Postcard

Taped to the wall in front of my desk at home (it's actually a set of double doors) are three black and white postcards- Dolphy; Bud Powell; Parker- and two pictures- my dog and a shot of my old band playing. I have a particular love for the Parker picture, which also includes Dizzy and pushed far off in the right corner, almost un-recognizable, is a young John Coltrane. The shot captures a perfect moment in music history. Parker is in the thick of his decline. His eyes stare off into vacant space, completely unaware of -or not interested in- the impending photograph. Diz, very much a showman, full of professionalism, has the perfect smile and stature for the photo. But the real subject of the photo, is the infant Coltrane, trying to establish himself as an up and coming saxophonist. Those looking on at the scene are completely oblivioius to the great saxophone this youngster will soon become. The student-mentor relationship, whether in the feild of science or in jazz, is a beautiful relationship. The mentor selects the promising young talent which to bestow his gifts upon, selecting the student and taking him like an adopted son.

Dentist

(I'm restricting myself to 10 minutes by the clock.)

I went to the dentist today to have two cavities filled. I chose the amalgam over the white, which is an interesting little moment at the beginning of an otherwise decision-less process. The dentist doesn't really like input from the patient in fact. I kept spitting out excess pieces of hardened silver which weren't included in the eventual filling and she would stop whatever she was doing, irritated, and wait for me.

When she first came to me and introduced herself, I was very surprised. She wasn't more than 30 years old, which was momentarily un-nerving for me. I thought of the bias we place on our healthcare professionals- older equals better. We assume wisdom in age, but I guess that's founded in reason. Youth means inexperience in real world situations, and if there's one thing I've learned from my job is that healthcare is nothing more than scientific guesswork with the well being of others. The experience a doctor gains through practice can be the difference between a complete misdiagnosis and a take two of these and call me in the morning.

Return of the Jedi

During a recent fit of nail biting, I became completely fed up with myself and my compulsive hyper-editing of emails. I CANNOT QUICKLY WRITE AN EMAIL TO MY FRIEND NATE! I pontificate, edit, reconsider, stylize, at nausea. It frustrates me so much, because I know that the lack of email writing is slowly killing my friendship with him, a friendship I value more than any other. So, in an effort to combat this, I'm going to try to begin writing my blog again. However, I'm going to focus on the concise-ness of entry. I hope that going through the gymnastics of writing one short piece everyday will help me overcome this serious neurosis.

Here is my entry for today, written in the time it took Jordan to take a shower:

I went to rent Babel tonight. My conversation with the video-store clerk.

"That's a nice jacket." (referring to my light US Army wool coat).
"Thanks. I like it, but it's kind of hipster, which I don't like."
"Yeah, but those ones with the German flag on the sleeve are even worse. When I was in Europe they were everywhere."
"Yeah. What's the deal with that anyway? Is it cool to be German again or something?
"I guess so. The Deucthland is back in a major way."

That's all folks.

My letter considered further

After additional thought regarding the power structure of academia, I’d like to offer some further considerations regarding my letter to the editor of the Financial Times.

My father, a man who’s opinion I respect to no end, while I’m sure overjoyed to see his son’s name in print (along with the false title of professor!), expressed a great deal of concern regarding my decision to write such an inflammatory analysis of the academic world, signing my name in affiliation with an institution of high regard within academia. He knows the ins-and-outs of power politics better than anyone else; beginning in his 20’s, he climbed the corporate ladder, adhering to the principles of power, to find himself in the position he is today. The most basic rule of power politics is this: never bite the hand that feeds you, especially if you have no power. If I were in the world of business and wrote such a letter, signed with my professional affiliation, I most certainly would be reprimanded, in not fired. Given my analysis that academia is not that different than the world of business, my letter almost certainly will find me in a world of hot water.

I almost undo my very argument by writing such a letter; by making a comparison between the two worlds and signing my affiliation with MIT, I either am an idiot with a callous disregard for my own “professional self-benefit” or somehow understand that regardless of my analysis, which is now void given what I’m about to say, the world of academia and business are indeed different in some regards: within the world of academia, power can be challenged to some point. The danger of my analysis is that if it is proven true, I will probably find myself reprimanded. If it is false, I will undo my argument, but keep my nose clean.

I’ve shown my PI the letter, who, as a female in the world of science, knows the power structure of academia better than anyone, and she enjoyed and agreed with it. Furthermore, I discussed with her the potential for political conflict within the Institute for my actions, where she expressed little concern. If there were to be conflict about it, she’d probably here of it, not me. My intention was not to involve her professional well being by writing it, which unfolds another interesting quirk of the politics of academia: affiliations of power.

