Unkie Herb

I’m a little torn over this whole thing. What began as a break over the holidays has extended nearly to February. Why?

The most direct answer is: I don’t know. I’m not sure why I’ve stopped contributing on here. I have a few ideas, though they are unsurprisingly theoretical.

I’ve experienced some fairly encouraging growth in readership in the past four or five months. In August ‘07, I had 873 unique visitors and about 1900 visits, averaging out to about 60 visits per day. In October, thanks in part to the sudden public interest in Burmese issues, this bounced up to over 2000 unique visitors and well over 4100 visits, or about 130 visits a day. (A visit, FYI, is when an actual person behind an actual computer checks the site - robotic internet scanning programs, which exist to aid search engines, mostly, don’t figure in to the numbers.)

Needless to say this was encouraging. The growth in visits had increased slightly since then, though the unique visitor numbers, the number of individual computers who visit during the month, has since sagged. Now, to those outside the blogosphere these numbers might seem impressive. They aren’t, not really, especially considering the sheer volume of traffic that exists online. Technorati, a site that doubles as a search engine and community for bloggers, ranks my site 871,446th.

But wouldn’t it be incredibly vain and selfish of me to stop writing just because I’m not satisfied with my readership? Was I ever expecting to make money off this anyway? Was I really hoping to change the world?

Good questions, all.

I’ve given considerable thought to my life and career, and I still hope that, at least for a time, I can succeed as a freelance journalist/photojournalist traveling the world. Despite my inherent idealism, I understand that this is the dream of many of my contemporaries and, even without the competition, it will take a considerable amount of skill, luck, and perseverance.

As far as I see it, I have these things.

So the plan, loosely, is as follows. Set up a site, probably called evanherbert.xxx (my name, after all) and break it into three parts. One will contain my more professional stuff. Perhaps articles, interviews, news analysis, and so forth. Another will contain professional-ish photography; much of it will be geared toward the articles I write but some will be artistic, landscape-y sort of stuff. The third and final part will resemble what unkieherb.com should have been - a place for me to rant and tell stories and laugh and argue and generally get shit off my chest.

Alas this hasn’t been the case. Nevertheless I am undaunted. The aforementioned perseverance shines through.

This page will not disappear. I have it until next fall which is probably when I’ll begin to set up the newer site. I hope to throw some material up on here every so often, but much more infrequently than before. The months of five day a week writing (inspired by an excellent blogger named david) are over.

If you are reading this… thanks. Feedback is appreciated, as always, but it is enough for me if you smile and believe me when I say that the world will be a better place because you and I have made it so, not because you and I wished it so.

The time for shaking our heads at negative news is passed. The time to appreciate the massive impact, for good or ill, we all have on this planet and the life upon it is at hand.

In the immortal words of Bob Marley:

‘Give a little, take a little, give a little,

One more time, yeah, yeah. ‘

See ya around.

Share This

The mastermind behind George Bush’s two victories in Presidential elections wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal. In it, he is startlingly one-sided.

Just not for the side you’d expect.

No, Rove supports Clinton in his piece, a surprising development considering his scathing criticisms of her in the past. He compliments her campaign and her newfound emotion. He asserts that the oh so smoothly delivered tears in Manchester, N.H. (a town she went on to win by a large margin) were “humanizing and appealing. And unlike her often contrived and calculated attempts to appear down-to-earth, this was real.”

As he moves on to her criticisms of Obama, Rove joins in the fray: “He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”

Why support Hilldog, Karl? Could it have been a genuine analysis of the Dem race? No… Surely this was a calculating move by a man who understands electoral politics way too well.

So what’s the ploy?

Perhaps he realizes that Clinton will be easier to swing independents and perhaps even some Democrats away from. Perhaps Obama scares him. So he encourages her victory with a supporting op-ed piece.

But that seems too simple for a man of Rove’s conniving genius.

Maybe its reverse psychology. Maybe he really hates Hillary and worries about the Republican candidate’s chances against her. Maybe he knows that Karl Rove’s support is a gut shot in Democratic politics - it won’t kill you right away, but it could lead to some internal bleeding. If Obama’s people pick up on it, couldn’t they use it against her?

