💾 Archived View for clemat.is › saccophore › library › ezines › textfiles › ezines › STUCKINTRAFFIC … captured on 2022-01-08 at 17:16:26.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-04)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=====================================================================
Stuck In Traffic
"Independent Comment on Current Events and Cultural Phenomena"�
Issue #11 - February 1996
==================
The Friendly Skies
During January, I had the opportunity to fly to Florida for a
long-weekend vacation and managed to get a great deal on a round trip
airplane ticket on Delta airlines. As I was getting settled on the
plane, the flight attendants were making all their usual announcements.
You have to have your seat in its full, upright position. Tray tables
have to be locked out of the way. All your carry on baggage has to be
stowed in the overhead bins or under the seat in front of you. Anyone
who has flown recently knows the routine. But one of their
announcements caught my attention. The flight attendant told us that
"current federal regulations" prohibit the operation of "certain
portable electronic devices" while on the plane. She further mentioned
that a complete list of the devices allowed and disallowed could be
found in the back of the Sky magazine that could be found in every
seat.
The reason this announcement caught my attention is that I have been
lusting over laptop computers for a couple of years now and have just
about decided that this is the year I'm going to give in to desire. I
thought that as I shopped for a laptop, it would be useful to know
which brands were allowed to be used while in flight and which ones
weren't. Even if I never actually use one on a plane, (I rarely fly),
the certification says something positive about the design of the
laptop with regard to pesky radio emissions that can interfere with TVs
and other stuff. So I thumbed through the magazine and found the "In
Flight, On Board" information section the flight attendant had referred
to. As it turns out, the federal regulations don't mention specific
brands of devices like I had hoped. Instead, they classify equipment
into three categories: devices which are always prohibited, devices
which are only allowed while the plane is airborne, and those devices
which are allowed at all times.
The lists in the first two categories were rather unsurprising. Radios
that can transmit as well as receive are always prohibited. I suppose
they don't want some aviation enthusiast joining in the chat between
the pilot and the control tower. Also radios that could receive
certain types of broadcasts were disallowed, I didn't recognize the
sorts of frequencies that were listed, but I can guess that they'd
rather not have people finding out that there is engine trouble by
listening in on the pilot. But mundane AM/FM radios seem to be
allowed. Laptop computers and electronic games are not allowed during
takeoff and landing, but are allowed once airborne. However,
peripherals such as printers that are attached via a connecting cable
aren't ever allowed, presumably because many cheap cables have very
poor shielding and pose a risk of generating radio interference.
But the third category in the federal regulations, the category of
devices that are permitted at all times, had some surprises. Current
federal regulations, in their generosity I suppose, permit at all times
the operation of electronic pace makers and "personal life support
systems" as long as "the equipment conforms to the Federal Aviation
Administration's criteria." How generous and thoughtful of them! Or
perhaps they just wanted to spare the flight attendants the unpleasant
task of requesting the elderly to turn off their pacemakers during the
flight.
=========
Whiplash!
Watching the President's State of the Union address, I couldn't help
but wonder if this was the same man that took office in 1993. It sure
looked like him. But it sure didn't sound like the same man that
addressed the nation in 1993.
Here's a couple of excerpts from his 1993 State of the Union address:
"To create jobs and guarantee a strong recovery, I call on
Congress to enact an immediate package of jobs investments of
over $30 billion to put people to work now, to create a half
a million jobs."
"With a new network of community development banks and $1
billion to make the dream of enterprise zones real, we
propose to bring new hope and new jobs to storefronts and
factories from South Boston to South Texas to South Central
Los Angeles."
"But all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail
-- let me say this again; I feel so strongly about this --
all of our efforts to strengthen the economy will fail unless
we also take this year -- not next year, not five years from
now, but this year -- bold steps to reform our health care
system."
"For the wealthiest -- those earning more than $180,000 per
year -- I ask you all who are listening tonight to support a
raise in the top rate for federal income taxes from 31 to 36
percent. We recommend a 10 percent surtax on incomes over
$250,000 a year...".
"Our plan does include a broad-based tax on energy.... I
recommend that we adopt a BTU tax on the heat content of
energy..."
Compare that with his 1996 State of the Union address:
"We know big government does not have all the answers. There
is not a program for every problem. We know we need a
smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington -- one
that lives within its means."
