Thursday, June 25, 2009

A Plug for Environmental Living from an Environmental Fatalist


If, in the past, you had asked me when I became an environmentalist, I would have told you, never; I’m not one. It’s not that I’ve got anything against the environment. I love the Earth. Seriously. I love the outdoors. I love parks and hiking and walks in the woods. I love clean water and babbling brooks and swimming in a gorge. And I think it would be tragic if people didn’t have access to all the wonderful things that can be experienced out in the natural world. It’s just that I am, depending on your point of view, a fatalist or a realist. I think Al Gore is awesome, and more power to him for spreading the environmental message. But I also think that we are so far past the point of no return that the sum total of all worldwide environmental efforts are just rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic. From all that I’ve read, it seems like some of the most informed environmental scientists out there basically agree that even if, overnight, we could zap every Denali into a Prius and squish every McMansion into a tiny energy-efficient, public transport-accessible LEED certified condo, the best case scenario would be that the environmental apocalypse would take place on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday.

All of the current residents of planet Earth can do their part to cut down on their own consumption, but the fundamental source of what we’re up against is exponential population growth and expanding industrialization. Unless we can institute a worldwide ban on procreation and a prohibition on any further industrialization (i.e. moving up from poverty and starvation to the first rung of first world living), we’re going to continue to move faster and faster down the path of destruction. An anti-naysayer might argue that fatalists throughout history have been proven wrong by new technologies. And that’s true. Even if we seem irrevocably screwed at the moment, it’s always possible that some fundamentally game-changing new development will emerge – like the ability to convert dirt into water or poop into food – but I’ll believe that when I see it. And the clock is ticking.

OK. That’s the end of my rant. But not the end of my story. There’s a twist. Despite my belief in the utter futility of the environmental movement, it turns out that I do almost all of the things a good environmentalist is supposed to do. To wit: I live in a small condo in a dense, urban neighborhood within walking distance to everything I need; I don’t have a car; I commute using public transportation; I recycle; and, for good measure, I even bring my own reusable shopping bag with me when I go (on foot) grocery shopping. (I’ll never be able to live up to the true pinnacle of environmental living – Cheryl Crow’s suggestion that people should use just one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit. I am a huge fan of Cheryl’s music, but, for the sake of digestive tract discretion, let’s just say that Cheryl and I must have very different diets.)

Ignore for the moment the fact that none of the reasons for my righteous environmental lifestyle is based on any conscious attempt at being environmental – that I live in a small condo in a dense, urban neighborhood because, in Boston, that’s what I can afford; that I don’t have a car because my wife lives in a different city for the time being and has exclusive custody of our one car; that my office just happens to be on a subway line that goes right to my front door; that the re-usable grocery bag was given to me by REI for free because I bought so much shit there over the course of a year. If you’re doing all the right stuff, the reason shouldn’t matter. And so, because being environmental is hip and stylish, because Cheryl Crow might be more likely to ask me to come jam with her band if she knew that I used reusable shopping bags, and because I think a neutral observer would judge my lifestyle to be pretty solidly environmental, I hereby declare myself an environmentalist.

And just because I don’t really believe in the environmental components of all the environmental things I’m doing these days doesn’t mean that I can’t start being all evangelical about it. No, I am ready to spread the word. But my angle is this: environmental living is fun. Not so much the recycling and re-using grocery bags part. Those aren’t bad, but they’re not fun per se. What’s fun is living in a small condo in a dense neighborhood, walking to the main strip to run errands and taking the subway to work. What all of these things have in common is the simple fact that they lead to interaction with other people. And even with other people I might not otherwise run into on a regular basis. When I walk down the street to run errands, I see neighbors. Sometimes, they are walking around too! Same thing if I sit out on the front stoop with a beer and a book. Because lots of other condos are packed into my dense street, there are usually living breathing human beings out on the sidewalk. And the subway is full of gangstas and geeks and hipsters and businessmen. I might not be best friends with them all, but I see them roving around and talking and reading their magazines and doing the things people do. And that, to me, makes life more fun. If most of my life were spent shuffling between my Denali, my McMansion and my office, I don’t think I’d have the same kinds of interactions as my environmental existence encourages.

But wait; there’s more! Walking is good for you. I haven’t seen the actual statistics yet, but I’m sure there’s research out there that shows that people who walk to the grocery store are 38% healthier, happier and more fulfilled than people who drive Denalis to the grocery store. Oh, and stores that service mostly smaller, pedestrian-accessible areas are more likely to be independently owned. And giving your money to people you know instead of to faceless shareholders is fun too! Who knew being environmental would be such a blast?

So here’s my plug: If for no other reason than demonstrating your keen sense of irony, become an environmentalist! When, in the next few decades, the world ecosystem collapses and the Earth is sucked back into the sun, why not increase the chance that it all goes down in the middle of a neighborhood block party? The apocalypse will be at least a little more fun if you have a few extra friends by your side.

