Beethoven Turkey Cinema: The Unlikely 2010 Thanksgiving of Ryan & Shelley

The Thanksgiving holiday is a rather odd American tradition in which we stop our regular lives mid-week, engage in often extraordinary pursuit of simultaneous long-distance travel, and then give ourselves licence to gorge on food and television for at least 1, and oftentimes as many as 4 consecutive days. It kicks off an orgy of materialist economy, and is often bracketed with spectacles from giant balloon mascots to interstate sports rivalries.

Growing up, my family split Thanksgiving holidays between our South Texas Webers, and the Oklahoma Webbers (it's a long story, but for the record, it involves no intermarriage, but has dubbed my brothers and I the "3-b Web[b]er Boys"). In a move that I'm sure is quite common among the decreasing number of American nuclear families, we alternated Thanksgiving and Christmas so that one was spent each year with one side, and then the holidays flipped the next year.

The two families were located in neighboring states, but separated by 500 miles of interstate highway, a straight shot down I-35 from OKC to San Antonio. As a result, they were both culturally similiar, yet geographically distant. Another marked difference was that the OKC Webbers (et al) were exclusively "city folk," being that they grew up and lived in major urban centers their entire lives. The Texas Webers (who are much more numerous) are a different story, residing mostly in semi-rural cities like Hondo, Uvalde or Castroville. Don't mis-read; thanks to cable TV, the internet, etc. they are all very much members of the 21st century, and most no longer live and work on farms and ranches. But many grew up in those environs, and many more stayed close, or even returned to them, after time in San Antonio, Houston, or NYC.

Strange as it is, the Webber/Weber contrast of metropolitan and "ruro-politan" communities provided me with some of the most dramatic culture clashes of my pre-college life (it's Oklahoma, people, we aren't known for diversity).

Example #1 - In Oklahoma, my father, an oil & gas attorney - wore olive slacks, yellow button-downs, and paisley ties, went by "Jim" and signed paperwork as "James William Weber." Anywhere south of Dallas, he was "Jimmy" (usually pronounced "Jim-eh"), wore jeans, and on more than one occasion, squeezed into the very old cowboy boots he still keeps in the back of his closet.

Example #2 - In Texas, children over the age of 12 were allowed to pour their fathers (and mothers) a jack-and-coke at the card table in the garage that served as the event's open bar. My Oklahoma family didn't serve alcohol on holidays. This even included the grand annual vaudevillian affair, The Webber Musicale, a caroling/recital/talent show tradition that continues to shock and amaze the uninitiated that such a thing could even exist, let alone as a dry event.

In addition to the requisite warmth of shared family bonds, the two things that both sides of the singular Web[b]er family coin had in common when it came to the holidays were Turkey and Football. Again, I don't want to assume this is universal in American culture, but it is certainly common. Ham makes a strong bid for Christmas time, but we Web[b]ers like our turkey, and the Webbber boys are no exception.

This brings us (finally) to the odd circumstances of my past 3 thanksgivings, in which professional commitments or personal budget has disallowed me from sharing the celebration of over-indulgence with either of these factions of my heritage.

One Fine Day

I am having a good day.

This morning I woke up early, and attended a presentation at the National Democracy Insititute, a major player in international political development/ democracy promotion. They were recapping the November 7 elections in authoritarian Burma, but more than that, they were demonstrating a new project/ platform that combined GIS mapping reported elections fraud with first-person narrative citizen reporting of the events. Rapid, compelling, grassroots, and almost NPRish in its earnestness. The application in Burma - a country with relatively limited communications tech and a highly repressive regime - was only tangentially of interest to me. Mostly, I wanted to know about its application in other, less severe, environments (like those in Central Asia where I am more interested).

After the presentation, I met with the NDI staff responsible for their Kyrgyz programs, and got to talk a little "shop" with him in the lobby. I'm working on some independent research, and having trouble getting access to a few government reports which this new contact, Alex, volunteered to help me locate. Double-plus.

We were interrupted, briefly, by Ian Schuler, one of the panelists and the guy behind the new technology platform. He found my questions intriguing, and wanted to follow up with me about the challenges of application outside Burma and discuss what systemic biases they might encounter. I handed out a few business cards, then had to be on my way. Like I have for the past 2 months, I had 5.5 hours of work to do as a receptionist at the World Resources Institute.

It was raining, so for the first time in almost 3 weeks, I didn't ride a Capital Bikeshare rent-a-bike over to the offices near Union Station. Since joining the annual membership in mid-September, I've saved $104 in metro fare. Minus the $50 annual membership and the $26 I paid for a helmet, and I'm already $28 in the black, with a few weeks of fall and all of Spring and Summer still to take advantage.

At work, I started the day as I always do reviewing news relevant to Central Asia, and posting an item of interest on my new twitter feed - @richardrweber. It's not designed to be a fun, personal kind of twitter. It is very professionally oriented, and almost exclusively designed to get me better connected with other regional experts in the hopes that this leads to a job. Toward that end, it's been pretty successful. Back in October, I also started a new blog - Shashlykistan - which is also devoted to my semi-professional analysis of Kyrgyz and Central Asian political, economic and social developments. Initially, it was a way to force me to keep up with events, and hone some writing, research, and analytic skills. With the holding of parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan on October 10, I found myself opportunely positioned to access and write about these elections, and their resulting parliament. Much of what I discovered had not previously been mentioned in other news sources, so I passed it along to some contacts I have in Bishkek, Prague, and professors at Columbia.

Sanity Rally pt 3 - Politics as Unusual

In the lead up to Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington DC on October 30, it seems the major media talking points were:

1. What secret political message would Jon Stewart insert into his supposedly 'apolitical' event?
2. What impact would he have on the upcoming Midterm elections?

No matter how much he protested, or how many different news outlets he appeared on - Larry King Live, NPR's Fresh Air - no one believed Jon Stewart when he (repeatedly) promised that his rally would not be political in content.

And low-and-behold, it wasn't. There were Zero politicians involved in the rally, no political talking points, and no references (snide or supporting) to political candidates. A day before Halloween, and there wasn't even a single Christine O'Donnell/ Witch joke.

Stewart & company went to great length to deliver exactly what they promised - a major rally in the nation's capital just 3 days before the midterm election that wasn't about politics.

Real Conversations about False Politics

On the eve of the US midterm elections, I decided to write a letter to my grandfather-in-law. Like many of his generation, and many on my side of the family as well, Paul aligns - loosely- as a conservative. Even that labels is inadequate, as it suggests adherence to a variety of social, political, and economic affiliations that I don't even know how he feels about. We've never discussed abortion, the death penalty, education policy, unwed motherhood, FCC regulatory policy, privacy rights, gun rights, marriage rights, or really many of the other hot-button political cliches.

We've talked about the military - Paul was a lifelong Army man - and generally agree that the men and women in uniform deserve almost unending respect and leaders worthy of their commitment.

