Davison Online

In 1995 I traveled across America via Amtrak, whose dismal on time track record and other failings led critics to call for their shutdown and to brand them (thanks to their logo) “the pointless arrow.” Not one of my trips on Amtrak was less than two hours late, so I knew exactly where those critics were coming from, though I quite liked train travel generally.

One particularly outrageous delay, though I might add not the longest, afforded me a valuable life lesson. Helpful, since it was otherwise just another example of Amtrak’s ineptitude. I was going to visit my friend Sue, a grad student at Purdue, and see how she’d spent her time since we hung out together as undergrads at the University of Portland.

The train was 20 minutes out of Chicago when it stopped dead. No warning. Just chug, chug, chug, stop. We stayed on the tracks there for something like six hours. This being the pre-cell phone era I had no way to call Sue to tell her what had happened and that I was unlikely to make the scheduled 10 PM arrival. Not that I knew anything anyway since Amtrak never gave an explanation. I heard from another passenger that a freight train had stopped on the tracks ahead and that because their union crew had worked their maximum hours, they had shut it down right then and there, and Union Pacific (or whoever) was having to round up another crew. I had no idea if any of that was true, but it was a guess that fit the facts—the main fact being we were just sitting there—and it was a fair bit more than Amtrak ever told us.

After we finally got rolling again, the engineer was playing like Casey Jones in looking to make up for lost time. We’d whip into a station, virtually throw people off the cars, hustle the appropriate people on board, and -boom- we’re outta there. Pity, sort of, for any smokers on board. They couldn’t smoke on the train and here they were being denied enough time to take a smoke break at stop after stop. And this after sitting still for six hours.

As it turns out, they weren’t the only ones who had to worry about the short station stops. Lafayette’s train station was being renovated or rebuilt or something, because it was closed. I did not know this. So the train that was due in at 10 PM, arrived in a West Lafayette gravel parking lot at 4 o’clock in the morning. The conductor pulled up the step stool I used to get off the train, said, “Have a nice stay!” or words to that effect, and -boom- the train was gone. I remember literally turning around to ask the conductor where I was supposed to go or what I was supposed to do and the doors closing while the train pulled out. It could not have been more than a 20 second stop.

I was already sleep deprived, but now I was stunned too. I was thinking, “Oh my God. Oh my God. This can’t be worse.” Sue’s obviously not here—where was here, anyway? Since Amtrak didn’t tell the passengers anything, I could hardly expect that they would have told anybody waiting in a gravel parking lot about a train delay. Sue wisely and rightfully went home to bed. I was hoping she didn’t think that I blew her off. In the spill of the single overhead street light, I saw a ’70s Cadillac that I was pretty sure was not Sue’s get-around vehicle. Other than that, gravel. Emptiness. Desolation. There was nothing else there.

Only two others got off at the stop with me, a portly fellow in my train car who headed toward a woman waiting for him at the Caddy, and some other guy to my left who exited a few cars down. I didn’t see a phone booth and as far as I knew, I was in the middle of nowhere. Actually, it didn’t matter where I was. What was open at 4 AM? “Oh my God. Oh my God. This can’t be worse.”

Then I glanced over again at the fellow to my left. What was he doing? It was a little difficult to see at first in the dark. “Oh my God. Oh my God. It can be worse. He’s tapping a cane. He’s blind!”

I still don’t know what I or, perhaps more interestingly, the blind fellow would have done if not for the kindness of the husband and wife team with the Cadillac. They gave us both a ride to the local Steak ‘n’ Shake, an all-hours joint particular to the Midwest and after a few hours I was able to call Sue and the blind guy was able to contact his party.

It’s not always possible for us to see life’s lessons as they are generated. Usually I think that if we’re open to growth, we tend to absorb things over time and they become a part of who we are. Occasionally, though, life smacks us full upside the head, and we learn important things about perspective, about how things really could be worse, and about the kindness of strangers. For me in 1995, the “pointless arrow” made it possible.

