Don't Panic! (The Ghost of Writings Past: Vol. 1)

I've recently been revisiting some of my favorite articles and columns from my time as a newspaper reporter. Since it's been a long time--a very long time--since I've posted anything else here, it seems like a good idea to share those favorites with you. So here is my first installment. This is probably my all-time favorite column. It was published in Corvallis Gazette-Times/Albany Democrat Herald weekly magazine "The Entertainer" on May 13, 2005. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

DON’T PANIC!

When the movie crashes and burns, there’s always the book

It was, ironically, a Thursday morning. There were less than 36 hours until the long-awaited adaptation of Douglas Adam’s “Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy” opened on the big screen.

I had been debating with myself for several weeks about whether I should refresh my memory with a quick read before seeing the movie, or wait until afterward too compare the book with the film. Since high school, I had read “The Guide” about once every six months. But life had been seriously busy of late, and almost a year had passed since I had last joined Arthur, Ford, Trillian, Zaphod and Marvin in their quest to find the meaning to life, the universe and everything.

“So, should I read it now or later‘?” I asked myself.

“42!”

Hmmm. Adams’ enigmatic answer to the ultimate question provided little insight, so I turned to my bookshelf for further inspiration.

Most of the books in my apartment are the decade-old hardcovers and paperbacks I inherited from my mother, but nestled on the second shelf, third space in, should have been a very well-used, black leather and gold-embossed, 800-pIus page omnibus edition containing every word of Adams' overgrown trilogy — novels, a short story, and his own “Guide to The Guide." There was a conspicuous emptiness on the second shelf.

“Don’t Panic! It’s probably in the bedroom somewhere,” I told myself. I left the bedroom 30 minutes later with empty boxes and drawers covering the bed and books strewn across the floor, but no “Guide."

“Didn’t you loan it to some,” my wife asked, desperately hoping that the sudden house wrecking monster her husband had become would stop after one room.

And then it happened. From some distant darkness, a memory gurgled. Like small bubbles of gas oozing up from the marshes of Sqornshellous Zeta, it broke on the surface of my consciousness, leaving me feeling ominously ill.

(Pop) “This...” (pop pop pop) “is my favorite..." (pop) “book!” (Pop) “Don’t” (POP POP) “LOSE IT!”

That was it; no name, no face, just eight fateful words.

I called my brother and my sister. I called all my friends. Then I called all my wife's friends. I even called my mother-in-law.

“Nope, it wasn’t me.”

“Huh-uh.”

“Sorry!”

“I have my own copy.”

“I don’t ever read! Why’d you call me?"

How many people do I have to gall before I my book? 42?

Hmmm. This was most unfortunate. I didn’t even have the dog-eared paperbacks I had carried around since high school, so I finally resigned myself to purchasing a new copy...but that would have to wait until after I saw the movie.

“Besides, movies are never as good as the book anyway, right?” I told myself. “I’ll probably enjoy the movie much more if I don’t read the books first anyway.”

Thursday afternoon, one week later. The fact that it was again a Thursday should have been an obvious warning, but, much like “The bumbling hero, Arthur Dent, I was pretty clueless. The weather was terrible, thick dark clouds blanketed the sky, and rain was drowning everything in sight. Was that thunder? Or maybe a fleet ofVogon demolition ships rumbling just above the clouds, gleefully waiting to destroy what remaining faith I had in Hollywood’s ability to successfully adapt a favorite book to film.

I didn’t want to develop any preconceived notions, so I read only two reviews prior to seeing the movie. One review was fairly complimentary, although Roger Ebert only gave the two stars. But hey, he’s given poor reviews to films I liked before, so don’t panic, right?

The movie began with what would have been, if I were reading the book, Chapter 23. A chorus of acrobatic dolphins introduced the audience to Earth’s impending doom with a fully orchestrated, Broadway-style musical number, “So Long and Thanks for All the Fish."

“That wasn’t so bad,” I thought to myself, “a little unusual maybe, but not entirely un-Monty­Python­esque."

