MisoFishy and TVs in Restaurants

We were having dinner with my mom at MisoFishy on Lincoln. 

It's unpretentious, but more than a hole in the wall.  It felt like a neighborhood restaurant with a larger appeal.


But it had three big video screens.  One, appropriately, was an animated fish tank, but the other two had on a basketball game.  

A young couple (anyone under 40 fits that) was sitting near us.  I apologize for this picture, but I felt uncomfortable intruding on the privacy of the couple with my camera.  I didn't realize until I got home that I had the woman's face in it.  I've smudged her face in Photoshop.  She was attractive and so was the man sitting across the table from her.  They both had wedding rings on and I assumed they were married.  They talked a lot.  But every few minutes or so, while she was looking at him and talking to him, his head angled up and his eyes locked onto the screen for five to fifteen seconds.  He was so clearly NOT paying complete attention to his companion. 

My eyes wandered up to the screen now and then too.  And I've noticed the seductiveness of tv monitors in other restaurants.  How is this affecting relationships?  This couple was having real conversation that kept being interrupted by the screen.  I could see him break eye contact to check the television from behind him.  Surely she must have been irked when his eyes left hers for the ballgame.

Perhaps I paid more attention this time after the Chris Hedges video I posted last week in which he talked about his book Empire of Illusion and how we're moving from literacy to images and how we are being distracted by all the moving images.  We're being distracted from what we're doing, just by the movement, as in this case at the restaurant.  And we're being distracted by the content, distracted both from our real lives by this artificial life and from the realities of power in society. 

But I don't think individual restaurant owners are part of a conspiracy to distract us  paying more attention to lobbyists and who pays them.  They must think that customers want televisions.  But do we?


Do restaurants without tv monitors do less well than those with?  [As soon as I wrote that I had to start googling, below is a sampling of what I found on televisions in restaurants.]

Most online comments are negative with exceptions for sports bars, possibly lobbies where people are waiting, and airports.  (I'm ok with sports bars having tvs.)

Back in October 2008, when he was about to turn 33, James Norton reflected my concerns above:

Now insert a television, even with the volume turned down. It catches your attention, and your brain does what brains do: It tries to understand the image, the context, and the story, deciphering the action and suddenly and illogically becoming invested in it. Doesn't matter if it's a presidential debate with subtitles or a newly rebroadcast rerun of ALF. We're hooked. And we're disengaged from the people with whom we're supposed to be connecting.

A similar sentiment from Riverfront Times:

​Gut Check has begrudgingly accepted the sad fact that there will often be an illuminated screen of one type or another shoved in our faces when we eat. Sometimes it's a date that won't put his damn iPhone away, and sometimes there's a blaring flatscreen in every nook and cranny of a restaurant. No, we don't simply dine at sports bars and wing joints, either. We're talking about decent places with nice decor that really should not have a television, much less eight of them.
But, what can you do? It's an ugly, tacky sign of the times.
So, we deal with it when we, mid-sentence, catch our friends staring past us and at a Jersey Shore rerun. Because, rude as it may seem, it's nearly impossible to ignore the screaming flash of the screen (and orange tans), especially when the set is situated just behind/right next to your dining partner's face.

She does draw the line though on content:

And for the love of God, don't let Dr. Oz come on while people are trying to eat.

And I saw other posts complaining about inappropriate surgery and police shows showing while they were eating.


Isolda also realized in a restaurant that had a tv playing a Downton Abbey rerun that it wasn't tv she objected to, but what they had on:

So it occurred to me that what I really hate isn't the TVs so much as sports on TV. If more bars/restaurants were willing to dedicate one of their TVs to chick-friendly fare (with closed captioning), I might not object!

There's also a legal aspect to all this.  From restaurant.org:

Exemption
Restaurants under 3,750 gross square feet (not counting the parking lot) will be exempt from paying royalties on radio and television music only.
Restaurants over 3,750 gross square feet (not counting the parking lot) may also be exempt: 1. if they play no more than four televisions, each measuring up to 55” diagonally (no more than one per room), with no more than six speakers total, and with no more than four speakers per room, or 2. if they play radios that have no more than six speakers total, with no more than four speakers per room.
For restaurants to be eligible for the exemption, they must not charge a cover fee to see the television or listen to the radio.

