The Vinyl Record

Do you have any vinyl records? Threw them all out after you’d amassed a serious collection of CD’s, did you? Vinyl records are analog. CDs are digital. Bad, bad vinyl. Throw it away.

Too bad. Big, big mistake. Let me tell you why.

Everybody knows about MP3 by now. Just in case, I’ll refresh your memory about the salient details.

Since computers started becoming bigger, faster, and more powerful, the average user has had the capability of recording music or any other sound into a computer file that could be played back through an amplifier. The format most computers used for this was called “wav”. It wasn’t a very efficient format. To record a three-minute song at good fidelity required about 25 – 40 megabytes of space. Even with today’s 10 GIG hard drives, that’s a big file. Too big to circulate on the internet, for example.

MP3 is nothing more than a file compression format. It takes that humungous 25 MB wav file and converts it into a sleek little 3 MB MP3 file. Best of all, when you copy an MP3 file, you don’t lose one megahertz of audio quality. Think of it: the 50th copy is just as good as the 1st.

This, of course, has tremendous implications. It could mean the death of the popular music industry. And some of the smarter people at Sony and Warner Brothers know that. And they are having fits. If music can be downloaded off the internet and copied endlessly, who will buy CDs?

Well, they aren’t taking this lying down of course. Various music companies have combined– isn’t that illegal (yes it is)– to work out a new standard for digital media that will allow them to prevent people from making copies of their music. They want to this by putting a secret code in the computerized music file. This code will tell a recording device not to make copies of the music.

What nobody seems to realize is that this, at long last, will mark the definitive end of the vinyl record. Vinyl records cannot be encoded to prevent copying. Why would they issue music on CD’s designed to prevent copies, and then issue vinyl LPs which would allow anyone with a decent turntable to copy the music onto a computer and generate the numerous illicit copies they so dread?

Of course, why issue music on vinyl at all? The most amazing thing about the success of the CD format is that it was accomplished by persuading people to buy a new copy of music they already own. And that is why the “industry” is very, very excited about DVD or whatever else is going to succeed the CD as the standard format of musical recordings. Once again, everyone who dearly loves music will have to go out and buy new copies of their favorite CDs. And you can take your old, obsolete CD’s and stack them right next to your obsolete vinyl LPs.

Sony just announced the release of their own proprietary digital format. They say that you will be able to download Sony’s copyrighted music off the internet. After you pay, of course. Sony thinks you should just rush out and buy the new portable player for Sony’s new copyrighted format, which cost over $400, because, after all, don’t you want to be able to play Celine Dionne on your computer?

Think about this friends: you have a choice. MP3 allows you to make as many copies of a piece of music as you want. You can download music in MP3 format from all over the world, for free. So you probably want to rush right out and buy the new Sony player instead, for $400, so we can all put an end to this free music and start paying again!

If Sony was really smart—and I don’t think they are, on this issue—they would be giving their player away. I’m not kidding. Sony—if you’re listening—I want $1 million for this copyrighted idea (Copyright 1999, all rights reserved, Bill Van Dyk). Here it is again: give your portable player away, for free, and give away as many as possible as quickly as possible. Give it away at concerts, with free cuts by the artist. Give it away at record shops, with free samples by your leading stars. Give it away at trade shows and press conferences. Give it away in breakfast cereals.

Think, Sony. If you give your player away, people will want music to play on it. Where will they get that music? They will get it from your web site. How much will they pay? Well, don’t be stupid and try to charge them $1 a track. That would mean that a CD-length work would cost $20. That’s what we currently pay for a physical product that is pressed, labeled, packaged, and distributed. You just have to upload these files to your web site and set up people’s accounts. How about 25 cents each? You’ll win the digital music war!

My guess is that Sony is not as stupid as you might think and that the $400 is a ploy. My guess is that Sony wants you to think that the player is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 so that when they start giving it away for about $99 near Christmas time, you’ll think you’re getting something really valuable, even though each device will only cost Sony about $5 to manufacture (no moving parts, no belts, no drives, just cheap silicone chips, an LCD, and a “play” button). My guess is that Sony is going to try to charge people $2.50 a cut for music for their machine. My guess is that their market research will show that people are pretty stupid and will pay two and a half times as much for a recording that cost Sony 1/5th as much, to produce and distribute, as a CD copy. People will pay this because they will want to be “cutting edge” and show off to their friends.

Will this fool a lot of people?

Yes.

Bankers and Other Vampires

The next time you go to a bank or a lawyer for anything, I’d consider wearing an armored turtle-neck sweater if I were you.

It is no coincidence that most of the lawmakers in our civilization are lawyers and that many of laws unduly favor the lawyers with opportunities to sink their fangs into you.

Case in point: have you ever bought a house? Buying a house is a big, complex action that requires inordinate legal expertise and wisdom and mountains of documentation. Does it have to? No. Then why does it? Well, the mountains of incoherent legalese and mumbo-jumbo is like a stun gun: it’s designed to immobilize you until various interested parties can sink their fangs into your neck.

First of all, there is the Real Estate Agent. The Real Estate Agent receives a percentage of the value of your house as his pay. This system is not without its advantages. If the agent doesn’t sell your house, he doesn’t get a penny. But if he does sell your house, he gets 5% of the value. This doesn’t entirely make sense. If your house is worth $50,000, the agent gets a reasonable $2,500. How much time does he invest in selling your house? A week of full-time hours? So he gets about $62.50 an hour. Excessive, but not absurd.

But if your house is worth $150,000, the agent gets three times as much, or $7,500. Does it take three times as much work to sell a $150,000 house? No. It takes about the same amount of time, if not less, because there are buyers for every segment of the market place. Even if it took the agent the equivalent of two weeks full-time work to sell this house, he would earn $93.75 an hour. Not bad. No wonder the lawyers want to get in on the action.

Unlike lawyers, however, Real Estate Agents only get paid if they are successful in helping you sell your house. That’s admirable. But why don’t people sell their own houses and keep that money for themselves? Oddly enough, it might because some people confuse the function of the Real Estate Agent with the function of the lawyer. They trust the Real Estate Agent. They feel the Real Estate Agent will keep them from making a foolish mistake, like accidentally buying a trailer in a swamp, instead of a nice bungalow on a crescent. Or selling your house to one of those crazy people who go around looking at houses and making offers on them but don’t actually have any money with which to buy one. But, actually, it’s the lawyer who makes sure that you don’t make a big mistake. Like sign a professional major league baseball contract instead of a mortgage.

It is pretty outrageous that the Real Estate Agent holds on to the $1,000 deposit on the purchase of your house. What’s he doing with it? It’s your house, not his. Why didn’t he turn it over to you immediately, like he should have? Why not? Because the check was given to another Real Estate Agent by the purchaser. So the two Real Estate Agents get together: “I know—let’s keep the money.”

Just imagine how your boss would react if you went out to deliver one of your company’s products to a customer and decided to keep the payment in your pocket for a few months. You’d be arrested. You’d be fired.