Mostly, our discussions have pivoted not so much on issues, but rather on politics itself, with the media - and here I mean explicitly Fox News - as the driving element. Paul watches Fox, and again, I don't want that to suggest that he agrees with everything said on that 24/7 talk machine. I get most of my US news from the New York Times, NPR, or - I have to admit - the Daily Show. I also don't always align exactly with the manner in which certain stories are covered, or the editorial choices of what is - or is not - newsworthy.

But on this Election Day 2010, I wanted to share some of my thoughts with Paul, after receiving a series of e-mails from him over the past few months in the run up to the election. That e-mail - edited to omit family banter and add some context - appears below, and in it I put forward some of my observations. These come from attending recent 'non-political' rallies held in DC by Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart, as well as daily monitoring of various on-line news sources throughout the closing months of the campaign. It also builds on my studies - and ideal career path - as an international democracy promotions analyst, helping foreign countries install, fortify, and improve systems of electoral democracy. What one finds often in such work is that 'golden rules' of democracy abroad - like nonpartisan elections committees and identifiable campaign contributors - are often ignored at home.

Sanity Rally pt 2 - Attendance Size Doesn't Matter (But Mine's Bigger?)

Near the beginning of his October 31 Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on the National Mall, Comedy Central host Jon Stewart made a few tongue-in-cheek remarks:

"As you all know, a Rally's success is judged only by two things: How Many people show up, and the diversity of those people."

He went on to explain that any gathering that was overwhelmingly white was, by assumption, racist; while any gathering that was overwhelmingly non-white must be demanding something that "we" didn't want to give them - voting rights, seats at a restaurant, etc.

He also jibed - "Early reports coming in place our attendance today at approximately 10 million... or was it 6 billion?"

The early points Stewart wanted to underline were:
1) The substance of a rally can actually be more important than the size of its audience.
2) 'Diversity' is a coded word for racial/ethnic mixing, when in fact other categorizations - age, profession, income - or even nuanced concerns like rational opinion - might be more important factors, even if they more difficult to immediately identify.

Fine and good. Point made, point taken. Stewart's Rally permit for the National Mall allowed for up to 60,000 people and no one is suggesting fewer than that showed up. Additionally, any 3 hour event broadcast live on national TV, with additional live coverage on multiple other channels (CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and others), as well as 4 millions on-line viewers doesn't need to make a big deal about how many supporters it has.

Sanity Rally pt 1 - Knee-jerk Reactions

On Friday, October 29, I wrote the following as part of a "Pre-Rally Prognostication" blog in anticipation of the upcoming Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear presented on the National Mall by Jon Stewart and Comedy Central.

True to my word, I am following up on my predictions, and here posting some quick, initial reactions, as well as my string of Twitter posts made live from the rally.

More thorough, and thoughtful, analysis will follow.

What I expect from the Rally is this:

1) It will be a predominantly younger crowd (median age in the late 20s/ early 30s)
2) It will be otherwise very diverse in terms of race, profession, religion, etc.
3) There will be lots of jokes aimed at both Democrats and Republicans
4) It will not be politically focused, perhaps not even having a strong politically neutral "get out the vote" message.
5) It will be a lot of fun.

Let's break that down one at a time.

Pre-Rally Prognostication

In case you've been living under a rock, are over 35 years old, or just prefer to spend your time and attention on items of actual importance, you might be interested to know that a few comedians are holding a small get-together in Washington, DC this weekend.

The much lauded, over talked about, and yet still enigmatic "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" - hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of the Daily Show and Colbert Report, respectively - is coming to the National Mall on the intentionally irrelevant October 30, 2010. Irrelevant, perhaps, except for its placement 3 days prior to the midterm Congressional elections.

Enough actual ink, and well more than enough bytes, have already been spilled - even vomited - out onto various print, television and internet sources regarding the Rally - what it will be, what it could mean, if it's a good idea, how many people will show, etc. - that I hardly need to add to it.

At least, not before there's anything to actually report.

Stewart and Colbert announced their - originally separate - events over a month ago, and while they continue to deny it, the concepts seems clearly to have originated as a lampooning of Glenn Beck's tearful "Rally to Restore Honor" that took place in August among considerable fanfare from the Fox network. That rally included "celebrity" appearances by Beck, as well as Tea Party darling Sarah Palin and a line up of Gospel, Country, & Contemporary Christian musical guests.

That rally - as I previously reported - had a few remarkable characteristics. It was overwhelmingly conservative and highly religious - that is, exclusively Christian - and was attended by the least diverse crowd of 87,000 that I have ever witnessed in one location in my life - and I'm from Oklahoma. The median age from my observation was 55+, and in 2 hours of walking around the entire footprint, I managed to count only 10 non-white attendees (not including the 16-person all-black Gospel choir on stage).

My endeavor with this weekend's Rally - which I will also be attending - is similar, and different. For Beck, I vehemently disagreed with the premise, and the host, of the event, but I was also suspicious of my ability to get an honest appraisal of it from different news media. I assumed Fox would over-inflate the important and attendance, while down-playing the more radical things that were said. I was also worried that more liberal news sources would negate the impact, or hyperbolize the crazy.

It turns out, these fears were almost totally realized. Various Fox pundits estimated a crowd of "over 100,000" "at least 300,000" and "almost a half-million" even days after the official attendance count was released confirming it at no more than 87,000.

Arena Stage Comes Home

In its 60th year of operation, Arena Stage - the preeminent local theatre institution in Washington, DC - has much more to celebrate than just its longevity. After two years of roaming productions in Crystal City, VA and the historic Lincoln Theatre on NW DC's U-street corridor, the organization has finally come "home" to its campus on the SW Potomac waterfront where it has been based since 1960 (see photo of Arena Stage below, as it appeared in 1971, with the Fischandler and Kreeger theatess joined by a 2-story office complex).

A legend in DC, Arena Stage was one of the first non-profit theaters in the country, and maintains a reputation as one of the finest regional theatre organizations in the world. And that, frankly, was Arena Stage circa 2008. After years of fund raising and planning, it was in that year that the management and artistic staff of Arena stage decided that in order to achieve their long-term goals, they needed to take drastic steps to increase their potential. The resulting plan was to abandon their main offices and venues for a 2 year period during which time the existing facilities would be almost entirely refurbished, and additional facilities would be built at the same sight.

Juan is the Loneliest Hombre

Last Thursday, NPR announced that it would terminate its contract with Juan Williams, a long-time correspondent and news analyst, in response to comments he made as a guest on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. On Friday, the internet exploded with opinions, outrage, and explanations, from all angles. Williams immediately lashed out at his former employer from the podium of his new employer, Fox News, while amateur pundits across the political spectrum questioned the reason, timing and manner of the dismissal.

