Allan Besselink's Storefront

Allan Besselink - Home

• Listen To The Music, Austin

  2010 Feb 05

  The Live Music Capital of the World. You see it as soon as you fly into Austin Bergstrom International Airport. The City of Austin have been using this as their motto for quite some time now. I’ve never really doubted the truth in it. I discovered Austin because of the music. When I found out that there were more guitar players per capita in Austin than in any other place in the universe (my statistics), how could I not want to visit?

  After peeling away the layers upon layers of Austin guitar players, you then discover the vibe, the sound, the feel that is “Austin music”. It is a blend of many musical styles that has grown and evolved organically to create that unmistakable vibe. It’s Joe Ely, live at the Liberty Lunch. It’s Sarah Hickman or Lyle Lovett or David Garza at the Cactus. It’s Stevie Ray Vaughan at Antones. It’s Asleep At The Wheel at the Broken Spoke. Or how about the Arc Angels at the Opera House? Or Soul Hat at the Black Cat Lounge? Or Storyville at Stubbs?

  Much of that “Austin sound” has been fostered by the laid-back music scene, where artists could come to play their music amongst others who would appreciate it, groove to it, and cultivate it. You came to Austin to play music in the presence of others who love music. My own personal experience as a musician was reflective of that.

  But sadly, we are now faced with yet another Austin music landmark closing. With this week’s announcement of the closing of the Cactus Cafe, I am left to ponder the evolution – or perhaps devolution - of the Live Music Capital of the World.

  I’ve been to the Cactus, much as I have been to many of the great venues that this city has called their own. The intimate 150 seat capacity is a safe haven for the singer-songwriter. The Cactus has hosted almost everyone with a guitar and a great song to sing. If my memory is serves me correctly, I saw Eric Johnson play there his acoustic guitar there. The Texas Union is where I saw Living Color.

  But it’s not just about the Cactus. Let’s take a trip through time and look at the amazing music venues that have come and gone. There’s the Vulcan Gas Company (1970). Armadillo World Headquarters (1980). Liberty Lunch (1999). The original Backyard. The Black Cat Lounge (2000). Even Antone’s has faced the economic music in its storied past. And there are a whole host of smaller venues that have faded into the central Texas sunset.

  The Liberty Lunch could arguably be titled as the direct descendant of the Armadillo (floorboards and all). In my humble opinion, it may have been the last remaining vestige of that bygone era of “true” Austin music, when rednecks and cowboys and folkies and hippies all co-existed under the roof of the Armadillo. I saw many great shows at the Lunch. But when we watched it close in 1999, I had the first sense of the spirit of Austin’s music scene fading – if ever so slightly.

  Which brings us back to the Cactus Cafe.

  The University of Texas, in their desire to make budget cuts, decided to close the Cactus Cafe. It is estimated that the cost saving would be (drum roll please) $66,000. For a university with a budget of $2.1 billion, those are some small peanuts. Even if you look at the $4.5 million budget of the Texas Union, we’re talking some pretty small numbers. The Alumni Association says that it could provide a long-term home for the Cactus Cafe. But if that is the case, and it’s still on campus (as it would be), then why not simply keep it right where it is? And then the issue of budget cuts leaves you wondering how they are concerned about a $66,000 saving when they can think nothing of paying a head football coach $5 million per season. Somehow, the irony overwhelms me – and I am a Longhorn fan!

  And don’t for a moment think that the University doesn’t benefit from the marketing presence that is the Live Music Capital of the World. Let’s just say that it sure doesn’t hurt enrollment when your college is in a city like Austin.

  For those who have lived in Austin for many years and witnessed the beauty that is live music in this fair city, there have been many angry commentaries on these latest developments.

  I am left to wonder about the health of the music scene and the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital of the World. What is being done by the city to truly foster the growth of the live music community, that which brings so many tourism dollars to the city? And when things get tough, is the City of Austin doing what it takes to support that same community? In my eyes, the city cannot simply be a fair weather proponent of live music – it has to embrace the community, support it, and allow it to thrive – and not just use the title as a marketing gimmick.

  Yes, Austin’s live music scene is still vibrant, such that on any given night you can still see a dozen musicians better than most cities in the world. Yes, Austin still has Emo’s, Stubbs, the Continental Club, and La Zona Rosa. But if the City of Austin and the powers-that-be in the community (yes, you University of Texas) are going to claim the title of “Live Music Capital Of The World” and reap all of the marketing benefits of this, they must maintain what they have – actively – before it’s too late.

  Maybe it already is.

  Photo credits: Wikipedia

  

• Three Reasons To Write

  2010 Jan 31

  When I was in high school, I was a self-professed “math and science geek”. Well, perhaps I didn’t use the word “geek” as such, but my grades made it quite apparent that that was where my academic strengths were at the time. In contrast, English was my worst subject. English always consisted of reading books that someone told me were important or epic that usually ended up being irrelevant or downright boring. This always ended up in a litany of book reviews and reports.

