Tomser's Blog

I recently saw two different productions looking to bring new insights to well-known historical narratives. One was a revival of the 1969 musical “1776”, with a racially diverse cast of women, nonbinary and trans actors playing the founding fathers. The other was the movie “Elvis”, which focused primarily on the singer’s relationship with his manager, Colonel Tom Parker. Both highlighted the never-ending attempts to reinterpret events, and the difficulty in doing so.  

1776 deals with the debate among Continental Congress delegates in the months leading up to the issuance of the Declaration of Independence. There is no verbatim record of that debate, so the writers were free to shape the arguments, as well the relationships between the various representatives. The play’s goal is to highlight the issues that separated the states, including the elephant in the room, slavery, while having Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, et al., croon largely forgettable tunes.

The Director behind this revival said that she decided to stage the play with this diverse cast “to hold history as a predicament, rather than an affirming myth”. I take that to mean that she wants the audience to appreciate the compromises the Philadelphia delegates had to make to unify around a Declaration. There is also no doubt that she wanted to stress the irony of white men seeking freedom and equality, while at the same time reaffirming their commitment to holding many in bondage and excluding those represented by this cast.

The problem is that the casting ends up undermining the irony. It is the fact that it is a bunch of white men, many of them slaveholders, spouting these high ideals, that makes you cringe. Watching others express those views somehow makes them more acceptable, though I am sure was not the intent. The only part of the play where the alternate casting did add was at the beginning and end when the actors slip into, or out of, the colonial accoutrements they wear through most of the show. That was a subtle and effective reminder that the outcome of the debates in 1776 still resonate with us today. 

That being said, it is hard to imagine the play being presented with traditional casting. The dilemmas being dramatized, and the aftermath of the decisions made, are too well known to enjoy watching white men alternate between rousing speech making and clever show tunes. The excellent mixed cast made that palatable, if not enlightening.

The stakes in Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis are not near as weighty, but it is still the depiction of a story that may be better known than that of the Continental Congress. How do you bring fresh insights into the rags to riches tale of the boy that made rock and roll the dominant musical genre? Can you make the audience understand what the pressures must have been must in the eye of that hurricane?

Luhrmann takes the odd tack of telling the story through the lens of Colonel Parker. It keeps us at a distance from the main character, the only one we care a whit about. We sense the push and pull of Elvis’ devotion to his music and his love of family, but it as if we are viewing it from the rafters. We want to know how Elvis reacted to being revived so he could appear on stage, or be on board Elvis’ plane, the Lisa Marie, when he realizes that his career is, and has been, conscripted, but we’re not allowed those pleasures.

Even though neither of these historical retellings was satisfying, I appreciate the effort. It is essential that we constantly reexamine and reevaluate the historical record. It is naïve to assume that any version of historical events is sacrosanct, or that there is easy path of cause and effect that can explain why something occurred.

The signing of the Declaration of Independence is a great example. The official story may be that it was pushed through by a group of like-minded great men with high ideals, pushed to the brink by British perfidy. Or was it a move by aristocrats consumed with their own business interests, calculating that a break with the British empire would free them unwanted economic strictures? Or was the movement towards revolution more grassroots, with ordinary citizens from all walks of life willing to take up guns and fight the British? Does causation differ if we look at Boston merchants, firebrands like Thomas Paine or South Carolina slaveholders?

The Elvis story engenders its own perplexities. What was it that caused Elvis to be such a phenomenon, and what sparked the violent backlash against him? Was it the undoubted sexual vibe that Elvis projected? Was it the black music that he drew from? Was it tied to the conformity of the 1950’s? Was he shacked by the Colonel, or was it as much his own choice?

Part of the on-going response to “woke” culture is an attempt to put our history into a box, especially when it comes to teaching in schools. Following the examples of authoritarian regimes, history is to be viewed as a propaganda tool to instill patriotic fervor. Facts and interpretations that undermine that goal, especially if they are uncomfortable, are to be minimized, or weeded out.

Any such effort to propagandize history will certainly kill it, and maybe that’s the goal. Nothing is more boring than a straight recitation of historical events. History only comes alive when it can be debated. When you try and determine cause and effect. When events are not just facts, but gateways to a broader understanding of where we have been, and how it impacts what we are today.

I don’t remember much about my high school courses, but I do vividly recall Mr. Jay’s 11^th grade history class. He taught history as an on-going discussion to be consistently reevaluated. I recall one assignment in particular when he divided the class into groups and gave each a possible reason for American entry into WWI to support. A bunch of 16-year-olds screaming at each other about whether it was submarine warfare, the Zimmerman telegram or economic interests that led us into war sticks with you, and makes you want to dig deeper.

History is complex, both factually and emotionally. Arguments about what we humans did and why can get heated. Uncomfortable truths about what occurred years ago can lead to demands for action now.* But attempts to shove the past under the carpet are both wrong-headed and ineffectual. So, for all their flaws, bring on more in the spirit of “1776” and “Elvis”. We need it.             

*Shamelessly stolen from George Orwell’s 1984. “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

*See Ta-Nehisi Coates incredible essay, “The Case for Reparations”.          

The 1755 Lisbon earthquake remains one of the most devastating in recorded history more than 250 years after it wreaked havoc on Portugal. According to Wikipedia, the death toll from that quake has been estimated at around 50,000. The city of Lisbon was basically flattened, as was the surrounding countryside and much of northern Morocco. Innumerable irreplaceable works of art, book collections and historic documents were consumed in the fires that followed.

I thought of the Lisbon quake while reading the news about the earthquake that recently hit Turkey and Syria. Last I read, the death toll from that quake exceeds 45,000, and will no doubt go higher. As with the Lisbon quake, the property damage is extensive, taking in such major locales as the Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş Provinces in Turkey (home to approximately 3.4 million people). Historic buildings were leveled, and ancient artifacts destroyed. *

The level of the destruction caused by the Turkey earthquake was not what suggested the Lisbon quake. That came when I read a report about the Turkish rescue workers yelling “Allah Akbar”, generally translated as God is Great, whenever they pulled a survivor out of the rubble. Immediately my cynical western mind began to wonder whether those being rescued felt the same. While I sure they were happy to be alive, they were likely facing the loss of family and friends, not to mention most of their possessions. They may agree that God is “great”, as in powerful, but would they think God is “good” considering those losses?