In the full context of his comments, and the scope of his career, what Williams said was not as offensive as many other recent examples of journalists speaking their mind. Dr. Laura's infamous insistence that an African-American woman get a better sense of humor about her white husband's friends using racial slurs to refer to their mixed-race child, for example, is abominable, no matter who says it, or in what context. The comments which got Rick Sanchez offed at CNN, while almost as offensive, were less bigoted – unlike Dr. Laura, in listening back to his comments Sanchez realized he had stepped over a line – and more the result of personal frustration and off-color humor.

The case of Juan Williams pushes this distinction between bigotry, accident, and unprofessionalism to an even finer point. What Williams said was not hate speech, nor was it intended to cast all members of a particular group – in this case Muslims who choose to wear ‘traditional’ garb, whatever that means – in a negative or extremist light. Williams was quite clear that seeing all Muslims dressed in this fashion as a threat was not the appropriate or rational reaction, just as seeing a Presbyterian from upstate New York driving a Ryder truck should not always strike fear of a Timothy McVeigh copycat. Williams cited this exact example, and then confessed, in a manner that has been praised by some for its genuine honesty, that when he is on a plane, Williams does get (irrationally) nervous around people he can visually identify as Muslims (Williams' full quote, and a good appreciation of its context, can be found in the original story issued by NPR before the controversy heated up).

Rally to Restore Objectivity: NPR and the Question of Journalistic Bias

On October 13, Vivian Schiller, CEO of National Public Radio - recently "re-branded" as just NPR - forwarded a memo originally written by NPR Senior VP for News Ellen Weiss (full text of the letters here). The original memo was addressed to "News Staff," and reiterate the organization's policy regarding prohibition of political activity by its journalists, and to clarify the organization's determination that the upcoming Jon Stewart/ Stephen Colbert "Rally to Restore Sanity/ March to Keep Fear Alive" events taking place in Washington, DC on October 30 do qualify as "political" rather than "entertainment." Schiller's addition was to forward the memo to all NPR staff, and reiterate that in this instance, the policy would also apply to staff in the "digital, programming/AIR, legal and communications" departments.

The full policy, which falls under the NPR News Ethics Policies and Social Media Guidelines adopted in 2004, can be found here. The "relevant excerpts" included the the memo were as follows:

NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them. This restriction applies to the upcoming John [sic] Stewart and Stephen Colbert rallies.

The memo was in response to a debate percolating around water coolers at NPR's headquarters in Washington as to whether the Stewart/Colbert event, taking place just 12 blocks away, would qualify as "political" - a label the event's organizers flatly deny - or merely as an entertainment gathering. In the context of the upcoming midterm elections and the often-attributed center-left leaning of the Comedy Central audience - what Bill O'Reilly repeatedly refers to as the "Stoned Slacker" demographic - NPR execs decided they would cover the event as if it were a political rally, and due to the ambiguity, needed to clarify that decision to their staff.

Since sending out the memos - and even intentionally forwarding them to other media outlets in order to avoid malicious rumors or confusion - NPR has taken a beating in the blogosphere. Pundits from the conservative fringe have accused NPR of "protesting too much;" asserting their impartiality as a cover for their actual arch-liberal bias, while those in the center, left and right have focused on the uncomfortable precedent of telling employees how they are allowed to spend their time off the clock - the rally will take place on a Saturday from noon to 3 pm.

In an effort to quell the monsoon of speculation, NPR quickly issued an official clarification through the blog of its Ombudsman, Alicia C. Shepard. In it, Shepard responded to the more lunatic accusations, basically clarifying what everyone already knew: NPR is not secretly an organization of neo-fascists masquerading as a journalism organization, only to be caught by the leaking of this internal memo.

By 6:30 that evening, NPR Senior VP of Marketing, Communications and External Relations, Dana Davis Rehm, published the full text of the memo in question as well as a further official defense of the policy and its application. In particular, she suggests that the NPR policy is standard among respected journalism organizations, and that NPR is "curious about what other news organizations – The New York Times, CBS, ABC, NBC and The Washington Post – are thinking about whether their own ethics policies are consistent with their staffs' attendance at these events."

The following day, the Washington Post announced it would enact a similar policy. According to its press release, "Events, like those organized by Glenn Beck or involving Jon Stewart and Steven [sic] Colbert, are political, and therefore Post newsroom employees may not participate." (link)

Learning from NPR's guffaw, the Post announcement continues, "By participate, we mean that Post newsroom employees cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause. That means no T-shirts, buttons, marching, chanting, etc. This guideline does not prohibit Post newsroom employees from observing—that is, watching and listening from the sidelines. The important thing is that it should be evident to anyone that you are observing, as journalists do, not participating, whether you are covering the event or not."

This is exactly the type of specificity and limitation that the NPR memo lacked, when Schiller said, "no matter where you work at NPR you should be very mindful that you represent the organization and its news coverage in the eyes of your friends, neighbors and others. So please think twice about the message you may be sending about our objectivity before you attend a rally or post a bumper sticker or yard sign. We are all NPR."

CNN, MSNBC, and all 3 broadcast networks have announced their intention to cover the rally live, but not all media organizations are on-board with the objectivity-boycott. Consider the coverage of this little tryst afforded by the generally-controversial Huffington Post. Spearheaded by its leader, Arianna Huffington, the site has taken on Stewart's charge of returning political discourse to a more civil, moderate temperature. Fashioning itself as almost a co-sponsor of the rally, Huffington Post has clearly stated that while it views the rally as political, it is not partisan - that is, the rally is against both Republican and Democratic excesses, and so the only way to be unobjective about it would be to give the radical fringe of both parties equal credit with the "moderate majority" the rally hopes to represent.

And this brings us to the issue that is being overlooked in this minor media fracas - to what degree NPR trusts the judgement of its staff, and how far it is willing to go to protect itself from unfounded accusations of bias by those on the political fringe of either extreme.

It seems clear that journalists actively covering political topics should not themselves be actively engaged in political campaigning, promoting a particular candidate, or attempting to persuade public opinion. This is "Journalism 101" and - frankly - disqualifies the majority of Fox pundits from the categorization of "journalist." In reality, things can get more complex, with respected newspapers openly backing political candidates, and cable news programs overwhelmingly favoring one party over the other. Neither seems especially savory, and are exactly the type of actual media bias that NPR has worked hard to avoid, aided for many years by FCC equal-time requirements, and other bygone efforts to regulate media accountability.

But many individual journalists, especially those that attended Journalism school, stick by the highest standards of objectivity. Nathan Cone, Classical Programming Director and occasional reporter for Texas Public Radio, an NPR affiliate station in San Antonio, posted on his facebook in response to my inquiry:

"I actually agree with this policy, and held myself to it long before it was in place. I don't go to rallies (unless I'm covering them), I don't sign petitions, and I don't make cracks about politics around the office. When he was at ABC, Ted Koppel went even further and never voted. Well, I do vote, and vote my conscience. My close friends and family know my views, but I strive to remain, to the outside world, apolitical."

