TINA

A week or so ago I attended a Sustainability workshop put on by some of the professors here. That may be surprising to those of you who know me; normally I don't really care about the environment. But they offered to pay me for it, and I thought it would be a good way to learn a little bit more about being "green" and global climate change, etc. I would hate to push an argument based on little or no fact and have it somehow effect the lives of other people in a harmful way. At the very least, it would be irresponsible, right?

I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of the workshop. As I said, it was a subject that I wasn't really passionate about. So imagine my surprise at how much I enjoyed being there. This offered me a chance to look critically at a lot of information that opposed my own views, something I've been trying to do more of lately. Not only that, but it was a good chance for me to get to know some of my fellow Chem. students and to see what they thought about this issue. Overall, I'd say it was a positive experience.

But...

There were several things that were presented to us that really didn't sit well with me. Some of these things I brought up during the workshop, but it can be difficult to speak out when 1) you don't feel like you know the material well enough, and 2) you know everyone else disagrees with you. So I'm going to take the time to mention them now, in my safe little corner of the world, where I don't feel outnumbered.

First of all, I really dislike the terms "sustainability" and "green". The word "sustainability" bothers me because it has the connotation that our current methods aren't sustainable, that something must be changed. But amongst all the life-cycle assessments not once did I see any evidence that our current methods are not sustainable. Wasteful, sure, but will it eventually lead to a breakdown of society, the extinction of the human race, or something of that nature? I don't know, and apparently neither do they. I was never told what it is we're trying to sustain. Not only that, but it also has the connotation that the changes posited by the "sustainability" movement are the correct ones, that they are inherently better. Now on that one they may have a point(I'll address this in a bit), but I don't think it's necessary to use such a charged word. "Green" bothers me because it suggests that environmental concerns are the chief motivator, which I sincerely doubt.

The reason I doubt their sincerity when it comes to saving the environment springs from a lecture we attended about "Sustainable Business Practices." These sorts of business practices apply not only to chemical companies, but to all major corporations. There were several ideas presented that I found interesting. The first was the idea of a "Triple Bottom Line", the idea being that for the breadth of human history money makers have been concerned only with how much they're making(the "bottom line"). Now, we should focus on
-Financial success
-Environmental Impact
-Social Impact
Sure, those two new ones are important, but at the end of the day, which one do you think is going be the major factor, the one that really decides what a corporation is going to do? Financial Success. And why not? That's the point of starting a business in the first place, making money. And if people think your particular business is concerned with a particular issue, say the environment, and you're also concerned by that same issue, then whose products are you going to buy? I'm not saying that every corporation out there doesn't care about saving the environment. But in today's market, it pays to care, or at least convince everyone you do.

The other major theme we heard over and over again was efficiency. We were introduced to the idea of "Factor Four": twice the productivity with half the resources. Use less material, generate less waste, reuse your waste(or sell it to someone who can), use catalysts...All great ideas. Not one of them needs to be labeled "green". There may be an effect on the environment(less waste needing disposal, etc.), but I think there's an even bigger economic effect. By being more efficient in creating your product, you're saving money, plain and simple. We were given the example of BP, an oil company, who implemented sustainable business practices in 1996. They spent $20 million to do it. By 2006, they had saved $1.5 billion dollars because of it. Am I expected to believe they did it because they felt badly about their effect on the environment? That's asinine.

As far as I can tell, all the things described to me at this workshop are simply much needed refinements of old methods. Why can't we call it "new" chemistry? Or how about "efficient" business practices? Because, as I said before, caring sells. And this doesn't only relate to businesses. Universities are effected by this as well. We were asked how many of us chose our school because of its "green" reputation. Almost all of us raised our hands(I did not). Now, we weren't a representative slice of the student population, but still, it's kinda telling. More students equals more money, and more minds to reach. And universities all over the country are taking up the green mantle. I imagine it'll replace the doctrine of diversity before long.

