Today, Times Square is a forest of flashing neon superscreens on the facades of high-rise buildings frequented by tourists and theatergoers. But 400 years ago, this Manhattan area supported a diverse population of plant and animal life.
I was attracted to the cover story, “Before New York”, of the latest National Geographic magazine which features a split photograph: the modern day cityscape on one side and the 1609 rendering of the same region to its left. I spent a month living on the Upper West Side earlier this summer and even more recently I finished reading The Last of the Mohicans, a wilderness survival tale about the clash between tribal communities and European colonists that takes place in (upstate) New York in 1757.
The article introduces the Mannahatta Project, an effort to uncover Manhattan’s original landscape and ecology, which was envisioned by Eric Sanderson of the Wildlife Conservation Society. Ten years later, an interactive map is up and running on the project’s website. Users can type in their addresses or NYC landmarks to learn the details of the region's ecology in 1609.
This map reveals that the site of Times Square once contained a red maple swamp, and I learned that the area surrounding the Manhattan School of Music residence hall where I stayed this summer provided multiple kinds of berries and may have been a lucrative hunting location for the Lenape people.
Today Central Park may be the only place in Manhattan where it is possible to escape from the concrete and bustle of the city. Thank goodness for that.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
*Records achieved wearing performance enhancing bodysuits*
Suit breaks the man from The San Diego Union-Tribune on July 29, 2009
Posted using ShareThis
This will be old news by the time this is posted (I am vacationing in SD, and have had terrible luck with the Wi-Fi at coffee shops over the past two days), but I wanted to weigh in on how swim apparel is currently scandalizing the integrity of the sport. Since reading this article this morning about Michael Phelps’ loss to German swimmer Paul Biedermann in the 200m free at the world swimming championships in Rome, I heard on the radio that Phelps has won and set a new world record in the 200 fly (Update 8/2/09: Phelps finished with five golds, one silver, and two individual world records). What I did not learn was if he had exchanged his Speedo LZR Racer for the Arena X-Glide, which Biedermann wore during his world-record breaking performance and which he acknowledges aided him in his effort. (I learned that of course he did not, but Dara Torres did!)
Phelps’ own suit, the LZR Racer, will be illegal in competition by next May, along with all other high-tech bodysuits. But this ban comes too late. High-performance suits were worn in last summer’s Beijing Olympics, and now this week’s world championships. Dozens of world records have fallen and will continue to fall between now and May 2010. We’ve heard the debate about whether MLB records achieved by steroid users should be identified as such. It makes perfect sense that swimming records earned by wearing state-of-the-art suits should also be asterisked. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for swimmers wearing pre-2008 swimwear to break the records set this week.
But should these suits really be banned? Unlike steroids users, users of high-tech swimsuits are not trying to conceal their performance enhancing equipment. It is worth pointing out that improvements in technology have been accepted in many other sports. Not all golf clubs or baseball bats are made equal. There’s no question that world records have fallen in track and field over the years due in part (mostly?) to improved footwear. And I doubt those have been designated with asterisks in the record books.
The best equipment comes at a greater cost. Sponsorships also interfere with some elite athletes’ choice of competitive gear. Last summer in Beijing athletes jeopardized their endorsement contracts by wearing the new and fast Speedo LZR despite which product they were supposed to be wearing. How embarrassing! And even more so now, since Phelps is the one whining even though this is the very suit he still wears. But if sponsorships were no issue, and the top-of-the-line swimsuit was available to all competitors, then how is this actually unfair?
Without fancy aquatic wear the records will continue to fall. When the results of competitive swimming were first recorded, athletes had day jobs. Now that the professional athlete is a full-time occupation, men and women devote their lives almost entirely to their chosen sport. They train harder than ever and maintain a healthy diet. But it is undeniable that the effect of these swimsuits casts a shadow over the purity of a sport that once was dominated by the strongest and hardest-working athlete and not by the athlete aided by the best technology.
