Actually, We Can All Just Get Along…And Do Most Of the Time.

by Wade Maki

Who’s out to destroy America? If you believed everything you hear over the next few weeks the answer is just about everyone. Greedy capitalists, lazy moochers, and every candidate running in a competitive race are just some of dangers. Of course if you watch the news you’d also conclude that we’re all about to die from the weather (hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, snow oh my), can’t swim in the oceans (sharks), can’t fly (crashes), and we will be the victims of terrorism, swine flu, computer hacking, identity theft, or sudden onset obesity any minute now.

Similar to how the news exaggerates the risks of daily living, campaigns exaggerate the evil intent of every “other” in society. Luckily, when disasters really do occur most of us get along pretty well (and days without disasters too).

Are the presidential candidates really villains from Batman?

Our predisposition towards cooperation became especially clear to me this summer during a trip to visit family in the hills of northwest Arkansas. On the surface this is a unique region, as you learn when flying into what appears to be nowhere. You land at a very large and modern airport (thanks to Wal-Mart headquarters being in the area). The many small communities contain people from all over the country—most notably retirees seeking warm weather, affordable living, low taxes and a large supply of golf courses.

We stayed with relatives up winding roads in the hills filled with middle class houses and large trees. During the second night of our stay we experienced a very fast and violent storm. The power went out after dark and we experienced the “what do we do without electricity” quandary faced by those too used to technology. Luckily, I had an iPad to light the way until we found a flashlight and got candles lit. As there wasn’t much to do, we grabbed a flashlight took a midnight stroll to see what had happened.

Quickly we realized that this was not a unique idea as there were people roaming all over the neighborhood (in the dark the bouncing flashlights were visible for blocks). Trees were down everywhere. Not just small ones but massive trees lay across yards, power lines, and on top of homes as well. It was bad and everyone was making sure everyone else was okay. We hadn’t made it a block before running into a man with a flashlight strapped atop his head by his shirt and his long wet hair hanging down his bare shoulders looking for the chainsaw he had set down along the street. This was the first, but not last person, who in the middle of the night was already getting to work helping neighbors get massive trees removed from damaged homes.

All night and most of the next day we heard the roar of chainsaws as the cleanup continued. People from outside the neighborhood were driving around offering their services to those needing tree removals (some were professionals, others just a guy with a saw trying to make a buck). It is at a time like this you realize that the “greedy capitalist” you hear during campaign season is a good thing to have around when an 8’ wide oak tree is crushing your roof.

For most of the next day power was out (the company workers were doing their best) as a mixture of volunteers and for profit professionals assisted those in need. One elderly couple had a very large tree crash right into their bedroom. Luckily they weren’t home. Rather than wait to contact them, or wait for an insurance assessor, that same mix of neighbors and professionals got together, removed the tree from the house and put a tarp on the roof to protect this couples’ home from further rain.

There were no bad guys that day. Despite the different political yard signs around, no one viewed anyone else as out to destroy America. When something really bad happened it was amazing how everyone (volunteers, for profit professional, neighbors, etc.) just did what needed doing. As a microcosm of society it is a good reminder of just how well most things work (which is the real magic given how many things could go wrong).

Sure there are problems, differences, and our decisions about what policy or person to support can make things better or worse. For the most part though, society is full of pretty good people trying their best, in their own way, to get what needs doing done. Something to remember as you experience the drumbeat of doom from political ads and “news” outlets—We can and do get along just fine…most of the time.

Just Squeeze

By Matt McKinnon

I have a secret:

I love the accordion.

It gets worse:

I play the accordion.

Years ago, this would not have been an issue.  There would have been no need for secrecy.  The accordion was one of the most popular instruments for kids all over the country to learn.  From the end of World War Two until the late fifties and early sixties, the accordion was king.

And then came Elvis Presley, Rock and Roll, and the electric guitar, which moved from being a percussion instrument playing rhythm accompaniment to the lead guitar of contemporary pop music.  (And the reason that “Guitar Hero” is a billion-dollar franchise and “Accordion Hero” a practical joke gone viral.)

It turns out, once your typical American kid got one look at the now iconic Elvis with his guitar, accordion sales plummeted, as did the instrument’s standing in popular music culture.

But the accordion didn’t just lose its popularity.  That would have been fine.  I rather enjoy having interests and hobbies that are not popular.  But the accordion is not just “not popular,” or even unpopular: it has taken on the persona of nerdiness, the epitome of square and boring, old fashioned, and lame.
It has spawned a minor industry of jokes:

What’s a gentleman?  Somebody who knows how to play the accordion, but doesn’t.

What’s the range of an accordion?  Twenty yards if you’ve got a good arm!

