It's been five years since Katrina. As I thought of that this morning, a song by one of my very favorite artists of all time, David Bowie, came into my mind. It's a song he wrote based on a dream he had. It's called "Five Years" and it's about the end of the world:
Five Years
David Bowie is about 15 years older than I, yet we are both considered Baby Boomers, although some scholars say that people my age are really in a seperate, distinct generation, sometimes called "Generation Jones", but I and most people who are obsessed with such matters put all of us into the Baby Boom generation, calling us younger set the "Late Boomers". Anyway, from the first Boomers like Bowie, all the way through the "Late Boomers" like me, our generation grew up in the shadow of the cold war, and I think most of us always felt in the back of our minds like the world could end at any moment. The following political ad sums up the psyche of my generation, particularly of us younger ones who were the exact age of this child when the ad aired in 1964:
daisy ad
I still feel that the world could end at any time, although images of mushroom clouds have given way to images of polar bears clinging to small fragments of melting ice surrounded by water.
Katrina was the end of the world for those who perished. For the survivors, it wasn't the end, but it changed their world. And for those of us looking on from a safe distance, what have we learned? People are still denying that human-induced climate change is real, the Army Corps of Engineers apparently has still not fixed all the things wrong with the levy system and that ill-conceived MRGO canal to prevent another Katrina from devastating New Orleans again, and we all just basically are going along in denial, be it about the microcosm that is New Orleans, or the macrocosm that is our one and only precious planet earth.
If we don't wake up and wise up, if our spiritual evolution doesn't somehow catch up to our technological evolution, then we will remain like a two-year old who has stumbled upon daddy's loaded gun. We have all the things we think empower us, like nuclear bombs, oil rigs, dams and canals, cars, and all sorts of things that make our lives easier and give us the all-important, aforementioned POWER, or so we think. However, there is no real power in working against nature. That "power" is illusory.
The real power in this world comes from understanding our place in nature, that we are a part of it, not apart from it, and that we must respect it, not violate it. When we finally--if we finally and in time--learn to treat nature with respect and live in harmony with it versus trying to dominate it, then future generations won't write songs about the world ending.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Adopt an Animal, Save a World
There are several horrifying, infuriating stories of cruelty to animals in the news today. I suggest, to anyone wanting to channel their outrage and concern in a positive, helpful way, that you consider adopting a cat or dog from a shelter or reputable rescue organization. There are so many wonderful animals needing good homes. If you are able to help, why not make someone's LIFE and become a loving forever home? It’s true that you can’t save them all, but maybe you can save one (or two!). Same song, verse two: you can’t save the whole world, but you can be all the difference in the world to the one you do save.
The only way I know of to counter the violence, cruelty and indifference in this world is with respect, love and caring. Adopting a stray or shelter cat or dog and giving that animal a lifetime of the aforementioned respect, love and caring is a wonderful way to, as Gandhi said, "be the change you wish to see in the world." When you realize this, you realize that saving one little fur-clad soul helps save the whole world.
The only way I know of to counter the violence, cruelty and indifference in this world is with respect, love and caring. Adopting a stray or shelter cat or dog and giving that animal a lifetime of the aforementioned respect, love and caring is a wonderful way to, as Gandhi said, "be the change you wish to see in the world." When you realize this, you realize that saving one little fur-clad soul helps save the whole world.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
And Crown Thy Good with Brotherhood
I am definitely in favor of allowing the mosque to be built near Ground Zero. Far from dishonoring the 9/11 victims, I think allowing and even, dare I say, welcoming the mosque profoundly honors them by honoring what America truly stands for and making a bold, bright statement to any would-be terrorists out there, as well as to everyone else, that what the United States of America stands for will never be weakened or turned away from for any reason, let alone due to a violent, cruel, downright evil act of terrorism such as what occurred on 9/11.
What do we stand for? We stand for freedom, tolerance, pluralism and respect for diversity. Of course a mosque should be allowed to be built near Ground Zero, as should a church, a synagogue, a Buddhist temple, or any other house of peaceful worship and/or community/cultural outreach that any group desires to build. I think it deeply honors the victims of 9/11, as well as our country, to say to the terrorists: you haven’t stopped us, and you won’t stop us. You will never stop America from being America. You won’t stop us from upholding religious freedom, from respecting and celebrating each other’s differences, or from being the marvelous, remarkable, pluralistic, free country that we are. Just because you hate us, does not mean that we, in turn, will choose to hate anyone who happens to be a member of the same faith as you were, any more than the actions of Timothy McVeigh made us hate all Christians. Just because you, 9/11 terrorists, had hate and violence in your hearts, doesn’t mean that we, Americans, will let go of the tolerance, respect for diversity and our most cherished values like religious freedom that we have in our hearts and in our constitution, and that define who we are as Americans and America. Just because you were small-minded, doesn’t mean we will become as you were. We’re Americans: we welcome a house of worship, of whatever faith, to be built near Ground Zero. We stand for religious freedom and pluralism. The violent, evil, terrorist acts of 9/11 have not, and will never, change that.
I myself am a Unitarian Universalist (and I’m also Jewish--complex, I know, but that’s a topic for another blog sometime), so I don’t say this as someone who practices Islam myself. No, I say this as someone who cherishes what my country stands for. I will strongly defend the right of any religion to practice freely, and if this particular group is allowed to do so near Ground Zero, to me, it very powerfully honors and reaffirms what our country is all about and therefore honors the lives of the 9/11 victims. What would dishonor them and us as a country would be for us to become intolerant, like the 9/11 terrorists themselves. What would dishonor them would be to harden our hearts and turn our backs on one of our most fundamental tenets, that of religious freedom. For to do so would mean giving up what we are and becoming like the terrorists. By contrast, if we allow the mosque to be built, we are affirming what we are—a truly free, tolerant and diverse country--and making a statement that nothing has changed that, nothing has changed us, and we will never allow anything to change or compromise what America stands for.
The terrorists could not take away what we quintessentially are as a unique, admirable nation. Only we can choose to give that up. I say we choose instead to embrace and confidently reaffirm our most inspiring, precious founding values! I say allow the mosque near Ground Zero to be built. What a powerful, beautiful message that sends! It says: America is still America. America is still the tolerant, free nation we have always been and always will be. 9/11 didn’t change that. What could possibly honor the 9/11 victims more than making that glorious statement?
What do we stand for? We stand for freedom, tolerance, pluralism and respect for diversity. Of course a mosque should be allowed to be built near Ground Zero, as should a church, a synagogue, a Buddhist temple, or any other house of peaceful worship and/or community/cultural outreach that any group desires to build. I think it deeply honors the victims of 9/11, as well as our country, to say to the terrorists: you haven’t stopped us, and you won’t stop us. You will never stop America from being America. You won’t stop us from upholding religious freedom, from respecting and celebrating each other’s differences, or from being the marvelous, remarkable, pluralistic, free country that we are. Just because you hate us, does not mean that we, in turn, will choose to hate anyone who happens to be a member of the same faith as you were, any more than the actions of Timothy McVeigh made us hate all Christians. Just because you, 9/11 terrorists, had hate and violence in your hearts, doesn’t mean that we, Americans, will let go of the tolerance, respect for diversity and our most cherished values like religious freedom that we have in our hearts and in our constitution, and that define who we are as Americans and America. Just because you were small-minded, doesn’t mean we will become as you were. We’re Americans: we welcome a house of worship, of whatever faith, to be built near Ground Zero. We stand for religious freedom and pluralism. The violent, evil, terrorist acts of 9/11 have not, and will never, change that.
I myself am a Unitarian Universalist (and I’m also Jewish--complex, I know, but that’s a topic for another blog sometime), so I don’t say this as someone who practices Islam myself. No, I say this as someone who cherishes what my country stands for. I will strongly defend the right of any religion to practice freely, and if this particular group is allowed to do so near Ground Zero, to me, it very powerfully honors and reaffirms what our country is all about and therefore honors the lives of the 9/11 victims. What would dishonor them and us as a country would be for us to become intolerant, like the 9/11 terrorists themselves. What would dishonor them would be to harden our hearts and turn our backs on one of our most fundamental tenets, that of religious freedom. For to do so would mean giving up what we are and becoming like the terrorists. By contrast, if we allow the mosque to be built, we are affirming what we are—a truly free, tolerant and diverse country--and making a statement that nothing has changed that, nothing has changed us, and we will never allow anything to change or compromise what America stands for.