In other words, the ideal is to be 100% neutral in every word, deed and thought, but this is virtually impossible to achieve. As an acceptable alternative, serious journalists are allowed to have personal opinions, but expected to put those aside in order to produce professional-caliber news. To the lay person, this seems an impossible segregation, especially on emotional topics, and the wealth of vindictive-laced pseudo-journalistic blogs (and, ahem, cable news channels) speaks volumes to how much easier it is to forgo the extra effort objectivity requires. But it is not an impossible feat, only requires a higher degree of sensitivity and self-sensor than the average person must employ.

I am reminded, as a personal example, of my father's ridiculous attention to grammatic detail. He is a veteran title attorney, and in his line of work the placement of a comma can dramatically alter legal property lines, with incredible ramifications in the competitive Oklahoma oil and gas industry he serves. In grade school - and indeed today, even after graduate-level work at Columbia University - I have great difficulty respecting the same arcane rules of grammar which, for my father, are an essential quality of the professionalism of his craft.

Likewise journalistic objectivity.

It is essential to the proper achievement of a basic job function - accurate communication of facts and events - and as such every effort must be made to not only protect it, but to ensure audience confidence in a journalist/ organization's maintenance of that objectivity.

But how far do we pursue this? Among journalists themselves, especially those covering the political spectrum, presumably no length is too far, as the Ted Koppell reference suggests. But what about those outside the realm of journalistic content at news-focused media organizations? Can janitors, security guards, auditors, and IT technicians jeopardize a newspaper's objectivity? Presumably not, though one must admit that a hypothetical cluster of 30 NY Times telemarketers at a Glenn Beck rally, decked out in Times apparel, would (improperly) raise questions.

So, can off-the-clock actions of non-journalists affect the objectivity or perceived objectivity of a media organization?

The unsatisfying answer is, "maybe," and therefore the NPR policy, and its extension to broad departments like Programming, Digital, Communications and Legal, can be seen as a 'safe bet.' They represent, at most, a minimal threat to the organization's ability to cover events objectively, and admittedly a more robust weapon for critics to bludgeon about accusations of institutional bias.

But this is exactly where I have my issue with NPR. The organization, now celebrating its 40th anniversary, is enjoying some of its greatest success despite years of decreasing government funding. New programs are constantly under development, and membership - both nationally, and at local affiliate stations - continues to grow. The causes are complex, but the most commonly cited are NPR's continuing commitment to the journalistic standards eschewed by other mainstream news channels, its strong focus on localism, and its dynamic embrace of digital media. When newspapers and TV stations are cutting staff reporters, NPR consistently adds salaried positions, and is presently launching a new "blog network" of locally-produced series specialized by topic. It's all very exciting, and its all built on a two-part contract. NPR trusts in the intelligence and humanity of its audience, and that audience trusts in the professionalism and ethics of NPR individuals, and as an organization.

So my query to NPR is this - why would you let a collection of admittedly sharp political satirists shake your faith in your audience or your staff? Why do you think Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert can shake the mighty foundations of trust and confidence that you have spent 40 years creating, and which your dedicated audience reaffirms in bi-annual fund drives and quarterly Arbitron ratings?

This is an awfully long blog post about what is, in essence, a minor memo mis-step, but I would hope that in the future, NPR returns to the policy that has served them best - to maintain professional objectivity through serious treatment of serious issues, rather than expend their energies trying to protect their reputation from assault by the highly-partisan amateur "press," who will doubtless find excuses to pan them anyway.

But what about Huffington's point, that the real purpose of the event itself is the promotion of objective, civil discourse on the subject of politics? How is it that rational news outlets like NPR, the Washington Post, and others, identify this as a - let's be blunt - "liberal" political event to the same degree that Glenn Beck's Tea Party-inspired rally was a "conservative" political event? While Stewart has repeatedly denied his Rally is a counterpoint to Beck's, the exact opposite is true. But this is not a question of partisan politics, but rather political practice. Do we believe in reasonable debate based on verifiable evidence, or do we prefer shouting lies and half-truths until we're red in the face. Which presents a more likely prosperous, just, transparent future for our venerable democracy, and which is simply better at driving up commercial ad sales?

I will be attending the 10/30 Rally to Restore Sanity, and intend to report on the event in this online format. I will not claim to be objective, but will present my opinions in such a manner as to clearly identify what biases I have, and perhaps where my actual observations contradicted them. I greatly enjoy the freedom of not being a real journalist, and sincerely invite you to appropriately take me not entirely seriously.

I will be at the Rally, and easy to find.

I will be the one wearing an NPR t-shirt.

Weber

::(lame)Texpatriot

On This Day

For those of you who don't closely follow 20/30-something pop culture, it might interest you to know that comedians Jon Stewart of the Daily Show and his pseudo-nemesis/protege Stephen Colbert are planning to hold a series of politically-oriented, but technically apolitical, events in Washington, DC. Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" and the co-/counter "March to Keep Fear Alive" will both take place on October 30 in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall.

As it turns out, the Daily Show already had plans to tape a week of live shows at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, DC in anticipation of the Midterm elections the following Tuesday. Some local papers have already pointed out the irony of holding a Congress-focused week of shows in Washington, ostensibly to be closer to the action, at a time when every single member of Congress will be back in their home district or campaigning for a fellow party member.

Regardless, the Midterms themselves set the date for the cast & crew's DC visit. Following Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor 8-28 Rally, Daily Show fans started suggesting Stewart & Co. host a rally themselves in response. The two ideas came together somewhat accidentally, as Stewart himself explains (paraphrased): "We were already in town for the shows, and thought about doing it Friday, but were like, hey, we need a day off. Sunday would have worked, but we like to relax on our weekends. So Saturday is it."

Stewart & Colbert have both admitted, even stressed, that there is no significance to the date of their event - October 30, 2010; 10-30-10; the day before Halloween '10 - and have amped up just how unspecial it is as a jab at Beck's sudden attribution of his 8-28 date to divine intervention. When Beck first announced the date, he admitted that it was only chosen because it was a rare otherwise empty date in the popular comedian/speaker's book tour. When he was informed that it marked the 42nd anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.s famous "I Have a Dream" speech at the same popular rally location, Beck suddenly saw the hand of God directing his choices a la Bush Jr.

For those brave enough to question authority in the former Soviet Union, October 30th has been consecrated since 1991 as the Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Political Repressions. A somber, reverent tribute to the millions of people who lost their lives through starvation, forced labor, and outright execution as a result of their political views or ethnic background. It is not in any way a fitting parallel to the situation or sentiments of the Comedy Central crew. Of course, that won't stop some devoted fan from making a humorous connection to the upcoming event (see picture below, or this link).

