Monday, 27 January 2014

The Captain Went Down with the Ship....

Premise One: Eight years ago a drunk Joe Hazelwood piloted the Exxon Valdez into a reef.
Premise Two: Eight years ago Joe Hazelwood martyred himself out of pride.
Resolution One: After much suffering and introspection, Joe Hazelwood has found peace.
Resolution Two: He's resolved absolutely nothing.

Let's see if we can miss the reef this time," Joseph Hazelwood says to me. Then he laughs. That's the first thing you notice about Joe Hazelwood, the laugh. It's not a laugh, actually; it's a joyless simulation of a laugh, a swift propulsion of air through the nose that mimics laughter's cadence but lacks its music, signifying neither joy nor scorn, but information. Laughter is a vital element of the Hazelwood vocabulary. Dark eyes bracketed by wrinkles, large bald head bobbing up and down, ever-present Marlboro tilting dangerously from his lips, he wields mirth as one might wield a friendly elbow: easing tension, forging a conspiratorial mood, letting you know in no uncertain terms that he, along with everybody else ù better than everybody else ù gets the joke. To be Joe Hazelwood is to be preternaturally alert to double entendres, puns, one-liners, coincidences, any flashing link between this moment and that dark night in March 1989 when he was transfigured from an anonymous but skilled professional into a lasting national symbol of rank incompetence and drunken idiocy. When the opportunity for a joke presents itself, he is coiled and ready, anticipating its arrival, deflecting it with topspin, and then laughing his ersatz laugh ù at the joke, to be sure, but also at the irony of his telling the joke. To be Joe Hazelwood is to be a connoisseur of irony, a seeker of veiled meanings. He may have lost his career, his ship, and his reputation, but he's still got perspective. He's still cool about it. Earlier today, Hazelwood was describing a different tanker run that he made through Prince William Sound. "We left Valdez fully loaded..." He pulls up short. "The ship, I mean—not me." The Marlboro tip glows and bobs.

We're in the Seamen's Church Institute, a tidy brick building in lower Manhattan that serves as a training center for merchant mariners. We've come here at my request from the midtown law office where Hazelwood works to take a spin in the bridge simulator. This full-scale, state-of-the-art device has been set up to replicate the conditions at midnight, March 23, 1989, a few moments before the Exxon Valdez bellied-up on Bligh Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound and began disgorging 11 million gallons of crude oil, obliterating life on 1,244 miles of coastline, and forever altering the way in which we view the vulnerability of our wild places. Instantly overlaid by myth, the spill has become crystallized in the public imagination as the archetypal catastrophe, Captain Joseph Jeffrey Hazelwood its archetypal cause.

The captain is nothing if not punctual, so we arrived at five o'clock, exactly on schedule, and waited a few minutes while the simulator's operator booted up its Valdez program. Hazelwood was eager to get started: In order to catch his 6:24 train home to Huntington, Long Island, he calculated that he must depart here at 5:45, no later. Now, as our facsimile tanker approaches the facsimile reef, he steps comfortably around the bridge, eyeing the engine-order telegraph, tweaking the radar, confidently adjusting the dials and knobs. Satisfied, he steps back and checks his watch: 5:35.

Beyond the frames of five bridge windows, the mountains of Prince William Sound part to reveal a passage ten miles wide. Ahead, the monolithic main deck of the supertanker recedes toward the horizon. Winds are calm, skies dark, visibility eight miles. We've left the shipping lanes, just as the Exxon Valdez departed them in order to avoid ice. Off the starboard bow, a tiny red light pulses once every four seconds ù Bligh Reef buoy. Radar shows that we're passing Busby Island, the spot where the tanker was to have begun its starboard turn back into the shipping lanes. An SCI captain named James Fitzpatrick, who has been informed of Hazelwood's time restriction, mans the helm.

"The moment of truth," Hazelwood says flatly. "Give me right 20."

"Right two-zero, Cap," says Fitzpatrick.

The ship begins to swing. Hazelwood does not look to the radar screen for proof; he waits to see it, as he later says, "to feel the turn." The red buoy light begins to slide across the windows, imperceptibly at first, then with silken rapidity. After two minutes, during which time we've advanced a bare seven-tenths of a mile, our 1,000-foot, 250,000-ton virtual supertanker—weighing 40,000 tons more than the Exxon Valdez—has turned on a dime. The buoy bobs innocuously off our port side. We've missed Bligh Reef by more than two miles.

Eyes on the horizon, Hazelwood speaks. "That's all you'd have to do. That's all anybody would have had to do."

"OK," says Fitzpatrick, picking up the note of finality. "Time to catch that train."

Hazelwood doesn't reply. The ship presses onward. Bligh Reef buoy disappears from view. Minutes pass.

"Uh, Captain..." The dutiful Fitzpatrick taps his watch, which shows ten minutes until six.

Hazelwood doesn't move. His head fixes on the horizon, eyes reflecting the radar screen's endless clocklike whirl.

"Give me left ten, midshipman steady," he says, ordering a course that will route the tanker back into the lanes, bound for Naked Island and the open ocean beyond.

"Left ten," echoes Fitzpatrick. Again, Hazelwood waits to feel the turn.

Somewhere beneath us, a subway rumbles toward Penn Station. Hazelwood lets it go. He stays on the bridge because eight years ago he didn't stay. He stays on the bridge because he is in purgatory and in purgatory you can laugh, or cry, or protest your innocence, but the only thing that matters is reliving your sin over and over until either you or God is worn out. And that's the other thing you learn about Joe Hazelwood: He's served notice to God that it's not going to be him.

"Welcome to my nightmare," he says.

It's my first meeting with Hazelwood, and he's standing in the cramped disarray of his 8-by-14-foot office, feet set wide apart, palms held out in parodic greeting. He's wearing a button-down oxford shirt, khakis, a Jerry Garcia-designed tie, and dress loafers, all of it enshrouded in the smoke and steam of his medicinal Marlboros and coffee. At 51, his body is that of a younger man: six feet, 180 pounds, broad shoulders tapering to a 34-inch waist, corded forearms below carefully rolled sleeves. Beneath the graying skein of beard, the face is small and childlike, with leathery skin crosshatched and furrowed by wrinkles, russet-colored eyes set in a wary squint, and obstinately protruding lower lip. He doesn't look at me as he talks, instead tipping his head toward the blue carpet. Eye contact comes in furtive volleys, to prevent the subtleties of his words from passing unnoticed or, worse, being misread for earnestness.

After a few minutes it becomes apparent that Hazelwood's not going to sit down. "I work standing up," he explains to his coffee cup. An old shipboard habit, and not his only one. "When I first came here, I walked around shutting every door in sight. Drove everybody nuts. Kept cleaning off my desk, too. As you can see," he indicates the avalanche of manila folders, sticky notes, and coffee-ringed napkins fanning out before him, "I've made the adjustment."

There have been other adjustments. The drop in salary from $100,000 to "enough to live on." The dearth of vacation. The daily 90-minute commute on the Long Island Railroad, or as he calls it, the Train of the Living Dead. "It's scary," he says. "I catch myself moving to the spot on the platform where the doors are going to be when the train stops." He places a long index finger to his temple and pulls the trigger. "I always swore I'd never be one of those guys."

Every morning begins the same way. "Let's see what disasters we've got today," he says, rattling open a copy of Lloyd's List, a maritime industry daily, and turning to the casualty report. Good news: capsized barge in San Francisco Bay, bulk carrier aground in Turkey, iron-ore carrier stranded in the Yellow Sea, cement-carrying barge near Guyana suffering "extensive damage" following a collision with an unknown submerged object. Hazelwood's job, among other things, is to negotiate settlements between cargo insurers, which his firm represents, and the parties liable for the losses, usually the shipping companies. Each morning brings a dozen or more new claims: delaminated plywood, sea-soaked paper, rancid plums, torn cellulose, rotting bananas. The files accumulate on his desk in great tilting stacks. Hazelwood makes a point of saying that he takes no joy in these incidents. He mentions this because he's aware, as he is aware of each Kafkaesque plotline in his post-spill life, that the more shipwrecks and groundings there are, the harder he has to work and (should you desire another level of irony) the larger his year-end bonus will be. When asked if he enjoys his present job, he hesitates and says yes. His desktop calendar, set on December 1995, is thickly brocaded with urgently penciled squares, triangles, circles, and other unidentifiable scratchings so deep that in places the paper is cut through.

"You'd be bored out of your skull watching me work," he warned me in an early phone conversation. "I know I am."