Posted using ShareThis
This will be old news by the time this is posted (I am vacationing in SD, and have had terrible luck with the Wi-Fi at coffee shops over the past two days), but I wanted to weigh in on how swim apparel is currently scandalizing the integrity of the sport. Since reading this article this morning about Michael Phelps’ loss to German swimmer Paul Biedermann in the 200m free at the world swimming championships in Rome, I heard on the radio that Phelps has won and set a new world record in the 200 fly (Update 8/2/09: Phelps finished with five golds, one silver, and two individual world records). What I did not learn was if he had exchanged his Speedo LZR Racer for the Arena X-Glide, which Biedermann wore during his world-record breaking performance and which he acknowledges aided him in his effort. (I learned that of course he did not, but Dara Torres did!)
Phelps’ own suit, the LZR Racer, will be illegal in competition by next May, along with all other high-tech bodysuits. But this ban comes too late. High-performance suits were worn in last summer’s Beijing Olympics, and now this week’s world championships. Dozens of world records have fallen and will continue to fall between now and May 2010. We’ve heard the debate about whether MLB records achieved by steroid users should be identified as such. It makes perfect sense that swimming records earned by wearing state-of-the-art suits should also be asterisked. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for swimmers wearing pre-2008 swimwear to break the records set this week.
But should these suits really be banned? Unlike steroids users, users of high-tech swimsuits are not trying to conceal their performance enhancing equipment. It is worth pointing out that improvements in technology have been accepted in many other sports. Not all golf clubs or baseball bats are made equal. There’s no question that world records have fallen in track and field over the years due in part (mostly?) to improved footwear. And I doubt those have been designated with asterisks in the record books.
The best equipment comes at a greater cost. Sponsorships also interfere with some elite athletes’ choice of competitive gear. Last summer in Beijing athletes jeopardized their endorsement contracts by wearing the new and fast Speedo LZR despite which product they were supposed to be wearing. How embarrassing! And even more so now, since Phelps is the one whining even though this is the very suit he still wears. But if sponsorships were no issue, and the top-of-the-line swimsuit was available to all competitors, then how is this actually unfair?
Without fancy aquatic wear the records will continue to fall. When the results of competitive swimming were first recorded, athletes had day jobs. Now that the professional athlete is a full-time occupation, men and women devote their lives almost entirely to their chosen sport. They train harder than ever and maintain a healthy diet. But it is undeniable that the effect of these swimsuits casts a shadow over the purity of a sport that once was dominated by the strongest and hardest-working athlete and not by the athlete aided by the best technology.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
"Figaro" a community attraction in Berkeley
The Berkeleyites were out in full force Sunday at John Hinkel Park to see Open Opera’s production of "Le nozze di Figaro". Men, women, children, and senior citizens alike scaled the hillside, braving poison oak exposure and landslides, to secure the best remaining view of the stage (a small plot of asphalt at level with the first row of seating) as the amphitheatre’s great stone seats had filled long before the opera was to begin.
Unfortunately, the amusing antics of the crowd dominated my attention. This was fine, though, since I’ve already seen this Mozart opera multiple times. But oh boy, do I wish I had my camera with me! My mom, our friends, and I claimed our makeshift spot on a side staircase, behind a woman showing off her yoga Zen balance. She stood for the 30 minutes before the show and well into the first act with her leg propped on the banister as if it was a ballet studio barre. Light hairs sprouted from her tan bony shin. My mom, seated, viewed the first act peering through the patient yogi’s legs. Leaves and dirt showered my friend Jess and me from above, as the spectators on the hillside scooted up in order to see over our seatmate’s extended leg. But balancing on one leg while watching opera was not enough for her, so she reached for a sketchbook and ink and later her knitting needles and yarn to prove her superior multi-tasking ability.
People-watching was an unexpected amusement at the opera. We had gone to see a high school friend, Julian Arsenault, play the role of Figaro. We hadn’t heard him sing in three years, and it was a pleasure to watch him claim the stage. His characterization of the Pirate King in "Pirates of Penzance" five years earlier persisted in his portrayal of the Count’s playful and sly servant. His performance was the highlight for me, but Adrien Roberts as the Countess stood out as possessing the strongest voice in the cast and as an elegant presence. However, singing in the open air does nobody’s voice justice. Director Olivia Stapp took advantage of the unique outdoor setting in the staging of a hilarious scene in which Figaro hid behind a live oak among the audience while Susanna, played by Aimee Puentes, lured her lover to the garden (“Deh vieni, non tardar”).
