Archive for October, 2005
Halloween in Madison
For your enjoyment, an ongoing correspondence with a freshmen UW-Whitewater student:
I sent this email this morning:
Hi Matt.
I read this in the newspaper (http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/index.php?ntid=59750) :
The crowd swelled in the 500 block of State Street near the Pub and small groups of mostly young men began singing “Ole, ole, ole,” a soccer chant and apparently the anthem of those hoping to see a ruckus in Madison.
Matt Sokol, 19, a UW-Whitewater student, said the chanting “is a Madison thing. You do it because you are in Madison.”
It’s funny, because you’re not a Madison person. I find it curious that you are uniquely qualified to define a “Madison thing”. It’s assholes like you who have ruined Halloween in Madison by trying to start a riot every year. Guess what? That’s not a “Madison thing” And I live in Madison, so I’d know. Why don’t you and your UW-Whitewater friends stay home next year and do a “Whitewater thing”.
Madison is not a playpen for people like you. You’re not welcome here on Halloween and I hope you don’t come back next year.
Sincerely,
Tad Johnson
UW-Madison Senior
I got this response first:
Who are you? That lady didnt say what i really said, she made me sound like a pussy and did not say what she wrote. Im pissed, thanks though.
I guess he was confused, because I got this response 15 minutes later:
First off, i didnt read what you said to me after the fact. But what i said and what she wrote are different. You suck, i am going to be in madison when ever the fuck i want including next halloween. Who are you to say i cant say a madison thing, the amendments allow me that right. You need to chill out and maybe next halloween try drinking and having fun like the 100,000 other people did.
Sincerely Matt Sokol, 19, a UW-Whitewater student
That’s more what I expected. So I crafted this response:
Hi Matt!
Boy, you sure hit the nail squarely on the head. You do, indeed, hold the constitutional right to make stupid comments to whomever you please. In the spirit of democracy, you chose to exercise that right by professing your fascinating analysis of what constitutes Halloween in Madison.
Unfortunately, I also have the right to free speech, and I enjoy making use of that right. Here goes:
The reason I wish that you and your ilk would stay away from Madison is that you negatively impact the event. Consider–for the past four years, the vast majority of arrests during the Halloween weekend have been from non-Madison residents. People like you come to Madison expecting a riot, then do all you can to create one. We Madison residents don’t want a riot. We don’t want our storefronts broken. We don’t want fires in the middle of the street. We just want to have fun.
For actual Madison residents like myself, the result of people like you is an increased police presence and much stricter law enforcement, making the weekend less fun. I would greatly prefer a Madison Halloween celebration consisting of Madison residents getting drunk and showing off their costumes on State Street until the wee hours of the morning. But people like you have made that impossible. Now, Madison Halloween involves hundreds of police officers in riot gear and crowds are forcibly dispersed with pepper spray at 2:00 am.
Do you now understand why I wish that people like you would stay in your own town on Halloween and let us Madison residents enjoy Madison? Let me make it really simple for you, just in case:
PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE WHY WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF COPS AND PEPPER SPRAY ON STATE STREET DURING HALLOWEEN. STAY HOME!!
Thank you for your understanding,
Tad Johnson
Heard back from Matt today:
Well Tad, For your information i have never been to Madison before. I just wanted to see a riot and your fucking fellow students are the reason that the cops have to bust out the tear gas and such. State street has been getting broken up by pepper spray and tear gas long before the one year i decided to go. I have only the intentions of getting fucked up and passing out. You need to understand that i didn’t say anything that the fucking article says. So get off your power trip and chill. If you can find it in your heart to lay off me i would greatly appreciate it because no matter what you do or say will prevent me from going back at some time. The editor fucked up and have been bitching at them all fucking day, your not the only person sending me these pleasant messages so lay off.
Thanks Matt Sokol, 19, UWWhitewater
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Oct 30th, 2005
The Future, Vol. 3
It won’t be pretty, but we’ll make it.