Hazelwood has been working at Chalos & Brown, the law firm that has defended him since the spill, for more than five years. Reserved and awkward in formal social situations, he excels in the manly woof and banter of proletarian office life, transmitting the universally comprehended vibe of the Good Guy, that can-do, sports-literate, shoot-the-breeze brand of heartiness that simultaneously draws people close and holds them at a distance. He isn't, he points out, an indentured servant. A reluctant Exxon picks up his legal bills, as it must under employment law in California, where Hazelwood signed on with the Valdez. (Democratically, Exxon also indirectly funds Hazelwood's criminal prosecution, since 85 percent of Alaska state revenues are derived from oil taxes.) Nor is he landlocked: His captain's license has been active since a nine-month Coast Guard suspension ended in 1991. After a brief string of temporary jobs—lobster fisherman, boat transporter—this job has the advantage of providing a staging area where Hazelwood can pursue the only vocation still open to him: defending himself in court. "Nobody in the maritime industry will touch him," says Michael Chalos, one of his lawyers and a college buddy. "Who could afford to take the PR risk? I mean, bang a dock and it's on the front page—'Hazelwood does it again!'"

In the hallway outside his office, 20 feet from his nameplate, a collage of newspaper clippings is pressed inside a black frame: DRUNK AT SEA...FATEFUL VOYAGE...OIL-SPILL CAPT FIRED...$1M BAIL LANDS OIL CAPT IN BRIG... More clips, hundreds more compiled by the firm, reside in two black scrapbooks inside his office. OFFICER SMELLED LIQUOR ON CAPT OF TANKER... SHIP MAY HAVE BEEN ON AUTOPILOT...OFF TO JAIL...SKIPPER'S RISE AND FALL...

"Good reading, isn't it," Hazelwood says over my shoulder.

It is, beginning with the trumpet-blare that the captain of the Exxon Valdez was, at the time of the accident, unqualified to drive his car in New York state because of drunken-driving violations. Then comes the New York Times page-one analysis that Hazelwood had probably set the ship on autopilot and gone below while third mate Gregory Cousins and helmsman Robert Kagan "desperately tried" to regain control. Then the stories that after the grounding, Hazelwood foolishly attempted to motor the ship off the reef, risking a possible capsizing and the spillage of millions more gallons of oil. And the dramatic courtroom depiction of the judge who compared the spill to the bombing of Hiroshima, set bail at $1 million, and sent Hazelwood to a night in prison before the bond was reduced.

Hazelwood flips through the binder as if it were a family album. His fingernail taps the page. "There's Kagan...there's Greg...there's a good shot of Mike Chalos...there's me in high school."

He chuckles. And why not? The world may know his secrets, but he can laugh, because he has found out the world's secret, one that allowed him to endure hatred, ostracism, ridicule, loss, and pain. The secret is this: Keep your mouth shut. Hazelwood believes in silence, believes in it with religious fervor, because it has served him in a way that no religion could or did; it has given him a power no one else had, power he has never relinquished. Aside from his lawyers and his testimony in the civil case, he has spoken to no one about what happened that night. Not reporters, not his best friend, not his brothers, not his wife, not his fighter-pilot father — especially not his father. What happened that night-more precisely, what Joe Hazelwood did, what he didn't do, and how he feels about it-belongs to him and no one else. He keeps his secrets, and for better or worse, they keep him.

On our final visit, he will tell me, "If there's one thing I've learned from this experience, it would be this: If you're ever in any kind of a touchy situation, do not say a word to anyone. Words can only hurt you."

That face—the shadowy beard, the child's stubborn lip, the brim of the driving cap darkening the already-sinister eyes—sets the tone of spill coverage. There's the usual spate of determinist profiles, in which Hazelwood's life is presented as dully predictable precursor: the 138 IQ, the cocky-ironic college yearbook motto "It Will Never Happen to Me," the college drinking escapades, the too-quiet manner—even his ship's Exxon Fleet Safety Awards for 1987 and 1988 are knowingly invoked.

Suitably enough, it was Hazelwood's words that sealed his fate, most notably through the spectacularly damning quote he gave the two Coast Guard officers who boarded the ship the night of the spill. In four words, Hazelwood seemed to reveal that the reason for this spreading horror lay not in some mechanical or navigational problem, but rather in something that had broken loose inside him. The officer inquired what the problem was. Hazelwood replied, "You're looking at it."

"I mean, here they were, called out to a grounded tanker in the middle of the night, oil spewing all over the place, and they walk up and ask me what the problem is?" Hazelwood sweeps his arm grandly. "I said, 'You're looking at it'—as in, 'Hey man, you're standing on it.' It wasn't an admission of guilt, but everybody interpreted it as such."

The few times that Hazelwood was quoted in the aftermath of the spill, he said nothing to vindicate himself or show remorse. When the judge in his criminal trial asked for an apology, Hazelwood declined. When Connie Chung asked if he could declare his innocence before a national television audience, he said he could say nothing either way about the case. He displayed a clinical detachment from what everybody else was fiercely concerned with: the otters, the salmon, the ecosystem of Prince William Sound, the spill's larger role as harkening call, along with the widening ozone hole and the disappearing rainforests, to the environmental movement's early-decade shift to center stage in the American consciousness.

Hazelwood seemed oblivious to the fact that his silence forever condemned him in the minds of many, oblivious to the proven truth of the political maxim that it's not the accusation, it's how you handle the accusation that matters. Among friends and acquaintances, the silence engendered much speculation. Was it guilt? Pride? Shame? Denial? Was he protecting someone? But to hear Hazelwood tell it, the matter is simpler: There's nothing to say.

"What am I going to do, write a book about a guy missing a turn?" His eyebrows arch cartoonily. "Books have a hero. I'm just a regular guy caught in a situation. There's a perception out there, and all the spin doctors in the world can't fix that perception. I'm not a bubbly person. I don't have an inner child I'm beating up. Go on Oprah? I just don't have it in me. The people who know me know what I'm about."

Occasionally, however, the shell of equanimity shows a few cracks. Though our time together has its agreed-upon boundaries (no questions about his actions leading up to the spill, no interviews with his wife or college-age daughter, no visits to his home), Hazelwood shows an increasing willingness to broach the accident and his feelings toward it. At those moments, which usually take place during his 20-minute walk from Penn Station to the office, his voice takes on the nasal, syncopated patois of middle-class Long Island. An unabashed bibliophile (another shipboard habit), he tosses off quotes from Oscar Wilde, Albert Einstein, Stonewall Jackson, Beryl Markham, and does a passable Bill Murray impression. The rhythm of the walk takes over, he's carried along in the hot swell of humanity, and for once his words flow unencumbered.

"You know, this thing happened the same spring as Tiananmen Square," he says, stopping to carefully stub out a cigarette. "That was big news for a day—then it was back to our regularly scheduled slamming of Captain Hazelwood. A year later you got Saddam dumping 40 million barrels of oil—150 times what was spilled in Prince William Sound—and he's setting the country on fire, and the guy's still getting better press than me?" On his fingers, he ticks off other accidents and tragedies that received less attention, including many larger oil spills that were virtually ignored by the press. "The way the media handles disasters is out of proportion. Like a friend of mine said after TWA Flight 800 went down: 'Good thing there weren't any fucking otters on board.'"

Then we're outside his building, in the shadow of its steel and smoked glass. "I've learned to keep my emotions out of it," he says, regaining his equilibrium. "This is a business, and emotions cloud your judgment. This is a technical problem, basically, and it's got to be dealt with in a technical way. Besides, it's like Eddie Murphy said in Trading Places: 'I'm a Karate Man—I bleed on the inside.'" He opens the door and smiles his good-guy smile, and it is utterly unconvincing.

The boxes are everywhere, stacked along walls, bowing bookshelves, and concealing the floor of Hazelwood's office, a tiny fortress of fact and belief. Together they form the bulwark of Hazelwood's legal argument that he was neither drunk nor negligent the night of the Exxon Valdez spill and that the real reason for the accident lies in an unfortunate combination of mundane events, happenstance, and human mistakes-the most significant of which were not made by Hazelwood. With few exceptions—and little fanfare from the media—the courts and Coast Guard have agreed, finding him innocent of criminal mischief, operating a watercraft while intoxicated, reckless endangerment, and misconduct. As he helps prepare the appeal to his civil charge of recklessness and waits for the Alaska Supreme Court to issue a decision on (brace yourself) the state's appeal of the appellate court's second overturning of Hazelwood's Class B misdemeanor conviction for negligent discharge of oil—a decision that will lead to either a new trial or, perhaps, the final dismissal of the criminal case—one would expect a level of anticipation, the heady possibility that one chapter might be coming to a close. But when I mention this, Hazelwood turns dour.

"What court do I go to to get my reputation back?" he says brusquely. "I'm not trying to impress anybody. I just don't want this hanging over my head. The damage is done. I've got to get on with my life."

