« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »

March 30, 2006

Sprung

A call from the optometrist, to tell me several orders of contact lenses had arrived, was enough of an excuse to leave work an hour early and enjoy what is the first true day of spring--sun, blue skies, and temperatures in the upper 60s. It's been this warm already this year, but this day has the feel of springtime--the promise of warmth and sunshine, and the Earth shaking off its winter coat. The miles through the suburbs roll by. The traffic patterns are different, the flow of cars a bit heavier than at 5:00PM, and the sound and smell of things are different--stereos heard through open windows, the smell of perfume or perhaps after-shave as I roll by cars stopped at a traffic signal. By the time I reach the 62nd Street Bridge, I'm warm, too warm, and wondering why I'm wearing two pairs of socks. Habit, I suppose, from the winter. I cross the bridge, and a few minutes later, I'm at my front door, picking up the U-lock and removing clothes from my bag. Off to Oakland.

Riding in the city has become an entirely different experience. It's so, well, easy. The roads are flat. Even the hills are flat, in a sense. You do a climb to get somewhere, and that's it. On the commute, you do a climb, only to rollercoaster down the other side, quickly faced with another climb and another decent. On a fixed gear this leaves precious little time to relax (though after several years, one learns to "relax" on the downhills, even when spinning madly with an embarrassingly low 42x18 gearing). I bounce along Negley Avenue (will they ever fix the road surface?), racing the 71c between stops. Soon enough, I dart off Centre Avenue and into the residential neighborhood just east and north of Oakland. The sidewalks are full of people running (out for their first of year?) or returning from work. Jackets are slung over shoulders or tucked into bags.

Entering Oakland, on the first warm day of spring, while the universities are in full swing, is a sobering and depressing experience. I like to think of myself as young(ish). Yes, I'm not really, and I have two kids, but I don't think of myself as being as old as I really am. Perhaps its because I ride a bike most everywhere, or that I wear jeans to work. Perhaps it's bigger than that--a "mentality"--but either way, such a perception is shattered upon reaching Fifth and Bellefield, where the University of Pittsburgh campus begins. I am old. At least 15 years older than the average student that I pass in a blur. Old.

Traffic shakes me from my stupor and I'm weaving through pedestrians and locking my bike to a railing outside the optometrist's office. I'm quickly in and out of the office, and heading down toward Forbes Avenue. Once there, I slide over to the right side of the road, riding past the throngs of people waiting for buses. As I pass the law building, I see a gaggle of hipsters, their fixed gears (mostly conversions) leaning against the low marble wall. Too bad I didn't have alleycat flyers.

Cutting through traffic by the museums, I'm across Craig Street, back on Fifth Avenue, and soon away from the traffic in residential Shadyside. The streets are full (again) of people coming home from work, and runners. I take a circuitous route of backstreets to end up on Highland Avenue, thus avoiding Negley and its terrible road surface. East Liberty, within Penn Circle, is mayhem (as one would expect on such a day), with cars sitting in the middle of intersections, and pedestrians simply crossing the street without so much as looking. I'm through it without incident (and nary a stop), and I'm in Highland Park, happily spinning along. Rolling up to the front door, I figure today's commute home to be in the neighborhood of 15-18 miles, not a bad way to christen spring.

March 28, 2006

From Here

I've been working on a rather long post about the question raised by Rod Dreher on the Crunchy Con blog--where do we go from here? Then Frederica Mathewes-Green posted this, distilling the answer perfectly:

And I think the best way to change a culture is to seed it with holy people. I think what's made Evangelicalism less effective than it might be is a tendency to dream of big cultural-impact projects, rather than the humbler route of turning out millions of transformed, humble, holy people.

I've been reading Jacques Ellul's The Presence of the Kingdom. For Ellul, the counter-cultural Christian must live, not act:

We have lost the meaning of true action, which is the testimony of a profound life, action which comes from the heart, which is the product of faith, and not of myth, or of propaganda, or of Mammon! What matters is to live, and not to act. In this world, this is a revolutionary attitude, for the world only desires (utilitarian) action and has no desire for life at all. We cannot exaggerate the significance of the fact of being spiritually alive.

Movements fail. The most effective reistence will always be living a holy and good life, aware of our failings, ever-focused on the Kingdom.

