April showers bring May flowers, diluvial myths

In the past week, Bosnia and Serbia have been hit by the heaviest rain in the history of recorded weather measurements there. Throughout Southeast Europe, at least 47 people are dead due to flooding. This ongoing tragedy is a reminder of the sheer, devastating power of nature, and water in particular.

Massive flooding like that in Europe is, thankfully, an aberration rather than a daily occurrence for most people. Nonetheless, smaller scale excesses of water can have frequent, significant impacts.

A few days ago around my home of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, we had a torrential downpour. I took the bus into town, and in the time I waited at the bus stop, my pants were completely soaked through despite my umbrella. The streets were filling up with water and the bus had to turn around at one point to take a different route. Our basement still has a small pool of water where the floor is lowest. The total time of the rainstorm? About 3 hours.

Of course, when you’re talking about flooding, the important factor is intensity, rather than just duration. It can rain for most of the year without flooding, so long as the rain is light. After the rain tapers off, the ground still has to soak it all in and deal with it. By then, houses have been destroyed, property has been ruined, and lives have been lost.

In 2005, the city of Mumbai was brought to a standstill when it got 39 inches of rainfall over the course of 24 hours. If a whole metropolitan area can be shut down by a single day of heavy rain, how about seven? Nine? Forty days? Given the frequency of small floods and the epic scale of large ones, it is no surprise the flood has pervaded world mythology since time immemorial.

In Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious mythos, a fellow named Noah is told to build a big boat because God is going to kill off the human race and Noah alone is worth saving. And his kids. And some animals. So they pile on the boat and weather the 40-day-long deluge, eventually landing and interpreting a rainbow as God’s promise never to destroy the world with a flood ever again. Cities, islands, and river lands, sure, but never the whole world. We all know this one because it’s ingrained in Western popular culture through retellings and satire, such as the movie Evan Almighty, even if you’ve never been to Sunday School.

Dig a little deeper and you’ll find a lot of other cultural traditions that have a remarkably similar motif. For instance, the Sumerians have a story about a man named Atra-Hasis (“exceedingly wise,” but you can also call him Utnapishtim; oh wait, that’s even harder to pronounce). In their version, the chief god, Enlil (“Lord of the Storm”), gets sick of mankind because they breed too quickly and spread disease, so he decides to flood them out. The god of freshwater and our old friend, Enki (maybe “Lord of Life”), is bound to secrecy, but he cheats and tells Atra-Hasis, a mortal, about the plan. Atra-Hasis builds a boat out of his house and loads all his possessions, family, and workmen into it. The flood goes on for seven days before he lands safely.

Enlil is pissed because Enki told his secret to a human, so Enki makes Atra-Hasis into an immortal as a sort of workaround; that way, he no longer has broken his oath. Thousands of years later, Atra-Hasis tells his story to Gilgamesh, who had sought him out seeking the secret of immortality.

Another similar story is that of the Greek Deucalion, who was the son of Prometheus. At one point, Zeus decides to wipe out the humans with a flood, but Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha (“flame colored,” as her hair), who was coincidentally the daughter of Pandora (the one with the box, not the Internet radio station), are told to build a “chest” and float out the nine-day-long deluge in it (however that was supposed to work). When they land, they sacrifice to Zeus and so are allowed to get a wish. They take up stones and throw them into the air, where they become men and women, thus circumventing the whole “repopulate the earth via incest” thing common to these stories.

Then there’s the Hindu story, found in the Puranas (Sanskrit: “of ancient times”), of Manu the mortal and Matsya, avatar of Vishnu. Manu, the first man, was a great king. At one time, he found a small fish being swept downstream to the ocean who begged him for help. Manu took him and put him in a tank. The fish outgrew it, so Manu put him in a bigger one, and so forth, until he had to put him in a river, and eventually in the ocean. At that point, the fish reveals himself to be an avatar of Vishnu (Matsya is Sanskrit for “fish”), and warns Manu that the world will be flooded, promising to help him get through the ordeal safely. Manu builds a boat and takes his family and some seeds and animals on board. He waits out the storm and makes it to land with Matsya’s help, then goes on to found the human race. Of course, he lived, like, 306 million years, but that’s how things go in Hindu mythology.

In China, we get a different kind of flood story — one that’s at least somewhat based in recorded history. Humanity wasn’t wiped out, but the country was fighting floods for centuries. Floods ravaged the fields and cities of China until the emperor hired a man named Gun to organize the efforts to push it back. Gun tried to use sandbags and blockades to keep the water out, but after a decade, his efforts failed, so the emperor killed him — or maybe Gun transformed into a dragon or something. Anyway, Gun’s son, modestly named Yu the Great, takes over the work and manages to get the flood under control by building dykes and/or fighting nine-headed snake monsters. The emperor is so impressed that he appoints Yu his successor, thus founding the Xia dynasty.

In Mesoamerica, an unnamed Tlapanec man survives the great flood alone … except for his dog. Afterward, it doesn’t seem like there’s much hope for repopulating the earth with humans, at least until the man discovers his dog turns into a woman while he’s away during the day. While definitively creepy, the man knows then what he has to do.

So I hope you’ve enjoyed this romp through some of the many cultural stories of flooding. In light of the real-world impact of rising waters even as we speak, I for one hope that we can all find courage in the stories of our cultural traditions to confront the harsh realities in these and other disasters. Best wishes to you all.

X-Men portray historic, ongoing civil rights struggles

In a previous Nerd/Wise article, I explained why comic books and graphic novels are unfairly criticized and should be viewed as a form of modern art and literature. That discussion was limited to more unique works in graphic literature, ignoring the superhero genre that has come to define the medium. Today, we give superheroes their due by looking at how they can be used to tell complex, real stories. Specifically, we look at the X-Men and the allegory of civil rights, starting with its allusions to the African-American Civil Rights Movement and moving on to today’s references to the push for LGBT rights.