The terrorists could not take away what we quintessentially are as a unique, admirable nation. Only we can choose to give that up. I say we choose instead to embrace and confidently reaffirm our most inspiring, precious founding values! I say allow the mosque near Ground Zero to be built. What a powerful, beautiful message that sends! It says: America is still America. America is still the tolerant, free nation we have always been and always will be. 9/11 didn’t change that. What could possibly honor the 9/11 victims more than making that glorious statement?
Monday, August 2, 2010
Shopping Mall Hell
Well, sports fans, let me state for the official record that, from this date forward, I will never again set foot in a shopping mall. I’ve learned not to use the word “never” lightly, but in this case, I feel confident in applying it. As of yesterday’s trip to a mall, I realize that I cannot tolerate the whole experience, on several levels, all of which I’m about to expound upon in great detail. And I realize something else: dude, it’s 2010. One can shop on the internet and avoid every single one of the intolerable situations inherent to malls that I’m about to describe! YESSSSSSSS! Not only that, one can zero in like a lion on prey to exactly the hard-to-find item one wants and get it delivered to your doorstep. Hello: what’s not to love? In fact, I don’t know how I existed before the internet and what’s really odd is that I still don’t have it hooked up at home, but that’s a topic for another blog (a boring topic, but a topic nonetheless). Back to the utter hideousness of the mall experience and why I will never choose to subject myself to it again.
Intolerable Mall Reality Number One: Perfume-Poisoned Air
Some years back, marketing “experts” did all sorts of studies and determined that, if they infuse the air in mall stores, as well as the air outside of the stores, in the main concourse of the mall, with certain fragrances (read: noxious, toxic, caustic perfumes) it will entice people into their stores. Now, I don’t know who these experts are or what their focus groups were, but I strongly suspect some inherent flaws in their studies, because anyone like myself who has any sort of upper-respiratory issue, or anyone prone to headaches (which I am not, yet I left the mall yesterday sporting a God-awful one that was DEFINITELY induced by the perfume overload in the mall), or just plain anyone inhabiting a human body, really is not lured anywhere by toxic fumes, no matter how cloaked in sweetness they may be. In fact, do you know what makes me alert, exhilarated, and ready to shop, marketing experts out there reading this with fascination? AIR, baby: plain old oxygen, unadulterated!
It would be great if some developer would build a LEED-certified, “green mall”, that would boast, among other features, that it does not infuse the air with perfumes of any kind. Maybe I would shop at such a green mall, but until one materializes, deal me out of the noxious, chemical fume situation that is standard in the shopping malls of America. I don’t appreciate going into the mall feeling healthy and coming out with a splitting headache and my entire respiratory system being basically aflame. I like my air straight, the way nature made it. The perfumed air situation is the number one reason I will never set foot in a mall again. It’s been bugging and infuriating me for years, and yesterday was the last straw: I decided “NO MAS!” So much for perfumed air enticing shoppers in. Quite the contrary, like I said, it is THE main reason this shopper won’t ever set foot in a mall again, so take note, retail brain trusts out there: some folks don’t want to breathe toxic chemicals when we shop! We’re just quirky that way.
Intolerable Mall Reality Number Two: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit...Shopping Here!
If your body in any way deviates from what the Madison Avenue Gods deem to be normal (which does NOT necessarily correspond to what is actually normal) in size, length, width or anything else, good luck finding clothes that fit. As someone who is blessed enough to have lost 76 pounds but who, previous to that, struggled with obesity for my entire adult life (and I always will be challenged by trying to maintain a healthy weight—but I think I have the requisite tools, knowledge, experience, etc. to do it now), I know what it is like to shop in a mall and spend hours and hours AND HOURS there without being able to find a SINGLE pair of pants that fit. Now that I’ve lost the weight, I can find tons of pants in my size, but guess what? I happen to have short legs. Do you know how hard it is to find pants that say “short” or “petite” (and often “petite” is still too long—they have to say “short”, which is a rare find)? Answer Key: very. So even though I’m now what the Fashion Gods have deemed a normal size (although, I’m not sure--I think 12 may actually still be considered a “plus” size in some psycho fashionista circles), I still can’t find pants in retail stores without a massive effort to hunt for the elusive “short” or at least “petite” (“petite short” is like discovering a black pearl!). I also happen to have C width feet in a society that considers anything over B to be a wide width, even though the women’s widths go from A to E, so technically, C is exactly in the middle, exactly NORMAL. But never mind that fact, the Madison Avenue Gods have decreed long ago that any girl with a C width would be made to feel like a freak from childhood onward and made to shop at special stores for wide widths. It does seem now that the mainstream stores do have more wide width shoes in stock, but that has only been recently. Before that, you had to go to a special freak store for wide widths. And, by the way, A width is considered narrow. So, to recap, C is wide and A is narrow. In other words, the ONLY “normal” shoe width is B. Any other width and, sorry, you are deemed to be a freak of nature.
Back to the plus-size thing: even though I now, mercifully, don’t have to worry about that anymore, I will never forget what it was like for the many years that I did, nor will I understand why, in a nation with people growing fatter and fatter, most retail outlets only have clothes going up to a size 14, unless they have special plus-size sections (which only some of the bigger, “anchor” department stores in any given mall usually do). Your cool, brand-name stores usually, to this day, still only go up to size 14. I know because I went to one yesterday. One that I haven’t been able to go to for many years because I was too fat. But here I’ve lost 76 lbs and I wanted to go back to my favorite store. And sure enough, I fit into the clothes. Surreal. I’m now a 12 and they go up to 14. Didn’t buy any, as I forgot how expensive this store is, and that the pants are always way too long for me, and it turned out that the few pairs of pants that were not too long were “low riders” and I’m talking LOW riders, so since I’m not 16 years old and/or a guest on The Jerry Springer Show, I didn’t buy those (we’ll get to that in the third intolerable thing about malls, so don’t go away). I did say something to the salesperson, though, to the tune that I love their clothes and that they should have a plus-size section or entire separate plus-size store, just as they have a separate kids’ store. She said “Oh, you have to go on line, we have plus sizes on line.” Well, no, thankfully, I don’t have to do that anymore (except I do because of the aforementioned perfume sitch in malls and the aforementioned short legs), but why should anyone have to? Why don’t you have some of ALL of your sizes right in the retail store? Are plus-sized people not deserving of being able to shop in a physical store like people size 14 and under? What the hell is THAT?! “Separate but equal?” Attention, mall shoppers: All the fat people, please go home. We only want slim, svelte, airbrushed people with long legs atop B-width feet sashaying through our mall. We have an image to maintain. You understand. But, take heart: we still want your money, even though we don’t want your presence in our stores! You can order your clothes on line so as not to disgust our other patrons with your plus size and/or your short legs and/or any other freakish deviation you may sport from what WE deem to be airbrushed perfection.
Well, message received.