I still haven't answered the one major question I had going into this workshop: should I be worried about our impact on the environment? The answer I received from them was an incontrovertable "Yes!" Of course it was; I was at a sustainability workshop. In fact, we were told by one of the professors that there was no controversy surrounding global climate change. We are having an effect. Of course this was all backed up by shiny graphs and numbers. But apparently he didn't check his facts that well. There happens to be an organization, located in Portland of all places, called the Cascade Policy Institute, that says we don't know if we're having an effect, and presents evidence showing that maybe we're not doing as much damage as we thought. They're backed up by scientists from around the country. So it seems there is indeed disagreement within the scientific communtity. It's not so cut and dry. Were we shown any of this data? Nope. Not a bit.

I'll leave you with one last thing I learned at the workshop, a new acronym, T.I.N.A. There Is No Alternative. This came from our lecture on sustainable business practices. We were told that this is the wave of the future, that it's the "hip and sexy" trend in the business world. What bothers me about this idea is that the next generation of leaders in society(I mean us) is being told that we're screwing up the environment, that we have to change now, otherwise our children are screwed(which I think is a terribly low blow). We are going to be the ones influencing public policy, and yet we're being fed this message, by scientists, before any sort of a consensus has been reached. Not only that, but we were being trained to communicate to the public, presumably so that we can spread their message. This is starting to sound an awful lot like another organization that we all know I have a distaste for. But I suppose I should just sit back and relax, buy some carbon credits to make myself feel better, and enjoy the environment while I still can.

After all, there is no alternative.

Slightly Redundant

I think it's a pretty fair assumption that the people who read my blog also read my wife's blog(and vice versa). A couple days ago, I showed her a couple youtube videos that I thought were pretty damn funny. Her response was write a short post, and include those videos.

That thunder thief! I was going to post them!!!

So, for most of you(honestly, I don't know why I keep talking like there's a large audience here...anyway...) this will be slightly redundant. I say slightly, because I've chosen other vids that I like a little bit more. So there.

Warning! Explicit Sexual Content!

If you are easily offended by material of a sexual nature, than I suggest you not read this post. It's not actually that bad(not by my standards, anyway), but I felt obligated to say something.

You have been warned.

Any time you move to a new place, you spend the first little bit familiarizing yourself with your new environment. You learn where the grocery store is, where the laundromat is, etc., and most people have their own preferences as to which places they like to shop. Personally, I prefer Safeway to other grocery stores, for example. So, in familiarizing myself with Eugene, I've been trying to keep an eye out for a new adult store to replace the one in Spokane we used to go to(Castle Superstore). Problem is, most people feel ashamed about going into these places, so most of them are in pretty crappy areas of town, and look like the kind of place you would be ashamed to be seen in.

Imagine my surprise then, when Jen tells me we're going on an adventure to Springfield(which is connected to Eugene, not far away at all). I had no idea where we were going; I was expecting a restaurant or something. Lo and behold, our corporate society prevails! Not only was there a Castle in Springfield, but they were having an autograph session with Lisa Ann, a porn star famous for her "Who's Nailin' Palin?" video series(they also have "Obama's Nailin' Palin" and "Letterman's Nailin' Palin"). In these videos, she dresses up like Sarah Palin, and then has sex with people also dressed like political figures. At least, that's the assumption. I've not seen these videos(it's a bit gimmicky for my taste), but I do like meeting porn stars. She does look quite a bit like Sarah Palin when she's in costume(she was wearing it while we were there).

The problem is, what do you say to a porn star? "I love your work, it got me off in no time!" I mean, I'm sure they've come to grips with what they do and how the public sees them, but to be face to face with someone who watches you have sex for entertainment...It's gotta be a strange experience. The only thing I could come up with was, "So...where else are you going on your tour?"

