Ahistoric Blame Game

It happens every now and again, admittedly less often now that I live in Fresno, that I will be speaking with someone from Europe, and they will say something ot the effect of "I don't think that you Americans should assume that you have any right to talk about racial relations, after slavery and what you did to the Native Americans!"

They never seem prepared for my response, which is "yeah, you're right, our nation did continue to implement and further develop the policies put into place by England, France, Spain, Germany, etc."  I usually follow this up with "so, let's talk about your country's history in Africa/India/Asia/etc."

It has been my experience that Europeans often accuse Americans of being the slavers and genocidal maniacs who went after Native Americans, despite the fact that anti-Native American policies originated with early European colonists from throughout Europe, and the racially-based African slave trade as we would come to know it originated in Portugal and spread throughout Europe, from where it eventually spread to the Americas along with European colonists.  And, indeed, one of the reasons why slavery continued as late as it did in the U.S. is because cotton markets, including those in Europe, were comfortable with purchasing the products manufactured through slave labor.

Within the United States, we tend to blame the south for slavery, despite the fact that many northerners were not opposed to (and some even supported) slavery, and even where slavery was outlawed it would still appear under the guise of indentured servitude, prison-based hard labor passed out out of proportion to the crimes of the accused, and debt labor.

And on it goes.

The problem with this blame-game is twofold:  1) it is ahistorical, it requires us to be willingly (and often intentionally) ignorant of history; 2) it allows us to view the "others" who engaged in these policies as separate from us, different from us, and therefore allows us to ignore the role that our nation, or even we ourselves, may play in this.

Obviously, as someone who professionally deals with history, I have a special concern about #1.  I strongly feel that we should know our past, as accurately as possible, warts and all, and ignoring the culpability of our own culture in the sins of the past counts as a failure.

But #2 concerns me as a human who has to live in this world, in the here and now.  When we portray ourselves as being more enlightened and fundamentally different as creatures from those who committed past atrocities, we not only ignore the capacity of our own culture to produce equivalent atrocities, but we also ignore that we are sometimes culpable in the atrocities.  It's why the people of Ohio can feel superior to the American South's history of slavery and Jim Crow laws while fostering conditions in cities that have continued racial conflict.  It's why European government officials can persuade themselves that they are better and more enlightened than the U.S. in terms of race relations, despite the fact that Europe has increasingly worse problems with immigration and assimilation than the U.S.

Ahistoric blaming isn't just lazy scholarship, it's also a problem for those who are concerned about what is going on in the here-and-now.  It's a shell game that people (en masse in the forms of both regional and national electorates) use to tell themselves that their decisions are alright, or even good, while equivalent past decisions of other nations were horrible and should be looked down upon.  It allows us to put a false distance between "us" and "them" and therefore falsely assert that our decisions are better, smarter, and more just, when they are, in fact, almost identical.

The Difference Between Criticism and Oppression

Since there seems to be some confusion on these points:

You are free to believe whatever you like. this includes, but is not limited to, the notion that there is a powerful deity answering your prayers, that members of some groups are irredeemably evil or astoundingly good, that there is no god and we are alone in the universe, that fairies exist and will help those who help them, and so on.  How you develop and maintain these beliefs are entirely your business, provided that you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.

You are free to say whatever you like, provided that it is not slander or a threat. This means that you can announce any of the beliefs you may have, including, but not limited to, those above.  Again, you may do as you will, provided that you do not infringe upon the rights of others in the process.

You are free to spend or not spend money on any legal item and at any legal business that you like. This means that you may support a business that is ideologically in-line with you.

You are free to do all of these things. No question.

However, you are not free to be exempt from criticism. No matter what you do or believe, there is someone else who disagrees. They may express that disagreement in any legal manner they choose - be it stating their criticisms (sometimes in a vulgar manner, sometimes eloquently), engaging in debate, engaging in legal protest, boycotting businesses, or choosing to patronize particular businesses.

And criticism is not the same thing as oppression. It is oppression when you use the force of law to make someone behave in a manner that your beliefs require, whether or not they share those beliefs. It is oppression when violence is used to enforce a particular arbitrary ideology. It is oppression when policies or laws require you to try to hide who you are for fear of reprisal.

But being told that you are delusional, a dick, a bigot, or some other such thing? Seeing the business that you support being boycotted by those who disagree with its policies? Having people argue against your ideas openly in the public sphere? That's criticism.

There are a few topics that we have grown accustomed to going unquestioned and uncriticized - religion is the big one, but certain ideas in politics, personal philosophies and the like also fall into this category.  But the fact that criticism has long been suppressed and frowned upon does not make it invalid, nor does it destroy the right of others to criticize these matters.

I often meet Christians (both of the right wing and left wing varieties) who assure me that they are uniquely under attack and oppressed.  Their evidence?  Well, people criticize their beliefs, there are public figures who advocate atheism, and now they may have to live in a society where gay people have rights!

Let me give you some fucking perspective.

I am an atheist.  In the city in which I live, there are multiple billboards and a number of signs which are extraordinarily insulting and state that someone who lacks a belief in a god, such as myself, is inherently bad, evil, untrustworthy, or just a sad little figure.  There are not, and have not been, equivalent signs pointed towards Christians.  Every time the local news runs a story about any topic that might have a religious angle, they call on a local pastor who is particularly out-of-touch with reality, and who blames all the ills of the world on people like me...oh, and on the gays.  When I am around town, it is not unheard of for people to try to make me pray with them, and then to become angry when I refuse.

I do not believe myself to be oppressed.  I am receiving criticism - all of it baseless, most of it stupid - but I am not being forced to do anything against my will, nor are my rights being denied to me.

I have yet to meet a Christian who has to put up with the same level of routine criticism that I do, and yet I know many who claim that what criticism they do receive is somehow a form of oppression, and is somehow worse than what everyone else receives, even though the plainly and objectively have it much, much better than the rest.  They are simply whining that they are increasingly having to accept the same type of criticism that all of the rest of us have been dealing with for decades. 

Let me give you a bit more perspective.  In countries such as Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanastan, there are many places where Christians are legitimately opressed.  They are murdered, their churches are bombed, they are attacked in the streets.  Here in the United States, these things don't happen.  Yeah, yeah, I know, your pastor has some story about a guy who knows a guy that was beat up for being Christian - but if you actually look up what occurred, you quickly discover that these stories are routinely either unverifiable (that is, made up) or are gross distortions of a very different set of circumstances.  What's more, nobody, but nobody, makes it to high elected office without making a point of trying to appease Christians - even if the religious right claims otherwise.

Or, to put it another way:

Christian "oppression" in the United states:  You are allowed to live, believe, and worship as you please.  However, you aren't allowed to force my children to recite prayers to your god in a public school and state-funded time.  You have to deal with the fact that I am allowed to disagree with you in public, so long as I do so in a legal manner.  You are increasingly unable to force people who are not members of your church to live as if they are.

Christian oppression in parts of the Middle East:  You have to hide who you are, there is a fair chance that you will be the victim of a bombing, stabbing, or shooting, and there are those within the government who wouldn't mind outlawing your existence, if they haven't already.

See the difference?  When an American Christian claims to be oppressed, they are not only factually wrong, they are demeaning and insulting to those who really are oppressed.

Similarly, we hear many a member of the religious right (which, of course, does not represent all, or even most, Christians, but it a sizable political force that has largely hijacked Christianity as a label) claim that gay rights is oppression of Christians.  As has been pointed out before, just as there are white supremacist churches that are allowed to spew their bile, so too will homophobic churches be allowed to spew their own.  Just as KKK members are allowed to teach their children delusional things about non-whites, so too will people be allowed to teach their children delusional things about non-straights.  Your right to be a bigot is not being taken away, but the cover that you have long used - that you aren't a bigot, that you are a "person of faith" who "believes in the biblical definition of marriage*" - is being questioned, criticized, and taken apart by those who see through it.  You can still claim it, just as white supremacists claim that they aren't racists, they just believe in the separation of races as taught in the Bible (Tower of Babel or Israelite conquest of Canaan, anyone?), but people are beginning to see through the obvious falsehood of it.


You are not oppressed when someone else gets the same rights that you have.  Men were not oppressed when women were finally granted the ability to vote.  Segregationists were not oppressed when the Jim Crow laws were struck down.  And Christians are not oppressed when non-Christian schoolchildren are not forced to recite Christian prayers, nor are any straight people oppressed when gay people are given their due rights.


You absolutely have the right to hold whatever beliefs you wish, to state them as you please, and to attend churches, patronize businesses, and associate with those with whom you agree.

But when you push for laws that would penalize others who do you no harm for being something that you dislike, you are the one engaging in oppression.  That you may soon have to accept that same-sex couples can marry no more oppresses you than the fact that mixed-race couples can marry oppresses white supremacists.  That it may soon be illegal across the nation to fire someone for being gay no more oppresses you than a chauvinist is oppressed by not being able to fire a woman without cause.  You are not being oppressed, you are simply not being allowed to oppress others.  Grow up and deal with it.

But you do not have a right to not be criticized.  and criticism is not oppression.  If you don't want to be labeled a bigot, then don't be a bigot.  But act like an adult and stop whining when you get called on your bullshit. 




*This routine statement pretty much proves that most of these people have never read the Bible.  Otherwise they would relaize just what a mess it is as regards the rules surrounding marriage.