The Lisbon quake sparked that very question. It has been cited as a catalyst for the enlightenment, especially it’s reevaluation of religious beliefs. Voltaire in particular was moved by the devastation of the quake to dispute accepted notions of God’s goodness. His searing satire, Candide, mercilessly skewered the notion that God was a benevolent creator who must have made this “the best of all possible worlds”, as posited by Gottfried Leibniz. He was branded an atheist and a heretic, but the question remained.

This question was dramatized in the 2008 movie “God on Trial”, based on an Elie Wiesel play. In that film internees at Auschwitz debate whether God has broken his covenant with the Jewish people in allowing the Germans to commit genocide. They first pose the generally accepted answer that God must allow people to choose actions that lead to horrible results because of the importance of human freedom of will, but ultimately reject that platitude as unsatisfactory. They continue the debate, ultimately concluding that no, God is not good. Faced with that conclusion, and the question of what to do next, they begin to pray. It is a powerful moment.   

More recently, the Oscar nominated movie “Women Talking”, raised the same issue. In this film, women in a Mennonite-like community have been subjected to horrendous sexual abuse from the men of the commune. They have been instructed by the male leaders that it is their religious duty to forgive the seemingly unforgivable. They debate whether to submit or leave. Though it is not stated as starkly as in God on Trial, underlying the entire discussion is the question of how this could happen in a supposed God-centered community. They are debating not only a pragmatic choice, but the core of their religious beliefs, and their concepts of God.

The ultimate discussion of this question is in the biblical book of Job, arguably the most powerful book in the Jewish and Christian canon. What distinguishes Job is that here God actually responds to the charges. Job is a prosperous farmer known for his piety. “The Adversary”, often translated as Satan, suggests that Job is pious only because he has significant material and personal assets. God gives Satan permission to strip away everything that Job has (family, wealth, health) to see if he still retains his faith.

Job’s neighbors suggest that Job must have done something to deserve the misery that God inflicted upon him, but Job will have none of that. He proclaims his innocence and piety, and we know from the earlier discussion between God and the Adversary that he speaks the truth. It is therefore left for God to speak in his own defense.

God’s answer to Job goes on for over 125 verses. It is hard to read without thinking that the deity doth protest too much. The diatribe is a testament to God’s power, which has not been questioned. It is not, however, a justification of the use of that power to injure an innocent man, unless you buy that might makes right.

Soren Kierkegaard tackled this dilemma by proclaiming the gap between the religious and ethical as a paradox. There is no rational reason that can bridge the gap. It is an absurdity that cannot be reconciled except by a leap of faith. Any search for an explanation is a waste of time, missing the point.    

Job certainly takes this leap of faith. In response to God’s litany Job repents, though it is unclear what he is repenting of, and returns to unquestioningly worshiping God**. This is, to some extent, also the response in “God on Trial” and “Women Talking”. The Jewish internees return to prayer, and the women continue to praise God, even though neither group can reconcile what has happened to them.

I think this attitude explains to a large extent the exultant cry of the Turkish rescuers. They may well understand the religious conundrum they face, just as Job did. However, they have elected to retain faith despite questions that cannot be answered. Most likely many of those pulled from the rubble adopted this same attitude and rejected the Voltairean cynicism as well.

As a child of the enlightenment, it is not so easy for me. The rational predominates. If I cannot explain it, I cannot accept it. I struggle to reconcile the response of Job. I struggle to see any greatness or goodness in these earthquakes, the holocaust or the fate of the women in “Women Talking”. And yet, I appreciate those who maintain a faith that can withstand the worst that can be thrown at them. I respect their steadfastness; I just don’t understand it.

This is just one of those never-ending questions that will plague man forever. There is no right answer, or right response. Maybe you react like the Jewish internees and continue to pray. Or maybe, like Voltaire, you deride the entire notion of goodness in the world. Each of us must decide on our own. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you”.

*Some accounts suggested that part of the reason that the devastation in Turkey was so extensive was because of Turkey’s notoriously lax building code enforcement. Just saying.

**Job’s wealth and family is restored in a way that seems to suggest that spouses (or at least wives) and children are as fungible as camels and sheep. Somewhat cringeworthy in my book.

Those dirty Commie bastards. They finally did it. They showed their true colors by launching an outrageous spy operation, violating our sacred space. What was surprising is how old school the operation was. Or maybe not. After all, Chairman Mao did say in his Little Red Book, Chapter 8, Quotation 6, “There’s no school like old school” (admittedly a loose translation).

The first Chinese spy balloon was first cited floating over Montana. Who knows what information it had gathered by the time it was spotted. The pinkos probably know the status of the new strip mall going up in Bozeman at West Oak Street and N. 7^th Avenue, near the Walmart Supercenter. They certainly would have seen the new well being dug at the Tail Waggin’ Ranch, just north of Holland. I wouldn’t even put it past them to have jettisoned something to poison that well (bye, bye Toto).

The sad thing is that this is certainly just the tip of the iceberg, not that we’ll hear anything about it from the lamestream media. For example, you probably did not know that the Three Percenters militia (named for the portion of their brains they use) captured banditos crossing the Mexican border while carting ten crates of Junior Birdmen decoder rings. The border guard dismissed it as a harmless prank, but we know better.

And then there was the shipment of disappearing ink that showed up at the Leon Trotsky Elementary School in Pocahontas, Arkansas. The ink was cleverly used to mask the 4^th grade writing assignment on the efficacy of critical race theory, wiping out all trace of this attack on American goodness before it could be revealed. Luckily, Governor Huckabee is on the case. You go girl!!!

It’s not just technology that has infiltrated our borders. Because what would technology be without the humans to operate it? Here too we have inconvertible proof. Strange characters have been seen in multiple locales (Zolfo Springs, Florida and Sulphur, Oklahoma, just to name a few) employing highly sophisticated communication devices. Deny these pictures, if you can.