Intolerable Mall Reality Number Three: If You Are Over Sweet 16, You’re Not Mall Material
With the exception of the big department stores, it seems that all the stores in malls are geared towards teenagers and maybe some stretch that out into luring in someone in their 20’s, but mostly the clothes are for teenage girls. The stores have names like “Splish!” or “Splash!” or “I was taking a bath!” and instead of having any actual clothes that an actual person could wear to an actual job, or to school or anywhere other than out clubbing with Paris Hilton, they have things like size 2 sheer shimmery tank tops covered in sequins or low-rise jeans that, literally, are too low-rise for anyone over the age of 18 to sport with a straight face, let alone out in public. One store that shall be nameless but that is named after someone with a secret, not only was the worst offender in the entire mall yesterday in terms of how much noxious perfume they had in the air, but apparently they currently have a HOT PINK theme to everything in their store, from the bras (which were virtually all MAGENTA/HOT PINK) to their line of fragrances and lotions and God knows what which were virtually all HOT PINK also and one of the items (I think it was perfume, but I was too far in shock from the SHOCKING PINK and the poisonous perfume and all the 12-year-old salespeople who helpfully accosted me at the door to notice) was even called “Pink”. Silly me, I only went in there on a hot tip from another 12-year-old salesperson in another store to the tune that they usually have good sales on bras. Well, all I know is that all the bras were either MAGENTA or geared towards some Hugh Heffner fantasy from the 1970’s or I don’t know what and I didn’t really take long enough to delve deeper and find out if they had any “normal” bras because, seriously, the perfume in that particular store was making me very ill so I skedaddled outta there. Whoa.
It was then it hit me, amidst the “Splish!” and the “Dish!” and the “Frivolous Wish!” stores (all three of which I made up—writer’s license to illustrate my point that there are no stores that sell any actual items that an actual person over the age of ...at MOST 25 would ever want to purchase) that, face it, Peppermint Twist, for some reason, none of these stores want your business. You, for many years, were too fat. You’ve always had legs that are too short. Your feet are just a shade too wide. And now you are WAY too old. Face it: you are just not mall material, never have been, never will be. So take your perfume-induced headache and upper-respiratory woes, and your unopened wallet, and walk away.
Thank God for the internet.
Intolerable Mall Reality Number One: Perfume-Poisoned Air
Some years back, marketing “experts” did all sorts of studies and determined that, if they infuse the air in mall stores, as well as the air outside of the stores, in the main concourse of the mall, with certain fragrances (read: noxious, toxic, caustic perfumes) it will entice people into their stores. Now, I don’t know who these experts are or what their focus groups were, but I strongly suspect some inherent flaws in their studies, because anyone like myself who has any sort of upper-respiratory issue, or anyone prone to headaches (which I am not, yet I left the mall yesterday sporting a God-awful one that was DEFINITELY induced by the perfume overload in the mall), or just plain anyone inhabiting a human body, really is not lured anywhere by toxic fumes, no matter how cloaked in sweetness they may be. In fact, do you know what makes me alert, exhilarated, and ready to shop, marketing experts out there reading this with fascination? AIR, baby: plain old oxygen, unadulterated!
It would be great if some developer would build a LEED-certified, “green mall”, that would boast, among other features, that it does not infuse the air with perfumes of any kind. Maybe I would shop at such a green mall, but until one materializes, deal me out of the noxious, chemical fume situation that is standard in the shopping malls of America. I don’t appreciate going into the mall feeling healthy and coming out with a splitting headache and my entire respiratory system being basically aflame. I like my air straight, the way nature made it. The perfumed air situation is the number one reason I will never set foot in a mall again. It’s been bugging and infuriating me for years, and yesterday was the last straw: I decided “NO MAS!” So much for perfumed air enticing shoppers in. Quite the contrary, like I said, it is THE main reason this shopper won’t ever set foot in a mall again, so take note, retail brain trusts out there: some folks don’t want to breathe toxic chemicals when we shop! We’re just quirky that way.
Intolerable Mall Reality Number Two: If It Doesn’t Fit, You Must Acquit...Shopping Here!
If your body in any way deviates from what the Madison Avenue Gods deem to be normal (which does NOT necessarily correspond to what is actually normal) in size, length, width or anything else, good luck finding clothes that fit. As someone who is blessed enough to have lost 76 pounds but who, previous to that, struggled with obesity for my entire adult life (and I always will be challenged by trying to maintain a healthy weight—but I think I have the requisite tools, knowledge, experience, etc. to do it now), I know what it is like to shop in a mall and spend hours and hours AND HOURS there without being able to find a SINGLE pair of pants that fit. Now that I’ve lost the weight, I can find tons of pants in my size, but guess what? I happen to have short legs. Do you know how hard it is to find pants that say “short” or “petite” (and often “petite” is still too long—they have to say “short”, which is a rare find)? Answer Key: very. So even though I’m now what the Fashion Gods have deemed a normal size (although, I’m not sure--I think 12 may actually still be considered a “plus” size in some psycho fashionista circles), I still can’t find pants in retail stores without a massive effort to hunt for the elusive “short” or at least “petite” (“petite short” is like discovering a black pearl!). I also happen to have C width feet in a society that considers anything over B to be a wide width, even though the women’s widths go from A to E, so technically, C is exactly in the middle, exactly NORMAL. But never mind that fact, the Madison Avenue Gods have decreed long ago that any girl with a C width would be made to feel like a freak from childhood onward and made to shop at special stores for wide widths. It does seem now that the mainstream stores do have more wide width shoes in stock, but that has only been recently. Before that, you had to go to a special freak store for wide widths. And, by the way, A width is considered narrow. So, to recap, C is wide and A is narrow. In other words, the ONLY “normal” shoe width is B. Any other width and, sorry, you are deemed to be a freak of nature.
Back to the plus-size thing: even though I now, mercifully, don’t have to worry about that anymore, I will never forget what it was like for the many years that I did, nor will I understand why, in a nation with people growing fatter and fatter, most retail outlets only have clothes going up to a size 14, unless they have special plus-size sections (which only some of the bigger, “anchor” department stores in any given mall usually do). Your cool, brand-name stores usually, to this day, still only go up to size 14. I know because I went to one yesterday. One that I haven’t been able to go to for many years because I was too fat. But here I’ve lost 76 lbs and I wanted to go back to my favorite store. And sure enough, I fit into the clothes. Surreal. I’m now a 12 and they go up to 14. Didn’t buy any, as I forgot how expensive this store is, and that the pants are always way too long for me, and it turned out that the few pairs of pants that were not too long were “low riders” and I’m talking LOW riders, so since I’m not 16 years old and/or a guest on The Jerry Springer Show, I didn’t buy those (we’ll get to that in the third intolerable thing about malls, so don’t go away). I did say something to the salesperson, though, to the tune that I love their clothes and that they should have a plus-size section or entire separate plus-size store, just as they have a separate kids’ store. She said “Oh, you have to go on line, we have plus sizes on line.” Well, no, thankfully, I don’t have to do that anymore (except I do because of the aforementioned perfume sitch in malls and the aforementioned short legs), but why should anyone have to? Why don’t you have some of ALL of your sizes right in the retail store? Are plus-sized people not deserving of being able to shop in a physical store like people size 14 and under? What the hell is THAT?! “Separate but equal?” Attention, mall shoppers: All the fat people, please go home. We only want slim, svelte, airbrushed people with long legs atop B-width feet sashaying through our mall. We have an image to maintain. You understand. But, take heart: we still want your money, even though we don’t want your presence in our stores! You can order your clothes on line so as not to disgust our other patrons with your plus size and/or your short legs and/or any other freakish deviation you may sport from what WE deem to be airbrushed perfection.
Well, message received.
Intolerable Mall Reality Number Three: If You Are Over Sweet 16, You’re Not Mall Material
With the exception of the big department stores, it seems that all the stores in malls are geared towards teenagers and maybe some stretch that out into luring in someone in their 20’s, but mostly the clothes are for teenage girls. The stores have names like “Splish!” or “Splash!” or “I was taking a bath!” and instead of having any actual clothes that an actual person could wear to an actual job, or to school or anywhere other than out clubbing with Paris Hilton, they have things like size 2 sheer shimmery tank tops covered in sequins or low-rise jeans that, literally, are too low-rise for anyone over the age of 18 to sport with a straight face, let alone out in public. One store that shall be nameless but that is named after someone with a secret, not only was the worst offender in the entire mall yesterday in terms of how much noxious perfume they had in the air, but apparently they currently have a HOT PINK theme to everything in their store, from the bras (which were virtually all MAGENTA/HOT PINK) to their line of fragrances and lotions and God knows what which were virtually all HOT PINK also and one of the items (I think it was perfume, but I was too far in shock from the SHOCKING PINK and the poisonous perfume and all the 12-year-old salespeople who helpfully accosted me at the door to notice) was even called “Pink”. Silly me, I only went in there on a hot tip from another 12-year-old salesperson in another store to the tune that they usually have good sales on bras. Well, all I know is that all the bras were either MAGENTA or geared towards some Hugh Heffner fantasy from the 1970’s or I don’t know what and I didn’t really take long enough to delve deeper and find out if they had any “normal” bras because, seriously, the perfume in that particular store was making me very ill so I skedaddled outta there. Whoa.
