 |
 |
|
|
|
|
.
THE NEW THREADBARE
ESSAY
THE PROVIDENCE
KICKBALL LEAGUE
KICKBOLATA JOURNALISTA
.
AD HOMINEM NAUSEUM
CRITIQUE OF 69.9 WTKK'S JAY SEVERIN
EVERYTHING NEW
IS OLD AGAIN
THE HISTORY OF THE HUMMER
EVADING THE
PROTEIN ECONOMY
ESSAY
.
EAST MEETS WESTERN
ESSAY
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
TO LAUGH & THINK
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
AD HOMINIM NAUSEUM
Intelligent
criticism of 96.9 WTKK's Jay Severin is understandably rare. Anyone with
a mind to bitch would almost certainly also see the pointlessness of it
before beginning. If not sooner.
The central contradiction to the radio persona of Jay Severin is that,
for someone with a surgical understanding of the body politic (as evidenced
by his performance on other peoples' programs) he nurtures a small
garden plot of virulent heirloom falsehoods.
Which other peoples' programs? He's a veteran the circuit, and has been
on just about every credible news program on the major networks. Severin
quite frequently mentions that he has been a political advisor and consultant
to many major political campaigns. "Many" in this case means
more than 100 and major means the highest offices you can be elected to:
Congressional, Gubernatorial, and Presidential, as well as several campaigns
abroad. What he doesn't mention, and probably wisely so, is whom he has
advised. Perhaps it wouldn't be proper for him to do so, but nonetheless,
knowing that he has aided Pat Buchanan in his run for the White House
and Arial Sharon attain Prime Minister is enlightening.
What does he say on these programs? He is opinionated, insightful, and
polite. If you first became acquainted with his gentle "public"
face, you might not recognize him in his own parlor, the Boston radio
market. It's not so much a Jekyll/Hyde thing as a George Plimpton/Rosanne
Barr syndrome. Likewise, on his own program "Extreme Games"
he doesn't so much speak the truth that burdens him and hope not to offend,
so much as he is deliberately as crude, insulting, and defamatory as he
can possibly be without being fired, sued for slander, and locked in a
Pottery Barn with very peevish civil union seekers.
Its tempting to offer him the kindness of assuming that the portion of
his views which are way outside the realm of intelligent
discussion are actually deliberate bluster intended to stir up feeling
and draw attention to the little radio bonfire of passionate idiocy that he tends.
One example of this, what we might charitably refer to as "strategic unhinging,"
can be heard when he proudly brays his new recommendation
to stem the trickle of American blood in Iraq: that we should "nuke Baghdad."
Severin has repeatedly called for big ordinance, BOAMs and 'Daisy Cutters'
to be dropped on Baghdad if it would prevent the loss of even one American
soldier.
This is such an exquisitely shit-headed pronouncement that its hard to
even know where to begin. In my experience, the best angle of approach
to this kind of argument is not to. It's just too insanely stupid
a premise to waste a moment of precious life on. Nationally syndicated
radio host Michael Savage radio has also made similar statements on several
occasions, but you won't see nearly as much outrage to Savage, because
he is the kind of moron you don't bother arguing with or about. The problem
with Jay is similar to the problem that John McCain poses to Democrats.
Both are clearly intelligent men who have their lucid, even sensible moments.
The rational mind craves reconciliation How can one capable
of such sound thinking then, at intervals, act like such a meatball?
Severin's case goes beyond a desire for consistency. His haughty brand
of trash-talk screams for market correction.
Another terrific gap in his faculties concerns the use of ad hominim.
Severin seems to feel that his position in the studio exists in some shadow
zone of journalistic ethics, granting him special license to call a spade
a whore using the most carefully chosen epithets that the FCC will allow.
He routinely gnashes at his enemies in The Boston Globe, and when one
of them should ever resort to calling him *gasp* a name, he quickly adopts
a sniffling constipated demeanor that is only as legalistic as it is patronizing,
as he explains how 'such course debasements are the province of the weak-minded
and simple.' He prides himself (one can almost hear Severin wriggling
his nose in the air) on his powers of logic in argument at times like
this. It's about the only five minutes of the show that he's not calling
Ted Kennedy a whore or Hillary Clinton a lying bitch. What I find so intriguing
about Severin's brand of self-deception is that his personal perpetration
of this very thing he condemns is done with such relish. When he abandons
his supposed outpost of Socratic debate which is not at all uncommon
he spits his insults with emphatic hostility. (As a man who is
fairly often provoked to anger by political events, it's a style of delivery
that I am not altogether unfamiliar with.) I'm not going to lie: it's
very funny when he calls Ted Kennedy a whore. His enunciation of these
attacks is gleefully venomous. He really lays into it, because it is a
dare for any Liberals that might happen to be in the listening audience.
"Ted Kennedy is a whore. He is a whore and a Communist."
