Andy Borgmann's Blog

It's A Small World is by far the worst amusement ride in the history of all amusement rides. And I am pretty sure Al Gore designed it...

On May 24, 1956, Al Gore was 8 years old. He decided to take a break from inventing the internet and called up his good buddy Walt Disney. Walt Disney took a break from hating the Jews and decided to listen to Al Gore's idea.

Al's vision: design a ride to convince the world that it is smaller than it really is. Why? Because 50 years to the day - May 24, 2006 - Al Gore knew he would release the greatest powerpoint presentation ever called The Inconvenient Truth, and in order for the premise of the "movie" to be true, humans had to believe they were bigger than they really were.

A small world is to Global Warming like time is to Evolution. For Evolution to be true, it needs a lot of time (hence the reason the world keeps getting older and older¹). For Global Warming, we have to believe humans are actually of some real consequence of size when compared to the world. But it just isn't true...

The current world population is 6.6 billion people. The most dense city in terms of population is Manilla with 41,014 people per square kilometer. What does this mean? We can fit the entire world population in the state of Washington. Or maybe better put, humans only take up .108% of all the land on the globe, or .032% of the entire globe (including bodies of water).

Ok, but you say, Andy, who would want to live in Manilla. Fair enough, lets compare it to what I call the "good life." Fort Wayne, IN has a population density of 1,071 people per square kilometer. This means you can fit the the entire world population in the states west of the Mississippi plus Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida. Or better put, 4.114% of all the land on the globe, or 1.208% of the entire globe (including bodies of water).

Don't even get me started on the math when we switch from 2-dimensions percentages (area = people per square kilometer) verses 3-dimensional percentage (volume = people per cubic kilometer).

Now the question I pose: are we really as important and influential and in control of this world as we think?

Like I have said before, it isn't that I am against "global warming" per se, I am just skeptical. And despite what Walt Disney and Al Gore came up with, we don't live in a small world, we are just small people.²

I went out to a bar one night when I was in Fort Wayne at Christmas. Even though I was going to see my friends Lissa and Laura, the evening had quite a surprising twist that I was not expecting. I come to find out a girl I graduated with named Liz, now lives 5 minutes from my house in Georgia. I was first fascinated to find another 20-something who actually lived in the sticks of Alpharetta, and not the trendy, happening Buckhead or Midtown. But I was more fascinated by the reminder of just how small this world is.

It's crazy when you think about it. On June 9, 2001, we both graduated from high school. I went to Los Angeles. She went to West Lafyette, IN. She joined a sorority.¹ I traveled to 18 countries. We both graduated from college in May of 2005. I moved to Atlanta. She moved to Wisconsin. Yet, 6.5 years later, we find ourselves somewhat "back where we started." Only I have a better haircut.

Last night we went and saw Dan in Real Life. The movie wasn't what I expected, and to Liz's credit, she gave me the option to see American Gangster. But there was one scene in the movie that was so brilliant, but subtle, and I almost missed it.

Context: Steve Carrell plays a widowed father of three girls. They go to a family "reunion" in Rhode Island. He leaves his family to "get away" for a morning and goes to a book store. He picks up Juliette Binoche in the bookstore by suggesting a really random series of books. They then proceed to go outside and talk for a couple of hours. But here's the brilliance. Even in this romantic moment, you knew something was wrong. You didn't know why, but you knew something wasn't right. Why? Because they were on separate benches.

It's odd you know? When I go to sit on a bench, even with somebody I am not romantically interested in, and there are two benches - even if they are close to each other - I don't choose to sit on a different bench. The director did a great job because in that subtle choice he communicated both intimacy and distance. Similarity and difference. Wholeness and brokenness.

This scene draws my thoughts to the time I spent in the West Bank and I sat face to face with a Palestinian man named Omar. We shared tea. Talked about our families and friends. We discussed what we wanted to do with our lives and the current political situation in the region. And even though CNN would never portray our lives as similar, I realized at that moment we were two men, living in a small world, wanting to be on the same bench.

I think about the current affairs of this country and world and just think how much better a place this would be if we shared benches. If we didn't have that awkward, subtle divide in every area of life. If there wasn't a rich and poor bench. A white and black bench. An American and "enemy of America" bench. It isn't communism and a homogenized culture I am looking for. It isn't removing the other bench. It is the opposite. It is diversity. It is uniqueness. It is sharing a bench with those different than you. It wouldn't be us and them, it would just be us. That is the "real life" I am longing for.

