HIGHER EDUCATION ONLINE

In the NYTimes earlier this week, Richard Perez-Pena wrote ~ "In a major development on Tuesday, a dozen highly ranked universities said they had signed on with Coursera, a new ventuere offering free classes online.  They still must overcome some skepticism about the quality of online education and the prospects for having the courses cover the costs of producing them, but their enthusiasm is undimmed.

" .... Massive open online courses, or MOOCs, let colleges reach vast audiences at relatively low cost, but they have not yet made money from them.  And if it becomes possible in years to come to get a complete college education from an elite institution online, free or at relatively low cost, experts wonder whether some colleges will find it harder to attract students willing to pay $20,000, $40,000 or even $60,000 a year for the traditional on-campus experience.

"Online classes have been around for years, with technology evolving to include multimedia features and interaction among students and faculty.  What is new is the way top colleges are jumping in with free courses ~ in effect, throwing open the doors digitally.

"So far, most people signing up live in foreign countries.  But MOOCs will become more appealing to domestic students when they give course credits toward a degree, something the elite universities have not yet done.  The University of Washington says it plans to do so, and it may be just a matter of time before earning credits becomes standard.

" .... Residential colleges already attract far less than half of the higher education market.  Most enrollment and nearly all growth in higher education is in less costly options that let students balance classes with work and family ~ commuter colleges, night schools, online universities.

"Most experts say there will always be students who want to live on campus, interacting with professors and fellow students, particularly at prestigious universities.  But as a share of the college market, that is likely to be a shrinking niche."

Coincidentally, my Chicago friend Bill sent me an email with a link to Coursera, echoing the news that a number of heavy-hitter universities are now offering free online courses at the website.  You can click on the link to view the list of 16 schools (see image above, click to enlarge), and the list of 111 courses in 16 academic categories.  The numbers of schools, courses and categories seems likely to expand if this method of taking classes proves popular ~ and it surely will, particularly if classes are offered for degree credit.

I've traveled down most avenues of traditional higher education ~ two residential universities, a community college, and adult evening classes.  I've never taken an online course, so I cannot offer an opinion on whether the experience measures up to the give-and-take of being physically in a classroom with other students and a professor ~ especially when the class involves labs or field trips, as most of my Ecology & Evolutionary Biology classes did, at the University of Arizona.  But perhaps it would be a false comparison.  It's likely that each method has its pros and cons.  I do anticipate taking one or more Coursera classes, and will report back when I have a definitive impression.  

I must admit, there is definite cachet to being able to say, "Oh yes, I studied at Duke University (or Princeton, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, the University of Edinburgh, or any of the other schools now associated with Coursera)."

THE FIRST WAVE

On this day in 1848, the Seneca Falls Convention met ~ marking the beginning of the first wave of feminism in the United States.  The convention was organized by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.  The event was seen by some participants as "a single step in the continuing effort by women to gain themselves a greater portion of social, civil, and moral rights", and was viewed by others as "a revolutionary beginning to the struggle by women for complete equality with men".  In addition to Mott and Stanton, other prominent feminist activists of the time included Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Victoria Woodhull, Carrie Chapman Catt, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, Margaret Sanger, and the sisters Sarah and Angelina Grimke.

The issues of the late 19th and early 20th century were quite different from those faced by the second wave of feminism, which began in the early 1960s.  In those early days, women's rights advocates were active in seeking the abolition of slavery, as well as reform of laws under which women were little more than chattel (possessions), subject without legal recourse to marital mistreatment and violence, and not even having the right to vote.  It is no coincidence that during both waves, mutual support existed between feminists and the black civil rights movement.  Both movements sought equal rights with the white male establishment.  One of the earliest male supporters of the feminist cause was the black orator, social reformer and statesman Frederick Douglas.

Although I didn't realize it at the time, I was introduced to some of the first wave's ideas during the time the second wave was forming.  During my senior year in high school, I recall visiting my girlfriend's locker in the hall between classes, and her proudly showing me a copy of The Subjection of Women by British philosopher John Stuart Mill, an early white male supporter of the rights of women.  Naive lad that I was, I'd always just assumed gender equality, and had no inkling of the courageous struggles that had occurred (and which continue to this day) to secure equal treatment under the law.  Thank you, Nancie.

Another fifteen years would pass before I decided to immerse myself in women's issues.  I'd returned to college at the University of Arizona, and chose a minor in Women's Studies, an interdisciplinary department under the able direction of Myra Dinnerstein.  She and the course professors were very encouraging toward male students, who made up about 10% of a given class.  As a white male, finding myself in such a minority gave me a glimmer of insight into the experience of minorities who don't happen to be born into relative social power ~ including attitudes ranging from tolerance to outright hostility from my women classmates.

The classes themselves were excellent and varied ~ Women in Literature (both as writers and as protagonists), Women in American History, Women in Philosophy.  I don't recall a course offering for Women in Science at the time ~ that would have been excellent.  I learned much, participated actively, aced every course, and made a few wonderful friendships along the way.  During those years I was privileged to attend a talk by one of my personal heroes, activist and journalist Gloria Steinem.

It is an experience every man should seek out (just as every white person should go out of his/her way to learn about the lives of blacks, Latinos, Asians, and other oppressed groups).  The more we learn, the more our lives are enriched .... and the less willing we are to tolerate prejudice in any form.  Today much has been achieved in our country, though there are still far too few women in positions of leadership ~ lawmakers and CEOs ~ and women still are paid less than men in many fields.  Even more challenging, in third world nations, especially Muslim nations, women are facing the struggles which first-wave feminists in the U.S. faced 164 years ago.  We humans can be slow learners.

VIRTUAL CHOREOGRAPHY

I've always admired swimmers, gymnasts, and dancers ~ athletes whose craft demands a trim, supple, pleasing physique.  I never had the opportunity to develop as a gymnast, but in college I did become a fairly proficient swimmer (and later a lifeguard).  Later in life I turned to dance, and took adult classes in modern dance, jazz dance, and group improv.  It was a ton of fun, and a huge challenge to translate visually-demonstrated choreography to muscle memory.  That transition often didn't come easily, especially in long, complex series of movements.  

It's been years since I partnered up and took to the dance floor.  I miss it, but I also know I'm so rusty that I'd probably embarrass myself.  Still, one of my life's ambitions (probably never to be realized, but we all need to dream) is to learn to tango.

Just for fun, today I'd like to share an entirely different kind of dance ~ Choreography for Plastic Army Men.  The music pulses with salsa and jazz influences, and those macho little dudes are pretty hilarious as they release their inner Bob Fosse.  Enjoy.