I know "Le nozze di Figaro" better than any other opera. I have seen the full-length production several times, I have sung at least five of its scenes, and I studied the opera extensively in Professor Davies’ class on Opera and Reason. But despite my familiarity with the music and the series of events, I never expect the tears that well up in my eyes when I watch and listen as the Countess immediately forgives the Count for his infidelity during the finale. The Countess’ soaring lyrical line here can only be described as poignant. She claims that she forgives him because she has a bigger heart than her husband, but I ache for her and all women because I want her to be stronger. We have spent a full three hours watching Count Almaviva devise a plan so he can sleep with Susanna before her marriage to Figaro. The Countess finally catches him, and we expect consequences and retribution. But all we get is a lousy (and too quickly accepted) apology. Even Mozart writes off this monumental moment by jumping into an allegro jubilant chorus performed by the entire cast in which all celebrate the union of Susanna and Figaro, and the reunion of the noble pair.
Unfortunately, the amusing antics of the crowd dominated my attention. This was fine, though, since I’ve already seen this Mozart opera multiple times. But oh boy, do I wish I had my camera with me! My mom, our friends, and I claimed our makeshift spot on a side staircase, behind a woman showing off her yoga Zen balance. She stood for the 30 minutes before the show and well into the first act with her leg propped on the banister as if it was a ballet studio barre. Light hairs sprouted from her tan bony shin. My mom, seated, viewed the first act peering through the patient yogi’s legs. Leaves and dirt showered my friend Jess and me from above, as the spectators on the hillside scooted up in order to see over our seatmate’s extended leg. But balancing on one leg while watching opera was not enough for her, so she reached for a sketchbook and ink and later her knitting needles and yarn to prove her superior multi-tasking ability.
People-watching was an unexpected amusement at the opera. We had gone to see a high school friend, Julian Arsenault, play the role of Figaro. We hadn’t heard him sing in three years, and it was a pleasure to watch him claim the stage. His characterization of the Pirate King in "Pirates of Penzance" five years earlier persisted in his portrayal of the Count’s playful and sly servant. His performance was the highlight for me, but Adrien Roberts as the Countess stood out as possessing the strongest voice in the cast and as an elegant presence. However, singing in the open air does nobody’s voice justice. Director Olivia Stapp took advantage of the unique outdoor setting in the staging of a hilarious scene in which Figaro hid behind a live oak among the audience while Susanna, played by Aimee Puentes, lured her lover to the garden (“Deh vieni, non tardar”).
I know "Le nozze di Figaro" better than any other opera. I have seen the full-length production several times, I have sung at least five of its scenes, and I studied the opera extensively in Professor Davies’ class on Opera and Reason. But despite my familiarity with the music and the series of events, I never expect the tears that well up in my eyes when I watch and listen as the Countess immediately forgives the Count for his infidelity during the finale. The Countess’ soaring lyrical line here can only be described as poignant. She claims that she forgives him because she has a bigger heart than her husband, but I ache for her and all women because I want her to be stronger. We have spent a full three hours watching Count Almaviva devise a plan so he can sleep with Susanna before her marriage to Figaro. The Countess finally catches him, and we expect consequences and retribution. But all we get is a lousy (and too quickly accepted) apology. Even Mozart writes off this monumental moment by jumping into an allegro jubilant chorus performed by the entire cast in which all celebrate the union of Susanna and Figaro, and the reunion of the noble pair.
Almost as distressing as the opera’s ending, is that the Open Opera cast members poured their entire beings into putting on the show but it was not fully appreciated by its unruly audience. Myself included, since I allowed myself to be distracted by my surroundings.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Celebrities in the W.H.?
Photo credit: Pete Souza/The White HouseI wish I actually had readers, because I would ask them what they think about this July 24, 2009 The New York Times article about Obama's relationship with Hollywood and celebrities (if there's anyone out there, please leave a comment!):
To me the important question to think about is this, as presented by the reporter:
Some longtime Washingtonians take umbrage at this kind of celebrity diplomacy. Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have declared the White House “the people’s house.” So why is it, their critics wonder, that the doors of the people’s house seem to open more easily to certain kinds of people than others?
