Why "Glee" Pisses Me Off

Anyone that knows me knows that I'm not much for television. I recently got cable for the World Cup, but I still spend most weeks without ever turning it on. Every so often, though, a show comes around that is such a cultural phenomenon and that commands so much chatter from my friends and associates that I'm forced to take notice. This year's un-ignorable show? Glee.

Glee is the new apple pie. To not love it is sacrilege. As my Twitter and Facebook streams finally stopped buzzing about Lost, they lit up even brighter for Glee, as if there was some sort of subliminal messaging in the show that creates an overwhelming urge to post "OMG I <3 GLEE SO MUCH" everywhere one can. People love this show.

There are plenty of reasons to love it, too. The concept is a refreshing spin on the classic high school drama and manages to ensure that all of your stereotypes are represented, giving everyone a character they can identify with. The cast is diverse and interesting, from the hilariously villainous Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) to the hunky director, and favorite of the ladies, Will Schuster (Matthew Morrison).

Morrison's last gig was playing Link Larkin in Hairspray, on Broadway. In fact, show creator Ryan Murphy spent three months cruising Broadway looking for talent for the show. The sheer amount of talent that Morrison and the rest of the cast brings to the table is exactly what makes my gripe about the show so tragic.

If ever a show should appeal to me, it would be one that plays heavily on creating and celebrating music and using it to amplify the emotional impact of the plot. Glee could do that, but I just don't believe it. You can tell a great deal of money and effort is spent on making everything sound "radio ready" (and iTunes ready -- there have been over 7 million digital sales), but this destroys the show. While supposedly featuring a glee club just finding their feet and sometimes rehearsing new material for the first time, every time a character opens their mouth to let out a note, it unleashes a flurry of gratuitous overproduction, embellishment and unbelievable polish. You see none of the group's development of their material, nor any of the awkward process that culminates in that grand emotional performance. The accompaniment is excessive from the get-go, too, yet we're to believe it just comes out that way when they practice.

As a result of this overproduction, the audience is robbed of the ability to invest in the journey to the final result.

So why do they do this? Maybe every episode needs a shiny downloadable new song to sell. More likely, though, is that the producers have so little confidence in their audience that they think we will only stand for it if it sounds like our Top 40 station. As a group of outcasts with tremendous ability finding their place, wouldn't the vulnerability of developing a song, making mistakes and journeying through them be more compelling than listening to what could just as well be some pop group with heavy doses of AutoTune?

That's the worst part: this is a waste of a talented cast that could have (and has) performed this material live. Musicians of this talent would be more compelling if every moment of their performance wasn't sanitized in the studio and lip-synced over. Wouldn't we be privileged to hear them?

Each episode reportedly costs over $3 million to produce, yet I'd find it so much more appealing if they just set up a camera and let these artists do their thing. The cast has the chops, but the curse of overproduction leaves the whole thing coming off like a Britney Spears album. With the show increasingly relying on celebrity appearances and gimmicks, it seems it is quickly losing its way, but it failed to reach its potential from the beginning.

Still, the show continues to gain popularity. Maybe the producers were right about us as a viewing public. Maybe we should be offended by how unsophisticated they think we are. In any case, I'm sitting this one out.

Oh, and I promise to never blog about TV again!

Modern Archeology: The Kansas City, Clay County and St. Joseph Interurban

In the heart of the railroad age, even regional improved roads were rare. Travelers making the journey between Kansas City and St. Joseph relied upon the Kansas City, Clay County and St. Joseph Interurban Railroad. At its peak, this route offered hourly rides on electric rail cars between the cities and points between. Technically a light rail train, the Interurban was the longest in the KC area and was considered one of the finest in the country.

As a lover of transportation, cities and days gone by, I love finding relics the remind us of how we've changed -- and what we have lost. It also reminds us of the importance of protecting these historical structures so they can continue to tell their stories about how residents of our region once lived.