This final installation is where I find the middle ground. In case you hadn’t guessed, I don’t believe that everything will be peachy-keen or that we’re all doomed. The next 50 years will be a defining time in the world as we move from one energy system to the next. I can guarantee that the transition won’t be smooth, but nor will it result in apocalypse.
2005 is a great year to look around and take stock in the past, present, and future of energy resources in the world. We’ve reached a curious crossroads of old and new, good and bad. On the one hand, the sale of efficient hybrid vehicles is way up. Demand is so high that new buyers must wait 6-12 months to take delivery. Even beyond the hybrid market, there is a clear sense that fuel efficiency matters. Even the American manufacturers are using efficiency as a marketing tool. This is a very good thing.
On the other hand, we’re going on four years of war in the Middle East. I won’t claim that energy resources are the sole reason we invaded Iraq, but only a fool would fail to see the influence of Iraq’s immense oil fields on the decision making process. To be fair to the current crop of neocons running the ship, the U.S. has held an invested interest in that corner of the world for about 75 years, and using our powerful military to secure the area is not the worst idea ever spun. [That said, I could go on for pages about the blinding incompetence with which the war has been prosecuted.]
It is no secret that the age of oil is coming to an end. Just look at the major oil companies. It is no coincidence that British Petroleum now publicly calls itself Beyond Petroleum. Further, there is a very good reason why the U.S. is chronically short in refining capacity (and it’s not Katrina or Rita). The eggheads running the numbers know that a multi-billion dollar refinery is a poor investment if you can’t guarantee its operation for more than 20 years.
So what will the future be? How are we going to replace the 40 Quadrillion BTUs of energy we’re currently extracting every year from fossilized plant? The short answer is this: there will not be a magic bullet. Don’t hold your breath on cold fusion, or dark matter, or nanobots coming to our rescue and solving the energy crisis. The longer answer is that we will have to rethink exactly how we use energy and organize our lives to simply use less of it.
As for energy sources, I believe that we will see a resurgence of nuclear power plants in the U.S. As much as it must chagrin the Republicans in power, we ought to follow France’s lead and invest in nuclear in a big way. To the opponents of nuclear power who bitch and moan about the inherent dangers, I say this: We are too far along to quarrel about ideal solutions. Nuclear offers the best shot we have at avoiding global meltdown due to accumulating greenhouse gases. Nuclear technology has progressed significantly since the 1970s, when the last new plant was built in the U.S. They are safe. Once uranium reprocessing industry starts back up, we will have enough fissionable material to last centuries. Fortunately, I’m not the only one praising nuclear power right now. The latest energy bill from our fearless congress includes provisions to encourage the construction of new plants. Just think back to the 1950’s when nuclear was warm and cuddly and friendly, and forget about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
Beyond nuclear, we will witness a significant increase in natural gas use in the coming decades. Although still a fossil fuel, gas offers far more energy per unit carbon. If we switched from oil to gas, we could reduce our CO2 emissions by 30%. That’s not enough to ward off global climate change, but it’s a good start. The big advantage with gas is that it can easily replace oil and coal in most industrial and power generation capacities. Additionally, it burns much cleaner than either coal or oil. Plus, it’s pretty easy to convert gas into pure hydrogen for use in fuel cells. Wow!
So nuclear and natural gas will play a big role. But they won’t be enough to supply our current needs. We’ll also need to reduce demand. As much as it pains Mr. Cheney, conservation is a way to start talking about energy policy. The biggest changes will come form transportation. Single occupant cars are going to have to go. Electric commuter rail lines will have to be rebuilt (after being torn apart about 70 years ago–funny). The airlines will probably continue to go bankrupt as high fuel costs tilt the balance sheets. Suburban sprawl will suddenly reveal itself as the most idiotic civic planning in the history of mankind. Needless to say, our lives will operate very differently in 50 years.
[If you're still with me, pat yourself on the back. This post is getting out of control. I'd like to spend some time on discussing the plight of the rest of the world, but I think I'll save that for another day.]
Recap: Oil out, gas & nuclear in. Suburbs out, commuter rail in. Supply and demand down. Now buckle your safety harness and get ready for a ride. It’s going to get weird.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (0) : Oct 1st, 2005