In 1963, Stan Lee, legendary creator of almost all of our most famous heroes, was running thin on ideas for origin stories and, in a bout of laziness, decided to create a team of heroes who were simply born with their powers. Ironically, this decision created the most compelling trait ever tacked onto a superhero team. The X-Men were heroes, like Spider-Man, because they chose to be, and chose to use their gifts for the betterment of mankind. Unlike Superman, they weren’t deified and honored but marginalized and feared.

Since (Uncanny) X-Men #1, this has been what makes the X heroes unique. They didn’t ask for their gifts, but they have to deal with them. And as such, they became the stand-in for every person who has ever felt marginalized for traits beyond their control, whether it be skin tone, gender, or sexual orientation.

The real world shows us that it is difficult to come to terms with the qualities we bear for which society chooses to judge us. Some of us are unable to handle this pressure, and we seek an outlet for our frustration. Sometimes, that frustration is let out through art or music, but many times, it can lead to outbursts of violence. Those of us who feel marginalized need the guidance of those who relate and understand our problems and can offer direction. In the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the African-American community chose a leader in Martin Luther King Jr. The X-Men were given Professor Charles Xavier.

Professor X, the mentor and leader of the X-Men, faced discrimination his entire life — not necessarily for being a mutant, which he could easily hide, but for being a quadriplegic. Professor Xavier, like King, was proof that an educated man with a vision could make a difference. Both men guided the marginalized, gave value to the voices of the unheard, and spoke truth to power while offering a vision of peace. Obviously, there are some differences. King never trained the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to fight giant robots bent on his peoples’ destruction in the streets of New York, but the similarities are still worth noting.

On the other side of the coin exists Magneto, who, for most of his history in the comic books, was the leader of the Brotherhood of (Evil) Mutants. While Professor X appealed to the better angels of our nature, Magneto appealed to the more likely response from people who have spent their lives oppressed and hated. Magneto, as leader of the Brotherhood, offered mutants a chance to retaliate against human hatred. Instead of pushing his followers to win over the hearts and minds of humanity, Magneto told them they were superior, they were ascendent, they were meant to replace homo sapiens.

Magneto began as a more simplistic villain, even outright calling the Brotherhood “evil,” but he eventually evolved into a nuanced and accessible character, thanks primarily to the tremendous work of X-Men godfather Chris Claremont. Magneto was revealed to be a Holocaust survivor, and his hatred of humanity can be better understood in this light. He has already seen what humans will do to the “other,” and he refuses to allow it to happen again.

It’s easy to see the appeal of Magneto’s message — except for the mass genocide parts, at least. Magneto’s later characterizations, including those beautifully portrayed on the silver screen by Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender, show him as a militant mutant advocate but not an inherently evil man. He appeals to the young men and women who are sick of the status quo and see that the entire system is flawed and biased against them. To them, the problem can not be fixed through gradual change and education but by tearing the whole system down. Philosophically, this isn’t necessarily wrong; sometimes, a revolution is necessary to fix humanity’s mistakes. The problem is when this is taken to its logical extreme and philosophy begets violence.

Magneto has been compared to Malcolm X for his “by any means necessary” approach. Perhaps this is unfair to the man and to the character, but it is obvious that Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad, and the Nation of Islam at least inspired much of Magneto and the Brotherhood’s characterization. The militancy, the rhetoric, and the desire to separate mutantkind from humanity are lifted from the Nation of Islam and their push for separation of the races.

The X team has historically been very diverse. Since Giant-Size X-Men #1, the team has had an international flavor. Joining Scott Summers and Jean Grey were the Canadian Wolverine, the German Nightcrawler, the Soviet Colossus (in the middle of the Cold War), and Storm, who was born in New York City but raised on the African continent.

This second X team was introduced in 1975, when even including an African-American superhero was still controversial. Even more unique was that Storm’s character was not defined by her “blackness”; she was a character in her own right, with an interesting origin story and traits unique to her — something incredibly rare for a woman superhero, let alone a black woman superhero.

Despite the team’s ethnic diversity, Xavier’s new gang of uncanny heroes often dealt with problems more appropriate for a cosmic opera than a civil rights allegory. However, Claremont’s skills as X-Men writer knew no bounds, and he managed to create an enduring story that appealed to fans of both science fiction and political allegory.

The upcoming X-Men movie, Days of Future Past, is based on the comic book of the same name about a dystopian future in which mutants have been hunted down and placed in internment camps. The story is the realization of Magneto’s nightmare: a second holocaust for his people. The Sentinels, giant mutant-hunting robots, seek out the former X-Men and capture or murder them ruthlessly, strictly because of their X-gene. This potential future is a reminder of everything the X-Men have to fight against. They are being destroyed strictly for being different, like the Jews of the 1930s and 40s. They are feared without reason, like many of those put through the communist trials of the early Cold War era.

And this future seems very possible in the comic book world Marvel had created by 1980. The mutants were being marginalized since their kind had first been known to the world. They had been called “mutie” and attacked by mobs. Despite doing everything right, they never seemed to make much progress.

The X-Men have evolved over the years and have taken on the characteristics of each new group being marginalized by the American mainstream. At times, they are derided as enemies of God and demons incarnate, corrupting society with their sinful ways, like the LGBT community of today. They’ve been told to stay in the closet about their powers and asked to simply “stop being a mutant,” like Iceman was in X2. And in Joss Whedon’s “Gifted” story line, scientists created a “cure,” to which the mutant community asked, “Does that mean we have a disease?”

Since 9/11, the X-Men have taken on the burden shared by Muslim-Americans. Should they be judged for the errors of others? Should all Muslims be feared and marginalized because of a few extremists? Should good, tax-paying mutants be feared and marginalized because of a few mutant terrorists?