There are few of the iconic arched "Luten design" bridges left in the Kansas City area. These were among the first concrete bridges built, showcasing how innovative and modern the Internurban was when it was built in 1911.

Here is what I could find:

This bridge sits where the railroad crossed Line Creek in Riverside, Missouri. Once hidden in the dense forest around the creek, the path to this bridge is now being cleared for use as a recreational trail, a fantastic adaptive reuse for this impressive structure.

This single arch sits on private property near the center of tiny Avondale, Missouri. The bridge is covered with vegetation but remains in remarkably good shape despite years of neglect.

This double arch sits conspicuously next to Interurban Road, the auto route resulting in the closure of the Interurban and the paving of its right of way. Interurban remains a popular route for cyclists because of its calm, meandering route. This bridge carried auto traffic over its single-lane width until it was replaced last year by a modern bridge. In a beautiful location, I'm hopeful this bridge can be preserved as the centerpiece of a public space. It is located just north of KCI.

Beyond Interurban Road, there are still areas where you can identify the railroad's path. It followed Waukomis Drive's current route through the Northland and where Waukomis meets 68th Street, you can still see the path on the undeveloped land to the north. This right-of-way has been included in recent light rail proposals as a path connecting KCI to the city.


For more information on the KC-Clay County-St. Joe Interurban, check out this excellent site dedicated to it. 


I hope to continue to discover these modern relics and share them in the future. If you have ideas on things you'd like to see me explore, please let me know!

social.staubio

As some of you might know, I recently made social media and various Internetish things my full time job. As I delved deeper into social media tools, case studies, conferences and the like, I wanted to have a place to document and share my findings. I also wanted to keep this blog around for my hopefully more frequent random commentary on whatever-the-heck-it-is that I post about.

The solution? http://social.staubio.com! Check it out if you are interested!

Concerts Delivered to You!

In light of my experience at tonight's David Gray show at Uptown Theater, I realize that there is a huge untapped market that I'm about to fill. We know you love the experience, but isn't it a hassle to come out to the theater? Let me bring it to you.

For the same price as a front row seat, I'll make your experience real!

-I will play music loudly so you have to yell at each other over it. I'll bring two friends to sit on each side of you and look annoyed. In the middle of the evening, I'll play the one song you actually know from the artist so you can scream, pay attention for a few minutes, sing the chorus and then go back to yelling! I'll be sure to play music I really enjoy so you can keep me distracted, and I'll pay lots of quiet songs for you to yell inappropriately during. Don't miss your chance to clap along to quiet, thoughtful songs!

-I will stand on the other side of your back yard with a guitar. That way, you can replicate all of those dark blurry photos that you can't make out and you'll never look at again. You can claim the aberration in the photo is anyone you want! You can even turn on your point and shoot flash to try to illuminate me from hundreds of feet away. Just keep shooting, it might work someday! Hold that camera high over your head!

-I will bring a universal phone charger so you never have to stop texting your friends. Be sure to yell over the music to tell each other about your texts!

-I will sell you warm, watered-down Bud Light for as much as you want to pay, then crowd you so you can spill it on me.

-Best of all, I'll give you a high five after two hours and agree with you when you say it was the "best concert ever!"

Open Letter to Ed Ford RE: Tomahawke Ridge

As Kansas City plans to annex still more land into our sprawling metro, proponents of a progressive policy toward KC development need to let the City Council know we are paying attention. Contact your Councilperson and let them know how you feel.

Click here more information on the ordinance to annex this area north of the airport. Of special note is the staff report that waves red flags right and left.

Ed,

I’m writing to express my vehement disappointment in your sponsorship of the annexation of still more far-flung land into our flailing, over-extended city. Our metro has long held dubious rankings on sprawl and the ill-effects associated with it, with KCMO leading the line. Surely you know that providing services to this area will cost far more than the revenue the area will generate, all while jeopardizing the quality of those services to people in existing, established neighborhoods that have made a long-standing commitment to Kansas City.