CORAL REEF DEBATE

Like tropical rain forests, oceanic coral reefs (see image above, click to enlarge) host the greatest biodiversity to be found on our planet.  Each day brings the discovery of previously unknown species, insights into how complex systems function, and the possibility of deriving life-saving medicines.  Along with sea plankton, rain forests and coral reefs also produce a significant portion of the oxygen in our atmosphere.  And like tropical rain forests, coral reefs (which serve as nurseries for myriad fish species) are fast disappearing, victims of the depredations and pollution produced by humans.

What to do?  One aspect of science in general and biology in particular, is a range of opinions expressed in open, often energetic debate.  The difference between scientific debate and, say, political debate is that opinions must be based on sound evidence, provided by research and analysis.

Recently a NYTimes editorial, A World Without Coral Reefs, made the following assertions ~ "It's past time to tell the truth about the state of the world's coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks.  They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive in any functional sense, and on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation.  There will be remnants here and there, but the global coral reef ecosystem ~ with its storehouse of biodiversity and fisheries supporting millions of the world's poor ~ will cease to be.

"Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution are pushing coral reefs into oblivion.  Each of these forces alone is fully capable of causing the global collapse of coral reefs.  Together, they assure it.  The scientific evidence for this is compelling and unequivocal, but there seems to be a collective reluctance to accept the logical conclusion ~ that there is no hope of saving the global coral reef ecosystem.

" .... Overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution have two features in common.  First, they are accelerating.  They are growing broadly in line with global economic growth, so they can double in size every couple of decades.  Second, they have extreme inertia ~ there is no real prospect of changing their trajectories in less than 20 to 50 years.  In short, these forces are unstoppable and irreversible.  And it is these two features ~ acceleration and inertia ~ that have blindsided us."

The author, Australian ecologist Roger Bradbury, insists that rather than devoting time and financial resources to protecting and restoring coral reefs, we should be using those funds to study what to do after the reefs are gone ~ to divine what sorts of systems (if any) will replace coral reefs, to transfer the genetic resources of coral reefs to non-reef systems, and to prepare the human communities which rely on reef fisheries for subsistence to transition to alternative sources of food and income.

Perhaps Bradbury is being sensibly pragmatic.  My reading is that his opinion on how to address the reef crisis (give up) is fatalistic and ignores the real strides being made by those who are involved in regenerating reefs.  Moreover, Bradbury's bias is economic, regarding reefs as human resources rather than communities which we have an ecological and a moral obligation to try to save, however daunting the obstacles.  We created the crisis, it is up to us to solve it.  Shrugging our responsibility aside by insisting that we were somehow "blindsided" by the acceleration and inertia of overfishing, ocean acidification and pollution is nonsense.  The world community of ecologists and environmentalists has been having this discussion for three decades or more.

Contrast, then, the above NYTimes article with this one, When Coral Reefs Recover.  Energy and environmental blogger Melissa Gaskill, reporting on an international symposium on coral reefs, discovered a very different and more optimistic response to the crisis, based on human efforts to establish and protect coral reef reserves and marine parks.  "Ocean acidification, warming water temperatures, pollution and overfishing pose dire threats to coral reefs worldwide.  On the plus side, reducing these threats locally can improve reef conditions.  The bad news is that coral reefs bounce back more slowly than other marine ecosytems like estuaries.  So the sooner action is taken, the better.

" .... After the establishment of the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park ~ and more than 10 years of local enforcement of no-take inside its boundaries ~ the Scripps Institution of Oceanography found that the amount of fish biomass in the protected area had increased more than fivefold, and shark biomass, tenfold.  That's the largest absolute increase in fish biomass ever measured in a marine reserve anywhere in the world.

"What is more, the benefits of this kind of protection extend beyond the boundaries of a protected area .... marine reserves help restore depleted populations on neighboring reefs .... Networks of reserves could therefore contribute substantially to the long-term sustainability of coral reef fisheries .... Other studies have shown that strict enforcement of marine reserves not only helps marine life but can reduce local poverty [by training local residents to offer eco-tourism services built around the area's natural assets]."

So in listening to a scientific debate, whom does one believe?  No one, initially.  First each of us must become informed on the issue, and familiar with not only points of view, but how those points of view have shifted over time, and what biases may inform them.  It's not as daunting as it sounds.  All it requires is paying attention, something we all should be doing anyway.  Curiosity is a mark of human intellect.  Apathy is a mark of human indifference.  There is no room for indifference when our own actions are creating deleterious global effects which our children and grandchildren will have to remedy.

As already noted, healthy debate is a hallmark of scientific discussion.  Based on the evidence, one could make a case for either article's point of view.  It all depends on whether you're willing to give up without a fight.  I'm not willing to do that.  No action, or action now?  There's no middle ground.

A THEATRICAL RANT

It isn't often that I allow my inner curmudgeon out in public.  The poor grumbling fellow is kept in reluctant confinement, released only when in the company of fellow curmudgeons, or when extreme circumstances warrant unleashing him on some unsuspecting moron who is just begging to be set straight.

Today is feast day ~ a rant against an entire class of human beings whose intrusive self-indulgence irritates me almost to homicide.  Here's the setup ~ when I pay the exorbitant admission fee at a movie theater, I do so with the expectation of cinematic drama, spectacle, or whimsy.  In my lexicon, a "movie" is entertainment for the masses, the lowest common denominator.  A "film" is a work of art, and should be absorbed with respect for the craft, regardless of how many stars you may assign to it afterward.  In either case, the intent is entertainment, and hopefully enlightenment.

Increasingly over the past 30 or 40 years (keeping pace with our nation's entry into obesity), for many people going to the movies now includes a ritual of gluttony.  People line up at the snack bar in the lobby (which is the real financial ripoff for movie-goers), pay through the nose for junk food laden with salt and fat and empty calories, with no redeeming nutritional value, load up an entire tray with half a dozen containers of drek, and then proceed to find a seat in the theater (usually the seat next to me or immediately behind me) .... where they proceed to stuff their faces as noisily as possible, crinkling wrappers, rummaging through popcorn, and sucking on soda straws.

And this is before the movie even begins, during the commercials and film previews.  It isn't uncommon for people to make a second trip to the snack bar, just minutes into the actual movie.  Visions of someone tripping in the darkness and spilling a carbonated beverage down my back, dance in my head.  The gustatory orgy goes on for up to an hour into the film.