We all I know I love to travel. What you might not know is that I recently moved into a a new apartment, got premium digital cable with a DVR, and have started watching the The Travel Channel religiously. To say I love it is an understatement. 1000 Places to See Before You Die, Samatha Brown's Passport to... series; I could go on and on. So what did I do? Of course, with remote in hand, I went to town on recording any and everything I thought looked interesting. And then I came to it: Florida's Top Ten Beaches.

Now I am not a big fan of Florida. Frankly, it is too blasé for my taste. There are so many better places to see in this world than the retirement state of America. But I saw that this show was coming up in the lineup and I just had to tape it. Why? Because I remember watching this a while back (on the Discovery Channel) and I could swear an old friend of mine was interviewed on it.

Sure enough, I woke up this morning, saw that it was recorded, fast-forwarded to the Siesta Key section (which was the official Homestead High Spring Break destination if there were such a thing), and bam! Megan. Megan and I weren't real tight in high school per se, but she went to my youth group and when I think of Megan, I think of Honduras. A trip were, amidst all odds: Ashely, Dave, Megan and myself seem to buddy up for 10 days, instead of the more probable Pat, Matt and Erika.

But this post really isn't about Megan. It is about how small the world is. The more I travel and the more I move, the more I realize how true this is. Whether it is spotting people you know on the Travel Channel, seeing a good friend play on SNL or TRL or Letterman or the AMAs, having my Uncle in Georgia send me a resume he received from someone who actually worked for me at APU but he didn't know that, being contacted by an author's publicist whose book change your perspective 10 years earlier, or going on a date with someone who goes to Samford University in Alabama whose roommate graduated with my brother at Homestead High School, it is weird to think how closely we are connected to people.

This closeness always makes me think of how interrelated the human population is, and how that interrelation comes from our common Creator. And it is this reason why I love traveling. It clearly shows how large this world is - both geographically and historically - and in comparison how small and insignificant we are. But at the same time it speaks to the Divine interconnectedness we all share in such a small world.

P.S. If anyone is reading this that went to Homestead High School, watch the clip and tell me if the person playing volleyball after the clockwipe is Kathryn Sullivan. She also looks like someone I know but I can't tell if that is her or not.

It has now been two weeks since the Virginia Tech shooting (I refuse to call it a massacre like the sensationalized press). I, like every other blogger on the web, of course was tempted to blog about this the second after this happened. But I, unlike every other blogger on the web, decided to wait two weeks. Why? Because what I am about to say was probably too emotionally charged to say the minute after it happened, but now seems a little more realistic (although still probably somewhat extreme). The Virginia Tech shooting is a non-event.

WOAH! You have got to be kidding me. You are nuts. You are so insensitive. You are ridiculous! Are those pretty much your thoughts? Well, give me a second and maybe I will make some sense. If I don't, you are welcome to think I am ridiculous.

Before I go further, I do not want to minimize the pain of those that were personally affected by this event. The families, direct friends, and students deserve our prayers and our sympathy. But the sensationalism the media, and if we are honest, ourselves, had/have turned that event into is almost just as much of a tragedy because it lacks perspective. And why do we lack perspective? Because we are self-centered and we all either are going to college, are in college, went to college, or have kids going to college.

Let's take a look at perspective for a second.

• In 2000 there were 850,293 abortions in the US. That's 2,329 deaths each day, or 77x as many deaths per day as the VTech shootings. Ok, so now you think I am a crazy right-wing nut job. Well hold on.
• In 2006, 2.9 million people died of AIDS, which is 7,900 per day (or 264x that of VTech). 1,041 of those 7,900 deaths per day are innocent children.
• Every year 15 million children die of hunger, or 41,095 per day - that's 1370x that of VTech.
• So just out of those three statistics, we see that 51,324 people die per day that are reasonably treatable and I consider a "tragic death."

Now some of you are probably on the same page with me; others still think I am a nut job. One more thing. I think the American culture proves that VTech is a non-event. Why? Because just two weeks later we have pretty much forgotten about this. It no longer graces the front pages of MSNBC.com, FoxNews.com and CNN.com. In addition to that, how many of us remember the Amish School shooting back in November. Or better yet, that there have been 36 school shootings since 1996. In a month, this will be completely a non-event.

So why is this a non-event? Because we are self-centered. We only care about what we think will happen to us or our family. This is why we don't really care about the alarming statistics of unnecessary death around the world. It is also why at first we appear to care about things like VTech more than anything else, but in the end, we retreat back to our realization that we are really quite safe, our college students are safe, and we've got life pretty good. So since our Darwinian instinct of survival is back in tact, we put these memories into our past as tragic, but essentially incurious.

