Zone 4 Zest

March 8th, 2010

This posting is an unsolicited plug for my sister Faith’s new blog Zone 4 Zest: Growing and Foraging for Fabulous Food in the North. I don’t live in Zone 4, nor do I have a garden, so a lot of her stuff doesn’t apply directly to me, but I always appreciate her writing because she has a kind of philosophical bent that I have always liked.

For me, she meets Alan Watts’ definition of a philosopher as a slack-jawed yokel who stands in awe before things that most other people find obvious or too mundane for serious, extended attention. I remember one time during a visit to her home in Vermont, she took me out into the woods because there was one particular tree she wanted to show me. When we found it, she presented it to me with the exclamation “Isn’t he handsome!”

I’ve been a frequent beneficiary of the edible fruits of Faith & Eric’s labor, but she topped it all two Xmases ago when she gave me a worm-bucket. I am now an avid urban vermicompster, and have been sharing my worms far and wide.

Faith once said to me, “Civilization will finally fall, when there are no more people in it who touch dirt every day.” Thanks to my worm-bucket I touch dirt… in my kitchen… every day. So go ahead civilization. Do your worst. Make your iPads and Academy award ceremonies… Faith and I have your back.

Check out Z4Z. Let it inspire you.

Monster cup-cake

January 18th, 2010

Rack & Soul is a very good place to get yourself some pretty authentic southern cooking here in New York City. I’ve reviewed it on Yelp.

But there’s something on the menu that I’ve never dared try…

Let’s assume that they’re referring to a human child here instead of a goat. Let’s grant them that.

So if a “kid” is a person from about 3 or 4 years of age on up to just about any age, then the minimum size of a “Kid-Sized Cupcake” is about 28 pounds! I mean JEEEEZE!!! That is a HUGE cupcake. Forget the cup! At that point it’s a huge CAKE! For only 3 bucks…

And this is “FOR KIDS?”

hmmmm…

…stay tuned!

Laminated street poetry, or weird political statement?

January 17th, 2010

There is a lot of scaffolding in New York City. Its everywhere. For bike riders, like me, scaffolding is often a very convenient form of bike-rack. So you often see bikes chained to scaffolding. And you also see signs telling you not to chain your bike to scaffolding.

But what’s up with this one?

One presumes that this is telling you not to chain your bike to this scaffold. But there’s a reason for the existence of punctuation. Although this sign is, I must admit, relatively clear, line breaks are not really punctuation (Or are they? Argument anyone?), so technically: “DO NOT CHAIN BIKES TO SCAFFOLD WILL BE REMOVED AT OWNERS EXPENSE” is like the title to an art installation or some kind of neo-haiku.

I choose to interpret the intention of this message as a mash-up between two ideas:

  1. There is something wrong with chaining bikes in general. It is an anti-bike chaining statement.

  2. The owner of this scaffolding is going to remove this scaffolding at their own expense.

Thanks buddy! I’m going to continue chaining my bike until you can explain why this is wrong. And although I never really thought very much about who pays for scaffold removal, I’m not sure why I should think about it either…

hmmmm…

…stay tuned!

Help Haiti

January 16th, 2010

I don’t have any personal knowledge specific to Haiti, but I do know this: These kinds of things are MUCH more urgent and extreme than they seem through the media filter. As hyperbolic as some of the coverage has been, I think it’s safe to assume that it isn’t capturing the scale and precariousness of what is going on.

If you didn’t hear Jason Beaubien’s on-air moment and the reaction to it on NPR, check out this story.

Partially because this blog started in response to the Katrina-Rita thing in the Gulf, I feel moved to use it to join the chorus of voices asking for help in Haiti.

We need to take these moments to not only reflect upon how fragile the systems that ensure our own physical security are, but to recognize that as people who CAN help, we MUST help.

I’m struck by the stymying of certain relief efforts by the destruction of critical infrastructure. All the high-tech aircraft in the world can’t help when the airports been destroyed. But at our end, far from the scene, technology actually helps us help. It makes sharing our own resources easier and (hopefully) more transparent.

There are tons of things you can do but the no-brainer, why-haven’t-you-already-done-it thing, if you have a cell phone in the US is to text “Haiti” to 90999. This donates $10 to the Red Cross, and as far as I can tell, this is on the up and up.

There are other ways to help. I won’t go on and on.

I’ve been appreciating the coverage on the Huffington Post.

The situation seems to be critical, dangerous and if not helped, headed towards something from Kormak McCarthy.

Here we are again…

December 28th, 2009

Another attempted bombing on an American airline.

The arguing that has already begun about this will continue. Everyone will see in this what they want. Everyone will trim their sails to take advantage of this particular gust of wind.

I don’t have any particular new or original information about the incident, or what was and will be done about it. But I have a couple thoughts, and one idea. These are things that I think are fairly clear.