Arriving early to pick a seat away from likely-looking porkers sometimes works, but not always. Many junk food junkies think nothing of arriving at the last moment, then sitting ~ you guessed it, right next to my ear.  The ritual of eating to excess in theaters genuinely puzzles me.  Could these people not have eaten a real meal before leaving home?  What is it about noisily grazing on greasy popcorn or sugary snacks that requires being in a movie theater?  It's surely not a social event, like a meal where people dine while talking to each other.  These swine (and I refer only to noisy eaters, not to quiet ones) are staring at the screen, their hands on automatic pilot ferrying food from container to mouth.  Where's the real pleasure?

If I owned a theater (one of my fantasies, since I would book quality films that the public doesn't normally get to see), there would be spacious and comfortable seating, but there would be no snack bar.  Anyone caught sneaking in food or drink would be escorted outside by hulking jack-booted bouncers, no refunds, you're welcome.  (Well, maybe not jack-booted.)  You're here for the movie, the film, and for the repartee among the audience beforehand and afterward.  Think about it.

I do give affectionate credit to one art house for its approach to mixing food with film ~ the rather exotic Baghdad Theater & Pub in southeast Portland, Oregon, has a street-level pub and restaurant, as well as a snack counter for movie-goers.  Here's what's interesting ~ both the theater main level and the balcony have actual tables and chairs, rather than Spartan rows of seats (see image above, click to enlarge).  There patrons can enjoy a pizza and a glass of ale while they watch the presentation.  Spacing seating rows apart from each other is a nice touch, and minimizes noisy intrusion between neighbors.  Pretty cool.  The last time I was there was in the late 1990s, so I don't know if that arrangement still exists.  I rather hope so. If you're ever in Portland (and everyone should experience the city at least once), check it out.

SUNRISE

Mount St. Helens, Washington

sunrise and lightning

(click to enlarge)

SOCIALISM OR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY?

A distinction was clarified for me in a NYTimes editorial written by Milos Forman, the Czechoslovakian film director who immigrated to the U.S. in 1968, during the Warsaw Pact invasion of his homeland.  Forman points out that socialism takes many forms ~ economic, political, social, philosophical ~ but that most people in the U.S. have no real understanding of the differences.  Rather, we tend to lump them all together and equate them with our old cold war foe, communism.  Doing so is false and misleading, it turns out, a result of lazy thinking.

Foreman should know.  Born in 1932, he grew up under the vicious oppression of Nazi Germany (both his parents died in concentration camps) and of communism.  He writes ~ "Now, years later, I hear the word 'socialist' being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others.  President Obama, they warn, is a socialist.  The critics cry, 'Obamacare is socialism!'  They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, with its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism [my emphasis].  It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

" Whatever his faults, I don't see much of a socialist in Mr. Obama or, thankfully, signs of that system in this great nation.  Mr. Obama is accused of trying to expand the reach of government ~ into health care, financial regulation, the auto industry, and so on. It's fair to question whether the federal government should have expanded powers.  America, to its credit, has debated this since its birth.  But let's be clear about how frightening socialism actually could be.

"Marx believed that we could wipe out social inequities and Lenin tested those ideas on the Soviet Union.  It was his dream to create a classless society.  But reality set in, as it always does.  And the results were devasting.  Blood flowed through Russia's streets.  The Soviet elite usurped all privileges, sycophants were allowed some and the plebes none.  The entire Eastern bloc, including Czechoslovakia, followed miserably.

"I'm not sure Americans today appreciate quite how predatory socialism was.  It was not ~ as Mr. Obama's detractors suggest ~ merely a government so centralized and bloated that it hobbled private enterprise.  It was a spoils system that killed off everything, all in the name of 'social justice'.

"What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice ~ which never existed and never will ~ but for social harmony.  Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing.  In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody.

" .... I am not asking Mr. Obama and the Republican leaders to stop playing instruments of their choosing.  All I am asking is that every player keep in mind the noble melody of our country.  Otherwise the noisy dissonance might become loud enough to wake another Marx, or even worse."

The distinction between Western European-style socialism, with its governmental provision of social insurance and health care, and Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism cannot be overstated.  How many times over the years has the conservative political/medical establishment resisted health care reform by labeling it "socialized medicine" ~ as though that were a bad thing.  Different nations have tried different forms of universal health care, and the citizens of Canada, the UK, Sweden, France, Israel, Finland, and other nations swear by their excellent health care systems.

Government oversight is inherently neither good nor bad ~ it all depends on what is being overseen, and how, and why.  When certain industries (healthcare, banking, and oil come to mind) prove themselves incapable of social conscience or self-restraint, then it rightfully becomes government's role to regulate their activities to protect American consumers.  That is what the Founders had in mind.  We pay taxes for services rendered ~ schools, roads, national defense, postal service, and yes, regulation to assure clean air and clean water, fair financial practices, equal access to education, and affordable healthcare, among other realms of protection.

The Founders would not condone the predatory, soulless form which capitalism has evolved into.  When a privileged few control nearly all the nation's wealth (and wield a disproportionate share of political influence), the scales need to be brought back into balance.  Any true patriot, not to mention anyone with an ounce of common sense, disregards the venomous nonsense of the far right, complete with baseless accusations of socialism (which kind?  do you even know?).  When a system is broken, don't blame the repairman who shows up to fix it.

The noble melody of our country ~ justice, equal rights, education, free speech, tolerance for diversity ~ has always been a work in progress.  Perfect social justice may not exist in the world, but as an ideal it is the only goal worth striving toward.

THE SHOOTING RANGE

In homage to one of my favorite writers, here is an exerpt from Don Winslow's 2010 novel, Savages, published by Simon & Schuster, now a major motion picture.  It is an adventure story, a love story, a story about the SoCal drug wars ~

.... Chon and Ben hit the shooting range.

Chon goes to the range all the time not because he's preparing for the revolution or the Reconquista, not because he has phallic wet dreams about protecting home and hearth from burglars or home invasion.  You gotta love "home invasions" ~ we thought it would be Mexicans, turns out it was mortgage companies.

He likes the feel of metal in his hands, the kick, the blowback, the precision of chemistry, physics, and engineering mixed with hand-eye coordination.  Not to mention power ~ shooting a gun projects your personal will across time and space in a flash.  I want to hit that and that is hit.  Straight from your mind to the physical world.  Talk about your PowerPoint presentations.

You can spend fifty thousand years practicing meditation, or you can buy a gun.