OK, maybe I am dismissing this all too lightly. As of now, four floating aircraft have been shot down. I like to think that there is a real reason for this, and we are not just overreacting because we don’t want to seem weak (as if deflating a balloon with an F-22 jet is somehow a show of strength). It is just hard to imagine what vital information can be gathered in this quaint fashion.

Even if I could get over the innate silliness of this whole affair, it would strike me that, once again, we are focusing on the wrong things. On February 6, the FBI arrested two white supremacists, one of whom had started the neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen, and accused them of plotting to attack multiple energy substations. According to the news reports, their goal was to inflict “maximum harm” on the power grid, so as to “completely destroy” Baltimore. That arrest barely caused a blip. Maybe if they had planned to attack with a catapult, we would have paid attention.  

Attacks on vulnerable power sources has apparently become a strategy adopted by radical groups in the United States. In December, shots fired at a substation caused 45,000 North Carolinians to lose power for several days. Power grids were also targeted in Oregon and Washington. These attacks go far beyond information gathering to very real attempts to inflict significant harm to people and property.

The threat of cyber-attacks is even more troubling. Unfortunately, the political wrangling over the 2016 election seems to have prevented any real response to the Russian cyber terrorists who hacked into Democratic National Committee systems, accessing e-mails and other private data. So, it wasn’t surprising that in 2020 the State Department, Treasury, Department of Homeland Security, and Pentagon were among the governmental entities breached. Per usual, we were so focused on laying, or avoiding, blame that there was little public furor, or clear organized effort to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Maybe it’s a function of the social media driven world we live in. These serious threats just don’t have visual allure of balloons. Try creating a funny meme out of an attack on a sub-station, or the theft of data. It can’t be done. Yet, the consequences of these attacks are potentially so much more profound. 

Of course, I am as guilty as anyone. You didn’t see a blog post on the substation arrests, or the cyber-attacks, did you? I waited until the balloon presented me with the chance to crack some goofy jokes and reference one of my all-time favorite TV shows, before I gave any real thought to the nature of the threats that exist.

You hope that those in the government agencies responsible for homeland security are looking at a broader picture. I like to think that there are directives flowing out of the oval office to employ any 16-year-old computer whiz kid able to hack Target to develop systems countering cyber-attacks. I like to think that there are plans being hurriedly drafted to protect our power supply. Sorry to say, I just don’t have the confidence that’s happening to the extent it should. It’s just not as cool as sending out jets to decimate the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade. After all, that would be a great meme!!!

After the New Orleans Saints won the Super Bowl in 2009, sports pundits fell all over themselves to claim that this victory helped the New Orleans community heal from Hurricane Katrina, which occurred in August of 2005. The devastation from Katrina was such that even 2.5 years later many were dispossessed, neighborhoods were a shell of their pre-Katrina vibrancy and rebuilding had just started. Yet, all the city needed was a football win and it was back, baby.

Not surprisingly, politicos lined up to echo this scenario. They were happy to have residents, and the rest of the country, focus on the positive vibes of the Saints’ triumph rather than the slow response to the tragedy. Voices that pointed this out were drowned by the feel-good story of the Saints. People were once again dancing on Bourbon Street, and what else really mattered.

This was a quintessential example of sports claiming more than it can offer. The sports world is always trying to justify its existence beyond the playing fields by citing the business it generates, the good will it engenders and the role it plays as an integral part of a community. Something like the Saints win becomes a cure for all evil, and a tonic for civic pride.

It is no great revelation to say that pro sports is the epitome of hypocrisy. Listening to league execs, you would think that the fans are the most important item on their agenda. And yet, every decision is designed to enhance revenue, even if it is at the expense (literally) of the fans. The cost of tickets goes up. Legalized scalping (also known as Stub Hub) increases the expense even more. You can stay home and watch the game on TV, but television deals are cut to maximize commercials, making viewing interminable.

Players are no better. They love the fans when the cheers are pouring down. Who wouldn’t? But when bad play causes the fans turn on them, it’s another story. Time and again players react to fan displeasure through a universal one-finger symbol of disgust, if not worse. To many, the fans are there to idolize them, no matter what. All I can say is that those players better avoid Philly.

The odd thing is that despite all of that there is some truth to the hyperbole. There is an undeniable jolt of energy that passes through a community going through sports success. We are seeing it now here in Philly. It started with the Phillies improbable trip to the World Series and continued straight into Eagles run to the Super Bowl. It is invigorating to walk through the streets and see waves of Phillies red, or Eagles green.

The fan base exists in a world separate and apart from the execs and the players. They have seen ownership change, bonehead coaching, stars come and go, bad trades and bust draft picks. And still fans power on. Fans may say they have had enough, but they are one upset win or mega-signing from being back aboard the train they never really left.

Playoff runs are the payoff for that loyalty. It’s a validation for all of those wasted Sunday’s watching anther dispiriting loss to a hated rival. It makes worthwhile all those September nights watching your team blow a five-run lead and slide into oblivion. It rekindles the unbridled joy you felt as a kid watching your favorite player take the ball the length of the floor and dunk over some bum you can’t stand because of the uniform they wear. (You know who you are Larry Bird).

And yes, that joy is contagious. It pulls in people who could generally care less about sports. A green jersey, or a red hat (not MAGA) gets you a smile. Casual conversations with a stranger in line about the upcoming big game are the norm. The generally meaningless chatter with Lyft drivers become spirited debate about the keys to victory.

This era of good feelings doesn’t last long. Sports is too cyclical. Two years after winning a Super Bowl a team can struggle to go 8-9, and back into the playoffs because of others ineptitude, only to be blown out by a second-rate opponent (right Tom Brady?). But while it is going on it is really a breath of fresh air.

I must admit that I am not sure I would have it any other way. As fantastic as it is to win, I would not want to be robbed of the equally enjoyable ability to second-guess a Manager or boo an over-hyped athlete. And while the enthusiasm is fun, there is part of you that disdains all those jumping on the bandwagon. It’s all part of the long haul for the sports fan.

