Consider this . . .

Point to ponder. Take a moment to consider it. Then create your own point to think about, and share back.

Friday, July 28, 2006

Because it's there

Cliimbing a mountain just because it's there. What a concept ! Enjoy.

Explorer

In Provence, Honoring a Poet at 6,263 Feet

Ed Alcock for The New York Times

Hikers on the GR4 footpath, which follows the route up Mont Ventoux, in the Vaucluse region of Provence, that Petrarch took in 1336.

Published: July 30, 2006

THE spring day in 1336 when Petrarch climbed Mont Ventoux near Avignon in Provence, the Italian poet and humanist made history with his feet, mind and pen. As he wrote his father in a celebrated letter after the descent, “my only motive was the wish to see what so great an elevation had to offer.”

Skip to next paragraph
Ed Alcock for The New York Times

Mountain bikers follow Petrarch’s route on Mont Ventoux. Petrarch is considered by some to be the first mountaineer — and a pioneer of sightseeing.

Ed Alcock for The New York Times

Signs indicating routes up the mountain.

This wish — to visit an unfamiliar place solely to gain an unfamiliar perspective on the world — has afforded Petrarch a nomination in various histories as the first mountaineer, and as a pioneer of sightseeing. “The ascent of a mountain for its own sake was unheard of,” Jacob Burkhardt wrote in “The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy,” his classic 1860 book, which links Petrarch’s impractical action to later shifts in attitude toward nature and leisure by European painters and writers.

It was to honor Petrarch’s whim that I chose to climb Mont Ventoux, 670 years later but motivated by the same desire. To look at an enormous pile of rocks as something other than an obstacle requires imagination, and though others had trudged up steep inclines before him, they don’t seem to have shown his peculiarly modern attitude toward the journey.

Guidebooks to Provence commonly mention Petrarch’s 1336 feat in their entries on Mont Ventoux, at 6,263 feet the most visible landmark in the Vaucluse region. A popular tourist destination since the 19th century, with a variety of local products trading on its name from wine to honey, the mountain is the area’s only major ski resort in winter. In the summer entire families trek up and down and picnic on the wooded slopes of this limestone cone.

Since the 1930’s cars and bicycles have paraded up its sides as well. There are three paved routes — originating in the villages of Sault, Bedouin and Malaucène. The Tour de France has intermittently scheduled one of its most brutal stages of the race over the mountain. Cyclists face a gradient in some places of 10 percent, and fierce head winds.

My main qualm in scaling the mountain on April 26, the very day Petrarch is said to have made his ascent, was fear of running into other pilgrims. As I motored into Malaucène, where Petrarch writes that he began and ended his journey, I searched for commemorative signs. The French love to decorate their country with plaques in memory of deceased writers and patriots. In the village of Chamonix, for example, an enormous statue of Dr. Michel-Gabriel Paccard recognizes his 1786 ascent of Mont Blanc. But even though the French play host to annual conferences devoted to Petrarch, I could find nothing around Mont Ventoux to indicate that this was where he had walked uphill into history.

The woman in the Malaucène tourist office was baffled by my request. Surely, there must be a Petrarch trail, I asked her. She directed me to a young volunteer walking in the door. “Oui, le chemin de Petrarch,” she said, shaking her hair loose from her motorcycle helmet. She pulled out a map and directed me to the GR4 path, about 2,200 feet from the summit.

As I would be stepping off the next day in the dark, I drove up to reconnoiter. This was prudent. No signs to the GR4 trail were visible, and without a map I would have been clueless; only after walking for five minutes did I stumble upon a trail sign on a small brown post.

Before bed that night I reread a translation of Petrarch’s letter, originally written in Latin. He had drawn inspiration from a passage in Livy’s “History of Rome”: “where Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans, ascended Mount Haemus in Thessaly, from whose summit he was able, it is said, to see two seas, the Adriatic and the Euxine.” My authorial afflatus was Petrarch himself. He had climbed with his brother and two local servants. An old shepherd they encountered warned them to turn back: the mountain was haunted. I was heading up alone, but was certain I would run into kindred spirits along the way.

Leaving my hotel in the village of Mazan at 5 a.m., I drove half an hour, spiraling up from Malaucène, and found the parking area empty. I set off at 5:45, probing my way in the dark to the trailhead. My backpack held two blood oranges, a hard-boiled egg, a water bottle and a copy of St. Augustine’s “Confessions,” which Petrarch read aloud after completing his mission.

For the first half hour of my star-lighted hike, the pine cover deepened the chill of the morning. A chamois startled me by bounding headfirst down the mountain in the shadows ahead. But the rising trail, a series of switchbacks, was well marked, and gradually the eastern horizon brightened. Waking sparrows kept me company.

It wasn’t until I came across the first patches of snow that I sensed a problem. Packing my suitcase in New York, I had had to make a choice between the extra weight of hiking boots or more books, and the books won.

My Nike tennis shoes were fine on the dirt-and-stone path but offered no grip on ice. The higher I went, the more packed snow I encountered. At points I could plant my heels in the recent boot prints of hikers from previous days, but elsewhere I found myself slipping and bracing myself against loose rock. If it hadn’t been as perilous to retrace my steps, I would have turned back. My predicament was compounded by the thought that no one knew exactly where I was. The climbers who routinely follow this trail to watch the sun rise in summer, according to the guidebooks, were nowhere to be seen on the morning of April 26.

Petrarch never mentions ice and snow. The chief obstacle he faced was his own timidity. He berates himself for choosing easy, meandering grades while his brother chooses steeper ones. “I was simply trying to avoid the exertion of the ascent; but no human ingenuity can alter the nature of things, or cause anything to reach a height by going down,” he writes.

With his admonition in mind, and knowing that my ill-suited footwear couldn’t possibly be worse than his (leather drawstring boot? toggle latchet ankle shoe?), I pressed on. Twice, when the trail vanished, small blue arrows painted on outcroppings by earlier climbers pointed the way.

Emerging above tree line in tandem with the risen sun, I could at last see the communications tower at the summit. Another 20-minute trudge, a final 200-yard scamper over a snow field, and I was safely on the paved road. At 7:07 I reached the top of Mont Ventoux.

My sense of accomplishment was short-lived. The warmth of the sun in a cloudless sky was no match for swirling spring winds, a feature of the mountain that Petrarch fails to note. Velocities of 180 miles an hour have been recorded here; gusts often force closure of the road. I sought shelter behind the boarded-up snack stand. My freezing head and hands were not fooled. This was no fun.