What’s the difference between an accordion player and a terrorist?  Terrorists have sympathizers.

What’s the difference between an onion and an accordion?   No one cries when you chop up an accordion.

What’s the difference between an accordion and a concertina?  The accordion takes longer to burn.

What do you call ten accordions at the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.

What’s the difference between a chainsaw and an accordion?  A chainsaw can be tuned.

What’s the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead accordion player in the road?  There are skid marks in front of the skunk.

You get the picture.

Or maybe you don’t.  So here’s a couple of pictures of “famous” accordion players from popular culture to help.

Not exactly an instrument that exudes “cool.”  Or anything other than disdain.

Or is it?

It turns out, the accordion is one of the most popular instruments in the world, and is well represented in musical styles as diverse as classical, traditional or folk, and even pop and rock.  Predominantly used in the traditional music of everyday people, the accordion is central not only to the polka-dominated styles of Central and Eastern Europe, French Bal-musette, various Italian folk styles, and traditional English (Morris), Scottish, and Irish music, but also to the  Klezmer sound of Ashkanazi Jews, French-derived Quebecois music, the Cajun music and blues-derived Zydeco of Louisiana and the Gulf coast, the conjunto sound of the Tejaň̃o and Norteno music of south and west Texas and northern Mexico, the Forró music of Brazil, Cumbia and Vallenato from Columbia, the Cueca of Chile, the Argentinean tango, the Merengue of the Dominican Republic, and even the Trot music of South Korea.

In fact, the country that not only produces the most accordions but also has the largest number of accordion players in the world is China.  Yes, China.

So I’ll see your Steve Urkel and raise you a Clifton Chenier.  You be the judge of if he’s cool or not.

That’s Entertainment!?

By Ann Millett-Gallant

I will admit, I like to watch TV. I study and teach about mass media representations, for example in my BLS course, Representing Women, so it is partially a professional interest, but also, I enjoy the entertainment. I have been watching all the new shows this Fall and can say I like “Two Broke Girls” and “Pan Am” the best so far. I have also appreciated the new episodes of “The Closer” and “Grey’s Anatomy.” I am a little confused by “Once Upon a Time.” It is a fairy tale show, but somehow, the plot seems more fitting to a movie.

But perhaps this is the direction television is taking – towards fantasy, or overly dramatic crime dramas. Shows based on mid 20th century are also popular, such as “Pan Am” or “Mad Men.” Basically, viewers desire to be transported to another time or place. Or perhaps fictional television is trying to distinguish itself from “Reality” TV. This morning, I was disgusted to hear about Kim Kardashian’s upcoming divorce, after a huge, media spectacle wedding and 72 days of marriage. I was not surprised and would not have taken such offense, except the story was profiled on NBC’s “Today Show” as important national news. They then featured a panel of legal “experts” to analyze whether it was legitimate or rather a huge media ploy. One of these “experts” was Star Jones, who after her scandalous exit from “The View,” dramatic weight loss, and own short marriage, redeemed her media status by appearing on “The Apprentice.” But I am getting off topic. Apparently, the Kardashian wedding cost $10 million and the couple has accrued up to $20 million since for appearances and publicity projects. And THIS is “reality” TV? The obvious irony is that all the “reality” TV on today is the farthest thing from the reality of the viewers. We are in an economic depression and unemployment is higher than it’s ever been. Reality TV seems less realistic and much more voyeuristic. Viewers watch so they can ridicule the “cast” of “Jersey Shore” (I use the term “cast” cautiously) or revel in the gluttony and triviality of the wealthy Kardashians, Hiltons, or the bevy of Playboy bunnies. On the other hand, many “reality” shows are about competitions, specifically ones in which the struggling artist has a chance at stardom (“The X Factor,” “American Idol,” and even “Project Runway”).

Other competition shows, like the aforementioned “Apprentice” and “Dancing with the Stars” seem like platforms for so-called “stars” to rehabilitate their reputations. It should then seem no coincidence that Dancing with the “Stars” is actually dancing with the cast offs of other “reality” TV shows. As television fiction, reality, and competition overlap, so does “news” and “entertainment.” Let’s be honest, real “reality” is depressing. The other news stories on “Today” were about the war, political debates, the failing economy, and random horror stories like medical mistakes. Maybe the news is just responding to their target audiences, everyday people who feel powerless and economically, and perhaps personally depressed. Maybe we prefer the “Reality” of TV to our own realities.

Is the Future of Racing a Thing of the Past?

By Jay Parr

NASCAR

As anyone who has made the mistake of taking I-85 past Concord on a race day knows, NASCAR is one of the largest professional sporting organizations in the country. Major events draw more than a hundred thousand spectators to the stands, and sometimes millions of viewers watching from home or their favorite sports bar. Total revenues are in the billions of dollars, and the revenues of the top teams are in the tens of millions of dollars apiece. It’s a huge business.

