Memories fizz from long-dry soda cans

Sometimes the only way to realize how much the little things in life have changed is to see something designed purely to be a well-timed product of its own era.
My wife brought something strange home the other day. The corrugated cardboard box was unremarkable, sitting with flaps carefully closed on top of the kitchen table. I didn't recall putting it there, and I didn't know where it came from. I called out to Karla, asking her what this mysterious package was. It was, she cheerfully replied, her soda can collection from 1986-1992. Now, I'm a man who collects many things (military surplus, action figures, model kits, vinyl LPs), but soda cans? I didn't get it.
Shaking my head, I opened the box, and I was shocked at how much I actually enjoyed looking through and seeing what she'd thoughtfully saved over the years. It seems banal - indeed, soda cans are meant to be, as their lifespan once opened isn't long - but there are an awful lot of memories connected to the mundane. Here are some of the highlights.
- Mountain Dew can, circa 1988: Surviving another little league game, and realizing that the parent in charge of purchasing post-game soda had made a smart choice. Twelve ounces of anything has never tasted so sweet.
- Mendota Spring Water: Sitting in the back of my mom's new 1993 Ford Explorer, feeling oddly proud that her hip new car was featured in a big summer movie that involved a park with dinosaurs in it.
- Tangerine Diet Rite: "Can't my parents buy real pop? This stuff tastes terrible!"
- New York Seltzer: I really liked this stuff, but that changed after a can of it fell out of the fridge, landed on my big toe and bruised it so badly I had to get a hole drilled in the nail to relieve the pressure. Thankfully, stores stopped stocking it shortly thereafter. I'm pretty sure these two things are directly connected.
- The infamous 1990 Pepsi summer can that, if stacked on another, allegedly spelled out the word "sex" if held just right (look this one up if you don't believe me): "I can kind of see it. Wait ... there! Oh man, it TOTALLY does!"
- Squirt: "Hurry up and suck that thing down. The first bell is about the ring!" Drinking Squirt in a hurry is nearly impossible, as the combination of citrus and carbonation are strong enough to remove paint from a park bench. It has the same effect on a human throat.
In a way, these aren't just soda cans. They are threads in the tapestry of both of our childhoods. The world around us changes so slowly that the only way one can even notice is through looking at something from not even that long ago and noticing differences. These aluminum creations weren't meant to be anything but containers, but through the passage of time, they've become more.
After sitting on the kitchen table for a week, the box still hasn't been moved. Neither of us has mustered the energy to actually set up a display for these everyday works of art, but we've figured out where in the basement they'll end up. In fact, I actually enjoy having it in the kitchen, because they give a pleasant excuse to handle a tangible piece of what was, in my rather short existence, a rather peaceful and thoroughly pleasant time. Those were good years - and anything I can do to keep them more alive and close to my heart is worth the work.
So, laugh if you want, but I think these soda cans are worth their weight in gold. Seeing as they are aluminum, the amount of treasure that would actually translate to be fairly insignificant, but the memories and feelings they bring to the surface more than tips the scales in their favor.

(This column was originally published in the July 31 issue of the Lakeville-Sun Current).

Sometimes, the target just isn't big enough

I was reminded of this idea when I was covering an archery group giving youth classes in Lakeville. While the last (and only) time I’d ever shot an arrow was 15 years ago in Boy Scout camp (a miss by a wide margin, if I remember correctly), I was confident that, if put to the test, I’d be at least as good as Kevin Costner’s stunt double in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.” Well, I was wrong.
First off, I made the mistake of not taking archery very seriously, as my instructor did. Apparently, there is no smiling involved in archery, which was news to me. Anyway, I listened intently as he instructed me how to properly load the bow (by taking the arrow and raising it up the right side of the bow to drop it down the left side) and how to pull back on the string (firmly and calmly). I was not comfortable with the idea of brushing my chin with the feathers of the arrow (having pulled it back far enough), but I took the instructor at his word, and was unharmed when I launched my projectile of doom to what I thought would be a bull’s-eye.
I was wrong. Not only did the arrow not hit the bull’s-eye, it seemed to travel like a tiny senior citizen on the feathers was controlling it. It traveled listlessly, with a peculiar nose-up attitude that made it seem almost lazy. It hit the target with a subdued “TWUNK!” It hung limply from the lower left quadrant of the target, nowhere near the bull’s-eye, but at least impaled on the board. I lowered the hot pink bow (the color the guy selected for me), and walked back to the bow rack dejected.
There’s a reason for my hand wringing. My plan for the apocalypse was that I would somehow find an arrow in the rubble of what used to be Minneapolis and use that to defend my beef jerky from my mutated neighbors, who (unlike me) would have been drastically affected by the nuclear bomb that wiped out our city. The more I look at it, the more holes I find in my theory. For one, if a bomb hit Minneapolis, I would more than likely be wiped out of existence (an oddly comforting thought after seeing “Threads” and “The Day After), and that shooting a bow and arrow would be the least of my worried. Second, what are the odds I would actually find one in the rubble, let alone be able to shoot it well?
I finished the story feeling slightly deflated. I guess things that look easy on TV shouldn’t automatically be considered as easy in real life. And, come to think of it, I should really stop watching post-apocalyptic nuclear holocaust movies on YouTube. Like I don’t have enough to worry about. Besides, the only one who would benefit from combining the apocalypse with a bow and arrow is Ted Nugent, and he would most likely be HUNTING people like me, not helping them. Just kidding, Ted - don't shoot!

