Column in The Buffalo News 12/26/2013

Thursday, December 26, 2013

TheBuffaloNews.com

Opinion

 

Paul Chimera: Typewriter’s click-clack holds special attraction

on December 26, 2013 - 12:01   

When our two young grandsons come to visit, they’re mesmerized by a technological wonder. It sits moot – compact, yet possessing deceptive heft – on the floor of my home office.
There’s no video display to be found on it. No on/off switch, wires, cables, blinking lights or digital components of any type.
To a small child, it must look a bit imposing – a steely constellation of metal levers, a sort of black rolling pin seated along its top, and curious levels of circular plates on which the alphabet appears, although strangely out of sequence.
The name LC Smith appears ostentatiously bold, printed on a top-mounted shield-like metal strip. The little lettered or numbered discs running in five tiers seem to beckon tiny fingers, eager with nervous energy and boundless curiosity to tap on them, like hammering plastic nails on a toy work bench.
Then there are those two funny little spools connected by a ribbon, looking a little like a miniature version of an old reel-to-reel tape recorder.
The click-clack sound seems to hold special attraction. As if something important is being accomplished, and everyone should hear about it. And there’s the added charm of that roller (aka platen) hopping to the left with each plunge of a key, from which there are so many to choose, mounted on a maze of scaffolding.
Then you get to swat this long metal arm that repositions things for another attack – after hearing a “ding!” that sounds like you’re checking in at a motel front desk.
But wait, boys – watch this! I feed a sheet of paper into its maw, and now a letter or number stamps itself in dark contrast onto the white paper each time one of the lettered or numbered disks is depressed. No flickering video display. No blinking cursor. Not a pixel to be found. Just fuzzy black ink hammered with a decisive clank right onto the porous paper.
This, I try to explain, is a cool typewriter. A once state-of-the-art gadget on which people wrote love letters, news stories and all manner of other correspondence.
About a year ago, the New York Times ran a feature story about how today’s younger folks – college students, mainly – are flocking to special venues where rows of typewriters line tables and provide the Internet/video generation the chance to see – but more importantly hear – what it used to be like back in the day. The sound of anachronism can be intoxicating.
They’re discovering something almost primal about writing this way, as the world did for so many years after the machine’s invention in the 1860s. There’s something enticing about the raw, tactile, simple nature of using a typewriter – a manual one at that.
Committing words to paper in so direct a fashion seems pure and unpretentious. Push down on keys and stamp your statement immediately on the final printed page. No need to select “print” here. Typing and printing are one in the same.
Word processing is far too effective and efficient to ever revert to the typewriter, of course. The old guard – Remington, Underwood, Royal, Olivetti – has long been replaced by Apple, IBM and a high-tech legion of others. But don’t tell that to my grandkids. Oh, they still like Google, YouTube and computer games. But the old LC Smith, circa early 1900s, is right there alongside the modern stuff. And click-clack drowns out hissing electrons any old day.

                              

                  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                ×

Story on Famed Arist Harvey Breverman

http://eva.daemen.edu/studentlife/insight/Pages/BrevermanExhibitionShinesLightontheCacheofDaemenItself.aspx

Buffalo News 'My View' Column

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google
• Reddit
• Delicious
• Stumble Upon
• Digg
• Fark
• MySpace

