Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

A bird, a kid, a rude remark

Friday, August 13th, 2010
cardinal fledgling

This cardinal fledgling is taking on adult form and color. But will he fly right, on his own?

Funny how the little things add up some days, like eggs in a basket, eggs that soon may spoil.

Yesterday was one such day, bringing that kind of skein of phenomena we’re too busy usually to notice or to feel. But their coincidence struck me hard and balled me up too.

In the evening my wife Jen and I were driving to St. Paul to meet our son Gabe and his family for dinner. We’d hardly started out when we came upon, in the middle of a busy intersection, a male cardinal and one of his brood. It was just a flash of red, Big Red as I call the male bird, descending suddenly on a dubious pile of fluffy feathers. It was a traffic light that had just turned green, the roaring of vehicles out of the starting gate once more, and the sight of the Red Bird vainly trying to pick up his chick and fly away with it from danger. He plunged down, plucked at the fledgling, and rose up only to lose his load. The fledgling, motionless already or nearly so, dropped down, and we sped on, ignorant of the fate of the fledgling, who may have been on his first flight and, failing to rise, hit a car, or of the father bird for that matter. We sped on, as who in his right mind would stop and pluck a half-live, half-dead fledging out of the busy road at rush hour?

Dinner was fine, fun, at a St. Paul deli called the Cheeky Monkey. Jen and I, Gabe and Heidi and Ruby, and my sister Jeannie chowed down on wonderful sandwiches, cum and sans meat. I tried the cubano, which was prepared as a salad (option on all sandwiches), loaded with meat and wonderful greens. Ruby, our almost 3 year old granddaughter, ate pretty well off our plates and behaved nicely, a good challenge for one and a half hours. But when we left the restaurant she darted away from us on the sidewalk directly in front of the parking lot exit. We all simultaneously yelled at her — just as another customer’s SUV approached the drive. He slammed on his brakes, and we all breathed in alarmed relief. Too close a call for our little fledgling. We scolded her, and she took it all in solemnly a moment, then gave us the raspberry.

Later in the evening, back at home, Jeannie was telling me about a new trend in yoga, which she practices enthusiastically, religiously. It was something about using yoga to companion the sick. Dubious and skeptical as always, I scoffed — at the language and yoga, too, it must have been. This scoff was produced automatically, a real knee-jerk (throat-jerk) response. To companion a sick person? What nonsense! Jeannie teaches college English, as I have done, and I thought she should be more sensitive to this awful jargon. I huffed and puffed and if I didn’t blow the house down I made it haughtily clear, in short order, that sick people were not to be companioned!

(I find, in doing a quick Google search, that this idiom has indeed caught on in the health care field. Here’s the title of an article I’m sure you won’t rush out to read any time soon: “Decreasing Companion Usage without Negatively Affecting Patient Outcomes: A Performance Improvement Project.” Oh, shudder, shudder. We purists of the language, we high priests of usage simply shudder.)

But however I feel about such jargon, what was telling was my quick, rude reaction, cutting off my sister before she could make her point. She is attached to yoga, as I say, the way people are attached to religion. And it seems to have done her good, judging by her lean and healthy look. But I wasn’t having any of it, rude dog that I am. I preferred to assert my own opinion rather than listen to another’s. I swooped down on my sister the way the traffic swooped down on that little bird, and who would rescue her or care to stop?

The wrecking crew

Friday, May 14th, 2010

My wife and I are readying our home for sale. For the past four months we have been scrubbing, scraping, painting, emptying out, and effecting repairs of one kind or another (from basement to rooftop).

Last night when I returned home from coffee with a former student and her husband, Jen had torn out the built-in drawers and desk in her office (one of the three bedrooms upstairs) and was standing there panting, triumphant, with a mad gleam in her eyes.

What have you done, crazy lady! I exclaimed. Are you wrecking the house?

It was ugly! she said, which was true enough. It made the room less of a bedroom! Which was also true enough.

But what is someone wants to use this room as an office? You’ve just torn out a big desk there, under the bookcases, with ample storage and large sliding drawers!

Ugly! ugly! ugly! quoth the princess of true beauty.

Courbet's Borreau

Gustave Courbet's portrait of Gabrielle Borreau at the Chicago Institute of Arts

Stupid! stupid! stupid! I barked and retreated to the master bedroom — not yet subjected to the pry bar — to sulk, be dumb, and continue reading Flaubert’s Sentimental Education (which I mean to take to Chicago with us, in two weeks, and compare to the Courbets at the Art Institute).