But for now, all that is put aside. The big game nears, and I am nervous. I want the reassurance of all those fair-weather fans. I want to bask in the green glow of the city’s buildings. I want to join into spontaneous outbursts of the Eagles fight song. I want to enjoy this while it lasts. So, I will bury the cynicism, ignore the naysayers, embrace the throngs and unite with my fellow Philadelphians in a loud “E-A-G-L-E-S, EAGLES!!!!”           

David Crosby is dead.

I never had any great love for Crosby as a person. By his own admission, he was often arrogant, abrasive and self-indulgent. He admitted that his former bandmates not only didn’t want to work with him anymore, they did not want anything to do with him. And yet there was that voice. Whether it was with CS&N, the Byrds or in his solo works, Crosby sang with an ethereal beauty that was both unique and unmistakable. Plus, oddly for someone who alienated those he worked with, his voice blended perfectly with his compatriots, generating a whole far greater than the sum of its parts.

But David Crosby was something more than his talent. He was also one of the last throwbacks to a lost era, the Sixties. Unlike most of his contemporaries, Crosby never seemed to change. He continued to let his freak flag fly long after he wrote Almost Cut My Hair in 1970. He was still the long-haired hippie freak at 80 that he was at 25. Even in his last interviews he brought to mind those days of rebellion and protest.

The term hippies came into use in the mid-1960’s. By 1967 it was a ubiquitous moniker for all that was white counterculture. It conjured up a longhaired boy, with ratty mismatched clothes, a headband and flowing beads, or a Twiggy like girl in bellbottoms with flowers in her hair. There was a chilled vibe to the hippie clan, ostensibly induced by significant drug use. An entire vocabulary came with the territory, with such phrases as “Far Out” and “Groovy” becoming hippie cliches. Woodstock, the event and the song, captured it all.

Almost from the start hippies were the subject of parody and caricature. The epitome of that ridicule was rendered by Dick Shawn as Lorenzo Saint DuBois (LSD to his friends) in the 1967 movie “The Producers”. LSD’s addlebrained rendition of Love Power at his audition for “Springtime for Hitler” captured perfectly the inane utopianism that was associated with hippies. They were out of touch dreamers who worshiped drugs, sex and rock and roll. Riding the Marrakesh Express, they weren’t to be taken seriously.

For me, growing up in the late 1960’s, hippies were a go to Halloween costume (along with Zorro). Just cut a hole in a blanket to wear like a poncho, put on a goofy wig, grab some flowers and you had an unbeatable disguise. Give me some candy, and I’ll flash you the peace sign.

Hippies were a convenient target for the silent majority backlash of the Nixon years. Reactionaries like Vice President Spiro Agnew could conveniently slander the lazy, smelly, atheistic, over privileged leaches-on-society who wanted nothing more than to lay on the grass in the park, floating Eight Miles High. They were a visible affront to all the God-fearing, hard-working Americans who pursued the American dream of a steady 9-to-5 job, a ranch home with a two-car garage and 3.2 kids playing in the yard.

Despite all the ridicule and the rhetoric, for many that came of age in the mid-1970’s, especially those of us with older siblings, the 60’s, and the hippie culture loomed large. There was so much change in that decade that it seemed to dwarf our middling time. The civil rights movement came to fruition and there was mass mobilization against the Vietnam war. More than that, there was a feeling that you could board Wooden Ships, throw off the strictures of a conforming society and develop your own personal style. It was a hard legacy to live up to.

Though a Long Time Gone, the sense that you do not have to accept society as given remains the legacy of the Sixties. The ubiquitous generational clashes often centered around the virtues of a steady job and a home centered existence. The hippies (and I am using that term broadly) demanded more. They wanted meaning more than they wanted stability. A regular income was not enough. You see this today in the current generation’s demand for work/life balance, and willingness to leave a job if they don’t think it can give them that.

The preeminence of youth remains with us as well. Advertising is either geared towards youth, or towards making us feel as if products can keep us young. Even many of the drug commercials, hawking some remedy for an age-related illness, will use young actors to convey the message that this miracle drug will not only is a cure, but a fountain of youth (as they spout off the litany of horrendous possible side effects).

Fashions also seem to recycle hippie chic. A sense of Déjà Vu, if you will. I laugh when I see someone heading into a club wearing jeans artfully ripped at the knees. More importantly, our entire notion of what is appropriate to wear when has changed. My mother would never have even thought of going to a restaurant without a nice dress, and my father always was in a coat and tie. Now, you are liable to see anything from hoodies to sports jerseys at any restaurant, and no one bats an eye.    

The social engagement of the young is also a legacy of the sixties. Aging hippies used to complain that today’s whippersnappers did not have the sense of protest they used to have (OK Boomer). That did seem to be the case through the 80’s and 90’s, but there were not prominent issues to coalesce around. Once those issues emerged, it was clear that the Sixties generation had made sure to Teach Your Children well. Whether it be abortion rights or police brutality, today’s youth are ready and willing to take to the streets. More importantly, they think it is their prerogative and obligation to do so.

Agitation by groups for civil rights has become prolific. Most notably the women’s rights and gay rights movements drew inspiration and power from the Afro-American struggles and have significantly changed the way our society views these groups. As much as some people want to roll back what these groups have secured, they are fighting against a tide that may briefly ebb but will come back stronger than ever. Mainly because the majority of today’s young people already see these rights as a given.

David Crosby was somehow able to encapsulate the feeling of the Sixties in his songs and in his public persona. While his death robs us of one of the most visible icons of that era, the impact of the Sixties will continue indefinitely. My guess is that will be true until someone can answer a question posed by Elvis Costello. “What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding”? 

I know that I should shrug it off as another meaningless study, but the INRIX 2022 Global Traffic Scorecard, as reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 12, 2023, annoys me. Initially it was the article, which accepted this tally of congestion without any analysis of assumptions or methodology. Then I looked up the study on the INRIX website and found that they too gave short shrift to the means by which they reached their startling conclusions. Only by further research could I divine the approach taken, and that is when I really got miffed, realizing that this was another misleading use of statistics.