But that made me start to think: Do porn stars like their jobs? I don't mean the actual sex, although that can't be terrible. What I mean is, do the benefits of having that job outweigh the disadvantages? On the one hand, you get to have sex at work, and get paid for it. If you're successful, you can make millions of dollars. On the other, you have to tell all your friends and family what you do for a living(come on, it's not like you could keep it a secret for long). Most of society looks down on porn stars, regarding them as little more than prostitutes. There's the risks involved in having sex with multiple partners(I don't necessarily mean at the same time). And I'm sure it makes having a normal relationship with anyone nearly impossible. For some people, this is a no-brainer, but I honestly think it's a difficult question. Maybe next time I'll have the wherewithal to actually ask.

On a related note, any time you start feeling that you live in a society of boring, mindless robots, visit a sex shop. The innovation in the sex toy industry is rivaled only by that of the weapons manufacturing industry. I can't believe some of the things people come up with. Of course, usually there's only one or two original ideas and then a ton of copycats, but every once in a while you come across something that's makes you stop and think. I had one of those moments the other day when I came across a product produced by Aneros.

I intend to describe this product and what it does. If you are squeemish at all, TURN BACK NOW.

This little device is what's known as a prostate stimulator, designed to hit the "male G-spot." It works like this: the man inserts the device into the anal cavity. Contractions of the anal sphincter move the device around, stimulating the prostate gland. Apparently, this device can cause orgasm with no stimulation of the penis whatsoever; in fact, the directions tell you not to(it may cause ejaculation!). According to the literature, it's a much more intense experience, so much so that "[m]any users have reportedly entered into euphoric and altered states of consciousness..." I remain skeptical.

It's things like this that reaffirm my faith in humanity. I mean that in all seriousness. Imagine the drive it must've taken to take this product from a dream to a reality. Once you had your idea, you'd have to find people to test it("You want me to do what?"). You'd have to find investors("So, you do what with it now?"). Then you'd have to convince people it's worth $50 ("...euphoric and altered states of consciousness..."). And yet here it is. It's even been featured in an MSNBC article.

The American dream lives on.

Kids on Fire

I have just witnessed the most disturbing film of all time. It's called Jesus Camp.

A central player in the film is Becky Fischer, a pentecostal preacher and organizer of a summer camp called "Kids on Fire." I wish I was making that up. The film opens with a fun little song and dance routine put on by a bunch of kids, singing about how great Jesus is. I'd say that's a normal part of church; no problem there. Except the boys are dressed in camouflage(with their faces painted to match), the kids are carrying sticks as though they were weapons, and the dance moves kind of looked like karate(little kid karate). Becky then proceeded to stand in front of these children and tell them what a terrible world we live in and asked the kids why didn't God "just fix it". She also told them how fat and lazy Americans are. Judging from the size of her, I'd guess she doesn't believe in leading by example. It all ended with the children on their feet, shaking uncontrolably and speaking in "tongues" (read "gibberish").

Next we meet some of the little children who will be attending the "Kids on Fire" camp. Seriously, what self respecting parent would let their children attend a camp where the name implies that they will be SET ON FIRE?! Anyway...we meet little Levi, an 11 year old who already has a career preaching. Levi is home schooled by his mother(according to the movie, 75% of homeschool children in America are evangelicals). She asks him what he would think if a public school science teacher were to say creationism is stupid, to which he says he wouldn't agree. Then she asks him the same question, only about evolution. I think you can guess what his reply was.

We also get to meet his little sister, who prays to Jesus with all her heart that he will...help her get a strike while bowling. Really? Apparently, God cares deeply about your bowling average. Guess I'm fucked. She also decides to walk up to a random woman and tell her that God cares about her, and that she should follow a righteous path(or something similar, it all sounds the same to me). When her Dad asks her why she did it, she said God told her to.