The trap is laid fresh every few weeks. Of course, no one could deny that
Mr. Kennedy is in fact a political streetwalker with a permissive repertiore
and very negotiable rates. Sadly, there are always those who call in,
not to dispute Kennedy's moonlight availability, but to admonish Severin
to refrain from making personal attacks because they feel it demeans the
dialogue. Of course, it doesn't demean the dialogue, because the dialogue
simply isn't elevated far above that level very often or for very long.
You might think that someone who registers as high on the Self-Righteous
Vitriolic Blowhard index as Severin does, would make it more difficult
to be proven flatly, incontestably false. Severin is kind to us in this
regard. He makes it very easy to show what gusting bladder of hot nonsense
he is.
Take, for example, his arguments against gay marriage. Severin breezily
asserts that heterosexual marriage has been a part of human society "for
millennia." (Perhaps he meant pair bonding?) Unfortunately the custom
of marriage as we know it is only as old the style of dress with which
it is associated. To go back as recently as the Colonial period he would
find that "shacking up" was the rule and not the exception.
In support of a ceremonial creation of the Romantics, Severin invokes
an imaginary period of several thousand years, during which this custom
supposedly spanned cultures, continents, and even civilizations. Where
this argument requires a foundation of fact, it must make due with his
smug confidence that history supports his belief system, despite an arm's
length relationship with it.
This is hardly an isolated mistake. Severin has a tendency to drive his
banner deep into the ground at seemingly random locations. Take for example,
the occasion when a caller took him to task for his allegedly insensitive
use of the term 'wetback.' What follows was an exchange in which
Severin derisively (calling the woman "ignorant") insisted that
the term 'wetback' is a generic term for illegal immigrant, and carries
no racial connotations whatsoever. Of course, the caller had to be booted
from the line in order for Severin to work up enough spittle to continue,
while any listener within walking distance of a bookshelf could achieve
Instant Closure while suffering through the cringworthy tirade: Jay.
Open any dictionary. (Of course his regular listenership is safe from
this potential source of papercuts.)
One peculiar trait of Severin's is his apparent fear of actual debate.
For one who hosts a talk show, and for one who makes such preening displays
of his talents for reasoned argument, he is unusually phobic of engaging
in legitimate discussion with someone who holds an opposing view. One
of the easiest measures of how threatened he is by a caller's points is
how quickly he reverts to O'Reilly-esque ironhanded moderation. Friendly
callers enjoy luxuriant frozen moments to stammer through a clumsy agreement,
which Severin more often than not finishes or even rephrases for them,
before complimenting them for recognizing his genius. Time itself distends
and minutes stretch like taffy as like-minded callers are allowed to idly
wander through the garden of reason, with Severin alternately wallowing
in the praise or patiently tapping his ruler as he assists with their
recitation. If a caller even appears to disagree, regardless of whether
they have stated their opposition outright, Severin begins a process of
legalistic badgering, through which he maintains complete control of the
exchange. He asks the questions, and if a caller wishes to remain on the
"progr'm," they will answer directly, without benefit of preamble
or supporting point, under penalty of immediate dismissal. Severin is
allowed to interrupt, and quite frequently does, but if (*gasp*)
a caller should interrupt him, he assumes a ruffled parliamentary tone.
He is free to run the show in any way he pleases, of course, and Severin
is correct when he says that the courtroom process of counsel/witness
question and answer is the most efficient means of eliciting information.
However, his selective use of this method based on ideological kinship
is transparent and lame.
The show's title, Extreme Games, may sum up Severin's shortcomings with
DaVinci Code simplicity, and a wink. Think of the show as a verbal Ultimate
Fighting Championship for the politically inclined and permanently bedridden.
The chief combatant is also the sole referee, Wonderland's Queen of Hearts
(VERDICT FIRST, TRIAL LATER!) His courtroom manner belies what
is, in practice, a serpentine code of combat ethics. In the program's
many sparring matches he switches styles like a schizophrenic prison inmate:
one moment he may be trying to gouge your eyes out with his thumb in a
foam-flecked rage. The next he will be standing across from you, waxing
his mustache in the classic pugilist stance, commanding you to "have
at, then."
As a nation, I believe we have rarely been in a time of such earnest need
for discussion. We have certainly never witnessed such a set of policies
and administrative actions more deserving of dissection and debate, and
less fit to withstand it. Rather than attempt to maintain an interesting
and authentic forum for argument, Severin has chosen to pander to a reliable
demographic with an endless attention span for listening to their own
viewpoints triumph through autocratic control of the callers' mic. By
providing sweet, value-affirming treacle to a set whose beliefs simply
don't hold up in more even-handed venues, Severin has shown himself to
be every bit the Painted Lady of the Ratings that Ted Kennedy is to the
Senate. Perhaps this is why Severin is able to call Kennedy a whore with
such authority: when is comes to the musk of the oldest profession, they
smell their own.
