Berkeley Pedestrians In The "Driver's Seat"

Lest anyone believe I am a kneejerk P.C. liberal, this is a Letter to the Editor I recently sent to our local rag. The context: a recent pedestrian death from an oncoming car, one of four such Berkeley deaths in 2007. Local pols are starting to get on their soapboxes and, predictably, they are placing blame on the drivers, rather than holding pedestrians responsible for the dangerous situations they create.

This is short and inflammatory to fit the LTTE format. I'm working on a much longer version that will present a well-reasoned rational argument, including the choices Berkeley pedestrians make, the alternative choices possible, letting the reader decide which is safer and more rational.

---

To state the glaringly obvious: the greatest danger to pedestrians in Berkeley are the pedestrians themselves. Whatever the many virtues of walking, the overwhelming majority of pedestrians consistently behave ignorantly, arrogantly, and/or selfishly when entering our roadways, putting themselves and others at risk. They seem to believe their moral superiority ("I'm an ecological pedestrian, you're a planet-killing driver") or perceived legal right-of-way ("All cars must halt for MEEEEE") will magically stop all vehicles. Or maybe they are just too busy zoning to their iPods, or exchanging important gossip on their cell phones to care. Unfortunately, in the real world, vehicles don't always stop in time.

The collisions are not, as has been suggested, predominantly a result of Berkeley car culture, but rather of Berkeley pedestrian culture. Instead of rushing to blame speeding cars, we should be asking why pedestrians are in such a damn hurry to cross the street. If Berkeley pedestrians simply treated cars as the dangerous 2.5 ton missiles they are by 1) avoiding crossing streets in front of nearby oncoming vehicles, and 2) crossing cautiously under all conditions, vehicle-pedestrian collisions would be entirely eliminated except for the most unique unfortunate circumstances. Regardless of whether drivers behave recklessly or responsibly, pedestrians are nearly always "in the drivers seat" in regards their own safety. Right now, they invariably choose to drive their safety off the nearest cliff and take their chances. "Precaution" does not exist in the vocabulary of the Berkeley pedestrian, and THAT is the problem.

Having spent nearly 40 of my 50 years elsewhere, and speaking as both a driver and pedestrian, the lack of regard Berkeley pedestrians show for their own safety is appalling. I'm amazed the injury and fatality rates aren't much higher. It's time Berkeley pedestrians grew up and behaved responsibly- that is, if they truly want to protect themselves instead of digging up scapegoats to fit whatever irrational ideology they've adopted to support their narcissistic behavior. I look forward to the day when a Berkeley pedestrian actually looks both ways before crossing a street (especially when they are pushing a baby carriage; even looking one way would be an improvement), or waits for a line of twenty cars to pass instead of forcing them all to brake and idle, wasting gas and spewing emissions, so one single solitary self-absorbed "green" pedestrian can mosey across.

The Tie That Binds

"I believe that's the first time anyone's said that to me," I replied to the checker at the grocery today, as she bagged my items.

"What's that?" she said.

"'Would you like me to put a twist tie on your...garbanzos?'"

Ellipses mine. ;)

OfficeMax Maxxed Out

I needed some last minute supplies for a Sunday event, and was relieved to see the Emeryville OfficeMax listed their Saturday closing hour as 8 p.m. on their website. I pulled into their lot a little after 7. To my dismay, as I walked to the entrance, I saw an employee holding the door to let out the last customer. I checked the posted hours- Saturday close at 7 p.m. I sighed.

As I turned to walk away, I said, "Your website says you are open to 8 on Saturdays."

"Yeah, I know," said the employee flatly, without the slightest hint of apology.

Good game, OfficeMax. K thx cya bye.

Yet again I must ask...

...where the hell was THIS Gore in 2000?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-29385328971143264

Imagine where the public might be now on global warming had Gore chosen to use the spotlight THEN, six years ago?

When Democrats stop pretending to be Republicans, they might be worth voting for again. It's a failed strategy, and it keeps substantive discussion off the campaign trail. Sad.

Love this from Sherrod Brown, the new senator from Ohio (source: Toledo Blade):

In his victory speech, Mr. Brown said he had dismissed advice to run a more cautious, middle-of-the-road campaign. "It's a risk worth taking to stand up for what you believe," he said. "And it's a risk worth taking to fight uncompromisingly for progressive values."

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061108/NEWS09/611080507/0/NEWS18

Enough of "liberals" who never openly voice progressive opinions (and thus deny the public the opportunity to hear progressive ideas). It's no accident the country slides to the right, when simplistic right-wing garbage is all they ever hear. Garbage in, garbage out, and the Democrats are responsible for helping that happen.

