New Exhibit Spills About "Poison"

The Denver Museum of Nature & Science sure knows how to mix it up! Earlier this year, visitors could find attractions about the Silk Road or mythical creatures like mermaids, dragons, and unicorns. Yes, this is still a museum with nature and science in its name. The Silk Road installation was fascinating but largely historical, with little to no natural or scientific content. To follow that up with a debate about creatures with no basis in fact -- obviously, no credible evidence, carbon-dated remains, or live specimens to display -- feels like they're pandering to the imagination (and wallets) of the public.

This isn't supposed to be Disney World; a museum's job should be to educate and enlighten as well as entertain, and such flights of fancy are better suited elsewhere. Thankfully, the latest DMNS exhibit, "The Power Of Poison," is a complete 180-degree turn and a welcome change from the previous programming. By discussing the biological, cultural, and practical applications of these controversial substances, the museum is living up to its name and its mission.

The first stop upon entering "The Power Of Poison" is the rainforest... well, a small-scale re-creation of one. Through informative placards and models, the exhibit explains how poison in both plants and animals helps maintain this intricate ecosystem. There are even poison-dart tree frogs on display -- one of the most dangerous animals in these jungles -- safely housed inside a small, temperature-regulated case.

The next major section is a brief survey of notable appearances by poison throughout culture and literature. While this area is not specifically nature or science-oriented, it was interesting to see wide-ranging perspectives about the uses and fears of these substances. From an ancient Sudanese legend about the origin of death to the prolific mystery writing of Agatha Christie, poison has been an element of storytelling for centuries.

The exhibit really exceeds expectations by offering several fully interactive displays that challenge visitors to use some of the knowledge they've been acquiring. First, a live, 15-minute demonstration involves a real-life case from the 1800s and how its game-changing evidence improved the detection of toxins. In the next room, there are two additional iPad-based activities to determine if you can identify the sources of accidental poisoning in the described scenarios.

Finally, the installation concludes with a focus on the medicinal and pharmacological uses of poison, something that doesn't come up very often. A series of wall panels highlight the many unexpected benefits from unlikely creatures and plants, which helps to take the stigma out of words like "poison" and "venom." It says a lot about the natural world that these substances, regularly dismissed as dangerous, can be used in so many different ways that are actually helpful.

I actually learned a lot from "The Power Of Poison." Stop me if you've heard these facts before!

The poison-dart tree frog is roughly 3 inches in size, but just one of these frogs has enough toxicity to kill 10 people at a time.
Bad things come in small packages! But they look so cute and colorful...

There are over 3,000 different species of snakes on the planet, but only about 10% of them are venomous enough to harm people.
I'm still staying away from any snake just in case! Unless I'm having a Britney moment.

The Mad Hatter from "Alice In Wonderland" may have been a real person.
The expression "mad as a hatter" comes from the mercury poisoning and subsequent mental deterioration that many hat-makers experienced during their production.

Arsenic was such a common method of murder during the French aristocracy that it earned its own nickname, which translates to "inheritance powder."
Equally horrible and hilarious. I'd tell France "nice work," but that might make me an accessory...

Venom from scorpions, snakes, spiders, and even jellyfish has been synthesized in treatments for conditions like arthritis, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.
It's about time for those critters to do something other than scare me!

The yew tree, which contains a powerful, cancer-fighting chemical, only yields about 10 grams of medicine per ton of harvested bark.
Which may be a more effective method of production than trying to create it in a lab!

As a special treat for attending the exhibition's opening party, which offered "poison apples" (a.k.a. red cheesecake pops), we were given the opportunity to make a few "potions" of our own. The first table was for emotions, and participants could mix their own room fragrance or body spray by combining essential oils. I chose to make the courage blend, which contains the essences of spearmint and fir and provides a fresh, earthy smell. The second table was for healing, and it allowed people to use very small amounts of poisonous plant oil to create a healthy additive for water, tea, or other beverages. According to the staff, my concoction of foxglove, mandrake, and poppy (with an orange base for scent and flavor) is intended to promote fortitude and stamina, new perspectives, and positive thoughts, respectively.

"The Power Of Poison" will be available through January 10. It doesn't take very long to get through the whole thing -- about 90 minutes, maybe longer if you stop to read literally every detail. Even at an expedited pace, it still feels like you're really getting something out of it. The exhibit is included with your admission (no extra charge for this special attraction), so be sure to add it as part of your visit in the next few months. Even if you don't attend DMNS regularly, it's definitely worth a special trip to see what's bubbling up.