The Inquirer article told us that Philadelphia was “captive” to the fourth-worst traffic congestion among urban centers in the United States and sits eighth among the world’s cities (OMG, worse than Los Angeles!!!!). Citing the INRIX report, the Inquirer stated that a “typical Philadelphia driver” spent 114 hours stuck in traffic during 2022. That would mean that an average Philadelphia driver sat in their car waiting for traffic to clear for almost 5 days over the last year. Outrageous, if true.

These results “are based on millions of anonymized data points collected from smartphones, GPS systems in cars and trucks, and cities’ own reporting of crashes, incidents, and congestion. Over time, INRIX identified and mapped the most common trip corridors in each urban area…. Tracking travel times on these corridors gives a clear picture of travel times and congestion” according to INRIX. The study goes on to say that the cost of this congestion to travelers is almost $20 per hour for each car.

The questions about this study are legion, though the Inquirer asked none of them. The first is, what is a “typical Philadelphia driver”? Does this only refer to commuters during peak hours? Did they include my 10:30 pm trip to Trenton a to pick up my kids at the train station when there were no traffic delays? Is my wife a typical Philadelphia driver when she’s commuting to Germantown in the morning, but not when she stays late, and heads back into the city around 9:00?

And what is meant by congestion? Do they count every time a car stops for a red light? If you’re travelling the Schuylkill at 45 mph, which would delight any Philly driver, is that congested driving? Is that offset by the rare times when you can zip along at 70? And how do they account for the nut driving down the shoulder at 60 while the rest of us are stopped? 

An article on StreetsBlogUSA did answer some of these questions. Apparently, INRIX segmented their data by time of day and trip characteristics, so presumably we are talking about commuters. Congestion is whenever traffic falls below “free-flow” speeds, which INRIX says it developed using actual traffic data. That would mean a steady 45 on the Schuylkill is congestion. The cost was computed using a $12.81 wage rate, multiplied by 1.13 occupants per vehicle multiplied by 1.37 to reflect the aggravation of sitting in your car, as if aggravation is measurable. If these were the type of assumptions INRIX made, it’s no wonder they don’t highlight them.

More importantly, the Study says nothing about why the congestion occurs. All it does is create an insignificant ranking that generates inconsequential headlines. Actually, that’s probably for the best. The last thing we need are more major road renovations that will take years to complete at incredible cost overruns, slowing traffic even more. The flip side is that if we did that, we could move up to number 6 on the rankings, or even higher (Philly strong)!!!

I know that I have overacted to this drop in the bucket of life. Yet we are inundated with statistics that are similarly suspect, and it is so easy to just accept them as valid. Take something as simple as wind chill factor. Throughout the winter we hear weather prognosticators say, “The temperature is 30, but it’s going to feel like 10 because of the wind.” NO, IT’S NOT. Wind is not a constant. It gusts. It may feel like 10 or below when you’re walking through a center city wind tunnel, but it won’t feel that way if the gusts calm, and you’re walking in the sun.

The pandemic was prime time for statistics. We would routinely hear that COVID rates had doubled in an area over the last week but were never sure if that meant that they went from 2 to 4, or 1000 to 2000. It often depended on who was promulgating the statistics, and what they wanted to accomplish. Sifting through the mass of data is impossible, which means you have to rely on the good faith of those that do, and that can be problematic, to say the least.

The malleability of statistics is a big reason why so many discussions on crucial topics like climate change come to a scratching halt. Statistics about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or the rise in sea levels are thrown around like nerf balls, bouncing harmlessly off readers’ noggins. Whatever those statistics say, someone will conflate them into an immanent world collapse, or deflate them into a meaningless blip.

The problem is that it takes overstatements to get most people’s attention. A nuanced approach may work well on some late-night talk show (back when we had such shows), but if you want newspaper headlines, or shared Facebook posts, you better be controversial and extreme. In the end all this does is provide fodder for dissension, not consensus.

So, what can we do? One thing is to discern when statistics help explain something and when they don’t. Some trumped up congestion rate adds nothing to our understanding of traffic flow. We know that traffic can be bad during rush hour, and at any other time if you are unlucky enough to hit an accident or road construction. Putting a number on it is meaningless. Just like you know that you better bundle up if the wind is blowing in the middle of January without a wind chill factor.

Also, look at the source. When the CDC gives you trends during a pandemic, best to pay attention. When it’s a friend from high school passing along climate change information issued by the American Petroleum Institute, be skeptical. Sometimes that takes some searching, because the API is probably issuing those statistics through Americans for a Cleaner Tomorrow, but it’s worth the effort.

Finally, look at methodology. If those issuing the statistics make you look hard for their assumptions, like INRIX, they probably are not a good source. Those above board will proudly highlight how they reached their conclusions and provide guidance on what you can do in response.

I know I jumped on my soapbox here, but the flood of worthless stats we see is one of the those burrs in my side that I just can’t shake. It’s just so easy to be misled. I know that I have, many times. Oh, the glories of the modern world. 

I just finished Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. I first read this novel almost 30 years ago, and, not surprisingly, had little or no recollection of it. I recalled that I thought Stranger middling, but it is considered a classic of science fiction, and was on my shelf for some reason, so I thought that I would dive back in. After finishing it, I realized that Stranger is an exemplar for everything that makes classic science fiction so interesting and so exasperating.

The plot of Stranger is typical sci-fi. Michael Valentine Smith is the sole survivor of an earth expedition to Mars, where he was stranded as a baby and raised by Martians. He is discovered by a subsequent expedition 20 years later and brought back to earth. Over the course of the novel, he learns the ways of us earthlings, and contrasts it to Martian teachings, not in a good way.

Smith intuits that we Earth dwellers fail to grok (the Martian word for understand, that means so much more) the basic Martian principal that each of us is God. Once we come to accept that tenet we can live in peace and harmony. Apparently, we can also acquire telepathic powers, as well as the ability to make things (and people) disappear. Smith also reveals that death is not the end, allowing us to accept our transformation into a new type of existence. And, oh yes, grokking this axiom removes all sexual inhibitions.

