================================================================== Stuck In Traffic "Current Events, Cultural Phenomena, True Stories" Issue #42 - February 2004 =================================== Cultural Phenomena: Parking Rudeness One of my pet peeves are people who think they are too good to endure life's little inconveniences that all the rest of us endure without even thinking about it. Take, for example, walking across the parking lot. When you pull into the parking lot of a store, chances are that you start at the closest parking spots and work your way back until you find an empty parking space. Sometimes, you're lucky. You'll find a spot on the first row nearest the door. Sometimes, you're not so lucky. You find yourself hiking a bit across a hot/cold/rainy/windswept/whatever parking lot. We don't even think about this because it's such a minor annoyances; but there are people in this world who think they are too good to have to endure such mundane, trivial inconveniences. I was heading over to Wal-Mart two nights ago to buy a fluorescent light bulb. It was about 10pm at night. (For those of you readers that live in the Raleigh-Durham Area, the New Hope Commons Wal-Mart in Durham is now open 24 hours a day. ). Anyway, I got an average parking spot and was headed across the parking lot to the front door. Not one. Not two. Not three. But FOUR different cars had parked in the fire lane right in front of the entrance doors. This pissed me off in a deeply fundamental way. But I'm typically the charitable sort so I started running through my mind a list of possible explanations. Could there have been some sort of emergency? What sort of emergency could be so ultra important that these people couldn't park in a parking space like the rest of us? Maybe there was a medical emergency? There is a pharmacy at this particular Wal-Mart. I happened to need to pick up some stuff in that general area so I peeked. The Pharmacy was not open and there was no one hanging around there like they were in serious trouble due to lack of medicine. None of the cars had their emergency flasher lights on either. I would think that if you had a legitimate emergency in which saving the 10 seconds it takes to walk across the parking lot is actually an issue, if you had am emergency that was so important that you would park in a fire lane that is clearly marked as a fire lane, which, last I checked, is against the law, you might have sense enough to turn on your emergency flashers to let any law enforcement officers that might be passing by know that the reason you broke the law is due to an emergency. But there was no evidence that I could see of any emergency. The next hypothesis I tested in my mind, in my charitable attempt at making excuses for these people, was, well, maybe they had parked there because they are picking up something big and bulky. In my view, this is perfectly reasonable. I've seen Wal-Mart employees help people load stuff into cars parked in the fire lane. So I know that Wal-Mart is OK with this sort of thing. But this hypothesis was quickly ripped to shreds. First of all, the cars were parked in the fire lane by the entrance doors of Wal-Mart, not the exit. If you were buying a 72 inch color TV for your upcoming Super Bowl party, wouldn't you park your truck next to the exit, where, presumably, there's the shortest possible path to haul the TV? Besides, both as I was walking in to the store and walking out 10 minutes later, there was no sign of any sort of loading and unloading activity. Furthermore there was only one vehicle, an SUV, that would have even been capable of hauling something big enough that it would be inconvenient to have to haul it across the parking lot. Next hypothesis, there are one or more people in the cars that are sufficiently handicapped that there really is a significant difference in burden between parking near the entrance vs. parking at the back of the lot. That's cool. I don't mind handicapped folks getting the good parking spots. Honest, I don’t. But as I was exiting the Wal-Mart, I made a quick swing by the row of suspiciously parked cars to look for handicapped stickers. Not a one was to be found. And even handicapped people need to park in a designated handicapped parking space. They don't have a right to ease their burden to the point that they potentially endanger the lives of others by preventing a fire truck from getting to where it needs to go. Those were all the semi-plausible explanations I could think of. All were invalidated by the evidence at hand. So the only hypothesis I have left is that the owners of the four cars who parked in front of the Wal-Mart at New Hope Commons shopping center in Durham, North Carolina at 10pm on January 2cd, 2004 are, each and every one, arrogant, lazy, inconsiderate, reckless fools. It's times like that you wish you had a digital camera with you! How do people get this self-centered? How do they get this arrogant? Isn't it enough to know that there are simple rules and conventions that everyone is expected to follow in order to assure equitable access and safety for all? Do people think that as long as they don't get caught by the police, it's ok to do this? Is there any reason people can't be polite and considerate? Isn't there any sort of satisfaction from being considerate of others anymore? The real question on my mind, the one that's