It was then it hit me, amidst the “Splish!” and the “Dish!” and the “Frivolous Wish!” stores (all three of which I made up—writer’s license to illustrate my point that there are no stores that sell any actual items that an actual person over the age of ...at MOST 25 would ever want to purchase) that, face it, Peppermint Twist, for some reason, none of these stores want your business. You, for many years, were too fat. You’ve always had legs that are too short. Your feet are just a shade too wide. And now you are WAY too old. Face it: you are just not mall material, never have been, never will be. So take your perfume-induced headache and upper-respiratory woes, and your unopened wallet, and walk away.
Thank God for the internet.
Monday, July 19, 2010
My Diet is a Delight, not Deprivation: On Lightening Up and Living a Little
As most of my vast legion of 10 blog followers already know, yet I have not blogged about, I joyously follow a certain diet, called The GenoType Diet, by Dr. Peter J. D’Adamo. It, and it’s predecessor, The Blood Type Diet, have helped me tremendously and I’ve been meaning to blog about my diet journey, but haven’t had the requisite combination of internet access and time. I plan to do it at some point, but meanwhile I now want to talk about something specific regarding my diet, so I hope readers who are unfamiliar with the diet and/or with me and my personal diet journey will be able to understand what I’m talking about anyway. You don’t have to be on one of Dr. D’Adamo’s diets to get what I’m going to talk about; it really applies to any healthy, joyous diet that one chooses to adhere to. Here goes:
There is something that many folks, who aren’t on one of Dr. D’Adamo’s highly individualized diets, don’t get. Well-meaning people are forever gently encouraging me to have a piece of birthday cake, or “go off my diet” in some other way. I’m talking about all the poor folk in this world who have not experienced the wonder of what the Dr. D’Adamo diets (The Blood Type Diet, The GenoType Diet, or SWAMI) do for a body. They associate “diet” and “dieting” with deprivation and rigidity. In fact, there is an active discussion thread on Dr. D’Adamo’s message board (see link to his site under my “Mint-Worthy Links”) right now on “orthorexia”, and perhaps, along that sort of vein, some folks mistakenly think anyone who consistently sticks to any certain diet (such as I do) is being too rigid and thus not enjoying life. I mean, what other explanation could there be for turning down birthday cake at office party after office party? Obviously I am in serious need of living a little! But they don’t get it! I don’t want to go off my diet! And it isn’t due to rigidity, it is due to loving being strong, deeply nourished, satisfied, in balance, steady and healthy. What they don’t get is: this diet is abundance. It is going off it that is deprivation to me!
This is the reverse of most diets. Most diets are associated with giving up things you love. But on the GenoType Diet, I love all the foods I’m encouraged to eat. I naturally gravitate to them, which makes sense in light of the diet’s theory that I was designed to thrive on these foods. When you are eating as nature intended for you to eat, you are satisfied, nourished and in balance. Therefore, you don’t crave junk food “quick fixes” for your blood sugar, serotonin level, etc., as you might (and I do) when you are out of balance, deprived in some way(s) and hungry for something(s). Why on earth would I want to throw myself out of this precious place of balance that I’ve worked so hard to reach? It took me years and much trial and error to figure out how to get here, and I LOVE being here, so why would I want to jettison myself out of this long-elusive Brigadoon? I wouldn’t, I don’t! So thanks but no thanks, I honestly don’t want that piece of birthday cake, with the inflammatory wheat and the blood-sugar-spiking-then-crashing corn syrup. I don’t want the hydrogenated transfats and the artificial flavorings and colorings. It is not a “treat” for me in any way. My treat is every naturally colorful, life-filled, gorgeous, delicious, satisfying bite of healthy food that I eat in my diet every day! And no, the fact that I’m highly compliant on my diet does not mean that I, by definition, have “orthorexia." I’m not rigidly compliant on the diet. I’m joyously compliant on the diet. The foods that are recommended for me are a joy to eat, and I also joyously and with much gusto eat some things that are not recommended for me, such as some dairy products, some organic mayo (without mayo, what is the point of life, pray tell?), etc. But the “biggies”, the avoids that I’ve learned through experience are truly dangerous to me being in balance, steady, strong and not ruled by carbohydrate cravings, those I am very, very strict about avoiding. Is this due to “orthorexia”, i.e., being overly rigid on a diet? Hell no, it is due to having worked my butt off (literally) to jettison the cravings and feel steady and in balance, and, oh, by the way, to lose 76 pounds, and to wanting to continue being good to myself, to continue empowering myself and powering myself towards better and better health. Choosing health is a healthy impulse! And it’s a joyous, delicious, satisfying impulse. Again, here’s what a lot of people don’t understand, as they associate consistent compliance on any “diet” as equaling “deprivation”: this diet, and any diet that is truly healthy for the particular individual following it, is not deprivation, it is abundance, it is joy, it is strength, it is balance, it is healthy. If your diet makes you feel deprived, it is not the right diet for you. The right diet will feel right, you will be satisfied and glad and every meal will be a celebration of life.
My family arrives this week from out of state, as they do every summer, for a visit which this year will be of one week’s duration. While it is a sacred, wonderful blessing to have and to see family, it is also stressful for me on several levels, one major one being that we eat out virtually every meal while they're here and I end up in all manner of wheat and corn syrup dispensaries that I never normally frequent. Even though I’m actually not strict with dietary compliance in many ways, the two things that I am extremely compliant on are wheat and corn. And, unfortunately, those are the exact two items that our society is hell bent on sneaking into every food possible, especially in restaurants, so one almost HAS to be rigid, or “orthorexic”, to use that inherently pejorative term, in order to avoid what I, for one, consider to be toxic substances for me. Yet is it some sort of diagnosable disease to choose not to poison oneself? Is it some sort of rigid obsessiveness to avoid known toxins that set in motion a chain of biochemical events in some of our bodies that are akin to what happens if an alcoholic takes that first drink? No one in this day and age would think of urging an alcoholic to “lighten up” and “just have one drink, one drink won’t kill you!” Well, no, one drink won’t kill an alcoholic and one piece of cake, or bag of chips, or whatever the “trigger” food may be won’t kill a food addict, either...but it could and often DOES set in motion a chain of biochemical events that ultimately will kill us, not to be too dramatic about it. It’s just the truth: one drink can and predictably often DOES trigger an alcoholic to drink more and throw them out of sobriety into active alcoholism. Serious stuff. Well it is the exact same thing for a “food addict”, or someone with sensitivities to certain foods, a “carb addict”, or whatever you want to call people like me. So is it “orthorexic”, namely, pathological, to make the healthy choice to avoid something that is poisonous to you, that threatens your "food sobriety"? I submit to you that, by definition, choosing health is NOT a pathology!
I’m a child of an alcoholic family, I know what alcoholism is, up close and personal. I know what addiction is. And I know what my response to certain foods is and what my patterns are, as I’ve now had many years of observing, experiencing and dismaying over my own particular patterns, and I can tell you that a “food addict” is no different from an alcoholic or drug addict, at least, many of us aren’t. Many of us are hard-wired to be biochemically sensitive to certain foods and those certain foods (like wheat and corn syrup) will throw us out of balance and into a whole world of being controlled by carb cravings. And those trigger foods are ubiquitous in our food supply, so is it “obsessive”, if after having learned through many years of hard-won experience, what works and what can threaten that for you, to strictly avoid those threatening trigger foods if you know the serious problems they will cause you, or is it a healthy thing? Answer Key: it is a very, very healthy thing, and don’t let anyone ever tell you anything different!