Visually, the film was quite successful. The Vogons were green and ugly, Zaphod’s second head was imaginatively designed, and the animated renditions of entries from “The Guide" were fantastically kitschy. Sadly, little else was bearable during the rest of the nearly two-hour-long film.

The movie is Garth Jennings’ debut as a director and it shows. The pacing was horrible, and the acting was generally uninspired. I had seen bad “Saturday Night Live” skits that were better than this.

Adams received credit for the screenplay along with writer Karey Kirkpatrick. However, the resulting script is a jumble of poorly executed moments from the original novel, a few excerpts from the other novels, and an extremely dull additional story line allegedly created by Adams especially for movie. Many of the most memorable elements of the books seem to have been discarded in favor of mind-numbing one-liners.

If you had never read the books, the significance of many elements will probably be lost. Take towels, for instance. According to “The Guide," a towel is “the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Yet in the movie, while Ford is seen carrying a towel through must of the film—even sometimes waving it frantically in an effort to ward off a horde of Vogon soldiers, the reason for this seemingly bizarre behavior is never explained.

By the end of the film, I found myself wishing that, due to a terrible miscalculation of scale, the whole production had been swallowed by small dog prior to release. I would rather have endured two hours of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz’s horrible poetry rather than this abysmal rendering of Adams’ classic tale.

I walked out of the theater thinking of the last line from “So Long and Thanks for All the Fish,” the fourth novel in the series. Adams wrote, “There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler`s mind.” It seemed unfortunately appropriate in this circumstance.

“But don’t panic,” I said to myself, “Borders is just down the road. There`s nothing like the book!” 

Talking Pineapple Stumps Students, Educators, and Ken Jennings (or How the State of Our Public Education System is Declining)

There has been a lot of talk lately about the talking fruit of certain herbaceous perennial in the news lately. The antagonist in question appears in a brief story called "The Hare and the Pineapple," attributed to children's author Daniel Pinkwater, which has been included in standardized eight-grade reading comprehension tests administered in several states.

A talking pineapple challenges a hare to a race, sparking an uproar in middle schools across the country.

The problem, according to many students, parents, and even educators, is that the story is absurd and the questions incomprehensible. I'll let you be the judge of that for your self. Here is the text, as presented by the New York State Education Department.

"The Hare and the Pineapple"  
 by Daniel Pinkwater

 In olden times, the animals of the forest could speak English just like you and me. One day, a pineapple challenged a hare to a race. 
 (I forgot to mention, fruits and vegetables were able to speak too.) 
 A hare is like a rabbit, only skinnier and faster. This particular hare was known to be the fastest animal in the forest. 
 “You, a pineapple have the nerve to challenge me, a hare, to a race,” the hare asked the pineapple. "This must be some sort of joke.” 
 “No,” said the pineapple. “I want to race you. Twenty-six miles, and may the best animal win."
 "You aren't even an animal!" the hare said. “You're a tropical fruit!" 
 “Well, you know what I mean,” the pineapple said. 
 The animals of the forest thought it was very strange that tropical fruit should want to race a very fast animal. 
 "The pineapple has some trick up its sleeve," a moose said. 
 "Pineapples don't have sleeves, an owl said. 
 "Well, you know what I mean,” the moose said. "If a pineapple challenges a hare to a race, it must be that the pineapple knows some secret trick that will allow it to win.” 
 “The pineapple probably expects us to root for the hare and then look like fools when it loses,” said a crow. “Then the pineapple will win the race because the hare is overconfident and takes a nap, or gets lost, or something.” 
 The animals agreed that this made sense. There was no reason a pineapple should challenge a hare unless it had a clever plan of some sort. So the animals, wanting to back a winner, all cheered for the pineapple. 
 When the race began, the hare sprinted forward and was out of sight in less than a minute. The pineapple just sat there, never moving an inch. 
 The animals crowded around watching to see how the pineapple was going to cleverly beat the hare. Two hours later when the hare cross the finish line, the pineapple was still sitting still and hadn't moved an inch. 
 The animals ate the pineapple. 