Which mostly involves defending himself in court, a well-choreographed piece of tradecraft that Hazelwood and his attorneys know cold: Show how the accident happened, and then show that there is no evidence that Hazelwood's actions or behavior were anything less than normal; in short, let him blend innocuously into the larger context. Now, standing amid the boxes, Hazelwood moves through the key elements of his case with disarming ease. The evidence is all here, right here:
  • Stripped to essentials, the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef because it departed the shipping lanes to avoid ice—a maneuver executed by the Brooklyn and the Arco Juneau just hours before—and failed to turn back into the lanes before striking the reef.
  • Third mate Gregory Cousins, testifying in the criminal and the civil trials, shouldered much of the blame for failing to execute the turn that Hazelwood had ordered. After outlining the maneuver and asking Cousins twice if he was comfortable making the turn, Hazelwood left the bridge at 11:50 p.m. Cousins phoned Hazelwood at 11:55 to say he was beginning the turn but then failed to check that helmsman Robert Kagan followed his commands, spending precious minutes charting the ship's position. Cousins was on the phone to Hazelwood, saying, "I think we're in serious trouble," when they felt the first jolt a few minutes after midnight.
  • "There was no reason to do what I did that evening," Cousins testified. "I shouldn't have allowed myself to become inattentive." Hoping to secure testimony against Hazelwood, the state gave Cousins immunity against prosecution; plaintiffs in the civil suit did not press charges against him lest he complicate their case against Exxon and Hazelwood; the Coast Guard cited him for negligence and suspended his license for nine months. "To the public and the press, 'third mate' has the ring of 'cabin boy,'" says Hazelwood. "Cousins was a trained, licensed navigational officer, a good man. He's still a good man."
  • Helmsman Kagan, when ordered to make the turn, did not execute it fully. Kagan earned the nickname Rain Man during the criminal trial for mixing up his right and left and for muttering to himself during cross-examination, "Why is he asking me that? I wish he wouldn't ask me that." Employment records showed that Kagan required "constant supervision." "I put a lot of it on Kagan," says Paul Larson, who led the Coast Guard investigation. "He does his job, and we're talking about something else today."
  • The post-grounding radio transmissions in which Hazelwood said he was trying to "extract the ship from the reef" were misleading. He only called for forward throttle—not reverse, as would have been necessary if he'd wanted to free the vessel. By keeping the ship pressed firmly against the reef, he minimized the spill and the danger to his crew.
  • The blood tests that showed Hazelwood to be intoxicated were mishandled. Drawn ten and a half hours after the grounding (because of variance in individual metabolic rates, most states, including Alaska, disallow any test performed more than three hours after an event), the blood was shipped to the lab in tubes without a chemical needed to keep the blood from fermenting, invalidating the results. In addition, the labels on the tubes were switched to make it appear as if they did contain preservative, a switch revealed by discrepancies in laboratory log entries.

Even in the criminal trial, before evidence of the blood mishandling had surfaced, state prosecutors were unable to persuade a jury that Hazelwood was intoxicated at the time of the grounding. By his own admission, Hazelwood drank "two or three vodkas" between 4:30 and 6:30 the night of the grounding. To account for his 0.061 blood-alcohol content ten hours after the accident, however, either (1) his blood-alcohol level upon boarding the ship had been .35, a level he could have achieved only by consuming 16 to 20 drinks in the course of the day, or (2) he had sneaked a few drinks sometime after boarding the ship at 8:25 p.m. With the testimony of 21 witnesses, including Cousins and the Coast Guard officers who first boarded the ship, that Hazelwood's behavior had not been impaired in any way, and with no hard evidence of shipboard drinking beyond two empty bottles of low-alcohol beer in Hazelwood's stateroom, the jury took little time in deliberating the intoxication charge.

As for his widely presumed alcoholism, Hazelwood can refer to records that show his physician had diagnosed him with "dysthymia, a subgrouping of depression, characterized by episodic abuse of alcohol," he says. "The perception is that I was a drooling idiot, carted off to the dry cleaners. I enrolled myself in a hospital-treatment program back in '85, went to the meetings, and stayed dry for several years. But as has been shown, alcohol had nothing to do with the grounding."

Other things did, though, and Hazelwood knows them by heart: the Vessel Traffic Service watchstanders, charged with monitoring the vessel's progress through the sound, who failed to spot the missed turn and who later tested positive for marijuana and alcohol; the abysmal state of the Alyeska Pipeline Company's spill-control equipment; the ensuing circus of decision-making by Exxon, Alyeska, and state officials that let a possibly controllable spill get out of control. Accident investigators call it an error chain, and Hazelwood can trace it back as far as you like. What if Cousins had listened to lookout Maureen Jones, who twice brought the Bligh Reef buoy to his attention during the delay in executing the turn? What if Cousins hadn't, as a favor to a friend, offered to work past midnight, when his shift was to have ended? What if the ship hadn't gotten loaded more quickly than anticipated and sailed two hours ahead of schedule? Hazelwood navigates the possibilities as if playing a board game, effortlessly translating chaos into a smooth, inevitable progression. He smiles ruefully, shrugs his shoulders, rolls his eyes to the sky.

Then conversation turns, as it always must, to the central element in the error chain, Hazelwood's absence from the bridge. Why did he leave? To prepare departure messages to send to Exxon, he famously explained. Why couldn't he have waited? Why didn't he know about Kagan's shortcomings? How could he leave the bridge if there was even the slightest chance of a mistake?

"I left," he says slowly, staring at the floor, "because there wasn't a compelling reason to stay. I really can't comment further on that."

Hazelwood's lawyers argue that their client gave Cousins good instructions, that other tanker captains had vacated the bridge at that point in the voyage; that having been told the turn was beginning, Hazelwood had no reason to suspect anything was amiss. It's an argument that might work in court, but not everywhere.

"It all boils down to the fact that Hazelwood wasn't on the bridge," says J. Samuel Teel, professor of nautical science at Maine Maritime Academy. "I'm sure he's a great guy and a good captain, but he should have been there and he wasn't. He's got to live with that."

"I say to this day it wasn't his fault. He just put too much trust in certain people," says Captain John Wilson, an old Hazelwood friend and shipmate. "Joe should have watched his mate a little bit closer."

"One of the finest tanker men I ever met," roars Captain Russ Nyborg, a legendary San Francisco Bay skipper who served as a model for young Hazelwood in his early Exxon days. "He left it to somebody else and somebody else screwed up. My wife and I were very worried about him for a long time after it happened. He's so proud, you know, and he's had the shit kicked out of him." The old captain's voice goes rough with clumsily camouflaged concern. "So how's he doing, anyway?"

Months and years slid past, interest in the spill waned, and still Hazelwood kept to the shadows. He retreated to his wife and daughter and his cadre of Long Island friends, the ones who know him as Jeff, a childhood name that distinguishes him from his father. Never social (hosting one party in 14 years, according to a neighbor), he spent time reading, preparing for his defense, and occasionally sailing the 16-foot Hobie Cat he kept in the backyard. Friends worried about him, said he was quieter, more introspective. But at rare gatherings, they bullshitted and talked sports and shipping just like always, and when they were sailing on Long Island Sound and passed a grounded boat and somebody said, "Little deja vu, Jeffie?" Hazelwood waited through the silence and replied, "Haven't heard that one before," and everybody laughed loudly.

"Joe was a class act throughout this thing," says Jerzy Glowacki, chief engineer on the Exxon Valdez and one of Hazelwood's barmates in the hours before. "He's taken the full brunt of this, quietly, with dignity, under great stress, and I think he's able to do it because of his intelligence. He knows what is happening; he understands the reasons. I don't think he's able to shrug it off. I don't think he ever will. Whatever it is, he's carrying it inside, and I'm sure it's very heavy."

His parents wait and wonder, too. The summer after the grounding, his mother, a proper Georgia-bred Presbyterian, offered to arrange for a pastor to meet with him. When Hazelwood ran into the man at a funeral, the pastor said, "Whatever you did up there, God doesn't judge you." Hazelwood replied, "Sure as shit sounds like you're judging me," and walked off.

"I keep hoping Jeff will talk to me," Margaret Hazelwood tells me in her buttery accent. "I'll sometimes try to start such a conversation. I'll say things like, 'I wonder how I would have reacted in your situation.' But he won't talk." Hazelwood's 77-year-old mother sits with ankles crossed demurely in her impeccably furnished home in Huntington, where she and her husband raised two lawyers, a symphony conductor, and a tanker captain. Copies of Canterbury Tales, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, and the Oxford Companion to English Literature perch near the piano. Three jade monkeys crouch on an end table: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Joe, the eldest, lives a few minutes away, and these days they see him often.