My letter was undoubtedly published for one reason- it was addressed from someone at MIT. However, a more interesting reason may exist: that by writing such a letter discussing such a topic, I was breaking the very power rules I was discussing. By mentioning Finkelstein and Gil-White, I acknowledged the danger of breaking the rules- rules of serious consequence as shown by their example, which I then did by writing the letter. So then why did I do it?

My guess is that I’m really not in the business of playing power games, which is dangerous given my field of professional interest. Second, given my short time within the field of academia, I supposed I forgot (or was unaware) that I was in the very world I was commenting on, and thusly forgot that the rules apply to me too. Finally, I suppose I wanted to “test the waters”, offering my own life for social power experiments (which, in the true sense of things, is science). Luckily, I don’t have much to lose quite yet. If my analysis is accurate, I’m sure I’ll only (hopefully) get a slap on the wrist. Also, the possibility exists that MIT may in fact may be a singular anomaly within academia; whereas almost every other institution of academia has a similar power structure to that of corporate life (my assertion), MIT may permit such "true science" to occur.

While I’d like my analysis to be accurate, I’d prefer to have in proven un-true, thusly validating the original argument which I was arguing against- that academics are indeed genius demigods who cannot be reined in, and keeping me out of the power politics of academia. If my analysis is proven to be true, I will join Finkelstein and Gil-White as examples to be cited by the next academic not interested in playing power games in his/her analysis of the power system within academia.

The morality of Starburst

Why are yellow Starburst even included in packs of Starburst? I’ve never, ever, even once, heard someone express an interest in eating a yellow Starburst. Orange, maybe, if no other options were available. But notably people prefer pink and red. One will scarf down their treasure trove of pink and red Starburst as quickly as possible in order to avoid being asked by someone else for a Starburst, where the sensitive issue of whether or not the freeloader can have a red or pink one may arise. Essentially, by including equal amounts of pink, red, orange and yellow, the product's worth has been diminished by half, thusly causing the consumer to convince him/herself that each pink or red Starburst actually contains twice the worth it has been assigned. Due to this process, to the consumer, each pink or red Starburst is much too valuable to be spared. If packs of Starburst were sold in units of red and pink, orange and yellow, the preference of the majority would be overwhelming known.

I can think of only two plausible explanations for this phenomenon. First: since this product has been produced in this manner for x number of years, by abruptly discontinuing yellow from the packs of Starburst, the producers of the candy would be admitting defeat- acknowledging that even though they wished to produce four flavors of Starburst in a pack, the power of the consumer changed their design. It’s the unspoken contract between the producers and consumers of Starburst: the consumer will pretend to like the yellow ones and the producer will pretend that people actually like them. I guess the producers of Starburst are not interested in conducting a sort-of ethnic-flavor cleansing process.

The second explanation is that maybe the philosophy of flavor choice by the manufacturers of Starburst is slightly more thought-out than one would think superficially. Maybe Starburst’s producers are on a sort of “moral crusade” to teach consumers, by way of their consumption, some basic tenets of human life and morality. It’s possible that when the unit size of Starburst was decided upon (4 of 4 different flavors), an objectively shitty flavor was chosen to serve as a reference point for the consumer by which to judge pink and red. Maybe nobody, they thought, would really like pink without the crappy flavor of yellow to compare with. Starburst tells us, a very standard story of human existence, that in life, as in candy, the only way to really enjoy the sweetness of pink is to also experience the sour, bitter, horribleness of yellow.

Or maybe, just no one cares enough about Starburst.

(Now, post-entry completion, I've learned via Wikipedia that following a public vote in 2001, Mars Candy decided not to out yellow Starburst for a new green apple flavor. Pure propaganda.)

Professor Brian D. DePasquale

What I am about to write is easily one of the funniest things that has ever happened to me. It started with an op/ed column published in the FT on Monday. Here is the article:

HD	FT.com site : Lucy Kellaway: The thankless task of academia.
BY	Lucy Kellaway
WC	935 words
PD	27 February 2006
SN	Financial Times (FT.Com)
SC	FTCOM
NGC	Financial Times - Print and Online
GC	CTGFT
LA	English
CY	(c) 2006 The Financial Times Limited. All rights reserved
LP	If I had to write down all the senior management positions I would hate to hold the list would go on forever. All big management jobs are beastly: they are stressful and frustrating and almost always end in failure. Yet at the top of my list of undesirable jobs would be running Harvard University, where Larry Summers resigned as president last week - just in time to save himself the ignominy of a vote of no confidence. It is not just the top slot at Harvard I would turn down. It is the head of any university, in particular a successful one.
TD	The point of being at the helm of a ship (or organisation) is that you get to steer the thing. In most companies changing course is hard; at big, successful universities it seems impossible. Not only did Mr Summers get nowhere at Harvard, things don't seem to be going much better at my old university, Oxford. There, John Hood, an outsider and a New Zealander, has also shown the brass neck to try to shake things up a bit. One of the academics leading the charge against him is Peter Oppenheimer, a clever and amusing man who was an economics tutor of mine. (I remember him pacing up and down his wood panelled study at Christ Church looking restless as I plodded through my essays while he cleaned out his ear with an expensive fountain pen.) Mr Oppenheimer was quoted in The Times this month saying that Hood was "absolutely intolerable". "He is a very disagreeable man. It is more than just a particular issue, it is the style of governance." This sort of plain talk is bracing for its anger and its honesty but it is also childish and petty. It is inconceivable that anyone in the private sector would make a personal attack like this in public. If they did theywould be fired, and rightly so. Mr Hood may be disagreeable. And he may well have some bad ideas. Yet even if his plans for change were good I very much doubt if he would have the slightest chance of bringing them about. The reason is that academics, especially good ones, make employees from hell. There is little about their abilities, dispositions or the structure of their work that equips them to be components in a modern, flexible organisation. I can think of seven things that make them entirely unsuited for such a part. *They are very clever. This is not an advantage in most institutions as it means that they can think for themselves. (They may not actually be that clever, but they think they are - which may be worse.) *Some have spectacularly low levels of emotional intelligence, which is often more important than IQ in getting things done. *They are not team players, to put it mildly. Many are introverted. Moreover, the structure of university life means their colleagues (in most subjects save science) are their rivals. *Criticism is a way of life. The mind of the academic is trained to pull holes in things. So when presented with a new initiative, they question it and deem it a waste of time as a matter of course. *There is no line of authority. In a big company everyone sucks up to their bosses and agrees with them. In a university, there is less to be gained by brown-nosing, so disagreement prevails. *They are complacent and have an interest in the status quo that has given them secure jobs and pensions. *Because their status largely depends on their research, which may only be understood by a tiny number of people, insecurity, pettiness and bitchiness often result. The grander the university the bigger the egos and the worse all these factors tend to be. Things are made worse when one considers the type of person who gets the dean's (or principal's) job. They tend to be respected academics who have risen to the top by the power of their research - and the determination of their networking. They may have little notion of how to manage things. They may also have some of the personality shortfalls of the academics themselves, writ large. Think of Mr Summers. Someone who knows him described him to me as "brilliant, infantile and insensitive", with an EQ close to zero. Increasingly, universities are run by people who are trying to embrace what they see as modern management techniques. This can be catastrophic. They import third-rate management fads that the private sector has already junked and implement them badly. University College London got into a mess last year when it spent GBP600,000 ($1m) rebranding itself as UCL. Its staff were not amused by a 51-page booklet telling them how to use the new logo, containing edicts that all images should be "vibrant and aspirational" - such as two people jumping into the sea. They were also given two dozen words including "challenging" and "liberalism" that they were encouraged to use when communicating with the outside world. All of which would have been insulting to the intelligence of a humble office worker, let alone an esteemed academic. The conclusion has to be this: universities function adequately enough when everyone is left to their own devices. Incompetent management seems not to matter, the ship goes on sailing. The trouble comes when drastic change is needed. In which case there will be many more resignations from unfortunate reformers such as Mr Summers and Mr Hood and many more tears and tantrums before bedtime.
RF	47421850
IN	i983 : Educational Services | ibcs : Business/Consumer Services
NS	c411 : Management Moves | c41 : Management Issues | ccat : Corporate/Industrial News | ncat : Content Types | nfact : Factiva Filters | nfcpex : FC&E Executive News Filter | nfcpin : FC&E Industry News Filter | nedc : Commentary/Opinion
RE	uk : United Kingdom | eecz : European Union Countries | eurz : European Countries/Regions | weurz : Western European Countries/Regions
PUB	The Financial Times Limited
AN	Document FTCOM00020060228e22r0000a

Now, even me, who has formally "worked" in academia for less than 6 months, knows that this is just the most moronic and erroneous analysis of adacemia ever conducted. I decided to write a letter to editor of the FT about it. Here's my original letter, entitled "The Un-Romantic Lives of Academics":

Sir, while I found Lucy Kellaway's most recent column concerning the difficult task of managing academics interesting, her analysis is skewed by her romanticizing of the life of an academic. It is common for most to elevate academics above the masses, forming ideals of academics as genius demigods whom cannot be reigned in by authority. This is far from the truth, especially in the sciences (contrary to her assertion) where cutthroat tactics are employed by scientists to emerge triumphant over rival scientists or labs. Within academia, an even further romanticizing occurs concerning those engaged in science (as displayed in Chris Wilkinson's article of the same day).