 MORAL: Pineapples don't have sleeves

The questions are as follows:

  Beginning with paragraph 4, in what order are the events in the story told?
A. switching back and forth between places 
B. In the order in which the events happen 
C. Switching back and forth between the past and the present 
D. In the order in which the hare tells the events to another animal 


 The animals ate the pineapple most likely because they were 
A. Hungry 
B. Excited 
C. Annoyed 
D. Amused 


 Which animal spoke the wisest words? 
A. The hare 
B. The moose 
C. The crow 
D. The owl 


 Before the race, how did the animals feel toward the pineapple? 
A. Suspicious 
B. Kindly 
C. Sympathetic 
D. Envious 


 What would have happened if the animals had decided to cheer for the hare? 
A. The pineapple would have won the race. 
B. They would have been mad at the hare for winning. 
C. The hare would have just sat there and not moved. 
D. They would have been happy to have cheered for a winner. 


 When the moose said that the pineapple has some trick up its sleeve, he means that the pineapple 
A. is wearing a disguise 
B. wants to show the animals a trick 
C. has a plan to fool the animals 
D. is going to put something out of its sleeve

Needless to say, this concoction has elicited much consternation on the part of confused students, outraged and protective parents, and sympathizing educators. Numerous articles have been published (the most objective and informative of which that I have read has been this New York Times report), editorials written, and a Facebook page has been created. Daniel Pinkwater has chimed in on the subject several times, including an opinion piece in the New York Daily News and this extensive interview published by the Wall Street Journal.

From all of these we learn that the text in the question booklet is actually a highly-modified version of the "fractured fable" excerpted from Pinkwater's novel, "Borgel." When the Daily News first wrote about the test, they published an even more skewed text that stumped even Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings. And Pinkwater himself thinks that using his self-described "nonsense" as the source of a reading test is itself rather nonsensical.

All this being said, is the uproar justified? Personally, I don't think so.

Forget the absurdity of the story, or the fact that it is a bastardized text. Frankly, that really has no bearing on the point of the test. This is really a rather simple exercise in critical thinking. The answers aren't too difficult to figure out with a little thought, as evidenced by the following comment on the Daily News article from a student who is identified by the user name "JAMBECCA."

"I'm an 8th grade honors student who took this test. Do I think the story was absolutely ridiculous? Yes. My whole class was laughing while reading it. We were thinking, "Really? Talking pineapples? Besides that, I honestly don't think the story was that hard. The animals were obviously annoyed because they rooted for the hare and the hare lost. The other question about who was the wisest? I put the owl because he spoke the moral of the story. This story was the joke at my school for the rest of the week, but I don't think it should be thrown out... the questions weren't too difficult." 
POSTED 05:22 PM, Apr 24, 2012

Surveys by The New York Times also showed that while some students were indeed confused, a majority of sampled students at Middle School 54 on the Upper West Side were able to reach a consensus on the correct answers.

In my opinion, the consternation stems from a disturbing and misguided trend in our public education system specifically and society in general: our students are being "protected" from challenges that could result in failure. Rather than teaching our students to seek excellence, we are fostering a generation enmeshed in the comfort of the safe but equal mass of averageness. I believe the negative reaction to this rather unusual story and the questions related to it is a direct result of this mindset. And it causes me to fear greatly for our children's future.

Politics, Taxes, and Jesus

On Thursday morning, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, a gathering of Christian-minded political, social, and business leaders held annually in Washington, D.C. during his speech, Obama claimed that his plans to raise taxes on wealthy Americans were based, in part, on his faith, saying that Jesus’s teachings have shaped that conclusion.

Jennifer Epstein reported on Obama's comments on Politico.com:

The rich should pay more not only because “I actually think that is going to make economic sense, but for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,’” Obama said.