For this and other reasons, I am not entirely convinced of the meaninglessness of October 30 for the context of the farcical/satirical events on tap. Below are several relevant/irreverent historical events that also took place on October 30, and which may provide some insight into what we can expect from the Greatest Newsteam on Comedy Central, and some of the most poignant social commentators of our generation:

1270 - The Eighth Crusade, which began in July and was exclusively fought outside Tunis, ended with an agreement between Charles I of Sicily and Muhammad I al-Mustansir, the Khalif of Tunis.

And now for the first installment of our new segment, Better Know a Crusade. We start with France's Eighth Crusade - the Fightin' Eight - in which French king Francis I invaded nearby Tunis in order to ostensibly stage future assaults on the Holy Land, while gaining access to the city's lucrative trade networks in the meantime. After a botched landing in July 1270, the ensuing seige didn't go well for the Europeans, including Francis himself, who took ill and died. By October, the invaders were emaciated and restless, and Francis' brother, Charles I, signed an armistice with the Khalif of Tunis to open trade relations in return for a "strategic withdrawl."

930 years have taught us a lot about how to properly run a Crusade. Here's what Francis should have done. First - don't go out to the front yourself! That's what you have immigrants, teenagers, and British Royalty for. Second, you have to make up a frightening pretense to justify the utter destruction of a foreign people - national security works great. Then you claim to be "liberating" all those poor, huddled, rich Tunisians and their selfishly privatized wealth. Now stay there for 7 years and bemoan the Tunisian's inability to provide their own infrastructure - never mind that they have a more advanced irrigation system than you do. Irrigation? How primitive! In Sicily, we use women, children and slaves to carry our water.

1905 - Czar Nicholas II grants Russia's first constitution, limiting (slightly) the powers of the monarch and creating a legislative assembly, the Duma.

For the 105th anniversary of the signing of the Russian constitution, Colbert will call on his loyal followers to respect the sanctity of not only the American founders' wishes and historic intentions, but the wishes of all founders of any constitution throughout history. He will then declare himself Czar of Cable News Opinion Journalism, and promptly order Keith Olberman to carry Rick Sanchez on his back to meet Dr. Laura in Siberian/internet exile. After 12 hours of plotting and rewrites, Stewart will call for a Communally-Rationalist uprising against Colbert's tyranny, but only so long as a compromise can be reached by dinner time.

1938 - Orson Welles broadcasts the famous live radio reading of H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds, causing mass panic as American audiences believe they are under assault from space invaders.

Americans are no less gullible, and no less afraid of aliens 72 years later. I don't know what color on the National Terror Alert System corresponds to Ray-gun wielding extra-terrestrials and their interstellar death machines - perhaps ultra-violet - but I do know that at the first signs of trouble Lou Dobbs will issue his Brown Alert and start shooting every illegal alien that dares to mow his lawn. In a decade in which the US has invaded 2 sovereign countries, and at times considered more (Iran, Somalia, Pakistan?), it is difficult to believe that we maintain the moral high-ground as "victims" of invasion. Luckily, in addition to Welles' tried-and-true radio format, we now have a potent brew of mass media broadcasts to keep the American public in a constant state of irrational hyper-fear and paranoia-fueled hatred and acquiescence. Whether denying the First Amendment's guarantee of free religious assembly, invading the privacy of US citizens, or allowing internationally-denounced torture techniques, there can be no doubt that America today permits insane abuses of its founding values under the excuse of 'protecting' those values. And that's the kind of tragic death scene a diva like Orson Welles could only dream of landing.

1945 - Jackie Robinson signs a contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, for the first time breaking the "color barrier" in American Baseball.

For the 55th Anniversary of the Contract with America's Pasttime, Jon will announce his own candidacy for the Senator from the great state of Manhattan, breaking once and for the the State Barrier in the US Senate. Critics will quickly point out that Stewart doesn't even live in Manhattan, but only travels there for work and to flatter his crowds of supporters. This will spark a nation-wide fact-checking campaign on how much time Congress members spend in their respective districts, the full disclosure of which will result in Christine O'Connell being elected to the House of Representatives from the 13th District of Crazyville.

1961 - The Soviet Union tests a 58 megaton hydrogen bomb over the Arctic Ocean. Called "Tsar Bomba" it stands as the largest and most powerful Nuclear device ever detonated.

Stephen Colbert will drop his own H-bomb on Washington, DC, calling Freedom hating MSNBC anchor Rachael Maddow, "a Hoity-toity Hippy Hoodlum Harbinger of Horrible Hijinks Harboring Hyper-serious Hindrances for Hope, Happiness and Ham by-products." The comments are believed to be in response to Maddow's recent assault on Papa Bear O'Reilly. The ensuing media firestorm of vitriolic exchanges and lingering lack of substance across the cable news spectrum will overshadow the Midterm elections and herald the beginning of a political twilight as Americans sift through the rubble of a once-respected media culture. Ironically, National Proletarian Radio will be the sole survivor after cannibalizing the New York Times, and slowly peace together a network of socialist operatives across the country giving away quality, balanced journalism for free. Deep in his underground bunker, Colbert will await the second coming of Zombie Reagan.

1974 - The famous Rumble in the Jungle boxing match arranged by Don King between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman takes place in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo).

Remembered more for the export of African-American deep Soul and Funk back to the "Motherland," Colbert, Stewart, and probably John Oliver, will commemorate the 36th Anniversary with their own Brawl on the Mall. The event will begin with Colbert singing favorites from the Rodgers & Hammerstein songbook, while John Oliver lays down his best Mike Skinner impression and Stewart inexplicably performs a vocal trio with Michael Buble and Mary J. Blige. The main event will be interrupted, ceremoniously, by defending Brawl Champ Conan O'Brien, who will be stripped of his belt to return it to Jay Leno on the grounds of using performance-enhancing substances, namely his hair. Decades later, Oliver will sell electric beef cooking appliances on HSN.

1995 - Quebec Separatists narrowly lose a referendum (50.6% to 49.4%) seeking secession and independence from Canada.

In 2000 and 2004, the Red State/Blue State (myth) had some Americans calling for a redrawing of national borders, and Texas has further flexed its secessionist tendencies. Now 15 years after the defeat of Les Quebecois, Colbert rallies Glenn Beck's Tea Party Nation to abandon their amoral liberal-infested homes and move to greener pastures in the unoccupied territory of Utah. There they can establish a Christian Nation of minimal state intervention, strong Church rule, low taxes, and strict anti-immigration laws. What few current inhabitants stand in their way will face the certain end of all who oppose the (self) Chosen (self) Righteous.

2007 - Washoe, the first chimpanzee trained in American Sign Language, died at her home in the Chimpanzee and Human Communications Institute at Central Washington University. She was 42, and is survived by her adopted son, Loulis, as well as beloved co-workers Tatu and Dar.

