Assorted Afflatuses

I'm in the middle of planning a trip to San Francisco. San Francisco, unlike Portland, has at least one of those lovely United Colors of Beneton shops. They have nice stuff. Anyway, poking around the Beneton Group website, I noticed they sort their clothes into "Man" and "Woman" rather than "Men's" and "Women's" as might be more typical.

As I considered the oddity for a moment, I thought back to Paris. The three Zara shops I visited in the City of Lights also divided clothing into "Man," "Woman," and, in the case of Zara, "Child." And, as I gave it more thought, I realized a whole lot of fashion enterprises forgo the plural possessive for the singular: Armani and Versace to name two more.

But why do this? I figure the fashion people have one of two reasons. On the one hand, given the global reach of some of these companies — the Beneton Group has stores in nearly every one of the world's 195 or so countries, including four in Iran — it would be a logistical nightmare to localize "Men's" and "Women's" in every tongue from Hindu to Portuguese. On the other, English is very much en vogue in other parts of the world, so perhaps this is not so much a supply chain story as it is one of trends.

In May 2007, Apple CEO Steven P. Jobs, in a open letter promised consumers and environmental watchdog groups alike that Apple would, when economically prudent and technically feasible, eliminate the CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamp) backlights from all of its LCD computer displays. CCFLs contain mercury and other toxic heavy metals, which, of course, harm the environment.

Naturally, environmental groups cheered. The CCFL's successor, the LED (light emitting diode) backlight contains fewer toxic chemicals and requires less energy to operate. Creative professionals also welcomed the transition: LED backlights, unlike their predecessors, reach their full brightness the minute they turn on. Anyone working in an environment where accurate color matters can appreciate the improvement.

Since May 2007, other manufacturers have also taken steps to transition their products' backlights to LEDs from CCFLs. The LED backlit display has become, for the digerati, the "it" item of the moment, to draw a somewhat unseemly comparison.

At the same time, however, many of the same environmental groups who chastised the consumer electronics industry for using CCFL backlights launched programs to help consumers reduce their environmental impact by switching to funny-looking CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) from their old incandescent lamps.

This makes absolutely no sense.

That the consumer electronics industry has decided to abandon CCFL backlights indicates the LED represents — for its superior efficiency, less severe environmental impact and technical improvements — a superior technology. Also, given that consumer electronics manufacturers, as for-profit entities, would want to minimize costs, their switch to LED backlights signals the LED has some economic advantage over the CCFL as well.

Why, then, do environmental groups continue to push compact fluorescent bulbs rather than the arguably superior LED sort?

Some would argue — and argue correctly — that the price of one LED light bulb far exceeds that of one compact fluorescent. But, just as the compact fluorescent lamp lasts longer than an incandescent lamp, an LED lamp lasts far, far longer a compact fluorescent.

Environmental groups should stop extolling the compact fluorescent now. I can just imagine the headlines in five years: "Compact Fluorescents: Dangerous and Deadly." Or the latest initiative from Greenpeace: "Ditch Your Compact Fluorescents: Go LED!"

This will be brief. I just read the Times' latest article in its "Long Run" series, chronicling the lives of our two potential Presidents prior to their current positions. Knowing that Barack Obama taught at the University of Chicago's Law School, I have wondered what students exposed to Barack Obama the intellectual had to say.

I think the article's last paragraph sums it up nicely:

Fine. I will admit that constitutional law, especially as taught at U Chicago, is probably not something the average person could ever be expected to understand. But still I wonder, have we become so afraid or so reluctant to think that we have decided to so blindly follow others?

While it would be derisible to suggest Senator Obama has yet to earn my vote come November, it would make me much less worried, checking that box, as it were, to see Barack Obama the professor.

I have writer's block. A few weeks ago I learned that I had been nominated for some award or another and, as such, I needed to write an essay to cement my place as a recipient of said award. After staring at my computer screen for an hour and a half, unable to find the inspiration to write the essay's conclusion, I figured I would watch Sunday's edition of Meet the Press. And, as it happened, the lovely and talented Junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama had Tom Brokaw's ear for the duration of this Sunday's program.

Senator Obama did not choose Meet the Press as the venue for any exciting announcements. By and large, he took the opportunity to reiterate his past statements and clear up some lasting ambiguities. I thought the Senator could have handled his response to the Surge questions with a tad more directness and clarity, but, otherwise, Senator Obama continues to improve as an extemporaneous speaker.

About two-thirds of the way through the broadcast, however, Tom Brokaw switched gears turned his questioning toward the United States' economy. Most of what the Senator said made sense. But then Mr. Brokaw brought up this line of questioning:

I wish Senator Obama had agreed, as Tom Brokaw suggested in his question, that the high price of oil — while painful in the short run for the mythical Average American — will eventually serve to benefit not only the nation's well-to-do, but everyone on every rung of the economic ladder. For a professed supporter of the Free Market, Senator Obama seems hesitant to allow the market to work its magic.