been nagging at me the past two days is, what should I have done about it? I remember reading in an etiquette guide once that the rudest thing of all is to make a spectacle of someone else's bad manners. On is supposed to assume that bad manners are a result of ignorance, not malice. And for the record, I did nothing in this situation. So I guess I could claim to be following this advice. But this course of action doesn't provide any means of correcting the wrong. True, it's a minor thing. We aren't talking deep moral issues here, just minor infractions of common courtesy. But what would have been the right thing to do? In my mind, I fantasized about taking digital photos of the transgressor's cars, complete with license plate numbers at such an angle that you could see that they were clearly parking in the fire lane, and then creating a web site devoted to publicizing them. There would have been a certain satisfaction in it, but it also violates the no spectacle rule. Maybe I should have reported them to the police. Well, I'm sure there is some sort of statute that as being violated that night which would have warranted a ticket of some sort. But I can't help but wonder if the Durham police would have been able to take the time for such a minor thing. I could, perhaps, have reported it to the Wal-Mart manager. But that just shift's the responsibility. Then the question would be, what should the manager do about it and all the same questions have to be answered. The most appropriate response I came up with was to write a note and stick on their windshield that simply stated that it's a courtesy to others to park in properly marked spaces, not to mention a fire hazard to park where they were. Or I could have waited around for the people to return to their cars and ask them why they parked there and did the realize it's a fire hazard, etc. Maybe next time, that's exactly what I'll do. =================================== Cultural Phenomena: The Ethical iPod “Don't steal music.” That's part of the instructions in the iPod Getting Started guide. Likewise, the iTunes Help library repeats this advice in the section discussing how to add files from the internet to your iTunes library. Is this a command? A statement of law? A plea? Perhaps a little of all three. It's possible that this statement has the unintended consequence of giving iPod owners a false impression, that the only thing preventing them from stealing music is their good conscience. This isn't the case. In fact, the iTunes/iPod system has a set of built in ethics that match commonly accepted conventions about the ethics using music. Strictly speaking, it's impossible to use iTunes and iPod to steal music What are the ground rules? Fortunately, none of us has to be a legal expert in copyright law to have a good understanding about what's right and wrong when it comes to owning and listening to music. Despite the thousands of different copyright laws in thousands of overlapping jurisdiction, there is a baseline of understanding across the world. In some areas, this understanding is willfully and shamelessly violated; but the common understanding is still there. Let's start simple. You go to your local music store. You browse the shelves/bins of CD jewel cases. The jewel case try to sell you on the music inside as well as advertise a price. You pick one out. (Or in my case, you pick out 10) You head to the check out line. You pay your money to the store and you walk out of the store. After wrestling with the shrink wrap and the stickers on the jewel case, you extract the CD out of the case and put it into your favorite boom box, car stereo, or computer drive and play it, reveling in the auspicious yet heavily dissonant chords of Billy and the Banshees. Fun. So far so good. No problem here. What if your friends are in the room with you while you listen to The Banshees? What if they are engaged in full-on head banging right along with you? People don't seem to have a problem with this either. Music, at least the enjoyment of music, is meant to be shared. What if you lend your CD to a friend so he can share in your full appreciation of Billy and the Banshees? No one seems to think this is a problem from an ethical viewpoint. Perhaps it's because as long as your friend has possession of the CD, you are unable to play it yourself. There is never a case where more than one person can play the CD. But the eyebrows start raising when you make copies of the CD and start handing it out to all your friends. Some how this just doesn't seem right. At this point, most people would agree that you are denying the CD producers something that's rightfully their, namely money. Our common concept of what is right and wrong with regard to music is tied up with the physical manifestation of the music. I.e., physical ownership of the CD. When you buy a CD, you buy the right to possess the CD. And while you don't sign a legal agreement to such effect, there is at least an implicit agreement, if not a legal statute, which prevents you from making duplicates of the CD and giving it away. Regardless of the finer points of the law, our common understanding is that when you buy a CD, you are NOT buying limited rights to play the music. Our common understanding is that you can play the CD whenever, however, and to whomever you want That's why the case of sharing a single CD with a friend