Nerds, Geeks, and Growing Up

There are numerous blogs that I read which have recently had entries regarding what it means to be a "nerd" or "geek" (see here, here, here, and here for examples). These entries are typically either decrying that there is such a thing as "geek chic" in which those interests and skills that once were the territory of a select (and usually mocked) few have become mainstream interests or skills, or else they are reacting to the hatred directed towards the recent adoption of once geeky traits by the mainstream.

Some of this writing is quite good, some of it is bad, most of it is interesting...but I must admit that I find this all very odd.

Growing up during the 80s and early 90s, I was definitely a geeky kid. I was fascinated by Star Trek and Doctor Who, taught myself to write computer programs (even writing several computer games of my own design), owned and used a telescope, and was so painfully socially awkward that I cringe to think about it now that I am an adult. I was bullied, constantly and mercilessly. School was miserable (with a couple of teachers even joining in to the bullying), and much of this continued even in my life outside of school. While things improved a bit in high school, it wasn't until college that I finally broke free of it all and began to find more certain social footing - and even this came largely through the help of some excellent and patient friends (Scott, Kirin, Sarah: yeah, I know the role you guys played, thank you).

So, what I am saying is that I know what it was to be socially awkward, to be bullied, to have my interests and talents mocked and frowned upon. When I was in high school, I was infuriated by the kids who had been some of my biggest tormentors taking on the "lonely outsider" persona when it was essentially what they had thrust upon an unwilling me for so many years.

So, I can understand the impulse that many people have look with scorn upon those who currently label themselves as nerds or geeks. We earned the label through punishment, why should they get to take it as little more than a fashion statement?

But, while I understand the impulse, I think that this is a rather stupid thing over which to waste energy. Why? Because I have grown up.

Those popular kids who were trying on the persona of the loner? However much it infuriated me, that was typical teenage stuff. They were behaving appropriately for their age. And while some recognition from them would have been nice (even as simple as "wow, we treated you like crap, didn't we"), it didn't come, but my life went on anyway. They are adults now, past the posturing attitude, and I am an adult now, past being a victim. Yes, of course, many effects of the bullying linger, and the myriad of ways in which it has and continues to influence my thoughts and behaviors are too complex to get into here, but the actions themselves are in the past and, as an adult, I have had to put them into perspective. And, as a result, I have also had to put every aspect of my geekiness, both youthful and ongoing, into perspective.

Those things that I took pleasure in as a kid? Some of them I outgrew, others I still enjoy, and yet others I enjoy more now as I understand more about them. But they were never mine, at least not solely mine. That other people take pleasure in them is fine. It does not bother me one whit. Indeed, the fact tha Doctor Who has become popular within the United States means that it is easier both for me to get my hands on DVDs and to talk with people about it - I feel no need to look down on them for not knowing the ins-and-outs of Colin Baker's exit from the show, or even for not watching anything before the series 2005 re-launch. The presence of these people means that the show that I enjoy will continue to be produced, and for that I am grateful.

Similarly, while I may not be a particular fan of the changes made to Dungeons and Dragons (another old time geek hobby rapidly turning mainstream), that the game has been developing a fan base well outside of its traditional one of high school nerds and college students means that it is easier for me to find a gaming group in any moderate-sized city, instead of having to skulk around looking for players, like a junkie looking for a dealer, as was the case even just ten years ago. That these people have not played through the Temple of Elemental Evil or had to work out the intricacies of 1st-edition psionics rules matters little, they are now interested in the game, and that gives me more opportunities to play.

And the same is true for the many things that interested my childhood and teenage mind - Star Trek, computers, Isaac Asimov novels and short stories, etc. That these are increasingly common and mainstream means that I have more opportunities to continue my own interest, rekindle old flames, or discover something new. Certainly, there are many people hanging about with only a surface understanding of the subjects, but so what? They still help to make these things more widely available, and as such I am grateful.

What's more, the growing popularity of what was once the province of geeks and nerds alone means that more girls and women are becoming interested (or at least being comfortable with their interests). This means that my fiance is comfortable experiencing many of these interests with me, and that my daughter, as she grows up, will be able to share in some of her dad's interests.

Again, this is all to the good.

So, I don't take issue with people taking an interest in, or even making mainstream, those things for which I was teased, heckled, and bullied as a kid. I am, as I say, grateful that this is occurring as it increases my ability to enjoy those very things, and to do so without facing harassment for my pleasure. But what the terms "nerd" and "geek" themselves? How do I feel about people adopting them?

Truth be told, it does kind of irk me. But only a little bit.

I would be lying if I were to tell you that I don't feel a certain sense of territorialism about the terms. While I may not have wanted the terms applied to me, the fact that they were accompanied by abuse and derision means that I feel like I paid the price to own them now that they are becoming terms of endearment and occasionally respect. So, yes, I do get annoyed with people self-applying the term.

But, mostly, I wish the terms would just go away. My feeling of ownership is really not healthy. I didn't choose them - they were inflicted on me. I adopted them eventually, mostly to take the sting out the fact that they would be constantly applied ot me anyway, but they were always intended to be terms of abuse. The way that these terms were applied to me bears so little resemblance to the way that they are used now that the current terms "nerd" and "geek" are really homonyms of the terms that were applied to me, rather than the same terms. But they were derived from the earlier terms of abuse, and while some people may find this somehow empowering or inspiring, I just find it mildly annoying.

Still, the terms are here to stay, and they are now self-applied terms, and we might as well get used to it.

In short, the increasing mainstream acceptance of formerly geeky things works in the favor of those of us who have long enjoyed these things. We need to grow up and appreciate the benefit that we get from this and not treat it as a horrible development. As much as the labels "nerd" and "geek" may have defined me as a child and teenager, I am now an adult, better defined by such labels as "father", "fiance", "Archaeologist", "holder of an advanced degree", "published researcher", "nice guy to be around", etc. - you know, the labels of my accomplishments, and not those placed on me as terms of abuse, however much they may have been co-opted into meaninglessness.

"Oh, well, at least we're better than literary critics!"

Back in the 90s, when Newt Gingrich was still Speaker of the House, he made a speech in which he ranted about government waste (as he was wont to do), and specifically, in this one speech, he argued against government funding for science.  His argument was that the government should not be funding research undertaken purely to satisfy a scientist's curiosity*.

Flash forward ten years...

When I was in graduate school, I took the last graduate seminar class offered by Brian Fagan.  Brian, being the sort of person that he was, liked to challenge the student's assumptions about their own importance, and the importance of their chosen field.  Unsurprisingly, most of us graduate students tended to take the earth-shaking importance of archaeology as a given, with little thought as to whether or not our assumptions about the importance of our field of study were, in fact, justified.  Just as unsurprisingly, most of us also held that our own little corner of that field, the focus of our research and interests, was of vital importance to the whole.

I was a little different.  Of the students in the room, I was one of only two who had held any sort of long-term employment outside of academics.  I was, in short, one of only two who held any idea of what the world outside of our particular enclave actually thought of what we were doing**.

Brian, staring at each of us in turn, asked why we thought that non-archaeologists should consider archaeology to be important.  When he got to me, I responded "well, because we assume it is.  I can give a list of justifications for studying archaeology, but unless the person with whom I am speaking shares my basic assumptions, they're not going to be persuaded by any of them."

Needless to say, this earned me a round of derisive laughter and annoyed glares...by everyone except the one other guy who had been outside of academics, and, interestingly, Brian.

the next week, Brian threw a question out to the class, asking what we figured we should be doing to gain and/or maintain public interest in archaeology.  While a few of the other students talked about various public outreach measures (some of which were quite intelligent, others were pretty uninspiring), most simply stated that we should keep on just doing research and not worrying about it. 

It was at this point that I remembered the Newt Gingrich speech that I mentioned at the beginning.  And I brought this up, pointing out that a high elected official had found this type of argument (trying to get rid of research funding by appealing to cost-cutting and phrasing it in a rather anti-intellectual way) pretty effective, and that it indicated that there was a sizable, if currently minority, segment of the public that actually disliked the fact that archaeologists received public funding int he form of research grants.  

One particular graduate student, I'll call her Jesse (because it would likely annoy her to know that I was using such a plain, "common" name for her), rolled her eye, and said "there is no reason why we should have to justify ourselves to a bunch of uneducated fools who don't even have the brains to understand what we're doing anyway."

I pointed out that in taking this attitude, she was ceding the public discussion to the people who wanted to reduce of entirely stop funding for archaeological research, and that this attitude that the lay public was somehow too stupid to understand what we were doing, but should continue to fund us anyway, was (in addition to being arrogant, wrong-headed, and just plain incorrect) one of the factors feeding the anti-intellectualism that many politicians depend on.  If we were so arrogant that we didn't think that we needed to defend what we did, then we were essentially ceding the field to those who would like us defunded, and while it might take decades, they would eventually win.

She rolled her eyes at me, as she tended to do to anyone who was a lowly MA student and not on the PhD track.  The then re-asserted that the general public was too stupid to understand her work, but that they would continue to fund it because it was so obviously important. 

Brian seemed to be enjoying this, and so her went from looking rather bored earlier in the day to looking intensely interested.