Denver: Take More Pride In Your PrideFest

For an event with every color of the rainbow in its logo, Denver's annual PrideFest likes to work in shades of gray. Year after year, the festival ends up being a mixed bag of results that makes me wonder if there's a better way of doing things.

On the pro side, the amount of turnout in support of the LGBT community is always encouraging.

• Denver's festival is considered the largest in the region (since some neighboring mountain states don't offer much in the way of celebration).
• According to The Center, Colorado's primary LGBT resource, we're the third-largest festival in the country.
• The Center estimates that an average of 325,000 people attend annually, and this year's numbers were closer to 370,000.
• According to a recent study, Pride weekend generates an economic impact of $25 million for Denver restaurants, hotels, retail stores, bars, and other businesses.
• We also feature the nation's seventh-largest parade, representing almost 150 entities that range from community interests and allied churches to cultural outlets and politicians.

To me, the spirit of the parade is what Pride represents: not a numbers game, but an emphasis on the groups that reflect the LGBT population and promote the progressive attitudes of the state as a whole.

Meanwhile, the cons are dangerously close to stealing the pros' thunder. This year was the 40th anniversary of Denver's celebration, and milestone years tend to be when all of the stops are pulled out.

• Last year, we were teased with the possibility of Cyndi Lauper as this year's headlining act. In her absence, we should have gotten someone of a similar caliber. With all due respect to Mya -- a talented performer in her own right -- such a prominent festival in a milestone year should have been able to land an entertainer on par with the legacy and momentum of the LGBT movement over these last few decades.
• Another consideration is the amount of space. Civic Center Park already feels overcrowded, and if the event continues to grow as projected, alternate locations may eventually have to be utilized. Civic Center does have the added benefit of a built-in amphitheater, but portable stages are built all the time for these kinds of events.
• Gay and straight couples alike who have children often remark that they wish for a more family-oriented presence beyond the park's hard-partying atmosphere. What a missed opportunity! Local entities could be opening their doors with inclusive activities and workshops to make kids think about these important issues while still having fun.
• The corporate presence at the festival can be overwhelming and tiresome. While an event of this magnitude isn't possible without sponsorship, it can end up feeling like one giant, blurred-together commercial. This bombardment especially pulls focus during the parade, which should really be about the people and not the dollar signs.

In my humble opinion -- merely as an attendee and observer, not as any sort of expert in budgets or event planning -- here are a few suggestions that could really put Denver's PrideFest on the map and set an example among celebrations nationwide.

• First and foremost, PrideFest is held over the third weekend in June, and it always falls on Father's Day. Why not have the parade and the festival just on that Saturday? Not only would it avoid time conflicts with family plans (especially for those with fathers who sadly aren't supportive), but it would also consolidate resources and spending into a single blowout day of recognition.
• With Civic Center becoming too small for the expanding scale of the event, a number of possible venues could match the required capacity and still provide a central-enough location. Other parks like City, Cheesman, or Washington already host large summer events. Provided that the right permits are secured, any of these could be a logical next step. As a bonus, the influx of visitors would draw vital spending to those parts of town. It would also keep traffic and transit delays away from the hub of the already-busy central business district.
• There's one festival staple that can easily be done away with: those pesky food and beverage tickets. It's essentially a scam that X dollars will buy Z tickets, but items cost Y tickets, and somehow you always end up with leftover tickets that go to waste. The event can stay cash-only to avoid technical troubleshooting and processing fees, but a reasonably small entry fee could offset the ticket hassle and maybe even include a voucher for select items to get people started. This change would likely increase festival revenue because people would actually get what they paid for, rather than skipping on the snacks to go indulge at one of the not-as-close-as-you-think downtown establishments.
• Finally, reinventing traditional fundraising models would help reduce the corporate mentality and allow the festival to afford the next level of features. To draw out the big bucks, all the organizers have to do is incentivize the sponsorship opportunities and make them more competitive. By offering fewer tiers, but still providing the prestige of sponsoring specific aspects of the event, they would be leveraging those big company names to make things happen in mutually beneficial ways. They could even borrow ideas from crowdfunding and social media by raising festival funds with a specific mini-goals in mind -- rather than a generalized, less enticing "give us money for lots of things" -- to help meet the shifting needs and demands of the event from year to year.