Tags: Amtrak, Travel

Because I’m going to be fairly critical I want to start by stating flatly that Scott Kurtz’ Player vs. Player (aka PVP) was my favorite comic, web or printed, for years. Kurtz’ has a wonderfully developed sense of humor and comes from a Gen X background similar to my own, which is to say that we share many of the same cultural touchstones (Star Wars, Star Trek, Dukes of Hazzard, etc.). He’s not just brilliant in the comic format, either. If you’ve not heard him on the audio podcast of his Advanced Dungeons & Dragons quest with Wil Wheaton and the guys from Penny Arcade, you have seriously missed some of the best improvisational comedy to hit the web in recent times.

Further, I have been a huge fan of PVP for a long time—before the turn of the century. I have all books, including a signed Awesomology. I have the comic books. I have the DVD. I have been, in short, the type of PVP fan that creative content producers drool over: the guy who will buy virtually anything Kurtz produces.

All of which is why it kills me to say that PVP has jumped the shark, a phrase that Gen Xers know all too well from that horrific Happy Days episode where the Fonz, literally, took a waterskiing jump over a shark. As it heralded the creative end of an iconic ’70s TV series, so too have relatively recent changes to PVP left it a shadow of what it was, and left me—a long-time and vocal proponent—uninterested in its future.

Classic PVP
From the beginning, one of the resounding successes of PVP has been the artwork. Go back to May of 1998 (I’ll wait). They’re simple lines in scenes devoid of background, but the personalities are there and for all its early simplicity it’s a great basic comic already. Flash forward two years to May of 2000 and Kurtz has evolved the characters—particularly Cole and Troll, but everyone’s improved as, presumably, Kurtz’ drawing skill advanced. The backgrounds are still blank, but as Kurtz himself noted in How to Make Webcomics, the lack of background is actually something of a Shakespearean framing device allowing readers to mentally project and fill the background themselves. In other words, it’s a plus, and less than two years Kurtz has found an artistic form that, however spare, perfectly suits his humor. It is, for lack of a better word, cartoony. Here’s an example:

Note how Papa Smurf blends perfectly into the style of PVP at this point. Not only is it a funny as anything punchline, it’s virtually seamless stylistically. Kurtz would refine his style somewhat, but even early PVP is Classic PVP—an era which arguably ran roughly until mid-2007. As the comic evolved, Kurtz began to use lighter lines and to offer much more contrast in the artwork, a move that while not strictly necessary in terms of selling a joke, surely improved the visual appeal of the strip. The following comic is from December 2006:

Notice the lighter lines for the hair, faces, and props. As I say, it’s an evolution of style and not an essential one, but I find it a perfectly reasonable one as an artist matures. The art, though different, continues to enhance and in no way compromises the jokes. If you like this style and humor, let me highly recommend the PVP Awesomology to you. It’s a $100 book, but it encapsulates almost all of the Classic PVP era and it’s brilliant.

By mid-2007, Kurtz was drawing many secondary or tertiary characters with lighter more detailed lines, the backgrounds were frequently present and sometimes quite detailed, and he had begun to more frequently incorporate an over the shoulder perspective into some panels of the strip. Individually or used in moderation these changes wouldn’t have been a big deal. As it turned out, they were to spell the end of the Classic PVP era as he took them to their logical conclusions.

This strip from March 2008 illustrates, no pun intended, some of the issues:

Nothing shows better the transitional mess PVP suffered than Max Powers in the fourth panel. What in God’s name is that cartoon character doing in this otherwise illustrated strip? His head fits in with PVP circa 2000 and it could even work with PVP of 2006, but by March 2008 Kurtz has abandoned the very style that brought him Internet fame and fortune. Perhaps as a secondary character Max didn’t get enough “screen time” to be reworked like the other regulars, but the contrast here is so jarringly distracting that it kills an otherwise decent joke.