I pointed out to her that the research that Gingrich had been making hay by bashing was in fields such as genetics, chemistry, and physics, all of which have much more direct benefits to the public, and much easier to grasp reasons to fund.  Jesse again rolled her eyes, and shouted "oh, well, you can go ahead and waste your time with the idiots!  I have more important things to do!  And if you think we're going to get defunded, oh, well, at least we're better than literary critics!  They don't produce ANYTHING!"

And with that, Brian called the symposium to a close.  The next day, he asked me to talk to him in his office, and he announced that he was rather happy to see someone actually going against the grain and trying to inject a bit of reality.  So, it was nice to know that someone valued my opinion.

At the time, as stated, I was in the MA track, but I had the potential to switch to a PhD.  There are a few specific events that convinced me not to pursue the higher degree, though, and this was one of them.  I value research, and obviously I think that archaeology is a valuable field to pursue.  But I am also aware that I hold these beliefs based on a particular value system to which I adhere, and while I believe that it is a valid and strong value system, I am very well aware that I live in a society where elected officials hold a good deal of sway over what does and does not receive funding, and that the decisions that these officials make are based on a number of factors, one of the larger ones being what they believe either their voters want or they can convince their constituents to support. 

To not try to let the public know what we are doing, how we are doing it, and why we are doing it is for us, as a field, to commit suicide.  Indeed, the fact that a fellow academic was so ready to dismiss those who work in literary criticism shows both the snottiness of some archaeologists, but also where failing to defend a field gets you - there are many good reasons to study literature and literary criticism, many of which have very real consequences in the world (the literary critics that I know have often been the best at spotting political smoke-and-mirrors and working to expose it, after all, they understand narratives, which is what politicians generate), but these are rarely expressed in forums where the general public hears them.  As a result, literary criticism is often viewed as little more than intellectual masturbation by those outside the academy, regardless of how valuable it may actually be.  Similarly, the general public may believe that archaeology is valid now, but after a generation or two of politicians and pundits decrying government funding for research, it will be difficult to defend continued funding (or laws requiring archaeological review for construction) if people who value archaeology are not vocally showing their support and trying to win out in the intellectual marketplace that is the public sphere.

What's more, when academics of any stripe assume that the "general public" is too stupid to understand research, they not only underestimate the general public, they justify one of the great rhetorical weapons that the anti-intellectuals and those who for other reasons want to cut funding have:  they can point to researchers as being self-indulgent snobs with no regard for the common people.  It's an effective tactic, one that has worked before.  We have to be better not only at defending ourselves, but also humbler when doing so.  And it is entirely possible to defend research work without dumbing it down.  Brian Fagan is quite good at this, as was Carl Sagan and his successor, Niel DeGrasse-Tyson.  But we have to understand that this is necessary, and be ready and willing to do it.

If we don't, then perhaps we deserve the professional extinction that we will face.






*I will argue about the problems with such an attitude another time.  For now, I will simply say that it is, from an economic and technological standpoint, a very short-sided position to take.

 **I will not, however, refer to the world outside of the university as "the real world" partially because that's the sort of thing that only condescending assholes do, and partially because one of the most important lessons I learned in the business  world before returning to graduate school was that there is no "real world", the people in business face a particular set of challenges and adversities that people in academics don't, but they are equally sheltered from a variety of challenges and adversities that people in academics have to deal with.  And pretty much everyone living in affluent nations is sheltered, to some degree, from the "real world" outside of our comfort zones.  So, if you are the sort of person who thinks that you know what it's like "out int he real world" you are probably just as sheltered as the people who you look down upon.

Feast or Famine

One of the more annoying aspects of consulting work is the feast-or-famine nature of the enterprise.  So, I can have a period of a few weeks when I am having to scrounge for work to keep my time card full, followed by a couple of weeks in which I don't have time to breath.

I have to wonder how this is going to play out in the future.  It's already a bit of a trouble when I get bogged down - Kaylia can't drive, and Fresno has truly horrendous public transportation, so me being busy at work results either in Kaylia having trouble getting around town or in me leaving work to provide transportation and returning to work later, often coming home rather late.  With a child, things may be more chaotic, and it is going to be a challenge to keep things running.  At the same time, I will need to keep things running as I am the only income for our family.

The flip side is that when things are slower and there isn't as much work, while I am available to take care of errands and chores without burying myself in work, I am less certain that I will be able to put together enough work to justify a full-time salary, which is necessary because, as noted, I am the only income in our family.

Yay, stress!

Now, clearly it is possible to manage this, as several people who I know (including two with whom I currently work) have done so while they were in my current position.  Luckily, as noted, I work with them, so I can pick their brains and make sure that I am managing, as well.

Still, I would be lying if I were to say that there aren't times that I worry.

Revenge of HAZWOPER!

These last couple of months have not been kind to my ability to write on this blog.  I have had a series of involving projects at work, I have had to help Kaylia with various medical issues, baby prep is keeping us occupied at home, and I have been sent out of town somewhat frequently. 

So, as much as I like writing this blog, it's been relatively low on the priority list.  Which is unfortunate, as I do really enjoy writing for it.

Anyway, with any luck I will be back on track with writing at some point before the end of the year.

For now, though, I am spending the day at work doing a HAZWOPER refresher course.  HAZWOPER, for those new or who don't remember earlier posts, is the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response certification.  As we frequently end up having to dig through old industrial waste and monitor construction and remediation work in places with industrial waste, it's not uncommon for archaeologists to be HAZWOPER certified.  I did the full 40-hour course last year (two of my more popular posts describe it and the various imbeciles also taking the class, and they can be found here and here).

Thankfully, the refresher course is only 8 hours, and I can do it on-line (though this is only recommended every other year, as it is a good idea to be in the classroom regularly as well).  This means that I don't have to deal with the twits I dealt with last time: the prison preacher, the pretty-boy oil field worker, the comic-book-guy-like fellow who wanted me to hire him as an "archaeologist's assistant, etc.  On the downside, I don't get any more amusing stories about those twits. 

I am a bit torn on these courses.  On the one hand, I am happy to be able to do them, and they do add to my employability and my skill base, which is quite good in my opinion.  On the other hand, it means that I am one of the few people around these parts likely to be sent off to deal with hazardous waste, and even with the training and safe work practices, this does put me at a slightly elevated risk for problems.  Still, with a kid on the way and a desire to continue advancing career-wise, I suppose that doing this sort of thing is a net good.

Anyway, I hope that my readers are having more relaxing summers.

Landowner Fun!

I am currently engaged in a project to evaluate the potential for changes to a transmission line to impact cultural resources.  Translation:  I'm walking along, underneath power lines*, looking for archaeological sites.

The thing about power line surveys is that they tend to take you across alot of privately-owned land.  Now, to be clear, we are walking in existing easements, meaning that we are on land that the landowners knew was used by the utilities companies when they bought the land, so out presence shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.  Nonetheless, these types of projects tend to produce some unpleasant interactions with land owners.

Note one thing - I am not going to talk about any interactions with landowners that I have had during this project.  For a variety of reasons, this would be unprofessional, and I'm not going to do it.  However, I can speak about past projects, ones now long-since resolved and where describing these interactions will not create a problem, provided that I don't actually tell you who (other than me) was involved, or where they occurred.  Okay?  Okay.

Actually, come to think of it, note another thing: I am actually sympathetic to the landowners.  I'd be taken aback too if I saw strange people wandering on my land, even if I knew that the utlities company had an easement.  It's a bit weird and alarming to see strangers in an area where you anticipate nobody that you don't know, and I get why they can be a bit irate.  For this reason, I do a few things to try to make it clear that we are not sneaking onto their land or trying to get away with anything.  I wear a bright-orange safety vest, and I make all members of my crew wear similar vests, so that we will be clearly visible.  Whenever we pass near a building, I try to keep an eye open to see if there are any people out, and if there are, I at the very least wave to them, and if feasible, I'll walk over and talk to them, letting them know who I am and what i am up to.  If our project area passes near a house's main entrance, I will try knocking on the door to let the land owner know that I am there.  And, on rare occasion, when I have a phone number, I will call ahead of time to let them know that I am coming.

When we encounter landowners, there's, somewhat surprisingly, usually no issues.  Most of them see that we are trying to be visible, and while they may not be happy about us being there, they understand that they did buy land with an easement**, they get that we are there because our bosses sent us there, and they are perfectly polite to us.  Nonetheless, there is still occasional confrontation.  Interestingly, the confrontation usually moves in a predictable way, almost as if it had been scripted ahead of time.  Here's a common example:

Landowner:  Why are you sneaking onto my property?

Me:  Hello.  We're not sneaking on, I apologize if this came off that way.  We were told that [my client] had notified all landowners that we would be through here.  Also, we are wearing safety vests to be visible to all landowners so that you can be sure that we are not deviating from the line's route.

Landowner:  Oh, so [my client] thinks it can send people to sneak onto my land?

Me:  As I say, to the best of my knowledge, [my client] notified landowners.  I apologize if you did not receive notice...

Landowner:  Nobody told me you'd be here!***

Me:  Would you like us to leave?

Landowner:  No...no, I guess you should finish your work.



It is, in my experience, always good to offer to leave when confronted by the landowner, as they will almost never ask you to - they know that the easement exists and they don't have a right to keep utilities crews off of the lines - but this puts them into a position where they can not honestly claim that you were rude, pushy, or otherwise troublesome.  On the off-chance that they ask you to leave, it becomes the utility company's job to deal with them, and they utility company has more time and money (and ways to avoid firearms) to dedicate to it than you do.