is OK while making a duplicate of a CD for your friend not OK. Keep this in mind. Right and wrong in purchasing and using music is tied up with physical possession of the media. Keeping Track of Who Owns What in iTunes and iPod iTunes is a software program that runs on the Mac as well as Windows-based machines. It is used to manage the music you have a right to listen to. In iTunes, music can come from one or more “sources,” which are listed in the sources pane in the iTunes window: Your local iTunes library: This is a directory (or set of directories) on your computer's hard drive that contains music files. In the internet world, these music files are analogous to the physical CD. They are literally the physical manifestation of the music much in the same way that a CD represents a physical manifestation of music. True, a CD is a collection of songs, where a music file typically only represents one song. But this is not an important difference. The iPod: The iPod is portable device to which music can be downloaded and played. The iTunes store: This music source is a connection to the Apple run internet service for shopping for music. Internet Radio: This represents internet connections to a wide variety of internet radio stations that broadcast music over the internet. Remote iTunes Libraries: These are similar to the iTunes local library, but they reside on other people's computers. CD: If you put a CD into the CD drive of your computer, it will appear in your iTunes source list as a source of music. When you first start using iTunes, it can be confusing to understand what you can and can't do with each of these types of music sources. But if you reverse engineer the ethical principles built into the system, it becomes much easier to understand. As far as I can tell, here are the ethical principles that guide what you can and cannot do with iTunes and iPod. -- You can play music from any source. -- You can copy the physical media (i.e., the files) only if you already own the files. The first principle is pretty straight forward and is consistent with the idea of having your friends in the same room with you when you submerse yourself into the Banshee's madness. True, in the iTunes system people don't physically have to be in the same room. But sharing the playing of music is OK. The second principal is a little trickier. But the iTunes/iPod system seem to go as far as they can to prevent the copying of the physical music media. Let's look at how these principle's affect what you can and can't do with each of the iTunes music sources: Local iTunes library: Recall that the iTunes library is a collection of music media, much in the same way you have a collection of CDs sitting on a shelf in your house. You have physical possession of these files. Presumably, you have legal possession of these files. (More on this later). Therefore you can play any music file in your library. You can also share the right to play these music files with other people. If you choose to share some or all of your music files, other iTunes users on the same local network can connect to your iTunes library and play the songs, i.e., the music can be “streamed” from your library to their speakers. Think of these sharing privileges as a virtual room into which you let your friends to share your music listening experience. You can move the physical media from your iTunes library to other locations on your computer's hard drive. This would be analogous to moving a CD in your house from one shelf to another. You still have physical possession of the media. You have not transferred ownership of the media to anyone else. The iTunes Store: The iTunes store is listed as a “source” of music. But it's unique in that it cannot be used to play music. It can only be used to import music into your iTunes library. Because this import is an internet service, it works a little bit differently than moving files from other locations on your computer into the iTunes library. Specifically, you can only move files from the iTunes store to your iTunes library if you have paid for them and are the legitimate “owner” of the file. You can't move music from your iTunes library into the store. Because you can't physically play the music, the first principle does not apply. But the second principle is strongly enforced. You gotta pay for the files that come from this source. Internet Radio Stations: At some level, internet radio stations are exactly the opposite f the iTunes store. Like the iTunes store, they are internet services. But, unlike the iTunes store, they can NOT be used to import music into your iTunes library. The radio stations can only be used to play music that other people possess and own. In this case, the first principle applies, the playing of music can be shared by anybody to anybody. Because the radio stations cannot be used to move files into and out of the iTunes library, the second principle does not apply. Remote iTunes Libraries: From an ethical perspective, remote iTunes libraries are exactly like Internet radio stations. The technology and protocols used are different. But in both internet radio stations and remote iTunes libraries, the music is “streamed” directly from the physical files at the remote location to the speakers of your playing device. But you cannot copy files from the remote iTunes library to your local iTunes library. Just