This more illustrated style is the crux of my objection to the newer PVP. It enhances nothing and frequently distracts because what we’re talking about here is a comic and comics like this one should be, well, comedic. Could an illustrated style work in PVP? Absolutely, the same way that it frequently did in Bill Watterson’s Calvin & Hobbes: Normal comics are drawn in a standard comic style, flights of fancy (Spaceman Spiff, etc.) a drawn in a more illustrative, detailed style. Consistent tone is crucial, and by changing the reality of the PVP world, Kurtz set long-time readers adrift.

New PVP
One can reasonably argue that PVP was never the same after Brent and Jade tied the knot. Marriage is, after all, one of the common ways in which various series “jump the shark.” But for me it was January 2009 when Brent got a chin. I don’t know what happened in that Dr. Who Tardis to give Brent a facial makeover, but it was to my mind an unmitigated disaster, wiping away the last of the comic-ness that Brent retained. Here’s a recent—January 2010—comic:

Look at the artistic detail here: Color, extensive background, shading, detailed props, light lines, and different perspectives. The strip and the characters look nothing like they did 5 years ago. Perhaps the “glass half full” crowd will see these changes as improvements, but in comedic terms what does all this art give you that you didn’t get from PVP in 2006? Easy. Nothing. In fact, it’s a huge problem. The joke’s great—Kurtz was and continues to be an excellent joke writer—but is there anything added by the various over the shoulder shots, Brent’s eyes (ugh!) over his glasses in the first panel, the detail of the background? No. In fact, only the last panel which uses a more traditional comic frame has the right comic “feel.” Everything else looks like a storyboard to a sitcom, and that’s a not meant as praise.

What kills me is that for someone who’s been as successful as Kurtz, I can’t believe he doesn’t see how he’s distorting the PVP reality through his artwork. I have to conclude that he either disagrees with my assessment (fair enough) or would rather draw pretty pictures than funny ones. The irony is that since PVP is a comic frequently about alternate realities, be they AD&D, video games or what have you, Kurtz could easily accommodate his desire to include more detailed drawing in his strip the same way that Watterson did.

There are other issues, of course, like Brent’s lack of snark since marriage and the return of a completely redrawn Max Powers (reminding me somehow of Ted McGinley) with an aura of Zen that completely saps the strip of conflict. Question: Who is the antagonist in the 2010 edition of PVP? Skull’s cat, Scratch Fury is as good a guess as any, and he’s hardly a main character except at Christmastime. Understandably, it’s hard to get excited about a story without conflict.

Ultimately, it’s difficult to say exactly when PVP jumped the shark, but in thinking this through and writing it out, I’m not even sure that’s the best analogy. It’s more accurate to say that Classic PVP was The Matrix and what’ve seen in the last couple years are the sequels. It’s a shame to have experienced such a high only to be followed by such a let-down, but at least in this case I can always hold out the faint hope that, Dallas-like, Jade will wake up, Brent will come out of the shower without a chin, and “new PVP” will have been a dream.

I find that I’ve grown increasing intolerant of fundamentalist religion. I simply have no time for people (*cough* -Mike Huckabee- *cough*) who turn off their brains to the reality of the world.

This realization about myself has been disturbing on several levels. First, I don’t much like being intolerant. I’m not sure it’s good for me, and I’d much prefer to respect people’s deeply held religious beliefs, no matter how stupid. (Hopefully it goes without saying that I maintain profound regard for others’ right be believe whatever nonsense they want; I expect the same level of respect toward my right to worship, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.) But the Karl Rovian politics of the last several years have made it abundantly clear that complete religious idiocy cannot be ignored, and that if we do, we do so at our own peril.

Second, being intolerant of fundamentalist religion occurs for me in part because those religions are in turn intolerant (of gays, Jews, Catholics, etc.). Oh the irony of being bigoted toward someone because they’re also bigoted. What a lovely turn of events.