* * *
EVERYTHING THAT'S NEW IS OLD AGAIN
The machinery that promised to set us free has imprisoned us.
In the process, the American Dream has become measured in units of separation
from the system that allowed its achievement. When you've finally arrived,
what is it that you do? You leave it all behind.
But if you can't leave it all just yet and you know you're going
to be chained to the gristmill for another twenty years before you can
there is nothing like a little instant gratification. If you can't
afford that cabin in the mountains, perhaps you can afford the means to
get there. And so weak-eyed prisoners of wall and street yearn for a symbol
of their own freedom. Something that represents their potential to get
away, even if it remains untapped. Something tangible. Something with
430 foot-pounds of torque.
For some time now, the graven SUV has been the rhetorical lightning rod
of enlightened liberal resentment toward the short sighted, backward-thinking
masses. The freshly waxed and ostensibly "sport-capable" vehicle that
nonetheless never leaves the suburban puzzle has become a veritable symbol
of ignorant consumption. It's a consumption pattern that spans demographics,
however. The middle-aged day-trader plaything, once a target of yuppie-scorn,
has made inroads into other market groups. The Lincoln Navigator that
is a golden calf to the Hip Hop community, a prestigious snatch-wagon
that transports Senior Executive Poozle Artists from crib to club, also
serves as an armored kinder-carrier a slightly less henpecked substitute
for the minivan.
And it's unfortunate, because not for years has the Ralph Nader set chosen
a more popular target to signify which side of the Earth issue you fall
on. Even though the viability of our access to foreign fossil fuels remains
questionable, and even though there is no class of vehicle that is less
economic, the auto-buying public is clearly still in love with its urban
assault vehicle. It's also unfortunate that a sizable percentage of those
Durango-driving soccer moms would otherwise consider themselves progressive
voters and responsible consumers.
The disdain aimed at SUV buyers hinges on vehicle weight and fuel inefficiency
which is, in the all-wise and judgmental minds of the oat-bran set, deemed
unnecessary for the tasks the vehicle will be called upon to perform
day in and day out. GMC preemptively (and perhaps wisely) addresses this
issue in their recent ad campaign for their 'Professional Grade' vehicles.
Amidst shots of the Envoy XUV and Yukon XL Denali making muddy rooster
tails and four-wheeled boulder-crawls, a voice-over soothes the potential
truck-buyer's conscience: "it's not more than you need, its just more
than you're used to." The implied question, then, is "have I been stifling
my desires through unnecessarily practical buying patterns?" This
is, of course, a question that advertisers are always willing to beg to
those with the means to indulge.
While it would be easy to criticize the sport utility
trend for being indulgent and wasteful, it is still important to remember
that our economic well being indeed our very way of life is
dependent upon not just sustained, but steadily increasing consumption.
The market hiccup of 2002 might have hobbled automakers, and a vital sector
of the economy along with it, had it not been for SUV-frenzy. Despite a
full-on slouch in every other vehicle class, truck and SUV sales have allowed
manufacturers to, however wounded, continue marching nonetheless. And once
it became clear that the trend of the four-wheel drive luxury vehicle would
illuminate a path through this lean period, auto manufacturers were not
coy.
The market's middle and bottom ground has always been sport-friendly:
the Semi-Disposable Korean Sport Utility Vehicle is a phenomenon almost
as old as the Semi-Disposable Korean Vehicle. The beckoning of the leather-seat
set is the true measure of how earnest the competition is. Even the most
austere luxury manufacturers have entered an upsized upscale contender,
if not retooled their line to cater to the prevailing climate. Cadillac
is a perfect example.
Cadillac
has occupied the luxury vehicle niche for as long as there has been one.
In its first fifty years, Cadillac settled comfortably into its position
as a maker of quietly humming plush sail barges for oldsters and pimps.
The company's solid gold credential with the WWII generation began to
wear thin in the eighties, and like Oldsmobile before it, Cadillac needed
to sell itself to a less mortally advanced generation. Their great-fendered
boats began to list toward "coupe." The Cadillac crest, an enduring emblem
of mack-daddyhood (or grand-daddyhood), was streamlined, and the first
new vehicle it appeared on was the 2002 Escalade. (If it didn't already
mean, "to scale a rampart using ladders," the name itself would be a classic
example of evocative word smashing, a fusion of "escalate" and "escapade"
that for some reason, makes everyone I know think of sliding rocks.) Less
of a barge and more of a P.O.S.H. ("port out, starboard home"
for the less nautically-inclined) ice-cutter, the Escalade is riding Cadillac's
new crest into the future: of the nine vehicles currently offered, four
of them are some variety of truck.