On the shooting range you create a neat, tiny hole in a piece of paper ~ the crisp entry but not the sloppy exit wound ~ and it's deeply satisfying.  Anyway, Chon likes firearms, they are the

tools

of his trade.

(The distinction, anthropologically speaking, between a "tool" and a "weapon" is that the former is used on inanimate objects and the latter on animate objects, if you can get with the concept of animate "objects".)

Not so much Ben, who has been taught to loathe guns

and gun owners.

Who were, in his liberal home, the object of derision.  Atavistic redneck goobers and right-wing crazies.  His parents would shake their heads and chuckle sadly at the old bumper sticker You'll take my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead hands.  How sad, how sad, how backward.  Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  (Guns do kill people, Chon says ~ that's what they're fucking for.)  Yes, people with guns, Ben's father would opine.

Anyway, Ben is nonviolent by nature.

"Impossible," Chon argued with him one time.  "We're violent by nature, nonviolent by training."

"Other way around," Ben countered.  "We're socially conditioned to be violent."

"Look at chimps."

"What about them?"

"We share ninety-seven percent of our DNA with chimps," Chon said, "and they're violent little fuckers who kill each other.  You can't tell me they're socially conditioned for that."

"Are you saying we're chimps?"

"Are you saying we're not?"

We're chimps with guns.

.... Chon takes Ben to the firing range.

Which is filled today as usual with police types, military types, and women, a few of whom are police or military types.

OC women love shooting those guns, man.  Maybe Freud was right, whatever, but they're in there with their earrings (off for the headsets) and jewelry and makeup and perfume blasting away at potential burglars, home invaders, rapists, and actual (okay, not actual) husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends, lovers, fathers, step-fathers, male bosses, male employees who gave them shit ....

It's a truth-worn joke that women at firing ranges aim not for the head but the groin, that they're shooting not for the bull's eye but for the snake's eye until the instructors just give up and teach them to aim at the knees because that pistol is going to throw high so they'll catch boyfriend/hubby/daddy/ex-boyfriend/ex-hubby square in the junk.

Take O, for instance.

Chon took her to the range one day for giggles and shits.

The girl could shoot.

A natural.

(We mentioned that O likes power tools, right?)

She squeezed off six shots ~ two at a time, like Chon told her ~ and smacked each of them into fatal spots on the target.  Lowered the pistol and said, "I think I came a little."

Now Chon hands Ben a pistol.

"Just point and shoot," Chon tells him.  "Don't overthink it."

Because Ben overanalyzes everything.  Chon is surprised the boy can piss without succumbing to mental paralysis.  (Would it be better to take my dick out with my right hand or my left hand?  Would the choice of left hand have a subconscious connection to concepts of "sinister," as opposed to my right hand feeling "dexterous," and why is urine running down my leg?)

And truly, Ben is looking at the target silhouette and wondering if there are African-American shooting ranges where the target is a white figure on a field of black, a menacing KKKer coming out of the Mississippi night.  Probably not.  Not in the OC (which zealously guards its Second Amendment rights), anyway, where they should just put a sombrero on the targets and get it over with.

Take that, Pancho.  And that, and that.

Ben hates this, how totally out of place he feels in this very weird, neofascist sandbox, looking at the black, albeit deracialized, silhouette staring menacingly at him as Chon is saying something about ~

"Point and shoot twice."

"Twice"

Chon nods.  "Your hand-eye coordination automatically corrects for the second shot."

"What should I aim at?" he asks Chon.

"Just hit the damn thing," Chon answers.  At the range they're probably thinking about, it won't matter, and anyway, hydrostatic shock is going to do the job.  The bullet hits, creating a wall of blood that hits the heart like a tsunami wave ~ side out.

Ben points and shoots.

Twice.

Bam bam.


Misses the whole silhouette.

Twice.

So much for self-correction.

"You're going to have to get better at this," Chon says.

Recalling what his SEAL instructors said ~

The more sweat on the training ground ....
.... the less blood on the battleground.

A FEW DIVERSIONS

Links to other lives.  Let's pretend for a moment that reincarnation exists.  Let's pretend further that in your prior existence, you were a person, not an insect or a rodent.  Lastly, let's assume that at death, one's 'soul' immediately transfers to a fetus or newborn infant.  So how might one decipher who one was before this lifetime?

One way to narrow the field of possibilities is to Google the phrase "died month date year", inserting the specifics of your birthdate.  Voila, you will have before you pages of the names of people, famous or otherwise, who died on the day you were born ~ each the possible preincarnation of your own sweet self.  Alas, such a Google search is probably limited to the country in which you live, and we can't assume you didn't spend your prior life elsewhere.  But it's a start.

A similar curiosity is to learn the names of famous individuals (living or dead) who share the date of your birth.  Here is one resource for learning just that.  The link takes you to today's date ~ simply use the calendar at upper left to cycle to the month and date of your own birth.  The same caveat applies regarding a limited sampling based on your nationality and culture.  But it's all in fun.  My co-birthers happen to include Reese Witherspoon, Lena Olin, William Shatner, Stephen Sondheim, Andrew Lloyd Weber, Bob Costas, and Orrin Hatch ~ a definite mixed bag.  BTW, happy birthday, Michelle Rodriguez!

Eyesight.  The website xkcd ("a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math and language") yesterday posted this excellent image of how our eyes work.  Click on the image to enlarge.

Swimming through the forest.  Imagine an alpine valley which is a dry park in the winter, and partially submerged beneath snowmelt to form a surreal lake in summer ~ surreal because the underwater landscape looks like any other fresh-air forest or park, with trees, footpaths, park benches, and shrubbery, just .... underwater (see image above).  Austria's Green Lake is precisely that.  Click on the link for astonishing photos and a video.  I'd love to go diving there someday.

Relativistic baseball.  Thanks to friend Bill for the link to this Q&A ~ "What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% of the speed of light?"  The physics contained in the answer are easy to grasp, illustrated, and still shocking.

DOWN FOR THE COUNT

No blog post today.  I'm unable to sit at my computer for long, due to pain from a lower back injury.  I hope to be back in the pilot's seat tomorrow.  Cheers.

BLACK AND WHITE

Years ago, while still an undergrad at the University of Arizona, I took an elective class which I thought might enhance my studies in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.  The class was called Scientific Illustration, and was presented in two parts ~ a semester of photography (using a variety of studio and field cameras, and developing our own film in the adjoining darkroom), and a semester of less technological art ~ drawing with pencil and charcoal, painting with oil and acrylic.  The intent of the course was to train students to illustrate scientific papers ~ their own or someone else's.

