Ethics: Because I said so

There was an article in Tuesday's NY Times about the ethical dilemmas presented by new technology. An environmental scientist is quoted in the article saying, "There is no one to say 'Thou shalt not'". That phrasing struck me as odd. "Thou shalt not" is biblical terminology, and the implication of the statement is sort of Nitzschean. I mean, either this woman believes that there never was anyone who said "Thou shalt not" (i.e. there is no God), in which case it doesn't really bear mentioning in this way (because if there never was then it doesn't relate to new technology or anything new for that matter), or, more likely, there was but isn't any more (i.e. God is dead).

Whether you believe that God really dictated to Moses (among others) or not, the fact is that a great many people did believe that, so someone, whether it was God, or just Moses himself, was able to tell people "Thou shalt not", (and have many of them listen and accept it as a commandment they must follow). If someone were to try the same thing today (i.e. to say, whether truthfully or not, that God spoke to them, they would likely be institutionalized (or, depending on where they were from, maybe killed). I wonder, if someone found or claimed to have found, some ancient text adding all sorts of commandments, would people listen?

It isn't so far fetched. The Book of Mormon is a whole lot newer than Moses and his commandments and there are a lot of people out there not drinking coffee, tea or alcohol, because Joseph Smith told them that God didn't want them to and a good many of them believe that it is purely about obedience.

I always thought that God would know what things we might want to eat and drink that could be harmful to us and that those dietary restrictions (which many religions have) were more about God protecting us from harm to our health. However many people who believe in a good and loving God also, apparently, believe that this Father in Heaven, is the type of parent that comes up with arbitrary rules and insists that we follow them because He said so.

I actually like this parental analogy because as an adult I can see that some of the things my parents told me not to do, which at the time seemed arbitrary, were really for my own good (like God's diet laws). They were trying to protect me. For example, when I was 14 my mother told me to stay away from older guys. She explained it really well too. She told me that once I was out of school, age difference wouldn't matter (at least not as much), but until then, people change so much so quickly that older guys would be vastly different that guys my own age and than me, that they would want different things than I wanted. I ignored her, of course, and a year later nearly got myself raped (or more accurately got myself nearly raped).

Even after that happened I still wasn't exactly a paragon of obedience. I'm obedient if I understand the reasons why I should be and sometimes, I have to make the mistake in order to understand the reasoning. When it comes to things that affect my own health and well being (like the things my mother told me not to do, or religious dictates about not drinking coffee or eating pork) I can make my own mistakes but the things they are talking about in this article have potentially harmful effects on humanity as a whole. It seems to me like the absence of someone to say, "Thou shalt not", might actually be a good thing. Especially if the only reason offered would be, "because I said so".

In the absence of such an authority, panels of scientists and philosophers convene to discuss the ethical implications of creating new technologies whose effects on humanity are yet unknown and could potentially be disastrous. These are people who can tell us not just that we shouldn't do these things, but why we shouldn't do them.

The family you make

I've had Growing Up Falling Down (the Living End) stuck in my head for the past week or two. According to some my youth ended a couple months so I guess I should be all grown up already but I feel like right now is the moment that I am growing up.

I think that growing up is a lot about the family you make for yourself. As someone who is really close with the family I was born with I never thought about making a family for myself (because I already have one and I'm happy with it). I have been thinking about it a lot lately though.

There was a lot of talk about it in the news coverage of one of this summers big movies (Sex and the City). I didn't see the movie but it was something I questioned about the show so I understood the criticism, the girls families are hardly ever depicted in the movie (or the show), not even at their weddings. The explanation, of course, is that those girls may not be connected by blood, but they are each other's family.

The natural conclusion is that people make their friends into surrogate families because they don't like the families they were born with. Another possibility is people in extreme situations, working super long hours or the like, form those family like strong bonds with each other and it has nothing to do with dissatisfaction with their existing families (you see that in television too, Sorkin does it a lot).

Neither of those things apply to me, and yet, I find myself creating family for myself. Maybe, there was a void to fill...I never had a sister so I found myself one. Ever since then I've been building my family outside my family.