We’re the 21^st largest city in America by land area but the 35^th largest by population. Is it any wonder we have a budget problem, and yet we are working our way further up the land area list? With so much land awaiting development in a way that could leverage existing investments, why do you insist on overextending us still further?

You owe it to those of us in the second district that already exists to be a good steward of our limited resources. Leap-frogging sprawl is not a revenue solution, it is a cost problem. You’ve often displayed an ambition to move this city forward by making decisions based on new ideas, not tired, disproven ones. Surely you realize the folly of supporting a development that our own city staff summarily rejected.

My neighborhood alone, in your district, houses hundreds of Kansas Citians in a few blocks. We are using existing infrastructure at a vastly lower cost per resident. Why should we subsidize a new development so far from our existing investments as a city?

Please have the courage to stand up for your existing constituents, not hypothetical ones and the developers that will profit from them.

Sincerely,

Matthew Staub

2009: My Year in Cities

Cities where I spent at least one overnight:

Boulder, CO
Denver, CO
Madison, WI
Milwaukee, WI
Archbold, OH
St. Louis, MO
Ozark National Scenic Riverway (Current River), MO
Ann Arbor, MI
Detroit, MI
Hannibal, MO
Minneapolis, MN
Omaha, NE
Norfolk, NE
Hoskins, NE

What Am I About?

I recently got word of a video production contest hosted by local credit union Mazuma and decided I'd create an entry. It was a good excuse to start playing with video editing, as I've always wanted to do.

Yesterday, finalists for the contest were announced and I was excited to be among them. The winners are determined by a vote of the registered users of the site and from the looks of things, the voting will be fiercely competitive.

In light of that, I would appreciate all of the support I can get. The site is a bit cumbersome but all you have to do to cast a vote is to register as a user, confirm and then go back to the homepage and vote in the poll in the bottom right of the page. My video is called "Community Around Every Corner" and can be viewed here.

The site is www.whatareyouabout.org

I have less than two weeks to get as many votes as possible. Thanks!

The Ethics of Campaign Finance

Hillary Clinton's campaign proudly announced today that her successes in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island have led to a windfall of cash, to the tune of $4 million in the two days since the polls closed. Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign announced that it had raised $55 million during February alone, breaking the record for a single month's take previously held by John Kerry.

...and they need it. These campaigns are burning through cash at a blistering pace in an attempt to knock each other out of the race, snatching up ads, paying pollsters and strategists and spamming whole states with direct mail. Mitt Romney burned through almost $100 million before giving up the ship. Obama and Clinton haven't even begun to fight in a general election and the end to the spending isn't in sight.

All told, the 2004 elections for congress and the presidency were estimated to have cost $3.9 billion.

I realize that there is an important role of campaign messages in communicating to the electorate. I'm also very familiar with the tired but valid argument that money is simply too vital and thus has too much influence in politics.

The question I haven't heard asked, however, is whether or not there are ethical implications to the amount of cash that is essentially being thrown away in the effort to garner votes. If a candidate or donor rationalizes the expenditure as a support for the implementation of better policies, how can they not realize the opportunity cost? How many uninsured Americans could we cover with the money we spend on campaigns? How much could be done to fight poverty with the piles of cash that are pouring into political campaigns? In an age where charities are struggling with fundraising, campaigns are breaking records.

With no end in sight to the growth of the costs of campaigns, at what point is this spending viewed as not only questionable but immoral and irresponsible?

Of course these costs pale in comparison to the cost of the war in Iraq. We've got priority issues everywhere you look in this country.

On Being That Guy

As I was going about some chores, I flipped on the Super Bowl mostly out of obligation. As the game intensified and began to appeal to my underdog boosterism, I took a time out to pay attention.