In other cases, the landowner is indifferent to us doing our work, but they do not grasp that, as a contractor, I am not in a position of authority with the utility company, and complaining to me won't solve whatever dispute they have with the utility company.

For example...


Landowner:  What are you doing out here?

Me: We're doing [appropriate-level description of what we're doing] on the transmission lines.

Landowner:  What is [my client] planning on doing?

Me: They are [insert description of project that my client allows me to provide to people].

Landowner:  Oh yeah?  Well, last time YOU GUYS came through, you [thing that landowner blames my client for].

Me:  Yeah, that sounds bad.  I'm sorry that that happened, but I'm a contractor to [my client], not their representative.  I don't know anything about what happened before.

Landowner:  Really?  So, then, how are you going to keep it from happening again?

Me:  Like I say, I'm a contractor, I don't know anything about [bad incident], I wasn't around for that.  I don't know why it happened.  You'll need to talk with [client public contact for project].

Landowner:  No, you are here now, you are part of [my client], you are going to answer for THIS!

Me:  I am not part of [my client], I am a contractor.  I am here to do [appropriate level of description of my task], and nothing else.  I don't know anything about your concern, and can't help you, as much as I would like to.

Landowner:  This is what's wrong with [my client] - you all want to kick the can to someone else!


Most people are perfectly capable of grasping the difference between a contractor and a company's representative.  But every now and again, you'll get one of these people who either can't or doesn't want to grasp that yelling a single-service contractor about something outside of their service area is both futile and stupid.

Oh well.

There are also landowners who will try to challenge us on the utility company's need to have someone on their land - even though they will freely admit that they bought the land knowing that it had an easement.

These conversations go something like...

Landowner:  What are you doing on MY land?

Me:  We're contractors to [my client].  We're doing transmission line surveys for [description we're allowed to give].

Landowner:  Oh, and so [my client] needs to be on MY land for that, do they?

Me:  I don't know the technical specifications.  As I say, I'm here for [appropriate description], and a construction person would need to answer your question.  [client's point of contact] could help you out.

Landowner:  So, you don't want to tell me what is going to happen on MY land!

Me:  I can't tell you because I don't know.  Like I say, a construction person could explain how they're going to [description of work] and where they'll need to be for it.

Landowner:  Then why isn't a construction person the one out here?

Me:  Because a construction worker can't do my job.  I have to be out here.

Landowner:  So, YOU don't want to answer my question!

Me:  I did answer your question to the best of my abilities.  You'll have to speak with [client's point of contact].

Landowner:  So, [my client] thinks that they need to be on MY land to [project description, usually mangled].


And the conversation just spins in circles for a while until they get bored and/or figure out that I am neither going to feel intimidated by them, nor fly off the handle and give them reason to complain to my client.

Then, of course, there's the ones who mean well, and are perfectly polite, but who simply don't understand that you have a job to do, and it would be easier to do without them stepping into the middle of it.  Oh, and these people also don't understand what it is that you actually do.  Here's an example from my early days in archaeology, when I worked with one of the few remaining colleges that still sent archaeologists out to do basic CRM work...

Me:  Hi, we're from Cabrillo College.  We're here to do the survey.

Landowner:  Oh, yes!  So, what is it that you're looking for?

Me:  Well, we're archaeologists, so we're looking for artifacts, bedrock mortars, things like that.

Landowner:  Oh, so, are you going to be looking for earthquake fingers?

Me:  What's an earthquake finger?

Landowner:  Oh, you know.  There's also some interesting rocks around back, they seem to be coming out of a layer in my garden, and I think they're unusual in this area.

Me:  Oh!  No, you're thinking of geologists.  They study rocks and soils.  We're archaeologists, we're just looking for evidence of past human remains - so the sites of old villages or hunting sites, stuff like that.

Landowner:  Well, these rocks are interesting, and you might want to look at them.

Me:  Do they look like they were made into tools?

Landowner:  Oh, now, they're much older than people.  But they look kind of volcanic to me, so someone in your line of work would be interested.

Me:  Ma'am, as I said, we're not geologists.  We're only interested in rocks is they have been modified by humans.

Landowner:  Right, yeah, yeah.  So, anyway, those rocks might be important.  Also, I assume that you are going to be looking for earthquake fingers!


She proceeded to follow us around for the next hour, talking constantly about the damn rocks (which turned out to be old chunks of concrete) and "earthquake fingers" (which I believe was the mutant power of one of the X-Men).  We could have gotten the work done in half of the time if she had left us alone.

Anyway, there you go, landowner encounters are fun!









*And, no, I am not worried that this will somehow cause me to get cancer, for I am scientifically literate and know how to look up studies to find out what claims are bullshit.

**Most of the easements that I have walked are for lines that are 70+ years old, so while there may be the occasional person who inherited land with the easement, the vast majority bought the land knowing full well that there was an easement.

***While I suspect that some landowners are sometimes not notified, I have often been holding a signed letter stating that we are allowed on the land by the person claiming that they were not notified.  On other occasions, I have spoken with landowners on the phone the night before to make sure that they were okay with our presence, only to have them tell me the next day that they never received notice.  In other words, while this is sometimes probably true, I have unfortunately learned that most people lie about not having been notified.

More Useless Advice Regarding Pregnancy and Childbirth

I was prepared for some of this, and I know that Kaylia is getting it worse than I am, but I am growing increasingly tired of the sheer volume of pregnancy and baby-related mystical nonsense and dubious and dangerous pseudo-science being pushed our way.  It began as a bit of a trickle, but the waters are rising, and I suspect it will be a full-on deluge before all is said and done.

As I say, it started small, but early, when Kaylia wrote on Facebook that she had eaten a few Chicken McNuggets early in the pregnancy for the wacky reason that they were about the only thing that her body wasn't making her vomit up. This received a huge amount of criticism, accusing Kaylia of "poisoning your baby!" as the people commenting on it demonstrated a complete and utter lack of comprehension of reality by confusing their culturally-conditioned notions of what is "gross" with more objective standards regarding what is actually dangerous.

Since then, we have received routine advice from well-meaning but ill-informed people about the value of such quackery as homeopathy and power-balance bracelets in dealing with pregnancy related problems.  As the people offering the advice usually have the best of intentions (and in the case of homeopathy, have typically been misled by the way that that particular quackery is marketed, and aren't aware that it is literally just water or sugar pills), we sometimes argue the point and sometimes just let it go, but have so far not followed any of it. 

As we have moved farther along in the pregnancy, we have been further drawn in to the absurdity that I call the Breast Milk Wars.  Now, to start, I should state the following:  I am well aware that the data supports breast feeding as an excellent way to ensure that the child is well-nourished and healthy, and may also provide psychological benefits for both the mother and child.  Moreover, I am not bothered by women breast-feeding in public.  So, people who find breast feeding repugnant, frankly, do seem to be pushing away a healthy practice, and people who get bent out of shape about children being fed in public places strike me as remarkably silly, often bordering on misogynistic.

However, breast milk is not magical.  While it may be the healthier choice, it is not an alchemical elixir that will solve all ills, and I have become more than slightly tired of smug, arrogant (and, it should be noted, generally privileged white people) attempting to stretch the actual data beyond all recognition in order to vilify or otherwise look down upon mothers who are unable or unwilling to engage in breast feeding.  Moreover, not every mother is capable of breast feeding as often as they would want, or their child would need.  In addition, we live in a world in which physical reality trumps all, and if the mother is away when the child needs to be fed, someone other than the mother is going to have to do it. Some of the logistical problems can be dealt with via a breast pump, but if the mother is unable to produce enough milk, even the pump isn't going to help.  Nonetheless, I have seen and heard more than a few rants lately in which the speaker (who while typically female is, interestingly from a social standpoint, also often male) rants about the evils of forumla, breats pumps, and any other thing that doesn't involve the child directly drinking from the mother, and about how anyone who would use such materials or devices is clearly either deluded or evil.  These rants are usually followed with "but I would never think to judge the decision of a woman who does differently than I."

In fact, for almost every one of these types of things that we have encountered, at least one person delivering a rant, pitch, or insane ramble is followed by them stating that they are not judging parents who do not act as they did.  Sorry, folks, but when you have just made your judgmental nature clear, you don't get out of it by claiming that you are not being judgmental anymore than a KKK member gets out of being racist by announcing that they aren't racist.

And the list goes on.  Recently, we were informed that choosing to have our child in a hospital (you know, those institutions with trained medical staff, each of whom has years or decades of experience in dealing with the myriad of potential complications involved in childbirth, on hand to deal with emergencies - AKA the institutions that mad the phrase "died in childbirth" something of an anachronism) is "sad."  No, it's not sad to want to have our child in a place and with people who can make sure that both our child and Kaylia are well taken care of.  The notion that we have committed some grievous wrong or are otherwise doing something bad in choosing to make a wise and prudent choice for the health of Kaylia and our child is what is sad.  No, actually, it's not sad, it's disturbing.