So now, it's not that the roots I have here in this place, my family, mean any less to me, but I have other things in my life now that mean just as much. The other things, other people, are pretty spread out. I know I'm going to be moving soon. The lease on my apartment is up in October and I don't think I'm staying the Seattle area. I'm just not sure where I'll end up. LA, Olympia, and New York are the options...Olympia is probably the most me, I like a laid back place, and one of my best friends is there now. Three years ago I was sure if I ever moved from Seattle it would be to LA, I have friends there, and an entire branch of my extended family in that area. New York is somewhere I swore I'd never live, but one of my best friends just moved there, my sister really (in this family I'm making for myself), and like family, I think we need each other. I'm not sure how it will work out, but no matter where I go I guess I will have family around me, whether it's the family I was born with or the one I make for myself.

Losing yourself

My first acting teacher told me that you have to keep something of yourself (I think it was 90/10, give 90% to the character and keep 10% of yourself). This is excellent advice especially since if you're any good at all at acting you'll at some point find a character you're playing bleeding over into your own life and personality. It's the reason actors end up dating their costars so often. It's also the reason actors are often crazy, or at least assumed to be crazy.

Heath Ledger is a very good actor, and his Joker was great, and while I'm not trying to say that he's crazy, I don't think it was Oscar caliber work. He played a crazy killer with no motivation what-so-ever. I know it's cliche but actors need to know what their characters motivation is, and the Joker is a character without any motivation. That's not a character that allows for an especially emotionally nuanced portrayal, in fact it's pretty one dimensional. He died tragically, and perhaps deserves a posthumous Oscar both for making the Joker nuanced at all and because he didn't win the one he deserved for Brokeback Mountain, but I am saying that his acting in Dark Knight didn't take my breath away, his acting has taken my breath away, but not in this movie.

Cristian Bale, by the way, is a very good actor, who, it's said, doesn't keep anything of himself. People say that he becomes a completely different person (off camera I mean, since obviously he becomes a different person on camera). Of course, I'm not trying to say that he's crazy either. He had the more three dimensional character and he did very well with it is all. Of course it's kind of hard to see the emotionally nuanced acting when the man is wearing a mask over his eyes for half the film so I don't think anyone is going to be getting any Oscars (for their acting in this film).

Still, when I was watching the movie I totally lost myself. My friend tells me she was watching and she knew they couldn't have killed Gordon, because he wasn't commissioner yet. I should have known that too. I know enough Batman to know that Gordon was commissioner. Then Harvey Dent has gasoline running down the side of his face and I'm so caught up in the story, I should know what's coming, I know enough Batman to know about Two Face, but I don't even realize what's coming. That story had me rapt from beginning to end even though I know Batman. Maybe I have a tendency to let myself get lost in a story more than most people, and maybe this story was particularly compelling for a lot of reasons, but at least one of those reason is convincing actors.

Can you see the real me?

Dan: Why do I want people to like me?
Abby: Yes.
Dan: Don't you want people to like you?
Abby Sure.
Dan So?
Abby So, I'm a likable person, and I assume people are gonna like me, and many of them do.
Dan: What about the ones who don't?
Abby: I don't really think too much about that.
Dan: Why not?
Abby: 'Cause many of them do.

It was suggested to me by a friend recently that my tendency to blurt things out is not only not a bad thing but actually an enviable trait. She was with me at a pub a couple months ago and she asked the bartender when his birthday was, and when he told us I said, "Of course it is, all the cute boys are Leos". She thought it was great, couldn't believe I'd said it, and she said it took guts.

That pales in comparison to the time I told a guy I had a huge crush on that he shouldn't have any trouble with women as he was smart and funny and cute. Or the time a professor was trying to make a point about insecurities and I claimed that when I was younger I'd never doubted for a minute that I was beautiful and then turned to the guys next to me and asked if they could blame me. At least with the bartender I could claim drunkenness though in truth I wasn't that drunk, and probably would have said it anyway, I mean, I was completely sober in the other cases. Alcohol does bring out this trait in me even more, but, as with most traits, alcohol only enhances what is already there.

I think her assumption is that I don't care what people think about me, but that's not true. It's just that I'm a likable person and I assume people are going to like me and many of them do so I don't worry too much about the ones that don't.

"For the sake of argument" is kind of my motto, so when my professor was tyring to make a point I had to disagree and it wasn't exactly a lie. Of course, the truth isn't that I never had any insecurities as a kid, it's just that they weren't about my looks (more about my personality). I couldn't not say it, you know. And when I think someone is cute, for some reason that thought can't just stay in my head, I have to say it. I can't seem to censor myself. It's not exactly intentional so I can't say that I really have guts. It's just who I am.