The lawyer handles the legal mumbo jumbo of buying a home. What exactly does he do? Well, a lawyer’s time is very valuable. You don’t want to call up a lawyer and burp on the phone or anything—you’ll get a bill. Lawyers are very good at keeping track of their valuable time. And the first thing a good lawyer does is make sure that he doesn’t have to waste a lot of his valuable time by actually doing any work. He hires a law clerk to do that. And you will probably discover that almost all of the work done on your purchase or sale is actually done by the law clerk, who probably makes about $8.75 an hour. The law clerk is happy to work for $8.75 an hour. You see, one day, a law clerk is going to be a lawyer. But the only way the other lawyers will let him become a lawyer is if he first agrees to work for $8.75 an hour for a lawyer for a few years, gaining valuable “experience”. His function is similar to that of a hospital intern: we can ruthlessly exploit you, so we will. But you will have your turn…

When we sold our house, the lawyer’s fee was $450. Add to that about $45 in “disbursements”, including $12 for photocopying and $9.33 for postage. Then there is $50.00 for the registration of discharge. I think he calls the bank and says, “Is the mortgage discharged?” The bank says “yes”. Done. Kaa-chink. $50.00. The fee for buying the house we moved to was $500. But wait! Would a lawyer be satisfied with a paltry $500, when he’s got his hands on your $173,000? There is the “Title Searcher’s Fee”– $75.00. What’s that? I thought that’s what the law clerk did for the lawyer’s fee? There’s no business like show business: charge people for a particular service and then surcharge them for everything that actually costs you money to provide. See “Shipping and Handling” (Amazon.com).

There is an “executions certificate – $77.00”. What’s that? I have no idea. Do I want to make a fool of myself by asking the lawyer what it is and why I should pay for it? He’s already got my money.

There is “subsearch of title – $5.00”. Why, that seems very reasonable. You charge the client $500 for a service that doesn’t include “subsearch of title”. What am I paying $500 for, then?

There is “paid for letter searches: tax certificate – $20.00, Planning/Zone Certificate: $75.00”. Looks like every city department wants their fangs in you too.

There is “conveyance costs”. Oh please…. What is a “conveyance”? $8.50.

There is Courier, Postage, Fax, Photocopies: about $60.00. Here again we have a smart businessman surcharging a customer for services that should be included in the given price for a specific service. It’s like your mechanic charging you $5 for “rag wipe”.

Then the mysterious “levy surcharge”—another $50.00. We go from a $500 lawyers fee to a total of $931.05. Altogether, selling the old house and buying the new, the lawyer gets about $1600.

And finally, after all those exotic little quaint and mysterious charges: “Paid Registration Costs: $100”. After all the subsearches and conveyances and courier and levy surcharges and executions— what! Still not “registered”? What’s the point of registering it when we’ve already paid a fortune for conveyances and subsearches and levies? After all that, registration still matters?

Then the government, of course, bares its fangs: Land Transfer Tax: $1464.00.

Then there is something called the “Levy Surcharge” for $50. There is no explanation of what a “Levy Surcharge” is. If you look up the words in the dictionary, you have, essentially, a phrase that means “charge extra bill”. Maybe the lawyer just wanted another $50, so he added a bill for the bill.

What is even more infuriating is that if I sold this house tomorrow to somebody else, his lawyer would charge him just as much for all the same services my lawyer just provided, and the city would charge him just as much as well, even though the facts of which these various certificates testify have not changed one whit.

As I check over the other documents associated with selling and buying a home, I notice this one: “Inspection and Appraisal: $187.25”. This little gem is something that the bank does to make sure that you’re not taking a mortgage out on an outhouse instead of a four-room bungalow. Well, why should I pay for them to do that? They are the ones that are in the business of lending money for profit. Why don’t they send one of their clerks out to the house to have a look at it, on the bank’s time? How long does it take to ascertain that a house exists and that it is selling at, roughly, current market values?

About a month after the purchase, I received my bank statement. It showed that $498.78 had been charged to my account as a “check posted by branch”. This was not a check posted by branch. This was piece of paper initialed by several people at Scotia Express that said: “give us some money out of this person’s account”. Did my bank say, “Wait—you can’t take money without permission, or without a signed authorization by the owner of the account.”? Are you kidding? Like the Real Estate Agents and the Lawyers, the bankers know how to scratch each others’ backs. They just said: “you’re a bank? Here. Take it. Take as much as you want.”

This amount is supposedly an “interest adjustment”. They probably thought I’d be so totally confused by now that I would just kind of nod and smile and let this one slip pass me. Well, they’re right. However, I do happen to have a document that says that the “interest adjustment” is $216.46. Do I want to spend all day on the phone trying to get through to people at the bank who can talk coherently about my mortgage? You bet.

This kind of wheeling and dealing is what really bugs me. It was our house that we sold, not the lawyer’s. Why does he take his fee right out of the transaction, instead of sending us a bill and waiting to get paid like everyone else does? Maybe he’s worried that if he screwed up, (as a lawyer on one of our previous home purchases did), he wouldn’t get his money.

What a strange world it would be, in which lawyers don’t get paid if they screw up.

Tail-Gunner Bill Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley, the famous American conservative with a fake, snotty British accent, has recently published a novel. With an audaciousness rarely seen in the literary community, he has decided to undertake the rehabilitation of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Sure, the rest of the world has come to see McCarthyism as a synonym for bigotry, intolerance, and fanaticism, but Mr. Buckley has decided that he alone can correct that erroneous impression. McCarthy was a hero. He was right. He may well have saved America!

I always feel reassured when conservatives show their true colors. You see, many conservatives seem to have turned their backs on McCarthyism and appear to agree with most people that McCarthyism was a bad thing. In a roundabout way, I think this causes many people to get the warm fuzzies when they see George Bush Jr. on television, talking about compassion, even if they know that the U.S. Treasury can’t print dollars fast enough to keep up with the orgasmic flush being directed to Bush, and the Republican Party, by big corporations.

In case anyone needs a refresher, Senator McCarthy chaired a committee which investigated the penetration of U.S. government agencies, including the army, by communist agents. You really need to see one of the good dramatizations of McCarthy’s tactics (“Fear on Trial” is a good start) to appreciate the man. Not a man to waste his time with obtuse diversions like evidence or due process, he merely smeared people with innuendo or suspicion and bullied corporations, the government, the army, and Hollywood, into destroying the lives of anyone who would not appear before his committee, bow before him, and rat on his or her buddies. He was finally disgraced when even Eisenhower couldn’t stomach him anymore. He died a lonely, broken man, an alcoholic, and left, as his greatest legacy, his name as an adjective.

But Mr. Buckley wants to rehabilitate his image. Did we all miss something? Was Senator McCarthy misunderstood? Did he really save America? Can you believe Billy Buckley Jr.’s version of events?

