3.31.2010

"I’m with the ‘intolerant’ Quebecers" - The niqab deserves no more respect than a Vader mask


by Mark Steyn

The other day, a reader wrote to say that, while en vacances au Québec, he had espied me in a restaurant. With a couple of obvious francophones. And, from the snatches of conversation he caught, I appeared to be speaking French. “Appeared” is right, if you’ve ever heard my French. Nevertheless: “You’re a fraud, Steyn!” he thundered. The cut of his jib was that I was merely pretending to be a pro-Yank right-wing bastard while in reality living la vie en rose lounging on chaises longues snorting poutine with louche Frenchie socialists all day long.

I haven’t felt such a hypocrite since I was caught singing The Man That Got Away in a San Francisco bathhouse two days after my column opposing gay marriage. But yes, you’re right. I cannot tell a lie. I have a soft spot for Quebec. Not because of its risible separatist movement, for which the only rational explanation is that it was never anything but one almighty bluff for shakedown purposes. Yet, putting that aside, I’m not unsympathetic to the province’s broader cultural disposition. I regard neither Trudeaupian Canada nor Quietly Revolutionary Quebec as good long-term bets, or even medium-term bets. But, if I had to pick, I’d give marginally better odds to the latter. And the reasons why can be found in the coverage of Ms. Naema Ahmed and her “illegal” niqab, the head-to-toe Islamic covering that only has eyes for you.

The facts—or, at any rate, fact—of the case is well-known: a niqab-garbed immigrant from Egypt has been twice expelled from her French-language classes at the Saint-Laurent CEGEP and the Centre d’appui aux communautés immigrantes by order of the Quebec government. That much is agreed. Thereafter, the English and French press diverge significantly. The ROC reacted reflexively, deploring this assault on Canada’s cherished “values” of “multiculturalism.” In the Calgary Herald, Naomi Lakritz compared Quebec’s government to the Taliban. So did the Globe and Mail, in an editorial titled “Intolerant Intrusion.” In La Presse, Patrick Lagacé responded with a column called “The Globe, Reporting From Mars!”

The headline was in English, and on the whole M. Lagacé’s English is better than the Globe’s French. He began by noting their unbelievably stupid editorial on O Canada, in which they endeavoured to balance their charge of sexism in the English lyrics (“in all thy sons command”) by uncovering sexism in the French—“terre de nos aïeux” or “land of our forefathers.” Where, fretted the Globe for a couple hundred words, are the foremothers? This is what happens when your claims to be Canada’s national newspaper rest on the translation services of Babel Fish. As M. Lagacé pointed out, “aïeux, en français, englobe hommes et femmes.” Englobe maybe, but not in Globe.

It’s not surprising, then, the anglo media wasn’t quite up to speed on “les nuances et les détails” of La Presse’s and the other French coverage. Ignored in the rush to raise the rainbow banner of multiculturalism were, for example, the teacher’s insistence that she needed to see the pupil’s mouth move to teach her a new language; Mme Ahmed’s demand that male pupils remove themselves from her line of sight; her refusal to participate in discussions round a table; the school administration’s attempt to accommodate these various difficulties; and, since Mme Ahmed has now gone to the Quebec “Human Rights” Commission, the right of the other students not to have their classes disrupted and their own attempts to learn French set back by one pupil’s intransigence.

In return, the Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente redeemed her paper with a characteristically sharp column on the new “two solitudes”—French and English Canada’s different view of Islam, which she argued mirrored broader Franco-Britannic approaches. She’s right. France thought nothing of banning the veil in its educational establishments, whereas in Britain a teenage girl who took her school to court for the right to wear the full-body “jilbab” had as her lawyer none other than Cherie Booth, wife of then-prime minister Tony Blair.

On this one, I’m with the “intolerant” Quebecers. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a Common Law man. I like to be treated as an individual enjoying equality under the law, no more, no less. But these days that’s not on the menu in either English or French Canada. Instead, we have competing philosophies of group rights. In the ROC, the group rights that matter are those of leftist social engineers’ preferred minorities—gays, natives, Muslims, pre-op transsexuals. Quebec also prioritizes group rights, but in this case the group that matters is the majority—la collectivité. As I said, I rejoice in English law’s ancient disdain for the very concept of group rights. But, if I’m forced to choose between one view of group rights or the other, Quebec’s seems less psychologically unhealthy.

It’s the unthinkingness of the Anglo reaction that’s embarrassing: there’s a niqab-clad woman in the story? Oh, she must be the good guy. That’s Chapter One of Multiculti For Dummies, right? In the Quebec coverage, you at least get the sense they’re thinking through the questions. I dislike Islamic body bags and regard them as a form of degradation and an act of self-segregation. I say “Islamic,” but in fact as a mandatory expression of piousness they barely date back to the disco era. The niqab should command no more cultural respect than a guy walking into class in Darth Vader’s getup and demanding the women be removed from his line of vision. Except in the ROC they’d call in the Mounties over that. We would never for a moment view with equanimity large numbers of masked men on our streets. But how quickly we’ve got used to walking around, say, Tower Hamlets in East London and seeing more fully covered women than you do in Amman. Mme Ahmed’s views may be sincerely held, but, if so, they mean she can never be a functioning member of a pluralist Western society in any meaningful sense of the term. Given that the Quebec government is paying for her francization lessons, it is not unreasonable for them to reach that conclusion.

But that’s Quebec. Canada’s state ideology says, if you can get here, you’re as Canadian as Sir John A. Macdonald. Quebec’s says this is who we are; deal with it. In the ROC, “Canadian values” are that we have no values: we value your values, whatever they happen to be.

Not so, you protest. Why, even the Globe and Mail will still draw a line or two. Their editorial denouncing Quebec’s intolerance began:“There obviously need to be some limits on the accommodation of religious and cultural minorities. Female genital mutilation is one example. Child marriage is another.”

My, that’s big of you. But in practice even this robust line is written endlessly flexible. As the Toronto Sun recently reported:

“Federal immigration officials say there’s little they can do to stop ‘child brides’ from being sponsored into Canada by much older husbands…Muslim men, who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, return to their homeland to wed a ‘child bride’ in an arranged marriage in which a dowry is given to the girl’s parents. Officials said some of the brides can be 14 years old or younger.”

So, if it’s women’s rights vs. the joys of multiculturalism, bet on the latter. What next? Gay rights? Norway’s Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion has just given its prestigious 2009 Role Model of the Year award to Mahdi Hassan, a man who wants a ban on homosexuality, and is open to capital punishment as a means of enforcing it. No Nordic blond would make Role Model of the Year with such pronouncements, but it’s amazing how cute they sound coming from your multiculti types.

How many people have to think like Mr. Hassan for it to tell us something about where Norway’s headed? How many women in the CEGEP class have to act like Mme Ahmed for it to put a profound question mark over the future of your society? In the ROC, even to ask the question is illegitimate, not to say “racist” and “Islamophobic.” Quebec is disinclined to such masochism, regarding itself very much as the S in the Canadian S&M dungeon.

Margaret Wente thinks many English Canadians agree more with the Quebec government’s approach than with the elite opinion expressed by the Globe et al. Demonstrating their bizarre insulation from their own market, the Montreal Gazette sneered that the land of the “tongue troopers” didn’t also need a government dress code. But we’re not really talking about clothes, are we? “If you want to integrate into Quebec society, here are our values,” said the Immigration Minister, Yolande James. “We want to see your face.”

One can have legitimate disagreements about what follows therefrom, but I agree with that statement. Vive le Québec niqab-libre!

Link

3.02.2010

Living and dying with private insurance

By Neil Macdonald

I was in Edmonton a few months ago having lunch with Mel Hurtig, and the old nationalist warhorse had a question about America's health-care debate: "Why don't we have anyone down there defending Canada's system?"

On the face of it, I found the question a bit absurd. Most Americans don't care enough about Canada's system to even discuss it.

But Hurtig's question is one I've heard often in Canada and I have the feeling many Canadians believe the U.S. is actually considering a Canadian-style, government-managed health-care system. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of Americans and their spellbound reverence for the wisdom and efficiency of free-market forces, even when those forces threaten their financial and physical well-being.

Death of the public option

It is true that some Democrats once did envision what is called the "public option" — some limited form of government-provided insurance.

President Barack Obama himself was sympathetic to the idea. But on the greasy field of self-interest, the public option found no traction.

Affluent Americans see it, correctly, as an effort to transfer some of their wealth to people down the income scale.

Unionized Americans and employees of big corporations already have good health coverage through their employers. They're just fine, Jack, and they can't imagine any change benefiting them.

Ditto many older Americans who enjoy Medicare, a form of socialized medicine (although many people here have somehow gulled themselves into believing it's not).

America's indigent millions are also covered, to an extent, though Medicaid, and therefore disinclined to spare any concern for the tens of millions, most of them working poor, who can't afford to pay for insurance.

Down with socialism

But the people who really led the charge against anything remotely resembling Canadian health care, who unleashed the lobbyists and advertising millions and then sat back, smiling, as right-wing protesters yelled about socialism and communism, were the predators collectively known as the health insurance industry.

According to a recent study, the top five insurers here made $12.2 billion in profits in 2009, up $4.4 billion, or 56 per cent, from a year earlier. These companies pay their executives multi-million-dollar salaries and produce good returns for shareholders.

That, of course, is business.

But, stated most simply, here's how they do it: They squeeze as much from customers as possible in premiums; then do everything they can to avoid paying for care once it's needed.

Quite literally, the more their customers suffer untreated, the richer these companies become.

Exemptions rule

Health-insurer abuse is well documented here, but the abusers are exceptionally well protected from the laws that regulate ordinary businesses.

They're exempt from federal anti-trust laws, for example, and therefore free to collude.

They've also seen to it that in several states, it's against the law to purchase insurance in another state, which means their little oligopolies are unthreatened by any necessity to compete.

Their customers, like lobsters in a trap, either pay up or go uninsured altogether.

There it is: Health care's free market. Efficient, certainly. Fair? Only if you consider fleecing the sick to be in any way ethical.

These companies employ divisions of employees whose sole task is to come up with a reason to refuse a claim.

Sorry, we've discovered you once had acne, so we can't pay for your breast cancer treatment. True story.