Spilling the Beans

Sometimes, to get the real deal, you’ve got to go the extra mile.
I just made myself a cup of coffee. Now, a typical cup of office coffee comes from a machine that makes a pot using a pre-determined amount of coffee and water. The only thing a coffee drinker has to do is load the thing, press a button, and five minutes later, there will be coffee. As simple as this is, you’d be amazed how people can screw it up.
Office coffee is all about convenience. Unfortunately, office coffee tastes like crap. Whatever flavor the beans had when they were picked and ground has been smashed out the them by the packaging process. They are so dry when we get them that none of the natural oils even seem present in the beans.
As a fan of office coffee, I don’t stand for this. When I make a cup of coffee, I don’t screw around. First, I don’t use the ground beans if I can help it; I’ll grind my own, right in the office, with a little grinder I have. Second, I won’t bother using the industrial machine that plops out the same pot over and over again with the push of a button. I’ll use a French Press, which has the potential to A.) make amazing coffee or B.) make the worst coffee you’ve ever tasted. There’s more of a human touch in the entire process. Is it a lot of work? Sure, but it is work it in the end, because I’m getting more of what makes the product good.
I think this process can serve as a metaphor for what’s going on in the news and newspaper industry. As a coffee junkie, I don’t limit myself to what kind of coffee I drink. I take chances. I take in information from media outlets the same way. Every day, I’ll spend at least a few minutes looking at CNN, FOX News, Free Republic, the Nation, Al Jazeera, the Daily Mail, Der Spiegel, the Weekly Standard, the North Korean Central News Agency and the BBC. I don’t agree with all of what I read, but at least it is a rounded list. One of the reasons I think newspapers are having a tough time with things is that people aren’t taking the same amount of time they used to stay informed. Sure, you can go to a website (like Drudge Report or Huffington Post) or a TV website (like KARE11.com), but the whole idea of having a “one stop shop” for news is really something better suited to a commodity – like toilet paper.
My coffee ritual takes time. My media ritual takes time. In the end, however, the flavors of both are always interesting, and I am glad I took the time to grind my own beans and so my own legwork, so that way, I’ve got more control over what goes into my palette and into my brain.

Taking action....by not taking action?

Presidential leadership styles can vary, and it is interesting to look at how presidents react differently to similar situations.
At a press conference today, President George W. Bush said he wouldn’t call on Americans to conserve gasoline, saying that consumers were “plenty bright” to figure out “if they should drive more or less.”
“It’s a little presumptuous on my part to dictate how consumers live their own lives,” the president added. “I've got faith in the American people. (I find this ironic, seeing as Bush seems to have few qualms about dictating how other people live their lives; his views on gay marriage and abortion come to mind). It seems like it makes sense to me to say to the world that we’re going to use, you know, new technologies to explore for oil and gas in the United States ... to send a clear message that the supplies of oil will increase.”
I would like to compare this message of taking-action-by-not-taking-action with remarks made by then-President Jimmy Carter in his “Crisis of Confidence” speech in 1979. In it, Carter tried to set “a clear goal” for the energy policy of the United States to never use more foreign oil than it did in 1977. He said new additions to demands for energy would be met from U.S. production and conservation, and promised import quotas, a massive investment in alternative energy solutions, and the creation of the country’s first solar bank, which he said was important to meeting a goal of having 20 percent of the country’s energy come from solar power by 2000. Carter, unlike Bush, wasn’t shy when it came to asking Americans to sacrifice for what he saw as a common good.
“I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel,” he said. “Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense – I tell you it is an act of patriotism. Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.”
In comparison to this soaring rhetoric, I find Bush’s comments both lacking and entirely expected. This is coming from the same administration that, in the wake of 9/11, told Americans, shocked and eager to do something to help the country, to spend money, to live their lives as if nothing happened, to “keep America rolling.” Now, when those wheels are in danger of stopping because the gas tanks fueling them are running on fumes, we get claptrap about “new technologies” and pious rhetoric about not telling Americans what to do.
I may have been a mere fetus when this Carter speech was given, but I know what happened to Carter in 1980: Americans voted him out of office, choosing former California Governor Ronald Reagan in the election Nov. 4, 1980.
Regardless of what historians may think of Carter, I admire his courage. He at least tried to get the American people to do something unpleasant (but, in hindsight, fortuitous and wise). The energy crisis we faced in 1979 didn’t go away; if anything, it came back with a vengeance (for different reasons) in the past few years, when we’ve seen the price of a gallon of gasoline has quadruple in 10 years. Now, when the American people could possible use a little bit of “control over our own lives,” our president instead gives us words as empty as our gas tanks.

