Why does it seem that the urgency with which one is attempting to get somewhere is directly proportional to the probability that one's way will be blocked by a train at a grade crossing? Today, for instance, I was on my way home at lunch and, having been delayed in a meeting, was a little later than usual. Sure enough, I had to waste more minutes that I didn't really have while a freight train made its lumbering way across the only road I could go.
I work at one of the sites owned by a major chemical manufacturer. Much of the chemical produced on site is shipped via train. And so, the site is virtually criss crossed with railroad tracks. And the more tardy you are in having to be someplace, the greater the likelihood that some train will be drawing across your path, making you even more late.
I hate trains. I understand their significance though. Both from an historical perspective and also in their efficiency for transporting modern day goods, materials and supplies. Yet, it seems that a little more forethought and planning could have been employed in laying out train tracks. It must seem pithy, but it's the little annoyances like this that crop up when one is distracted from the more pressing issues of the day, like global warming, climate change, peak oil, rampant pollution, GMO's, BSE, and the collapse of the world's fisheries.
I live in a little hamlet nestled in one corner of the crossing of two major rural roadways. A CPR track borders the hamlet, bisecting both the east-west and north-south roadways. There are traffic control signals at both crossings. The track at one time served to transport farmers' grain from the grain elevators that used to stand here. Now the trains that move over the track haul primarily the various chemicals and other hydrocarbon derivatives manufactured in the area. These trains go through at all hours of the day and night. The train drivers must blow the engine's whistle at each of the two grade crossings. The more sadistic of train drivers generally start the whistle at one end of town and don't let up until they're through the second crossing at the other end of town. Naturally, this is more likely to occur between the hours of midnight and five am.
I don't where I'm going with this. All I do know for sure is that when we pick out the place to build our next house, it will be a long ways away from any frigging train tracks.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Sesame Street circa 1969
I was probably not quite 6 years old when Sesame Street first aired on PBS. It was created for a specific audience, the inner-city four year old and if you look at the episodes from those first seasons you will notice a decidedly inner city setting, but one that was undoubtedly cleaner and more hopeful than the reality it was pseudo-mimicking. All I remember about the show were muppets and singing and adults who were never too busy or spoke to roughly, so imagine my surprise when I ran across an article today about the recent DVD release of those first episodes and the fact that they carry a warning sticker. Yes, you heard correctly. There is a disclaimer on these Sesame Street DVD’s cautioning parents about allowing their preschoolers to watch it. Apparently the simpler times that so many people refer to lovingly when talking about their childhood eras don’t include the years in which I was actually a child. Late 1960’s and on need not apply for “wonder years’ status after all it seems.
I was not a huge Sesame Street fan as I remember it. I preferred one of the Children’s Television Workshop’s next creations, The Electric Company a lot more. I was a devoted Captain Kangaroo fan. I can still recall the titles of some of the books he read like Mike and the Steam Shovel, Make Way for Ducklings (which I just read my own daughter the other night) and Caps for Sale (which I ran across one day at Barnes and Noble and bought - for myself). Sesame Street’s mission in the earliest days was to expose disadvantaged kids to the idea of life outside the city and instill in them the idea that learning was fun. While the teacher in me cringes at the latter (learning is not always fun but it is necessary), I feel that those early episodes are probably not the politically incorrect minefield of horror and potential psychological trauma that the warning label is meant to invoke. However, I probably won’t rush out and buy it either. Mainly because I doubt that my five year old would sit and watch it for long. She is, unfortunately or not depending on your old world views, like some many of her peers in that she is accustomed to CGIish characters and settings and the frenetic pace of today’s child-oriented productions. In short, she would probably find it boring. I don’t know if this is too bad or not. Bert and Ernie were two unrelated males lived in the basement of a dingy gray concrete building who shared the same bedroom. Cookie Monster was an unrepentant carbohydrate addict. Oscar was mean and morose and in desperate need of medicating and therapy. The grown-ups on the show often approached children who did not know them and offered them food and drink. The montages of rural life didn’t scream warnings about environmental decay via the toxicity of humanity but instead showed rather bland farm scenes that seem antique even for the time period. The running theme of being kind to your neighbors and helpful and learning without the aid of technology runs at odds with today’s neighborhoods of strangers and looking out for yourself and the idea that an education is complete if it isn’t chocked full of relevancy and head-splitting excitement.
On our recent trip to B.C. to visit Rob’s mother, she hauled out a video of old home movies that Rob had transferred from 8mm years ago. They were interesting for several reasons. First they gave me an opportunity to see all the new players in my life, my in-laws, as they were when they were young. It puts much of the current dynamics at work between them into a frame of reference. The tape also allowed me to learn more about Rob. But finally, it made me realize once again how this world is really about adults. It was built by us and for us, and children are, and have always been not much more than flesh and blood versions of vanity plates and the consequences of our adult needs. And I am not saying this makes all of us bad parents or that the majority of us don’t love our children. While I will never be totally convinced that everyone has the right to be a parent (the right, not the physical ability to breed), I think most of us are conscientious about our responsibilities. I do believe though that in our current efforts to child-proof the world, we are forgetting that children today are not more fragile than we ourselves were back in 1969. That glimpse into the inner city probably did me as much good as the pastoral scenes did those tenement dwelling preschoolers. Which is to say, a lot and that allowing our little ones today those same peeks into the past will probably not have much different of an impact.