Regrettably, we'll have to refuse your treatment for kidney failure. Turns out you failed to report some back pain you suffered 30 years ago. And so on.

Premiums on the rise

These companies donate handsomely to federal politicians. So the ferocity and effectiveness of their assault on the public option was hardly surprising.

Meanwhile, though, just in case Obama's Democrats actually manage to pass something that might cut into profits, these insurers have been milking their clients even more vigorously this year.

One big company, WellPoint, recently announced it's jacking up premiums 39 per cent in California. A health-care think tank found WellPoint is seeking double-digit increases in 11 states.

Research by a congressional committee showed that WellPoint's profits totaled $4.2 billion last year. It pays its CEO $10 million in salary and stock options, and blew $27 million on lavish corporate retreats, all the while resisting claims whenever possible.

But WellPoint and its fellow insurers needn't really worry much, from the look of things on Capitol Hill.

It's now an open question whether the Democrats will be able to pass any health-care reform at all in the months ahead, despite their promises. And if they do, life for the insurers will likely just get better.
Getting richer

True, any health-care reform here would likely forbid insurance companies from citing "pre-existing conditions" to abandon a sick client.

But nothing before either house of Congress right now would prevent these companies from charging those individuals, say, $40,000 or so in annual premiums, or setting a $10,000 deductible.

At the same time, the Democrats want to oblige all Americans to purchase health insurance, thereby driving millions of young, healthy new clients into the companies' welcoming arms.

Now, I am not trying here to impugn America's entire health-care system. My family doctor charges $140 a consultation, calls me at home in the evening and can always fit someone in quickly. Doctors here routinely give you their cellphone numbers.

Also, having lived under Canada's system for decades, I was not always a fan. Like most of my friends, I have stories of arrogant doctors and ridiculous wait times, which, the Canadian Medical Association says, haven't improved much.

But the worst Canadian stories I've heard don't come close to the horrors that happen here. Harvard Medical School, for example, says 45,000 Americans die annually from lack of health insurance, many of them, no doubt, cut loose by their insurers.

The thing about health care is that normal market rules don't apply. Supply and demand is corrupted by the fact that the people who control the supply can also control the demand.

Just about the entire developed world believes in at least some form of public health care. It is seen as common sense and collective survival.

And yet, for reasons buried deep in their national psyche, Americans prefer to keep enriching corporations that feed on their misery. In the name of free markets, they pay excessively for their drugs and treatment as their less fortunate neighbours sicken and die.

That, I guess, is the best answer I can give you, Mr. Hurtig.

Link

2.14.2010

Broadband Internet, Yes. Toilet, No.


By SARAH MASLIN NIR

ON a trip to the Yucatán Peninsula in Mexico during spring break, Bretwood Higman and Erin McKittrick found themselves on a beach, holding a battered tourist map. Sick of the collegiate shenanigans around them, Mr. Higman suggested they ditch the bars, take the map and walk the 30 miles of shoreline to the next town. “The beach is probably continuous, right?” Ms. McKittrick remembers him saying.

To his surprise, Ms. McKittrick, whom he had met while they were studying at Carleton College outside of Minneapolis, was game. “That was a defining moment,” said Mr. Higman, now 33; he knew Ms. McKittrick was the one.

Ten years later, they are married, have an 11-month-old son and have walked more than 7,000 miles together. “When we got together, it was more than the sum of the parts,” said Ms. McKittrick, 30. “Much more.”

Their last monumental trip took an entire year, during which they covered more than 4,000 miles of both urban and untouched terrain in Alaska, Washington and Canada by foot, raft and ski. Ms. McKittrick’s account of the adventure, “A Long Trek Home,” was published in October.

Though their epic expedition ended last year, they’re still camping. Today, their lives unfold under the conical eaves of a Mongolian yurt, where they have lived since November 2008, high on a spruce-covered mountainside of the Kenai Peninsula in the coastal town of Seldovia (population of around 250), where Mr. Higman grew up.

The remote town has no access to other parts of the state by road. Residents have to travel by boat or airplane. A recent passenger on Homer Air, the local airline, was a poodle on its way to the vet.

The decision to live in a yurt has forced them to confront the same questions that many people do, but their conclusions have been far different. They decided they could live without running water, shower, bath or a working toilet, but they had to have broadband Internet access.

The couple discovered yurts when they returned from their 4,000-mile trek and passed through the nearby town of Homer, where Nomad Shelter Yurts sells modern tents inspired by those used on the Mongolian steppes by nomadic herders. Unlike the Mongolian ones, which are covered with wool felt, the approximately $14,000 tent that is home to Mr. Higman and Ms. McKittrick is encased in Duro-Last roofing vinyl and backed with heavy-duty Tyvek insulation to withstand the Alaskan climate.

“Part of it was just logistical,” Mr. Higman said, explaining their decision to buy the tent. “A yurt can be set up in eight hours.” It was also in their price range, suited their minimalist approach to life and, perhaps most important, evoked the wilderness experience they cherish.

“The walls move when it blows hard,” he said. “It’s a little bit more out there in the elements.”

Ms. McKittrick, who grew up in Seattle, seems at home in a domestic setting: Her eyes never leave their baby (named Katmai, after a nearby volcano), and she can deftly whip up a salmon quiche for a large potluck. But elements of the frontierswoman are apparent as well. She can split wood and haul water and doesn’t blink when Katmai plays with a pair of big visiting dogs, or a fire poker.

Mr. Higman has a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Washington, where his wife earned her master’s degree in molecular biology.

Their domestic and professional lives play out within the yurt’s 452 square feet, though as Mr. Higman points out, “square” is a misnomer: the room is as circular as a big top.

It sits at the foot of a sloping lot they share with Mr. Higman’s mother, Dede. She bought the land and built a small house there some years after her divorce from Mr. Higman’s father, Craig, who still lives on the other side of town, where the younger Higman grew up.

The futon where the couple sleeps with their baby is cordoned off by a handmade quilt curtain. The kitchen, which is a sink with no running water (they haul water from a nearby well), is flanked by a few short feet of counter space. It is so cold that homemade yogurt resting on the plywood floor stays chilled. During the summer, the couple keep food cool in a root cellar they fashioned out of an old refrigerator.

How big or small your living space is, according to Ms. McKittrick, is a matter of perspective. When she’s cooking, she imagines the kitchen is the entire tent. “I like having only one room,” she said. “It means you can live in a small space and have it feel big.”

Three miles away is a small grocery, which they reach by walking for an hour. But the couple get most of their groceries on trips to Homer — 20 minutes by plane or 90 minutes by ferry — where they buy in bulk at a Costco reseller called Save U More.

In the center of their yurt is a small, constantly burning wood stove. In Seldovia, which can see up to 17 feet of snow in a season, even the biggest blaze offers slight warmth. It’s often freezing inside when they wake up in the morning. They feed logs into the stove every 15 to 30 minutes; the winter ritual of chopping, hauling and splitting firewood is constant and arduous.

Rather than use a propane heater, the couple chose the stove because, Mr. Higman said, “Each step you take in that direction is a step away from the wilderness.”

He explained that they decided to “build up from the ground, and see what we need” rather than establish a standard set of amenities that one would expect to find in a house.

Toilets that flush, in this calculus, were deemed superfluous. A cheerily painted outhouse takes the place of an expensive septic system. Their waste, which is untreated, eventually degrades. Showers also didn’t make the cut; they take a weekly hourlong walk to town to wash their clothes and themselves. Though they would eventually like to have a wash house, they said that trekking has taught them to cope without everyday luxuries like hot showers.

With no dishwasher or running water, they sometimes enlist dogs — their family’s and those of the neighbors — to lick plates clean before scrubbing the dishes in hand-drawn well water, which they said saves energy. For pragmatic reasons, Mr. Higman said, “We do have lower standards than a lot of people about how clean things have to be.”

But to them, the sacrifices are worth it. “I’m someone who doesn’t mind giving up some level of convenience for having an interesting experience,” Ms. McKittrick said. For the two, everything from watching bears trundle through the yard in summer to canning salmon bought by the bucket from fishermen docked in town is a fascinating departure from modern life.

Their treks are made not only for pleasure but on behalf of Ground Truth Trekking, the nonprofit group they founded. Through this organization, the couple hope to raise awareness of environmental issues across the state by visiting contentious sites like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They also consult for environmental organizations and run Sundrop Jewelry, an accessories business. Though their combined yearly income is around $25,000, the two say that their living expenses are slightly more than half that.

Time holds a higher value for them than the more lucrative jobs they might have had with their advanced degrees. Absent the need to work 9 to 5, there is time for snowshoeing in winter and gathering wild nettles to eat in the spring.

The money they save enables them to travel for long periods. Their next expedition, scheduled for late August, is a 200-mile monthlong trek to unmined coal repositories in northwest Alaska. This time, their son, who was conceived on the last trek, will ride on their backs.

Link

Tofu can harm environment more than meat, finds WWF study

Ben Webster, Environment Editor

Becoming a vegetarian can do more harm to the environment than continuing to eat red meat, according to a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu.

The findings undermine claims by vegetarians that giving up meat automatically results in lower emissions and that less land is needed to produce food.

The study by Cranfield University, commissioned by the environmental group WWF, found that many meat substitutes were produced from soy, chickpeas and lentils that were grown overseas and imported into Britain.

It found that switching from beef and lamb reared in Britain to meat substitutes would result in more foreign land being cultivated and raise the risk of forests being destroyed to create farmland. Meat substitutes also tended to be highly processed and involved energy-intensive production methods.

Lord Stern of Brentford, one of the world’s leading climate change economists, caused uproar among Britain’s livestock farmers last October when he claimed that a vegetarian diet was better for the planet. He told The Times: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”

However, the Cranfield study found that the environmental benefits of vegetarianism depended heavily on the type of food consumed as an alternative to meat. It concluded: “A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK.”

A significant increase in vegetarianism in Britain could cause the collapse of the country’s livestock industry and result in production of meat shifting overseas to countries with few regulations to protect forests and other uncultivated land, it added.