Cross-species communications has never been more important, and I'm not talking about seducing a dolphin so we can start breeding a race of humans capable of surviving Global Warming. I mean the ability to have a meaningful conversation with a hard-headed, feces-throwing, knuckle-dragging mammal ruled by solely by its instincts. We have Got to reach out to these Tea Partiers. Of course, as coach Chuck Cecil of the Tennessee Titans knows, there's only so much you can say with hand gestures. Still, I think Congress has a pretty clear idea what the American public thinks of their inability to work together, and if the kind folks at the CHCI succeed, we may one day have enough informed voters to send the right message. Zoo Workers of the World, Unite!

Weber
::(lame)Texpatriot

Receptionism

From the cataclysmic doldrums of complete unemployment, through the dark and choppy seas of one-day temp assignments, I have finally sailed into the calmer currents and partly-cloudy skies of a 6 week temporary assignment.

The gig entails manning the front/reception desk 25 hours a week for the World Resources Institute, a major international research/policy advocacy organization focused on issues like Global Warming, Energy policy, transportation infrastructure, and forestry preservation. Al Gore is on the board of directors. The offices, spanning two floors of an 8-story eco-friendly tower built immediately next to DC's Union Station, is dynamic. The staff includes a good combination of slick young professionals and relaxed confident veterans. The resulting office environment is friendly, intelligent, and generally high-brow. In my limited capacities I've already spoken to members of the British and Australian embassy, and directed calls from NPR, the Guardian, and other media organizations.

It's a long way from what I want to be doing - in all of WRI, they have only one project that even vaguely hits upon Central Asia, a study on government policies involving electricity governance in Kyrgyzstan, which was rather well-timed as it was written just months before rising energy costs and government corruption in the electricity sector sparked the major public protests that culminated in the ouster of President Bakiev in April 2010. It makes for an interesting read - if, and only if, you're obsessed with Central Asian techno-politics.

However, it is a job, and as far as temp jobs go, it's second best only to my ideal post at DAI, NDI, or one of my other potential International Development target firms. I go in every day at noon - leaving plenty of time for errands, interviews, and job applications in the morning - and then am tasked with 5 hours of sitting at a desk in the lobby. When the phone rings, I am expected to answer it and transfer to the appropriate party. When guests walk in, I have them sign the guest book, then call their appointment to notify of the guest's arrival. Every day UPS and FedEx bring in packages, which then necessitates notifying the receiving parties via e-mail. On a rare occasion, I have to help with a fax. Once I was asked - with trepidation - if I would be willing to do the menial task of labeling pages on a stack of petty cash receipt books.

With the "remainder" of my time, that is a cumulative 4 hours and 40+ minutes of my day, I am free to surf the web, write e-mails, read the newspaper, etc. So long as it doesn't interfere with my duties, keep me away from my desk, or disrupt the office, it seems to be fine. That means no listening to music - or worse, no listening to radio! - as well as making Hulu & the Daily Show off limits. It's certainly not too great a burden for $12/hour.

The situation is no pastoral idyll, but as I've been remarking recently, "I'm doing the same thing as I did all of August, except I'm no longer doing it in my apartment wearing just my boxers. And I'm getting paid."

In other words, it's a unquestionably step forward. Progress. The Right Direction. And yet day after day, hour after dull hour, it feels less and less like a triumph. More importantly, my productivity with this nice chunk of barely distracted time is seeing a gradual decline. I have job applications I just never get around to submitting. The Daily Sudoku takes precedence over resume revisions. I search endlessly for articles I haven't read on the NY Times, CNN, RFE/RL, Eurasianet, The Guardian, and even the Huffington Post. I actively resist the urge to post links to all the articles I read, as my main motivation is only to justify the time I spent hunting it all down. I write ridiculously long, uninteresting blog posts. ahem.

This has me thinking about the nature of the work in which I am just recently employed, the correlation between duties and abilities, and the primacy of responsibility over ability.

Let me begin(ish) with a glib gchat conversation I had with a friend who knows a good deal more than I do about the rigors of mindless temporary employment:

1:28 PM me: receptionISM - the act or state of being an underutilized mindless automaton.

8 minutes

1:45 PM her: Sorry, working

“receiptionEST” - a colloquialism used to describe one who excels at administrative tasks because they are so far underneath his or her abilities that a state of ennui (characterized by “Existential Sinkhole Thinking”) occurs.

1:50 PM See also, "Ego Shrinkage Trauma"

After some time to reconsider, I think I prefer my term, but her concept. Our combined thesis might look something like this:

Receptionism (n.) - the act or state of excelling at administrative tasks in spite, rather than because, of one's highly-developed technical, managerial, or analytical abilities; becoming so bored with one's assigned tasks that job efficiency actually increases as a result of decreased personal dynamism.

There seems to be a humorous parallel to the post-modern Zombie movies in which the world finds ways to profitably employ the undead in the wake of the would-be apocalypse. They make good Network TV review panelists. Ideal Japanese obstacle course contestants. Loyal Republican/Democrats, etc.

First let me clarify that I am adamantly not referring to the career-path professions of receptionists, secretaries, office managers or executive assistants. I understand and greatly respect the talents required to keep large bureaucracies functioning, and to provide organized environments conducive to the more widely-appreciated "real" work. I am specifically considering the type of work in which I am currently involved - a temporary receptionist of whom only the barest minimum of competence is expected, and for whom no professional creativity is allowed.

Of course my friend's various EST abbreviations get to the heart of the accompanying personal phenomenon as well. Put succinctly, the work maybe be easy but the non-work is hell. Issues of self-worth and professional confidence are eroded like the Scottish cliffs by the tidal slosh of dull monotony. While "some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them," the same may be true for mediocrity, and what I face now is the frightening prospect of this as self-fulfilling prophecy. Namely, that mundanity (so long as we're in the habit of creating words) breeds further mundanity.

A quick excerpt from my a hypothetical Friday afternoon at the office:

A 29 year old with an Ivy-league M.A. and several years experience running a non-profit organization sits quietly behind a desk and listens to a cluster of 23-year old policy analysts talk about how their current project may some day turn into an M.A. thesis. They discuss what happened on last night's episode of The Event, and how it's really not as good as Lost. The elder of the group, who is just celebrating his 25th birthday, bemoans old age and his lack of further professional success by this point in his career. Not a single one is married, nor seems to be in any rush to be. For most this is their first job aside from a college internship.

In fairness, the individuals in questions are all very, very smart, speak at least 2 languages, and had the good sense to come out of undergrad with a degree focused in environmental studies, public policy, or media relations. Further, young or not, they were hired by one of the premier environmental research/advocacy organizations in the world, so it would be foolish to let their youthful indiscretions blur the fact that they are among the elite of their age within their chosen field. And finally, if the 29 year old with an M.A. delivering their mail happens to have spent his undergraduate working on degrees in Classics, History and Drama, then perhaps this outcome is not entirely unpredictable.