"Celebrity diplomacy" refers to the way that stars such as Reese Witherspoon, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio have slipped in for visits with little publicity.
President Obama keeps these visits quiet because they are not good for his public image. Since it's clear that he knows it's best for him to keep them under the radar, doesn't this mean he probably shouldn't be having them?
I personally don't mind that celebrities are stopping by the Oval Office. I understand their interest in meeting Mr. President. I was in D.C. last month while Reese Witherspoon was filming a new movie. I was eating dinner one night near one of the on-location sets, and may have even caught a glimpse of her (She was far away, but I noticed a woman with bouncy blonde locks being filmed). Reese had business in town, so who can blame her for wanting to drop by 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?
Other celebs have causes that they want to discuss with President Obama and his staff. I think these are acceptable as well. DiCaprio's issue was the environment, and George Clooney's was Darfur. Having celebrity support as we know can be a positive thing for solving tough problems, or at least raising awareness of them.
That's why a celebrity can get his or her foot in the door more easily than I can. And Obama may be the mega-celebrity of the world now, but even he grew up captivated by the stars on the big screen. Hollywood and Washington are the power meccas of the nation. Why shouldn't they be interacting with each other? Just don't try to hide it!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Thank you, Arnie: La Jolla seals get another break
La Jolla seals get another break - July 23, 2009 from The San Diego Union-Tribune by Debbi Baker and Susan Shroder
Posted using ShareThis
Thanks largely to a state law signed Monday by Gov. Schwarzenegger that allows San Diego to decide how to use the disputed cove, the seals may remain undisturbed in La Jolla - at least until October, when there will be a new hearing.
This is not a solution, but at least the seals can relax and visitors can enjoy observing them for the rest of summer.
Oh, and how did I find this news? Twitter.
La Jolla Seals are on Twitter!
Posted using ShareThis
Thanks largely to a state law signed Monday by Gov. Schwarzenegger that allows San Diego to decide how to use the disputed cove, the seals may remain undisturbed in La Jolla - at least until October, when there will be a new hearing.
This is not a solution, but at least the seals can relax and visitors can enjoy observing them for the rest of summer.
Oh, and how did I find this news? Twitter.
La Jolla Seals are on Twitter!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Judge orders removal of seals from Children's Pool
Judge orders removal of seals from Children's Pool - July 20, 2009 article from San Diego Union-Tribune
Posted using ShareThis
As an animal lover, vegetarian, and a visitor to the La Jolla cove, I am saddened to learn that the city has been ordered to chase the seals from their home.
How will this be done? Reporter Craig Gustafson writes:
"The city's dispersal plan – formulated with the help of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – calls for the use of barking dog noises from 6 a.m. to sunset each day, possibly for years."
Something tells me this method will drive away more than just the seals (With any luck, it will also chase away the anti-seal residents in shame because of the unnecessary racket they have caused!).
This has been a dispute for years. In a July 31, 2006 New York Times article, the individual responsible for the lawsuit presents her argument:
“It was kind of a family beach,” said Valerie O’Sullivan, an avid swimmer who filed a lawsuit against the city in 2004 to restore the beach for human use. “This isn’t the only place for the seals. There are plenty of seals up and down the coast.”
But can't that be said for human-friendly beaches in La Jolla as well? I've been to them. The problem is that this beach had been designated in 1931 by Ellen Browning Scripps as the Children's Pool. Having visited this cove, I can imagine it being a pleasant place for families, but La Jolla and its neighboring beach towns do not lack many more lovely beaches.
It angers me that people believe that humans are entitled to use of this beach that the seals call home, and that they are wasting the time, energy, and money of the city to clear a beach that is only big enough to accommodate a few families at a time anyway. I bet if you asked any child if they mind going swimming elsewhere because the seals have made their home there, they would say: "Of course not". There has been a crowd assembled admiring the seals every time I have visited. They should be embraced by La Jolla residents as an asset, not as a nuisance.