  And then there was my senior year – and the much-dreaded Canadian literature class.

  At the time, I was convinced that “Canadian literature” was a bit of a misnomer. As a high school senior with an interest in calculus and physics, it was hard to fathom many Canadian authors worth studying. But it was in this same class that we were given an assignment to either write a book review of a Canadian author of your choice, or to select a Canadian musician and review their lyrical content. Suddenly, writing had some degree of personal relevance. This got me to explore my thoughts on issues relevant to my world, and to do so on the written page. I discovered that the writing process was, well, almost enjoyable.

  I can’t say that I started off writing because it was something that I felt a natural talent or inclination to do. But now, I am thankful that it is a part of my daily world. So now I am left to ask – why do I write?

  As I can now see, there are three reasons to write. I suspect that these reasons exist, to some degree or another, for most bloggers and writers of the modern era.

  1. Discussion. One of the things that sets us apart as a species is the ability to think. Combine this with free speech, and the “power of the pen” can truly stimulate thought, discussion, and change. There are times when that same discussion creates greater understanding of the world around us. Writing can be a means to an end – to stimulate discussion, if nothing else.

  2. Sharing. The ability to share information, knowledge, insight, or perhaps just some humor, is a great reason to write. Writing can be a lot like mentorship – sharing your world because, well, maybe that will have an impact on someone, somewhere, somehow. By sharing knowledge and insights and perspectives, we contribute to and build community. And that makes the world better for all of us.

  3. Self-discovery. This has probably been the most important reason for me over the years. The process of writing can be cathartic. When I went off to university, I discovered that getting my thoughts on paper helped me understand me. Through writing (and music), I got to know myself a little better. It’s always been that way. Those same words, so many years later, still provide me with food for thought. Once you’ve written something, you can then breath a sigh of relief that it is no longer floating through your brain. You don’t have to stay focused on it mentally. Don’t worry, it’s been committed to paper and you can let it go for the time being. The great thing is that you can then reflect on what you’ve written and make better sense of it. This promotes an environment for personal growth and learning.

  Perhaps there should be a reason #4 - I truly enjoy the process of writing. The process of thinking, reflecting, creating – it is a thing of beauty. Writing can, at times, feel like a daunting task. But if you simply let it flow, let it be an organic process, it can bring great joy to you – and your world. And that might just be the best reason of all.

  Photo credit: Michael Hirst

  

• Letting Go And Running With It

  2010 Jan 24

  There are too many distractions in our world that readily assail us at any juncture. Whether it’s work, or life, or relationships, or family, or any combination, it’s easy to get caught up in the “stuff”. Suddenly, stuff drives your day. And as they say, don’t sweat the small stuff, right? Well, a lot of stuff suddenly makes your day full of cognitive stress.

  It is no small wonder that I don’t run with an iPod or mp3 player, simply because I find this to be a great time to get away from all the distractions of daily life. The peacefulness of hearing my feet strike the ground, my breathing, and then, my thoughts. And then – the moment. That precious moment. And another. And another. It’s almost like a string of pearls – each moment beautiful of it’s own accord, strung together one by one. A time when all stands still, when stuff just doesn’t matter, but the moment does.

  Today’s 3M half marathon was a great reminder of how running provides us not only with an environment in which to "let go”, but also a metaphor for life as we know it. This metaphor also stands to remind us of how we err in daily life, and how we can excel.

  Even when you know that stuff happens, that distractions rule your existence, it’s a challenge to rectify it. It is so hard to simply “be in the moment” and to let go of our attachment to emotions, drama, angst, anger, frustration, discontent, and a plethora of unpleasant stuff. And let’s face it – can you be self-actualized when you are chasing stuff around all day?

  Prior to running today, my goal was simple: to simply “let go”, to be in the moment, to take each step left, right, and left again. It was to let go of expectations and of perceived limitations, from myself and others, and to take it all moment by moment.

  Suddenly, it was easier to truly enjoy the elegance and simplicity of running. Right leg, left leg, right leg – one of the most primitive things we do as humans on this planet, yet one of the most graceful and purpose-driven. There were times when I would push, and times when I would ease back, feeling the strength in my legs, feeling the sunlight on my face.  Nothing really mattered – yet everything mattered – all at the same time.

  Not that there weren’t moments to challenge this theme – much like any day, actually. The race started an hour late because of some problems that the high winds created. Oh, yes, the 16 mph winds (gusting to 25 mph) were in my face – and at my back. The road rose, and the road fell. If you waited a little bit, it all changed on a dime. And as bad times came, they went as well. But by being in the moment, there isn’t an attachment to any of it – it just is as it is.

