Stupid-proofing

Common sense usually dictates when an area is unsafe. A person of average intelligence knows enough to stay out of a construction zone with heavy machinery and sharp objects. Most people also know enough to not enter a burning building or go water skiing during a hurricane. But for those who do not realize when they should be cautious, preventative measures must be made to protect them from life's hazards. I am referring of course, to stupid people.

Stupid proofing an area is quite a feat. It's entirely different than child-proofing or pet-proofing. Stupid people often have enough dexterity to manipulate devices like child proof containers and safety gates. For this reason, creating a safe environment for stupid people requires a different approach.

I myself use a couple different methods when stupid-proofing. I've become quite good at it since it is part of my job. Ive found large obvious signs with as few words as possible to be very useful tools. Here is one I posted today...

I had to post this due to the bad weather. An area of sidewalk outside the building had a solid 2 inch layer of ice on it. I saw trouble for the stupid people.

Using pictures is also effective. Here is a notice I posted about a month ago. It is a warning to look though the peephole before opening the door.

The other technique I like is having meetings or in services. Although this is more time consuming than posting signs, it allows stupid people to ask any questions or express concerns that a sensible person wouldn't think to address.

OK, I know what you're thinking- and you're right. Nothing can guarantee protection for or from stupid people. There is no such thing as "foolproof". But if we look at what happens when no measures are taken to stupid-proof an area, you can see why I at least make a hearty attempt to secure my surroundings...

Tonight after work I made a trip to Walmart. Before I even made it into the building I was aware that this was a place that had taken no steps toward stupid-proofing. In the parking lot I was nearly run-over by an employee pushing about 50 carts with some sort of specialized vehicle. Inside the store things only got worse. The linoleum entryway was wet from people tracking in sludge from outside. There was not a sign in sight warning stupid people that this could be slippery. I could only wonder how many casualties this floor had already claimed.

After beginning my shopping, I was tormented by a woman in an electric wheelchair/cart (those shouldn't even exist by the way, but that's another story), who continually blocked me from reaching items I wanted. I wasn't too annoyed because I figured she was injured after falling on the wet floor, and therefore had no choice but to use the chair/cart.

Stupid people will always be around, there's no getting rid of them or containing them. We can't avoid them during our daily lives, but we can try to minimize the destruction they cause. If we think ahead, we can foresee potential dangers and limit our damages through stupid-proofing.

The Killers: Day and Age

Three months, eight days and three hours until The Killers take the stage in Cleveland at the Time Warner Cable Amphitheater at Tower City (yes, I already have tickets). In preparation of this 2009 year highlight, I spent the weekend listening to their most recent album Day & Age which was released last November. Once again, The Killers have assembled a great collection of songs. Frontman Brandon Flowers described Day & Age as being an extension of their 2006 album, saying "it's like looking at Sam's Town from Mars".

Okay, yes, Brandon Flowers and The Killers say some odd stuff (in interviews as well as in songs), wear some odd stuff (in interviews as well as during performances) and sometimes just act odd in general. For me, that is part of the band's appeal. It makes for some great entertainment and I personally like their eccentric choices in clothes and lyrics. However, The Killers' comments and fashion are often ridiculed and make them a target for music critics, who often refuse to take them seriously.

Some of the critics' favorite topics when discussing Day & Age: Brandon's feathery jacket worn in the video for Human (a pretty sweet jacket by the way, where can I get one?); the words "are we dancer", also from Human; and Brandon's cocky attitude. The music is criticized for use of saxophone, harps, and Caribbean beats. Songs such as Spaceman and Losing Touch are accused of being overinfluenced by the 80's, specifically Duran Duran and David Bowie circa Let's Dance.

Ironically, although critics and fans enjoy overanalyzing The Killers' music, the band itself never get too ponderous. When questioned about instrumental and lyrical decisions they usually comment that they are just trying to make songs that will sound good. Well, they have succeeded.

The Killers have also succeeded in putting together a group of songs that are quite unique from their past two albums while maintaining their own sound. They add in some new instruments and rhythms, and yes, the David Bowie and Duran Duran influences are present (along with, I'd like to add, The Talking Heads), but there is never a doubt that one is listening to The Killers. Their great melodies anchor their songs, much as they did in Mr.Brightside, Read My Mind, and This River is Wild. They take risks in their new album, but I'm sure the critics would complain if they played it safe.