The Washington Post had an article last September on Best Bars Without Televisions.

Restaurant Management has an article "TVs or No TVs?" which has one restaurant with tv and one without and asks them why. (Each owner likes his policy and says it helps business. But there's no data to prove one is better than the other.)


I started this internet search because I wanted to know if revenue goes up in restaurants with televisions.  So far, I haven't found any studies answering that question.  Probably they are important in sports bars, but what about decent restaurants?

There's a site for waiters and waitresses (make better tips) which says the televisions are not good for revenue:

Also try to avoid restaurants that have television sets in the dining areas. TVs distract diners and can cause people to sit at tables too long. Slow turnover cuts into your profit potential.

Really, that's all I can find on the relationship between televisions in restaurants and revenue.  It's quite possible that everyone just assumes they have to add a tv because their competitors have one (more like five.)  Or tv salespeople are pushing them.

But here's one option from a blogger on Shareable in San Francisco with a long post on this topic:

 “When I go in a bar or restaurant with a TV,” says Josh Mulholland, another friend and a Bay Area writer and teacher. “I only stay long enough to tell them why they aren’t getting my money.”

I think that's the way to go. 


My key objection is expressed well by this Vancouver blogger:

What if I don't want to watch TV? Even if you are not technically watching, it's still intrusive; trying not to watch becomes as irritating as watching. Requests to shut the box off have taught me that the best I can hope for is a channel change or a dip in the volume, with a change of seats sometimes reluctantly granted if the screen is looming over your head like an interrogation lamp.  

Urine, MVP, Science, Protocol, Testosterone and How We Know Truth - Part 2 (Or "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt")

We can read the newspapers (watch tv) and take each new story as an isolated story and then go on to the next.  Or we can take each story and try to figure out how this story adds to everything else we already know and whether it tends to confirm or raise doubts for our beliefs.  But we have to be careful that those beliefs don't cause us to accept the facts that support what we believe and to reject those that don't.  Extricating 'the truth' is rarely easy.  That reality helps liars greatly.

This story about Ryan Braun's positive drug test and subsequent overturning of the results on appeal offers us potential lessons for a lot more than just other stories about drugs.

It also offers us lessons for evaluating politicians and car salespeople.  And friends.

And it also provides lessons for the whole endeavor of figuring out 'the truth' in general, or even pondering what 'the truth' even means.

I offered six basic points that don't seem to be in dispute in the previous post.

The drug test said his testosterone level was higher than any other baseball player tested, ever.

He denies taking drugs, claiming something went wrong with the testing.  And the appeal board agreed that the delay in sending in the sample for testing violated protocol and his 50 game suspension was overturned.

The New York Times had a long article which goes into details about the testing process.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Laurenzi [the tester] denied tampering with Braun’s urine sample and said that he acted professionally when he took the sample home for the weekend instead of sending it immediately to a laboratory.

“I followed the same procedure in collecting Mr. Braun’s sample as I did in the hundreds of other samples I collected under the program,” Laurenzi said. “At no point did I tamper in any way with the samples.”

Laurenzi also said that in taking Braun’s sample, along with those of two other players, to his home for safekeeping, he was again following standard procedure. That procedure was in place because it had been determined that it was better to keep the samples in a secure location rather than leave them in a FedEx office where they could have been tampered with or not properly stored.

“The protocol has been in place since 2005 when I started with CDT and there have been other occasions when I have had to store samples in my home for at least one day, all without incident,” Laurenzi said.

Many collections are done at night because that is when most games are played, although when Laurenzi collected Braun’s sample on Oct. 1, a playoff game between the Brewers and the Diamondbacks began just after 1 p.m. Laurenzi said he completed his collections at Miller Park in Milwaukee at about 5 p.m., which is also the deadline for giving FedEx shipments to stores in the Milwaukee area that could be flown out that night.

  Laurenzi said that after arriving home, he put the samples in a Rubbermaid container in his basement office that, he said, “is sufficiently cool to store urine samples.” No one other than his wife had access to the samples during that time. All three samples were kept in the same sealed, tamper-proof package.