The voices of crows riding the summit currents blended with the whine of the wind to mock me. As Petrarch’s shepherd had warned, the mountain was haunted. The poet rhapsodized about “the effect of the great sweep of view spread out before me”; he gazed east with an “irrepressible longing” toward his native Italy. The prospect is indeed impressive, with the Rhone Valley to the north and other mountain ranges, including the Dentelles de Montmirail — the Alps on a child’s scale and another splendid area for hiking — to the west and south. But I admired the landscape at the panoramic map table for only a minute or so before the wind buffeted me so much that I headed down, this time on the road.

Farther down the mountain, I found enough shelter from the wind to take off my backpack and scan my copy of St. Augustine. Petrarch claimed that he opened at random to the following passage in Book 10, which he read aloud to his brother: “And men go about to wonder at the heights of the mountains, and the mighty waves of the sea, and the wide sweep of rivers, and the circuit of the ocean, and the revolution of the stars, but themselves they consider not.”

My fingers were less apt. Instead of pertinent lines about the foolishness of human wishes, I opened to a passage, also in Book 10, about the Church Father’s “struggle each day against concupiscence in eating and drinking.” His words did not seem relevant to my spartan breakfast of oranges and water. If the chasm between Petrarch’s world and mine was no closer than when I began the climb, at least I was finally enjoying the mountain, which, until the first bicyclists came into sight two hours later, I had all to myself.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Faith & Science = God?

point to ponder: can faith in God and science co-exist ? These book reviews suggest several points of view. Enjoy.

Books on Science

Faith, Reason, God and Other Imponderables

Published: July 25, 2006

Nowadays, when legislation supporting promising scientific research falls to religious opposition, the forces of creationism press school districts to teach doctrine on a par with evolution and even the Big Bang is denounced as out-of-compliance with Bible-based calculations for the age of the earth, scientists have to be brave to talk about religion.

Skip to next paragraph

THE LANGUAGE OF GOD
By Francis S. Collins. Free Press, 2006.

THE GOD DELUSION
By Richard Dawkins. Houghton Mifflin, 2006

BREAKING THE SPELL: RELIGION AS A NATURAL PHENOMENON
By Daniel C. Dennett. Viking, 2006.

GOD’S UNIVERSE
By Owen Gingerich. Harvard University Press, 2006

EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIAN FAITH: REFLECTIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST
By Joan Roughgarden. Island Press, 2006.

THE CREATION: A MEETING OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION
by E.O. Wilson. W.W. Norton, 2006.

SIX IMPOSSIBLE THINGS BEFORE BREAKFAST: THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF BELIEF
By Lewis Wolpert.

Readers’ Opinions

Forum: Human Origins

Not to denounce it, but to embrace it.

That is what Francis S. Collins, Owen Gingerich and Joan Roughgarden have done in new books, taking up one side of the stormy argument over whether faith in God can coexist with faith in the scientific method.

With no apology and hardly any arm-waving, they describe their beliefs, how they came to them and how they reconcile them with their work in science.

In “The Language of God,” Dr. Collins, the geneticist who led the American government’s effort to decipher the human genome, describes his own journey from atheism to committed Christianity, a faith he embraced as a young physician.

In “God’s Universe,” Dr. Gingerich, an emeritus professor of astronomy at Harvard, tells how he is “personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos.”

And in “Evolution and Christian Faith,” Dr. Roughgarden, the child of Episcopal missionaries and now an evolutionary biologist at Stanford, tells of her struggles to fit the individual into the evolutionary picture — an effort complicated in her case by the fact that she is transgender, and therefore has views at odds with some conventional Darwinian thinking about sexual identity.

If his eminence in science were not so unassailable, a fourth author, the biologist E. O. Wilson of Harvard, might also be taking a chance by arguing that religion and science ought to take up arms together to encourage respect for and protection of nature or, as he calls it in his new book, “The Creation.”

Although he writes that he no longer embraces the faith of his childhood — he describes himself as “a secular humanist” — Dr. Wilson shapes his book as a “Letter to a Southern Baptist Pastor,” in hopes that if “religion and science could be united on the common ground of biological conservation, the problem would soon be solved.”

Coming as they do from a milieu in which religious belief of any kind is often dismissed as little more than magical thinking, this is bravery indeed.

But other new books, taking a different approach, also claim the mantle of bravery.

In “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and theorist of cognition at Tufts, refers again and again to the “brave” researchers (including himself) who challenge religion. In “The God Delusion,” Richard Dawkins, a professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford, once again likens religious faith to a disease and sets as his goal convincing his readers that atheism is “a brave” aspiration.

Of course, just as the professors of faith cannot prove (except to themselves) that God exists, the advocates for atheism acknowledge that they cannot prove (not yet, anyway ) that God does not exist. Instead, Drs. Dawkins and Dennett sound two major themes: a) the theory of evolution is correct, and creationism and its cousin, intelligent design, are wrong; and b) a field of research called evolutionary psychology can explain why religious belief seems to be universal among Homo sapiens.

But these sermons, which the authors preach with what can fairly be described as religious fervor, are unsatisfying.

Of course there is no credible scientific challenge to Darwinian evolution as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth. So what? The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God. People might argue about what sort of supreme being would work her will through such a seemingly haphazard arrangement, but that is not the same as denying that she exists in the first place.

In any event, as Dr. Gingerich argues, in simultaneously defending evolution and insisting upon atheism, Dr. Dawkins probably “single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists.”

And evolutionary psychology as a prism through which to view contemporary human behavior is open to many challenges. Some have come from critics who dismiss much of it as little more than “Just-So Stories” designed to explain or justify the status quo. So it seems strange to see its logic cited as a weapon against the story-telling aspects of religion.

All of which leads one to ask, who are these books for? The question is easy to answer when it comes to Drs. Collins, Roughgarden or Gingerich. First would be young people raised in religious families, who as they progress through school suddenly confront scientific reality that challenges Sunday morning dogma.

“I have been struck,” Dr. Roughgarden writes, “by how the ‘debate’ over teaching evolution is not about plants and animals but about God and whether science somehow threatens one’s belief in God.”

Or as Dr. Collins put it, when religions require belief in “fundamentally flawed claims” about the world, they force curious and intelligent congregants to reject science, “effectively committing intellectual suicide,” a choice he calls “terrible and unnecessary.”