The entire film is like this, swaying back and forth between absolute absurdity to shocking horror at the brainwashing these kids are enduring. I had to fight back tears a couple times while watching it. One of the sermons these children went to had this message: "a person's a person, no matter how small." But the message wasn't about the acceptance of others, like Dr. Seuss intended. No, instead the pastor/preacher/whatever the hell you call him then proceeds to open up a small box, containing tiny plastic models of human embryos at various stages of development. He tells them that one-third of their friends wanted to be there today, but couldn't because they weren't given the chance to live. Then the children had red tape with the word "Life" written in black placed over their mouths, and then led in a prayer about wanting to be washed in the blood of christ. Their doctrine of "Life" apparently only extends to the unborn, however, as the day before Becky told the kids that Harry Potter would have been put to death for being an enemy of God, no matter how big a hero he was. A death sentence pronounced upon a fictional character...these people have a big problem distinguishing fact from fiction.

Probably the most powerful message pushed on these kids is that they're the most important generation ever. Here's a nice little quote from Levi's little sister: "...we're being trained as soldiers..." In fact, the theme of war runs throughout the entire film. The evangelicals are fighting a war to win back America for christ, and they're using their children to do it for them. At one point the children are asked, "How many of you want to be those who would give up their lives for Jesus?" Of course, they all raise their hands. In the beginning of the film, Becky talks about how Islamic children are taught from a young age to use guns and grenades, and says no wonder they're willing to kill themselves when they get older. Apparently, she thinks this is a great idea. The evangelicals even have a flag and a pledge of allegiance. Here's the flag:














Before you denounce the evangelicals as just a bunch of whackos who aren't representative of America, let me remind you of two things.

1) You don't have to be numerous to be dangerous.

2) The evangelicals make up 28.6% of the American population(according to this study). That's 85,800,000 (estimated US pop 3 hundred million) of these crazy nutjobs.

One last thing: the voice of reason in this movie comes by way of a Christian radio show host. He shows up a couple times, and each time he's pointing out what's wrong with evangelism. Of course not all Christians are like the evangelicals, and it's great to see a christian with a little influence doing something to keep these people in check. I hope more follow his example.

I took so many notes during this movie, I can't possibly put it all down here. You really should just watch the movie. I'll end with a couple of choice quotes:

"I can go into a playground of kids that don't know anything about Christianity, lead them to the Lord in a matter of, just no time at all, and just moments later they can be seeing visions and hearing the voice of God, because they're so open. They are so usable in Christianity." -Becky Fischer

"If the evangelicals vote, they determine the election." - Ted Haggard, then leader of the National Association of Evangelicals



"God hears the cries of children" -Becky Fischer

Stepping out of the Jungle

I heard a story once involving an Amazonian tribe of hunter-gatherers. In this story, a group of explorers was (you guessed it!) exploring the jungle, and happened upon this tribe. The tribesmen were curious about the explorers strange clothes and technology, so the explorers offered to show them where they had come from. When they walked out of the jungle, they saw a vast city laid out before them, complete with skyscrapers, cars, and airplanes. They promptly wet themselves and cowered in fear. The sudden shock that they had been living in the jungle, barely scraping out an existence, while the rest of the world had flourished and prospered, was simply too much for them.

Here's a sample of what I did at work the other day:

This was made on an awesome microscope hooked up to a camera. It's a single cell dividing into two, then those two into four. These cells have had a special protein engineered into them so that certain parts of the cell glow green. They only do this, though, when they're hit with a blue laser. The camera takes pictures every five seconds, at three different depths, two millionths of a meter apart, so that I can see what's happening all throughout the cell. And all of the preparation involved to get to this stage only took about a week.

I feel like I just walked out of the jungle.

Ayn Rand would be proud...

I've been saying for a while now that I want to get a tattoo. Thing is, tattoos are permanent(duh!), and so if I'm going to get something that will last forever, I want to make sure it's something I really, really want and that will be meaningful my whole life. This is not a decision to be made lightly(for me, anyway).

