Archive for June, 2009

Dear Dad:

It’s impossible to explain a father’s influence on his son in something as measly as a letter.  I could write volumes and still have more to say.  So let me just talk about your shoes.

Although more than forty years have passed since I was a little boy, I still remember waiting for you to walk through the front door at night after work.  You were HUGE.  You wore dark suits and serious business shoes, usually black or brown wingtips, polished to a high shine.  You always struck me as being in a bit of a hurry, and when you strode across our wooden floors, those shoes went BOOM-BOOM-BOOM

I wanted to grow up as soon as I could and wear shoes like yours.  Sometimes I would pull a pair of wingtips out of your closet and remove the wooden stretchers – which took some effort for a skinny kid like me – and slip those big shoes over my feet.  I’d try walking in them, stepping carefully to avoid tripping.  I wasn’t big enough to make them BOOM, but I liked the way they looked.

I knew the wingtips were your working shoes.  I didn’t really understand what kind of work you did, but I knew working was how you took care of us.  I knew the dark suits and the booming shoes and the daily trips to your office were the reason we lived in a nice house, and also the reason we didn’t look like the shabbily-dressed kids we saw when Mom took us along for her charity work.

Now and then you took Jerry and me to the office on a Saturday when you needed to catch up on some paperwork.  We enjoyed those office trips, partly because of the old-fashioned soda dispenser, the kind with rows of metal rails that held the bottles upright by the necks. For a dime – you always seemed to have dimes in your pocket – we could slide a bottle along those rails and out the side to release it. The lid was heavy and you had to hold it up for us.  But that was easy for you because you were HUGE.

I liked the way your office smelled … like paper and ink.  I liked the starkness of the fluorescent lights.  I liked looking at the photo on your wall of someone handing you a plaque and shaking your hand.  I knew that whatever you did, you were good at it, good enough that people wanted to shake your hand.  When I sat and did math exercises at my desk in school, I pretended I was in my own office, doing important work that would make someone want to shake my hand.

I don’t know exactly when I decided I didn’t want to grow up and be just like you. Certainly by the time I enrolled in college, I knew I’d never be happy wearing dark suits and working in an office.  I rejected your advice about majoring in accounting.  I explained, somewhat hesitantly, that accounting might appeal to you, but I’d be bored out of my mind.

That’s when I began to realize you didn’t want me to grow up and be just like you, either.  When I chose pre-med for my major, you said that’s great, go for it, I’ll support you.  When I switched to psychology, you said that’s great, go for it, I’ll support you.  When I switched again to journalism as a junior, you said that’s great, go for it, I’ll support you. 

I’d like to say you were simply doing what any father would do, but I already knew that wasn’t true.  I had a girlfriend whose father disowned her when she switched her major from business to art; without any support from him, she graduated swimming in student-loan debt.  In high school I had a classmate who’d been told from birth he was going to be a doctor like his father, period, end of discussion.  He flunked organic chemistry in college and committed suicide.

When I had some humorous essays published after college, your golfing buddies told me how much they enjoyed reading them.  I was proud to be published, but more proud to know you’d been bragging about me to your friends.  When I announced I was going to quit my magazine job and go freelance, you said that’s great, go for it, I’ll support you – after all, you had quit a comfortable corporate job to run your own business and understood the drive to be independent.

And so, in a fit of optimism, I struck out on my own … and fell flat on my face.  That’s when I found out what “support” truly means.

It was embarrassing to spend part of my adult life living off loans from you, loans I knew you would never let me repay.  It’s still embarrassing when I think about it.  But I believe things happen for a reason; and even if they don’t, we can find our own reasons in them. 

Unlike Mom, you were never comfortable being affectionate. Until you became a grandpa, it took a couple of tall drinks to pry the words “I love you” from your lips.  I knew you loved me, but I didn’t fully understand that you love me, period, no matter what, just like Mom. 

I kept expecting one of those loans to come with a lecture attached, firm instructions to wise up, let go of my childish dreams, go get a real job as a sales rep.  But that never happened.   When you said anything at all, it was along the lines of, “Don’t worry.  Do something you love, and be the best at it. Things will get better.”  Those years, painful as they were, finally made it clear to me that you didn’t just support me.  You supported me.