But does science require the abandonment of faith? Not necessarily, and certainly not entirely, these authors argue.

Also, people who read these books will realize that it is impossible to tar all scientists with the brush of amorality. The books challenge those who fear that science and ethics may end up at war, a possibility raised by President Bush last week, when he vetoed legislation supporting stem cell research.

On the other hand, as the (atheist) physicist Steven Weinberg has famously put it, and as Drs. Dawkins and Dennett remind their readers, good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil, but for a good person to do evil — “that takes religion.”

But it is hard to believe that people who reject science on religious grounds will stick with the Dennett and Dawkins books, filled as they are with denunciation not just of their ideas but of themselves.

This is unfortunate because, as Dr. Roughgarden points out, it is crucial in our society for people of faith, the vast majority of our population, to understand the issues of contemporary science. “I’d love to discuss the moral issues of biotechnology within a community of faith,” she writes. “But most church congregations and their leaders are not prepared for those discussions.”

Perhaps another book, “Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast,” can help bridge that gap. It is by Lewis Wolpert, a biologist at University College London. It has been published in England, and it is to appear in the United States in January.

Dr. Wolpert writes about the way people think about cause and effect, citing among other work experiments on how we reason, how we assess risk, and the rules of thumb and biases that guide us when we make decisions. He is looking into what he calls “causal belief” — the idea that events or conditions we experience have a cause, possibly a supernatural cause.

Human reasoning is “beset with logical problems that include overdependence on authority, overemphasis on coincidence, distortion of the evidence, circular reasoning, use of anecdotes, ignorance of science and failures of logic,” he writes. And whatever these traits may say about acceptance of religion, they have a lot to do with public misunderstanding of science.

So, he concludes, “We have to both respect, if we can, the beliefs of others, and accept the responsibility to try and change them if the evidence for them is weak or scientifically improbable.”

This is where the scientific method comes in. If scientists are prepared to state their hypotheses, describe how they tested them, lay out their data, explain how they analyze their data and the conclusions they draw from their analyses — then it should not matter if they pray to Zeus, Jehovah, the Tooth Fairy, or nobody.

Their work will speak for itself.

Throwing the first punch

Instructive editorial about the "the who hit first" phenomenon. Enjoy.

Op-Ed Contributor

He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t

Published: July 24, 2006

LONG before seat belts or common sense were particularly widespread, my family made annual trips to New York in our 1963 Valiant station wagon. Mom and Dad took the front seat, my infant sister sat in my mother’s lap and my brother and I had what we called “the wayback” all to ourselves.

In the wayback, we’d lounge around doing puzzles, reading comics and counting license plates. Eventually we’d fight. When our fight had finally escalated to the point of tears, our mother would turn around to chastise us, and my brother and I would start to plead our cases. “But he hit me first,” one of us would say, to which the other would inevitably add, “But he hit me harder.”

It turns out that my brother and I were not alone in believing that these two claims can get a puncher off the hook. In virtually every human society, “He hit me first” provides an acceptable rationale for doing that which is otherwise forbidden. Both civil and religious law provide long lists of behaviors that are illegal or immoral — unless they are responses in kind, in which case they are perfectly fine.

After all, it is wrong to punch anyone except a puncher, and our language even has special words — like “retaliation” and “retribution” and “revenge” — whose common prefix is meant to remind us that a punch thrown second is legally and morally different than a punch thrown first.

That’s why participants in every one of the globe’s intractable conflicts — from Ireland to the Middle East — offer the even-numberedness of their punches as grounds for exculpation.

The problem with the principle of even-numberedness is that people count differently. Every action has a cause and a consequence: something that led to it and something that followed from it. But research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.

In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on. At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.

The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner’s statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner’s statements.

What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves — but that the opposite will be true of other people’s reasons and other people’s punches.

Examples aren’t hard to come by. Shiites seek revenge on Sunnis for the revenge they sought on Shiites; Irish Catholics retaliate against the Protestants who retaliated against them; and since 1948, it’s hard to think of any partisan in the Middle East who has done anything but play defense. In each of these instances, people on one side claim that they are merely responding to provocation and dismiss the other side’s identical claim as disingenuous spin. But research suggests that these claims reflect genuinely different perceptions of the same bloody conversation.

If the first principle of legitimate punching is that punches must be even-numbered, the second principle is that an even-numbered punch may be no more forceful than the odd-numbered punch that preceded it. Legitimate retribution is meant to restore balance, and thus an eye for an eye is fair, but an eye for an eyelash is not. When the European Union condemned Israel for bombing Lebanon in retaliation for the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, it did not question Israel’s right to respond, but rather, its “disproportionate use of force.” It is O.K. to hit back, just not too hard.

Research shows that people have as much trouble applying the second principle as the first. In a study conducted by Sukhwinder Shergill and colleagues at University College London, pairs of volunteers were hooked up to a mechanical device that allowed each of them to exert pressure on the other volunteer’s fingers.

The researcher began the game by exerting a fixed amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. The first volunteer was then asked to exert precisely the same amount of pressure on the second volunteer’s finger. The second volunteer was then asked to exert the same amount of pressure on the first volunteer’s finger. And so on. The two volunteers took turns applying equal amounts of pressure to each other’s fingers while the researchers measured the actual amount of pressure they applied.

The results were striking. Although volunteers tried to respond to each other’s touches with equal force, they typically responded with about 40 percent more force than they had just experienced. Each time a volunteer was touched, he touched back harder, which led the other volunteer to touch back even harder. What began as a game of soft touches quickly became a game of moderate pokes and then hard prods, even though both volunteers were doing their level best to respond in kind.

Each volunteer was convinced that he was responding with equal force and that for some reason the other volunteer was escalating. Neither realized that the escalation was the natural byproduct of a neurological quirk that causes the pain we receive to seem more painful than the pain we produce, so we usually give more pain than we have received.

Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.

None of this is to deny the roles that hatred, intolerance, avarice and deceit play in human conflict. It is simply to say that basic principles of human psychology are important ingredients in this miserable stew. Until we learn to stop trusting everything our brains tell us about others — and to start trusting others themselves — there will continue to be tears and recriminations in the wayback.

Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard, is the author of “Stumbling on Happiness.”

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Corpses on Parade

What? Corpses injected with plastic and placed on display? Just a moment ...