Buckley describes, in his novel, an old black man who asks if it is true that the International Communist Conspiracy is seeking to undermine the U.S. government. Yes, of course. Then why, he asks, don’t we just run them out of town, like we used to? Buckley thinks this is the right attitude. Why don’t we just run them out of town? And that is Buckley’s real vision of “democracy”. If we don’t like someone, we just run him out of town. And why apply that solution only to communists?

If you like that philosophy, then save a soft spot in your heart for “Tail-gunner” Joe McCarthy. And keep your bags packed. There is always a witch hunt somewhere

 

Butch, Sundance, and Etta: the Lonely Dislocations of History

Robert Leroy Parker, alias Butch Cassidy, was born in Beaver, Utah, on April 13, 1866. He was the first of 13 children. His mother and father were Mormons, trying to eke out a living on a small homestead that was eventually taken away from them by the Mormon Church. At 16, Butch met a drifter and cattle rustler named Mike Cassidy. Cassidy taught Butch how to shoot, and, possibly, why he would want to know how to shoot. At 18, Butch left home and began his long career as an itinerant outlaw. Eventually, he adopted Cassidy’s last name. He was called “Butch” after one of his infrequent attempts to earn an honest living, as a butcher.

Harry Longabaugh, alias The Sundance Kid, was born in Pennsylvania in the Spring of 1867. At the age of 15, he left home and traveled to Durango with a cousin. He drifted around taking jobs here and there, until the harsh winter of 1884, when disastrous winter storms in the west wiped out most large herds of cattle, and the jobs tending them. In 1886, he stole his first horse. He was caught. He escaped. He was caught again, and escaped again. A newspaper published a headline story about his adventures. He wrote a fairly literate letter to the editor, disputing some of the points, but disarmingly conceding that he was, indeed, a thief.

butch.jpg (8813 bytes)

It was around this time that the Sundance Kid met a woman named Etta and took her with him to the famous outlaw refuge, the Hole-in-the-Wall, in Wyoming. Who was she? Where did she come from? Why was she traveling around the wild west in the company of a known outlaw? She registered in hotels as Etta “Place”, but Place was Sundance’s mother’s last name. All that was known about her for certain was that she was young, she appeared to be refined and educated, yet she could ride a horse and shoot a Winchester rifle, and she spent about ten years in the company of two of the most wanted bank robbers and criminals in the history of the American West. There were many rumors—that she was a prostitute, or a teacher, or both–but almost nothing could be confirmed. Even the Pinkerton’s Detective Agency was mystified by her.

On June 2, 1899, the Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy, and about five others, robbed their first train together—the Union Pacific—between Wilcox and Medicine Bow, Wyoming. They politely informed passengers and crew that no one’s lives were in danger as long as they cooperated. Then they blew up the mail car—using too much dynamite– and recovered $30,000 from the debris. On August 29, 1900, they took another Union Pacific train for $55,000. On September 19, $33,000, from a bank in Winnemucca, Nevada. The banks and railroads posted rewards of $10,000 a head for any member of the gang. In today’s terms, that would be over $100,000. Their $30,000 haul from the Union Pacific was probably worth about $400,000 today. Pocket change, by Michael Jordan standards.

Keep in mind that some conjecture is involved here. While it is known with some certainty that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were associated with the gang known as the Wild Bunch during this period and that members of this gang committed a series of train and bank robberies during the late 1890’s and early 1900’s, everything else is somewhat conjectural. Naturally, the outlaws did not exactly keep detailed logs of their larcenies. Different combinations of men robbed different banks. In some cases, Butch or Sundance may have masterminded robberies that they did not directly take part in. In other cases, it is now known, robberies attributed to them were committed by others.

That fall, one of the gang members married a former prostitute, Lillie Davis, in Forth Worth, Texas. Lillie had worked in a well-known bordello named “Fanny Porter’s” in the rowdy Hells Half Acre—a sort of red-light district to which the authorities turned a blind eye, usually. After the reception, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Harvey Logan, Ben Kilpatrick, and the groom, Will Carver, had a group portrait taken. This turned out to be a serious mistake, an act of hubris, by men who were otherwise regarded as very clever. A Well’s Fargo detective, recognizing Will Carver, obtained a copy of the picture and it was widely posted. Ironically, it may have been this picture, more than anything else, that sealed the image of glamour and sophistication attached to these men, in the public mind. The outlaws look dapper, bemused, and well-bred. They look like well-to-do bankers. They looked successful.

Study the photograph carefully for a minute. Will Carver was killed by a sheriff in Texas in April the next year. Logan, reputed to be the only genuine psychopath in the group, was killed (or committed suicide) in June 1904. Kilpatrick was captured and sentenced to 15 years in November, 1901. He was released in 1911, and killed while attempting to rob a train less than a year later.

Anyway, back in 1900, Cassidy and Sundance found their lives becoming difficult. The wild open plains of the west became dotted with towns and villages, new railroads and telegraph lines, marshals and posses, private detectives and bounty hunters. The legendary Pinkerton Detective Agency, hired by the railroads, was also hot on their trail. With their photos posted everywhere and large rewards for their capture, dead or alive, they faced long, lonely, restless lives as fugitives, never able to drop their guards for even a minute.

Oddly enough, they felt safe traveling to New York City with Etta in February, 1901. I would suppose they figured that would be one of the last places Pinkerton’s would expect to find them, but who knows?

etta.jpg (9875 bytes)

After three weeks of rest and relaxation, they departed for South America, where they planned to go straight, buy themselves a ranch, and blend into the general population. Sundance, in particular, seemed to crave a “normal” life, perhaps hoping to settle down with Etta and raise children.

In South America, the threesome established a ranch near the remote town of Cholila, in southern Argentina, where they built a log cabin and acquired horses and cattle and entertained their neighbors and were regarded as good citizens. Argentine officials had no idea of who they really were. It is said that Etta even danced with the governor at a ball.

For unknown reasons, Sundance and Etta traveled to Manhattan on April 3, 1902 and remained there for three months. Butch accompanied them as far as Buenos Aires. He stayed in a comfortable hotel there, the Europa, for three weeks. Sundance may have sought medical treatment for a wound in the leg in Chicago, and Etta may have seen the doctor as well: about this time, the Pinkerton’s obtained a description of her. She was 5’ 5″, 110 pounds, medium dark hair, blue or grey eyes, no blemishes on her skin.

Butch allegedly said of her once, “She was a great housekeeper with the heart of a whore.”

Cholila was a remote village in Southern Argentina, inaccessible from the more settled north during the rainy season, and 15 days strenuous travel by horseback from Rawson, on the coast. Nevertheless, the Pinkertons were able to trace their movements through informants. They offered to arrest them and bring them back to the United States for trial, but the American Bankers Association was content to leave them alone in South America, where they wouldn’t be able to rob American banks.

The Pinkerton’s were not content. A spiteful agent, Frank Dimaio– it had to be spite, didn’t it?– circulated wanted posters in the area around Cholila. He tried to persuade the Argentine police that Butch and Sundance were involved with local bank robberies. By the end of 1904, the trio had disappeared from Cholila. They had been tipped off that the authorities were on their way to arrest them.