If the luxury vehicle of the times has truly headed for the hills, then
there must be new means to define the term 'luxury.' In a marketplace
that has come to resemble an orgy of vehicle size and raw power, there
is no other make of sport utility vehicle that has more sharply defined
Western consumer vanity than the Hummer. Certainly no other make of vehicle
has such opulent disparity between what it is capable of, and what it
will likely be used for. It would be the preserve/forestry of choice vehicle
were it not prohibitively expensive for most department budgets, and the
fact that it has a military-borne nickname that is synonymous with an
act of sexual subservience does not discourage this swaggering image.
And let's face it: the fact of that nickname's other meaning did not prevent
General Motors from using the de-facto name as the official brand.
There's
a touch of hypocrisy in the derision of unused potential of a sport utility
vehicle. Scorning the urban stockbroker with a Cadillac Escalade because
he never leaves the metropolitan bubble seems to suggest that it would be
okay if only he used that off-road enduro, remote-campsite-finding capacity.
It's an argument similar to a condemnation of hunters that suggests that
their practice would be justifiable "if they ate the meat." The implication
is that it's not the killing that is wrong, but the wasting. At issue is
the word Sport, sport as in killing for, and sport as in utility.
The question is whether there is purity in its pursuit, and that is a question
I won't be addressing here.
Regardless, if there is judgment to be passed on unused potential, then
the Hummer is guilty of being extravagantly over the top of its urban owner's
performance envelope. It is, after all, a modified military vehicle. As
is often the case with conspicuous consumption, the fact of the Hummer's
ridiculous over qualification is exactly the point of its prestige.
And what of the Hummer? We should know it, because like its most prominent
unpaid spokesperson, it is if nothing else an impressive specimen. For the
completely uninitiated, the "Hummer" that now appears on streets, advertisements,
and (occasionally) rocky escarpments across the country is the commercial
version of defense contractor AM General's winning bid for the for the 'High
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle' (HMMWV), or "Humvee" as it came to
be known. The Humvee is grandson of the first vehicle to make the transition
from battlefield to parking lot -- and is manufactured by the same company
that won a military contract in the 1940's for the "1/4 ton truck,
General Purpose" which achieved popularity under the nickname given
by the soldiers who used it -- the G.P. or "jeep."
The
corporate lineage of the Humvee predates the first automobile, but following
this history is a path that is erratic as the beginnings of American industry.
In 1903, the Standard Wheel Company in Terre Haute, Indiana, expanded its
bicycle operation to include the Overland Division, which would manufacture
motor vehicles. Their first offering was the Overland Runabout. In 1908
a former bicycle manufacturer John North Willys bought the Overland Automotive
Company and moved all operations to the Pope-Toledo manufacturing plant
in Toledo, Ohio. Willys renamed the operation the Willys-Overland Company,
which made its name producing the famous Willys-Knight series, and later
the Willys-Overland Whippet. (Raise your hand if your grandfather had a
Whippet.)
American
auto manufacturers tended to grow into large companies, become part of large
companies, or get crowded out by those large companies. In the late thirties
the diminutive Willys had fallen on very hard times.
In
1940, the U.S. military was looking across an ocean, into the future of
mechanized conflict. German Blitzkrieg tactics demanded that opposing forces
would have to be nimble. The old model for weapons transport was certainly
sure-footed. It also ate grass. Military planners needed a small, powerful,
and fast machine to replace the mules and horses used in World War One.
What
they envisioned was lightweight, 4-cylinder 4X4. They wanted it to weigh
less than 1300 lbs, and they wanted it to be able to carry half its own
weight. Design specifications were pitched to 135 companies for a bid contract,
but the timeframe was so short and requirements so demanding few but the
most very desperate companies could afford to apply. With most of America's
automotive energies already being directed toward the manufacture of aircraft
parts, the contract seemed designed to attract companies that couldn't afford
not to apply.
The
largest auto manufacturers had since moved on to the popular 6-cylinder
engine, but the scrappy Willys-Overland retained special expertise in the
manufacture of 4-cylinder vehicles. The company's future was secured by
its having been a little behind the times. In 1941, Willys-Overland Motors,
Inc. began producing the M-38 General Purpose vehicle for the United States
military. The model and its many revisions would become a boon-bringer,
and eventually the very identity, to the corporation over the next several
decades. A 2002 Museum of Modern Art exhibit describes the M-38 as having
"the combined appeal of an intelligent dog and a perfect gadget," and clearly
there have been few vehicles, civilian or military, which have had such
an indelible impact on the American consciousness.
The
General Purpose Vehicle contract had hauled the struggling manufacturer
from the brink of disaster during the war years, but the industrial climate
at the close of World War Two posed many problems for Willys-Overland. The
company had never made its own car bodies, and pent-up postwar industrial
demand, along with diminished production capacity meant the small manufacturer
was shut out of contention for the sought-after sheet stamping it required
for its vehicle bodies.