Why would I EVER willingly choose to threaten my “food sobriety”—the aforementioned place of balance and health—any more than an alcoholic or drug addict would choose to “lighten up” and have just one drink, or just one nostalgic fling with their drug of choice? It’s not worth it!!! The old gray mare (a.k.a., a bag of potato chips and some sour cream dip), she ain’t what she used to be. The thrill is gone! I choose health. Choosing health is the way I “lighten up”. Choosing health is the way I live a little.
There is something that many folks, who aren’t on one of Dr. D’Adamo’s highly individualized diets, don’t get. Well-meaning people are forever gently encouraging me to have a piece of birthday cake, or “go off my diet” in some other way. I’m talking about all the poor folk in this world who have not experienced the wonder of what the Dr. D’Adamo diets (The Blood Type Diet, The GenoType Diet, or SWAMI) do for a body. They associate “diet” and “dieting” with deprivation and rigidity. In fact, there is an active discussion thread on Dr. D’Adamo’s message board (see link to his site under my “Mint-Worthy Links”) right now on “orthorexia”, and perhaps, along that sort of vein, some folks mistakenly think anyone who consistently sticks to any certain diet (such as I do) is being too rigid and thus not enjoying life. I mean, what other explanation could there be for turning down birthday cake at office party after office party? Obviously I am in serious need of living a little! But they don’t get it! I don’t want to go off my diet! And it isn’t due to rigidity, it is due to loving being strong, deeply nourished, satisfied, in balance, steady and healthy. What they don’t get is: this diet is abundance. It is going off it that is deprivation to me!
This is the reverse of most diets. Most diets are associated with giving up things you love. But on the GenoType Diet, I love all the foods I’m encouraged to eat. I naturally gravitate to them, which makes sense in light of the diet’s theory that I was designed to thrive on these foods. When you are eating as nature intended for you to eat, you are satisfied, nourished and in balance. Therefore, you don’t crave junk food “quick fixes” for your blood sugar, serotonin level, etc., as you might (and I do) when you are out of balance, deprived in some way(s) and hungry for something(s). Why on earth would I want to throw myself out of this precious place of balance that I’ve worked so hard to reach? It took me years and much trial and error to figure out how to get here, and I LOVE being here, so why would I want to jettison myself out of this long-elusive Brigadoon? I wouldn’t, I don’t! So thanks but no thanks, I honestly don’t want that piece of birthday cake, with the inflammatory wheat and the blood-sugar-spiking-then-crashing corn syrup. I don’t want the hydrogenated transfats and the artificial flavorings and colorings. It is not a “treat” for me in any way. My treat is every naturally colorful, life-filled, gorgeous, delicious, satisfying bite of healthy food that I eat in my diet every day! And no, the fact that I’m highly compliant on my diet does not mean that I, by definition, have “orthorexia." I’m not rigidly compliant on the diet. I’m joyously compliant on the diet. The foods that are recommended for me are a joy to eat, and I also joyously and with much gusto eat some things that are not recommended for me, such as some dairy products, some organic mayo (without mayo, what is the point of life, pray tell?), etc. But the “biggies”, the avoids that I’ve learned through experience are truly dangerous to me being in balance, steady, strong and not ruled by carbohydrate cravings, those I am very, very strict about avoiding. Is this due to “orthorexia”, i.e., being overly rigid on a diet? Hell no, it is due to having worked my butt off (literally) to jettison the cravings and feel steady and in balance, and, oh, by the way, to lose 76 pounds, and to wanting to continue being good to myself, to continue empowering myself and powering myself towards better and better health. Choosing health is a healthy impulse! And it’s a joyous, delicious, satisfying impulse. Again, here’s what a lot of people don’t understand, as they associate consistent compliance on any “diet” as equaling “deprivation”: this diet, and any diet that is truly healthy for the particular individual following it, is not deprivation, it is abundance, it is joy, it is strength, it is balance, it is healthy. If your diet makes you feel deprived, it is not the right diet for you. The right diet will feel right, you will be satisfied and glad and every meal will be a celebration of life.
My family arrives this week from out of state, as they do every summer, for a visit which this year will be of one week’s duration. While it is a sacred, wonderful blessing to have and to see family, it is also stressful for me on several levels, one major one being that we eat out virtually every meal while they're here and I end up in all manner of wheat and corn syrup dispensaries that I never normally frequent. Even though I’m actually not strict with dietary compliance in many ways, the two things that I am extremely compliant on are wheat and corn. And, unfortunately, those are the exact two items that our society is hell bent on sneaking into every food possible, especially in restaurants, so one almost HAS to be rigid, or “orthorexic”, to use that inherently pejorative term, in order to avoid what I, for one, consider to be toxic substances for me. Yet is it some sort of diagnosable disease to choose not to poison oneself? Is it some sort of rigid obsessiveness to avoid known toxins that set in motion a chain of biochemical events in some of our bodies that are akin to what happens if an alcoholic takes that first drink? No one in this day and age would think of urging an alcoholic to “lighten up” and “just have one drink, one drink won’t kill you!” Well, no, one drink won’t kill an alcoholic and one piece of cake, or bag of chips, or whatever the “trigger” food may be won’t kill a food addict, either...but it could and often DOES set in motion a chain of biochemical events that ultimately will kill us, not to be too dramatic about it. It’s just the truth: one drink can and predictably often DOES trigger an alcoholic to drink more and throw them out of sobriety into active alcoholism. Serious stuff. Well it is the exact same thing for a “food addict”, or someone with sensitivities to certain foods, a “carb addict”, or whatever you want to call people like me. So is it “orthorexic”, namely, pathological, to make the healthy choice to avoid something that is poisonous to you, that threatens your "food sobriety"? I submit to you that, by definition, choosing health is NOT a pathology!
I’m a child of an alcoholic family, I know what alcoholism is, up close and personal. I know what addiction is. And I know what my response to certain foods is and what my patterns are, as I’ve now had many years of observing, experiencing and dismaying over my own particular patterns, and I can tell you that a “food addict” is no different from an alcoholic or drug addict, at least, many of us aren’t. Many of us are hard-wired to be biochemically sensitive to certain foods and those certain foods (like wheat and corn syrup) will throw us out of balance and into a whole world of being controlled by carb cravings. And those trigger foods are ubiquitous in our food supply, so is it “obsessive”, if after having learned through many years of hard-won experience, what works and what can threaten that for you, to strictly avoid those threatening trigger foods if you know the serious problems they will cause you, or is it a healthy thing? Answer Key: it is a very, very healthy thing, and don’t let anyone ever tell you anything different!
Why would I EVER willingly choose to threaten my “food sobriety”—the aforementioned place of balance and health—any more than an alcoholic or drug addict would choose to “lighten up” and have just one drink, or just one nostalgic fling with their drug of choice? It’s not worth it!!! The old gray mare (a.k.a., a bag of potato chips and some sour cream dip), she ain’t what she used to be. The thrill is gone! I choose health. Choosing health is the way I “lighten up”. Choosing health is the way I live a little.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
We Built It, They Came, and They Should Stay: Why St. Petersburg, Florida, should forever remain the home of the Rays
The Rays should stay in St. Petersburg, Florida because I say so! There. End of blog entry. No, just kidding: in fact, we’re just getting started, kiddies, so settle down with a nice cup of tea, get comfy and prepare to hear a fantastic, yet true story!