  Amazingly enough, letting go isn’t “being stagnant” – it’s truly more dynamic. It’s when you feel the love in your world, comprehend it, and have full capacity to bask in it. It’s when those that care about you make their presence known. And it’s when things that don’t matter – well, they really don’t matter, and you realize it, and let them go. As I was once told, the universe will provide. Imagine that.

  It was the least amount of training that I have done to prepare for this particular race. And over the past two months, it was the most cognitive stress that I have had in many, many years.

  Until I just let it all go. And ran.

  It was my best half marathon since 2006.

  The universe spoke. Lesson learned.

  Photo credit: abesselink

  Related articles by Zemanta

  • Deep Breath (distractible.org)

  

• Free Speech: For The People, Or The Corporation?

  2010 Jan 22

  As of today’s Supreme Court decision, we have an even greater mess brewing in our electoral process. In the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision, the Supreme Court put up a hockey score vote of 5 – 4 to remove limits on corporate campaign spending. If we didn’t already have enough money being thrown at politicians to bend their ears on issues from immigration to health care to abortion, we now have even more.

  In the decision, it was stated by Justice Anthony Kennedy that “"when government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought.”

  I didn’t just read this, did I? Imagine, if you will, Corporation A (or Special Interest Z) with big budget, seeking support from Legislator B, “offering” to produce ads etc denouncing Legislator C, in return for “consideration” of their “policy suggestions”.

  Hold on a second. I respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court decision. Fortunately, my First Amendment rights allow me to do so. Whew. Something about this whole thing just doesn’t make sense. A 100-year-old policy – gone – as quickly as it takes to say “Holy Campaign Finance Reform, Batman”.

  First of all, I completely support the need to enforce the First Amendment. So far, so good. To the Group of Five (Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy) - I am with you on that.

  But here’s the problem. The decision is based on a false pretense in reasoning. You see, last I looked, corporations have no voting rights. Individuals within corporations have voting rights, but the corporation itself does not. Corporations have had limits on campaign spending – for the express reason that their treasuries cannot directly influence a political campaign. That seems to be fair enough – because (again) corporations don’t have voting rights.

  Justice Stevens, in his dissent, was compelled to state the obvious: “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

  Thank you for the refreshing moment of clarity. In case you need some more perspective, MoveToAmend.org notes that

  “On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.”

  And now, we will see the further expansion of the influence of the Bigs (as I call them) – Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Big Insurance. Does the phrase “going from bad to worse” ring a bell? It’s not like these special interest groups need any greater political voice. Just take a look at the past 6 months of health care reform – and make it uglier. There you have it.

  In the name of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, would someone please wake me up and tell me this isn’t happening? Isn’t this decision now giving a non-voting block the political “right” to define the policies of our voting republic?

  In my humble opinion, I think the issue is misguided from the start. This is not an issue of free speech. Nobody – not one person that is a part of the voting electorate - is being prevented from speaking to any and all issues, with or without limits on campaign contributions. Not one. Yes, every voter should have the right to do these things. But, frankly, the problem isn’t the aspect of free speech. That’s just the mirage, the smoke screen to get everyone fired up.

  This is an issue of elections and representation of the constituents - and conflict of interest. Teddy Roosevelt was right back in 1905 when he stated that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." But Roosevelt didn’t go far enough. The problem is that there should not be ANY money going to ANY politicians from ANYONE. None. As soon as any money exchanges hands, there is an inherent conflict of interest. And I can guarantee you that that same conflict of interest has a direct influence on the ability of the aforementioned legislator to perform the task that the voters elected him/her to perform in the first place.

  What is absolutely hilarious (or depressing, depending on how you spin it) is the irony of ironies inherent to this decision. The government just bailed out a number of corporations who I have no doubt will eventually use their treasuries to influence the political landscape. The bailout took place with tax payer dollars. So now we are looking at the irony of the citizens paying tax dollars to bail out companies that will now have a far greater opportunity to influence political issues as compared to the average tax-paying and voting citizen (due to having a far bigger treasury to support campaign contributions). Wow … did we just get it coming AND going on that one?

  Justice Kennedy noted that “the First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." No, free speech simply allows me to verbalize anything and everything, rational or otherwise. Free speech and free thought are not, and have never been, one and the same. Let the people speak freely, and the lawmakers think freely and clearly without the influence of even more special interest dollars. And let those same legislators work to represent their constituents, and their constituents alone – one of the most basic tenets of our Constitution.

  Photo credit: Wikipedia

  

• Mammograms, Evidence, And Emotional Debate

  2010 Jan 17

  I think it’s safe to say that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has opened an interesting can of worms recently at a rather inopportune moment. They have published what is, to my understanding, an evidence-based report on screening for breast cancer, including the use of mammograms. Emotional topic, without a doubt.