The only way to absolutely prevent this kind of thing is to scan passengers for intent. We can’t do that yet. Not well. Sure it seems like a good idea to have things like no-fly lists, but then, as in this case you get into a whole argument about how we pick people for such a list. I’m sure that one of the effects of this will be a lowering of the bar for entry onto the list. I would expect the no-fly list to balloon, if it hasn’t already. This may or may not prevent another attempt.

I think I can say with some confidence that expanding the no-fly list will not absolutely prevent another attack. It will, however, absolutely guarantee an increase in the number of people who are on the list who have no intention of ever doing anything on an airplane but traveling. This increase will increase the number of people who have a pretty legitimate reason to be frustrated and angry with the US. And the cycle continues…

Do I have an answer? No (well I have one idea but we’ll get to that).

Do I think this guy should have been let on that flight knowing what I know now? No.

Do I think that it is possible to know what someone is going to do before they do it? No.

And this is the problem. We’re dealing with people. People with passion. Given the right circumstances almost anyone will commit terrorism. And given the right circumstances almost anyone will jump across airline seats to stop an act of terrorism.

So what do you do if you can’t scan for intent?

Our current solution to not being able to do this is presumption of guilt. We assume intent, so we try to remove the means. Let’s say I want to blow up a plane, and I try to get past TSA with a couple of bottles of fluid, disguised as shampoo, which constitute a binary explosive. What happens is that they take away my bottles and I go my smiling, if thwarted, way. If I’m sufficiently motivated, I’ll still try to do something. My intent is still there. To be absolutely consistent, it should be legal to carry explosives on airplanes. What should be illegal is the blowing up of airplanes. Of course its hard to come up with a good benign reason for having C4 in your carry-on, but we allow people to carry guns in all kinds of crazy places if they don’t seem to have criminal intentions.

I hate the current TSA checkpoints, and the regulations on behavior in the air (how is listening to my iPod while the plane is landing going to cause a problem?). And now they’re going to get worse. Great! As Harry Shearer said: “The passengers prevented a disaster, so let’s punish all passengers.”

Most solutions are not solutions to problems, but distractions from problems. (and if you’re going to fly, you better make sure that your solution is non-flamable and in a bottle that is 3.4 ounces or less.)

It has been a mental habit of mine to think as I go through TSA… “This would be easier on me if I thought it was actually helping.” I don’t say this out loud… I’m not a complete idiot, nor do I think hassling the employees of TSA is a sane or humane way of expressing anger about our society. But now we have a case in which despite all the hoops they make us jump through, this yahoo still gets to self-imolate on an airplane. So our response is, let’s do MORE of what we’re doing, because clearly we’re not doing ENOUGH. Instead of lets look at what we’re doing.

So here’s my suggestion (I don’t know how original it is): How’s about a licensing system. If you want to travel by air, you have to get a license. And society will check you out and decide if we think its safe to have you in the system, just like with guns and cars. I’m sure that if we imposed 24 hour sobriety checks on every street corner, we would save millions of lives, but we don’t do that. We check every passenger, every time they use air transport… and we still don’t do it well.

I mean if there were a well designed test, that determined my ability, and presumed willingness, to use the air-transport system without endangering society, then I should be allowed to do so without undue hindrance. And I should be issued a license card that allows me to identify myself as such. I’m sure we could come up with something here, and yes, such a system would be rife with abuse and problems, but so is the system we have, so let’s try SOMETHING!!

Aren’t we supposed to be the country that’s innovative in the area of human liberty? I know we haven’t been sometimes, but aren’t we supposed to be? Aren’t we supposed to be the country that inspires people to want to come here and be part of this interesting project? Rather than inspiring young men to come here to try to blow stuff up…

What do I know? I’m just a citizen, and that seems to mean less and less these days…

hmmm.

Idiom idiocy

December 21st, 2009

When you work in the performing arts, you end up changing your cloths a lot. I guess its the same for people in sports but most sports facilities have clearly defined dressing rooms etc. In theatre and dance a lot of times you find yourself (and others) changing in hallways and bathrooms and lobbies of studios etc. Its just not a big deal, and although there is reasonable measure of modesty, there is a certain looseness about this which is, I think, pretty darn healthy.

So I was very very surprised to see this sign in a bathroom at the Playwrights Horizon’s Theatre School.

Now I’m going to stay away from commenting on this jaunty, whimsical character who in other signs is seen admonishing us to “Do the ‘quiet in the hall’ thing!”. Let’s just say that I’m not a fan.

My problem with this sign is two-fold. First off, I think it’s actually a bit unreasonable to ask people to use stalls to change. My history teacher in high school, Paul Scott, taught me that you can tell what was going on in a society by looking at what laws they had. So I have to assume that there was enough changing going on in these bathrooms to make this policy necessary. However, forcing people into stalls seems unseemly on a number of levels.