The longer the United States takes measures to soften the blow of high gasoline prices — whether by sending taxpayers another stimulus check or by expanding the potential for offshore drilling — the longer it will take for the United States to kick its oil habit.

People who develop addictions to high-strength prescription pain medications must be very bored, very stupid or very depressed. At least, that's the conclusion I've come to.

This morning I had the third of five or six gingival grafts. The procedure itself, thanks to local anesthesia, causes little discomfort. The post-op portion, though, drives me crazy. Not only does the procedure restrict my diet to soup, mush and porridge, I also spend two or three days taking an extremely potent pain killer.

I would have no trouble tolerating the mild post-graft pain without the dose ketoprofen prescribed to me. It's really not that bad. But, from what I understand, ketoprofen also helps to reduce swelling, which apparently aids the body in recovering from a surgeon's well-intentioned brutality. Given that faster recovery means real food sooner, I take the medication.

Yet, as I sit here — hunched over my keyboard in a stupor, correcting more spelling and grammatical problems than I care to admit as I type this — I have difficulty understanding why anyone would take these super potent pain killers for fun.

I struggle to stay awake; to think critically; to quip. I feel as if I have become some kind of inert vegetable, incapable of doing no more than napping or staring blankly into the glossy pages of interior design magazines. It's debilitating.

It almost surprises me that the Rush Limbaugh radio program did not improve after the commentator finished his rehabilitation program. Almost.

Microsoft of late has received quite a beating, at least in the public perception and advertising department, from its rival-in-chief, Apple, Inc. of Cupertino. Those "Get a Mac" advertisements — featuring "Too Cool Mac " Justin Long and "Lovable Workaholic PC" John Hodgman — have wreaked havoc on Windows Vista's reputation, portraying it as more of a downgrade than an upgrade.

Today, two years after Apple launched its "Get a Mac" advertisements, Microsoft took the wraps off its own marketing push back. As of this writing, visitors to Microsoft's homepage see this teaser graphic:

On the one hand, I like the concept and the advertisement. I have never understood what people hated so much about Windows Vista. Sure, it has some problems. Sure, I would rather use my Mac. But Windows Vista really does not deserve its reputation as something to be avoided like the Bubonic Plague.

Part of me, though, objects to the ad, not because I don't think Windows Vista deserves a chance to dig itself out of the gutter, but rather because the advertisement reinforces the incorrect belief that not a soul in 15th century Europe thought the Earth was round. As a matter of fact, many, many people, prior to Dear Christopher believed the Earth was round. Those big thinkers in Ancient Greece, for one, developed reasonably accurate methods of estimating the size of this misshapen sphere we humans call home.

In my mind, the belief that everyone thought the world was flat represents just an egregious factual error as people believing the world was flat in the first place. Scholars have known the ancients knew of our planet's shape for many, many years. Yet, in our popular culture, we continue to reinforce this loony misconception that everyone thought the world was flat. And, those of us brave enough to point out the problem with that thinking usually face accusations of over thinking or being some kind of academic show-off.

The vulgarization of complicated ideas has a place. Not everyone needs to know how a submarine works down to the tinniest button or switch. In other matters, though, we owe it to ourselves to be faithful to the truth.

When I visited New York in August, I stumbled upon some charming clothing at the Bloomingdale's in SoHo from a designer by the name of Paul Smith. However, I could not justify spending $260 on a single shirt. It would have been insanity to say the least. Still, I liked that Paul Smith character enough to continue hunting him down at clothing retailers both big and small.

Though, after weeks of researching Mr. Smith's clothing both online and in brick and mortar retail operations, I came to the realization that, like Apple computers, or All-Clad cookware, Paul Smith shirts bear a $260 price tag regardless of the store which puts them on sale. That is to say - until I found eBay. On eBay, I managed to find some outrageously good deals on brand-new, unworn, tags-attached, Paul Smith shirts.

But something about the auctions seemed superbly suspicious. After all, no person could possibly make a profit selling a $260 shirt for $70.

My suspicions intensified after scrutinizing the auction listings. One seller describes Paul Smith as, "one of the toppest brands in the UK." While, differences most certainly exist between British and American English, I have never heard the word "toppest." In my mind it tumbles into that idiotic-cutesy category of words, to which "bestest" and "gooder" belong.

I have not decided whether to buy the shirt or not, as, despite the uncommonly low prices and execrable English, the sellers do have a good deal of positive feedback, which reassures me to a certain degree. I may yet have my marvelous multi-colored masterpiece.