Donal Murphy-Bokern, one of the study authors and the former farming and food science co-ordinator at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: “For some people, tofu and other meat substitutes symbolise environmental friendliness but they are not necessarily the badge of merit people claim. Simply eating more bread, pasta and potatoes instead of meat is more environmentally friendly.”

Liz O’Neill, spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, said: “The figures used in the report are based on a number of questionable assumptions about how vegetarians balance their diet and how the food industry might respond to increased demand.

“If you’re aiming to reduce your environmental impact by going vegetarian then it’s obviously not a good idea to rely on highly processed products, but that doesn’t undermine the fact that the livestock industry causes enormous damage and that moving towards a plant-based diet is good for animals, human health and the environment.”

The National Farmers’ Union said the study showed that general statements about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism were too simplistic. Jonathan Scurlock, the NFU’s chief adviser for climate change, said: “The message is that no single option offers a panacea. The report rightly demonstrates the many environment benefits to be had from grazing pasture land with little or no other productive use.”

The study also found that previous estimates of the total emissions of Britain’s food consumption had been flawed because they failed to take account of the impact of changes to the use of land overseas.

Link

2.06.2010

Violence Against Women Is a Global Struggle

by Humaira Shahid and Ritu Sharma

Eight years ago, Nasreen (not her real name) walked into the office of the Daily Khabrain newspaper in Lahore, Pakistan, and demanded justice. She stripped off her clothes, revealing a black and blue body covered with wounds and cigarette burns. She'd been gang raped. With tears in her eyes, she said, "My husband hired three men and got me raped in front of him because I was tired of his abuse and demanded the divorce that Islam gave me a right to. He didn't even respect me as the mother of his children. . .. I just want justice in the name of God.''

Nasreen was just one of millions of women who suffer acid attacks, rape, forced marriages and other unimaginable forms of violence around the world. One out of every three women worldwide is physically, sexually or otherwise abused during her lifetime. The good news is that there are thousands of organizations in communities around the world for abused women. These organizations run shelters and offer help, support, training, and education so that women can be self-sufficient. They also fight to change cultural attitudes and push for legal reform.

In Pakistan, for example, legal reforms in the past decade have slowly started to give women the tools of basic justice. The story of Nasreen and countless other women became a catalyst for two groundbreaking resolutions in the provincial parliament in Punjab in 2003. One prohibited acid attacks on women. The other abolished violent customary practices or vani, which include honor killings, forced marriages and women bartered into marriage to make up for crimes committed by their male family members. These reforms were unprecedented and moved forward in a parliament that is notoriously corrupt, traditionalist and patriarchal, with leaders who are not only collaborators but often directly involved in violence themselves.

The resolutions had a snowball effect. They created pressure on the federal government of Pakistan, then led by Pervez Musharraf, to amend the nation's criminal laws to protect women against domestic abuse. The following year, despite opposition from many religious leaders, a Women's Protection Act was passed that repealed the Hudood Ordinance, under which a woman subjected to rape, even gang rape, was accused of fornication.

Last year, Pakistan enacted a Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace bill. None of this would have happened without the concerted effort of local women leaders, community-based organizations, NGOs, and the media, which together created enough public awareness and pressure to move the needle.

Now the needle may move again. The International Violence Against Women Act, a historic, bipartisan effort by the United States to address violence against women globally, was introduced this week.

The bill addresses, for the first time, violence against women and girls through all relevant US foreign policy efforts, including its international assistance programs. It would support local efforts in up to 20 countries, assisting in public awareness and health campaigns; shelters; education, training, and economic empowerment programs for women, as well as legal reforms. It would also make the issue a diplomatic priority for the first time, asking the United States to respond within three months to horrific acts of violence against women and girls committed during conflict and war.

Support from the American public is strong. A 2009 poll found that 61 percent of voters across demographic and political lines thought global violence against women should be one of the top international priorities for the US government, and 82 percent supported the International Violence Against Women Act.

Despite the odds women face, we, as advocates to end this global scourge, are always awed by their strength. There are countless examples of women supporting each other to overcome the bleakest of circumstances. Helping them become economically empowered and providing protection and access to justice will enable these women to create societies that are more tolerant, less violent, less extremist, and more human and socially just. Passing the International Violence Against Women Act could truly be a life-changing force for millions of women and girls like Nasreen around the world.

Link

2.04.2010

Why We Speed

by Cichlidae

For most people, ‘speed’ is a pretty straightforward term. As a noun, we’re either talking about amphetamines, or, more commonly, how fast someone is driving. As a verb, it’s something that will land you a pretty nasty ticket. For a traffic engineer, though, ‘speed’ requires clarification. We have three speeds, and no, they’re not ‘slow,’ ‘glacial,’ and ‘planet formation.’

The first speed is the design speed. Pretend you’re driving a tractor-trailer on a warm, dry day. The road’s in good shape. Your rig has seen better days. You’ve had a couple drinks; your head’s halfway between fuzzy and swimming. Oh, and you’re 80 years old. This is our design driver.

If you’re driving at the design speed, your tires will squeal around every corner. You’ll be able to read signs and react to them just in time to avoid gristly accidents. You’ll have to slam on the brakes pretty often.

Granted, most of us don’t drive like this. People who do should probably not be driving at all, in fact. All the same, we’ll design for them. This is a recurring theme among traffic and highway engineers: 99,999 people a day might use your road and have no problem with it. But if just one guy a day messes up and careens off the road, you’ve done a bad job. That’s why our design driver is so atypical.

When calculating a horizontal curve’s radius, the design speed is the main factor. You all remember a=v2/r, the equation for centripetal acceleration. If a car goes twice as fast around a curve, the radius needs to be four times as large to accommodate it, or increase the acceleration somehow. The easiest way to do this is superelevation, which is tilting the road to force you around the curve.

For a crest curve, which is going over the top of a hill, the length must be sufficient to ensure the design driver will be able to spot an object in the road (about the size of an enraged leprechaun) and stop before he hits it. Comfort is also a factor; make the crest too small, and you’ll fly over it in a graceful arc, digging a nice gouge out of the pavement downstream.

In a sag curve, driving into a valley, you can see much better, and you don’t need to steer. At night, though, that enraged leprechaun can totally sneak up on you and ruin your grille. Sight distance, then, is limited by how far your headlights can shine (about 1 degree above horizontal in the design vehicle). And, of course, the curve has to be long enough so you can actually screech to a halt once you finally see the obstacle.

Take the most dangerous curve on a road, and that’s the constraint for the design speed. A wide, flat, straight road has a tremendously high design speed. Most freeways are designed for around 70 mph, which is a pretty good clip for a buzzed octogenarian in a semi.

Next up, we have the 85th Percentile Speed (V15 in France). It’s super important for traffic engineers, because it shows us how fast people are actually driving. To get the 85th percentile speed, take the speed of 100 cars, and pick the 85th slowest (15th fastest, in other words). This speed is the key ingredient when finding red and yellow intervals at signals, the size and spacing of signs, and deciding whether or not an intersection needs a left turn lane.

Looking at variations in 85th percentile speed can tell you a lot about a road. If the shoulder narrows or there’s a leprechaun crossing, people will drive slower. Narrowing the travel lane, putting poles and trees near the edge of the road, and putting subtle curves in the road will drop the 85th percentile speed even more. Putting up a speed limit sign? Well, about that…

The third kind of speed, and the least useful to us, is the Posted Speed. I hope for your own sake you’re familiar with these black-and-white signs. By the way, the yellow ones you see posted at ramps and sharp curves aren’t speed limits; they’re advisory speeds. They’re not regulatory signs (the color is a big hint) and carry no statutory backing. That doesn’t mean you can’t get nailed for going 90 down an offramp, though; you’re still expected to go a safe and reasonable speed. Speed limits are used to set signal progression in a coordinated system. Drivers traveling at the limit should get a string of green lights.

So, how do these three speeds interact? In theory, all three should be equal. The speed people drive on a road should reflect its design speed, with a few people driving faster (hopefully not in the design vehicle) and most driving a bit slower. The speed limit should be in the same neighborhood, since the design speed is safe for almost all drivers, and very few will significantly exceed it.

As a designer, I put up that 45 mph speed limit, keeping the road safe for all. The next week, the mayor gets an angry call from an elderly citizen complaining about “those damn speed demons endangering my street!” The next day, the speed limit gets bumped down to 20 mph.

“That’s nice!” you may say. “Lower speeds mean safer roads! I learned that in driver’s ed!” Well, buddy, you’ll never be a traffic engineer with that attitude. High-speed roads (85th percentile speed over 45 mph) carry the vast majority of our traffic, but they have fewer accidents overall than low-speed roads. Yes, high-speed accidents are more dangerous than low-speed ones, but the accidents themselves are fewer. What’s really dangerous is the speed differential. When one car is driving the speed limit, 20 mph, and the guy behind him doesn’t notice the sign and drives the design speed, 45 mph, there’s a 25 mph speed differential and a big potential for accidents. If everyone drives between 40 and 50 mph, the potential is much lower.


We try to keep speed limits close to the design speed for a reason. If motorists are allowed to drive at what they feel is a safe speed, they’re more at ease and tend to group around the 85th percentile speed. With our artificially low speed limits, however, the 85th percentile speed is generally 10 mph greater than the speed limit; that difference sometimes reaches 20 mph on low-volume roads. The result is that a majority of drivers are breaking the law. Those that choose to obey the limit increase the risk of accidents.

Note that I’m not encouraging you to break the law. You’d have a tough time finding a judge who understands that you were doing 95 on the Parkway because it’s a safe speed for your car. The next time you see a speed limit, though, you’ll understand what it means and who decides it (the same drunk old lady driving the design vehicle.)


Link

2.02.2010

How to Fall 35,000 Feet—And Survive

You're six miles up, alone and falling without a parachute. Though the odds are long, a small number of people have found themselves in similar situations—and lived to tell the tale. Here's a 120-mph, 35,000-ft, 3-minutes-to-impact survival guide.

By Dan Koeppel

6:59:00 AM
35,000 Feet

You have a late night and an early flight. Not long after takeoff, you drift to sleep. Suddenly, you’re wide awake. There’s cold air rushing everywhere, and sound. Intense, horrible sound. Where am I?, you think. Where’s the plane?

You’re 6 miles up. You’re alone. You’re falling.