But this is not a sob story. The choices I have made - personally, professionally, pyrotechnically - are not ones I regret in the slightest. The life path that has brought me where I am today, and with the perspective through which I view it, is not one I would trade for all the environmental studies degrees or career-track positions from now until Revelation.

What interests me is the phenomenon of decreasing returns. How hard-working, enthusiastic, creative talent can slowly seeps away into wastage when it is not required in active use. As if all the energy of Hydrogen Fusion in the sun were to stop cold at dusk. Of course, that's not what happens. As San Francisco goes to sleep and the great Helios dips into the Pacific, it's Sunrise in Mogandishu, and Sol Invictus climbs out of the turbulent waters of the Indian Ocean to once more bake the arid Sahara.

So it is a matter of perception, the acquiescence into "receptionism" as here defined is categorically optional, and this post is clearly a maneuver more in self-motivation than mass communication.

And while the phone may interrupt me on occasion with inquiries about Climate Analysis Indicator Tools and Biodiversity Studies, I have work to do beyond the horizon of this small, environmentally sustainable lobby.

Work to do, and no more time to waste.

Weber

::(lame)Texpatriot

Capital Bikeshare Inaugural Ride

One thing I love about DC - and New York as well - is the ability to take reliable, convenient, affordable public transportation. Whether by subway or bus (ok, mostly subway), I truly savor moving about my metropolis-of-the-moment without the hassle of parking, tickets, gas guzzling and insurance. Having said that, as someone who grew up in the auto-centric middle states, I do miss the convenience and independence of getting in my vehicle and just going where I want to go - bus routes and subway schedules be damned!

This week, the kindly folks at the Washington, D.C. Department of Transportation moved me one small step closer to the best of both worlds with the inauguration of the nation's largest self-operated commuter bicycle renting system, Capital Bikeshare. I heard rumblings of this project - which has been in high gear development since August 2009, and is a major project of outgoing mayor Adrian Fenty - when I moved to DC back in June, and excitement in certain circles was building all summer. Unsure of what exactly I was signing up for - and with no history of bike enthusiasm myself in the past decade - I decided to invest $50 for an annual license and became one of the program's first 2,000 'founding' members.

For my commitment, I received a special-edition t-shirt, a digital Bikeshare key, and an invitation to participate in the program's public inauguration/ "stock-the-stations" event. Since the entire reason I signed up in the first place was to push myself into trying new things - a personality trait best encapsulated visually whenever a newborn horse tries to stand up - there was simply no way I could resist going further down this rabbit hole. Rather than timidly checking out one of the brand-new shiny red cruisers and taking it for a secluded test ride around my own quiet neighborhood streets, I was going to a major media event with 200 other (much more experienced) urban cyclists. After the politician speeches and ribbon-cutting ceremonies were concluded, we were to strap on our helmets, mount the army of red bikes, and ride off in teams of 5-10 to distant parts of the District, distributing the first wave of bikes to their awaiting digital docking stations.

But back up a bit. I didn't own a helmet, which is easily resolved in itself, but the reason I didn't own a helmet is because I hadn't ridden a bike regularly in 10+ years, and in fact had not set foot-to-pedal at all - not even once - in at least 6 years. While many of my friends in San Antonio and New York had picked up the urban biking bug, I remained, until now, entirely immune to its siren call. My 'go-where-life-takes-me' attitude led me to test, in the least intelligent manner, the oldest adage in bike riding: Once you learn, you never forget how to (ride/fall off) a bike. Before proceeding with the events of the day, some quick background on the Capital Bikeshare system, who's behind it, and how it works.

The Background

This is the District of Columbia, which for those of you not already familiar with its odd machinations means that any governance issues which would usually be handled by a city government are instead jointly handled by national as well as local figures. This is most obvious in terms of funding, but shows up in weird combinations elsewhere as well. For example, did you know that President Obama's Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, provided direct support to what is otherwise a small (by comparison) regional biking initiative?

Pretty weird. Ultimately, the program was created by the District (of Columbia) Department of Transportation (D-Dot, or just "d." as they like to be called), so it is fully incorporated into DDOT's public transport system, including Metro, MetroBus and the Circulator (a special, low-fare "express" bus that runs through downtown). However, Bikeshare isn't run by the District. It is a system built and maintained by for-profit companies Public Bike, and operated by Alta Bicycle Share - both of which are involved in Montreal's successful BIXI program, which has been copied recently by London and Minneapolis.

The whole Capital Bikeshare phenomenon owes a lot to its immediate, and spectacularly flawed, predecessor, the Clear Channel-backed SmartBike. While Bikeshare is now the largest bicycle sharing program in the US, SmartBike had the distinction of being the first such program in North America. Of course, it wasn't very large - only 100 bikes at 10 stations - and was soon out matched by virtually all of its national competitors. SmartBike was not popular - at all - nor was it user-friendly, cost-effective, convenient, or stable. Though some have made apologies for it - there is only so much you can ask of a first-generation pilot program - the truth is, SmartBike failed, and could have easily been used as an argument for why bike sharing programs cannot work in the US.

But Mayor Fenty took a different lesson. SmartBike was small, technologically simple, and poorly integrated. Rather than look for another weak "test" of the bike sharing concept, DDOT was called upon to dream up, build, and implement a full-scale program of advanced, durable, and extra-convenient bikes and bike checkout stations to be deployed throughout the District and Arlington. And they were to do it all within 14 months.

In what I find to be an inspiring twist, urban planners were asked not to build on the success of SmartBike, but rather on its failure. Everything that SmartBike did wrong - the stations, the bikes, membership rules, everything - was scrapped, and the DDOT team went international, stealing the best ideas, planning, and equipment from existing systems in Montreal, Brussels, and elsewhere. The end product, which debuted on Sept 20, with full-system activation by late October, encompases 114 stations scattered across all 4 quadrants of DC and deep into Arlington, VA (see proposed station map). The 1,100 bicycles of the initial install are a huge roll-out, with Bikeshare staff already petitioning city & national government for an additional 2,000 bikes.

The idea is simple. As an annual member, you are given a digitally-coded key. When you want a bike, you just go to one of the automated stations, plug in your key, and check out a bike. That bike can then be checked back into any other station when you're done with it. If your trip takes less than 30 minutes (as most trips across DC will), then it's free (with your membership). If you need more time, there's a graduated pay scale that is charged to your account ($1.50 for an hour total, $3 for 90 minutes, and up fast from there). For those unwilling to commit to a full year, monthly ($25) or even daily memberships ($5) are available, and can be purchased at the stations with the swipe of a credit card. With the current (introductory) annual membership set at $50, and given that rush-hour metro rides can cost up to $3, that means the entire membership pays for itself after 15-20 rides, or about 2 weeks of workday commuting. You have the other 50 weeks of the year to just soak up the savings.