March 26, 2006

Sporting News

Basketball. Since Pitt has let me down (again) in the NCAA tournament, I've only been passively interested. I am, however, happy to see Ben Howland's UCLA Bruins in the Final Four. Howland resurrected the Pitt program several years ago (and his successor Jamie Dixon has followed his blueprint for success, though not in the NCAA tournament), and it's good to see Howland's defense-first approach working on the West Coast (final score of the Memphis-UCLA regional final: 50-45). Many folks in Pittsburgh pilloried Howland when he decided to take his dream job three (I think) years ago, but who wouldn't want to try and fill John Wooden's shoes?

Rallying. I haven't written much since the season began, but that's because I'm not interested. Sebastien Loeb finally has some competition this season, with Marcus Gronholm's switch to Ford provided the spark the Finn needed to launch a championship bid. Gronholm won Monte Carlo and Sweden, and Loeb has won Mexico and (this weekend) Spain. Gronholm slipped a bit in the standings because of an off in Mexico (to his credit, Gronholm clawed back to a points finish), and turbo issues in Spain (he still managed a podium finish). The Focus has shown great pace on tarmac, and before the turbo issues, Gronholm was holding the lead. Loeb has extened his championship lead a bit, but with a gaggle of gravel rallies coming up, Gronholm should be able to mount a serious challenge.

March 20, 2006

Organic

Slate's Field Maloney has examined the dark secrets of organic produce at Whole Foods. First, despite what is advertised, the bulk of the produce at any given store is not locally grown. Thus the thoughtful consumer is faced with a quandry--buy organic (which is arguably better for you and the enviromnent) or buy local (which probably isn't organic, but doesn't have to be shipped from who knows where to reach the cooler).

Let's say you live in New York City and want to buy a pound of tomatoes in season. Say you can choose between conventionally grown New Jersey tomatoes or organic ones grown in Chile. Of course, the New Jersey tomatoes will be cheaper. They will also almost certainly be fresher, having traveled a fraction of the distance. But which is the more eco-conscious choice? In terms of energy savings, there's no contest: Just think of the fossil fuels expended getting those organic tomatoes from Chile. Which brings us to the question: Setting aside freshness, price, and energy conservation, should a New Yorker just instinctively choose organic, even if the produce comes from Chile? A tough decision, but you can make a self-interested case for the social and economic benefit of going Jersey, especially if you prefer passing fields of tomatoes to fields of condominiums when you tour the Garden State.

I'll also add something that Maloney failed to mention--not all organic produce is pesticide-free (this is truly one of the dark secrets of the trade). There is a list of chemicals (some more natural than others) that are permitted to be used on produce labeled "organic" by the USDA. You may think you're getting pure, fresh. good-for-you apples when you buy organic, but you'll likely have to do some legwork to determine if that's really true.

Maloney's point about the size of the average organic farm where Whole Foods might purchase produce is well-taken--much of the domestic organic crops come from large farms in California, where the methods more closely resemble the factory methods used on non-organic farms than the methods used by small organic growers. The average small organic farmer relies not Whole Foods and their ilk to make a living--most of their income comes from a combination of selling at local farmer's markets, cooperatives, and community supported agriculture (CSA) programs where consumers actually purchase shares of a season's crops. It's not an easy living, but for many, especially in the east, it works. It works for the consumers as well, as they get fresher crops.

Of course, there are disadvantages. The consumer can be faced with limited choices, as not every crop can be grown everywhere. This is especially true when participating in CSA programs--you only get what the farm grows (it's worth noting that many CSA farms, knowing their market, grow a wide variety of crops). Additionally, the consumer suddenly has to keep an eye on the weather patterns of the growing season as well--not enough rain or not enough sun could mean a more limited variety of crops. And a small farm can't feed the world. In fact, most small farms would have trouble feeding a city. But enough of them could.

The surface that Maloney's article scratches is that we as consumers must become more thoughtful about our purchases. Factory farming (organic and non) is slowly destroying a valuable way of life--that of the small farmer--in the name of progress and efficiency. And big box markets like Whole Foods are hastening this, somewhat unwittingly, by cutting into one of the remaining viable farming markets--organics. At the same time, however, CSA programs and co-ops are growing.

March 14, 2006

More Crunchy Fun

I've been meaning to write more about the book (really), but I just haven't found the time. I do, however, think it's worth noting this exchange between Rod Dreher and John Podhoretz on the Crunchy Con blog.