"To be honest," booms Joe Sr., a magisterial, blunt-spoken man with impressively muscled arms, "I don't think he really has handled it. He's caught up in the legal aspect of it—I mean, he won't go to the bathroom without consulting those fellows.

"Now here's a fact," he continues, leaning forward. "Somebody took a poll of all the tanker skippers who went in and out of Prince William Sound, and half of them said that they would have gone below at that point." He sits back and places an arm on the edge of the couch. "It was fate, luck, whatever you want to call it."

Joe Sr. knows about fate; specifically, how to kick it in the ass. He was a crackerjack pilot, first flying torpedo bombers for the Marine Corps in the western Pacific, then commercial jets for Pan Am's long-distance runs to South America, Cuba, Fairbanks, Tokyo, wherever. Every day was a mission: a 5:30 a.m. run followed by calisthenics followed by one or two hours studying flight manuals, approach patterns, and charts—not because it was mandatory, but because "that's what it took to be a good pilot." Joe Sr. was good enough to become the first commercial flight engineer to work past the age of 60. At 75, he looks raw and strong, still rising at 5:30 each morning to get his mileage in. His second son, Matthew, remembers his father saying that real accidents happen only to good pilots. What other people call accidents are actually mistakes.

"When Jeff was growing up, his father was flying," says his mother. "He would see the uniform, and it was something special. He saw his father strive to make every six-month check with everything perfect—and Jeff was the same way. He was so proud of his safety record. He felt he couldn't be less than perfect, ever."

She smiles in infinite understanding.

"All the children, they always tried to impress their father."

A brilliantly muggy June Sunday, and Hazelwood pilots his brown 1984 Chevy S-10 van along the jungly byways of Long Island's north shore. Festooned with rust, its starboard headlight housing patched with duct tape, the van cuts an incongruous profile as it chugs past the velvety lawns of towns like Cold Spring Harbor and Oyster Bay. Outfitted in a faded blue T-shirt, jeans, and decrepit flip-flops, he drives carefully, checking three times at a stop sign before proceeding. "Some people find it hard to believe," he says, "but I am a fairly cautious driver."

Generous in its concealments and discretions, Long Island is a good home for exiles. To the east stretches the old Gold Coast, Gatsby's East and West Egg. To the south, in Massapequa, resides Mr. Joey Buttafuoco. John Lennon had a house on the north shore, as did former tennis brat John McEnroe. Kerouac lived in Northport, just over the hill from Huntington. There's a palpable sense of refuge in the twisty roads and the Amazonian foliage, of secrets kept, of barriers not to be crossed. Different worlds can coexist, and that, as much as anything, is what Hazelwood enjoys. "You got the WASP thing with the super-rich, you've got the big-hairs with their Mr. T starter sets, and somewhere in the middle you've got schlubs like me."

After a few quick errands, he steers the van toward West Shore Marina in Huntington, where a childhood friend keeps a 33-foot sailboat. "If the wind's blowing, we'll take her out for a spin," he says, but when we reach the dock the air hangs thick and still.

He walks down anyway, past the buffed fiberglass haunches of $500,000 motor cruisers, past the blond woman in a jet-black bikini, to a sleek, teak-trimmed craft with a 45-foot mast. He checks the boat, running his hands over the standing rigging and cleated lines. The boat is named Too Slick, a fact that dictates a brief laugh.

Hazelwood comes to the marina often, sometimes to sail, other times just to hang around the boat and keep things shipshape. He's known around here for helping out when newbies need a hand.

"See that guy?" He points to a jowly man in a 42-foot Catalina. "He was having trouble docking that thing, pussyfooting it around, so I hopped aboard and we brought it in. Sometimes docking calls for a bold move."

Around the docks, Hazelwood finds the kind of moments he seeks, the kind of moments he lives for: to stand tall on some stranger's flying bridge and shoot the breeze about bold moves and Tiger Woods and the goddamn Yanks in complete and blessed anonymity. Anonymity, to Hazelwood, is the point of it all, the state of grace, the reward for his silence; he believes in its redemptive power more than he believes in himself, more than he believes in heaven, even more than he believes in the legal system. At moments like these, Joe Hazelwood does not exist; there are no jokes, no secrets, no history, no coincidences to anticipate. There's only a guy in flip-flops, a regular schlub, a man aware of nothing perhaps but the final crowning irony: In banishing the sins of the past, Joe Hazelwood is also banishing the very things that might set him free.

Gregory Cousins is back at sea, working as a mate for a private carrier. Robert Kagan, the only crew member on the bridge that night to receive no penalties, lives in Louisiana, having negotiated retirement from Exxon. ("He's been an emotional wreck since the spill," his wife says.) Exxon completed its most profitable year ever, with a net 1996 income of $7.5 billion. Prince William Sound now sports escort tugs, tanker-tracking systems, a variety of radar and radio beacons, and a 60-foot tower anchored to Bligh Reef that rises above the waves like a beckoning finger. The beaches look clean, but dig beneath the surface and you'll find oil.

Joe Hazelwood doesn't think much about the future. He'll get an Exxon pension in a decade or so. Maybe he'll travel. Maybe he'll move south, play golf. He's planning to sell his Hobie Cat. He doesn't use it anymore, and besides, he could use the money.

"It's still day by day for me," he says. "I can't imagine this ever being over. It's always there, like the albatross on the Ancient Mariner.

"Your watch is never over as captain," he continues. "Am I angst-ridden with guilt? No. Am I feeling responsible as a professional? Well, whether it's a mechanical failure or anything else that grounds you, it sucks."

As we walk back to the car, Hazelwood spots a 50-foot cabin cruiser revving clumsily into its slip. A fortyish woman in gold-encrusted sunglasses tweezes a deck line between flamingo-colored nails; her bald and sweating husband spins the wheel aimlessly. Hazelwood moves quickly, grabbing the decklines and snubbing them neatly around the dock cleats, positioning a fender, waving for the captain to back it in, tightening the lines. Then he's shaking hands with the husband, and the flamingo nails are applauding, and everybody's happy.

"How ya doin' today?" Hazelwood says, and then they do what Joe Hazelwood wants them to do, what he wanted all of us to do all along. They smile at him.

Wednesday, 25 December 2013

HAVE A REALLY GREAT CHRISTMAS 2013 - LOTS OF FUN, FRIVOLITY, LAUGHTER, JOY AND LOVE..... :)

Starfish Quay would love to thank all the amazing people that have supported us through this really difficult year. May this magical season be filled with laughter and love, as all times should be - good or bad. Thinking of all those who have lost loved ones, or are without them, those alone and those in company - may life be rewarding regardless of the challenges and provide enough happiness to keep you going when the challenges are overwhelming.
Merry Christmas xxx

Sunday, 22 December 2013

How Do We As Society Deal With Rape Culture?

After Graeme Swann's rather flippant comment about being 'arse raped' a few days ago, I decided to take a look at the way society deals with the subject of rape through media outlets.

'Swann apologises for 'appalling' rape comment'

"Rather have been there than being arse raped in Perth!" - England spinner Graeme Swann said in the Facebook post, responding to Alec's statement that he had been to see the band Shed Seven in concert.

"We are appalled that Graeme Swann equates a cricket match with the devastatingly serious crime of rape. It is the duty of a people in the public eye to make sure that their own distorted views are kept to themselves and not shared with the general public. These comments lack compassion and intelligence and he should apologise to anyone who has suffered from this heinous crime." - Yvonne Traynor, the chief executive of Rape Crisis.

Graeme Swann ‏@Swannyg66 19 Dec
Sorry to anyone who was offended by my comments in the papers today. Crass and thoughtless of me in the extreme.
 
"Graeme Swann should be sacked. No doubt about that. You can't keep playing Swann, his wickets are costing 90. All the right-handers have got the wood over him. You've got to give Monty (Panesar) a go." - England legend Bob Willis sticks the knife in further.

But are we only now beginning to realise through clumsy comments made by modern day celebrities that the issue of rape has historically been recognised as acceptable. Take for example Dean Martin and Doris Day singing 'Baby It's Cold Outside'. 

No Christmas in a department store is complete without having to listen to Dean Martin croon this tune at least four times an hour. It features the kind of saucy banter your parents think is awesome and has probably made your mum hot after a few egg nogs every year since back in the day.

Closer inspection of the lyrics however,  reveal that in Dean's extended efforts to keep his lady friend from leaving him for the night, they slip in the somewhat off putting line in which it's implied that Dean has laced her drink with roofies. Because really, if the weather won't keep her in the house, date rape drugs are the next best step.