Either way, interesting stuff from a usually ‘behind the curtains’ fella.

Share This

It’s sort of like a dramatic comedy. There are moments of seriousness, of thoughtfulness, but whatever tension arises is constantly broken by bouts of comic relief. It’s like Rain Man. Yeah, just like Rain Man.

To be a Canadian watching the monstrous cacophony that is U.S. federal politics is fun and exciting. As I don’t have the option of voting, it’s really just entertainment. While it’s true that American policy decisions have huge reverberations in Canada, other than making donations there is really little I can do to sway things south of the border.

And so I watch, and laugh, and shake my head.

I’m particularly fond of Obama, which should come as no surprise, though it’s easy to see his downside. When you cut away his oratorical abilities, his demeanor and his passion, what have you? To be honest, I don’t know. I like to think that while short on experience he is long on intelligence. One of a rare breed of politician who is beyond partisanship and can understand both left and right arguments on issues. Able to make decisions that serve the public interest, instead of the demands of his party’s base.

But there is little to justify that sentiment. His speech after his caucus win in Iowa, however, was downright moving.

Is he just pomp and circumstance? Is he peaking in the public consciousness now, only to have his shortcomings illuminated and his star fall before the crucial date in November?

But, just as pressing, is there another Democratic candidate with enough crossover appeal to beat a McCain or a Guiliani?

It is this mindset, the cold-hearted strategic slant, that American primary voters will focus upon. It is leading to McCain’s boost - he is the only Republican to poll well head-to-head with the Dem big 3 - and Romney’s dropoff. It is propelling Obama beyond Clinton, who has more negative appeal than any other serious candidate, because despite his race Obama speaks a language that independents and even some Republicans are flocking toward.

But, again, I must temper myself. For while the world changes when Americans vote, I still have no say.

Except that you’ve read this. I’ve done my part.

Share This

Beautiful people are more successful. Or, at least, they have an easier time getting jobs, making contacts, and being remembered. Makes sense, right? But what came first: the beauty or the success?

Beauty is often regarding as a subjective trait. The eye of the beholder is the common reference. Yet certain studies on the topic have exposed a heavy amount of objective opinion on what is beautiful. Essentially, proportional, symmetrical facial features are more attractive.

Further investigation, as illuminated in this article, seems to imply that beauty helps determine one’s potential for career development. This also seems reasonable. In certain fields - sales, retail, film, television, fashion - the connection is obvious. In other professions the aesthetic bonus may be less pronounced but surely it can’t be ignored all together.

What the articles, and indeed the social scientists conducting the studies, ignore is that beauty and success often stem from the same origin: successful parents.

As much as we don’t like to admit it, people raised in wealthy families are more often better looking. They have the best nutrition and constant care. They can afford the finest clothes, cosmetics, exercise, and accessories. They, given an unfortunate turn of genetics, can rectify their lack of symmetrical proportions with plastic surgery.

Furthermore, people from wealthy backgrounds have, unfortunately, a much greater chance of success as they enter the workforce. They are blessed with private schools, tutors, and tuition. They have their parent’s powerful network of connections to exploit. They have the financial backing to start their own businesses.

That’s not to say that there aren’t heaps of rich, ugly, unsuccessful kids out there. The sort of kid that’ll never get daddy’s company or be invited to the press conference. The sort of kid that’ll float on their trust fund as long as they can and then beg the estate for more.

But I think my point is a valid one. The article lists several statistics linking success and beauty. Isn’t it just as possible that these people, given their familial advantages, would have been successful even if they were less handsome? One such stat, that attractive candidates did better in Finnish elections, must be attributable at least somewhat to networking and campaign dollars (or euros).

I’m not trying to discount the connection between beauty and success so much as I am trying to emphasize the connection between success and beauty. Did you get that?

I’m a massive believer in equality of opportunity. It is essential to free democracies that every child have the same potential, the same starting line. These studies only damn the poor further into the cyclical dungeon that is poverty. Yet another leg up for the haves, and another hurdle for the have-nots.

So what to do?

Subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables? Get kids exercising more in schools? Teach them, outright, that beauty is a factor? Educate parents?

Any other ideas?

Share This