Braun has never asserted, either in his case before the arbitrator or in his news conference last Friday, that the samples tested in a lab in Montreal bore any evidence of having been compromised. One person with knowledge of the Braun case said a union representative on Braun’s behalf was present in Montreal for a critical moment in the testing process, and never raised any concerns about the sample.

Kent Covington at Braveswire - what appears to be an Atlanta Braves website - lists pros and cons for believing Braun and adds information I haven't seen elsewhere:

Beyond the sincere tone, Braun made a compelling case for his innocence. Here are the key points of that case:
1)  He was 27 years old, entering the prime years of his career with a long-term guaranteed contract, and even if he were inclined to use PED’s, he would not have had sufficient motivation to take such a risk.
2) Braun had passed 24 prior drug tests, including multiple tests during the 2011 season.
3) The fact that MLB said his testosterone levels were three times greater than any other test result since testing began made those results far less believable.
I must say, this is a persuasive point. Of all the juicers MLB has tested in recent years, with hundreds of positive results… Ryan Braun’s testosterone levels were THREE TIMES higher than anyone they had ever tested? That is a bit hard to believe. Especially given the following point.
4)  He did not gain muscle mass, a single pound of weight or so much as a tenth of a second on his run time on the basepaths (which is routinely measured and documented by team officials) between his last negative test and the test in question.
Another compelling point.
5) There was an improper 44 hour delay in the delivery of the sample to a FedEx drop-off location. Braun suggested this was a window of time in which someone could have tampered with the sample.
From a legal standpoint, this is likely the argument that resulted in the dismissal of MLB’s case against him. This part of Braun’s argument will be less compelling to fans, however, most of whom remember OJ Simpson getting away with murder (figuratively speaking, of course) based on a technicality.
Overall, Braun was convincing and believable in his self defense.

Then again… a compelling case can be made on MLB’s behalf as well:
1) The league certainly has zero motivation to falsely accuse one of its MVP superstars–with a squeaky clean image–of being a juicer.
2) The sample in question was triple-sealed and its packaging showed no signs of tampering.
3) Perhaps the reason why Braun had not gained any weight or apparent performance advantage was that he had just started using PED’s when the test was administered. This is also the simple counterpoint to all of Braun’s prior clean tests.
When all is said and done, I believe we all have an ethical responsibility to assume Braun’s innocence. The 44-hour delay in the delivery of the sample is more than a small technicality. It is unlikely that anyone would have had both motive and opportunity to fabricate Braun’s positive results or that an egregious error could have been responsible for a false positive. But “unlikely” is a long way from impossible.

Covington adds several interesting pieces of information

• 24 previous tests with no positive results,
• three times higher than any other test
• no noticeable muscle mass or weight gain 

So, if he had 24 other negative tests, does that mean that this is the first time he's taken something, or just that he took things now and then and was lucky he wasn't tested.  Can a random fix give you power for a day? 

Nowhere have I seen the actual testosterone levels.

A report at medicinenet says  the average testosterone level for men is in the range of 270 to 1,070 nanograms per deciliter. (This report also talks about the effects - both positive and negative of heightened testosterone levels in men.)

USDoctor has a long post on the many ways to enhance testosterone and benefits and problems of each and how long they last, though it doesn't get into detection of drugs.

So while many, myself included, tend to lean toward assuming Braun probably feels that he can just deny in the face of it being difficult to prove he took something, there are some other possibilities that I haven't found discussed that could be out there.

1.  Someone put something into his food.  According to the USdoctor site,

"Oral testosterone may dramatically raise the testosterone level, only to have it drop a few hours later."

This would be consistent with the very high level and subsequent negative test. But then again, he could have done this himself.  It would have made it easier to evade detection in the earlier tests. 

2.  There also could be problems with the testing equipment or the person reading the test.  There is no evidence provided for this and usually such equipment is calibrated regularly.  I don't know what procedures there are to document all this and how reliable they are. 


What truths even exist and how can they be known?

Facts are things that potentially can be proven true or false.  Here are some key ones from this story:

• Braun either did or didn't have higher testosterone levels
• Braun did something or not to cause this
• Someone else did something or not to cause this
• There was tampering or not of the sample
• The sample was unintentionally or not contaminated
• The testing equipment was or was not functioning properly

Is Braun telling the truth?