And this leads to the bigger problem I have with it. The idiom “Caught with your pants down” means being caught doing something worthy of guilt. Obviously the origin of this is adultery. I know there are a range of attitudes about this kind of thing, but changing one’s cloths is not a bad thing. I mean modesty is modesty, but this IS a theatre school. And to even imply that there is something shameful about changing cloths is a “thing that makes me go hmmmm.” And I know the point here is to “Do the ‘clever with words on signs’ thing” but, again, this is a theatre school. I would think that textual analysis would have a role here.

So what is being said here is that changing your cloths is a dirty, stinky activity that you should feel guilty about. Another victory for the forces that seek to denigrate the body. And at a theatre school… nice!

And yes, I’m making a mountain out of a mole-hill here, but I am fascinated by idioms and am amazed at how easily mangled they become. For example: “The proof is in the pudding.” This makes no sense. The proof is NOT in the pudding. The correct idiom is “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” which actually makes sense.

hmmmm…

…stay tuned!

Ghosts on Google Maps

December 20th, 2009

One of the most interesting collisions between an implementation of a technology and the state of the art, is the Street View feature on Google Maps. I love it. I play around with it a lot. Wandering around streets near locations I am headed towards or places I know well. It works really well on the iPhone so I often check out the Street View view of places where I am. I was doing this last night while at the Westbank Cafe with Akiko celebrating Tater’s girlfriend Kelli’s b’day.

I was looking at Street View with Tater, which was interesting because it was snowing last night in NYC and the Street View shots show a beautiful summer day and the construction on 42nd Street, that’s going on there now, is non-existant. But then we noticed something very strange going on with the bus across the street.

It’s like some kind of spirit photography or something. The bus appears to be running over some kind of alternate reality of itself. If you poke around on Street View you see a lot of this same kind of weirdness. It’s reminiscent of the kinds of things you see in early photography, when exposure times were longer. But it comes from the fact that we don’t really have a way of capturing images in a way that would solve this. Its a collision between the nature of conventional photography and the nature of virtual reality. Unintentionally artistic.

All maps contain a hint of time as well as space, but Street View (and Satellite view for that matter) amp up the sense of time to the point where it becomes spooky and weird.

It also reminds me of the extreme photography of Michael Wesely. He does long exposures. VERY long exposures. Years long. Here’s a blog with some of his pictures. I saw some of his “Open Shutter” photos at MOMA here in New York a few years back, and they had a profound effect on my sense of time. The more something moves the less you can see it in the pictures. Trees turn into trunks that slowly fade to sharp points. The sun is a series of rough edged streaks across the sky. There are no people.

Time… hmmm…

Now I’m imagining a Street View made from multi-year exposures. No cars or people. Scaffolding becomes a ghostly veil on buildings. Some entire buildings are only faintly there…

I was standing on a street corner here in New York a while back and the Google Street View imaging van passed right in front of me. Something happened later that day and I forgot where I was standing when it passed. So I don’t know but I could be out there somewhere in Street View. Maybe I’m right on a stitch and half of me is blurred into a parking meter, or another person… Or maybe they’ve updated that street again since then and I’m gone…

I actually kind of like that I don’t know. But if you happen to see me, stop and say hello…

Shooting more complicated fish in a barrel…

December 3rd, 2009

This was on the wall outside a restroom at Narita Airport:

ostimate

I have a fairly large vocabulary, but I didn’t know what “Ostimate” was until I looked it up. It refers to a person who has had an “ostomy” which is (it seems) an entire class of surgical procedures dealing with the re-routing of urinary and excretory function. The most commonly known one being a “colostomy”.

So, this is an example of a sign that appears, at first glance, to be needlessly obtuse, but is in fact extremely helpful. I would assume that to someone to whom this notice is targeted, the utility and clarity is clear. There is no doubt. And I also assume that it is deeply and practically appreciated.

This humble blogger for one, is humbled. And educated. And more attentive as a result…

hmmmm…

…stay tuned!

Shooting fish in a barrel (pt. 2)

December 2nd, 2009

From a Japanese customs, entry form:

prohibited

Sorry. This picture isn’t so good. I’d like to draw your attention to item number 5, which states as prohibited articles: “Obscene or immoral materials, and Child pornography.” Here again there are two rather interesting implications.

  1. Child pornography is not included in the class of objects described as “Obscene or immoral materials.”

  2. In order to be in violation of this rule one needs to have BOTH “Obscene or immoral materials” AND “Child pornography.”

Oh what a difference that “and” makes.

hmmm…

…stay tuned!

Shooting fish in a barrel

December 1st, 2009

Finding mangled English in Japan is WAY too easy… But it’s still fun so here we go:

sauce

hmmm…

…stay tuned!