  There have been some rather extreme responses as can often be expected when the discussion is driven by emotion. This discussion is taking place at a time when the current health care reform climate is volatile at best. People have already started proclaiming that “this is rationing of care – and exactly what health care reform is going to do”, “this will prevent women from getting the care they need”, and “hell yes, as a doctor I am still going to perform them regardless of what the study says”.

  Let’s make sure that we understand the conclusions of the report.  All suggestions are given a grade that reflects the level or degree of recommendation. Recommendations are just that – recommendations, not demands or rules.

  The part that seems to have everyone outraged is this:

  “The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms.”

  But read on a bit and we find that there is a Grade C recommendation – which means “recommends against routinely providing the service. There may be considerations that support providing the service in an individual patient. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small”. Their suggestion for practice?

  “Offer or provide this service only if other considerations support the offering or providing the service in an individual patient.”

  The intriguing part of this debate is this: if you’re looking for “rationing of care”, then this isn’t the place to look for it. Take, for example, a diagnosis which has had a similar scenario play out in the health care world. It’s name? Low back pain. There have been many lessons learned from the back pain research that could help to provide some voice of reason in the debate over breast cancer screening.

  Back pain has been researched to a great extent simply because of it’s cost and prevalence. It is estimated that 80% of the US population will have back pain in any given year. In 2005, the cost of back pain care in the US was $85.9 billion – up from $52.1 billion in 1997. Estimates range as high as $170 billion per year. Sadly though, there are more people suffering from back pain now than ever before. We’re spending more money, and getting worse results. And when you look at the scientific evidence related to low back pain, we find that approximately 92% of people with low back pain get better within 8 weeks, regardless of the treatment (or with no treatment at all). But there are countless assessment procedures and treatments, most of which have little to no scientific support, applied at-will to those with back pain, over and over again on any given day in any city in the United States.

  Comparatively speaking, the total cost of illness for breast cancer has been estimated at $3.8 billion, of which $1.8 billion represents medical care. So if you were looking at “government cost containment and rationing of care”, then breast cancer simply isn’t the place to do so. As soon as someone dares to discuss “evidence” regarding assessment, the emotions boil over.

  Now I will be the first to acknowledge that “breast cancer” and “back pain” are going to provoke two totally different emotional responses. It’s easy for people to get emotional about cancer. Chances are good we all know someone that has either has cancer, or had cancer and died. I can look to my own family tree for this.

  But cooler heads need to prevail in this discussion – and in all discussions that pit emotion against evidence.

  Representative Lynn Woolsey, a Democrat of California, notes that “We’re not going to ration anything. We’re going to give people choices based on science.”

  This is not a partisan issue or debate. Of course, there has also been a backlash to the backlash.

  Professor Theodore Marmor, a health care policy specialist at Yale University, noted that "People are holding up the standard of medical care that any medical treatment that does any good for anybody cannot be denied. That is a ridiculous standard."

  Here’s a novel thought contained within the report. It comes from Diana Petitti, MD, MPH – the vice chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: "So, what does this mean if you are a woman in your 40s? You should talk to your doctor and make an informed decision about whether a mammography is right for you based on your family history, general health, and personal values."

  The proper solution involves clinical reasoning. It involves a dialogue between physician and patient. It involves the physician listening to the patient. The scientific research doesn’t take away your ability to be a doctor – it fosters your ability to utilize the scientific method WHILE you are being a doctor. Don’t just go forward with doing testing because “it’s your choice and right as a doctor”.

  And part of the resolution of this issue is patient education. It involves the patient becoming a better consumer of their health care, and their health information.  It’s not just an issue of awareness that the problem exists or awareness of self-assessment. It’s also an awareness of the risk factors, what is appropriate for you based on your “family history, general health, and personal values”, and awareness of the effect of lifestyle on reducing those risks (if possible).

  Granted, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force could have chosen to discuss a less-emotional topic (like back pain) to get people to support the concept of evidence-based research. Suffice it to say that I am sure that the answers to this and many other examples in health care lie somewhere between “yes, screen everyone” and “no, don’t bother”. The answer certainly isn’t more fear, and the answer isn’t more emotion. Yes, we have a name for that happy ground – it’s called “clinical reasoning” and “consumer awareness”. And it works hand-in-hand with evidence – not counter to it.

  Photo credit: cpurl

  Related articles by Zemanta

  • US anger about changes to breast cancer testing (telegraph.co.uk)
  • Mayo Clinic urges women to stick to normal mammogram schedules (medcitynews.com)
  • Reduce cancer risks by supporting care based on science, not special interests (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
  • Group Clarifies Mammography Advice (online.wsj.com)