For your further edification, take a look at this terrific 20 minute video by Annie Leonard called The Story of Stuff - a wonderful take on production, consumption, the environment and happiness in the modern world.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Pink Slips on Sesame Street


Just about everyone has been affected by these hard fiscal times. No business or organization has been spared. Like every other non-profit, PBS has been hit hard. It has instituted a recent hiring freeze and the future looks dire. And just because you happen to be a cute, fuzzy monster doesn't mean you're going to be immune from feeling the pain. With staffing cuts looming, it is inevitable that, in addition to their human colleagues, some of the Sesame Street muppets are going to have to be shown the door. Here is my analysis of who should stay and who should go.

The Count

The Count seems like he could serve an important accounting function. Being a bean counter is not stylish, but every nickel these days needs to be accounted for. Reporting requirements are going to proliferate. Someone's got to be in the trenches paying attention to what resources are going where. My concern is that, first of all, I've never seen The Count count to higher than ten. Second, just getting to ten seems to take him an awful long time ("ONE... one federal subsidy dollar, ah ahh ahhhhh. TWO... two federal subsidy dollars, ah ahh ahhhhh"). If PBS were to end up getting, say, a $100 million federal cash infusion, it would take The Count like a thousand years just to verify that the wire transfer had hit. So, while The Count may have some useful skills, they're not going to be of much help unless someone can light a bit of a fire under his ass.

Ernie and Bert

I don't know what kind of don't-ask-don't-tell policy Sesame Street has, but Ernie and Bert are obviously gay and have apparently been in a committed relationship since the late 60s. If PBS had to choose one of them to let go, it's a no-brainer that it would have to be Bert. Everyone likes Ernie better, and Burt's really just been Ernie's (no pun intended) straight man for the duration. If one but not the other got canned, it's not clear what kinds of benefits, as a life partner, he would be entitled to. Could Bert stay on Ernie's health insurance policy? What state is Sesame Street in (it’s hard to tell – probably by design, to keep the paparazzi at bay)? Maybe Vermont or New Hampshire. Wherever it is, someone would have to figure out the nuances of the rules on same-sex partner benefits in whatever the relevant jurisdiction is. I'm sure health insurance would be important to Ernie and Bert. Bert's always seemed right on the verge of getting an ulcer and Ernie's probably got no small amount of liver damage from his days of fast livin' and hard drinkin'.

Snuffleupagus

I have never understood just what exactly Snuffleupagus does, other than mope around and waste all of Big Bird's time. Does he contribute anything at all to Sesame Street's bottom line? He is an obvious candidate for a pink slip. My sole reservation is that he might be clinically depressed - a pre-existing medical condition - and PBS should probably get their employment lawyers involved to make sure there's no risk here of a discrimination claim.

Big Bird

What I’d like to know about Big Bird is how he ever got hired in the first place. “Bird brain” is not a complimentary expression (isn’t there some kind of bird that supposedly drowns itself staring up when it’s raining?). Big Bird’s got a pretty good attitude – seems to generally go with the flow – but, while I don’t think he’d bring the company down during the good times, I also can’t see him really stepping up to the plate during the hard times. He just doesn’t strike me as a go-getter with good initiative. If there were some specific need that would make sense for Big Bird to fill, I’d say keep him around. Otherwise, I think he gets a few months worth of bird seed and told to go find another nest.

Oscar

Oscar is indeed a grouch, but I get the feeling that, at the end of the day, he's the workhorse of the group. And I'd rather have someone on my team who's rough around the edges but who actually gets shit done than a lot of the other fuzzy little prima donnas who would probably fall over and die if they actually had to put in a full day's work. Is Oscar really even employed? Is the Sesame Street pay scale so twisted that he can have a full-time job and still have to live in a trash can? Or is there something we don't know about that is sucking up all of Oscar's cash? Is Oscar cooking up crystal meth or something on his days off? I would recommend some further investigation. If there are no skeletons in his closet, I'd lean towards keeping Oscar on. On the other hand, it would be sort of funny (ironic too?) to bang on the side of his can and tell him he was canned.

Cookie Monster

I like Cookie Monster. I really do. But the fact is, he is irresponsible and seems to have obsessive tendencies and zero self control. All of us would like to eat cookies all day long, but we learn not to let our base desires take over. I would worry about how Cookie Monster would fare if he lost the structure of having a steady job. He could be pushed to the limit and have nothing but his cookie crumbs to turn to. That's sad, but it's not the concern of PBS. They're trying to keep a business afloat and having a maniacal beast with a bizarre eating disorder in the ranks is not going to help. And cookies aren't cheap either.

Elmo

Elmo is the toughest call for me. He's obviously the rock star du jour, and he's clearly got the skills to pay the bills. Licensing revenues from the ten billion tickle-me-Elmos that were sold at Christmastime a few years ago are probably one of the main reasons PBS is still around at all today. But fans are fickle and fame is fleeting. I am not convinced that Elmo has any staying power. I think he's already past his prime and that pretty soon you're going to start seeing 3AM infomercials with Elmo hawking crappy exercise equipment or swamp land in Florida. OK, full disclosure here. I'm biased, and a part of me can't wait to see Elmo crash and burn. Why? Because Elmo is a total jive-ass, sell-out Grover rip off. How Elmo ever managed to so completely upstage Grover, who is the very embodiment of all that is awesome and cute, is beyond me. Shameless. Grover’s got too much class to go around bitching about it in public, but I can tell it's just eating away at him. My personal opinion is that the potential damage to PBS’ ongoing integrity if it keeps pandering to this red little poseur far outweighs whatever short term financial hit PBS would take if it shit-canned Elmo.