Updated: August 17, 2011, 11:22 AM

In the last few weeks, not one but two out-of-town people with whom I was casually talking about the Buffalo region and its many fine attributes responded with genuine surprise when I mentioned that my wife, grandson and I spent the day at the beach.
“The beach? There are beaches in Buffalo?” they queried incredulously. Their shock was, I think, overshadowed by mine.
“Are you kidding? You’re really surprised by this?” I demurred. “What, you think we have glaciers here all year?”
The conversations got me thinking about the recent announcement of the new slogan for Buffalo tourism: “Buffalo. For Real.” Now I’m not about to second- guess that tagline. I’m sure plenty of thought went into it. That it was test-marketed. And that perhaps it will grow on me.
But permit me to toss my hat in the ring and suggest a moniker I think makes a lot more sense: “Buffalo. You’ll Be Surprised!”
Just as surprised as the aforementioned folks, when I brought up the beach scene. And I think this slogan works on several levels. Taken literally, people will indeed be surprised. How many know, after all, that we have some of Frank Lloyd Wright’s and Louis Sullivan’s best work here? Or that our art museum is chockablock with both classic and contemporary masters? Or that we boast a world-class symphony orchestra? And that we’re practically in misting distance of a natural wonder called Niagara Falls?
“You’ll Be Surprised” also strikes a chord of adventure most people would embrace. People like to be surprised. So this slogan offers a promise to them — the promise of finding something here they never expected. And making good on that promise isn’t difficult for Buffalo: a burgeoning waterfront; nationally recognized professional sports teams; bucolic parks; great, affordable shopping and housing; renowned art and food festivals; and an old-fashioned neighborly ethos.
People need to be disabused of their sometimes outrageous perceptions of our city. I’ve encountered otherwise enlightened people who honestly think there’s an arctic weather pattern here all year long. Their immediate response, when you tell them you’re from Buffalo, is, “Oh, you guys get a lot of snow there, don’t you!”
This kind of stereotyping is an easy trap to fall into. Admittedly, don’t most of us think of grass skirts, pineapples, palm trees and luaus when we think of Hawaii? Yet it has crime, poverty, blight, inclement days, gridlock and more. That would surely surprise many of us. Likewise, there are people in Las Vegas who are not connected to the gaming industry, and folks in Wisconsin or Nashville who couldn’t give a porcupine’s behind about cheddar cheese or country music, respectively.
All of which may come as a surprise to a lot of people. I have to admit that, when I first set foot in Georgia, I expected throngs of Southern belles and bushels of fresh peaches. But it wasn’t like that. And when I first walked Hollywood Boulevard in L. A., I thought I’d spot dozens of movie stars; I didn’t see a one.
So what do people expect when they imagine a visit to Buffalo? Snow all year-round? Chicken wing restaurants on every corner? People still wringing their hands over four consecutive Super Bowls without ever bringing home the game’s holy grail? Fact is, they’d be surprised. Especially when it comes to beaches. Yes, we’ve got ’em in Buffalo. And plenty more. They’d be surprised — for real. Doesn’t everyone love a surprise?

A cornucopia of samples . . .

My writing spans newspaper and magazine journalism (specializing in feature writing and personality profiles), advertisements, brochures, direct mail packages, newsletters, and much more. Here, in no particular order, are just some of the publications in which my work has appeared, along with a few samples of marketing collateral I've written. I invite you to take a closer look in person!

Attorney's 'Guest Editorial' Takes Practical Look at 'Intelligent Design'

(Blogger's note: I enjoyed this piece so much, written by Western New York attorney Jeffrey Allen Spencer and published some years ago in The Buffalo News, that I've taken the liberty of posting it on my blog -- strictly for the enlightenment of those fortunate enough to read it.)


Theory Doesn't Account for Life's Amazing Complexity

By Jeffrey A. Spencer

Like a giant colossus, Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution have for more than a century cast a huge shadow over scientific and intellectual thought, shaping our view of ourselves and our world. The theory has gained such widespread acceptance that almost any criticism is viewed at best as a misguided denial of reality and at worst as a stealth effort to sneak creationism into our public schools.

The "spin" one usually gets in public commentary is that this is a battle between science and religion, the old Scopes monkey trial revisited but dressed in new clothes. The bigger story that never seems to hit the front page is that well credentialed scientists from across the globe have raised serious questions concerning the viability of the theory.

Good science takes a hard look at the facts while keeping an open mind to new or alternative interpretations of those facts. From the beginning, the theory of evolution has always been a controversial interpretation of the facts.

The theory is based on assumed innumerable small changes over long periods of time. However, Darwin himself noted the absence of transitional species in the fossil record and shuddered at the incredible complexity of nature. We now know that even a "simple" cell has the complexity of a modern city, and that each living creature has billions of those interdependent cells, perfectly coordinated to perform thousands of functions. All this complexity is directed by an information system (DNA) that far exceeds the Encyclopedia Britannica in its magnitude.