I propose a moratorium

I read on cnn.com today that President Bush is going to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling. I'm mixed about this. While I realize the idea might have some potential, I also realize that it's not going to have any impact for some time, as I don't think there are drilling rigs queuing up outside of the forbidden areas waiting to get in (like losers at an exclusive dance club). We'll see.

While he's lifting moratoriums, I think Bush should propose one: I think he should outlaw the use of the phrase "pain at the pump." It was lame three years ago, and now it just makes my skin crawl. OK, maybe it was clever for five minutes or so, but now, it's something that comes merely as an annoyance to an already annoying situation. I GET IT, major media outlets - you feel our pain. You get that the American public is upset with paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline. I've been able to determine this from the number of useless stories I've seen on TV news where gallant news crews will go out to local gas stations and interview people filling up their gas tanks. The typical complaint seems to be, "Yeah, it sucks, but what are we supposed to do?" Please, do us all a favor and stop. It's not like you're going to get any quotes worthy of the next King Lear doing these stories.

I think it's more likely that we'd be able to get a break from the phrase "pain at the pump" than we will from high gas prices this summer. Call your local congressperson today - tell them to say "no" to the phrase "pain at the pump." At this point in the game, it's merely sand in the Vaseline, and an insult to injury.

* p.s. - don't really call your congressperson, silly; I'm sure they have better things to do.

"Petrol is Blood!" - "The Battle of the Bulge"

When it comes to energy solutions, it seems even the slightest hindrance renders the whole concept unworkable.
I was watching a news segment the other night about truckers slowing down to 55 mph to cope with the price of fuel. This raised the concept of lowering speed limits on Minnesota’s highways, to which Rep. Amy Klobuchar responded with a comment to the effect that people weren’t ready to have the speed limit drop from 65 to 60 mph.
If this is true, then we are doomed. The problem facing requires drastic action, not piecemeal commitment from lawmakers seeking re-election and therefore not wanting to rock the boat or cause people to frown on them in any way (this is a blanket statement; I’m not sure what Klobuchar’s plans are in the future).
I would love to see a politician come out and talk about real solutions – not begging the Saudis for more gas, not promising corporate innovation, and not promising some miracle of bio-fuel science that’s going to let us keep driving with the windows down, A/C cranked, at 70 mph. For a moment, I’ll pretend to be that politician.
“My fellow Americans,” I would deeply intone, “the free ride is over. We’re at a tipping point in a petroleum-based world. The rising gas prices you see are not going down anytime soon. If you have memories of driving a muscle car on gas that cost less than a quarter a gallon, do your best to remember them. That situation will never be repeated. We face stark choices ahead – we can either act proactively, or we can bury our heads in the sand.
“This isn’t a problem that can be solved from some miracle on high. The truth seems to be that there aren’t any knights in shining armor on the hill. Biofuels take more energy to produce than they contribute, and seem to be having an effect on the world food supply. In short, even if it were a perfect solution, it would not slake our thirst for consumption. Guess what, America? We’ve got a problem. We’ve built a house of straw. Our entire world runs off a product that, at best, is becoming prohibitively expensive, and at worst is in danger of being exhausted. I have several solutions I think might help to adapt to our present situation.
“First, slow down. There is no good reason anyone needs to go 65 mph, unless you are an ambulance or a fire truck. So, from now on, the speed limit is going back to 55 mph. Second, I’m going to tax the hell out of gas-guzzling cars. If you want to drive the Hummer in this situation, it’s going to cost you. The taxes will go to a special fund that will build solar panels and wind turbines across the county to somehow make up for the power that’s currently being shot out of your tailpipe. Third, car companies? Wake up. Stop making the Escalade, and start making the Geo Metro again. Fourth, gasoline will be rationed. I know this will be deeply unpopular, but let’s face it – the planet is a bit more important than running your boat to go fishing or traveling to the cabin for a long weekend.
“I don’t want to watch the world fall apart any quicker than it has to.
Have you seen the movie ‘The Road Warrior?’ Well, on a bad day, that’s where I think we’re headed. Anything we can do to make our supplies last longer is to our benefit.
“How else will this affect us? Well, if it becomes more expensive to ship groceries to market, we can kiss cheap produce goodbye. So, to ensure that families can at least get proper fruits and vegetables, I encourage people around the nation to plant gardens. We did it in World War II, and we can do it again.”
Of course, I would be immediately dragged from the podium and impeached for having the wherewithal to suggest that the world might be to blame for building a house of straw. That’s probably the reason that Klobuchar hesitated to suggest that reducing the speed limit (surely one of the simplest ways to save fuel) might be a good idea. She’s got a career to look after, and frankly, any politician with sanity would have done the same thing.
Still, it would be nice to see one of these people suggest anything resembling sacrifice for a greater good. As small as it might be, it would at least give me the sense that someone out there is trying to allow us to have a tiny amount of control over our petro-based future.