"The era of big government is over."
"I believe our new, smaller government must work in an
old-fashioned American way -- together with all our citizens,
through state and local governments, in the workplace, in
religious, charitable, and civic associations."
Not even George Bush's reversal on his "No new taxes" pledge matches
Clinton's 180 degree about-face on the role of government. And we're
supposed to take this man seriously? Which speech represents the real
Bill Clinton? Does anyone know? Since the 1993 State of the Union
address was Clinton's first after being elected, I have to conclude it
is the speech that best represents Clinton's political agenda and his
"vision" for the role of government. Clinton's 1996 State of the
Union, I have to conclude, was a bold and obvious pandering for votes
in the upcoming election.
=================================
"It is unfair to bore someone who doesn't have the opportunity to bore
you right back." -- Garrison Keillor
===================
The Blizzard of `96
I'm sure everyone will be relieved to know that I survived the
"Blizzard of `96." But I have to confess that it really wasn't that
big a deal for people where I live. Geographically, Raleigh seems to
lie at the very northern edge of what we call "the sun belt." Most of
the time, we don't get bad winter storms, and when we get them at all,
we just get the southern edge of them. So while most of the
northeastern part of the country was digging out from heavy snowfalls
that might legitimately be called a blizzard, we in North Carolina got
only about 4 inches of snow and ice.
But we didn't let that stop us from pretending we were suffering
through a blizzard! Oh no! We made do the best we could with the
meager deal we got from Mother Nature. While it is true that North
Carolinians aren't particularly accustomed to dealing with snow and
ice, feigned hardship was the order of the day for about a week.
It seems that the first concern everyone has when it starts snowing is
the condition of the roads. As a rule, North Carolinians don't really
know how to drive on streets covered with ice and snow. We just never
have to do it. We don't have snow tires. It's rare that anyone has
chains for their tires. Likewise, the state and local governments
aren't really prepared to clear the streets. Oh sure, they have winter
emergency plans which they carry out. They dump salt and ashes on the
major roadways. They run snow plows through the streets. But despite
their best efforts, they didn't seem to be able to clear even 4 inches
of snow and ice off the major roads. And clearing the roads in
residential areas is simply out of the question. They simply did not
have the manpower of equipment to do so.
I don't bring this up in order to criticize the state and local
governments. Far from it. Considering how rare it is for us to get
winter weather severe enough to impede road travel, I think it would be
a waste of tax payer money to buy that much snow clearing equipment and
supplies. I bring this up in order to criticize or local media
reporters. Just as we are inexperienced at driving on snow covered
roads, and just as the governments are inexperienced at keeping the
roads clear during a winter storm. Our media reporters are
inexperienced at covering the events. They are desperate to find a way
to sensationalize the story, but they come across sounding like
hypocrites. On the one hand, they constantly report on the state of
the roadways. One local TV station even periodically had a camera crew
out by the side of the road giving you a close up shot of the road
outside their station so you could see for yourself how bad the roads
were, as if you couldn't look outside your window and see the same
thing. On the other hand, they media reporters reported how many
millions of dollars was being spent every day with panicky tones in
their voices like this was going to bring financial ruin to our
government. And I kept thinking to my self, "Well, which is it? Do
you want them to clear the roads or not?" And the media coverage went
downhill from there. Toward the end of the storm, our local TV
newscasts were running stories about how to deal with the cold, that
were offering advice like, "Don't spend to much time out in the cold,"
and "Don't let your feet get wet," and "Don't drive!"
Most businesses were closed for 2 or 3 days at least. Schools in North
Carolina were closed for about a week. I can't blame them, considering
the amount of busing that's done in North Carolina and the state of the
roadways. But people acted like children were being victimized by
their inability to go to school. But try as they might, they were
unable to interview a single kid willing to say they missed school!
Imagine! The Wake County School board issued edicts to parents to
encourage them to make their children do something educational. They
recommended things like, have your children watch educational shows on
Public TV, rent an educational video, and try to get your children to
read a book. All sensible suggestions, but never did they suggest that
parents ought to review their children's school lessons with them or do
anything related to their children's actual school activities. The
conspiracy theorist in me speculated that this was because the
teacher's unions did not want the parents to realize just how much of
their children's education they could handle on their own.