San Francisco Chronicle

Oozing corpses raising eyebrows
Health department awaits results of tests on exhibition's bodies

Alex Barnum, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, May 27, 2005

This real skeleton displaying an extra vascular system is... An opened body placed in a lifelike pose is part of the e...A body with an exposed brain and spinal cord is part of a...

San Francisco city officials are investigating a popular exhibition of plasticized corpses and body parts at the Masonic Center, including whether the bodies pose a public health problem and were improperly obtained.

The immediate issue is that some of the corpses -- which have been injected with plastic and dissected to reveal muscles, bone and nerves -- are leaking. Fluid is beading on the surface of some tissues, a possible sign that the bodies were not properly processed.

The city's Department of Public Health has taken samples of the leaking fluid, and "so far, the tests are not showing any pathogenic organisms," said Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, director of occupational and environmental health.

But the health department is still awaiting results showing exactly what the fluid is.

"If the bodies aren't appropriately preserved, we would be concerned that they are decomposing," Bhatia said. "We need to see what our tests show before speculating."

In the meantime, Bhatia said, the department asked the exhibit managers to make sure visitors keep their distance from the corpses.

The corpses are part of an exhibition called "The Universe Within" at the Masonic Center on Nob Hill, designed to be both provocative and educational. In the words of a brochure, it is meant to leave visitors "with a deeper understanding of the body's form and function and a stronger appreciation for staying fit and healthy."

The dissected bodies are placed in various lifelike poses. One shows a man running, with the muscle dissected and streaming alongside him. Another shows a man leaning over a desk with the nerves in his spinal cord exposed. In all, there are 21 full bodies and 150 human organs.

The exhibition, which costs $10 to $17 to attend, attracted 34,000 visitors in its first month and is scheduled to run through September.

The technique for preserving the bodies, called plastination, was pioneered by German scientist Gunther von Hagens, who used it for medical education. Later, he produced a touring exhibit, called "Body World," that has drawn more than 14 million visitors since 1995 and spawned a number of imitators.

"The Universe Within" exhibit was developed by Gerhard Perner, an Austrian television producer, in collaboration with doctors from the Beijing Medical University in China and the Medical University of Vienna in Austria.

Perner did not respond to requests for comment made through his public relations firm, Charles Zukow Associates in San Francisco.

Questions about the exhibit were first raised by KGO/Channel 7 in an investigation broadcast Wednesday. As a result of the investigation, Bhatia said the city Public Health Department was also looking into how the bodies were obtained and whether the exhibitors got the proper consent for their use in a public display.

Bhatia said that Perner was "acting in very good faith and cooperating with the requests" and that he had promised to produce some documents by Monday.

Allan Casalou, executive director of the Masonic Center, which is leasing the space for the exhibit, said he asked Perner to have separate tests conducted, which, he said, showed that the leaking fluid was not harmful. Casalou also said he is trying to confirm that the bodies were properly obtained.

When the exhibition opened in March, Perner told The Chronicle that the bodies came from Beijing Medical University in China. In the same interview, Enhua Yu, chairman of the university's anatomy department, said the subjects had donated their bodies to science, although he said some were unclaimed bodies.

Channel 7 reported, however, that officials of Beijing Medical University say they have no relationship with Perner and are considering legal action to make him stop using their name.

The broadcast alleged that the bodies had come from a factory in Nanjing that supplies specimens to medical schools. It also raised questions about whether the individuals who donated their bodies to science ever meant for them to be on public display.

The report has hit a nerve in the Asian community, said San Francisco Supervisor Fiona Ma, because the bodies are from China and "Chinese culture is very religious and superstitious regarding death and the display of dead bodies."

She said she's asked the city attorney and the district attorney's office to look into the allegations. "There are a lot of red flags that are popping up," said Ma, who represents the Sunset District. "We're not talking about a wax museum. We're talking about real bodies."

The fluid leaking out of the bodies could be either polymer or body fat, said Dr. Robert Henry, a professor of anatomy at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Leaking can occur if not enough of the lipid, or fat, is removed from the body before injection with the polymer.

The process of removing the fat "can take a real long time -- two to four months, depending on what is used," said Henry, treasurer of the International Society for Plastination. "If that wasn't done long enough, and these people seem to be novices at it, a larger percentage of the fat is left in the body than is ideal, so it's going to leak out."

He also said that a plastination technique that is popular in China may be the problem. The technique omits a catalyst that is normally used to harden the polymer once it's injected. The advantage is that the body is more pliable. "If they don't use the catalyst, it'll never stop leaking," Henry said.

Henry said that increasingly, plastination work is being conducted in China because of the lower cost and because people are willing to do the time- consuming, detailed work that is required. It takes about 1,000 hours to process an entire body.

Bathia, of the city health department, acknowledged that the case was unusual.

"This is a new area. There's no immediate reason for us to take action on the basis of protecting public health," he said. "That doesn't mean that we can be sure it's perfectly safe."

Chronicle staff writer Adair Lara contributed to this report.E-mail Alex Barnum at abarnum@sfchronicle.com.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

FUN & Bernie DeKoven

FUN & Bernie DeKoven


























Bernie DeKoven and his "Deep Fun"

This website is the best I have found on the subject of fun.

Fun drives the universe
.

God herself was having FUN when she created the universe
.

No doubt about it. Want proof?


Look around.

There are more FUN things about our world than anything else
.


And why not ?

Oscar Wilde penned as elegant a defense for fun as I have ever read:

"Seriousnesss is the refuge of the dim witted."

Can't top that.

Enjoy by clicking on Bernie's name above or this.

Share.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Love Life Later

Point to ponder: when does one accept a diminished love life? Enjoy.

Libidos of a Certain Age

Published: July 16, 2006

WHILE teenagers bought popcorn by the ton on their way into “Pirates of the Caribbean’’ last week, and fashion addicts clawed into “The Devil Wears Prada,’’ a different crowd lined up for a movie playing at two Manhattan art houses: “Heading South,’’ about older single women visiting 1970’s Haiti in a female version of sex tourism.

Skip to next paragraph
Shadow Distribution

Charlotte Rampling and Ménothy Cesar in “Heading South.”

The women in the film, in their late 40’s and 50’s, are spending a vacation at a resort where impoverished local beach boys serve as holiday gigolos. The teenagers devote themselves to nourishing the women’s starved libidos in exchange for food, gifts and temporary refuge from the perils of the island’s repressive regime.