In today's increasingly divided sociopolitical climate, a festival like PrideFest in a swing state like Colorado needs to make the best possible statement to demonstrate the capabilities of the LGBT community. This event is more than just a really big party; when planned and executed properly, it can be an effective public tool for advocacy, knowledge, outreach, and resilience. If we truly want to organize and mobilize to make a difference, let's start small with the potential that already exists. PrideFest may not be totally broken, but it could still use some fixing.

TED Brings Ideas Galore To Denver

Now entering its fifth year, TEDx Mile High (the "x" indicates an authorized, independently organized TED event) presented its latest Denver conference, "Ideas Unbridled," on June 13. The internationally-recognized TED Talks were originally conceived with a focus on Technology, Entertainment, and Design, but their scope and purpose have significantly broadened over the years to address a variety of social, cultural, and scientific issues.

Each "Ideas Unbridled" presentation had at least one of two points: how to make current ideas more effective and/or how to overcome resistance when breaking new ground. Here are the 15 most insightful statements (one from each speaker) that I took away from the conference. Bad joke/pun alert: If you're hungry, there's definitely food-for-thought here. (You're welcome!)

15. Our living spaces affect our mental and emotional well-being.
Mandy Straight, an interior designer, made a case for why the visual mantra of appreciating your surroundings every day makes a difference in mood and productivity. Even more compelling was her ability to do this without sounding too New Age or like an infomercial for her profession.

14. "Try to learn something you thought was impossible."
Jesse Zhang, a scientist, gave a lot of intriguing data about his recently published studies in atmospheric and oceanic phenomena. It never really spoke to me... until the emcee said that Zhang just graduated from high school. I guess it's never too early to start making a difference!

13. Change the "impossible" into the difficult.
Teju Ravilochan used humorous anecdotes to show that change is only possible through trial and error, and failure is part of the process. His engaging delivery made up for the been-there, done-that nature of his speech, but it was still a nice reminder that everything does eventually have a result.

12. Ethics are not as simple as we think.
Catharyn Baird, a noted researcher on the subject, illustrated ways to be ethically mature individuals who conduct their personal and professional lives with integrity. It comes down to striking a balance between rationality and sensibility (head vs. heart) and autonomy and equality (self vs. others).

11. "Make a comeback by giving back."
Entrepreneur Heidi Ganahl found her path in the business world by dealing with death, divorce, and bad decisions. She realized the only way to truly bounce back from life's hardships is to focus outward before inward, and to channel those setbacks, losses, and rejections into making a difference.

10. How to think is more important than what to think.
Mike Vaughan's presentation, "Rethinking Thinking," laid out values that are missing from the global marketplace. Picking strong questions over safe ones and action over answers would contribute to better collaboration and productivity. Computers may be good at answering, but people are still better at asking!

9. "Please touch the art."
Jen Lewin is an interactive artist who combines art and engineering by experimenting with color, light, and sound. Her public artwork brings people together by transforming the space and letting them share an experience. She makes art that's okay to touch, because art can touch each of us.

8. Social media has more power than we realize.
Chris Hansen uses data analysis to track public sentiment through social media. With 600 million tweets per day, Twitter can be a real-time indicator of factors like purchasing trends and voting habits. Perhaps most significant is the possibility of event detection based on user observations in high-risk locations.

7. "What you can't see CAN hurt you."
Theo Wilson, a poet and social activist, delivered a short but powerful spoken-word piece about the lingering effects of Columbine and the invisible "chemical properties of hate" that ruin our society.

6. Gender roles have no place in music.
Esme Patterson performed three songs from her latest album, a conceptual work where each track is a response to a famous song about a woman that was written by a man. Among her targets: "Lola" by The Kinks and "Billie Jean" by Michael Jackson. She admitted to liking the songs musically but, despite their status as classics, also being troubled by their lyrics.

5. "The next Silicon Valley is Suburbia."
Crowd-funding is poised to create the next generation of business owners and revolutionary product ideas from the comfort of our own homes. Speaker Peter Lynch was quick to point out that while no success is truly "overnight," tools like technology and community participation can make it easier.

4. Technology is amoral.
Joel Comm made the excellent point that technology is not immoral (against morals) because it inherently doesn't even have them. With 3 billion Internet users and 1.6 billion social media users worldwide, it's our responsibility to apply morals to the Web by being authentic and honest online.

3. The stigma of discussing mental health issues has to end.
Emmy Betz, a leading injury prevention researcher, explained that suicide causes twice as many deaths as car crashes. Depression affects people in different ways, but it needs to become more acceptable to talk about it. Wording doesn't matter as much as the gesture of asking someone if they're okay!

