actual fear about the collateral damage it’s supposedly capable of. Many of the comments are coming from conservative minds who are adamantly convinced that global warming is scientifically bankrupt, meanwhile harboring paranoia about the impact of a basement science project in Switzerland.  They seem to think the “dumbass scientists” will accidentally destroy the world by leaving their lunch too close to the miniature black hole they created, setting off a sucking chain reaction that will engulf the world in a magical gravity vortex.

Dumbass scientists eh?  Wasn’t it the mortgage industry that bankrupted the world economy last year?  I think there are much more credible threats out there than an atom splitter—threats that damage us already, on a daily basis, that people are so eager to pass off as “gradual” or “not humans’ fault,” as if that should make them any less harmful.

All this talk about scientists—whack-jobs because they think that pollution is actually harming the world, and who are actually trying to broaden our knowledge of the universe and every working part of it… meanwhile Americans sit back in their lounge chairs and don’t really start jumping up and down about anything until the price of gas exceeds their comfort zone, or the wrong contestant wins American Idol.  Then they wonder why technology hasn’t fixed their problems yet, refusing to change their behavior about anything (which is really the best only way to solve our energy crisis and pollution problem).  Meanwhile, who do you suppose comes up with that technology they rely on to save the day?  That’s right, the dumbass scientists.

So Americans can go ahead and freely live their lives without a care in the world. Sucking money out of every industry they can (because the earned that right after all), at the expense of anybody who is stupid enough to trust anyone, including the government who feigns to protect them… while the dumbass scientists, mocked every time they propose something that asks people to actually DO something about their problems, eventually replace people’s responsibilities with technologies to do the work for them.

So who’s the dumbass? Probably me, for hoping that America is capable of stepping up to steer their own destiny someplace other than oblivion.

I can’t wait until the global-warming-naysayers convince us there’s no proof that humans caused gravity either… then they can all go jumping off buildings willy-nilly.

I use this air horn periodically for various purposes.  The most legitimate of which was to honk it as a starting gun for the CCFA Take Steps walks in Phoenix the last couple years.  But carrying around a tank and hose apparatus is not terribly convenient, and thus was born this fun project.

It’s made from an old truck air horn (purchased at a flea market for $15) and a five-pound ABC fire extinguisher (purchased at the Habitat Re-store for $10). I emptied out the chemical, cleaned the tank and parts, and removed the nozzle hose.  A trip to the hardware store provided the proper fittings to mate the nozzle outlet with the air horn.  I also removed the pressure gauge and replaced it with a T fitting, then re-installed the gauge and added a shrader inflator valve so I could pressurize the tank with a tire pump or air compressor.

It works GREAT and it’s really loud. This is the second incarnation.  The first used a 2.5 pound fire extinguisher which only provided 5-10 seconds of blast.  This tank, nearly double the size, provides 10-15 seconds.  The extinguisher lever makes a great actuator valve, and the entire unit is light and very portable.

One might wonder if there are safety issues with using a fire extinguisher for something other than its intended purpose… My initial inclination was that, since fire extinguishers of this type are filled to 195 psi and rated for three times that pressure, the 120 PSI my compressor is capable of providing is well below the normal pressures for this vessel.  I did some web research and concluded that there would be two concerns.

1. Fire extinguishers are not meant to withstand repeated charge/discharge cycles. I will address this by charging to a much lower pressure than it is designed for, and by replacing it periodically as it gets used to minimize the number of duty cycles.

2. These vessels are typically charged with inert gas which is inherently dry.  Using air will expose the tank interior to moisture which may cause corrosion that it was not designed to withstand.  I will address this issue by storing the tank separately from the valve assembly so that any moisture inside will dry out rather than fester inside.  I live in a very dry climate so this should work.  Replacing the tank periodically will also alleviate this concern.

I checked with a certain someone in my family who works at a top secret government lab and is trained and certified for working with pressure vessels.  These approaches were enough to satisfy his concerns.  However, if you decide you must have one of these, don’t take my word for it, your own safety is your own responsibility.

One of the sites in my blogroll, written by an old friend of mine, recently posted a harshly indicting post about former president Jimmy Carter’s memorable “Crisis of Confidence” speech given thirty years ago this week. The author calls it Carter’s “kick me” speech, but I see it differently. If anyone should be doing the kicking it should be Carter—and remember that sometimes the kicker, weak as he may seem, can win you the game. But you have to put him out on the field for that to happen.

Toward the end of his term, President Carter hosted a summit of Americans to help him try to shape our future. His address, also irreverently referred to as the “Malaise” speech, was a report on his findings, an evaluation of our national dilemmas of the time, and a proposed course of action. Little of what he proposed came to fruition, and some venture to fault him for it. While I can certainly appreciate how one could conclude it was an impotent presidency, I think they have it completely backward. If there’s anyone who should be shamed by this, it is us, America, and the politicians who followed in Carter’s footsteps.