I’m happy with my life, Dad.  It’s been a thrill to play in a band, act in plays, publish humor in magazines, travel the country as a standup comedian, and produce a film.  But without you behind me, I wouldn’t have done half of those things.  At some point, I would’ve given up.

I once asked another comedian what his parents thought of his act.  He said they’d never seen him perform; they didn’t think standup comedy was a respectable career, and they weren’t going to encourage him by showing up.  He asked if you and Mom had seen my act.  I just said yes; I didn’t think it would be polite to say, “Yes, many times, and they bring their friends.”

You didn’t choose my path, and I didn’t follow in your footsteps.  But when I look back, I realize I’ve worn your shoes many times. 

When I left a secure job to pursue my own goals, I was wearing your shoes. When I wrote clearly and powerfully, I was wearing your shoes.  When I made people laugh out loud with a witty observation, I was wearing your shoes.  When I worked and re-worked a programming project to get it exactly right, believing that “good enough” isn’t good enough, I was wearing your shoes.  Every time I returned money to someone who accidentally overpaid me, or gave to a charity, or helped someone in distress without expecting anything in return, I was wearing your shoes.

These past few years have not been kind to you, Dad.  Cancer, Alzheimer’s and age have diminished your body and your mind.  Your quick steps have slowed to a shuffle.  I’ve had to hold your arm and help you navigate the single step from the garage into the house so you don’t trip over it.  On some days, you don’t recognize Mom and have to ask who she is.  I know the next time I visit, you may not know who I am.

But I know who I am.  I’m your son.  And in my mind, you’ll always be huge … and you’ll always BOOM when you walk.

I love you, Dad.  Thanks for the shoes.

Comments 6 Comments »

Clips from news stories published in the past year:

The coldest summer ever? You might be looking at it, weather folks say. Right now the so-called summer of ‘08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.

This winter has been one of the toughest in decades, with temperatures today reaching as low as -38C in large areas of the Midwest. 

Germany marked record low temperatures for the third day in a row on Thursday, with meteorologists measuring a frosty -33.4 degrees Celsius (-28 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Bavarian Alps in the early morning hours.

Flint broke a 95-year-old record early Wednesday morning when the temperature plummeted to a frigid 19 below zero.

Charlottes Pass at 13 degrees below average set a new Australian record for cold today at -13 degress celcius. This sets a new cold record for April for anywhere in Australia.

If it seemed cold to you in Green Bay on Saturday, it was. The high temperature for the day, reached at 9:50 a.m., was 52. That set a record for the lowest high temperature for June 6, according to the National Weather Service office in Ashwaubenon. The old mark was 53, set in 1943.

Last summer was one of the coolest on record.  It was followed by one of the coldest winters on record, which in turn was followed by a record-cool spring.  May in New Zealand was the coldest on record … but the resorts were delighted, because ski season arrived early.  In Michigan, farmers are concerned that frost is killing off their crops – in June. 

Meanwhile, it turns out the ice in Antarctica is 1) thicker than scientists had previously believed, and 2) appears to be getting even thicker, except in the west. 

Faced with these inconvenient truths, several prominent members of the media apologized for having such a girl-crush on Al Gore, promised they’d no longer count U.N. bureaucrats with no scientific background as “scientists” who believe humans are causing global warming, and assured the public they will stop referring to CO2 – one of the most common and natural substances on the planet – as a “pollutant.”

Kidding!  Of course that didn’t happen.  Good news doesn’t sell newspapers or draw ratings, and good news on the climate doesn’t support the agenda of the media’s favorite political party and the president they openly worship.  (I’m assuming they would view a cooling trend as good news, which is itself debatable.  Warm weather supports life.  Cold weather kills.)

Instead, we are being treated to the same old scare-mongering.  I recently bookmarked this article on the MSNBC site, which offers a harrowing vision of what the U.S. could look like in 2100 if we don’t stop global warming:  forest fires, hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, beachfront property in the Rockies … oh my! 

Well, yeah, the country could end up like that.  Or, given the current cooling trend, Americans could end up freezing their asses off while paying through the nose for heating fuel, thanks to all the “cap and trade” schemes designed to stop global warming.  Either scenario is possible, and of course the MSNBC article is pure conjecture.  But look at the words the writer chose:

We can still turn it around, but here is the world our grandchildren will live in if we don’t. 

Pardon me?  This is the world our grandchildren will live in?!  She doesn’t know that any more than I know they’ll be ice-skating in Miami. 