Posted using ShareThis
As an animal lover, vegetarian, and a visitor to the La Jolla cove, I am saddened to learn that the city has been ordered to chase the seals from their home.
How will this be done? Reporter Craig Gustafson writes:
"The city's dispersal plan – formulated with the help of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – calls for the use of barking dog noises from 6 a.m. to sunset each day, possibly for years."
Something tells me this method will drive away more than just the seals (With any luck, it will also chase away the anti-seal residents in shame because of the unnecessary racket they have caused!).
This has been a dispute for years. In a July 31, 2006 New York Times article, the individual responsible for the lawsuit presents her argument:
“It was kind of a family beach,” said Valerie O’Sullivan, an avid swimmer who filed a lawsuit against the city in 2004 to restore the beach for human use. “This isn’t the only place for the seals. There are plenty of seals up and down the coast.”
But can't that be said for human-friendly beaches in La Jolla as well? I've been to them. The problem is that this beach had been designated in 1931 by Ellen Browning Scripps as the Children's Pool. Having visited this cove, I can imagine it being a pleasant place for families, but La Jolla and its neighboring beach towns do not lack many more lovely beaches.
It angers me that people believe that humans are entitled to use of this beach that the seals call home, and that they are wasting the time, energy, and money of the city to clear a beach that is only big enough to accommodate a few families at a time anyway. I bet if you asked any child if they mind going swimming elsewhere because the seals have made their home there, they would say: "Of course not". There has been a crowd assembled admiring the seals every time I have visited. They should be embraced by La Jolla residents as an asset, not as a nuisance.
Under Our Skin
It’s not often that I see a film that keeps me thinking about it much beyond the next day. I can name a couple – “State of Play”, “Derailed” – that I’ve recently seen that remained on my mind for the following week. But I can’t think of any that have left me thinking for more than a month after I saw it – except for “Under Our Skin”.
I’ve been meaning to write for weeks about this eye-opening documentary about Lyme disease. My friend Becky invited me to the film’s theatrical premiere at the International Film Center in Manhattan on June 19th. I have thought about it almost every day since.
When I was a child, I remember my mom panicking after my brother’s friend Scott was bitten by a tick at a birthday party hosted at our home. Now I understand why. (He was not infected with Lyme.)
I had heard of Lyme disease, but like many people I believed that if it was caught early it was easily treated. “Under Our Skin” follows the difficult daily life of sufferers of chronic Lyme disease, introducing the viewer to the debilitating effects of this disease and the frustration patients face trying to find proper treatment.
The "star" of the film is a patient named Mandy. She (as well as the filmmaker, Andy Abrahams Wilson) was present at the Manhattan screening, looking like a glamorous Hollywood actress. This contrast to her appearance in the film as a severely ill and bedridden patient contributes to why Lyme is such a controversial disease. She explains the difficulty in diagnosing her disease, because some doctors believed her symptoms were all in her head. “You’re a pretty girl. You’re just not getting enough attention,” they would say.
But proper diagnosis is just the beginning of a painful road to relief. Mandy finds a doctor who uses an aggressive treatment with high levels of intravenous antibiotics. He explains to her that she will get worse before she will get better. She asks if he means “Emergency room-worse” and he says yes. Mandy’s husband does not like the idea of filming her “episodes” which include seizures, but he agrees. Not surprisingly, this footage is the most frightening to watch.
The most shocking element in the film, however, is that treating Lyme disease is controversial. The film documents how some of the most successful Lyme doctors have had to stand trial defending their unorthodox practice of using intravenous antibiotics to treat a disease (chronic Lyme) that other doctors deny even exists. Some lose their licenses, and others must close their practices. This seems motivated by health insurance companies that find these doctors’ prescribed treatments too costly.
I don’t want to pretend to be an authority on Lyme disease, because this is my first look at the severity of the disease and the struggle of its patients to lead normal lives. Since I was so touched by the film, I thought I could use my blog to spread awareness of the disease and encourage you to watch the film. Becky, who invited me to the screening, has a cousin with chronic Lyme. She is around our age, but has been unable to complete college because of her disease. “Under Our Skin” has launched a screening tour across the US.
http://www.underourskin.com/
http://www.turnthecorner.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)