We tend to think of auto racing as being at the forefront of high-performance technology, but that’s not actually the case in NASCAR. The regulations in that organization dictate that the cars must be front engine and rear wheel drive, despite the fact that the street versions of those cars are almost all front-wheel drive. But it doesn’t stop there. The engines must have carburetors, not the fuel injection of most cars on the road today. They must be naturally aspirated, so they can’t have the turbochargers that are becoming so common in passenger cars today. They must have pushrod-operated valves, so they can’t even have the overhead cams found in a twenty-year-old Saturn. Far from being at the leading edge of engine technology, NASCAR engines use hundred-year-old technology that is arguably fifty years out of date.

Tour de France

Auto racing is not the only racing sport where the rules place big restrictions on the technology used. If you’ve ever watched the Tour de France or any other major bicycle race, you may have noticed that all the bikes look almost identical. That is not a coincidence, and it is not because the bike you see is the best configuration for performance. Nearly a century ago, shortly after the familiar diamond-framed “safety bicycle” took over popularity from the dangerous old high-wheeled “ordinary bicycle,” a Frenchman by the name of Charles Mochet designed the first commercially-produced recumbent bicycle. The rider sat back as if on a chaise lounge, with his feet stretched out in front of him and the rear wheel behind his back. It won several major races, and in 1934 it broke the one-hour world record when his rider covered 28 miles—and the wins and the record were all piloted by second-tier cyclists. At their very next meeting, the International Cyclist’s Union (UCI) decided that recumbent bicycles could not compete against diamond-framed bicycles in any major bicycle race. That is why you never see a recumbent bicycle in the Tour de France—despite the fact that they’re faster, more aerodynamic, more comfortable to race, and much safer in an accident.

Recumbent bicycles

In both of these racing venues—motorized and human-powered—political decisions have kept the sport from evolving toward superior technologies. The philosophy in both cases is to put the emphasis on human competition, but the technological ramifications reach far beyond the racetrack. In the past, the highly-funded and competitive environment of racing has led to major advances in both efficiency and safety. Your brake lights, rear-view mirrors, seat belts, and radial tires were all pioneered in race cars, as were many other features you take for granted, like the side-impact bars in your doors, the fuel injection that has doubled your gas mileage, and the variable timing advance that allows your engine to run efficiently at a wide variety of RPMs. Even on a dime-store bicycle, the gearing and brake technology were perfected in the racing world before trickling down to the kids’ beater bikes.

Restricting the natural advance of racing technology has a negative impact, not only on racing sports, but on the society as a whole. Consumer technology tends to mimic high-performance technology, and to benefit from high-tech advances in a trickle-down effect. Imagine how the world might look if the UCI had forbidden the chain-driven safety bicycle. Would the serious cyclists be teetering around on top of huge 54-inch wheels? Would we be afraid to teach our children to ride bikes for fear they might take a header and break their necks? Now, imagine it the other way, if the UCI had not forbidden the recumbent. Would most of us be cruising around on comfy lawn chairs? Would we stare in amusement when we saw one of those old dangerous head-first relics? Would our kids be more likely to land on a nice soft buttock instead of a fragile face or wrist when they dumped their bikes?

What if NASCAR technology had been allowed to develop unchecked? Pit stops happen on the clock, so it’s entirely conceivable that racing engineers would have poured a lot of attention into increasing fuel efficiency to minimize those stops. If they had been allowed to experiment unchecked, would we have race cars that could complete a 600-mile race on ten gallons of fuel? Imagine how that technology would trickle down to a little Nissan on the highway. Think about that next time you’re fueling up for that trip down I-85.

Cyclist Sam Whittingham exceeds 82 mph in a streamlined recumbent bicycle.

Dim Light and Other Hazards

By Marc Williams

About two years ago, I hurt my back.  I wasn’t doing anything extraordinarily physical–just some routine chores around the house.  The pain was significant and it lasted quite awhile.  After a few weeks of waiting for the injury to heal and for the pain to subside on its own, I went to the doctor, who referred me to a physical therapist.  I couldn’t believe that some simple chores around the house were causing me such trouble.  However, I learned from the physical therapist that the problem had not resulted from house work.  My injury was caused by bad posture.

The BLS program at UNCG is an online degree program and as an instructor, I spend nearly all of my working day in front of a computer.  While in front of the computer, my posture generally looks something like the image below.

Less than ideal posture.