Grover

If Grover were to get the axe, the apocalypse would be near. Sesame Street without Grover? Game over. I have nothing further to say about this except, rock on, Grover. You've always got a place to stay with me.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Why Non-Profits Have Turned Me Into an Asshole


I worry that I’ve become more of an asshole recently. Some people might tell you that this is nothing new, that I’ve been an asshole for as long as they can remember. But I don’t think that’s true. I think it’s a recent development. And who is to blame? Non-profit organization fundraisers.

To clarify, when I say "asshole," I mean a "callous, unsympathetic, cold-hearted jerk who is generally less inclined to do unto others as he would have others do unto him." At my core, I think I’m as caring as the next guy. But when I consider how adept I’ve become at ignoring people with real problems, I have to wonder.

Coming across a lot of homeless people begging for spare change may have been the start of it all. And coming across a lot of homeless people is a city thing. If you live in a little town, you just don't encounter that many homeless people. There may be one, but he's most likely the cute, friendly drunk type who everyone likes. He probably gets taken in every night by the good townsfolk who give him a hot meal and a place to sleep until, one day, he mends his ways, sobers up, gets a steady job, becomes a generally productive member of society and maybe even marries the wholesome daughter of one of said townsfolk. In a city, you come across a lot more folks in need of some spare change. Maybe you drop a few quarters in some of their cups, but for every one person you help out, you have to pass by a whole lot more. If you tried to lend a hand to every homeless person you passed, you'd never make it to work. And then you'd probably end up homeless yourself. And to pass by one after another person who is experiencing such hardship and who needs your help, and to still live with yourself as a person, you have to develop some mechanism to cope. And that mechanism is tuning out. Ignoring another human being in need.

The more of a connection you have with a person, the harder it is to ignore him. It's easier to walk right past a person who's just jiggling a cup, a little harder to ignore someone who asks you for something directly. It really hurts to brush off a "hey champ, you got my dollar today?" or even a good old fashioned "God bless."

Non-profit street fundraisers have learned a lot from the business strategies of the homeless and have taken it to a whole new level. The fundraising strategy du jour - not a new one, but one that seems to have gotten a lot more prevalent recently is to send out swarms of cute, young, perky college kids to follow you down the sidewalk and harass you in the most charming way possible. They walk beside you and start off by saying things like "sir, I have to tell you, that is the nicest tie I have seen all day" or "wow, you have got to tell me your secret for achieving such firmly toned pectoral muscles." And if you let slide any single response, make one millisecond of eye contact, they’ve got you. Then they’re off telling lurid tales of environmental degradation and tortured puppies and bald, cancer-infested toddlers and, next thing you know, you’re bawling your eyes out and hemorrhaging cash, begging them to stay put for a few more minutes while you run to an ATM machine to empty your savings account in support of their cause.

And so, if you’re going to have any chance at all of making it from the subway to your office with dry eyes and a dime in your bank account, your ability to stave off people in need has to evolve at pace with the guerilla tactics of the non-profit world. You can try the old classics: frothing at the mouth, talking to yourself, making them think you’re crazy; flashing a gun; vomiting next to them; screaming horrible, violent threats ("I swear to God if you take one more step towards me I will rip your f-ing head off and shit down your neck"). But that takes a lot of energy / profanity / bodily fluid and is generally not how you want to start your day (and, if you’re like me, you don’t have a gun).

So you develop the stone-faced shtick, the ability to walk right past someone who’s talking to you as if you can’t hear a word he is saying. It’s effective, but it’s hard. Especially when someone is saying such lovely, wonderful things to you. When someone compliments your tie or pectoral muscles, every molecule in your body wants to smile and say "thanks!" and tell them where you shop and what gym you work out at. Even if you know they utterly don’t mean what they’re saying, and have been saying the exact same thing to every schlubby, overweight accountant / lawyer that has crossed the street in the past month, it’s hard to ignore. And here’s the point: if you can ignore a cute, young, perky college kid who’s saying lovely things to you, you can ignore just about anyone in the world, no matter how dire their circumstances or how powerful their plea. And, per my previously articulated definition, that makes you an asshole.

So what now? How do I get back in touch with my sympathetic, human side? I could move to a small town where, as discussed, there would just be one homeless guy, who was fun and friendly, and take care of him. But I like taking the subway to work, and small towns don’t have subways. I could lock myself in the house and never leave. But that might create some problems of its own. Maybe some legislation outlawing compliments that are not genuine, or outlawing non-profit fundraising altogether. That might work. But that might lead to more homeless people, and they’d probably adopt the non-profit strategies pretty quickly.

Maybe, in the end, I’ll just have to live with being an asshole.