Things are bad. But now’s the time to focus on the good news. (Yes, it goes beyond surviving the destruction of your aircraft.) Although gravity is against you, another force is working in your favor: time. Believe it or not, you’re better off up here than if you’d slipped from the balcony of your high-rise hotel room after one too many drinks last night.

Or at least you will be. Oxygen is scarce at these heights. By now, hypoxia is starting to set in. You’ll be unconscious soon, and you’ll cannonball at least a mile before waking up again. When that happens, remember what you are about to read. The ground, after all, is your next destination.

Granted, the odds of surviving a 6-mile plummet are extra­ordinarily slim, but at this point you’ve got nothing to lose by understanding your situation. There are two ways to fall out of a plane. The first is to free-fall, or drop from the sky with absolutely no protection or means of slowing your descent. The second is to become a wreckage rider, a term coined by Massachusetts-based amateur historian Jim Hamilton, who developed the Free Fall Research Page—an online database of nearly every imaginable human plummet. That classification means you have the advantage of being attached to a chunk of the plane. In 1972, Serbian flight attendant Vesna Vulovic was traveling in a DC-9 over Czechoslovakia when it blew up. She fell 33,000 feet, wedged between her seat, a catering trolley, a section of aircraft and the body of another crew member, landing on—then sliding down—a snowy incline before coming to a stop, severely injured but alive.

Surviving a plunge surrounded by a semiprotective cocoon of debris is more common than surviving a pure free-fall, according to Hamilton’s statistics; 31 such confirmed or “plausible” incidents have occurred since the 1940s. Free-fallers constitute a much more exclusive club, with just 13 confirmed or plausible incidents, including perennial Ripley’s Believe It or Not superstar Alan Magee—blown from his B-17 on a 1943 mission over France. The New Jersey airman, more recently the subject of a MythBusters episode, fell 20,000 feet and crashed into a train station; he was subsequently captured by German troops, who were astonished at his survival.

Whether you’re attached to crumpled fuselage or just plain falling, the concept you’ll be most interested in is terminal velocity. As gravity pulls you toward earth, you go faster. But like any moving object, you create drag—more as your speed increases. When downward force equals upward resistance, acceleration stops. You max out.

Depending on your size and weight, and factors such as air density, your speed at that moment will be about 120 mph—and you’ll get there after a surprisingly brief bit of falling: just 1500 feet, about the same height as Chicago’s Sears (now Willis) Tower. Equal speed means you hit the ground with equal force. The difference is the clock. Body meets Windy City sidewalk in 12 seconds. From an airplane’s cruising altitude, you’ll have almost enough time to read this entire article.

7:00:20 AM
22,000 Feet

By now, you’ve descended into breathable air. You sputter into consciousness. At this altitude, you’ve got roughly 2 minutes until impact. Your plan is simple. You will enter a Zen state and decide to live. You will understand, as Hamilton notes, “that it isn’t the fall that kills you—it’s the landing.”

Keeping your wits about you, you take aim.

But at what? Magee’s landing on the stone floor of that French train station was softened by the skylight he crashed through a moment earlier. Glass hurts, but it gives. So does grass. Haystacks and bushes have cushioned surprised-to-be-alive free-fallers. Trees aren’t bad, though they tend to skewer. Snow? Absolutely. Swamps? With their mucky, plant-covered surface, even more awesome. Hamilton documents one case of a sky diver who, upon total parachute failure, was saved by bouncing off high-tension wires. Contrary to popular belief, water is an awful choice. Like concrete, liquid doesn’t compress. Hitting the ocean is essentially the same as colliding with a sidewalk, Hamilton explains, except that pavement (perhaps unfortunately) won’t “open up and swallow your shattered body.”

With a target in mind, the next consideration is body position. To slow your descent, emulate a sky diver. Spread your arms and legs, present your chest to the ground, and arch your back and head upward. This adds friction and helps you maneuver. But don’t relax. This is not your landing pose.

The question of how to achieve ground contact remains, regrettably, given your predicament, a subject of debate. A 1942 study in the journal War Medicine noted “distribution and compensation of pressure play large parts in the defeat of injury.” Recommendation: wide-body impact. But a 1963 report by the Federal Aviation Agency argued that shifting into the classic sky diver’s landing stance—feet together, heels up, flexed knees and hips—best increases survivability. The same study noted that training in wrestling and acrobatics would help people survive falls. Martial arts were deemed especially useful for hard-surface impacts: “A ‘black belt’ expert can reportedly crack solid wood with a single blow,” the authors wrote, speculating that such skills might be transferable.

The ultimate learn-by-doing experience might be a lesson from Japanese parachutist Yasuhiro Kubo, who holds the world record in the activity’s banzai category. The sky diver tosses his chute from the plane and then jumps out after it, waiting as long as possible to retrieve it, put it on and pull the ripcord. In 2000, Kubo—starting from 9842 feet—fell for 50 seconds before recovering his gear. A safer way to practice your technique would be at one of the wind-tunnel simulators found at about a dozen U.S. theme parks and malls. But neither will help with the toughest part: sticking the landing. For that you might consider—though it’s not exactly advisable—a leap off the world’s highest bridge, France’s Millau Viaduct; its platform towers 891 feet over mostly spongy farmland.

Water landings—if you must—require quick decision-making. Studies of bridge-jump survivors indicate that a feet-first, knife-like entry (aka “the pencil”) best optimizes your odds of resurfacing. The famed cliff divers of Acapulco, however, tend to assume a head-down position, with the fingers of each hand locked together, arms outstretched, protecting the head. Whichever you choose, first assume the free-fall position for as long as you can. Then, if a feet-first entry is inevitable, the most important piece of advice, for reasons both unmentionable and easily understood, is to clench your butt.

No matter the surface, definitely don’t land on your head. In a 1977 “Study of Impact Tolerance Through Free-Fall Investigations,” researchers at the Highway Safety Research Institute found that the major cause of death in falls—they examined drops from buildings, bridges and the occasional elevator shaft (oops!)—was cranial contact. If you have to arrive top-down, sacrifice your good looks and land on your face, rather than the back or top of your head. You might also consider flying with a pair of goggles in your pocket, Hamilton says, since you’re likely to get watery eyes—impairing accuracy—on the way down.

7:02:19 AM
1000 Feet

Given your starting altitude, you’ll be just about ready to hit the ground as you reach this section of instruction (based on the average adult reading speed of 250 words per minute). The basics have been covered, so feel free to concentrate on the task at hand. But if you’re so inclined, here’s some supplemental information—though be warned that none of it will help you much at this point.

Statistically speaking, it’s best to be a flight crew member, a child, or traveling in a military aircraft. Over the past four decades, there have been at least a dozen commercial airline crashes with just one survivor. Of those documented, four of the survivors were crew, like the flight attendant Vulovic, and seven were passengers under the age of 18. That includes Mohammed el-Fateh Osman, a 2-year-old wreckage rider who lived through the crash of a Boeing jet in Sudan in 2003, and, more recently, 14-year-old Bahia Bakari, the sole survivor of last June’s Yemenia Airways plunge off the Comoros Islands.

Crew survival may be related to better restraint systems, but there’s no consensus on why children seem to pull through falls more often. The Federal Aviation Agency study notes that kids, especially those under the age of 4, have more flexible skeletons, more relaxed muscle tonus, and a higher proportion of subcutaneous fat, which helps protect internal organs. Smaller people—whose heads are lower than the seat backs in front of them—are better shielded from debris in a plane that’s coming apart. Lower body weight reduces terminal velocity, plus reduced surface area decreases the chance of impalement upon landing.

7:02:25 am
0 Feet

The ground. Like a Shaolin master, you are at peace and prepared. Impact. You’re alive. What next? If you’re lucky, you might find that your injuries are minor, stand up and smoke a celebratory cigarette, as British tail gunner Nicholas Alkemade did in 1944 after landing in snowy bushes following an 18,000-foot plummet. (If you’re a smoker, you’re super extra lucky, since you’ve technically gotten to indulge during the course of an airliner trip.) More likely, you’ll have tough work ahead.

Follow the example of Juliane Koepcke. On Christmas Eve 1971, the Lockheed Electra she was traveling in exploded over the Amazon. The next morning, the 17-year-old German awoke on the jungle floor, strapped into her seat, surrounded by fallen holiday gifts. Injured and alone, she pushed the death of her mother, who’d been seated next to her on the plane, out of her mind. Instead, she remembered advice from her father, a biologist: To find civilization when lost in the jungle, follow water. Koepcke waded from tiny streams to larger ones. She passed crocodiles and poked the mud in front of her with a stick to scare away stingrays. She had lost one shoe in the fall and was wearing a ripped miniskirt. Her only food was a bag of candy, and she had nothing but dark, dirty water to drink. She ignored her broken collarbone and her wounds, infested with maggots.

On the tenth day, she rested on the bank of the Shebonya River. When she stood up again, she saw a canoe tethered to the shoreline. It took her hours to climb the embankment to a hut, where, the next day, a group of lumberjacks found her. The incident was seen as a miracle in Peru, and free-fall statistics seem to support those arguing for divine intervention: According to the Geneva-based Aircraft Crashes Record Office, 118,934 people have died in 15,463 plane crashes between 1940 and 2008. Even when you add failed-chute sky divers, Hamilton’s tally of confirmed or plausible lived-to-tell-about-it incidents is only 157, with 42 occurring at heights over 10,000 feet.

But Koepcke never saw survival as a matter of fate. She can still recall the first moments of her fall from the plane, as she spun through the air in her seat. That wasn’t under her control, but what happened when she regained consciousness was. “I had been able to make the correct decision—to leave the scene of the crash,” she says now. And because of experience at her parents’ biological research station, she says, “I did not feel fear. I knew how to move in the forest and the river, in which I had to swim with dangerous animals like caimans and piranhas.”

Or, by now, you’re wide awake, and the aircraft’s wheels have touched safely down on the tarmac. You understand the odds of any kind of accident on a commercial flight are slimmer than slim and that you will likely never have to use this information. But as a courtesy to the next passenger, consider leaving your copy of this guide in the seat-back pocket.