Without a source of honest income, Sundance and Butch fell back upon tried and true methods of survival. They robbed a bank in Rio Gallegos, near the Magellan Strait, and then they robbed one in Villa Mercedes, about 800 miles north of Cholila. It is generally believed that Etta took part in both robberies. According to friends, Butch and Sundance had wanted to go straight, but nobody would let them.

The details of the Rio Gallegos robbery provide an interesting glimpse of how they operated. The three arrived in town two weeks before the robbery and checked into the best hotel under assumed names. They deposited $12,000 in the Banco de la Nacion, the largest, most prestigious financial institution in town, and made the acquaintance of the manager and several tellers. They made it known that they were looking to buy some land and were invited to parties given by the elite of the town. Either Butch or Sundance dropped by at the bank every day, pretending to have business to discuss with the manager, while actually scrutinizing the layout, the schedules of major deposits, and the best escape routes. On the day before the robbery, they withdrew all their money, and threw a lavish party that lasted well into the night for all their new friends. The next day, at 11:00 a.m., one of them asked to see the manager while the other waited in the lobby. Then they pulled out their weapons, forced the manager to turn over the money, and raced off on fresh horses waiting for them outside, probably with Etta. They made off with $70,000. Several posses and police forces followed them for up to three weeks. All they found were tired, discarded horses.

In January 1906, the trio were seen crossing the Salado river on a raft, probably headed over the Andes into Chile. This may well have been the last reported sighting of Etta Place. She was never seen again in the company of Butch or Sundance, or, indeed, anyone else.

Percy Siebert, an engineer for the Concordia Mine, where Butch and Sundance worked for a time as payroll guards (!) claimed that Butch told him that Sundance had taken Etta back to Colorado for an appendectomy. While waiting for her to recover, Sundance got drunk one night, shot up his room, and had to leave town in a hurry. “He didn’t know what became of her after that,” said Percy. Nor did anyone else. Etta’s pretty, fine-featured face faded away into one of the great mysteries of the old west.

If she had needed an appendectomy, it would have made no sense to travel all the way to Colorado to have it done: she would have died well before she got there.

He didn’t know what became of her after that. I don’t want to just glibly pass over that line. If, as reported, Sundance fled the scene and never came back for her, it’s one of the saddest lines ever written. How does the “heart of a whore” break? Did Sundance grow tired of her company, or did she grow tired of their primitive, dangerous lives in Argentina?

In the following years, Butch and Sundance tried again to go straight, working for mines and ranchers, but inevitably their real identities were discovered and they were forced to flee. Again and again, they resorted to larceny to get by. After holding up the payroll for a mining company in Bolivia, in early November 1908, they stopped in a small, godforsaken little town called San Vicente. A citizen noticed the mining company brand on one of their mules and notified the local constabulary. When the soldiers arrived to question them, gunfire broke out. Butch and Sundance were trapped in a small, unprotected villa. After an intense gun-battle, both were seriously wounded. The police waited all night before confirming that the two were dead. Both of them had died from bullet wounds to the head. It was believed that Sundance shot the wounded Butch to put him out of his misery, and then himself.

There were persistent rumors that Butch survived the shootout—or wasn’t even there when it happened– and traveled back to the U.S. where he lived in anonymity for another thirty years. Unfortunately, there is very little convincing proof of this story. A Spokane machine shop owner named William T. Phillips famously claimed to be the former outlaw, but his claims have been demonstrated to be false.

What is clear is that no one ever heard from them again. All letters and contacts ceased as of November 6, 1908. And almost immediately, the process of transforming outlaws into icons set in. Western novels celebrated their skills with a gun, their rugged individuality, and “honor” code (the myth of the shootout at high noon, with it’s almost mystical adherence to protocol). One of the very first films ever made, Porter’s “The Great Train Robbery”, was inspired by their exploits.

* * *

Now most Americans nowadays seem to be possessed of this great notion that men and women who break the law should be punished very severely. If you commit a felony three times in California, the judge is obliged to sentence you to something like 50 years, under the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” laws passed by its enlightened state legislature.

You would think that a society that is so determined to punish crime that it would send pick-pockets, soft drug users, and shoplifters to prison for 50 years would regard a pair of bank robbers with at least a little ironic detachment. But a quick browse through the dozens of web sites devoted (and I mean devoted) to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid tells you a different story: Americans love these guys. They adore them. They admire them beyond all reason and common sense. They want to know everything about them, what they wore, what they ate, how many bullets they had in their gun belts at the moment they died. They want to believe that they were the fastest, the smartest, the best-looking criminals on the face of the earth. They are our heroes.

You could make an argument for it. Butch and Sundance planned their robberies with meticulous attention to timing and detail. Like Bonnie and Clyde, they seemed to rob institutions, not people. They tried to live up to a standard of professionalism. They preferred to get in and out quickly, with a minimum of confrontation. They studiously avoided shooting anybody if they could. This might strike the modern reader as chivalric, but there’s a lot of common sense to it too—murder is a far more serious crime than robbery, and would certainly draw more lawmen, detectives, and bounty hunters into the chase.

But when pursued and confronted, they would shoot to kill. I didn’t see many web sites devoted to the lawmen who died in their wake.

So you could argue that Butch and Sundance are heroes today because they were smart and witty and good-looking and didn’t really do any harm to people, other than to the banks and the corporations. On the other hand, you could probably say the same about a lot of those young men serving long prison terms in California right now. In 1993, 50% of the prison population consisted of people convicted of drug possession. Surely these men and women were no more intent on harming anyone—other than themselves– than Butch or Sundance were. I’ll bet a lot of them are witty. Some of them probably know how to dress well.

And you could say the same about a lot of young professional athletes, who get caught using drugs, or driving while drunk, or assaulting their coaches, or raping cheerleaders, or cheating on their college grades. Those poor boys. We should help them.

There is a further irony in the fact that one of the reasons Butch traveled out west in the first place was his thirst for adventure, slaked by cheap dime-store novels about the west. Blame the media.

It is important to remember that the line between right and wrong in the western frontier in the late 19th century was not clearly delineated. Ranchers frequently “employed” lawmen, to drive out homesteaders and “undesirables”. Sometimes the homesteaders would hire their own “lawman”, to fight the rancher’s lawman. State politics were exceedingly corrupt. Perhaps, like Bonnie and Clyde, the Sundance Kid and Butch Cassidy represented the underdog, fighting the corrupt powers that be. Perhaps they were just good businessmen, like Monsieur Verdoux, doing what they had to to make a living. Kill someone during a robbery and you are a criminal. Kill thousands during an invasion and you get a medal.

But in the same sense, young black athletes, like Allen Iverson, Lattrell Sprewell, and others, emerged from poverty and economic oppression in the dark inner cities of America, to represent vicarious triumph over the corrupt, rich, white racist establishment.

There’s not much out there that reads well in black and white. Most of the world is as grey as Etta’s peerless face in that wonderful black and white photograph. We don’t know what became of her after that.