The media frenzy surrounding North Carolina's relatively modest snow
storm was more than a little silly, but it wasn't an entirely bad thing
either. In fact, after observing the media coverage of the snowstorm,
and watching the people in my town, I had the sudden realization that
people were _enjoying_ the snowstorm. They _looked_forward_ to the
dealing with the challenges that the snowstorm brought. Once I
realized this, all the silliness suddenly made sense.
For example, when people down here hear that there is a storm coming,
they rush to the grocery store and stock up on food. Lots of it. I
saw entire families descend on the grocery story during the hours
before the storm and walk out with multiple carts filled with
groceries. Now in the worst snowstorms of the past, people might be
home-bound for 2 or 3 days, but these folks looked like they were
stocking up for a month! And even _during_ the storm, many of the
grocery stores advertise that they're still open. And people will
bundle up and "hike" to the grocery store in order to get a loaf of
bread, as if they couldn't live without it. Why do people do this?
Because they _like_ to do it, not because they're going to starve.
Driving was the same way. There was a parade of 4 wheel drive vehicles
in my town during the snow storm. It seems like every person that had
a vehicle equipped to drive in these conditions all of a sudden had a
need to do so. As I was hiking along one of the major roadways in my
town, I saw some people driving back and forth multiple times. My
parents have friends with a 4 wheel drive truck who spend their time
during winter storms driving around and helping people pull their cars
out of ditches. They don't charge people money and refuse it when
offered. They _enjoy_ doing it. Likewise, I hear of people with these
sorts of vehicles that drive people to the doctor or hospitals of they
can't get there during the storm. They take hospital personnel to and
from their jobs and things like that. It seems kind of silly at first.
And I suspect that there's more than a little jealousy in those of us
who aren't able to drive in the snow. But we have to keep in mind that
many of those people who are showing off their trucks are often
providing a valuable community service at the same time. And why do
they do this? Because they _want_ to do it, not because they _have_ to
do it. They enjoy the challenge that the snow storm brings.
Even mundane tasks take on a whole new meaning during a snowstorm.
Taking out the garbage all of a sudden becomes a battle between you and
nature to see whether you can take out the garbage without breaking
your neck or catching a cold. I confess that I found myself doing
things I wouldn't ordinarily due during nice weather. I found myself
buying birdseed and spreading it out in the backyard for the birds. I
was unusually sociable with my neighbors. Not that I don't get along
with them during normal circumstances. I do. But I don't usually go
out of my way to visit with them. But during the snowstorm, we would
compare notes on the latest weather reports and road conditions,
looking after each other in a sense.
The kids in the neighborhood were, of course, having a blast. My
street happens to be the best street in the neighborhood for sledding
because it's a dead end street with a long sloping hill starting from
the dead end, where I live, and running for about half the length of
the street. Since there is no through traffic and the hill ends well
before you reach the connecting street, you don't have to worry about
running into cars. There was a steady stream of kids sledding down my
street and I have to confess to trying it a couple of times myself.
It's great fun. But, I couldn't help but notice that sledding down a
hill is far from the most exciting ride available these days. Kids
today have go carts tracks, amusement park rides, bicycles, and all
sorts of other types of rides that are faster and more exciting than a
sled ride. But they love to sled anyway. Why? I suspect that partly
it's the novelty. But I also think the fun in sledding is not that you
ride fast, but that you cam make it work _at all_. The fun is in the
challenge of making it work.
On about the third day, I began to get cabin fever, so I bundled up and
walked a few blocks to my friends' house and visited with them. Like
everyone else, I over did it. I bundled up _way_ too much. The
temperature was only in the mid 20's but I had enough layers of clothes
on to survive the arctic. I wore my heaviest hiking boots. Simply
walking through the snow and ice became a big production. I was
determined not to fall. I took small steps, firmly planting my foot
before shifting my weight to it. One learns to appreciate simple
everyday concepts when walking on the snow and ice. Concepts like
traction, momentum, and center of gravity. The sense of accomplishment
I felt when I successfully navigated my way through the treachery and
made it to my friends' house was indescribable, and, I have to admit,
probably overblown for the amount of work and danger actually involved.
After watching how people in my town deal with the Blizzard of `96 for
a few days, I've realized that all the silliness, all the hype, all the
overblown preparations stem from a fundamental craving for challenge.