JPod begins:

Frederica complains that nobody wants to live in Old Charleston anymore because they'd prefer spanking new kitchens and more space between houses. Hello? According to what I've read, houses in Old Charleston sell for millions of dollars. That suggests a) people do want to live there and that b) almost nobody can afford to live there. Which brings up another point: The idea that people "choose" where they live. It's never as simple as that. People live where in some proximity to where they work, and they want as much home as they can afford. They're willing to brave traffic and, yes, even some appalling aesthetics to have the kind of home they want. Once again we see the key contradiction between the contributors to this blog and the vast majority of ordinary Americans. You guys live ideologically. You make choices that gratify you because they represent a fulfillment of ideas you hold. Most people don't live this way, and to presume that they should is, well, the sheerest snobbery.

And Mr. Dreher fires back:

It is really quite something to read a conservative claiming that to live life according to one's principles is "the sheerest snobbery." Conservatism is elitist in the sense that it believes in standards. It believes that ideas have consequences, that some ideas are better than others, that there's a way to live that's better — truer to our religious values, truer to human nature — and that we shouldn't be embarrassed to say so. I presume you are not a moral relativist or a populist, John. You have no problem telling people how you think they should live in other areas of their lives — nor should you, as long as you are not obnoxious about it. You just don't like that we try to apply conservative principles to the way we build the environment around us, so you engage in crude populism rather than make an argument about why our concerns are baseless. Try something different. You won't get very far with a group of thoughtful conservatives by using "elitist" as a pejorative. We had all better be elitists about something!

JPod has yet to respond, but I'll be interested to see how he saves face, since Dreher is correct.

March 12, 2006

The Caffeinator

the caffeinator

Registration begins at 1:00PM, Mellon Park. $5 to enter.
Race starts at 2:00PM.

Poster by Eli.

March 09, 2006

The Cat is Out of the Bag

It's official. I'm co-organizing an alleycat, the Caffeinator, for April 8. The theme? A tour of local independent coffeehouses. The distance will be in the neighborhood of 12-18 miles, depending on where we start and finish (these things are still under consideration). More information will be posted as I have it.

March 01, 2006

The French on Marriage

Via Caleb Stegall on the Crunchy Con blog.

French government commission rejects same-sex marriage.

Crunchy Cons, Continued

I managed to get through most of the book this past weekend, and I was surprised by my overall reaction. While I find myself nodding in agreement with many of Dreher's crunchy "sensibilities," I was uncomfortable when presented with such a list. In many ways, we as a family adher to the crunchy manifesto, but Caleb Stegall's point about over-articulation is well taken:

It is not that I disagree with crunchiness as Rod has described it. I think he has done an admirable job recovering some of the essential conservative truths out from under the banner of an ersatz conservatism of right-leaning liberalism. It is rather that I see the authentically conservative posture of man towards reality as one of those natural things that becomes highly unnatural and potentially turned against itself when articulated.

When viewed as a sensibility rather than an ideology, Dreher's manifesto is appropriately conservative response to the disorders of the age. It is easy, however, to allow it to become nothing more than a membership checklist for yet another movement, which would likely doom it straightaway. The discussion on the blog has often veered away from the the fundamental points of the book--namely the sacramental nature of all of life, and the importance of our "little platoons" of family, community, and church--and focused on the particulars. Is it ok to shop at Wal-Mart? Can you be a Crunchy Con and argue on the internet? Do you have to buy organic food? The point that Dreher, Stegall, and others have made is that these questions don't get at the heart of the sensibility. It's not about where you shop. Not everyone has the opportunity to shop at a co-op, or live in old house in the city. It's about how one views life, and what is truly important. Get that worked out, and the little questions will answer themselves.

Also, Stegall seems to have finally gotten that wrestling match he and the rest of tNP's staff wanted with the NRO staff. He's left a list of pointed questions for Jonah Golberg, and calls out the Classical Liberalism (as opposed to true conservatism) of Jim Geraghty. Stegall has obviously hit a nerve among the neo-cons and libertarians, namely that true traditional conservatism is not primarily concerned with the privacy of the individual above all else. Classical Liberals often place emphasis "family" and "values," but as Stegall points out, these things can be set aside in the name of personal responsibility and privacy (though it should be noted that most neo-cons/Republicans are willing to draw the line at certain behaviors, namely homsexuality and abortion). Stegall may have overstated his case, but the point remains--why are neo-cons willing to call out some behaviors that are detrimental to the family, but not others?