The X-Men teach us about ourselves. They bring into focus our fears and our prejudices and ask us to rethink what we claim to already know. They show us that the world isn’t always black and white, even in a medium that was built on black and white morality tales. Are the X-Men perfect? No. They make mistakes. Often tragic ones. And many times, their dealings with the government create morally ambiguous situations in which we are left to believe that both sides are right. They challenge us. Hopefully, they continue to do so, and future generations can find themselves questioning their world thanks to the brilliant stories told about the Uncanny X-Men.

‘Sideways Effect’ pushed Pinot Noir into American cellars

There’s probably no other wine that has benefited from pop culture more than Pinot Noir. Rex Pickett’s buddy comedy novel Sideways and the Alexander Payne movie it inspired had a significant impact on Pinot Noir sales in North America and on wine consumption in general.

For those who haven’t seen the movie or read the book, Sideways is the story of two friends, Miles and Jack, played in the film brilliantly by Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church, traveling through the Santa Ynez Valley for “one last hurrah” before Jack gets married. The story ends up as a modern-day comedy of errors, focusing on the clash between Miles, who is focused on tasting wine and relaxing, and Jack, who would prefer to be flirting, womanizing, and having a fling or two before his wedding.

Miles, who is a serious wine aficionado, teaches Jack about wine along the way, and we learn about his obsession with Pinot Noir: “It’s thin-skinned, temperamental, ripens early. It’s, you know, it’s not a survivor like Cabernet, which can just grow anywhere and thrive even when it’s neglected. No, Pinot needs constant care and attention, you know? And in fact it can only grow in these really specific, little, tucked away corners of the world. And, and only the most patient and nurturing of growers can do it, really. Only somebody who really takes the time to understand Pinot’s potential can then coax it into its fullest expression. Then, I mean, oh its flavors, they’re just the most haunting and brilliant and thrilling and subtle and ancient on the planet.” The movie was a hit at domestic box offices, and in the few years following the film’s release, Pinot Noir sales saw significant increases.

We also learn in the film of Miles’ distaste for Merlot, as at one point he screams: “If anyone orders Merlot, I am leaving. I am not drinking f***ing Merlot!” This, too, altered U.S. wine sales: there was a noticeable decline in Merlot sales after the film’s release. The increased popularity of Pinot Noir, along with the decrease in Merlot, was dubbed “The Sideways Effect” by many in the wine industry. In more recent years, the effect has leveled off, with Merlot regaining the ground it had lost.

Ironically, Merlot and Pinot Noir are two wines that are commonly suggested for novice wine drinkers to try. They are both typically low in tannins, which cause a bitter, cotton-mouth sensation — a quality commonly disliked by those trying red wine for the first time. Both wines are also typically fruit-forward, meaning the flavors that stand out the most are fruit characteristics, like cherries in Pinot Noir and dark berries and plum in Merlot. Yet Miles is enraptured by the former and detests the latter.

Pinot Noir has an interesting status in the wine world. Serious winos sometimes say that you “graduate” to Pinot Noir from other, less sophisticated red wines. How can Pinot Noir be a good wine for novice drinkers but also be the prized wine of wine snobs?

The answer has to do with the less obvious flavors, the subtleties and nuances that an experienced palate can detect. While the typical tastes of Pinot are easy for inexperienced wine drinkers to enjoy, it’s the flavors that you find when you get past the obvious that truly fascinate winos. Pinot Noir is usually not powerful like Cabernet Sauvignon and is typically never a “fruit bomb” like an Aussie Shiraz. It is light- or, at most, medium-bodied and has delicate rather than in-your-face fruit flavors. Cherries, cola, and earthy flavors are most commonly associated with Pinot Noir, but descriptions often also include red fruits like raspberries and cranberries, as well as herbs, spices, caramel, leather, and mushrooms.

The most famous region for Pinot Noir is in Burgundy, France. This also leads to some astonishingly high prices, which is why I’ve chosen to leave Burgundy aside for now. Pinot Noir is also grown in another French region, Alsace, along the border with Germany where acidic white wines otherwise dominate. Trimbach’s Pinot Noir Reserve is a high-quality offering priced reasonably. The nose is beautiful and “outdoorsy” with floral and spice components, along with a forest aroma, like damp leaves in the woods. There are abundant cherry and cranberry flavors on the palate, with a little earthiness and very subtle tannins.

In the United States, California’s cooler growing areas produce some fantastic Pinot Noir, including along the Central Coast and in the Russian River Valley / Sonoma County regions. As with most California wines, the flavors are bigger and bolder than those from France. The 2012 La Crema Pinot Noir from Sonoma is a really solid wine for the price and is a great choice to drink at home or to bring along to a dinner party. It is also widely available, given its place within the Kendall Jackson wine empire. I like the cherry cola component to this wine, along with ripe berries, a hint of coffee, spice, and oak.

In Oregon, Pinot Noir is truly king — and very popular these days, particularly in the Willamette Valley. Most Oregon Pinot is not cheap, however, perhaps due to its high demand. The wines are typically bolder than those from Europe but more delicate than California’s, sometimes with a beautiful tartness. Left Coast Cellars’ 2011 “Cali’s Cuvee” Pinot Noir is an affordable example, with a nose of berries, mint, oak, and a hint of chocolate. The palate has plenty of black cherry, plum, and pomegranate, but the twist is the astringent, fresh-brewed tea on the finish.

You’ll find plenty of Pinot Noir outside these areas, but almost always from temperate or cool climate regions. Excellent bottles are easily found from Germany, Northern Italy, New Zealand, and the Finger Lakes of New York (Ravines and Red Tail Ridge make excellent Old World-style Pinot).

Do you smell and taste the subtleties, deep down, past the bright cherry flavors? Close your eyes, and swirl, sniff, sip.