Henry Cisneros

America the Pure

Henry Cisneros was the Mayor of San Antonio in 1988. He was married with children. Then he had an affair with his campaign manager, Linda Jones. It was not a very secret affair: almost everybody involved in civic politics in San Antonio knew about it. Cisneros decided to come clean about the affair: he called a press conference and admitted the truth. Then he left his wife, and moved in with Linda Jones.

Nobody admires an adulterer, of course, but it isn’t against any law in the United States or Canada. Cisneros left politics and tried to make a new life for himself with his new partner. Big deal.

About a year after he left his wife, Cisneros changed his mind and moved back in with his wife. Good. He did the right thing. But Linda Jones, in the meantime, had left her own husband. She graciously asked for a divorce without alimony. Gracious indeed, since she was the one who broke her marriage vows. After Cisneros left her to go back to his wife, Jones was not as gracious. She demanded some kind of support payments. She wanted $4,000 a month. Cisneros agreed. Everything, at this point, looks a little tawdry, don’t you think? Still, nothing illegal about it all.

In 1992, Bill Clinton made Cisneros head of the Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD). Before he could take up his new position, he had to pass an FBI “background check”. The FBI asked about financial issues and Cisneros did something a little strange. He informed the FBI that he had given money to Jones but he said that he gave a lot less than he really did. This is strange because there is nothing illegal– quite the contrary– about paying support to a former partner. Nevertheless, when Cisneros’ financial obligations increased– he has a child with a heart defect and two daughters in college– he stopped making payments to Jones. Jones sold her stories to the tabloids and launched a lawsuit. The FBI found out that the amounts he had previously paid her were far in excess of what he had said he paid her– more like $40,000 instead of $10,000 a year.

Janet Reno appointed an independent prosecutor to investigate the charges. Why? Who knows? It cost the FBI and the Independent Counsel $9 million to investigate Cisneros’ consensual relationship.

Cisneros now faces 90 years in jail. I’m not kidding. For what? For “conspiracy”, “lying to a law enforcement officer”, “obstruction of justice” (which sometimes appears to be the major crime of not telling the police when you are committing a minor crime or something that could be construed as a crime). Whatever.

What kind of a lunatic asylum is this? What kind of an idiot is running the Justice Department and the FBI? What kind of a nation tolerates this kind of hysterical persecution?

A nation that executes children. A nation that subsidizes millionaire athletes. A nation that rewards graduating high school seniors with breast implants. A nation that enters a war with the expectation that it will withdraw with the first casualty.

Update, February 2003:

I just discovered that Bill Clinton pardoned Cisneros in January 1999. One of the few pardons that makes sense..

Update January 2006: The Republicans want to reanimate the Cisneros scandal after a disclosure that– apparently– someone came to their senses and decided that $9 million was quite enough to spend on investigating a well-known divorce. Cover-up, Cover up!

Are most Republican supporters so whacko that they will be sufficiently aroused by Robert Novak to simply buy this story without actually checking into any of the details? Write me if you are a Republican and you actually did some independent research on the Cisneros stories before buying the “cover-up” spin. Please.

I Went to See the Doctor

I went to see my doctor today. She has an office downtown in one of those little medical buildings, which she shares with several other doctors and a pharmacy. That tells you something about medicine right away. Not feeling well? Here—take a controlled substance.

The waiting rooms in doctor’s offices always seem to be full of women and children. You don’t see many men there. If you do, they are usually old. This is a well-known fact: women go to see the doctor way more often than men do. Why? Are they sick more often? Maybe it’s because the parts of the human body that are responsible for giving birth are unnecessarily complicated and need a lot of maintenance. The corresponding male organ seems highly resilient and durable. Or maybe men just never bother to get it fixed. Which is the truth? I don’t know.

My doctor is a female. This made me nervous when I made my first visit. But she put me at ease almost immediately by inviting me to undress and lay on the table while she strapped on a disposable glove. Then she invited the nurse in to watch, just to be sure I was feeling safe and comfortable. Hell, invite everybody in.

I found it a little strange. Equality gone amok? The nurse was in there to make sure that nothing “inappropriate” happened, or, at least, nothing inappropriate without a witness. This puzzled me. There were three possible inappropriate things that could happen. Firstly, the doctor might have assaulted me. Secondly, I might have assaulted the doctor. Thirdly, we might have had an argument—maybe about my high cholesterol—and assaulted each other.

We don’t usually worry about a female doctor assaulting a male patient. But we do worry about male doctors assaulting female patients. But it would be unfair to require a nurse to be present whenever a male doctor examines a female patient and not require a nurse to come in when a female doctor examines a male patient– everybody has to be equal– so the nurse comes in for everybody.

On the other hand, the nurse was also a female. Would it be considered appropriate for a male doctor to summon a male nurse to make sure nothing inappropriate happened while he examined a female patient? I don’t think so. What we have here is a conflict between two cultural ideals: equality and protection.

I wondered whether the nurse was in the room to protect me or the doctor. I wanted to tell my doctor that if it was for my sake, I’d just as soon take my chances and not have a spectator. But I couldn’t think of a diplomatic way to say so. So the nurse sat there on a chair. She couldn’t actually read or anything like that. She had to watch. But everybody in the room knew that it would be embarrassing for her to watch too closely, so she just kind of looked in our general direction without actually seeming to see anything.

I think every doctor should be required to be a “patient” for one hour a week. They don’t always seem very sensitive to the patient. I’m always nervous as a patient. When I was a child, the only time we saw a doctor was to get a needle. If doctors are smart, they will change this. They will invite children to come in and play with some toys and watch the doctor do surgery or something. Make it festive and fun. Nowadays I’m not worried about needles, but I get nervous when the doctor tells me to undress and lie on a table and then she goes out of the room for fifteen minutes and comes back in with a nurse, “to watch”.

Back to my visit– after sitting in the waiting room for five minutes, a nurse came and fetched me and led me to one of the examination rooms. There was not much in this room. A few chairs, a desk, and a counter with a sink. There was a box of rubber gloves and a tube of petroleum jelly on the counter. And the examining table, a rather mechanical piece of furniture with a black vinyl cushion on it. The room was painted pink. The nurse left the door open and I was able to hear a woman in another room explaining her symptoms to the doctor. I think she must have just started talking about it without waiting for an official examination to begin, because the first thing the doctor did when she came into my examining room was close the door. Maybe the patient didn’t think anybody else could hear. I often act that way myself at work, talking on the phone in my cubicle. You get a false sense of security because you can’t see anybody else nearby, and you can’t hear them, of course, unless they are talking on the phone.

My doctor must have gone to some kind of conference on patient-doctor relationships. At my first visit, she was very “traditional”. I want you to do this and that and then I’ll have a look here and tell you what we’re going to do. At my more recent visits, it was more like “what would you like me to do? I recommend this, but it’s up to you. You tell me when if you want this or that checked.” She has a poster on the wall stating that she does not casually prescribe antibiotics, because over-prescribing antibiotics has led to some strains of viruses becoming resistant.