Link

1.25.2010

The cold hard facts of freezing to death

By Peter Stark

When your Jeep spins lazily off the mountain road and slams backward into a snowbank, you don't worry immediately about the cold. Your first thought is that you've just dented your bumper. Your second is that you've failed to bring a shovel. Your third is that you'll be late for dinner. Friends are expecting you at their cabin around eight for a moonlight ski, a late dinner, a sauna. Nothing can keep you from that.

Driving out of town, defroster roaring, you barely noted the bank thermometer on the town square: minus 27 degrees at 6:36. The radio weather report warned of a deep mass of arctic air settling over the region. The man who took your money at the Conoco station shook his head at the register and said he wouldn't be going anywhere tonight if he were you. You smiled. A little chill never hurt anybody with enough fleece and a good four-wheel-drive.

But now you're stuck. Jamming the gearshift into low, you try to muscle out of the drift. The tires whine on ice-slicked snow as headlights dance on the curtain of frosted firs across the road. Shoving the lever back into park, you shoulder open the door and step from your heated capsule. Cold slaps your naked face, squeezes tears from your eyes.

You check your watch: 7:18. You consult your map: A thin, switchbacking line snakes up the mountain to the penciled square that marks the cabin.

Breath rolls from you in short frosted puffs. The Jeep lies cocked sideways in the snowbank like an empty turtle shell. You think of firelight and saunas and warm food and wine. You look again at the map. It's maybe five or six miles more to that penciled square. You run that far every day before breakfast. You'll just put on your skis. No problem.

There is no precise core temperature at which the human body perishes from cold. At Dachau's cold-water immersion baths, Nazi doctors calculated death to arrive at around 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The lowest recorded core temperature in a surviving adult is 60.8 degrees. For a child it's lower: In 1994, a two-year-old girl in Saskatchewan wandered out of her house into a minus-40 night. She was found near her doorstep the next morning, limbs frozen solid, her core temperature 57 degrees. She lived.

Others are less fortunate, even in much milder conditions. One of Europe's worst weather disasters occurred during a 1964 competitive walk on a windy, rainy English moor; three of the racers died from hypothermia, though temperatures never fell below freezing and ranged as high as 45.

But for all scientists and statisticians now know of freezing and its physiology, no one can yet predict exactly how quickly and in whom hypothermia will strike--and whether it will kill when it does. The cold remains a mystery, more prone to fell men than women, more lethal to the thin and well muscled than to those with avoirdupois, and least forgiving to the arrogant and the unaware.

The process begins even before you leave the car, when you remove your gloves to squeeze a loose bail back into one of your ski bindings. The freezing metal bites your flesh. Your skin temperature drops.

Within a few seconds, the palms of your hands are a chilly, painful 60 degrees. Instinctively, the web of surface capillaries on your hands constrict, sending blood coursing away from your skin and deeper into your torso. Your body is allowing your fingers to chill in order to keep its vital organs warm.

You replace your gloves, noticing only that your fingers have numbed slightly. Then you kick boots into bindings and start up the road.

Were you a Norwegian fisherman or Inuit hunter, both of whom frequently work gloveless in the cold, your chilled hands would open their surface capillaries periodically to allow surges of warm blood to pass into them and maintain their flexibility. This phenomenon, known as the hunter's response, can elevate a 35-degree skin temperature to 50 degrees within seven or eight minutes.

Other human adaptations to the cold are more mysterious. Tibetan Buddhist monks can raise the skin temperature of their hands and feet by 15 degrees through meditation. Australian aborigines, who once slept on the ground, unclothed, on near-freezing nights, would slip into a light hypothermic state, suppressing shivering until the rising sun rewarmed them.

You have no such defenses, having spent your days at a keyboard in a climate-controlled office. Only after about ten minutes of hard climbing, as your body temperature rises, does blood start seeping back into your fingers. Sweat trickles down your sternum and spine.

By now you've left the road and decided to shortcut up the forested mountainside to the road's next switchback. Treading slowly through deep, soft snow as the full moon hefts over a spiny ridgetop, throwing silvery bands of moonlight and shadow, you think your friends were right: It's a beautiful night for skiing--though you admit, feeling the minus-30 air bite at your face, it's also cold.

After an hour, there's still no sign of the switchback, and you've begun to worry. You pause to check the map. At this moment, your core temperature reaches its high: 100.8. Climbing in deep snow, you've generated nearly ten times as much body heat as you do when you are resting.

As you step around to orient map to forest, you hear a metallic pop. You look down. The loose bail has disappeared from your binding. You lift your foot and your ski falls from your boot.

You twist on your flashlight, and its cold-weakened batteries throw a yellowish circle in the snow. It's right around here somewhere, you think, as you sift the snow through gloved fingers. Focused so intently on finding the bail, you hardly notice the frigid air pressing against your tired body and sweat-soaked clothes.

The exertion that warmed you on the way uphill now works against you: Your exercise-dilated capillaries carry the excess heat of your core to your skin, and your wet clothing dispels it rapidly into the night. The lack of insulating fat over your muscles allows the cold to creep that much closer to your warm blood.

Your temperature begins to plummet. Within 17 minutes it reaches the normal 98.6. Then it slips below.

At 97 degrees, hunched over in your slow search, the muscles along your neck and shoulders tighten in what's known as pre-shivering muscle tone. Sensors have signaled the temperature control center in your hypothalamus, which in turn has ordered the constriction of the entire web of surface capillaries. Your hands and feet begin to ache with cold. Ignoring the pain, you dig carefully through the snow; another ten minutes pass. Without the bail you know you're in deep trouble.

Finally, nearly 45 minutes later, you find the bail. You even manage to pop it back into its socket and clamp your boot into the binding. But the clammy chill that started around your skin has now wrapped deep into your body's core.

At 95, you've entered the zone of mild hypothermia. You're now trembling violently as your body attains its maximum shivering response, an involuntary condition in which your muscles contract rapidly to generate additional body heat.

It was a mistake, you realize, to come out on a night this cold. You should turn back. Fishing into the front pocket of your shell parka, you fumble out the map. You consulted it to get here; it should be able to guide you back to the warm car. It doesn't occur to you in your increasingly clouded and panicky mental state that you could simply follow your tracks down the way you came.

And after this long stop, the skiing itself has become more difficult. By the time you push off downhill, your muscles have cooled and tightened so dramatically that they no longer contract easily, and once contracted, they won't relax. You're locked into an ungainly, spread-armed, weak-kneed snowplow.

Still, you manage to maneuver between stands of fir, swishing down through silvery light and pools of shadow. You're too cold to think of the beautiful night or of the friends you had meant to see. You think only of the warm Jeep that waits for you somewhere at the bottom of the hill. Its gleaming shell is centered in your mind's eye as you come over the crest of a small knoll. You hear the sudden whistle of wind in your ears as you gain speed. Then, before your mind can quite process what the sight means, you notice a lump in the snow ahead.

Recognizing, slowly, the danger that you are in, you try to jam your skis to a stop. But in your panic, your balance and judgment are poor. Moments later, your ski tips plow into the buried log and you sail headfirst through the air and bellyflop into the snow.

You lie still. There's a dead silence in the forest, broken by the pumping of blood in your ears. Your ankle is throbbing with pain and you've hit your head. You've also lost your hat and a glove. Scratchy snow is packed down your shirt. Meltwater trickles down your neck and spine, joined soon by a thin line of blood from a small cut on your head.

This situation, you realize with an immediate sense of panic, is serious. Scrambling to rise, you collapse in pain, your ankle crumpling beneath you.

As you sink back into the snow, shaken, your heat begins to drain away at an alarming rate, your head alone accounting for 50 percent of the loss. The pain of the cold soon pierces your ears so sharply that you root about in the snow until you find your hat and mash it back onto your head.

But even that little activity has been exhausting. You know you should find your glove as well, and yet you're becoming too weary to feel any urgency. You decide to have a short rest before going on.

An hour passes. at one point, a stray thought says you should start being scared, but fear is a concept that floats somewhere beyond your immediate reach, like that numb hand lying naked in the snow. You've slid into the temperature range at which cold renders the enzymes in your brain less efficient. With every one-degree drop in body temperature below 95, your cerebral metabolic rate falls off by 3 to 5 percent. When your core temperature reaches 93, amnesia nibbles at your consciousness. You check your watch: 12:58. Maybe someone will come looking for you soon. Moments later, you check again. You can't keep the numbers in your head. You'll remember little of what happens next.

Your head drops back. The snow crunches softly in your ear. In the minus-35-degree air, your core temperature falls about one degree every 30 to 40 minutes, your body heat leaching out into the soft, enveloping snow. Apathy at 91 degrees. Stupor at 90.

You've now crossed the boundary into profound hypothermia. By the time your core temperature has fallen to 88 degrees, your body has abandoned the urge to warm itself by shivering. Your blood is thickening like crankcase oil in a cold engine. Your oxygen consumption, a measure of your metabolic rate, has fallen by more than a quarter. Your kidneys, however, work overtime to process the fluid overload that occurred when the blood vessels in your extremities constricted and squeezed fluids toward your center. You feel a powerful urge to urinate, the only thing you feel at all.

By 87 degrees you've lost the ability to recognize a familiar face, should one suddenly appear from the woods.

At 86 degrees, your heart, its electrical impulses hampered by chilled nerve tissues, becomes arrhythmic. It now pumps less than two-thirds the normal amount of blood. The lack of oxygen and the slowing metabolism of your brain, meanwhile, begin to trigger visual and auditory hallucinations.

You hear jingle bells. Lifting your face from your snow pillow, you realize with a surge of gladness that they're not sleigh bells; they're welcoming bells hanging from the door of your friends' cabin. You knew it had to be close by. The jingling is the sound of the cabin door opening, just through the fir trees.

Attempting to stand, you collapse in a tangle of skis and poles. That's OK. You can crawl. It's so close.

Hours later, or maybe it's minutes, you realize the cabin still sits beyond the grove of trees. You've crawled only a few feet. The light on your wristwatch pulses in the darkness: 5:20. Exhausted, you decide to rest your head for a moment.

When you lift it again, you're inside, lying on the floor before the woodstove. The fire throws off a red glow. First it's warm; then it's hot; then it's searing your flesh. Your clothing has caught fire.