As any computer geek can tell you, you can't get a more complex information program out of a simple one. Einstein recognized that one of the fundamental laws of the universe is that matter moved over time from order to disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics). The theory of evolution asks us to believe that all this incredible complexity, organized through an amazingly complex information system, happened by accident over time.

The clear evidence for the adaptability of a species within limits as part of a species' genetic code (i.e., the great variation in dog breeds) demonstrates the marvelous flexibility of these codes. But even determined breeders have never been able to produce anything other than a dog. One wonders how an undirected, "accidental" process could have done better.

Doctrinaire evolutions take issue with the "intelligent design" movement, alleging the theological implications of a "designer," yet are comfortable in continuing to proselytize for their own "faith" that astoundingly complex life on planet Earth somehow arose through a haphazard accidental process.

In spite of reasonable questions about whether the theory still fits the facts, evolution seems to have been elevated to a place of "scientific correctness" to which serious criticism is not permitted. The fear that some critics of evolution may have a religious agenda is surely not sufficient reason to ignore contrary evidence or to close one's mind to alternative interpretations. Good science, good education and intellectual honesty demand more.

Is God for Real?

By Paul Chimera


It takes real hubris to proclaim that God does not exist, that all that’s here is here by chance, that life itself is an accident.

To a large extent, I think Dr. Francis Collins nailed the reason why some people – without even considering the evidence – choose to be non-believers: it gets them off the hook (albeit in their minds only). Dr. Collins is director of the national Human Genome Project, and is both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of North Carolina and Yale University, respectively. He’s also a devout Christian.

But until age 27, Dr. Collins was actually an atheist, he admits. In a public presentation he gave not long ago about his pioneering work on the genetic code of human life, he said, “I decided to become an atheist without considering the evidence. It was convenient being an atheist – not being answerable to anybody, surrounded by lots of temptations and not having to worry about the consequences.”

But then Collins, like many of his brethren in the scientific community, began to follow the evidence and where it might lead, and their conclusions were inescapable.

Dr. Mark Eastman, M.D., in a speech about science and faith, quoted the esteemed physicist and information scientist, Hubert P. Yockey, who noted that the mathematical probability of a single protein arising by chance is one in 2 x 10 to the 75th power. That’s a “2” with 75 zeros after it.

Sir Fred Hoyle, the famed English astronomer, said this about the origin of life: “The probability that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

Human Genome Project Director Collins noted, after reading C.S. Lewis’s seminal book, Mere Christianity, that “based on pure logic, it was more reasonable to believe in God than not to. Jesus Christ was a person unlike any other…the historical evidence for Jesus Christ was very overwhelming to me.”

But let’s question for a moment that, if we accept that God is real, how come we don’t see him? The irony is that we do; we just don’t look very carefully, and we take way too much for granted. A nun, speaking recently on the EWTN religious television network, reduced all this down to a rather clear way of understanding how God’s hand is evident in our daily lives.

She posed, for example, the notion of the planets revolving around the sun. Why do they not steer off-track, but instead remain rigorously on their same course, she asked? What about the billions of stars? Or even that we have summer, then fall, then winter, and spring? “How,” she queried, “did the world come into being?”

Dr. Eastman underscores that it was surely not by chance – not some wondrous emergence from a primordial soup. He recalls, when in medical school, holding a human brain. In his younger days he considered himself an evolutionist and, yes, even an atheist. In a sardonic tone, as he recalled holding that brain, he recently told an audience, “Billions of years of random molecular collisions produced this!” He chuckled, and the audience joined him.

Western New York attorney Jeffrey A. Spencer, in an insightful essay published a few years back in The Buffalo (N.Y.) News, stated, “As any computer geek can tell you, you can’t get a more complex information program out of a simple one. Einstein recognized that one of the fundamental laws of the universe is that matter moves over time from order to disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics). The theory of evolution asks us to believe that all this incredible complexity, organized through an amazingly complex information system, happened by accident over time…Doctrinaire evolutionists take issue with the ‘intelligent design’ movement, alleging the theological implications of a ‘designer,’ yet are comfortable in continuing to proselytize for their own ‘faith’ that astoundingly complex life on planet Earth somehow arose through a haphazard accidental process.”