He's just too...grammatically incorrect! or Homo(nym)phobia

While perusing the personals this evening, a photo piqued my interest, enough so that I peeked at the accompanying ad. Beneath the fetching exterior, I found this literate wench...who happens to be just a little picky about the grammar of her dates. She describes her match as such:

You know the difference between 'their,' 'they're' and 'there.'

Nothing wrong with that of course- I certainly enjoy a person who knows their homonyms- unless you go on to write:

You enjoy home cooked meals as much as going out to a trendy restuarant.

Oopsies...is that some fancy European or archaic spelling? Perhaps one finds Ye Trendee Restuarant next to Ye Olde Shoppe? And then, describing her unique self:

I don't fit easily into any category or mold, and am constantly surprising myself, my family, and my friend's with the many (seemingly conflicting) facets of my personality. I am unique and 'complex,' (i.e., my family and my friend's explanation as to why I am not easily sorted and paired off within the 'mundane' masses).

Yup...ya gots to know yer 'their,' 'they're' and 'there.' , but not to worry if you can't write a simple fucking PLURAL!!!!!* (Sam Kinison rant mode off) Perhaps she is not so different from the mundane masses as she thinks.

Ah well...when it comes to women and their dating preferences, there is one immutable constant a poor guy can count on- that they're consistently inconsistent. But it's their game, and they get to make the rules. It's up to us suitors to obey, or ignore them at our peril.**

So if I behave myself grammatically, it's quite possible I'd be invited on lot's of date's with Our Lady of the Apostrophe.

But I fear my interest in her has peaked.

:)

The Berndog
P.S. Oh yes, oh yes...I am going to hell.
*yes, in the second case, it should be a plural possessive, not just a simple plural.
**to be taken tongue firmly in cheek, please...we'll have no ad homonym attacks in this blog!

Attack of the Rubber Tomatoes, or Why Dan Brown Sucks

It's a bestseller and...

...it is truly awful writing. I'm talking about The Da Vinci Code, of course. From the very first sentence, one knows one is in for an excruciating plodding experience. I decided to take a look after seeing it mentioned as a favorite book in umpteen personal ads, and a neighbor had a copy to lend.

I found this excellent analysis/review in a blog:

Language Log - "The Dan Brown code"

Now, I love good pulp fiction and lightweight movies and TV and cheesy pop songs, etc, but despite their lack of life-changing substance, they are at least built around good craft. This sentence from the review sums ups my sentiments about this awful book exactly:

"...he writes like the kind of freshman student who makes you want to give up the whole idea of teaching. Never mind the ridiculous plot and the stupid anagrams and puzzle clues as the book proceeds, this is a terrible, terrible example of the thriller-writer's craft."

w3rd. I have no problem with the ideas presented in the book...they probably would have made an interesting article, or an hour on the History Channel. It's the bad writing that I find astounding. Like I said, I love good trash. This is bad trash.

What I find is the most important about books and getting people to read, is that it promotes discussion and the exchange of ideas. Sometimes, after reading such books, I personally find myself searching deeper into the topic, finding differing opinions etc. but that is just me.

Good point. It's one aspect on which to judge the value (if not the craft) of entertainment. I also understand that some take guilty pleasure in Brown's "attack" on the Roman Catholic Church establishment. Not being Catholic, let alone Christian, this is not part of the Da Vinci Code experience for me. Even if it were, Brown's craft is so execrable as to dominate any possible virtues. Delivery matters. When bad actors mangle Shakespeare, the excellence of the content is obliterated. Or, to put it more viscerally, it is difficult to enjoy the smell of chocolate when someone is farting in the room.

But dont lock some of us in with idiots if we liked the book, BB, it doesnt matter if you have an intectual mind or no, everyone has their own preference for books that take them away for a moment.

Of course. I'm sure some would find my own taste in trash questionable. But there are measurable qualities of why some writing is particularly bad (one would think this counts for something, as we profess to care so much that our children learn to write well). People may eat and enjoy crap chocolate like a Hershey bar, but there are reasons that a Lindt bar is measurably better. Still, Hershey's may do as well as any other for some.

The review I linked to is excellent precisely because it examines exactly how Brown's writing is bad, sentence by sentence, the choices which the author made, and alternatives that are better. You can catch a fish by understanding their feeding behavior and tricking them into getting hooked. Or you can drop a stick of dynamite in the water. Both will get you fish. I find the thoughtful method far more interesting.

The Bridges of Madison County

Yes, another awful one... that one I looked at its first page in a bookstore and instantly put it back on the shelf.