Top 10 Angel episodes, 10 years later

Monday will mark 10 years since fans said goodbye to Joss Whedon’s Angel. The Buffy the Vampire Slayer spinoff was often darker and more adult than its predecessor, but every bit as good. If you’re anything like me, you’re probably having a hard time believing it could possibly have been an entire decade since the show was on the air. (Even harder to believe: that means it’s been 11 since Buffy closed the Hellmouth and left Sunnydale!) In honor of this anniversary, I’ve compiled a list of what I believe to be the top 10 episodes of Angel.

10. “Dead End” (Season 2, Episode 18): The Wolfram & Hart law firm, front for a demon cabal, is behind the replacement of Lindsey’s hand, and he is surprised to discover it has a mind of its own. Meanwhile, Angel Investigations looks into a vision Cordelia has had of a man stabbing himself in the eye — an eye that had been transplanted by the same clinic that replaced Lindsey’s hand. I may be totally biased when it comes to this episode as I am a big fan of Christian Kane. I always loved the character of Lindsey: I loved that while he worked for an evil law firm, he was conflicted deep down about his involvement in the work. More than once, we saw the moral conflict within Lindsey, and it helped to make him a really interesting character. Plus, he and Angel had great on-screen chemistry; I loved seeing the two interact. This episode also introduced me to the fact that Kane is a great singer; he even released an album several years ago.

9. “Smile Time” (S5, E14): Angel and his team investigate a children’s television program that appears to be sucking the life-force out of its viewers. In the course of his investigation, Angel is turned into a one-foot-tall puppet. “Smile Time” is to Angel what “Once More With Feeling” was to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The plot seems utterly ridiculous — and it kind of was, yet you just can’t help but enjoy it. Watching Puppet-Angel rolling on the ground, trying to fight Spike was a classic moment in Angel history and led to one of my favorite Spike lines ever: “You’re a wee puppet man!”

8. “Soulless” (S4, E11): In an attempt to learn more about The Beast that is coming, Team Angel decides to remove Angel’s soul in order to get information from his cursed alter ego, Angelus. Angelus tries to take advantage of the situation by turning everyone against each other. This episode was light on action, but David Boreanaz really shines as Angelus. He’s done some of his best work on both Buffy and Angel in that alternate role, and this is possibly one of his best performances.

7. “There’s No Place Like Plrtz Glrb” (S2, E22): The four-episode Pylea arc that closes season 2 concludes with Angel and the gang attempting to escape from the hell dimension Pylea. I really loved this entire storyline simply for the change of pace from the usual darkness of the show. These episodes also introduced us to Fred, whom I loved almost immediately. I’ll never forget the first time I watched this episode and saw Lorne’s severed head speaking — how quickly I went from sadness and horror to relief and amusement. The lightness of this episode, however, was juxtaposed in the end with the arrival of Willow to inform Angel of Buffy’s death back in Sunnydale.

6.”Are You Now or Have You Ever Been” (S2, E2): After its offices exploded in season 1, Angel Investigations is homeless until Angel rediscovers an abandoned hotel where he had spent time in the 1950s. This episode showed how easily the humans can become the monsters, as the guests of the hotel are influenced by a paranoia-demon hiding within the hotel. When they all turn against Angel, he gives up on humanity and leaves them in the hands of the demon. This episode was a fascinating look into Angel’s back story and part of his psychology.

5. “Not Fade Away” (S5, E22): The final episode of Angel was designed to be a season finale, not series, so it ended with a huge cliffhanger that left many fans frustrated. This episode makes my list because, while it may have been a bad series finale in some people’s eyes, it was still a good episode. (And it seemed appropriate to me to see Angel and the gang — those who were still alive, at least — go out fighting.) There were a lot of things I loved about this episode, but “Fred” and Wesley‘s goodbye was possibly the most beautiful and most heartbreaking. The one thing I still find fault with is Lorne being charged with killing Lindsey: not only did the idea that Lorne would kill anyone bother me (though that issue was certainly addressed by Lorne’s reaction to the assignment), but I agreed with Lindsey in that it should have been Angel who did the deed. Dying by Lorne’s hand just felt anti-climactic, which is why this episode doesn’t make it to No. 1 on my list, as it does on many others.

4. “I Will Remember You” (S1, E8): Buffy shows up in Los Angeles to yell at Angel for not letting her know he had been in Sunnydale at Thanksgiving. When a demon attacks, Angel is turned human and spends several happy hours with Buffy. However, he learns that if he remains human, those he cares about will die, so the day must be reset. I, like many Angel/Buffy shippers, really loved this episode. I enjoyed seeing what Angel and Buffy could be like as a normal, human couple. What really makes this episode great, though, is when Buffy finds out she will not be allowed to remember this day — only Angel will remember what happens.

3. “You’re Welcome” (S5, E12; the 100th episode): Cordelia awakes from her coma and shows up at Wolfram & Hart to help Angel. I had been disappointed with how things ended for Cordelia the previous season, so I was relieved that they brought her back one more time. This episode was a much more fitting farewell for her character. It also had a lot of references to the early days of Angel Investigations, including Doyle’s attempts to make a commercial for the business. This episode felt more like the old pre-Wolfram-&-Hart Angel, and I really appreciated that. The final twist was heartbreaking, but not entirely unexpected. This was a well-written episode and one of Charisma Carpenter’s shining moments.

2. “Hero” (S1, E9): Angel, Cordelia, and Doyle work to save a group of demon refugees from an evil clan of demons known as the Scourge. In order to stop the Scourge’s deadly weapon, Doyle sacrifices himself to save the others. I loved the half-demon Doyle from the beginning, and his death and sacrifice were heartbreaking. I had also loved Cordelia and Doyle’s growing flirtation, making his parting words to Cordelia (as his demon form emerges), all the more tragic: “Too bad we’ll never know if this is a face you could learn to love.” I think this was the best episode of the first season, and it remains one of my all-time favorite episodes (as well as one of the saddest). I admit, I still get teary-eyed when I see it.