Due to the power structure of academia and the "tiny number" of professionals who may understand a specific field of research, brown-nosing may be more prevalent in academia than in any other institution; often, the opinion of one senior faculty member is all that is required to elevate a more junior academic to a position of increased institutional power. Her claim that, "There is no line of power" would appear true on a superficial level, but for those of us observing these institutions from within, a clear line of authority is observed, one based on faculty rank, clout within one's field, frequency of article citation, etc. Furthermore, this subtle form of power struggle, contrary to her statements, forces academics to be "team players." In order to follow the rules of power within these institutions, lower ranking persons will fold to those in power, forming a consensus around those with power. Although it may seem that for academics "criticism is a way of life" those without power will always back down to those with power, swallowing their criticisms for their own professional self-benefit. As for what happens when one does not bow down to power, speak to Norman Finkelstein, Rajani Kanth or Francisco Gil-White.

In short, while it seems attractive to romanticize academics, the power structure of a university research center is surprisingly similar to that of a private corporation.

Brian D. DePasquale
McGovern Institue for Brain Research
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
1-914-474-0443
depasqua@mit.edu


I got a call on my cell phone yesterday from "Private Caller" but missed it. I checked my voicemail later, to hear a woman with a British accent telling me that she had a "query" about my letter to the editor. Some google searching later, I found out that she was the letters editor of the FT. I tried to call back, but the time difference meant that it was already 8 or so in London. I emailed her instead. I woke up this morning to a response to me email:

Hi there

I wanted to check Rajani Kanth with you. I couldn't find him on Google spelled that way, but I did find a Bollywood film actor...just to be safe I removed him.

Your splendid letter is in today, many thanks.


I rushed outside to get my copy of the paper, as I subscribe to it. So funny. There it is, in big letters.

Don't romanticise academia - it has a power structure like company life
>By Brian DePasquale
>Published: March 2 2006 02:00 | Last updated: March 2 2006 02:00
>>

From Prof Brian D. DePasquale.

Sir, While I found Lucy Kellaway's column concerning the difficult task of managing academics interesting, her analysis is skewed by her romanticising of the life of an academic ("Why academics make an unfit subject for management", February 27).

It is common for most to elevate academics above the masses, forming ideals of academics as genius demigods who cannot be reined in by authority. This is far from the truth, especially in the sciences (contrary to Ms Kellaway's assertion) where cut-throat tactics are employed by scientists to emerge triumphant over rival scientists or labs. Within academia, even more romanticising occurs concerning those engaged in science (as displayed in Chris Wilkinson's article "Scientists in the playwright's laboratory" in the same edition).

Due to the power structure of academia and the "tiny number" of professionals who may understand a specific field of research, brown-nosing may be more prevalent in academia than in any other institution; often, the opinion of one senior faculty member is all that is required to elevate a more junior academic to a position of increased institutional power.

Her claim that there is no line of power would appear true on a superficial level, but for those of us observing these institutions from within, a clear line of authority is observed, one based on faculty rank, clout within one's field, frequency of article citation and so on. Furthermore, this subtle form of power struggle, contrary to her statements, forces academics to be "team players".

In order to follow the rules of power within these institutions, lower-ranking persons will fold to those in power, forming a consensus around those with power. Although it may seem that for academics "criticism is a way of life", those without power will always back down to those with power, swallowing their criticisms for their own professional self-benefit. As for what happens when one does not bow down to power, speak to Norman Finkelstein or Francisco Gil-White.

In short, while it seems attractive to romanticise academics, the power structure of a university research centre is surprisingly similar to that of a private corporation.

Brian D. DePasquale,

McGovern Institute for Brain Research,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, MA 02139, US

Also found here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/27e3bdd4-a991-11da-9f4e-0000779e2340.html

SO FUNNY. Clearly, I am not a Professor. I did not imply such things in my letter and it certainly would have only taken the FT one google search to validate that I wasn't. I figured they would check and see that I was just a lowly tech and not publish it. Just the opposite occurred. They assumed I was a big shot and printed it stating that I was. "Only serious professors would read the FT. Not some punk 22 year-old kid." So good. I obviously wrote a letter to the letters editor, making the correction:

Ms. Davidson,

A list of Rajani Kanth's books can be found here:

http://www.fetchbook.info/search_Rajani_Kannepalli_Kanth/searchBy_Author.html

As far as I know, he was fired from the University of Utah for reasons that were mostly political. As he is much less known than the other two I cited, probably better to remove him. Thank you.