Oh, and, of course, there's the lunacy of people who think that vaccines are some big corporate conspiracy.  Vaccines.  You know, the things that made measles, polio, and rubella largely things of the past - though they are coming back due to the foolishness of the fore-mentioned privileged people who have never had to actually see the effects that these diseases have on children and communities.  Let me tell you this:  I have seen, first-hand, the long-term effects of some of these illnesses, and those who are choosing to avoid vaccines because they belief in the insane propaganda pushed by ideologues and fools are irresponsible and should be deeply ashamed of themselves.  But, of course, they won't be, instead they'll continue to put their communities and their own children at risk in the name of their bizarre and paranoid ideologies.

And all of that is the stuff that gets aimed primarily at Kaylia.  Let's talk briefly about the bizarreness that is aimed at fathers.

It came as little surprise to me that the majority of popular books on pregnancy and childbirth subscribe to the antiquated "dad, the idiot" model.  While the information in these books for fathers is useful, it is typically written in the most astoundingly condescending manner possible, and often verges into the realm of the mind-numbingly obvious.  For example, I have been informed that my partner may not be interested in sex when in the throes of morning sickness (if a man doesn't recognize this fact, then he has some issues that pre-date the pregnancy and likely render him unfit as a human, much less a father), that my partner may need emotional support while going through the pregnancy (what?  She might need emotional support while going through massive physical changes and alterations due to hormonal changes?  If you didn't already know this, how did you convince a woman let you get close enough to get her pregnant?).  Likewise, while these books do provide useful information on infant care for both mothers and fathers, they again adopt the attitude that childcare should be left to the (female) adults, and that the children (anyone with a Y chromosome, regardless of age) should just run along to their workplace to play and not worry their pretty little heads with the responsibilities of a caregiver.

Interestingly, one of the few books I have so far seen that accepts a significant role might be played by the father after fertilization is the "Husband Coached Childbirth" (AKA the Bradley Method) approach which, as far as I can tell, is not specifically religious in nature, but has earned a degree of popularity amongst the various religious-right sorts that I have met.  While it does have some really good ideas about how to reduce medical interventions during labor and delivery, it was written largely as a response to now-discarded practices from the 1940s and 1950s, and as such, its creators' anti-intervention stance should be more critically examined than it seems to be.  The culture of the Bradley Method is also so thoroughly steeped in pseudo-science and anti-medical rhetoric that, while it may have some useful ideas for the role of fathers, I have to admit that I have had to hold my nose when thumbing through the book.

So, the more "traditional" books seem to regard the father as an expendable amateur.  Surely the progressives will recognize the importance of both parents and encourage the father as a nurturer both to his partner and to their child, right?

Well, sort of, some of the time.  When it doesn't interfere with mystical thinking.

Many (though, it should be noted, thankfully not all) of the self-described "progressive parents" with whom I associate seem to have developed very clearly defined and inviolable roles for men and women in their minds, and these roles seem to typically play very much into the standard gender stereotypes with which Pat Robertson et al. would be very comfortable:  The father goes to work, brings home the money, and has only a limited role in childcare; the mother does all (and I mean all, no exception) feeding, most (if not all) basic care (bathing, changing, comforting, etc.) of the child, and is responsible for early childhood education.  Kaylia has been informed that she should not allow me to feed our child (even if I am using stored breast milk), and I have been often informed that, as I lack a uterus, I am incapable of reaching any sort of informed decision regarding childcare.

The difference between the religious right version and the progressive version of this seems to be centered around the idea of whether men or women are more valuable.  The religious right holds that the man is the head of the household, and all within it must submit to him.  The progressives hold that women are magical (though they will usually use terms such as "natural caregivers and nurturers" rather than "magical", but the use of the term "natural" might as well be substituted with the word "magical" for all of the actual meaning that it has), and fathers are doofuses who shouldn't be entrusted with the well-being of the child.  Us men are either dominators or dorks, and either way, we don't have what it takes to be anything other than either the breadwinner or the disciplinarian. 

Both sides will, of course, insist that they aren't claiming either gender is superior, they just have different roles.  Both sides are, of course, actually claiming that one gender is, in fact superior, and the other worthwhile only within a particular confined role.

Anyway, I have no more to say at the moment.  I'm just irritated and annoyed. 

On the upside, I will be a daddy soon, and I am looking forward to pissing off all ideologues by taking an active role in every aspect of my child's life.

The Friend Zone...Like the Twighlight Zone, but Less Real

I loathe the term "the Friend Zone."  It is one of those terms that seems to get thrown around without much thought, generally by men as an excuse for why they have had little success with dating and/or sex.  My dislike for this term comes from my often-stated dislike for sloppy thinking and irrational claims, and as such I am not going to get into a discussion of whether or not the idea of the Friend Zone is born out of issues pertaining to privilege or misogyny (besides, more articulate individuals than myself have already done so).  Instead I will explain that my dislike for the term and concept comes from the sheer idiocy of it.

First, a bit of background.  I used to believe in the Friend zone.  More, I thought that I was one of it's sad inhabitants.  Throughout my teens and much of my 20s, I made very little progress on the relationship front, often feeling bewildered by the social situations in which I found myself, finding that anytime a woman was interested in me as anything more than a friend, she lost interest relatively quickly, and I usually ended up feeling hurt.  Like many young men, I found myself looking at the poor treatment being dished out by some of the other young men, and figured that women were attracted to assholes.  Unlike some other young men, though, I at least was reflective enough to see that my own behaviors likely had something to do with me being alone.  Still, nonetheless, I believed that there was a "friend zone" from which one could not return once banished, and that it was populated with nice young men like myself.

What began to turn my view around was a conversation with a friend in which she ranted at great length about how "all men are promiscuous, and don't care who they hurt!"  Being a man who has never been promiscuous, this assertion annoyed me, and when called on the basic sexism of her statement, my friend decided to back it up by pointing out the number of men who both she and her female friends had encountered who either cheated, or else were willing to manipulate women for sex, and then vanish. 

At the time, I had a housemate who, perhaps a couple of times a month, would go to the local bars and clubs looking for a one-night stand.  He was willing to say any line, make any empty promise, and play any game to get laid.  Needless to say, it was a rare night when he went out trolling for sex that he didn't bring someone home or end up at someone else's home.  Assuming that he managed to do this twice a month, which is a fair estimate based on what I saw, that means that 24 different women got to some degree involved with him per year.  By contrast, our other housemate was single part of the year, but tended to be more reserved, and not given to manipulation or lies, and while not necessarily averse to one-night-stands, was always honest about this and tended to pursue relationships.  As a result, he tended to end up in bed with fewer women over the course of the year, probably 2-3, and (based on conversations I had with a couple of them after they were no longer in contact with him) he never left them feeling confused, used, or manipulated.  As yet another contrast, due to my own general shyness and social incompetence, I spent that year celibate.

So, running the numbers, one man could easily convince 24 women that he's a cad, another man could convince another two or three that he's a decent guy, and one would simply be inoffensive.    Even though the men who were not assholes outnumbered the cad 2-to-1 (and probably by a much larger margin in the general population outside of my post-college apartment), the one who was willing to behave poorly impacted the views of a larger number of women, thus making his type seem far more common than he really is.  

What does this have to do with the "friend zone"?  Simple - most of the concept of the "friend zone" revolves around the notion that "women only date assholes" and/or "I'm a nice guy, and that's why women don't go for me".  So, I realized after I crunched the numbers, 24 women would "date an asshole" (more like have sex with one, but the terminology never seems to change), but, contrary to most of the rhetoric surrounding the "friend zone" they would not know that he was an asshole until after the fact because he was good at manipulating them. What's more, though, most women didn't fall for the manipulative jerk, but he would keep trying until someone did, which allowed specific cases to be cherry-picked by those who wished to find examples of "women always going for assholes", allowing them to convince themselves of the truth of this position while never engaging in the essential dishonesty of how they were building their case.   In other words, the women didn't go after an asshole so much as someone who was an asshole didn't have any problem engaging in manipulative and deceptive behavior (because he's an asshole) and messed with a particular sub-set of women.  So, in the process of calling out my friend's sexism, I ended up confronting the more complicated reality of the so-called asshole.  In doing this, I was forced to confront the fact that most women were not going after assholes, and that the problem really wasn't with women, it was with the deceptive behaviors of a small but active number of men.


The other, related, part of the "friend zone" concept is that women don't go for nice guys.  Yet, in looking at this, I had to realize that this was manifestly untrue.  Again, most women didn't fall for the lines, lies, and manipulations.  So, most women showed discretion most of the time.  Also, the other housemate was certainly not lacking for feminine company, and he treated everyone in his life, women and men alike, quite well, showing that women were perfectly willing to choose the company and companionship of someone who was decent.  I was alone in being alone, but just as the caddish housemate's active sex life was due to his poor behavior, my lack of one was also due to my behavior.

Now, a quick digression.  If you look up anything written by anyone who is critical of the "friend zone" concept, there is a tendency to insist that the "nice guys" who complain of being "banished to the friend zone" are really just misogynistic bastards who view women as sex objects and nothing more, and who think that they are owed something by the women in their lives, and who only associate with women in the hopes of getting their romantic or sexual attentions.  This is an over-simplification and over-generalization par excellence.  There are a number of them who are like this, to be certain - I have met many a self-proclaimed "nice guy" whose nice behaviors are simply them attempting to build up some sort of account that they hope or expect to someday be paid out in affection or sex, who are emotionally handicapped to the point that they are incapable of having genuine friendships with women.  However, this is not, in any way, a universal description of the men who believe themselves to be stranded in the "friend zone." 