as with the radio stations, the first principle applies, the playing of music can be shared by anybody to anybody. Because the radio stations cannot be used to move files into and out of the iTunes library, the second principle does not apply. CD Source: The CD source is the most interesting case in terms of applying the two principles because it can be used to both play music and to import/export music from the iTunes library. Playing the CDs is easy to address because it doesn't matter who the rightful owner of the CD is. If you own the CD, then obviously you have the right to play it. If someone physically gave you the CD to put into your computer drive, then you can play it because sharing the ability to play music off the CD is consistent with the first principle. But what about moving music from the CD into your iTunes library. This is where we start getting into fuzzy ethical ground. If you are the rightful owner of the CD that gets inserted into your computer's hard drive, then you have the right to move that music from one location to another, from the CD to your iTunes library, just as you have the right to move a physical CD from one shelf to another in your house. Likewise, if you rightfully buy a song from the iTunes store, you are the owner of that file and have the right to move that file to physical CD (by burning the file on to a writable CD.) But what if the CD that gets inserted into your hard drive is owned by someone else? In this case moving the files from the CD into your iTunes library would violate the second principle. It would be similar to making duplicate copies of a physical CD and sharing them with friends. Likewise, taking music files that you rightfully own, burning them to CDs and then giving them to your friends would violate the second principle. The problem here is that there is no way to know whether the physical CD inserted into your computer's CD drive is owned by you or owned by someone else. Therefore it's impossible for iTunes to know whether copying files to or from a CD would violate the second principle or not. Doing the Best They Can For all sources of music except the CD drive, the ability to play music and copy music files in iTunes is perfectly consistent with the commonly understood ethics of music usage. It's burned into the system. People naturally behave ethically because there's no non-ethical way to use the iTunes/iPod system. There's no good way for iTunes to handle the ethics of using the CD drive because it's impossible to know who the rightful owner of the CD is. Apple could have written iTunes so that it could only play music files off of a CD, but this would prevent some legitimate uses of the CD player. Instead they enabled the ability to read and write files to the CD drive and are relying on people's conscience to ethically use the CD drive. But they can't resist including the one little reminder, the one little appeal to a clear conscience with the simple phrase: “Don't steal music.” =================================== True Story: Low-Carb Latte Had a rude awakening last night at the Caribou coffee shop in Chapel Hill. A few days earlier, I had visited another Caribou in Cary with my friends Amber and Lee and Chris. I had an Americano with Splenda in it as a sweetener because I'm doing the Atkins diet. But as we were chatting, Amber noticed a sign that Caribou is now selling low carb lattes. Cool! One of the hardest things to give up when I started the Atkins diet was my mocha latte. It's sinful both in terms of calories and sugar. But they sure were good. But there's just no room for such sins in the Atkins diet, so I switched to drinking regular coffee with artificial sweeteners, preferably Splenda. And, truth be told, I have grown to like my coffee this way and at some level I don't miss the lattes. Not that the coffee replaces the latte. It's like they are to totally different drinks. The latte is something I had to give up and for which there is no good substitute. The coffee is something I learned to appreciate and enjoy. But that was the case until the other night. Amber noticed a sign at the Caribou that advertised "low-carb latte". Woo Hoo!. I couldn't believe it. Never in a million years would I have expected a low-carb latte. Well, I had already had a fairly large Americano. Lord knows, I didn't need any more caffeine. But I absolutely had to satisfy my curiosity. So I bought one. Heaven! I tried the low-carb vanilla latte. (they also come in caramel flavor). It was sweet but not too sweet. It was very rich and creamy. I was warm and comforting. It had a strong vanilla flavor. I couldn't believe my taste buds. I savored it. I had not enjoyed food so much since I began my Atkins diet. This experience so shook me that all the next day I couldn't stop thinking about having another. I lasted about 18 hours. But the next afternoon, my car was on autopilot heading toward the Chapel Hill Caribou. I marched up to the counter and ordered another small low-carb vanilla latte. I got a bit of a strange look from the guy behind the counter. He was this early 20-something white kid, probably a college kid. Skinny as a rail in a scrawny sort of way, with hip glasses and trendy sideburns. Well, despite the fact that his type tries to corner the angst market, they don't know the angst of trying to diet. (Or at least, they don't know until they get