February 28, 2005
No More Sticks
Last night I smoked my last cigarette, dearest blog, (a friend of mine calls them “sticks"- short for cancer sticks) after countless half-hearted attempts to quit. And when I say half-hearted, I really mean I never meant to quit at all, perhaps I wasn’t in the right “headspace” as the hippies like to say. But I’ve also noticed that quitting smoking, like so many things in life is pretty easy once you commit to it. No, this is not an ad for commit lozenges, in fact I think the physical addiction to nicotine pales in comparison to the mental dependency, which I would classify as falsely seductive. In other words, like an evil manipulative lover, nicotine makes you believe that you can’t live without it, that you won’t be as happy, as creative, that your thoughts won’t be as inspired, ideas won’t flow as consistently. There is evidence that nicotine can actually make you “smarter” or at least stimulate your brain in certain ways, making those who are creative or sharp significantly moreso when they are “on” the nicotine. Here’s an interesting quote:
“Although nicotine is a poisonous substance that has long been used as an insecticide and rat poison, the small doses taken by smokers can cause temporary improvements in mental performance, including alertness, capacity to carry out repetitive tasks, and both accuracy and speed in an information processing test. Smoking is used by workers as an aid in tasks requiring thinking and concentration, and cigarettes can perk people up in much ths same way as a cup of coffee.”
“At low doses, nicotine stimulates the release of beta-endorphin, an opiate made by the body. Consequently, smokers fell calmer. In contrast, a high dose apparently prompts the release of noradrenaline, adrenaline and dopamine. Smokers may experienc a lift, or find themselves in the paradoxical state of being more alert and more relaxed. Nicotine has also been credited with improvements in mental performance through an increased release of two neurotransmitters involved with memory function, acetylcholine and vasopressin. These effects don’t last for long - from 15 minutes to half an hour.”
“A healthier alternative to a nicotine dependency is regular aeurobic exercise. This is a habit that, like smoking, increases the release of beta-endorphin, acetylcholine and adrenaline. The result of a good aerobic workout is that sam paradoxical state of relaxed alertness. And unlike smoking, the fitness habit won’t increase your risk of cancer and heart disease." (source)
My intuition regarding this is that by giving you a sense of euphoria, relaxation, and increased mental activity, you might feel like you are more productive than you actually are. By stimulating all kinds of activity in a very short amount of time, while probably slowing down activity after it wears off, nicotine can give you the feeling that you’ll never be quite as creative or productive if you quit. This is what I sense is at the very core of my waffling when it comes to quitting.
Add to this the fact that I am not remotely convinced that non-chronic smoking (ie, 1-2 cigarettes a day or less) has such terrible health consequences. While the common wisdom states that even a little exposure the awful carcinogens in cigarettes on a regular basis almost guarantees that you’ll die a painful death from cancer or emphysema, most of the data that we have regarding the effects of smoking are based on smoking over a pack a day and I’m sure many of the “poster children” for the ill effects of smoking smoked much more than that. Think about the way people eat in this country, with all we know about the effects of obesity (obesity is actually gaining on smoking as the leading cause of preventable death). While there may be an argument to made for the “addictive” qualities of overeating, I don’t think it functions on the level of nicotine, a chemical which goes straight to the pleasure centers of the brain.
Nor do I subscribe to the idea that smoking is just an unmitigated “bad", or anti-life per se. Again, we are trained to see smokers as having completely abandoned their health, if not being contemptuous of it. Nevermind that many smokers are in much better shape than their non-smoking counterparts, and may in fact be healthier overall. Smoking, while addictive, is also pleasurable apart from its narcotic effects, and, like its healthier but equally addictive sister-in-law coffee, a well-timed cigarette can provide a perfect lift when a nap or a full-body massage isn’t feasible.
The choice to smoke, like all choices, is contextual. How long do you want to live? Is the pleasure of smoking a few cigarettes a day for the next ten years or so worth giving up a year or two of old age (don’t ask me how I calculated that risk factor)?
My choice to quit is based on a lot of factors. Cigarettes seem to affect my throat in the short term, making sore throats and throat infections more likely. A night of heavy smoking can leave me with a “smoker’s hangover” in the morning, with the feeling that my heart is working overtime to do its thing. I don’t like the idea of smelling like smoke all the time, knowing how disagreeable that odor can be when you don’t smoke. I don’t like the way it affects my circulation, making me feel like when I’m not smoking regularly, my extremities are always too hot or too cold. And finally, the “common wisdom” about health include some attitudes that I’ve internalized to a certain extent. I see myself smoking on my lunch hour on Lexington Avenue and think, “what kind of pleasure could be worth putting poison directly into your body?".