Finally, and perhaps most distressingly, I don’t feel like there is much alternative. Andrew Sullivan had a wonderful blog post (well-worth reading), “Why do we diss Baptists?”, wherein he said:

…for me, the evolution issue is very hard to get past. Those who believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and that human life has not evolved from more primitive forms are people I cannot engage with in civil discourse. To posit faith in things unprovable and unknowable is one thing. To posit faith in something demonstrably falsifiable is another. I simply have no tolerance for creationism or for those who enable it. Creationists are as much an insult to reasonable Christians as they are to rational thought. And they perpetuate the notion that religious faith is indistinguishable from idiocy.

That is exactly how I feel, and why I disagreed so strongly with Mitt Romney’s speech earlier in the campaign about religion in politics.

Immutable individual characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) should surely be ignored in judging a person’s suitability for office, but the bizarre idea that the beliefs a candidate holds most dear are somehow out-of-bounds is nuts. In fact, it seems to me that they form an excellent basis for judging a person’s suitability, which is one reason—even the primarily reason—I find Huckabee’s belief in creationism so damning.

On the other hand, Huckabee had this to say in his book Character is the Issue,

Politics are totally directed by worldview. That’s why when people say, ‘We ought to separate politics from religion,’ I say to separate the two is absolutely impossible.

So it’s not like we have nothing in common, even if we won’t be starting a mutual-admiration society anytime soon.

In the meantime, I’m still trying to work through the day-to-day implications of all of the above.

Several things should be made clear in the case of Terri Schiavo, the poor woman who’s been in a vegetative state for 15 years and is now having her feeding tube removed at the behest of her husband and against the wishes of her parents.

First, this whole sorry mess would’ve been avoided if she’d simply had a Medical Directive (aka Living Will, Advance Directive, Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, etc.) instructing doctors and loved ones as to her wishes. A lot of people hear cases like these and think, “I sure wouldn’t want to be kept alive if I were in a vegetative state.” Nobody’s saying you have to, but you do need to fill out a form, or you’ll just be leaving the rest of us guessing. These documents weren’t all that well-known 15 years ago, but they are today, so if you don’t have one, get one.

Second, if you don’t have the above document, be careful who you marry. In most if not all cases, your spouse will have final say over your medical treatment if you’re incapacitated. In the Schiavo case, it may well be that husband Michael Schiavo has it right and that his wife Terri Schiavo, a Roman Catholic, would not wish to have her life prolonged. His motivation might be under less suspicion, however, if he wasn’t living with his girlfriend with whom he’s had a couple kids and if he didn’t stand to receive what’s left of the $1.2 million malpractice settlement from his wife’s poor medical care. (Michael Schiavo’s attorneys have received almost $490,000 of that settlement for their work in trying to have Terri’s feeding tube removed.)

Third, it’s worth noting that what constitutes a “vegetative state” is not nearly what most people imagine. The popular conception is that an individual in such a state appears to be sleeping 24/7 with no signs of consciousness. That is not the case. With Terri Schiavo, for example, she breathes on her own, opens her eyes at times, and laughs on occasion. There is little question that she’s brain-damaged and that she is bereft of most if not all of her higher brain functions. But it’s not like she’s sleeping all the time. (HealthLink has a good page on the difference between a coma and a persistent vegetative state.)

Finally, and here I come to the thing which I believe causes so many people anxiety in this case, the outcome for those in a persistent vegetative state is unknown. Medical literature is replete with “miracles” of those who’ve awoken from comas, who’ve returned to consciousness after years in vegetative states, and who’ve even been declared legally dead and somehow come back to life. In the absence of wishes to the contrary, why not give life and hope a chance? Since no Medical Directive exists and her own parents are willing to provide her care, it’s hard to understand what positive end is served by starving Terri Schiavo to death.

Honestly, I wasn’t that far off in 2000. I only missed Bush by 10 and Gore by 13. Not my fault it was the closest election in the history of ever. (Is it?) Commander Botox vs. Idiot-in-Chief.

I’m already on record as saying that I believe John Kerry will be the next President of the United States. I’m also on record as saying that he sure wasn’t my first choice. But seeing as how George W. Bush isn’t even in my top 1000, Kerry will do just fine.