2. We can remove the systems that keep people in poverty.
Using one of Denver's most low-income neighborhoods as an example, Eric Kornacki talked about how his organization overcame a lack of municipal assistance and grocery store interest to create the largest community agriculture program in the country. They created jobs and kept money in the neighborhood by taking the economy into their own hands!

1. The concept of work-life balance is a myth.
Kris Boesch calculated that we each spend 2,000 hours per year at work, and technology makes it harder to separate home from the office. Because the personal and the professional are so intertwined, Boesch calls for more emotional intimacy and respect in the workplace so that we're not afraid to be ourselves. Plus, anyone who can convince 2,000-plus attendees to do The Wave is fine in my book!

If any or all of these ideas sound promising, the next TEDx event will be held on September 19 at The University of Denver's Newman Center. Pending TED approval, there is also a fall event in Boulder that has yet to be scheduled. In addition to comparing and contrasting the themes and the quality of the sessions, it will be interesting to see if and how any of the upcoming speakers will embrace the challenges imparted by these community and industry leaders.

CWA: "Your BA Is Just BS"

For my last session, I braved really confusing signage and a practically hidden room two floors below street level, but ultimately, it was a fitting coda to an excellent day of information overload.

“BA” discussed how the state of higher education is in flux as economic hardships and lack of jobs are causing students, faculty, and administrators to wonder how much return can be expected from an investment in college. The session didn’t really present any new information per se, since I’m fully aware of what it’s like to be a college graduate who’s not working in his specific degree field. However, it did offer some different ways of looking at the issue and nice perspectives on emerging programs that have the potential to impact educational models nationwide.

Did you know that Steve Jobs never graduated from college? Just goes to show that depending on your goals in life, a degree may or may not be required. Then again, you might want to make sure your pursuits are “relevant,” because your degree may or may not be offered! Bad news: several major state universities have been cutting cherished programs like philosophy and classical studies. Good news: there are unique, customized programs that are attempting to fill that void.

The Plan II program offered by the University of Texas at Austin was described by members of the panel as an “educational Swiss army knife” that comprises a “Renaissance education for the 21st century.” This interdisciplinary degree combines the school’s basic liberal arts requirements in the standard subjects with a specialized curriculum that encompasses courses from a variety of fields. The main idea behind Plan II is to present students with academic flexibility and more options to be hired. Rather than focus on just professional or vocational training, the program grants students the opportunity to take classes that, while perhaps opposite of their majors, still hold enough interest to receive credits for exploring. As the saying goes, they believe in “education for a life, not just for a living.”

Even more noteworthy is Thomas College in Maine, a private institution that features the only guaranteed job placement program in the country. If a student doesn’t get a job in their degree field within six months of graduating, they can go back and take more classes free of charge -- or they can have Thomas pay for their federal student loans -- for up to a year or until they get a job, whichever comes first. At the same time, if a student is employed within six months but the job isn’t in their degree field, they can go back and take an unlimited number of undergrad classes for up to two years. That’s the kind of confidence and dedication every school should have in preparing its students for the “real world”!

Then again, there are some who would argue (and a few on the panel did) that college is just as much about unlearning what you’ve been programmed to learn and accept based on someone else’s concept of the “real world.” Everything from the limitations imposed by a letter-grade system to the idea that education asks the wrong questions to the wild notion that it’s not necessarily a linear path from one’s degree to one’s job or career path. While I alternate between agreeing and disagreeing with each of those sentiments, I can’t help but see the merit in appreciating both sides of the equation.

Not everyone’s academic experience is going to be the same, even within the same major or degree program. Nor do we want these experiences to be the same if we expect to transform students into well-rounded citizens that contribute to different sectors of society. Meanwhile, for those who do choose to pursue higher education and a related career, it’s not unreasonable to expect that everyone who holds a degree has received some amount of quality, skills-based education that qualifies them to enter the workforce in the manner that they see fit.

It remains to be seen how these starkly contrasting views can be juxtaposed or reconciled. Even the panelists weren’t exactly sure how to best appeal to both sides. I guess it’s just another sign of the relativism that pervades our times. They did, however, offer some concluding bits of wisdom, while some are more cliché than others, that do warrant some thought whether you’re in or out of school.

Train yourself to do as much as you can with as little as you get. Chances are pretty good that you’ll never have the right amount of people or resources for what you're working on.