Now sure, not everyone wants to bike to work, and even for those who do, perhaps it's not an every-day, every-season, every-weather commitment. I certainly have no plans to cheerfully bike my way uphill in Snowpacolypse 2010. But the point is that it's affordable - super affordable - and the prevalence of stations in so many high-traffic areas suggests its convenience will be considerable.

There is still some concern - indeed, I've not yet figured out how they will address it - about how the stations will stay stocked. If you get to a station that's out of bikes, you're out of luck. And if you arrive at a station on bike, and it has no open docking stations, what then? In either case, you just find the next nearest station, which is generally only a few blocks away, but that's far from perfect. Also, 30 minutes isn't enough time to cover some commutes, at least, not casually. I'm not such a Marxist that I think everything should be free all the time, but I'm not looking forward to getting nickle-and-dimed if I take 35 minutes to get home every day.

There's a lot still to work out - or more accurately, to see how it works out. DDOT has done an exceptional (and fast) job getting this set up, and I assume they already have plans for how to address these issues. How well they address them will likely determine the ultimate success not only of this program, but of the growth of Bikeshare programs in the US generally. Moving from New York, it's hard for me to fall into the trap of feeling cutting edge about the goings-on in the nation's capital, but in the (small) world of public bicycle programs, DC is now looking razor sharp.

The Big Event

On Monday, several hundred Bikeshare members, and DDOT staff gathered on the Dept. of Transportation's parade grounds in Southwest DC for the public debut and inaugural ride of the Capital Bikeshare program. It was combination press event, member appreciation, and practical solution - how do you cheaply deliver several hundred bicycles around urban DC? A: volunteer riders.

Accordingly, the setup (above) was designed to impress. Just 400 of the 1,100 total Bikes were on display, but the sea of shiny kick-stand red 2-wheelers made a strong statement about DC's commitment. After signing in and being hit with a barrage of swag - from practical items like key chains and water bottles to the more bizarre d. breathmints - I took a survey of the assembled crowd. It was a diverse gathering in terms of age, ethnicity, and (observable) professional dress. I saw professional bike couriers, suit-and-tie businessmen, and a large swath of the eternally casual. The average age probably hovered in the early 30s, but the 40 and even 50+ age groups were well represented.

One striking commonality was that everyone present, not surprisingly, was very passionate about biking. Most came in small groups, often from the same office, and many of the supporters were 'bike professionals' of some level, employees at one of the many District bike retail/repair shops. Luckily, I was not alone in my awkwardness. While I was one of the very few people present without a cadre of associates, many of said 'tag-alongs' had clearly not ridden in some time. My tour group, which included 7 employees from the Department of Education as well as a division Director, was especially anxious and unsteady once we got on the road.

After 45 minutes of milling about, the press event got underway, with almost a dozen video cameras and a full bank of print and audio reporters covering this (in my mind, not) groundbreaking event. A special treat for me personally was the presence of District of Columbia non-voting member of the House of Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton, who displayed the same conviction and feistiness that has made her a favorite guest on the Colbert Report. Norton, who was involved in getting federal funding to support the $6 million Bikeshare start up, spoke about the importance of alternative transport and the unique role DC plays as an incubator for public transport initiatives destined for wider national expansion. It's the same argument as Obama's Green Jobs initiative - that if we become experts in a currently non-existant industry, when that industry becomes critical elsewhere, we will be well positioned to capitalize on our experience. Just seems like a lot of ifs to me.

The next speaker was Mayor Fenty, who arrived in style by deftly parallel parking his SmartCar between two large construction vehicles. After declining a Bikeshare t-shirt, he accepted a hat, which he wore only briefly, but carried with him throughout the remainder of the event. Fenty was a feiry speaker, and as an avid athlete (how many US mayors run triathalons while in office) and strong supporter of the program, gave it glowing marks. He was confident, animated, and perhaps most aware of what importance the program did - and did not - herald. It was an important start, and he was sure of its future success. But one could tell from his demeanor, he didn't expect it to cure cancer (a later representative from the Arlington city council got almost that carried about with his prognostications). Fenty's levity may also have been due to his recent defeat in the Democratic mayoral primary, with this a de facto Lame Duck appearance. Having seen what was accomplished under his rather direct leadership, and now watching him operate direclty, I for one will be sad to see Fenty go. Perhaps my favorite moment of the entire day was when the press corps(e) all gather together for a photo op of Fenty (wearing a helmet) sitting atop a new Capital bike. After a few quick snaps, Fenty just rode off - with a herd of photogs breathlessly trying to keep up.

Once Fenty was down the road, it was time for the rest of us to make our contribution to the movement. We all strapped on helmets - inexplicably not required by DC law, but mandated for participation in today's ride - and mounted up to leave by group for our designated destination. I was in group 19, so we had a small wait. It was fun to adjust the bike's seat and check out the gizmos - a rolling handlebar gear shift, handlebar basket, catch-proof chain, and even an adjustable thumb-operated bell ringer.

As we got on the road, my rustiness was only half as apparent as I had feared. For starters, virtually everyone in my group (myself included) adjusted our seats for the optimum height for standing in one place on our bikes. When actually called to pedal, we found our knees universally high with each upstroke, and had a complete group pit stop within the first block. Luckily, seat height is super-easy to adjust, and we were quickly back on our merry way.

The bike itself is a lesson in stylish utility, with a strong bias toward functionality and durability over finesse. These are not performance machines, they are performative machines. They look good and don't break. Their 3 gears are useful on some of DCs naughtier hills, but disallow any true speed-demonism. More cruiser than road bike, their all-metal chassis, with additional coverage of the gears and back tire to avoid pant or laces mishaps, makes it a hefty beast. The additional weight of the cargo basket - and its cargo - makes for an imbalanced front end if one were to push beyond casual usage. In short, by the very bike's design, it is built to discourage any shenanigans and persevere in its basic task of getting you (comfortably, but not flashily) from point A to B. Our route (at left) was 3.2 miles, and took us about 20 minutes at a very relaxed clip.

Our final destination - a newly installed docking station in the rather shady NE Capital area - was soon upon us, and we uncertainly clipped in our bikes and parted ways. One of the more remarkable aspects about the entire day was that no one - at least in our group - really had any idea how the bikes or the stations worked. To the credit of Capital Bikeshare, it was all apparently self-evident (enough), but when our group leader turned to us in the DDOT lot and asked, "OK, who knows how to get to our station," it was pretty clear that this organization is not yet omni-prepared.

On the odd chance that you want to learn more about Capital Bikeshare, here are some relevant press clippings from area journalists and bloggers.

Washington Post Article

Capital Bikeshare Press Release

d. ("D-DOT") District Department of Transportation) Press Release

Greater Greater Washington Blog

Transport Politic Article

Inhabit Blog (great photos)

Weber

::(lame)Texpatriot