A
larger manufacturer, facing a changing commercial climate might have fallen
back on the depth of its pre-war civilian product line to readjust to the
postwar years. Willys-Overland had no such depth to speak of, and nothing
to redefine itself with. Before the jeep, the company had just struggled
back from the verge of bankruptcy so it resorted to marketing its
sole offering, a small, adaptable, and powerful vehicle suitable for "general
purposes" to a new clientele. It pitched the "jeep"
to the commercial sector for industrial and farm use.
To
do so, W-O found the stamping capacity it needed in the form of a company
that manufactured household appliances. With some limitations to the depth
of curve for parts like the fenders and hoods, jeep vehicle bodies would
be made in an automatic dishwasher plant during the initial postwar period.
There
were three companies that were involved with the manufacture of the General
Purpose Vehicle. The tiny Bantam, instrumental in the jeep prototype development,
was bought out. Ford's design was rejected in favor the Willy's model. Although
Ford had been authorized by the military to mass-produce the vehicle from
Willy's design specs, it had no claim to a postwar consumer product. Willys
trademarked the G.I. colloquialism, and from then on the company's livelihood
would be spelled with a capital "Jeep."
Willys-Overland
hired a young firebrand freelance vehicle designer named Brooks Stevens
to help design a line of modified Jeep vehicles for the commercial sector.
America had already grown fond of the Jeep, and the once-struggling automaker
began to gain footing in this slippery new battlefield, with a customer
much more fickle than the U.S. Government: the American auto-buying public.
Anything but unsentimental, Americans found it easy to imagine a Jeep pulling
a plow or a camper on the long road back to normalcy. Before long Jeep was
selling several variations of the versatile mite to working, recreating
America.
The
end of the 1940's was an unprecedented boom period for the automobile industry.
Americans had been saving money and bottling demand during the entire war.
Willys-Overland was enjoying brisk sales of its steadily broadening line
of Jeep progeny, including a farm tractor, station wagon, pickup, and panel
truck. Despite the company's keen desire to re-enter the lucrative postwar
passenger car market, Willys had been unable to create a marketable update
of its singular prewar offering, the economical 4-cyclinder "Americar."
Funds for product development were often short in the Toledo-Pope manufacturing
plant, and the tooling necessary to develop an entirely new passenger car
was both scarce and expensive. One thing the design team was adept
at was improvisation, and prototypes were often cobbled together from existing
components. The beginning of 1949 found the company still without its coveted
passenger car, and a need to offer something new to its customers. So they
put the 4X4 drive train from a Jeep pickup into a stainless steel station
wagon body. It had off-road capability, and it had wood paneling on the
side. The first sport utility vehicle had been born.
Despite
several corporate mergers and name changes, the company's fate remained
financially braided to the adventures of the U.S. military. It remained
a small player in the American truck market and had a very special relationship
with the U.S. Postal Service, but its lifeblood was ongoing military truck
manufacture for American endeavors in Korea and Viet Nam. The Jeep Corporation
settled awkwardly into a forked niche as retail dwarf and military giant.
In fact, it was the largest tactical truck manufacturer in the world.
By
1970 the company was divided into twin units. A Consumer Products Division
manufactured the sideburn-friendly Wagoneer, Jeepster Commando, and the
CJ line. On the other side of the market, a General Products Division continued
to produce M38A1's and M151's for military customers worldwide. The following
year, parent company American Motors acknowledged that the demands of the
military and commercial sectors had become distinctly separate. The General
Products Division was spun off into a wholly owned subsidiary called AM
General. In 1983 American Motors sold its military product division to a
single-minded defense contractor named LTV Corporation, which tucked AM
General into its Aerospace and Defense Company.
In the late Seventies, the U.S. military was using a myriad of different vehicles
to fulfill its varied automotive needs, from M-38 derivatives to Dodge Rams
to an assortment of heavy trucks. Military planners desired one vehicle
platform that could be modified and used for cargo, armament, troop and
shelter transport, ambulance and rescue, heavy weapons mule, and up-armored
personnel carrier. Also, it wanted something that would have a wider wheelbase
with less of a rollover inclination than the Jeep had. The potential for
this contract was enormous: it was as if the Fashion Police had opened bidding
for the New Universal Pant. AM General won the first of several contracts
to manufacture the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle for the U.S.
Armed Forces, in its first year as an LTV subsidiary.
* * *
Consumer
trend watchers term influential cultural mavericks as "early adopters,"
-- those charismatic innovators who invent trends and spread them like social
viruses. It would have been remarkably prescient for AM General to have
anticipated the extent to which SUV-mania would come to dominate America's
auto-buying tendencies back when the Humvee was first introduced to the
ranks of the U.S. military. In 1983 the new sport vehicles to get were the
Ford Ranger and the Chevy Blazer S-10 -- regarded as rugged midsize pickups
in their day, but mere bantams compared to the Humvee's gross weight of
almost 10,000 lbs. By the temper of the time, very idea of the Humvee's
use as a commercial vehicle would have regarded as heinously gratuitous
by America's commuting rank and file.