Learn about people! Most of us are “beta models that are still working out the bugs,” but it’s important to know how to interact with different personalities and when to utilize those contacts.

Be ready to kick your own ass before someone else does. Which leads right into the next one…

Be comfortable with doing stupid things for the sake of learning. As long as you own up to any fault you may have but take away something positive from the experience, how can they hold it against you?

College is/was NOT the best four years of your life! Life keeps getting better every day if we strive to continue learning and growing.

Education is an opportunity, not an obligation. Whether it's in school or in the workplace, treat those who are seriously passionate about succeeding with respect!

I wish I had reflected some of these concepts better during my own college experience, but I see their implications and applications in my life and my job. In the end, I don’t really think that my B.A. is B.S. If nothing else, it has enabled me to know myself and know what I’m capable of in a variety of subjects and settings. After all, as G.I. Joe said, “Knowing’s half the battle!”

CWA: "Progressives Getting Their Groove Back"

Thankfully, getting to my next session of the day proved to be no trouble whatsoever, as this one was located right next door to the previous one!

“Progressives” featured four (you guessed it!) progressive panelists from different fields discussing their ideas for how the progressive movement in America can more effectively mobilize and help give this country the government it needs and deserves. I personally consider myself fairly liberal, even pretty progressive on some matters, so this session was less about learning “how to be” and more about discovering “how to do.”

Chip Berlet opened the panel and made sure everyone was in the correct room by offering his definition of progressive: “fundamental, radical change to the system through lawful and appropriate means.” He suggested that one way this change could be achieved is through clarification of the term “dissident,” which automatically has a negative connotation in many people’s minds. When you get right down to it, a dissident basically refers to a person who doesn’t agree with or conform to prevailing values -- which is essentially anyone who’s ever had an opinion contrary to the government, which I’m guessing is a lot of us!

That doesn’t automatically make people outlaws, yet current rhetoric seems to suggest that any kind of dissidence is harmful and/or dangerous. I agree with Berlet’s assertion that dissidents who are non-violent and non-criminal need to make their presence known to start informing those false assumptions. “We need to push Obama, but don’t target him as an enemy,” Berlet said, before reminding us that social movements, not individuals, are what make political parties pay attention and act accordingly.

John Hockenberry turned his attention to the media and networking aspects of the progressive movement. While he commended such media personalities as Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann for directing attention to progressive causes, he actually finds their range too narrow to be as effective as they could be. (I think this probably has more to do with network bureaucracy than them as politically active and influential individuals, but I digress…) He also believes that the progressive movement needs to seek more solidarity and less segmenting, as relying on demographics inadvertently undermines the cause. The movement can’t be defined by people’s friends, connections, or political legacies, but instead by challenging the flawed institutions themselves as a united front.

Lorelei Kelly, a national security expert, disagreed with Hockenberry. By acknowledging the value of relationships and infrastructure, she finds that working within the system is the best way to get around it, as it has allowed her to witness firsthand what helps and what hinders the progressive movement. She observed that conservatives tend to be better-funded and equipped because they focus on the practical resources rather than the ideal, a common mistake among progressives who stand up for what we “should” have. According to Kelly, closing that gap between practical and ideal should be a shared priority in the movement. She closed by invoking the “myth of omniscience” under which people tend to operate, which states that the availability of information about something makes it true and applicable, and thus justifiable, for any purpose that’s intended. Just because something is transparent doesn’t mean it’s accountable, and the goal becomes finding ways to make both true for all who are involved and concerned.

Jim Hightower picked up where Berlet left off, plainly stating that making the government the enemy shuts us out too since we’re supposed to be part of the process. He believes that the true nature of the political spectrum is not left and right, but rather top and bottom, and everyone still plays an equal role from wherever they are in life. “Remember: this country started in taverns,” Hightower said, pointing out that the importance of sharing our lives and ideas is something that everyone has in common, regardless of party affiliation. He further advised that we need to live the dream, because thanks to leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., the movement has already been created. It’s up to us to better connect and relate to it!

The Q&A portion of this particular session got a little heated at times, because it seemed that people were deliberately trying to provoke or contradict the panel. Which is fine, freedom of speech and all… but it took away from what the speakers were really trying to say! In the end, though, each speaker got across at least one more point of illumination.

Just like his earlier clarification of dissidents, Berlet came to the defense of socialist principles, which have gotten a bad reputation because of exploitation by totalitarian regimes. Critics of socialism have misappropriated its meaning, which he feels is unfair to the system's beliefs and at odds with history in countries that have reaped its benefits.