The idea of Stranger is interesting. The thought of a human raised with non-human beliefs having to adapt and understand earthly ways opens doors for an examination of human institutions and mores. Heinlein focuses mainly on religious practices, and the inbred contradictions and hypocrisy they engender. Not surprisingly, Smith’s message that we are all God does not go over well with the established churches.

An engrossing story could have emerged out of this premise if the book was not so badly written. I was shocked at the incompetence of the writing from someone who is so revered. After all, Heinlein won four Hugo awards, four Nebula awards and was named a Grand Master by the Science Fiction Writers of America. Yet, his writing style would be embarrassing for a college Freshman in a Creative Writing 101 course.

For example, any time a character wants to emphasize a point, they use “ain’t”. As when patriarch, lawyer and doctor Jubal Harshaw is interrupted in one of his lectures to Mike, he bellows back, “I ain’t through”. I guess that’s supposed to tell us that this is important, but it just sounds silly. Worse are the caricatures masquerading as characters, like the two male aides to Harshaw who talk as if they just escaped from a Bowery Boys movie (“I’ll murdalize you Sach”).

Then there is the way the way ideal relationships between men and women are depicted. I know that Stranger was published in 1961, but even in that pre-women’s lib era it should have been embarrassing to conjure what is little more than a male high school freshman fantasy. Women are smart and capable, but submissive. They revel in being ogled by men and are quick to hop into bed with any Martian trained male, once they too have been enlightened. One woman even goes so far as to say, “If you hear my scream, and reach into my mind and I’m in real trouble, [feel free to intervene]. But I was coping with wolves when you were still on Mars. Nine times out of ten, if a girl gets raped, it’s partly her fault. So don’t be hasty”. Oy vey.

The fact that this book is praised as a classic, says much about the world of sci-fi. For so long it was the domain of white male geeks. People who were intrigued by offbeat ideas but viewed the world through a prism of their own unfulfilled desires. These were the guys who would corner you near the beer keg at a party to regale you with the significance of some obscure space opera that “you just have to read”.

I say this as a lifelong science fiction fan. Yes, I immersed myself in Asimov, Clarke, etc. Yes, I thrilled at the concepts of interstellar travel, cyberworlds, and alternative dimensions. Yes, I cared whether Star Trek was more highly praised than Star Wars (which it should be). I like to think that most of the works I gobbled up were not as cringeworthy as Stranger in a Strange Land, but I can’t bet on it. Many of these writers had a scientific background, but were literary hacks who had a decent idea they spun out into a novel. Not a bad way to make a living.

The promise of sci-fi is its ability to create a surrogate world, and then use that world to comment on our own. It is both useful and thought-provoking. It can be a vehicle to introduce a different viewpoint, and new uses of technology. Science Fiction can capture the imagination in ways other literature cannot. Stranger did that, and I am sure that is why it was so highly thought of.

As science fiction has matured it has grown out of the world of the Fantastic or Weird Worlds magazines. Today’s sci-fi authors are just as inventive but apparently care more about logical structure and literary quality. Plus, a lot more women seem to have entered the field, which can only broaden its perspectives. There is still plenty of dross, but that’s true in every genre.

I don’t read as much science fiction as I once did. The ideas are can be mundane and repetitive. Plus, many sci-fi writers seem to think anything under 400 pages is not worth the while. Still, when sci-fi clicks it is as intriguing as anything out there. A platform for creative minds with a slight bent that should not be overlooked, despite its weaknesses.

P.S. Some sci-fi I can recommend – Anything by Douglas Adams; Atwood, Oryx and Crake; Bester, The Demolished Man; Fforde, Early Riser; Le Guin, the Dispossessed; Melville, The City and the City; Mitchell, The Bone Clocks; St. John Mandell, Station Eleven (sorry Peter); Vandermeer, Annihilation; Zemiatan, We.    

It was nice to get away over the end of year holidays. Even though I am retired, it still seemed like a break from routine, and that is always welcome. Of course, time does not stop, and there are inevitable surprises. Some personal (a broken pipe) and some general. I would not have guessed that two of the more interesting surprises would involve the corporate world. (Of course, if I could have guessed they would not have been surprises).

First there was the meltdown of Southwest Airlines. This one hit close to home since my mother-in-law was supposed to fly back to Indianapolis via Southwest on December 27. That flight, along with thousands of others, were cancelled, with no prospect of a rebooking for close to a week. For her it was not a major inconvenience since she had no pressing need to get home, and was staying with her daughter, my sister-in-law. However, for many others – stuck at airports, needing to get back to work, staying in hotels – it was a fiasco.

The other corporate news was the continuing saga of the collapse of FTX, the cryptocurrency exchange platform, along with arrest of its chief executive, Sam Bankman-Fried, who has been charged with multiple counts of fraud. Two former FTX executives have already plead guilty, and are cooperating with authorities, so there is not a lot of doubt where Bankman-Fried will end up. Too bad Bernie Madoff has left us. They could have shared a cell.

Having spent most of my career working in corporate America, these events fascinate me, though for different reasons. The Southwest debacle appears to have been caused by the airline’s failure to invest in an updated scheduling system, leaving it unable to react to the massive storm that spread across the northern part of the country. The FTX meltdown seemingly arose from a lack of oversight which opened the door for malfeasance. 

Southwest was a classic corporate failure, generally emanating from the conflicting goals of planning for long term success – which requires the outlay of significant cash – and providing investors with the immediate returns they demand. CEO’s cringe at the prospect of standing in front of investors trying to justify low quarterly earnings, knowing that explanations of expensive technological upgrades will not go down well. It is easier to live with old systems, which generally work, and hope that a snowmageddon, literal or metaphorical, doesn’t hit. It appears that Southwest lost that bet.

No one who has done time in a corporation can be shocked at Southwest’s actions or inactions, as the case may be. We know that while corporations want to appear to the world as Stark Industries, innovators with endless creative drive, they are more in the realm of Scrooge McDuck, hoarding wealth while expending as little as humanly possible, except for executive compensation. Good times or bad, budgets will have to be cut and employee bonus pools limited for the common good. Is it any wonder that in such an atmosphere major expenditures are perennially delayed?