But how can bad posture cause an injury like the one I experienced?  The key ingredient for me was time.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, my reliance upon a computer to do my job puts me in the 55% majority of Americans who use a computer at work.  However, my personal computer usage for work exceeds the three hours per day national average.  I’d estimate that my work activities demand roughly six hours per day staring at my computer screen, about double the national average.  But this level of use doesn’t make me unusual; the same Bureau of Labor Statistics study cited above shows a much higher rate of computer use among “managers and professionals,” (about 80%) and the rate of computer use among those with college degrees is also higher than the national average.    It seems that higher levels of academic and professional achievement correlate to computer use in the work place.

Paul Lieberstein (Toby, L) and Steve Carrell (Michael, R) on The Office.

As I considered how my computer reliance affected my health, I was reminded of one of my favorite television shows, The Office.  Here’s the episode, titled “Safety Training,” in which branch manager Michael Scott attempts to make office work seem dangerous–an obvious attempt to prove his masculinity to the warehouse staff who operate heavy machines.

H.R. representative Toby advises the employees to take hourly breaks from their computers to rest their eyes and he cautions about depression-related office conditions that include dim lighting.  Of course these health threats are exaggerated by Michael and dismissed by the warehouse staff.  While the examples are given in a comedic context, my experience suggests that computer work can indeed be tough on the body and mind.

After much experimenting, I’ve found that Toby’s advice on The Office is sound.  I try to get up from the computer every hour to stretch, move around, interact with real people whenever possible, and go outside.  I found that I needed exercises to strengthen my back and I use a few yoga positions to help negate the “hunchback” posture I use at my desk.  The routine could use some variety so I’m always looking for new ideas.  I’ve often wondered how my colleagues–and our students–deal with the effects of computer use.   Any tips?

It’s Not Just for Who Anymore?

By Marc Williams

A funny thing happened on the way to my DVR.  I watched the 2011 Tony Awards and enjoyed it.

Here’s a little back story:  my background is in theatre as both an actor and director.  When I was studying theatre as an undergraduate and for a few years after that, I always watched the Tony Awards live and always enjoyed them.  However, the Tony Awards has been holding on by a thread to its relationship with CBS due to historically low ratings.

In order to boost ratings, the American Theatre Wing has spent the past decade trying to validate the Tonys as a major celebrity event.  The Tonys looked to Hollywood, borrowing their celebrities for Broadway’s big night. Whichever Hollywood star happened to be on Broadway that season was begged to attend and present awards at the Tonys.  In 2004, for example, Sean Combs, Renee Zellweger, Nicole Kidman, and Scarlett Johansson presented awards—and their presence was endlessly emphasized by the broadcast.  Theatre icons like Helen Mirren and Joel Grey were virtually ignored.  This, to me, was not a celebration of Broadway but rather a desperate attempt to make Broadway seem relevant to a broad audience.  I understand the desperation.  In my BLS classes, we discuss the role of theatre in a variety of historical eras, including our own.  While students connect intellectually and emotionally to the plays we study, many students have trouble conceptualizing the texts as live performances; and that’s no surprise, really, because many students have never been to the theatre.

The Tony broadcasts of the past decade have literally begged the television audience to visit Broadway, using the glamor of Hollywood to sell its appeal.  These efforts have always seemed disingenuous to me.  Why can’t Broadway showcase its own stars?  If the work is solid and well-executed in the broadcast, surely audiences will want to see it in person. On these grounds, I’ve refused to watch the live broadcasts for the past few years.  I recorded them on my DVR and watched a few days or weeks later, skipping through all the stuff that I knew would annoy me. A few days ago, I watched the 2011 ceremony, which had aired live on June 12.

Host Neil Patrick Harris delivered an opening number that smacked the Tonys back into reality, both acknowledging and poking fun at the theatre’s niche audience.

The opening number even acknowledged that Al Pacino is “too famous” to participate in the song’s gag.  And I can’t imagine previous broadcasts would have mentioned Joe Mantello’s presence in the opening number–it was a joke only theatre fans could love. It was clear that the 2011 ceremony would be different from the recent broadcasts that had so annoyed me—and indeed it was different.  I watched every second of the broadcast, as it celebrated Broadway and avoided phony attempts to legitimize theatre’s place in popular culture.  I even found myself laughing hysterically at what appears to be Broadway’s biggest hit in years, The Book of Mormon (a new musical written by South Park co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone).

I immediately went to my computer to try to score a pair of tickets and plan a trip to New York.  I thought to myself, “yes! This is exactly what a Tony broadcast ought to make us do.”  The Tonys didn’t beg me to come to Broadway; they showed me something that I actually want to see.  I don’t know if next year’s Tony Awards will be as genuine as the 2011 ceremony but I am hopeful.

A side note:  I didn’t score tickets to The Book of Mormon.  The show is nearly sold out for the next six months.