Enter
the Überman, playing the role of early-adopter: a bodybuilder turned
movie star from Austria. Even had they been inspired by the commercial success
of Jeep Corporation, it is unlikely that AM General would have even dreamed
of marketing the airlift-ready behemoth to the truck buying public.
Nonetheless
the cultural seed was planted when mysterious sightings began in the Los
Angeles grid of a massive, white military vehicle with vanity plates that
read "TERMINATOR." It is only fitting that Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself
a totem of excess, should be the one to carry the advance banner of sport/leisure
overkill.
Predicting
the Humvee's commercial potential, General Motors bought the rights to develop
and market "Hummer" as a civilian brand back in 1990. While the military
contracting unit has since changed hands, GM nonetheless maintains the commercial
property. Make no mistake; there is a wide gulf between storefront and warfront.
There are significant differences between the Humvee and the Hummer.
For
starters, the Humvee does not have keyed ignition, which would be impractical
in the field. The Humvee starts with the push of a button. (If you're worried
about your army's vehicles being stolen, you've got other, much larger problems
to worry about.) It was also decided that consumers would not need to have
the engine hermetically sealed in a waterproof casing. The Humvee engine
can actually operate completely submerged not likely to be necessary
on grocery runs. Fording more than three feet of water is still challenging,
however. To this end the cabin of the Humvee has holes designed to take
on water and eliminate buoyancy, enabling the wheels to find purchase on
riverbeds and washed-out roads. There are also lanyards fused onto the frame
itself for ease of airlift hardly a feature that consumers could
ever dream of using, and although there is a consumer-end mimic of this
feature, it is not recommended that you attempt to lift your Hummer by its
hood-handles. (One of the anecdotes that dealers love to repeat is the fact
that when Humvees were dropped into Panama, several landed upside down in
the swamps. Rangers had no problems righting the vehicles and driving them
away. But then, Army Rangers are a fairly superhuman lot, all things
considered.)
One
of the main technological triumphs of the Humvee is its Central Tire Inflation
System (CTIS). Each tire has a built-in compressor, and if you should somehow
manage to puncture one of the Humvee's tires, the other three can divert
pressure to the leaking unit. This item alone rings in at $10,000, so the
civilian version features a cheaper facsimile of the original military feature.
Further reducing its tiny cargo area, the Hummer has an onboard air compressor.
Flat tire? Just plug it into the back of the vehicle and refill.
These
are the differences between the Humvee and the H1. The H1 costs $110,000,
and is by the admission of Hummer itself, not a very practical vehicle to
operate in a city environment. The typical H1 buyer has, on average, six
other automobiles, suggesting that it is merely a very mean-looking collector's
bauble. While GM has promised to keep the H1 as a part of the Hummer line,
its inclusion is really a token: last year it only sold 300 units, and they
planned to sell only 100 or so in 2004. The vehicle you most often see is
the smaller H2, which is further removed from the industrial grade of the
H1. Mechanically speaking, the H2 has as much in common with the Suburban
as it does with the H1, and can be had for a thrifty $45,000.
Even
if you aren't an admirer of working vehicles, the Hummer is arresting. At
first glance it resembles a discarded prop from 1982's pre-Schumacher MegaForce.
When you have a chance to get up close and see how solid it is, it still
looks like a sci-fi prop -- from a movie that hasn't been made yet. Still,
in the criteria of modern wheeled sculpture it is not an attractive piece
in much the same way that the first Volkswagens also were not. Its closest
stylistic kin is probably a 70's era Range Rover or an LM002 Lamborghini,
and yet one gets the impression that the Hummer has no real kin in
this realm of vehicles whose primary function is to appeal. If the Hummer
looks completely alien parked at the video store, it is important to remember
that the Hummer was not designed for the retail market at all: this is a
brutish interloper from a commercially distinct universe.
The
market forces that act upon military equipment have a different set of priorities
than those that act upon consumer goods. The intensity of contract competition
has a tendency to weed out even the smallest excess. When Willy's was first
trying to win the M-38 contract, the design team found themselves even shortening
bolts and cotter pins in a desperate attempt to lighten their prototype
and meet the contract's weight limit. This process results in frilless,
purposeful machines. The simplicity of the Hummer's form gives it an earnest
appearance that seems to mock the sleek curves of luxury truck products.
Yet for all its aggressive posturing, the Hummer is all kinetic potential:
a Clydesdale, put into gelded service as a grocery mule. This makes it perhaps
the greatest sport futility vehicle of them all.
*
* *
If
Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Hummer are symbolic twins for the rest of
America, they are symbolically synonymous to California residents. The celebrity-plated
Gubernatorial-recall election of 2003 distilled policy choices into vehicle
choices: Arnold's 10 mpg Hummer has become representative of all the excesses
of a spendthrift Republican administration; arrogant counterpoint to Ariana
Huffington and her hybrid Honda.