Most of us are familiar with the notion that depriving someone of one sense, say eyesight, tends to heighten that person's acuity in the other senses.  Similarly, if one removes from consideration any of the elements of formal art analysis ~ color, space, line, volume, mass, or composition ~ the effect is to dramatize the remaining elements.  For example, all of our photographs were taken on black and white film, not on color film.  The effect was to focus our perception of composition and visual contrast while shooting.

Consider for a moment the photograph above (click to enlarge), taken by Arturo Rivera.  If you were seeing it in color, it would be visually compelling in the manner of many skyscapes.  But seeing it in black and white strengthens the impression of dark weight in the clouds, the feeling of majestic surging motion frozen in time, and the contrasting luminescence of the full moon.  It becomes a work of art.  The eye moves from mass to mass, always returning to the lunar focus.

Color will always arrest our attention, and many images achieve their greatest power in color.  Black and white images have unfortunately fallen out of fashion, hastened along by the ease of digital photography.  Too bad.  If you'd like to immerse yourself in the landscapes of the American West in a different manner, browse through a book of photos by Ansel Adams.  You will find yourself viewing your own world through different eyes.

WRITER CATS

This is dedicated to all my fellow writers, past, present and future.  If you've ever faced a writing deadline ~ for a class paper, a journalism article, a book chapter, a computer programming project, or just that thank you note to your mother ~ you'll either smile or laugh out loud at News Cat GIFs (cats reacting to news situations because ... ).  A GIF is an image format that supports brief, repeating bits of animation.  I love cats, I love satire, and I love animation.  Enjoy!

OLDER IS BETTER

When I was a young boy starting school, everyone seemed old.  And any adult over 30 seemed ancient.  In my innocence, I speculated whether I would live to see the momentous year 2000.  To do so, I would have to survive to age 53.  Wow, that sounded really old, but maybe luck would be with me (not stopping to recall that all my grandparents were already well past the august age of 53).

In the angst of my 20s, having lived through the Vietnam War and surrounded by the social upheaval of the 1970s, I felt prematurely old.  Looking back, I can only smile.  I married (the first time) at age 24, but I think it wasn't until my son was born on my 30th birthday that I internally crossed the threshold into committed adulthood.  Some of us are late bloomers ~ or perhaps slow learners.

During my 30s I returned to college to earn my bachelor's degree in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.  During those years I was a full-time student, a full-time single parent, and held a part-time job as a genetics lab tech.  Successfully navigating that passage is one of my proudest accomplishments ~ right up there with helping my son to become the fine man he is today.  Other accomplishments followed, as did two other marriages and a diverse series of lovers (the number of whom is none of your business), accompanied by a colorful and varied work life.

While in my 40s and 50s I determinedly thought of myself as young-to-middle-aged.  The year 2000 came and went without the appearance of the Grim Reaper.  Just this year I turned 65, and while I mentally still feel young, certain physical changes force me to accept that I'm aging.  And that's a good thing.  

Some dream of having their 20- or 30-year-old body back, while retaining the experience and wisdom they've accumulated during their lifetimes.  That might be fun, but such wishful thinking is useful only as a thought experiment, nothing to dwell upon.  Because it turns out that we seniors have not only earned our wings, we've achieved abilities that young people can barely conceive of.  Being older rocks!

Don't believe me?  Check out Helen Fields' thoughts in her Smithsonian piece, What Is So Good About Growing Old.  Notice the lack of a question mark ~ Fields isn't asking, she's telling.  Specifically, research shows that even as certain skills may decline with age, others become sharper to compensate.  For instance ~

• Older people in complex jobs are expert at juggling multiple, often conflicting tasks.
• Older people deal with social conflicts more effectively, excelling at imagining different points of view, thinking of multiple resolutions, and suggesting compromises.
• Older people manage their emotions better, with less extreme highs and lows, and less gratuitous risk-taking.  As a result, older people report that they feel less stress, less anger, and more happiness with age, compared with the drama of youth.

We have the life experience and perspective to know a con job when we see it, and to appreciate the arts, science, and the cultural and natural worlds in all their richness.  And while it is true that our bodies may become less physically resilient and more prone to certain illnesses or infirmities (often the direct result of the excesses of our youth), it is also true that physical decline is not inevitable.  As do many people my age, I exercise daily, eat healthy foods, and pay attention to the relationships in my life.  "60 is the new 40" has become a cliche, but there is truth to it.  The stereotype of a decaying elder in a rocking chair no longer applies.

I have the benefit of self-awareness, good genes (my grandparents lived into their 80s, and my parents are still going strong in their 80s), and being a baby boomer.  Mock all you want, but we BB-ers have improved the world (and ourselves) in ways too numerous to count ~ including learning how to help each other through the stages of life.  Rather than glumly accepting the ravages of aging, we remain mentally and physically active, and celebrate life.  Like fine wine, we improve with age.  That can only be a good thing.

Cheers.

MATH ILLITERACY

Following up on yesterday's post on science phobia ~ science and math are intimately intertwined (math being the language of science).  So it is understandable (and regrettable) that a poor understanding of one field implies the probability of a poor understanding of the other.  This has been confirmed emphatically in recent years, as American students' science and math performance has fallen, while the performance of students from other developed and developing nations has risen to overtake us.  I fully support young people and adults of all nations becoming literate in science and math.  I do not support American young people and adults falling by the wayside, as others pass us by.  We have too much to contribute.

One reason for this downhill slide may be the very technology which our prosperity provides.  When I was young, our tools were a pencil, a piece of paper, and our minds.  We practiced until (a) we had the multiplication tables memorized, (b) we began to grasp the abstract concepts behind each operation, and (c) many of us could perform the math in our heads.  The closest we came to having technological tools were a compass, ruler, and protractor in geometry, and a slide rule in trigonometry (state of the art in those days, used by engineers in the space program).

Those days are gone.  Today schools allow students to rely on sophisticated hand-held calculators.  Punch in the numbers, and up pops the result.  What's wrong with that?  Just this ~ in a learning setting, students need to understand HOW math works in order to grasp fundamental concepts, and in order to have a foundation for asking intelligent questions.  In the classroom, a calculator is a crutch which discourages real learning.

When I was a teacher (math, algebra, biology, environmental studies), no calculators were allowed.  Further, I required my students to show their work on paper, not just write down an answer.  I had to know that they understood the process by which they arrived at that answer.  Otherwise it could be just a lucky guess, or cheating.  That's how I learned math, that's how I taught math.