Kelly credits the “global communication revolution” for many successes during the Obama campaign, but wishes his “world-class participatory campaign” would be more reflected as a “world-class participatory government.” She advocates a new public engagement strategy with better state venues for open forums with constituents, especially in Colorado, which has become an “attractive” state for progressives.

Hightower first mentioned, and the panel later echoed, that a corporation is not a person, and it should not be granted the same rights as individual people. At the same time, he firmly believes that wealth or lack thereof shouldn’t buy or determine the amount of government influence held by any one person or group.

Hockenberry favors a shorter electoral process, which would make the system less exclusive to candidates as well as voters and would also restrict wasteful advertisement badgering. On the subject of voters, he reminded us that everyone has an element of personal responsibility in the political process. We assert ourselves “up the chain” not only with our votes, but also with our spending habits and participation in community events and activities. All of these things send a message; we have to make sure it’s the right one for what we want to accomplish!

The panel ended with a question about the role of religion in the progressive movement, which the panel agreed are not mutually exclusive concepts. Religion has held a powerful cultural and historical influence over progressives and kept them in touch with their roots and the core beliefs of what’s being pursued. As it turns out, a new faction of evangelicals have begun to embrace environmentalism, a cause dismissed in some circles as “hippies hugging trees,” even though we all need the planet to be sustainable in spite of our spiritual differences. If you ask me, one’s faith should never stand in the way of honest discourse if significant common interests are at stake.

All of these panelists have good intentions and great ideas. I say let’s make these things happen! Where do I sign up? =)

CWA: "Social Innovation: Millennials Engage"

I arrived at my second session of the day a mere two minutes late, thanks to going against the lunch-break grain on an already busy campus, and the only seat I could find was on the floor near the back. As such, I missed the introduction of the panelists and couldn’t even see who was talking when during their presentations. Though I was ultimately able to grab a vacated seat near the end of the session, I figured the important thing was the content of the notes I had been taking, not so much who said them. That said, I’ll just present some of the major talking points from this panel accompanied by my own musings.

“Social Innovation” focused on the millennial generation: baby boomers’ children who were born after 1980 (which I was, hence my interest in the session, haha). This generation is largely defined by their different embrace of technology, both in uses and comfort. One of the speakers rattled off some statistics that I found interesting. I’m not sure where they’re from, but they sounded good, so let’s discuss…

37% of millennials are unemployed: This isn’t an entirely surprising revelation, especially given the current economic climate in our country. However, one might consider another classification: those who are UNDERemployed. That is, those who hold jobs that are only part-time and/or don’t pay enough to sustain a reasonable cost of living. Such situations can motivate the same kind of restlessness that compels this generation to seek options and answers in these new forms of social engagement.

40% have a tattoo and/or a piercing somewhere other than their ears: Of course they do! Self-expression has always been a defining feature of any generation, and this just happens to be the form it takes these days; the bodily equivalent of a new fashion trend or hairstyle. Why it still shocks so many people remains a mystery to me! Tattoos and piercings are often grouped together as “body art,” and for good reason. There’s almost always a great story behind why they got it, and whether it’s ink work or jewelry, many of them are quite detailed and beautiful in their own ways. Then again, not all that long ago, women wearing pants was an alleged outrage, so who knows? Haha!

52% consider “parenthood” their most important goal in life, while 30% consider “marriage” their most important goal: This makes a lot of sense to me, as the traditional family norms in America are strikingly different than just one generation ago. A lot of people probably want to experience family life and impart their wisdom to equip children for the future, but they don’t necessarily enjoy the confines of a label or institution to define their relationships. I actually see the over-20-percent difference as an encouraging sign that people are thinking about the big picture and how they factor into that, as opposed to just chasing after a status of sorts for themselves.

25% are not religious: This one struck me as sort of odd. Or perhaps too vague. Simple math would then tell us that 75% *are* religious, which is fairly broad considering the wide variety of denominations. Not only that, but those 25% who don’t identify themselves as religious may hold certain spiritual views of their own but don’t necessarily adhere to any one organized belief system. That’s the trouble with spirituality in America today: it’s become too much of a label game and an unjust claim to superiority. Not to mention a source of stress for many true believers who actually live out the teachings to which they ascribe, while having to deal with the bad name given to them by extremists who are twisting words and distorting truth for their own gain. Something that surely no deity would want done in their name! I rest my case, and I’ve safely stowed the soapbox in the overhead compartment for the rest of this post =)

Moving forward, the speakers indicated that the “transformational technology” of Facebook and other digital inventions -- combined with millennials’ general propensity for social networking -- has actually made the world smaller with the amount of information that can be shared. The panel discussed how these factors hold implications for foreign policy and international relations, as the perceived “stubborn clinging” to physical borders, personal boundaries, and language barriers will continue to frustrate the millennial generation if steps are not taken.