So I have finally decided on what I'm getting: Atlas and Prometheus. They'll be two separate tattoos, Atlas on my back, Prometheus probably down the length of one of my arms. I don't have a good picture of my Prometheus idea, but here's a pic of Atlas:

The reason I chose Atlas is that he's a symbol of strength and determination. It's a reminder to me that the world as we know it rests on the shoulders of a few determined individuals(politicians, business leaders, religious leaders, even artists) and that I should strive to be like them. I chose this image in particular because here Atlas looks as though he's carrying his burden easily, while in most others he's faltering. In the original mythology he was being punished, and even though it appears he's handling it well, there's another punishment that goes along witht the physical burden. As the saying goes, it's lonely at the top, and this is something I've come up against in my schoolwork time and again. If you're good at something, people want to tear you down, not because they're jealous, but because you make them feel inadequate. I definitely feel excluded by my classmates, and it seems like I always get those resentful looks when I'm answering questions in class or poking holes in people's arguments during study groups. I may be reading too much into it(after all, I am comparing myself to a god, how much more egotistical can you get), but that's how it comes across to me. Inscribing this image on my skin seems like a good way to remind myself to continue to persevere, even if I have to do it alone.

Prometheus will have a similar design, a tall, muscular body, holding a bright shining orb above his head for all to see. In the accounts of many Greek authors, Prometheus was the creator of man, shaping him from clay and breathing life into him. And of course we've all heard the tale of Prometheus stealing fire from the gods and delivering it to humans. To me, this is what science is all about. Our job is to uncover the secrets of nature, understand them, and then present them to mankind so that we may all benefit. This is our role in society, and so it seems only fitting that a scientist should have this embedded in his skin. Again, most depictions of Prometheus focus on his punishment of being chained to a rock and having his liver eaten by an eagle, day after day for all eternity. If I were concerned with treading on the toes of the gods, then maybe I would focus on that aspect as well. But I'm not. In fact, I think we should tread on them. The more we understand the world around us, the better life becomes for everyone. It offers new opportunities, new experiences for us all. Instead of being afraid of new discovery, we should be embracing it and trying to push our boundaries as far as possible. That's why I want to see Prometheus standing tall, proudly presenting his gift to mankind, and providing us with light in the darkness.

Miscommunication

So, a funny thing happened to me the other day. I sent Jen a simple text message, asking when she'd be done with work. I get a question mark in reply. Upon closer inspection, I see that I've typed in the wrong phone number and have texted a complete stranger somewhere in eastern Washington. So I write back, saying sorry wrong number. I get a reply: No worries :-)
"That's the end of that," I think.

Imagine my surprise when I get another text: "Is there any reason why we can't get together? There's no obligation to buy anything :-)" Hmmm, what an amazingly clever invitation for casual sex, I think. I promptly write back to say as much.

Then I notice there's another message in my inbox that arrived before the last one. It says this: "This is crazy but I'm looking for models for my professional portfolio. I'm a MaryKay consultant and I'd love a woman's honest opinion of our product line :-)"

Oops.

Comment Reply

A friend of mine posted a comment on my last post, asking for proof of some of the comments I made(you can read both of these things for yourself). Now, normally I would reply in the comments section, but once I started, I realized that my response was going to be way too big. Not only that, but I thought it might be pretty interesting for everyone to know exactly where I'm coming from on this issue(religion). So here we go:

First of all, I was asked to point out where in the Qu'ran it "states that any muslim not only has the right, but the duty, to kill any non-believer"(those are my words). If you read it carefully, I say that their religion teaches this idea, not the Qu'ran. Most of a religion's dogma comes by way of interpretation by the clergy(priests, rabbis, mullahs, etc.) For example, I don't believe the Bible states that Jesus' birthday is Dec. 25th. The date for the celebration of Easter is even more specious; it's not even the same calendar day from year to year! Yet they have been handed down by the clergy as the proper days for celebration, and accepted by the masses. This situation is even much more prevalent in Islam, for they make the claim that the Qu'ran is not the Qu'ran unless it is in arabic; no translation will suffice. That means that for the millions of non-Arab muslims, they can't even comprehend their religion until they learn a second language. I would say it's pretty naive to think that they would ever understand Arabic(or any second language) as well as a native speaker. According to the CIA factbook, 98% of the population of Iran is Muslim, yet only 1% actually speak Arabic. Not only that, but only 77% of the population is literate(it doesn't say in what language). That means that roughly one-third of the population has to depend on the interpretation of others for their religious beliefs. Given all of this evidence, I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't matter if it's actually stated in the Qu'ran or not.