1. “Hole in the World” (S5, E15): Angel’s most tragic episode is also its best. When Fred becomes infected with a disease from an ancient sarcophagus that’s slowly killing her, the team works desperately to attempt to save her life. This episode was amazing and oh-so-heart-wrenching. Watching everyone, even Spike, try so hard to save Fred as Wesley slowly begins to realize nothing can be done was tragic. Then you get that final gut punch in the end when a demon takes up residence in Fred’s body. This episode was so well-written and the entire cast put in excellent performances. Amy Acker’s work was flawless in this episode (and she continued to impress the rest of the season with her portrayal of Ilyria).

So there’s my list. It’s not easy to narrow down an entire series to just 10 episodes, especially when the series is as good as Angel or Buffy. Plus, I had to resist the urge to put mostly season 5 episodes on this list; I still believe season 5 was the best, and there are so many episodes from that year that I loved.

Did your favorites make this list? If not, feel free to share your own in the comments below!

Uncommon sense: Teach kids to talk to strangers

As good and responsible parents, we want our kids to avoid “stranger danger.” We spend lots of time telling them to never talk to strangers. We describe who strangers are: they don’t live in our house, we’ve never been to their house, they don’t know your name, and you don’t know their name. We further augment this with the sage advice to find a police officer if they ever need help.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen a cop just about once in never on the few occasions that I needed assistance. (And these were the days way before cell phones!)

You can see the scenario, right? A crowded amusement park in July — parent and child are separated and the kid starts looking for a police officer, who of course cannot be found. In the meantime, someone (a creepy someone) notices that child looking lost and bewildered. The child is now in paralyzed panic mode and begins to cry. In swoops creep-o to “help.” We’ve all seen the news often enough to imagine what happens next.

I am in no way suggesting the world is full of creeps just waiting to nab kids. The world is, in fact, full of well-intentioned adults who would be happy to help your child to safety. But the fact remains that, each year, approximately 58,000 children under the age of 18 are victims of non-family abductions.

So, what is the solution, you ask? The solution is so simple, we can’t believe we hadn’t thought of it earlier: teach your kids to talk to strangers!

Children are very good at identifying safe adults. It is much better for kids to actively identify a safe adult and initiate contact with him or her than to passively wait for an adult to select and approach them. Teaching your kids who is safe and how to approach them are key in keeping kids out of danger.

Start this conversation by asking your kid(s) what they would do if you got separated in a playground or park. My kids said they would yell for me and look for me. I asked if they would leave the park if they didn’t find me; one said no, the other said yes. No is the best answer here, so I told them that staying near the spot where we were separated is the best thing to do, since that’s where I would go first to find them. Then, I said that if I haven’t found you before you start to get really worried, you need to find a safe adult to help you.

Here’s how: A child’s first choice, of course, would be an employee — a park ranger or a vendor, for example. A police officer is an excellent choice, too, but since cops aren’t everywhere, other options are needed. Teach kids to identify these folks when you are out and about. When you’re in a mall, ask your child if he can spot employees and to whom he would go if he needed help. Employers, in general, have some kind of “lost child” policy in place for their employees. And in a place like a mall or an amusement park, they will often summon security to help return lost children to their parents.

If an employee cannot be found, or if you are in an area (like a state park) where there are no identifiable employees, a child’s next best choice is a woman with kids. If there are no women with kids in sight, then third on the list is a woman. If there are no women, then a man with children is a fourth choice. If no men with kids are around, then the child should use all of her instincts to identify a man to help her.

Again, when you are out and about, ask your child to show you who would be a good option to ask for help if he needed it. You will find that kids truly have good instincts if they are encouraged to become aware of them and to trust them.

Seeking help requires a child to know her own name, her parents’ full names, the phone number (cell or home) of her parents, and her home address. For kids who can talk but don’t know or can’t remember some or all of this information, you will need to do a bit more prep work. In this instance, you would want to make sure this information is somewhere on your child and she must be able to produce it to get the help she needs.

You can get a luggage tag with your contact information on it and have your child wear it on a lanyard (like a necklace) under his shirt. Or, you could get a hospital-type wristband or other hard-to-remove tag and attach it to your child or his clothing. He should be taught to produce this when he asks for help, so you can easily be found.

Now that your child can identify a safe stranger, it’s time to teach them what to say. The best thing to say is the most concise thing to say: “My name is ___ and I’m lost. Can you help me?” However, you don’t want the first time your child has to talk to a stranger to be the time when they need help. You want to practice this skill before it is needed. So, at restaurants, have your child order her own food. From time to time, ask your child to get change from an employee, or ask someone what time it is.

Doing so does three things: It helps your child identify safe strangers. It helps your child get comfortable talking to strangers. It empowers your child. And empowered kids are far less likely to ever become victims.

Recommended reading for parents:
Protecting the Gift: Keeping Children and Teenagers Safe (and Parents Sane) by Gavin de Becker

Did feminists fail Monica by standing idly by?

Sixteen years ago, the world watched in shock as a young woman announced her affair with the most powerful man in the free world. I’m talking, of course, about Monica Lewinsky and former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

For those who may not be aware, Lewinsky is in the news lately due to her recent interview in Vanity Fair. There, she talks about the affair, her embarrassment, and her thoughts of suicide, all while vehemently denying that the Clinton family had paid her to keep quiet all these years.

Now, not to reveal this feminist’s age too specifically, but I was definitely prepubescent when the Lewinsky/Clinton scandal broke in the mainstream media. I was so young that I didn’t quite understand the jokes about dry cleaning or cigars. So when a blog titled “Monica Lewinsky: Feminists Failed Me” ran on the Washington Post’s website last week, I had to stop, research, and remember the situation before I could evaluate whether Lewinsky had a point.