• He could be knowingly lying
• He could be deluding himself into believing
• he did something but it was ok to do it
• what he took was legal
• since everyone else does it, it's ok
• he really has lost connection with reality on this and  believes he did nothing

There are a lot of ways one could push this story along.  Why do we even care if sports figures take drugs?  Why are records important?  Why are we spending time on this story (and others like it) instead of reading more about Iranian and US relations and whether Iran is truly a threat or whether this is another push by war profiteers to get us into another war? 

Or we could pursue the whole idea of truth and how we prove it and why it's important.  But this is only a blog post and I have other things to do today.  I only have enough time to raise questions, not answer them.

What is it about humans that we find ambiguity and uncertainty so troubling?  Brainy Quotes credits Bertrand Russell with this thought:

The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.

And they also credit Russell with this:

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

Experience is a good thing.  But it's better if one learns from experience.  This is just a story about a ball player whose drug test came out positive.  For some, it's just another interesting story to be pulled out and laughed over.  For others, it's one more piece of the giant puzzle that helps us understand life. 

Urine, MVP, Science, Protocol, Testosterone, and How We Know Truth - Part 1

Here's the basic story:

1.  Ryan Braun was voted Most Valuable Player in the National League last year
2.  "Braun's positive test for testosterone showed a level that was extremely elevated, and likely the highest that has been recorded in Major League Baseball"[Sports Illustrated]

3.  Braun denies he did anything wrong and alleges that something happened to the sample.

4.  "Under baseball's drug policy, Braun was to be suspended for the first 50 games of this season." [LA Times]

5.  "A three-person appeals panel overturned the findings — a first in baseball."[LA Times]

6.  The basis for the appeals ruling was that the urine sample spent the weekend at the home of the tester instead of being shipped immediately by Fed Express to be tested.

After checking various accounts online, I'm pretty sure that the above six points are not disputed among the parties.

Somewhere in the literature of brainstorming there's a discussion of the kinds of ideas people come up with.  Some folks go into great depth around one or two options.  Other people have much more breadth - they come up with a wide variety of possible explanations.

The original article I read (the LA Times opinion piece) seemed to see this as either/or - either Braun is lying or the sample was tainted, and the writer didn't put much stock in the tainted option.

This blog's underlying theme is 'how do we know what we know?' 

What's your first reaction?  Is Braun guilty or a victim?  Or is this even the right question?

Then, before going deeper into this case, I'd like to ask readers to do some brainstorming and to come up with as many different stories as you can that plausibly incorporate the six 'facts' outlined above.  I'm interested in breadth here - the variety of different possibilities.  Are there stories that exonerate both Braun and the testers?  What further information would you need to know to test your stories?

I know you have lots to do today and some of you don't want to embarrass yourselves.  But you can be anonymous - but sign the comment with some identifier just to keep the Anons identifiable.  

Stoltz Versus Hungry Kids

On January 20 of this year, I posted a video I made of Kokayi Nosakhere talking about his intent to go to Juneau and fast until SB 3 got out of the House Finance Committee.  SB 3 is a bill that would add $1.9 million to the program for free school meals.

The person holding the bill up is Chugiak/Matsu legislator Bill Stoltz.  Kokayi began his hunger strike Feb. 7 in Juneau.  I've known Kokayi for a while and he's a very passionate guy.  He's been outraged that in the United States there are hungry kids.  Unlike most of us, he's not willing to just let this go on without doing something serious about this problem.

You have to be serious to go on a hunger strike for three weeks (now).

I've been out of the state since before he started the strike.  But I understand there has been a lot of press coverage.  Here's a tv example.  And here's one from the Mudflats blog.

I don't know that Stoltz is reachable by logical argument.  Kokayi told me last night that Stoltz has refused to speak to Kokayi.  If I were Stoltz, I'd invite Kokayi to meet me in my office and serve him the most delicious smelling meal I could find and sit there talking to Kokayi while the fragrance drifted into Kokayi's nostrils.  But that doesn't seem to be Stoltz's way.  I  heard him tell the Legislative Council in 2010, when they were discussing whether they should lift the block on Facebook for legislative computers (Yes, legislators can't be trusted with Facebook from their offices):

I’m confessing a total lack of knowledge on this. I don’t know enough to vote other than negatively. [This was as close to verbatim as I could get at the meeting.]