A rave review by Stephen Holden in The New York Times called the movie “one of the most truthful examinations ever filmed of desire, age and youth.’’ Since it opened July 7, theaters have been packed with women about the same age as the ones on the screen. Some bought tickets in groups for a kind of middle-aged girls’ night out. Interviews indicated the movie has hit home with this audience because it affirms the sexual reality of women of a certain age, that even as they pass the prime of their desirability to men, libidos smolder. More than a few said they came seeking a hot night out.

“The whole notion of women’s sexuality fading away has disappeared,’’ said Marjorie Solovay, 63, a retired schoolteacher in Manhattan, after seeing “Heading South’’ on Wednesday. “Women’s sexuality carries on.’’

The next night a retired 62-year-old said: “Two friends of mine saw it over the weekend and said it is a must-see. They’re 60 and 72. It’s interesting that women feel they’re able to relate to it. So many movies are youth-oriented.’’

The film takes a hard look at the dearth of appropriate sexual partners for women like Ellen, its lead character, played by Charlotte Rampling, a single 55-year-old professor of French literature at Wellesley. Ellen says, “If you’re over 40 and not as dumb as a fashion model, the only guys who are interested are natural born losers or husbands whose wives are cheating on them.’’

Instead of passively drifting into a future of unwilled celibacy, however, Ellen and the other American women seek satisfaction in exotic places. A few viewers were put off by such desperate measures — with their implication of the exploitation of the black Haitian teenagers — and by the neediness of the women. But others supported the film’s message that a woman has a right to seek pleasure where she can find it.

“Single older women need to find a place to have sex,’’ said one filmgoer in her late 50’s who lives on the East Side but did not want to give her name. “If you’re at this point in your life, and you have needs, and you can make yourself feel good or whole, go for it, so long as you don’t hurt anyone.’’

In its first week on two screens in New York (it will open in other cities this summer), the movie has earned $56,000. Managers at the two theaters — Lincoln Plaza Cinemas on the Upper West Side and the Angelika in SoHo — said it is their highest grossing current film.

Ms. Rampling, who at 60 is still a woman of erotic allure, said by phone: “There’s an awful lot of pressure around the idea of a woman growing older and therefore losing that potential of being desirable, and that puts women into a situation where they feel almost embarrassed about the fact they don’t have the kind of bodies that young women have, or they don’t have the kind of sexual attraction that seems to go with a younger stage of their life.

“What does that mean, the fact that you’re older? It means that you’re not going to have the same kind of relationships you had when you were younger. I think we have to reinvent from a woman’s point of view another way of being.’’

Society often seems of two minds when it comes to older women and sex, in the view of the author Jane Juska, 73. Six years ago she placed a personal ad in The New York Review of Books stating her desire “to have a lot of sex with a man I like’’ and wrote a book, “A Round-Heeled Woman,’’ about what happened when the replies came in.

Ms. Juska, who had not seen “Heading South,’’ recalled by phone that she found a lot of support from people who read her book, but that criticism often sounded a lot like pity. “Opposition came in the form of, ‘I feel so sorry for you that you have to do this,’ ’’ she said.

The women in the movie, far from home, feel free to indulge in a hedonism without judgment, a liberation that some in the audience who have traveled on their own identified with. “When women travel abroad, they shed a lot of inhibitions and behave in ways they don’t behave at home,’’ said Bunny Goldstein, 62, a retired music teacher who saw the movie. “They live out of context.’’

Ms. Rampling’s character is comfortable in her own skin and seems unaware of her age by the side of her lover, a black teenager named Legba (Ménothy Cesar). When the two frolic in the ocean, she dips her head beneath the water, lifting her wrinkled face to the sun. Legba tells her that her slicked-back wet hair makes her look old and chickenlike. Ellen doesn’t care. She laughs.

The film at first celebrates Ellen as a “cougar,’’ an older woman who sexually preys upon a younger man. “Here the cute guys are a dime a dozen,’’ she says to one of the other women in the movie.

But beneath the protagonist’s sexual cynicism lie tender cravings. When Ellen discovers Legba is in trouble with the police, she begs him to let her be his protector. Although she had the upper hand at first, he is the one to reject her, leaving her bereft of intimacy and the flattery and companionship she couldn’t admit he provided.

By revealing the emotional tug between the characters, the movie ultimately disavows its premise that women can enjoy sex without love. Audience members who bought tickets expecting an erotic romp were surprised as the movie became a layered exploration of class, race, romantic complexity and the Haitian politics of the Jean-Claude Duvalier 70’s.

Some were pleased with this direction. “I had read a review of it and went in there thinking the movie was about lonely women looking for love,’’ said Ruth Eisenberg , an owner of a real estate company in her late 50’s. “I’m newly widowed. I found it interesting and touching. They were all emotionally affected and connected. They were feeling women and feeling men. It wasn’t blind anonymous sex. I really liked it.’’

Others were disappointed. “I was really in the mood for something hot,’’ said Ms. Goldstein, the music teacher. “This disappointed me. I thought there’d be more sex.’’

Paula Schwartz contributed reporting for this article.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Teacher's Pet Peeve

Teaching is wothout doubt the second most difficult job to do well on the planet. Number ONE will always be parenting. Here's a point of view by a NY Times columnist who is handing up his pen after four years. Enjoy.

On Education

Teachers, and a Law That Distrusts Them

Published: July 12, 2006

This is my last education column after four years. What I will miss most is the free ticket it gave me into classrooms all over the country, where I watched and learned from teachers.

I got to be there at 7:15 a.m. on the first day of this school year with Irene Ray, a terrific high school English teacher in Huntington, W. Va. Ms. Ray had intended to leave small-town Appalachia long ago for the big city, but there she was again, for her 23rd first day, sipping a Diet Coke, nibbling an Atkins breakfast bar, more excited and jittery than her students, wanting to know how their summer reading went, whether they’d enjoyed “The Scarlet Letter” or, like Ms. Ray, preferred “The Poisonwood Bible.”

Ms. Ray spent a week readying her room for the first day, including adding to the favorite quotations that line her walls. Bored students distracted by iPods and the Internet? “She’s got new quotes,” whispered a girl, who was reading Ms. Ray’s walls.

I also got to be there at 3:15 p.m. on the final day of school this year, in Dahlonega, Ga., at Lumpkin County Middle School, when Pat New, a science teacher, taught her last lesson, after 29 years. Ms. New, 62, had fought to the end for her right to teach evolution, winning out against a group of parents and students and an administration that preferred not to make waves.