Once upon a time, there was a beautiful little city tucked along the shore of Tampa Bay. It was and is a city where “quality of life” infuses the visionary design of the place, because the planners of the city were far, far, FAR ahead of their time. In fact, they are being imitated to this day in faux communities like Disney’s “Celebration”, but St. Petersburg, Florida, is the real, authentic deal. They (the aforementioned early planners of the city) set aside a loooooooooooong series of green, downtown waterfront parks all along Tampa Bay and decreed that there shall be no development along the waterfront, that we shall keep it as green space for the citizens to enjoy. This was very radical, controversial, yet oh so wise of the early planners of St. Pete, because never did a concrete jungle arise along the city’s waterfront, which would have rendered it decidedly unremarkable, like so many cities’ waterfronts, which are just a wall of condos, etc. No, St. Petersburg’s waterfront is, to this day, a rare jewel: a user-friendly string of walkable, bikeable, green parks that make St. Pete unique. But the wise planners didn’t stop there. Oh no, my wide-eyed kiddies, they also decided to lay out the road system of St. Petersburg in a logical grid pattern, with many ways to head east, west, north and south, to get in and out and around the city, so that there would not be traffic jamming up on any one artery. And because many neighborhoods of the city were built in the 1920’s, pre everything revolving around the automobile, they are charming, human-scale neighborhoods full of sidewalks and front porches and many of them are walking distance to downtown. The combination of visionary planning that included lots of green space, logical, efficient main roads/arteries, and the charming neighborhoods that sprang up within the city around the downtown and beyond, resulted in one of the most livable, user-friendly cities in the United States of America. In short: St. Petersburg rocks.
But there is more to St. Petersburg than being gorgeous and green, charming and user-friendly (I know, I’ve said “user-friendly” three times, but it bears repeating), accessible and sporting a downtown renaissance of restaurants, shopping, art and entertainment that I haven’t even touched on here. Yes, kiddies, there is something more to the character of this city, something infusing yet transcending all that I’ve mentioned, something...magical. There is a certain ...well, a cockeyed, optimistic belief among St. Petersburgers that our city can do anything it sets its collective mind to. There is a wild imagination to this place, a certain “dreaming big” quality, and when it comes to major league baseball, this unique St. Petersburg quality translated into the real live version of “if you build it, they will come.”
St. Petersburg has a very rich and storied tradition and history of minor league baseball and major league spring training, and due to this long-standing and intense love of baseball in the city, one day, long about the 1980’s, it’s leaders decided: hey, why couldn’t we attract a major league baseball franchise?
So, they set about doing this and, my rapt kiddies, much more went into that concerted, never-say-die, unbelievable, twisty-turny effort than could possibly fit into one blog entry in terms of their Herculean and, some might say, certifiably crazy efforts to bring a MLB team here. They simply decided they were going to do it--that it was going to happen--and from there it was basically a case of “Just what makes that little old ant, think he’ll move that rubber tree plant? Everyone knows an ant can’t move a rubber tree plant, but he’s got HIGH HOPES, he’s got HIGH HOPES, he’s got HIGH APPLE PIE IN THE SKY HOPES!” The heroically determined city leaders kept trying to move the rubber tree plant that is MLB. Result? Well, basically a lot of frustrated ants. Frustrated, yet unthwarted! They somehow kept their high apple pie in the sky hopes!
They decided: okay, so all our efforts to attract a team thus far have failed. So what! What IF, instead of giving up like a sane city would, we instead opt to BUILD A MAJOR-LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM ANYWAY, with no prospect whatsoever for getting a team?!! Wouldn’t that crazy-yet-wildly-hopeful act INSPIRE major league baseball to give us a team?!!! Yeah!!! That sounds like a plan! Let’s DO THIS!” And, wee ones, that is what I personally love so much about St. Petersburg, Florida: that crazy, high-apple-pie-in-the-sky-hopes quality! What other city would actually build a major league baseball stadium when it has no team and no realistic prospect of ever getting a team? But that’s St. Pete. It operates both in the real world and in the world of high apple pie in the sky hopes, and therein lies its wonderfulness.
So, they built a stadium. Let me repeat that point because it bears same: the city of St. Petersburg, with the help of the county of Pinellas, built a stadium specifically to attract a major league baseball team, designed specifically for baseball, with basically NO PROSPECT of a team coming here. Now, I ask you, is that the craziest yet also somehow the most wonderful, imaginative, chutzpah-infused and endearing thing you ever heard of a city up and doing? And I further ask you, doesn't that investment and effort, and the fact that without it, we (the Tampa Bay area) would not have the Rays at all, count for something? Doesn't it render St. Petersburg as the home of the Rays? As Mayor Bill Foster recently pointed out, because of everything the city of St. Petersburg invested to attract a team in the first place and everything the city and its citizens continue to do to support the team, "while the team is a regional asset, it's St. Petersburg's asset", and “St. Petersburg residents have more skin in the game than anyone.” This is our team. St. Pete built the dome in 1986 and there it sat for nine years, mute testament to one city's cock-eyed optimism, dogged determination and investment to bring a major league team home. In 1995, the improbable happened and MLB awarded us an expansion team. On March 31st, 1998, the first pitch was thrown.
The Tampa Bay Rays belong to the entire Tampa Bay area, but St. Pete is their home. We built it, they came. They belong here. And not only is it what’s best for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, it is what’s best for the Rays. Why do I say that? Oh, I’m so glad you asked!
To all the Tampacentric folks who argue the team should move to their fair city, let me refute your arguments, one by one:
Tampacentric Argument Number One: “The team should be in a central location to the entire Tampa Bay area, and since everyone knows that Tampa is the center of the UNIVERSE, the team should be in Tampa.”
Retort From the World of FACTS: St. Petersburg IS centrally located to the ENTIRE Tampa Bay area, including the southern populous and fast-growing counties of Sarasota and Manatee, which are where many fans who attend the games hail from. Fans drive from Pinellas, Manatee, and Sarasota to Tampa to attend Bucs and Lightning games, so surely the good folks of Tampa can return the favor and drive to Pinellas to attend Rays games if they are true fans. Just because “the Tampa BAY area” contains the word “Tampa” in it, does not make the city of Tampa the geographic or population center of the Tampa BAY area. It is one important city in our area, but only one of several (and NOT the one that moved heaven and earth to bring the Rays here), so why should it house all the professional sports teams of the area? Why not spread the joy, especially since St. Petersburg is the city that actually took the risks and made the investment to land us a major league baseball team in the first place? Plus we have a CONTRACT through 2027, but let’s not focus on that little detail. Yet.
Tampacentric Argument Number Two: “I don’t want to drive across a BRIDGE, omg, what are you asking of me? St. Petersburg is surrounded by water and I have a huge sense of entitlement that leads me to conclude that the Rays should be in Tampa so that people from Tampa don’t have to cross a bridge. If the team were in Tampa, I’d go to games. But, drive across a bridge? I mean, I’m a good fan and all, but that is pretty extreme, don’t you think? St Pete just isn’t accessible...I can’t see it from my backyard, therefore, case closed.”
Retort From the World of the Non-Self-Entitled: The current location of the Rays Stadium is RIGHT NEXT TO THE INTERSTATE off-ramps (plural: I-75, I-275, I-375). There is tons of FREE PARKING at the Trop (Tropicana Field, home of the Rays), plus plentiful parking all around in private lots, on-street, etc. There are multiple points of ingress and egress from Tropicana Field and the surrounding parking areas, and those lead to multiple choices of arteries by which to enter and leave the city heading north, south, east and west, due to the earlier-discussed grid system of the city’s roads. Even during sell-out games at the Trop, traffic moves very quickly and smoothly both to and from games and the Trop is one of the most accessible stadiums in major league baseball. Contrast that to Tampa, which on any regular evening during rush hour experiences traffic gridlock. You want to add game traffic to that mess? No, get your fair-weather fan patootie in your car and drive across the dang bridge, just as the many fans who do not live in Tampa do to attend Bucs and Lightning games in your city.
Tampacentric Argument Number Three: “Attendance is low. If the stadium were in Tampa, it would be higher.”