FOX News: Number one in America's heart

I read something today that made me shake my head (taken from www.mediabistro.com)

"For the 77th consecutive month, Fox News Channel [FNC] finished first in total day and prime time ratings during May. FNC was the sixth highest rated cable network on all of basic cable during prime time for the month (CNN and MSNBC finished 19th and 26th) and the seventh rated network in total day (CNN and MSNBC were 19th and 27th).
FNC also had 11 out of the top 13 programs in cable during the month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was the #1 program in cable news for the 90th consecutive month, and saw gains in Total Viewers year-to-year (26%).
America's Newsroom (9-11amET) was up 30% year-to-year, with the program averaging more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined during the time period. Meanwhile, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren has been #1 for 73 consecutive months in Total Viewers while Hannity & Colmes has been #1 in its timeslot for 54 consecutive months."

As a news professional, this makes me look at my viewing audience a little differently. If I were to go by these figures, and determine the mindset and makeup of my audience based on their preference for a network that fails to meet its own "Fair and Balanced" declaration. The mindset of this audience is that:
-America is right. 24/7, 365 days a year, including holidays.
-White people aren't to blame for anything; in fact, they are the only ones that matter. Look at the largely Caucasian staff of Fox's talking head staff, and see if you can draw a different conclusion.
-We're out for blood, and we aren't ashamed of it.
-The weapons of mass destruction are still out there. Somewhere.
-'Osama' and 'Obama' are really the same person.

Need more ammunition for that last one? Well, I've got that. During a live interview May 25, FOX contributor Liz Trotta not only "make the mistake" of calling Obama "Osama," she took the job one step further.
Trotta: "And now, we are having what some are reading are a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, umm, uhh, Obama."
Hemmer (FOX newscaster): "Obama?"
Trotta: "Well, both, if we could." (Laughs gleefully).
Hemmer: (mumbles) "Well, talk about how you really feel."

This is what passes for news on America's top rated "news" channel? This is the sort of "Fair and balanced" coverage that some people actually ingest as their sole source of news nutrition? Rupert Murdoch isn't about improving the quality of journalism; he's about adding to his media empire, already worth billions, and spreading his own Republican views all over it. it's no accident that FOX is this way; judge the rest of the body from the head of the snake. It would be one thing for FOX News to display this sort of blatant partisanship under an admitted conservative banner; newspapers in England and Europe have been doing this for years. But hiding behind "We report, you decide?" Come on! How dumb do you think we are? By the time something has been reported on your channel, it's no issue of deciding - your own internal machinery is quite capable of passing judgment by the time a report hits the viewer's retina.
It's bad enough that such a station even exists; it's worse when it tows the line from a White House that has led the country into two wars with no foreseeable end, a justice department that plays by its own rules, a population seeking relief from high energy prices and finding no support at the top (Come on, George, why should the Saudis help us? We're putting their great-great-great-great-great grandchildren through college), a tarnished image around the world, and an unspoken fear of a future that, before 9/11, seemed bright. I don't know about you, but I'd like to have my country back, please. While all news organizations are guilty of their failures in vetting the White House's spin leading up to the Iraq War, at least some of them (NBC, CNN) have tried to make up for this by having coverage that is more skeptical/critical of what the powers-that-be-are saying. For an example, look at all of the news that came about about government incompetence at all levels when it came to Hurricane Katrina.
If FOX wants to be a Washington mouthpiece for a conservative agenda, that is their business. I just wish they'd be honest about it and not pretend to be anything else.

P.s. - And a final reply to those survey results and bumper stickers that suggest one can live guilt-free as a conservative? That's great - but the reason the rest of us are feeling guilty is because we still have a conscience.