I was not a huge Sesame Street fan as I remember it. I preferred one of the Children’s Television Workshop’s next creations, The Electric Company a lot more. I was a devoted Captain Kangaroo fan. I can still recall the titles of some of the books he read like Mike and the Steam Shovel, Make Way for Ducklings (which I just read my own daughter the other night) and Caps for Sale (which I ran across one day at Barnes and Noble and bought - for myself). Sesame Street’s mission in the earliest days was to expose disadvantaged kids to the idea of life outside the city and instill in them the idea that learning was fun. While the teacher in me cringes at the latter (learning is not always fun but it is necessary), I feel that those early episodes are probably not the politically incorrect minefield of horror and potential psychological trauma that the warning label is meant to invoke. However, I probably won’t rush out and buy it either. Mainly because I doubt that my five year old would sit and watch it for long. She is, unfortunately or not depending on your old world views, like some many of her peers in that she is accustomed to CGIish characters and settings and the frenetic pace of today’s child-oriented productions. In short, she would probably find it boring. I don’t know if this is too bad or not. Bert and Ernie were two unrelated males lived in the basement of a dingy gray concrete building who shared the same bedroom. Cookie Monster was an unrepentant carbohydrate addict. Oscar was mean and morose and in desperate need of medicating and therapy. The grown-ups on the show often approached children who did not know them and offered them food and drink. The montages of rural life didn’t scream warnings about environmental decay via the toxicity of humanity but instead showed rather bland farm scenes that seem antique even for the time period. The running theme of being kind to your neighbors and helpful and learning without the aid of technology runs at odds with today’s neighborhoods of strangers and looking out for yourself and the idea that an education is complete if it isn’t chocked full of relevancy and head-splitting excitement.
On our recent trip to B.C. to visit Rob’s mother, she hauled out a video of old home movies that Rob had transferred from 8mm years ago. They were interesting for several reasons. First they gave me an opportunity to see all the new players in my life, my in-laws, as they were when they were young. It puts much of the current dynamics at work between them into a frame of reference. The tape also allowed me to learn more about Rob. But finally, it made me realize once again how this world is really about adults. It was built by us and for us, and children are, and have always been not much more than flesh and blood versions of vanity plates and the consequences of our adult needs. And I am not saying this makes all of us bad parents or that the majority of us don’t love our children. While I will never be totally convinced that everyone has the right to be a parent (the right, not the physical ability to breed), I think most of us are conscientious about our responsibilities. I do believe though that in our current efforts to child-proof the world, we are forgetting that children today are not more fragile than we ourselves were back in 1969. That glimpse into the inner city probably did me as much good as the pastoral scenes did those tenement dwelling preschoolers. Which is to say, a lot and that allowing our little ones today those same peeks into the past will probably not have much different of an impact.
Raising the Gas Tax
The Iowa Legislature is considering applying an additional 4 cents on the state's gas tax. The reason for this is to raise additional funds for road projects. Predictably this has angered people and brought out the usual outraged responses such as this tax: 1) gouges consumers in the same manner as oil companies do; 2) hurts the lower socio-economic classes and 3) t won't stop global warming anyway.
Taxes generally outrage people almost as a matter of principle. The citizenery of this country (or any country really) expect, demand even, a lot of services from their government and somehow think this should be accomplished with as little monetrary contribution from them as possible. I am not going to argue the fact that governments can and do waste resources and that includes tax dollars, but many big businesses have the same problem when there are so many divisions and people that even the most vigilant system cannot always keep track of the left and the right hand's actions at the same time. Governments are imperfect because they are run by imperfect people who not coincidently are elected by imperfect people. But that is a debate for another day. Today we have people mad because they don't want to pay another 4 cents per gallon of gas despite the fact that gas here is cheaper than nearly anywhere else on the planet and per person, we use more than our worldly fair share. Americans are spoiled.
But let's look at the arguments I have seen against raising the tax. The first one was that the oil companies gouge us and then the state joins the party. My husband has spent many hours explaining the ins and outs of gasoline prices to me. He spent time in the oil business at the refinery end, so he has a fairly good grasp of supply/demand and market theory. Basically gas prices based on supply and demand. In the U.S., or any car dependent society, cars are not luxuries for the majority of people. Our penchant for sprawling communities and cities means that few of us live, work and shop within walking distance of our homes. Even with the limited mass transit systems that most people are accustomed to outside of the very large cites (which might have better and more adequate systems), we still need individual vehicles to get to the places we need to go. So, there is always demand which ebbs and flows based on seasons and holidays and on our ability to buy. When prices get too high, people cut back and prices come down again. And yes, I know this doesn't effect the tax which remains the same. The tax is a separate issue. Gas taxes are used to maitain and build new roads primarily. I wonder if anyone else sees the irony in Iowa raising more money for more roads? The state has an abundance of roads including a veritable surplus of 4 lane highways that are near empty and go nowhere the majority of the state's inhabitants need to go. Where I live in western Canada, people talk about the new bypass (the only one actually) that scoots by the Alberta capital of Edmonton, as though it were some fabulous breakthrough in travel. They number highways up here in the single digits and even though they live in the heart of oil country (much of which gets sent to the U.S.), they pay prices at the pump which make a 4 cent state tax look laughable.