The columns about teachers generated the most mail, but lots of others were fun to write. Chronicling the mess-ups with New York State’s standardized exams — in math, English, English as a second language, physics, reading — was always great sport.

But the people who took me to the heart of education? Laurin MacLeish, kindergarten teacher in Orlando, Fla.; Roger Cline, diesel engine teacher in Canton, Ohio; Jeff Kaufman, G.E.D. teacher at the Rikers jail in New York City; Liza Levine, English teacher in South Central Los Angeles.

Principals? A little bit. Superintendents? Chancellors? State education commissioners? You can probably still name your kindergarten teacher (that would be Miss Goddard, Beechwood Knoll School, 1957). But how about the secretary of education during any of your 13 years in school?

The education press spends so much time writing about people far removed from the classroom that it’s easy to lose sight of those individuals’ real purpose — to help teachers do their jobs well, the best hope for student success.

As readers know, I’m not a fan of No Child Left Behind, the 2002 federal law aimed at raising education quality. Instead of helping teachers, for me it’s a law created by politicians who distrust teachers. Because teachers’ judgment and standards are supposedly not reliable, the law substitutes a battery of state tests that are supposed to tell the real truth about children’s academic progress.

The question is: How successful can an education law be that makes teachers the enemy?

Even No Child’s strongest supporters acknowledge that one of the law’s most important provisions — to guarantee a highly qualified teacher in every classroom — has been the most poorly carried out to date.

So, to improve classroom teaching and make teachers more enthusiastic about the law, I have three departing suggestions for when the legislation is expected to come up for reauthorization next year.

First, why not add a provision rewarding states and districts that mandate small class size? It’s an idea that enjoys great support among parents and teachers and is easily carried out on a national scale.

Why small class size? Deborah Meier, the teacher, principal, author and MacArthur Award winner who has created successful public schools in New York and Boston, says the best chance for educating poor children well is surrounding them with as many talented adults as possible. The same premise drives one of the most hopeful efforts in urban education today, the Gates Foundation’s small schools movement.

Joe Gipson, a black public school parent in California, which has had a mandatory cap of 20 in grades K to three for a decade, told me small class size is the best thing that’s happened to his children’s education, giving them what rich private school pupils have. While small class size is no guarantee that teachers will be good, he said, with just 20, you can tell faster if teachers are performing well, and get rid of them if they’re not.

Gov. Jeb Bush is very popular in Florida, and in 2002, he opposed a constitutional amendment to cap class sizes, including a maximum of 18 for grades K to three. He said it would be too costly. And yet voters in Florida, hardly a tax-and-spend state, voted for it. Every year since, the Republican governor has tried overturning the class size amendment, and every year he has lost, most recently last spring, when the Republican-controlled State Senate defeated his efforts.

“It’s a moral issue,” said Senator J. Alex Villalobos, a Republican whose wife is a public school teacher. “Class size is the great equalizer. Anybody who has children understands this. We have a moral responsibility to take care of our children.”

In 2003, 115,000 New York City residents signed petitions aimed at setting class size limits, and in 2005, 100,000 did. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said the city cannot afford to do more now, and has successfully stalled advocates’ efforts in court, but at a price to children. A recent state audit shows that 26 percent of New York City children in grades K to three are in classes of 25 or more.

The intent of the No Child law could not be more important — to narrow the achievement gap between white and minority children. But what angers public educators is that under the law, schools get all the blame if students fail, when they see many other variables at play, including the crippling effects of poverty on families. Studies show that the economic status of a child’s family has a major impact on a child’s performance on standardized tests. On the SAT, for example, for every $10,000 increase in family income, a child’s SAT scores rise about 10 points.

Which leads to my second proposal. We need a No Family Left Behind Law. This would measure economic growth of families and punish politicians in charge of states with poor economic growth for minority families.

FOR example, in Ohio, black families earn only 62 percent of white household income, one of the biggest disparities nationally. So every year, under No Family Left Behind, Ohio would be expected to close that income gap. If it failed to make adequate yearly progress for black families’ wealth, the governor and legislators would be judged failing, and after five years, could be removed from office. This way public schools wouldn’t be the only institutions singled out for failing poor children.

And if states succeeded in closing the economic gap, test scores would be expected to rise, giving politicians and teachers a chance to celebrate together.

A final concern with the federal law is that it is so driven by state testing that there’s too much time devoted to test prep, too much time spent drilling facts for survey courses, and not enough emphasis on finding something children will fall in love with for a lifetime — the Civil War, repairing engines, science research, playing the trumpet.

Fortunately, the remedy can be found on Ms. Ray’s walls in Huntington, W. Va., a quotation from William Butler Yeats: “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” I recommend that as the official motto for a new, revitalized No Child Left Behind law.

E-mail: edmike@nytimes.com

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

For the Birds



Beautifully written piece on one of life's most exquisite pastimes: birdwatching. Enjoy.

The Rural Life

Three Birds

Published: July 3, 2006

So far, I remain an accidental bird-watcher. I have lots of books about birds and a good pair of binoculars, which I use whenever I see a bird that looks unfamiliar to me. We have year-round bird feeders, and I listen to recorded bird songs, hoping I'll be able to recognize the birds I can't see by their singing. But I have yet to set off actually searching for them. I watch the ones that come to me, the ones that make themselves known in the clearing at the edge of the woods that we inhabit.

Lately, I've been thinking about the volume the birds around us occupy. I don't mean the vast migratory territories they mark out over the course of a year. I mean the spatial dimensions of their ordinary lives among us. This is a thought that has been working away in my head for a long time, ever since I saw a red-winged blackbird perched on a cattail and realized that the bird and the wetland in which the cattail was rooted were nearly synonymous.

"Habitat" sounds awfully general. It turns out to mean not some willful choice — the kind a human would make deciding to live in Dallas rather than in Denver — but a profound correlation. The marsh is who the red-winged blackbird is. The fence post is the meadowlark.

When I first began to notice birds, I thought of them as autonomous creatures whose habitations were simply unconnected matters of fact — as though the pictures of the birds in my bird book could somehow fly free of the pages themselves. But recognizing what you see means, first of all, taking account of where you see it. It becomes clear, sooner or later, that we live in a world of infinitely overlapping and abutting habitats — and that we are one of the rare creatures that are unbound, except in the broadest sense, by place and vocation. It takes an act of will on our part to remember how profoundly, and how beautifully, bound to habitat all the other creatures around us really are.