Ach, Gustave (Flaubert et Courbet), you were master realists and stylists, weren’t you? Not wreckers of the real but transcenders, could be, and that by virtue of your putting down, in heat and light, in muted glory, everything that shines by day and dissipates in the long night.

If I knew they were coming to do me good

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010
Ronald McDonald

Ronald McDonald is jumping for joy, and why not? He's running to the bank!

Attended a political action meeting the other night at a friend’s house. It’ s an organization I worked for, as a volunteer, some years ago. Though its name has changed, the group is determined to prove just as big a nettle in the sides of corporations who prefer private gain to all other considerations. As a client of mine said years ago, when I was just breaking into freelancing, “Those pissants at MPIRG [Minnesota Public Interest Research Group] are on my ass again!”

It’s not a bad thing to have some such organization watching the agendas of big public companies. Such nonprofits act as terriers who catch out all sorts of rats infesting the public sphere. Exorbitantly high rates. Insider profiteering. Practices that threaten public health and safety.

It’s the third of these rats that Corporate Accountability International is concerned with. Formerly known as INFACT, CAI is now pursuing McDonald’s for its marketing to children of what is essentially junk food, the greasy “food products,” as Michael Pollan calls them, that make our kids fat, plug their arteries with grease, and detach them, more and more, from the pleasures and healthy practices of the communal table.

CAI’s new campaign means to retire Ronald McDonald as the icon of McDonald’s deceptive marketing, just as it has worked in the past, successfully, to retire Joe Camel from R. J. Reynolds’ stable.

There’s a delicious irony in this quest. By putting the friendly face of the clown, Mr. Good Humor, atop the all beef patties and greasy fries, McDonald’s effectively covers up, or masks, the true nature of the product with a host of emotional associations. “Aw,” as one customer buttonholed in front of a local McDonald’s told us a month or so ago, at the launch of the campaign, “I LOVE Ronald McDonald!”

The problem with this attack, I think, is not its target, which deserves scrutiny by muckrakers and citizens alike. It’s the way that CAI is attacking the problem. It’s true that McDonald’s may be acting irresponsibly, spending $2.5 million daily on advertising to kids, CAI claims. But to object to this behavior with a strongly moralistic campaign shows a certain self-defeating tone-deafness. After all, McDonald’s is not urging parents and kids to love their product via a clinical content analysis of the product. They create the emotional associations of a Ronald McDonald and link their products to all things good, funny, cheery, and childish.

If some of the public will think in moral terms, McDonald’s anticipates and deflects criticism through such practices as the Ronald McDonald House Charities. What the one hand giveth with such abundance (greasy food that clogs arteries and separates us from our families and communities), the other hand taketh away (the grease-scrubbing operations of charity).

To rant at people as they enter McDonald’s will not be effective, I predict.

Nor will such neighborhood meetings as the one I attended this week, which resembled all too painfully a Tupperware party or condo sales scam. The dozen of us who came to the friend’s house were not invited seriously for our views of the problem, but were cued along by the twenty-something organizer from Boston to denounce the corporation and position ourselves as opposites. The Evil Empire of McDonald’s vs. the Wholesome and Organic Us.  And were urged, in short order, to sign up for a monthly pledge — $60 would be good, though anything we could give regularly, according to our budget, was commendable.

Debate, in other words, was not the object of this neighborhood meeting. Cooperation and collaboration with the word of the organization was, especially funding.

So there we were, the dozen of us, on our posteriors, and we were all friends with the organizer, in the same way that marks were friends with condo salesmen. Yes, we were all amigos so that we might sign up. If we didn’t, I guess we were not amigos. And I did not, though my wife, friend, and others did. I distrust organizations and the organizational mentality. I believe so strongly in freedom to think and do on one’s own that I can’t very readily sign on to such a crudely conceived campaign, no matter how correct the broad outlines might be.

I like rather the idea of retiring Ronald McDonald as the Killer Clown. Haven’t we had movies like this recently? Of showing in plain images the murderous effects if not intentions of the corporate profit-making machine? The mask of innocence and humor that Ronald wears is a pitiful disguise, and we must be trained to see behind this pretense — as also behind the benevolent appearance of non-profits like Corporate Accountability International that go after a corporation and expect supporters to march in lockstep every step of the way.

As Thoreau says in Walden, if he knew a do-gooder were coming his way to do him good (the philanthropists buttoned up comfortably in their waistcoats, Thoreau sitting in his cabin), he would run, fast as his legs could carry him, the other way. Let’s hope he wouldn’t bump into Ronald McDonald going to the bank, either!