The Onion has issued a new report from Salina, Kansas:
Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world. . . "I know all I'm going to let myself know."Here's the rest of the story.
Now you don't have to learn how to play the guitar. All you need to do is pretend that you can play guitar. At my neighborhood Walgreens, there is now a big display featuring Paper Jamz plastic and 
cardboard string-less guitars (electronic sensors pick up where your hands are). For only $25 ($15 extra if you want a separate amp made mostly out of cardboard), you can be an "Instant Rockstar." I picked up one of these "guitars" to see whether I could feel like an "Instant Rockstar" right there in the aisles of Walgreens. I felt the glow of stardom for only a few seconds, because you can't actually play Paper Jamz guitar like you can play a real guitar (I play the guitar professionally). You can't play individual notes, you can't play precise rhythms, the sound range is extremely limited, there are no dynamics and there is only one genre offered: distorted rock chords.
Each of these five models of "guitar" is loaded with only three songs. Once you master the three songs on one of the guitars, you'll need to go back to Walgreens and pay $25 for a different model in order to play three more songs. Instead of real guitar lessons, just go to Rockstarz Academy.
The manufacturer of the Paper Jamz "guitar" tells you that you'd be wasting your time and money to buy a real guitar and learn how to play it. The Paper Jamz display actually includes a video promo with this opening line: "Why play an electric guitar when you can play Paper Jamz?" Why, indeed? I would offer one good reason why you might want to forgo the Paper Jamz "guitar." When you play a fake guitar instead of a real guitar, you will get fake respect, instead of real respect. To paraphrase and expand the Paper Jamz motto, "Why live a real life when you can watch TV and pretend to be living a life?"
Amotz Zahavi made it clear that in order to be reliable, a signal means to be expensive. If you want lots of respect, then, go practice hard so that you really learn how to play the guitar, and then come back and impress people by playing real 
songs. Paying $25 and then banging on a piece of plastic and cardboard isn't going to get you much respect, unless your audience consists of three-year-olds. Then again, I'm probably missing the point because massive numbers of Americans are under the delusion that reality is the way they desire it to be, rather than the way it actually is. Buying a cardboard guitar can bring instant respect to many teenagers because they believe it can.
We are a society that craves instant respect. We show off our gadgets and toys to the have-nots for instant respect. We join the military so we can carry guns, wear uniforms and blow things up in order to get instant respect, even though we've floundered through life until then. We celebrate family tragedies, sickness and addictions because these bring us respect as high-ranking victims. We strive to shake hands with Hollywood and sports celebrities, because this brings us instant respect. We become fans of professional sports teams in the hopes that they will win their championship, which seems to bring us respect.
I hope that everybody buying a Paper Jamz guitar really takes the time to impress their friends by "playing the guitar" before they lose all interest in "playing" the three songs programmed into their "guitar." I'm not denying that this gadget is technologically impressive or that it could be fun for a small child. But within a few months after buying a Paper Jamz guitar, this gadget will undoubtedly end up in the back of the closet, and it will eventually be tossed into a landfill with all the other gadgets we buy in our attempts to gain instant respect.
According to a recent article by Richard Kerr in the August 13, 2010 issue of Science ("Do We Have the Energy for the Next Transition?") it's going to be extremely difficult to move the world away from power-packed fossil fuels to more diffuse and less useful renewable energy:
Never has the world so self-consciously tried to move toward new sources of energy. But the history of past major energy transitions-from wood to coal, and from coal to oil and gas-suggests that it will be a long, tough road to scaling up alternatives to fossil fuels that don't stoke greenhouse warming. The big problem is that, for the first time, the world is moving to tap new energy sources that are, in many ways, less useful and convenient than the currently dominant sources: fossil fuels.
[For instance] oil is densely packed with energy, easily transported and stored, and efficient at releasing its energy in modern engines. Renewables are another matter.
[caption id="attachment_14020" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Erich Vieth (using creative commons images)"]
[/caption]
How much energy do we need to replace? The number is staggering. "Replacing even half of the coal, oil, and gas consumed today would require 6 terawatts of renewable energy . . . In contrast, renewables today produce just 0.5 terawatts."
Kerr suggests that oil production might peak at around 2030 and natural gas section might keep pace with demand only until 2050. What then? He suggests the the "sobering reality" that only one renewable, solar energy, could meet future energy demands by itself (although wind power could make significant contributions). All of the other types of renewables "would provide just 1/10 to 1/10000 of today's energy output from fossil fuels."
How should we attempt such a daunting transition to cleaner fuels that are otherwise much less desirable? Kerr argues that the best way to approach this transition is to "reduce consumption," and, fortunately, we have the technology for reducing consumption drastically. I previously posted that modest conservation measures with regard to transportation could save enough oil to retire all of the 4000 oil drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on our long and unimpressive track record, Americans will readily express interest in reducing consumption but they lack the political will to actually do so. One huge approach to saving energy would be to immediately implement strict requirements for building highly energy-efficient residences and office buildings. There are many substantial things we could be doing to save energy, if only we cared enough about our future to do so.
Kerr closes his article with this less than cheerful conclusion: "Conservation would buy time for meagerly attractive renewables to make some inroads before fossil fuels begin to bow out."
(Note: Kerr's article is available online only to subscribers)
Lisa Rokusek often writes for Dangerous Intersection. She also writes for her own website, The Rhino and the Buddha. Lisa and her partner have made a cottage industry of reaching out to help others, including cats, and dogs, but mostly to other human beings. Lisa is a good friend of mine and she never ceases to impress me with her willingness to keep trying, sometimes against all odds. I'm not trying to embarrass her by saying this, but merely indicating that some of Lisa's bouts of empathy are endeavors that I would be hesitant to attempt. Framed with quotes by Pema Chödrön, Lisa's most recent post, "No Guarantee," is a charmingly well-written but less-than-satisfying episode that ends with several important observations:
Sometimes we sow seeds we don't get to see grow. Sometimes we expend effort and it has no impact. Sometimes little things we do without noticing make all the difference.
What do people with money really care about? I assume that most of the people in airports have some extra money to burn; you generally don't see poor folks in airports. I also assume that airport magazine shops know what they can most easily sell to people with some money to burn. It's natural selection in action at airports--the magazines that didn't sell have been weeded out of our airports. What do Americans with money care about? They care about the things that loom large on the covers of the magazines you can see in big airports. At a major airport I recently visited, I took six photos to give an idea of all of the types of magazines on display (click the title of this article to see the gallery of photos). In airport magazine shops, you'll see things such as movie stars, how to make money without much effort, the coolest electronic gadgets, almost naked bodies, romance, status symbols such as luxurious trips, fancy clothes and expensive cars, eating food and talking about dieting, corporate filtered news, how to impress others, and looking young, looking young, looking young . . . But can you really determine what people think a lot about by looking at the magazines they buy? I think so. This is definitely the sort of thing a Martian anthropologist would do to find out what people with at least some money really cared about. What don't they care about? Everything else. You won't see magazine covers featuring starving children or homely people. You won't find magazine covers telling you how to give up your wealth to others in need, how to speak truth to power, and how to hang around criminals, sick people and prostitutes like Jesus supposedly did. [gallery link="file"]