Several years ago, Anthony Flew, the British philosophy professor who had been the leading champion of atheism for over a half-century, changed his mind. His thoughts were documented on video (you can look him up on youtube). An Associated Press report out of New York stated, “At age 81, after decades of insisting that belief in God is a mistake, Anthony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.”

It is said that when Albert Einstein was asked about his work, he explained, “I merely trace the lines that flow from God.” Still, of course, there are skeptics. When the aforementioned medical doctor, Mark Eastman, was giving a presentation about his religious convictions, a professor at the back of the room raised his hand in dissent. “We are scientists,” he said adamantly about himself and a group he had with him. “We do not believe in things that can’t be seen, felt, or empirically measured.”

Dr. Eastman was thus forced to tell the academician, in so many words, “Well, sir, no one has ever seen or felt the human mind, yet we know it exists. According to your theory, then, am I not justified in believing you don’t have one, since we can’t see it?” (Not a precise, word-for-word direct quote).

The professor and his colleagues were speechless.

Dr. Eastman explains that our mind – though non-physical – nonetheless is real. We know it exists, just like God. “When we see the things that are made, we see the evidence of an information scientist, the evidence of an engineer in the machine-like structure of living systems, and the evidence of a vastly powerful biochemist,” said Dr. Eastman.

Dr. Michael J. Behe, a molecular biologist and professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and an unabashed Christian, points out the “irreducible complexity” of astoundingly harmonious systems, such as that of the flagellum (tail) of a single bacterium. He refers to these amazing, microscopic creatures as “molecular machines,” where – if even one tiny component of the perfectly orchestrated system were to not operate properly – the bacterium would cease to function.

In his web-based Research Summary, Dr. Behe declares, “Despite much general progress by science in the past half century in understanding how complex biochemical systems work, little progress has been made in explaining how such systems arise in a Darwinian fashion. I have proposed that a better explanation is that such systems were deliberately designed by an intelligent agent.”

Dr. Francis Collins, speaking about the same microscopic organism – the bacterium that Behe was referring to – said that the nanotechnology here suggests that the bacterium’s flagellum “is an impossibly complicated thing for evolution to have created.”

Let me return to Dr. Behe for a moment. In speaking of a “designer” behind such marvels of nature, he illustrates his point by asking us to consider the ordinary mouse trap. You need three things to have an effective mouse trap: the spring-trap, bait, and a mouse. But until someone (a designer) puts those elements together, you’ll never catch a mouse. Dr. Behe has also posed the thought-provoking scenario of a wrist watch. No one questions that the device was designed – yet the design of the human wrist below it – a far more complex “device” – is subjected to doubt.

“We now know,” wrote attorney Jeffrey A. Spencer in the previously mentioned Buffalo News article, “that even a ‘simple’ cell has the complexity of a modern city, and that each living creature has billions of these interdependent cells, perfectly coordinated to perform thousands of functions. All this complexity is directed by an information system (DNA) that far exceeds the Encyclopedia Britannica in its magnitude.”

One of the most eloquent and popular advocates of Intelligent Design and Christianity is Lee Strobel, author of, among other books, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. In a speech about how DNA proves God’s existence, Mr. Strobel noted that when America announced the Human Genome, President Clinton said, “Today we are learning the language in which God created life.”

Strobel points out that DNA is literally a language, encoded with a 4-character chemical alphabet that precisely spells out the assembly instructions for all the thousands of different proteins our body is constructed of. DNA, in fact, is “the most efficient information-storage system in the universe,” Strobel said. “Where,” he asks rhetorically, “did that come from?”

His talk concluded with a reference to nanoscientist Dr. James Tour of Rice University, one of the leading experts in the molecular world. Tour wrote, “Today I stand in awe of God because of what he has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”

____________

Good writing is good thinking, but how the hell do you teach someone how to think? So, what's the greater challenge: writing, or teaching writing? In my case, they're both a challenge -- and I live for a good challenge. Bring it on! -- Paul Chimera