For myself, I did do many things to help others, including women to whom I was attracted.  I would rescue people stranded by malfunctioning cars, be a shoulder to cry on when something had gone awry, and perform various friendly tasks for others.  I did not, however, do these things expecting to be paid back in some way, nor did I do them in the hopes of attracting a particular type of attention.  I never expected that either would be the case.  I did them because I genuinely wanted to help or please the people for whom I was doing them - that's it, no expectation of anything else.  And I didn't just do them for women to whom I was attracted, I did them for most of the people in my life.  Even today, when I am in a stable long-term relationship, I still do these things when time and resources allow, because I like doing them for people.

Likewise, I didn't engage in friendships with women simply out of the hopes that someday they would notice what a helluva' guy I was and decide to fall for me.  I did so because I liked them as people, and it is worth noting that I maintained these friendships for years after any attraction I felt had faded.

So, I wasn't just a self-proclaimed "nice guy" who does nice things in the hopes of some sort of payout, I was someone who genuinely liked being helpful and being friends without thought of some sort of future payout.  I think that, arguably, I really was a nice guy, as opposed to a "nice guy."

Okay, so back to the topic - in dispelling the notion that all, or even most, men are pigs, I had to confront the notion that a small sub-set of piggish men could cause a disproportionate amount of damage to the feelings and lives of others, thus making their sort look more common than they really are, and giving embittered individual a false feeling of certainty when they declared that "women only date assholes" despite the fact that this is manifestly untrue.  This, in turn, caused me to look at why I fared so poorly on the romance and sex front.  I was quickly forced to deal with a fact that I had long known, but chosen to ignore: nobody had banished me to the "friend zone" - my own shyness and lack of knowledge and skill at communicating my feelings and interests had made it impossible for any of the women I met to know if I was interested in something more than friendship, and so they assumed that I was not.  Nobody had banished me, I had unknowingly banished everyone else.

And this is, by and large, the truth of it.  I have yet to meet a man who claims to be stuck "in the friend zone" who has not their own behavior to blame.  The simple fact of the matter is that not every woman is interested in any given man, and there are those to whom you will never be anything but a friend.  This can be a nice position, most of my closest and most valued friends have been women, and I feel much the richer for having them in my life.  But if every woman you meet views you as "a good friend" as opposed to "a potential romantic partner", there is a near 100% chance that it is you, and not them, that is doing something wrong.  Perhaps, like me, you are shy and uncomfortable with social situations...that's still you're problem and not theirs, just as it was my problem and not anyone else's.  Perhaps you are the opposite, too forward and not able to behave appropriately under the right circumstances - again, you're problem, not someone else's.  The point is this - if you believe that you have been "banished", then it is not them, but you, who needs to look at your behavior and see what's going on.

either I nor anyone else is, or ever has been, owed relationships, sex, affection, etc.  And not everyone to whom you are attracted will return the interest, deal with it.  But if nobody ever does, then it's probably a mistake that you are making, not anyone else's failure to recognize what a catch you are.  This "friend zone" nonsense is the product of placing one's own shortcomings onto another.  It's a bad hypotheses based on sloppy thinking and a heaping dollop of confirmation bias, and as such, I rather loathe it.

Virus, Looters, and Antiques, Oh My!

So, I had all of the fieldwork in the last month and a half or so, but figured that, now that it was done, I'd be able to get back to a normal blogging schedule. 

And then my computer got hit with a particularly nasty rootkit virus, which after a week-long battle and the failure of multiple anti-malware programs I finally took to someone who actually knows what they are doing, and will therefore be without my computer for most of the next few days.  So, I may not be blogging as per normal.  I'm sure everyone is so sorely disappointed.

Fnord.

Quick story, though - yesterday, Kaylia and I went to take care of the last of the Christmas shopping*.  We ended up in old town Clovis, which, as far as I can tell, as a five-block area consisting entirely of antique shops and Italian restaurants.  Anyway, in one of the antique shops, we found a large collection of flaked stone tools and groundstone tools (including an unusual quartz mano) in a glass display case.  Not telling the owner who I was or what I do, I asked him about the tools, and he replied that he used to be a rancher and that all of these tools came from his ranch.  He then went on to tell me about digging them out of sites that he was sure would yield stuff.  After a few minutes, I mentioned that I was an archaeologist, and he continued to go on about the virtues of digging into sites and just looking for "the good stuff."

As we left, Kaylia asked me why I was looking annoyed and perturbed.  I told her about my conversation with the shop owner, and expressed that after a bit, I had really wished he'd stopped talking.  He appeared to not know that he was actually destroying sites more than recovering artifacts, and that his lack of documentation made the artifacts less interesting to me, as I had no idea where they came from or what they meant.  He just kept going on, with me getting more annoyed and disheartened as he continued. 

Oh well.

On the up-side, I then got to go home and deal with a rootkit virus.




*If you were at all annoyed at an atheist celebrating Christmas, then work to get it removed as a federal holiday.  As long as our institutions are shut down and we are therefore forced to observe it, we're going to have fun with it, and there ain't nothin' you can do about it.

Dodgin' Codgers

Several years back, when I was an intern in an Air Force base's environmental office, one of my tasks was to travel around the base to check up on various sites that were threatened by erosion and document their condition.  These sites were usually in spots that were far from buildings and structures, but in areas that the folks who would come onto the base to go fishing would frequent*.  So, it was no surprise when, one spring day, I encountered an elderly fisherman standing next to one of the sites.

He saw me coming, and decided that he wanted to see who I was and what I was doing there - amusing in that I was there performing a base-required work task and he was there because the base allowed him to be there - and I explained that I was one of the archaeologists on base, checking up on various locations.  He looked at me with what I assume was supposed to be contempt, but instead came across as cartoonish grumpiness, and said "well, you people shouldn't be bothering over here!  I've seen stuff that came out of Honda Canyon** and you have plenty to study from there and you don't need to be looking anywhere else!"

I went on to try to explain that we don't just study large quantities of artifacts, but that the locations of sites was also of importance, and under federal law we were required to at least make a good-faith effort to know what was going on with sites on base, regardless of whether or not we did anything to or with said sites.

He simply nodded his head and said "I don't know who you think you're talking to, but I'm a veteran, and I was an electrical engineer!  Don't think that you can pull one over on me!"

This seemed astoundingly strange.  That he was in the military and an electrical engineer had, of course, no bearing whatsoever on archaeology.  I responded, int he calmest voice I could muster, "I don't doubt that, but I'm an archaeologist, and I understand my field, and what I have told you is accurate."

"No it isn't!  If you believe that then you don't know what you're talking about."

The hell?  Now, I am accustomed to people with no experience thinking that they know more about archaeology than I do, it's a common enough delusion, but they didn't usually throw out irrelevancies about their past career as would-be evidence of their allegedly superior knowledge.  This guy, though, just seemed to want to be right, and int he face of someone who was clearly more knowledgeable on a particular subject, he decided simply to push his weird-ass notions anyway.

"You're as bad as the wildlife biologist" he then said to me.

"Heh?"  I wittily responded.

"Yeah, that wildlife bioldogist, Nancy whatshername, the one who says that the snowy plovers are endangered even though they aren't!"

Ahh, the snowy plovers.  These are a type of beach bird the status of which is a bit controversial.  The Fish and Wildlife service holds that they are endangered and that the base's beaches were among the few pristine habitats left.  The local public, and a few biologists not involved with the base, claimed that they were not endangered.  The base biologists were caught in the middle, required to enforce the Fish and Wildlife Service's ruling, even though they were not sure if they agreed with it.

So, I explained to the fellow that the biologist didn't make that ruling, and that it had come from the outside.

"No, it didn't!"  He insisted, "she's the one who claims that they're endangered!"

I explained again that the biologist didn't make that ruling, I didn't even know if she agreed with that ruling, and that I had a bit more knowledge of the matter than he did because I worked with her and he, by his own admission, had never met her nor read anything that she had put out on the subject.

"Well, I know the Colonel," the Colonel being the man in charge of the base, "and he says that she made the decision, so I know that you are lying to me!"

One of the issues that we encounter in environmental work is that very often the people with whom we work think that we are the ones who are dictating what they can or can not do, when, in fact, we are usually just the messengers for messages from outside authorities.  So, it is possible that this Colonel, no long since retired, honestly believed that the biologist was the one making these decisions, and not the FWS.  However, as the facility head, he had the responsibility for knowing, at least at a basic level, how the various laws impacting the base functioned.  I had been present when this particular issue had been explained to him, and I was told that it had been explained to him on a regular basis, and he simply chose not to listen.  So, it wasn't me that was lying to the fisherman, but his buddy the Colonel who was little enough concerned with reality that he was willing to badmouth his subordinates to score points with his buddies***.  I am, however, pleased to say that, from what I have seen and heard, this was unusual among commanding officers, and when this colonel left, his replacement was much more on-the-ball.

Anyway, I looked at the man and said, sternly but calmly, "I am not lying to you.  DO NOT accuse me of lying to you.  I know this subject, I know what's going on, I work with it every day, and I am telling you the truth."

"No you're not.  Damn liberal."  And with that he walked away.