a bit older.) So I figured he was just playing holier-than-thou with the whole diet thing. This is not to say he was the least bit rude or obnoxious. He wasn't. He was polite and professional the whole time. But there was obviously a bit of culture clash going on. In any case, he offered me a laminated piece of paper. The kind you see encasing menus at lower end restaurants. He said, you might be interested in the nutritional information about our skinny drinks (which is what they call them.) I started to launch into an explanation abut Atkins and net carbs, etc., but decided against it. In any case, the laminated page he gave me had three of those standard nutritional labels on each side of it. One side had the nutritional labels for the small, medium, and large size "low calorie" lattes. These had 80, 120, and 140 calories respectively. Not great, but not bad either considering what you are getting. Virtually none of the calories come from fat. So I flipped over to see the nutritional information for the low-carb lattes. That's when I got my rude awakening for the day. The small low-carb latte, the meager 12ounce coffee cup, had a whopping 780 calories! The medium had 1140. And the large weighed in at a stunning 1360 calories. Virtually all of these calories come from fat. I do not know the recipe for these drinks, but I suspect that they are made with heavy cream instead of milk, or at least partly made of heavy cream. This would explain the high calorie count, the high fat content, and the wonderful taste. Now, on Atkins, you're not supposed to have to worry about calories too much. The main thing behind the Atkins diet is that you want to keep your blood insulin levels stable and low. You want to deprive your body of carbohydrates so that it will switch to metabolizing your stored body fat for energy. And the low-carb lattes do fairly well in this arena. The small low-carb latte has 7 grams of carbs, of which 6 are sugar carbs. (In Atkins, you only count the carbs that affect your blood sugar level. These are called the "net carbs".) For someone who is on the beginning "induction" phase of Atkins, 6 grams of carbs is OK, but not great. In induction phase, you try to keep your daily intake of carbs under 20 and you try to avoid sugary carbs. instead you want to get your carbs from vegetables and things like that. But still, the low-carb latte would be OK as a "treat" during the induction phase. You would have to be careful about carb intake for the rest of the day. But given the fantastic taste, the 6 net carbs of sugar would probably be worth the taste. The medium low-carb latte has 9 net carbs and the large has 11. So these might be a bit much for someone on induction phase. Strictly speaking, Caribou has delivered on their low-carb drink. They do not have the Atkins seal of approval, but they are in fact low in net carbs. But I am convinced that under Atkins you need to watch both your net carbs every day as well as your overall calorie intake. In my view, the bottom line in dieting is always to consume less calories than you burn. My theory is that some people, due to the nature of their body, find it easier to do this under the low-carb Atkins regime. Some people find it easy to reduce their calorie intake by eating low-fat diets. In any case, I believe I need to limit my calories to about 2000 calories a day just to maintain my weight and a little less in order to lose weight. So spending 780 calories of my 2000 calorie a day "budget" is a big expense. It blows my mind to think that a 10 ounce cup can contain 40% of my daily calorie intake. Is the low-carb vanilla latte good enough for that? Hmmm, yes, I think it is. But the calorie count does take a bit of the fun out of it and reintroduce a tinge of guilt into the equation. =================================== Movie Review: 21 Grams Went to see the movie "21 grams" last night. A true art house flick if ever there was one. It stars Benicio Del Toro, Sean Penn, and Naomi Watts. The plot is extremely complicated and twisted. This is one of those films that you really gotta pay attention to. And it's not helped by the fact that the story is not told in chronological order. Scenes happen out of order. In some cases you see the same scene multiple times during the movie with a slightly different angle or emphasis or perhaps a slightly different period of time. Often the director will cut a scene just as it is reaching some sort of emotional climax, leaving you wanting to finish it up before moving on. Normally, this sort of thing would turn me off. Even if you can claim that the director successfully carried off this style, most of the time, all you can say about the film is that's it's just a sort of parlor trick. Not that much different than incorporating CGI effects in the latest action movie. Yes, they managed to make the computer simulated fire bomb look real, but was it a good story? 