Why Take a Road Trip?

I claim to be a traveler. But I don't travel for business. I work from home, so there is not even a daily commute. I have been on only two commercial jets trips in the last decade. So how can I claim to be a traveler? My wife and I take road trips. During our most recent one, we distinctly experienced the disconnect between "travel" and "vacation." Recall National Lampoon's Vacation, but a longer trip, no kids, and most of our destination sites were (barely) still open. Had we left a few days later, and we would have missed much more. This latest trip (click on the map for more details) was an effort: We drove 6,000 miles in 22 days, across thirteen states, in a sedan that I'd bought new for $12k in 1998. It now has over 185,000 miles on it, but still averaged better than 36 mpg for the journey. We took some stretches of older roads to better see America. My narcissistic self photo-blogged as we went. At least on days when there was enough time left for writing and digital darkroom work. About half of the trip got posted only after we got back. But my subscribers could keep track of where we were because I'd skip days and back fill rather than writing from beginning to end. I didn't report certain points in my travelogue, in the interest of time. A tour guide under Seattle asked the group how far we'd traveled. The farthest was from Japan. I mildly resented the question, because the farthest of these "travelers" simply walked into an aluminum tube and were delivered to this city a few hours later. Practically teleportation. But our trip was a journey of several days longer than that of any of these other folks. We worked harder to get here, and know the route. Travel, to me, is a process in the spirit of the Odyssey. Popping to a new town by jetliner isn't really travel because there is no transition. A flight to New Orleans is exactly like a flight to San Francisco. But if you drive, one route traverses woods, bayous and moss forests, and the other covers mountains, deserts, and ferny rain forests. When driving, you know that you are in a different world, and get a feel for why the endpoint is how it is. We do hit the road with a destination in mind, but remain open to seeing what we can see. As in "The bear went over the mountain" song, the target is the mountain. But the goal is yet to be determined. Yes, this song was stuck in my head a few times on the trip. But some of the best stops were unplanned detours. In my youth I was a poor candidate for a road tripper; I got car sick. Any ride more than a half hour, however smooth, had me heaving. I survived family trips to Florida and Michigan, and an annual week at Bull Shoals Lake (about 8 hours away back before I-44 was opened). By the end of each trip my car sickness would subside. We even drove all over Europe when I was 11, so I decorated roadsides in many countries. Travel was not a good word to me. But I had enjoyed reading Henry Reed's Journey so much when I was 8, that I re-read it annually till I was as old as -- and even a few years older than -- the protagonist. I've also read several other classic road trip books. And there was the TV Series "Route 66". I even have a cousin featured in a chapter of The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. So my early nauseated travel disposition was largely trained and enticed out of me. Sadly, the tradition of a road trip grew until 1960's, and then withered up. I think that three major factors did it in:

  • Dropping air fares made flight cheaper than road travel except for the largest families. Figure in gas and motels versus car rental, and a trip longer than a couple of hundred miles became cheaper to fly.
  • The Eisenhower Interstate system created level and straighter and restricted access routes, often replacing or bypassing the WPA Roosevelt Federal Highways. This turned travel from adventure to boredom. How can you stop for the cutie in the produce stall when they are forbidden to be within 100' of the road on which you are forbidden to park? At 75mph, a tourist draw needs to be advertised miles in advance on huge and expensive billboards, and is expected to provide every amenity.
  • And television brought the world into your living room in living color. The producers want you to feel as though you've been there. But until you actually go to these places, you don't know how much you are missing. Now the internet lets you view almost any place you want to, real time and on demand. Why go anywhere? Here's the Colorado River in Canyonlands. But you cannot feel the breeze, hear the subsonic rumble of the water, or smell the piñon pines.
One now can cross the country on the ground without ever seeing a town smaller than a big city. The older roads were slightly slower, but much more interesting to drive. One had to slow down for towns and see things by the road. Even in between towns, you were only feet away from the cows and trees, not 1/4 mile away. As Piet Hein put it in his 1960's Grook
[caption id="attachment_15038" align="alignright" width="225" caption="Click to Shop for Grooks books"][/caption]