Lewinsky contends that she was left on her own throughout the media feeding frenzy of the scandal. Her image was destroyed, and she has been unable to find stable employment because of the stigma forever attached to her name. So is Lewinsky correct? Did the feminists of the time fail her?

Well, they certainly didn’t rush to her defense. But had they done so, Lewinsky may have found their support to be a double-edged sword.

In any affair, there are going to be winners and losers. In this particular liaison, two women were put at odds with one another; to support one was to alienate the other. Was it fair to ask feminists to choose a side and pick the paramour Monica or the wife Hillary? Despite the similarities, this wasn’t a soap opera storyline but rather real people with real-world ramifications.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that feminists had thrown unwavering support to Lewinsky. Would they, at the same time, have been demeaning Hillary and destroying any future political career for her? Furthermore, what about the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea? The scandal had already put a large amount of stress on her family. How many people should have been destroyed in the name of feminism?

Obviously, the answer is none, but had raucous feminists rallied behind Lewinsky, this absolutely could have happened.

Another point I have made in the past is that not all feminists are man-haters. Jumping on a feminist bandwagon to trash the president would have made a bad situation even worse. Clinton wasn’t just any man, either. He had other big things on his mind, like running the country. The reality is that the most vocal feminists of the late 1990s who would have defended Lewinsky didn’t want to ostracize a president who was working to institute a legislative agenda that aligned with their political beliefs.

I’m definitely not trying to give the guy a pass. He should not have cheated on his wife. He should not have lied about it under oath. However, do I think a sex scandal (and really, we should be accurate in our use of language and call it what it was: an oral sex scandal) should have lead to an impeachment trial? Absolutely not.

But this article isn’t about my defense of Clinton. (Although, I will admit, in fourth grade, I desperately wanted to play the saxophone because I wanted to be like the president.) This article is asking if feminists failed Lewinsky.

I think there are two distinct instances where feminists could have spoken up a little bit more to support Lewinsky without collateral damage. The first: condemning the amount of slut-shaming that was directed at Lewinsky. This would not only have been the right thing to do for Lewinsky, but it is the right thing to do for women and young girls everywhere.

The second: attempting to mitigate the press coverage of her infamous makeover. By not calling foul when the media obsessed over Lewinsky’s sex life and new haircut, feminists allowed a college-educated young woman to be defined by superficial characteristics and private choices.

Both of these situations are areas where feminists could have stepped in, politely, without bashing either Clinton, and come to Lewinsky’s aid. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and this is definitely the case here.

Lewinsky wasn’t the first woman to be painted a Jezebel in the press, and she certainly will not be the last. But what we, as feminists, can take away from all of this is that our actions (or lack thereof) can have repercussions for years to come. So the next time you hear about an affair in your own circles (or in Hollywood), think twice before rushing to judgement of “the other woman.”

Giri, burden of obligation, falls on those above, below

Sweat streamed down my face, into my eyes. My glasses slipped down my nose, the strap that held them to my head barely enough to combat the onslaught.

The tendons and muscles along my shins were burning. My muscles were sore and heavy. Every time my body hit the mat, part of me said, “Stay down here. Just stop moving. You know you want to.”

I had been at the dōjō for about a month, and the honeymoon was most definitely over. My ukemi (falling technique) had improved enough that I could do a slow front-roll. I could tie my belt. I knew where to line up. I was always at the dōjō the minute the doors opened so that I could get as much training as possible. I was meeting expectations.

So the expectations increased.

Before I had joined the dōjō, I had never done a regular workout. Push-ups and crunches were foreign to me. I couldn’t keep up with the group. And that was OK in my first week.

But I was a month in, still training. So it was time to get with the program.

No one ever said anything to me, or told me to step it up. I just knew that I had to do more. I would dread the opening of class, the conditioning set followed by the group ukemi practice. My legs would burn, my lungs would struggle to breathe air that was suddenly liquid with heat and humidity. I longed for a rest. I longed for a drink of water. I longed to lie on the mat after a technique just long enough to catch my breath.

When I threw them during practice, my seniors just got up and let me throw them again. It was the rhythm of things. They would teach me: a pointer here, a subtle hand-shift there. My technique was improving because these men and women kept getting up and helping me get better.

So I hauled myself off of the floor again, judo-gi heavy with sweat, short of breath, full at times of fear, at times of weariness.

I didn’t want to. But I owed it to these people to get up, and to attack again, and to be thrown again.

No one ever needed to tell me that.

***

Just a day before, the room had been a middle school basketball court. But today it was a dōjō.

This was Tai Kai, the annual gathering of our ryu. We come together and train hard, and party hard, and part ways with the regret and sorrow that can only come from intense and challenging activity done in the company of your brethren and in the service of something larger than yourself.

The morning session was physically demanding, a series of exercises that focused on shikko-sabaki, the Japanese method of knee-walking. We moved around the mats, shins and thighs burning with the exertion.

The most junior student in the room was to my left. He had only been training for a matter of weeks, and I could feel his suffering without needing to see the rictus on his face or hear the hiss of his in-drawn breath.

He was ready to quit.

I grabbed him as the room split into pairs to do the next exercise. It wasn’t a matter of encouragement, of supportive, kind language. It was a matter of pulling his spirit up. In between drills, I would bodily lift him to his feet and drag him along as I ran back to our place in line, push him down to a kneeling position as we received instruction. I would pull him up and drag him to the next drill.

He didn’t quit. He wanted to. It was written on every part of his face, on every line of his body. But he didn’t.

I nodded at him, said “Good job,” and watched as he ran off to scribble a few quick notes before the next session. I had seen what he was made of. So had he.

He was strong the rest of the day.

***

Giri, or the “burden of obligation,” is the debt you incur as you follow the path of budō. It takes time before the student realizes the full impact of this.

You start in the budō with red in your ledger; you owe giri to the men and women who have been working for decades to preserve the art, to give you a place to train, to get good enough to teach you. You owe them a debt that you literally cannot ever repay.