Generally, I enjoy visiting the doctor. I used to think that anybody being paid to care for you didn’t really care for you. Now I think that just because someone is being paid doesn’t mean they don’t want to do a good job. It’s all where you draw the line.

Alternative Medicine

How many have you tried? I’ll bet you’ve tried a few. Almost everyone gets sick or injured on a semi-regular basis. Almost everyone feels lousy now and then. Almost everyone wants to feel better than they do. How many people ever say, “boy, I feel great” almost every day? Not as many as we wish.

There are almost as many alternative therapies around today as there were theories of psychology in the 1960’s. But what is unusual about the state of health care today is the way it has become a kind of smorgasbord, from which people pick and choose as they please, without regard for the theoretical, religious, or cultural foundations of each therapy.

Most of these therapies have links to the far East. Acupuncture drew some attention back in 1971 when American journalist, James Reston, had his appendix removed while traveling with President Nixon’s entourage on a visit to China. The Chinese surgeons claimed to use acupuncture instead of general anesthesia during the surgery to remove the damaged appendix. Reston wrote favourably about the experience in the New York Times.

The trouble with most of these remedies, in the view of many members of the Medical establishment, is that, by normal standards of scientific investigation, they don’t really work, and they are based on utterly fantastical theories about how the human body works. Acupuncture, for example, identifies “meridians” that extend along the body from head to toe, and are somehow related to certain medical conditions. By inserting very thin needles into points along these meridians, various ailments can be cured or pain alleviated. Western science has never found empirical proof of the existence of these meridians or any relationship they might have with, say, back pain, or hemorrhoids, or allergies. The acupuncturist argues, well, they must exist because acupuncture works.

There is, in fact, a good deal of anecdotal evidence that acupuncture can be effective in treating certain conditions. On the other hand, you can find anecdotal evidence to prove just about anything, and “scientific” experiments have been inconclusive, at best. It is unclear whether it has a placebo effect—it works because people think it works—or really works in some way unknown to medical science.

Some alternative remedies offer maddeningly mystical explanations of how they work. Therapeutic touch claims to modulate the patient’s energy field, detect imbalances, and then redirect the energy to locations in the body requiring healing. Oddly enough, practitioners claim that there is “scientific” evidence that it works. Reiki claims to draw the body’s own healing power back into itself, through the channeling of the reiki therapist. Massage Therapists claim that stern manipulation of muscles and skin releases toxins (presumably into the bloodstream where they are safely disposed of by the liver and kidneys). Chiropractors claim that manipulating the spine to eliminate points of “subluxation” frees up blockages in the nervous system, though scientists insist that nerves are not like water hoses, that can be “pinched” and choked off—they are more like electrical circuits, which can only be “on” or “off”. Iridologists claim to detect symptoms in the patterns of the iris. A bit like reading your palm, and about as convincing, to the scientific establishment.

Most people don’t care about the theoretical underpinnings of alternative medicines. They might not buy the explanation entirely, but it isn’t hard to believe that western science doesn’t completely understand the human body. Customers of alternative therapists are typically dissatisfied with traditional medicine. It hasn’t worked for them. They are willing to try anything in the hope that it will work. For cases of back pain or depression, acupuncture or massage can be a harmless diversion. For cancer or more serious problems, alternative medicine offers hope where none existed before. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is so ill-defined and nebulous that almost any remedy can be advertised as a sure-fire cure.

It seems to me that there are three possible conclusions to be drawn. 1) all alternative remedies are, by and large, a sham, and the success stories are not representative of the actual experiences of most users. 2) at least some alternative remedies work, even if we don’t understand how or why just yet, and 3) alternative remedies work because they are based on a holistic view of life that takes into account spiritual and psychological dimensions that western science ignores.

After experimenting with a number of different alternative therapies, and reading as much as I could about the others, I’m not really very convinced about the effectiveness of the remedies themselves. However, some of the therapists are very nice people. They pay attention when you tell them your problems. They express concern and compassion to you, and they might even touch you with their hands. Most people respond to a kindly word or touch. Most people feel better after a session with a masseuse or reiki practitioner because, hey, it might be the only kindness they’ve experienced that week in their lives.

But the truth is that most traditional medical remedies are tested fairly thoroughly by the scientific community and most of the methods they use are sound. Does a new drug cure certain types of cancer? Get a group of 500 patients and give it to half of them and give a placebo to the other half. After five years, is there a difference? Sure drug companies try to cheat, and sure doctors over-prescribe and do too much surgery. The difference is that the medical community, by and large, believes in open, systematic testing and authentication of therapeutic drugs and practices. Any two-bit medical student can get approval to challenge any long-held scientific assumption, as long as he can marshal some evidence in support of his position.

There have been very few of these types of rigorous studies performed on alternative remedies. For one thing, most practitioners seems to instinctively shy away from any kind of systematic testing of their remedies. Chiropractors in particular seem shifty and evasive about what the term “subluxation” means, and how it is detected on an x-ray. Investigative news programs love going “undercover” to expose inconsistencies in the way they diagnose ailments. While it is true that some of these investigative programs—20/20 comes to mind—are sensationalistic and manipulative, the chiropractors don’t make much of a case for themselves.

Just how many alternative remedies are there?

Aromatherapy
Reiki
Cranial Sacral Therapy
Touch Therapy
Energy Balancing
Acupuncture
Needle-less acupuncture (acupuncture lite?)
Reflexology
Homeopathy
Chiropractic
Ear candling
Massage
Tai Chen
Shiatsu Massage
Iridology
Colon Therapy

Bush League

In a speech at a conference at McGill University recently, former U.S. President George Bush responded to charges that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had been too cozy to the U.S. President, selling out Canada’s needs and aspirations in order to cozy up to those big American mega-corporations. “However close our relationship was, the prime minister always had Canada’s best interests at heart.” Spoken like a true tart. He sounds like Dracula praising a woman for her lovely, long neck.

Brian Mulroney himself later proclaimed that where-ever he travels in Canada, “I am just about received in triumph”. It’s a very telling phrase: just about. I picture two old ladies with pom-poms asking if it’s true that Joe Clark is making an appearance. Just about.

Somehow this doesn’t jive with the reports of Conservative campaign workers who found, in the election following Mulroney’s resignation, that doors were slammed in their faces as soon as they identified themselves as representatives of Mulroney’s party. Doesn’t jive, either, with the election results: the Progressive Conservatives under hapless successor Kim Campbell were pretty well wiped right off the map. No one seriously believed this was a vote on Kim Campbell. The Conservatives still haven’t recovered. Mulroney claims that the media made him look bad. The media and about 10 million voters.

Well, when Bush wasn’t busy singing Mulroney’s praises, he lavished a few compliments on former Mexican President Carlos Salinas. Mexico certainly hasn’t lost it’s desire to see Mr. Salinas– he is hiding out in Ireland right now avoiding extradition on charges of pilfering the state treasury. Mr. Mulroney must have blushed with delight at having risen to such lofty heights– to be praised in the same breath with a corrupt former Mexican dictator!