Some of the best math teachers in the nation are returning to this very approach to learning, according to Konstantin Kakaes in a Slate article called Why Johnny Can't Add Without a Calculator.  One such teacher, Vern Williams, "doesn't just prefer his old chalkboard to the high-tech version.  His kids learn from textbooks that are decades old ~ not because they can't afford new ones, but because Williams and an handful of his like-minded colleagues know the old ones are better .... His preferred algebra book, he says, is 'in-your-face algebra.  They give amazing outstanding examples.  They teach the lessons.'  The modern textbooks, he says, contain hundreds of extraneous, confusing and often outright wrong examples, instead of presenting mathematical ideas in a coherent way.  The examples bloat the books to thousands of pages and disrupt the logical flow of ideas."

What about tech tools like calculators?  "According to an October 2011 report, 89 percent of high school math teachers think their students are ready for college-level mathematics.  But only 26 percent of post-secondary [university] teachers think the students are ready once they get there.  This shortfall in mathematical preparation for college-bound students has existed for a long time, but it is being exacerbated by the increasing use of technology.  College-level math classes almost never use graphing calculators (see image above), while high school classes invariably do.  College professors want their students to understand abstract concepts.  Technology advocates claim their products help teach students such abstractions, but in practice they simply don't."

And here's a point I stressed in yesterday's post ~ "Math and science can be hard to learn, and that's OK.  The proper job of a teacher is not to make it easy, but to guide students through the difficulty by getting them to practice and persevere.  'Some of the best basketball players on Earth will stand at that foul line and shoot foul shots for hours and be bored out of their minds,' says Williams.  Math students, too, need to practice foul shots ~ adding fractions, factoring polynomials.  And whether or not the students are bright, ' once they buy into the idea that hard work leads to cool results,' Williams says, 'you can work with them.'

"Educational researchers often present a false dichotomy between fluency and conceptual reasoning.  But as in basketball, where shooting foul shots helps you learn how to take a fancier shot, computational fluency is the path to conceptual understanding.  There is no way around it."

Note ~ the best reading and mathematics learning software packages have no measurable effect on test scores.  Sloppy studies commissioned by the purveyors of such software, folks who have a financial stake in the outcome, are unfortunately taken at face value by many teachers and administrators around the country.  No rigorous study has found technology to be effective in enhancing students' learning of math.  Just the opposite is true ~ math software is limited, narrow, and does not allow for questions or for alternative, equally valid paths to a solution.

"Computer technology, while great for many things, is just not much good for teaching, yet.  Paradoxically, using technology can inhibit understanding how it works.  If you learn how to multiply 37 by 41 using a calculator, you only understand the black box.  [You don't understand the process of multiplication.]  Maybe one day software will be smart enough to be useful, but that day won't be any time soon, for two reasons.  The first is that education, especially of children, is as much an emotional process as an imparting of knowledge ~ there is no technological substitute for a teacher who cares.  The second is that education is poorly structured.  Technology is bad at dealing with poorly structured concepts.  One question leads to another leads to another, and the rigid structure of computer software has no way of dealing with this.  Software is especially bad for smart kids, who are held back by its flexibility.

"The real shortfall in math and science education can be solved not by software or gadgets but by better teachers .... The new technology makes it easier than ever for teachers to avoid learning the subject .... A teacher who plans his own lecture is forced toward mastery of the material, but one who downloads a PowerPoint presentation doesn't have to know anything beyond how to download the presentation. It is a miracle of efficiency ~ empty calories."

When I taught remedial summer math classes, the first task was the students' taking a placement test.  If their results showed a gap in understanding first-year algebra, or long division, or fractions, that's where that individual's summer work began.  As predictable as the sunrise was the inevitable complaint, "But I already TOOK that."  I had to explain that the student may have been exposed to it at some point, but they didn't learn it.  And without the foundation, they would not have the tools for more advanced work.  So, we practiced.  And practiced.  And with luck and perseverance, at some point comes the reward which makes every true teacher's heart leap ~ that moment when you can actually see a light go on over the student's head, when they really, really get it, inside their own brains.  No calculator needed.

SCIENCE PHOBIA

Along with our deteriorating math skills, the U.S. population (not coincidentally) is becoming increasingly, willfully ignorant about science.  It is a phenomenon I cannot grasp.  The word 'science' literally means 'knowledge'.  Why would anyone choose to avoid understanding the world around them?

Well, probably because it's hard.  But nearly all the worthwhile things in life are hard ~ science, math, relationships, parenting.  We're driven by strong biological, genetic, and cultural imperatives to seek out relationships and parenting.  If history is any guide, we're also born with a powerful need to explore, to discover, to expand our horizons.  So what if it's hard, stop whining.

The nosedive in enthusiasm for science and math seems to come and go in cycles.  Remember the Dark Ages?  Nosedive.  Remember the Enlightenment?  Climbing high.  Take a moment and recall your own reaction to taking science classes in school.  Did you opt out of the challenge of biology and chemistry and physics, instead taking some remedial 'general science' class?  Did you shy away from algebra, geometry, trigonometry, telling yourself that having a vague grasp of addition and subtraction was good enough?  To what extent did your parents influence your choices, by advice or by example?

That cross-generational encouragement is essential, as is the sometimes-flaky, sometimes-sound advice we receive from our peers.  According to Christopher Mims in How Our Disinterest in the Environment Signals the End of Nature, we suffer from " 'generational amnesia', in which [our elders remember] an ecosystem that younger generations haven't a clue ever existed.  It's not an intuitive phenomenon.  We consider 'nature' to be whatever we experienced as children, and, limited by our incomplete grasp of history and our short lifespans, are only capable of recognizing short windows of change in what is by now the most profound transformation the Earth has experienced since the great extinctions of yore ~ that is, the human experiment .... We have basically killed most of the wildlife that was available to us a single generation ago".

But generational amnesia is only a partial explanation.  There are those among us (like me) who have vivid memories of habitats, entire ecosystems, and many, many species which shared our garden planet only half a century ago, but which no longer exist ~ or exist in threatened numbers and a degraded environment.  Too few of us want to understand that as nature fares, so fare humans. We are consciously deciding to ignore the warnings of biologists, climate scientists, and ecologists.

Care for proof?  Consider the introduction of a bill in the North Carolina legislature which would in essence make it illegal to take science into account when state and local policy makers determine whether sea level rise is real.  Instead, that determination will be made by ~ wait for it ~ a committee, the Coastal Resources Commission (an entity more concerned with land development than with the reality of climate change.  Under the legislation, the CRS is "restricted from using accelerated sea-level rise models if they are not 'consistent with historical trends'."