Giri doesn’t flow one way. When your juniors meet expectations, when they ask you to teach them, when they show up and work hard, they have placed you in debt to them. Their care and education are your responsibility now. You must give them your best. I owe my juniors a debt that is every bit as significant as that I owe my Sensei. They struggle in the trenches with me, doing their part without question or hesitation. I have to be the best model I can be for them, be able to answer their questions, be the example they deserve.

I remember being promoted to a green belt. It is the first formal promotion ceremony in my dōjō, marking the first significant step on your journey through budō. Sensei called me up in front of the whole class and presented me with the new belt. As I bowed and took it from him, he whispered to me, “Thank you for doing what was expected of you.”

We say these words to a newly promoted student as a reminder. No one gets here on their own. Everything I have that is of value to me in the budō is a gift, given to me without expectation of recompense. Everything I do, I do with an eye to this fact — that I must carry this debt, and that I must be worthy of it, and that I owe everyone, senior and junior, to be the best that I can be in all areas of life.

I shoulder my burden, and bear up under it for another day.

Season 7, Episode 5: ‘The Runaways,’ part 3

Forget Don Draper’s road to becoming a better man. He is a good man. He just also happens to be Machiavelli when it comes to the cut-throat world of advertising.

As Gabe and Mike have pointed out, the final scene of the episode with Don getting the better of Lou and Jim was priceless — and vintage Draper. Does having sex with women other than his wife give him some kind of superpower? When the man is good, he is good.

However, as someone who is rooting for Don to find happiness, I was pleased to see the return of the real Draper family this week. The character of Stephanie is a nice reminder of the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, Don is a good man. He just hasn’t found true happiness yet. He sees in Stephanie a genuinely good person and wants to take care of her and her child, perhaps because he still thinks he owes something to the real Don Draper.

Caity Lotz plays a truly wonderful character. She’s an honest, well-meaning person who tries, despite asking Don for help, not to be a burden. Stephanie was at a difficult crossroad in her life and handled Megan’s assumptions about her relationship with Don incredibly well. She even held her own against Deathstroke’s army of super-humans … err … wrong show.

But the true show-stealer on this episode was undeniably Ben Feldman’s Michael Ginsberg. Since his first episode, I have been waiting for this wacky character to get some more screen time. He’s been killing it in every scene he’s been in since his first appearance, including a lot of scenes in which he obviously irritates Don, who never even had the patience for Peggy. Ginsberg’s nipple scene may go down in television history as one of the most unforgettable.

Ginsberg, however, is a strange animal. He feels like a television character. Ginsberg is the TV Trope living in a world of real people. So, why is he a part of the show?

Ginsberg, Stan, and the rest of the creative team are representative of the change in the times. When we first began following the men on Madison Avenue, we were treated to hard-drinking, ambitious, wine-and-dine, business-minded characters like Pete Campbell, Harry Crane, and Ken Cosgrove. Since the change to SCDP and, later, SC&P we’ve seen the times, and the cast, change into the next generation. Stan is rude, crude, and anti-authority. Ginsberg is psychotic, neurotic, and anti-authority. And management handles them very differently. When Pete got out of line, Don or Roger would shout at him until he was on the verge of tears. Now, as Don said to Lou, they have to have thicker skin.

The rest of the episode had its brilliant moments. Don riding the tricycle comes to mind. But Sally telling off Betty was perhaps Sally’s best scene in the show’s seven-year run. At least, next to the time she told her father she loved her. Sally has finally evolved from being the annoying kid who always thinks she’s right to actually being right most of the time. And she showed that she’s a good person, too, by letting Bobby stay with her.

Betty, however, continues to be terrible, even spouting some nonsense about Vietnam. Thankfully, Henry Francis set her straight. He continues to play the likable Nixon-era Republican, and though his berating of his wife should make him the villain, Betty is so terrible and so wrong that we end up rooting for the man.

This week’s episode will go down as one of the best, with allusions to the past and a lot of evidence of growth, combined with several shocking and important scenes. I, for one, look forward to the rest of the season.

Recipe: Chocolate coffee café cookies

You know how your parents always told you “No dessert before dinner” as a kid? I decided that, as a 20-something adult, I will eat dessert when I please. And if that means cookies for breakfast, then darn-it-all, I will have cookies for breakfast.

In addition to my fondness for baked goods, I’m a coffee fiend. I have had an unhealthy, borderline obsessive, this-girl-should-probably-not-drink-coffee-in-public-because-the-noises-coming-out-of-her-are-making-me-uncomfortable relationship with coffee. In college, I drank two pots a day. And when I say pots, I mean the 12-cup, family-sized pots. And I drank it alone. Straight from the pot if I was busy. I should probably be ashamed, but I’m really not.

Since my school days, I’ve cut back significantly. I’m down to about six cups a week. (And when I say cups, I don’t mean the 6-ounce recommended daily intake cups because, let’s be serious, no one adheres to the suggested dosage.) However, the second I saw a recipe that combined coffee and chocolate chip cookies, I got all jittery like an addict looking for a fix. Combining two of my favorite things for an incredibly sweet breakfast cookie was enough to make me giddy, no caffeine necessary.

I was so pleased with how these cookies came out (and that I had something sweet with my breakfast for the week) that I had to share this holy coffee-and-cookie union.

I ran out of the regular-size chocolate chips mid-recipe (should’ve checked, but hey, what’s the point of baking without a bit of improvisation?), so I ended up using a combination of the mini semisweet chips and the normal-sized ones that I had, which made the cookies delightfully more chocolatey. I also used instant coffee because espresso crystals were harder to find in my area; I may order online next time. I chopped the pecans with a food processor so the nuts were more evenly distributed in the cookies (and to match the tiny chips, I suppose).