What is so offensive about Mr. Mulroney’s attempts to rehabilitate his “image” is his cold conviction that he really was a great as he thinks he was, and it is only a matter of sufficient determination and persistence on his part for the rest of us to be so enlightened. One gets the impression that he thinks that the people of Canada were tricked into believing he was a creep, and they can be tricked back into believing he was a genius.

The problem with that is that if Canadian public opinion was really so wishy-washy, who would want the blessings of its favour?

Bush has the same problem in the U.S. He is generally regarded as a light-weight president, a man who led his country into the most one-sided and hollow military victory of this century, and, for all that, couldn’t manage to get himself re-elected while running against a shifty womanizing chameleon from Arkansas.

Ketchuppy

Heinz recently held a bit of a pageant. They were looking for a new advertising agency. They already hold about 46% of the ketchup market, but they wanted more.

Maybe they saw the khaki ads for The Gap on TV and thought, “Hey! They’re cool! They’re hip! We want to be cool and hip. Are we cool and hip? I don’t think so. Let’s find someone to help us be cool and hip.”

The two finalists were Leo Burnett Co. and TBWA Chiat/Day. Chiat/Day is famous for some weird new office concept they introduced a couple of years ago: nobody would have a desk or a computer or an office. Everyone would just wander around until he or she found a nice place to work. You could borrow a computer from the front desk. You could sit in a portable cubicle if you had a private meeting. You could haul your files around in a little red wagon. It didn’t work.

The Burnett Co. created the famous “Anticipation” ads for Heinz many years ago– you know– showing ketchup slowly dripping from the bottle while playing the Carly Simon song.

Anyway, the Leo Burnett Co. must have been watching those khaki ads too. They won the contract. How did they do it?

They met with teenagers at restaurants and tried to figure out what the “essence” of ketchup was to these kids. They asked, “if ketchup was a TV character, who would it be?” The answer: the Fonz.

Ah! Oh! Now we understand! Unfortunately, when asked if ketchup was important to them, most teenagers said, “nah”.

What! Ketchup is not important to you! Egad! Outrageous! How can we remedy this state of misguided culinary atrophy?

A Beavis and Butthead spoof? Passé.

The solution was to give ketchup “a personality”. To give it a hip, iconic personae, that can withstand the rigors of adolescent ironic detachment. “Even ketchup advertising can be edgy” chirps Newsweek.

Heinz wasn’t sure. They called in a consultant named Gary Stibel. “Yes, ketchup advertising can be edgy. Here’s my bill.”

Burnett won the contract. Their ads will “focus on teens’ desire for control by showing ketchup smothering fries ‘until they can’t breath’ and highlighting its ability to make food taste ‘ketchuppy’ “. The ads “avoid traditional product-touting or slogans, which might turn off media-savvy teens”.

Ketchup is a good product. I like it on my fries and hamburger. And Heinz makes the best ketchup– check out the number of restaurants that buy a cheaper brand and then pour it into Heinz bottles. Heinz thinks I should put ketchup on my pizza and grilled-cheese sandwiches. Right.

And they think they are pretty smart. They think they can manipulate teenagers by being iconic. They think they can fool us by deconstructing their own motivations: we are not here to sell you a product. We are here to sell you an image. You’re sitting there at a table in a restaurant with your friends. You’re worried about whether or not your friends like you. Do they find you sophisticated enough? Do they find you sufficiently ironic and detached? Are they convinced that you cannot be manipulated or deceived by adults?

You reach for the ketchup. You’re cool.

“Into Thin Air”: on Climbing Your Ego

For a while, Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay were the only two persons to have set foot on the top of the world’s tallest peak. They did it on June 2, 1953, just before coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. The news electrified the world in a way we can hardly imagine today. The North Pole had been found, and the South Pole, and almost every other remote location in the world had been explored and conquered and claimed. British climbers had been trying to ascend Everest for at least 25 years before Hillary and Norgay, using bottled oxygen, finally succeeded.

Since then, there have been more than 615 successful ascents of Mount Everest– and 142 deaths. In 1996 alone, there were 30 expeditions, all up there during the same two-week period in May, the only safe– if you could call it that– time to climb Everest, between the winter snows and the spring typhoons.

So it’s not a very exclusive club any more. Nor is this club confined to extraordinary athletes: in 1985, climber David Breashears escorted a wealthy but fit 55-year-old Texan to the top, proving, so it seemed, that almost any reasonably healthy person could do it. Everest lost some of its lustre and soon serious mountain climbers were going after more exotic records, like “first person to climb the highest mountain on all seven continents” and “first person to climb a mountain on a bicycle” and “first person to actually camp on the summit”, and so on.

Every year now, dozens of climbers make the attempt, and a good number of them make it. It’s become big business, for the guides, for the Sherpas (12 or more required for each expedition), for the climbers (witness the glut of books and films), and for the governments of Nepal and Tibet, the two nations bordering on Everest. These governments charge up to $70,000 for permits for each expedition. Legitimate expenses? Right.  Because the government has to cover some costs involved in these expeditions.  Do they?  So how come volunteers from around the world have to clean up the cast-off oxygen bottles and torn tents? Cash grab? Probably.

Still, it would be a mistake to underestimate the resolve, discipline, courage, and determination required to plant your foot on the highest spot on the planet. One out of five never come back.

It’s not as if you can just take a bus to the base of the mountain and then give it your best shot. The journey to “Base Camp” itself (at 17,500 feet, the starting point for all expeditions to the top) requires a flight to Katmandu, a ride in a battered, aging Soviet helicopter to the town of Lukla, 9,200 feet up, and then a long trek, usually about 3 or 4 days, through mountainous passes and wobbly foot-bridges over winding rivers. There are no Holiday Inns on this journey: you stay overnight in rambling, leaky stone lodges. You may pick up a dangerous parasite if you are not careful about what you eat and drink. And if you do get the runs, you’ll have to relieve yourself in an outhouse– if they’re not overflowing.

All of the supplies necessary for a summit attempt– food, water, oxygen bottles, medical equipment, and radios, and so on, must be laboriously hauled up narrow, winding mountain paths by yaks.

There is only about 1/2 as much oxygen in the air at base camp as there is at sea level. Above 25,000 feet, there is only 1/3 as much. Climbers must slowly acclimatize themselves to the thin air, a process than can take up to eight weeks, of grueling excursions up and down the lower ranges of the mountain.

The ascent begins with a harrowing trip through the Khumbu Icefall, a unstable white maze of fractured glacier and towering seracs that has taken more lives than any other part of the mountain, including the summit. In some places, climbers must walk across three or more rickety aluminum ladders strapped together over a crevasse hundreds of feet deep. The glacier itself moves 3 to 4 feet every day, and is covered with a thin layer of snow and ice that can conceal treacherous gaps.

After a few trial runs, you camp above the glacier in temperatures that can descend to -20 C. Then climbers ascend the Lhotse Face, a sheer icy wall of 3000 feet, and camp about halfway to the top of it, at 24,000 feet.