Like a great deal of people who claim to "watch it for the commercials," I took great interest in the ads, mostly from an academic perspective. These promotions are always trying to push the envelope, using the big stage of the Super Bowl to attempt to make a splash. Sometimes the result is a big, impressive production. Sometimes, the concept is so bizarre that the agency hopes we'll remember it.

Sometimes, like the ads I've lamented about in the past regarding the commodification of "macho, " they are just plain insulting. The Helzburg Ad I saw upped the ante.

It starts with a dimly lit scene and romantic music. A guy sits at a desk, meticulously preparing a greeting card for his love. Eventually, he presents her the card and tells her that he couldn't find a card to communicate how he really felt, so he made one for her, by hand.

Then, like the needle being pulled from the record, the romantic music stops and gives way to music more akin to a carnival than a romantic scene. A sarcastic voice says "because you're not that guy" and then goes on to say how easy it is to show someone you care: buy a diamond.

I verbally berated the television.

Instead of communicating thoroughly and thoughtfully how you feel, one should simply spend some money on a diamond and lob that her direction instead? The ad is actively derisive to the man many women claim to want, offering a simplified consumer solution to the complicated task of expressing your emotions. Have we really sunk to the point that our outward symbols are more important than our real feelings and the words we use to express them?

Is it any wonder that relationships fail so readily when the most critical part of them, open communication and emotional healthfulness, is ridiculed during the Super Bowl? Are relationships just a symbol for different patterns of massive consumption?

Don't be a pansy, dude, just get a diamond and get back to watching the game! High five!

If this is how relationships are measured in our era, are they really worth anything more than the contribution they have to the economy?

Trash the Holidays

The city has just released a press release outlining the changes in schedule around the city's trash collection services in response to the holidays. Among the changes in trash days, the city is providing an accommodation that amounts to a free-for-all of trash.

The city provides trash service for residences as a standard city service. Each home is entitled to two bags of trash per pick-up and can leave additional bags by purchasing stickers to place on the excess bags.

For Christmas, though, no stickers are necessary. Leave as much trash as you'd like. The city is recognizing that we celebrate this holiday by being excessive in every way possible. We torture ourselves, our families and our environment with our expectations of each other.

It has become paradoxically fashionable to lament the rampant consumerism of the holiday season while simultaneously accusing people of being Scrooges. At least we're at the point now that we can question some of the anything-goes behavior that was easily justified as being "Christmas spirit" by asking a few question about the implications.

Isn't it interesting that the city and KCP&L launches a massive campaign to save energy one bulb at a time by encouraging the replacement of traditional bulbs with compact fluorescents while simultaneously sponsoring a display of over 80 miles of lights?

The Plaza lights took a break in 1973 when Richard Nixon was a Scrooge who suggested that using power for pretty lights was making us more dependent upon foreign oil. Last time I checked, that dependence problem is even worse now -- but nobody has the guts to say so, or to make the association.

Yes, the Plaza lights are beautiful and turning them on is an event that brings our community together with a sense of pride. I just wish we could be as proud of what we were doing to improve our communities.

Next year, consider calling a truce with your family. Do thoughtful things to show that you are thinking of them and that you care for them. Take them off the hook from having to stress out over getting you a gift.

Give them the gift of peace and they won't even have to take out the trash.

Dream Commute

In a recent article in the Washington Post, some folks that commute more than 50 miles a day outlined their experiences. They indicated that they moved so far away "for the children" or to find their dream house.

Is quality of life even a consideration? What good is a dream house if you are only there for 10 hours a day? How can someone be making a decision for their children knowing that the decision is going to take them away from their children for such a long time?

As if the quality of life issues weren't enough, the article outlines the additional ways that living a car-dependent lifestyle can actually make you sick. The health implications of planning, sprawling developments and suburban lifestyles have been well documented. This article explores the health implications specific to the commute itself, including the toll on one's body from sitting in place and the stress of dealing with the drive every day.