Be definition, if one is making a decision based on the past, one is going to be caught napping if a new and destructive event like anthropogenic sea level rise starts lapping around one's ankles.  That's like driving a car by referring solely to the rear-view mirror.  What are these people thinking?  Answer ~ they are not.  Which is compelling evidence why we need fewer lawyers and more scientists in all levels of government.

Bottom line, we have arrived at a tipping point for our planet.  A major new study in the journal Nature phrases it as though the tipping point isn't quite here yet ~ "A prestigious group of scientists from around the world is warning that population growth, widespread destruction of natural ecosystems, and climate change may be driving Earth toward an irreversible change in the biosphere, a planet-wide tipping point that would have destructive consequences absent adequate preparation and mitigation .... 'It really will be a new world, biologically, at that point.  The data suggests that there will be a reduction in biodiversity and severe impacts on much of what we depend on to sustain our quality of life, including, for example, fisheries, agriculture, forest products and clean water.  This could happen within just a few generations.' "

The truly discouraging aspect of the report is that the information has been around for at least thirty years ~ this is language I encountered while pursuing my bachelor's degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona.  I suppose the authors put things in a tentative future tense to avoid sounding alarmist, but NEWS FLASH, alarm is exactly what is called for.  The tipping point isn't approaching, it has already passed.  The carbon cycle and water cycle are already disrupted.  Fisheries have already crashed or become so poisoned by toxins like mercury that they are not edible.  Agriculture is in crisis due to years of drought produced by global warming.  Glaciers, the Arctic polar ice cap, and the Antarctic ice shelves are disappearing.  And yes, myopic North Carolina, sea levels are rising.  As the human population soars, competition becomes deadly over dwindling resources.  The atmosphere, the land and the world ocean are polluted.  The time to begin "adequate preparation and mitigation" was decades ago.  The time for alarm is now.

I've been talking and writing for years about the threshold beyond which the ugly processes we humans set in motion achieve such momentum that they become irreversible.  We've already crossed that threshold.  The tipping point is behind us.  The only question remaining is whether we can muster the understanding, the will, and the setting of priorities to salvage what we can.  We must do this not for our own survival (though our survival depends on it), but rather because we have an ethical responsibility to all of life on Earth.  And that's not science, folks, that's common sense.  When you make a mess, you clean it up.  It is the only planet we have.

(Art credit ~ Cheng Li)

REVOLUTION MYTHS

On this day after the national celebration of America's independence, it seems appropriate to take on some of the myths surrounding the American Revolution.  Historian John Farling, writing in Smithsonian, does just that in a well-researched essay which puts the lie to many of the cherished folk tales we were taught in school.  You will find his writing to be accessible and easy to follow.  Below is a summary of the myths he deflates ~

• Great Britain did not know what it was getting into.
• Americans of all stripes took up arms out of patriotism.
• Continental soldiers were always ragged and hungry.
• The militia were useless.
• The Battle of Saratoga was the war's turning point.
• General Washington was a brilliant tactician and strategist.
• Great Britain could never have won the war.

In the spirit of sociologist James Loewen's critique of American history textbooks, Lies My Teacher Told Me, it is incumbent upon us as responsible, informed citizens to dig more deeply in order to fully understand our history .... lest we repeat it, as we are currently doing with regard to the wars we choose, the political polarization we tolerate, and the dogmatic fear of science which we encourage.  More on that tomorrow.  (Washington image above courtesy of Smithsonian.)

FLASHMOB FEVER

Our world is changing so quickly ~ connectivity and the Internet provide cross-pollination of ideas at a pace orders of magnitude more quickly than was true only a few decades ago.  And language is changing with the times.

Case in point ~ in 2003 the first flashmob happened.  A flashmob is "a group of people who assemble suddenly in a place, perform an unusual and seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment, satire, and artistic expression."

Though apparently spontaneous to the audience, the best flashmobs are well-planned and rehearsed, choreographed down to the second, yet seemingly effortless.  They may be performed by dancers, musicians, mimes, actors, or artists.  The venue might be a city street, a subway car, a park, or inside a building.  Here is a perfect example ~ members of the Valles Symphony Orchestra in Sabadell, Spain appeaar by ones and twos from hiding to join the solo string bassist (see image above) in a crowded plaza.  Their rendition of Beethoven's 'Ode to Joy' at first brings silence, then smiles, then enthusiastic participation from the rapt audience.  And here is another ~ members of the Copenhagen Philharmonic magically producing their instruments in a metro car to lay a melody from Grieg's Peer Gynt suite.

A finer time you will not find today.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SPANKING

How often have you witnessed a parent in a store (or even in their home) spanking a crying or disruptive child?  How often have you seen a parent being harshly verbal with that child, enough to make your skin crawl?  How often have you had the courage to intervene?

If you did, chances are you were told to mind your own business ~ "This is my kid, and I'll discipline as I see fit.  Hell, I was spanked when I was a kid, and I turned out okay!"  Unless the parent was drawing blood or leaving bruises, you felt you had no choice but to turn away.

Don't.  A new study finds that simple spanking or slapping can so traumatize a child that he or she is far more likely to develop severe problems as an adult ~ problems ranging from alcohol and drug abuse to mood, anxiety and personality disorders.  The researchers noted that "The link between child abuse ~ both physical and sexual ~ and mental disorders in adulthood has long been established.  But studies of milder forms of punishment that had similar findings have been disputed.

"For this analysis, participants who also reported severe physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect, or exposure to intimate partner violence were excluded.  The final analytic sample included 20,607 participants."

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors and family dysfunction, harsh physical punishment was associated with an increased risk of most lifetime Axis I mental disorders. Specifically ~

• the risk of major depression was 41 percent higher
• the risk of mania was 93 percent higher
• the risk of any mood disorder was 49 percent higher
• the risk of any anxiety disorder was 36 percent higher
• the risk of any alcohol abuse or dependence was 59 percent higher
• the risk of any drug abuse or dependence was 52 percent higher

Tragically, physical punishment (such as pushing, grabbing,  shoving, slapping, hitting) remains a commonly used method of discipline in North America, and is considered socially acceptable by many care givers.  Click here to view an ABC News summary of the study, and check out the embedded videos ~ one a debate on spanking, one a recording of parents spanking children, and one discussing whether teachers should spank (my response ~ over my dead body).  NOTE ~ an adult using a bare hand to spank is bad enough.  Using an object like a leather belt, a wooden paddle, or other device is sadistic.