For example, in Iran as well as parts of Africa and Asia, nearly one-quarter of their respective populations are under the age of 30. This mentality enabled young people in Iran who opposed the corrupt elections to organize their protests via Facebook and Twitter, helping rally like-minded individuals to their cause. In addition, during the recent devastation in Haiti, text messaging programs were created to facilitate relief donations, and GPS technology was able to locate stranded survivors and bring them to safety. And even video games aren’t just for leisure anymore; they’re being more widely developed and utilized as teaching tools across multiple fields.

In perhaps the most prominent acknowledgment of this cultural shift, the U.S. State Department has created a Social Technology position to better understand these trends and apply them for optimum, widespread results. The panelists agreed that all of these breakthroughs make it fashionable to be considered a “geek” or a “nerd,” if that means knowing how to use these technologies and recognizing the vital role they play in our collective future.

As far as what drives this generation to embrace technology so freely, several characteristics were suggested. In many ways, the millennials demonstrate a desire to collaborate, an optimism for local and business leadership as well as “big government,” and a general sense of empowerment to be responsible for creating change. They are also more assertive about introducing the fluidity of culture into the rigidity of institutions, and integrating their personal and professional values to create non-fragmented lifestyles.

Even the antiquity of gender roles has been tangibly challenged, as the doors opened by these tools have shifted the paradigm in which women only pursue social leadership and men only pursue business leadership. The blending and even blurring of these fields through the use of technology has allowed the roles to be reversed, or even joined, and become more rounded and productive members of the workforce.

It has been estimated that 1 in 3 college graduates will create start-up efforts, either in the small-business or non-profit sectors, to address the needs that they see in their cities and communities, as well as put their respective degrees to practical use in times of job scarcity. In another example, some of these start-ups have made their presence known in areas whose needs may not be adequately addressed by local government. Groups have stepped up to combat “food deserts” in densely populated, lower-income areas where traditional markets have failed and food can only be purchased at liquor stores.

The speakers concluded by stating that the best ways to foster these positive aspects of the millennial mindset are to explore more diverse and supportive programs on university campuses, and to create more mentoring opportunities that are mutually beneficial by learning both the traditional business models and the evolving networking systems.

Near the end of the session, during the Q&A portion, one of the speakers explained that we can “never completely uproot from physical interaction.” While technology is entirely capable of eliciting empathy and compassion through the good works that it achieves, I absolutely agree that we should never remove the personal element from our goals. It’s ultimately impossible to do so, since those ideas are always formed in a single human brain. Thanks to millennial innovation, we can reach meaningful solutions sooner. After all, two (dozen, hundred…it’s up to you!) heads are better than one =)

CWA: "Cringe Humor: From Shakespeare To Family Guy"

As promised, the following posts describe my experiences during Tuesday’s events at the Conference On World Affairs. And away we go!

“Cringe Humor,” my first session of the day, examined the role of comedy in today’s turbulent social times where political correctness can be an oppressive influence. Ironically enough, the first few moments of the session were incredibly awkward, as each panelist looked at one another and non-verbally argued with their eyes to figure out who would start the individual presentations. Finally, director Tom Shadyac (“The Nutty Professor,” “Patch Adams,” “Bruce Almighty”) broke the ice by asking, “Would anyone like to open with a fart?” The laughter that filled the room got the ball rolling and it didn’t stop.

Julia Sweeney, best known from “Saturday Night Live,” opened the discussion by acknowledging “Pat” and other uncomfortable characters and skits. While she still finds plenty of cringe humor funny, she no longer feels drawn to create that kind of material. Sweeney later confessed that she wouldn’t mind seeing more “gross-out” humor for older adults, since a lot of what passes for comedy skews toward younger demographics. She believes that the shared trials of aging would bring this type of comedy with a different level of meaning to a new audience.