And you wonder, “Is climate disaster already upon us?” Scientists say the answer is “yes.”

Uh, no … some scientists say the answer is “yes.”  Some also say the answer is “no,” or at least “we have no idea.”  An anti-Kyoto petition states:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

That petition has been signed by 31,000 scientists, including 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, or environmental science.  (They apparently forgot to consult with Al Gore before forming their opinions.)

After I read the article online about how the Antarctic ice is getting thicker, I kept my eyes open to see how often the story was picked up by major U.S. newspapers and TV networks.  As far as I can tell, it wasn’t – but a story about the ice thinning in the western region of Antarctica was.

A more recent news story warned that CO2 “pollution” is estimated to increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years or so.  (Oh my gosh!  My kids will have to wave the stuff out of their faces just to see where they’re walking!)  The story doesn’t say anything that isn’t true, you understand – that is the official government estimate.  But a journalist without an agenda might bother to mention a few facts to provide a little perspective, such as:

  • It’s an estimate … one that assumes we won’t develop a new means of producing energy in the next 30 years.
  • If humans increase their CO2 output by 40 percent, that doesn’t mean CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will rise by 40 percent.  Humans produce a fraction of the CO2 emitted – about 5%.  (Plants and animals contribute more of the “pollutant.”  That’s why the greenies are so upset about cow farts.)
  • Carbon dioxide makes up about .039% of the atmosphere, and is estimated to account for about 2.3% of the total greenhouse effect.

So the real story is that if nothing changes in our energy use, humans will add another 40 percent to the small fraction they emit of a gas that causes a teensy bit of the total greenhouse effect.  Is that enough to tip the atmospheric balance, give the earth “a fever,” melt the ice caps, and sink Manhattan?  I don’t know.  Neither does Al Gore.  Neither does whoever wrote the story.  But given our record-cold temperatures over the past year, I doubt it.

The scare-mongers will, of course, start coming up with ad-hoc theories to explain the cold weather:  It’s an anomaly, you see, so it doesn’t mean anything … Without man-made global warming, it would’ve been even colder, and when this anomaly is over, we’re going to be cooking the planet again … Well, global warming actually causes colder weather … Global warming?  Did we say “global warming?”  We meant “climate change,” and by gosh, look at the change in climate!

Real scientists have a word for ad-hoc theories:  bull@#$%.  I learned a lot about ad-hoc theories while researching my documentary Fat Head.  Ad-hoc theories are how bad scientists explain results they don’t like.  Ad-hoc theories are how the anti-fat hysterics defend the “saturated fat causes heart disease” theory, despite all the evidence against it. 

In real science, you propose a hypothesis, then check the data as it comes in to see if it supports the hypothesis.  If the data doesn’t support the hypothesis, a real scientist concludes that the hypothesis is probably wrong.  (Unfortunately, real scientists are becoming a rare breed in some fields.)  The recent cooling trend certainly doesn’t support the theory that human beings are giving the planet a fever.

So what’s causing the cooling trend?  Nobody knows for sure.  But buried beneath all the noise about man-made global warming, there has long been a competing hypothesis to explain climate change:  sun spots.  According to this theory, sun spots produce warmer temperatures on earth.

The bad thing about this theory is that it has zero appeal to leftists.  You can’t blame American corporations, industrialization, capitalism, greed, the World Bank, Republicans in general or George W. Bush specifically for what happens on the sun.  U.N. bureaucrats can’t release position papers on global sun-spot initiatives and feel self-important.  Environmental groups can’t raise millions of dollars by promising to fight sun spots.

 The good thing about this theory is that it seems to fit the actual data; when scientists compare historical warming and cooling trends (and there have been several of them) to sun-spot activity, there’s a strong correlation. Lots of sun spots, warmer temperatures.  Fewer sun spots, cooler temperatures.

And guess what?  Sun-spot activity has been declining lately.  If the decline continues, we could even be heading into a “little ice age” – the kind Newsweek warned about in 1975 before jumping on the global-warming bandwagon a decade or so later.

Below, I’ve posted YouTube clips of a lecture by one of the many scientists who dispute the idea that we’re warming up the planet.  (As far as I know, he doesn’t deny the Holocaust.)  But first, here’s my favorite news clip from the previous year:

Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday – the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922.

Comments 10 Comments »