Shouldn't one's dream house be one that allows them to live the lifestyle that is healthiest and most enriched, not the one with the most bedrooms 60 miles from home? Shouldn't the best choice for the children be the one that allows their parents to spend the most time with them? When will quality of life be a consideration?

Are we going to destroy our communities, our environement, our bodies and our children before we figure this out?

Second Class Citizen

As I braved my commute this morning, I was given a stark reminder of how I ranked on the food chain of transportation. Recently, I've been ditching the bus and walking the mile to work every day. Today in the bitter cold, I checked on the next bus and decided to give walking a shot anyway.

As I made my way up the hill, I encountered mountains of dirty ice chunks. The roads had been cleared for easy passage of the automobiles and all of the gunk had been pushed up onto the sidewalk. For several blocks, I couldn't even determine where the sidewalk was supposed to be as I attempted to make my way across the slick, gunky mess.

Meanwhile, the snowplows made another pass over an already cleared street. Is there any more explicit way that I can be told that my method of transportation isn't even worth consideration and, even worse, can be undermined for the benefit of another?

I Failed KC

Tony has a very amusing post today letting everyone know that it is people like me that are ruining Kansas City.

http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2006/11/kansas-city-voters-have-failed-us-all.html

I'll just giggle for now. Updates coming.

See America - Stay Inside!

I was given a unique opportunity when I attended a conference for work this week. Though it was just a short walk for me, most of the other attendees had just flown into the city. I have attended conferences before, but I've never had the chance to see one in my own city and to see how people react to it.

You would think that, given the opportunity to spend time in a new place, that people would embrace the chance to see the city and experience its quirks and charms. When sitting down for breakfast, I settled in to learn about my fellow convention-goers' experiences from the evening before. I was excited to hear the impressions of the city from the same people that were pleasantly surprised to find out that Kansas City isn't a wheat field the day before.

The first group of guys chime in. They went to the casino. They spent their night in a completely different city rich with opportunities for new experiences in a dark manufactured room playing card games and pulling a handle.

Another group? They went shopping. Assuming maybe they took in the magnificent Country Club Plaza, I listened intently for impressions. Nope. They went somewhere enclosed. I didn't inquire. They spent their time in a new place shopping at chain stores that they have at home.

Is this really what people want? People are treating entire cities as franchise locations, each one with the same offerings and the same things to pass the time. There is no need to try to see anything new as there is something predictable readily available. What does this mean to the identity of our great cities?

Sooner or later, someone will build a runway, a convention hotel, a casino and a mall all connected in the middle of the desert. Context doesn't matter. You've got everything you could ever want right there without the pesky temptation to actually see something new.

When did we get so lazy and completely lose our creativity? Genuine character is obsolete as the sense of discovery is all but dead. If it is worth seeing or doing, it will be marketed as such.

Far be it for anyone to ask for a bit more.

Hiding Behind Hybrid

As a guy that is a celebrity for being self-righteous and defiant about his transportation choices, I find it interesting how many people want to volunteer the fact that they are "considering" a hybrid vehicle to replace their current behemoths. I smile insincerely, as it is better than nothing, but the truth is that I'm not impressed.

Tonight I saw the clincher. "Support America: Get 40 Miles Per Gallon!"

I saw that gem on the bumper sticker of a hybrid in Lenexa. It was motoring along a feeder road to points further into the sprawl. Thanks to that handy hybrid, this lady could live a car dependent lifestyle with joy and ease, guilt covered by the 15 MPG improvement over the cars around her.

It seems that hybrids aren't so much selling fuel efficiency as much as they are selling a get-out-of-jail-free card for the buyer's conscience. In fact, some hybrids offer only marginal fuel economy gains. There are hybrid SUVs that get worse economy than most standard cars.

Driving a hybrid? Great, you are still driving and still creating pollution. Interestingly, in order for a hybrid to make economic sense, one must drive it more than average. I'm sure the sense of satisfaction that many buyers get from hybrids probably make them feel like they can drive it as much as they want without thinking about it. Hey, it's a hybrid!