One correction, rather small in words, but large in meaning. As flattering as it for the readers of the FT to believe that I am a Prof at MIT, I certainly am not. I merely signed my name with my work address to give some validity to my analysis. I do work at MIT in the academic sense (not a janitor, truck driver or administrator), employed within a research lab conducting basic science research. I don't think that I made any implications that I was a Prof here; if such implications were made, my apologies.

Regardless, again, thank you though for publishing my letter.

Cheers,

Brian DePasquale


At least now if I never am able to make it to be a professor at MIT, I can always look back at the one day when some people in the world thought I was one.

Some thoughts on Tomkins, Freedom of Speech and Genocide

Although there have been some requests for specific posts (the pen post) I'm going to use this rare moment of free time to write about a topic more temporally relevant.

Richard Tomkins is a favorite columnist of mine for the Financial Times; his column is published every Tuesday. I enjoy reading his articles because they usually delve into the more complicated questions of modern democratic society by using current events as a springboard for thought. He will often bring up topics of positive and negative liberty, "the social good" and some of the other tricky areas where socialism and individual rights intersect. This past Tuesday, his column was titled "The Twisted Principles of Freedom to Enjoy Hatred and Health" and really touched on many interesting topics regarding the stated points.

Apparently, according to Tomkins, beginning next year, England will join the rest of Great Britain and many other areas of the West by imposing a total smoking ban in all enclosed public places. He, as I, agree that this is probably a good idea; sacrificing the negative liberty of each individual to smoke where he or she pleases for the positive liberty of creating a society interested in preserving the health of all its citizens is a worthwhile trade-off. But Tomkins, with whom I agree, sees a frightening, as well as inconsistent, trend continuing with legislation of this type.

"What interests me about the smoking ban is that it seems to mark a growing indifference to issues of principle [it. added] in public policy. It is as though liberal democracy has been around long enough for us to feel that we can now safely take it for granted and not worry too much if certain rights or freedoms are given up for some perceived greater good."

Although I certainly loathe having to step outside in the cold winter air for a cigarette, I do agree with smoking bans. But the point is not whether or not I agree. The most important point is that the slow deterioration of the fundamental tenets on which western democracy was founded, one being the principle that legislation cannot and should not be enacted based on what I as an individual think is best for all (positive liberty), but that it should only be enacted to protect others from such tyranny (negative liberty), is slowly dying.

More interesting than the spread of positive freedom over negative freedom, is the palpable abuse of rights, claiming freedom to do such-and-such on principle for some accounts and denying it on others, which has been occurring lately. Newspapers around Europe have been using the cry of freedom of speech to defend their decisions to publish and re-publish cartoons which have incited violence throughout the Middle East, leaving 45 people dead (as of Tuesday, Feb. 21st). Then, as if conjured up by an intelligent designer with a sense of irony, on February 20th, British "historian" (if I try to remain objective) David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for violating Austrian law which prohibits statements of holocaust denial.

Firstly, to even discuss the holocaust in any other terms that complete acceptance of the standard history is dangerous. Because of this, I will make some very explicit statements about my views. First, I do not deny the holocaust. Second, holocaust deniers, such as Irving, are given not one shred of serious acceptance on my part. However, to quote Voltaire, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Third, holocaust revisionism, in my mind, can be an absolutely legitimate and necessary academic pursuit. No other historical event carries the political weight of the holocaust, and therefore facts pertaining to it which are slightly askew can turn the tables of power like nothing else. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that constant investigation into the truth of the history be conducted. For instance, I believe that the work of Norman Finkelstein, who is often called a revisionist, and a denier by some extreme groups (ADL), is of great importance and quite legitimate. His scholarship sheds some light on the techniques employed by the ADL, namely the blurred definitions of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, to better understand the huge power the ADL has on US involvement in the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Back to my main point. Now, one would be a fool to believe that protecting history by controlling speech is less important than prohibiting certain statements to be made about religion; the way that history is written is of extreme importance in shaping the way the general population views current events and foreign intervention. Most holocaust deniers, Irving most certainly, are either completely out of the their mind or fueled by a sense of ethnic hatred. To deny the holocaust is to turn one's back to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it. However, my point is not to discuss what forms of speech should be more protected, relgious or historical. My point is that the historical experiment of democracy is founded on some basic principles, the freedom to speak one's mind easily being the most important, and to abuse those principles as one wishes (to gain personal or group benefit from) is to defecate on what seems to be one of humanity's greatest achievements.