He then spoke for about ten minutes on why it would be bad to pass the motion.  Even though he admitted he had a total lack of knowledge. 

I'm not sure constituent contacts would make a difference, but it is the one thing that tends to get legislators' attention.  So I'm posting these maps of Stoltz's district 16.  If you live there call or email to ask him to pass SB3 out of committee.  Or if you know people in it, ask them if they know what their rep is doing and urge them to contact him.

Here's the current district:

You can click to enlarge it.  Basically, it's from Chugiak up into the Matsu and much of it is unpopulated mountains.  Here are some enlargements so you can see where it is.

NW District 16 click to enlarge

NE District 16 - click to enlarge

South District 16 - click to enlarge

It's District 11 in the new redistricting plan which you can see here.

Do let Rep. Stoltz know how you feel about this.  (The Senate has passed this bill at least twice already and now it's being held by the House Finance Committee as it was the last time.).

Just a Cactus? It's More Complicated. And Beautiful

A cactus is just a cactus to most people I suspect. But at Palm Springs' Moorten Botanical Garden
it's clear there's an amazing diversity of cacti and succulents.  Though altogether, there aren't that many different species. 

Green Nature says:

They are the largest family of succulent plants, with most of the 2000 known species native to North, Central and South America. The vast majority of cacti, but not all, are well adapted to desert conditions, using their stems to store water during extended dry seasons.
Cacti are flowering plants that serve an important role in their ecosystem by providing food and shelter to many animals, birds and reptiles. Desert tortoises, for example, often snack on their local cactus stems and fruits.

Computer Break

We took my mom to Palm Springs Sunday to celebrate her 90th on Monday.  And I managed to leave my computer in LA.  The Palm Springs library was closed Sunday and Monday, so that possible access wasn't available and I decided to just enjoy the extra time.  We had a very good time.  Thanks Tim!  Photos at 11.  Or whenever I get around to it. 

"linear in a non-linear world" Brian Dettmer Sculpts Books

Brian Dettmer is concerned about the replacement of the book - relatively tangible and lasting records of words - by intangible pixels which can be altered or which may be inaccessible as newer technology replaces the recent.  So he's sculpted books to get people to look at and think about books differently.

This one below is sculpted from "A New Garden Encyclopedia."  Look at it carefully.

From Dettmer's website:

The age of information in physical form is waning. As intangible routes thrive with quicker fluidity, material and history are being lost, slipping and eroding into the ether. Newer media swiftly flips forms, unrestricted by the weight of material and the responsibility of history. In the tangible world we are left with a frozen material but in the intangible world we may be left with nothing. History is lost as formats change from physical stability to digital distress.

The richness and depth of the book is universally respected yet often undiscovered as the monopoly of the form and relevance of the information fades over time. The book’s intended function has decreased and the form remains linear in a non-linear world. By altering physical forms of information and shifting preconceived functions, new and unexpected roles emerge. This is the area I currently operate in. Through meticulous excavation or concise alteration I edit or dissect communicative objects or systems such as books, maps, tapes and other media. The medium’s role transforms. Its content is recontextualized and new meanings or interpretations emerge.

All these sculptures are from books.  Here's Dettmer's explanation of what he does:

"In this work I begin with an existing book and seal its edges, creating an enclosed vessel full of unearthed potential. I cut into the surface of the book and dissect through it from the front. I work with knives, tweezers and surgical tools to carve one page at a time, exposing each layer while cutting around ideas and images of interest. Nothing inside the books is relocated or implanted, only removed. Images and ideas are revealed to expose alternate histories and memories. My work is a collaboration with the existing material and its past creators and the completed pieces expose new relationships of the book’s internal elements exactly where they have been since their original conception. "

I didn't catch the title of this one, but below is a close up of it.  Double click the image to enlarge it. 