When someone says “mountain climber” to us, we tend to picture a blonde yodeling alpinist ascending a steep rock face with ropes and pick axe. Most of Everest, however, including the Lhotse Face, is more like a very steep walk. Most climbers attach themselves to ropes strung along the face for safety, but they basically walk up a very steep, hard, icy incline of about 30 degrees. It is the incredible cold, the wind, the snow and ice, and that thin oxygen that makes it so fearsome.

The tents are nestled into little ledges carved out of the ice by the Sherpas. The Sherpas don’t carve out ledges for themselves, though: they prefer to go on up to the South Col at the top of the Lhotse Face and camp where it’s safer.

The film version of “Into Thin Air” (a dramatization– not a documentary) shows Chen Yu-Nan, a Taiwanese climber, coming out of his tent on the Lhotse face clad only in his boot liners. He slips and falls down a hundred feet or so and then drops into a crevasse. In the film, he died then and there, but in real life, he died a few days later, while trying to make his way back to base camp. The Taiwanese team proceeded without him.

Above 20,000 feet, the adventurers travel very slowly, resting every few steps. Many climbers develop a hacking cough, dizziness, and insomnia. If you ascend too fast, you can develop altitude sickness– your body fails to produce enough red blood cells to keep your brain fed. This can also lead to High Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE) or High Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE). Blood vessels in the brain, starved for oxygen, swell up, causing disorientation, loss of motor functions, and even coma. Climbers lose weight quickly, making them more vulnerable to the cold.

As if that isn’t enough to deal with, the sun and snow combine to create unbearable heat and light during the day, giving climbers splitting headaches and dehydration. Once the sun has gone down, the temperature can drop to 20 or 30 below zero or worse. If you were to spend the night near the summit itself, you might encounter a wind-chill of well below -50. Few of the climbers who have been stranded near the top overnight in a blizzard live to tell the tale or make the talk show circuit.

Keep in mind that, even in this day and age of phenomenal technological breakthroughs, Everest remains one of the most remote places on earth. Helicopters cannot ascend higher than 20,000 feet (the air is too thin to provide thrust to the rotors), so there is no rescue possible for climbers trapped near the summit in a raging blizzard, other than the assistance of your depleted and exhausted fellow climbers.

Much of the current fascination with Everest can be traced to the media coverage of the disaster in 1996, when 12 climbers died over a three-day period. Writer Jon Krakauer was on one of those expeditions and wrote a searing, compelling book on it called “Into Thin Air”. This unusually honest and self-examining account of the many lapses in judgment that led to the disaster unleashed a storm of controversy that continues to simmer today.

Krakauer claims that some of the guides behaved irresponsibly, rushing ahead of their clients to the summit and then descending before their clients were safe. One of the key Sherpas wore himself out carrying 80 pounds of useless communications gear for writer Sandy Pittman so she could send “live” dispatches from the summit. Lines were not strung over the difficult Hillary Step until climbers had been waiting in the freezing cold for 90 minutes– a delay that may have cost several lives. It is clear that all of these problems were aggravated by the fact that there were 39 people trying to summit on the same morning. Bottlenecks formed. Climbers in difficulty were lost in the crowd. Guides lost track of who was where.

When a storm struck late in the day, two of the expedition leaders, Rob Hall from New Zeeland, and Scott Fisher from the U.S., were trapped on the mountain, along with several exhausted clients. Doug Hansen, a client with the Hall group and a postal worker from Washington State, disappeared and was never found. Andy Harris, a guide with Rob Hall’s group, probably slipped over one of the sheer cliff’s that surround the peak while trying to assist Hall. A group of climbers barely made it back to the South Col, the location of their advanced base camp, but couldn’t locate the tents in the howling wind and snow. They huddled in the cold growing weaker and weaker until ace climber Anatoli Boukreev (who had descended early, ahead of his charges) found them. Beck Weathers and Yasuko Namba (the oldest woman to ever summit Everest) were left for dead. The others were almost carried back to the camp.

The next day, to the utter astonishment of Krakauer and the others, Beck Weathers walked into camp under his own power. He was put into a tent and made as comfortable as possible, but it was expected that he would not last the night. The next day, he was found lying in the open– his tent had collapsed and torn away in the night and his sleeping bag was half off. He had been shouting for help for hours but nobody had been able to hear him. He ultimately lost his hand and nose to frostbite.

Ed Viesturs and David Breashears, who were waiting at the base camp to make their own summit bid, helped rescue Weathers, an action that became a bit of a sub-plot of the IMAX film. Viesturs and Breashears did a good thing, but the film plays coy with the facts. You are left with the impression that Beck Weathers got into trouble and Viesturs and Breashears heroically rescued him, and that was that. The IMAX film glosses over the rest of the disaster, partly because real disasters don’t sell very well, are complicated to explain, and raise questions about the whole idea of celebrating a summit of Everest.

A few days after Weathers was helicoptered to Katmandu from base camp, Viesturs, Breashears, a Spanish woman named Aracelli Segarra, and Jamling Norgay, the son of Tenseng Norgay, the first Sherpa to summit Everest, made their own successful summit.

The Viesturs team made a film of the trip for IMAX. It’s a big disappointment. For one thing, Viesturs got ahead of the team and reached the summit without benefit of cameraman. So what was supposed to be the climax of the film ends up being a verbal footnote. And when Segarra and Norgay make the top with the camera-man, you are left with the absurd impression that they filmed themselves. They celebrate, embrace, look out over the world, while the narrator trills their accomplishment… and you wonder who the heck is filming this, and why haven’t they said anything about him? How did he get there? Wasn’t that remarkable? Why are you pretending he isn’t there?

* * *

Many people don’t think much of the idea of climbing Everest. Why risk your life for an achievement that is completely symbolic, and of no scientific or humanitarian value whatsoever? Why should we feel sorry for climbers who die on Everest, when it is plain that their goals are entirely ego-centric?

The Viesturs expedition tried to patch a gloss of scientific necessity to the risk they took, much the way Robert Ballard tried to make his efforts to find the Titanic look useful and valuable, and NASA tried to make manned space missions seem necessary. But it is clear that there are really only two reasons people climb Everest. Firstly, to gratify one’s ego: I climbed Everest. Wow. Secondly, (and less dubiously), for the sense of personal accomplishment.

I have some respect for those who climb for the sense of personal accomplishment. It is still a remarkable achievement, of endurance, determination, and mental stamina. As I read through Krakauer’s book, I found myself experiencing an odd sense of longing for that bleak, windswept, arctic landscape near the top of Everest.

But I found that sense diminished when I considered that there would probably be another two dozen climbers up there at the same time.

Krakauer’s book is a powerful antidote to any illusions you might have about mountain climbing. It is a very rare little gem: an honest, intelligent book about sports– for that is what mountain-climbing really is– competition. Who got there first? Who did it the fastest? Who did it the most? Krakauer’s book has soul.