We _want_ to test ourselves against nature. Our comfortable, easy
suburban lifestyle hasn't killed our basic pioneering spirit.
==========================================
Running for Office in the Land of the Free
Opponents of the death penalty hold all night vigils before an
execution. While there is an outside chance that the media will cover
their vigil, there is next to no hope that their vigil will belay the
execution. But they show up anyway. Why? Right to life activists
congregate outside abortion clinics, risking arrest and imprisonment.
They will be the first to admit that it's highly unlikely that their
gatherings will prevent a women from having an abortion or a doctor
from performing one, but they gather there anyway. Why? They do it in
order to bear witness to the injustice they see and speak out against
it. As Thoreau put it, "Say the thing with which you labor." This is
an obligation that every moral person has.
In the same light, I must bear witness to an injustice I've seen first
hand in my home state of North Carolina. Good people, sincere and
honest people, average people like you and me are being prevented from
participating in North Carolina's electoral process. "It's unthinkable
in this day and age!" you might say; but you would be wrong. I have
seen it.
This misperception stems from the fact that when most people think of
participating in the electoral process, they think of voting. And the
civil rights movement has certainly seen to it that everyone that has
the slightest inclination to do so has the opportunity to vote. The
barriers to voting have been obliterated. There are no more literacy
tests. There are no more qualification criteria. You don't have to
even have a permanent home. The homeless are just as eligible to vote
as anyone else and there are civic organizations whose purpose is to
help the homeless register. Furthermore, there are watchdog
organizations that keep an eye out for attempts to keep people from
registering to vote and other obstructionist activity.
While we have been vigilant about protecting our right to vote, we have
lost our right to run for and hold elected office.
We have this romantic notion in our head that, in the United States,
the land of the free, average citizens can run for office, managing
their election campaign from their home, raising support from their
community. We have this romantic notion that a group of citizens,
dissatisfied with the policies of our "representatives" can exercise
their first amendment right to free association, form their own
political organization, and run for office. If this was ever true,
it's no longer true in North Carolina. Today, unless you are a career
politician and unless you have the blessings of the political parties
in the state, it's virtually impossible to run for office or start
another political party.
State laws in North Carolina are written to make it very difficult to
put a candidate on the ballot for statewide offices. Both independents
and candidates of new parties have to collect tens of thousands of
signatures to "qualify" for the ballot. This is an extremely expensive
task, most people estimate that it costs at least a dollar a signature
to collect. And I have heard rumors that the Ross Perot organization
has paid as high as $5 per signature in the past.
There are several reasons why collecting signatures is so expensive.
First, not all of the signatures a petitioner will collect will be
valid. This occurs for several reasons, either the person thinks they
have registered to vote, but hasn't. Or the person has recently moved
and the voter record haven't been updated. Then general rule of thumb
is that only about 65%-70% of the signatures actually collected will be
validated by the boards of election. Another reason petition drives in
North Carolina are so expensive is that the law requires that these
signatures be collected from every county in the state. So a start up
organization has to spend lots of money and time traveling around the
state to make sure signatures are collected from every county.
Furthermore, state law dictates the wording on the petitions such that
it sounds like the signer of the petition is actively working on
organizing the new party or actively supporting the independent
candidate. This discourages many people from signing the petition
because they may want to see the party or independent candidate on the
ballot, but they may not want to actively work for the candidate.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, collecting signatures take
thousands and thousands of hours of labor. Hard labor. Labor that
could otherwise be directed toward participating in the debates on the
issues and getting the candidates message out to the people. And most
areas that have high amounts of "foot traffic", i.e., people walking by
on foot, are private property like malls and shopping centers which do
not permit solicitations on their property. (And as frustrating as
that is for petitioners, I can't blame the owners of these places.)
If you've never worked on a petition campaign, it probably doesn't
sound like a big deal. It probably doesn't sound like that much work.
But I would point out to you that the laws have loop holes written into
them so that the Democrats and Republicans do not have to endure this
rite of passage. That should be proof enough that the requirements are
an unfair burden.
So unless you've got a spare couple of hundred thousand dollars to
devote solely to getting on the ballot in addition to the funds you
need to actually run a campaign for office, and unless you have a
statewide network of people who are willing to go door to door
collecting signatures for you, it's highly unlikely that you, as an
average citizen, can run for office in North Carolina.