Corporate veterans also know that airline CEOs around the country are letting out a long sigh of relief, because this could have happened to any one of them. When, in 2008, ACE competitor AIG tanked due to investments in subprime mortgages, we all knew that we had dodged that bullet not because of C-Suite insight, but because management had not thought of going that route. Similarly, I have no doubt that all airlines cut corners, delay upgrades and pander to short term gains, just like Southwest. The question is can they stay one step ahead of disaster. Only time will tell.

FTX is a different animal. By all accounts the Bahama based company had little oversight. The current FTX administrator, John Ray III, who supervised the liquidation of Enron, described FTX as having an unprecedented failure of corporate controls, resulting in a complete absence of trustworthy financial information. It’s many investors were, in essence, flying blind.

It would be easy here to jump on the bandwagon claiming that I knew Bitcoin was rotten from the start, patting myself on the back for my wise investment strategies, but that would be disingenuous. I am the first to admit that I have never understood cryptocurrency. I like to believe that I could have grasped it by perusing the inevitable “Bitcoin for Dummies”, but it never seemed worth the time. Laziness saved me from ever seriously considering diving in.

Even if I had, the lack of oversight would hopefully have scared me off. Throughout my career, I have listened to business people decrying regulation, intimating that if only government would get out of their way they could really shine. Yet time and time again we have seen deregulation lead to corporate collapse, requiring significant pubic bailouts. It is not a coincidence that the Saving and Loan scandals of the 1980’s and the sub-prime mortgage recession of the 1980’s both came after a significant decrease in government supervision of the impacted sectors.

There is no doubt a balance that needs to be struck between governmental oversight and business operations. But it is foolish to think that businesses will properly govern themselves absent big brother. It’s not that companies are inherently evil. It’s just that there are so many opportunities to compromise on sound governance that the temptations are too great. Not only are the corporate earnings at stake, but so are individual careers. It is just too easy to rationalize cutting a corner here or rounding a number there.

Business oriented media does nothing to make up for a lack of oversight. Everyone thinks of business journals as hard hitting and practical, but often they are just People for the corporate set. Magazines and news shows did piece after piece on Bankman-Fried, lauding his entrepreneurial spirit and bold innovations, all without researching whether there was beef in the burger. As Paul Krugman said, discussing Enron, “Whom the gods destroy, they first put on the cover of Businessweek”.

Unfortunately, there are no great lessons to be learned from Southwest or FTX. Even if you devote all your spare time to researching companies you are unlikely to foresee snowmageddons or fiscal fraud, while branding yourself as someone no one wants to talk to at parties. It is just a risk we all take living in a world where we must rely on so much that is beyond our control or comprehension. Welcome to the modern world.

The British magazine Sight & Sound has published its 9^th decennary list for the “Best Films of All Time”. https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/sight-and-sound-100-best-films-all-time-2022. This decade’s list was derived from a poll of over 1,600 film critics around the world, almost doubling the participants from the 2012 poll. The result is a more diverse array of movies than in prior years, and far different from most such lists you will see.

This being 2022, that diversity has sparked significant backlash. Director Paul Schrader (Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters, American Gigolo, Cat People), has branded the poll “a politically correct rejiggering”. He was outraged by the leap of “Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles” from 36^th to 1^st in this year’s poll, calling the leap “a landmark of distorted woke reappraisal”.

By their very nature “all-time” lists are questionable at best. However, as Shrader recognized, with its poll starting in 1952 S&S had managed to carve itself a niche as a “reliable if somewhat incremental measure of critical consensus and priorities”. Shrader believes that in 2022 S&S abrogated that role because voters selected films for their political content rather than their cinematic worth.

Schrader and his ilk ignore the fact that the content of the poll has always been a function of the evaluating panel. The 1952 poll, which only picked a top 10, had 85 critics, all from 9 European countries and the United States. Not surprisingly, there were no films on the list outside of Europe and the United States. I could not find the breakdown of the 1952 critics by gender or ethnicity, though I could pretty much guess.

In 2022, S&S specifically sought to be more inclusive, making clear that it was reaching out for more international input. I have no doubt that they also sought more gender and racial diversity as well. In other words, the 2022 poll reflects who was asked, just as the 1952 poll did.

Much of the criticism focused on the rise of Jeanne Dielman. As I considered the poll, I was embarrassed by the fact that I had not seen this film. So, on a rainy Tuesday, I sat down to absorb all of its three hours and 21 minutes.

Jeanne Dielman is, in many ways, anti-cinema. Director Chantelle Ackerman lingers on long static shots depicting the main character going through daily household tasks, making the bed, preparing supper, eating a sandwich. The camera does not zoom in or provide context. It just observes, and thereby forces the viewer to do the same. There is little dialogue, and what dialogue exists is mostly banal. This film lacks everything I have been brought up to expect in a movie.

Yet, it is gripping in its audacity. Ackerman establishes the unaltering daily routine of Jeanne to such an extent that any deviation from that routine – a dropped brush, a light left on, unkempt hair, a vigorous potato peeling session – seems to carry great significance. As these anomalies, small as they are, mount an explosion seems inevitable. Even though Ackerman flaunts every tenet of exciting movie-watching, the three hours goes fast.

And yet, I cannot generally recommend Jeanne Dielman. You must have extraordinary patience, willing to sit through hours of nothing happening. If you do, it is rewarding, but most viewers will probably never make it that far. I know why this movie is held in such high esteem by critics and filmmakers alike. However, it is not a film that will satisfy most movie-goers.

This reflects my problem with the list generally. Audience satisfaction is apparently not a criterion. Not that there are not some taut thrillers on this list – North by Northwest, The Battle of Algiers, The Night of the Hunter, Get Out – but they are few and far between. There is only one true musical, Singing in the Rain, no grand spectacles (ala Lawrence of Arabia) and no film noir.