Her: but maybe just a half a drink more
Him: (put some records on while I pour)
Her: the neighbours might faint
Him: (baby it's bad out there)
Her: say what's in this drink
Him: (no cabs to be had out there)


If we look at this objectively, Deano might just be doping her with rum - although that's no more honourable considering the entire debate is about whether she should drive home. Perhaps best of all is when she wises up and asks what's in the drink and he glosses over it like it; pointing out that there are no cabs available. So the best case scenario for this holiday gem is essentially: Dean Martin forces himself on a woman with the threat of a DUI and potentially vehicular manslaughter.

Today we call it 'rape culture', and you don't have to look far to see examples of it these days.

Whether it's advertising, movies, music videos or social media - images, words, concepts - it's all out there illustrating men dominating women.

"Everywhere you turn there's condoning, trivializing, and eroticizing rape, and collectively it sets a tone that says this is no big deal or this is what women deserve," said Lynn Phillips, a Lecturer with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst Communication Department.

The language of rape culture exists in everyday conversation.

"I raped that test," is a phrase that has become commonplace, connoting a sense of accomplishment.

"You might 'rape' somebody you're playing against which means you won really easily against them."

To be "Fraped" is to have your Facebook account hacked into, usually by someone you know, where they post a comment pretending to be you.

There are countless websites eroticizing rape, wife-swapping (against their will), forced 'swinging' and encouraging males to believe that women "enjoy it really."

And, there is an endless amount of "joking" about rape occurring in cyberspace.

Trending social media topics such as "the rape sloth" continues to generate a type of editorial cartoon known as memes, which display comments about rape in a comedic form.

"Wanna smell my new cologne? It's called chloroform," quoted one of the statements.

Other meme "jokes" include "Oh you don't want sex? Challenge accepted," and even "I've got a dick and a knife, at least one of them is going inside of you tonight."

Memes can be generated by anyone on the Internet, which only makes it easier for others to continue the trend.

Popular movies are strewn with plots of men with the sole purpose of having sex. In the movie "American Pie," the entire plot of the film revolves around teenage boys wanting to throw a party so they can get girls drunk and have sex with them. This has become more popular through comedies in the past few years and is a trend that does not seem to be slowing down. Movies that have similar plots are "Euro Trip" and "Superbad."

Defining Rape Culture

Becky Lockwood, associate director of the Centre for Women and Community in Amherst, Mass., says popular culture has helped create a mind-set where sex is less about intimacy and more about possession. "We've objectified sex. It's almost a commodity now, and its really unattached from any sort of intimacy or emotional experience, and if it's a commodity, people feel okay with doing whatever they can to get it," she said.

Phillips helped produce the documentary, Flirting With Danger, which looks at power, choice, and consent in heterosexual relationships. She focuses much of her research on gender issues in sexuality, and while some struggle when asked to define exactly what "rape culture" is, Phillips' definition is fairly comprehensive.

"Rape culture is a culture in which dominant cultural ideologies, media images, social practices, and societal institutions support and condone sexual abuse by normalizing, trivializing and eroticizing male violence against women and blaming victims for their own abuse," Phillips said.

College students, however, struggle when trying to define "rape culture" and often ending up defining rape, but rape culture is more insidious, in that it goes to issues beyond the crime itself.

"Rape culture is anything that supports a culture where people think that it is okay to use sexual violence to get what they want," Lockwood said. "And, it's usually not about sex. ... It's usually about power."

Angie Epifano, a former Amherst College student who went public with a published account of her own rape last fall, said the culture also creates a silence amongst survivors seeking help.

"It's a culture where survivors don't feel safe to speak out," Epifano said. "When you look at it, sexual assault and rape are basically the only violent crimes that when you talk about it, people close off."

"If you were mugged in New York City people would be horrified," Epifano added. "No one is going to sit there and say 'Are you sure you were mugged?' With sexual assault there is always this question of 'Are you sure? What were you wearing?'"

Rape Culture and Politics

Not only have the concepts behind rape culture been trivialised in social media and everyday word of mouth, but into the political sphere as well.

During Republican Todd Akin's 2012 campaign for the Missouri Senate race, he made an argument against abortion saying that women's bodies shut down during rape, and "legitimate rapes" will not result in pregnancies.

There is no scientific evidence for his claims, and to label rapes as "legitimate" or not only furthers the stigmas surrounding alleged rape and victim-blaming. Akin received a lot of heat for this statement, but also received some support for it.

During a Senate debate last October for the open seat in Indiana, candidate Richard Mourdock discussed his stance on abortion, "I think even when life results in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen," he said.

Murdock corrected himself after the debate, but even GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney came out days after the debate supporting Mourdock as a candidate.

Ending Rape Culture

Boys will be boys...?

The idea that males are rowdy - always have been, and always will be - allows us as a society to think that males have less responsibility to act respectfully.

For example, in October 2011, a Yale University fraternity came under fire when members from Delta Kappa Epsilon chanted across campus "No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal." Yale quickly announced that they do not by any means support sexual assault and a public summary of the disciplinary actions was released.

"This was considered kind of a funny sort of thing that a large group of fraternity men were doing, and collectively this sets a tone that says 'this is no big deal' or 'this is what women deserve,'" Phillips said.

Doing away with the "boys will be boys" attitude and in turn holding men responsible for how they speak, act, and feel towards women can seem like a large task.

Lockwood suggests education on healthy relationships starting in elementary school. Education around bullying in schools could also have a significant part to play in stopping this cycle as well.

"So boys who are bullied often are boys who don't fit what is seen as the traditional masculine script," Phillips said. "Girls who get bullied, it's often because they had sex when somebody thinks they shouldn't have, or in a way somebody thinks they shouldn't have, too much, too easily, or whatever the norms are in her particular school. Basically, she's a slut, he's a wuss. It's very gendered."

Obviously I would like to add that men get raped also, and this is as unacceptable and there should be more awareness around this issue also. Rape is a subject close to my heart and has unfortunately been since I was a child. It was brought up again recently by someone I least expected to be involved in an awful situation of rape and abuse that they had inflicted on their girlfriend. It's not something that happens to someone else, it's something that could happen to you, to someone you know or an act that someone you know could commit. It's a subject that should be talked about, and as we approach 2014, a subject that should no longer be 'taboo'.




Monday, 9 December 2013

Should bloggers share old content....?

Seems like a silly question, doesn't it. I mean, if a piece is old, that means it's already been shared and people have already read it, so it probably has very little value or interest later on, right? Not necessarily.

I'm are going to dig into why you should indeed be sharing your old content, including which posts and articles to share, some techniques for doing it that keeps them fresh, when to reshare old content, and ways to repurpose those old, but still valuable, blog posts and articles.

Why Businesses Should Reshare Evergreen Content

When a business first starts a content marketing campaign, unless they've hired a blog writer and social media manager, their first challenge is to get started on their blog and come up with a regular blogging schedule. As each new blog post is published, they'll share it to social networks and use it to interest and engage their current set of followers. As the weeks and months go by, the business will gain more and more followers on social media, but none of these new followers will have seen the posts shared before they started following the business.

This is one of the primary reasons for sharing old content. As your social media follower counts grow, your new followers will not have had an opportunity to see your old shares unless they sift through your timeline or poke around your blog archive.

And the fact is, every time you share a post, not even all of your existing followers will see it. On Facebook, your posts are limited in reach by EdgeRank, while on Twitter the activity is so great, posts aren't likely to ever be seen if they aren't caught within the first 2 - 4 hours. On Google+, the lifespan of a post is far longer, but you're still potentially limited. When other people circle you, they get to choose what circles they put you in and the volume settings for those circles, so there's still an element of chance and great timing to have your post seen there.

Resharing old posts is also a fantastic way to ensure regular, consistent activity across all your networks, particularly on Twitter. Once a business has a good sized archive of past blog posts, they can begin to share them daily, then multiple times a day - depending on how much other activity they have and how many old posts they have to draw from.

What Content Should Businesses Reshare?

As suggested above, the content that businesses reshare should be considered "evergreen." It's a term that refers to a post's ability to remain fresh and interesting, even after weeks and months have passed since it was originally published. An easy distinction is how to have a combination of articles and news stories. I write about breaking news and developments in social media, politics, science, environment along with interesting subjects that pop up along the way. After the initial interest has worn off, those stories are often relegated to my archive. While I may refer to old stories in other posts, like if I'm talking about an update to Google+ that was reported a month ago, resharing that post as though it is new would be both impractical and perhaps even irresponsible.

For most businesses, the distinction isn't as clear. Most business blogs will contain a higher percentage of blogs and articles, all on topics that are likely evergreen. What needs to be monitored in these cases is whether or not the information presented in the articles is still relevant and correct. If things have changed since the article was originally published, I recommend updating the original post, or adding an entire new one if warranted.

The bottom line: always make sure that the content you're resharing is still interesting, accurate and relevant to your audience.

How Should Businesses Reshare Old Content?