Road Sense

God save us, now they're murdering another winding road,
and another lovely countryside will take another load
of pantechnicon and car and motorbike. They're busy making bigger roads, and better roads and more,
so that people can discover even faster than before that everything is everywhere alike.
I disagree that everywhere is alike. Sure, the near-instant transportation that the end of the 20th century took for granted is homogenizing culture. So too is the media endorsement of multiculturalism making all products available in all cities. But there is still regional pride. But you may have to get off the interstate to find it. Also, some of the improved divided Federal Highways are not quite as bland as interstates. Yet. These sections of road have one direction on modern, flat, straight pavement, and the other way is still the old, scenic roller coaster road. US-36 in Missouri is still like that. If you are going east, it is almost like taking the old roads. Alas, our country is now full of ghost towns. Not just the old wild-west and mining boom towns that were tourist stops half a century ago. A few still are. But now most of the highway tourist boom towns of the 30's through 70's are largely boarded up. Some states worked to preserve the old highway life. As did Oklahoma with its turnpike paralleling US-66. But the old classic motels and diners of the heyday of mid 20th century travel are dead or dying where the old road drifts too far from free interstates. Road travel is a somewhat poignant experience, as I feel nostalgia for the era I missed. But there is still a living culture of travel. TV shows like Rare Visions Road Trip and websites like RoadsideAmerica.com try to keep it alive. But relatively few people actually go to these locations. Too many are satisfied to see them on their HDTV, not knowing what they miss. And the only way to find out is to travel. Knowledge may be what you read or are told. But wisdom is what you find out the hard way; what you work to learn. The serendipitous adventure of a road trip, however well planned, brings wisdom and understanding of our country, its culture, and its destiny.

Continue ReadingWhy Take a Road Trip?

That psychopath in the mirror

In the September/October 2010 edition of Scientific American Mind, I recently read an article titled "Inside the Mind of a Psychopath," by Kent Kiehl and Joshua W Buckholtz. Who are psychopaths? The authors claim that psychopaths are people whose brains have "gone wrong." They claim that psychopaths make up .5 to 1% of the general population, adding up to 250,000 psychopaths living freely in the United States. They offer a list of criteria for determining whether a person is a psychopath, mentioning that "everyone falls somewhere on the psychopathic continuum." What are the basic symptoms?

One of the most striking peculiarities of psychopaths is that they lack empathy; they are able to shake off as mere tinsel the most universal social obligations. They lie and manipulate yet feel no compunction or regrets-in fact, they don't feel particularly deeply about anything at all. So much for the way regular people make sense of the world is through emotion. It informs our gut decisions, our connections to people and places, our sense of belonging and purpose. It is almost impossible to imagine life without findings-until you meet a psychopath. But psychopaths often cover up their deficiencies with a ready and engaging charm, so it can take time to realize what you are dealing with.
Fair enough, but I'd like to focus on that idea that all of us fall along this continuum. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingThat psychopath in the mirror

The Pope speaks. Richard Dawkins replies.

Only a few weeks ago, the Pope arrived at Edinburgh to blame people like me (I don't belong to a religion) for the Nazi holocaust. These outrageous claims constitute the kind of abject bigotry that can lead to ostracism and violence against those of us who, sincerely and after careful consideration of the evidence, do not believe in supernatural beings. As reported by The U.K. Guardian:

Benedict XVI used the first papal state visit to Britain to launch a blistering attack on "atheist extremism" and "aggressive secularism", and to rue the damage that "the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life" had done in the last century. The leader of the Roman Catholic church concluded a speech, made before the Queen and assembled dignitaries at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, with the argument that the Nazi desire to eradicate God had led to the Holocaust and a plea for 21st-century Britain to respect its Christian foundations.
Incredibly, he described pedophilia as an 'illness' whose sufferers had "lost their free will." The Guardian article is well worth a read. It offers a fascinating look into the corrupted soul of the Vatican. Richard Dawkins had more than a few pointed things to say about the Pope and his church. In fact, his speech took the form of an sharp indictment. I couldn't agree more with Dawkins, even though it somewhat pains me to say this. You see, I was raised Catholic and I have many friends who are still practicing Catholics who are generous, kind and thoughtful. It's a pity that their spiritual leader would rather blame secularists and allow millions of people to die by depriving them of condoms, than to own up to the mass-rape perpetrated and covered up by many of the "leaders" of his Church. On top of that, consider the Catholic Church's systemic disparagment of women. Such horrifically screwed up priorities. For many years, the Vatican has annoyed me with its pomposity and hypocrisy, exacerbated by the way the mass media fawns over so many things that Popes utter, rarely pointing out the vagueness or the absurdities. I'm afraid that I've now reached a tipping point. It's time to completely disregard the fact that the Pope is revered by so many others. Despite the fact that the Pope dresses up in expensive clothes and that he works extremely hard to obscure his absurdities with impenetrable language allegedly based on ancient books, he plainly stands before us as a man whose head is filled with numerous terrible ideas. Here's what Dawkins had to say:

Continue ReadingThe Pope speaks. Richard Dawkins replies.

Things I don’t have to think about…

From Whatever. "Today I don’t have to think about those who hear “terrorist” when I speak my faith. Today I don’t have to think about men who don’t believe no means no. Today I don’t have to think about how the world is made for people who move differently than I do. Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m married, depending on what state I’m in. Today I don’t have to think about how I’m going to hail a cab past midnight." "Today I don’t have to think about whether store security is tailing me. Today I don’t have to think about the look on the face of the person about to sit next to me on a plane. Today I don’t have to think about eyes going to my chest first. Today I don’t have to think about what people might think if they knew the medicines I took. Today I don’t have to think about getting kicked out of a mall when I kiss my beloved hello." "Today I don’t have to think about if it’s safe to hold my beloved’s hand. Today I don’t have to think about whether I’m being pulled over for anything other than speeding. Today I don’t have to think about being classified as one of “those people.” Today I don’t have to think about making less than someone else for the same job at the same place. Today I don’t have to think about the people who stare, or the people who pretend I don’t exist." [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThings I don’t have to think about…

God is good

Prologue: This post does not apply to Christians who conclude that "God" was evil to the extent that "He" killed babies. Nor does it apply to Christians who don't believe that the Old Testament is literally true, and further conclude that "God" never actually killed babies as described in the Old Testament. In short, this post applies only to those who believe that A) God really killed numerous little babies, and B) that God is nonetheless "good." Whenever I hear believers proclaim that “God” is “good” I am puzzled. How could it possibly be that an all-knowing and omnipotent being could engage in the many atrocities attributed to “God” in the bible? For example, how can killing little babies ever be considered to be good? Here are 1,199 more examples of cruelty from the Bible. Anyone but “God” who engaged in such behavior would be universally proclaimed to be evil, not good. There’s no way to avoid this conundrum for believers, especially for Bible literalists. The God they repeatedly praise purportedly killed many thousands of innocent people, including countless numbers of babies. Consider also, that other Bible passages show little regard for the lives of infants and fetuses. The above passages cause me to consider this question: Do believers sincerely believe their claims that “God” is “good,” or are they merely being practical in the face of the threat of hell? To what extent is it that it is the perceived threat of hell causes it to seem “true” that a baby-killing God is “good”? Sam Harris raises a similar issue at page 33 of his new book, The Moral Landscape (2010):

What if a more powerful God would punish us for eternity for following Yahweh’s law? Would it then make sense to follow Yahweh’s law “for its own sake”? The inescapable fact is that religious people are as eager to find happiness and to avoid misery as anyone else: many of them just happen to believe that the most important changes in conscious experience occur after death (i.e., in heaven or in hell).

Indeed, what if a bigger stronger god named Kyle came along and smote Yahweh, showing all the world Yahweh’s lifeless supernatural “corpse” while declaring “God is Dead!” (Were this ever to happen, it would likely make atheist Friederick Nietzsche jostle in his grave). Wouldn’t believers quickly modify their existing hymnals, scratching out “God” and inserting “Kyle”? What might they do to the traditional hymn, “God is so Good”? Something like this? [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingGod is good