As is often the case in politics, especially in times of economic turmoil, taxes have been at the forefront of the public consciousness recently. There has been much talk about Republican candidate Mitt Romney's financial status as an elite, wealthy businessman, and his seemingly disproportionate tax "burden."

I recently saw an political ad posted on Facebook that originated from the non-profit group, The Other 98%. The poster featured two images. The first was a black and white photo, purportedly from 1984, of a young Mitt Romney and (I assume) several business associates clowning around with paper money of unspecified denomination. This was juxtaposed with a color photo of a "School Teacher" surrounded by adoring children. The text read as follows:

Mitt Romney, Tax Rate: 13.9%
School Teacher, Tax Rate: 25%
THERE IS SOMETHING DEEPLY WRONG HERE

I reacted rather strongly to this very deceptive piece of political propaganda and posted an aggravated soapbox-style rant in response (which I will reiterate in less volatile verbiage below). But existence of the poster in the first place is strong evidence of how strongly we are very concerned about taxation in general, and inequalities (perceived or real) in particular, in the taxation process.

Obama's echoes the sentiment of the ad above, contending that since the wealthy have more, they should be taxed more, and he uses the biblical injunction "where much is given, much is required," to validate why this should be so. I have several problems with his argument, though.

I believe this ignores two very basic elements of Christian doctrine. First, God already has a financial plan for procuring funds, if you will, and it's a flat tax. It's called tithing. The term itself defines what a tithe is, as it is an etymological descendant of the Old English word, teogoþa, meaning "tenth." The concept that a tithe was a "tenth" goes back as least as far as the time of Abraham in the Old Testament. As far as I am aware, no where in either the Old or New Testament are there any instructions saying that the percentage of what you give as a tithe should be greater or less than a tenth depending on how wealthy you were.

(Now there is much argument about the place of tithing in modern Christianity: what a tithe is, how much should be given, by whom, and when. But for the sake of this discussion I will stick with the traditional definition.)

For his argument as to why the rich should be taxed more, Obama cites this phrase from the Parable of the Faithful Servant in Luke 12:48: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required..." This counsel has traditionally been interpreted as meaning that we are accountable for the knowledge, resources, abilities, etc. that God has blessed us with. If we have been given much, then He expects that much more from us.

However, this is not the same thing as the tithe that God has commanded we return to him. These blessings, freely given from God, are meant to then be freely shared again by those who have been blessed. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not based on coercion, but the principle of agency. Even the required tithe itself is ultimately given freely, by choosing to keep the commandment given.

Which brings us back to Mitt Romney and his taxes. I will quote directly from Philip Klein's editorial of Jan. 12, 2012, in The Washingon Examiner :

"Liberals have seized on the fact that [Romney's] effective tax rate was 13.9 percent in 2010 and estimated at 15.4 percent for 2011. The reason is that he earned most of his money from investments held in blind trusts, which is taxed at a lower rate of 15 percent. However, the capital gains tax rate takes into account the fact that income earned by investments is already subjected to a 35 percent corporate tax rate... By all accounts, he paid what he owed under the law."

So how about that "where much is given, much is required" element. What else do Romney do, of his own free will, with all that money he was earning? Klein explains, "In addition to his taxes, Romney has given around 16.4 percent of his income over the past two years to charity through his family charity, the Tyler Foundation. In addition to donations to the Mormon church, here’s where else Romney and his wife Ann donated money: the Boys and Girls Club of Boston, the Center for the Treatment of Pediatric MS, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Homes for Our Troops, and the Inner-City Scholarship Fund, among others."

As Jennifer Rubin summarized in the Washington Post, Romney paid out 42 percent of his income in taxes and charity.

Now isn't that the way it should be? Romney paid his taxes according to the law, but on top of that, he paid out twice again as much as he was legally required in charitable donations. I would say that he fulfilled both his legal and moral obligations as both a Christian and a humanitarian.

The main problem here is not a matter of who bears the greater tax burden. Rather, it is our societal tendency toward materialism and greed, and that affects all strata of society, from the least to the most affluent. The poor want what they don't have, the rich want to keep what they do have, and most everyone seems to want more than the other person has.