It also seems that movie critics lack a sense of humor. I count 11 films that could be classified as comedies, though even that is generous. (Are Daises and The Apartment there because they are laugh riots?). Other than Do the Right Thing and two Miyzaki animated films, there are no comedies (if those films can be classified as comedies) on the list that were made after 1967. No Spinal Tap or Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Nothing by Mel Brooks (The Producers), Woody Allen (Annie Hall), the Coen Brothers (Raising Arizona) or Wes Anderson (Grand Budapest Hotel). These are huge omissions.

And yet, I sympathize with the critics. They do not compile a list of the 100 greatest films, but only submit their top 10. Try it. If you are any kind of moviegoer, it is incredibly hard to winnow the great films down to that level. Anyone conscientiously compiling such a list must feel incredible angst at leaving out masterworks that you know belong in the top 100, but you don’t have room to include.

With that limitation it is inevitable that voters are going to do everything they can to make sure their favorites are recognized. Those favorites may reflect films from a country, or continent (Africa) that has been overlooked. They may reflect topics (racism, feminism) that have been neglected. They may reflect categories of directors (women, people of color) that have not been as celebrated as they should be. I have no problem with that.

The prior S&S polls may have been a “reliable if somewhat incremental measure of critical consensus and priorities”, but that was only possible by keeping those defining that consensus and setting those priorities as narrow as possible. Opening the doors to other views may make accord impossible, but it also shines light on films that deserve to be seen. And at the end of the day shouldn’t that be what these lists are all about?

P.S. It would be duplicitous of me to carp on a poll without providing my own best ever list. As you will see, this reflects my own biases as much as any other voter. These are films that I can watch over and over, which is one of my criteria. I was going to include an honorable mention list (it kills me not to have a Hitchcock, or Truffaut, or screwball comedy, or film noir, etc., etc.), but it got way too long. Let the second guessing begin.

1. Seven Samurai – Kurosawa

2. In the Mood for Love – Wong Kar-wei

3. Seventh Seal – Bergman

4. Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb – Kubrick (not on the S&S list???????)

5. Apocalypse Now – Coppola

6. Stalker – Tarkovsky

7. Modern Times – Chaplin

8. Cabaret – Fosse

9. The Third Man – Reed

10. La Strada – Fellini

You know that feeling when something hits you like a bolt of lightning? When you hear a theory that sounds so right that you really don’t have to look too deeply into it to know that it’s valid? That happened over the Thanksgiving weekend, and no, it wasn’t the Qanon heresy that Thanksgiving was a Canadian holiday before liberals coopted it as a celebration of Indian largess.

One of our Thanksgiving guests was telling me about a podcast she heard on the drive to our house which posited that reading is contrary to our evolutionary development, and that this disconnect is a why so many people do not read beyond the extent needed, even in this age of mass literacy. It is also why so many students struggle with reading at a young age. It is just not something that comes naturally.

I had never considered this. From pouring over Curious George books at the Bethlehem Public Library, to struggling with a book my son Max recommended to me, reading has seemed a close second to breathing in importance in my life. The thought that I have been bucking the conditioning of generations never occurred to me. And yet, it makes so much sense.

Writing in even its earliest form did not begin until approximately 5000 years ago. If we start human history with the making of tools, humanity was pre-literate for 3 million years before we ever had to interpret squiggles on a stone tablet, or engraved stile. Our strategies for interacting with the world were hardwired during that time, and they did not include perusing otherwise meaningless jottings.

Throughout this time, we compiled information by what we saw and heard. It was limited in scope, and could be deceptive, but it was immediately accessible. The ability to “read” the world around us was essential for survival. We had to be able to react quickly and instinctively to the the visual and aural clues presented. Sitting on a rock staring intently at a piece of bark is hardly an effective strategy to enhance well-being.

Even once humanity started reading, it was primarily an elitist activity. Most people got along fine without it, thank you very much. Estimates suggest that no more than 10% of the world’s population was literate in ancient times. As of 1820, when the data is much better, that rate had soared to 12%. Though the rates in Europe were much higher, literacy there still was less than 50% (why would women need to read?). Even by the 1930’s only 70% of the U.S. population was literate. In other words, mass literacy is a very recent phenomenon (by 2015 it was up to 86%). 

Is it any wonder that people adapted to the visual arts revolution so quickly? Movies and television are perfect mediums for our primordial conditioning. The flow of moving images matches the world our ancestors inhabited. We instinctively know how to read the cues, and digest the information presented.

Sad as I am to say it, my friend Mark Megaw was correct. Teaching through visuals is the most compatible with this conditioning. At ACE legal conferences, Mark’s presentations, which incorporated eye-catching images and audience participation, were always the most memorable. I will note that since he was generally competing with such topics as bitcoin in the world of insurance and accounting for intercompany transfers, that’s faint praise indeed.      

I have always rebelled against the visual learning construct because I retain information better when I read it. But even I must admit that reading often does not result in long term retention. Though reading served me well as a student, and remains my primary leisure activity, it cannot compete with the images imprinted on my brain cells by movies (the frozen still at the end of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, or Bogie in the rain in Casablanca, immediately jump to mind).

I cannot help but believe that in the span of human history, the reign of reading as the primary means of communicating ideas will be a short one. Reading has already shifted to an auxiliary of the presentation of news, not to mention social media. People still need to read, but it is more often as a header across the screen, or the clever (I use that word loosely) punchline of a meme.

The problem is that it is hard to get much depth into a Facebook post, at least depth that anyone will truly consider, and TV news lends itself much more to the polemical than it does to the factual. The reading of books, newspapers, magazine articles (and yes, even a lowly blog) remain the primary way to take a deep dive into any subject. I do not see that changing soon.

The flip side is that so many more people can be reached through TV and social media. I often forget how new these tools are. As we become more comfortable, we hopefully will get better at sifting the wheat from the chaff. That ability to discern needs to be incorporated into our educational system in much the same way that reading is.

Reading will reman an essential skill for a long time to come. However, denying our hardwiring for the visual is counterproductive. We need to embrace the techniques our ancestors used and adapt them to the world we live in today. Fighting those tendencies, as I have been prone to do, just isn’t going to cut it. I can see that now.