My favorite tunes from Day & Age:
Human: No, not just because of the kick-ass jacket. It has that same intensity that was present in When You Were Young. I'll be honest, I'm just a sucker for that stuff.
Spaceman: Okay, this song is just fun. "It started with a low light, Next thing I knew they ripped me from my bed, And then they took my blood type". How can you not love that. Plus the tune is hoppin'. I'm sure The Killers are crushed that this song isn't being taken seriously by critics.
I Can't Stay: My verdict is in, I'm a fan of the Killers' take on Caribbean rhythms. It's one of
those songs that just makes you feel good.

My rating on The Killers' Day & Age: 4 stars (A-)

Naked People in Gym Locker Rooms

Naked people wandering about unnecessarily in locker rooms. They walk around, have conversations and do their hair, all before putting their clothes on. I have only been witness to the goings on in a women's locker room, but I hear it is even worse in a men's.

Strangely, these naked people are always the worst looking, out of shape people at the whole gym. Usually on the older side, with their various body parts losing the war with gravity. Have some modesty!

Let me show you what I'm talking about... here is a prime example of some one you might see galavanting around a gym locker room:

My take on a locker room has always been that it is a place to change clothes, have a quick shower, and lock up your stuff while you work out. Most of them are pretty basic. Not places I feel compelled to spend additional time in. True, some locker rooms are equipped with a hot tub, steam room or sauna. The locker room at my current gym is not. It has individual showers, and even draped changing cubbies along with the usual sectioned off groups of lockers. With this in mind, there is ample opportunity to maintain a reasonable level of privacy at any point when a person is naked.

Many questions need answered. What are they doing and thinking? Aren't they cold? Did they not bring a change of clothes and are washing and air drying the ones they came in? Are they aware other people are in the room? The list goes on. Perhaps they have the wrong perception of what a locker room is for. They may think it is like a spa. A European nude spa. Maybe they are all European.

Besides the fact that I really don't want to see poor specimens of the human physique bare it all, it is just really awkward. I have from time to time been engaged in conversation by miscellaneous naked people. I feel like I should point out to them that they are in fact naked, but can't figure out a way to be subtle about it. Should I casually hand them a towel? No, because I don't want to get within arm's length. I could tell them about the latest fashion trends or my favorite clothing stores, but that may not get the point across.

I haven't yet found a solution. I thought about hanging signs describing nudity limitations. The problem there is the extremist naked people would probably protest and take them down. I could carry a giant mirror around and make them look at themselves if they try to approach me. But that would get heavy. I'm open to suggestions. Until my private gym with Olympic size pool is complete, I suppose this is a hardship I will have to endure.

Book Review: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

"God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", written by Christopher Hitchens. If a reader picks up this book because he is intrigued by the aggressive nature of the title, he will not be disapointed. Hitchens makes a passionate case that religion is not just a "mere mental delusion, but a great moral evil". His arguments in fact caused me to question my own "live and let live" philosophy toward religion, making me realize I must take a less passive role as an atheist. At the end of his book, Hitchens himself says that he would not want to get rid of religion if it would leave him and his beliefs alone, but religion is incapable of this. He cites shocking references of Hindu and Buddhist murderers and sadists, how Buddhist and Shinto priests trained the suicide bombers, or Kamikaze, in WWII, and a form of Hindu suttee that recommends "suicide" of widows, and lots more.

It is difficult to review a book without bias when one is in strong agreement with the author's views. My struggle to remain impartial was furthar thwarted as I found myself taking delight early on in Hitchen's searing wit and sarcasm. Hitchens is relentless in his critique of religion and comes off as downright belittling. But his belittling has good reason behind it. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." Hitchens ridicules with wit, and I suspect that many of his put-downs will go over the heads of many religious people. For example, look how Hitchens reduces Aristotle's gods and the last remaining god of monotheism:

Aristotle, whose reasoning about the unmoved mover and the uncaused cause is the beginning of this argument, concluded that the logic would necessitate forty-seven of fifty- five gods. Surely even a monotheist would be grateful for Ockham's razor at this point? From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever nearer to the true, round figure.