We saw the exhibit at the Jewish Community Center in San Francisco when we went to the Klezmer Concert.

Co-Work Office Space - The Working Village

My son and DIL both work from their home.  My son does have some local office space available through his employer if he needs it. He told me he's also experimenting with a co-work office space.  It's a chance to get out and be with other people, but more work focused than a coffee shop.

So yesterday when I was running I realized I should stop in the place - Working Village - I've been passing regularly and check it out.

You can get a

• table spot ($5/hour, $29/day/$339/month), 
• a small cubicle ($15/hour, $99/day, $995/month),  or 
• a larger cubicle for $20/hour, $129/day, $1499/month. 

The phone booth is for more privacy.  Brid, who showed me around, but didn't want to be photographed, said
B:  "the $5 an hour was like being in a coffee shop buying coffee"
S:  But you get coffee there. 
B:  We have coffee and treats too.

Here's an office that someone has moved into fairly permanently.

Working Village, Santa Monica

This seems like a good idea if you're traveling and need more than a desk at a library or hotel room or lobby.  There are computers - both mac and pc - available for rent and free wifi.  But if you're a writer struggling to get by, it would seem you could use those hourly $5 on more important things and find free work space in other spots.

The Working Village does have the great advantage of only being about four blocks from the beach. 
(At the Santa Monica/Venice divide.)

I'm not sure that's enough incentive for me.  But I'm something of an introvert and can work fine home alone.




Looking online, I found another Santa Monica co-working space - Coloft.  It's website pushes the networking possibilities.  I liked their guidelines:

"So here are a few things you need to keep in mind:

1. Be awesome and respect others. ‘Nuff said.
2. Phone Policy: Phone calls are fine, just talk at a normal volume. If you need privacy, or you have to yell at someone, go use our awesome phone booth. If you are always on the phone, this is not the place for you.
3. Introduce yourself to fellow Colofters. They are all awesome.
4. If the coffee is out, either let one of us know, or just make a pot yourself! You’ll probably get lot’s of love for brewing good coffee.
5. Coloft is an open, collaborative space. We don’t believe in cubicles or private offices. If you want to zone out in your productive world, the universal sign is headphones. We have a bunch. Just ask.
6. Keep our space clean. When you leave, another Colofter will most likely sit at that spot. So please keep it clean, take your dirty cups to the dishwasher, and trash your trash."

And they have more flexible options:

Day Pass $35 Day Pass Just passing through... Be sure to fill out this Day Pass form! *Valid M-F, 8:30am-6pm only	Part-Time $279/month This is my kind of space! 12 days/mo* & 3 hours meeting room time *Weekdays only
Full-Time $399/month This is my 2nd home. 24/7 access; 5 hrs meeting room time $550/month Love it so much, I live here. Permanent desk; 5 hrs meeting room time Limited quantity available	Afterhours $199/month I only come out in the night. Access M-F 6pm-8am & weekends $99/month Member* Love it so much, I live here. Add-on *only part-time members & up
Virtual Presence $99/month I'm all about Virtual Reality. Mailbox, business address, 2 days of work space & access to all awesome Coloft events	Add-Ons Locker: $25/month Mailbox: $35/month *Only available on part-time memberships & up

HTML Tables

Anyone using a place like this regularly?  What's your experience?

I also found a place called Desktime where you can search for a temporary office space.  But when I looked up Santa Monica, I got neither of these two places and only four places in the whole LA area.   They do mention a place in downtown Anchorage.

 My EcoDesk is another co-work office search tool.

I know that the United Way in Anchorage has been doing office space sharing for a long time - giving small non-profits a room in a shared space with office amenities - copy machine, etc. - that they can't afford on their own. 

[As regular readers would assume, I didn't get any special benefits for writing this.  They did offer me a 2 hour free trial, but they offer that to everyone.]

I Didn't Get A Maintenance Manual With My Blog

There's lots of maintenance to do with a blog.  A lot of it is technical as the system adds new gadgets and new looks.   Some of it is related to changing times and circumstances.  For example I need to change my photo policy.  I wrote it at a time when there was some disagreement between local Alaska blogs and the Anchorage Daily News about use of photos.  But basically monitoring photo use by others is pretty impossible.  All I basically want is some courtesy and a link back to my originals for non-commercial use.