The scripture we should be thinking about here is the story of the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44 , Luke 21:1-4). In the story, a widow donates two small coins, while wealthy people donate much more. Witnessing the donations made by the rich men, Jesus highlights how a poor widow donates only two mites, the least valuable coins available at the time. But, Jesus observes, this sum was everything she had to her name, while the other people give only a small portion of their own wealth.

The point is that rather than trying to accumulate as much wealth and as many unnecessary and extravagant toys as we can, we should practice provident living. Use what money we need to subsist, even perhaps comfortable so, but be generous with the rest. If we all faced life with the attitude of making sure the needs of those around us were met as well as our own, then we would truly be living in a equitable society. The cure to our economic ills comes not from the government playing Robin Hood, but rather from us, as individuals, freely giving to others of that which we have already been blessed with from God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Comment on Propaganda:

The political poster mentioned above is an example of the egregiously misleading information so commonly used in promotion of numerous causes. In this case, the argument presented is blatantly fallacious. I will point out two.

Argumentum ad populum, (or appeal to pity) is an argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons. The presentation of the argument in question, both in its composition and choice of subjects, is intended to sway the viewer on an emotional level. The viewer is supposed to identify and sympathize with the adored but over-burdened common person in the form of the teacher, while feeling antipathy for the elite business man apparently flaunting his wealth.

This feeling of pity is reinforced by the inclusion of two seemingly inequitable figures. However, this is an example of fallacy of conflation (or apples to oranges), where two different concepts are treated as one. In this case, two tax numbers are presented, but they are not the same number. The first number, 13.9%, is an effective tax rate, which is the percentage of total income actually paid in taxes. The figure 25% is merely a tax bracket, which is the nominal rate at which certain income levels are taxed before deductions and credits are applied. This has very little to do with the actual effective tax rate. For instance, at my income level--which in my industry is quite similar to the salary rates of public school teachers--and depending on whether I file as Single or Head of Household, I fall into either the 15% or 25% tax bracket. Yet my effective tax rate was only 3.9%.

Regarding the effective marginal rate, Jim Pethokoukis writes in The Enterprise Blog::

“While Romney’s tax rate is — in his own words — ‘probably closer to 15 percent than anything,’ that’s still higher than the 8.2 percent average effective income tax rate (as of 2010) of U.S. households (once you factor in various tax credits). Indeed, nearly half of U.S. households pay no income tax at all. Their average effective tax rate is actually negative. Even if you add in the payroll tax, the effective tax rate of the middle fifth of U.S. taxpayers is 12.8 percent.”

In essence, be sparing in your credulity. Many things out there do not deserve being taken at face value.

Still not a writer...

So I was lying in my bed yesterday afternoon, having a bit of a siesta because of a serendipitous early release from work, and I started thinking about how long it had been since I actually wrote something in my blog. I knew it had been quite a while, but it wasn't until I actually sat down at looked at the archive this morning that I found out exactly how long: nearly two years. Yep, still not a writer.

I've decided to change that.

Why is it I don't write, I asked myself. I discussed this topic with one of my dear friends shortly afterward. "It's not as if my head isn't filled with all sorts of things to write about," I said. "But my main problem is perfectionism. I don't want to present anything to the public until it's perfect!"

Thus, ideas simply rattle around in my head until they are forgotten, never to make it to paper (or screen, as the case may be).

My friend gave me some wise advice: Just write. "You don't even have to publish it," she said. "Just start writing."

So here you go. I'm writing. The literary quality, entertainment value, and general level of interesting reading may be quite low for a time. But I figure, like any other endeavor that requires practice, things will get better with time. Perhaps someday people will actually enjoy reading this. But until then, I'll just keep plugging along.

...

TOPICS FOR FUTURE BLOGS:
"The Thinking Place"
"The Importance of Failure"
"A Rant on Ignorant Political Rhetoric"

So stay tuned!