The post debate polling is now starting to roll through and on the heels of it, I think we’ll start to see Kerry pull ahead in most of the relatively evenly divided states. Unless something shakes up the contest in the final couple weeks, I believe Kerry will win handily.

So it’s Hammer time. Let’s break it down.

Tune in again on Election Night as I’ll be updating the site with returns and tracking my success. Do bear in mind that I don’t think I have a snow ball’s chance in hell of picking correctly on a lot of the toss-up states; this is all just for giggles.

“The last chance to preserve marriage in Oregon,” reads the brochure. What, are they outlawing it or just forcing everybody to get divorced? “Seven facts you must know,” or Seven bogus arguments you must read. Here we go….

Oregon ballot measure 36, for those who don’t know, would define marriage as between a man and a woman, effectively barring gay marriages from taking place in the state. Specifically, this constitutional amendment reads:

It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.

This likely seems perfectly reasonable unless you happen to be gay. Then it’s a pretty big downer. If we presume to be on the side of individual freedom—a questionable presumption to be sure during this age of the Patriot Act and John Ashcroft—one would expect the Yes on 36 coalition to present seven very persuasive arguments as to why the rights of gay and lesbian citizens should be thus curtailed. One would be disappointed.

1. Measure 36 affirms what most people thought was already in our state constitution. It is embarrassing to even call this an argument. What “most people” did or did not think has, of course, no relevance whatsoever to whether the initiative being advanced is worthy of passage.

2. Oregon law is very clear: Marriage is between one man and one woman. Obviously Oregon law is not clear or there would be no need for a constitutional amendment such as this one. Further, the clarity of Oregon law leaves untouched the question of whether the law itself is good or not.

3. Four Multnomah County commissioners used secret backroom tactics to skirt Oregon’s marriage laws. I’m sorry to say this is utterly true in my estimation, and the four commissioners, far from helping the gay rights movement, have probably set it back decades. Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with the merits of ballot measure 36.

4. Children do best with a mom & dad. Using unnamed and uncited “research,” a questionable case is made for differently sexed couples being best for raising kids. Interestingly, no mention is made of studies which show kids raised by gay and lesbian couples tend to do fine as well. (Two supportive parents are what is important; gender difference is helpful but not significant.) Nonetheless, this again is a separate issue from whether or not gay marriage should be barred.

5. 40 states already have laws similar to measure 36. The ad populum fallacy rears its head. Obviously, the popularity of a law says nothing about its merits.

6. Preserving marriage is not discrimination. This seems a like an appeal to tradition (another type of fallacy), which it is, but it’s also flat out wrong. Barring consenting, adult homosexual couples from uniting in marriage is discrimination. The question is whether or not it’s proper discrimination. So far the evidence that it is is lacking.

7. Over 244,000 Oregonians respond to preserve marriage The text here rightly states: “…more than 244,000 voters signed petitions to place Measure 36 on the ballot. It was the most signatures ever collected. And it was also done in record time.” This, alas, portends the passage of Measure 36, but again advancing the ad populum fallacy says nothing to justify its passage.

In the end, then, we are left with no reasons whatsoever why Measure 36 should become law, and, if we believe in individual freedom, no reasons why gay marriage should not be allowed. The sad news is that Measure 36 will pass overwhelmingly. The good news is that younger generations have no idea what prompts this incredible level of intolerance towards gays and lesbians and someday will politically refute the bankrupt idea that marriage need be limited to heterosexuals.

If not me, then who? If not now, then when? If not here, then where? If not ham, then no cheese. I throw eggs at a UP professor’s scrambled take on morality, Christianity, and the military. Humpty Dumpty had a big fall.
Read more »

Breast-feeding? Statistically awesome. Gay sex? Equally protected. Affirmative action? Halle Berry. Opinions R Us reopens for business. Not that it’s been missed.
Read more »

A critique of Beth Chapman’s Stand Up for America rally speech. If you own Alabama State Treasury bonds, you’ll want to sell.
Read more »

Routine infant circumcision. If baby boys could talk, what do you think they’d say?
Read more »