So, dear blog, with you as my witness, I hereby declare I am done with cigarettes forever. I am as serious as cancer and as committed as a commit lozenge.
Posted by exaltron at 07:57 PM | Comments (0)
February 21, 2005
The Aviator
Ok, so I’ll just add my voice to the chorus of objectivists singing the praises of this movie. I would even venture that several scenes in the Aviator, as I’ve argued for the Incredibles, could have been written by Rand herself, at least vis-a-vis the sense of life and moral themes they present. The most obvious example is in the conflicts between Maine Senator Ralph Owen Brewster, played uncannily by Alan Alda, and Howard Hughes. Senator Brewster represents a real-life version of some of the worst Ayn Rand villains, closest perhaps to Atlas Shrugged’s Mr. Thompson:
“The Head of State, Thompson is pragmatic and driven only by the immediacy of the moment. He cynically believes that everyone, including Galt, is willing to cut a deal in exchange for power. He is genuinely stunned when Galt rejects his offer.” (from sparknotes.com)
Indeed Senator Brewster is portrayed as similarly pragmatic, seeing power over others as the ultimate currency. He cannot comprehend that the integrity and self-respect of Hughes could be any match for his populist point of a gun. He is the “might makes right” mentality that has motivated thugs throughout history, in a much more slick and self-righteous package.
DeCaprio, who also served as an executive producer on the film, had an interesting perspective on this conflict:
“…more so than anything, what I was worried about the most in this film was saying, “Okay, here’s the first American billionaire. He’s handsome, he sleeps with the best women in the world, he’s an American hero and how the hell do you make this situation with Juan Trippe and Pan American Airways and this Senator become a sympathetic situation towards Howard Hughes?”
“I was going through my head and churning constantly, and then I realized, for exactly what you’re talking about specifically, it has to do with corporate takeover and the involvement of huge corporations with our government, and they’re in cahoots and it’s going on today with the Enron scandals and numerous other things. That’s what really made me say, “Okay, here’s this one man, he’s his own boss, he is rich but he is a stand-up individual and here he is with all these horrible things going on with himself mentally, standing up in front of the Senate and battling the Senate to stop the monopoly on international travel.” I think, ultimately, people kind of got behind that and lost all the other pre-thoughts about who Howard Hughes was or whether he would be a sympathetic character. And as far as history is concerned, a lot of people I spoke to said they really wanted Howard Hughes to be President after that. They really loved this one individual taking on the entire system, taking on the government, taking on huge monopolies and corporations. And that’s what, in other words, struck a chord emotionally for people, or me at least anyway.” full interview at oscar.com
That a peaceful individual who is being attacked by parasitic businessmen and the federal government, for the simple fact of his ability to create wealth and beat the competition, should have to be portrayed in a certain light in order to be sympathetic is disturbing. Thankfully Hughes comes off as a hero of the utmost integrity in these scenes. His empassioned self-defense seems to capture the fire that was so egregiously lacking in Gary Cooper’s robotic courtroom defense speech as Howard Roark in the movie version of the Fountainhead. And unlike the woefully flat scene in the Fountainhead movie, one can actually imagine how the public could be swayed by Hughes’ appeal to basic rights and justice.
Another memorable scene portrays Hughes accompanying Katherine Hepburn (played by Cate Blanchett) to the Hepburn Family estate in Connecticut. The entire family does its best to tear down Hughes’ greatness, sniping at the idea of achievement with smug innuendo and interrupting him when he finally sees a chance to honestly discuss what they so contemptuously refer to as “airplane stuff". They pretend to be surprised when he finally stands up and accuses them of being spoiled patrician brats, responding to their haughty distaste for discussing finances with a curt “You don’t care about money because you’ve always had it".
But clearly the best sense of life is presented in scenes that deal with Hughes’ achievements and business dealings and his passion for flying, both literal and figurative. Watching DeCaprio and Blanchett flying over LA in Hughes beautiful custom prototype monoplane is breathtakingly poetic. The relaxed playful masculine-feminine interplay between them hits it peak when he challenges Blanchett to take the helm of the plane, wonderfully reminiscent of complex romantic interactions between Rand’s heroes and heroines.
All in all, the fact that hollywood is focusing it’s best resources and talent on making movies such as this -perhaps even taking a break from writing love letters to “humanitarians” like Fidel Castro- is more than encouraging.
Posted by exaltron at 05:25 PM | Comments (0)