Carter hit the nail on the head in nearly everything he says in this speech. He outlined exactly what our problems were, and exactly what we needed to do then, but we were too selfish to do it. Those ideals could only be called ‘absurdly ambitious’ by a country that wasn’t willing to do the work and make the necessary tough choices. Those goals stand unaccomplished, but not because they were too lofty and he was foolish to set them, it’s because we didn’t try. Look back a little farther in our history and it’s easy to see what great things this nation can accomplish when united in purpose, in much shorter time. Carter’s goals, especially those relating to energy independence, were absolutely astute, and should have been a cake walk if we’d put in the effort. Yet here we are thirty years later, confronting the exact problems he defined in this speech, only they are much more severe because we did nothing about them and they’ve compounded over time. That can not be blamed on Carter.

What Carter did in that speech was tell us what a good father would tell his children in the same situation. “Stop crying and start sweating.” Perhaps it wasn’t proper political scheming for him to present it to the people the way he did, thus allegedly costing him the election by allowing Reagan to exploit it divisively. But haven’t we been wishing long over for politicians to put their re-election aside and instead focus on what’s good for our country? Jimmy Carter was one of that rare dedicated breed who put country first and selfish concerns back, and this speech demonstrated it—perhaps to the peril of his political career. But Carter, in truth to his ideals of honesty, integrity, and hard work, trusted us to contemplate our future and take an active role in it. I refuse to fault a man for that, for that is exactly what we need in a leader. We feign disgust at the scarcity of politicians with character… well he was one of them, and now some would mock him for it because it was ‘poor politics’ from our current perspective. How sad a statement that is.

America heard what he had to say and chose a different path. That is not Carter’s fault. That rests on the shoulders of America’s selfishness and laziness—and that of its leaders. Subsequent presidents ignored Carter’s critical directives and we are paying the price now. So here we sit, having learned nothing from that history, facing the same problems Carter outlined in 1979, with politicians echoing the exact same concerns—only this time it’s come with the preposterous expectation that we can solve the problems without suffering any hardship or sacrifice. And we still have a confidence problem, but now it’s only more severe, and we feel even more entitled to have it solved for us without effort. Sadly, Carter had it right back then, it’s still right now, and we STILL won’t listen.

Carter’s speech did not demonstrate “weakness, indecision, mediocrity, and incompetence.” Rather it demonstrated honesty by frankly confronting what was unaccomplished, and vision by spelling out our key issues and proposing a plan. But, necessary as his contributions were, they are left unrequited. Certainly he did not accomplish during his presidency what he knew America needed. To his credit, however, nor have any of the presidents to come after him—they weren’t interested in solving those problems. There’s no better way to demonstrate that than to point out how Reagan removed the solar panels that Carter had put on the white house.

Finally, before we attempt to define a man by four meager years spent in the white house, it is important to recognize that reaching the presidency was not his crowning achievement. But that’s not the sign of a failed presidency; rather it’s the triumph of the noble life he continued afterward. He did not check out, turn in his keys, and ride the wave into obscurity. Instead, he went on to do greater things with his life than, well, pretty much anybody in recent history.

It is incredible what Carter has done in those thirty years as a civilian. This man has not only (literally) written the book on what a person can do to change the world for the better, he has lived it out with his life. While we were busy indulging ourselves as a nation, he poured out his own blood sweat and tears (and considerable leadership), investing himself in service to our nation and the world, creating organizations, change, and momentum that have had immeasurable impact, and teaching us how to do it in the process—for those who would listen.

For me he will go down as one of the very few truly great men—who set out a course for himself with purpose, stayed true to his ideals, and worked tirelessly to bring them to reality in whatever ways he could. That is what true heroes are made of. I would be proud to call him a visionary, a teacher, a leader. And I am still proud to have called him my president.

I couldn’t help it. After a year or more of tiresome warnings about BPA plastic formulations in lexan bottles made popular by elitist outdoor enthusiasts who later took joy in mocking the people who subsequently found them quite useful—essentially calling them posers by employing pretentious shunnings like the picture above (as if hard-core camping should be the only worthy application of a handy portable product), I have finally had enough.

BPA may be harmful to people if they consume food products stored and/or heated in containers made from the material. But, for crying out loud, not everybody used those for food! I used to love the square lexan Nalgene bottles for all kinds of non-food liquids and solids, for which the containers were nothing short of perfect. But, due to mass consumer hysteria, I can no longer acquire those products. Aargh!

This is largely driven by retailers such as REI (who think they’re looking out for us) and trendy publications like Outside Magazine (which seems to be written by a bunch of self-aggrandized outdoor-elitists who glibly assert that they’re the “real outdoors people” without actually saying so). Never mind the fact that chemistry nerds invented the Nalgene bottle for scientific purposes long before the kayaker/mountain-climber clique appropriated it as their membership card. While they’re busy trying to decide what color caribeaner to use for strapping water bottles to their backpack, the rightful Nalgene custodians are in a lab somewhere using them to cure cancer. I recently received an email from outdoor adventure supplier Campmor (and by recently I mean, like, five minutes ago, in the middle of the night) who was peddling aluminum alternatives, and I couldn’t help but respond:

Pardon my french, but f-u I liked the lexan bottles. :-) You know, not everyone used those for food and beverage. But no, we can’t have them anymore for laundry detergent, soap, or other sundries, because the general public threw a fit and got them taken off the market. Whatever. Freaky consumer hysteria. Baah. [Besides, drinking out of metal gives me the creeps, and it makes my teeth tingle—and if BPA causes whateverthefuck they say it does, then we should also acknowledge that aluminum causes Alzheimer's! How is that any better?]. Excuse me, it’s late and I’m a little punchy. Have a nice day.