And I tried to be restrained on labeling, but now it turns out I have some labels for things mentioned only once and no labels for things/people mentioned a dozen times.  But given that people find me through Google using terms not on labels, I'm not really sure if that matters.

And then there is updating old posts.  I've got so many posts up, it's hard to do that.  I've found I sometimes write something new about an old topic.  Then I put a link in the new post to the old and a new link in the old post to the new one.

But today I've added photos to three old posts and none of them, by themselves, was worth a new post.  So I'm doing it here.  Four years ago, while running to Venice Beach from my mom's, I took a picture of the empty lot where the old Pioneer Bakery used to be and a sign that they were building condos.  That lot on Rose stayed empty for a long time, but now there are almost finished condos there.  So I added a new picture to that old post.

But I also discovered that some of the photos on that post no longer are connected to their original link.  They now look like this:

I have to see if I can find the originals or I just have to delete them.

Three and a half years ago, the city planted a new Italian Stone Pine tree in front of my mother's house.  It's grown a bit since then, so I've added a new picture to that post.

Talking about new trees, the city of Santa Monica put in about 100 new Canary Island Pines along the Penmar Golf Course on the Dewey side last week.  One day there was nothing there, the next day they'd put in a 1/2 mile of trees.  (How do I know what kind they are?  I asked the men putting them in.)

And finally, I've added a four months later picture showing the scar now from my Mohs surgery last October.

While I appreciate all that the new technologies can do, I also would appreciate a cease-fire for all but the most significant developments (life saving improvements) so I wouldn't have to keep adapting to a new update on every different software, phone, camera, etc.  Some things are good enough and I don't need all the improvements.  But, following up on the previous post, those things keep us all distracted from all the ways corrupt businesses and the public officials they install manage to destroy our democracy.

You Are Not So Smart BUT This Will Make You Smarter - So You Can See Through The Empire of Illusion

[This post started simply, but got more complicated (and much better) as I found things on the internet.]

I was struck by these titles in the bookstore in the San Francisco Airport.




On the blog this book emerged from, Dave McCraney writes:

The central theme here is that you are unaware of how unaware you are. There is branch of psychology and an old and growing body of research with findings that suggest you have little idea why you act or think the way you do. Despite this, you create narratives to explain your own feelings, thoughts and behaviors, and these narratives become the story of your life.

This is, of course, not that far from what I try to do here.  Get people (including me) to be a little more humble, a little less sure of what they think they know.  And start to see other ways to create meaning from the data.


BUT,  I was struck by the fact that the bookstore didn't put this next book alongside the first one.

It turns out both NPR and the Atlantic have posted on this book in the last 24 hours.  From the Atlantic piece (hype?):

"In 2011, with the help of psycholinguist Steven Pinker and legendary psychologist Daniel Kahneman, he posed an even grander question: What scientific concept will improve everybody's cognitive toolkit? The answers, featuring a wealth of influential scientists, authors, and thought-architects, were recently released in This Will Make You Smarter: New Scientific Concepts to Improve Your Thinking -- a formidable anthology of short essays by 151 of our time's biggest thinkers on subjects as diverse as the power of networks, cognitive humility, the paradoxes of daydreaming, information flow, collective intelligence, and a dizzying, mind-expanding range in between. Together, they construct a powerful toolkit of meta-cognition -- a new way to think about thinking itself."

You can read all the answers online here.



It's important to realize we don't know as much as we think.  It's important to develop better thinking skills.  Because our thinking is being managed by our corporate moves to convert everything - people included - into dollars for their advantage.  The idea of the 1% both shows how successful they have been AND that some of the 99% have not lost the ability to see through the bullshit.

So, ultimately, this third book seems to me to be the most important of the three.

Poking around on line convinces me that Chris Hedges knows a lot more than most of us and has the moral courage to say the things that people don't want to hear - like criticizing the Iraq war early on -  and doing what is right despite the costs - like quitting his NY Times position (where he won a Pulitzer Prize) rather than abide by their subsequent gag rule.