It's 5:12 am "locally" (locally here is defined as 35,000 feet over Whitehorse, Canada). It is now the second time this day (April 14th) I have experienced 5 am. Traveling over the International Date line is weird. I actually will arrive in Chicago before I took off in Japan. Take that Back to the Future. I am just sitting down after an hour conversation with a Marine named Mark, who apparently is also super claustrophobic on planes like I am and decided to stand back with the flight attendants for an hour.

Mark was reading a book on Philosophy when I first started talking to him, and I later found out he had served in Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. We talked about everything from the historical context of the problems in the Middle East, to traveling the world, to our homes, and what we want to do with the rest of our life. It was a good hour.

One thing I brought up with him was an observation I had made about Japan while there: I wish Europe was more like Japan. I loved Japan. These are words I never thought I'd say. In fact, in all my extreme desire to travel, traveling to the Far East never really interest me. This changed on this trip. I could go many different routes with this, but I am going to stick with one.

About 51 years ago, the USA dropped two Atomic bombs on Japan. They were our enemy, and we were in a bitter, bloody fight and we decided this was the best course of action to save lives. You would think there was some modern day resentment by the Japanese, but there was none. Contrast to Europe, who would all be speaking German right now if it weren't for our help, and they hate our guts. So let me get this straight: here we have a country where we killed innocent men, women, and children, and they were the most friendly, warm, "American" place I have been to (except Israel was more "American, but that's another story).

I just don't get it. Transition to a conversation between Hoey (APU student) and a part-Japanese kid on the trip whose Grandfather fought against America in WW2. He proceeds to tell us that his Grandfather even admits it was good for America to use the A-Bomb as it probably saved Japanese lives. Hoey proceeds to tell him that it was/is never ok for us to do something like this and I step back and think: man this is strange.

We have built so much "white/American guilt" that we hate ourselves more than those we wronged do. Why? Why can't we recognize that if we have been forgiven and the Japanese have moved on, why can't we? Better yet, why can't anyone but the Japanese recognize that America is not perfect, but that we are a good country, trying to do good in the world.

America has done some historically awful stuff. But we have also done some great things (long before Bono & Jolie ever stepped on to the scene). So why are we hated? Why are we ashamed sometimes of our international presence? Why when the countries in which we "affect" are better off then if left alone, do we get accused of imperalization?

Historically speaking, most of what is turbulent in the Middle East is Europe's fault. Whether it was the English drawing country lines without consideration of indigenous people & tribes, or German's forced exile of the Jews back to the Middle East, the problems we are trying to rectify were created by Europe. So it ends now. I've said all along Iraq will be a better place for Iraqis because of our involvement, and I won't feel guilty about that. Let's just hope the Iraqis are more like their Asian counterparts and less like Europe.


You can listen to similar thoughts I shared on our radio show this weekend by pushing the play button above. The entire show can be found at http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Listen/189/

I am three hours into a fourteen hour flight from Chicago to Tokyo. According to the personal TV screen I have in front of me, I am currently at 34,000 feet near Fort McMurray, Canada. Three minutes ago, on that same screen, I just got done watching the movie Blood Diamonds, and I think I have found yet another reason why I won’t be getting married.

Unlike other posts, this reason isn’t because of my observations of the opposite sex. No, I think this new reason, is because I am adding another trait to Andy Borgmann that I believe most women are going to decide is not very appealing. I don’t think I can ever buy a diamond.

If you haven’t seen the movie, you need to. The basic summary is it is about how the insatiable Western demand for diamonds (and capitalistic greed) is leading to civil war in many Middle-African countries. The best line in the movie (which I might be botching up) is when in response to being accused as part of the problem because she too probably dreams of a fairy tale wedding, a female reporter says, "Most girls wouldn’t want a diamond if they knew it cost someone else’s hand." I think that is an appropriate statement.

There was another great line in the movie. An African tribal man said, "Let’s hope they don’t find oil here, because then we will be in real trouble." Bam, another slap in my Western, Capitalistic face; especially since I know how much fuel this flight I am on is consuming. But what I think separates oil from diamonds is this: oil’s conflict is based on the fact oil is a commodity (heck it’s cheaper than bottled water). Diamonds conflict are based on the fact they are a luxury. Eventually, I think oil will bring stability to the region of the Middle East (I know, ya’ll think I am crazy). Diamonds will never do this. Diamonds are a luxury item, and the demand will always be priced that way, which means it will always be highly lucrative, and therefore, conflict stricken.

At the end of the movie it challenges everyone to buy "conflict-free" diamonds. But even conflict free diamonds benefit from the insatiable materialism that is associated with "conflict-ridden" diamonds. In the end, at Tiffany’s or Zales, they are all the same.