The basic way to reshare old content is to simply share the original article and title. And that's OK sometimes, particularly if it was a really good or descriptive title. But it's usually going to be more effective to try sharing the piece in a way that's different from your original share.

1. Use a different title / description.

While the title of the article on your site and in the share preview will always be the same, when sharing to social networks, your tweet or update description can say whatever you want. Rather than just using the same title, try alternate versions. This is also a particularly effective way to do A/B testing of your titles and refine your approach to titling future articles. Which tweets of the same post perform better than others?

2. Use a quote from the blog post. 

Not only is this a great technique for bringing interest to your older pieces, it's also easy to do using Buffer and HootSuite, two tools I will be speaking more about in a moment.

3. Share an image from the post or a different image. 

If you usually share your blog posts as links with a link preview, consider sharing an image sometimes instead, just always remember to insert a link to the blog post into the description.

When Should Businesses Reshare Old Content?

So the more challenging question is when should you reshare that old content? Clearly there needs to be some time lapsed between when you originally shared the post and when you start to share it again. How much time depends on how often you're sharing to social media to begin with, and how much old content you have available.

For businesses just starting their content marketing and social media activity, it's best to take things slow. Concentrate on sharing just one or two posts a day to social media, and most of those will be articles or posts from other people. When you have a new blog post of your own, share it, but don't even think about sharing your old posts again until you have at least ten or twelve in your archive.

Once you have a bit of an archive built up, it's time to talk schedules.

First, I recommend that you wait a month or so before sharing the same article, and then have at least that much time between additional shares.

Second, determine your current rate of social media shares and how many shares total you'll need to come up with per month. For instance, if you currently like to have two shares per business day, that's about 45 shares per month. Now, some of those will be your new posts as they're published, and the bulk should be articles and posts from other people that you've found.

What Tools Can Businesses Use to Reshare Old Content?

Just like the original blog post share, the greatest impact can be had when you manually share your post and take the time to craft a social media share that's sure to generate interest and engagement.

This is something that I do regularly, particularly on Google+, where I can take an old article and use it to spark an entirely new and different conversation.

But as I mentioned before, sometimes part of the purpose of resharing old content is to ensure consistent activity. And if you're sharing posts manually, that's unlikely to happen. Businesses should identify the peak times when their followers are active on their respective networks and make sure that the business is sharing relevant information during those times. To be successful, this means utilizing one or more tools.

HootSuite

There are a lot of social media management tools out there, but the one I use the most and recommend is called HootSuite. With HootSuite, you can connect all of your business profiles on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and Google+ and share posts, as well as listen for mentions and conversations. When it comes to sharing old content, HootSuite has a couple of interesting options.
First, you can schedule posts for a specific time and day, and even bulk schedule posts. You can also use AutoSchedule to let HootSuite pick a time to share.

My favorite option is to bring the RSS feed from my site into the HootSuite Syndicator and use it to schedule Twitter re-shares of my most recent blog post using the techniques I mentioned above. I will typically tweet a new blog post 2 - 4 times the day it's published and again the following day.

Buffer

But when it comes to ensuring regular, daily activity, Buffer is still my tool of choice. With Buffer, I can connect the same business profiles, and then set up specific schedules and frequencies for each. I might want to post to my Facebook Page a couple of times in the afternoon, while I may want to keep my a Twitter account buzzing throughout the day. Once I have set up my schedules, all I have to do is add posts and content to each queue and Buffer will share the next post automatically for me.

Businesses should regularly evaluate their followers peak times, as well as other considerations, and schedule their social media shares accordingly.

While this is a level of automation, I also encourage businesses to ensure that they're listening for comments and engagement opportunities. By combining HootSuite and Buffer, you can ensure regular social media activity while still remaining "social" and connected.

How Can Businesses Repurpose Old Content?

In addition to sharing old content, savvy business owners and bloggers can also repurpose that old content. Repurposing content typically refers to changing the original content in some way. Typical examples include:

Read your blog post as an audio podcast.
  1. Create a presentation slideshow of your blog's points and upload to SlideShare. 
  2. Convert your presentation into a video with voice over and upload to YouTube. 
  3. Create an infograph highlighting your main points and related statistics. 
Whenever you repurpose your content, that creates not only materials and activity for other social networks like YouTube, but also additional content that you can share to your primary networks.

As you can see, there are a number of ways in which businesses can and should reshare and repurpose their old content to continue to create opportunities for greater engagement and interest. If you've previously been wary of resharing those old blog posts, I hope this has changed your mind.

Are You Free To Move....? Part One....

I was first introduced to fascial release a couple of weeks ago. I was unsure how it was going to affect me - if at all - but I’m always happy to give treatment and therapies a fair opportunity. Within 15 minutes of being with fitness coach Graham “Harry Potter” Webber (@grahamwebber) I observed a noticeable difference. The entire left side of my body has been injured in various different life changing events, resulting in permanent, constant pain from top to bottom, restricting movement and preventing me from performing at my best. I was surprised that I could make a distinction with my movement immediately, and after some joint mobilisation, I felt lighter in myself and generally more comfortable. It’s hard to explain, and of course each individual would respond differently to the various practices offered.
So what is fascia and why should we release it?
Fascia is classified according to their distinct layers, their functions and their anatomical location: superficial fascia, deep (or muscle) fascia, and visceral (or parietal) fascia.
Like ligaments, aponeuroses, and tendons, fasciae are dense regular connective tissues, containing closely packed bundles of collagen fibres oriented in a wavy pattern parallel to the direction of pull. Fasciae are consequently flexible structures able to resist great unidirectional tension forces until the wavy pattern of fibres has been straightened out by the pulling force. These collagen fibres are produced by the fibroblasts located within the fascia.
Fasciae are similar to ligaments and tendons as they are all made of collagen, the distinction between them is that ligaments join one bone to another bone, tendons join muscle to bone and fasciae surround muscles or other structures.
Fascial mobilisation may sound like it has something to do with movement of the face, but it’s actually something quite different; fascia refers to connective tissue - the network of collagen fibres that surround organs, muscles, nerves, and blood vessels. The fascial system provides support and delivers nutrition to these structures, as well as serving as a bridge to the skeleton. This system also helps to absorb shock and resist physical injury.
Fascial release is a soft tissue therapy for the treatment of skeletal muscle immobility and pain. It relaxes contracted muscles, improves blood and lymphatic circulation, and stimulates the stretch reflex in muscles.
The fascial system is viewed as being three-dimensional. That is, it exists as one, long continuous network of connective tissue. While it is constructed of dense collagen fibres to lend strength, it is also made up of elastin fibres that stretch to help prevent injury. Proponents of fascial mobilisation believe that the entire fascial system may influence immunity and the body’s natural ability to purge itself of toxins.
It is also thought that impaired functioning of the fascia may result in a variety of symptoms, such as pain and inflammation. Fascial impairment may be caused by a variety of things. For instance, physical trauma, scar tissue produced from surgical procedures, or prolonged misalignment of the posture may cause constriction in the fascial system.
Fascial mobilisation is a type of hands-on bodywork that attempts to correct imbalances within the fascial system to restore proper functioning. Specifically, it is a technique that aims to relieve stress by applying pressure to targeted areas within the fascial system. The objective of fascial mobilisation is to get the tissue moving in the right direction again in order to improve mobility.
As a therapeutic method, fascial mobilisation is employed to bring relief from autoimmune disorders, such as fibromyalgia. It is also used to treat scoliosis, chronic headaches, back pain, and even cervical pain. Of course, those who have sustained sports injuries may benefit from fascial mobilisation as well.
Dr Gil Hedley explains it as the living adipose. The adipose layer is basically liquid energy and raw power suspended in a web of piezoelectric ally conductive collagen fibres. Through it are transmitted fields of information from our external environment to the depths of our bodies at all times. The adipose layer is replete with specialised smooth muscle cells, whereby the tissue tone is maintained and adjusted. It is as if our soft coating of fat is a living antenna of the most sensitive kind, receiving from without and broadcasting within the waves of information that surround us. Like the skin, it is a great sense organ, a sensual wrap. But he posits that rather than conducting the signals it picks up primarily along electrochemical pathways to the brain in our skull, it is primarily conducting its signals electromagnetically to the brain in our gut. It’s fast! When you feel the creepy guy on the subway platform staring at you from behind, you look to confirm what you already perceived with your adipose antenna and immediately felt in your gut. The thinking brain is relatively late to pick up on what’s going on. You turn and look in response to the feeling, not the other way around. Cascades of hormonal release follow.
Some people believe that fascial stretching can even assist with muscle growth. There are no consistent research studies that directly support muscle fascia helping muscle growth. It is currently predominantly based on indirect scientific studies, anatomy, and anecdotal evidence. The theory was instigated by people who used to have muscle or excessive fat, who found it easier to put muscle back on, some call this muscle memory.