Retort from Reality: It is true that attendance is not up to par and, if it were, Stuart Sternberg probably wouldn’t be threatening to take the team out of St. Pete and there would be a lot more room left in cyberspace without this ever-lengthening blog entry taking up so much of it. But the reasons for the still-low attendance are several, NONE of which are the location of the stadium being in St. Pete! The main factor depressing attendance now is, obviously, the economy, as many folks just can’t afford to attend as many games as they otherwise would right now. Even though the team is now FABULOUS, if folks have to choose between paying their monthly mortgage or taking the fam out to the ball game, they are going to go with the mortgage . No matter which side of the bay the team is on, or what kind of shiny new stadium is built, until the economy gets better, the sad fact is that attendance won’t properly reflect the ever-growing fan base of the Rays. If ownership is wise, they will continue to dance with the one that brung them, and when the economy improves, so will attendance.
All that said, I hasten to add that I don’t want to argue with the Rays’ owner’s expressed desire and need for a new stadium. Much as I personally LOVE the Trop as a baseball venue, the city should be willing and eager (and I believe it is, based on what I’ve heard Mayor Foster articulate) to work with the Rays on new stadium proposals, either in the current excellent location or in another location WITHIN THE CITY, because the Trop is indeed an aging stadium in “MLB years” (sort of like dog years only different). If the Rays need a new stadium, we should be a good partner and work with them on it. However, I strongly agree with Mayor Foster’s position that the Rays have a contract to play here in St. Petersburg through 2027 and therefore no locations outside of St. Petersburg should be considered. PERIOD. Stuart Sternberg's statement that “Downtown St. Petersburg is not a viable location for baseball” was untrue, uncalled for, and completely alienating to the heart of the Rays fan base.
It was St. Petersburg that imagined, hoped, invested and dreamed the Rays into reality. We’ve loved them, supported them, and joyously given them our hearts and souls since pre-Day One. Dance with the one that brung you, Rays.
Once upon a time, there was a beautiful little city tucked along the shore of Tampa Bay. It was and is a city where “quality of life” infuses the visionary design of the place, because the planners of the city were far, far, FAR ahead of their time. In fact, they are being imitated to this day in faux communities like Disney’s “Celebration”, but St. Petersburg, Florida, is the real, authentic deal. They (the aforementioned early planners of the city) set aside a loooooooooooong series of green, downtown waterfront parks all along Tampa Bay and decreed that there shall be no development along the waterfront, that we shall keep it as green space for the citizens to enjoy. This was very radical, controversial, yet oh so wise of the early planners of St. Pete, because never did a concrete jungle arise along the city’s waterfront, which would have rendered it decidedly unremarkable, like so many cities’ waterfronts, which are just a wall of condos, etc. No, St. Petersburg’s waterfront is, to this day, a rare jewel: a user-friendly string of walkable, bikeable, green parks that make St. Pete unique. But the wise planners didn’t stop there. Oh no, my wide-eyed kiddies, they also decided to lay out the road system of St. Petersburg in a logical grid pattern, with many ways to head east, west, north and south, to get in and out and around the city, so that there would not be traffic jamming up on any one artery. And because many neighborhoods of the city were built in the 1920’s, pre everything revolving around the automobile, they are charming, human-scale neighborhoods full of sidewalks and front porches and many of them are walking distance to downtown. The combination of visionary planning that included lots of green space, logical, efficient main roads/arteries, and the charming neighborhoods that sprang up within the city around the downtown and beyond, resulted in one of the most livable, user-friendly cities in the United States of America. In short: St. Petersburg rocks.
But there is more to St. Petersburg than being gorgeous and green, charming and user-friendly (I know, I’ve said “user-friendly” three times, but it bears repeating), accessible and sporting a downtown renaissance of restaurants, shopping, art and entertainment that I haven’t even touched on here. Yes, kiddies, there is something more to the character of this city, something infusing yet transcending all that I’ve mentioned, something...magical. There is a certain ...well, a cockeyed, optimistic belief among St. Petersburgers that our city can do anything it sets its collective mind to. There is a wild imagination to this place, a certain “dreaming big” quality, and when it comes to major league baseball, this unique St. Petersburg quality translated into the real live version of “if you build it, they will come.”
St. Petersburg has a very rich and storied tradition and history of minor league baseball and major league spring training, and due to this long-standing and intense love of baseball in the city, one day, long about the 1980’s, it’s leaders decided: hey, why couldn’t we attract a major league baseball franchise?
So, they set about doing this and, my rapt kiddies, much more went into that concerted, never-say-die, unbelievable, twisty-turny effort than could possibly fit into one blog entry in terms of their Herculean and, some might say, certifiably crazy efforts to bring a MLB team here. They simply decided they were going to do it--that it was going to happen--and from there it was basically a case of “Just what makes that little old ant, think he’ll move that rubber tree plant? Everyone knows an ant can’t move a rubber tree plant, but he’s got HIGH HOPES, he’s got HIGH HOPES, he’s got HIGH APPLE PIE IN THE SKY HOPES!” The heroically determined city leaders kept trying to move the rubber tree plant that is MLB. Result? Well, basically a lot of frustrated ants. Frustrated, yet unthwarted! They somehow kept their high apple pie in the sky hopes!
They decided: okay, so all our efforts to attract a team thus far have failed. So what! What IF, instead of giving up like a sane city would, we instead opt to BUILD A MAJOR-LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM ANYWAY, with no prospect whatsoever for getting a team?!! Wouldn’t that crazy-yet-wildly-hopeful act INSPIRE major league baseball to give us a team?!!! Yeah!!! That sounds like a plan! Let’s DO THIS!” And, wee ones, that is what I personally love so much about St. Petersburg, Florida: that crazy, high-apple-pie-in-the-sky-hopes quality! What other city would actually build a major league baseball stadium when it has no team and no realistic prospect of ever getting a team? But that’s St. Pete. It operates both in the real world and in the world of high apple pie in the sky hopes, and therein lies its wonderfulness.
So, they built a stadium. Let me repeat that point because it bears same: the city of St. Petersburg, with the help of the county of Pinellas, built a stadium specifically to attract a major league baseball team, designed specifically for baseball, with basically NO PROSPECT of a team coming here. Now, I ask you, is that the craziest yet also somehow the most wonderful, imaginative, chutzpah-infused and endearing thing you ever heard of a city up and doing? And I further ask you, doesn't that investment and effort, and the fact that without it, we (the Tampa Bay area) would not have the Rays at all, count for something? Doesn't it render St. Petersburg as the home of the Rays? As Mayor Bill Foster recently pointed out, because of everything the city of St. Petersburg invested to attract a team in the first place and everything the city and its citizens continue to do to support the team, "while the team is a regional asset, it's St. Petersburg's asset", and “St. Petersburg residents have more skin in the game than anyone.” This is our team. St. Pete built the dome in 1986 and there it sat for nine years, mute testament to one city's cock-eyed optimism, dogged determination and investment to bring a major league team home. In 1995, the improbable happened and MLB awarded us an expansion team. On March 31st, 1998, the first pitch was thrown.
The Tampa Bay Rays belong to the entire Tampa Bay area, but St. Pete is their home. We built it, they came. They belong here. And not only is it what’s best for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, it is what’s best for the Rays. Why do I say that? Oh, I’m so glad you asked!
To all the Tampacentric folks who argue the team should move to their fair city, let me refute your arguments, one by one:
Tampacentric Argument Number One: “The team should be in a central location to the entire Tampa Bay area, and since everyone knows that Tampa is the center of the UNIVERSE, the team should be in Tampa.”
Retort From the World of FACTS: St. Petersburg IS centrally located to the ENTIRE Tampa Bay area, including the southern populous and fast-growing counties of Sarasota and Manatee, which are where many fans who attend the games hail from. Fans drive from Pinellas, Manatee, and Sarasota to Tampa to attend Bucs and Lightning games, so surely the good folks of Tampa can return the favor and drive to Pinellas to attend Rays games if they are true fans. Just because “the Tampa BAY area” contains the word “Tampa” in it, does not make the city of Tampa the geographic or population center of the Tampa BAY area. It is one important city in our area, but only one of several (and NOT the one that moved heaven and earth to bring the Rays here), so why should it house all the professional sports teams of the area? Why not spread the joy, especially since St. Petersburg is the city that actually took the risks and made the investment to land us a major league baseball team in the first place? Plus we have a CONTRACT through 2027, but let’s not focus on that little detail. Yet.