This thought occurs to me again and again on fine summer evenings, which have been so rare this year, when the phoebes are fluttering after bugs, sometimes pausing on the grass, but swiftly coming to rest on the back of a lawn chair or the very end of a twig. Where the phoebes will not fly, the barn swallows take over, also pursuing insects. Sometimes a swallow will cruise past my head. Compared with the swallow's manner, the phoebe flies a parenthetical flight. And as the two of them take bugs from very different regions of this place of ours — before they retire in favor of the bats — I can hear the catbird hidden in the densest shadow, mewing away. It shows itself just at the edge of the thicket, peering into the clearing where a human sits, hoping that the good weather lasts for a while this time.

VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Across America


This post is placed here to remind me that it's about time for a road trip. Not a trip "to" somewhere - just a road trip for its own sake. Enjoy this remarkable first chapter of a new memoir of just such a trip. Bon Mots.

July 2, 2006
First Chapter

'Cross Country'

WE'RE OFF. We're off across America. We're in the car and we're driving and we're not turning around, even though we usually do, even though we probably have forgotten something. We're crossing the country. We're not the first people to do it, not by a long shot, obviously. There's Lewis and Clark, though they certainly weren't first, even if people think they were-even if they thought they were. There are the pioneers in their covered wagons, the wagons that in river crossings were used as boats, the wagons that were stuffed with belongings, just like our car is today. There are the very first people to cross the country in the automobile: the people who, in the early 1900s, thought of driving as a kind of daredevil adventure, as something more akin to camping or hiking or hang gliding, as opposed to what we think of it today (i.e., just getting in the car). And then there are the great underground cross-country racers of the 1970s: the drivers who fought to prevent driving from becoming rote, the otherwise pretty conservative automobile anarchists who, when the price of gas went through the roof, were slowed but not halted, who had to contend with lower and lower speed limits, with cops, with angry truckers. (Truckers, of course, are the subset of cross-country drivers who cross the country all the time, every day.) Yes, we are just the latest in the long list of transcontinentalists. We are gasoline-powered footnotes in the travel- and adventure-related annals of a nation that has as its greatest public works project an ever-expanding system of roads, a crisscross and circling of roads that keeps it from ever sitting still.

We're packed in, the kids in the back, the parents in front, our stuff filling the trunk, piled up around our knees. In our hearts, we're excited. We're excited in the part of our hearts that knows three thousand miles is doable, a snap, three or four or, longest-case scenario, five days, which is about as much time as we have-like many Americans, we have stuff to do, stuff to deal with-and about as much time as we can stand. In our hearts, we're also weary. We're weary in the part that has done this before, that knows three thousand miles is a long, long way, that has been out late at night on a dark road when our eyes have been trying to stay awake and our eyes only wish like all the rest of our tired bodies that they were not driving anymore. We are about to, first, drive on some of America's less-laned roads, some of the not-so-super highways, but we are mostly going to drive on its many many-laned interstates, on the main roads, along with everybody else.

I know that this seems, to many Americans, like the wrong way to go. In our time driving across the country, we have met Americans who posed the following question: "Don't you want to see the real America?"

THE REAL AMERICA

THE REAL AMERICA IS ALSO SOMETIMES known as "back-roads America" or "the heart of America" or "America's heartland" or, in shorthand, "America." This is the America that is calculatedly heartwarming, represented by people who are purported to symbolize America-people who are Platonic ideals of Americans: a lobsterman from Maine, a logger from Oregon, a rancher from Texas, the last small farmer living in Missouri.

That America still exists, to some extent: I have seen a pie on the counter of a diner in Wisconsin that caused the phrase "real America" to ring in my head and that also made me hungry. I have driven on roads in Missouri where, instead of giant, commercially produced signs advertising chain restaurants and chain motels, there were homemade signs advertising organic cattle and wildflowers and signs praising coroners hoping to be reelected, to be allowed one more term to investigate the local dead. You can see that America, without too much extra effort, but it is a kind of antique-shop America. It's an America that appears in magazines alongside recipes; it's the America where presidential candidates are televised.

But the real America is also the America that Americans generally think they are not seeing on the roads they use to cross the country-or for that matter, on the roads they use to commute to work in Chicago or while leaving Saint Louis to visit their in-laws in Omaha or while driving on I-70, formerly Route 66. It seems to me that the real America is the farthest thing from people's minds when they are stopping for some fast food on I-5 in between Los Angeles and San Diego, much less driving from the East Coast to the West. But there it is, the real America, right there. For my part, I have seen America on the superhighways all through my years on the road, traveled its present and looked into its past, and today, grandparents waving good-bye at the window and the kids waving back, we're setting off to see it again.

THE ROADS ARE AMERICA

IN THE ROADS OF AMERICA is the history of America. See the nation grow from an unmapped, just-purchased spread of western land to a wagon-train-crossed compilation of territories, to states bound by a few muddy highways, to the modern United States wired with interstates. In the interstates are traces of our first explorations, our impenetrable mountain passes, our old Santa Fe Trail, our pioneers' path to Oregon, our race to California's gold, our first car-happy and nation-spanning private highways. And in the interstates are the paths toward the next America, the one that is always under construction.

See those first roads through young America, those tentative explorations into the unknown, as soldiers and surveyors, trappers and miners push into a West unexplored by white Americans. Then, America breaks away from its eastern beginnings, its coastal fringe: wagon trains lead herds of people to settle the prairies and the plains, to mine the mountains, to farm the fields and work the ranches-to-be. With its national maturation, America champions what it then called Good Roads, the first highways, the aesthetically pleasing parkways that were pleasant to drive, that were the automotive equivalent of a Sunday-afternoon stroll. Then, in the 1950s, America begins its interstate highway system, which itself in turn becomes America, its central arteries, its suburb-expanding and city-smashing nervous system. The interstate system is the centrally calculated roadway of empire, of inland empire, that spawned and fed the military-industrial complex so feared by the interstates' instigator, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and which also spawned and fed the consumption of fast food, not to mention the automobile industry. Out of this middle age rose the beat poets, who were the midlife crisis of America, who rebelled against the road by taking to it, who did not know that one day their anticorporate Americanism would be taken up by American corporations in roadside ads for mass-produced consumer products that sometimes even featured beat poets. In the fifties and sixties and seventies, interstates destroyed cities and nourished the suburbs, which began expanding forever and ever into what was once the countryside, and then America woke up one day to find that crossing the country-that epic accomplishment that was a dream of America's founders, that was a death-defying feat for the earliest trappers and settlers and explorers, that later was a kick, the thing to do just for the sake of doing it, for a generation of hipsters and, subsequently, hippies-was simple, a snap.