It's difficult for me to understand why we will not tolerate any
obstruction to the voting process, but we will tolerate obstructions to
running for office. The state laws are defended, of course, by those
who benefit by them. In court cases in which North Carolina's ballot
access laws have been challenged, the state has defended its laws
saying that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the
citizens of North Carolina from "frivolous" candidates and "cluttered"
ballots. I have never once heard anyone in North Carolina claim that
they have "too many" choices on the ballot. I have never once heard
anyone complain that a candidate was running a "frivolous" campaign.
Does this simply mean that the state is doing a good job with these
laws? No. Because all too often, I hear people express dismay at the
quality of the candidates they can vote for. Furthermore, many of the
races in North Carolina go uncontested every year so there is literally
no choice among candidates for those races. I have been told that in
some districts, as many as 30% of the races are won by uncontested
candidates. If the ballots in Russia can contain candidates from as
many as 42 political parties, why can't North Carolina? If the state
does in fact, have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from
frivolous candidates and cluttered ballots, do they not also have an
equal interest in ensuring that there are vigorous and meaningful
election races? Which is more important, keeping the ballot
uncluttered and convenient to tabulate by the elections board or
ensuring that the average citizen can run for office?
The plain fact of the matter is that North Carolina's election laws are
written to protect the interests of the major political parties, not
the interests of North Carolina citizens. And just like the death
penalty protestors holding vigil before an execution, and just like
Right to Life advocates who assemble at abortion clinics, there may not
be anything we can do about the situation, but we can at least bear
witness to the injustice. I urge you to look into the laws where you
live and find out how difficult it is to run for office in your home
town. Do not assume that just because you have the right to vote, you
also have the right to run for office.
=====================
Divorce of the Decade
I suppose that any publication the purports to comment on cultural
phenomena is obligated to comment on the fact that Lisa Marie Presely
has filed for divorce from her husband, Michael Jackson after an 18
month marriage.
What does it all mean? Does this mean that pop music and rock and roll
are forever incompatable? Does it show that interracial marrieages are
unworkable? Are marriages between high profile celebrities inherently
doomed?
I don't think it means anything like that. I think it just means that
they didn't love each other.
======================
About Stuck In Traffic
Stuck In Traffic is a monthly magazine dedicated to independently
evaluating current events and cultural phenomena.
Why "Stuck In Traffic"?
Because getting stuck in traffic is good for you. It's an opportunity
to think, ponder, and reflect on all things, from the personal to the
global. As Robert Pirsig wrote in _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance_, "Let's consider a reevaluation of the situation in which
we assume that the stuckness now ocurring, the zero of consciousness,
isn't the worst of all possible situations, but the best possible
situation you could be in. After all, it's exactly this stuckness that
Zen Buddhists go to so much trouble to induce...."
Contact Information:
All queries, submissions, subscription requests, comments, and
hate-mail about Stuck In Traffic should be sent to Calvin Stacy Powers
preferably via E-mail (powers@interpath.com) or by mail (2012 Talloway
Drive, Cary, NC USA 27511).
Copyright Notice:
Stuck In Traffic is published and copyrighted by Calvin Stacy Powers
who reserves all rights. Individual articles are copyrighted by their
respective authors. Unsigned articles are authored by Calvin Stacy
Powers.
Permission is granted to redistribute and republish Stuck In Traffic
for non-commercial purposes as long as it is redistributed as a whole,
in its entirety, including this copyright notice. For permission to
republish an individual article, contact the author.
E-mail Subscriptions:
E-mail subscriptions to the ASCII text edition of Stuck In Traffic are
free. Send your subscription request to either address listed above.
Print Subscriptions:
Subscriptions to the printed edition of Stuck In Traffic are available
for $10/year. Make checks payable to Calvin Stacy Powers and send to
the address listed above. Individual issues are available for $2.
Archives:
Postscript and ASCII text editions of Stuck In Traffic are archived on
the internet by etext.org at the following URL:
gopher://gopher.etext.org/11/Zines/StuckInTraffic
Trades:
If you publish a `zine and would like to trade issues or ad-space, send
your zine or ad to either address above.
=======================================================================