At 85 degrees, those freezing to death, in a strange, anguished paroxysm, often rip off their clothes. This phenomenon, known as paradoxical undressing, is common enough that urban hypothermia victims are sometimes initially diagnosed as victims of sexual assault. Though researchers are uncertain of the cause, the most logical explanation is that shortly before loss of consciousness, the constricted blood vessels near the body's surface suddenly dilate and produce a sensation of extreme heat against the skin.

All you know is that you're burning. You claw off your shell and pile sweater and fling them away.

But then, in a final moment of clarity, you realize there's no stove, no cabin, no friends. You're lying alone in the bitter cold, naked from the waist up. You grasp your terrible misunderstanding, a whole series of misunderstandings, like a dream ratcheting into wrongness. You've shed your clothes, your car, your oil-heated house in town. Without this ingenious technology you're simply a delicate, tropical organism whose range is restricted to a narrow sunlit band that girds the earth at the equator.

And you've now ventured way beyond it.

There's an adage about hypothermia: "You aren't dead until you're warm and dead."

At about 6:00 the next morning, his friends, having discovered the stalled Jeep, find him, still huddled inches from the buried log, his gloveless hand shoved into his armpit. The flesh of his limbs is waxy and stiff as old putty, his pulse nonexistent, his pupils unresponsive to light. Dead.

But those who understand cold know that even as it deadens, it offers perverse salvation. Heat is a presence: the rapid vibrating of molecules. Cold is an absence: the damping of the vibrations. At absolute zero, minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit, molecular motion ceases altogether. It is this slowing that converts gases to liquids, liquids to solids, and renders solids harder. It slows bacterial growth and chemical reactions. In the human body, cold shuts down metabolism. The lungs take in less oxygen, the heart pumps less blood. Under normal temperatures, this would produce brain damage. But the chilled brain, having slowed its own metabolism, needs far less oxygen-rich blood and can, under the right circumstances, survive intact.

Setting her ear to his chest, one of his rescuers listens intently. Seconds pass. Then, faintly, she hears a tiny sound--a single thump, so slight that it might be the sound of her own blood. She presses her ear harder to the cold flesh. Another faint thump, then another.

The slowing that accompanies freezing is, in its way, so beneficial that it is even induced at times. Cardiologists today often use deep chilling to slow a patient's metabolism in preparation for heart or brain surgery. In this state of near suspension, the patient's blood flows slowly, his heart rarely beats--or in the case of those on heart-lung machines, doesn't beat at all; death seems near. But carefully monitored, a patient can remain in this cold stasis, undamaged, for hours.

The rescuers quickly wrap their friend's naked torso with a spare parka, his hands with mittens, his entire body with a bivy sack. They brush snow from his pasty, frozen face. Then one snakes down through the forest to the nearest cabin. The others, left in the pre-dawn darkness, huddle against him as silence closes around them. For a moment, the woman imagines she can hear the scurrying, breathing, snoring of a world of creatures that have taken cover this frigid night beneath the thick quilt of snow.

With a "one, two, three," the doctor and nurses slide the man's stiff, curled form onto a table fitted with a mattress filled with warm water which will be regularly reheated. They'd been warned that they had a profound hypothermia case coming in. Usually such victims can be straightened from their tortured fetal positions. This one can't.

Technicians scissor with stainless-steel shears at the man's urine-soaked long underwear and shell pants, frozen together like corrugated cardboard. They attach heart-monitor electrodes to his chest and insert a low-temperature electronic thermometer into his rectum. Digital readings flash: 24 beats per minute and a core temperature of 79.2 degrees.

The doctor shakes his head. He can't remember seeing numbers so low. He's not quite sure how to revive this man without killing him.

In fact, many hypothermia victims die each year in the process of being rescued. In "rewarming shock," the constricted capillaries reopen almost all at once, causing a sudden drop in blood pressure. The slightest movement can send a victim's heart muscle into wild spasms of ventricular fibrillation. In 1980, 16 shipwrecked Danish fishermen were hauled to safety after an hour and a half in the frigid North Sea. They then walked across the deck of the rescue ship, stepped below for a hot drink, and dropped dead, all 16 of them.

"78.9," a technician calls out. "That's three-tenths down."

The patient is now experiencing "afterdrop," in which residual cold close to the body's surface continues to cool the core even after the victim is removed from the outdoors.

The doctor rapidly issues orders to his staff: intravenous administration of warm saline, the bag first heated in the microwave to 110 degrees. Elevating the core temperature of an average-size male one degree requires adding about 60 kilocalories of heat. A kilocalorie is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one liter of water one degree Celsius. Since a quart of hot soup at 140 degrees offers about 30 kilocalories, the patient curled on the table would need to consume 40 quarts of chicken broth to push his core temperature up to normal. Even the warm saline, infused directly into his blood, will add only 30 kilocalories.

Ideally, the doctor would have access to a cardiopulmonary bypass machine, with which he could pump out the victim's blood, rewarm and oxygenate it, and pump it back in again, safely raising the core temperature as much as one degree every three minutes. But such machines are rarely available outside major urban hospitals. Here, without such equipment, the doctor must rely on other options.

"Let's scrub for surgery," he calls out.

Moments later, he's sliding a large catheter into an incision in the man's abdominal cavity. Warm fluid begins to flow from a suspended bag, washing through his abdomen, and draining out through another catheter placed in another incision. Prosaically, this lavage operates much like a car radiator in reverse: The solution warms the internal organs, and the warm blood in the organs is then pumped by the heart throughout the body.

The patient's stiff limbs begin to relax. His pulse edges up. But even so the jagged line of his heartbeat flashing across the EKG screen shows the curious dip known as a J wave, common to hypothermia patients.

"Be ready to defibrillate," the doctor warns the EMTs.

For another hour, nurses and EMTs hover around the edges of the table where the patient lies centered in a warm pool of light, as if offered up to the sun god. They check his heart. They check the heat of the mattress beneath him. They whisper to one another about the foolishness of having gone out alone tonight.

And slowly the patient responds. Another liter of saline is added to the IV. The man's blood pressure remains far too low, brought down by the blood flowing out to the fast-opening capillaries of his limbs. Fluid lost through perspiration and urination has reduced his blood volume. But every 15 or 20 minutes, his temperature rises another degree. The immediate danger of cardiac fibrillation lessens, as the heart and thinning blood warms. Frostbite could still cost him fingers or an earlobe. But he appears to have beaten back the worst of the frigidity.

For the next half hour, an EMT quietly calls the readouts of the thermometer, a mantra that marks the progress of this cold-blooded proto-organism toward a state of warmer, higher consciousness.

"90.4...
"92.2..."

From somewhere far away in the immense, cold darkness, you hear a faint, insistent hum. Quickly it mushrooms into a ball of sound, like a planet rushing toward you, and then it becomes a stream of words.

A voice is calling your name.

You don't want to open your eyes. You sense heat and light playing against your eyelids, but beneath their warm dance a chill wells up inside you from the sunless ocean bottoms and the farthest depths of space. You are too tired even to shiver. You want only to sleep.

"Can you hear me?"

You force open your eyes. Lights glare overhead. Around the lights faces hover atop uniformed bodies. You try to think: You've been away a very long time, but where have you been?

"You're at the hospital. You got caught in the cold."

You try to nod. Your neck muscles feel rusted shut, unused for years. They respond to your command with only a slight twitch.

"You'll probably have amnesia," the voice says.

You remember the moon rising over the spiky ridgetop and skiing up toward it, toward someplace warm beneath the frozen moon. After that, nothing--only that immense coldness lodged inside you.

"We're trying to get a little warmth back into you," the voice says.

You'd nod if you could. But you can't move. All you can feel is throbbing discomfort everywhere. Glancing down to where the pain is most biting, you notice blisters filled with clear fluid dotting your fingers, once gloveless in the snow. During the long, cold hours the tissue froze and ice crystals formed in the tiny spaces between your cells, sucking water from them, blocking the blood supply. You stare at them absently.

"I think they'll be fine," a voice from overhead says. "The damage looks superficial. We expect that the blisters will break in a week or so, and the tissue should revive after that."

If not, you know that your fingers will eventually turn black, the color of bloodless, dead tissue. And then they will be amputated.

But worry slips from you as another wave of exhaustion sweeps in. Slowly you drift off, dreaming of warmth, of tropical ocean wavelets breaking across your chest, of warm sand beneath you.

Hours later, still logy and numb, you surface, as if from deep under water. A warm tide seems to be flooding your midsection. Focusing your eyes down there with difficulty, you see tubes running into you, their heat mingling with your abdomen's depthless cold like a churned-up river. You follow the tubes to the bag that hangs suspended beneath the electric light.

And with a lurch that would be a sob if you could make a sound, you begin to understand: The bag contains all that you had so nearly lost. These people huddled around you have brought you sunlight and warmth, things you once so cavalierly dismissed as constant, available, yours, summoned by the simple twisting of a knob or tossing on of a layer.

But in the hours since you last believed that, you've traveled to a place where there is no sun. You've seen that in the infinite reaches of the universe, heat is as glorious and ephemeral as the light of the stars. Heat exists only where matter exists, where particles can vibrate and jump. In the infinite winter of space, heat is tiny; it is the cold that is huge.

Someone speaks. Your eyes move from bright lights to shadowy forms in the dim outer reaches of the room. You recognize the voice of one of the friends you set out to visit, so long ago now. She's smiling down at you crookedly.

"It's cold out there," she says. "Isn't it?"

Peter Stark is the author of Driving to Greenland (Lyons & Burford) and is currently at work on a trilogy of travel memoirs.

Link

1.22.2010

A Shameful Track Record : The Olympic movement plays fast and loose with basic democratic values

By Laura Robinson

Chris Shaw is a bit of a nebbish, a Woody Allen–esque guy who researches Parkinson’s disease for a living. He has two ex-wives and a fuel-efficient car, but in the winter-of-discontent narrative that has enveloped the Vancouver Olympics, he has a different passion. In 2008, Shaw wrote Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games, a thoughtful book exposing the current Olympic underbelly, from cost overruns to the destruction of pristine Eagle Ridge to make way for a widened Sea-to-Sky Highway, to the death of Tsimshian elder Harriet Nahanee from pneumonia, days after she was released from two weeks in detention for camping on Eagle Ridge and facing down bulldozers.