I THINK ABOUT THESE TRANSCONTINENTALISTS when I'm driving cross-country. I think about them and go on and on to anyone in the car who will listen or feign listening or simply look awake. I think of the stories of all the people who crossed before me, from Lewis and Clark to the secret cross-country highway racers of the seventies-crossing the country gives you a lot of time to think. And I think not just of where we've already been but also of what we are about to drive through, not any one place but a collection of places all being passed by, all being missed, partly in the impatient attempt to see what we think we are looking for when we are driving the road-i.e., the antique-shop America-and partly in the impatience that is a patented American character trait. The America that I see is an America that tells you to keep moving, to move on to something better, to get on the road and keep going, to stop only briefly to refuel your car and yourself but then to keep pushing toward the place that is closer to where you should be, or could be, if only you would keep going. America says move, move on, don't sit still.

When I am on the road, I see the America that is a continual expedition, the never-ending race to the last frontier, rural or suburban or exurban. In other words, America is the road.

* * *

WHY ARE WE DOING IT? Why are we crossing the country this time? This time, it is summer vacation. It is summer vacation and after visiting relatives, as usual, and going to a wedding, way up in some faraway, nearly roadless Northwest mountains, after crossing the country once, from New York to Oregon, we are crossing the country yet again, from Oregon back to New York, to get home, to wrap up after six thousand miles, to rest. We are heading from one shining sea to another. We are not heading for the Pacific, as is customary in the history of cross-countrying; we are heading east. Once, when I was young, I headed west; I settled there and lived in the Oregon Country for a number of years. In terms of being young and heading west, I was just like the United States of America, in a sense. Now, I'm heading back into the East, which, for me, is a little like heading back into the past. At least when I head east I feel as if I run into memories, and then history itself. I also feel a little nuts. As far as the American past goes, when I travel east I feel like a deranged driver in the wrong lane of the highway of American history. Aside from getting everybody back safe and sound and in time for whatever it is we all have to do when we do actually get back-get to work, get places, do things that we'd said we'd do with friends and other relatives back in the East-one of my personal goals for this particular trip is to run into some of the larger reasons that I am on the road in the first place, the institutional reasons, or at least some of the reasons that everybody else is. I have spent so much of my life on the road that I almost can't remember why I'm on the road anymore.

OUR FIRST STOP

SURE ENOUGH, just in these first moments, in these first two or three miles, we are stopping. If you are attempting to drive across the United States of America in a manner that will get you to the other side before you run out of money or patience, stopping is the blessing and the curse, the action you most need to avoid, the dream that sometimes seems to be the only thing to do if you are ever going to get there, to make it to your destination. Stopping, like the trip itself, is bittersweet. This morning, we are stopping for coffee and for something to eat. We are stopping in Portland, Oregon, our beginning. We are stopping along the Columbia River, sometimes called the River of the West, other times known as the end of the road for Lewis and Clark. We are stopping and I am paying for the breakfast and wanting to tell the person behind the counter how many times we've set out to cross the country before. I am bringing the coffee and the breakfast to the car-a really late breakfast, as we packed the car all morning and now it's close to ten-and I am looking at the car and shaking my head and thinking about what a long time it is for our son and his sister to sit in the car and about how many times we have put them through this, we being my wife and I. Something that I said to my wife just the night before, when we were beginning to load up the car and the kids were already asleep, was "Why do we do this to them?"

WHY (WE DO THIS TO THEM)

THE REASON we do this to them is that, as it turns out, this is who we are. We are people who have crossed the country a lot. This is something we maybe even do too much. When I say we in this case, I am referring to my wife and I and our kids. But sometimes the we is just my wife and I, because we began driving across the country before we were married, before we ever got involved with kids, when we were cross-country dating, my wife's family on one coast, mine on the other. At first we did it purely to save money; due to the nature of my job, we are never certain about when we are going to leave. We don't just jump in a car and head out to wherever, like a bunch of beat poets fueled by booze and sex and whatever else (not that I am against booze or sex or whatever else). We're the opposite, in a way: off from the East to get to the West or vice versa, and not looking to revel in the restless, soul-searching, drink- and drug-fueled process but simply looking to get there, and maybe see a little something on the way.

After all this time, our cross-country credentials are significant, if I do say so myself. I have crossed the country on dozens of occasions; I have driven from one side of the United States to the other more than anyone I know who is not a trucker or professional driver of some kind-close to thirty times, as best as I can tell from journals, and receipts, and snapshots, and occasional flashbacks. My total is somewhere around ninety thousand miles, which is about three and a half times around the planet. In 2001, for instance, I made six trips across the country, an eighteen-thousand-mile haul. I personally began my transcontinental driving at twenty-five, a typical age, it seems to me, with my girlfriend, who subsequently married me, and continued it with my wife, who would one day become the mother of our children, and with our children, who would one day complain while driving four and five and sometimes ten days in a row, depending on our cross-country route, which is sometimes a little circuitous (such as on the trip just a few weeks before this one, the trip going west across the country, the trip that took us from New York to Oregon via Texas-a trip that we've done a number of times and that usually runs a little over four thousand miles).

We have crossed the country for grandparent-related purposes, for work, to move-moving being something we often end up having to do for some reason, maybe because we are Americans. We have moved for work and for school, for reasons that to really understand would take more time than I have on a professional's couch. We have crossed the country for weddings in the East and weddings in the West, and once, a few weeks after September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked, we crossed the country when no one was going anywhere, when America stood still for a little while. It was a national fermata, and the interstates were empty and nervous-seeming: America standing still is something that takes getting used to. A few years ago, I traveled across the country by myself, with all our family's belongings in a rental truck, with our station wagon attached to that truck, and with a paranoid sensation hanging over me like the canvas cover of a Conastoga wagon, alone and exposed on the prairie for the first time. Sure enough, I ran into a lot of problems, some of which I did not surmount, to put it mildly. . . .



Excerpted from CROSS COUNTRY by Robert Sullivan Copyright © 2006 by Robert Sullivan. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.