The New Yorker

Have you seen the cover of the New Yorker for next week? If you haven't, it is shown below. The New Yorker is a relatively liberal publication that prides itself on the depth, subtlety and intelligence of their writing, their cartoons and their satire. Next week's cover shows a turban-wearing Barack Obama standing alongside Afro-sporting, machine-gun toting Michelle Obama in the Oval Office. Burning in the hearth is an American flag, and above it, a picture of Osama bin Laden. In a statement from the New Yorker regarding the cover, they say that, "Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover." 

What do we call satire when it misses the mark to such a degree? When it simply reinforces ignorant, misinformed and hateful lies? I'm not absolutely certain, but in this case, I think we're going to have to go with racism. The editors at the New Yorker may think that they are being clever and painting an absurd picture of the Obamas to highlight how foolish such stereotypes are, but in this instance, their subtlety has escaped everyone, including themselves, and they have strayed from social critique into just plain bad judgement and foolishness. 

I have to wonder, wasn't there anybody in the room who questioned the emperor's new clothes? Or was everybody so in love with their own cleverness and cutting edge political satire that they didn't realize the cover is just plain stupid?

And for those out there who cry "free speech," and there are many already doing that, this isn't about free speech. I'm not suggesting that the New Yorker doesn't have the right to publish this image, or that they don't have the right to think that they are being all cool and progressive and insightful by doing so. I'm just saying they're wrong. They are free to keep publishing images like this. The only repercussions will be that some people will cancel their subscriptions and other people will start new ones. And then, bit by bit, they'll have to stop pretending that the images are being perceived by their readers as satire and accept that they are pandering to hate mongers. Go get 'em.

We now return to our regular programming

Greetings patient readers. My humblest apologies for my unavoidable absence last week, but the lungs were not working the way they're supposed to. Enough about me, however, did you miss me?

I'd like to spend some talking about recycling today. A subject near and dear to all our hearts. The future of our planet depends on it, right? Maybe. But then again, maybe not. We've got cans, plastic bottles, glass bottles, newspapers, colored paper, recycled white paper, scented paper, milk cartons, plastic packaging, organic food scraps, non-organic food scraps. The array of items that must be recycled in the name of our planet is truly dizzying. But shouldn't we take a minute or two and ask ourselves if all this work is really good for the planet after all? Let alone good for the economy or good for our mental well being.

Let's start with paper, that's easy. "Save a tree," people are always saying when they don't take a shopping bag from the grocery store or they toss their newspaper in the recycling bin. But are they really saving a tree by doing that? Are they making the Earth healthier? I don't think so. Think about it. Right now there is more forest coverage in the United States than there ever has been in the history of our country. Why? Because we are planting more trees. What are we planting more trees? Because trees are a renewable resource; they're a crop, just like corn. Planet a field of trees, let it grow, and then a 12-15 years later, come along and chop it down and plant some more. Simple. If we use more paper or wood without recycling it, we simply plant more trees. In fact, every time you recycle your paper, that means that fewer trees are being cut down and therefore fewer trees are being planted. That means that less carbon is being taken out of the air and global warming is increasing.  

So you can see that recycling paper not only doesn't save trees (quite the contrary, it means fewer trees), but also it leads to more global warming. This doesn't taken into account the amount of carbon monoxide spewed into the air by all those trucks picking up bins of paper from sidewalks all over America. I think we can all agree that's bad for the planet without a lengthy analysis, yes. The other thing it doesn't take into account, the fact that recycling paper produces more and worse pollution than producing new paper.

Now before one of you out there starts throwing around phrases like "old growth forest" and "ecosystem," that's a different issue. Recycling or not recycling has nothing to do with whether greedy developers and regulators make bad decisions or not. Sure we all want to keep old growth forests (though the issue is not as clear cut as you might think, pun intended), but the fact is that recycling or not recycling paper has no bearing on that issue, and shouldn't enter into that debate.

Well I had planned to address the other recyclables in this posting, but I see that I've gone on far too long, so I'll have to leave cans and bottles for another time. See you then.

Silent Sunday

4th of July

The United States Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration was a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

If you'd like to read the full text you can visit the Library of Congress website. Not a bad idea to read it periodically. Or if you'd prefer just look at fireworks! Hopefully you'll do both - I plan to.