In any case, I will definitely be making these again (sooooo delicious), because why settle for one good thing when you can combine a few? Enjoy, my fellow coffee and chocolate lovers!

FOR THE COOKIES:
1/2 cup granulated sugar
1/2 cup packed light brown sugar
1/2 cup butter or margarine, softened
1 whole egg
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1 tablespoon instant coffee granules or instant espresso crystals
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup chopped pecans
12 ounces by weight semisweet chocolate chips (about 2 cups)

FOR THE GLAZE:
1/2 teaspoon instant coffee granules or instant espresso crystals
1 tablespoon hot water
1/2 cup confectioners’ sugar*

Preparation:

Preheat oven to 350 F.
In a large bowl, beat sugars, butter, egg, and vanilla with an electric mixer on medium speed until creamy.
On low speed, beat in flour, coffee granules, baking soda, and salt. Stir in pecans and chocolate chips.
Drop dough by rounded tablespoonfuls 2 inches apart onto ungreased baking sheets.
Bake at 350 F for 10-12 minutes or until golden brown and edges are set. Cool on the pan for 2 to 4 minutes; remove cookies from pans to wire racks and cool completely.

For the glaze:

In a small bowl, dissolve instant coffee in hot water. Stir in confectioners’ sugar, adding more confectioners’ sugar if necessary to reach desired drizzling consistency.
Drizzle glaze over cooled cookies. Allow glaze to set before storing cookies in an airtight container between layers of wax paper, plastic wrap, or foil.

Makes about 2 dozen cookies.

* — I always start with 1/2 cup of confectioners’ sugar and then add more because the glaze can become too thick too fast. I suggest starting small and adding more to your preference. Go back

Season 7, Episode 5: ‘The Runaways,’ part 2

R.I.P., Ginsberg’s nipple. We hardly knew ye.

As Mike mentioned in his great analysis, Mad Men‘s fifth season 7 episode, “The Runaways,” was a wild one.

The rise and gurney-assisted fall of Michael Ginsberg was only the second or third most shocking development in this episode. His overstated objection to the SC&P computer last week gave way to full-blown paranoia this week, and we’re left to wonder if we’ll ever see Ginsberg again. I didn’t know what was coming when he entered Peggy’s office just two days after he crashed her apartment, claimed the computer was turning everyone “homo,” and tried to force himself on her.

The boxed delivery of his nipple was more upsetting than humorous. It is no longer possible to think of Ginsberg as eccentric; he’s clearly lost his grip on reality. It may have been a little heavy-handed to so closely tie Ginsberg’s fight for relevance with the arrival of the computer, but it worked nonetheless.

I also enjoyed the twist of discovering that Ginsberg did see Lou Avery and Jim Cutler engaging in some hijinks (planning a secret pitch meeting with Philip Morris). It just wasn’t the kind of hijinks Ginsberg suspected. Still, I suspect our time with Ginsberg has come to end, and I will miss him.

The discovery of Lou’s comic, Scout’s Honor, in the SC&P copier machine was one of those great Mad Men scenarios that comes along at least once a season. As soon as Stan found the copy, we knew we were in for a humorous detour from the sometimes depressing stories that inhabit this show. What was surprising was Lou’s outrage upon being outed by a bunch of “flag-burning snots.” Don hit it on the head when he chided Lou for having too-thin skin. I almost thought for a second that this episode would shed some sympathetic light on Mr. Avery, but it did no such thing for me. He arrogantly and dismissively treated his subordinates like ungrateful children and even made Don miss his flight to California. The nerve!

Don was in a hurry to get to California (is it the first time we’ve said that?) because his “niece,” Stephanie, had resurfaced: pregnant, broke, hungry for meat. Don told Megan to take care of Stephanie until he arrived. I was actually impressed with Megan’s willingness to help; there was genuine concern there, even if it didn’t last long. I feel for Megan. I still think her time with Don is coming to an end, and last night’s episode furthered my suspicions.

There were a lot of great scenes where Jessica Paré expressed her non-verbal frustrations with life and with Don, and those were a highlight of the episode for me. When Stephanie claimed to know all of Don’s secrets, Megan’s face immediately expressed so many thoughts at once: jealousy, contempt, sadness. She was quick to cut Stephanie a check and get her the hell out of her house.

So this set up an interesting juxtaposition: Megan scrambles to get one woman out of Don’s life and then turns around and invites yet another woman into their bedroom. The moment everyone is talking about is the threesome between Don, Megan, and “Amy from Delaware.” The scene was shocking, not only by AMC’s relatively tame television standards but also because of what it implied for the characters.

We spent a majority of the episode watching Megan try to comfort Don, trying to play the role of dutiful wife. In the bedroom scene, Megan dispensed of subtlety altogether. She knows her husband will never be cured of his desire for women, so she tries to give Don what she thinks Don wants. It’s not until the next awkward morning, after Don tells Megan that he needs to leave town and after he quickly gets on the phone with Stephanie, that Megan seems to come to the full realization that nothing she does — or will do — is going to change the way Don looks at her. He has become a man simply biding time in his marriage.

I loved the scene of Don crashing the clandestine meeting between Lou and Jim and the reps from Philip Morris. Don turns it up to 11 to make Roger Morris a pitch that will very likely make or break the remainder of his tenure at SC&P. And for a moment — a glorious and welcomed moment — the ad man in Don Draper returned in full force.

“You’re incredible,” Lou told him afterward. I’m still not sure if that was to be a compliment, an insult, or a bit of both. Think about it: that was almost surely the first time Lou ever saw Don give a pitch, and he gave it wonderfully. But in the process, he threw Lou under the bus. So you can imagine that Lou might have been both impressed and pissed off. Either way, it’s clear that Jim was the latter. He hissed his line at Don as he got into the cab:

“You think this is going to save you, don’t you?”

Yes, Don does.

And so do I.

curiata

provoke your curiosity