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song...

I have in the past made a lot of jokes about meeting people online and how it's impossible to tell anything about someone from their online profiles aside from their favorite music (and books and movies and television). In fact I went so far as to post a facetious profile on the Yahoo personals saying as much (well, actually kind of saying the opposite, but...you know...irony and all that).

I just didn't think someone's taste in music said much about them, or I didn't think that I thought that. It's come to my attention recently that I actually put a lot of weight on a persons taste in music. Maybe more than any other single factor.

Also, the truth is, with my songs of the day, I was hoping to tell someone something about me. I said before that their purpose was to keep in touch (and that's true, and it was pretty effective) but also there was someone I didn't know very well and, while I wanted to get to know him better (probably because he had such great taste in music), more than that, or at least as much as that, I wanted him to get to know me better and I thought a good way to do that was songs of the day.

Being totally honest with myself here, the first time I saw him, the first thing I noticed was that he was wearing a Social Distortion shirt, and one of the first conversations I had with him he was talking about seeing the Who live (a subject that I continue returning to, by the way, as seeing the Who live was one of the defining experiences of my adult life). Is it any wonder I wanted to get to know him better (and wanted him to get to know me better)?

Since I didn't actually send the songs of the day daily I often tried to tie songs together with a theme (the Diablo series, or the Chicks Rock series, or the Cheesy Romance series, etc), but with very few exceptions, I didn't really explain why I'd chosen the songs. Once he asked me how I picked them and I told him the same vagueness that I said here (that sometimes they were my favorites, sometimes songs I thought he'd like, or ones that reminded me of him, or songs to suit my moods, and sometimes they were random).

Sometimes I wonder if he got to know me better because of the songs, or just because of time, or because this blog is kind of tell-all-ish, or if maybe he knew me better than I thought already. I tend to believe that there is something fundamental about my character that some people just "get" and others don't and it isn't a matter of them knowing my favorite songs, or even my life story they just get it or they don't.

I like music. A lot. But it's a funny thing, you know. Some songs I like because because of the lyrics (they tell stories, or they make me feel something, or they describe something I have felt), some I like because of the music (they have interesting melodies, or just catchy ones, interesting arrangements, or use of unexpected instruments, etc.), and sometimes I just like a song for no reason that I can identify. Just like the songs of the day...

January 11th - In Gods Country (U2) - Well, U2 is one of my favorite bands, but that's not why I picked this one, he was in Israel (i.e. Gods country)
February 2nd - Never Been to Spain (Three Dog Night) - One of my favorite songs and at that point I hadn't ever been to Spain.
March 6th - Why Don't We Get Drunk (Jimmy Buffett) - I generally put my Zune on shuffle all the time and this song seemed to come on just as I was arriving at class, not every time, but enough times to be considered an interesting coincidence (if you believe in coincidences)
March 7th - Thrill of It (Robert Randolph) - I'd been to see Robert Randolph play at the Showbox that night.
March 12th - Then I'm Gone (Supersuckers) - I thought the titled was fitting since that was the day I left for Switzerland.
March 14th - Old College Try (Mountain Goats) - I thought he'd like this band and this is one of my favorite songs by them. It contains one of my favorite song lyrics ever ("in the way those eyes I've always loved, illuminate this place, like a trash can fire in a prison cell")
March 17th - Fiesta (the Pogues) - This song reminds me of him. He likes it, we talked about it.
April 20th - I Want to Break Free (Queen) - I'd been to see We Will Rock You in London that day
April 25th - Pints of Guinness Make Me Strong (Against Me!) - this was a band he'd recommended to me (that I love), and I'd been in Dublin.
May 7th - Love the One You're With (Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young) - A lyric from which was the title of my blog that week.
May 13th - Jack and Diane (John "Cougar" Mellancamp) - A song I had stuck in my head that day, which I'd had stuck in my head before thanks to him (and thanks to a blizzard which got me snowed in where I was house sitting with among others a Jack and a Diane)
May 22nd - Bring it on Home (Led Zeppelin) - My second favorite Led Zeppelin song. My favorite is Over the Hills and Far Away (song of the day February 18th).
June 9th - Graduated (John Haitt) - This one is pretty self explanatory...it was the day I graduated.
July 21st - It's Only Me (Wizard of Magicland)(Barenaked Ladies) - The day the new Harry Potter book came out

That's just a dozen or so songs (out of over 400). There are, of course, more like these, that I chose for specific (and for the most part fairly obvious) reasons, but in a list of 400 songs, the ones with clear meanings (to me) are the minority. And even the one's with clear meanings...well...