Robert George, associate editorial page editor for the New York Post, used his background in stand-up comedy to discuss the role of race and politics in who decides what is and isn’t funny. He believes that pushing the envelope is an important responsibility, because “humor is a release” that we as people need. George even noted that humor -- cringe or otherwise -- has the potential to reduce the racism and sexism we still see around the world even today. By infusing comedy with a genuine message, we can appeal to the universal aspects of life that everyone finds funny on some level and ultimately bring people closer together through laughter.

Tina Packer, considered to be among the nation’s leading experts on theater arts, lent an academic perspective. She traced cringe humor all the way back to Greco-Roman theater, where props were commonly used in obscene ways to get a reaction from the audience. She also observed that the works of Shakespeare often feature bawdy sexual references and dark humor about violence that could make some nervous if they really paid attention to his use of language. The factors present in Shakespeare’s day, largely characterized by social unrest, famine, and plagues, were practically begging for comic relief and deeper reflection, something he did in turns with his comedies and tragedies.

Shadyac surprised me with his more philosophical approach to comedy. “I believe laughter is holy,” he stated, before discussing how the term “cringe humor” can be self-defeating. He cited the definition of cringe as “drawing back with submission or fear,” something that one doesn’t typically associate with laughter. In Shadyac’s view, to cringe at something makes us forget to be free, simple, and even child-like in how we see the world, and the reaction of just laughing about things is built into us as humans on a subconscious level.

As the Q&A portion started, the audience went right for the hard-hitting implications of what the panelists had just discussed. The first question asked was, “How far is too far, or is there a too far?” All of the panelists were in agreement about a formula among those who work with humor: tragedy plus time equals comedy, and the more time that passes, the funnier something can be. As evidenced by catastrophic events like 9/11, every person has a different standard of how much time is appropriate. The challenge then becomes reading one’s audience and gauging whether or not they’re ready.

Another question was asked about shows like “South Park” and “Family Guy” that claim they are justified in making fun of people and issues so long as they make fun of everyone and everything else. George thinks that “Family Guy” is more politically correct than they’re willing to let on, because the format of the show relies on non-sequitur asides and quick-cuts to other topics. This style often distracts from their point and inadvertently ends up covering their tracks. Meanwhile, he finds “South Park” more pointed and successful because they engage in smarter satire built around singular messages.

The longest debate, which involved the power of words, was something that I heard ad nauseum in college as a communication major. However, the fresh insights and examples here kept me engaged in the topic. Sweeney insisted, “There are no bad words,” only words to which we apply bad meanings and intentions, since words are inherently nothing but letters and sounds. Both George and Packer agreed, adding that the history of words must also be taken into consideration when using them.

Shadyac was the only one who disagreed, arguing that words do have power by citing an experiment conducted by a Japanese scientist to study how water droplets formed ice crystals when frozen with different types of words on paper. According to the scientist’s results, the positive words produced more fully-formed and elaborate crystal designs than the negative words. What an interesting way to visualize how we affect the world around us!

The other panelists remained skeptical, particularly when it came to instances of hypocrisy in acknowledging that power. Sweeney told a fitting story about working on a skit for “Saturday Night Live” involving a flirtatious priest during confession. The network’s standards and practices department told them a line in the script about how much the priest enjoyed Oreos had to be rewritten because he liked to “lick out” the cream center, and they didn’t feel it was proper for a priest to say that. When Sweeney asked for suggestions, the network actually told them it was permissible to say “eat out” the cream center, which just goes to show that no one is ever truly aware of the power of the words that they find “appropriate.”

Near the end of the session, Shadyac remarked, “The only sin of art is dullness,” and I’m tempted to agree with him. The only way something as good as comedy could ever truly be bad is if it failed to provoke some kind of reaction in its audience. And if it takes a few dirty jokes to keep an audience around long enough to make them think about what you’re *really* trying to say, then so be it! I admire all of the panelists for their candor, and I sincerely hope that people walked away from this session willing to lighten up a bit. I know I did!

Conference On World Affairs Is In Full Swing

The University of Colorado at Boulder kicked off its 62nd annual Conference On World Affairs this morning. The conference hosts campus and community events that bring noted panelists from just about any field imaginable to discuss the myriad of issues that currently affect our society.

Nearly 200 panel sessions are available, ranging from the impact of global politics and social causes to the evolving roles of science and the arts in people’s lives. The conference, which is free and open to the public, will be held every day this week. Discussion panels are spread across morning, afternoon, and evening timeslots, with the last of them taking place on Friday afternoon. The full event schedule can be found here.

I’m planning to attend four sessions tomorrow, so you can expect my full report and reactions on Wednesday! =)