In retrospect, I realize what sort of personality I was dealing with.  I have a very disagreeable elderly relative who was similar to this man in that he "knows what's going on" when his alleged knowledge is nothing more than delusion based on a need not only to be right, but for everyone else to be wrong.  This relative is okay with those who generally agree with him being right, but as soon as someone disagrees, no matter how much more demonstrably knowledgeable they may be on the subject on which they disagree, they are not only wrong, but somehow immoral and corrupt.

And that seemed to be what I was seeing here.  What I told the man disagreed with his "me vs. the evil liberal environmentalists" notions, and so I was clearly not only wrong, but somehow corrupt.  I don't have a problem necessarily with people disliking what I do on philisophical or even pragmatic grounds, but if you're going to dislike it, at least dislike it for reasons based in reality, not delusional supposition.  No doubt he left there thinking he'd given me what for, when he had, in fact, only exposed his tremendous ignorance of the subjects discussed.  So it goes.





*One of the reasons why prehistoric peoples had lived in these locations is because they relied on the fish, so it's no surprise that we would frequently find fishermen still frequenting these locations.

**One of the many canyons on the base, has nothing to do with cars.

***What an asshole.

So Long, Maricopa...Good to See You in my Rear-View Mirror

One of the members of my current crew often likes to talk about "archaeology as adventure".  I usually roll my eyes when he begins going off on the subject, but as he's probably the happiest person on the crew, maybe I should take his attitude more seriously.  However, Maricopa is making that difficult.

Maricopa is the town in which we are currently staying.  It is south of Taft, and is, in fact, Taft's evil, twisted little brother.  The one who was locked in the attic, who subsists on whatever vermin it can catch with it's teeth and mis-shapen bare hands, and of whom the family doesn't like to speak.  Taft was filled with meth-heads.  Maricopa, on the other hand, is a town full of people who would only become meth-heads if they suddenly developed a sense of decency.

Think I'm exaggerating, do you?  Okay, quick, go to Maricopa's Wikipedia page.  Seriously, go there, here's a link.  Go down to the bottom of the page, to the portion mistakenly labelled "Public Safety."  Down there, you will see a description of the police department's problems with racism and good ol' corruption, which includes the following delightful quote:

In mid-2011, American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Jennie Pasquarella is quoted as saying, "Maricopa has been a shining example of impoundments gone wrong," and "They're essentially creating a racket to steal people's cars."

Yeah, that's Maricopa for ya'.

To protest the police corruption, a trailer with signs painted on it is frequently placed at the town's gas station parking lot.  The trailer has signs on both the right and left signs requesting that the people of Maricopa start taking their police department to task for its misbehavior. On the front and back, the signs plead for all reading them to "pray for our troops" as they "defend the right to freedom of speech" which means that the sign is simultaneously co-opting the language of both right and left wing politics,  which is kind of interesting.

The people are even more colorful.  On a daily basis I see men around town wearing t-shirts that should, in a sane world, prevent them from ever having the opportunity to talk to a woman.  There's the fellow who walks about town with his shirt featuring the phrase "don't stop till the panties drop" alongside an image of an anorexic-looking nude woman, and the Hustler logo below it.  He walked into the local sandwich place with someone who was either his wife or girlfriend, and who appeared to be so worn down by life that she didn't find it embarrassing to be seen holding this man's hand.  Or the fellow who walked into the hotel, wearing a "I love dirty whores" t-shirt, who then succeeded in chatting up one of the women who works here.  That these imbeciles would have any success with women would seem odd, until you see the local women. I have noticed a large number of local women have tattoos on their upper chests/lower necks which are occasionally abstract designs, but usually are words to the effect of "Property of Steve" or "Woman Belongs to Glenn" or some other such up-lifting message.  Then there's the woman who apparently declared her independence by getting a message that did not brand her as the property of a man, but rather as a "White Trash Bitch" - yes, this woman wanders about with these words tattooed to her lower neck.  And she's probably not on her meds.

The people of this town could make Cormac McCarthy decide that his opinion of humanity is too sunny and optimistic.

The sandwich shop that I saw Mr. Hustler in?  It's in the local gas station.  I have gone in there a couple of times for sandwiches, as it is one of only two places in town where food can be procured at hours known to the public, and the staff always seems annoyed that you are trying to give them money.  Now, I should note that the staff of the Sandwich shop, a Subways franchise, is separate from the staff of the gas station, who are always bizarrely chirpy and happy.  I am guessing that the two crews have different qualude/barbituate preferences.

Anyway, I'll be leaving tomorrow.  But this is just yet another one of those places that I have ended up thanks to archaeology.  On the off-chance that you ever find yourself thinking that my job is full of adventure, think of Maricopa.

Meth Shacks and Other Aspects of Fieldwork

So, as noted, I have been working on archaeological surveys in Kern County, southwest of Bakersfield*.  The land parcels we are surveying range between 200 and 600 acres in size, and are in relatively isolated locations in this rural area.  This area is notorious for, amongst other things, a large degree of methamphetamine manufacture and use.  So, it is no surprise that, hidden adjacent to one of our parcels, there is a set of shacks and old trailers that appear to still be used as shelters, have a worn chain-link fence surrounding them, and numerous large dogs - mostly dobermens and German shepperds - as well as what appeared to be a well beaten and chewed dummy on a rope.

We don't know what it is, but very likely it is a meth manufacturing facility.  Which, frankly, means that it is also likely to be a place populated by paranoid people with firearms.

Yay?

This is not the first time that I have encountered a meth lab in the field.  And I will deal with this the same way that I have dealt with other meth labs: never go to the location alone, be near the vehicle at all times, make sure that everyone has cell phone, and make sure that our employer knows exactly where we are and what our concerns are.

Still, it's a bit unnerving.

Nor are meth labs the only trouble spots that we sometimes encounter.  My colleagues who work in and around Humboldt County, as well as a few other choice locations around the state, often encounter marijuana farms - which doesn't sound too bad until you realize that they are often run by embittered ex-hippies and/or paranoid "bussinessmen" who like to booby-trap their crops in order to inure any who might come upon them - with the booby traps including everything from explosives to fish-hooks hung at eye-level.

Next time you toke on a doobie, consider that the plant you are about to take in might have been watered with the blood of an unaware environmentalist.

Likewise, there are many landowners who dislike environmental workers, who will allow you on their land with the intention of spraying you with a crop duster, or firing a shotgun at you. 

Then, there's always the more subtle threats of the white supremacist who will let you on their land to work while simultaneously trying to figure out if you are fit for membership in their "gun club"; the people who are watching for a chance to get you to join their religious cult; or the ever-present evil of zombie macrobiotic dieters.

Most of the time, my job is much less exciting and adventurous than most people seem to want to make it out to be.  Most of the time it's a bit of a grind.  However, on occasion, it can get exciting.  And by "exciting", I mean "unnerving and frightening."

Still, I have no doubt that we'll be fine.  But just in case, would anybody mind calling my cell phone every 15 minutes or so.





*Hence the fact that I am, once again, not posting much right now.

Osteology Software Buying Blues

When I was an undergraduate, I took a class on human skeletal biology. The class was difficult*, and I was always on the lookout for anything that might help me out. To that end, one day, I headed to the local Software Etc. store**, thinking that, seeing as they were in a college town and did stock some educational software, they might have something that would be helpful.

I walked in, approached the counter, and explained to the guy standing there (the employee, not some random customer trying to buy his software) that I was an anthropology student, and was looking for educational software that covered human anatomy in general, and bone in particular.

the guy behind the counter - I am tempted to say "kid behind the counter" but he wouldn't have been much younger than me back then - snorted, and said "they weren't human."

A bit confused by his answer, I said something extraordinarily witty, like "huh?"

In about as condescending a tone as the little twit could muster he said "You said your an anthropology student. You don't study humans. You study those monkey things. Even if we have the software, it wouldn't help you."

I attempted to explain that anthropology was the study of humans - modern and otherwise - in general, and yes, I was looking for software on the anatomy of modern humans. His response? "No, you're looking at like Lucy and stuff.

I was flummoxed. On the one hand, I was trying to spend money in this guy's store, and his attitude was making it difficult for me to justify doing so, much less actually do it. On the other hand, I was an anthropology student, he had clearly never taken an anthropology class and didn't know anything about it, and I was clear in what I was looking for and that it would cover modern humans, and he was still insisting that somehow I was the one that didn't know what I was talking about.

I finally said "Look, I know what I am looking for, you obviously don't. I am studying the bones of modern humans, and I am looking for software that can help me study."

He snorted again, gave me a disdainful look, and said "Lucy wasn't a human."

I stared at him with irritation and said "depends on what you mean by human, but that's beside the point, because I am studying the bones of people walking around in the world today."

He rolled his eyes, gestured towards a rack of programs and said "there might be something over there."

I looked over, and then turned and walked out.

To this day, some sixteen years later, I still find myself wondering about why this guy had such an attitude. Was he simply one of those arrogantly ignorant fucks who is sure that he is the master of all sorts of specialized knowledge when he actually knows very little about, well, anything? Was he a creationist who was upset with the findings of paleoanthropologists and therefore wanted to show up one of them only showing his own ignorance in the process? Was he just a disagreeable ass who was unwilling to admit that his initial assumptions were wrong even as it became increasingly obvious that they were?

I don't know. What I do know is that that was the last time I ever walked into a Software Etc.