Tampacentric Argument Number Two: “I don’t want to drive across a BRIDGE, omg, what are you asking of me? St. Petersburg is surrounded by water and I have a huge sense of entitlement that leads me to conclude that the Rays should be in Tampa so that people from Tampa don’t have to cross a bridge. If the team were in Tampa, I’d go to games. But, drive across a bridge? I mean, I’m a good fan and all, but that is pretty extreme, don’t you think? St Pete just isn’t accessible...I can’t see it from my backyard, therefore, case closed.”
Retort From the World of the Non-Self-Entitled: The current location of the Rays Stadium is RIGHT NEXT TO THE INTERSTATE off-ramps (plural: I-75, I-275, I-375). There is tons of FREE PARKING at the Trop (Tropicana Field, home of the Rays), plus plentiful parking all around in private lots, on-street, etc. There are multiple points of ingress and egress from Tropicana Field and the surrounding parking areas, and those lead to multiple choices of arteries by which to enter and leave the city heading north, south, east and west, due to the earlier-discussed grid system of the city’s roads. Even during sell-out games at the Trop, traffic moves very quickly and smoothly both to and from games and the Trop is one of the most accessible stadiums in major league baseball. Contrast that to Tampa, which on any regular evening during rush hour experiences traffic gridlock. You want to add game traffic to that mess? No, get your fair-weather fan patootie in your car and drive across the dang bridge, just as the many fans who do not live in Tampa do to attend Bucs and Lightning games in your city.
Tampacentric Argument Number Three: “Attendance is low. If the stadium were in Tampa, it would be higher.”
Retort from Reality: It is true that attendance is not up to par and, if it were, Stuart Sternberg probably wouldn’t be threatening to take the team out of St. Pete and there would be a lot more room left in cyberspace without this ever-lengthening blog entry taking up so much of it. But the reasons for the still-low attendance are several, NONE of which are the location of the stadium being in St. Pete! The main factor depressing attendance now is, obviously, the economy, as many folks just can’t afford to attend as many games as they otherwise would right now. Even though the team is now FABULOUS, if folks have to choose between paying their monthly mortgage or taking the fam out to the ball game, they are going to go with the mortgage . No matter which side of the bay the team is on, or what kind of shiny new stadium is built, until the economy gets better, the sad fact is that attendance won’t properly reflect the ever-growing fan base of the Rays. If ownership is wise, they will continue to dance with the one that brung them, and when the economy improves, so will attendance.
All that said, I hasten to add that I don’t want to argue with the Rays’ owner’s expressed desire and need for a new stadium. Much as I personally LOVE the Trop as a baseball venue, the city should be willing and eager (and I believe it is, based on what I’ve heard Mayor Foster articulate) to work with the Rays on new stadium proposals, either in the current excellent location or in another location WITHIN THE CITY, because the Trop is indeed an aging stadium in “MLB years” (sort of like dog years only different). If the Rays need a new stadium, we should be a good partner and work with them on it. However, I strongly agree with Mayor Foster’s position that the Rays have a contract to play here in St. Petersburg through 2027 and therefore no locations outside of St. Petersburg should be considered. PERIOD. Stuart Sternberg's statement that “Downtown St. Petersburg is not a viable location for baseball” was untrue, uncalled for, and completely alienating to the heart of the Rays fan base.
It was St. Petersburg that imagined, hoped, invested and dreamed the Rays into reality. We’ve loved them, supported them, and joyously given them our hearts and souls since pre-Day One. Dance with the one that brung you, Rays.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Not just no but HELL NO to moving my Rays!
Get the straight jacket, people, there's nothing else for it. First LOST and now this?! Stuart Sternberg, the owner of MY Tampa Bay Rays baseball team, is under the MISTAKEN (as in WOEFULLY) impression that he is taking MY team out of St. Petersburg!
As a dear friend once said to me about a completely different topic: not just no but HELL NO! As Laura Petri said to her husband, Rob, in a classic episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show: "No one is taking this baby!"
Oh. It's on.
BACK SLOWLY AWAY FROM MY TEAM, STERNBERG! Yeah, I know, technically you own the team, but in every way that counts they are MINE. Did you walk through lightning and blinding rain, or searing heat to game after game for years, hike up with your Sherpa guide to the partially-obstructed view section of the Trop only to see them lose game after game, yet you continued to cheer your heart out and always stayed for all nine or sweet sixteen or however many innings there were, never giving up hope (because in baseball, it ain't over 'til it's over), and were you often heard shouting out "That's okay, we're going to the series anyway!"? No, you did not. Me investing in my season tickets in the partially-obstructed view section in 1998 when I only made $6.50 per hour (!) was probably a bigger proportion of my income back then than what you paid years later to buy the team was of yours, so you see, they really are MY team.
They're mine because I was there, dancing in the streets of downtown St. Petersburg the day they were awarded to us in 1995. I was there at the first Fanfest, where I met Vince Naimoli and told him that I loved the team name and had actually submitted "Sun Rays" as a suggestion in the contest he held for fans to pick the team name. He told me that the majority of suggestions had the word "Rays" in them, so that's why he went with a Ray name. So I was there in the naming of the team. I was there on opening day in 1998. I was there through all the losing seasons of our young team, loving them just as much as I do now that they are winners. I was there, rooting my heart out in the stands, buying teeshirts, caps, commemorative cups, dog leashes, stuffed Devil Rays, shorts and anything else I could to show my support for the Rays. They are MY team. And no one is taking them out of their home, St. Petersburg.
If I weren't typing this with only my two thumbs on the blasted iPhone right now, and if the battery on said iPhone weren't long in the red, I would detail all the MANY reasons why the team should stay in downtown St. Petersburg, Florida. But I'll save that for another day. For now, I just had to say: not just no but HELL NO to moving the team from their HOME, St. Petersburg, Florida!
As a dear friend once said to me about a completely different topic: not just no but HELL NO! As Laura Petri said to her husband, Rob, in a classic episode of The Dick Van Dyke Show: "No one is taking this baby!"
Oh. It's on.
BACK SLOWLY AWAY FROM MY TEAM, STERNBERG! Yeah, I know, technically you own the team, but in every way that counts they are MINE. Did you walk through lightning and blinding rain, or searing heat to game after game for years, hike up with your Sherpa guide to the partially-obstructed view section of the Trop only to see them lose game after game, yet you continued to cheer your heart out and always stayed for all nine or sweet sixteen or however many innings there were, never giving up hope (because in baseball, it ain't over 'til it's over), and were you often heard shouting out "That's okay, we're going to the series anyway!"? No, you did not. Me investing in my season tickets in the partially-obstructed view section in 1998 when I only made $6.50 per hour (!) was probably a bigger proportion of my income back then than what you paid years later to buy the team was of yours, so you see, they really are MY team.
They're mine because I was there, dancing in the streets of downtown St. Petersburg the day they were awarded to us in 1995. I was there at the first Fanfest, where I met Vince Naimoli and told him that I loved the team name and had actually submitted "Sun Rays" as a suggestion in the contest he held for fans to pick the team name. He told me that the majority of suggestions had the word "Rays" in them, so that's why he went with a Ray name. So I was there in the naming of the team. I was there on opening day in 1998. I was there through all the losing seasons of our young team, loving them just as much as I do now that they are winners. I was there, rooting my heart out in the stands, buying teeshirts, caps, commemorative cups, dog leashes, stuffed Devil Rays, shorts and anything else I could to show my support for the Rays. They are MY team. And no one is taking them out of their home, St. Petersburg.
If I weren't typing this with only my two thumbs on the blasted iPhone right now, and if the battery on said iPhone weren't long in the red, I would detail all the MANY reasons why the team should stay in downtown St. Petersburg, Florida. But I'll save that for another day. For now, I just had to say: not just no but HELL NO to moving the team from their HOME, St. Petersburg, Florida!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)