For me, pollution and fuel consumption are only part of the reason I try to avoid driving. We're still obsessed with road construction, parking lots, car-centric development and massively scaled and sprawling communities. Saving 10 miles per gallon isn't going to fix that problem. Hybrids aren't going to fix Lenexa.

Instead of making ourselves feel better about driving, let's figure out how we can live without it.

Macho Marketing

In the days leading up to the Super Bowl, there was a bit of controversy over an ad that depicted a semi tractor-trailer barreling down residential streets and forcing smaller cars off the road. A trucking industry group was rightfully concerned that this ad reinforced negative stereotypes about the drivers in their industry.

If the group was paying attention, they'd know that they aren't the first victims of a new craze of "macho marketing," a movement apparently attempting to appeal to those who want to buy themselves some tough.

The ad in question is for a sports drink and it depicts this semi rolling through neighborhoods. As manly men see it pass, they take up some sort of manly activity and pursue it. By the end, there is a big studly procession following as the semi forces the Red Bull truck off the road.

I first noticed this trend when I picked up my normal body wash. Though not very manly, I like body wash because it works better. However, that wouldn't be a good enough reason had I not been reassured by the packaging that the product "won't wash away testosterone."

Phew, close one. I was on the verge of being less manly.

The sad thing is that these pleas appeal to the lowest element of masculinity -- the competitive, insecure, tough-guy, fight-fight-fight inner self that is just dying to be given a marketing rational to abandon rational thought.

Are men really so insecure that these tactics work?

Bus buddies and those who need them

Last night, I sauntered outside as twilight was fading to make my way to the bus stop. I usually scope out the stop to see who else is waiting and try to strike up a conversation with people there is they looked bored and agreeable. I've developed a couple of "bus buddies" this way -- people I run into every week or two that live in the neighborhood. It is a nice way to share the walk from the final stop and it is a great way to pass the time on the bus.

After Christmas, I had posted my concerns about the impact my newly acquired MP3 player on my bus experience. I've found that I can't keep it turned on for more than a few minutes as I'm either listening to someone's conversation or participating in my own. I like determining each driver's unique demeanor and I like the wild variety of stuff people discuss on board.

I was talking with my bus buddy, which prevented me from zoning out, when a girl that was obviously unfamiliar with the bus and a bit uncomfortable braved to ask the surly bus driver where to get off for the library. We were at 9th and Oak, already well past the ideal stop for the library and the girl bravely tried to figure out what she should do.

My bus buddy and I took the case, telling her that she missed the best stop but she could get off at 9th and Grand and head to 10th and down the hill. As we were trying to give directions, the driver interrupted, saying "all you have to do is get off up there, it ain't no big deal" while we were trying to make her comfortable with her journey to the library. As we pulled up to the stop, we had to let her know that she should get off here.

You can always tell when people are new to the bus and a friendly driver can make a world of difference. It is an intimidating thing for those that aren't very adventurous. I'm glad I was paying attention so we could help.

I hope we didn't lose this girl to the scary driver. I hope she made it to the library after an enjoyable walk through downtown.

Maybe I'll see this new girl again and we can be bus buddies. As we chat, we'll be ready to help the next brave rider in need of a buddy.

Tony has broughten it

If I had to read just one Kansas City related blog, it would probably be the prolific Tony's Kansas City, an often irreverent and oversimplified but painstakingly updated and funny look at what goes on in KC. I often agree with Tony, particularly in his frustrations with the Star. One frustrating element, however, is that Tony likes to complain about white people and their disassociation with and marginalization of minorities. It is humorous, but not so much so as it is tiresome, particularly when he contradicts himself with a rant about white people that ride the bus.

Tony's rant is that riding the bus "does not make you unique," as if riding the bus was just something people do to be cool and if you aren't poor and non-white, you are a poser.