That says it all.

Disgruntled is an understatement. After carefully orchestrating dinner such that everything comes out hot together (the gourmet combination of a sloppy joe and nuked frozen veggies), we sit before the TV to watch a movie. But by the time we have finished our attempts to skip through the compulsory previews, advertisements, legalities, and frivolously indulgent animated menu transitions, I’m already looking at an empty plate and wondering what’s for dessert—and the movie hasn’t even started yet. Fast-forward and skip commands result in the following message:

“Depending on the disc, this action may be prohibited.”

No shit? Sort of like how I may be wearing out the skip button with no effect? Or how I may be still waiting for the movie to start? Perhaps the person who wrote the instruction manual is responsible for the message. After all, they’re the one who said this about how to load a DVD:

“Please to place discs onto in tray and pushes button for enclosure of drawer.”

Regardless, why are there any prohibitions at all? Is this my DVD player? YES. Did I buy it? YES. Is this my DVD? YES. Did I buy it? YES. So why can’t I do what I want with it? Do I own this stuff or not? This is not a free web site that’s sponsored by commercials. This is not a free product that’s funded through advertising. (I can understand these cases, but they’re getting out of control too, more on that later). This is a physical product that I went to the store and paid money for. I OWN it. So why do they get to boss me around while using it?

It’s the studio forcing those restrictions in order to make us watch their ads. It’s their lawyers forcing us to watch that copyright message—first in English, then again in French (doesn’t the DVD coding specifically identify this as an American release? WTF?). But the directors are complicit as well. For example, what on earth makes them think I want to wait through thirty seconds of silly graphics between every menu command? Maybe some of that stuff looks cool, but cant’ they save that for the special (read useless) features reel?

How about we add a criterion to the reviewing system for DVDs… Let’s determine the minimum time from insertion of the disc to the first frame of the film and publish that information for each title. Maybe then they’ll get the message. Oh, but there’s no competition. You can’t get a movie from more than one production company. So, there’s no alternate source for the movie, and hence, no incentive for them to make it easy to use. I doubt the advertisements and menu frustrations will stop someone from watching a particular movie. And therein lies the catch. Captive audiences can be bullied into anything these days. And it keeps getting worse.

However, it turns out there is, in fact, competition in this regard—from movie pirates who remove those frustrating components from the discs. It begs the point to the movie companies who whine incessantly about copyright issues… stop making the product so difficult to use and we’ll stop finding ways around it! In a strange twist of fate, in this case the free version is the friendly one and the paid version is the one that’s annoying. If they don’t pick up on that they’ll only accelerate what they’re losing to pirates.

Anyway, back to the point, when I pay for a product, I should be able to use it on MY terms. But it doesn’t help matters that Apple fans will evidently give that up for anything that looks cool, regardless of what impediments to true functionality are enforced. Upon news of the latest [feature-crippled] gizmo, they run to the Apple store in droves—screaming, crying, and fainting—as if the Beatles were playing a show there. It’s a process by which they teach companies that we’ll bend over in whatever direction they shove us. Sadly, it’s evidence that such products can succeed, even in industries where there is competition that should eliminate the ‘features’ that annoy people. What’s next… gas pumps that blare ads at us while we pay exorbitant prices for gas? Oops, we already have that one. How about alarm clocks that won’t turn off until the ad has been played? I better shut up before I give them any more ideas they haven’t thought of (difficult as it may be to imagine).

But that doesn’t excuse the ‘free’ services either. TV shows are now obstructed by overlays that just a year ago were a small corner logo, but have now turned into half-screen animated slaps in the face. Technology had already solved the older annoyance of commercial breaks (Ahh, TIVO, yet another example of how TV got so miserable that we will pay, even a monthly fee, to get around it [never mind the fact that TIVO also has ads of its own now too in its menus {and it will only be a matter of time before we find a techie solution to that problem as well}]) so now broadcasters are striking back with a new approach which itself may one day be challenged by some hero’s cleverness.

One of my favorite satires of this concept is in the movie Idiocracy (pictured above). The TV program is relegated to a tiny rectangle in the middle of a wide frame of whiz-bangy flashing ads that put a carnival midway to shame. It looks a lot like watching programs on the web now, actually. However, in this case it’s hardly tragic to mourn such a concept when the program being watched is “Ow, my balls!” which is nothing more than a series of video clips depicting the show’s host experiencing every conceivable crotch trauma. Trust me though, it’s part of the satire, especially when you consider that the lounge chair the viewer sits in has a built-in toilet.  If you haven’t seen the movie, click here for a sample video.

Ugh. It just makes me tired. So before I close, permit me one last question about an eleven second annoyance that’s taking years off my life… what is my DVD player thinking about all that time while I wait for the drawer to open? Can’t they be playing an ad while I wait for that?