Another popular writer, Anne Rice...

Actually, I liked her first 2 or 3 in the vampire series...what I consider an example of good pulp. As opposed to Dan Brown, Ms Rice actually creates convincing and intriguing characters, and her whole development of the vampire themes (which are really human themes) is fascinating.

Although I agree that there are better companies that make Chocolate, Please cut Hershey's some slack okay...Milton Hershey was a philanthropist and if I remember correctly...money made through Hershey Foods goes to support Milton Hershey School for disadvantage kids. So although, there is companies out there that make better chocolate, there is more than one reason to buy from Hershey Foods.

Hershey's has also kept a whole community in jobs. If you have ever visited the area you will know just how important that company is to all those people who work and make their living in that town not just at the factory but also at the tourism that has been built around there. So just by calling the chocolate "crap" you demean it for all those people who have jobs because of the existance of that company...

C'mon, dissin' a product is different than dissin' everyone who ever was in some way associated with that product. Hershey, whatever redeeming qualities they may have (and I'll pass for now on all the hidden unfounded political assumptions in your comment), makes cheap low quality junk food. People buy junk food, that's why they are in business. I will eat peanut M&Ms in a pinch, and they are crap too, doesn't mean that I'm crap. Calling Hershey's chocolate is like calling Taster's Choice coffee or Jack in the Box great dining. It's crap, but there's a market for crap.

What is troubling to me about this string of conversation is this: why label as crap that which someone else enjoys? It implies that the other person has inferior tastes in chocolate and literature. It spoils another person's joy and pleasure without enhancing yours in any way, that I can see. And further, BB isn't saying this is merely his opinion, he's saying it's a fact: Hershey's is crap. Ya don't like the stuff, don't eat it.

Ah, which brings us to the discussion:

Why be critical of anything?

First off, I am sorry if anyone takes personal offense from my opinions, I don't intend to be unkind (except perhaps to Dan Brown). The question one has to ask is if there is any point in EVER judging quality and setting standards. I'm of the opinion there is; it's ridiculous to say all things are equal, as long as someone likes it or has some use for it. To say that there are no qualitative differences is to reduce everything to mediocrity; it diminishes our capacity for striving for improvement, and in fact leads us to accept mediocrity. The more mediocrity is allowed to become the norm, the less people even know that there is anything different possible.

Take mass produced produce, for instance, such as the tomato. C'mon, 95% of tomatoes that end up on store shelves have little if any flavor. The quality they excel at is that they are easily mass produced. The fact is they taste like *crap*. If a person never knows what a real tomato tastes like, they will assume that is how tomatoes taste. They may decide that they simply don't like tomatoes, or that crappy-tasting tomatoes taste good.

What some may take exception to is my polarizing into "good and bad." That is a justifiable point; as I often argue, the world is a continuum, things are of many shades, never just black and white. However, one can make assessments based on the dominant qualities one cares about, and decide if something mostly fails or mostly succeeds. To take the tomato above, it succeeds well on its ability to be brought to market, it fails miserably on its complexity of flavor and sugar content. If one thinks the dominant quality to evaluate is mass production, then it is a GREAT tomato. If one thinks the most important quality to evaluate is taste, then it is CRAP.

Some things have more than one quality that is important to consider, and on some things, there is much less consensus on just what to consider important qualities. For instance, the sports car enthusiast values performance over comfort, and road noise may not factor at all into what they consider a high quality car, whereas someone who values comfort will give road noise a high priority. However, they probably would agree that a car that needs a major part replaced after 5000 miles is crap.

There are, for instance, good and bad:

1. Governments
2. Sex
3. Environments
4. Relationships
5. Acting
6. Singing
7. Athletes
8. Etc.

While we may differ on what makes up our judgement about the above list, the fact is that we DO judge, and we'd all rather have what we consider good than what we consider bad. It is ridiculous to say one shouldn't make critical judgements, that it's ALL good.