So as I sit in my premium economy seat aboard United #881, I am fighting back tears (after all, I don’t want the attractive girl next to me to think I am a Nancy boy). But then again, I guess it doesn’t matter because she would never be attracted to a guy who probably won’t buy her a diamond.

If you asked me who is the one person you would like to meet that is still alive I would answer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (yes I had to copy and paste that name from a Google search). Now half of you would say, who the heck is that, and the other half would probably be appalled. For those that don't know, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran.

Now, before I get any further. I want to say that the preceding does not condone or excuse any of the comments Ahmadinejad has made in the past (especially in relation to Israel). I do not love Hitler. Nor do I want the Jews wiped off the face of the earth. But I digress.

What fascinates me about this man is that he doesn't seem like your average Middle East nutball (reference Osama Bin Laden). I don't see him touting around automatic weapons, and in the good majority of his photos he is smiling, dressed in fairly western cloths, and if you didn't know him under the context of being the President of Iran, wouldn't he seem pretty sane?

This past week, Ahmadinejad sat down with Wallace on 60 Minutes. I not only watched that interview, but I also watched the interview, in its entirety, with no edits on C-SPAN. Now this guy definitely seems to be a good manipulator (and I am not necessarily saying that is a bad thing). When Wallace asked him a question he obviously didn't want to answer, he just talked for 10 minutes about something else and by the time he got done, we all forgot what the question was.

But here's my point. Twice this week I heard reference to Iran and the Anti-Christ (or Great Satan). Once, was the re-quoting of Ahmadinejad himself when he referred to America as the Great Satan, and the other time was when (I am ashamed to say) someone on my radio show actually accused Ahmadinejad of being the Anti-Christ. But in my mind, neither of these terms do anyone any good. I don't understand why we can't just sit down and talk to one another like adults. I have said this before, and now I am putting it in writing. If I were elected President the first thing I would do is travel to the three countries that "supposedly hate us the most," with a relatively small entourage, with little security, on their turf, and at least attempt to talk this out. Sure, it might fail. Sure, they might reject my plane entering their airspace. Sure, I might find out the guy really is a nutball like everyone thinks and the situation is nonnegotiable. Sure, I might even get killed in the process. But at least then I will never have to meet the real Great Satan because I will have lived a life that valued all human life enough to put aside the past, put aside stereotypes, and met my responsibility to talk out issues in the hope of saving millions of lives. In my mind, the only great Satan in our presence today is stupid diplomacy.

If you haven't heard about what is going on in Lebanon now, I am not sure what cave you are living in. The basic summary of the story. The Hezbollah, who is a "political group" (Some call Terrorists, and they certainly reflect terrorists, but it gets tricky because they are also an elected political group in Lebanon. So to make sure I am clearly describing the situation, I will call them a political group.), that is funded by Iran (to the tune of $100 million dollars), kidnapped some Israeli soldiers, so Israel has declared an attack on Lebanon in general, and it has just escalated from there.

This article is not meant to debate whether or not Israel's actions were justified, but rather discuss what the "West's" response to this should be. Israel & its neighbors is a tough situation that few of us can understand with out spending extensive amounts of time there. So what may look like an unnecessary escalation of force to us, is a necessary escalation of force to protect a country the size of New Jersey surrounded by people who want them wiped off the face of the planet. Although, it may not be reasonable either. But I digress.

As I was riding down to the show last night, we (there are 3 of us) were talking about whether or not we should discuss this topic on the air. To my surprise, the other person in the car (not Allen) decided that 1.) this "new" conflict in Lebanon is something "big," and 2.) the answer is to wipe Iran off the face of the planet and that will solve everything. To point #1, I have to say, this isn't any "new big development." Israel has had a war like this in 1948, 1967, 1973, & 1982 - and that doesn't even count the Intifada I or the Intifada II. So to say this is something new, is a bit dramatic.

But it was point #2 that I wanted to punch her in the face for. Keep in mind, as I have posted before, I am for the Iraq war - so I am not "anti-war" per se. However, bombing the "hell" out of Iran isn't going to solve anything - and that's assuming we can actually do this - which we can't. First of all, as I learned while in Israel, West Bank & Jordan, Middle Easterners are people. I know that sounds simplistic, but we need to remember that in the West. I might not of shared the same political beliefs (or religious beliefs) with the guy I had lunch with in the West Bank, but ultimately all he wanted to do was to provide for his family and be able to live "relatively" free. Bombing Iran to smithereens would be wiping out millions of people that are just like our middle class. It would be like wiping out the major US cities for something the "Oklahoma City Bombers Militia Group" did - it just doesn't make sense.