Other supporting evidence is that bodybuilders who spot inject site enhancement oil or ‘Synthol’ get improved results from fascia stretching. This is where oil is injected into a muscle in order to bring up a lagging muscle. Many people assume that the oil is causing temporary muscle gain, but based on user experience it appears to cause actual long term muscle gain as the result of stretching the muscle fascia. Many pro-bodybuilders, such as Olympia winners Jay Cutler and Arnold Schwarzenegger, do forms of weighted fascia stretching as part of their workouts.
So will muscle fascia stretching automatically grow muscle? No. You will still need to train hard and increase intake of nutrients accordingly. The muscle fascia tissue is stretched which allows the opportunity of muscle growth to happen. If you don’t stimulate it by exercising, you won’t notice any gains.
A new wave of thinking around more productive training methods suggest there are better ways to get the results people are in pursuit of. The days of over-loading on heavy gym sessions in a military style fashion seem to be on the wane. The philosophy behind a more fruitful work out regime is based on the body’s natural response system. The body works in two constant nervous system states; the sympathetic ‘fight, flight, freeze’ mode, and the parasympathetic ‘rest and digest’ mode. Many people continuously live in the sympathetic state meaning the body is unable to relax and switch to the parasympathetic mode. By constantly keeping our bodies in the sympathetic mode we overload it with stress; living under a continual high level of threat and hyper vigilance which leads us to over train, experience gut difficulties, restrictions in sensory output and constant pressure. This stress irritates our muscular, fascial and nervous systems and prepares them for fight or flight. Fight and flight are very linear in their needs and have no necessity for rotation or free, relaxed movement.  Each mode focuses on the muscle groups it has most demand for physically; flight mode, which typically occurs when you feel under threat causes issues in the lower body, fight mode usually arises from situations when you believe you are right and can win, it causes tension in the upper body as these muscles tend to be primed for action. In freeze mode we’re inclined towards procrastination, where joints and muscles tend to lock and compress.
Fascial stretching, mobility, diaphragmatic or abdominal breathing, yoga, meditation and sensory clearing are eminent ways of removing sub conscious threat and restoring the body and mind to a parasympathetic mode, which allows the body to rebuild as the brain is able to predict its environment and respond rather than react to any potential threat.
There are different methods currently in practise for fascial stretching.
Rolfing is a therapy system created by the Rolf Institute of Structural Integration, founded by Ida Pauline Rolf in 1971. The Institute states that Rolfing is a "holistic system of soft tissue manipulation and movement education that organises the whole body in gravity". Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration, whereby manipulation of the muscle fasciae is believed to yield therapeutic benefits, including that clients stand straighter, gain height and move better, through the correction of soft tissue fixations or dystonia.
Rolfers have a keen interest in the body’s amazing layers of connective tissue, which wrap, relate, and interpenetrate all of the other tissues of our human form.
Skeletal muscles often work in opposing pairs called the "agonist" and the "antagonist", the one contracting while the other relaxes. Rolf theorised that "bound up" fasciae (connective tissues) often restrict opposing muscles from functioning in concert. She aimed to separate the fibers of bound up fasciae manually to loosen them and allow effective movement.
Rolfers often prescribe movements during a Rolfing Structural Integration session. The Rolfer manipulates the fascia until it can operate in conjunction with the muscles in a "normal" fashion.
The overall concept of fascia limiting and permitting functionality is receiving more investigation. In late 2007 the first "Fascia Research Congress" was held and attracted attention from researchers and clinicians.
Within the Structural Integration community, Robert Schleip questions Rolf's emphasis on the plasticity of fasciae, and suggests that successes may have more to do with the reduction of high muscle tonus and other physiological effects that may as easily be elicited by the stimulation of mechano-sensory receptors in the fascial tissues.
The MELT Method is a self-treatment technique intended to eliminate chronic pain, heal injury, and erase the signs of aging and negative effects of active lifestyle. This revolutionary approach to pain-free fitness and longevity is created by Sue Hitzmann, a renowned somatic-movement educator and manual therapist. Hitzmann uses this technique to obliterate pain, stress, and dysfunction in her clients. MELT has been reviewed by international experts and is recognised as founded in scientific principles providing extraordinary benefits.
MELT works by finding the missing link to pain-free living: a balanced nervous system and healthy connective tissues. Because of the daily physical, emotional, mental, and environmental stressors, tension gets literally stuck in the body’s connective tissue surrounding every joint, nerve, muscle, bone, and organ. When left unattended, the trapped stress will result to connective tissue dehydration and cellular damage, thus leading to several issues beginning with aches and stiffness to neck pain, back pain, headache, insomnia, indigestion, and injury.
Understanding this link between the nervous system and connective tissue, MELT revitalises tissue hydration and relieves daily tension that are trapped in the body by directly treating the connective tissue. Employing simple and specialised equipment such as soft body rollers and small balls, the program rehydrates the connective tissue, decreases accumulated stress in the nervous system, and improves overall health. For only a few minutes a day, you can start getting lasting results. You will notice changes in posture, flexibility, mood, energy, and performance in just a few sessions.
The MELT method consists of 4 techniques – reconnecting, rebalancing, rehydrating, and releasing.
Through these techniques the body de-stresses, heightening the body’s sense and enabling it to connect with the mind. Diaphragmic breathing rebalances the body to prevent and reduce body pain and maintain optimum organ function. Rehydrating techniques revive the connective tissue hydration and ease tension fixed in the body. Releasing enables the discharge of compression in the joints that causes chronic pain, inflammation and discomfort.
Known benefits of the MELT method are improved flexibility and mobility, posture, range of motion, sleep and digestion, results of exercise, and total well-being. It reduces aches and pains, tension, risk of injury, and aging effects such as wrinkles and cellulites.
What if we can’t stretch fascia….?

Much of manual therapy has grown largely out of anecdotal experience and tradition. Without the means to directly observe or measure what happened inside of the body, explanations for results had to be created from external sources and have largely been guesswork. As manual therapy has moved forward, an interest in understanding exactly how touch affects the body has led to a growing interest in research. With research has come the realisation that many explanations of the past are not supported by evidence and are sometimes contradicted by evidence. Science-minded manual therapists have learned to adapt to this information, dropping outdated hypotheses and unsupported claims. While some have found it disconcerting to have cherished notions disproved, others have embraced knowledge and have adapted their conceptual models to fit what is known. They may continue to use modalities that have produced desired results but their understanding of how that comes about changes to fit the evidence.

Such a change is happening in the field of “fascial” therapy.

When Rolf began her groundbreaking work in manual therapy, she devised a hypothesis in an attempt to explain how changes created by her contact came about. However, in recent years, evidence has challenged those explanations. Robert Schleip, Ph.D., was one of the key organisers of the first Fascia Research Congress and is a highly respected researcher. He is credited with discovering minute contractile fibers in fascia, a discovery whose clinical relevance has not yet been demonstrated but still excited many in the world of fascial therapy just the same. In his two-part article, “Fascial Plasticity: a new neurobiological explanation,” published in 2003 in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, Schleip points to studies which contradict the notion that we can change the shape of fascia with our hands. One study found that collagen fibers would only begin to stretch shortly before they reached the breaking point, something that would not be desirable in a living human being. In other studies, Schleip, Trager, and others have done Rolfing under anesthesia and found that it produced no results. If the application of manual pressure had the ability to stretch fascia, there should have been a change in spite of anesthesia blocking any neural response. Why, then, was there no change when anesthesia took the nervous system out of the picture?
A neurobiological explanation for this is that if we aren’t stretching fascia, then how do we account for the “release” felt by both the practitioner and the subject? Schleip and others have suggested that the change in tonus is not achieved by an alteration in the shape of fascia but is instead controlled by the nervous system. Schleip suggests that one possible mechanism of change brought about by sustained manual pressure could be the Ruffini corpuscles.

Why Ruffini corpuscles? Clinically, we observe that applying a slow, extended stretch to the skin can create desirable changes both locally and centrally, decreasing tension in the area where the hands are applied as well as creating an overall sense of relaxation. Ruffini corpuscles respond to lateral skin stretch, which is, stretching the skin tangentially or along the same plane as the tissue below. They are slow-adapting, meaning that they continue firing for as long as the stretch is sustained, unlike some mechanoreceptors which respond briefly to new stimulation and then stop responding if it continues.