But what about the poor? Well, what about them? They are hit hard by every use tax there is and no one seems to mind unless we are talking about gasoline. When that happens the poor become wonderful arguments in our war to not have to find ways to reduce our own comsumption. The poor are handy like that.
And finally, the idea that global warming can't be stopped by the reductions in comsumption. I agree with that but only because global warming can't be stopped now at all. We are no longer in the "cause" phase of global warming but the "effect" stage where the best we can hope for is to manage as many of the awful things that are here and are coming. I don't agree with idea that reduce our consumption is a waste of time or that the upper classes are such hedonists that rising prices don't cause them to change their driving habits at some point.
The Chevy Malibu I owned before leaving Iowa held about 14 gallons of gas, according to my husband, and an additional 4 cents per gallon is about 56 cents. I watched my students at Hoover High School spend ten times that much money in the snack machines alone on a daily basis. I spent more than that at the Starbuck's on my way to work and most people throw away far more money on their junk food habits or weekend Target fixes. What's interesting to me is that we readily dispose of our cash on the non-essentials without so much as first thought, but when it comes to gas for the car, we cry foul whenever the price goes up a few pennies or the government requires more payment for services.
Taxes generally outrage people almost as a matter of principle. The citizenery of this country (or any country really) expect, demand even, a lot of services from their government and somehow think this should be accomplished with as little monetrary contribution from them as possible. I am not going to argue the fact that governments can and do waste resources and that includes tax dollars, but many big businesses have the same problem when there are so many divisions and people that even the most vigilant system cannot always keep track of the left and the right hand's actions at the same time. Governments are imperfect because they are run by imperfect people who not coincidently are elected by imperfect people. But that is a debate for another day. Today we have people mad because they don't want to pay another 4 cents per gallon of gas despite the fact that gas here is cheaper than nearly anywhere else on the planet and per person, we use more than our worldly fair share. Americans are spoiled.
But let's look at the arguments I have seen against raising the tax. The first one was that the oil companies gouge us and then the state joins the party. My husband has spent many hours explaining the ins and outs of gasoline prices to me. He spent time in the oil business at the refinery end, so he has a fairly good grasp of supply/demand and market theory. Basically gas prices based on supply and demand. In the U.S., or any car dependent society, cars are not luxuries for the majority of people. Our penchant for sprawling communities and cities means that few of us live, work and shop within walking distance of our homes. Even with the limited mass transit systems that most people are accustomed to outside of the very large cites (which might have better and more adequate systems), we still need individual vehicles to get to the places we need to go. So, there is always demand which ebbs and flows based on seasons and holidays and on our ability to buy. When prices get too high, people cut back and prices come down again. And yes, I know this doesn't effect the tax which remains the same. The tax is a separate issue. Gas taxes are used to maitain and build new roads primarily. I wonder if anyone else sees the irony in Iowa raising more money for more roads? The state has an abundance of roads including a veritable surplus of 4 lane highways that are near empty and go nowhere the majority of the state's inhabitants need to go. Where I live in western Canada, people talk about the new bypass (the only one actually) that scoots by the Alberta capital of Edmonton, as though it were some fabulous breakthrough in travel. They number highways up here in the single digits and even though they live in the heart of oil country (much of which gets sent to the U.S.), they pay prices at the pump which make a 4 cent state tax look laughable.
But what about the poor? Well, what about them? They are hit hard by every use tax there is and no one seems to mind unless we are talking about gasoline. When that happens the poor become wonderful arguments in our war to not have to find ways to reduce our own comsumption. The poor are handy like that.
And finally, the idea that global warming can't be stopped by the reductions in comsumption. I agree with that but only because global warming can't be stopped now at all. We are no longer in the "cause" phase of global warming but the "effect" stage where the best we can hope for is to manage as many of the awful things that are here and are coming. I don't agree with idea that reduce our consumption is a waste of time or that the upper classes are such hedonists that rising prices don't cause them to change their driving habits at some point.
The Chevy Malibu I owned before leaving Iowa held about 14 gallons of gas, according to my husband, and an additional 4 cents per gallon is about 56 cents. I watched my students at Hoover High School spend ten times that much money in the snack machines alone on a daily basis. I spent more than that at the Starbuck's on my way to work and most people throw away far more money on their junk food habits or weekend Target fixes. What's interesting to me is that we readily dispose of our cash on the non-essentials without so much as first thought, but when it comes to gas for the car, we cry foul whenever the price goes up a few pennies or the government requires more payment for services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