I was a childhood victim of both bullying at school, and physical/emotional abuse at home.  The treatment I received was not as severe as some parents dish out, but it was harsh enough that I resolved that I would never, never strike my own child, nor allow anyone else to do so.  My thought was ~ and remains ~ that the lesson children learn is that violence is an acceptable way to solve problems.  It has been demonstrated repeatedly that those who are mistreated as children, too often become abusers themselves as adults.  (I can recall only one instance in which I lost my temper and slapped my son, and I was horrified at myself.  The power of our upbringing runs strong and deep within us, even when we consciously resist it.)  

I do not hesitate to speak up when I see physical or emotional abuse of any kind directed at an animal, a child, or a weaker adult.  These days my son is six inches taller than me, and outweighs me by 100 lb.  In that sense he hardly needs protection.  But in another sense I'm better equipped than he is to stand up to someone, since I have training in military hand-to-hand combat, boxing, and karate.  I'd much rather use reason and persuasion to talk someone down from a combative or abusive mood, but it's good to know that I can defend myself ~ and defend others.

So if you know of anyone who still believes that spanking or hitting is okay, please share this with that person ~ not to preach to them, but to persuade them that they are defending child abuse.   If you are that person yourself, please think long and hard about the lifelong damage you are inflicting on someone you love.

SHAME AS PUNISHMENT

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, frustrated over delays at the state capital over approving his proposals for automated speed cameras generating traffic tickets to enforce traffic speed limits, has an alternative plan ~ posting the cameras' data (speed recorded and a photo of the offending vehicle's license plate, thus the owner's name) publicly.  His hope is that the prospect of public humiliation will remind drivers to travel more safely.

He might be onto something.  Many scofflaws don't give a second thought to accumulating dozens of unpaid traffic tickets.  It can even become a point of perverse pride.  Other speeders may pay their fines and dismiss the episode, never giving up their disregard for traffic regulations.  But imagine your photo, name, license plate image, and the date, time, and speed violation appearing in some public place ~ there could be consequences with your spouse, your employer, or simply with knowing that people are looking at you askance.

When I was growing up, I learned the hard way that shame can be as excruciating as physical or financial punishment.  One day in first grade, I played too roughly with a classmate during recess.  The principal took me into his office and had me sit in a chair.  He never raised his voice, was not harsh in any way ~ but he was clear and firm that my behavior was unacceptable.  During my exile, I had to endure the stares and whispered questions of classmates who came in on some errand or other, and I was too thunderstruck to reply, or even to lift my head.  After 20 minutes he quietly sent me back to class, thoroughly ashamed of myself.

In seventh grade, like many teenage children, I began testing limits.  One form this took was shoplifting a candy bar from a nearby supermarket during the lunch hour.  I got away with it a few times, but fate was waiting for me.  On my third attempt, a store employee saw me, and as I was walking out the front door, he called me back inside.  In a back room, the manager scolded me, then demanded that I call my mother to tell her what I'd done.  He thought I'd get a lecture and that would be the end of it, but he didn't know my mother.  She hung up and drove to the store, apologized personally to the manager, then drove me back to school.  Apparently word had gotten around, because a boy sitting in the seat beside me whispered the word "Thief!" ~ I was mortified.  During the walk home at the end of the school day my dread mounted.  Again, no physical punishment awaited, but a verbal lashing ensued.  I felt lower than the belly of a rattlesnake's mother-in-law.

Did shame work on me?  Mostly, yes.  I continued to tested limits, but they were more intellectual than behavioral.  With one notable exception.  During the summer after my senior year in high school, with college on the horizon, one weekend evening I was hanging out with my best friend.  We'd grown weary of dragging Main Street, so (with me at the wheel of my parents' car) we headed out on a darkened highway.  On the return trip I felt the need for speed, and goosed the accelerator.  We must have been doing 85 mph when we topped a slight rise to see, several hundred yards ahead, a semi truck pulling a flatbed trailer in the act of turning from a side road in our direction.  The rest of this paragraph took less than five seconds to happen in real time.  The driver, seeing us coming at high speed, changed his course to pull straight ahead, trying to get out of our way. I jammed on the brakes and the tires left a lo-o-ong trail of skid marks, but I could see he wouldn't clear our path in time.  Acting instinctively, I swung my steering wheel hard to the right, hoping to veer onto the road the truck was vacating.  No dice, my speed was too great.  The car hit the left rear corner of his trailer with an indescribably loud BANG, spun 180 degrees and wrapped itself around a telephone pole.  The g-force in decelerating from 60 to 0 in less than a second were tremendous, yet neither of us was injured ~ a fact made all the more remarkable when you consider that on my side, the point of impact with the trailer was at the door post just behind my head, and on my friend's side, the point of impact with the telephone pole was at the door post just behind his head.  The force popped one lens from my eyeglasses without cracking the frame.

It took several moments for our heads and our hearing to clear.  Both our fathers came when we phoned, as did the Highway Patrol.  Neither driver was cited, though we both contributed to the accident.  Apparently the truck driver had been drinking, and I was clearly speeding recklessly.  The officer could see that I was deeply shaken, my dad's car totaled.  (The only damage to the sturdy trailer was a broken tail light.)  Looking back, one could not have choreographed the scene to assure survival any more precisely than the actual event.  A fraction of a second either way, and I or my friend would have died, even wearing our lap-style seat belts.  The thought still makes my blood run cold.  As if that weren't enough karma looking out for us, if I'd somehow managed to miss the trailer, we would have plowed headfirst into that telephone pole, or else missed it and careened into the crowded bowling alley parking lot on the far side.  The mind shudders.

And yes, I caught hell when I got home, deservedly.  The insurance paid for a replacement car, and both my friend and I were able to attend college that fall.  He remains my friend to this day, a saint when it comes to forgiveness.  And even though I sometimes still push the speed limit, it's only by 3-5 mph, never by as egregious a speed as that night.  An emphatic voice inside reminds me of how lucky I am to still be alive.  No traffic fine, no weekend in jail, could have accomplished that.  The horror and shame of knowing I nearly killed my best friend did.

Would seeing my name and photo in the newspaper after the accident have achieved the same result?  Probably, but not nearly to the same degree.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, CANADA

Today marks the 145th observance of Canada Day, celebrating the unification of several colonies into the single nation of Canada within the British Empire.  The last remnants of British Parliamentary control were surrendered in 1982 with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution.  Cheers to our good friend to the north, with whom we share the world's longest undefended border, as well as Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park.  Long may our friendship thrive.