Few
vehicles come as fully loaded with moral and cultural implications. The
same silhouette that incites civic-minded Civic drivers to pass judgment
at 200 yards evokes classic American virtues to others. Of course, one of
the primary aspects of both the Hummer's appeal and infamy is its symbolic
value as a piece of military hardware. These connotations are especially
potent in a time when military action has become a lens through which national
identity is focused. In this sense, the Hummer's status as a patriotic icon
is a perverse and timely emblem, presenting us with a bizarre contemporary
reflection of the same impulse that first vaulted the Jeep from trustworthy
field implement to beloved national symbol.
At
the time of its commercial transformation, the Jeep carried the symbolic
cargo of the last great unified effort that our country has known. It represents
an era of uncomplicated commitment, and a societal involvement so complete
that virtually our entire country was drafted. In World War Two, civilians
were given a mandate to conserve raw materials for the manufacturing
effort. Sixty years later we find ourselves with a commercial empire threatened
by asymmetrical attacks. When our economy is so threatened we are given
an entirely different patriotic duty as we were by the Bush Administration
in the days following September 11th go shopping.
Given such a shift from conservation to consumption, the Hummer makes an
entirely fitting national symbol, extending the truck's anthropomorphized
characteristics outward in concentric rings of pride: as consumers, as a
military force, as a nation, so are we perceived.
* * *
EVADING THE PROTEIN ECONOMY
Do you find it difficult to look at the natural world without an economic subtext?
Life on Earth has always seemed to me to resemble a global protein economy
where the "money" really does grow on trees. In a competitive environment,
the process of meiosis slowly channels each species into a career path most
likely to ensure its survival. Natural selection, like the free market,
wields a harsh hand in the short term, but acts with gentle guiding force
on the continuing resume of a species over the course of centuries.
There is a watershed along this adaptation that diverts species toward being
The Best or being The Only. Competition for common resources promotes athletic
performance. Finding a way to acquire obscure resources promotes the development
of unusual talents.
Specialization almost always comes at the expense of other more broadly
applicable skill sets. For example, the anteater is a termite-exterminator-cum-laude.
Doing nothing but lapping around the hive for several hundred years has
equipped the anteater with a marvelous appendage for the trade, but the
terrible price of such specific equipment is that there is no tiding oneself
over on anything bigger than chocolate jimmies should the termite industry
run sour.
As competitive as life On The Ground can be, there seems to be a clumsy
loophole in the Natural Order: in places where it is humid, weird things
can live in trees. This is largely true because tropical forests seem to
have a shortage of predators that climb. Big cats occasionally sleep in
trees, but they do not generally hunt there. As a result of this culinary
acrophobia, the arboreal canopies of the world are home to some of the larger,
more freakish creatures we have ever seen. I submit a few natural oddities
in support of this, the whack-nut street vendors of the natural world: the
tree sloth, the koala, and the chameleon.
The tree sloth, looking like an amalgam of equal parts bear and monkey,
is easily the most awkward land mammal on Earth. When it's actually on
the earth, it can be clocked at a maximum speed of 0.15 miles per hour.
In the animal kingdom, this is a Tropical Happy Meal, with Floss. In the
trees, however, this languid pace keeps the tree sloth out-of-sight and
out-of-mouth. In its element of the tree canopy, the sloth is criminally
disrespectful of the Natural Order, although disrespectful is perhaps a
misnomer, as the tree sloth appears completely unaware of the mortal hunger/paranoia
that possesses almost every other species. The tree sloth is an oblivious
non-participant in the Trials of Life. If lethargy can be called a tactic,
the tree sloth's approach is to be in all things so slow that it is virtually
invisible to predators.
You need further evidence that the tree sloth is cheating the Natural Kingdom
out of the toll of sweat and fear that it levies against most other species?
The tree sloth grows moss in its fur. In fact, this moss helps disguise
the sloth from would be diners. And sloths thumb their noses at Darwinian
Principles on the average of once per week, when they come down from the
tree to defecate.
The koala's two jobs are to eat the leaves of about 3 of the roughly 650
species of eucalyptus, and make sure not to let go of the branch. Slow moving,
cute looking, and shockingly ill-tempered, the koala enjoys a dietary indulgence
that few other species can afford it eats nothing BUT eucalyptus
leaves. Factor in a few other tidbits, including eucalyptus leaves being
highly toxic, reputedly narcotic (hold onto that branch), and that the koala
sleeps TWENTY hours a day, and you begin to think this animal has some sort
of racket going. Thus is the gamble of narrow skill bandwidth when
you score, you score Big Time. Developing an ability to digest poisonous
leaves + living in trees in an area where the only predators are a species
of feral Old Yellers = Unlimited Downtime.
* * *
EAST MEETS WESTERN
As
I child I never liked Westerns. Even as a young child, like many of my generation,
I was vaguely offended by the portrayal of Native Americans they offered.