Hedges speaks about Empire of Illusion in this long (1:22) 2009 video tape at the New School (founded in 1919 if that's new enough for you) at NYU. Hedges begins with the commodification of Michael Jackson. 





The end of his talk comes around 56 minutes.  He concludes this way:

"If we remain passive
We will soon be engulfed by a ruthless, totalitarian, capitalism.
If we remain passive as we undergo the largest transferrance of wealth upwards in American history, we will become serfs.
If we fight back, we have a chance.
Saturation coverage of [Michael] Jackson’s death was one of many examples of our collective flight into illusion.
It deflected the moral questions arising from mounting social injustice, growing inequalities, failing imperial wars, economic collapse, and political corruption.
As we sink into and economic and political morass, as we barrel towards a crisis that will create more misery than the great depression, we remain controlled, manipulated, and distracted by the celluloid shadows on the wall of Plato’s cave
The fantasy of celebrity culture is not designed simply to entertain.
It is designed to drain us emotionally, confuse us about our identity, blame ourselves for our predicament, condition us to chase illusions of impossible fame and happiness, and keep us from fighting back. 
And in the end, that was all the Jackson coverage was really about.  Another tawdry and tasteless spectacle to divert a dying culture from the baying wolf at the gate."

 Then at 58 minutes or so, the Q&A begins.  He talks about how wrestling in the past and today contains the narratives of the day.  There are different narratives from when his grandfather watched wrestling once a week.  Today's narratives are about:

". . . personal disintegration, sibling rivalries, personal abuse, there is no delineation between good or evil now.  Everybody cheats as soon as the ref turns his back.  Wrestlers play out the fantasies of revenge that in real life these people don’t have."

Some more points he makes during the Q&A:

• moving from a literacy based society to an image based society and how this fits neatly into totalitarianism.  
• the twilight of empires,  when people fall into a state of delusion.  The Egyptians built the pyramids at the end of the empire. 
• If not prepared for the collapse, you act as a child, looking for someone to save you.
• Sober reading of reality is the best possibility for survival and hope, if we continue in a state of illusion then hope is impossible because every decision we make is not reality based.
• There is no working class movement, because we have no working class
• He was asked about his comment about moving from literacy to images.  The questioner pointed out that Socrates was afraid of books and books haven't seemed to have harmed us.  Hedges responded that Socrates' fear of books (in answer to a question) was a concern that when moral philosophy becomes written down it freezes speech.   It becomes a form of orthodoxy. Socrates feared that that dialog, that struggle for the moral life was too ambiguous to ever be codified.  Today, he suggested that if you read something online, it is surrounded by moving images and movement like that interrupts thinking.  We now fear solitude and our technology is so powerful that most of us are hallucinating.  We're completely isolated from the real.  We've created a virtual reality that we mistake for the real. 
  And as someone who's been in war, when we (I include soldiers here too) come back, we can't compete with the very powerful, but false images of war in the media - like Saving Private Ryan.  Because people feel like they've had the experience, but they've been manipulated by very powerful technology.

He's published two books since this one came out.  Here's Wikipedia's list of his books:

• 2.1 War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002)
• 2.2 What Every Person Should Know About War (2003)
• 2.3 Losing Moses on the Freeway (2005)
• 2.4 American Fascists (2007)
• 2.5 I Don't Believe in Atheists (2008)
• 2.6 Collateral Damage (2008)
• 2.7 Empire of Illusion (2009)
• 2.8 Death of the Liberal Class (2010)
• 2.9 The World As It Is (2011)

One more book that I saw in the bookstore.

From the book's website:

". . .  we hope it will encourage voters to consider the source of the information they use to choose who will lead them. We’ve been doing political opposition research for 18 years, on a weird, extended road trip that no one else would take. The book is our way of taking readers along for the ride as we research politicians from presidential appointees to candidates for local school boards, finding what’s right and wrong about politics, political candidates, and the quirky cultural landscape of America."

It seems to have just come out and I haven't read it.  But I'm guessing it will help demonstrate Hedges' thesis that our reality is created to manipulate us.  

And it's one of the ironic twists of capitalism that these books too get placed prominently in the airport bookstore.  But then San Francisco is a pretty liberal place and they are more likely to sell there.