To beat one's chest (or a society which beats its chest) crying "freedom of speech" is absolutely useless unless one (it) acknowledges freedom of speech not specifically for those thoughts they (it) agree(s) with, but for those thoughts which they (it) do(es) not agree with. In the case of my above juxtaposed examples, the right to speak out against the standard history of the holocaust is not defended on the principle of freedom of speech (based on the morality of the West) but the right to make statements of religious hatred against Muslims is defended on that very same principle. This is a clear double standard.

Enacting legislation regarding freedom of speech is tricky business. The rather ambiguous "Imminent Lawless Action" test, which is employed in the US to determine the limits of constitutionally defended free speech, leaves a great deal to the imagination as to what is protected speech and what is not. My thoughts on the legitimacy of the Austrian law prohibiting holocaust denial are unclear. My impulse is to view it as absurd; there exists no law in the US prohibiting speech regarding the long and deadly genocide of Native Americans caused by European colonization. However, as I stated before, given too much freedom of speech regarding such an important event as the holocaust, the minds of many could be convinced to believe obsurd historical fabrications. I've digressed.

The freedom to smoke wherever one pleases was once a freedom of principle. That principle (freedom to smoke) is slowing dying, clearly for the betterment of society. The freedom to speak one's mind (or for a society to permit speech) about any topic was once a freedom of principle. No right exists to manipulate that principle as one (or a society) wishes. Such manipulation achieves nothing more than the degradation of western democracy.

More quotes

"The traditional political debate between the right and the left revolves around the ownership of the means of production, to put it in Marxist terms: that is, around the question of whether business enterprises should be privately run or made public property. Frankly, I don't see that that is the main problem. I would put it this way: The most important thing is that man should be the measure of all structures, including economic structures, and not that man be made to measure for those structures. The most important thing is not to lose sight of personal relationships- i.e. the relationships between man and his co-workers, between subordinates and their superiors, between man and his work, between this work and its consequences, and so on."

~Vaclav Havel, Disturbing the Peace

To calm the eager

I've been getting a lot of slack lately (mostly from Zoltan) that I don't publish often enough. The truth is that although I have many unfinished entries just waiting to be completed (MLK, songbirds, pens) I've been reading too much to put the finishing touches on them. So I figured I would at least post a quote from my recent reading (ala my Tom Robbins quote) for those who need another fix.

"Or I remember in 1987, when there was a big hoopla about the bicentennial of the Constitution, the Boston Globe published one of my favorite polls, in which they gave people little slogans and said, "Guess which ones are in the Constitution." Of course, nobody knows what's in the Constitution, because everybody forgot what they learned in third grade, and probably didn't pay any attention to it then anyway- so what the question really was asking is, "What is such an obvious truism that it must be in the Constitution?" Well, one of the suggestions was, "What about 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'?" [a slogan from Karl Marx]. Half of the American population thinks that's in the Constitution, because it's such an obvious truth- it's so obviously true that it must be in the Constitution, where else could it come from? If you think about what this means and what we're doing about it, it's mind-boggling, the chasm."

~Noam Chomsky

Shutthehellup-ism

By far, one of the most effective forms of satire is exaggeration. I make exaggerated comments about 10,00 times a day and about just as much in my blog entries. But one exaggerated comment I hear every 30 seconds has got to stop. I can't take it anymore. It's too much.

As I stepped off the T this morning, some graffiti on the wall caught my eye. It read: "Fascism has arrived in our country, shrouded in our flag, carrying a cross" or some approximation of that statement.

Hitler, Mussolini, etc. really fucked up human society in more than just the obvious ways: not only were they the catalysts of the deadliest war in human history, the perpetrators of the largest genocide in history, but now we have to hear their names in comparison anytime another asshole springs up. What did people do before the early 1900's when a political agenda which more-or-less fucked people couldn't be compared to Fascism (as it wasn't coined as a term yet)? Did anti-Mussolini graffiti in Italy read: "Kahn-sism has arrived in our country" or "Bonaparte-ism has arrived"?

Anytime events begin to border on extremism, someone out there compares it to Fascism. I surely don't want to entirely deride this person's statements; it is at least partly accurate to say that we are experiencing the makings of a Fascist state: a strong central government overriding the individual, government in bed with industry, hyper-militarism, and a strong wave of nationalism. But myself and a great majority of people left on this planet don't have a shred of experience with what the Fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s were really like. To wholly lump any extremist tendencies into the category of Fascism certainly does a great disservice to those individuals who fought and died to rid us of true Fascists states. Things are bad right now, but surely not that bad.