We know that when we apply our hands to the skin of the body, we stimulate mechanoreceptors. Impulses are sent through the sensory nerves to the brain. The brain evaluates and responds, sending out impulses of its own through nerves to various parts of the body, causing changes to occur in the diameter of blood vessels, breathing, muscle tonus. If it likes our touch, it can create the changes we associate with relaxation, release of tension, and can decrease the sensation of pain. If it feels threatened by our touch, it will do the opposite. Manual therapists are always trying to create changes that make the body feel at ease, achieving this through the nervous system.

The nervous system is constantly monitoring its environment, responding to a complex array of input. It would be naive and simplistic to think that response to our touch could be reduced to one set of mechanoreceptors or to ignore all the other countless factors. However, when examining the kind of manual therapy we have come to think of as "fascial," understanding the role of Ruffini corpuscles is a good place to start?

Why does this it matter whether we believe we are stretching fascia or not? It matters that we think accurate thoughts about how the body works and what effect touch has on the body. Therapists may still use their hands in ways that they have before. If those methods work to achieve its goal, there is no need to abandon them. However, we want to know that how we think about what we are doing is accurate and we want to be able to communicate honestly. If we discover that our conceptual model is contradicted by what is known about how the body works, then it is time to adapt our model so that our thinking is in agreement with new evidence.
My conclusion…

I had an hour’s therapy session of fascial release. There are arguments for and against whether fascial stretching works, whether it is fact ‘fascial stretching’, and whether there is anything to gain by it.
What we know is that fascia is a plastic like material that surrounds your muscles and other soft tissues. The fascia's rubber band like qualities returns your body to an original position after being elongated. What occurs during fascial release is that we continue to elongate the fascia thinning the excessive build up freeing the body to move optimally, this is then absorbed by the circulatory system and cleaned by your lymphatic system, later to be eliminated by urination, sweating, and defecation.
Fascia has several very unusual, and until recently, unknown properties:
·         All past traumas are stored in the fascia. These traumas literally warp the natural form of the fascia, and deform it, thus holding the person into the damaged position. When the fascia is released, the memories of those events surface and are brought to light so as to finally release the person from being held in the past.

·         Most health professionals have largely ignored the fascia.

·         Fascia has no nervous innervation. It is not connected to your brain and therefore produces no sensation when being worked on. You can detect its existence by using your hand to feel this taut tissue beneath your skin. An important thing to note is that you create thousands of pounds of forces when you resist while stretching while having little to no feeling of those forces. This is easily explained by the fact that fascia has no wiring from the brain to it - unlike muscles or tendons, which are wired from your brain thus allowing you to feel them easily.

·         There is no innervation of fascia, so there is no sensation when it is being affected.

·         Fascia has tremendous tensile strength compared to muscular strength. Scar tissue has exponential tensile strength compared to the fascia. Dense fascia can have tensile strength that is 2-8 X's the strength of the muscle it surrounds. Normal amounts of fascia are around 2 X's and dense fascia up to 8 X's the resistive force of the muscles strength.
It's All About the Fascia:
·         Fascia is the most energy efficient material in the body. For example, when your bicep contracts and shortens, your triceps’ fascia is stretched, and when your bicep stops contracting, you triceps does not need to contract to bring your arm back to the starting position because the fascia acts like a rubber band and simply springs you back.

·         Excessive repetitive movements or trauma dramatically increases the density or mass of the fascia resulting in significant impairment to movement, circulation, lymphatic flow, and substitution movements. It holds you into the damaged position, and limits your ability to move out of that position and holds the bones in limited and unnatural relationships. This damage or trauma situation now requires enormous amounts of energy to move instead of efficient movements.

·         Chronic pain is most often resulting from an accumulation of excessive dense fascia and scar tissue.

·         Traditional stretching methods that do not use resistance while stretching unfortunately produce more fascia and scar tissue. Animals naturally resist while stretching.

·         Olympic coaches have described assisted fascial stretching as the most intense workout they have ever experienced. The reasons for this include: the enormous amount of force that is being generated by the fascia, the concentration necessary to participate in the 'surgery like' resistance stretching process, the significant recovery/healing that follows, the psychological education and processing that is necessary from the changes, and the perspective and life upgrades that occur as a result of freeing the person from their past.
Summary:
As we are unaware of the tautness or resistance in our fascia, we are oblivious to its impact not only on our routine movements, but the influence it has on any training sessions. By releasing dense fascia we allow our muscles to move freely, develop correctly, increase biomechanical efficiency and allow normal bone movement and joint rotation. This allows our bodies to work more efficiently, negating the preconceived need to over training; resulting in a quicker, more positive outcome.
Coming up in Part 2: Stretching and the benefit of mobilisation and free movement…
 

Sunday, 8 December 2013

Parliamentary Watchdog Ipsa Hands MPs an inappropriate £7,600 Pay Rise....

MPs are heading for a bumper £7,600 pay rise....

The independent watchdog has refused to bow to pressure from political leaders to scale back the increase at a time voters are feeling the squeeze.

Ipsa will unveil its final proposals next week - including boosting MPs' salaries to £74,000 from 2015 - 11% higher than they get at present.

It is expected to try to temper criticism by announcing a tougher-than-expected squeeze on MPs' pensions in a bid to cancel out the £4.6 million cost to the public purse.

A £2.5 million saving by downgrading the final salary scheme to career average - matching the rest of the public sector - had already been proposed alongside a crackdown on various perks.

All three main party leaders have condemned the increase at a time of national austerity, with both Labour's Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg pledged to shun the extra money.

David Cameron has stopped short of matching that pledge - and is under pressure from some Tory MPs to back the increase - but has said Westminster pay should not rise while others face restraint.

However, following a consultation on the proposals - first set out in July - Ipsa is set to press ahead.

And MPs have no way to prevent the rise coming into force after the next general election - unless they change the law set up in the wake of the expenses scandal to stop them setting their own pay.

Research by Ipsa found that two-thirds of MPs believe they are underpaid and the watchdog's chairman Sir Ian Kennedy has insisted politicians' pay must "catch up" after years of being suppressed.

But many politicians are also furious at Ipsa's expenses regime and suggested they could back a move to strip it of the responsibility to set pay in order to destroy its authority.

A Conservative source said Mr Cameron had been "clear that we are committed to reducing the cost of politics" and that the Prime Minister had consistently called for "restraint" in MPs' pay.

A Labour source said: "We will obviously wait to see what the final proposals are, however, as we have always said, any rise in MPs' pay must be considered in the light of the current economic climate and the cost-of-living crisis facing people across the country.

"It must also be seen in the context of the decision to limit or freeze many workers' pay increases in both the public and private sectors."

Commons deputy speaker Lindsay Hoyle, a Labour MP, cautioned against interfering with the system.

"I agree that MPs should not vote on their own pay," he told the Mail on Sunday. "It should be left to an independent body. It's not in the gift of the party leaders."

In July, Mr Miliband predicted that Ipsa would drop the significant rise, but added: "If this was to go ahead I wouldn't be accepting this pay rise."

Mr Clegg said then that it was the "worst time" to advocate a double-digit pay rise.

Ipsa's original report conceded there is no "compelling evidence" that MPs' current salary level is deterring candidates, making people leave Parliament, affecting the diversity of the House or lowering the standard of ministers.

But Sir Ian argued it was "wrong in itself" to keep MP pay low, arguing that the expenses scandal had been the result of too much restraint.

Ipsa said it had looked at increasing the current salary of £66,396 to anywhere between £73,365 and £83,430, but opted for the lower end "in recognition of the current difficult economic circumstances".

After 2015 wages would increase annually in line with average UK earnings.

Among measures already on the table to offset the cost of the rise - which is 9% higher than the rate MPs will be on by 2015 - was an end to "resettlement grants" of up to £65,000 for departing MPs.

Under the plans that would be reduced to two weeks' pay for every year of service if they are under 41, and three weeks if they are older by 2020.

A £15 dinner allowance would be scrapped, claims for tea and biscuits would not be allowed, and taxpayer-funded taxis home only allowed after 11pm.

There would also be a crackdown on claims for running second homes, with costs such as TV licences and contents insurance no longer being met.

Mathew Sinclair, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance campaign group, said: "Taxpayers will be furious that the pay rise comes at a time when MPs urge public pay restraint and the Chancellor tells us he can't afford to ease the burden of taxes on hard-pressed households and businesses.

"Ipsa's own polling and research shows that the current level of pay to be broadly fair and that the public simply do not back the increase.

"This announcement amounts to an unaccountable quango putting up two fingers to taxpayers. The rise must be rejected."

A Downing Street spokesman said: "MPs' pay is a matter for Ipsa. The Government has submitted its views to Ipsa as part of the body's consultation on MPs' pay.

"It made it clear that, while Ipsa is an independent body set up by Parliament, in future decisions on remuneration it expects Ipsa to take into account the Government's wider approach to public service pay and pensions.

"We believe that the cost of politics should be going down, not up."