21grams is more than a slice-and-dice editing parlor trick however. Benecio Del Toro plays a guy living in urban hell, trying to escape his past of petty crime with the help of his local church and a (mostly) supportive wife. But one thing after another keeps pulling him down and challenging his faith. Naomi Watts is a middle aged woman trying to break the paralysis that has seized her life. And Sean Penn plays a man suffering through some sort of unspecified heart disease and is waiting on a heart transplant. Slowly, through the chaotic presentation of scenes from these separate character's lives we start to see glimpses of how their lives start coming together and intertwining in surprising ways. Surprising, but at the same time not the least bit unbelievable. This feels like real life. Visually, the movie is filled with urban dirt and decay, lending an air of messy bewilderment to the whole thing. But the chaos of the movie's presentation doesn't take away from the movie's climatic moment, when all three characters find themselves in the same room with each other. You have no idea how the ending is going to turn out and you surprisingly find yourself emotionally invested in all three characters in such a way that you don't want anyone to "lose" yet you don't see how it's possible for everyone to "win". There's many supporting characters in this movie, that add to the feeling that the principal characters are deeply embedded in a messy world with lots of loose ends hanging around. When the house lights go up in the theater and you walk out, you're not exactly going to feel uplifted, but at the same time you won't be disappointed either. In fact, you might feel a little bit like you've survived another day, maybe even ended it a bit better than you started. =================================== Movie Review: In America In America is one of the sweetest, most romantic tear-jerkers I've seen in a long, long time. So it's kind of surprising that I spent so much time watching this movie on the edge of my seat, afraid that someone was going to get killed. It's about an Irish family that illegally immigrates to America, for reasons we don't at first understand although it's hinted at in the very first scene. They move to New York City because Paddy, the father, is an actor. Practically penniless, Paddy, his wife Sara and their two young daughters move into a tenement inhabited by drug dealers, transvestites, homeless free loaders, and a very scary man simply known as "the man who screams." The naiveté' of the characters living in a very cold, rough city is more than enough to cause lots of tension for a movie, but as they struggle to get by on a day to day basis, you start to realize that every single one of them has brought with them from Ireland lots of emotional baggage that needs to be dealt with. Of course, love finds a way. But to give you any more details would ruin this great, life-affirming movie. =================================== Movie Review: The Station Agent If you like a well told story, a story told with subtle understatement, a story that's sweet and sentimental without pandering, a story that's funny without being slapstick, you absolutely must go see The Station Agent. The three main characters, an extremely introverted man with dwarfism, a Cuban hotdog vendor whose life is hampered by an ailing father, and a middle aged woman devastated by the loss of her son, slowly get intertwined into each other's life in very subtle ways that ring extremely true. Every scene seems totally natural like it could have really happened, and yet the movie is not a dull slice-of-life diorama either. And the great thing about the movie is that when everything gets resolved, it kinda surprises you because nothing really "big" has happened. But the movie's ending, which is a bit of a shock, is a shock exactly because you realize everything has been resolved. The resolution kinda sneaks up on you. I know that doesn't make much sense. Just go see the movie. ======================================= About Stuck In Traffic Stuck In Traffic is a monthly magazine dedicated to evaluating current events, examining cultural phenomena, and sharing true stories. Why "Stuck In Traffic"? Because getting stuck in traffic is good for you. It's an opportunity to think, ponder, and reflect on all things, from the personal to the global. As Robert Pirsig wrote in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, "Let's consider a reevaluation of the situation in which we assume that the stuckness now occurring, the zero of consciousness, isn't the worst of all possible situations, but the best possible situation you could be in. After all, it's exactly this stuckness that Zen Buddhists go to so much trouble to induce...." Contact Information All queries, submissions, subscription requests, comments, and hate-mail should be sent to Calvin Powers via E-mail (calvin (at) cspowers.com). Copyright Notice Stuck In Traffic is published and copyrighted by Calvin Powers who reserves all rights. Individual articles are copyrighted by their respective authors. Unsigned articles are authored by Calvin Powers. Availability The Web based version of Stuck In Traffic can be found at http://www.StuckInTraffic.com/ To subscribe to the free e-mail edition of Stuck In Traffic, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StuckInTraffic Trades If you publish a 'zine and would like to trade issues or ad-space, send your zine or ad to either address above. Alliances Stuck in Traffic supports the Blue Ribbon Campaign for free speech online. See http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html for more information. Stuck In Traffic also supports the Golden Key Campaign for electronic privacy and security. See http://www.eff.org/goldkey.html ==================================================================