It's easy to compare a society which borders on extremism to Fascism; by making a sweeping generalization, one can hardly be wrong. But such a comparison does nothing to describe the specifics of the situation. A sure fire way to convince me that someone doesn't know what the hell they are talking about is to hear a comparison with Fascism.

Some advice from Tom Robbins

"Reality is subjective, and there's an unenlightened tendency in this culture to regard something as 'important' only if 'tis sober and severe. Sure and still you're right about your Cheerful Dumb, only they're not so much happy as lobotomized. But your Gloomy Smart are just as ridiculous. When you're unhappy, you get to pay a lot of attention to yourself. And you get to take yourself oh so very seriously. Your truly happy people, which is to say, your people who truly like themselves, they don't think about themselves very much. Your unhappy person resents it when you try to cheer him up, because that means he has to stop dellin' on himself and start payin' attention to the universe. Unhappiness is the ultimate for o' self-indulgence."

~Tom Robbins, Jitterbug Perfume

Old man with a book

I ran into ABP this morning to grab a muffin and some coffee before heading into work. As I usually do, I surveyed the room to seek out interesting characters or peculiar behavior. Nothing of real interest.

As I was rushing out the door though, I did notice something, not so much strange, as provocative. A man, probably in his mid-80s, sat drinking coffee and reading a book. This wasn't just a book though; it easily had the girth of Ulysses or War and Peace. This wasn't some toilet reading; this was a part-time job. Now, old-man, if you are reading this, I apologize to speak of your death. However, I can't help but to use your condition for thought.

By the looks of him, a stiff breeze would have sent this octogenarian to the cleaners. Why then, if he was just a cold-front away from meeting the maker, would he delve into a book that could take one a few months to read? If I were on death's doorstep, the very last thing I would want to do would be to start a book or a movie that I was pretty sure I wouldn't be able to finish. Imagine reading Parts I and II of Orwell's 1984, and then getting a severe case of pneumonia and ending up in the hospital where it is likely that death will follow shortly. If I were to be put in that situation, I would be begging every nurse, doctor and receptionist in the joint to either get Part III for me, or to at least tell me what happens. Julia and Winston were just apprehended! The unimaginable evil of Big Brother will finally be known! But no. You're stuck in a stiff hospital bed, breathing through a tube, with Perfect Strangers re-runs being forced into your dying soul (maybe even encouraging death a bit).

Yes, granted, dying will suck regardless of whether or not I'm in the middle of a movie. There will undoubtedly be many other things that I will be preoccupied with when I'm on my deathbed: seeing persons close to me, making sure all the necessary arrangements are made, etc. The unfinished novel, though, would haunt me in my last few moments, and the time spent with people probably wouldn't be very memorable. I'd most-likely be complaining about the book!

I'm sure that sensing "completeness" of one's life when on the verge of death is easy in the abstract sense: "I've lived a full life", "I've had many great experiences", "I've had a great career or family". But the concreteness of incompletion present in an unfinished novel would certainly shatter those happy, yet ultimately exaggerated, thoughts for the last 10 seconds of consciousness. Not only do I presently not know what happens to Winston when captured by the Thought Police, I will never ever get to know.

It's death's final little kick in the groin; we all know that our ability to live a "complete" life is unattainable, but now we are given a page number declaration to the extend of our failure. Death stole completion from you by two chapters. So for those sorry souls who will know me when I'm an old, crotchety geezer, don't ever give me books. Just newspapers or magazine clippings, so that I can be sure to finish it before giving my final bow.

Instructions for life

Although my aparment in Harvard Square has many charms, the kitchen is certainly not one of them. The floor is covered with that imitation-tile plastic shit, it has a sink as deep as a bathtub and every time I close the cabinets, plaster falls off the wall and into my Tupperware. Even those grievances are small potatoes. The absolute worst part of the kitchen is this: not one fucking square inch of counter-space. Along the length of one of the two long walls lies sink, stove, refrigerator- in that order- squeezed together like asscheeks in prison (although the room itself is quite spacious). Along the complimentary wall, nothing, blank as the stare of a college freshman. I mean, yes, I understand that this building is very old, but how does that make the problem any less absurd? Was the idea of an elevated surface area on which to prepare food not thought of before WWI?

For whatever reason, my kitchen has no counters. To rectify this problem my parents purchased me some counter space in the form of a sort of wood-cart-type-thing with a butcher's block on top. This item was acquired in its non-assembled form from IKEA, a store that I've heard more than one person rant and rave about, but which I have little knowledge except that it's a Swedish company.