I also love how Hitchens equates religion with solipsism several times in the book (something that theists love to throw at nonbelievers). Although Hitchens doesn't give the reasons why religion practices soliphism, if you think about it, theists have concern only for themselves and their fellow believers (damn those that don't convert). Religion comes entirely from the mind of believers and solipsism claims that knowledge only comes from the self. This fits religion to a tee because their only source about god and the supernatural comes from holy scriptures, written by fallible men, or from their own selfish minds. Nothing about supernatural religion comes from outside the mind; it comes entirely from the self, the very essence of solipsism.

Hitchens also poses the question that originated with Dawkins: "Is religion child abuse?" Considering the teachings of threats of hell, the idea of eternal torture, and the sin of sexual feelings, how many young minds have undergone depression, suicidal feelings, and at its opposite, rebelled to become sadistic rapers or killers in later life? Hitchens forces us to contemplate the untold systematic rape and torture of children, abetted by religious hierarchy, that has happened for centuries as the church stood above allowed criticism.

For these reasons and more, Hitchens wants people to examine the claims of religion and to demand accountability. He realizes that religion has run out of justifications and offers no explanation of anything important. Religion creates the conditions that make many a human life miserable, and furthermore, could very well wipe the human species off the planet. To this end, he wants us to understand the magnitude of what we are dealing with, and be prepared to make humankind aware of the dangers of religion.

Link to Andy's review

Book Review: Love in the Time of Cholera

I suppose I cannot begin a review on Gabriel Garcia Marquez's 1985 novel Love in the Time of Cholera without acknowledging that it has a dreadful title. Such a bad title in fact, that I almost didn't read the book because of it. And although Marquez's love story was originally published in Spanish, calling it El amor en los tiempos del cólera does little to improve my thoughts on the unfortunate title (although many things do sound better when spoken in a romance language).
There is rationale in the author's naming techniques, however. Not only does his title begin to describe the story's setting, but it serves as a metaphor, comparing the symptoms of love to those of cholera.

Set in the 1800's, in a Caribbean port city, the beginning of Love in the Time of Cholera begins following the secret romance between Florentino Arizo, a humble apprentice, and the beautiful and shy Fermino Daza. Both are young and inexperienced in love and spend months communicating through secret letters. Fermina's father is furious when he learns of their relationship, wanting a better life for his daughter than he thinks Florentino can provide. He takes Fermina away on a long voyage, wanting her to forget the passion she feels for Florentino. Eventually Fermina marries the well established and successful Dr. Juvenal Urbino. Through over 51 years of marriage, Fermina believes herself to be happy with Dr. Urbino. But after her husband's sudden death, Florentino returns to "repeat to (her) once again (his) vow of fidelity and everlasting love".

I should mention at the point that this book has been made into a movie. This baffles me. While reading this book I would in no way come to a conclusion that it would transition well to the silver screen. Love in the Time of Cholera contains extremely vivid descriptions of emotions, scents, tastes and scene. It offers detailed imagery that would frequently span many pages while the plot stood still. So much of the beginning of the book especially is dedicated not to story line, but to providing a verbal painting that creates an atmosphere for the reader and sets the tone for the rest of the book. A skilled set designer and director may be able to recreate the author's intended vision, but I doubt if they could match the pictures evoked by Marquez's words. I have waited to see the film until being finished with the book and review, so I will soon see for myself a movie adaptation was in any way successful.

I touched on the fact that Cholera indeed has a rather simple plot. Marquez covers many of his 348 pages with metaphors and statements about life and love. He in fact uses his 3 main characters to express different ways in which love can be understood and experienced. Florentino portrays idealized, poetic love; Dr. Ubino approaches love rationally, as he does life. Although Fermina seems to represent a mixture of philosophies, she seems at the end of the book to be unsure of what love really is and if she has ever truly experienced it.

I was left disappointed at the end of Cholera. I expected there to be a defining statement on the existence, truth and power that love has. Marquez likely wants to be elusive through his failure to arrive at conclusions about love. I, however, disagree with his unspoken statement that being unclear must be part of love's nature.

Do I recommend this book with the terrible title? I do, not because I agree with it, but because it made me think and even second guess myself at times. Don't bother with it if you cannot put up with pages of description and frozen story. I myself found it quite annoying at times and think Marquez's points could have been made without so much effort for drama. It does offer interesting observations on life and human motivation, so for that, I found it worth wading through Love in the Time of Cholera.