Robin, the lonely blog mistress

25 Things You Probably Don't Care About

1. Barbie's measurements (if she were life-size): 39-23-33
2. Coca-cola was originally green
3. Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than for the US Treasury
4. The Hawaiian alphabet has 12 letters
5. First novel ever written on a typewriter was "Tom Sawyer"
6. There are more collect calls on Father's Day than any other day of the year
7. It is possible to lead a cow upstairs but not downstairs
8. Men get hiccups more often than women
9. Men can read smaller print than women; women can hear better
10. Chances that an American lives within 50 mi of where he/she grew up: 1 in 2.
11. City with the most Rolls Royces per capita: Hong Kong
12. State with the highest percentage of people who walk to work: Alaska
13. Percentage of North America that is wilderness: 38
14. Estimated percentage of American adults who go on a diet each year: 44
15. Percentage of Americans who say that God has spoken to them: 36
16. City with the highest per capita viewership of TV evangelists: Washington DC
17. Number of different familial relationships for which Hallmark makes cards: 105
18. Average number of people airborne over the US any given hour: 61,000
19. Percentage of Americans who have visited Disneyland or Disney World: 70
20. Portion of ice cream sold that is vanilla: 1/3
21. Portion of potatoes sold that are French-fried: 1/3
22. Percentage of mammal species that are monogamous: 3
23. Only first lady to carry a loaded revolver: Eleanor Roosevelt
24. Only president to win a Pulitzer: John F. Kennedy, for "Profiles in Courage"
25. The youngest pope was 11 years old

Robin, the lonely blog mistress

Poetry Day

Louise Gluck is a Pulitzer prize winning poet. She was the US Poet Laureate from 2003-2004. You can read more about her at Britannica Online. I like her poetry quite a bit - hopefully you'll enjoy this one.


Matins

You want to know how I spend my time?
I walk the front lawn, pretending
to be weeding. You ought to know
I'm never weeding, on my knees, pulling
clumps of clover from the flower beds: in fact
I'm looking for courage, for some evidence
my life will change, though
it takes forever, checking
each clump for the symbolic
leaf, and soon the summer is ending, already
the leaves turning, always the sick trees
going first, the dying turning
brilliant yellow, while a few dark birds perform
their curfew of music. You want to see my hands?
As empty now as at the first note.
Or was the point always
to continue without a sign?

Into Great Silence

Down to the Puritan marrow of my bones, There's something in this richness that I hate. ~Elinor Wylie

I know that you all think, based on my exciting posts, that I lead a fascinating life. To perpetuate that myth, I thought I'd share with you what I did on Saturday. I watched a 2 hr 42 min movie called Into Great Silence. It is a film introducing the daily activities of the Carthusian monks of the Grande Chartreuse monastery. They live silent lives, usually speaking only once a week when they go out for a walk. There is some chanting and reading, other than that the only noise is of activities such as sawing wood and fixing food.

Throughout the film the camera periodically focuses on each monk's face for about 15-20 seconds. It is really amazing to see their faces up close and how they respond to looking into the camera for what, while it seems a very short time, must seem awfully long when a camera is pointed at you.

I have to admit that it sounds kind of boring, especially for nearly 3 hours, but it was a really good film. German filmmaker Philip Groning asked in 1984 for permission to film the monks. He was told it was to early, maybe in 10 or 15 years. Sixteen years later they were ready. Groning lived in the monastery following the monks through their daily routines.

The Grande Chartreuse monastery is located in the French Alps and is considered one of the world's most ascetic monasteries. It is the motherhouse of the Carthusian order. The Carthusian order was founded by St. Bruno in 1084. The monks in the order have no active ministry, they spend their time praying on behalf of the church and the world.

I don't feel like I'm doing a very good job of explaining the film. This review from the New York Times might give you a better idea. The review ends by saying: By the end, what you have learned is impossible to sum up, but your sense of the world is nonetheless perceptibly altered. I would agree.

I find it a moving experience to watch something like this. For me, it is partly about religion and devotion to God but also about the devotion and passion people bring to something they believe in deeply. It is about giving yourself up to something, or someone, so completely that truly nothing else matters. I am awed at the commitment the monks in this monastery have made.

A little update: Last night we had company, some friends of Jill & John's, and I mentioned having watched this movie. One of them had also seen it and enjoyed it. I was pretty excited to find someone else who liked it!

Here is a YouTube video of the trailer for the movie: