Dear Chicago...

In a couple of days I will be going on vacation to Chicago. To say that I am excited is an understatement. It’ll be my first real vacation as an ‘adult’. I haven’t been there since we moved away, with the one exception being Thanksgiving break of 2004, and that time was spent cooped up in my grandmother’s condo watching movies. This time around I plan on really milking my time there dry, and have made plans to soak it all in. With that said, here are a couple of things I love about Chicago:

The Blues, and the Blues Aesthetic
The City of Chicago is rich in cultural history and I plan to immerse myself in it. During my second semester of college I found myself taking an American Studies course on the Blues, and its cultural and historical significance. Needless to say, it was one of the most rewarding classes I’ve ever taken and to this day I find myself revisiting my books. Perhaps nothing else grabbed my attention as much as the Southern Black diaspora to the northern cities. The paintings of Jacob Lawrence are engrained in my mind and have shaped the manner in which I perceive the city. They are a brilliant visual representation of that mass migrations of Southern Negroes to the industrialized cities of the north. Lawrence’s paintings, to me, becomes the unifying force between the distinct Delta blues sound and the more familiar style of blues that was popularized by the likes of Muddy Waters, BB King, and John Lee Hooker. I should Chicago wasn’t the only destination, I think it’s safe to say that no city benefited more from it than Chicago. Many consider it the homes of the blues, after all. If you’re not familiar with Lawrence’s work, here’s a good resource .

http://www.whitney.org/jacoblawrence/

Mike Royko
In my opinion there has been no better American journalist/editorial writer than Mike Royko (ok, maybe H.L. Mencken is up there as well). Royko was a Chicago native that deeply loved his city and this was reflected in his writing (as can be seen by his columns written about the Cubbies and Mayor Daley, just to name a few). He wrote for all three Chicago major papers (including the now defunct Chicago Daily News) and won a Pulitzer for his commentary. His style was that of the common man, of the guy who has an ongoing tab at the tavern across the street, and his readers loved him for it. Below, there’s a link with a handful of some of his writing. Coincidentally, it has two of my all-time favorite Royko articles (titled “Picasso and the Cultural Rebirth of Chicago” and “Jackie’s Debut a Unique Day”). He wrote and thought the way people should write and think
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/730719.html

The Cubbies
I’m a diehard football fan, and I love the Dallas Cowboys, but I’m not as obsessed with them as I am with the Chicago Cubs. Cubbie baseball evokes pastoral images of America. It’s very surprising that the Cubs are able to do this, to make people think of open fields and good ol’ times, especially since Chicago is very much an urban and modern city. A trip to the friendly confines of Wrigley Field is definitely in the works and is quite possibly one of the highlight of my trips. I’m hoping that Big Z—Carlos Zambrano—is the starting pitcher when I’m there, but that won’t be the case.

Absurd Link/Story of the week

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/07/al_gore_to_the.php

In a recent post on PETA’s blog, a blogger condemned Al Gore for admitting that he likes eating meat.

Al Gore admitted to an audience at a political blogger conference that he may, indeed, be bad for the environment and guilty of contributing to global warming. Why? Because he just can't seem to stop eating meat, which is more harmful to the global warming crisis (which Gore is known for being a teeny bit fanatical about) than all of the world's cars, trucks, SUVs, and planes combined!
According to Ezra Klein at Prospect.org, Gore said, "It is true that it would be healthier for us as individuals and as a planet if we consumed less meat. I acknowledge that. … I myself am a meat eater and maybe that's had some effect" (emphasis mine). How did he go from acknowledging that vegetarianism is better for individuals and the planet to saying that maybe his choice to eat animals has some negative effect?
Without committing to any changes in the present, Al Gore explains that he "plead[s] guilty" and that we must "walk before we can run." Seriously? He doesn't know how to walk the walk on this issue? Have we not been clear enough with this guy? We'd love to love you, Al, but please stop clinging to the one thing that is so devastating for the world while asking everyone else to drop their bad habits.
What's next, M.A.D.D. beer cozies sized to fit in your car's cup holder? Ugh.


There’s no doubt that the biggest polluter in this world is the meat industry. However, I think it’s difficult to take PETA seriously with regards to this situation for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, we shouldn’t forget that PETA’s reason for being is. According to their FAQ/Mission statement page on their website, they believe that “animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation.” With that said, their goal is to create a society in which animals are free from being eaten, tortured, enslaved, etc. Admittedly, this is a noble if somewhat misguided cause. Unfortunately, their political/philosophical agenda is such that anything or anyone with a divergent opinion is vilified, such as say, Al Gore.

Secondly, I think it’s hypocritical to demonize Al Gore for eating meat when PETA ignores the fact that soy (which, if I’m not mistaken, plays a large role in a vegetarian and vegan diet) is at the present moment, the biggest factor behind deforestation in the Amazon. According to this 2003 NY Times article the production of soybeans has lead to a huge increase in deforestation. According to the article, the rise in soybean production can be attributed to the rise in demand, particularly in China.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/international/americas/17BRAZ.html)

Economists say that the main spur to the soybean boom is the emergence of a middle class in China, much of whose newly disposable income has been spent on a richer, more varied diet. During the past decade, China has been transformed from a net exporter of soybeans to the world's largest importer in some years of whole soybeans as well as oil and meal byproducts.

Along with more of the Amazonian forest being cut down to increase its output, soy production has had the following negative effects, according to a press release by Friends of the Earth International (http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/FoEI-RTRS.pdf/):

Conversion of forests and savannahs and related loss of biodiversity, climate change
through land-use changes, fertiliser use and NOx emissions, disruption of surface and
ground water and rainfall patterns.

Social problems such as land conflicts and human rights violations, loss of livelihoods,
poisoning and expulsion of rural communities, small farmers and indigenous peoples.

Forced displacement of the local population into cities and undisturbed natural areas,
increasing concentration of land, and related rural unemployment, poverty and
malnutrition.

Displacement of existing agriculture (particularly cattle ranching and small holder
agriculture) to unexploited and vulnerable primary forests and savannahs.


With that said, there is at least some culpability in the destruction of the planet by those people who consume soy. I think that there definitely needs to be an effort in curbing the environmental damage that the meat industry have, but I don’t think that the best way to go about it is to try to convince people to stop eating meat and switch to vegetarianism/veganism. I, an avid meat eater, have recently made a concerted effort to buy meat locally and make sure that the meat is usually grass-fed. This is a personal choice based on my desire to have less of an environmental impact and ensure that the animals that I consume are treated humanely. It’s mostly because I want to hold my actions accountable. Plus, grass-fed beef just tastes SO much better.

I don’t think that anyone should be taking their environmental advice from PETA. That’s not what they’re about. Instead of trying to make me feel guilty for eating meat, they should stick to what they do best, which is throwing red paint at people who wear fur coats.

Previous piece of writing

The Dark Knight, IMDB, populism, and egalitarianism on the web

I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind--at least not in mine-- that 'The Dark Knight' was going to break box office records. How could it not? It had one of the most extensive viral campaigns for any movie. It reached a point where you couldn't turn anywhere without seeing something for this movie. Add to the mix the death of Heath Ledger; there was most definitely going to be a certain aura surrounding the film, which would eventually lead to huge profits for the studio. Even I bought into the hype.I saw the film on Friday night, and it would be a lie to say that I was not caught up in the excitement. I, along with hundreds of people, were in a line that had extended to outside the theater. Needless to say, every seat in the room was filled. I should mention that I liked the movie. I can’t decide whether I loved it or whether I just though it was pretty good, but I know that I liked it enough that I am willing to go see it a second time. The acting was outstanding—particularly Heath Ledger playing a very demented Joker—and the direction was impressive. The writing did everyone a favor by wanting to recreate the dark Batman of the 1980s.With that said, The Dark Knight is NOT the best film ever made, and to say so is both ludicrous and appalling. IMDB users, however, overwhelmingly disagree with me. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ratingsAs of right now, 69,135 people who voted gave the movie an average of 9.6 out of 10, with 54,224 people giving it a 10. That’s roughly 78.4% of total voters that think that The Dark Knight was flawless (or as close to perfection as you can get), that it far surpasses anything ever made both in storytelling and narrative, technical filmmaking, editing, acting, etc. The people have spoken!Obviously I’m being very tongue in cheek, but I think what’s at hand here is the negative effects of the internet, and its egalitarian nature. Anyone with an internet connection can give their two cents and their opinion, unfortunately, counts just as much as the discriminating expert.A couple of months ago I read a very interesting book titled ‘The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture written by Andrew Keen. In his book, he writes that the internet "worships the creative amateur: the self-taught filmmaker, the dorm-room musician, the unpublished writer. It suggests that everyone — even the most poorly educated and inarticulate amongst us — can and should use digital media to express and realize themselves. Web 2.0 'empowers' our creativity, it 'democratizes' media, it 'levels the playing field' between experts and amateurs. The enemy of Web 2.0 is 'elitist' traditional media." At the risk of coming off as an elitist, I think Mr. Keen touches upon a very interesting point. I don’t agree with him entirely, as I do feel that the internet is a great opportunity for people who actually have something of value to contribute to society .However, I think that as a society we mustn’t water down culture and its production. Culture is essential for a society and a civilization to exist and survive, and thus a certain set of standards must be set in place and maintained. After all, just because I have access to a medical book doesn’t mean that I am qualified to give out any medical advice.