In addition to that, our reputation is already one of "crusadism" in the Middle East, and anymore more war will only surge the hatred and recruit more people into terrorism. I know this is a shock, but the Middle East doesn't trust us. Now I am not going to debate on whether or not they should, but lets just recognize that they don't and start from there. We aren't going to build any trust by wiping out Iran. We will build trust by finishing the job in Iraq, improving the countries conditions, and then the rest of the region will recognize they like the "new-Iraq" more than what Iran offers. That's it!

It sounds a bit ridiculous at this point I know, but I truly believe the Iraq war will be looked back historically as a graceful act. Like Germany & Europe in 1940s, our actions there will bring about an incredible economic and societal change that I believe most Middle Easterners will desire. This change, has the ability to grow through out the region, but not if our answer to everything will be to just bomb the heck out everyone.

Last week (ok I wrote this two weeks ago, so I should really say three weeks ago) "science" released the fact that the earth is hotter now than it has been for 400 years (and maybe 2000 years). It's conclusion: humans are to blame, and if not rectified, humans will perish.

The irony in this, is that the "science" that releases this information, is the same "science" that tells us we are constantly evolving. So even if global warming is true (which I am not saying it is), doesn't the theory of evolution basically say that we will adapt to the warmer climate? I am not anti-evolution or anti-science (check out my post on evolution for reference), but what I am not a fan of is inconsistency - from both the faith community and the science community. But I digress.

Here's my problem with this study. How the heck do we know this is the hottest the earth has ever been? According to the CNN Article, we know this because:

"For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps."

Honestly. Proxy-evidence? That just isn't good enough. You're telling me that the best conclusion science has to offer is based on some artistic rendition of the Alps. Please! We can't even come to a conclusion on whether or not the Mona Lisa is actually a woman, or just a man in women's clothing. But yet all of the sudden DaVinci and his buddies are detailed enough to determine the snow masses on the alps?

The thermometer was originally developed back in the 16th century, and the modern thermometer was developed in the 18th century by Gabriel Farenheit. Who knows when people started collecting accurate records for comparison (that wasn't shared in the article). My point is this, we have too short of an accurate observation period to actually know if the world is getting hotter due to our activity or if it is just the natural cycle of the earths atmosphere over 100s of years.

And this ultimately is my problem with Global Warming. I'll be the first to admit I might be wrong. This world could be getting warmer due to humans irresponsibility. But I don't think science has proven that to me, nor do I think science really can prove it. So like always, science has to take a huge leap of faith in order to confidently stand on its findings. The last time I accused science of this, I exclaimed hell had frozen over. Now I must ask, since hell has frozen over, it it hot in here?

In 2004, Angelina Jolie was named the sexiest woman alive by Esquire magazine. At the time, I thought, “that's an odd pick.” Don't get me wrong. Angelina is attractive and hot and all, but honestly, the sexiest. I can think of others who in my opinion are sexier. However, I have to say, after watching her interview on Anderson Cooper 360° last night, the picture to the left has to be the sexiest picture of her I have ever seen, and quite possibly the sexiest picture of anyone I have ever seen.

Now I should state that I am a sucker for simplicity. Take college for example. The sexiest part of college, in my mind, were all the girls roaming around in their pajamas. This is not to say that I don't appreciate well dressed occasions, however, I usually find "cute" sexier than "hot" and "simplicity" sexier than "done-up." So this statement about Angelina isn’t just a “noble” relation of good works equaling sexiness (I am not that good of a Christian). I actually do find this picture above to be sexy. But I digress.

To see someone so attractive and wealthy, with literally endless possibilities in ways to spend that money and fame, choose to make poverty an issues closest to her heart is inspiring. When all of her other celebrity cohorts are spending their money on Botox and plastic surgery so they can be the scoop of Esquire's pointless designations or E!'s countless "sexiest people countdowns," Angelina has taken her sexiness and turned it into one of the most noble works on the planet: taking care of the poor, especially children.

I have to say the coolest thing about Angelina is that she both talks the talk and walks the walk - which is rare in Hollywood (and the world). She is as loud as anyone out there about poverty. But she also gives up 1/3 of her income, adopted two children, and travels to countless countries all in the name of poverty. Having both of those elements makes me respect Angelina more than just about any celebrity or well-known political figure in the entire world.

So Esquire, you got it wrong this year by naming Jessica Biel the new sexiest woman alive. That title still goes to Angelina, and this picture is the proof.