In his introduction, Shaw acknowledged that he had been opposed to and protesting against the 2010 Winter Olympics ever since 2002. But did he ever imagine that the Integrated Security Unit, a nearly $1 billion combination of 7,000 Vancouver City Police and RCMP, 4,000 military and 5,000 private security personnel responsible for keeping the games “safe,” would be tailing him to his local café on June 3, 2009, interrupting his walk from the café to work and, in their polite plainclothes way, telling him they did not like what he had written? Or that they would knock on the door of his ex-wife and try to pry damaging information out of her? Did he imagine the same thing would happen in the same week to other anti-Olympics activists, as police went to neighbours looking for information about the shady person next door who had the audacity to speak out against the games? Or that a week later he would land at Heathrow Airport, on his way to the University of Coventry for a sports conference, and airport security would hold him in solitary with no explanation for 40 minutes? Shaw had not imagined any of this. He was under the impression that Canadian law enforcers understood the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that our right to freedom of expression was sacrosanct.

It turns out that is not the case, and the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games expressed the tension over this issue very clearly in a press release it issued on September 16, 2009, titled: “A Balance of Interests: Freedom of Expression in Public Spaces and Athletes Competing at Their Best and Spectator Enjoyment at the 2010 Games.”

The press release said:

[VANOC] is working closely with its partners to provide a reasonable balance of interests at the 2010 Winter Games including freedom of expression in public spaces; the protection of Olympic marks and Games sponsors against commercial infringement and ambush marketing; and venues where athletes can compete at their very best before spectators who can fully enjoy the events.

VANOC clearly assumes there is a contradiction between freedom of expression and the right of athletes, spectators and sponsors to enjoy the games, as if allowing freedom of expression will somehow take away from the enjoyment of others instead of adding to it. “Protecting” the games against criticism of any sort is one of the main things the modern Olympics has always been about, giving rise to an intensely secretive and opaque organizational culture. When the games are held in democratic countries, these tensions come to the fore. In more totalitarian or fascistic states, the Olympic movement gets a much more comfortable ride. The history of this tug-of-war is a fascinating and deeply troubling one.

Given the all-powerful and monopolistic role it plays in international sport, the International Olympic Committee has come under little scrutiny in North America. This is partly because it and the international sport federations that make up much of its ranks choose to base themselves in Lausanne, Switzerland, where everything—especially bank accounts—is a secret. But the International Olympic Committee’s Olympic Marketing Fact File numbers from 2001 to 2004 show the IOC brought in a total of US$4,189,000,000 in revenue. Broadcast rights accounted for US$2,232,000,000 and domestic sponsorships brought in US$796,000,000, and licensing another $87,000,000. The Olympic Partner (TOP) sponsorship brought in US$663,000,000. Included in TOP are McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Visa, Samsung, GE, Atos Origin, Panasonic, Acer and Omega—the latter six of which are in the military and/or surveillance business.

Switzerland allows the IOC to call itself a non-profit sports club despite the $4 billion broadcast deals it signed for the Vancouver 2010 games and the 2012 games in London (30 percent greater than the broadcast numbers quoted above). This way it does not even pay the 20 percent standard income tax that regular organizations would, and Switzerland gets a generous bonus in sport tourism, as—coincidentally, of course—the country hosts a disproportionately large number of international sporting events. One World Trust, an independent British think tank, recently ranked the IOC as the least transparent of the 30 non-profit organizations it measured.

When they appear in public, members of the IOC are surrounded by security. Journalists were initially banned from the 121st session of the Olympic Congress this past October in Copenhagen; then the 1,400 media representatives who had come to cover the selection of the host city for the 2016 Olympics were cordoned off by hundreds of police officers and security agents. Once the choice of Rio de Janeiro was announced, most of the journalists left, but there were still a couple of hundred wanting to cover the rest of the congress. The IOC allowed 17 to question delegates in the lobby of the Copenhagen Marriott during lunch and breaks, dividing the journalists into two groups, A and B, with only group A getting access to the IOC members. No reason was given for this by Mark Adams, the IOC’s communications director—at least no reason that made any sense to the journalists present. Gianni Merlo, president of the International Press Association, said, “This is unfair. We are here to talk to the IOC members. And we don’t want to be listed as A and B journalists. It’s complete nonsense to prevent us access to the delegates.” He was joined by the president of the Olympic Journalists Association, Alain Lunzenfichter, who also tried to obtain media accreditation for all journalists. At the end of days of confusion and double-talk from the IOC, Adams said: “Thanks, this was a most enjoyable press briefing.”

We will all be paying for the IOC’s security this winter. It may deter terrorists, but most importantly it keeps journalists out. In Beijing I wanted to ask Hein Verbruggen, chair of the Olympic Games coordination commission and former president of the Union Cycliste Internationale (the governing body for cycling), why there was such a discrepancy between how many women were allowed to compete in cycling compared to men. Each country could bring a maximum of eleven men to compete in seven events at the velodrome while only a maximum of three women competing in three events were allowed. When I saw that he would be giving out the medals at the time trial, I made my move.

As soon as I got close enough to ask him a question—which I did by squirming around security guards—they closed in on me. All Verbruggen would say to my questions was, “I don’t know.” This from the man who is still the most powerful person in bike racing in the world. I persisted, but security was pushing me away. “It must be historical,” Verbruggen said, smiling as security formed a wall around him and pushed me out.

The UCI headquarters at the Olympic venue in Beijing was guarded by a steel fence, cameras and more security. We now know that Verbruggen worked out a secret deal with Beijing. After IOC president Jacques Rogge guaranteed journalists that all internet sites would remain up and uncensored, Verbruggen agreed to let Beijing shut down sites that were critical of China’s human rights record seven days before the games commenced, a move most believe Rogge also knew about.

By focusing a magnifying glass on some of the IOC’s members, a portrait of the movement and its values begins to emerge more clearly. Look, for instance, at General Lassana Palenfo, a member of the IOC Women and Sport Commission. He is from the Ivory Coast but now lives in Paris. Why? Because, according to two stories in the Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet this past October, he was sprung from an Ivory Coast prison in 2000 by an envoy sent by then IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch. Palenfo was told, according to the paper’s confidential source, he would be released from prison as long as he voted for Beijing to host the 2008 Olympics.

And why was the general in jail in the first place? He was second in command after being part of a 1999 Ivory Coast coup masterminded by junta leader Robert Guei, who later suspected him of plotting an assassination attempt and had him thrown in jail. This was ironic given that Palenfo was very good at throwing others in jail as head of the PC Crise—or Crisis Patrol—which “was a kind of death squad,” journalists Sverre Quist and Bo Elkjaer from Ekstra Bladet were told by an informant still in the military who met secretly with them last fall.

General Palenfo is not unlike Major General Francis Nyangweso, also an IOC member. By 1972, Nyangweso was a military commander under Idi Amin in Uganda. Amin’s reign of terror is responsible for having an estimated 400,000 Ugandans killed. If things get uncomfortable for Nyangweso in Uganda, he too will be well taken care of by the IOC, and this may have to happen because after being president of the Ugandan Olympic Committee since 1980, Nyangweso was ousted in February 2009. The newly elected officials found the committee’s bank account nearly empty—something Nyangweso had previously denied even though his tab as a jet-setting president became very high during his reign. As well as being an IOC member, Nyangweso also sits on the IOC Commission for Culture and Olympic Education. Remember that when the Olympic torch comes through your town.

In fact, it is salutary to remember how the Olympic torch got its start. Despite what Canadian journalists might write and broadcast about the torch relay being a symbol of peace and international understanding, its roots are steeped in one of the best propaganda exercises ever perpetrated on this planet. In the prelude to the Berlin Olympics of 1936, Carl Diem came up with the idea that Germany should send 3,422 Aryan runners to start at Mount Olympus and end 3,422 kilometres later at the Berlin stadium. Diem, the games’ organizer, later became a vicious Nazi military commander who ordered his young soldiers to “die like Spartans” in the war to uphold the Aryan nation.

In the 1988 The Olympic Flame, an official IOC publication written by Conrado Durantez, founder of the Spanish Olympic Academy, the chapter on the Berlin Games begins: “The 1936 Olympics went down in the annals of sport as among the most perfect ever organized, as those which were steeped in the greatest Olympic sense and essence and where the public turnout was the most enthusiastic, boisterous and numerous.” There are large photos of Nazi parades with the torch and a banner reading “Germany Awake”—the title of a popular Nazi song. More photos show Hitler with the IOC president at that time and massive columns of soldiers and swastikas. The text under a group of runners doing the Heil Hitler salute reads, “The team of runners who will execute the first phase of the journey to Athens swear an oath, raising their right arm” but not one word of the text even hints at the political reasons Hitler wanted the Olympics in Germany.

In fact, Hitler did not like the idea of the Olympics because the games involved too many people he saw as “unfit,” but Joseph Goebbels, his minister of propaganda, convinced him that hosting the games would put Germany in a glowing light. The Nazis put US$8,000,000 toward the Games. And Goebbels’s press agency issued sophisticated edicts to German journalists:

Press coverage should not mention that there are two non-Aryans among the women: Helene Mayer (fencing) and Gretel Bergmann (high jump and all-around track and field competition). [July 16, 1936]

The racial point of view should not be used in any way in reporting sports results; above all Negroes should not be insensitively reported … Negroes are American citizens and must be treated with respect as Americans. [August 3, 1936]

The northern section of the Olympic village, originally utilized by the Wehrmacht [German army], should not be referred to as “Kasernel” (the barracks), but will hereafter be called “North Section Olympic Village.” [July 27, 1936]

When the war was over, London hosted the Olympics in 1948. The political lines of the Cold War were soon drawn as Germany was divided into west and east, with Manfred Ewald becoming head of East German sport. He was the mastermind behind decades of doping that put East German athletes on the Olympic podium, as he experimented on female athletes, injecting them with doses of steroids so high many became caught in a nightmarish existence, not female and not male.