I dragged the heavy, cardboard box into my living room to assembly my new counter. Once opened, I separated all of the screws, nuts and washers provided with the item and laid all of the pieces out for heightened viewing. A big lego set, I thought. And we all know that legos come with an instruction manual. I opened up the instructions to the first page, fell down and laughed until I cried.

I'm not quite sure what hit me so hard about this page, but I think that I laughed myself silly for about 20 minutes. Maybe it's the amorphous blob with a very narrow range of emotions that got me going. The real reason, I think, is that it wasn't so much a set of directions as it was a societal mirror. It is IKEA's interpretation of what the lowest common denominator of our society who would purchase such an item would need to successfully assemble it. I guess they did themselves a favor by providing illustrated directions; they don't have to go through the trouble of printing it in 20 different languages. Regardless, it is still a good indicator of how incapable most people in our society are when asked to build something.

After my laugh fest, I "built" the little cart which now happily sits in my kitchen, my coffee pot and bean grinder peacefully resting on top of it. I kept the directions, which I looked at again and again, laughing just as zealously each time. What are directions really? Essentially, they are a pre-determined method by which one who wishes a certain successful outcome can achieve it, regardless to whether not they are capable of or interested in discovering for themselves a successful method. How great would it be (for those interested in a pre-determined outcome) to have a set of directions for life? The more I thought about it, a set of instructions for life does exist, at least for my generation and my culture. I decided to take it upon myself to put these instructions into tangible form, using IKEA's lowest common denominator method as a template. So for those of you interested in successfully assembling your life, but fearful of self-discovery and mortified of failure, here you go.

Second things second

Those who know me well will inevitably ask, "You? Writing a blog? Nonsense." In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize how contrary to my personality it is: I am a staunch cultural conservative (I still read print news, prefer pen to paper and am terrified of using my debit card as a form of payment). While my decision to start writing has been riddled with conflict, I think that ultimately I made the choice based on a clear line of reasoning.

First, the more pragmatic reason is that post-college life has truly settled in and it is nearly impossible now to sit around with those close to me and bullshit about this or that while having some drinks. In an effort to keep those seemingly useless, yet very interesting, conversations with others alive, my hope is to write about the topics which I would usually discuss with others and encourage a healthy dialogue, or at least get a few laughs about my classic exaggerated remarks or bullshit. While on the topic of post-college life another reasonable excuse comes to mind. Although I do keep a copious journal and write often, without the input and critique of others it is extremely easy for mental growth to cease, causing "laziness of thought" and close-mindedness. While I acknowledge that I have never been a good writer in terms of grammatical proficiency, I always thought, and was often told, that my ideas were very strong and worth pursuing. My hope is that through peer critique my thoughts will continue to improve while I also sharpen my ability to shape them through language.

My second reason (or excuse), a more ideological one, is that there is something very attractive about how "democratic" writing a blog is. In the past, being able to freely publish one's thoughts was heavily constrained by wealth, social status and one's ability to convince others that it was worth publishing. Then, post-publication, the readership one's thoughts gained was constrained by the systems established to reach readers. As overstated as "the internet has given us freedom" is, I believe is to be at least partially true- it certainly has allowed those wealthy enough to access the internet a place to freely publish ideas and to search out others' ideas which are of interest. Within the system of publishing through the medium of the Internet, writers (those interested in creating) are permitted to write essentially whatever they wish without censorship. Free of the former economic and social constraints, those truly interested in embracing their given right to speak are easily able to. Unfortunately however, just like the older systems, the freedom to speak does not mean the freedom to be heard.

Moreover, a more democratic post-publication system is established for those interested in reading the thoughts of others (those interested in consuming). No longer constrained by the former gates of paper circulation or radio/television reception (and all of the government and private-sector censorship which comes along with those mediums), the reader has free-reign to seek out whatever dissenting or obscure ideas and thoughts they wish (again, still constrained by the ability to access the internet). Both creator and consumer are endowed with a far superior ability to make their own choices and to be acquainted with new ideas which, within the former system, would have quietly died. With greater freedom on the part of both creator and consumer a more "organic" and democratic consensus of what is valid and interesting will hopefully develop. Those opinions which are truly unique and worthwhile will be embraced while those which are factually inaccurate, nonsensical or boring will be unnoticed.

This leads to an interesting conundrum: without a centralized controlling force to determine which ideas are permissible and which are not, any moron under the sun can have whatever useless, chewed-up and spit-out, false or boring idea he or she manages to conjure up made available for any other moron to be interested in. Better too many cows writing within our current system than not enough oysters in our previous. It is now our responsibility, anyone creating or consuming the material, to determine what is worth paying attention to.