What is stated in the Qu'ran (quite clearly, I might add) is the pain and torture awaiting those who don't believe. The majority of the condemnations I've read involve the wrath of God, meaning that they'll leave the judgement to Him. But there are also passages citing past conquests against non-believers, and even threats of future violence (Note: I didn't bring my Qu'ran with me to work today, so I'll update this later with the actual passages). Not only that, but I found a passage saying that if you fight in the name of the Lord and are harmed or killed, all of your sins will be expunged and you'll be granted access to the gardens. There's also one that says(I'm paraphrasing) that no dead person would wish to come back to life, accept for the martyrs, who have found such great rewards in heaven that they would martyr themselves again. And I haven't even read the whole thing yet.

I feel I shouldn't have to mention this, but all you have to do to find proof of what I said is to look at the world news section of any major newspaper. Not a week goes by that they don't report "sectarian" violence between the different Muslim groups. They can't even get along with each other! Or how about the situation that's been brewing in Israel for the past 5o years? In all honesty, I do not feel that what I said about the Muslim faith was incorrect, and it will take a lot, A LOT, of evidence to change my mind. I'd also like to say that I don't harbor any ill will towards the Muslim people. And I understand that not all of them are so strong in their convictions; far be it from me to condemn all of them because of a few bad apples. The problem is that those bad apples have proven to be so dangerous, and I think it would be foolish of us to turn a blind eye, simply because we don't want to appear prejudiced.

I also mentioned in my last post that the Christian holy books(by which I mean the old and new testaments) also advocate violence toward non-believers. I'm not a Christian myself(sorry Mom), but I'm definitely more familiar with the Bible than the Qu'ran, so this should be pretty easy. How about the story where Moses goes up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments? While he's gone, the people ask Aaron to make a god for them. Tada! Golden calf. Moses is of course pissed, so he proceeds to first destroy the calf, then ordered the tribe of Levi to kill as many people as possible. Not only that, but a plague was then sent upon the people "because they made the calf, which Aaron made" (Again, don't have my Bible with me, but this is in Exodus 32).

Here's a fun one - "...they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" Joshua 6:21. This was of course at the battle of Jericho. Here's another - "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." I think I've made my point. As for the New Testament, I don't have any good verses, but I don't think I'm wrong in saying that the Jews, who actually believe in the same God, have been persecuted for well over a thousand years for the killing of Christ.

So there you are friend, proof that religion promotes discrimination against non-believers. Not that any of this should come as a surprise to you; I think you just wanted to make sure I wasn't spouting ignorant nonsense. For that, I would Google "American Taliban." You might be surprised (and hopefully apalled) at what your fellow Christians have to say.

Censorship in Iraq

The other day I read an article in the New York Times talking about how the Iraqi government is trying to pass a set of censorship laws. This is disturbing to me for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that many of the bans were already around under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Most of the bans are based on what people see on the internet, but book publishers and distributers are also coming under fire. It's been six years since we invaded Iraq, under the pretense that we wanted to give them a free society. Whether or not that was actually the case, the Iraqi people have had six years of unimpeded contact with the outside world. Their government has decided they want nothing to do with it.