And how did Ewald manage to come to the prestigious position of head of the country’s sports organizations? His résumé included joining the Hitler Youth in 1938, becoming a member of the Nazi party as an adult and organizing the very street gangs he once ran in as a young brown shirt. Ewald’s past was known to the IOC, but it did not keep Juan Antonio Samaranch, the president of the very august and male organization from 1980 to 2001, from awarding him, in 1985, the Olympic Order, seen as the Nobel Prize of sport.

In Germany after the wall fell, Giselher Spitzer of the University of Potsdam and Gerhard Treutlein of the University of Heidelberg researched and wrote all they could on the Ewald era in the east, and also about the ease with which West German athletes were given performance-enhancing drugs. Spitzer lost his professorship and both have been persecuted by an element of the German sport system that has remade the country’s sporting past into myth. Go to the stadium in Berlin where Hitler held the 1936 Olympics and you will see the bronze plaque that commemorates Carl Diem. Go to the Olympic Museum in Lausanne and read the accolades to Manfred Ewald in the archives.

The IOC prefers to operate publicly with no memory, and of course that includes not acknowledging Juan Antonio Samaranch’s fascist ideology and provenance. Samaranch was sports minister in Francisco Franco’s regime in Spain, and during that time was president of the Spanish Olympic Committee from 1967 to 1970. There are photos of him in his fascist’s blue shirt alongside Franco, but none of this is ever mentioned in any official IOC text. By 1966 he was also a member of the IOC, and replaced Ireland’s Lord Killanin as president in 1980. Samaranch insisted on being called “his excellency” and is now Honorary President for Life. His son is an IOC member, too. If Samaranch Sr. showed a soft spot for fascism, he was following in the footsteps of American Avery Brundage, who became IOC president in 1952. Brundage conveniently took fellow American Ernest Lee Jahnke’s place in the IOC ranks in 1936 after Jahnke was expelled for calling for a boycott of the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Brundage referred to Germany’s persecution of Jews as “the present Jew-Nazi altercation” and blamed the support for a boycott on “the Jewish-Communist conspiracy.” Brundage continued to believe that the Berlin Olympics were by far the finest and was said to have been a life-long admirer of Hitler until he died in 1975.

Besides Jahnke, one may ask, what other prominent opponents have there been to the IOC’s proclivity for dictators? Not many. In 1994, before he took the athletes’ oath on behalf of all athletes at the Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Vegard Ulvang—three-time gold medalist in Nordic skiing—questioned the dictatorial nature of the IOC. “We Norwegians do not think highly of fascists,” he told me later.

In no time Samaranch had the upstart athlete taken off the starting list for his first event. This caused a scandal in Norway, where Ulvang is considered a Nordic god. The Norwegian Olympic Committee and ski federation intervened; Ulvang was put back on the startlist and he did not apologize. In 2007, when Oslo, Trondheim and Tromsø were vying to be the Norwegian city to host the 2018 Winter Olympics, Ulvang asked publicly where a critical appraisal of sport had gone. He was not alone: a poll showed that only 38 percent of Norwegians thought hosting the games was a good idea and all three cities dropped out.

Canadian Olympic gold medalist swimmer Mark Tewksbury organized many athletes in 1999, including Ulvang, to form Olympic Advocates Together Honourably—OATH—as a way to address corruption in the IOC. In 2000, Tewksbury told a BBC documentary that the IOC is “an autocratic or totalitarian system whereby things are going to happen a certain way and processes are put in place whereby those results are arrived at.” The group was snuffed out by a few IOC lawsuit threats.

Along with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, Shaw and another activist filed a lawsuit in October 2009 against the City of Vancouver over its omnibus bylaw that gave police special powers to enter private homes should they display “ambush marketing” signs or logos on their property and to arrest the occupant and take down the signage. The BCCLA argued that anti-Olympic signs could be considered ambush marketing under the bylaw. After many protests the city amended the bylaw to protect the rights to protest and to freedom of expression. The BCCLA sees this as a major victory, but is also asking VANOC to rescind a clause in its contract with artists that stipulates that the artist must “refrain from making any negative or derogatory remarks respecting VANOC, the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Olympic movement generally, Bell and/or other sponsors associated with VANOC.” In addition, the Writers Union of Canada has written to VANOC twice—first over the harassment of Shaw and then, in December, over the detention and interrogation of U.S. writer Amy Goodman at the Canadian border on her way to do a reading at the Vancouver Public Library.

Meanwhile, journalists from official media sponsors such as CanWest Global, CTV, TSN and The Globe and Mail exclaim over the torch relay and Olympic “dreams.” Canadians are supposed to put on their Made in China red mitts and are told to “believe.”

In what?

Laura Robinson is a former member of the national cycling team, former Canadian rowing champion, and Ontario Nordic ski champion. The Vancouver Olympics will be her fifth to cover as a journalist. She coaches the Anishinaabe Nordic Racers at Cape Croker First Nation Elementary School in Ontario.

Link

1.18.2010

Vibrations always good for Mike's Beach Boys


BY WARWICK MCFADYEN

Mike Love is still surfing the waves of success at 68 years of age. Those waves, more nostalgic than anything else these days, will deposit him and the band in Australia this month.

Some may take umbrage at the band's name, but it depends on one's definition of a band. Some might argue: how could a group that does not include its iconoclastic genius pop songsmith Brian Wilson, who is off doing his own thing, or his brothers Carl and Dennis, who are both dead, still be called the Beach Boys? Surely, it should be the Beach Boy (Love) and guests - although Bruce Johnston, who is in the band, has been there almost from the start.

However, Love owns the name. It's for this reason that former Beach Boy Al Jardine tours with a group called Endless Summer and Brian Wilson tours as Brian Wilson.

Still, the Beach Boys name, at least, celebrates its 50th anniversary next year. In 1961, the brothers Wilson and Love recorded Surfin'. Love still has a copy of the debut single, and he often uses part of it as the introduction, in all its primitive crackling glory, to their concerts before the band segues into the rest of the song.

Pop stars can burn across the sky in an instant or they can explode, flicker or fade. That the Beach Boys - despite the ins and outs of the band members - have been doing all three for half a century is an astonishing achievement. It is especially so when you consider their rivals in the mid- '60s for title of masters of the universe, the Beatles, lasted but seven years. Only the Rolling Stones, led by the Peter Pan of music Mick Jagger, can boast similar staying power.

Love allows himself a slight laugh at their longevity, and of their music's popularity. ''We never could've foreseen still doing music going on 50 years later,'' he says. ''That's pretty remarkable.''

Retirement isn't in his vocabulary. He looks to two giants in the industry, B.B. King and Tony Bennett, both of whom don't know the meaning of the word. Love is on the road for 150 shows a year - ''We've been watching B.B. very closely,'' he says. ''If people ask if I'm going to retire I say, 'Well, I'm going to ask Tony Bennett, he's in his 80s and he looks good and he sounds great.''

As for his voice, the more you exercise it, he believes, the better shape you keep it in. That voice, the instruments and the four-part harmonies will be enfolded in a multi-stringed symphonic lushness this month. If there is a band's oeuvre that is perfect for such treatment it is the Beach Boys' and yet, says Love, the Beach Boys in concert previously played with a symphony orchestra 20 years ago in Denver, Colorado. The same orchestral charts will be used for Australia.

Part of the genius of Brian Wilson was to bring four-part harmony into the world of pop. Phil Spector, who was king of the pop world when the Beach Boys were starting out, famously described his productions as ''a Wagnerian approach to rock and roll: little symphonies for the kids''.

Wilson wasn't so much Wagner as Bach on a surfboard - not so much The Ride of the Valkyries as the Well-Tempered Clavier. Until the drugs and mental health problems surfaced and Wilson swapped the metaphorical board - he didn't actually surf - for a sandpit, which was real. He covered a floor in his house with sand and put a grand piano in it.

The harmonies, says Love, are what set the group apart. ''Others can do two or three, but not many can do four.''

The four-part harmony is a distinguishing feature in the vocal structure of hymns. The Beach Boys turned songs of praise from God-worship to adoration of the sun, surf, cars and girls.

To Love, ''it's a wonderful thing to see multiple generations discover the Beach Boys. We have children to seniors in our audiences - that's pretty phenomenal. We, as musos, feel validated doing songs from 40 years ago. It's pretty special and it's like that when we go out and do these songs regardless of who's there and who isn't there.''

As to contact with Wilson, Love says there's not a lot of that - ''He's on his own surfing safari doing his own touring and albums and I'm doing 150 shows a year''.

But even if Wilson is not in the band in which he crafted pop jewels, his spirit through the songs will always be in the room. This time around, there'll be strings attached.

Link

1.14.2010

New spider found in giant sand dune in Israel


A new species of spider has been discovered in the dune of the Sands of Samar in the southern Arava region of Israel, scientists from from the department of biology at the University of Haifa-Oranim said this week.

With a leg span of up to 5.5 inches (14 centimeters), the new spider is the largest of its type in the Middle East, the scientists said.

Its habitat is endangered. "It could be that there are other unknown species [in the dune] that will become extinct before we can discover them," said Uri Shanas of the University of Haifa, who is heading research in the area.

"The discovery of this new spider illustrates our obligation to preserve the dune," Shanas said.

The Sands of Samar are the last remaining sand dune in Israeli territory in the southern Arava region, the university said. In the past, the sands stretched some three square miles (seven square kilometers), but due to the rezoning of areas for agriculture and sand quarries, the sands have been reduced to less than half that.

The spider is a member of the Cerbalus genus. Since it was found in the Arava, it was been given the name Cerbalus aravensis.

"Even though details are still lacking to enable a full analysis of its biology and of its population in the sands, the scientists know that this is a nocturnal spider, mostly active in the hottest months of the year, and that it constructs an underground den which is closed with a 'lifting door' made of sand particles that are glued together to camouflage the den," the university explained.

The Israel Land Administration intends to renew mining projects in the Sands of Samar in the near future, which will endanger the existence of the newly discovered spider, Shanas said.

It is possible that there are additional unknown animal species living in the sands, and therefore efforts should be made to preserve this unique region in the Arava, the researcher added.

"The new discovery shows how much we still have to investigate, and that there are likely to be many more species that are unknown to us. If we do not preserve the few habitats that remain for these species, they will become extinct before we can even discover them," Shanas said.

Link