I just wonder, does it really stand to reason that music is somehow a window into my personality?

Broken hearts (and bones)

I spoke a few days ago about heartbreaking bike crashes and since then the Tour de France has witnessed a couple of them.

In stage Fifteen Oscar Pereiro crashed on a switchback decent, he went over the edge and fell down to the road (when it switched back) below. Easily, that could have been fatal and it wouldn't have been the first fatal crash in the Tour. There have been three fatal crashes in the Tour (most recently Fabio Casartelli in 1995, also in stage fifteen). In fact, at first it looked like this was a fatal crash. The riders slowed down when they passed Pereiro, laying motionless on the pavement. His teammates stopped to check on him, of course. Miraculously he survived with only a broken arm (shoulder or elbow, I'm not entirely sure).

In stage Sixteen John Lee Augustyn crashed on another steep decent. He was fine, but unfortunately he lost his bike and had to wait several minutes for his team car to come with a replacement bike.

Augustyn, the youngest rider in the peleton this year (he'll be twenty-two next month), is riding in the Tour de France for the first time. On the final climb (the highest in the Tour) he dropped all of the top climbers in this years Tour. He accelerated about half a kilometer from the summit and no one could stay on his wheel. Just a few minutes later, on the decent, he crashed and had to do some fancy climbing up the nearly sheer face of the mountain to get back on the road. His bike though was lost and since his team was down to only a few riders by that point they're only allowed one team car and it was following behind the rest of the peleton (about seven or eight minutes behind him).

Crashes in the Tour are often dramatic, but these two are even more so than usual. They really highlight the danger involved in professional bike racing.

The Zen Tour Fan

Since my personal life has become more complicated than I'd like I've decided to focus my blogging on the Tour de France.

Not that my feelings about the Tour are simple this year either. You see, my favorite team (CSC) lost a rider in the off season. In fact, they lost my favorite rider. Dave Zabriskie switched to the Garmin-Chipotle team. He's not riding in the tour though, so I suppose I'm still free to cheer for Team CSC, and they've got a decent shot, with Frank Schleck, at winning the Tour. He's likely to lose time in the next time trial, but there are still a couple more mountain stages where he could gain enough time to offset the losses he'll see in the time trial. As it stands now he's only got 8 seconds on Evans, 38 seconds on Menchov, 39 on Vandevelde, and 49 on Sastre. Since Carlos Sastre is probably (technically) the CSC team leader, I don't think Schleck would mind losing to him. He lost a minute forty-seven to Evans in the previous time trial which was only about half as long as the upcoming one. Menchov and Vandevelde got time on Schleck in the time trial as well (both weren't far behind Evans).

I suppose I'd also like it if an American to won it. Even though I'm a huge fan of the CSC team and of the Schleck brothers, I'd love to see Vandevelde (who's racing on, the American sponsored, Garmin-Chipotle team as well), win this year.

My loyalties as a cycling fan are difficult to define. Its not like there's a home town team to root for. Although Tyler Farrar of Garmin-Chipotle is from Washington, he's not on their Tour team this year. You can bet, when he is I'll be rooting for him because he's local and because I have the added benefit of having met him and seen him race a bunch locally before he joined a pro team. Obviously, I have a certain amount of national loyalty. I like to see Americans winning races.

Beyond that, I couldn't say why I root for certain riders. I prefer the classics to the tours so I tend to like sprinters, and classics riders more than grand tour contenders. Also, it's not as much a situation where I like rooting for the underdog (like in baseball). I like winners, but I also like guys who seem laid back, whether they win or lose they say in the interviews something like, "Yeah it was/would have been great to win, but it's just a bike race". I like Tom Boonen, despite his resent arrest for cocaine, for all those reasons (i.e. he wins a lot, mostly in sprint stages or one day classics, and doesn't seem to care one way or the other), but I also like the way he looks in spandex so who's to say which of those are the reason I root for him.

This year...I guess I'm just enjoying watching the race and not really invested in the outcome so much.