On the contrary, riding the bus DOES make one unique simply by virtue of it being a rather exclusive activity, particularly among annoying white urbanites like me. The vast majority of trips taken in Kansas City are taken by car, so those that choose to use the bus, particularly with a car available, have made a conscience choice to be different.

I don't quite understand Tony's hostility toward young white people who are willing to take advantage of a transportation solution that so many poor minorities rely upon. Would he prefer that those whities kept to themselves in their safe automobile enclaves, further encouraging a disparity of opportunity between rich and poor and an ignorance toward alternative transportation? In one post, he complains about white people and their ignorance toward minority issues. In the next, he complains that white people are doing the "poor" thing and riding the bus.

If riding the bus becomes some sort of moral vanity, it is a good thing. Increasing the awareness of the bus is good for those riders that rely upon it. Increasing ridership means that those poor, non-white people we white people hate so much will have better transportation options and increased mobility.

Tony suggests that we attach all of the "white people with glasses" to rickshaws and make them useful. What of the people commuting by car? Are these people somehow more useful because they won't ever even have to talk to a person that isn't exactly like them, their entire life being their garage, their office and racist talk radio in between?

Good for us annoying white people who want to ride the bus. We should feel self satisfied. It does make a difference, however small, and it is more than sustainability and the environment at play, which most people don't take the time to realize. There are racial aspects and quality of life aspects. When destinations don't need a parking spot for every person, our city becomes a better environment that brings more opportunity to everyone. Attacking the satisfaction of bus riders smacks of the ignorance that is often employed to dismiss the bus as an option only for the poorest people so one doesn't have to think about their transportation choices or the impact they have on the community.

I guess in Tony's world, the only explanation for a white person that isn't racist is that he is a self-righteous poser. Hmm, which one should I choose?

The Anita Gorman Exposé

Anita Gorman is a well-respected community leader who has won recognition for her contributions to the cause of conservation. She was chairman of the Missouri Conservation Commission, president of the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and had a park named after her when she retired from that post. The Discovery Center, an urban conservation area along Brush Creek, bears her name. She has figured prominently in several fundraising and charity events and serves on a handful of honorary commissions. Basically, she is a local hero.

Last night, she called me pathetic.

I was participating in a discussion at a public forum regarding the Riverfront Park development being pursued by the Port Authority. One of the discussion-inducing questions was "can you imagine this park without parking in it?," in response to which Gorman immediately became incredulous.

The development is involving some of the best consultants in mixed-used development and urban parks available, and the plan is advocating the leveraging of the adjacent neighborhood to provide event parking. More than 800 on-street spaces will be provided in the neighborhood, in addition to the private parking accommodations of the residents and an independent parking supply for the office space.

Gorman shook her head adamantly.

"You need to let these people know that they aren't getting it when it comes to parking," she said. I indicated, in turn, that I could absolutely envision the park without independent parking. It could leverage the plentiful parking in the area that would only be needed during off-peak times, all without destroying the park in the process.

Clutching her car keys in hand, Gorman began to stare me down. It was immediately clear that she is used to people reverently listening when she speaks, yielding to her legacy. In reaction, she evoked it, discrediting me with a smirk and sharing credentials like "I have been in KC longer than many of you [me] have been alive" and when events were held in Loose Park, neighbors were upset by the impact to the neighborhood. She laughed at the consultants suggestion that we re-route Riverfront Drive, saying the Kansas Citians can surely cross a street while missing the point that the sense of flow and connectivity was at play, not the ability to cross. She advocated keeping the street to accommodate a "sea of parking" for events.

I countered that the layout, connections and neighborhoods that will be near this park couldn't be more different than Loose Park and that a mixed use development is designed differently than a low-density, single-family homes neighborhood of mostly affluent people like the area around Loose Park. I also said that those who choose to live in such a development make a lifestyle choice that includes such complications as people coming in from outside of the neighborhood. In fact, we welcome it.