*Though in the end, I received either an A or B, I forget which.

**This was back when Software Etc., which has since merged with another store and become Gamestop, stocked a wide range of software, not just games. As odd as looking for something this specialized there might sound, they did sometimes have such specialized programs.

The Big Pharma Boogeyman

Yesterday I saw an article claiming that Canadian researchers had found a cure for cancer (I will post this link to an article in the New Scientist that actually explains what really happened), and the article implied (without outright stating) that this information was being either ignored or suppressed. In short order, I saw two responses by researchers (one of whom I know personally, the other of whom is a friend of one of my closest friends) who pointed out that the author of the article completely and utterly misunderstood the research, and comitted such rookie errors as claiming that normal metabolic processes are freakish and unhealthy. The actual research found that a particular generic drug did show positive effects when used against a particular form of brain cancer. Cancers are all different, and even this drug did not cure this particular form of cancer (let alone all cancers) so much as show effectiveness at either stopping progression or reducing the tumors. Also, the study was small, and therefore not statistically significant, but it wasn't intended to be, it was intended to test whether or not the underlying concept was valid, which it appears to be, in order to pave the way for a larger, more robust study (this is how good science works, small studies don't give the final word on anything, but do point to avenues for further investigation). This is very cool, but not the miracle that it is being promoted as by the author of the article, or by many people who have been duped by the article.

In other words, it was unfortunately typical crap science reporting, but because it was on a topic that scares the hell out of so many people (that is, cancer), and it had a popular subtext ("those big pharma bastards are suppressing research...apparently by not stopping it from being published in a widely-read journal or funded by the Canadian government")it has been getting passed around like herpes at an orgy.

Naturally, in the comments, and on social networking sites where the article is being passed around, the running theme has been that "Big Pharma*" is using it's octopus-like reach to suppress all information that might threaten it's ability to make money.

Here's the thing: the pharmaceutical industry has done some pretty crappy and abhorrent things throughout history, and recently it has suppressed inconvenient information that comes from pharmaceutical company researchers (look at the failure to publish some of the more dubious results for Prozac, for example). But it is not, I repeat NOT some sort of quasi-national superpower with the ability to stifle results from all scientists everywhere, or even many scientists in alot of places. To look at the response that people are having to this article, or the sorts of responses that people (especially people in the alt-med community) have to stories about pharmaceutical companies in general, it becomes clear that the pharmaceutical companies (always referred to by the scarier name of "Big Pharma") are viewed as a massive boogeyman with the ability to reach out and shut down any and all research and any and all avenues for publication that goes against it's wishes, no matter where it's published. Folks, the Chinese government has discovered that it doesn't even have that ability, and the Chinese government has far more power than the pharmaceutical industry or their lobbyists do anywhere (owning a big chunk of the U.S. National Debt, and having many Washington lobbysts...just sayin'). It's the funny thing about information, it tends to leak out and get expressed even when a dictatorial power is trying to suppress it. It's also the funny thing about scientists, they tend to talk and publish even when powerful interests would prefer that they wouldn't. A particular researcher working for Pfizer, or receiving Pfizer funding, might sit on results, but that's not going to stop someone who isn't associated with Pfizer who is pursuing similar research - and there are plenty of researchers who aren't in a company's pocket.

In order to exercise the amount of power that is often attributed to the pharmaceutical companies, they would have to be able to dictate the research program of almost every researcher on the planet and have veto power over what is published in nearly every journal and be able to dictate where every research funding agency directs their funds. This is absurd. If you honestly believe that anyone, pharmaceutical companies, any one government, the United Nations, or the Reptoid Aliens, has that degree of power and influence, you are suffering from a paranoid delusion. And it is telling that many (probably less than half, but likely not much less than half) of the outlets for the "Big Pharma is trying to suppress information" meme often also make claims about how they are waiting for some action from the pharmaceutical industry that will shut them down...and action that will likely never come.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that these companies have prevented publication of information is bad. I am not exonerating them, I have a good deal of contempt for these sorts of activities**. However, no government on the planet, no matter how brutal, has the amount of power that is often attributed to these companies. It is absurd to think that these companies do. Any powerful organization needs to be watched and criticized, but make sure that you are criticizing it for something real rather than simply falling for paranoid fantasies.







*Not to be confused with the Big Farmer.

**Suppression of research results isn't even their big issue. It's actually the fact that they have often dedicated money to "lifestyle drugs", deciding to cure "restless leg syndrome" amongst wealthy people in Europe and the U.S. rather than find more effective medications for, say, malaria in third-world countries. But this is a natural result of them being for-profit companies - the nature of the beast dictates that they may chase the profitable route rather than the responsible one. And in case you start feeling to proud of your alt-med style, keep in mind that many an herb, vitamin, and other alt-med company sells and falsely markets primarily placebos because they make money, while doing the research to only sell things that actually are effective would be more expensive for them. In other words, both the pharmaceutical companies and your local naturopath are chasing the easier money at the expense of people's health.

Blogger Weirdness

For the past few days, every attempt that I have made to post here has been met with a "Blogger Not Available" message. Hence my relative silence this week. Of course, now that the matter is fixed, I am preparing to go out of town for the weekend. As I have received input from people indicating that there are folks out there that do read this on a semi-regular basis, I figured I'd let all y'all know. I'll be back to posting next week.

Approval Lists and Petty Tyrants

Many counties have lists of approved archaeologists. These lists dictate who is, and often who is not, allowed to perform basic compliance work on projects permitted or funded by the county, and often by cities within the county. Most of the time, being placed on the lists is a simple matter, you simply send in proof of your credentials, and your name is added. Sometimes, however, there's a kink in the system.

Several years back, I worked for a large company out of their Santa Barbara office. As San Luis Obispo County was one of our neighboring counties, it made good sense to be on their approved list. So, I contacted the county, found out what they needed, sent it in, and voila! a few weeks later, my company and my name appeared on the list. At this time, individual archaeologists were listed and shown as qualified.

A couple of years later, I moved to Santa Cruz and went to work for a different company. As there were some good business opportunities in San Luis Obispo County at that point in time, I wanted to make sure that the county approved list reflected where I was. So, I sent an email to the county employee who kept the list explaining that I had changed employers, and requesting that my listing on the approved list be changed to reflect this. I received an email in response telling me what documentation I had to turn in in order to be listed. Thinking that the fellow had simply misunderstood my request - the county had already been provided with all of the documentation he was requesting when last I applied - I wrote back explaining that I was already on the list, and I was simply seeking to have me listing modified. I again received an email telling me that I needed to turn in proof of my credentials in order to be listed.

A bit non-plussed, I called the county offices to speak with the fellow. I explained that, based on his emails, it looked as if he thought I was asking to be newly-listed, which I was not, and that I had already turned in the requested documents. I was simply asking that my contact information be changed to reflect my current employer.

The response? I was told that the county had kept poor records of what they received in the past, and therefore he didn't have my past credentials on file, and therefore if I wanted to have my contact information changed, I'd have to send them all again. Through all of this, it was never mentioned that I might be removed from the list, so as far as I could tell, the county still considered my qualified, they just didn't want to change my contact information to reflect reality.


Deciding that putting up with this nonsense wasn't worth my time, I just gathered up and sent the documentation in. I looked up the approved list a few weeks later, and found that I was not listed under my current employer, but was still listed under my previous employer.

I contacted the fellow at the county offices again and asked what was up. His response? He didn't like my employer. He claimed that they had screwed up a big project several years back, and he was considering whether or not he wanted me to be on the list at all now that I worked for "the enemy". When I went and looked up the project in question, it was not my company that performed it, but another one altogether. I contacted him to point this out, and was told that he didn't like my company anyway, so I shouldn't hold my breath on being listed.

This entire time I was still listed with my old contact information. And, again, it was individuals who were listed, not companies at that time. So, regardless of my employer, I was qualified and there was no legitimate reason to keep me off of the list*.

This was a classic "petty tyrant" as far as I could tell. The guy seemed to have very little power, and so he enjoyed exercising what little power he did have, however arbitrarily or poorly. I have run into these guys in plenty of other places - they are common in municipal and county governments, but also in most large businesses (where they can find a niche and use it to push people around - and in my experience, because they tend to be sycophantic towards a few well-placed higher-ups, they are often hard or even impossible to fire), when I worked on a military base I saw several of them there as well, and they seem to breed at universities.

After several emails, with varying degrees of "you can't push me around" attitude coming from me, and a bit of "you know, we could take legal action" coming from my employer, the fellow finally agreed to change my contact information on the list. I figured it was done. However, about a year later, a possible project came up in San Luis Obispo County, and so I checked to make sure that we were listed. I was still listed under my previous employer, but not under my new employer.

The dick hadn't actually made the changes that he had agreed - in writing I will add - to make!

I contacted the county, and discovered that this guy had been let go, much to the joy of the other county employees. It seems that I had nailed the "petty tyrant" thing, and that he had been trying to throw his weight around with everybody, until someone with actual power had enough of it and pushed him out. I explained what I needed to the new fellow in charge of the list, who was sympathetic and quickly had me placed on the list (within a week, very fast as these things go).





*The people who tended to be listed were project managers, who weild a fair amoutn of power concerning how work is done. So, even if everyone else at a company is bad at their job, a good project manager can still do things well.