In this thread, I have made my evaluation of the book based on qualities I consider important, not simply on whether it provides some mindless pleasure (it doesn't for me, but I certainly understand that it succeeds on that level for others). Among those qualities are:

1. use of language (hopefully pleasurable, but at least not painful and difficult)
2. development of believable rich characters
3. plausible plot (at least one where the holes don't take one out of the immediate enjoyment of the story)

The review I linked to is specific about how Brown fails on these counts. I will cut writers slack if they fail in one area, but really deliver in another. What I am doing then is considering the whole, deciding which qualities are most important in this particular case. I've read some pulp where the use of language is very pedestrian (but at least not painful), but the author's ideas, plots, and/or characters are very satisfying. The problem with The Da Vinci Code is that it really fails miserably all around, except in serving as a vehicle to exposit some ideas and facts about the history of the Catholic Church, secret societies, etc. But:

1. the language is crap
2. the characters are crap
3. the plot is crap

For some, these factors may not impede their enjoyment of the book; it still entertains them enough to be worth the time and the cover price. Regardless of their enjoyment, these qualities CAN be evaluated and critically compared, and we CAN recognize the difference between mediocrity and excellence. It's not that there shouldn't be junk food and junk entertainment, but let's recognize exactly where it succeeds and where it fails. If we fail to be critical, then we slide ever more towards accepting mediocrity as excellence; we simply will fail to recognize and cultivate excellence; everything will become a rubber tomato.

Comparison Voodoo - Excelling in a Field of One

One of those annoying feel-good nationalistic phrases one always hears:

"America is the *best* country in the world!"

The truth is, the people spouting such nonsense don't have a clue what they are talking about. What they are really saying is "I need to feel a sense of superiority!" Rather a defensive attitude, dontcha think?

But to get back to the actual words they use, "best" is a comparative; you can't be best at something without comparing yourself to someone else. So, to be a real argument, two things must be in place:

1. There must be a field of candidates to compare
2. The must be a standard of comparison, so that we have a means to evaluate the candidates and rank them against each other

If you look at the reasoning behind such nonsensical statements (actually, there is no reasoning there, but for the moment, let's assume there is), the field of candidates is, in effect, a field of one, with a few patsies thrown in to take the fall. To display their hidden "logic":

"America is the *best* country in the world!
(which consists of America, North Korea, Rwanda, and Egypt)"

These people have never done a true comparison with, well, comparable countries: the other industrialized democracies in the world. Now, there is nothing preventing them from doing so, and perhaps coming to a legitimate conclusion that the United States is indeed the best, based on some standards they choose. But their agenda, as I stated above, isn't really to do a critical comparison, in order to, for instance, see if there is something we might learn to improve our quality of life. They simply are grasping at a way to feel good. Understandable, yes, but such needy self-congratulation obscures realistic self-reflection, and is ultimately an obstacle to tackling our very real problems.

What follows is a post I wrote in a public forum in response to one such presumption of superiority:

- - - - -

Poster: But I stand by my opinion that ours is as good as it gets.

I'm asking, on what do you base your opinion, other than:

1. it works for you
2. our system is better than, say, North Korea, Rwanda, or Egypt?

Have you considered, in forming your opinion that "the one-of-a-kind democracy that we enjoy here in the United States is an ideal combination of socialism and capitalism," countries such as:

1. Australia
2. Canada
3. England
4. Belgium
5. The Netherlands
6. Denmark
7. Sweden
8. Norway
9. Germany
10. Switzerland

Do you think our current winner-take-all 2-party electoral systems are better or more democratic (perhaps defined as better representation of the views of the electorate, and a more diverse political dialogue) than the systems in these countries such as proportional representation and ranked choice voting?

Do you think our shielding of the president from any real questioning and debate is superior democracy to the weekly question session the British Prime Minister must put in before the House of Commons?

Do you think our non-guaranteed vacation of any kind is better than 6-8 weeks of guaranteed paid vacation?

Do you think our superior levels of violence, incarceration, and state murder (death penalty) are indicative that our society is a superior blend of socialism and capitalism?

When I hear people voice opinions such as yours, I'm curious as to the basis of those opinions, as they don't seem to be born out by any facts.

Another thing to consider is the formation of our democracy. Certainly it was a great step forward, and superior to the British system it came out of (though not perhaps superior to the systems of the many more indigenous people's systems that existed at that time). However, it included slavery, excluded women, and was hardly democratic. It reflected the culture of the time, which you would agree is far more ignorant than we are now. Though the United States led the way, consider the fact that all other democracies have been formed since that time, and 1) have been able to learn from the mistakes of other democracies and, 2) were formed closer to modernity, and thus should be increasingly a better adaptation to modern society (not always the case, as we can see with the Weimar Republic). Though our system has changed, that growth has not always been healthy (the growth of the institution of the corporation, for instance) and it is a slow process to break away from old institutions. Certainly one has to ask if more recently formed democracies are better adapted to modern society and thought than ours.

Though I understand the desire of people to "feel good" about their countries and cultures, I think that becomes a problem when that need is assumed to be the equivalent of critical self-examination. It is possible to both feel good while being critical, something I know from my own collaborative experiences in the arts. I wish we, as a nation, would learn how to do so.