At first glance it sounds reasonable. There are a lot of people out there trying to inflame sectarian violence, or to recruit "martyrs." Of course it's important to try and stop this from happening. But the way that they're going about it is a step backwards. According to the article, the Iraqi constitution guarantees freedom of expression, as long as it "does not violate public order or morality." But what right does their government have to determine what is moral? What is moral and what isn't is a personal matter. My morality isn't necessarily the same as your morality. By determining what is and isn't right, and punishing people for transgressing, they're encroaching on the private lives of their citizens. This will engender hatred towards the government, and will actually push people to do the things that are banned, simply because the act of rebellion will feel good. It's just like when teenagers act out against their parents, only these teenagers might blow themselves up(along with many other people).

If these laws were only aimed at countering terrorism, I might not have a problem. But there is a whole list of subjects that apparently "violate public morality": drugs, terrorism, gambling, negative remarks about Islam, and pornography. NEGATIVE REMARKS ABOUT ISLAM! Now, I can't imagine that they would have much bad to say about Islam, seeing as how almost everyone over there is muslim. But the fact that they can't even read about criticisms of their religion without it violating public order speaks volumes about their level of fundamentalism. But it also means that their society will never mature. By crushing rational thought, their leaders are ensuring that the Iraqi people will never be free. Our country spent billions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of lives trying to free them from theocratic tyranny. Before we've even left, they're already going back to their old ways.

"Why should I care?" you may be asking. Let me put it to you like this. Iran, Iraq's neighbor, is a theocratic society. They say they're a democracy, and they even have elections, but all the power really sits with the Ayatollah, their supreme spiritual leader. Being muslim, his religion states that any muslim not only has the right, but the duty, to kill any non-believer(this is suggested pretty strongly by the christian religious books, too). Right now, the Iranian government is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Who's going to stop him if he decides to push that launch button? This situation is the product of a society that has failed to mature. They have crushed all rational thought, and put their superstitions on a pedestal. The last thing this world needs is another society propped up by falsehoods.

Karaoke: A Celebration of Mediocrity

I have a very difficult relationship with the cultural phenomenon known as Karaoke. I love singing; in fact, I feel like it's one of the few things I do really well. People generally don't cringe when I sing. I enjoy karaoke because it's one of the few chances I get to show people how good I am at singing. On the other hand, I hate terrible singers. Terrible singers like karaoke because it's one of the few chances they get to show people how good they are at singing. People generally cringe when they sing.

I mention all this because I'm baffled at the fact that there are so many people who can't sing, yet still do karaoke. Most people don't like performing in front of other people because they're afraid of embarrassing themselves. Usually this fear is what causes them to embarrass themselves. This is normal; it happens to everyone. In an attempt to get around this situation, I only do things in public that I'm good at, i.e. singing. I don't try to breakdance in public, because I can't breakdance(although I'm getting better). Yet there are always several people in every karaoke bar who are terrible, and continue to make everyone in the bar feel uncomfortable. I've also found that these people are usually regular performers.

Most of the time you can tell who these people are before they even touch the microphone. They're the one's who look like they have no place else to go. They might be by themselves, or with a small group of friends, all with that same dead look in their eyes. They kind of look like dogs who've been kicked around a bit. Just from the look of them, you can tell that the karaoke bar is the only place they feel accepted.

Now, don't think I'm being too cocky about this. I've had bad performances before. But that's when I stop singing. Not forever, just until I've either a) sobered up some or b) learned the song better. I'm not going to continue to assault the ears of everyone else in the place. But these people just don't seem to know when to quit. Not only that, but other people in the bar will clap for terrible performances. I think it's in recognition of their bravery. Bravery and stupidity often go hand in hand.

Honestly, I think the reason karaoke is so popular is that it allows people who have no chance whatsoever of becoming the famous stars they adore to feel what it's like, if only for an instant. I can certainly appreciate that. Hell, it's why I like playing Rock Band so much. And I'm not saying that if you can't sing, you're stupid. There are lot's of people who can't sing who can do things I can't. I don't even know how to change the oil in my car. But at the same time, I'm not offering to change your oil. Or forcing you to let me change your oil. And please don't clap for me when I break your car.