My continued deviation from her gospel clearly irritated her, and at this point it was visible on her face and apparent in her rushed delivery. She told me that "you'll never change things in Kansas City," "it won't work here," "you don't understand," etc, before ending with "you really are quite pathetic," to the shock of me and the others in attendance.

When challenged to defend her position, she made no defense other than to cite her legacy and then, failing that, to childishly call names.

In our only true riverfront space in Kansas City, this "conservation hero" wanted to make sure there was plenty of parking for her sport utility, despite the fact that parking would sit unused on the vast majority of days, adjacent parking would go underutilized and density and connectivity to the park would be lost.

For this park to be great, things are going to have to change in Kansas City, and they already have and continue to do so. I know because I'm paying attention and I'm an agent of change, not a member of an outdated way of thinking. I may not count for much, but I care about doing things right and I refuse to believe any tired stereotype about our city.

Perhaps everyone who yields to Anita Gorman out of respect alone should put a little more faith in our city and a little less faith in her outdated viewpoint and her childish tactics. I was very disappointed that this respected community symbol, a conservation hero who ironically falls in favor of more parking lots, could not have a constructive conversation about an important topic without attempting to immediately discredit me and call me names, all while undermining the thought that Kansas City can really become world-class.

On the way out, Gorman gave me an insincere smile while carefully analyzing my nametag to remember my name and then gave me the patronizing finale: "Now, Matthew, you won't be too upset if we just have a few parking spaces in our park, now, will you?" I'm sure I'm a marked man now.

Plenty of other people were there to see this and I hope they don't forget her behavior. I certainly won't, and I certainly won't let her legacy stand in the way of the legacy of our city and our return to the river.

If that makes me pathetic, so be it.

Awash in fresh, clear consumerism

Last night, I grew angry when I saw yet another person cart the warehouse-store sized gazillion pack of tiny water bottles into their home.

If you would tell our grandparents that we would be buying water in plastic bottles simply to drink, I should hope they would have called us idiots. It is something that was undoubtedly and should still be an absurd concept, but at some point, someone somewhere figured the right mixture of marketing and trend-setting could convince a gullible public that they needed their water out of a bottle.

I'm not quite sure what compels people to buy water like this. I assume for many it is a combination of laziness and a lack of a sense of consequence. With a bottle of water, you don't have to go through the hassle of filling up the container or carrying it home empty. You just grab that convenient serving size, sip it and then toss the container when you are done. Ahh, refreshing!

Still others probably think that the water is healthier than the stuff that comes out of the faucet.

Isn't it ironic that we're worried about the safety of our water because of all of the pollution we are causing, so we solve the problem by transporting our water in containers that are one of the single most significant presences at landfills? Instead of employing an efficient pipe to bring us water, we're counting on trucks, trains and boats and all of the destructive infrastructure they depend on, just to take a sip.

Maybe if bottled water was really healthier than its tap equivalent, we could begin to talk about whether or not it is worth the other costs -- but it ISN'T. Kansas City has some of the best rated tap water in the country, and regulations controlling water quality from public utilities are more stringent than the FDA's regulation of bottled water.

Yes, your tap water is held to a higher standard, but it has a far smaller marketing budget.

The answer to that age old question "if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you too?" has been answered many times over, resoundingly. Yes, we would, and we do everyday. We've been convinced to act destructively by companies that are more than willing to plummet face first into the rocks, as long as plenty of people come with them and bring their wallets.

With the amount of money that we spend on bottled water, we could do a lot of cleaning up. We could make sure everyone had access to safe, clean tap water no matter where they were, and we wouldn't need a complicated supply chain to get it there. We could protect our water supply instead of pulling it from other places and often causing shortages there.

The American Way is out of sight, out of mind, though, and nobody shall infringe upon our right to our Dasani.

Next up, bottled air, so we can all get a breath of fresh country air, brought to you via long haul diesel truck.