Years later I was able to better put my finger on it, but at the time there
was simply something about it that just seemed wrong. Indeed, in
few other cultural relics is our pre-sixties paradigm on display with such
Punch and Judy simplicity. See the noble frontiersman. See the babbling
savage. It was so simple. And we are so embarrassed.
We have, as a society, made significant steps towards apology. If dollars
count as anything, and I think in today's society dollars count as most
things, the privilege to run casinos that most states have 'reserved' to
the tribes is nothing short of a fiscal coup. Even people who have political
objections to the idea have to admit that it is, if nothing more, a way
to ease the collective guilt with relative painlessness. If Las Vegas is
the great American Temple of Mammon, then every other casino between Atlantic
City and the high desert that doesn't have a paddle wheel could be considered
a Temple of Penitence.
And no matter how stately the marbled front offices of those temples are,
one really must see the reservation to understand how truly marginalized
the Native American way of life is. And with that, the crushing realization
that no amount of money can undo what we have done.
I think the most painful burr under the saddle of the collective conscience
is since we have no memory of the west our memory of The Westerns.
If the stories we tell ourselves are a reflection of who we are, then we
are definitely committed to telling different stories. To wit: the Kevin
Costner's 1991 epic of the American west, Dances With Wolves.
On first viewing, Dances With Wolves presents us with the tonic all
American apologists needed. Finally we get to see Native American spirituality
treated with more than a begrudging acknowledgement. An examination of the
non-indian characters reveals more of a pointed bias, unfortunately. John
Dunbar performed a suicidally brave action to end the jaded stalemate his
Civil War unit was in. He was attempting to get himself killed, but what
he got was a promotion. Given his choice of any military fort to go to,
and he chose the most remote one there was, because he wanted to see the
frontier 'before it was gone.'
The army was a flame to the uneducated, unskilled moth of early American
society. Even with this in mind, it is hard to imagine a more spiteful,
trollish collection of human beings than the rank and file we see when the
Army returns to examine their abandoned fort. The typification of this portrayal
is, of course, "Spivey," who not only goes out of his way to cause harm
to the helpless, but takes a giddy delight in the sheer cruelty of his actions.
It is a shame that in order for Native Americans to receive a complimentary
caricature, Americans had to be demonized at the same time. When you have
well-developed, multi-faceted anti-heroes, they usually end up being perceived
as merely "misunderstood." It is, after all, hard to have a hero without
a villain. At least in Dances With Wolves, the right people wear
the black hats. In the process Dances presents the most fully realized
picture of the anthropological myth of the Noble Savage as has ever been
committed to film. You could also argue that the Souix people are the closest
embodiment of this myth as a people ever were. You would probably be right.
Four years ago action-movie-director god James Cameron released Titanic.
Titanic was released months late and tens of millions of dollars
over budget, but as ticket sales continued to climb during the weeks that
most successful movies begin to wane, you can be sure that thousands of
people in Hollywood began to take notice. As ticket sales continued
to climb during the weeks that most blockbusters wane, you can be sure that
producers and directors across the nation slapped their foreheads at the
Monday Morning transparency of the newly discovered Cameron Formula: epic
scale action (boyfriends/husbands) + romantic lead dujour (girlfriends/wives)
+ recent historic backdrop (nostalgic seniors) = The Broadest Possible Market
Base. You get the guys, you get the girls, you get a recent tragedy that
Everyone Need Be Cognizant of. No one needs to reiterate how successful
Titanic was and how, due to it's broad appeal, the film became a
symbol of bandwagon media consumption.
Since then several firms have attempted to recapture the success of Titanic.
Last year's Enemy At The Gates tried to distill both extremes of
the demographic $8.25 cent pie. At one end was grime and massive human casualty
of World War II's Russian front. At the other is Joseph Fiennes. (Most Generals
wouldn't order Joe Fiennes into battle. They would confiscate his weapon
and banish him to the Royal Squadron of Rogue Poets.) All this, released
just in time for the D-Day Anniversary.
This year, Michael Bay has given us Pearl Harbor. Savvy enough to
realize how muich money Titanic made abroad, Mr. Bay realized a more
tender approach was needed for the handling of the Japanese (one must remember
Titanic made cushy sums of money in Japan). Bay's protrayal of the
Japanese is suitably noble the movie is being billed as a romance
there. If Pearl Harbor's assessment were true, the Japanese had no
choice but to attack us our sanctions had them backed into a financial
corner. It's funny, but if I were going to cite a country whose involvment
in World War Two was motivated primarily by financial concerns, is would
have been us.
There are no "bad guys," and it is fairly easy to empathize with either
perspective. At last it would seem that we are coming to a more sophisticated
model for storytelling, albeit not from a particularly enlightened perspective:
simply put, both sides are markets for the movie product. When the characters
become market marionettes, in a sense, "everybody" "wins."
* * *
|
|
|
|
|
|